surplus areas for a set-aside quantity of parachutes under Invitation for Bids No. 36-600-59-202 issued by the Middletown Air Materiel Area on February 26, 1959. The invitation solicited bids for 7,301 parachute assemblies in accordance with specification No. MIL-P-6645D (USAF), f.o.b. contractor's plant or nearest shipping point. Paragraph N of the Schedule provided for the procurement of an additional quantity of 21,903 units (3 additional quantities of 7,301 each) for negotiation with firms in areas of substantial surplus, who met certain requirements including the submission of a bid on the unreserved portion at a unit price of not more than 120 percent of the price on which award was made on such unreserved part. The specific problem which has arisen is the determination of the bidder to whom a contract for the third set-aside quantity should first be offered. The Jayval Company of New Mexico submitted a net unit price of $149.52, while the Irving Air Chute Company of Lexington, Kentucky, submitted a net unit price of $149.61. However, when the cost to the Government of shipment to initial point of destination is included, the bid prices become $150.899 for Jayval and $150.338 for Irving. Both are small business firms eligible for award under the criteria established in the invitation. If negotiation is to be conducted with eligible bidders in the order of net prices offered, the award should be offered first to Jayval. If, however, order of precedence should be based on delivered cost, Irving is entitled to priority. Section 3-219 of the Armed Services Procurement Regulation sets out certain standards for application in the negotiation of set-asides for labor surplus areas. Section 3-219.4 (a) provides that negotiation for set-asides with small business firms in labor surplus areas “* * * shall begin with the bidder or offeror which submitted the lowest responsive bid or proposal in connection with the procurement of the quantities not set aside." It appears that if negotiation beyond the first is necessary, subsequent bidders or offerors will be considered in the order of their bids or proposals on the unreserved quantities, since section 1–706.6(d) of the ASPR, which deals with a parallel situation, partial set-asides for small business, sets out the equivalent rule as follows: *** Negotiations shall be conducted with such small business concerns in the order of their bids or proposals on the non-set-aside portion beginning with the lowest responsive bid or initial proposal. * * * We agree with the opinion expressed in the Assistant Deputy's letter, that in establishing the order of precedence governing consideration of bidders for award on the quantities set aside for labor surplus areas, otherwise eligible bidders shall first be ranked in the order in which they would be considered for award on the non-set aside portion. Cf. B-135873, July 29, 1958. In determining the low responsible bid on the non-set-aside portion, consideration must be given to the Government's shipping costs to initial destination. 10 Comp. Gen. 402. Therefore, it appears proper also to consider freight costs in determining order of precedence for negotiation on the setaside portions. A copy of this letter is being furnished to the attorney for the Irving Air Chute Company, Inc. [B-139775] Civilian Personnel-Transportation-Household EffectsHouse Trailer Shipment-Commercial Transportation An employee who, while en route to a new permanent duty station by privately owned automobile which was used to tow a house trailer loaded with household goods and personal effects, was required to turn the household goods and effects over to a commercial trucking firm for the balance of the trip may be paid a commuted allowance for transportation of effects for the distance to the new station, if administratively approved, and provided that the amount does not exceed the cost which would have been incurred for transportation of the trailer by commercial hauler at 20 cents a mile between the same points. While a travel authorization which would provide for the transportation of household effects, or in lieu thereof the transportation of a house trailer, would be within administrative discretion, only one method for the entire distance should be used rather than a combination of the two for different portions of the distance but, if because of conditions beyond the control of the employee and if acceptable to the administrative office the use of both methods is required, allowance under the separate authorization for the respective portions of the distance may be paid, but the total payment may not exceed the cost which would have been incurred had either of the methods been used for the entire distance. To the Secretary of Agriculture, July 16, 1959: On May 29, 1959, the Administrative Assistant Secretary of Agriculture requested our decision concerning the propriety of making payment on a reclaim voucher transmitted therewith in favor of Mr. Arthur S. Johnson for $300. The voucher represents moneys deducted from his original travel voucher submitted incident to a permanent change of station. Travel authorization No. 93-339 authorized Mr. Johnson to travel from Monterey Park, California, to South St. Paul, Minnesota, on a permanent change of station. That authorization also authorized per diem of $11, expenses of transportation of house trailer for use as a residence, expense of transportation of immediate family, and mileage of eight cents when the employee travels alone or when two or more persons travel together. Mr. Johnson and his wife started the journey by privately owned automobile which was used also to tow the house trailer loaded with household and personal effects. After completing 568 miles and because of repeated breakdowns, Mr. Johnson was forced at Holbrook, Arizona, to turn his household goods and personal effects over to a trucking company for completion of the move. Mr. Johnson completed the journey by automobile with which he towed the empty trailer. As evidenced by a receipt, he paid the North American Van Lines, Inc., $302.50 for moving his household goods weighing 1,805 pounds from Holbrook, Arizona, to South St. Paul, Minnesota. Mr. Johnson submitted his original claim for reimbursement as follows: 1. 568 miles at 19¢ per mile, towing house trailer from Monterey Park, California, to Holbrook, Arizona (11 cents per mile for house trailer and 8 cents per mile for privately owned automobile) --- $107.92 2. 1,451 miles at 8¢ per mile, transportation of self and wife by personal car, between Holbrook, Arizona and South St. Paul, Minnesota---- 116.08 3. 6 days per diem at $11.00. 66.00 300.00 4. Movement of household goods unloaded from house trailer from Holbrook, Arizona, to Minneapolis, Minnesota, a distance of 1,451 miles (computed as 1,500 miles) net weight 1,805 lbs. (computed as 2,000 lbs.), commuted rate at 17.24 cwt. (computed as $15.00) The first three items totaling $290 were certified for payment and the fourth item of $300 was suspended. The Administrative Assistant Secretary says that the Department of Agriculture is willing to pay for the traveling expenses of the employee and his family and for the transportation of the household goods at the commuted rate for the entire distance between Monterey Park and South St. Paul, Minnesota. Title IX of Executive Order No. 9805, as added by Bureau of the Budget Circular No. A-37, Transmittal Memorandum No. 1, dated August 8, 1958, authorizes mileage allowance for transportation of a house trailer. The trailer would have to be used for dwelling purposes and its movement would have to be in connection with a permanent change of official duty station. To qualify for the mileage allowance the employee otherwise would have had to be entitled to transportation of his household goods and personal effects. Section 31(b) of the regulations issued by the Bureau of the Budget prescribes the rate of payment to the employee for the transportation of his house trailer under various conditions. The regulations do not specifically cover a situation such as that set forth herein. However, since the necessity for hire of a common carrier to move the household goods from Holbrook to Minneapolis arose because of circumstances beyond the control of the employee, and since the trailer was actually towed to the employee's new duty station to be used for dwelling purposes as required by the regulations, we would not object to the administrative approval for payment of a commuted allowance for transportation of the household goods from Holbrook to the new duty station, provided, however, that the sum allowed for movement of the goods between such points does not exceed the cost which would have been incurred for transportation of the house trailer between the same points by commercial hauler at 20 cents per mile as could have been done under the original travel authorization. Two further questions are presented: A further question presents itself with respect to authorizing the expenses of transportation of household goods and personal effects and transportation of house trailers in the future. Would it be proper to authorize in the travel authorization the expenses of the transportation of a trailer or of household goods and personal effects on the basis that reimbursement could be made for either item or where both are involved, as in this case, reimbursement could be made for the item calling for the greater amount? It is noted that the Act of February 12, 1958, P.L. 85-326 states that an employee who transports his house trailer and is entitled to transportation of household goods and personal effects is entitled to an allowance for transportation of house trailer "in lieu of such transportation." Are we correct in assuming that where a transfer of official station is involved and the employee transports his house trailer and also ships household goods separately that he may be allowed reimbursement for only one of the two transportation items? It would seem to be within the administrative discretion to issue a travel authorization providing for both the transportation of the employee's household goods or, in lieu thereof, the transportation of the house trailer under the applicable statute and regulations. We believe, however, as indicated above, that the statute and regulations contemplate, generally, that only one of the two authorities will be used for the entire distance rather than a combination thereof for different portions of the trip. If, as was the situation here, because of circumstances beyond the control of the individual and acceptable to the department concerned, use of both authorizations is necessary, but for different portions of the trip, allowance under the separate authorizations for the respective portions may be made in accordance with the applicable regulations. The total payment in such cases should not exceed the cost which would have been incurred by the Government had either of the authorities been used for the entire distance. The first question is answered accordingly. The final question is answered in the affirmative. [B-139265] Military Personnel-Pay and Allowances-Court-Martial Sentences-Convening Authority Action Set-Aside An enlisted member in the grade of sergeant first-class who was confined pending appellate review of a court-martial sentence which included dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of pay and allowances and confinement to hard labor, and who had the action of the convening authority set aside on the basis that it erred in the consideration of the sentence did not have an executed forfeiture of pay; and, therefore, from the date of the action of the first convening authority until the date of the normal expiration of enlistment, the member was entitled to accrue pay and allowances in the grade of sergeant first-class in the absence of an approved sentence as used in Executive Order No. 10652 which would effect a reduction in grade. An enlisted member of the uniformed services who was confined beyond the normal date of expiration of enlistment pending review of a court-martial sentence which included dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances and confinement to hard labor, and who had the action of the first convening authority set aside even though the sentence was consistently approved except for reduction of period of confinement at hard labor, is not entitled to pay and allowances beyond the normal date of expiration of enlistment until restored to duty. An enlisted member of the uniformed services in the grade of sergeant first-class whose court-martial sentence, which included dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement to hard labor, was approved by the second convening authority on July 7, 1958, after the member had been restored to duty pending appellate review is entitled to pay and allowances of a sergeant first-class until July 6, 1958, thereafter the reduction in grade to private automatically became effective as prescribed in Executive Order No. 10652 and the member is entitled only to the pay and allowances of a private or a higher grade, if subsequently promoted, until date of discharge or until the sentence was ordered executed, whichever occurred first. To Lieutenant Colonel W. T. Hall, Department of the Army, July 20, 1959: Reference is made to your letter dated November 13, 1958, with enclosures, forwarded here by endorsement dated April 7, 1959, of the Office of the Chief of Finance, requesting decision whether payment may be made to Ray D. Wilson, RA 18 016 696, on Military Pay Order No. 699, dated November 7, 1958, presented to you for payment. The request has been allocated D.O. No. 412 by the Department of Defense Military Pay and Allowance Committee. It appears that Wilson enlisted in the Army on June 19, 1951, for a period of 6 years; that on September 29, 1956, while serving in the grade of sergeant first-class, he was tried by a general court-martial, found guilty and sentenced to a dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances and to be confined at hard labor for ten years; that on October 26, 1956, the reviewing authority approved the sentence, directing that the forfeitures would apply to pay and allowances becoming due on and after his action, and, further, that pending completion of appellate review, the enlisted member was to be confined. On January 15, 1957, the Board of Review approved the finding of guilty and sentence, but reduced the period of confinement at hard labor to two years (23 CMR 441, 444). On June 10, 1957, a petition for review was granted by the United States Court of Military Appeals (23 CMR 420). It may here be observed that, but for the courtmartial proceedings and confinement, the normal expiration date of the enlisted member's term of service would have been June 18, 1957. It further appears that on March 29, 1958, the enlisted member was released from confinement and restored to duty. On May 9, 1958, the United States Court of Military Appeals held that the convening authority had erred in his consideration of the court-martial sentence, |