intended to set a standard. The fees paid for architectural and engineering services on works similar to those contemplated by the War Department vary from 4 to 6 percent. There is no danger that the War Department will pay exorbitant fees for this work as definite standards have been established by the American Institute of Architects, the American Society of Civil Engineers, and other reputable professional societies.

Since the fixed fees specified in the contracts here involved range from 0.44 percent up to 1 percent of the estimated cost of the projects involved, and since your letter indicates that the average of the fixed fees specified under such contracts during the fiscal year 1941 was 0.52 percent, it seems unlikely that Colonel Hartman should have been referring to fixed fees under cost-plus-a-fixed-fee contracts when he spoke of fees varying "from 4 to 6 percent." It would seem, rather, that his statement had reference to percentage-fee contracts, under which the architect or engineer would be expected to absorb his costs and expenses in the specified fee, and I have been referred to nothing in the legislative history either of the act of August 7, 1939, or the act of April 25, 1939, 53 Stat. 590, granting like authority to the Navy Department with respect to the making of contracts for architectural or engineering services, which would support a contrary view.

As pointed out in The Judge Advocate General's opinion, section 2 of the act of August 7, 1939, authorizes the employment of architects, etc., "by contract or otherwise," without limitation upon the form or the substance of the contracts thus authorized. However, it does not follow that the Congress, in fixing the percentage for the maximum fee for such employments, contemplated the use of costplus-a-fixed-fee contracts under this section, simply because the section does not inhibit them. At the date of passage of the act of August 7, 1939, the cost-plus-a-fixed-fee form of contract was not generally employed by the War Department in contracts for any type of services, nor is it understood that such a form of contract usually was employed either by the Government departments or by private builders in obtaining services of the type here involved. The American Institute of Architects, in A. I. A. Document No. 299d, May 15, 1941, states:

The most usual form of architect's fee is the Percentage Fee form, whereunder the architect is paid an agreed percentage of the total cost of the project.

Summarizing, I find nothing in the act of August 7, 1939, or in the legislative history of that act, or in the general practice obtaining with respect to Government or private contracts for architectural or engineering services which serves to establish that the six-percent limitation imposed on the fees payable under contracts authorized by section 2 of the act was intended to relate to fixed fees under cost-plus-a-fixed-fee contracts. On the contrary, an examination of each of the factors which it is permissible to consider in aid of stat

utory construction discloses many indications that the Congress, in imposing the limitation, contemplated that the fee which was limited to six percent should include everything ordinarily covered by the fee in percentage-fee contracts for services of the type here involved. The Judge Advocate General's opinion refers to my decision of April 14, 1941, 20 Comp. Gen. 632, to the effect that the cost-plus-afixed-fee contract there under consideration contemplated that the Government would bear the cost and assume the risk involved in performing the contract work, but that the contractor was to come out whole, regardless of contingencies. It is obvious, however, that any general theories underlying cost-plus-a-fixed-fee contracts must yield to limitations specifically imposed by the Congress on contracts for services of the type here in question, notwithstanding that the contracts here involved were made upon a cost-plus-a-fixed-fee basis. Consequently, I believe it was the intent of the limitation that the architect-engineers were not to be paid in excess of six percent of the estimated cost of the project on account of all items which normally are included in the "fee" paid under percentage-fee contracts for architectural or engineering services.

While, as stated above, the fee paid under a percentage-fee contract for services of the type here involved includes the costs and expenses incurred in the performance of the services, such fee does not ordinarily include travel expenses incurred by the architect, or expenses which may be incurred in employing expert technical or professional consultants. See A. I. A. Document No. 299d, supra. Further, it is customary for Government contracts for architectural services to provide that the architect shall be reimbursed, in addition to his fee, for expenses incurred in the performance of travel and in the employing of consultants. It would appear, therefore, that the word "fee," as here used, should not cover expenses so incurred. Likewise, it would appear that the word "fee" as used in the limitation should not be interpreted as covering expenses incurred by the architect-engineer in supplying the items which the Government, under paragraph 1 of article IV of the contract, agreed to furnish. In this connection, it is noted that paragraph 1 of article II of the contract required that the architect-engineer establish and maintain a field office at the site of the work and, since the facilities at the site for establishing and maintaining such an office presumably were wholly within the control of the Government, it does not appear that the contract requirements in this respect were such as normally would be included in the fee payable under an ordinary architectural or engineering contract. It is noted, also, that the major items of equipment and supplies to be furnished under paragraph 1 of article IV would remain the property of the Government; or, if such items were not furnished by the Government and the architect-engineer was required to procure them and

seek reimbursement under paragraph 2 of article IV, title to such items immediately would pass to the Government under the terms of said paragraph.

Accordingly, I am constrained to hold that, under the limitation imposed by section 2 of the act of August 7, 1939, payments to architect-engineers employed under contracts authorized by that section may not exceed six percent of the estimated cost of the project, regardless of whether such payments are made as reimbursement of expenditures or as a fixed fee; except that in determining whether the sixpercent limitation has been exceeded, the following should be excluded from the computation: (1) Payments made under the provisions of article VI b (5) as reimbursement of travel expenses; (2) payments made under article VI b (4) as reimbursement of expenditures for such expert technical assistants and services as the architect-engineer may employ under the terms of article VII; and (3) payments under article VI b (4) as reimbursement of expenditures incurred by the architect-engineer under paragraph 2 of article IV in procuring such supplies and equipment as the Government may have failed to furnish in accordance with its agreement under paragraph 1 of said article.

Audit action by this office in connection with payments made under the architect-engineer contracts here involved will be in accordance with the foregoing.

(B-21982)

CONTRACTS-COST-PLUS-TRAVELING EXPENSES OF CONTRACTORS' EMPLOYEES-LOCAL TRAVEL

A cost-plus-a-fixed-fee contractor operating a plant on behalf of the Government may be reimbursed for the expenses paid to its employees for travel between the various buildings forming a part of the entire plant located entirely within the city limits of the employees' permanent station, and where, in accordance with its established practice, the contractor has allowed the employees 5 cents per mile in lieu of actual expenses for travel performed in their own authomobiles, the contractor may be reimbursed on that basis even though the contract makes no provision as to the amount for reimbursement or the rate to be used as a basis therefor. Decision discusses the type of evidence necessary to support payments in cases of local travel under the involved form of contract.

Comptroller General Warren to Maj. W. Gritz, United States Army, December 18, 1941:

There has been received, by reference from the Under Secretary of War, your letter of September 3, 1941, as follows:

1. The inclosed voucher stated on Standard Form 1034, in favor of The United States Cartridge Company, under contract W-ORD-491, of December 4, 1940, having been presented to the undersigned disbursing officer requesting payment in the amount of $26.20, as reimbursement for amounts paid to Mr. A. L. Newbould and six (6) others, is submitted for advance decision as to the legal authority for its payment.

2. The voucher is based on the provisions of paragraph 1 (j) Title II, Article II-A, of the contract quoted below for ready reference:

"(j) Such portion of the transportation, traveling and hotel expense of engineers and other employees of the contractor as is actually incurred in connection with this work; and, when approved in advance in writing by the Contracting Officer in specific cases, all costs and expenses reimbursed to employees transferred to or from the Plant on account of transportation and living expenses of themselves and their families, losses due to sale of homes at less than the appraisal value as fixed by the Contractor in handling similar matters concerning its employees, unexpired leases, and living expenses while obtaining new residences. It is agreed that all allowances of cost under this item shall conform to and not exceed the ordinary allowances authorized by the Contractor for its employees in the normal conduct of its business."

3. While the expense for traveling was apparently incurred in connection with the work, and is authorized in the above quoted paragraph of the contract, doubt exists as to the propriety for the reimbursement for travel within the city limits of the employee's permanent station.

4. It is also requested that ruling be given whether reimbursement at five cents (54) per mile would be proper under the terms of the contract which does not stipulate any specific amount to be reimbursed nor any rate to be used as a basis therefor; also, whether the approval of the travel as given by 1st Lieut. E. E. Gialdini, Ordnance Dept. (not shown as either the Contracting Officer or Constructing Quartermaster) is sufficient in view of the provisions that such travel expenses are to be reimbursed when approved in advance by the Contracting Officer.

The contract provides for the operation of a small-arms ammunition plant, to be provided under collateral contracts and under contract between the Government and the Western Cartridge Co., East Alton, Ill., and said plant is described as comprising "a plant located at one or more places at or near St. Louis, Mo.," including parts manufacturing and loading buildings, powder storage area separate from manufacturing and loading units and removed from populous area, administration buildings, training school, magazines, shops, etc. In view thereof, it is apparent that the trips here involved, which were made by employees engaged in plant supervision, inspection, and pay roll work, concerned transportation between various buildings forming a part of the entire plant and, therefore, did not operate to place. such employees in a travel status, away from official headquarters, within the meaning of the applicable contract provision requiring prior approval of travel, or within the contemplation of the standard Government travel regulations. Rather, it would appear that such transportation as here became necessary in the performance of the contract is more comparable with travel performed by Government employees within their official stations, the cost of which may be reimbursed even though such travel may be confined within the corporate limits of a particular city. See 19 Comp. Gen. 836.

With your letter there was transmitted a report from the Commanding Officer, St. Louis Ordnance Plant, who appears to have been designated as contracting officer, pursuant to the provisions of article III-T of the contract. Also, there were forwarded certain papers, including copies of letters evidencing the appointment of First Lt. Edgar E. Gialdini as contracting officer's representative for the pur

pose of granting prior approval for travel of contractor's employees, and the fact that the contracting company's normal policy is to allow its employees who make use of their personal automobiles as a means of travel in company business 5 cents per mile for actual mileage traveled, and necessary bridge tolls and parking charges. Also included with said papers is an endorsement, dated November 6, 1941, from the Chief of Ordnance, directing attention to the fact that the items of travel expense shown on the voucher are not supported by speedometer readings having reference to distances traveled, or other essential data usually required in connection with claims for reimbursement of expense of this kind; and suggesting that this office render a decision setting forth the minimum requirements which would be satisfactory in future cases.

The various travel orders, prepared by the contractor and approved by Lieutenant Gialdini, state that the travel in question was necessary for the performance of the contract, and the contracting officer's report is to the effect that said travel, as actually performed, consisted of a series of short local trips, with reference to which it was found impracticable to furnish speedometer readings or other similar data in evidence thereof. However, it is stated in said report that in approving the voucher it had been administratively determined that the travel in the amount set forth therein actually had been performed.

It would appear from the circumstances in the present case that any definite rule with respect to the type of evidence necessary in all cases of travel under this form of contract might unnecessarily restrict Government contracting officers in the performance of their duties under such contracts. However, it may be stated generally that travel expense vouchers involving numerous local trips should be supported by necessary available data particularly showing the actual performance of the travel and that same was necessary in connection with the performance of the work, the actual travel and amount thereof to be verified by the contracting officer or his authorized representative. In making such verifications there should be taken into consideration the possibility that in applicable cases at least part of the travel expense allowed a particular employee might be subject to an adjustment on account of the saving of any normal personal expense, where such allowance includes travel from his residence directly to his assigned temporary place of duty.

With respect to your question regarding the allowance of 5 cents per mile for the operation of an employee's automobile, in lieu of actual expense incurred in travel required in the performance of the contract work, it appears that said allowance was in conformance. with the company's established policy in the normal conduct of its