The Secretary of War in jumping over the lower bids of Durant, Pontiac, Nash, and Studebaker gave no heed to these provisions, and particularly that provision of the Revised Statutes which provides that the successful bidder shall be the one who offers the cheapest product, with due consideration of quality, cost of transportation, and the interests of the Government. A controversy has ensued between the Comptroller General and the Secretary of War. The former has refused to approve the payment for these cars. The Comptroller General is correct in his interpretation of section 3709, Revised Statutes, which is the same as section 20, subdivision (a), of Army Regulations 5-100, mentioned before.

The Supreme Court has passed upon this section in the case of United States v. Purcell Envelope Co. (249 U. S. 318, 319). Justice McKenna, delivering the opinion of the court, said:

* There must be a point of time at which discretion is exhausted. The procedure for the advertising for bids for supplies or services to the Government would also be a mockery-a procedure, we may say that is not permissive but required. (Sec. 309, Rev. Stat.) By it the Government is given the benefit of the competition of the market and each bidder is given the chance for a bargain. It is a provision, therefore, in the interest of both Government and bidder, necessarily giving rights to both and placing obligations on both. And it is not out of place to say that the Government should be animated by a justice as anxious to consider the rights of the bidder as to insist upon its own.

I commend this decision to the Secretary of War.

From what I can gather, despite the rejection of the claim for payment, the Chrysler Co. are going to deliver these cars. I was informed at the office of the Secretary of War that the Chrysler people are going to take their chances and take their case to the Court of Claims. Unfortunately, the comptroller can not represent the Government in such a proceeding before the Court of Claims. The Attorney General represents the Government. One Cabinet officer does not like to go against another. Political blood is thicker than water. The Government side under such circumstances can not be adequately presented nor forcibly presented.

Mr. LAGUARDIA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield. Mr. CELLER. Yes.

Mr. LAGUARDIA. Were the specifications made so as to fit the Chrysler car?

Mr. CELLER. I am coming to that. As usual in these cases, they considered the mechanical equipment and engineering qualities of the car they want; then they offer their proposals and specifications squarely to meet the car picked in advance, so as to eliminate practically all consideration and bid by any other competitive manufacturer.

Mr. LAGUARDIA. I wonder if the War Department has been taking lessons from the sewer department of Queens County, New York City?

Mr. CELLER. Apparently the matter is all underground,

and I am trying to bring a little bit of it up to the surface. The history of the purchase of cars in the War Department is interesting. It has always maintained it knows its military

needs best. Let us see.

In a letter of August 26, 1926, addressed by the Secretary of War to the Comptroller General it was said:

Of the cars upon which bids were received in this particular instance, the Dodge was the only five-passenger car which was considered suitable for the military service; that is, which met the above-cited requirements for military use. This has been proven by the car's performance with the punitive expedition in Mexico and during the World War. The personnel of the Army is trained in Dodge maintenance, operation, and supply. There is some interchangeability, although this is slight, between the older and newer models of cars. From the standpoint of military necessity, the value of the Dodge to the service warrants accepting the bid on the Dodge in this particular instance at a higher price, since the increased military advantages possessed by the Dodge car were of more value to the Government than the increased cost. Furthermore, it is not considered that the initial cost is the sole test in accepting bids. There must be taken into consideration the cost of upkeep as well as the military factors heretofore mentioned. In the instant case the specifications accompanying the proposals were drawn for the purpose of inviting competition. The bill which was most advantageous to the Government and which it was to the interests of the Government to accept was that on the Dodge cars.

The Dodge bid was accepted because of the fact that the Dodge car does meet the peculiar conditions required and because of the military necessity, as set out herein.

The Quartermaster General of the Army, who is charged by law with making purchases on behalf of the Government, had recommended in letter of June 10, 1925, against the acceptance of Dodge cars in response to a bid and said:

It is recommended that the bid of Willys-Overland (Inc.), Philadel phia, Pa., for Willys-Knight cars be approved and that restrictions imposed by Circular No. 74, War Department, 1923, which limit the approved type of five-passenger cars to the Dodge car, be waived. Under date of June 7, 1926, the Quartermaster General of the Army made the following recommendation to The Adjutant General of the Army that a bid of the Chevrolet dealer be accepted for furnishing motor vehicles. The Quartermaster General there stated:

The report of the engineering section at Camp Holabird indicates that the Chevrolet car is suitable for military service. The Dodge touring car and the Dodge sedan are at present the only standard five-passenger vehicles authorized for purchase by the War Department. From the test made and from the information at hand it is believed that the Chevrolet car is entirely suitable for military service and can be obtained at a material reduction in first cost and subsequent maintenance over the Dodge.

The Adjutant General of the Army approved, in letter dated June 21, 1926, this recommendation, and Chevrolet cars were purchased.

We thus have the War Department either purchasing or recommending the purchase of Dodge cars, Chevrolet cars, and Willys-Knight cars. To add to the confusion, under date of December 15, 1927, the Secretary of War reported to the Comptroller General that he was desirous of purchasing Chrysler cars and stated that said cars were suitable for military use and that it was believed the cost of upkeep, and so forth, made their purchase most advantageous to the Government. The argument that the military service best knows the type of car required for military use finds little support in view of its own recommenda is the only car that will meet the needs of the service. It then tions and its own actions. It first concludes that the Dodge car concludes that the Willys-Knight is suitable, later that the it has argued that the Chrysler car is superior to them all. The Chevrolet car is better than the Dodge car, and most recently enactment of this measure would merely add to the confusion. Constant changes and improvements are being made in the different types of motor vehicles and it is impossible in the nature of the case to standardize on any particular type of commercial car.

The various motor vehicle manufacturers and their stockholders have an interest in doing business with the Government. superiority of their product rather than by favoritism of a They have a right to stand or fall on such business by the purchasing officer or predilection of that purchasing officer for The American people, through Congress,

some make of car.

have an interest in keeping expenditures to the minimum and in preventing favoritism, waste, and extravagance in the expenditure of public funds. The enactment of this bill is directly contrary to all of these things. It is merely another attempt to public money for the purchase of motor vehicles. break down any congressional supervision over expenditures of

I think it is fair for us to ask the question: Why was the The War Department is not alone in this kind of favoritism. one company, the Chrysler Co., favored in the case of 124 cars? I can show you instance after instance of favortism, not only with reference to automobiles, but in the case of purchase of supplies in many other bureaus. The whole business is rampant throughout the different executive departments. time to call a halt.

Mr. WYANT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CELLER. Certainly.

It is

Mr. WYANT. For instance, specifications for coal for the departments can be made only by certain sections of the

country.

Mr. CELLER. Yes.

Mr. CRAMTON. The gentleman made a statement with respect to the declaration of the War Department that they were going to the Court of Claims. Is the gentleman going to insert the correspondence he has had with the War Department that will corroborate that statement?

Mr. CELLER. Yes. I will give the exact situation as I had it from the War Department.

I feel keenly on this subject, and it is the duty of every man and woman here to feel keenly on the subject. I intend to appear before the Court of Claims as an amicus curiæ, a friend of the court, and resist the proposition of paying certain claims of the companies that were thus unlawfully alleged successful bidders.

Mr. CHALMERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CELLER. Yes.

Mr. CHALMERS. I want to say that the condition referred to, about which the gentleman is complaining-and I sympathize with him in his complaint-has not obtained in the last

Mr. CELLER. The War Department was told to mend its ways, and promised to, but it has not done so. [Applause.] The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from New York has expired.

the number of different makes of trucks, with their different road spaces, different speeds, different capacities, different fuel consumption, different standards of efficiency, etc. A heterogeneous mass of different makes of cars would so complicate these problems as to make it impossible for such an officer to operate efficiently. This difference between a standardized and unstandardized motor-truck train might very possibly result in the difference between winning and losing a battle.

ex

COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Washington, December 11, 1926.

The honorable the SECRETARY OF WAR.
SIR: Consideration has been given your letter of October 11, 1926,
replying to the several letters of this office with reference to the pur-
chase of 51 Dodge touring cars, voucher No. 193, September, 1925,
account of Maj. E. Dworak.

It appears that the purchasing and contracting officer, Holabird, quartermaster, intermediate depot, Camp Holabird, Md., requested under date of May 12, 1925, bids on 51 automobiles, five-passenger, latest model, touring, complete, with standard equipment as furnished by the manufacturer and in accordance with specifications attached to and made a part of the advertisement for bids, delivery to be within 30 days after receipt of contract f. o. b. certain designated points.

The abstract of proposals shows that five bids were received and that three bidders, namely, Warrington Motor Car Co. (Cleveland Six), Chrysler Motor Corporation, and Willys Overland (Inc.) (Overland model 93, two-door Sedan) submitted lower bids than Dodge Bros. (Inc.). However, the lower bids were disregarded and the higher bid was accepted (Dodge Bros. (Inc.)) and a formal contract entered into under date of June 29, 1925, and payment made therefor in the sum of $49,065 on voucher No. 193, September, 1925, accounts of Maj. E. Dworak, which amount represented the purchase price of the 51 automobiles in question less credit for 50 old touring cars and 1 roadster. From the examination of the specifications accompanying the request for bids, which were later incorporated and made a part of the formal contract, it is apparent that they were drawn with reference to the mechanical construction, etc., rather than with reference to the actual requirements of the service. It also appears that the award was made in accordance with War Department Circular No. 74, 1923, covering standard and approved types of motor vehicles for the United States Army, which specifically named the Dodge car as the standard fivepassenger touring car.

In reply to a request from this office for information as to the authority of law for the procedure directed in the said Circular No. 74, 1923, you submitted, by letter of August 26, 1926, the following:

It is

"You request that you be furnished information respecting the authority for Circular No. 74, W. D., 1923. It is desired to advise you that Circular No. 74, W. D., 1923, lists the standard and approved types of motor vehicles, United States Army, as approved by the Secretary of War, and should be considered as such a list and not as authority in itself for the purchase of the particular makes of vehicles named therein. The said circular was not issued pursuant to any express and specific provision of law. The War Department has beretofore refrained from seeking such express statutory authorization for fear the flexibility of same if and when secured would not be suffi cient to meet the ever-changing conditions of modern warfare. believed that this matter can best be handled administratively. "The reasons which make necessary the adoption of an approved list of motor vehicles for use in the military service are as follows: The requirements which motor transportation must meet to satisfy military needs are decidedly different from what nonmilitary operation may demand. Military vehicles play a tactical rôle; they must operate over all kinds of roads under all kinds of conditions; similar vehicles must be available to replace those worn out; similar vehicles must be available SO as not to complicate supply and operation; and these vehicles must be maintained in the combat area by military maintenance units considerable distances from sources of supplies. The personnel of the Army must be trained in the use and repair of motor vehicles and long experience has demonstrated that the average enlisted personnel of the Army can not be satisfactorily trained in the use of a large number of different makes of vehicles. Every officer in the field having to do with the movement of troops or supplies must be able to know at once just how many trucks he needs to transport men, supplies, ammunition, etc., to the required place; how much road space he will need, and in congested combat areas this is a most essential problem; how much gasoline and oil he will need for such motor-truck train; the speed of the train so that it may be started in order to get to its destination at the time required; and many other like questions. He be trained in these operations in peace time. His problem

must

"Because of these requirements a procedure has been set up to determine whether a car is suitable for military service. This consists of tests of an engineering nature to determine if a car is sufficiently satisfactory to warrant a tactical test. A car that is found satisfactory in this initial test is then subjected to service tests. Service tests consist of extended practical tests by combat and other using organizations to determine if the car is suitable from a tactical point of view. A car which withstands this test is considered suitable for the service. From the standpoint of military necessity no should be purchased for the military service which has not been found suitable by these tests. However, it happened during the recent World War, particularly during the early part thereof, that the tremendous requirements of war operations made it necessary to purchase and use all available makes of motor vehicles, but this resulted in great pecuniary losses to the Government which it is most desirable to avoid.

car

"Of the cars upon which bids were received in this particular instance the Dodge was the only five-passenger car which was considered suitable for the military service; that is, which met the aboverecited requirements for military use. This has been proven by the car's performance with the punitive expedition in Mexico and during the World War. The personnel of the Army is trained in Dodge maintenance, operation, and supply. There is some interchangeability, although this is slight, between the older and newer models of cars. From the standpoint of military necessity the value of the Dodge to the service warrants accepting the bid on the Dodge in this particular instance at a higher price, since the increased military advantages possessed by the Dodge car were of more value to the Government than the increased cost. Furthermore, it is not considered that the initial cost is the sole test in accepting bids. There must be taken into consideration the cost of upkeep as well as the military factors heretofore mentioned. In the instant case the specifications accompanying the proposals were drawn for the purpose of inviting competition. The bid, which was most advantageous to the Government and which it was to the interests of the Government to accept, was that on the Dodge cars.

"The Dodge bid was accepted because of the fact that the Dodge car does meet the peculiar conditions required and because of the military All motor vehicles listed in Circular No. necessity as set out herein. 74. War Department, 1923, were listed therein for the same reason as was the Dodge in the present instance. Hence Circular No. 74, War Department, 1923, sets out what, as the result of the tests made, the Secretary of War has determined as being the makes of motor vehicles which it is to the interest of and most advantageous to the Government to purchase over other makes because of the peculiar conditions required of the particular type and because of military necessity. Such a list is binding only on the subordinates of the War Department and is for the purpose of centralizing in the Secretary of War consideration of changes in such equipment. He can and does make changes therein. In fact, tests are being carried on all the time to ascertain whether other makes of cars do not better meet the military requirements. For example, 38 Chevrolet sedans and 25 Chevrolet touring cars were recently purchased for service tests. Should a bid be received on a make of car not listed in Circular No. 74, War Department, 1923, which is so much lower than a bid received on a car so listed as to more than overcome the increased value to the Government of the military advantages of the listed car over the unlisted car, then the bid on the unlisted car would be submitted for the determination of the Secretary of War."

With reference to the bids received under circular advertisement, the Quartermaster General of the Army made the following recommendation to the Assistant Secretary of War under date of June 10, 1925:

"1. In compliance with memorandum from your office on above subject under date of May 23, 1925, there is transmitted herewith abstract of bids received at the Holabird quartermaster intermediate depot, June 2, 1925, under Circular Proposal 25-28 for the purchase of automobiles. "2. Accompanying the above abstract is an analysis of bids, prepared by the commanding officer Holabird quartermaster intermediate depot. "3. It is recommended that the bid of Willys-Overland (Inc.), Philadelphia, Pa., for Willys-Knight cars be approved and that restrictions imposed by Circular No. 74, War Department, 1923, which limit the approved type of five-passenger cars to the Dodge car be waived."

The Quartermaster General was advised in first indorsement, dated June 20, 1925, from the Secretary of War, as follows:

"1. Reference the basis letter of the Quartermaster General, dated June 10, 1925, it is directed that the Dodge car be purchased under Circular Proposal No. 25-22, Holabird Q. M. Depot."

Section 3709, Revised Statutes, provides that all purchases and contracts for supplies in any of the departments of the Government, except for personal services and except in cases of emergency, shall be made after advertising a sufficient time previously respecting same. It has been frequently held by the courts and by the accounting officers of the United States that the provisions of the statute are designed to give all manufacturers, etc., equal rights to compete for Government business; to secure for the Government the benefits which flow from competition; to prevent unjust favoritism by representatives of the Government in making purchases on public account; and to prevent collusion and fraud in procuring supplies and letting contracts. (22 Comp. Dec. 302; 5 Comp. Gen. 712.) The Congress has seen fit to make no exception thereto with relation to purchases for the military-and seldom has granted exception for any cause-and until and unless the Congress in its wisdom enacts that there shall be no free competition among citizens in supplying the needs of the military, or any other branch of the Government, it is, of course, beyond the authority of this office to allow credit for payments on purchases made in contravention of the statute. There has often been urged upon this office the claimed economies possible through what is termed standardization of equipment-the avoidance of stocks of spare parts for more than one make of machine or other equipment, the necessity of training employees in the matters of repairing and maintaining more than one make of equipment, etc.-but the conclusion of the accounting officers has been and must be, in view of the mandatory provisions of the law, that, if permitted, such course would practically nullify the law and defeat the clear purpose of the Congress in its enactment. It would permit of the selection, purchase, and use by an agency of the Government, of one make of machine, equipment, or what not, without opportunity for other, possibly equally as good and serviceable, if not better, having a fair opportunity for consideration. Surely it is not seriously contended that this office could properly sanction use of public funds so in violation of the clear purpose of the statute. But if in some instances there could be effected economies through standardization of equipment and purchases accordingly without full opportunity through competition for others perhaps equally good and serviceable, or perchance better, there is still for consideration the legislative purpose that all citizens wishing to serve the Government in such matters should have equal opportunity to do so. Mayhap such purpose, rather than possible economies, was the impelling motive in the legislation.

Under existing lay governing purchases of equipment for the Government, the controlling element is the job to be done, the work necessary to be accomplished. The request for bids must fairly reflect the actual need, through specifications or otherwise, and the equipment to be had, at the lowest price, that will serve to do the job is that authorized to be purchased at public expense. If the need be of an extraordinary nature as distinguished from the usual so as to require unusual equipment, the true nature of the need should be fully disclosed so that all who wish to bid may be informed, but the specifying of minor details having nothing material to do with the need may only be viewed as an attempt to limit competition and circumvent the law. The fact that manufacturers put out certain makes does not necessarily mean that they would not bid upon specifications open to all and not descriptive of a particular make or manufacture.

It is to be noted in connection with the recommendation of the Quartermaster General of the Army in his letter of June 10, 1925, quoted, supra, that the bid of the Willys-Overland (Inc.), be accepted; that while the bid of the said Willys-Overland Co. on the Willys-Knight car was the highest of the bids received, it negatives the statements and contentions as to the military necessity and avoidance of stocks of spare parts urged in your several letters as the reasons for the purchase of the Dodge cars. In other words, the effect of the recommendation as to the purchase of the Willys-Knight car by the Quartermaster General of the Army, who, under the authority of the Secretary of War, is charged with the transportation of the Army by land and water, including the transportation of troops and supplies by mechanical or animal means, is that other automobiles besides the Dodge cars could have and would have answered the needs of the service.

It is hoped that what has been said herein will result in strict observance of the law in purchases of whatsoever class. The purchases

here under consideration will not be further objected to by this office and credit in the disbursing account involved will be allowed. Respectfully,

J. R. MCCARL,

Comptroller General of the United States. The Assistant Secretary of War, Hanford MacNider, in part, replied as follows:

In connection with your letter to the Secretary of War of December 11, 1926, A-13489, I may state that the War Department will make every endeavor to comply with the principies which you have laid down therein.

The War Department thus indicated that it would mend its ways.

The Comptroller General replied under date of January 10, 1927, in part, as follows:

It is gratifying to note from your letter of January 3, 1927, that the War Department will in the future endeavor to comply with the principles laid down in the said decision of December 11, 1926, A-13489. But the War Department failed to keep its pledge. It has again suffered a relapse, as witness its arbitrary and unlawful attitude heretofore indicated in the case of the 124 cars for Camp Holabird.

But the War Department apparently has its fighting clothes on. It is carrying its fight to Congress. It has induced Chairman MORIN, of the Military Affairs Committee, to introduce H. R. 11413, which is as follows:

H. R. 11413, Seventieth Congress, first session
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

February 24, 1928.

A bill to regulate the procurement of motor transportation in the Army Be it enacted, etc., That hereafter, in procuring motor vehicles for the public service, the Secretary of War is hereby authorized, within any price limitations fixed by Congress, to award the contract to the bidder that the said Secretary finds to be the lowest responsible bidder offering to furnish the motor vehicles that will, in the judgment of the said Secretary, most advantageously meet the requirements of the Government.

In a letter dated February 23, 1928, to Representative MORIN, the Secretary of War said of this bill as follows:

It will remove from review and restriction, by the Comptroller General of the United States, those parts of specifications and contracts dealing with the types and standards of motor transportation to be procured and which the War Department has determined are the best for the needs of the service.

The purpose of this bill is to create an exception to section 3709, Revised Statutes, which I again quote:

All purchases and contracts for supplies or services, in any of the departments of the Government, except for personal services, shall be made by advertising a sufficient time previously for proposals respecting the same, when the exigencies do not require the immediate delivery of the articles, or performance of the service.

*

This section of the Revised Statutes has been interpreted by the courts, the Attorney General, and the Comptroller General as requiring, except in emergencies, advertising for supplies required for the Government and the acceptance of the lowest responsible bid. The question as to which bid is the lowest responsible bid can not be finally determined by the admin i strative officer making the purchase. His action is subject to review, in the first instance, by the General Accounting Office and in event of suit, by the courts. This bill, H. R. 11413, would have the effect of making the determination of the chasing officer of the most advantageous bid final and clusive.

pur

con

con

It is contrary to the genius of our Government to, in ordinary cases, make the determination of any administrative officer final and conclusive on the United States. Congress is a reat board of directors of the business activities of the United States. The people, through Congress, provide the money for the duct of the Government and the responsibility is that of Con gress to see that there is wise, honest, and efficient expenditure of that money. This is no new theory of government. many years the Post Office Department audited its own counts, that is, the action of the Postmaster General was final and conclusive in postal matters. Conditions became suca in 1834 that the Postmaster General urged the establishment of an independent audit and settlement of the claims arising in his department. He said in this report of December 5, 1834,

that

For ac

It seems required, by a due regard to system, uniformity and proper accountability that neither those empowered by law to decide on the

necessity of certain services or purchases nor those who make the purchases and contract should also adjust the accounts rendered for them; but that the auditors themselves, whether the claims originated under the authority of heads of bureaus or of departments, should have the exclusive power, in the first instance, to judge of the reasonableness and just amount due, looking to all evidence in the case and to the laws and prospective regulations that apply to it.

The military services have never willingly submitted to the review of their decisions by an independent agency. Congress unmistakably provided for such review in the act of March 30, 1868 (15 Stat. 54), and in considering a recommendation by the Secretary of War that this statute be repealed, the House Committee on Revision of the Laws reported adversely on the recommendation and stated, among other things, that:

In the judgment of the committee the present system of public accounting (which has worked so satisfactorily with few interruptions for more than half a century) is not to be disturbed, and that the act of March 30, 1868, which was designed to prevent such interruptions in the future is just and wise, and that no necessity exists for its repeal or modification.

This report is reprinted in CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, NO. 26, pa ges 4341 to 4342, and the independent audit and settlement of all claims was consolidated and strengthened in the Dockery Act of 1894 and the Budget and accounting act of June 10, 1921. Unable to secure a general exemption, these services are now seeking exemptions in special cases. They argue in this case that it is necessary to standardize motor vehicles; that they are the best judge of the proper vehicle for their services; and that their determination in the matter should not be reviewed by the General Accounting Office or the courts.

Let us see what the War Department has done. It is clear that the officers of that department are at sea as to the make of car best suited for their needs.

The War Department is not the only offender in this regard. I submit herewith three letters each from the Comptroller General. The first addressed to the Governor of the Panama Canal concerning protest in the purchase of motor trucks by the governor. The second from the Comptroller General to the Secretary of the Navy concerning the purchase of a fire truck. The third to the Secretary of the Treasury concerning the purchase of an armored truck for the Treasury.

COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Washington, March 9, 1926.

The GOVERNOR PANAMA CANAL,

Washington Office, Washington, D. C.

SIR: I have a letter dated February 27, 1926, from the general purchasing agent, Panama Canal, presumably at your direction, with further reference to the protest made by the Autocar Sales & Service Co., Washington, D. C., that the Panama Canal in purchasing motor trucks draw their specifications so as to prevent competition. You state in part that

"Referring to the second paragraph of the Autocar Sales & Service Co.'s letter to you of October 30, 1925, criticizing the general practice of the Panama Canal in purchasing motor trucks, and calling attention especially to Circular Invitation No. 1705, dated October 23, 1925, as a representative instance of specifications that eliminate competition in making such purchases, the facts of the instant case are as follows:

"In connection with the purchase of motor trucks under W-130280, hereinbefore referred to, the Panama Canal had made an investigation and study of its motor-truck service with a view to improvement in its efficiency and economy of maintenance and operation. In canvassing bids received under that order the specifications of the Federal Motor Truck Co. were considered as being well adapted to the Panama Canal service and the price offered was relatively low. It was thought that it might be desirable to make a trial and comparison between these trucks and the Dodge trucks then in general use at the Isthmus. Accordingly, bids were invited by Circular 1705 for three truck chassis upon the specification of the Federal Motor Truck Co., including the sleeve valve in engine, which is a distinctive feature of that truck.

"This circular also contained the standard provision hereinbefore quoted on page 2 of this letter, and bids were in fact received from three companies other than the Federal Motor Truck Co., to whom award was made. The specifications of the lower-priced trucks offered varied from the specifications in essential points, and, therefore, were not satisfactory for the service required.

"The disinterested effort of the Autocar Sales & Service Co. to improve Government procedure for purchasing motor trucks is duly appreciated, but this office is unable to see wherein the present procedure of the Panama Canal for such purchases is unsound in business principle or in any way prejudicial to the best interests of the Government."

LXIX- -551

It has been held in numerous decisions by this office and the courts that the provisions of section 3709, Revised Statutes, are designed to give all manufacturers, etc., equal right to compete for Government business, secure to the Government the benefits which flow from competition, to prevent unjust favoritism by an officer of the Government in making purchases on public account, and to raise a bar against collusion and fraud in procuring supplies and letting contracts. visions of the statute are mandatory and its requirements are to be strictly enforced, and no procedure amounting to noncompliance with its terms is authorized.

The pro

It is to be noted that you state that the specifications accompanying Circular Invitation No. 1705, dated October 23, 1925, are the specifications of the Federal Motor Truck Co. It has been consistently held that the naming of a particular make of truck, etc., in the advertisement for proposals to the exclusion of others of equal quality is not a compliance with section 3709, Revised Statutes (1 Comp. Gen. 59, id. 134, id. 698; 11 Comp. Dec. 36; 27 id. 896). The same rule would apply in the matter here presented for the reason that the attaching to and making a part of the advertisement for bids the specifications of a particular make of truck practically excludes other makes and prevents competition.

Specifying minor details has nothing to do with the need for a truck and apparently the only purpose resulting thereby is to limit competition. If such a procedure is permitted, it would practically nullify the law requiring advertising as a condition precedent. Not only is such a procedure unauthorized as being in direct conflict with section 3709, Revised Statutes, but it leads to dissatisfaction among bidders and should be discontinued.

I would therefore suggest that the methods of purchase by the Panama Canal must be corrected so that bids be not asked under specifications so worded as to limit to a particular make, as in the instant matter.

Respectfully,

J. R. MCCARL, Comptroller General of the United States.

COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Washington, March 19, 1927.

The honorable the SECRETARY OF THE NAVY.
SIR There has been received your letter of February 15, 1927, file
L4-2(8)/QM (270201), replying to letter from this office dated Febru-
ary 1, 1927, relative to the award of contract for furnishing a motor-
driven fire truck, ladder, and hose cart, for the use of the Mare Island
Navy Yard, to the International Motor Co., New York, for the sum of
$10,500 as evidenced by contract No. 1890, dated October 19, 1926, in-
stead of to the lowest bidder, Peter Pirsch & Sons Co., Kenosha, Wis.,
for the sum of $9,470.

It appears that bids were requested for the furnishing of one motordriven combination fire truck, ladder, and hose cart with pump completely equipped, the specifications therefor being as follows:

"Except as otherwise specified, the apparatus shall conform, as far as applicable, including painting and cushion tires, to the requirements of Specifications 58-F-1a and addendum,' issued by the Navy Department January 2, 1925, copies of which may be obtained upon application to the supply officer of any navy yard, the Navy Purchasing Offices, New York, N. Y., and San Francisco, Calif., or to the Bureau of Supplies and Accounts. Bids will only be considered on apparatus which is composed of working parts designed primarily for fire-fighting purposes, and on a make which has been in use long enough to have established its reliability to a sufficient extent to secure a service rating from the National Board of Fire Underwriters. Bids will be considered on four or six cylinder engines and on a centrifugal or rotary pump.

"A four-cylinder engine and a rotary pump is preferred and, other things being equal, will be given preference. Likewise, preference will be given to the apparatus which is composed of important working parts of the same manufacture."

Bidders were also advised that alternate bids would be considered on similar equipment, provided such bids were accompanied by full detailed information in duplicate as to all details of apparatus offered. Eight bids were received in response to this request of which only two are here material.

Peter Pirsch & Sons Co. proposed to furnish the required truck, etc., for the sum of $9,470, and the International Motor Co. submitted a bid of $10,500. The lowest bid was rejected, and, as hereinbefore stated, the contract was awarded to the International Motor Co. Protest of the award was filed in this office by the lowest bidder, the substance of which was communicated to you by letter addressed you on February 1, 1927, and your letter of February 15, 1927, is in answer to said protest.

The acceptance of the higher bid appears to have been due to the fact that more of the various working parts of the apparatus offered by the International Motor Co. were of the same manufacture than were those of the machine offered by Pirsch & Sons Co., and because