About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

B-211820 1 (1983-09-12)

handle is hein.gao/gaobadlho0001 and id is 1 raw text is: THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL SWAS H I NGTO N. 0. C. 20549 FILE: B-211820 DATE: Serntember 12, 193) MATTER OF: Department of Interior - Purchase of Air Purifiers DIGEST: Purchase of air purifiers that would clean the air in Department of Interior public reading room of tobacco smoke does not violate rule against purchasing equipment for personal benefit of individual employees, since all employees and members of public who use the room would benefit. 61 Comp. Gen. 634 (1982) distinguished. This is in response to a request by a Department of Interior contracting officer for our decision as to the propriety of the proposed procurement of two air purifiers for use in the Arizona Public Land Records Room. For the reasons stated below, we find that the proposed expenditures may be made. The Acting Chief of the Branch of Lands and Minerals Operation, Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior has requisi- tioned two Smokeeaters, a type of air purifier, to be installed in a public land records room at a cost of $1200 plus installation costs. The small, enclosed room where the air purifiers will be installed is the sole source of public land records in the State of Arizona. The room was designed to service about one-third of the traffic it now acconmmodates. Typically about 100 people use the room daily. Users of the room often smoke cigarettes, cigars and pipes. As a result, the area is often filled with smoke, causing discomfort, annoyance and complaints from both the public and Gov- ernment employees. The air conditioning system is not able to relieve the air of so much smoke. Also, while No Smoking signs have been posted, the policy of prohibiting smoking has not been effectively enforced. The question posed by the contracting officer is whether our decision in 61 Comp. Gen. 634 (1982), where we held that the pur- chase of an air purifier for the use of an employee suffering from asthma was improper, applies to the proposed purchase. We conclude that it does not. Our objection to the purchase in 61 Comp. Gen. 634 was that appropriated funds were used to make a purchase that was for the personal use of an individual employee. We have frequently held that such expenditures cannot be made from appropriated funds unless they are expressly authorized by Congress. See cases cited in our decision, id., at 635.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most