BNUMBER:  B-260260
DATE:  December 28, 1995
TITLE:  Purchase of Baseball Caps by the Department of Energy

**********************************************************************

Matter of:Purchase of Baseball Caps by the Department of Energy 

File:     B-260260

Date:   December 28, 1995
    
DIGEST

The Department of Energy may not use appropriated funds to purchase 
baseball caps for personnel recruitment purposes since the caps are in 
the nature of personal gifts.  
 
DECISION

Patricia L. Criss, an authorized certifying officer for the Department 
of Energy, Chicago Operations Office, has requested an advance 
decision concerning the use of appropriated funds for the payment of a 
voucher in the amount of $1,087.50 for an order of 250 baseball caps 
to assist the department in its recruiting efforts.  As explained 
below, appropriated funds may not be used to pay for the baseball 
caps.

Background

According to the certifying officer, the Department of Energy's 
Information Management and Support Division's (Energy) contracting 
officer ordered 250 caps imprinted with the words "DOE - Valuing 
Diversity."  The caps, according to Energy, were to be used for 
"recruitment purposes" in furtherance of Energy's implementation of a 
strategic plan for diversity, which aims to recruit, hire, and retain 
a diverse work force.  It appears that Energy intends to give the caps 
to non-employees incident to its employee recruitment program.  The 
certifying officer questions the appropriateness of the expenditure. 

Analysis

Appropriated funds may be used only for authorized purposes.  31 
U.S.C.  1301(a).  In this case, there is no indication that Energy's 
appropriations or authorizing acts provide direct authority for this 
expenditure.[1]  If the objects are neither expressly authorized nor 
prohibited, they are permissible only if reasonably necessary or 
incident to the proper execution of an authorized purpose or function 
of the agency.  66 Comp. Gen. 356, 359 (1987).  The application of 
this "necessary expense rule" is a matter of agency discretion.  
However, agencies do not have unfettered discretion.  Therefore, when 
we review an expenditure to determine whether it falls within an 
authorized purpose or function, we consider whether, under the 
circumstances, the relationship between the authorized function and 
the expenditure is so attenuated as to take it beyond the agency's 
legitimate range of discretion.  B-247563.2, May 12, 1993.   

Since the baseball caps have some, however modest, intrinsic value, 
and since Energy intends to give the baseball caps to non-employees, 
the caps are in the nature of a personal gift.  An agency may not 
purchase items in the nature of gifts or souvenirs for non-employees 
unless there is a direct link between the items and the purpose of the 
appropriation charged.  Id. Stated differently, in order to justify 
purchasing items in the nature of a personal gift, an agency must 
demonstrate that the items will directly further its mission.  See 
B-193769, Jan. 24, 1979 (purchase of lava rocks by National Park 
Service for visitors justified to discourage removal of rocks in 
national monument); B-201488, Feb. 25, 1981 (purchase of winter caps 
by National Weather Service for Weather Observation Program Volunteers 
not justified).  

In some cases, expenditures for functional items of nominal value have 
directly furthered an agency's mission.  For example, in B-247686, 
Dec. 30, 1992, we did not object to the Environmental Protection 
Agency's (EPA) purchase and distribution of informational buttons and 
magnets inscribed with messages regarding indoor air quality at an EPA 
sponsored conference.  We distinguished the EPA expenditure from other 
cases involving expenditures for items of nominal value distributed 
outside the agency, typically to the public in general, on the basis 
of EPA's specific statutory mission to promote public information and 
education concerning indoor air quality.  In another example, the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) proposed to 
offer either $5 in cash or a baseball cap with the reward program logo 
to any individual returning fish tags to the agency.  Given the direct 
relationship and value of such information to NOAA's statutory 
required research on fish conservation and management, we viewed the 
expenditures as a necessary program expense.  70 Comp. Gen. 720 
(1991).

In this case, DOE has not claimed that the caps further any specific 
agency mission, and the relationship between giving away caps and the 
general DOE activity to be furthered--recruiting a diverse 
workforce--is, at best, tenuous.  Without a more direct link between 
the purchase of a personal gift and the purpose of the appropriation 
to be charged, we do not consider the expenditure to be appropriate.

/s/Robert P. Murphy
for Comptroller General
of the United States

1. An example of such direct authority can be found in a recently 
enacted statute giving the Secretary of Veterans Affairs discretionary 
authority to:

            ". . . purchase promotional items of nominal value for use 
            in the recruitment of individuals under this chapter 
            [Veterans Health Administration - Personnel]. . . ."

38 U.S.C.A.  7423(f) (West Supp. 1994).