31 U.S.C. § 3324

Advances

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 31 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Except as provided in this section, a payment under a contract to provide a service or deliver an article for the United States Government may not be more than the value of the service already provided or the article already delivered.(b) An advance of public money may be made only if it is authorized by—(1) a specific appropriation or other law; or(2) the President to be made to—(A) a disbursing official if the President decides the advance is necessary to carry out—(i) the duties of the official promptly and faithfully; and(ii) an obligation of the Government; or(B) an individual serving in the armed forces at a distant station if the President decides the advance is necessary to disburse regularly pay and allowances.(c) Before the Secretary of the Treasury acts on a requisition for an advance, the Comptroller General shall act on the requisition under section 3522 of this title. The Comptroller General does not countersign a requisition for an advance.(d) The head of an agency may pay in advance from appropriations available for the purpose—(1) to the Secretary of the Army, charges for messages sent by the Secretary of the Army for the head of the agency, including charges for—(A) payment of tolls of commercial carriers;(B) leasing facilities for sending messages; and(C) installing and maintaining facilities for sending messages; and(2) charges for a publication printed or recorded in any way for the auditory or visual use of the agency.(Pub. L. 97–258, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 950.)

Historical and Revision Notes
Revised Section	Source (U.S. Code)	Source (Statutes at Large)
3324(a)	31:529(2d sentence).	R.S. § 3648; Aug. 2, 1946, ch. 744, § 11, 60 Stat. 809.
3324(b)	31:529(1st, 3d, last sentences).
3324(c)	31:44(1st sentence).	June 10, 1921, ch. 18, § 304(1st par. 1st sentence), 42 Stat. 24.
	31:76(1st, last sentences).	July 31, 1894, ch. 174, § 11(1st, 4th sentences), 28 Stat. 209.
3324(d)	31:530a.	June 12, 1930, ch. 470, § 1, 46 Stat. 580; July 20, 1961, Pub. L. 87–91, § 1, 75 Stat. 211.
	31:530b.	June 12, 1930, ch. 470, 46 Stat. 580, § 2; added Dec. 22, 1974, Pub. L. 93–534, 88 Stat. 1731.
	31:686–2.	Apr. 15, 1926, ch. 146, § 101(proviso on p. 267), 44 Stat. 267.

In subsection (a), the words “Except as provided in this section” are added for clarity. The words “already provided” and “already delivered” are substituted for “rendered . . . delivered previously to such payment” for clarity and consistency.

In subsection (b), before clause (1), the words “in any case” and “It shall, however, be lawful under the special direction of” are omitted as surplus. In clause (2)(A)(i), the word “official” is substituted for “officer” for consistency in the revised title. The words “of the Government” are omitted as surplus. Clause (2)(A)(ii) is substituted for “the public engagements” for clarity. In clause (2)(B), the word “individual” is substituted for “persons” for consistency. The words “armed forces” are substituted for “military and naval service” for consistency with title 10. The words “and proper” are omitted as unnecessary. The words “disburse regularly pay and allowances” are substituted for “discharge of the pay and emoluments to which they may be entitled cannot be regularly effected” to eliminate unnecessary words, for clarity, and for consistency with title 37.

In subsection (c), the words “Comptroller General” are substituted for “General Accounting Office” for consistency.

In subsection (d), before clause (1), the words “On and after April 15, 1926” in 31:686–2 are omitted as executed. The word “agency” is substituted for “department or establishment” because of section 101 of the revised title and for consistency. The words “may pay in advance from appropriations available for the purpose” are substituted for “may transfer in advance . . . such amounts as may be necessary to defray the expense of” for clarity and consistency. In clause (1), the words “Secretary of the Army” are substituted for “Signal Corps of the Army” because of 10:3012. The title of Secretary of War was changed to Secretary of the Army, and the Department of War was designated the Department of the Army by section 205(a) of the Act of July 26, 1947 (ch. 343, 61 Stat. 501), and by sections 1 and 53 of the Act of August 10, 1956 (ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 157, 676). Clause (2) is substituted for 31:530a and 530b to eliminate unnecessary words. The words “or the municipal government of the District of Columbia” are omitted because of sections 441–445 and 736 of the Act of December 24, 1973 (Pub. L. 93–198, 87 Stat. 798, 823).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesInternational Refugee Organization

Funds available for expenditure without regard to this section, see section 289c of Title 22, Foreign Relations and Intercourse.

Executive DocumentsExemption of Functions

Functions authorized by Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, as exempt, see Ex. Ord. No. 11223, May 12, 1965, 30 F.R. 6635, set out as a note under section 2393 of Title 22, Foreign Relations and Intercourse.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases, 1983–2016 · leading case: The United States v. Amdahl Corp., 786 F.2d 387 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

The United States v. Amdahl Corp., 786 F.2d 387 (Fed. Cir. 1986). · cites it 2× “2 million payment for the equipment upon signing of the contract but before actual physical delivery was a violation of 31 U.S.C. § 3324 (a) which provides that contract payments “may not be more than the value of the .”

United States v. Am. Pouch Foods, Inc. (In Re Am. Pouch Foods, Inc.), 30 B.R. 1015 (N.D. Ill. 1983). · cites it 4× “3648 (1873) as amended, 31 U.S.C. § 3324 (1982). 7 In part, it was this supposed prohibition which caused the Court in Marine Midland to reject wholesale the preceding line of cases which interpreted “title vesting” clauses as creating absolute title.”

Dyonyx, L.P. v. United States, 83 Fed. Cl. 460 (Fed. Cl. 2008). “To the extent that the non-FSS contractor/protestor was challenging a potential violation of 31 U.S.C. § 3324 (2000) (dealing with advances of public money), the court alternatively ruled that plaintiff lacked standing.”

Eracent, Inc. v. United States, 79 Fed. Cl. 427 (Fed. Cl. 2007). · cites it 2× “The delivery order, at Option 0006, references this one year maintenance agreement but adds that maintenance fees are “payable in quarterly arrears,” AR 147, to avoid violating 31 U.S.C. § 3324 which prohibits government agencies from paying for services until the services have…”

CCL Serv. Corp. v. United States, 48 Fed. Cl. 113 (Fed. Cl. 2000). “Plaintiff concludes that these prices mean that DISA will be making advance payments to inter-venor in violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3324 (1994). The GAO held that plaintiff made no showing that agency payments to intervenor in one year were to be applied to…”

In Re Am. Pouch Foods, Inc., Debtor-Appellant, 769 F.2d 1190 (7th Cir. 1985). “§ 529 (1981), 31 U.S.C. § 3324 (1983). Apparently there grew up a concept of purchase of unfinished goods in return for progress payments (often, in earlier years, referred to as “partial payments”), and doctrine that this statute is not violated by payment previous to delivery…”

Ultimate Concrete, LLC v. United States, 127 Fed. Cl. 77 (Fed. Cl. 2016). “214-19 and the Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3324 . Plaintiff contends that, if all NTPs were issued at the same time and all work was to commence simultaneously, For-tis would receive an advance payment because CLIN 0007 would be completed first and Fortis would be entitled…”

Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Austin, 75 F.3d 1535 (Fed. Cir. 1996). · cites it 3× “31 U.S.C. § 3324 (b)(1) (1988). Such a law exists for the government’s procurement of passenger transportation services.”

Atlas Corp. v. United States, 15 Cl. Ct. 681 (Ct. Cl. 1988). “See 31 U.S.C. § 3324 . While the AEC undoubtedly had broad authority to contract for uranium concentrate, the published parameters for the program did not indicate that payments, other than for delivered concentrate, were contemplated.”

H. Landau & Co. v. United States, 16 Cl. Ct. 35 (Ct. Cl. 1988). “That feature of the contract was in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 3324 (a) (1982), disallowing payments under those circumstances in excess of “the value of the .”

Brinkmann v. White Farm Equip. Co. (In Re White Farm Equip. Co.), 63 B.R. 800 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1986). “§ 529 (1981), 31 U.S.C. § 3324 (1983) ... this statute is not violated by payment previous to delivery if title to the portion paid for has vested in the Government at the time of payment, or if the articles are then impressed with a valid lien in favor of the Government.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.