PAGENO="0001"
75~QO3~-/o
VARiOUS JPEND~NG I~WLID~ING PROJECTS
~ 3
~ti~
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-THIRD CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
MAY 23 AND JULY 30, 1974
AUGUST 8 AND SEPTEMBER 18, 1974
CONSOLIDATED FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER,
BELTSVILLE, MD.
SERIAL NO. 93-1144
Printed for the use of the Committee on Public Works
Li / ~ TJ.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
3~-623 WASHINGTON: 1974
(,Y7~ ~ /
HEARINGS
BEFORE `THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS
RUTGERS
GOL,C.
PAGENO="0002"
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
JENNINGS RANDOLPH, West Virginia, Chairman
EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Maine HOWARD H. BAKER, JR., Tennessee
JOSEPH M. MONTOYA, New Mexico JAMES L. BUCKLEY, New York
MIKE GRAVEL, Alaska ROBERT T. STAFFORD, Vermont
LLOYD BENTSEN, Texas WILLIAM L. SCOTT, Virginia
QUENTIN N. BURDICK, North Dakota JAMES A. McCLURE, Idaho
DICK CLARK, Iowa PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware
M. BARRY MEYER, Chief Counsel and Chief Clerk
BAILEY GUARD, Minority Clerk; RICHARD A. BELLMAN, Minority Counsel
LEON G. BILLINGS, Senior Staff Member
PHILIP T. CUMMINGS, JAMES R. READLE, and RICHARD E. HEROD (Minority) As8istant
Counsels
Prof essional and research staff: KARL BRAITHWAITE, HAROLD H. BRAYMAN, PAUL CHIMES,
FRANCES T. CLARK, KATHERINE Y. CUDLIPP, KATHALEEN R. E. FORCUM, ANN GARRABRANT,
RICHARD D. GRUNDY, WESLEY F. HAYDEN, RONALD L. KATZ, CLARK NORTON, JUDY
PARENTE, JOHN PURINTON, A. DAVID SANDOVAL, JACQUELINE E. SCHAFER, CHARLENE
STURBITTS, E. STEVENS SWAIN, SALLY WALKER, and JOHN W. YAGO, Jr.
SUBCOMMITTEE ON BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS
DICK CLARK, Iowa, Chairman
MIKE GRAVEL, Alaska WILLIAM L. SCOTT, Virginia
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware JAMES A. MCCLURE, Idaho
(II)
PAGENO="0003"
CONTENTS
ALPHABETICAL LIST OF PROJECTS
Alterations: Page
Nashville, Tenn 217
Tucson, Ariz 212
Border Patrol stations:
Laredo, Tex 224
Lukeville, Ariz - 219
Maria, Tex 31
Tok Junction, Alaska 41
Consolidated Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, Beltsville,
Md 229, 308
Federal office buildings:
Charlotte, Amalie, Virgin Islands 88
Columbia, S.C 4
Dayton, Ohio 80
Huron, S. Dak 186
Norfolk, Va 295
Roanoke, Va 67
Pittsfield, Mass 20
Saginaw, Mich 51
Jackson, Miss., leased office space 165
Lease renewals:
Washington, D.C.:
1800 G Street 104
1111 20th Street 190
Honolulu, Hawaii 202
Rockville, Md 196
San Juan, Puerto Rico 208
ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES
THURSDAY, MAY 23, 1974 (p. 1)
Shipp, Loy M., Assistant Commissioner for Space Management, Public
Buildings Service, General Services Administration, accompanied by
P. E. Peyton, Acting Assistant Commissioner for Construction Manage-
ment; and Tony Innamorati, Assistant Commissioner, Building Manage-
ment 3
Thurmond, Hon. Strom, U.S. Senator from the State of South Carolina___ 1
TUEsDAY, JULY 30, 1974 (p. 165)
Shipp, Loy, Assistant Commissioner, Space Management, General Services
Administration 165
THURSDAY, AUGUST 8, 1974 (p. 229)
Burdick, Hon. Quentin N., U.S. Senator from the State of North Dakota,
opening statement of 229
Shipp, Loy, Assistant Commissioner, Space Management, General Services
Administration; accompanied by Roy Eckert, Project Manager; and
David MacDonald, Assistant Secretary, Enforcement, Operations and
Tariff Affairs, Department of the Treasury; accompanied by William
Butler, Director, Consolidated Federal Law Enforcement Training Cen-
ter; and Robert G. Efteland, Deputy Director 239
(in)
PAGENO="0004"
IV
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1974 (p. 295)
Page
Schmults, Edward C., Under Secretary of the Treasury, accompanied by
James Clawson, Deputy Assistant Secretary; Roy Eckert, GSA Proj-
ect Manager; William Butler, Director; and Robert Efteland, Deputy
Director 309
Shipp, Loy, Jr., Assistant Commissioner for Space Management, Public
Buildings Service, General Services Administration; accompanied by
Robert Rice, Assistant General Counsel, and Tom L. Peyton, Jr., Acting
Assistant Commissioner for Construction Management, Public Buildings
Service 296
Smith, Robert S., Director, Personnel and Training Staff, on behalf of
0. T. Berkman, Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Admin-
istration, Office of Management and Finance, Department of Justice, ac-
companied by Warren Osen, Chief Career Development and Manpower
Resources Group 322
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Alterations:
Nashville, Tenn., courthouse, prospectus 218
Tucson, Ariz., Post Office and Courthouse:
Goldwater, Hon. Barry M., U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona,
letter from 212
Prospectus 214
Border Patrol stations:
Laredo, Tex., prospectus 225
Lukeville, Ariz.:
Fannin, Hon. Paul J., U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona,
letter from 220
Prospectus 222
Marfa, Tex.:
Responses to additional questions 33
Prospectus 37
Tok Junction, Alaska:
Responses to questions from:
Staff 44
Senator McClure 50
Prospectus 47
Consolidated Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, Beltsville, Md..:
Additional Questions:
Staff 260, 324, 329, 338
Senator Scott 279, 351
Letters:
Randolph, Hon. Jennings, U.S. Senator from the State of West
Virginia, dated November 20, 1971, to the Administrator of the
General Services Administration 251
Sampson, Arthur F., Administrator, General Services Administra-
tion, dated June 6, 1974, to Senator Howard H. Baker, Jr 252
Scott, Hon. William L., U.S. Senator from the State of Virginia:
June 20, 1974, to Arthur F. Sampson, Administrator, General
Services Administration 253
To Elmer B. Staats, Comptroller General of the United States,
dated June 20, 1974, and June 26, 1974 254
Prospectuses:
March 2, 1965 230
January 13, 1969 232
March 31, 1971 235
June 27, 1974 238
Prospectus amendment increase (chart) 241
Statements:
Allshouse, David S., Acting Assistant Director, Office of Investiga-
tion, Department of Agriculture 2n9
Berkman, 0. T., Jr., Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
Department of Justice 323
PAGENO="0005"
V
Page
Calverton Citizens Association 360
Clark, Hon. James T., Assistant Secretary, Department of the
Interior 356
Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission 357
Telegram sent to various agencies prior to the August 8 hearing and
the responses thereto:
Telegram 288
General Services Administration 288
Postmaster General 289
State, Department of 290
Treasury, Department of 291
Capitol Police 294
Federal office buildings:
Charlotte Amalie, Virgin Islands, courthouse and Federal office
building:
Responses to questions from:
Staff 92
Senator Scott 99
Prospectus 102
Columbia, S.C., Federal office building and courthouse:
Responses to additional questions 9
Prospectus 14
Hollings, Hon. Ernest F., U.S. Senator from the State of North
Carolina, letter from 19
Dayton, Ohio, courthouse and Federal office building:
Responses to written questions 81
Prospectus 86
Huron, S. Dak., Federal office building: Prospectus 187
Jackson, Miss., leased office space:
Prospectus 178
Stennis, Hon. John C., U.S. Senator from the State of Mississippi,
letter from 185
Norfolk, Va.:
House, G. Robert, Jr., city manager, telegram from_ 299
Whitehurst, Hon. William G., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Virginia, statement of 295
Prospectus 300
Responses to additional questions 307
Pittsfield, Mass., Federal office building:
Responses to additional questions 24
Prospectus 27
Roanoke, Va., Federal office building:
Responses to additional questions 72
Prospectus 78
Saginaw, Mich., Federal office building:
Responses to additional questions 57
Prospectus 62
Lease renewals:
Honolulu, Hawaii, prospectus 204
Rockville, Md., prospectus 199
San Juan, Puerto Rico, prospectus 209
Washington, D.C.:
1800 G Street:
Responses to additional questions 108
Prospectus 114
111 20th Street, prospectus 192
Projects not discussed at the hearings:
Dallas, Tex., leased office space 130
Fort Lauderdale, Fla., courthouse and Federal office bmlding 370
Leased office space:
Federal Energy Office 377
Securities and Exchange Commission 379
Manchester, N.H., Federal office building 361
Missoula, Mont., Federal office building 140
St. Louis, Mo., courthouse and customshouse 152
Washington, D.C., Tariff Building 118
PAGENO="0006"
PAGENO="0007"
VARIOIJS PENDING BuILDING PROJECTS
THURSDAY, ]YLAY 23, 1974
TI. S. SENATE,
CoMMrrr1~E ON PUBLIC WORKS,
S1J-BCOMMITTEE ON BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS,
Wa$hingto~, D.C.
The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 4200,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Dick Clark (chairman of the
subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Clark and Scott.
Senator Scorr [presiding]. The committee will be in order.
The Chair will hear from the distinguished Senator from South
Carolina.
Senator Clark is delayed momentarily. I will relinquish the Chair
when he comes.
Senator Thurmond, would you go right ahead?
STATEMENT OF HON. STROM THURMOND, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Senator THURMOND. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate this. The Armed Services Committee is waiting for me
for a quorum. It is kind of you to take me at this time.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to testify before your com-
mittee in support of a new Federal building for Columbia, S.C. I
understand that the General Services Administration submitted a
prospectus for this building to your committee on March 15, 1974,
requesting a lease arrangement, and on April 4 amended this pros-
pectus to further allow the administrator to undertake the project
as a purchase contract or as a direct Federal construction.
I discussed this project with officials from GSA and the Office
of Management and Budget to encourage this amendment because
it would provide the administrator with sufficient flexibility to con-
struct this most needed project.
As I stated, the amendment gives him authority to seek out a
suitable lease or, if he so determines, to move forward under a pur-
chase contract arrangement.
He would also be authorized to use direct Federal construction
if the purchase contract authority were not extended by Congress
in June 1975.
Mr. Chairman, my interest is not how the GSA wants to finance
a new building for Columbia, but only in their beginning work at
the earliest possible date.
(1)
PAGENO="0008"
2
For this reason, I hope your committee will approve this amended
prospectus as soon as possible.
Some of the many reasons why Columbia, S.C., needs a new
Federal office building are: First, the annual rental for GSA in
Columbia to provide space for Federal agencies expected to occupy
the new building is now $436,754 per year.
Second, excluding the Federal courthouse or the existing Federal
building, GSA leases office space at 19 different locations in the
Columbia area.
Third, the new building will contain 465,000 square feet of office
space for over 1,271 Federal employees.
Fourth, the existing building, besides being inadequate, has no
parking facilities and is inconsistent with the orderly growth of
the University of South Carolina.
Fifth, the present Federal courthouse is obsolete and cannot be
expanded.
Mr. Chairman, these are just a few of the reasons Columbia needs
a new Federal building. It is a most worthwhile project and the
consolidation and concentration of Federal activity in Columbia
should enable the Government agencies to serve the public in a
more economical and effective manner.
This is a tremendous step forward to better service to the public.
The scattering of Federal agencies in and around Columbia has
been a matter of particular concern for several years, and it is grati-
fying that `GSA has recognized the problem.
I have repeatedly urged action of this nature and I am hopeful
that the project will now move along in order that completion may
be accomplished by the earliest possible da.te.
Mr. Chairman, just in closing I want to say again that it seems
to me it is foolish for the Government to have to pay out almost
a half million dollars a year in rent when they can construct this
project and save a large part of that.
Second, again I want to say that the present facilities are entirely
inadequate and it is necessary that something be done.
Chairman Clark, I was just presenting a short brief on the Fed-
eral building for Columbia.
Again I want to repeat that the annual rental for GSA in Colum-
bia to provide the space for Federal agencies expected to occupy
this building is $436,754. That is almost a half million dollars a year.
I hate to see our Government pay out that much money and be
getting nothing back. In other words, I think it would be a great
saving made here for our Government if this building is erected.
Second, I want to `say that the Government agencies now occupy
space in 19 different locations in Columbia. It would be much more
convenient for the Government officials and also for the public to
have one place to go to transact their business with the Federal
Government.
The next thing I want to mention is that there are over 1,200
employees there and you can see the advantage of having some
central location for them, too, and parking space which they do not
now have.
Senator Scorr. Mr. Chairman, might I interrupt briefly the witness
and thank the distinguished Senator for being here? I must excuse
PAGENO="0009"
3
myself. I do have another committee that I have to go to. I am sure
the committee will give e~very consideration to the Senator's remarks.
Senator THtrRMOND. Thank you, Senator Scott.
Are there any questions that the distinguished chairman would
like to ask?
I would like to emphasize again that the GSA has recognized the
need for this building and they have been planning for years to build
it. But they have just now gotten to the point where they think they
have the right site, they are ready to go forward and ready to elim-
inate this almost $`/2 million a year in rental.
They are ready to provide a central building for all employees
and to have parking facilities, which they presently do not have. It
will accommodate the public.
Instead of going to 19 locations to do business with the Federal
Government they will have one central location. The GSA feels it is
a wise course to pursue. They are anxious now to go forward with it.
I want to commend them for that.
As I stated a few moments ago, the General Services Administra-
tion submitted a prospectus for theY building on March 15, 1974, re-
questing a lease arrangement. On April 4 they amended this prospec-
tus to further allow the administrator to undertake the project as a
purchase contract or as a direct Federal construction.
So any way this committee feels is wise to go forward with the
building is entirely agreeable with us, whatever the committee thinks.
To my way of thinking, I think it would be wise to leave that
discretion maybe in the GSA so they can work out the best arrange-
ment that will save our Government the most money.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator CLARK (presiding). We appreciate your comments. We
will be discussing with GSA following your testimony a number of
details. We are particularly pleased that you came by.
Senator TUtIRMOND. I might say that the Congressman from this
particular district favors this building. Senator Hoilings, my col-
league, favors it. We are all togethEr on this project.
Senator CLARK. Thank you very much.
Senator THURMOND. Thank you.
Senator CLARK. Will the witnesses from the General Services Ad-
ministration please come to the table?
Perhaps you would introduce yourselves so we can be sure our
agenda is accurate. Then we will proceed with the Columbia, S.C.,
project.
STATEMENT OF LOY M. SHIPP, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR
SPACE MANAGEMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE, GENERAL
SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, ACCOMPANIED BY T. E. PEYTON,
ACTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR CONSTRUCTION MAN-
AGEMENT; AND TONY INNAMORATI, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BUILDING MANAGEMENT
Mr. SHTPP. Mr. Chairman; my name is Loy M. Shipp. I am the
Assistant Commissioner for Space Management, Public Buildings
Service.
PAGENO="0010"
4
To my right is Tony Innamorati, Assistance Commissioner Build-
ing Management, and on my left is Mr. Tom Peyton, the Acting
Assistant Commissioner for Construction Management, Public
Buildings Service.
FEDERAL OFFICE BUILDING AND COURTHOUSE, COLUMBIA, S.C.
The prospectus before us proposes the acquisition by lease of
space in an office building with related facilities to be constructed
by a private developer to house the U.S. courts and other Federal
agencies in Columbia, S.C.
The project will provide a total occupiable area of about 465,000
square feet and will include parking for approximately 595 Gov-
ernment-owned visitor and employee vehicles and a vehicle main-
tenance facility.
The building will be constructed on a site acquired by a private
developer. These new facilities will replace four inadequate Govern-
ment-owned buildings and space leased at 19 scattered locations. It
will also provide accommodations for increased agency space needs,
and improve agency housing.
There. is a need to provide additional space for the U.S. courts
and to consolidate and improve the quality of agency housing for
certain other non-Postal Government activities.
Federal agencies are housed in about 274,600 square feet of space
in 5 Government-owned buildings and 19 leased locations. These
agencies have a need for an additional 227,000 square feet of space
which cannot be provided in existing Government-owned buildings.
The existing space is of varying quality and widely scattered
which causes duplication of facilities and increases operating costs.
Upon completion of the new buildings, all nonpostal activities
will be consolidated in two locations, which will improve agency
housing and coordination, make Government operations more effi-
cient and less costly, and provide greater convenience to the public.
Senator CLARK. I have just a few questions on the Columbia proj-
ect. Who determined that the U.S. courts there needed additional
space?
Mr. SHIPP. We requested advice from the Administrative Officer
of the U.S. courts as to their needs in Columbia, and the require-
ments that we have incorporated into the prospectus reflect about a
4,000 foot expansion for the courts.
In addition, we have a reserve for expansion in the building and
part of this space will be used for future expansion of the courts
in the building.
Senator CLARK. But you initiated the question as to whether they
needed the space? They didn't suggest that they needed it?
Mr. SHIPP. Part of our operating procedures where we identify
a need for a new Federal building is to go to the agencies that will
be housed in that building and ask them to update their require-
ments for space in that community. .
Senator CLARK. But the primary justification for the project is
the court?
PAGENO="0011"
5
Mr. SHIPP. That is one of the justifications. Another justification
is the need to consolidate the agencies that are dispersed in a num-
ber of locations in the community.
Senator CLARK. Only about 5 percent of the project is going to
be assigned to the court, isn't it?
Mr. Snipp. Yes, sir, approximately.
Senator CLARK. The other 95 percent would be to other agencies?
Mr. Srnrr. Yes, sir.
Senator CLARK. As I understand it, the House committee has ap-
proved the prospectus with the proviso that it be built either by
purchase contract or by direct Federal construction.
Specifically, the House refused to allow straight lease acquisition,
as I understand it. Does the GSA believe that such a restriction will
prevent construction of the project?
Mr. Srnpr. No, sir. We will be able to accomplish the project as
a purchase contract project or by direct Federal construction.
Senator CLARK. The GSA will be assigned 53 percent of the total
space. What percentage do they have now?
Mr. SHIPP. We have a relatively small amount of space in the
community. I don't have the exact percentage. The reason we are
being assigned such a large amount of space is that GSA will have
in its inventory the parking facility and vehicle maintenance fa-
cility and the other custodial areas.
So out of the total of 464,000-plus square feet in the building,
GSA will have about 53 percent or 249,000 of that. But it is prin-
cipally for garage and custodial areas.
Senator CLARK. Will the nongarage and custodial area be greatly
increased in terms of the percentage of the total in the new build-
ing as compared to the old arrangement?
Mr. Srnpp. There will be some increase because we do not have
a parking facility in Columbia at this time. Parking is assigned to
the various agencies at scattered locations. In this particular case,
we are consolidating all the parking and in this particular instance,
it will be assigned to GSA.
Senator CLARK. The prospectus states that 18 agencies are now
housed in 274,000 square feet of space. Why is there a need for
nearly double that amount now, or 500,000? What are the increased
agency needs?
Mr. SHIPP. There is about 13,000 square feet of agency expansion
involved here, and in addition to that we are adding to the build-
ing the parking facility which accounts for about 53 percent of the
total building.
We are providing parking facilities that are needed for Govern-
ment-owned vehicles and vehicles on official Government business
as wefl as visitor and employee parking.
Senator CLARK. What impact will cance'lation of leased space
totaling something over $400,000 annually have on the community?
Mr. SHIPP. We anticipate that it will have a minimal impact on
the community. Columbia is a very busy and thriving community.
PAGENO="0012"
6
Local realtors have told us that the office space rental market there
is absorbing that space at the rate of about 200,000 square feet per
year.
I noticed just the other day in some economic statistics for that
area that Columbia has a very low rate of unemployment, about
1.5 percent, which indicates that it has a very thriving economy and
it should absorb that space without any difficulty whatsoever.
Senator CLARK. You have parking, as I understand it, for 595
cars. That is what you propose. This would be a space for two out
of every three persons. Is that a normal ratio?
Mr. SKIFF. Actually, I would like to break down the parking for
you: 278 of these spaces will be for Government-owned vehicles,
127 will be for visitors and 190 for employees.
Senator CLARK. For how many employees?
Mr. SHIPP. 190 spaces for employees.
Senator CLARK. Out of a total number of what?
Mr. SHIFT'. There are altogether 1,271 employees in the building.
We anticipate, through the measures we have taken to encourage
carpooling, that we will get more people in cars and provide
greater opportunity for people to have the parking faci1it.ie~.
In addition to that, there are a number of parking fncilities in
the downtown area. We anticipate those who are unable to get
parking in the garage through the carpools would avail tiiiemseives
of privately-owned parking facilities.
Senator CLARK. So the ratio is more like every six or seven.
Mr. SHIPP. Yes, sir. This is consistent with the general rule that
we have on our parking ratios. They usually range in the center of
the city from about 1 to 7 to perhaps 1 to 2 or 1 to 3 in the more
peripheral locations.
Senator CLARK. Are you going to have a new structure for
parking?
Mr. SHIFT'. Yes, sir. The parking facility is proposed as a separate
structure from the office building, itself.
Senator CLARK. As I understand it, the present value analysis of
alternative one shows the actual construction cost to be only 48
percent of the total used for comparison against, other methods.
The 0. & M. cost is nearly half of the construction cost and taxes
are nearly one-third. Is that a true comparison?
Mr. Snipp. MTe. believe that the present value analysis is a true
comparison in that under alternative one we have laid out the
various components of the cost to the government over the term
that this building would have a useful life.
In alternative two, we have lumped. in effect., all of these costs
under annual rent services in that. the lessor would be responsible
for design and review, management, inspection, operation, main-
tenance and repair, and real estate taxes.
So we think we are making a true comparison of the way these
alternatives are analyzed.
Senator CLARK. If a new building could be constructed for $36.7
million, including all ancillary costs, such as maintenance and taxes,
PAGENO="0013"
7
wouldn't it still be cheaper than leasing for 20 years, which cur-
rently would cost $55 million?
Mr. SHIPP. If you just compare total cost of dollars without dis-
counting them as we have done here.
Senator CLARK. What are the other factors? WTould you explain
why you think it is better?
Mr. SHIPP. Insofar as the straight construction cost, which in
this case it actually is around $26 million, if you compare that par-
ticular sum with the projected annual rental over a period of 20
years, such as we have done here, it is apparent that just a straight
comparison of the two sums would have direct Federal construction
less costly.
However, the essential difference is that under direct Federal
construction the total ~um for the construction is paid out in 1 or
2 years, whereas the rental cost under a lease arrangement is paid
out over a period of 20 years, the term of the lease.
Considering the fact that present money is worth more than
future money-
Senator CLARK. What is that?
Mr. Srnpp. That is essentially the basis for discount. In other
words, you would be willing to take fewer dollars today than you
would to wait for those dollars to be given to you over a period
of years.
So when you apply a discount factor to these two sums of mpney
that will be expended over a term, you come up with a lesser cost
for leasing.
Senator CLARK. But you feel that the taxpayers' money is being
more wisely spent through a leasing proposition than direct new
construction?
Mr. Siupp. I can say that the analysis that has been used would
indicate this.
Senator CLARK. Why in less than a month after submitting a
prospectus for leasing and stating this costs less and is in the gov-
ernment's best interest has GSA now come in with a proposal for
purchase contract construction instead?
Mr. SHIPP. There were two factors in this. First of all, Senator
Thurmond was interested in having this building as either a pur-
chase contract or Federal construction.
The second factor was that our technical staff felt that the pro-
ject was not really a viable project as a lease construction project
because we will have to, or the private developer will have to, as-
semble a site that will have about 4.5 to 5 acres of land in it.
It is extremely difficult to assemble a site of that magnitude in
the downtown area of a major community like Columbia, or on the
fringe of that downtown area, when neither the government nor the
private developer has condemnation authority.
So we felt that under the circumstances, the project was not a
viable project for lease construction. Therefore, we went to 0MB
and discussed the matter with them. I think Senator Thurmond
also discussed with officials over there this matter.
PAGENO="0014"
8
It was agreed that the amendment that was submitted would be
prepared and forwarded to the committees.
Senator CLARK. The estimated cost under purchase contract is
shown as $26 million, which doesn't include financing costs. What
would the total costs actually be?
Mr. SHIPP. Senator, I do not have that information at hand, and
I would not want to guess at it. I will be glad to provide that for
you.
[The following was subsequently supplied:]
The total cost of acquisition of the building will be in the range of
2% to 3 times the project cost of $26.6 million.
Senator CLARK. Wouldn't direct construction financed at Treasury
rates be least expensive of all? Why isn't that proposed?
Mr. Smr~. If you apply the economic analysis system that is
specified by 0MB, it could be that direct Federal construction is
cheaper, particularly if you used a lower discount rate.
Senator CLARK. That concludes our questions.
[Responses to additional questions, the prospectus, and a letter from
Senator Hollings follow:]
PAGENO="0015"
9
COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA
COURTHOUSE - FOB
~~~IONS AND ~ANSWERS
A -1. WHO DETERMINED THAT THE U.S. COURTS HERE NEED ADDITIONAL SPACE? THIS
IS USED AS JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PROJECT AND YET THEY ARE ASSIGNED
ONLY 5 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL PROPOSED.
Previously answered.
A -2. WHY DOESN'T THE HOUSING PLAN INDICATE THE CURRENT SPACE SITUATION AND
* AGENCY REQUIREMENTS?
The housing plan provided with the prospectus was developed after
consultation with Coimnittee staff members. Present housing at the
time of prospectus preparation can be furnished should the Committee
desire it.
A -3. TREASURY DEPARTMENT WILL BE ASSIGNED 10 PERCENT OF THE NEW SPACE.
WHAT PERCENTAGE DO THEY HAVE NOW?
Treasury Department will be assigned 22 percent (47,135 sq. ft.) of the
agency office space (214,470 sq. ft.) in the CT-FOB at the time the
building is occupied. The Treasury Department presently occupies
42,328 square feet of space, or 15 percent of the 274,551 total square
feet currently occupied by the non-postal agencies in Columbia.
A -4. GSA WILL BE ASSIGNED 53 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL. WHAT PERCENTAGE DO THEY
HAVE NOW? THIS INCLUDES AN UNEXPLAINED AREA FOR "EXPANSION", THAT IS
LARGER THAN THE SPACE ASSIGNED TO THE COURTS. EXPLAIN.
Previously answered.
A -5. THE PROSPECTUS STATES THAT 18 AGENCIES ARE NOW HOUSED IN 274,600 SQ. Fl.
OF SPACE. WHY, NOW, IS THERE A NEED FOR NEARLY DOUBLE THAT ANOUNT, OR
501,600 SQ. FT.? WHAT "INCREASED AGENCY NEEDS" ARE THERE?
Previously answered.
A -6. THE PROSPECTUS REFERS TO A NEED FOR OVER 500,000 SQ.. FT. OF SPACE.
RECONCILE THIS WITH THE 214,000 SQ. FT. NOTED UNDER CURRENT HOUSING
COSTS FOR AGENCIES TO BE HOUSED, IN EXHIBIT B.
The need for 524,773 square feet of space required for proposed
housing is as follows:
Current housing to aew building 214,028 sq. ft.
Increase in agency requirements 13,033 sq. ft.
Parking 208,250 sq. ft.
Vehicle maintenance 1,900 sq. ft.
Increase in service and
custodial areas 3,759 sq. ft.
- - GSA-PBS May 31, 1974
PAGENO="0016"
10
Reserve for future agency
expansion 23,280 sq. ft.
Retained VA ROB 59,119 sq. ft.
GSA storage 1,404 sq. ft.
TOTAL 524,773 sq. ft.
A -7. WHAT IMPACT WILL CANCELLATION OF LEASED SPACE TOTALING $437,000
ANNUALLY HAVE ON THE COMMUNITY?
Previously answered.
A -8. PARKING FOR 595 CARS IS PROPOSED. THIS WOULD BE A SPACE FOR 2 OF EVERY
3 PERSONS. WHAT IS THE NORMAL RATIO?
Previously answered.
A -9. WHAT IS PROPOSED FOR PARKING. .. .A NEW STRUCTURE? WHAT IS THE COST?
The parking facility proposed in the prospectus is a separate two-
level structure (slab on grade plus structural deck) adequate to
accommodate 595 cars. The open decks will be screened with an
architectural treatment compatible to the area. The estimated
cost of the parking facility is $2.7 million (construction capability
July 1975) and the gross area is 230,000 square feet.
A-lO. THE PROSPECTUS STATES "GSA WILL DEFER THIS UNTIL A PARKING POLICY IS
ESTABLISHED." WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?
GSA's parking policy presently being developed will provide the criteria
to be used in determining the number of parking spaces to be provided
at Federal buildings and facilities and the method to be used in
allocating existing and planned parking spaces. The order will consider
greater car pooling among employees as a part of GSA's overall energy
conservation program. It is planned to issue permanent regulations
within the next 6 months.
A-ll. WHY ISN'T A SEPARATE COST BREAKDOWN FURNISHED FOR PARKING, SINCE
PROBLEMS SEEM TO BE INVOLVED? WILL A SEPARATE LEASE BE REQUIRED?
OR A SEPARATE CONSTRUCTION ARRANGEMENT?
The estimate used for the prospectus computed the costs of the various
functions of the facility, including parking, and was combined into a
total figure for presentation. It is anticipated that the parking
facility will be bid and constructed in the lump sum contract with
the remainder of the facility.
GSA-PBS May 31, 1974
PAGENO="0017"
11
A-l2. THE PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE 1 SHOWS THE ACTUAL CON-
STRUCTION COST TO BE ONLY 48 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL USED FOR COMPARSION
AGAINST OTHER METHODS. O&M COSTS ARE NEARLY HALF OF THE CONSTRUCTION
COST AND TAXES NEARLY A THIRD. IS THIS A TRUE COMPARISON?
Previously answered.
A-13. IF A NEW BUILDING COULD BE CONSTRUCTED FOR $36.7 MILLION, INCLUDING ALL
ANCILLARY COSTS SUCH AS MAINTENANCE AND TAXES, WOULDN'T IT STILL BE
CHEAPER THAN LEASING FOR 20 YEARS WHICH WILL COST $55 MILLION?
Previously answered.
A-14. IF A LEASE IS DETERMINED PREFERABLE WOULD IT BE RENEWABLE? WOULD IT
BE FOR FULLY SERVICED SPACE? AND CONTAIN ESCALATION CLAUSES?
If the Columbia building is acquired under a lease arrangement, the
lease will include options to renew for additional periods of time
up to a total of at least 20 years. It is contemplated that the Govern-
ment will provide all services and utilities. A tax escalation clause
and an escalation clause for those limited maintenance operations to
be performed by the lessor would be included in the lease contract.
A-15. WHY, IN LESS THAN A MONTH AFTER SUBMITTING A PROSPECTUS FOR LEASING, AND
STATING THIS COSTS LESS AND IS IN THE GOVERNMENT'S BEST INTERESTS, HAS
GSA NOW COME IN WITH A PROPOSAL FOR PURCHASE CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION
INSTEAD?
Previously answered.
A-16. THE ESTIMATED COST UNDER PURCHASE CONTRACT IS SHOWN AS $26,675,000 WHICH
DOES NOT INCLUDE FINANCING COSTS. WHAT WOULD THE TOTAL COST ACTUALLY
BE? WOULDN'T DIRECT CONSTRUCTION FINANCED AT TREASURY RATES BE THE
LEAST EXPENSIVE OF ALL? WHY ISN'T THIS PROPOSED?
Previously answered.
GSA-PBS Hay 31, 1974
36-623 0 - 74 - 2
PAGENO="0018"
12
B -1. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE HOUSE COMMITTEE HAS APPROVED THE PROSPECTUS
WITH THE PROVISO THAT IT BE BUILT EITHER BY PURCHASE CONTRACT, OR BY
DIRECT FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION. SPECIFICALLY, THE HOUSE REFUSED TO ALLOW
STRAIGHT LEASE ACQUISITION. DOES GSA BELIEVE THAT SUCH A RESTRICTION
WILL PREVENT CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT?
No. GSA does not believe that the restriction against leasing of the
proposed building in Columbia will prevent construction of the project.
It is important, however, that the Senate and House Committees
authorize the project on the samebasis.
B -2. AT WHAT RATE OF INTEREST WAS THE SO-CALLED PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS
UNDERTAKEN?
The Present Value Analysis was based on a 6 percent discount rate.
B -3. I NOTICE THAT 208,000 OF THE 464,000 SQUARE FEET IN THE PROPOSED
BUILDING IS FOR 595 PARKING SPACES. WHERE WILL PARKING BE LOCATED?
WILL IT BE UNDERGROUND OR IN AN ADJACENT BUILDING? WHAT WOULD BE THE
COST OF THE FACILITY WITHOUT ANY PARKING? WHAT WOULD BE THE PER-SPACE
COST OF THE PARKING FACILITY? HOW DOES THAT COMPARE WITH OTHER PARKING
FACILITIES IN COLUMBIA? HOW MANY SPACES WILL BE ALLOTTED TO EMPLOYEES?
HOW MANY TO VISITORS? HOW WILL EMPLOYEE PARKING BE DIVIDED AMONG THE
EXECUTIVE AND CLERICAL STAFFS?
The parking facility will be a separate but adjacent two-level structure
(slab on grade plus structural deck) adequate to accommodate 595 cars.
The construction cost per car space is $4,210 which compares favorably
to parking facilities GSA has constructed in other areas of the county.
The project cost, without the parking facility, including site,
architect fees, management and inspection, and construction costs is
estimated to be $24.0 million and the estimated total project cost
including the parking facility is approximately $26.7 million.
Employees will be allotted 190 spaces and visitors 127. It is pro-
posed that not more than 10 percent of the employee parking spaces
will be assigned to executive personnel. The balance of the employee
parking spaces will be assigned on a basis that will encourage car-
pooling and use of public transportation facilities.
B -4. WHAT WILL BE THE APPROXIMATE ANNUAL REVOLVING FUND RENTAL CHARGES ON
EACH FEDERAL AGENCY IN THIS BUILDING?
The approximate annual revolving fund rental charges on each Federal
agency in the building today would be as follows:
Special type space:
U.S. Courts $9.60 sq. ft.
Office type space 5.61 sq. ft.
Storage type space 3.06 sq. ft.
Inside parking 0.96 sq. ft.
Note: Subject to adjustment at time of building delivery.
GSA-PBS May 31, 1974
PAGENO="0019"
13
B -5. WHAT WILL BE DONE WITH THE PRESENT OFFICE SPACE RENTED BY THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN COLUMBIA? WILL THERE BE ANY LEASE CANCELLATION
FEES?
The present office space rented by the Federal Government in Columbia
will be returned to the lessor for lease in the private sector. GSA
will do its utmost to coordinate any lease cancellations with the
occupancy date of the new building without penalty to the Government.
For the past 3 years all lease terms have been negotiated in a manner
to coincide with our best estimate for the completion of any proposed
project for the city. Therefore, we do not anticipate any payments
of lease cancellation fees.
B -6. WHERE WILL BUILDING BE CONSTRUCTED?
A specific site for the construction of the building has not been
selected. After the project is fully authorized, we will conduct an
investigation of potential sites in the city. A site will be selected
after this investigation is completed. It is anticipated that the
site selected will be in or on the fringe of the central business area
of the city.
GSA-PBS Nay 31, 1974
PAGENO="0020"
14
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PSC-74012
PROJECT NUMBER : LSC-745l2
PROSPECTUS FOR PROPOSED LEASE
UNDER THE PUBLIC BUILDINGS ACT OF 1959, AS AMENDED
LEASED COURTHOUSE AND OFFICE BUILDING,
PARKING FACILITY AND VEHICLE
MAINTENANCE FACILITY COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT:
This prospectus proposes the acquisition by lease of space in an office
building with related facilities to be constructed by a private developer
to house the United States Courts and other Federal agencies in Columbia.
The project will provide a total occupiable area of about 465,000 square
feet and will include parking for approximately 595 Government-owned,
visitor and employee vehicles and a Vehicle Maintenance Facility. The
building will be constructed on a site acquired by a private developer.
These new facilities will replace four inadequate Government-owned
buildings and space leased at 19 scattered locations. It will also provide
accommodations for increased agency space needs, and improve agency housing.
The lease will be for a firm term of 20 years, beginning on or about
January 1, 1976, at an estimated total annual cost of $2,740,000.
2. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
a. PROJECT NEED:
There is a need to provide additional space for the United States Courts
and to consolidate and improve the quality of agency housing for certain
other nonpostal Government activities. Federal agencies are housed in
about 274,600 square feet of space in five Government-owned buildings
and 19 leased locations. These agencies have a need for an additional
227,000 square feet of space which cannot be provided in existing
Government-owned buildings. The existing space is of varying quality and
widely scattered which causes duplication of facilities and increases
operating costs.
Upon completion~of the new buildings, all nonpostal activities will be
consolidated in two locations which will improve agency housing and
coordination, make Government operations more efficient and less costly,
and provide greater convenience to the public. The plan for housing
Federal agencies and the disposition of inadequate buildings is being
closely coordinated with the community in accordance with the Inter-
governmental Cooperation Act of 1968.
b. DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES:
1. Utilization of existing Government-owned buildings.
Existing Government-owned buildings are the U.S. Courthouse (CT); Federal
Office Building (FOB); General Services Administration (GSA) Interagency
Motor Pool (MP); GSA Warehouse (WHSE); and the Veterans Administration
Regional Office Building (VAROB). With the exception of the VAROB,
PAGENO="0021"
15
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PSC-74Ol2
PROJECT NUMBER : LSC-745l2
b. DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES: (Contd)
the buildings are too small, non-functional and cannot be extended. It is
planned to relocate the motor pool operation to the new VflF, retaining the
existing building for storage, and dispose of the CT, FOB and WHSE. The
VAROB. will be retained for continued housing of the present occupants.
2. Acquisition of existing leased space.
Existing rental space is not available in sufficient quantity in one location
to permit consolidation and generally fails to meet Federal quality standards.
3. Acquisition of space in a building to be constructed.
A present value analysis comparing direct Federal construction with lease
construction has been prepared. The analysis indicates that acquiring the
space under a lease arrangement is significantly less costly than public
building construction. Therefore, it is planned to enter into a lease for
construction of the buildings in accordance with the authority contained in
Section 2l0(h)(l) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act
of 1949, as amended. GSA will defer contracting for the parking facility
until a parking policy is determined. (See Exhibit A for Present Value
Analysis of Alternatives.)
3. ESTIMATED MAXIMUM COST: INITIAL LEASE
Estimated Net Average Rental $2,295,488
Estimated Cost of Services 444,675
Estimated Total Annual Cost $2,740,163
4. SPACE PLAN AND RELATED COST DATA: (See attached Exhibit B)
5. STATEMENT OF NEED:
It has been determined that (1) the need for space of the Federal Govern-
ment in this area cannot be satisfied by utilization of existing suitable
property now owned by the Government, and (2) suitable rental space is not
available at a price commensurate with that to be afforded through the
proposed action.
Submitted at Washington, D.C. on ___________
Recommended: ~
Approved : ~
PAGENO="0022"
16
EXHIBIT A
COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PSC-74O12
PROJECT NUMBER : LSC-74512
PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS
Alternative No. 1 Present Value
Direct Federal Construction:
Site Cost $ 3,545,000
Design and Review 1,525,000
Management and Inspection 1,382,000
Construction 20,223,000
Operation, Maintenance and Repair 9,215,354
Real Estate Taxes 5,866,332
Residual Value (-)4,993,560
Total $36,763,126
Alternative No. 2
Leasing:
Annual Rent, Serviced
Present Value Cost
$ 2,740,163
$31,429,670
PAGENO="0023"
17
EXHIBIT B
COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PSC-74Ol2
PROJECT NUMBER : LSC-745l2
Proposed Buildings:
U.S. Courts
U.S. Tax Court
U.S. Attorney & Marshal
Congressional
Dept. of Agriculture:
Agriculture Stabilization & Conservation Service;
Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service;
Extension Service; Farmers Home Administration;
Federal Crop Insurance; Food & Nutrition Service;
Soil Conservation Service; Statistical Reporting
Service
Civil Service Commission
Dept. of Commerce:
Economic Development Administration
Dept. of Defense:
DOD Recruiting; Army National Guard Advisory
Group; Defense Supply Agency; Naval Investigation
Dept. of Health, Education & Welfare:
Food & Drug Administration; Office of the Secretary;
Social Security Administration
Dept. of Housing & Urban Development:
Area Office
Dept. of the Interior:
Bureau of Mines; Geological Survey;
Bureau of Sport Fisheries & Wildlife
Interstate Commerce Commission:
Office of the Managing Director-Field
Dept. of Justice:
Federal Bureau of Investigation; Drug Enforcement
Admini stration
Dept. of Labor:
Bureau of Apprenticeship & Training;
Occupational Safety and Health; Wage-Hour
Selective Service System:
Local Board; State Office
Dept. of Transportation:
Federal Highway Administration; Coast Guard
Recruiting
Dept. of the Treasury:
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms;
Internal Revenue Service; Savings Bonds
Division; U.S. Secret Service; Office of
Comptroller ~of the Currency
Sq. Ft. Personnel
22,000 ( 5%)
1/ -
137250 C 3%)
3,450 ( 1%)
29,850 ( 6%)
28
58
19
171
1,450 ( 1%) 6
790(1%) 5
18,415 C 4%) 114
13,230 C 2%)
72
25,700 ( 5%) 191
8,645 C 2%) 40
480 ( 1%)
16,110 C 3%)
2
102
3,635 C 1%) 22
4,930 ( 1%) 15
5,400 ( 1%) 35
47,135 (10%) 202
COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING PLAN
jjWili utilize court space as required.
PAGENO="0024"
18
General Services Administration:
Parking Facility
Vehicle Maintenance Facility
Other Service & Custodial Areas
Reserve for Expansion
OCCUPIABLE AREA OF BUILDINGS
Retained Government-owned Buildin9s:
Veterans Administration R~gional Office Buildj~g:
Veterans Administration
Other Agencies (4)
Service and Custodial Areas
OCCUPIABLE AREA OF BUILDING
GSA Garage
GSA-Storage
Retained Leased:
None
Current Housing Costs:
For agencies to be housed in proposed building.
EXHIBIT B (Contd)
COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PSC-74O12
PROJECT NUMBER : LSC-74512
Sq. Ft. Personnel
249,780 (53%) 189
208,250
1 ,900
16,350
23,280 ________ ______
464,250 1,271
208
85
20
313
39,537
13,726
5,856
59,119
1 ,4O4
Area Sq. Ft. Annual Cost
a. Leased Space:
Rent (17 locations) 104,683 ~i $436,754
Rent free (2 locations) 2,075 -
b. Government-owned Space:
Operation, maintenance and upkeep 107,270 217,737
Total $654,491
1/Includes congressional space at no cost to GSA.
PAGENO="0025"
19
APPROPRIATIONS
Sosco
Lc~oo, H~c~.sI, Ecoccoico, WcLccct
POSTOFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE
Su~c60IOITs66S:
CSMPSO'SIOH*NS UI.ccMscT
It is my understanding that your Subcommittee is currently
reviewing a proposal to construct a new Federal office building in
Columbia, South Carolina. I want to urge the approval of this pro-
posal.
The present situation in Columbia is intolerable with eighteen
agencies ci.orrently renting space in nineteen locations scattered
throughout the city of Columbia. Complaints regarding inability to
locate agencies or the need to travel back and forth between different
agencies ate numerous. By consolidating the location of these agencies
into one building, the efficiency of the agencies' operations will be
significantly increased. It also will mean greater convenience to the
public and a better quality of services rendered to them. In addition
to being scattered, the buildings in which these agencies are currently
located do not afford adequate space and in several instances the
buildings are obsolete. The new Federal building would provide the
needed space for the 1200 employees currently working for these agencies.
Further, the Federal government would save the $500,000 now spent per
year in rent for the presently occupied quarters.
As the capital of the state, Columbia is the center for many
Federal activities. The quality of these activities will be immeasurably
enhanced by consolidation in the proposed building. Accordingly, I urge
your Subcommittee to approve the proposal currently before you to construct
this building.
Kind, personal regards.
1'
9rnesti. Hollings
ERNEST F. HOLLINGS
FccscM. 523.5cc. CcuThIlS. S.C.
803.765-5731
Fss~.s. RwLoocc, SP cR106. S.C.
803.585-8271
141 Ecsr Soc Ccos.ssmc. S.C.
883-723-1211
`~iCnffc~ ~fcEfCZ ,.~cncdc
WASHINGTON. DC. 20510
May 30, 1974
086088 ~ cHAIRMAN
CccsocMcAYIocH
Senator Dick Clark
Chairman
Public Buildings and Grounds Subcommittee
Public Works Committee
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
EFH:mjb
PAGENO="0026"
20
PITTSFIELD, MASS.-OFFICE BUILDING
Senator CLARK. Are you prepared to take up Pittsfield, Mass.?
Mr. Srnrp. Yes, sir.
The Pittsfield, Mass., prospectus provides for construction of a Fed-
eral Qifice Building (FOB) which is required to consolidate Federal
agencies now located in six scattered leased locations and improve the
quality of agency housing.
The building will be constructed on an existing government-owned
site or on a site to be acquired by exchange with the city of Pitts-
field. A minimum site area of about 40,000 square feet is required.
The FOB will provide a total gross area of about 27,600 square
feet and an occupiable area of about 17,000 square feet, producing
a ratio of about 62 percent of occupiable area to gross area. Onsite
parking will be provided for about 60 vehicles. The total estimated
cost of the project is $2,185,000.
There is a need to consolidate and provide modern, functional,
efficient space for the Federal activities located in about 11,300
square feet of general purpose leased space at six locations. These
locations are widely scattered and generally fail to meet Federal
quality standards.
Consolidation of the Federal activities will improve agency hous-
ing and coordination, make Government operations more efficient
and less costly, and provide greater convenience to the public.
Senator CLARK. What are the Federal quality standards noted
which currently leased space fails to meet?
Mr. SHIPP. We have a quality rating system which considers a
series of factors that relate to comfort in the space, the efficiency of
the air-conditioning system, vertical transportation, and so forth.
We have rated the various buildings that the, agencies now occupy
and we find that they are generally of second-class quality. In other
words, their quality rating is at a level where we would say the
space is second-class and deficient with respect to possibly adequate
heating, lighting, air conditioning, ventilation, toilet facilities.
All of these are not common to every location, but they vary
from location to location. Our general quality rat.ing shows t.hat
we occupy a great amount of second-class space.
Senator CLARK. What sort of land transaction is contemplated
with the city?
Mr. SHIPP. We have a site that we own there now that was ac-
quired from the city in exchange for a post office building which
became surplus to our needs. `The city has proposed that we con-
struct this building in an urban renewal area in the city.
To that end they have proposed a further exchange of property
with us on the basis that they would give us the new site in the
urban renewal area and about $100,000 in addition to cover the
difference in the fair market va.lues.
Senator CLARK. The space ratio of net to gross area. is only 62
percent. What does the remaining 38 percent represent? Is that a
reasonable ratio?
Mr. SHIPP. The remaining 38 percent relates to circulation space,
mechanical space, custodial space, and this type of building support
space, in effect.
PAGENO="0027"
21
We feel that this ratio is an acceptable ratio considering the size
of the building. The smaller the building, in this case this is a
relatively small building, the more difficult it is to achieve a higher
ratio, in the seventies or low eighties, net to gross ratio.
But this 62 percent, considering those factors, is considered a very
acceptable efficiency ratio.
Senator CLARK. The prospectus proposes 60 onsite parking spaces.
Is this an open area or a separate building? Describe that. What
does it cost? Do you have to meet special requirements for Pittsfield?
Mr. SHIPP. The 60 parking spaces would be provided onsite. That
is, we will prepare the site and black top a portion of the site that
we will have for a parking lot, in effect.
It will provide parking on the basis of about 300 square feet per
car. `We anticipate this parking will cost about $15,000 to install.
Senator CLARK. GSA requests authorization for construction
either as a purchase contract project or by direct construction fi-
nanced by their funds.
What is considered a reasonable interest rate in this case?
Mr. SHIPP. Senator, We cannot at this time say what would be a
reasonable interest rate at the time we invite bids for the financing
of this and other buildings.
Our past experience has been that the interest rate bid for pre-
vious buildings has ranged from about 71/4 percent to about 8
percent.
At the time we invite bids and receive them indicating what in-
terest rate would prevail, a decision would have to be made, based
on the condition, of the money market, what the prospect for a
change in money rates might be in the near term, and, of course,
would involve consultation with the money makers in the Treasury
Department.
The final decision as to what would be a reasonable rate would
consider a number of factors. We really can't. say at this time what
that rate might be until we actually have all the factors at hand.
Senator CLARK. What cost would apply if they built with fund
financing at. Treasury rates? Do you know that?
Mr. SHIPP. If I understand your question correctly, the esti-
mated maximum project cost would be $2,185,000. The source of
funding under the Federal building fund, of course, comes from
appropriations made by the Congress to the agencies that are as-
signed space.
They, in effect, pay us a rent. I would assume that to the extent
that it is necessary for the Treasury to borrow money to cover
current Government operations, the cost of the financing there would
be the cost of short-term Treasury paper, which could vary any-
where from 7 percent to 8 percent, perhaps.
Senator CLARK. Sometimes when the estimated cost is shown for
other proiects as an alternative, real estate taxes and 0. & M. costs
are included, which increase the construction cost by 40 percent
or more.
What is the relationship of those items to construction cost, and
why are they included in some cases but not in all cases?
PAGENO="0028"
22
Mr. SHIFT'. The use of taxes and maintenance and operation cost,
this type of thing, is required to complete the economic analysis
that 0MB specified we will make under circular A-104.
They do not relate directly to the actual cost of construction of
the building. They are used only for comparative economic analysis
purposes.
Senator CLARK. This total project is only a little more than $2
million, isn't it?
Mr. SHIFT'. Yes, sir.
Senator CLARK. I am struck by the fact that this particular project
is going to cost a little more than $2 million, and the previous pros-
pectus, which calls for $26 million, and yet the GSA, in terms of
the way prospectuses are presented, gives us about the same amount
of material, that is, about two pages of text and a couple of charts,
and so forth.
Regardless of the other shortcomings that may exist, if the Corps
of Engineers were to come before this committee, and I am speaking
of the committee as a whole, we would probably have volumes of
supporting data; maybe too much.
It seems to me that for the same dollar amounts in terms of
money that we are spending, it would be appropriate to have a more
detailed presentation. I haven't asked John Purinton about this,
but I am sure you are very available and forthcoming in terms of
providing any material that the staff asks for.
It seems to me that a project of that size would warrant more
material. That really comes back to the whole question of whether
or not the committee is going to continue with the present kind of
prospectus or whether we are in fact going to go to the guidelines
that we have been working on for the last year.
It would be my own feeling, and I think that represents the
feeling of all of the other members of the subcommittee, that we
ought to implement those. guidelines at once.
I personally would feel that we ought not to consider other pro-
spectuses in the future until that is done. We want, as we said at
the outset, to consider the point of view of the General Services
Administration before we do that, so that we don't implement
some guideline that is totally impractical or impossible to meet.
Maybe this is a good time just to remind you that it is our in-
tention to require the. material that we have outlined and worked
on. As far as I am concerned, I would prefer not t.o take up any
other prospectuses until that is completed and resolved.
That is a little far afield. You can comment on that, if you wa.nt
to, or you needn't if you don't want to.
Mr. SHIFT'. Senator, I might explain that. you see some pros-
pectuses here that seem to be rather abbreviated. This has come
about, particularly this set of prospectuses~ because in the past,
particularly on the House side, we have had some complaints that
the prospectus material was too long.
When the Congressmen came t.o hearings they had to read through
reams and reams of material to find out. what was bemg proposed.
PAGENO="0029"
23
Senator CLARK. I think summaries are a good idea. I am not op-
posed to what you have here. It seems to me that the staff, in the
normal course of events, as a regular practice, would receive more
material, which would automatically be made available. I am sure
you would be glad to go back and dig anything out of your files
that was requested.
Mr. SHIPP. The prospectus was an attempt, when we discussed
this with the staffs of both committees, to zero in on the essentials
of the projects.
We have a lot of material in our files that can be used to back up
the data we have. We are quite agreeable to expanding the amount
of information in the prospectus.
I think we must keep in mind the fact that the kinds of projects
that we propose are significantly different from the kind that the
Corps of Engineers proposes where they are constructing a dam which
is going to cause the inundation of thousands of acres of property and
which will have a considerable impact on the ecological system~ in the
area.
We are generally constructing Federal buildings in the downtown
area of a community where there are other buildings. We are do-
ing the thing that is very compatible with what is already there.
We are not disturbing it. We are reinforcing and improving con-
ditions in those areas. So we have no problem of providing you
with an expanded amount of information, providing the committee
with an expanded amount of information, and backing up what
we have in here.
I just ask that we keep in mind the fact that the nature of our
projects is somewhat different than the corps.
Senator CLARK. I think that is a fair conclusion. I guess I would
just end this part of the discussion by saying that the committee
has studied it this last year, and have come to the conclusion that
we do want additional material.
I only regret that we were not able to implement this policy
earlier. It was certainly our intention to do it at the earliest possible
time. As I say, as far as I am concerned, I would prefer that we
not consider further prospectuses until that is resolved, but it may
be that the majority of the committee wouldn't support that. I
haven't discussed it with them. I wouldn't want to do that without
their approval.
[Responses to additional questions and the prospectus follow:]
PAGENO="0030"
24
PITTSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS
FEDERAL OFFICE BUILDING
~~~IONS AND ANSWERS
A -1.- WRY IS IT NECESSARY TO CONSOLIDATE THE AGENCIES NOW HOUSED AT 6
LOCATIONS, AND "IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF AGENCY HOUSING?"
Consolidation will improve agency housing and coordination, make
Government operations more efficient and less costly, and provide
greater convenience to the public. Various buildings occupied in
Pittsfield have been rated according to a system that considers
comfort in space, i.e. heating, airconditioning, food service,
efficiency of internal and external transportation, lighting and
space utilization. Application of these standards reveal that
5 of the 6 leased locations presently occupied provide second
class space.
A -2~ WHAT ARE THE FEDERAL QUALITY STANDARDS NOTED WHICH CURRENTLY LEASED
SPACE FAILS TO MEET?
Previously answered.
A -3. WHAT SORT OF LAND TRANSACTION IS CONTENPLATED WITH THE CITY?
- Previously- snawered ._- -
A -4. HOW WAS IT DETERMINED THAT 40,000 SQ. FT. OF LAND WILL BE REQUIRED
FOR A 27,600 SQ. FT. BUILDING?
A feasibility study was prepared which resulted in a determination
that a minimum of 40,000 square feet of land would be adequate to
accommodate the building and 60 surface parking spaces.
A -5. THE SPACE RATIO OF NET TO GROSS AREA IS ONLY 62 PERCENT. WHAT DOES
- THE REMAINING 38 PERCENT REPRESENT?
Previously answered. -
A -6. THE PROSPECTUS PROPOSES 60 "ON-SITE" PARKING SPACES. DESCRIBE IN
DETAIL. IS THIS IN AN OPEN AREA OR SEPARATE BUILDING? WHAT IS THE
COST? WHAT ARE PITTSFIELD'S REQUIREMENTS WHICH MUST BE MET?
Previously answered.
GSA-PBS May 31, 1974
PAGENO="0031"
25
A -7. WILL ANY OF THESE SPACES BE FOR PUBLIC USE?
It is proposed that 6 of the parking spaces be reserved for visitors.
A -8. HOW WAS THE SQ. FT. CONSTRUCTION COST OF THE BUILDING DETERMINED,
SINCE PARKING AND OFFICE SPACE ARE LUMPED TOGETHER?
Estimates are prepared using historical costs corrected for time and
place for the various required functions. The parking and office
spaces were estimated separately and then combined for the prospectus.
A -9. INCLUDING DESIGN, INSPECTION, AND MANAGEMENT, THE SQ. FT. COST WILL
ACTUALLY BE $79.17 INSTEAD OF THE $63.22 INDICATED, WHICH IS MORE THAN
20 PERCENT HIGHER. AREN'T THESE PART OF THE COST?
Construction costs are traditionally expressed in construction dollars,
exclusive of site, design and inspection costs, divided by the con-
puted gross area. An example of problems involved by including other
than construction costs would be the comparison on the basis of total
project costs of an identical building on Government-owned site and
on an expensive downtown site. The overall cost per square foot would
not reflect the similarity in construction costs of the two buildings.
A-1O. WHY IS PURCHASE OF A GOVERNMENT BUILDING, WHICH IS PROPOSED, ALSO
SHOWN AS AN ALTERNATIVE AND AT HIGHER COST?
In the Present Value Cost analysis, the term "purchase" is used to
describe the funding for direct Federal construction. "Purchase
Contract" funding relates to a deferred payment method over a 30
year period which, based on the analysis, would be a less costly
solution than complete payment for the project today.
A-ll. THE PROSPECTUS STATES NO OTHER GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS EXIST, YET NOTES
UTILIZATION OF AN EXISTING BUILDING AS AN ALTERNATIVE. WHY?
The prospectus discusses this alternative to indicate that there is
no existing Government-owned building available for use.
A-l2. GSA REQUESTS AUTHORIZATION FOR CONSTRUCTION EITHER AS A PURCHASE
CONTRACT PROJECI OR BY DIRECT CONSTRUCTION FINANCED BY THEIR FUND.
WHAT IS CONSIDERED A REASONABLE INTEREST RATE IN THIS CASE, THAT
WOULD RESULT IN A DETERMINATION TO GO PURCHASE CONTRACT? ABOUT WHAT
WOULD THE TOTAL COST BE?
It cannot be determined at this time what a reasonable ~nterest will
be in this case. Based on past experience for previous buildings
the interest rate has ranged from 7 1/4% to about 8%. Depending
on the interest rate at which the money is obtained we will make
payments equivalent to two and a half to three times the construction
cost over the period of the purchase contract term.
GSA-PBS May 31, 1973
PAGENO="0032"
26
A-13. WHAT COST WOULD APPLY IF THEY BUILT WITH FUND FINANCING AT TREASURY
RATES?
Previously answered.
A-l4. SOMETINES WHEN THE ESTIMATED COST IS SHOWN FOR OTHER PROJECTS AS AN
ALTERNATIVE, OHM AND REAL ESTATE TAXES ARE INCLUDED WHICH INCREASE
THE CONSTRUCTION COST BY 40 PERCENT OR MORE. WHAT IS THE RELATION-
SHIP OF THESE ITEMS TO CONSTRUCTION COSTS, AND WHY ARE THEY INCLUDED
IN SOME CASES BUT NOT ALL?
Previously answered.
A-l5. WHAT WILL BE THE IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY IF CURRENT LEASES REPRESENTING
$49 , 607 ANNUALLY ARE CANCELLED?
The èancellation of the current leases should not have an adverse
affect on the community. The cancellations will be spread over
6 locations, and there is already a shortage of commercial space in
the city.
B -1. THE PROSPEOUS SAYS THAT THE B1JILDING NIGHT BE ACQUIRED UNDER
SUBSECTION 210(f) OF THE FEDERAL PROPERTY AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
ACT OF 1949, AS AMENDED. THAT IS THE SUBSECTION THAT SETS UP THE
REVOLVING FUND. DOES THAT MEAN GSA WOULD CONSTRUCT THE BUILDING ON
ITS OWN IF THE PURCHASE-CONTRACT AUTHORITY EXPIRES?
Yes.
GSA-PBS Nay 31, 1974
PAGENO="0033"
27
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PMA-74032
PROJECT NUMBER : NMA-74542
PROSPECTUS FOR PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
UNDER THE PUBLIC BUILDINGS ACT OF 1959, AS AMENDED
FEDERAL OFFICE BUILDING PITTSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT:
This prospectus provides for the construction of a Federal Office Building
(FOB) which is required to consolidate Federal agencies now located in six
scattered leased locations and improve the quality of agency housing. The
building will be constructed on an existing Government-owned site or on a
site to be acquired by exchange with the City of Pittsfield. A minimum
site area of about 40,000 square feet is required. The FOB will provide
a total gross area of about 27,600 square feet and an occupiable area of
about 17,000 square feet, producing a ratio of about 62 percent of
occupiable area to gross area. Onsite parking will be provided for about
60 vehicles. The total estimated cost of the project is $2,185,000.
2. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
a. PROJECT NEED:
There is a need to consolidate and provide modern, functional, efficient
space for the Federal activities located in about 11,300 square feet of
general purpose leased space at six locations. These locations are widely
scattered and generally fail to meet Federal quality standards.
Consolidation of the Federal activities will improve agency housing and
coordination, make Government operations more efficient and less costly,
and provide greater convenience to the public.
b. DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES:
1. Utilization of existing Government-owned building.
There is no existing general purpose Government-owned building in Pittsfield.
The Post Office building was vacated by the former Post Office Department
irs: 1967 when postal operations were relocated to a postal leased facility.
Thj~s property was exchanged with the City of Pittsfield for land which
initially was intended as the site for the proposed FOB. However, the City
how prefers for the new building to be constructed in its urban renewal area
and a further property exchange is being negotiated to achieve this objective.
2. Acquisition of consolidated modern leased space.
Consolidation of Federal activities in leased space is not feasible since
existing rental space is not available in sufficient quantity at a single
location. Leasing a building to be constructed by private interests is
not a viable alternative since the building is to be erected on land which
will be in Government ownership.
36-623 0 - 74 - 3
PAGENO="0034"
28
Design and review
Construction (As of June 1975)
Cost per sq. ft. $63.22
Management and inspection
Total Project Cost $2,185,000
*Exclusive of financing and other cost attributable to the purchase
contract method of acquisition.
4. SPACE PLAN AND RELATED COST DATA:
(See attached Exhibit A)
5. STATEMENT OF NEED:
It has been determined that (1) the needs for space of the Federal Government
in this area cannot be satisfied by utilization of existing suitabl.e property
now owned by the Government, and (2) suitable rental space is not available
at a price commensurate with that to be~fforded through the proposed action.
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PMA-74O32
PROJECT NUMBER : NMA-74542
b. DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES: (Cont' d)
3. Acquisition of space in a building to be constructed.
It has been determined that the best i~terests of the United States will be
served by providing for the construction of the project described herein
under the purchase contract provisions of section 5 of the Public Buildings
Amendments of 1972, P.L. 92-313. In the event the authority contained in
section 5 expires before a purchase contract is awarded, or the Administrator
determines, pursuant to section 5(b)(2) of the P.L. 92-313 that a reasonable
rate of interest cannot be obtained for construction of the project by purchas
contract, GSA will proceed with the project utilizing funds to be made avail-
able for this purpose in accordance with subsection 210(f) of the Federal
Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended.
3. ESTIMATED MAXIMUM PROJECT~Q~i: *
$ 244,000
1,745,000
Submitted at Washington, D.C. on
n~fl4 1374
Recommended:
Comrniss~1onef', Public bul
Approved :
PAGENO="0035"
29
EXHIBIT A
PITTSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PMA-74032
PROJECT NUMBER : NMA-74542
COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING PLAN
Proposed Building: _______ _________
Dept. of Agriculture:
Agriculture Stabilization & Conservation
Service; Extension Service; Soil Conservation
Service
Civil Service Commission
Congressional
Dept. of Defense:
DOD Recruiting
Dept. of Health, Education, & Welfare:
Social Security Administration
Selective Service System
Dept. of Transportation:
U.S. Coast Guard
Dept. of the Treasury:
Internal Revenue Service
Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms
General Services Administration:
Service & Custodial 2,100
Reserve for Expansion 1,200
OCCUPIABLE AREA OF BUILDING
Retained Government-owned Building:
None
Retained Leased Space:
None
Current Housing Costs:
For agencies to be housed in proposed building.
Sq. Ft.
3,100 (18%)
Personnel
21
3
7
14
3
25
400
1 ,000
1 ,600
3,200
700
300
3,400
( 3%)
( 6%)
( 9%)
(19%)
( 4%)
( 2%)
(20%)
3,300 (19%) 12
17,000
87
Annual Cost
$48,855
722
$49,607
Area Sq. Ft.
a. Leased Space:
Rent (6 locations) 11,268
Other Costs -
Total
PAGENO="0036"
30
Pittsfield, Massachusetts
Federal Office Building
PRESENT VALUE COST SUM~ThRIES FOB
ALTERNATnTE METHODS OF ACQUISITION
(in thousands of dollars)
Item - 30 Years 7~
PURCHASE:
Improvements $1 ,7)45
Site, design, etc 510
Repair and Improvement 108
Property taxes 1,396
Subtotal $3,759
Less residual value -187
Total _____
PURCHASE CONTRACT5
Annual payments°5 $l,9~3
Repair and Improvement 108
Property Taxes
Subtotal
Less residual value -187
Total $3,260
5Operation and maintenance costs are borne by the Government and
are assumed to be identical for both acquisition methods.
Therefore, they are omitted in this comparison. Imputed insur-
ance premiums are estimated to be negligible relative to other
* costs and therefore omitted.
**Analysis includes the application of adeflatorto each annual
payment thereby shoving payments in constant dollars based on
the initial annual payment. Then, each constant dollar payment
is discounted at 7 percent.
PAGENO="0037"
31
Senator CLARK. Next we are going to Marfa, Tex.
MARFA, TEX.-BORDER PATROL SECTOR HEADQUARTERS
Mr. Srnpp. This prospectus provides for construction of a border
patrol sector headquarters facility to provide space for the Immi-
gration and Naturalization Service (INS) in Marfa, Tex.
The present border patrol sector headquarters facility consists
of six buildings, all of which are obsolete and inadequate for the
present operations of the border patrol. The buildings are old,
dilapidated structures which are deteriorating rapidly and are ex-
pensive to maintain and operate.
The proposed project will provide 3 buildings totaling approxi-
mately 38,000 gross square feet and about 29,000 occupiable square
feet on the existing Government-owned site. The facility will con-
tain office space, an automobile storage garage, an automobile repair
garage and indoor pistol range, and a generator building. The
estimated cost of the project is $1,818,000.
Senator CLARK. Is this facility strictly a headquarters or does it
serve as an inspection station as well?
Mr. SHIPP. It is primarily a headquarters activity. It is the border
patrol sector headquarters. It does not perform an inspection function
at this location.
Senator CLARK. Would you explain the Immigration and Natu-
ralization Service space needs? I see they are increased by 233 per-
cent, from 8,000 square feet to 29,000 square feet. How do you
justify that?
Mr. SHIPP. They have occupied this location for a number of
years. In fact, these buildings date back to World War I. There
has been increased emphasis on enforcing the laws against illegal
entry and on bringing contraband into the country.
Generally speaking, the activities of INS and Customs along the
Mexican border have increased. On that basis the INS has asked
us to provide this size facility.
Senator CLARK. The activities have just increased that much to
justify this?
Mr. SHIPP. Yes, sir. Again, in developing this project we went
to the Immigration and Naturalization Service and asked them to
tell us what their requirements were to perform their mission ade-
quately at this location. These are the requirements that they have
come up with and we have interpreted in the prospectus.
Senator CLARK. Is the existing 8.21 acre Government-owned site
adequate?
Mr. Snipp. Yes, sir. This site will be adequate for the proposed
structures.
Senator CLARK. If space is crucial why is the ratio of gross to
usable square feet only 76 percent? Why aren't assigned areas and
personal distribution shown?
Mr. Smpp. We could have broken that down and shown that in
detail. There are a very small number of people involved and we
PAGENO="0038"
32
feel, considering the size of the project, that the net-to-gross ratio
is a very good one. If you want a breakdown of personnel by build-
ings, I would be glad to provide that fo.r you.
Senator CLARK. That isn't necessary. If financed from the GSA
building fund, what would the priority of this project be, as a
competitive budget line item?
Mr. Srnpp. Generally speaking, law enforcement facilities of this
type do not compete with other Federal building construction. They
have a priority of their own. They are considered outside of the
system. As between a border inspection station, a station wh~re
traffic is being examined as it enters into the country, the border
inspection facility probably would receive a. priority over a border
patrol sector headquarters.
[Responses to additional questions and the prospectus follow:]
PAGENO="0039"
33
~ T
BORDER PATROL SECTOR HEADQUARTERS
~~TIONS AND ANSWERS
A -1. IS THIS FACILITY STRICTLY A HEADQUARTERS OR WILL IT ALSO SERVE AS
AN INSPECTION STATION?
Previously answered.
A -2. WHAT IS ITS LOCATION, WITH REFERENCE TO BORDER CROSSING POINTS?
It is 65 miles due north of the Presidio-Ojinaga border crossing.
A -3. WHERE IS THE NEAREST INSPECTION STATION? WHAT FACILITIES DO THEY
HAVE AND WHAT IS THEIR GENERAL CONDITION?
The nearest inspection station is Presidio-Ojinaga. This station
consists of a joint administration building, a canopy for primary
and secondary inspection, a dock facility and an import lot. The
buildings are in poor condition. Presidio County has applied to
Department of State for a permit to build new bridge at different
location and when approved, the inspection station will have to be
relocated and at that time it is planned to replace facility.
A -4. WHY DO IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE SPACE NEEDS ESCALATE
SUDDENLY FROM THE PRESENT 8.700 SQ. FT. to 29,000 SQ. FT., OR 233%?
Previously answered.
A -5. IS THE EXISTING 8.21-ARCE GOVERNMENT-OWNED SITE ADEQUATE?
Previously answered.
A -6. WHY IS AN INDOOR PISTOL RANGE REQUIRED, RATHER TITAN OUTDOOR?
An outdoor range would have to be at a remote location for safety
- reasons. Border Patrol officers must qualify on their weapons every
three months and they must be given a reasonable opportunity to
practice to maintain their proficiency. Travel to a remote location
would result in lost time.
A -7. WHY WILL IT BE IN THE SANE BUILDING WITH AN AUTO REPAIR SHOP?
This will provide control of who uses range, provide safety and
will give construction cost savings as repair shop requires pits
to be dug and the range pits can be dug adjacent at the same time.
GSA-PBS May 31, 1974
PAGENO="0040"
34
Combined auto repair shop/pistol range is standard design used
throughout Sector Headquarters.
A -8. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE VEHICLE-STORAGE BUILDING?
Vehicles are kept here in between shifts. Each shift has a different
amount of vehicles required and excess is kept in building. Building
will only hold a maximum of 30% of fleet.
A -9. WHY ISN'T A BREAKDOWN GIVEN IN THE PROSPECTUS OF THE SEPARATE COSTS
OF THE 4 INDIVIDUAL BUILDINGS PROPOSED?
It was considered sufficient to report the costs in summary form.
The Public Buildings Act of 1959, as amended, required only total
estimated maximum project cost.
A-1O. IF SPACE IS SO CRUCIAL, WHY IS THE RATIO OF GROSS TO USABLE SQ. F~.
ONLY 76 PERCENT? WHY AREN'T ASSIGNED AREAS AND PERSONNEL DISTRIBUTION
SHOWN?
The efficiency factor of 76 percent is very good for the relatively
small buildings(s) required for this project. Space and cost for
entire facility was reported in summary form. See attached sheet
for breakdown of assigned areas and personnel distribution.
A-ll. IS THE STAND-BY GENERATOR INCLUDED IN THE PROJECT COST?
No. It has been assumed that any required stand-by generators would
- be moved from the existing facilities at Marf a.
A-l2. WHAT DOES `ESTIMATED MAXIMUM CONSTRUCTION COST AS OF OCTOBER 1975"
MEAN? WILL IT BE HIGHER AFTER THAT TIME?
The estimated construction capability date (receipt of bids) was
October 1975. Any slippage in that date will cause the construction
costs to be increased by an amount equivalent to the rate of escalation
beyond October 1975. This request is for a maximum limit of authority
only.. . . if the project is awarded before October 1975 then fewer
dollars will be required from Purchase Contract financing.
A-13. WHY WAS THE PURCHASE CONTRACT METHOD OF FINANCING THE PROJECT DETERMINED
PREFERABLE? WHAT IS CONSIDERED A "REASONABLE" RATE OF INTEREST?
It cannot be determined at this time what a reasonable interest will
be in this case. Based on past experience for previous buildings
the interest rate has ranged from 7 1/4% to about 8%.
A-l4. IF FINANCED FROM GSA'S BUILDING FUND, WHAT WOULD THE PRIORITY OF
THIS PROJECT BE AS A COMPETITIVE BUDGET LINE ITEM?
Previously answered.
GSA-PBS May 31, 1974
PAGENO="0041"
35
B -1. IF GSA DOES NOT USE PURCHASE CONTRACT, IS IT MY UNDERSTANDING THAT
THE FACILITY WOULD BE BUILT BY DIRECT FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION?
This understanding is correct.
GSA-PBS Nay 31, 1974
PAGENO="0042"
Answer to Question 10-A
36
Proposed Housing
Person-
Sq. Ft. nel
Admin. Building: 6,230
Reserve for Expansion 3,000
Custodial 500
9,730 42
Vehicle Repair Building:
Repair 4,525
Pistol Range 4,650
9,175 5
Vehicle Storage Building:
Vehicle Storage 9,820
Generator 200
10,020 -
MARFA, TEXAS
ASSIGNED AREAS AND PERSONNEL DISTRIBUTION
Existing Housing
Person-
Sq. Ft. nel
4,600
~ 42
3,620
3,620 5
Admin. Building
Vehicle Storage &
Repair Building
Generator Building 96
96
Plumber's and
Carpenter's Shop 400
Total-Net Assignable
Square Feet 8,716
*Included in Custodial Area Above
47
*
28,925 47
GSA/PBS May 31, 1974
PAGENO="0043"
37
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PTX-73031
PROJECT NUMBER : NTX-73003
PROSPECTUS FOR PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
UNDER THE PUBLIC BUILDINGS ACT OF 1959, AS AMENDED
BORDER PATROL SECTOR HEADQUARTERS MARFA, TEXAS
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT:
This prospectus provides for construction of a Border Patrol Sector Head-
quarters facility to provide space for the Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS) in Marfa, Texas. The present Border Patrol Sector Headquarters
facility consists of six buildings, all of which are obsolete and inadequate
for the present operations of the Border Patrol. The buildings are old,
dilapidated structures which are deteriorating rapidly and are expensive to
maintain and operate.
The proposed project will provide four buildings totalling approximately
38,000 gross square feet and about 29,000 occupiable square feet on the
existing Government-owned site. The facility will contain office space, an
automobile storage garage, an automobile repair garage and indoor pistol range,
and a generator building. The estimated cost of the project is $1,818,000.
2. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
a. PROJECT NEED:
Federal agencies currently occupy about 16,300 square feet of space in Marfa.
INS occupies about 8,700 square feet of Government-owned space, consisting
of the six buildings contained in the present Border Patrol Sector Headquarters
facility. The Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Postal Service occupy
about 7,600 square feet of leased space in four locations.
The present Border Patrol Sector Headquarters facility consists of three
Headquarters buildings totalling about 4,600 square feet, a vehicle storage
repair building containing about 3,600 square feet, a plumber's and carpenter's
shop of 400 square feet; and a generator building with 100 square feet.
The four new buildings will consolidate administrative operations in a single
building, provide facilities for vehicle repair and a pistol range in a second
building, provide for vehicle storage in a third, and provide a larger
generator building with a standby generator with automatic switching in case
of commercial power failure.
PAGENO="0044"
38
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PTX-7303l
PROJECT NUMBER : NTX-73003
b. DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES:
1. Alterations to the Border Patrol Sector Headquarters facility.
The buildings, the first of which Is believed to have been built during
World War I, are old, dilapidated structures which are expensive to maintain
and operate. Continued utilization of these physically and functionally
obsolete structures could not be justified. Therefore, demolition of all
present facilities is planned and will be phased with construction so as to
least afi'ect agency operations.
2. Acquisition of consolidated modern lease space.
Rental space of the type and quantity needed is not available; therefore,
leasing is not a feasible alternative for satisfying the needs for a Border
Patrol Sector Headquarters facility.
3. Acquisition of space in buildings to be constructed.
The Administrator of General Services (GSA) has determined that the best
interests of the United States will be served by providing for the construction
of the facility described herein under the purchase contract provisions of
section 5 of the Public Buildings P~iendments of 1972 (P.L, 92-313). In the
event the authority contained in section 5 expires before a purchase contract
Is awarded, or the Administrator determines, pursuant to section 5(b)(2) of
P.L. 92-313 that a reasonable rate of interest cannot be obtained for
construction of the project by purchase contract, GSA will proceed with the
project utilizing funds to be made available for this purpose in accordance
with section 3 of P.L. 92-313.
3. ESTIMATED MAXIMUM PROJECT COST: *
Estimated site, design & review costs
Site (approx. 8.21 acres) Government-owned
Design & review costs $ 173,000
Total $ 173,000
Estimated construction costs
as of October 1975 $1,505,000
Cost per sq. ft. $39.62
Estimated management & inspection costs $ 140,000
Total Project Cost $1,818,000
* Exclusive of financing and other costs attributable to the purchase contract
method of acquisition.
-2-
PAGENO="0045"
39
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PTX-73031
PROJECT NUMBER : NTX-73003
4. SPACE PLAN AND RELATED COST DATA:
(See attached Exhibit A)
5. STATEMENT OF NEED:
It has been determined that (1) the needs for space of the Federal Government
in this area cannot be satisfied by utilization of existing suitable property
now owned by the Government, and (2) suitable rental space is not available
at a price commensurate with that to be afforded through the proposed action.
DEC 20 1973
Submitted at Washington, D.C. on _________________________________
Recommended:
Corn
Approved : d~o of General Services / /
PAGENO="0046"
40
EXHIBIT A
MARFA, TEXAS
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PTX-7303l
PROJECT NUMBER : NTX-73003
CGIPREHENSIVE HOUSING PLAN
Proposed Buildings (4): Sq. Ft. Personnel
OCCUPIABLE AREA OF BUILDINGS 25,925 47
Retained Government-owned Buildings:
None (all present G/O buildings to be demolished at time of construction).
Retained Leased Builoj~g~:
Agriculture 5,256 6
Postal Service 2,300 6
Total Retained Leased 7,556 12
Current Housing Costs: Area Sq. Ft. Annual Cost
a. Leased Space:
None - -
b. Government-owned Space:
Operation, maintenance and upkeep 8,716 $23,400
Total $23,400
PAGENO="0047"
41
Senator CLARK. Next we go to Tok Junction, Alaska.
TOK JUNCTION, ALASKA
Would you speak to the Alaska highway border station.
Mr. Snipp. A project for the construction of the Alaska highway
border station at a total estimated maximum cost of $1,641,000,
on a site to be acquired near Tok Junction, approximately 97 miles
from the Alaska-Yukon border, was approved by the Committee
on Public Works of the Congress on April 4, 1963.
Subsequently, it was determined that the proposed facility should
be located in close proximity to the border, on land to be acquired
from the public domain. A revised prospectus reflecting the change
in location at the same total cost was approved by the Committees
on Public Works of the Congress in April 1964.
The facility is now in operation at mile post 1221.8 on the Alaska
highway, having been substantially completed in August 1971. How-
ever, in order to keep construction costs within approved prospectus
limits only three of the five planned residences were built and the
landscaping was eliminated.
In the meantime, each agency procured mobile home units. The
mobile homes "Arctic trailers" are entirely inadequate to satisfy
present housing needs. The Bureau of Customs, Immigration and
Naturalization Service, and the General Services Administration
have reevaluated their long-range requirements for residences based
on operating experience to date and have determind that a total
of four additional new residences are required to satisfy housing re-
quirements; two for the Bureau of Customs and one each for INS
and GSA.
The border station is completely isolated being almo~t ~ioo miles
from the nearest TIT.S. community with even minimal amenities and
services. The factor of morale and harmony cannot be overempha-
sized and the provisions of comparable living quarters for each
family is of considerable significance in insuring a high level of
employee morale. Because of the i~emote location of this project, the
need has also been identified for construction of recreational facili-
ties. The construction of these facilities is being foregone at this
time due to the urgency for construction of the additional residences
and budget limitations.
This project contemplates the construction of four additional
residences with the provision for landscaping and other miscella-
neous items at a total cost of $821,000.
Senator CLARK. When this revised prospectus was submitted origi-
nally 1 year ago, Senator McClure raised a number of questions
about the cost figures which appeared to show that each of the four
residences would cost $200,000. Senator McClure has submitted a
number of questions to the GSA on this prospectus. I have those
questions and answers in my hand. For the purposes of the record
I would like to include them in the record. (See p. 44.)
Could you provide us with an update on the cost of each house as
well as an update on staffing needs at the border station since we
discussed it last.
PAGENO="0048"
42
Mr. SHIPP. At this time we estimate the cost of each one of t.hese
residences to be approximately $90,000 or $35 a square foot.
Senator CLARK. And the staffing?
Mr. SHIPP. This will provide staffing for 10 people, or housing
for 10 people, at this particular location, 2 of them for the General
Services Administration, 3 for Justice and 5 for Treasury.
Senator CLARK. How many houses are there?
Mr. SHIPP. There are three there at the present time. We are going
to build four more.
Senator CLARK. At approximately $90,000 each?
Mr. SHIPP. Yes, sir.
Senator CLARK. What would it cost to purchase and place perma-
nent Arctic trailers on the sites as a way of meeting the housing
need? Was that studied as an alternative? Is that impractical? Do
you know anything about that?
Mr. SHIPP. We have four Arctic trailers there now. I do not have
at hand current cost figures for acquiring four more Arctic trailers
and siting them there rather than building the houses. I can provide
that information for you.
Senator CLARK. If it isn't too difficult to get, it might be helpful.
(See question A-14 and B-s and the responses thereto inserted in
the record at pp. 45-46.)
What is the nearest community offering such things as hospitals,
schools, churches, entertainment, shopping facilities? How far away
is it?
Mr. SHIPP. Actually, a community of that kind is approximately
300 miles away-Fairbanks.
Senator CLARK. Will the four new houses proposed take care of
all the foreseen needs or will the four Arctic trailers be retained
as well?
Mr. SHIPP. Originally we contemplated disposal of the four Arc-
tic trailers that are there. But we now contemplate retention of
these trailers to provide for temporary or summer employees who
come to that station to assist with the increased workload that oc-
curs during the summer months.
Senator CLARK. So you are going to retain the trailers?
Mr. Surer. Yes, sir. We feel at this time these three houses plus
the Arctic trailers will take care of our foreseen needs at this
location.
Senator CLARK. Are the four proposed new houses identical or
will they be identical to the three that are there now?
Mr. SHIPP. Our present planning contemplates that they will be
identical, although as the architect designs them he may make some
design innovations so that there will be some slight differences.
Senator CLARK. Did the $83,000 for the original houses include
design and site cost?
Mr. Srnrr. That included only construction cost. It did not in-
clude design or site cost.
Senator CLARK. What is the comparable cost figure of the original
houses?
PAGENO="0049"
43
Mr. SHTPP. We estimate the cost of the houses we will build now
to be $90,000.
Senator CLARK. And that compares with $83,000 for the same
type?
Mr. SHIPP. Yes, sir.
Senator CLARK. The design and site costs now proposed are esti-
mated at $460,688 which, prorated comes out to $116,172 per unit,
or more than the houses cost. Why is that?
Mr. SHIPP. The design and site cost that you are speaking about
cover certain site work and utilities. I have a list of them here.
They total $460,000. It consists of the following items: (1) Replace
two existing 150 kVA generators with two new 250 kVA gener-
ators at a cost of $116,000. Item B would be to extend the paved
areas to the new residences; extend the street lighting at a cost of
$57,500; (c) extend outside utilities, the primary waterlines, to utila-
door and residences, power and hot waterlines in utiladoor and resi-
dences, $33,500; landscape planning, topsoil, fertilizer, seed and so
forth, $30,000; fine arts in the station building, totems, panel carvings
and so forth, $30,500, and a $17,000 item for contingencies.
There is a station-type space within the shell of the residences
at a cost of $87,188.
Finally, design, management and inspection at a total cost of
$879,000 for a total cost of $460,688.
Senator CLARK. In answer to one of the Member's questions last
August, $284,500 was cited as the total site cost. How can this be
reconciled with the figure that is shown now, $460,688?
Mr. SHIPP. The first six items that I just read off constitute
$284,500. That is a part of the $460,688. The additional cost involved
over and above the $284,500 is for the station-type space within the
shell of the residences and the design, management and inspection,
and totals $87,188. So the $284,500 is a component of the $460,688
figure that we were just talking about.
Senator CLARK. Were design alternatives considered in an effort
to reduce the cost?
Mr. SHIPP. The buildings have not as yet been designed but when
we instruct the architect-engineer I am sure we will advise him to
consider design alternatives in an effort to keep costs to an absolute
minimum.
Senator CLARK. What is the agency expansion of 8,260 feet in-
dicated in the housing plan? Does this mean two more houses?
Mr. SHIPP. There are four more houses. Right now there is a
total of 13,000 square feet of agency space, 13,200. The way the
prospectus is presented it shows space to be replaced, 4,940 square
feet, which was the Arctic trailers being in place. The difference
between that figure and the total 13,200 represents, in effect an ex-
pansion of 8,260 square feet. This is on Exhibit A, the analysis
of new construction. It is the addition of certain footage and the
loss of certain footage to develop the net.
Senator CLARK. Thank you.
[Responses to additional questions and questions from Senator Mc-
Clure, and the prospectus, follows:]
36-623 0 - 74 - 4
PAGENO="0050"
44
TOK JUNCTION, ALASKA
BORDER STATION RESIDENCES, ETC.
~ESTIONS AND ANSWERS
A -1. WHAT IS THE NEAREST COMMUNITY OFFERING AMENITIES SUCH AS HOSPITALS,
SCHOOLS, CHURCHES, ENTERTAINMENT, AND SHOPPING FACILITIES?
Previously answered.
A -2. WHAT RECREATIONAL FACILITIES ARE PROVIDED AT THE SITE?
Basement recreation rooms.
A -3. HOW MANY FAMILIES ARE THERE? WHERE DO THEY LIVE NOW?
There are seven families at the facility.
They are housed as follows:
Three families occupy the existing three houses and one lives off
site in a private residence. The remaining families occupy three
trailers. One trailer and two apartments are used by single
individuals and seasonal employees.
A -4. WILL THE 4 NEW HOUSES PROPOSED TAKE CARE OF ALL FORESEEN NEEDS?
WILL THE 4 ARTIC TRAILERS BE RETAINED? WHY?
Previously answered.
A -5. WILL THE FOUR PROPOSED NEW HOUSES BE IDENTICAL TO THE THREE THAT ARE
THERE NOW?
Previously answered.
A -6. GSA REPORTED THAT THE COST OF EXISTING HOUSES WAS ABOUT $83,000 EACH.
THE HOUSING PLAN INDICATES THEY ARE APPROXIMATELY 5,630 SQ. FT. IN
SIZE, WHICH WOULD BE ABOUT $14.74 PER SQ. FT. THE UNITS PROPOSED ARE
3,300 SQ. FT. IN SIZE AND YET COST $90,000 OR AROUND $27.27 PER SQ. FT.
OR TWICE AS MUCH, NOT INCLUDING SITE WORK. WHY?
There will be no difference in the size of houses. Present total space
including station building areas has been apportioned to using activities.
GSA-PBS May 31, 1974
PAGENO="0051"
45
A -7. DID THE $83,000 FOR THE ORIGINAL HOUSES INCLUDE DESIGN AND SITE COSTS?
Previously answered.
A -8. DESIGN AND SITE COSTS NOW PROPOSED ARE ESTIMATED AT $460,688 WHICH,
PRO-RATED, CONES OUT TO $115,172 PER UNIT OR MORE THAN THE HOUSES
COST. WHY?
Previously answered.
A -9. DOES THIS INCLUDE IMPROVED WATER SUPPLY OR SEWAGE TREATMENT?
Previously answered.
A-b. IN ANSWER TO ONE OF THE MEMBER'S QUESTIONS IN AUGUST 1973, $284,500
WAS CITED AS THE TOTAL SITE COST. HOW IS THIS RECONCILED WITH THAT
SHOWN IN THE PROSPECTUS?.
Previously answered.
A-ll. WERE DESIGN ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN AN EFFORT TO REDUCE THE COST?
WERE OTHER AGENCIES SUCH AS HUD OR THE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS CON-
SULTEDAS TO BEST CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES, MATERIALS, LABOR PRACTICES,
ETC.?
Previously answered.
A-l2. WHAT IS "AGENCY EXPANSION" OF 8,260 SQ. FT. INDICATED IN THE HOUSING
PLAN? DOES THIS MEAN TWO MORE HOUSES?
Previously answered.
A-l3. WHAT ARE THE GOVERNMENT PROPERTIES TO BE RETAINED, AS SHOWN IN THM
HOUSING PLAN?
All facilities completed in the fall of 1971 will be retained. They
include a station building, a service building and three permanent
residences providing about 16,600 square feet of space.. In addition,
4 arctic trailers originally planned for disposal will be retained for
summer personnel and transients.
A-14. IF THIS PROSPECTUS IS NOT APPROVED WHAT WILL BE THE RESULT?
It will be necessary to acquire at least four additional trailers
estimated to cost $45,000 to $55,000 each. This does not include costs
required for permanent use. A permanent siting would cost $20,000
to $25,000 each additionally.
GSA-PBS May 31, l9.74~
PAGENO="0052"
46
B -1. WHEN THIS REVISED PROSPECTUS WAS SUBMITTED ORIGINALLY A YEAR AGO,
SENATOR MCCLURE RAISED A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THE COST FIGURES,
WHICH APPEARED TO SHOW THAT EACH OF FOUR RESIDENCES WOULD COST
$200,000. SENATOR MCCLURE SUBMITTED A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS TO GSA
ON THIS PROSPECTUS. ATTACHED ARE THOSE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FOR
PURPOSES OF INCLUSION IN THE HEARING RECORD.
No answer required.
B -2. COULD YOU PROVIDE US WITH UPDATED FIGURES ON THE COST OF EACH HOUSE,
AS WELL AS AN DPDATE ON STAFFING NEEDS AT THE BORDER STATION?
The cost per house is $90,078 as previously discussed in question A-6.
Staffing needs discussed in question A-3.
B -3. WOULD YOU PROVIDE US WITH THE LATEST FIGURES ON "SITE WORK AND UTILITIES?"
The cost of "mite work and utilities" is itemized in question A-8.
B -4. MOW MANY WOR}CTEN WILL BE NEEDED FOR THIS PROJECT? WHAT IS THE
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF MAN-HOURS OF LABOR NEEDED TO BUILD EACH HOUSE?
The number of workmen required for this project will reach a peak
of 20 journeymen and helpers during the finishing stages. The labor
costs are estimated as follows:
Base labor $19,617
Premium tine 7,887
Travel costs 2,560
Subsistence 8,000
Total labor costs per house $38,064
Man-hours labor per house -.
B -5. WHAT WOULD IT COST TO PURCHASE AND PLACE PERMANENT ARCTIC TRAILERS
*AT THIS SITE AS A WAY TO MEET THE HOUSING NEED?
The cost per permanent attic trailer is estimated at $45,000 to $55,000
per unit, delivered as compared to the permanent housing estimated to cost
$90,078 per unit. This option was reviewed by the region and discarded
as not being compatible with the present permanent residences and not
satisfying the long-range requirements of the Border Station.
GSA-PBS May 31, 1974
PAGENO="0053"
47
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PAK-73024
PROJECT NUMBER : ~MK-73O24
SUPPLEMENTAL PROSPECTUS FOR PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
UNDER THE PUBLIC BUILDINGS ACT OF 1959
BORDER STATION ALASKA HIGHWAY, ALASKA
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT:
The project contemplates the construction of four additional residences,
with the provision for land8caping and other miscellaneous items.
Approximate Area: Gross - 13,680 Sq. Ft. Net - 13,200 Sq. Ft.
2. ESTIMATED MAXIMUM COST OF PROJECT:
a. Design, management and inspection $ 89,000
b. Construction (As of October, l974)~ 732,000
Residences $360,312
Additional Utilities
Landscaping & Miscellaneous . . 371,688
Total estimated maximum cost $821,000
3. JUSTIFICATION:
A project for the construction of the Alaska Highway Border Station at a
total estimated maximum cost of $1,641,000, on a site to be acquired near
Tok Junction, approximately 97 miles from the Alaska-Yukon Border, was
approved by the Committees on Public Works of the Congress on April 4, 1963.
Subsequently, it was determined that the proposed facility should be located
in close proximity to the Border, on land to be acquired from the Public
Domain. A revised prospectus reflecting the change in location at the
same total cost was approved by the Committees on Public Works of the Congress
in April 1964.
The facility is now in operation at Mile Post 1221.8 on the Alaska Highway,
having been substantially completed in August 1971. However, in order to
keep construction costs within approved prospectus limits only three of
the five planned residences were built and the landscaping was eliminated.
In the meantime, each agency procured mobile home units. *The mobile homes
"Artic Trailers" are entirely inadequate to satisfy present housing needs.
The Bureau of Customs, Immigration and Naturalization Service and the
General Services Administration have re-evaluated their long-range require-
ments for residences based on operating experience to date and have determined
that a total, of four additional new residences are required to satisfy housing
requirements; two for the Bureau of Customs and one each for INS and GSA.
PAGENO="0054"
48
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PAX-73024
PROJECT NUMBER : NAK-73024
3. JUSTIFICATION: (Cont'd)
The Border Station is conpletely isolated being almost 100 miles from the
nearest United States community with even minimal amenities and services.
The factor of morale and harmony cannot be overemphasized and the provision
of comparable living quarters for each family is of considerable significance
in insuring a high level of employee morale. Because of the remote location
of this project, the need has also been identified for construction of
recreational facilities. The construction of these facilities is being
foregone at this time due to the urgency for construction of the additional
residences and budget limitations.
4. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS:
No alternative solution is considered feasible because of the remote location
of the existing Government facility and the need for expansion at this specific
location.
5. CURRENT HOUSING COSTS:
Area Sq. Ft. Annual Cost
Temporary Trailers
Operation, maintenance and upkeep 4,940 $10,520
6. PROPOSED SPACE PLAN FOR HOUSING FEDERAL AGENCIES:
A comprehensive plan for housing Federal agencies in the locality is
attached (Exhibit A). Upon completion of construction, assignment and
reassignment of space will be made in accordance with existing law.
7. STATEMENT OF NEED:
It has been determined that (1) the needs for space of the Federal Govern-
ment in this area cannot be satisfied by utilization of existing suitable
property now owned by the Government, and (2) suitable rental space is not
available.
Submitted at
Recommended:
t~Oti~3~
MAY 11 1973
Approved
L~O~ing
PAGENO="0055"
CONPREHENSIVE HOUSING PLAN
EXHIBIT A
ALASKA HIGHWAY, ALASKA
Department of Agency Total
General Services Admin. 6,585
Justice (1mm. & Nat. Svc.)6,865
Treasury (Customs)
Total Agency Space 21,500
(Net Sq. Ft.)
Temporary
Permanent Trailers
5,350 1,235
5,630 1,235
5,580 2,470
16,560 4,940
Proposed Housing (Net Sq. Ft.)
Person- *Retained New
nel GIG Construction
2 5,350 3,300
3 5,630 3,300
5 5,580 6,600
10 16,560 13,200
of New Construction:
*Retained Gb Buildings
Identity Sq~ Ft.
Border Station l6,560
Present Housinp
Person-
nel
2
5
Total
8,650
8.930
12,180
29,760
Agency Space:
Space to be Replaced (Temp.) 4,940
Agency Expansion 8,260
Net Sq~~Ft~
13,200
Total
13,200
PAGENO="0056"
50
QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MCCLURE
ALASKA HIGHWAY BORDER STATION
Question No. 1: What was the cost of each of the existing three houses built
under the original prospectus?
Answer: The cost of construction of the three existing residences were in-
cluded in a total bid package. Since the residence~s were not bid separately, it
is difficult to derive a precise cost for their construction. However, based on
an analysis of the total project cost we estimate the cost of each house to be
about $83,000.
Question No. 2: Would you give us information on the number of rooms and
type of amenities built into each of these existing residences?
Answer: Each residence has three bedrooms, a living room with fire place
and a small exterior balcony, dining area, kitchen complete with range and
refrigerator, laundry room, two bathrooms, full basement containing storage
space and recreation room with direct access to a common underground heated
utilidor passageway serving all residences in the border station, and a one-car
garage.
Question No. 3: Will each of the new structures be used by single families or
several staff families or will they be used as bachelor quarters?
Answer: Each of the new ~tructures will be used by single families.
Question No. 4: Would you please break down the costs of each of the new
houses to be built: labor, materials, transportation of materials, additional
utilities, etc.?
Answer: The estimated average cost of one residence is $90,078. An analysis
of this cost, based on a comparison with Fairbanks follows:
Constructed at Fairbanks:
Construction labor $19, 617
Material 32, 695
Equipment (rental, depreciation, etc.) 1, 309
Overhead profit (18 percent) 11,770
Subtotal 65, 391
Extra for construction at Alaska Highway:
Sub~istence for labor 8, 000
Premium time for labor 7, 887
Transportation for labor (from Fairbanks) 2, 560
Transportation for materials (from Fairbanks) 6. 240
Subtotal 24, 687
Total cost at Alaska Highway 90, 078
Question No. 5: You stated at our July 10 meeting that the cost of the pro-
posed construction of the houses, except for this unusual situation, would be
approximately $25 per square foot. With this unusual situation, however, the cost
rises to about $65 per square foot. Would you please ,break down the coin-
ponents of that $40 premium?
Answer: Of the $40 cost differential, $20 of the increased costs is attributable
to normal construction in Alaskan cities such as Fairbanks and Anchorage
and the other $20 increase is a direct result of the remote location of the border
station, the peculiar conditions on site, and the extremely short construction
season. Some of these cost components include high material freight costs,
premium labor costs (e.g. carpenters $12 per hour, laborers $10.50 per hour,
plumbers $15 per hour plus double-time for the 6th workday of the week),
distance of travel, scarcity of labor, contractor in-and-out mobilization as a
result of extremely short construction sea~on, site earthwork including rock
excavating, and special treatment of foundations to protect against permafrost.
Question No. 6: How many officials are currently employed at this station?
How many employees are anticipated by 1978?
Artswer: There are presently 10 full-time employees and three seasonal em-
ployees at the station. One additional employee, who would be temporarily
housed in an arctic trailer, is projected. Should this employee be hired, the
employment level should remain fairly constant through 1978.
PAGENO="0057"
51
Question No. 7: What was the cost of the landscaping that was eliminated in
1971 and what did this landscaping involve?
Answer: The average cost of all bids for the deleted 1970 landscaping was
$18,700. The work deleted included fine grading, top soil, fertilizer, seed, straw
cover and planting (trees and shrubs) of the area around the station and
dwellings.
Question No. 8: What precisely is contemplated in the work described as "site
work and utilities," which appears to represent about half of the cost in the new
prospectus?
Answer: The site work and utilities included in the prospectus project are
the following:
a. Replace two existing 150 kVA generators with two new 250 kVA
generators (original system designed for fewer houses) $116, 000
b. Extend paved areas to new residences, extend utilidor and street
lighting 57, 500
c. Extend outside utilities (primary waterlines to utilidor and resi-
dences, power, hot water lines in utilidor, etc.), to new residence,s 33, 500
1. Landscape planting, top soil fertilizer, seed, etc. (original plus exten-
sion to new residences) 30, 000
e. Fine arts in station building-native motif-totems, panel carvings,
prints, painting, and facility signs 30, 500
f. Contingencies-for minor modification during construction 17, 000
Total 284, 500
Question No. 9: What type of recreation facilities exist at the station now?
What facilities are contemplated, and what is their item-by-item cost?
Answer: There are no community recreation facilities at the station. However,
each residence has a recreation room in the basement. See answer to question
11 concerning contemplated recreation facilities.
Question No. 10: You stated on July 10 that the existing water and sewer
facilities are inadequate. In what way are they inadequate? How much must
be spent to bring them up to standard? Why were these facilities not built to
expected standards? What additional utilities are needed?
Answer: During the initial design and construction of the Border Station
a reverse osmosis water treatment system was not available and a zeolite system
was installed. This system was the best available at that time to meet the water
treatment requirements and stay within contract funding limitations. We recently
entered into a contract to drill a new water well and extend fire protection
capability at the facility. This well will supplement the existing well which has
shown signs of reduced capacity. This new source of water, costing $62,365,
will also provide sufficient capacity for the new residences.
Question No. 11: Are any other structure~ beyond the four houses contemplated
in the prospectus? What is the nature and cost of this structure or structures?
Answer: There are no new building structures recommended for authorization
iii this prospectus at this time. However, because of the isolated location of this
border station facility, we have identified the need for a community recreational
facility. The improved water supply and utilities systems will be capable of
supporting such a structure. The prospectus states that we are foregoing thi~
facility at this time due to funding limitations. The cost of such a facility at this
time is estimated to be $345,000.
Senator CLARK. Let's go on to Saginaw, Mich.
FEDERAL OFFICE BUILDING, SAGINAW, MId.
Mr. Smpp. In July and September 1965, the Committees on Pub-
lic Works of the Senate and House, respectively, approved a pros-
pectus for a Federal office building to provide 51,600 gross square
feet of space at a total cost of $2,206,000. The project dld not pro-
ceed because of the lack of funds. Subsequently, it was determined
to proceed with the building serving as an environmental and
energy conservation demonstration model, resulting in a change in
the design criteria.
PAGENO="0058"
52
This revised prospectus will provide the increase in authorization
necessary to accomplish construction of the building as an environ-
mental demonstration project.
The revised project contemplates a building of 59,500 gross square
feet of space, exclusive of rooftop parking, to provide space for
a postal station and other Federal agencies on a site located at
Genesee Avenue between Warren and Weadock Avenues under the
purchase contract provisions of the Public Buildings Amendments
of 1972, Public Law 92-313 [86 Stat. 219]. The project also will
provide about 117 parking spaces for Government-owned, visitor,
and employee vehicles. The site has been acquired and the design
of the project is completed. This project will replace the unsatis-
factory existing Federal building, result in an excellent working
environment for employees, demonstrate many other environmental
features and through the use of a solar collector make a positive
contribution to energy demands.
Senator CLARK. How much in utility cost does the GSA expect
to save annually with solar energy and the storing of rainwater?
Mr. SHIPP. I will ask Mr. Peyton to answer that question, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. PEYTON. We expect the solar collector to supply between 60
and 70 percent of the energy necessary to heat the building, and all
of the energy necessary to provide hot water for occupant use. We
have not converted that to a dollar figure. We can provide that
information for you. [See question B-2, p. 60.]
Senator CLARK. Is there any circumstance under which GSA
would remodel the existing Federal building or sell it?
Mr. Srnpr. The building in Saginaw is on the register of historic
buildings. When the new building is completed and occupied we
propose to vacate it. It probably will be disposed of to one or more
of the local community groups that have expressed an interest in
obtaining the building for further historic preservation. We con-
sidered the possibility of altering the building to provide further
accommodations for the agencies, but we have found it is uneco-
nomic and not feasible because of the age and the kind of structure
that it is.
Senator CLARK. The Postal Service is going to occupy 36 percent
of the total space. What is their function there? Is this appropriate
for demonstration of environmental innovations that will pertain
primarily to office buildings?
Mr. SHIPP. This is a downtown postal station or finance station
of the type that ordinarily provides service to the business com-
munity. We feel that it provides us a good mix of space in which
to test the environmental aspects of this project so that we are not
dealing exclusively with a typical general purpose office space.
Mr. PEYTON. I might add that characteristic of postal operations
of this type they involve the loading stock and trucking area and it
offers special challenges in seeking to conceal that space from the
general public. We have been successful in doing that in the design
of the project.
PAGENO="0059"
53
Senator CLARK. When did you decide to make the building an
environmental demonstration project? What led to that?
Mr. SHIPP. In June 1972.
Senator CLARK. What led to that decision?
Mr. PEYTON. The growing national concern over environmental
matters. GSA felt that it would be appropriate, for an agency of
the Federal Government to demonstrate their concern over environ-
mental considerations. This culminated in a conference sponsored
by GSA in which experts from the environmental area, both na-
tionally and internationally, were invited to a conference near War-
renton, Va. One of the recommendations of that conference was for
GSA to sponsor a building of the type that. was selected in the case
of Saginaw.
Senator CLARK. The prospectus describes the proposed structure
as a low, single-story building. I understand in mid-1972 GSA
announced that it would be a three-floor building with a partial
basement. What caused the design change?
Mr. PEYTON. In actuality, I believe that the announcement re-
ferred to was in error, and at that point in t.ime a design had not
in fact emerged. During the deliberations that the architect made
in considering various alternatives some of the alternatives included
high-rise facilities. The announcement was perhaps premature and
the final decision was for a low-rise type structure.
Senator CLARK. The building design ratio of assignable to total
square feet is 68 percent. Is this considered an efficient and eco-
nomical ratio?
Mr. PEYTON. Yes, sir.
Senator CLARK. The prospectus refers to large office spaces, yet the
total proposed is only 203 square feet per person. How does this
compare with other office buildings and, also, GSA's average?
Mr. SnIFF. We think this compares very favorably, Senator. In
the case of the Saginaw building, we propose to employ the open
planning concept in providing space for the employees to be housed
there. We think this is a very good factor.
Senator CLARK. Is rooftop parking appropriate for an environ-
mental demonstration process? What are Saginaw's problems re-
garding off-street parking?
Mr. PEYTON. The considerations that entered into the rooftop
parking situation were that we felt this was a good solution for
concealing the parking and it is, in fact, concealed from street level,
versus taking up a larger area and using blacktop for surface
parking.
Mr. SnIFF. I might add, Senator, that the local ordinances in
Saginaw would require approximately 148 parking spaces and we
are providing 117 parking spaces. We feel this is adequate and
would be consistent with the objective of the city in providing off-
street parking in downtown Saginaw.
Senator CLARK. Installation of the solar energy system is proposed,
as has been discussed, to provide 70 percent of the heating and all
of the hot water. You mentioned 60 percent, I believe.
Mr. PEYTON. I said 60 to 70 percent, sir.
PAGENO="0060"
54
Senator CLARK. It also notes the use of recycled construction ma-
terals, special plumbing installations. It makes no mention, how-
ever, of cooling and heating transfer devices, low wattage lighting
innovations that were highlighted, as I understand it, in news re-
leases, nor of energy-efficient design generally. \Vhat are these
features?
Mr. PEYTON. In the case of recycled materials, we propose to
have wall surfaces near the entrances to the building, both inside
and outside, to be composed of panels made from rubble from
demolished buildings that are presently on the site now. We also
propose to pave certain of the areas in the parking space utilizing
recycled rubble material from the present buildings on the site. In
the case of walkways on the landscape portion of the roof deck, we
intend to use porous panels made from recycled brick. As far as
the reuse of rainwater, we propose to collect this and utilize it
around the building for lawn sprinkling purposes. We propose to
utilize a toilet flushing system which involves a mineral oil in a
closed cycle. The requirements on municipal water we expect to be
minimal, only for drinking and lavatory purposes.
In the case of the lavatories, we plan on using a single-pipe type
of system in which tepid water is used only as compared with the
more traditional two-pipe hot and cold water system. We feel that
the design that has been achieved for this project results in a low
heat gain, low heat loss, as a result of a single-story building
where there are effects rising on the side. We plan on using dual-
glazed windows which reduce heat loss or heat gain.
There are also large overhangs to result in shaded situations in-
volving the sun. There will be also a low heat gain, heat loss situa-
tion because of the roof structure on this particular project. We
have a low wattage lighting system planned for the building. The
very nature of a single-story structure enables us to eliminate ele-
vators and energy consumption related to elevators as well as our
reduction in the size of the building. These are typical items.
Senator CLARK. Are other projects of this type contemplated or
under construction?
Mr. PEYTOX. This is a demonstration-type project.
We plan on using this as a learning opportunity for us. We ex-
pect to select many items from this project to be used in future
projects.
Senator CLARK. Senator Scott?
Senator SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I noticed from the prospectus that they refer not only to the
environmental demonstration but the use of recycled material.
I was not here for your main presentation, but. the staff tells me
that you didn't go into just what you mean by recycled material.
Would you explain that a little bi~ for us~ please? .
Mr. PEYTON. Presently on the site are some existing buildings.
When we have the opportunity to proceed with the prolect we
propose to demolish those buildings and utilize the rubble in a re-
cycled manner in several ways. The first way would be to select
PAGENO="0061"
55
portions of the rubble and have them made into panels which will
be used on the exterior and interior of the building.
Senator SCOTT. Are you talking about stone or something of this
nature, that you would break the stone up into little pieces and
somehow put it back together with concrete or some sort of cement
material?
Mr. PEYTON. That is correct, sir.
Senator SCOTT. It is primarily the stone that you are talking
about, is it?
Mr. PEYTON. With respect to the rubble and the materials that
are presently on the site. We also expect to have a requirement in
our specifications in which the aluminum features of the building
must all be made from recycled aluminum.
Senator SCOTT. Recycled aluminum? It comes from off the site?
Mr. PEYTON. That is correct, sir. Beverage cans and other scrap-
type aluminum that is currently being collected from various parts
of the country.
Senator SCoTT. How about the cost when you make something
from recycled aluminum, or the other elements? How does the cost
compare? Do you save money or does it cost extra money?
Mr. PEYTON. We expect there are some trade-offs, but we believe
that the net cost in the final analysis will probably be an increase,
particularly on a demonstration-type project which is, in effect, the
first of its kind.
Senator SCOTT. What is your real purpose for doing this? You
mentioned demonstrations. Are you thinking about considering
this for the future as far as other Government buildings, or are
you thinking of demonstrations that will have some effect on the
private sector?
Mr. PEYTON. We are hopeful that this will have a major effect
on the private sector, both State and local governments as well as
private corporations throughout the country, demonstrating to them
that owners, including ourselves, the Federal Government, should
be concerned about environmental matters.
Senator SCOTT. I think the persons concerned about environmental
matters would give a different emphasis. Reasonable people can
disagree on a particular emphasis. To my way of thinking all of us
live in the same general environment and we all want a healthy and
wholesome environment. Sometimes on how to accomplish this we
have a difference of opinion. I would hope that in doing this you
would be in a position to say what is economical, just from the eco-
nomic viewpoint and not suggesting that all other factors be ig-
nored, and that it be separated in some way so that you could say
you save money by using this type of material, this part of the
building being cheaper than using new material, and that the
quality of the finished product is better or it is just as good or it
is inferior.
If you are using it as a demonstration, somehow you should be
able to compartmentalize this so that it will be a precedent. Is this
what your intention is?
Mr. PEYTON. That is correct, it is, sir. We feel that part of any
demonstration-type project is an analysis of what you have in fact
PAGENO="0062"
56
accomplished. We propose wide circulation of the reports and
evaluations that are made as a result of this project to local State
governments, to private owners, as well as architects and engineers
throughout the country who actually are involved in the design of
buildings.
Senator Scorr. I would commend you on this. I don't know that
you need be reminded that our American free enterprise system
operates on the basis of profit and that the private builder would
be interested in the cost. I hope that this is equally applicable to
the Federal Government and to what you are undertaking. I am
very much concerned about the President submitting a $304 billion
budget with an estimated income of $295 billion. As you know, I
am a Republican, and a Republican generally supports the Presi-
dent. But I think he is wrong to send a budget up here to the
Congress for $304 billion and tell us that we will only take in $295
billion. I would hope you have in mind a balanced budget in all of
the plans you submit to us. I was in Norfolk the other day and
somebody said they needed Federal assistance, that they couldn't
build a project without Federal money. I reminded him we didn't
have any Federal money. It was still their money, whether spent
by the local government, the State government or the Federal
Government.
Mr. Chairman, I will not infringe further on the time of the
committee.
[Responses to additional questions and the prospectus follow:]
PAGENO="0063"
57
SAGINAW, J1ICHIGAN
FEDERAL OFFICE BUILDING
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
A -1. A 51,600 SQ. FT. BUILDING WAS AUTHORIZED IN 1965 AT ABOUT $42.75 PER
SQ. FT. NOW A 59,500 SQ. FT. OR 15 PERCENT LARGER BUILDING IS PROPOSED,
FOR ONLY HALF THE ORIGINALLY PLANNED OCCUPANCY, WHICH WILL COST $105
PER SQ. FT. OR 183 PERCENT MORE. WHY?
Background - Three principal factors have caused the estimated maximum
cost of the project to increase from $2,206,000 in 1965 to the current
estimate of $6,244,000; namely:
(1) Escalation caused by a delay of nearly 10 years in placing the
project under contract.
(2) Increase in site size to adequately accommodate building and
parking and in harmony with city master plan for area.
(3) The design and construction, attributed to the research character
and environmental features of the revised project.
Summary:
(1) The delay has resulted in an increase in project costs of
677 $1,477,000
(2) The additional site cost 746,000
(3) The increase attributed to the research aspects and
environmental features of the project including design,
construction and related costs 1,815,000
TOTAL INCREASE SINCE 1965 $4,038,000
The number of employees planned for the Federal Office Building has
not changed significantly. The 1965 prospectus indicated 271 postal
employees of which about 260 were to be in a postal leased facility.
The revised prospectus does not include this facility.
A -2. THE POSTAL SERVICE WILL OCCUPY 36 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL SPACE. WHAT IS
THEIR FUNCTION HERE? IS THIS APPROPRIATE FOR DEMONSTRATION OF ENVIRON-
MENTAL INNOVATIONS THAT WILL PERTAIN PRIMARILY TO OFFICE BUILDINGS?
Previously answered.
A -3. AT WHAT POINT IN TIME WAS IT DETERMINED TO MAKE THE BUILDING AN "ENVIRON-
MENTAL DEMONSTRATION PROJECT?" WHAT LED TO THIS DECISION?
- I Previously answered.
-- GSA-PBS May 31, 1974 -
PAGENO="0064"
58
A -4. WHEN WAS THE DESIGN COMPLETED?
April 15, 1974.
A -5. THE PROSPECTUS DESCRIBES THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE AS A LOW SINGLE-STORY
BUILDING. YET IN MID-1972 GSA ANNOUNCED IT WOULD BE A 3-FLOOR BUILDING
WITH PARTIAL BASEMENT. WHAT CAUSED THE DESIGN CHANGE?
Previously answered.
A -6. THE PREVIOUS PROSPECTUS STATED THAT GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES IN SAGINAW
OCCUPIED 452,600 SQ. FT. OF SPACE. THE CURRENT PROSPECTUS STATES
AGENCIES OCCUPY 51,750 SQ. FT. UNDER GSA CONTROL. IT FURTHER NOTES
THE POSTAL SERVICE HAS 100,000 SQ FT. WHAT IS THE SPACE SITUATION HERE?
The 1965 prospectus listed 151,549 sq. ft. of general purpose space and
301,010 sq. ft. of special purpose space for a total of 452,559 sq. ft.
for "present housing". This included all activities in the community,
e.g. the Veterans Administration Hospital and two Defense Reserve
Training Centers. The 1974 prospectus lists only those agencies under
GSA control which will be affected directly by the project.
A -7. THE BUILDING DESIGN RATIO OF ASSIGNABLE TO TOTAL SQ. FT. IS ONLY 68%.
IS THIS CONSIDERED AN EFFICIENT AND ECONOMICAL RATIO? HOW DOES IT
RELATE TO THE CONCEPT OF AN `ENVIRONMENTAL LIVING LAB" AS IT'S DESCRIBED?
Previously answered.
A -8. THE PROSPECTUS REFERS TO LARGE OFFICE SPACES YET THE TOTAL PROPOSED
IS ONLY 203 SQ. FT. PER PERSON. HOW DOES THIS COMPARE WITH
OTHER OFFICE BUILDINGS AND ALSO GSA'S AVERAGE? DOES THIS REPRESENT
"OFFICE EXCELLENCE" NOTED IN THE JUSTIFICATION?
Previously answered.
A -9. IS ROOFTOP PARKING APPROPRIATE FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL DEMONSTRATION
PROJECT? WHAT ARE SAGINAW'S POLICIES REGARDING OFF-STREET PARKING?
Previously answered.
A-1O. THE PROSPECTUS STATES THE ROOF TOP WILL BE AVAILABLE FROM THE OUT-
SIDE BUT NOT THE INSIDE OF THE BUILDING. WHY? WHAT ABOUT SECURITY,
CONVENIENCE, AND PROTECTION FROM INCLEMENT WEATHER?
The lack of accessibility from the roof to the building will res~it in
building security and because the parking is similar to outside
parking at other locations it is not anticipated that occupant
convenience or protection from weather will be a problem.
GSA-PBS May 31, 1974
PAGENO="0065"
59
A-li. INSTALLATION OF A SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM IS PROPOSED, TO PROVIDE 70
PERCENT OF HEATING AND ALL HOT WATER. IT ALSO NOTES USE OF RECYCLED
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND SPECIAL PLUMBING INSTALLATIONS. IT MAKES
NO MENTION, HOWEVER, OF COOLING AND HEAT-TRANSFER DEVICES, POWER,
AND LOW-WATTAGE LIGHTING INNOVATIONS HIGHLIGHTED IN NEWS RELEASES,
NOR OF ENERGY-EFFICIENT DESIGN GENERALLY. WHAT ARE THESE FEATURES?
Previously answered.
A-l2. ARE OTHER PROJECTS OF THIS TYPE CONTEMPLATED? UNDER CONSTRUCTION?
Previously answered.
A-13. COULD A COSE-BENEFIT RATIO BE ATTACHED? WHAT ARE THE PRIMARY BENEFITS
TO THE GOVERNMENT?
A favorable economic analysis of the proposed environmental feature
was not the determining factor in deciding which feature would be
included in the project. Instead, several of the features were
selected because their inclusion held promise of advancing the state-
of-the-art and would serve to stimulate architects, engineers, manu-
facturers and owner/developers toward greater interest in environmental
concerns. (See also B-2)
As an example, the large solar collector and energy use system is
probably the most important single innovative feature of the project.
We feel the development of such solar systems is vital for the country.
However, it is unlikely that private owner/developers will take the
risk and spend the extra money required for the initial installations.
There is universal recognition that more information is needed about
the performance of large solar collectors. Also, manufacturers need
to be induced to perform more R&D leading toward the mass production
of solar collector components which would drastically reduce their
costs. Although much is known about solar energy collectors, much
more information is needed which can be translated into engineering
tables and design data readily available to all architect/engineers.
A-14. WHAT ARE DISPOSAL PLANS FOR THE OLD EXISTING FEDERAL BUILDING?
A formal determination of excess has not been made. However, the
prospectus contemplates no further need for the old Federal Building
upon occupancy of the proposed new building. Because the old building
is on the National Register of Historic Places, GSA has already
notified the State, County, and city Government of the proposed
availability of thd old building. This has resulted in expression
of interest in acquiring the building by the Saginaw County Historical
Society and the Saginaw Art Museum. Consequently, we do not expect
any problems in identifying an appropriate new owner who will preserve
this historic structure once it is vacated.
GSA-PBS - May 31, 1974
36-623 0 - 74 - 5
PAGENO="0066"
60
B 1. WHY WAS THE EARLIER PROSPECTUS NEVER CARRIED OUT?
The project originally authorized in 1965 did not proceed because of
lack of funds. A site was selected in 6-18-70; however, a realignment of
the site proposed by the city was not approved until 2-14-72. The A/E
contract was awarded 2-25-72 and design was not completed until
4-15-74. The length of time involved in completing design is
attributable to the fact that this was selected as an environmental
demonstration project which necessitated the solicitation of ideas
from numerous sources and the investigation of various innovative
features. Funds are not available for construction of this project.
B -2. HOW MUCH IN UTILITY COSTS DOES GSA EXPECT TO SAVE ANNUALLY BY USE
OF SOLAR ENERGY AND THE STORING OF RAINWATER AT THE PROPOSED SAGINAW
BUILDING?
The solar energy system is expected to extract and utilize enough solar
energy initially to provide 70% of the required heating needs of the
building, and 100% of the domestic hot water heating. These are
prognostications based on the best information which is currently avail-
able. Thus, the normal heating system will become largely standby
equipment for use during long periods with no sun or during maintenance
of the solar collector.
The investment would be partially amortized by fuel costs savings,
estimated to be $8,200 annually at today's prices. Higher future fuel
costs are expected to increase this amount appreciably. At some future
date, we expect to undertake summer airconditioning of the building using
solar energy. Most of the high cost components (solar collectors, pumps,
and large insulated tanks) will already be in place, so this next step
to summer cooling will place the solar installation on a much more
favorable economic base.
Though this solar energy installation cannot be solely compared with
savings in todays fuel costs, it can be equated to annual savings of
enough natural gas or fuel oil to heat ten large residences. However,
the more important return on the investment will be in the area of
increased technical knowledge available to all, and stimulations of
manufacturers to develop and mass produce solar energy system components.
This entire solar energy installation is in keeping with President
Nixon's recent statement, in connection with energy conservation,
that the Federal Government can lead best by example.
The rainwater collection system will save 100,000 gallons of pota.e
water from the Saginaw water supply system.
B -3. WILL EMPLOYEES BE CHARGED FOR PARKING. IF SO, HOW MUCH WILL THEY
BE CHARGED?
GSA-PBS~ Nay 31, 1974
PAGENO="0067"
61
GSA will assign parking spaces to the various Federal agencies
who in turn will assign spaces to their employees. In line with
the Federal Building Fund, GSA will charge agencies for parking,
however, there is currently no authority for charging Federal
employees for parking.
B -4. IS THERE ANY CIRCUMSTANCE UNDER WHICH GSA WOULD RAZE THE EXISTING
FEDERAL BUILDING OR SELL IT TO A PRIVATE DEVELOPER TO BE RAZED OR
ALTERED, THUS DESTROYING ITS HISTORIC CHARACTER?
Since this building was placed on the National Register of Historic
Places on 7-13-72, GSA would not raze it. It appears very unlikely
that a private developer will acquire this building. Both the
Saginaw County Historical Society and the Saginaw Art Museum have
expressed interest in acquiring the property. In light of the interest
already expressed by these organizations, we do not expect that we
will find any problems in identifying a new owner who will preserve
the structure once it is vacated.
GSA-PBS May 31, 1974
PAGENO="0068"
62
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PMI-730l4
PROJECT NUMBER : NMI-73014
PROSPECTUS FOR PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
UNDER THE PUBLIC BUILDINGS ACT OF 1959, AS AMENDED
FEDERAL OFFICE BUILDING (Revised) SAGINAW, MICHIGAN
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT:
In July and September 1965, the Committees on Public Works of the Senate and
House, respectively, approved a prospectus for a Federal Office Building to
provide 51,600 gross square feet of space at a total cost of $2,206,000.
The project did not proceed because of the lack of funds. Subsequently,
it was determined to proceed with the building serving as an environmental
and energy conservation demonstration model, resulting in a change in the
design criteria.
This revised prospectus will provide the increase in authorization necessary
to accomplish construction of the building as an environmental demonstration
project.
The revised project contemplates a building of 59,500 gross square feet of
space, exclusive of roof-top parking, to provide space for a postal station
and other Federal agencies on a site located at Genesee Avenue between
Warren and Weadock Avenues under the purchase contract provisions of the
Public Buildings Amendments of 1972, P.L. 92-313 (86 Stat. 219). The project
also will provide about 117 parking spaces for Government-owned, visitor, and
employee vehicles. The site has been acquired and the design of the project
is completed. This project will replace the unsatisfactory existing Federal
Building, result in an excellent working environment for employees, demonstrate
many other environmental features and through the use of a solar collector
make a positive contribution to energy demands.
Approximate Area: Gross - 59,500 Sq. Ft. Net - 48,000 Sq. Ft.
2. ESTIMATED MAXIMUM COST: *
Site, design and building $6,244,000
3. JUSTIFICATION:
Federal agencies in Saginaw occupying space under the control of General
Services Administration presently are housed in about 51,750 square feet of
space. Of this total, approximately 36,900 square feet is general purpose
Government-owned space provided in the Federal Building located at Federal
and Jefferson Streets and 14,850 square feet is general purpose leased space
provided in 6 locations at an annual cost of $85,998. There is also special
purpose leased space in the community which is not suitable for general purpose
office use. This space will be retained for continued use by the occupying
* Exclusive of financing and other costs attributable to the purchase contract
method of acquisition.
PAGENO="0069"
63
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PMI-730l4
PROJECT NUMBER : NMI-73O14
3. JTJSTIFICATION: (Cont'd)
agencies and is not considered in this prospectus. Major mailhandling
operations are housed in a building acquired under a long term lease by
the Postal Service. A carrier and finance station has been retained in
the existing Federal building. Design of the new building will reduce
carrier and finance station space requirements in the new building.
The present Federal building is unique. It is of French-Gothic architectural
design and was copied from the French Chateau of Alexis De Toqueville who was
a visitor in Saginaw's early history. The building has been placed on the
National Register of Historic Sites. It is expensive to operate and maintain,
alteration would be costly because of design characteristics and extension
impracticable because of site limitations. Present planning contemplates
disposal of the building to a local government or other group for historical
purposes.
The alternatives for resolving the Federal space situation in Saginaw were
fully explored. The alternatives considered were alteration of the existing
Federal Building located at Federal and Jefferson Streets, acquisition of
consolidated modern leased space; and the acquisition of space in a building
to be constructed.
It was determined that construction of a new Federal building is in the best
interests of the United States and a prospectus proposing its construction
was authorized by the Public Works Committees of the Congress in 1965.
Following enactment of the Public Buildings Amendments of 1972 the project
was included in General Services Administration's purchase contract program
and the cost escalated in accordance with section 5(e) of the Act to
$4,847,000 as of October 31, 1973. Site acquisition and design had begun
under the original project but because of the need to develop innovative
ideas in the environmental field the project has been designated as an
"Environmental Demonstration Project".
The slightly depressed single story building designed in a park-like setting
and with an ecological roof will enhance the environment in its locality.
Approximately two-thirds of the roof will serve as a parking deck with the
vehicles screened from view from adjacent sidewalks and streets. Locating
the parking on the roof leaves space at the site for landscaping. The
remaining portion of the roof of the low building will have plantings and
will be a park-like extension of the landscaped site. It will be accessible
to the general public at all times without entering the building. The postal
trucking area is screened from view to avoid the appearance of an industrial
activity.
An excellent working environment will be provided for employees having offices
in the building. The office spaces are large with a minimum number of columns,
and are ideally suited for the open planning concept. The building will
demonstrate many other environmental features. Major uses will be made of
recycled construction materials, including construction panels made from the
PAGENO="0070"
64
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PMI-73014
PROJECT NUMBER : NMI-730l4
3. JUSTIFICATION: (Cont'd)
rubble of demolished buildings. The need for water from the municipal
system will be kept to a minimum through the use of special plumbing for
toilets, a one-pipe one-temperature water service to lavatories, and the
use of stored rainwater for sprinkling. A large solar collector is included
as a part of the building design. The solar energy system is expected to
provide 70 percent of the building heating and all the hot water; thus saving
conventional fuels while operating pollution-free. The entire design will
demonstrate that new construction can make a positive contribution to the
environment and need not place large demands on normal energy and water sources.
The proposed project will be located on a trapezoidal shaped parcel of land
at Genesee Avenue between Warren and Weadock Avenues. The site provides
about 126,000 square feet of area, which in addition to the building will
provide the necessary open space for a noteworthy environmental demonstration
project with a large portion of the site developed with landscaped plaza and
planting areas.
The project will also provide about 117 parking spaces for Government-owned,
visitor and employee vehicles. About 96 of these spaces will be provided
on the roof; however, if future changes in parking requirements and develop-
ment of public transportation in Saginaw combine to reduce the need for roof
parking, that space will also be landscaped.
It has been determined that the best interests of the United States will be
served by providing for the construction of the project described herein
under the purchase contract provisions of section 5 of the Public Buildings
Amendments of 1972, P.L. 92-313. In the event the authority contained in
section 5 expires before a purchase contract is awarded, or the Administrator
determines, pursuant to section 5(b)(2) of the P.L. 92-313 that a reasonable
rate of interest cannot be obtained for construction of the project by pur-
chase contract, GSA will proceed with the project utilizing funds to be
made available for this purpose in accordance with subsection 210(f) of the
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended.
In acquisition of the site and actual construction, the applicable provisions
of the following are being complied with: the Intergovernmental Cooperation
Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-577), the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-646), the Office of Civil Defense
Technical Standards for Fallout Shelters (April 1969) and Executive Order 11512.
4. CURRENT HOUSING COSTS: For agencies to be housed in the proposed building.
Area Sq. Ft. Annual Cost
a. Leased space:
Rent 11,116 $ 58,867
Other costs 3,425
b. Government-owned space:
Operation, maintenance and upkeep costs . . . 36,895 72,492
Total $134,784
PAGENO="0071"
65
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PMI-73014
PROJECT NUMBER : NNI-73014
5. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS:
A draft of an environmental impact statement was filed on June 29, 1973.
A final impact statement was filed on January 2, 1974. They were prepared
and distributed in accordance with the provisions of Section 1O2(2)(c) of
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 90-190), as amended,
and the guidelines prescribed by the Council on Environmental Quality.
6. PROPOSED SPACE PLAN FOR HOUSING FEDERAL AGENCIES:
A comprehensive plan for housing Federal agencies in the locality ~s
attached (Exhibit A). Upon completion of construction, assignment and
reassignment of space will be made in accordance with existing law.
7. STATEMENT OF NEED:
It has been determined that (1) the needs for space of the Federal Government
in this area cannot be satisfied by utilization of existing suitable property
now owned by the Government, and (2) suitable rental space is not available
at a price commensurate with that to be afforded through the proposed action.
Submitted at Washington, D.C. on FEB28
Recommended:
Acting C i sioner, Publ c Eu ldings Service
Approved : J
Administrato of General Services
PAGENO="0072"
EXHIBIT A
SAGINAW, SICHIOS6N
CG8IPRETOSNSIVE HOUSING PLAN
(Ito of April 30, 1973)
Prevent Uoaaing (Set Assignable Sq. Pt.) Proposed Housing (Set Assignable Sq. Ft.)
Person- Govt. Person- *iatajse'J A*Iiotuined P0S)0So
Dqpgrtsent or4g~~cyy Total oel Ossned Leased Total aol 0/8 Leaned ,j,p~
Agricalture 1,399 9 815 584 1,400 9 - - 1,400
Civil Service Consisolon 1,431 1 1,431 - . 1,400 1 - - 1,400
Congreos iaoal - - - - 850 4 - - 850
Defense 5,011 33 645 4,366 4,964 33 - 3,164 1,800
Fed. Mediation H Conciliation 840 1 840 - 050 1 - - 850
Health, Education, 8. Welfare 4,705 32 420 4,285 9,014 46 - 2,464 6,550
Jantice 725 5 725 - 1,200 3 - - 1,200
Labor 1,380 4 1,380 - 1,050 6 - - 1,000
Selective Service Systen 1,585 6 1,585 - 1,600 6 - - 1,600
Transportation 1,2)9 6 685 574 1,174 6 - 574 600
Treasury 5,770 36 725 5,045 6,100 44 - - 6,100
Postal SorviceiJ 19,995 23 19,995 - 14,500 29 - - 14,500
General Services Adsinietratien ~ 4 (~), - ~ 13 - -
General Purpose Space 51,749 160 36,895 14,854 46,077 199 - 6,202 40,375
ANALYSTS OF PROPOSED PROJECT, (Square Pent) ..
S --
Agency Space 37,8)0 General Purpose:
(includes 8,600 square foot of Departnent of Health, Edacation, 8. Welfsre-SSA
Interior Fo~tal Mass. Ares) Bareaa of Hearing Appeals 2,464
Forking: - Special Parpaso and/or Location:
Ho. of Vshfcles 117 - Departaent of Defense
Roof Top 96 Recruiting 3,164
PS Msnnevsring Area 7
On Grade 14 Departnent of Transportation
ConstGuard 574
Service Areas: 1,150 -
Vending Stand 150 Total 3,738
Goof erence -
Custodial 1,375 0/0 Building to be Dlvposvd of
Total Assigned Space 40,375 Federal Railding - Federal and
Jefferson Streetn 36,895
i/O En be Replaced 36,895
Leased to be Replaced 11,116 2/
Agency Enponsino (-) 7,636 -
Unnerve for Future Eupaneins
Total Sot Assignable Square Poet 42,000
Aisles and Corridaru
Total Not Square Foot 48,000
1/Does not innlode nain postal leaned bailding of 95,292 square feet
housing 615 postal personnel,
2/Reduction in epscn through inproved utiliestian in ness building.
3/Esnindearoaf top parking ares of 28,450 Ret Aseigneble Square Feet,
PAGENO="0073"
67
Senator CLARK. Would you address yourself to Roanoke, Va.,
next, please?
FEDERAL OFFICE BUILDING, ROANOKE, VA.
Mr. SHIPP. This amendment is submitted to increase the author-
ized maximum limit of cost for the public building project listed
below. The justification for this project, as described in the approved
prospectus, has not lessened; however, the maximum limit has in-
creased above the amounts authorized by section 5(e) of Public
Law 92-313.
Design of the project is completed and the contract for construc-
tion has been awarded under the purchase contract authority of the
Public Buildings Amendments of 1972, Public Law 92-313. The
amount of construction award was within the allowable escalation
pursuant to section 5(e).
The increased authority is required due to an increase in the base
contract price caused by unusual and unforeseen subsurface rock
formation which necessitated driving pile by more than 200 percent
of the specification depth. In some cases the situation is so severe
as to require drilling. This also reflects an additional amount for
contingency in the fine arts. The presently approved estimated
maximum cost of the project is $12,755,000. We are asking for a
revision in the authorized maximum cost to $15,610,000.
Senator CLARK. Senator Scott?
Senator Sco'rT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Could you tell us when, if the committee approves this prospectus,
you would expect construction to be completed?
Mr. PEYTON. August 1975.
Senator SCOTT. Have you started on this project yet?
Mr. PEYT0N. Yes, sir. It is presently under construction and
about 13 percent complete.
Senator SCOTT. You say unforeseen subsurface rock formation.
Could you give us a little more detailed information? Do you have
this under contract now? What sort of an agreement is it where
you are increasing your request from $12 to $15 million. What is
the status of your contract?
Mr. PEYTON. We presently have a firm contract. The contractor
is J. W. Bateson & Co. Under contracting procedures used by GSA
for construction, construction is awarded on a publicly advertised,
competitively bid basis with a lumpsum price. In the case of foun-
dations, however, because of possibilities of unforeseen conditions,
recognition is taken of that circumstance and unit prices are in-
cluded for the type of foundation used so that if the depth of the
piles is foreshortened or exceeded by the estimated amount, adjust-
ment in price is possible.
Senator SCOTT. You are saying this is part of your normal pro-
cedure. Is it part of the individual contract, that it would be
adjusted?
Mr. PEYTON. Yes, sir. We follow this on all contracts that we
award for new construction.
Senator Scorr. Do you find that sometimes it results in the Gov-
ernment paying less money as well as paying more money as in
this instance?
Mr. PEYTON. Yes, sir, that is possible.
PAGENO="0074"
68
Senator ScoTr. Once again, what is this unforeseen subsurface
rock formation? What have you found there?
Mr. PEYTON. Sir, I do not have that information. I would have
to supply it for the record. [See answer to question B-i, p. 7~.]
Senator SCOTT. I wish you would. Frankly, Virginia is a conserva-
tive State. I think the Congressional Quarterly says that the Vir-
ginia Members of the Congress are the most conservative in the
Union.
As far as saving taxpayer money, Congressional Services says
we are No. 1. I know here you have the cost per employee at the
lowest of any of these buildings coming before us today, $18,600.
I would commend you on that. I think we want to move on all of
these. I am sure the chairman shares this thought, to move along
on all of them as fast as we can, but we do need information on
which to base our judgment such as comes only before the committee.
It does not go before the entire Senate.
If you would supply that for the record, it would be helpful. We
are pleased to have a building in Virginia that is named after Mr.
Justice Poff, who served in the Congress more than 20 years.
Senator CLARK. I have a couple more questions. The ratio of
usable space to the total is 62 percent. What is the remaining space
which is unusuable?
Mr. SHIPP. The remaining space would be horizontal circulation
areas, equipment rooms, the type of space that would support the
activities in the building in terms of operation and maintenance,
this type of thing.
Senator CLARK. In a period of 6 years the estimated cost has in-
creased 182 percent. Is that due entirely to inflation or are there
other factors?
Mr. SHIPP. There are several factors that are involved. There has
been escalation as well as the unanticipated subsurface conditions
that have caused increased cost.
Senator CLARK. In that regard, what percentage of the total con-
tract price did piling represent?
Mr. SHUT. I do not have that figure with me. We will be glad to
provide it for the record. [See. answer to question A-8, p. Th.]
Senator CLARK. It appears to us to be only 2 or 3 percent. Is that
possible?
Mr. SHIPP. I have no way of making that judgment or I can't
make a judgment on that.
Senator CLARK. Our figure would show that it would be 2 per-
cent of the total contract cost, $268,000.
Mr. SHIPP. This could very well be.
Senator CLARK. That wouldn't be a very significant factor, then.
Mr. SHIPP. No, it would not. I think in our prospectus we spoke
to the fact that there has been increasing cost over the 1972 amend-
ment.
When we consider t.he difference in cost between the amendment
that authorized an increase in cost in 1972 and the project cost we
are talking about today, about half that increase is related to the
additional subsurface work, foundation work, that had to be done.
PAGENO="0075"
69
Senator CLARK. When was the contract awarded and in what
amount?
Mr. PEYTON. The contract was awarded in August 1973 and the
award amount was $11,964,342.
Senator CLARK. The prospectus refers to adjustment to cost for
site, design and so forth. What does that represent in dollars? Do
you have a breakdown of that? If not, could you provide us with
one.
Mr. PEYTON. Yes, sir, I will.
[See answer to question A-b, p. 75.]
Senator CLARK. What is the artwork which is proposed? What
is the cost of that?
Mr. PEYTON. We have earmarked, as we customarily do on our
own public buildings, one-half of 1 percent of the cost of the
project. The artwork is an integral part of the design of the
building.
In this case, the architect has proposed a piece of sculpture to be
placed on the outside plaza area to serve as a focal point in enter-
ing the building.
Senator CLARK. What is the dollar figure?
Mr. PEYTON. One-half of 1 percent.
Senator CLARK. What is the dollar figure for that? It would be
fair to assume that the dollar figure which you gave me refers to
more than the sculpture, would it not?
Mr. PEYTON. One-half of 1 percent would be for the sculpture.
Senator CLARK. Just for the sculpture?
Mr. PEYTON. Yes, sir.
Senator CLARK. What is the dollar figure for that?
Mr. PEYTON. I don't have that, sir.
Senator CLARK. Can you give me a ball park figure.
Mr. PEYTON. Approximately $60,000.
Senator CLARK. Would you describe the parking facilities pro-
posed or under construction?
Mr. SHIPP. Senator, I don't have that information. I will have
to provide it for you. [See answer to question A-13, p. 76.]
Senator CLARK. Senator Scott?
Senator SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, in view of the questions you have
raised here and the witnesses actually not knowing the details, and
I really don't mean this by way of criticism, I believe we ought to
have our staff sit down with the people from GSA and go over each
of these items.
Somehow I felt that this adjustment was being made because of
unforeseen subsurface rock formation and then you talk about the
2 percent. I don't believe we received the full picture.
I am not accusing General Services of attempting to mislead the
committee, but I believe that we ought to have our staff just go over
these various items so that they can satisfy themselves and recom-
mend to us that all of this increase is justified.
I am extremely anxious that there be no delay in this building,
but at the same time I feel that we ought to be satisfied that this
PAGENO="0076"
70
and every other building that comes before this committee for
changes, is justified.
This is the opportunity for GSA to satisfy the subcommittee that
this is true.
I don't mean this by way of harassment of a Government agency.
I know you gentlemen have a difficult job in planning all these
things, but we do have the responsibility to oversee this, not only
I think we ought to be satisfied before we give the okay on any of
on behalf of our full committee, but on behalf of the entire Senate.
these things.
What would be the result if this increase were not approved by
the Congress? [See answer to question A-15, p. 76.]
Mr. SHIPP. We are not prepared to answer that. I understood the
question to be describing the parking facilities. The prospectus says
we will provide 202 onsite parking spaces, but I don't know what
the exact design of the building is. We can provide that to you.
[See answer to question A-13, p. 76.]
Senator SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I believe, frankly-and the chair-
man and I have talked about this a number of times; we have talked
with the chairman of the full committee with regard to it-we need
to have these gentlemen, when they come before us, to be familiar
enough with these projects to answer any reasonable questions that
the committee presents to them.
I know you can't have everything right at your fingertips, but I
am not impressed at all by your knowledge of this project and the
details of what is going on.
I would hope that after today you might, in advance of coming
before the committee, be able to answer your questions of this na-
ture on these individual projects, to be in a position so you can give
us the answer.
I would assume that this is fully justified, what you are attempt-
ing to do, but I don't know whether it is or not. I think the burden
of proof is somewhat on you when you come before us to justify
every one of these projects.
Mr. Chairman, I think this subcommittee ought to feel that these
things are justified before we take favorable action on any of the
projects.
Would it be feasible to sit down with our staff and go over these
individual items? It this feasible?
Mr. PEYTON. Yes, sir, it is.
Senator CLARK. I think it is a very reasonable request. I think
prior to the time we report these prospectuses from the subcommittee
to the full committee that the staff ought to be consulting with GSA
and review the testimony that they are not able to provide.
I have to leave at noon.
We will not have the opportunity to go through all of the ques-
tions that we have. I think it is a good suggestion that the staff
review these projects and then consult with us.
Based on that consultation, we will decide whether to report the
prospectuses.
PAGENO="0077"
71
Senator SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I will not be able to stay. We have
an Armed Services Committee meeting that started at 10 o'clock.
I do have a conflict. The Senate, as you know, is not in session today.
I hope to get away for a long weekend.
I was just wanting to suggest to the chairman that after we com-
plete this particular item, if there is one more which is most urgent,
perhaps we might take it up next.
Mr. SHIPB. Mr. Chairman, I would like to indicate that we have
been following the practice Senator Scott has mentioned. In fact,
we spent 5 hours yesterday sitting with the staff, going over 13. But
even in 5 hours, with 13 prospectuses, to make sure we have all the
detail on every one of them is an inadequate time, really.
We propose to continue that kind of work with the committee
staff to make sure we have detailed answers on all of them. We
really didn't get to Roanoke yesterday.
Senator SCOTT. Would it be feasible to have somebody accompany
you up here who is familiar, a person from GSA, who is familiar
with one project but who might not be familiar with all of them?
If there is some subordinate who woitld be familiar, who could
answer the questions, it would be helpful. WTe are on a Virgniia
project now and, naturally, I have a specific interest in this. There
must be somebody at GSA who has all of these answers.
Is it feasible, as we go along in the future, to have someone here?
You said you tried to familiarize yourself yesterday. But somebody
was aware of this project and the details of it long before yesterday.
I would hope there is somebody in GSA who is familiar with it.
Is it handled at the regional level or the State level? Who is over-
seeing this?
Mr. SHIPP. It is handled at the regional level. To come in with
the kind of detail that we are talking about here probably would
require us to bring maybe a man off the site who is actually observ-
ing what is going on there.
Senator SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I don't want to suggest to the
chairman or to the witnesses exactly how we should proceed. But
I do feel there is an obligation on behalf of GSA to furnish this
subcommittee with sufficient information upon which we can make
adjustment decision.
I think that is your obligation. As far as I am concerned, I am
not going to vote in favor of these until we get that on the various
projects.
Senator CLARK. Earlier in the conversations I pointed out that the
committee last year decided on a new set of requirements with
regard to that, and that it would be my hope that we not take up
further prospectuses until that kind of material is made available.
At least the staff, prior to the hearing, would have ready and easy
access to all of the information that might arise in the process of
the hearing or in the process of our consideration in executive ses-
sion. So I share that view.
[Responses to additional questions and the prospectus follow:]
PAGENO="0078"
72
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
FEDERAL OFFICE BUILDING
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
A -1. THE 1972 PROSPECTUS AUTHORIZED A BUILDING PROVIDING A "NET' AREA
OF 191,000 SQUARE FEET. THIS ONE REFERS TO AN "OCCUPIABLE" AREA OF
164,260 SQUARE FEET. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? HOW IS IT DETERMINED?
The difference of 26,740 square feet is composed of aisles and
corridors which were not included in 1974 prospectus. The gross
area of the building remains the same, under the 1972 and 1974
prospectuses.
A -2. WHAT DOES IKE POSTAL .SERVICE RETAIN HERE?
Upon completion of the Roanoke Federal Office Building, the Postal
Service will retain the following Government-owned and leased
facilities:
Government-owned
Building Net Occupiable Sq. Ft.
SCF Mail Processing Facility 109,116
VHF (Vehicle Naintenance Facility) 7,280
New FOB Station ~,O20
Total Government-owned 124,416
Leased
So. Roanoke Station 4,740
Gradin Road Station 6,076
Rollins College 527
Nelrose Station 4,895
Williamson Road . 2,938
Rollins Branch 3,440
Tanglewood Mall 110
Total Leased 22,726
GSA-PBS Nay 31, 1974
PAGENO="0079"
73
A -3. THE HOUSING PLAN INDICATES U.S. COURT FACILITIES WILL OCCUPY
18 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL SPACE. IS THIS MAINLY COURT ROOMS?
HOW MUCH OP THE INCREASED COST DOES THIS ACCOUNT FOR?
Space for the U.S. Court facilities is broken down as follows:
Net Occupiable
Main Court Facilities: Sq. Ft. -
Court rooms (3) 4,670
Court Support Area 17,047
(Probation Officer, Clerk, Reporters, 21,717 total
Jury rooms, Referee, etc.)
Court-related space
U.S. Marshal's area 1,648
U.S. Attorney General'.s area. 3~54O
5,188 total
The main court facilities cost approximately $110.40 per net
occupiable square foot while the court-related space is $92.00
per net occupiable square foot. Therefore, the total cost of all
the court facilities is approximately $2,875,000.
The proposed February 22, 1974 amendment to the prospectus does
not include any additional costs for court space.
A -4. TUE RATIO OF USABLE SPACE TO THE TOTAL IS ONLY 62 PERCENT. WHAT IS
THE REMAINING SPACE WHICH IS NOT USABLE?
Space considered "not usable" for office or court purposes includes
space for 1) restrooms and lounges, 2) stairwells, 3) elevators and
and escalator shafts, 4) building equipment and service areas,
5) entrance and all elevator lobbies, 6) stacks and shafts, 7) fully
enclosed convectors and 8). corridors for internal traffic flow.
This type of space typically accounts for 30-40% of the gross space
in federally-owned buildings.
GSA-PBS May 31, 1974
PAGENO="0080"
74
A -5. IS THE BUILDING LOCATED DOWNTOWN? HOW WAS THE SITE ACQUIRED?
Yes, the site is located within the Central Business District of
the downtown area of Roanoke.
The site, containing 11 parcels, 129,632 square feet, was acquired
by direct purchase for cash and by exchange. Ten (10) parcels were
purchased directly from owners at a total cost of $379,000. One
parcel was acquired by exchange of excess Government-owned property
in New York City.
The exchange involved a transfer of excess Government-owned property
in New York Cit~ valued at $3,200,000 to a purchaser who conveyed
(1) to GSA a garage and gas station property located in New York City
valued at $750,000 and cash in the amount of $406,200; (2) in addition,
the purchaser paid cash in the amount of $468,800 to the School
Board of the City of Roanoke, Virginia for a parcel which was conveyed
to GSA and (3) cash in the amount of $1,575,000 to the trustees
of Indiana University for a complete block in the City of Indianapolis
which was transferred to GSA.
A -6. IN A PERIOD OF 6 YEARS THE ESTIMATED COST HAS INCREASED 182 PERCENT.
WHAT ACCOUNTS FOR THIS?
Cost increase of approximately 182 percent in 6 years from $5,534,000
to $15,610,000 is attributed to the following:
1) Construction cost escalation - $4,981,000
Original prospectus estimate of cost was prepared in April 1965.
No allowance was made for construction cost escalation at that
time. The actual escalation experienced from the time the
original prospectus was submitted (8/30/66) to the present is
90 percent.
2) Increased gross square feet area of building -
66,000 square feet at $58.26 per sq. ft. -- $ 3,845,000
The net assignable square feet was expanded from
126,400 to 164,260 primarily to incorporate
space for the U.S. Courts, U.S. Attorneys
and U.S. Marshals. Court space is 20%
more costly than general office space to
construct.
3) Increased foundation cost - $ 1,250,000
Total Increase $10,076,000
GSA-PBS Nay 31, 1974
PAGENO="0081"
75
A -7. WHEN WAS THE CONTRACT AWARDED, AND IN WHAT AMOUNT?
The contract was awarded on August 3, 1973, in the amount of
$11,964, 342. -
A -8. WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE TOTAL CONTRACT PRICE DID PILING REPRESENT?
Initial amount included in contract - $268,342
2% of total contract - based on unit prices per linear foot of
piling anticipated.
A -9. WERE OTHER SITE COSTS INVOLVED? IF SO, WHY WEREN'T THEY MENTIONED?
Other site costs were involved. The price paid ($468,800) by a
third party on behalf of the Government as a part of the exchange
described in the response to question five.
a) This was not mentioned because the funds used were non-appropriated
funds.
A-b. THE PROSPECTUS REFERS TO "ADJUSTMENTS TO COSTS FOR SITE, DESIGN, ETC."
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN, AND REPRESENT IN DOLLARS? IS A BREAXDOWN
AVAILABLE?
Adjustments to estimated costs for site, design, etc., are as
follows:
1972 1974 Reason for Increase/Decrease
Site $571,000 $433,530 Acquired for less cost
Design 463,000 493,882 Redesign foundation (piling)
*Mang. &
Insp. 552,000 746,218 Constr. Delay
Total $1,586,000 $1,662,630 (Rounded to $1,663,000)
A-lb. - WHAT ARE THE' "OBLIGATIONS INCURRED" THAT ARE NOTED?
As of May 1974, $13,048,088 has been obligated.
A-l2. WHAT "ART WORE" IS PROPOSED?
The art work is an integral part of the design of the building.
The architect has proposed a piece of sculpture to be placed in the
outside plaza area to serve as a focal point for visual interest
and human scale. The cost for the art work is estimated to be
$61,840.
,GSA-PBS May 31, 1974
36-623 0 - 74 - 6
PAGENO="0082"
76
A-l3. DESCRIBE PARKING FACILITIES (200 SPACES) PROPOSED OR UNDER
CONSTRUCTION.
The project will have 156 parking spaces in an enclosed one-story
parking structure adjacent to and connecting with the high-rise
portion of the building, with 80 spaces on the roof deck and -
76 spaces below. An additional 44 surface spaces are provided,
with 24 of these spaces designated for Postal Service patrons and
official vehicles. Total parking to be provided at this location
is 200 spaces.
A-l4. WHAT ARE CITY ORDINANCES OR REQUIREMENTS WITH RESPECT TO PARKING?
The building is located in an area zoned "C-3 District" which does
not require parking in buildings. However, the usual practice is
for buildings to include parking spaces. For example, in the urban
renewal project area for Roanoke, parking areas are included.
A-l5. WHAT WOULD BE THE RESULT IF THE REQUESTED INCREASE HERE NOT APPROVED
AT THIS TINE?
Without approval of the prospectus amendment the building cannot
be completed. Two elevators and fine arts cannot be provided.
In addition, it would be necessary to delete such items as
landscaping and to leave court space and/or general office areas
unfinished to the extend required to deliver a partially complete
and operational facility.
GSA-PBS May 31, 1974
PAGENO="0083"
77
B -1. WOULD YOU PLEASE PROVIDE US WITH MORE DETAILED INFORMATION ON THE
"UNFORESEEN SUBSURFACE ROCK FORMATION' PROBLEM?
The underlying strata in the downtown area of Roanoke consists of
nearly vertical layers or strips of limestone with intermediate
mud seams and weathered shale zones. The limestone and shale layers
are weathered to varying depths. Also limestone layers and mud seams
both vary in thickness, usually one to five feet. These layers stand
just enough off vertical so that piling frequently tends to slip off
rather than seat. This condition requires special pile tips and
frequently piling will be bent or driven off center so that pile
extractions and re-driving is necessary.
Even if every column footing is drilled, which is quite expensive,
there is no guarantee of pre-determining piling depths. This is
because the widths of supporting layers are frequently less than
a pile cluster.
Extensiv~ structural redesign of the pile foundation was required
*by the Architect-Engineer to determine nature and extent of pile
corrective work to secure a sound foundation.
B -2. When can we expect construction to be completed?
Current projection for completion is December 1975, considering
three-month delay attributable to delay in completion of pile driving.
GSA-PBS May 31, 1974
PAGENO="0084"
78
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PVA-74024
PROJECT NUMBER : NVA-74524
(Formerly numbered - 45-0095 Revised)
PROSPECTUS TO AMEND A PUBLIC BUILDING PROJECT
AUTHORIZED UNDER THE PUBLIC BUILDINGS ACT OF 1959, AS AMENDED
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT:
This amendment is submitted to increase the authorized maximum limit of
cost for the public building project listed below. The justification for
the project, as described in the approved prospectus, has not lessened;
however, the maximum limit has increased above the amounts authorized by
section 5(e) of Public Law 92-313. There is attached a detailed explanation
of the increased cost.
2. PROPOSED AMENDMENT:
Total Estimated
Location Project Maximum Cost
Roanoke, Virginia Richard H. Poff $15,610,000
Federal Building
3. STATEMENT OF NEED:
It has been determined that (1) the needs for space of the Federal Government
in this community cannot be satisfied by utilization of existing suitable
property now owned by the Government; and (2) suitable rental space is not
available at a price commensurate with that to be afforded through the action
proposed herein.
FEB 22 ~74
Submitted at Washington, D.C. on ______________________
Recommended: //
Co issio r, PublicBuildings Se~vice
Approved : ____________________________________
Administrator ~~Genera1 Services
PAGENO="0085"
79
PROPOSED NIENOMENT TO:
RICHARD H. POFF FEDERAL BUILDING ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
t~rmer1y Courthouse an~ FecFé~äT Office Building)
Prospectus Number: PVA-74O24
Project Number : NVA-74524
(Formerly numbered - 45-0095 Revised)
DATE SUBMITTED TO CONGRESS -
Revised Prospectus - June 8, 1972
DATE OF APPROVAL BY CG'IMITTEES ON PUBLIC WORKS:
House of Representatives - June 14, 1972
Senate - September 21, 1972
Design of the project is complete and the contract for construction has been
awarded under the purchase contract authority of the Public Buildings Amend-
ments of 1972, P.L. 92-313. The amount of construction award was within
the allowable escalation pursuant to section 5(e).
The increased authority is required due to an increa~e in the base contract
price caused by unusual and unforeseen subsurface rock formation which
necessitates driving piles by more than 200 percent of the specification
depth and in some cases the difficulties are so severe as to require
drilling. The amount for construction also reflects sufficient additional
margin for contingencies and fine arts. This amendment will also serve to
adjust the cost of Site, Design, Management and Inspection to reflect the
obligations incurred.
Approved Estimated Revised Estimated
ESTIMATED COST: Maximum Cost Maximum Cost*
Site, Design, Management
and Inspection $ 1,586,000 $ 1.663.000
Construction jj,j~g,ooo ]~947,ooO
TOTAL COST $12,755,000 $15,610,000
APPROXIMATE AREAS:
Gross Square Feet 272,000 272,000
Occupiable Square Feet 164,260 164,260
*Exclusive of financing or other costs attributable to the use of the
method of construction authorized (section 5(e), Public Buildings
Amendments of 1972).
PAGENO="0086"
80
COURTHOUSE AND FEDERAL OFFICE BUILDING, DAYTON, OHIO
Senator CLARK. We are going to ask that a number of questions
be answered in writing on several other projects. I see we have
seven more prospectuses to consider.
I am speaking to the staff now as well as the General Services
Administration. I wonder if they have any particular suggestions
on the importance of these projects, the controversy involved in
some of these projects, as to which one or two we might take up in
our remaining time.
[Responses to additional questions and the prospectus follow:]
PAGENO="0087"
81
DAYTON, OHIO
COURTHOUSE AND FEDERAL OFFICE BUILDING
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
A -1. THE PROSPECTUS INDICATES SITE AND DESIGN COSTS INCREASED 253 PERCENT
SINCE PREVIOUS APPROVAL. WAS THE DESIGN CHANGED? WHAT IS THE EXPLANA-
TION?
1965 1973 EXPLANATION
Site $ -0- $ 10,000 Expenses of exchange
Design and Review 241,000 582,000 (1)
Management and
Inspection 102,000 620,000 (2)
TOTAL $343,000 $1,212,000
(1) Costs increased due to extensive review involved in initial A/E
design. The A/E contract was terminated at the concept stage and a
new A/E selected. Further delays and subsequent costs were due to
slow approval of plans for space by Justice Department.
(2) Increased inspection costs are due to (a) separate A/E contract
for site inspection services due to regional inspection shortage
and (b) additional manpower at site required by GSA management
report adapted in 1968.
A -2. WHAT CAUSED THE CONSTRUCTION COST TO INCREASE 95 PERCENT SINCE 1966?
Increases in construction cost between 1966 and 1973 are due primarily
to escalation. Secondary increases were due to incorporation of new design
criteria into project which were not anticipated previously. These
criteria include office excellence program, high-rise fire safety,
integrated~ ceiling system and life cycle items such as insulated
mirror glass. The nationwide construction costs between 1966 and 1973
increased 73% or 9% per annum.
A -3. THE PROSPECTUS INDICATE THE POSTAL SERVICE WITHDREW THEIR REQUIREMENTS
AFTER 1970. YET 20 PERCENT OF THE SPACE IS ASSIGNED TO THEM. WHY?
The prospectus for Dayton does not indicate withdrawal of the Postal
Service.
A -4. MORE THAN A QUARTER OF THE SPACE IS ASSIGNED TO THE COURTS. IS MOST OF
THIS TAKEN UP BY COURT ROOMS?
Of the 23,535 square feet of space assigned to the U.S. Courts, there
are three courtrooms which will contain approximately 10,700 square
feet of space. About 12,800 square feet of space will be utilized for
* - Judges suites and other court related functions.
GSA-PBS - May 31; 1974 -
PAGENO="0088"
82
A -5. HOW FAR HAS THE PROJECT PROGRESSED AT THIS POINT?
As of May 20, 1974, the project is 20% complete. The excavation,
foundations and structural steel are substantially complete. At
present the building is being enclosed and rough-in of mechanical
and electrical systems are underway.
A -6. WHEN WAS THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AWARDED, AND FOR HOW MUCH?
The construction contract was awarded on August 3, 1973, in the amount
of $8,128,000.
A -7. WERE COMPETITIVE BIDS ADVERTISED?
Competitive bids were solicited.
A -8. ON WHAT BASIS WAS THE AWARD MADE?
The award was made on the basis of the lowest responsive bid.
A -9. WAS THE BID WITHIN THE AUTHORIZED LIMIT OR WERE "OPTIONS" DELETED TO
REDUCE THE AMOUNT? WHAT WERE THEY?
The contractor's full proposal was within the authorized limit and
there were no deduct options included in the bid solicitation. How-
ever, there was only $96,258 in contingency funds available. The
revised prospectus will increase the contingency authorization to
$401,200 for change orders after award of the construction contract
and also will provide for other work such as integrated ceilings,
fire safety, and fine arts.
A-lO. WASN'T A NEED FORESEEN FOR THE ADDITIONAL ITEMS NOW PROPOSED, SUCH
AS SPECIAL COMMUNICATION AND SAFETY SYSTEM? WHAT ARE THESE AND WHAT
WILL THEY COST? OR ARE THEY INSTALLED ALREADY?
The additional items now proposed were adopted as GSA design standards
or criteria after the previous estimate for the Dayton project was
prepared. Exact costs for these systems are not known at this time.
We believe these features can be incorporated into this project for
$626,100.
GSA-PBS May 31, 1974
PAGENO="0089"
83
A-il. WHAT IS AN "INTEGRATED CEILING?" WHAT KIND WAS PROPOSED ORIGINALLY?
The integrated ceiling system incorporates the major environmental
parameters for the open areas of office space. The items provided by
the integrated ceiling are 1) acoustical control, 2) fire rating, 3)
heat and airconditioning, and 4) lighting. The system contains complete
flexibility for future space alterations which justifies a higher
initial cost.
The original ceiling system consisted of 1) separate suspended T-bars
and panels, 2) supply and return air diffusers and 3) electrical light
fixtures.
A-l2. EXPLAIN "LIFE-CYCLE ITEMS." AND INSULATED MIRROR GLASS, BOTH OF
WHICH INCREASED THE COST.
1. Life-~ycle Items. Components of a building such as 1) added
insulation, 2) insulated mirror glass, 3) special lighting fixtures,
etc., which result in lower annual operating costs and conservation
of energy.
2. Insulated Mirror Glass. Consists of two layers of glass with an
air pocket in between. The outer layer of glass has a mirror-like
coating which reflects rays of sunshine to prevent excessive heat
build-up in the building. Occupants can see out from the building,
but vision into the building is prevented by the one-way mirror
effect. The same insulating qualities of the glass also reduces
the heat loss through the windows during cold weather.
A-l3. IS GSA PUTTING THESE INTO ALL NEW OFFICE BUILDINGS?
The use of insulated mirror glass was a specific design solution for
energy conservation for the Dayton project. This solution will not
necessarily be used on all GSA projects. However, life-cycle cost
analysis will be used for other GSA projects on a case-by-case basis
in order to determine what energy conservation measures are required.
A-l4. THE PROSPECTUS REFERS TO A "SUFFICIENT MARGIN FOR CONTINGENCIES"
WHICH INCREASES THE COST. WASN'T THIS PROVIDED IN THE EARLIER
ESTIMATES?
The normal amount for contingencies is 5% of the estimated construction
cost. This percentage is included in the revised prospectus and should
be sufficient for change orders and claims which occur after the award
of the construction contract. The original prospectus included $207,000
for contingencies and the pending prospectus estimated the contingencies
at $401,200. The base contract, as amended, only had $96,258 available
for contingencies in lieu of the required $401,200.
GSA-PBS - May31, 1974
PAGENO="0090"
84
A-l5. WHAT IS MEANT BY "THIS AMENDMENT WILL ALSO SERVE TO ADJUST THE COST
OF SITE, DESIGN, MANAGEMENT, ETC.?" AND WHAT ARE "OBLIGATIONS INCURRED?"
Also see response to Question A-l. The breakdown of the above expenses is
as follows:
Approved Costs Reqpested Costs
Site costs $ 0 $ 10,000
Design & Review Costs 241,000 582,000
Management and
Inspection Costs 102,000 620,000
Total $343,000 $1,212,000
This amendment will authorize the required increases due to design and
supervision changes. Obligations incurred refers to the GSA costs
and contracts in these areas.
A-l6. ISN'T THE SITE GOVERNMENT-OWNED? HOW WAS IT ACQUIRED? WHEN? WHAT DID
IT COST?
Yes, deed was recorded November 24, 1969. It was acquired by an exchange
of the existing U.S. Post Office and Courthouse site in Dayton, Ohio,
for city owned property. The "agreement to exchange property" between
GSA and city of Dayton was approved by the City Council on November 20,
1968, and accepted by GSA on December 16, 1968. The prospectus amend-
ment provides for, among other things, an adjustment in site cost in the
amount of $10,000 to cover certain costs related to effecting exchanges.
A-l7. DID THIS CONTRIBUTE IN ANY WAY TO THE 253 PERCENT INCREASE IN SITE
COSTS?
This adjustment has only a nominal impact on site costs.
A-l8. WHY DIDN'T GSA CONE BACK TO THE CO~IITTEE SOONER, WHEN THE COST OVER-
RUN FIRST WAS EVIDENT, INSTEAD OF PUTTING US IN A POSITION OF HAVING
LITTLE CHOICE BUT TO APPROVE THE PROJECT?
There was no intention of putting the committee in such a position.
The planned addition of high rise fire safety systems, and integrdted
ceiling systems and life-cycle items to reduce energy requirements
can be deleted from the project should the committee not approve this
amendment.
GSA-PBS May 31, 1974
PAGENO="0091"
85
A-19. WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THE INCREASE WERE NOT APPROVED?
If approval is not given then the design must be modified or the
following items which are responsible for most of the increase must
* be deleted:
Special communication, protection, and high rise fire safety systems,
an integrated ceiling, insulated mirror glass to reduce energy require-
ments, office excellence system and fine arts. These items conform to
current design standards which were not required when the project was
initially developed in 1966.
GSA-PBS May 31, 1974
PAGENO="0092"
86
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: POH-74O22
PROJECT NUMBER : NOH-74522
(Formerly numbered 34-0195)
PROSPECTUS TO AMEND A PUBLIC BUILDING PROJECT
AUTHORIZED UNDER THE PUBLIC BUILDINGS ACT OF 1959, AS AMENDED
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT:
This amendment is submitted to increase the authorized maximum limit of
cost for the public building project listed below. The justification for
the project, as described in the approved prospectus, has not lessened;
however, the maximum limit has increased above the amounts authorized by
section 5(e) of Public Law 92-313. There is attached a detailed explanation
of the increased cost.
2. PROPOSED AMENDMENT:
Total Estimated
Location Proj~çt Maximum Cost
Dayton, Ohio Courthouse and $9,797,000
Federal Office Building
3. STATEMENT OF NEED:
It has been determined that (1) the needs for space of the Federal Government
in this community cannot be satisfied by utilization of existing suitable
property now owned by the Government; and (2) suitable rental space is not
available at a price commensurate with that to be afforded through the action
proposed herein.
FEB 22 1974
Submitted at
Recommended:
Commr~sFoner Public
Approved :
Administrator o/aneral Services
PAGENO="0093"
87
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO:
COURTHOUSE AND FEDERAL OFFICE BUILDING DAYTON, OHIO
Prospectus Number: POH-74O22
PROJECT NUMBER : NOH-74522
(Formerly numbered - 34-0195)
DATE SUBMITTED TO CONGRESS -
Original Prospectus - October 5, 1966
DATE OF APPROVAL BY COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC WORKS:
House of Representatives - October 6, 1966
Senate - October 10, 1966
Design of the project is completed and the contract for construction
has been awarded under the purchase contract authority of the Public
Buildings Amendments of 1972, P.L. 92-313. The amount of construction
award was within the allowable escalation pursuant to section 5(e).
The increased authority is required to cover the costs of providing
a special communication and safety system including an improved hig~V
rise fire safety system; an integrated ceiling system; life cycleL'-
items such as insulated mirror glass to reduce energy requirements;"
and fine arts. These items conform to current design standards which
were not required when the project was initially developed in 1966.
The amount for construction also reflects a sufficient margin for
contingencies. This amendment will also serve to adjust the cost of
Site, Design, Management and Inspection to reflect the obligations
incurred.
Approved Estimated Revised Estimated
ESTIMATED COST: Maximum Cost Maximum Cost*
Site, Design, Management
and Inspection $ 343,000 $1,212,000
Construction 4,395,000 8,585,000
TOTAL COST $4,738,000 $9,797,000
APPROXIMATE AREAS:
Gross Square Feet 162,300 164,056
Occupiable Square Feet 101,760 116,110
*Exclusive of financing or other costs attributable to the use of the
method of construction authorized (section 5(e), Public Buildings
Amendments of 1972).
PAGENO="0094"
88
Senator CLARK. Let's take up the Virgin Islands project.
CHARLOTTE AMALIE, VIRGIN ISLANDS
Mr. SHU?P. I was going to suggest that and then the R. & I.
projects.
Senator CLARK. Let's go to the project in the Virgin Islands.
This amendment is submitted to increase the authorized maximum
limit of cost for the public building project listed below. The justi-
fication for the project, as described in the approved prospectus, has
not lessened; however, the maximum limit has increased above the
amounts authorized by section 5(e) of Public Law 92-313.
Design of the project is complete and the contract for construc-
tion has been awarded under the purchase contract authority of the
Public Buildings Amendments of 1972, Public Law 92-313. The
amount of construction award was within the allowable escalation
pursuant to section 5(e) after eliminating all but the bare essen-
tials of the facility.
The increased authority is required to restore the eliminated items
such as emergency generator equipment; the second elevator; finishes
to the courtroom; fine arts and exterior paving and landscaping and
allow a sufficient margin for contingencies.
The amount for construction also reflects additional costs en-
countered in shipment of materials which were not available locally,
including import taxes, and other special local conditions such as
the nonavailability of concrete batching facilities.
This amendment will also serve to adjust the cost of site, design,
management and inspection to reflect the obligations incurred.
The approved estimated maximum cost of the project as it flow
stands is $5,931,000. The revised estimated maximum cost is
$7,823,700.
Senator CLARK. The 1972 prospectus shows site and design cost
to be $683,000, but this one shows those costs at $910,700. or a 33-
percent increase.
What additional design has been necessary since 1972?
Mr. PEYTON. No additional design, sir. However, we have found
that we underestimated the cost and inspection costs required for
this project.
Senator CLARK. You underestimated it by one-third?
Mr. PEYTON. Yes, sir.
Senator CLARK. How was the site acquired? Did this involve addi-
tional cost?
Mr. SHIPP. The site was acquired by, in effect, an exchange with
the territory, the Virgin Islands Territory, in that we had sold to
the Virgin Islands a former submarine base and there was an out-
standing indebtedness there.
We canceled a portion of that indebtedness in return for the
site. That amounted to $545,000 credit on the mortgage that we
were holding.
Senator CLARK. When ~vas the construction contract awarded, to
whom and for how much?
PAGENO="0095"
89
Mr. PEYTON. The award was made to the Benjamin Construction
Co., Inc., and Rodrieuguez and Del Via of St. Thomas, Virgin
Islands, on September 28, 1973.
It was awarded under the provisions of section 8(a) of the Small
Business Act.
Senator SCOTT. What is that?
Mr. PEYTON. Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act has proce-
dures prescribed to provide that Federal agencies may award con-
tracts to the Small Business Administration and they, in turn,
award to disadvantaged minority firms that are seeking to estab-
lish themselves on an independent financial basis.
Senator SCOTT. Does it require that they be competent contractors,
the disadvantaged?
Mr. PEYTON. The responsibility for the determination of com-
petency is with the Small Business Administration. It is my under-
standing that they have to show certain essential characteritsics
that would enable them to be competent.
Senator CLARK. When it becomes obvious that certain items must
be deleted to stay within the authorized amount, why did GSA go
ahead and award a contract? Why did they come back to the
committee then and put us in a position of having little choice but
to approve the project?
Mr. PEYTON. We felt that the prices obtained at the time would
enable us to have a completed facility. We have made some deletions
on the project as it stands at the moment.
However, these would not prevent us from fully utilizing the
building. This was based on our best management judgment at that
time.
Senator CLARK. How were the negotiated deletions selected? What
was the basis of the selection?
Mr. PEYTON. It was done on the basis of those items that we felt
that if we had to we could get along without. The ones that were
selected are not unusual for this type of situation.
Senator CLARK. Why do you now want these deletions reinstated ~
Mr. PEYTON. They are in the category of desirable rather than
mandatory. We presently hold options with the contractor, such
options expiring on May 31, which would enable us to now provide
them.
We feel that if we could exercise these options we could obtain
the most advantageous price to the Government as compared with
some future procurement undoubtedly at a higher cost.
Senator CLARK. We get back always, eventually, to the nature of
the prospectus and the material provided here. It seems to me it
would have been appropriate to mention these in the prospectus,
that it would have been appropriate to explain these in the pro-
spectus.
What is the status of the project now?
Mr. PEYTON. The project is under construction. It is approxi-
mately 15 percent complete at this point in time.
PAGENO="0096"
gO
Senator CLARK. There are options totaling $732,000. If these op-
tions are not picked up by May 31, what will they cost later? Must
that be done now? Is that the point?
Mr. PEYTON. The options expire. They represent prices that were
arrived at back in the time frame of when the contract was awarded.
We have had cost escalations since that time. The future price to
be paid by the Government in the event the options are not picked
up would, of course, depend on at what point in time the procure-
ment action was completed.
I think it is certainly reasonable to say that, undoubtedly, it
would be a significantly higher price.
Senator CLARK. That is 8 days from now.
Mr. PEYTON. Yes, sir.
Senator CLARK. How much does the Government have invested in
this project at this point
Mr. PEYTON. At the moment, totaling $6,685,900.
Senator CLARK. Senator Scott?
Senator SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I notice the cost per person here is $45,000 and that the space
per person is 300 square feet. That space per person is greater than
any other that we have before us today except the South Carolina
project.
The cost per person is greater than any other except the one in
Fairbanks. I am just thinking, maybe in a parochial way. I notice
in Virginia the cost per person is $18,600, and the cost per person
is $45,000 in the Virgin Island.
I can understand Fairbanks, Alaska, where you have inflation,
or you seem to have it more than in any other of our States or most
of our States.
I didn't look on the Virgin Islands as being a high-cost area.
I have visited down there. In fact, there does seem to be some
poverty in the Virgin Islands. We talk about using disadvantaged
persons down there. Do you pay disadvantaged persons more money
than you would pay the ordinary person?
Mr. PEYTON. No, sir. We comply with the Davis-Bacon Act on
this project.
Senator SCOTT. The Davis-Bacon Act requires that you pay pre-
vailing wages. Is that true on all of your projects, that you pay
prevailing wages?
Mr. PEYTON. Yes, sir.
Senator SCOTT. Every project? Whether it is going through the
Small Business Administration or not, you still pay prevailing
wages?
What accounts for this being two and a half times the unit cost,
per person cost, in the Virgin Islands as compared with Virginia?
Mr. PEYTON. The answer in part lies, sir, on a large segment of
the added cost is due to the necessity of shipping materials into
the Virgin Islands.
There is no industry to speak of there, and little, certainly, asso-
ciated with building construction.
PAGENO="0097"
91
Senator SCOTT. I am wondering if we are talking about using re-
cycled materials in one instance if we might not look into the feasibil-
ity of building buildings out of something that is available locally.
I have been in the Virgin Islands. They seem to have modern
buildings in the Virgin Islands. As you saying that for the build-
ings that are there all the materials are shipped in?
Don't they have stone on the Virgin Islands? I am not aware
of them having steel mills but, as far as the bulk of the material,
don't they have something you can use there without shipping in
everything?
Mr. PEYTON. I am really not familiar with precisely what is
available there.
Senaotr SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about paying two
and a half times as much in the Virgin Islands as you do in
Virginia. I ask that GSA address itself to this and respond to the
staff.
[Answers to additional staff questions, responses to questions from
Senator Scott, and the prospectus follow:]
36-623 0 - 74 - 7
PAGENO="0098"
92
CHARLOTTE AMALIE, ST. MA, VI
COURTHOUSE - FEDERAL OFFICE BUILDING
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS~
A -1. THE 1972 PROSPECTUS SHOWS SITE AND DESIGN COSTS TO BE $683,000 BUT
THIS ONE SHOWS THEM AS $910,700 OR 33 PERCENT HIGHER. WHAT ADDITIONAL
DESIGN HAS BEEN NECESSARY SINCE 1972?
The $910,700 is required for site acquisition costs, design and review,
management and inspection and materials testing.
1972 1973 Reason for Increase
Site (Exchan$e Expenses) $ 10,000 $ 10,000 -
Design and Review 355,000 390,700 (1)
Management and
Inspection and
Materials Testing 318,000 510,000 (2)
TOTAL $683,000 $910,700
(1) The design and review costs increased due to extensive analysis
of final plans and specifications in an attempt to reduce construction
costs and-due to unanticipated demands on GSA personnel to negotiate
a contract in accordance with section 8(a) of the Small Business Act
(15 U.S.C. 637(a), rather than advertise for lump sum bids.
(2) The 8(a) method of contracting, which was not anticipated in the 1972
estimate, involves greater administrative costs for GSA personnel plus
higher fees to consultants for inspection services at the site. In
addition, the project required a higher level of inspection services
due to the increased construction cost which was not anticipated in
the earlier estimate.
A -2. T}IE ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION -COST HAS INCREASED FROM $5,248,000 to $6,913,000
OR 32 PERCENT SINCE 1972, AND THE PROSPECTUS INDICATES A REDUCTION IN
THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING. HOW IS THAT EXPLAINED? -
Increases in cost were due to items of cost not included in 1972 estimate
and slippage in contract capability date beyond that anticipated in the
1972 estimate.
The 79,000 sq. ft. gross was in error. The gross area remains the
same - - - 87,600 sq. ft.
The reasons for the $1,665,000 increase in construction costs are as
follows:
1. Increases due to escalation in construction costs not
included in 1972 estimate $ 523,000
2. Gross receipts taxes not anticipated in estimate 229,300
GSA-PBS May 31, 1974
PAGENO="0099"
93
3. Increased expenses due to 8(a) method of procurement
and materials cost increases revealed at the time
of the negotiation for a contract. $ 877,700
4. Steel cost increase due to SBA delay of award. 35,000
Incre~se $1,665,000
A -3. WHA1~ IS THE APPROXIMATE SQUARE FOOT COST OF THE BUILDING?
The project which was awarded for $5,802,000 is $66.23 per gross square
foot and the pending prospectus construction cost of $6,913,000 is
$78.90 per gross square foot. The increased construction cost will
provide funds for items required to complete the facility which are
not in the present contract.
A -4. HOW WAS THE SITE ACQUIRED? DID THIS INVOLVE ADDITIONAL COST?
The site was acquired through an exchange with the Government of the
Virgin Islands for credit against an existing mortgaged indebtedness
of the Virgin Islands dovernment. The indebtedness came from acquir-
ing the former U.S. Navy submarine station at Charlotte Amalie which
had been determined to be excess by the Navy. The Virgin Islands Government
acquired the Submarine Base from the U.S. Government in 1967. The
value of the Submarine Base was $3,934,000, 10% of this amount was
payable at the time of closing. The balance was payable over 10 years
in 40 equal quarterly installments (4 3/4 percent interest per annum).
The FMV of the original Federal Building site (77,548 sq. ft.) was
$387,700 and the FMV of additional land acquired (26,543 sq. ft.) was
$157,932.69. Site acquisition is not involved in this request for
increased authority and no appropriation for site has been made except
for administrative expenses.
A -5. WHEN WAS THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT AWARDED? TO WHOM? HOW MUCH?
Contract was awarded on September 28, 1973, for $5,802,000. The con-
tract was awarded to the Small Business Administration who subcontracted
th~ work to the Joint Venture of Benjamin Construction Co., and
Rodriguez a~nd Del Valle, Inc., St. Thomas, VI.
A -6. WERE BIDS ADVERTISED ON A COMPETETIV.E BASIS? ANY UNUSUAL CIRCUMSIANCES?
The contract was not advertised on a competitive basis. It was
negotiated with SBA and its subcontractor, the joint venture of
Benjamin Construction Co., and Rodriguez and Del Valle. The contract
was negotiated and awarded to SBA in accordance with their authority
under section 8(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(a)). There
were no unusual circumstances.
A -7. DESCRIBE DETAILS OF THE CONTRACT.
Section 8(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(a)) authorized
the Small Business Administration to enter into contracts with the
GSA-PBS . May 31, 1974
PAGENO="0100"
94
United States Government and any department, agency or officer thereof
having procurement powers obligating the Administration to furnish
articles, equipment, supplies or materials to the Government. Section
8(a) also authorizes the SBA to arrange for the performance of such
contracts by negotiating or otherwise 1-~tting subcontracts to Small
Business concerns or others for the manufacture, supply, or assembly
of such articles, equipment, supplies or materials or parts thereof, or
servicing or processing in connection therewith, or such management
services as may be necessary to enable the Administration to perform
such contracts. The Comptroller General in his opinion on October 2,
1969, indicated that the authority under 8(a) applied to both service
and construction, contracts.
SBA certified the competency of the joint venture of Benjamin
Construction Co., and Rodriguez and Del Valle and in accordance with
their authority under Section 8(a), the award was made.
A -8. WHEN IT BECAME OBVIOUS THAT CERTAIN ITEMS MUST BE DELETED TO STAY WITHIN
THE AUTHORIZED AMOUNT, `WHY DID GSA GO AHEAD AND AWARD A CONTRACT? WHY
DIDN'T THEY COME BACK TO THE COMMITTEE THEN, INSTEAD OF PUTTING US IN
THE POSITION OF HAVING LITTLE CHOICE BUT TO APPROVE THE PROJECT?
There was no intention of putting the committee in such a position.
The decision to award this contract was made only after careful
consideration of all the facts and alternative courses of action. The
rapidly escalating cost of construction together with the acute need
for the facility were the overriding reasons for proceeding with the
construction although it was necessary to delete certain items from
the work. The deleted items would not affect the occupancy of the
building but would be required to fully complete the exterior and
some of the interior refinements.
A -9. HOW WERE THE NEGOTIATED DELEGATIONS SELECTED.... ON WHAT BASIS?
The items selected for deletion were those that would least affect the
occupancy of the building and would still allow GSA to provide safe
and' usable space for the occupying Federal. agencies.
A-lO. WHY DOES GSA NOW WANT THEM REINSTATED?
We wish to complete the unfurnished areas and provide previously
deleted items as soon as possible to avoid further escalation of
construction costs.
A-ll. WHY WEREN'T THEY MENTIONED IN THE PROSPECTUS, AND FULLY EXPLAINED?
The major deletions were noted in the prospectus in summary form
but it was not felt necessary to specifically detail the thirty-one
items of work deleted because of their technical nature. For further
information, see answer to B-2.
GSA-PBS `May 31, 1974
PAGENO="0101"
95
A-l2. WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THE PROJECT NOW?
As of May 3, 1974, the project was 15 % completed. All foundation
work has been completed.
A-13. WERE THERE ANY SPECIAL QUALIFICATIONS ATTACHED TO THESE NEGOTIATED
DELETIONS OR OPTIONS, SUCH AS A TINE LIMIT?
Yes, the options at prices negotiated in November 1973 had to be
exercised by May 31, 1974. Although this option has expired we
expect to use the increased authority to complete the facility.
A-l4. WHAT ARE POST-CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS? WERE THESE PART OF CONTRACT
OR ONE OF THE OPTIONS? WHAT DO THEY COST?
GSA's management of the project during construction plus required
inspection and testing services total $510,000. The design architect-
engineer contract has a"post construction contract services" option
which covers review of shop drawings, color selections, hardware
schedules, compilation of operating manuals, and modification of design
drawings dueto any design deficiencies which surface during the con-
struction period. The amount of these services is $24,360.
A-l5. EXPLAIN THE NOTATION "THIS AMENDMENT WILL ALSO SERVE TO ADJUST THE
COST OF SITE, DESIGN, MANAGEMENT, ETC." AND "OBLIGATIONS INCURRED."
The increases were detailed in the explanation of the site and design
costs. (A-l) The adjustments in design and review, management and
inspection and material testing costs are due to the passage of time
and GSA's consulting contracts for design, inspection services,
general construction contract and change orders to date.
A-l6. IF THESE OPTIONS, TOTALING $732,000, ARE NOT PICKED UP BY NAY 31
WHAT WILL THEY COST LATER? MUST THEY BE DONE NOW?
It-will be necessary to renegotiate the contract for these options.
The amount of increase will depend on market conditions at the time of
renegotiation. We predict that costs will escalate 12% for calendar
year 1974 and 8% for calendar year 1975. The unfiniahed work should
be completed as soon as possible to avoid unreasonable cost increases
due to escalation. S
A-17. HOW MUCH DOES THE GOVERNMENT HAVE INVESTED IN THIS PROJECT ALREADY?
GSA has invested $6,685,900 in this project which includes the base
contract of $5,802,000.
GSA-PBS May 31, 1974
PAGENO="0102"
96
A-18. IS THE BUILDING BIG ENOUGH TO SATISFY PRESENT AND FUTURE SPACE
REQUIREMENTS? HOW MUCH IS PROVIDED FOR FUTURE EXPANSION? IS ALL SPACE
USAGE NOW FULLY COMMITTED?
The building will accommodate all non-postal Federal agencies
requiring general purpose space in Charlotte Amalie. About 10%
of the agency space will be held in reserve for future expansion.
This should accommodate the Federal requirements for the immediate
and foreseeable future.
A-l9. WHAT "ART WORK"IS PROPOSED?
There is an allowance of $35,000 set aside for fine arts. The fine
arts have not been designed yet.
A-2O. HOW IS THIS PROJECT BEING FINANCED?
This project was part of a 17 project indenture for the sale of GSA
participation certificates awarded in August 1973. This indenture is
a three-part indenture whereby monies for design and construction for
the 17 projects would be drawn in August 1973, January 1974 and another
draw expected in September 1974.
Charlotte Amalie construction funding was included in indenture H
dated August 1, 1973.
A-2l. WILL THE INCREASED AMOUNT BE FINANCED THE SANE WAY?
Yes, the increased cost will be obtained in September 1974. There
is sufficient contingency funds available from the other 16 projects
in the indenture to carry the increased cost for this project until the
additional money is obtained in September.
GSA-PBS May 31, 1974
PAGENO="0103"
97
B -1. HAS CONSTRUCTION BEGUN ON THIS BUILDING? IS SO, HOW MUCH WORK HAS
BEEN ACCOMPLISHED UNDER THE EXISTING PROSPECTUS?
Yes, as of May 3, 1974, the project was 15% complete, all foundation
work has been completed.
GSA-PBS May 31, 1974
PAGENO="0104"
98
8. CHARLOTTE AMALIE, ST. THOMAS, VI~ CT FOB
Question: B-2 Please detail the various cost components
in the requested increase: * the cost of the
emergency generator, the second elevator, the
finishings to the courtroom, the fine arts, the
exterior paving, and the landscaping.
Response: The increased costs of options are as follows:
1. Emergency Generator $ 43,800
2. Elevators . 61,600
3. Complete 10,000 s.f. of unassigned 142,400
space
4. Finishes for courtroom and other 316,600
architectural work
5. Exterior paving and landscape 105,300
6. Miscellaneous mechanical! 62,300
electrical _______________
Total - Options $ 732,000
7. The fine arts is estimated to cost $ 35,000
GSA-PBS May 31. 1974
PAGENO="0105"
99
US Senate Subcommittee on Public Buildings
and Grounds. Questions by Senator Scott
Concerning Prospectus for
Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, VI
CT FOB
A. Comparative costs of Charlotte Amalie project with
FOB Roanoke, VA:
The total estimated maximum cost divided by the number
of assigned personnel is $45,487 for the Charlotte
Amalie project and $18, 717 fo:L~ the Roanoke project.
The cost per person for the Roanoke project compares
favorably with other projects recently considered by
this subcommittee within the contiguous United States.
However the Charlotte Amalie project is unique and
difficult to compare to other GSA projects for the
following reasons:
1. The. project is located on the St. Thomas, VI
island which imposes a high-cost burden on the project
due to materials shipping costs, long-range scheduling
and. purchasing of materials, importation of labor, and
general loss of efficiency during the construction
~equence.
2. A gross receipts tax aggregating to 3½% of the
construction cost which is required for the VI and
is not required in Virginia.
PAGENO="0106"
100
3. The Charlotte Ainalie project has 87,600 gross
square Loot versus 272,000 gross square foot for the
Roanoke building. As a general rule the unit costs
for a GSA project tends to be higher as the gross
area provided is lower.
4. The Charlotte Ainalie project was negotiated under
the provisions of Section 8(a) of .the Small Business
Act and the Roanoke project was awa~ded to the low
responsive lump-sum bidder. In our opinion this in-
creased the Charlotte Amalie costs considerably.
5. The occupiable and gross area per person in the
completed design for the Charlotte Amalie project is
substantially higher than the Roanoke project. This
is a result of a mix of assigned spaces with
*l to 25 per agency for Charlotte Amalie and from
2 to 244 per agency for Roanoke. The area per person
for several small agency assignments thus becomes
greater than in the.c~seof Roanoke.where the number
of personnel per agency is greater and the design can
be more efficient.
B. Local Building Materials:
The only building material available on St. Thomas, VI
is gravel foruse as an aggregate in concrete. All
other materials including the cement, sand and water
PAGENO="0107"
101
concrete are barged in. Water for construction pur-
poses will become available when a de-salizination
plant is completed within the next few months.
PCGE:W.T.COYLE/PCJS.E.LESK0 X4587 6/21/74
PAGENO="0108"
102
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PVI-74013
PROJECT NUMBER : NVI-74513
(Formerly numbered 53-0004 Revised)
PROSPECTUS TO AMEND A PUBLIC BUILDING PROJECT
AUTHORIZED UNDER THE PUBLIC BUILDINGS ACT OF 1959, AS AMENDED
1. DESCRIPTION_OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT:
This amendment is submitted to increase the authorized maximum limit of
cost for the public building project listed below. The justification for
the project, as described in the approved prospectus, has not lessened;
however, the maximum limit has increased above the amounts authorized by
section 5(e) of Public Law 92-313. There is attached a detailed explanation
of the increased cost.
2. PROPOSED AMENDMENT:
Total Estimated
Location ~gject Maximum Cost
Charlotte Amalie, Virgin Islands Courthouse and $7,823,700
Federal Office Building
3. STATEMENT OF NEED:
It has been determined that (1) the needs for space of the Federal Govern-
ment in this community cannot be satisfied by utilization of existing
suitable property now owned by the Government; and (2) suitable rental
space is not available at a price commensurate with that to be afforded
through the action proposed herein.
Submitted at Washington, D.C. on ____________________________________
.L~51;~4~'
Recommended. __________
Approved : C so,ucB ic -
A inistrator i~ General Services
PAGENO="0109"
103
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO:
COURTHOUSE AND FEDERAL OFFICE BUILDING CHARLOTTE AMALIE, VIRGIN ISLANDS
Prospectus Number: PVI-74013
Project Number : NVI-74513
(Former number - 53-0004 Revised)
DATE SUBMITTED TO CONGRESS: Revised Prospectus - June 2, 1972
DATE OF APPROVAL BY COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC WORKS:
House of Representatives - June 14, 1972
Senate - September 21, 1972
Design of the project is complete and the contract for construction has been
awarded under the purchase contract authority of the Public Buildings
Amendments of 1972, P.L. 92-313. The amount of construction award was
within the allowable escalation pursuant to section 5(e) after eliminating
all but the bare essentials of the facility.
The increased authority is required to restore the eliminated items such as
emergency generator equipment; the second elevator; finishes to the Courtroom;
fine arts and exterior paving and landscaping and allow a sufficient margin
for contingencies. The amount for construction also reflects additional
costs encountered in shipment of materials which were not available locally,
including import taxes, and other special local conditions such as the
non-availability of concrete batching facilities. This amendment will also
serve to adjust the cost of Site, Design, Management and Inspection to
reflect the obligations incurred.
Approved Estimated Revised Estimated
Maximum Cost Maximum Cost*
ESTIMATED COST:
Site, Design, Management
and Inspection $ 683,000 $ 910,700
Construction 5,248,000 6,913 ,000
TOTAL COST $5,931,000 $7,823,700
APPROX IMATE AREAS:
Gross Square Feet 87,600 79,700
Occupiable Square Feet 54,000 53,300
*Exclusive of financing or other costs attributable to the use of the
method of construction authorized (section 5(e), Public Buildings
Amendments of 1972).
PAGENO="0110"
104
Senator Scorr. I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that I b~ excused, be-
cause I do have something else that I must do.
Thank you, gentlemen, for being with us. The questions I have
asked are not intended in any way to be hostile to the General
Services Administration.
It is just that we have an obligation of oversight. I am sure the
chairman shares my desire that we perform that function properly.
WASHINGTON, D.C.-1800 G STREET
Senator CLARK. I would like to take up the Washington, D.C., Na-
tional Science Foundation.
Mr. SHIPP. This prospectus is for extension of the present lease-
hold interest covering 399,400 occupiable square feet of space hous-
ing the National Science Foundation and five other Federal agen-
cies at 1800 G Street NW., Washington, D.C.
The space was acquired on May 16, 1965, with an initial 10-year
firm lease agreement expiring, without renewal options, on May
15, 1975. The annual initial cost including building services of
$1,974,000 was increased to $2,129,907 due to escalation of real estate
taxes and building operational costs.
The succeeding lease will continue occupancy of the entire third
through 9th floors and part of the second, 11th, and 12th floors
for a firm 20-year period at an annual cost of $2,700,000.
The space at 1800 G Street is needed to provide for the continu-
ing space requirements of the Federal Government at this location
for the next 20 years. Approximately 20 percent of the leased space
is occupied by a Secret Service unit of the Treasury Department
which requires facilities in close proximity to the White House.
Senator CLARK. Why is a 20-year lease proposed now when the
present one is for only 10 years?
Mr. SHIPP. The initial lease term that was negotiated was for a
firm 10-year term. At that time we foresaw only a 10-year term
requirement for the building.
We anticipated that during that period of time there would
be adequate appropriations to pursue the active construction pro-
gram in the Washington, D.C., area that would allow us to relocate
these people into Government-owned space or to back fill on Gov-
ernment-owned space that had been made available through the new
construction program.
We have now reassessed the situation. Because of the strategic
location of the building, the quantity of space that is involved, the
nature of the occupancy there, and so forth, we are sat:isfied that
we will have a continuing long-term requirement for this building
and, therefore, we propose to enter into a 20-year firm term lease.
Senator CLARK. This lease will cost $54 million over a 20-year
period, which would buy a couple of new buildings. The discussion
of alternatives states no new buildings are planned "in the imme-
diate area of the White House."
Why couldn't one be constructed at some other convenient loca-
tion?
PAGENO="0111"
105
Mr. SHIPP. One could be constructed at another location, Mr.
Chairman. The problem is providing the resources that are necessary
to go forward with the construction.
Senator CLARK. What do you mean? Why is that a problem?
Mr. SHIPP. First of all, we have to go to the Office of Manage-
ment and Budget and have them include in our budget request
sufficient funds to cover the construction of new buildings.
We have a number of new buildings under construction in the
Washington area right now, and the prospect of getting additional
funds for further Federal construction is rather limited.
Senator CLARK. What would it cost to purchase the building?
Mr. SHIPP. I estimate it would cost somewhere close to possibly
$20 million to purchase this particular building. However, the
owners are not willing to sell the building. Probably the only way
it could be acquired would be by condemnation.
Senator CLARK. The prospectus says that the National Science
Foundation needs to have a building in the proximity of the White
House. Why is that? Isn't there cheaper space available in the
metropolitan areas for them?
Mr. Srnrr. It is possible to rent space at marginal locations at a
cheaper price, if we went over in the area of North Capitol and
K Street, North Capitol and L, or 4th and K, NW.
We might be able to pick it up at a little bit lesser price. How-
ever, the going rate for commercial space in a suitable location,
that is in the general area accepted for office buildings in metro
D.C., runs anywhere from $7.50 to $8.50 a square foot at this time.
Senator CLARK. Do you see any merit in having the National
Science Foundation closer to the White House than other agencies?
Mr. Siiini. I don't see any particularly advantageous result from
that.
Senator CLARK. That doesn't influence your decision, particularly?
I notice it is in the prospectus.
Mr. Srnpp. I look at it this way: If we were to move the National
Science Foundation out of the building, we have many, many re-
quirements that would want to be in that location and could prob-
ably justify it in terms of Presidential commissions, study groups,
other activities that have a very close relationship to the Office of
Management and Budget and to the White House, itself.
The fact is that we have a shortage of space up in that area to
provide for housing of these kinds of ac vities that can, in fact,
justify a location with reasonably good access to the agencies in
that particular area of the city.
Senator CLARK. Why couldn't an existing building be used?
Mr. Srnrr. If we were to use an existing building it would mean
that someone in that building would have to be relocated out of it
into leased space and we would have two moves, the cost of two
moves, instead of one.
Well, instead of no moves, really, in this particular case. It
would just displace another agency into leased space.
Senator CLARK. It is not available?
Mr. Srnrr. It is not available. There is no building available.
PAGENO="0112"
106
Senator CLARK. The committee would like to have you provide
us with a breakdown on Government-owned and Government-leased
office space in the Washington metropolitan area, listing each leased
building and the expiration date of each lease.
These would be leases involving 100,000 gross square feet of space.
Would you provide that for us?
Mr. Srnpr. We can provide that,
[The information requested follows:]
Space in GSA's inventory is presently being placed in a new computer
operation and we will submit this information in about 30 days.
Senator CLARK. Additionally, provide us with a complete list of
vacant federally owned space in the Washington metropolitan area,
together with the GSA plans for use of this space over tue 10 years.
That will take a little longer, I am sure, but we need that infor-
mation.
Mr. SHIPP. We can provide you with the listing of the vacant
space and tell you about our plans or why it is vacant.
[The information follows:]
Space in GSA's inventory is presently being placed in a new computer
operation and we will submit this information in about 30 days.
Senator CLARK. What parking facilities exist here? Are they
leased, too? How many are there and how much would they cost?
Mr. SHIPP. There is a parking garage that is commercially op-
erated on the first floor and the basement levels of the building.
There are about 200 spaces that are leased to meet agency require-
ments.
I do not have the breakout of the total rental as to what portion
of it would be attributed to the parking, but I can provide you an
estimate of what that is.
Usually, it is on a package basis. The lessor will lease all the
space to us with the parking spaces and no attempt is made to
break out that portion of the rent.
[The following was subsequently supplied:]
Total annual cost of parking under separate agreements is $145,290.
Senator CLARK. I would suggest to you that that kind of in-
formation be in the prospectus. I am not just speaking of the
limited information that you are going to provide., but generally
the parking facilities that are to be leased, and so forth.
Were any energy conservation measures considered, including
air conditioning, the lighting system, and so forth?
Mr. SHIPP. We did not consider this in terms of relocation to
other buildings. We do have a very active program, however, of
energy conservation in terms of removing bulbs so as to achieve
nonuniform lighting standards, increasing the temperature during
the summer to reduce the energy requirement for air-conditioning,
lowering the temperatures during the winter to conserve fuel oil
and this type of thing.
Those measures have all been applied at this particular building.
PAGENO="0113"
107
Senator CLARK. If GSA is going to be paying $6.76 per square
foot for this space, what will they be charging other agencies?
Mr. SHIPP. We have not established the final rate here. However,
I would anticipate that the rate will approximate or be just slightly
higher than this particular rate that is proposed.
That is based on the fact that good commercial space in the prox-
imity to the building, up in that area of the city, is selling for $7.50
to $8.50 a square foot.
The requirement under the Federal building fund is that we
charge a commercially equivalent rate for the space. I would antic-
ipate that the rate will range 50 cents to 75 cents a square foot higher
than this lease rate.
That is due to the fact that, because of the volume acquisition
we are talking about, we are able to negotiate a better rate than a
private tenant might be able to negotiate.
Senator CLARK. Suppose the agency finds that they can find more
attractive commercial facilities that they like at the same price or
lower. Will they pay the price you charge?
Mr. SHIPP. Yes, sir. Agencies have no authority to lease space
on their own.
Senator CLARK. They are going to have to pay whatever you
charge?
Mr. SHIPP. Yes, sir.
[Responses to additional questions and the prospectus follow:]
36-623 0 - 74 - 8
PAGENO="0114"
108
1800 G STREET, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C.
LEASE RENEWAL
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
A -1. WILL THE PROPOSED LEASE EXTENSION HAVE RENEWAL OPTIONS? WHY DOESN'T
THE CURRENT LEASE AGREENENT HAVE THESE?
The lease extension will not have renewal options. The in:Ltial
lease was negotiated on1y for a firm 10-year term. At that time
we foresaw only a 10-year term requirement f or the building.
A -2. WILL THIS BE FULLY SERVICED? WHY ARE RENT AND SERVICES SHOWN SEPARA-
TELY IN THE PROSPECTUS?
No. Government ~ui1l pay all utilities. The requirement fcr prospectus
approval of $500,000 and. over relates to net average annual rental,
excluding cost of services, utilities, etc. In order to show total
cost to Government, the cost of these items are also shown.
A -3. WHY IS A 20-YEAR LEASE PROPOSED NOW WHEN THE PRESENT ONE IS FOR ONLY
10 YEARS?
Previously answered.
A -4. WILL IT INCLUDE ESCALATION CLAUSES, AND WHAT WOULD BE THE P1tRNISSIBLE
INCREASE?
The proposed lease will include escalation clauses for property taxes
and for services excluding utilities. The permissible increase
catinot exceed tha limitations imposed by Section 322 of the Economy
Act of June 30, 31932, as amended (40 U.S.C. 278a.), (copy of property
tax and operating costs escalation clauses attached).
A -5. UNDER WHAT SORT OF AGRE~1ENT WAS RENTAL INCREASED FROM $4.94 PER SQ. FT.
TO $5.33 PER SQ. FT., OR 8 PERCENT, IN RECENT YEARS?
Effective l-1O-&& rent was increased to provide for inclusion of overtime
services (2 hours each day Monday thru Friday plus 9 hours on Saturday
at a total of 988 hours per year at a total annual cost of $137,223.24).
Effective 9-15-66 rent was increased due to increase in cost of additional
electric current consumed by additional airconditioning equipment and
other machines above lease requirements. Rent was increased $8,824.68
per annum.
Effective 2-15-63 lease was amended to have lessor provide lCD percent
full maintenance and service, repair and replacement of all parts as
required on additional airconditioning equipment installed by the
Government. Rent was increased $9,499.92 per annum.
GSA-PBS May 31, 1974
PAGENO="0115"
109
Effective 6-5-619 lease was amended to cover complete maintenance and re-
pairs of ten nev3Ly installed dry steam humidifiers. Rent was increased
$359.16 per annim.
The above increases in annual rent increased the total annual rent from
$1,974,000 (or $~4.95 per sq. ft.) to $2,129,907 (or $5.35 per sq. ft.).
A -6. THE PROPOSED INIREASE IS TO $2,700,000 ANNUALLY, $6.76 PER SQ. FT. OR
27 PERCENT OVER THE PRESENT RATE. ARE MORE INCREASES EXPECTED?
Increases are ta be expected every three-year period to compensate for
anticipated increases in property taxes and operating costs. No other
increases exceptic as stated above are expected.
A -7. THIS LEASE WILL COST $54 MILLION, OVER A 20 YEAR PERIOD, WHICH WOULD
BUY A COUPLE OF NEW BUILDINGS. THE DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES STATES
NO NEW BUILDIN(~ ARE PLANNED "IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA OF THE WHITE HOUSE."
WHY COULDN'T ONI BE CONSTRUCTED AT SOME OTHER CONVENIENT LOCATION?
Previously answared.
A -8. WHY COULDN'T ,AN EXISTING GOVERNMENT BUILDING BE USED?
Previously anseared.
A -9. WHAT WOULD IT (JuST TO BUY THIS BUILDING?
GSA's most receat appraisal is for space occupied only by Government
agencies and is not for the entire building.
An appraisal wam made as of October 3, 1972, by the Regional Appraiser.
The appraisal ~ibowed the following:
a. Fair Market Value for Leasing Purposes of space leased by the
Government As at least $15,450,000 developed as follows:
388,084 sq. ft. x $39.83 per sq. ft. $15,457,386
(Rounded ta $15,450,000)
b. Fair AnnualL R~ital of space leased by the Government
388,084 sq.. ft. x $6.36 $2,468,214 (without meterable utilities)
c. Additional information:
Total NetRentable Office Area = 428,833 sq. ft.
Coffee Shop 2,995 sq. ft.
Cafeteria = l~,865 sq. ft.
Concession Space = 1,025 sq. ft.
Parking = 525 spaces
Note: A bank currently leases space on the first floor. The number of
square feet is presently unknown. It is not included in the Net
Rentable Office Area shown above.
We believe that it would cost about 20 million dollars to acquire the
building if the osners were willing to sell.
GSA-PBS May 31, 1974
PAGENO="0116"
110
A-lO. HOW DO RENTAL RSPES FOR COMPARABLE SPACE COMPARE, IN OTHER BUILDINGS
SEVERAL BLOCKS 1WAY FROM THE WHITE HOUSE?
Comparable rentr~I rates are:
Location Rate
1700 PennsylvanUa Avenue $8.50 to $9.50 BOMA fully serviced
18th & M Sts. 4inder const.) $8.50 to $9.50 BOMA fully serviced
1730 Pennsylvanta Avenue $8.50 BOMA fully serviced
1747 Pennsylvaniia Avenue $8.25 BOMA fully serviced
These owners do not lease any space on an unserviced basis. However,
they estimate ~rvices at approximately $1.50 per square foot per year.
A-ll. WHAT PARKING FiKILITIES EXIST HERE? ARE THEY LEASED TOO? HOW MANY AND
AT WHAT COST? KEY DOESN'T THE PROSPECTUS MAKE THIS CLEAR?
There are 3 levrls of parking, one at street level and 2 underground.
There are no pa1king spaces under this lease; however, there are 251
spaces leased ~parately for various agencies.
A-l2. WERE ANY ENERGY-CONSERVATION MEASURES CONSIDERED? DESCRIBE HEATING,
AIRCONDITIONING,, AND LIGHTING SYSTEM BENEFITS.
Previously answsred.
A-l3. WHAT FACILITIES EXIST TO AID THE HANDICAPPED?
Previously answered.
A-l4. IT IS NOTED THEfT SECRET SERVICE PERSONNEL ARE ASSIGNED APPROXIMATELY
230 SQ. FT. PER PERSON, YET EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
APPEARS TO BE A~'IGNED ONLY 121 SQ. FT. PER PERSON. ASSIGNMENT FOR
GSA PERSONNEL W~RKS OUT AT 1,677 SQ. FT. PER PERSON. HOW IS THIS
EXPLAINED?
Space assigned to GSA is a Federal Supply Store and a Health Unit.
These are servima type facilities requiring a relatively large support
area and limitei personnel. The reason for the larger numbers of
square feet per person occupied by Secret Service is that the space
includes a lar~ support area consisting of computer space, filing
areas, and numerous laboratory areas in addition to the general purpose
office space.
EEOC is presently in overcrowded quarters. GSA has current plans to
consolidate then from six locations into one location at another site.
A-l5. IF GSA WILL BE PAYING $6.76 PER SQ. FT. FOR THIS SPACE, WHAT WILL THEY
BE CHARGING OTHER AGENCIES? ARE THEY WILLING TO PAY THE COST IMPOSED
IF NEARBY COMMEXCIAL FACILITIES NIGHT SEEM MORE ATTRACTIVE AT THE SANE
OR LOWER RATES?
Previously answered.
GSA-PBS May 31, 1974
PAGENO="0117"
111
B -1. WHAT OTHER SPACE WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO HOUSE NSF IF THIS PROSPECTUS
IS NOT APPROVED?
Other Government-owned or leased space is not available to house NSF
if this prospectus is not approved.
B -2. WHY DOES THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION NEED TO HAVE, AS STATED BY
THE PROSPECTUS, PROXIMITY TO THE WHITE HOUSE? IS CHEAPER SPACE AVAIL-
ABLE ELSEWHERE IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA FOR THE NSF?
The prospectus does not state that the National Science Foundation needs
to have proximity to the White House. The statement relating to this
refers to the Secret Service.
Cheaper space is not available to house this entire requirement. There
is space available at 425 Eye Street and Union Center Plaza at $6.00
per square foot. However, neither block of space is large enough
to house the entire requirements or the NSF space alone. The additional
cost of moving and special alterations would not make it advantageous
to move to new space.
B -3. THIS PROPOSAL CALLS FOR A 20-YEAR LEASE? WHY IS SUCH A LONG LEASE
NECESSARY?
A 20-year lease is recommended because of the excellent location of
the building, its proximity to the White House, 0MB and Federal
agencies, the physical age of the building and the superior quality
of the space (rated 96).
B -4. WHAT WOULD IT COST TO PURCHASE THE BUILDING?
See answer to question A-9.
B -5. PLEASE PROVIDE US WITH A BREAKDOWN ON THE GOVERNMENT-OWNED AND THE
GOVERNMENT-LEASED OFFICE SPACE IN THE WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA,
LISTING OF EACH LEASED BUILDING, AND THE EXPIRATION DATE OF EACH LEASE,
INVOLVING MORE THAN 100,000 GROSS SQUARE FEET OF SPACE.
To be furnished under separate cover.
B -6. PLEASE PROVIDE US WITH A COMPLETE LIST OF VACANT FEDERALLY OWNED SPACE
IN THE WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA, TOGETHER WITH GSA PLANS FOR USE
OF THIS SPACE OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS.
To be furnished under separate cover.
GSA-PBS May 31, 1974
PAGENO="0118"
112
Answer to Question A-4.
13. TAX ESCALATION
The resultant lease will provide that at the end of the first year(s) and at the end of
the first year(s) of Government occupancy under the lease, the annual rental rate will be
adjusted to provide for increases or decreases in general real estate taxes. The tax adjustment
shall be based on the percentage of the building occupied by the Government. Said percentage is
to be computed prior to any ccemeitnent and will be included in the coemeiteunt letter. The tax
adjwstotent amount shall be based cm the established percentage and shall be that percent of the
increase or decrease of the total taxes to be paid on the property, and the total rental, in-
eluding any such adjustunent, shall not exceed the limitation imposed by Section 322 of the Economy
Act of June 30, 1932, as amended (40 U.S.C. 278a). The base from which adjustments will be nade
will be calculated from the assessment, assessment ratio, and tax rate in effect during the
and year(s) respectively, of occupancy, as compared to the first full assessment,
assessment ratio and tax rate in effect after initial occupancy by the (`,svernment.Neither the tax bess
nor the adjustment shall include any fine, penalty, interest, or cost added thereto for nonpayment,
or for delay in payment beyond any discount period. In the event the or year of
occupancy does not coincide with a tax year, the bane will be established by prorating the tax
period involved.
Proof of the amount of tax and evidence of payneot will be furnished by the lessor and the
rental adjustusent by reason of tax increases or decreases shall be accomplished by increasing or
decreasing the next monthly rental check and each monthly payment thereafter in the appropriate
The lessor shall furnish the Government copies of all natices which may affect the valuation
of said land and building for general real estate taxes thereom.Such copies shall be delivered
or nailed within three days from the receipt thereof by the lessor to bhe General Services
Administration, PBS, Space Management Division, 16th and F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20405.
The Government may contest the amount or validity of any valUation for general real estate taxes by
appropriate legal proceeding either in the name of the Government or in the name of the lessor or
in the manes of both. In the event the Government is precluded from such proceeding, the lessor,
upan reasonable notice and request by the Government, shall contest any such proceeding and in the
event of any such request, the Government shall reimburse the lessor for its costs or expanses in
connection with any such contest nr proceeding and execute all documents or pleadiogo required for
euch purposes, provided that the lessor shall reasonably be satisfied that the facts and data net
forth in such documents or pleadings are accurate. If the lessor receives any refund of taxes,
the lessor shall promptly rebate to the Government the Government's proportionate share thereof.
The reimbursement to the lessor, including payment for real estate tax increases must not exceed the
amount authorized by Section 322 of the Economy Act of June 30, 1932, as amended (40 U.S.C. 278a).
l~. OPERATING COSTS ESCALATION
The resultant lease will provide that at the end of the first years, and at the end of
the first years of Government occupancy, the rental will be adjusted to provide for increases or
decreases in the lessor's cost of furuishing,(i.e. state specifically such as janitorial and cleaning
services,etc. . . .) as further defined in Schedule C of this solicitation. The oeerat:tng costs per
neC usable square fcot for these services (and utilities) shall be determined through negotiations
with the successful of feror prior to commitment to determine the initial base cost from which future
adjustments ehall be made. Excluded from operating costs shall be the lessor's (and management agents)
profit or hone office overhead.
The base from which upward or doenward adjustments in the rent will be made shall be the `per
net usable square foot" costs as determined or as amended for each five-year period. Neither
the operating costs base nor the .oeSjustaent shall include any fines, penalties, interest or cost
added thereto for nonpayment or for delay in payment beyond any discount period.
The Operating Costs Escalatium will operate in the following manner, At the end of the inItial
year period, the lessor wLil submit to the contracting officer his average cost per
square foot pot annum (complied by taking of the total cost for the first year(s~ for
the furnishing of the above identified services (and utilities). This average cost per
PAGENO="0119"
113
Answer tb Question A-4.
square foot per ann~nn or the nàgotiated base cost whichever is higher, will act as the base rate
for these services for the first year period. The lessor and the Government will then
negotiate a base rate for these services for the year tern based on projections of
estioated costs of wage rates. materials, etc. The difference between the base rate for the first
year period (actual cost or negotiated base cost whichever in higher) and the base rate
for the year period (estimated cost for the same services) will determine the increase or
decrease of rental for the. ` period. This new base rate will be the bass rate for the
term for purpodes for determining increase or decrease of rental for the year term. The
procedure described above will be used to determine the base rate for each subsequent
year period.
The lessor should notify the Government immediately should renegotiations of
contracts or services subject to the escalator clause and. should submit proposals to the Government
`for review prior to taking any action which would result in requests for rental ndjustuents.Rental
adjustments shall be allowed for the above operating costs based on supporting data submitted by
the, lessor to the Government's contracting officer at leant 90 days prior to and
* `anniversary dates of the lease. In the event an agreement has not been reached between the
`lessor'amd the Government as to the amount of encalation, and the new rental rates, by the above
anniversary dates, the lessor sholl continue to provide services until such time as the Government
cam make arrangements to provide services, however, in no event shall this period exceed 90 days.
In any event, the ness rates shall be effective at the beginning of the new escalation period. The
following information shall be submitted whether or not, the information shall lead to an increase
or decrease in.the base rate'
(1) The prevailing wage'rates upon which the existing base was established;
(2) The current costs for materials;
(3) A reasonable figure for overhead and profit to be realized by the cleaning contractor.
Any upward or downward adjustment will be limited to the Government's estimated cost for pro-
* vidimg such service during the ensuing five year period. New rates, if any, for succeeding
period as established by agreemant between the parties shall automatically result in increases or
decrmases to the above base rates.
Oft th pi fthGovercmt t tig ff th tddj bsti un
* reasonable, the Government shall have the right to participate in subsequent negotiations
between the lessor and his contractor or employees, and, if still unacceptable, shall have the
- right to perform these services and to deduct from the annual rental ~n amount based upon the
* actual average cost to the' lesser during the immediately preceding period; however, the deduction
Shall in no event be less than the immediately preceding period's base rate.
NOTE: With respect to Paragra~b 11 of the General Provisions and Instructions, Standard Form
2-A, ~ay 1970 Edition, the Contractor agrees that all the rights ~ranted thereunder to the
* Cmoptroller General of the United States or his duly authorized representative shall also extend
`to the Administrator of General Services or his duly authorized representative.
PAGENO="0120"
114
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PDC-73071
PROJECT NUMBER : LDC-73119
PROSPECTUS FOR PROPOSED LEASE
UNDER THE PUBLIC BUILDINGS ACT OF 1959, AS AMENDED
LEASE EXTENSION
1800 5 STREET, N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C.
1. DESCRIPTION:
This prospectus proposes extension of the present leasehold interest
covering 399,400 occupiable square feet of space housing the National
Science Foundation and five other Federal agencies at 1800 G Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. The space was acquired on May 16, 1965, with an initial
ten year firm lease agreement expiring, without renewal options, on
May 15, 1975. The annual initial cost including building services
of $1,974,000 was increased to $2,129,907 due to escalation of real estate
taxes and building operational costs. The succeeding lease will continue
occupancy of the entire third through ninth floors and part of the second,
eleventh and twelfth floors for a firm 20 year period at an annu~~l cost
of $2,700,000.
2.. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
a. PROJECT NEED:
To provide for the continuing space requirements of the Federal Government
at this location for the next 20 years. Approximately 20% of the leased
space is occupied by a Secret Service unit of the Treasury Department which
requires facilities in close proximity to the White House.'
b. DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES:
1. Alteration of Government-owned space.
There is no Government-owned space available in the area of the White House
which could be altered to accommodate the continuing space requirements of
the activities housed in this space.
2. Construction of a Federal building:
There is no Federal building under construction or planned in the immediate
area of the White House which could provide the space required to house the
activities planned for this building.
* 3. Acquisition of leased space.
The Federal Government does not occupy the entire building and because of the
large capital expenditure which would be required, purchase of this leased
building is not in the best interest of the Federal Government; and therefore,
not a viable alternative. In addition, a market survey of comparable
office space has revealed that similar space is leasing at $7.50 to $8.50
PAGENO="0121"
115
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PDC-73O7l
PROJECT NUMBER : LDC-73119
b. DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES: (Cont'd)
per square foot, with building services which is a greater cost than that
proposed by lease extension. These rates do not include parking, which is
very limited in the area and if available would add approximately $0.30 per
square foot to the annual cost. Additionally, relinquishment of the present
space with the resulting expense of moving and disruption of agency operations
cannot be justified.
As there is no acceptable alternative, it is in the best interest of the
Government to continue occupancy at the present location under a lease
arrangement. Therefore, it is planned to enter into a succeeding lease
in accordance with the authority contained in Section 21O(h)(l) of the
Federal Property Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended.
3. ESTIMATED MAXIMUM COST:
Net Average Rental $2,000,000
Services and Utilities 700,000
Total Annual Cost $2,700,000
4. CURRENT HOUSING COST:
For agencies to be housed in the proposed leased space.
Area Sq. Ft. Annual Cost
Rent 399,400 $1,490,867
Services and Utilities - 639,040
Total Annual Cost $2,129,907
5. SPACE PLAN:
The continued occupancy by these agencies at this location will not result
in the relocation of Federal agencies or affect the housing of agencies in
the Washington metropolitan area.
6. STATEMENT OF NEED:
It has been determined that (1) the needs for space of the Federal Government
in this area cannot be satisfied by the utilization of existing suitable
property now owned by the Government, and (2) suitable rental space at
another location of sufficient size is not available at a price commensurate
with that to be afforded through the proposed action.
::::::::e:: ~
Approved :
PAGENO="0122"
116
EXHIBIT A
WASHINGTON, D.C.
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PDC-7307l
PROJECT NUMBER : LDC-73ll9
HOUSING PLAN
PROPOSED BUILDING OCCUPANTS: __________ _________
Executive Office - Telecon Policy
Trade Negotiation Office
Treasury Department - Secret Service
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
General Services Administration
National Science Foundation:
Off ice of the Director,
National Science Board,
Science and Technology Policy Office,
Office of General Counsel,
Office of Government and Public Programs,
Office of Energy Research and Development Policy,
National and International Programs Directorate,
Research Application Directorate, and
Administration Directorate _______ ______
Total for Building
OCCUPIABLE
SQ. FT.
21,278 ( 5.3%)
12,462 ( 3.1%)
78,165 (19.6%)
72,099 (18.1%)
3,354 ( 0.8%)
212,042 (53.1%)
PERSONNEL
93
46
339
594
2
1 ,039
399,400 2,113
PAGENO="0123"
117
Senator CLARK. We are going to submit a number of questions
about projects we have already discussed, as well as others that
we have not had time to discuss here. The staff will provide you
with those questions.
As soon as the answers are provided and the staff has an oppor-
tunity to review those, and also the members of the committee, we
will report these out. It appears to me that there is a necessity to
move relatively quickly on the Virgin Islands project.
Are there others that have a similar date problem ~
Mr. SHIPP. We don't have a date problem particularly, but the
space situation in Dallas for the HEW office is really critical. Of
course, that is another lease project.
Senator CLARK. Thank you very much, gentlemen.
That will conclude the hearing.
[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to re-
convene subject to the call of the Chair.]
[The questions relative to projects not discussed at the hearing
together with the prospectus of each follow:]
PAGENO="0124"
118
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PDC73772
PROJECT NUMBER : IDC73002
BUILDING NUMBER : 080036
PROSPECTUS FOR PROPOSED ALTERATION UNDER
THE PUBLIC BUILDINGS ACT OF 1959
TARIFF BUILDING WASHINGTON, DC
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT:
This project provides for major replacements and improvements
which are contemplated in this building within the next five
years to provide adequate housing forthe U.S. Tariff Commission.
Major items in this prospectus include installing central heating
and airconditioning system, a freight elevator, a minimum Ex-
ecutive Dining Area, facilities for the handicapped, an emergency
generator, floor covering, and drop ceilings; replacement of
deteriorated windows, roofing, and new doors; modernizing passenger
elevators, snack bar, dining area, and restrooms; upgrading
mechanical, plumbing, electrical, fire protection, and communi-
cation systems; restoration of exterior masonry surfaces; space
alterations; pointing and cyclic painting, and miscellaneous
repairs and improvements. This work is to be accomplished with-
in five years after approval of this prospectus. It does not
include (1) the day-to-day maintenance and recurring repaIrs
which must be undertaken annually to keep the building in a
tenantable condition, (2) alterations to the building and its
equipment which may be occasioned by future space reassignments
which cannot be identified at this time, and (3) repairs and
replacements which may be occasioned by an emergency or breakdown
which interrupts use of the building.
Approximate Areas:
Tariff Building - Gross - 140,000 Sq. Ft. Net - 116,762 Sq. Ft.
2. ESTIMATED MAXIMUM COST OF PROJECT:
Previously Approved Prospectus (April 16, 1962) $ 229,000
Additional Authorization 5,783,000
Revised Authorization Required $6,012,000
3. JUSTIFICATION:
Federal agencies occupying space under the control of the General
Services Administration in the National Capital Region are housed
PAGENO="0125"
119
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PDC73772
PROJECT NUMBER : IDC73002
BUILDING NUMBER : 080036
3. JUSTIFICATION: (Corit'd)
in 32,911,487 square feet of Government-owned space and 20,351,588
square feet of leased space in 503 buildings. The Tariff Building
provides 82,570 net assignable square feet of space. The Tariff
Commission occupies 69,405 net assignable square feet of the space
in the Tariff Building and no leased space. The remaining area
in the Tariff Building is occupied by the U.S. Postal Service and
General Services Administration.
This building, located at 8th and E Streets, N.W., was constructed
in 1835 and extended in 1855. Designed in the neoclassic style of
architecture, this three story rectangular structure is one of
Washington's historic architectural landmarks. The Tariff Build-
ing is contemporary with the Old Patent Office, Treasury Depart-
ment, and Old Post Office Buildings. These are the oldest
Government-owned buildings in the District of Columbia, with the
exception of the White House and the Capitol, and they mark the
initial impact of Federal architecture in this country. In 1844,
the first telegraph office in the world was opened in this build~~
ing by Samuel F. B. Morse, the inventor of the telegraph.
The Tariff Building is structurally sound and will be retained
for an indefinite period. It is one of Washington's historic
architectural landmarks and is listed in the National Register
of Historic Places, therefore, the replacement of this building
with leased space would not be in consonance with the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966. The building has also been
selected by the Joint Committee on Landmarks, appointed by the
National Capital Planning Commission and Commission of Fine Arts
as a landmark of great historic and aesthetic value, the
preservation of which will contribute materially to our cultural
heritage. The proposed project will be design so as not to
adversely affect the architectural or historic values of the
building.
The previous prospectus approved in April 1962, Project Number
080074, provided for painting, partial roof repairs, lighting
improvements, some elevator modernizatiom, heating system
improvements, replacement of flooring areas, and fire alarm
systems modernization, Approximately $89,000 was spent in FY
1963 for elevator and roof repairs. The remaining work was not
accomplished due to funding limitation. Prior to the last
PAGENO="0126"
120
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PDC73772
PROJECT NUMBER : IDC73002
BUILDING NUMBER : 080036
3. JUSTIFICATION: (Cont'd)
prospectus, the last major improvements were accomplished in
1960 when $23,000 was spent for space alterations and 1961
when $107,000 was spent for airconditioning and heating repairs.
There are, however, some areas in the building which have not
been upgraded since the building was completed and many other
areas where the upgrading was performed over extended periods
and does not meet modern standards. The building is presently
airconditioned with window units which do not provide acceptable
conditions and detract from the historic architectural features
of the building. The only food service facility in the building
is an improvised vending stand operated by the blind in former
basement shop space. This facility is operated under the
Randolph-Sheppard Act and the area is in need of upgrading. A
home type kitchen and minimum dining area appropriate for use
by the Commissioners, staff personnel, and visiting dignitaries
are also needed.
This interior and exterior restoration and modernization are
needed to preserve the historic features and value of th:Ls
building, as well as to provide modern office space for its
occupants.
This prospectus provides for increased authority needed clue to
the construction cost escalation to complete the work identified
in the first prospectus, plus additional authority for work
identified in subsequent inspection and survey. The repairs
and improvements proposed in this prospectus are essential to
the economic and efficient use and occupancy of the building.
4. CURRENT COST:
Net Assignable Sq. Ft. Annual Cost
Operation, Maintenance
and Upkeep Costs 82,570 $232,745
(For agencies to be housed in
the building after completion
of the proposed project)
PAGENO="0127"
121
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PDC73772
PROJECT NUMBER : IDC73002
BUILDING NUMBER : 080036
5. PROPOSED SPACE PLAN FOR HOUSING FEDERAL AGENCIES:
The alterations proposed in this prospectus will have no
impact on the housing of Federal agencies; therefore, no
space plan is provided.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION:
In the planning of this project, General Services Administration
will make studies of the water supply, sewage disposal, solid
waste disposal, storm water drainage, erosion control, fuel
types, etc., in order to comply strictly with the purpose and
intent of Executive Order 11514, Protection and Enhancement of
Environmental Quality, and will follow the requirements of
Section lO2(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (Public Law PNL 91-190), as amended, and the guidelines
prescribed by the Council on Environmental Quality.
7. STATEMENT OF NEED:
It has been determined that the needs for space of the U.S. Tariff
Commission cannot be satisfied by utilization of suitable ex-
isting property now owned by the Government and because of the
historic significance of the structure to be altered, it has been
determined that the use of leased space is not in the best
interest of the Government.
I\PR 1. 1 1974
Submitted at Washington, D.C. on _______________________________
Recommended: _______________________________________
~0~~ng Cor6mi sio er, b ic Buildings Service
Approved: _______________________________________
A mm ~
PAGENO="0128"
122
Tariff Building
Question - 1
The 1962 prospectus states that the building has ,a net
interior area of 80,315 square feet. The current prospectus
shows it to be 116,762 square feet with the assignable area
as 82,570 square feet, (Gross area of 140,000 square feet
is the same on both prospectuses.) Explain the discrepancy.
(697, low)
Answer
The figure of 80,315 square feet referred to in the 1962
prospectus is the net assignable area which has increased
as a result of partition changes and is now shown in the
current prospectus as 82,570 square feet. The net area of
116,762 square feet as shown on the current prospectus is
the occupiable area of the building as measured for determining
the Standard Level Users Charges Rate (SLUG .Rate) under the
Federal Buildings Fund operation. This method of measurement
has been established to agree with space measurements in the
~1,-~-,-,,-1 ~ ~ D.1A-~--~ ~
Managers Association (BOMA).
Question - 2
Was any work authorized in 1962 prospectus not completed? ~Thy?
Answer
Work Authorized Estimated Cost Obligation
Roof repair $ 32,600 $ 40,000
Elevator modernization 43,300 49,000
Modernize fire alarm system 11,000
Painting 28,000 28,000
Heating repairs 16,900
Lighting and electrical system 69,100
Replace flooring 28.100 ______
$229,000 $117,000
GSA-PBS-6-6-74
PAGENO="0129"
123
The listing shown above is the work included in the 1962
prospectus and the work that was accomplished against that
prospectus. The balance of the work was not accomplished
due to the limitation of funds available.
Question - 3
What are the additional work items developed since 1962?
Answer
The following listing shows the work authorized in the 1962
prospectus, the work accomplished under that prospectus, and
the authorization requested under the current prospectus.
Authorized Total
Work Description 1962 ~~ga~jons Required
Roof repairs $ 32,600 $ 40,000 $ 100,000
Elevator modernization 43,300 49,000 . 200,000
Modernize fire alarm
system 11,000 70,000
Painting 28,000 28,000 125,000
Central heating, ventilating
and airconditioning 16,900 1,600,000
Lighting and electrical
system 69,100 900,000
Replace flooring 28,100 _______ ]~5,000
$229,000 $117,000
Upgrade basement 160,000
Upgrade telephone system 100,000
Replace windows $370,000, doors $250,000,
Masonry repairs $250,000 870,000
Install freight elevator 100,000
Modernize restrooms 60,000
Upgrade snack bar 10,000
Ceilings, partitions and space 600,000
realignment
Executive Dining Room 35,000
GSA-PBS-6- 6-74
36-623 0 - 74 - 9
PAGENO="0130"
124
Conference rooms $ 125,000
Landscaping 25,000
Handicapped facilities 25,000
Emergency generator 30,000
Drinking water system 25,000
Install loading dock 20,000
Upgrade entrance, lobbies and corridors 300,000
Relocation of agency personnel
$5,895,000
Ouestion - 4
Is there a central airconditioning system or only window units?
Answer
The present airconditioning of the building is accomplished by
windows units. The current prospectus proposes installing a
central airconditioning system.
Ouestion - 5
What cafeteria or dining room facilities will be installed?
Any now?
Answer
The only food service facility now in the building is an
improvised vending stand operated by the blind in the hasement~.
The prospectus proposes to upgrade this facility for continued
operation by the blind.
The Tariff Commission has requested that a small (500 feet2)
executive dining room with a home type kitchen be constructed in
the building so that the Commission could serve a small business
luncheon to \7isiting quests on occasions.
Question - 6
What is the estimated building replacement cost?
GSA-PBS- 6-6-74
PAGENO="0131"
125
Answer
Replacing this building with a modern office building of the same
size would cost approximately $5,600,000. The ~ite is valved at -
$3,400,000. The total replacement cost would be $9,000,000. -
Ouestion -7
How many people work in this building?
Answer
There are 384 Federal employees housed in the Tariff Building.
~estion - 8
The prospectus indicates teat, since 1962, Ohere has been a
37~ increase in the acquisition of Government-owned space but
a 3337~ increase in leased space. Explain.
Answer
Our most current information shows that the number of Federal
employees housed in GSA controlled spaces in the Metropolitan D.C.
area has increased from 188,400 in 1962 to 254,~00. An increase of
357~. The amount of Government-owned space increased from 31,866,000
square feet to 32,911,487 square feet. An increase of 37~.
Since construction of new space did not keep pace with the
growth of Federal employment, additional leased space was
required.
The total GSA controlled space increased from 36,565,000 square
feet (31,866,000 Government-owned and 4,699,000 leased) in 1962,
to a current area of 53,263,075 (32,911,487 Government-owned and
20,351,588 leased) . An increase of 467~.
Ouestion - 9
How does this compare with the national average?
GSA-PBS- 6-6-74
PAGENO="0132"
126
Answer
The comparison of leased to federally owned space in the
Metropolitan D.C. Area and nationwide is as follows:
YEAR PERCENTAGE OF SPACE LEASED
D.C. AREA NATIONWIDE
1962 14% Not Available
1970 42% 25%
1971 35% 25%
1972 38% 28%
Ouestion - 10
The 1962 prospectus states that the building houses the U.S.
Tariff Commission and Foreign Claims Commission. The current
one indicates that Tariff occupies 84 percetit of the building
and the remainder is occupied by Postal Service and GSA. Explain.
Answer
The 1962 prospectus reported only the major tenants in the
building who were Tariff and the Foreign Claims Commission.
Postal Service and GSA also had small amounts of space in the
building in 1962. The Foreign Claims Commission has since moved
to the Vanguard Building at 1111 20th Street N.W. The space is
now assigned to Tariff, 84%, U.S. Postal Service, 4%, and GSA,
12%. The U.S. Postal Service space is a branch station that has
been in the building for years. The GSA space includes special
space such as the blind stand, the Building Manager space and
any unassigned space.
Question - 11
How long is use of this building anticipated? How does
designation as a historical landmark affect GSATS plans for
keeping it as office space.
Answer
Since this building has been designated as a historical landmark
and is constructed to provide good usable office space, GSA's
present plan is to continue its use as an office building
indefinitely~
GSA-PBS-6-15 74.
PAGENO="0133"
127
Ouestion - 12
The 1962 prospectus refers to tangible cost benefit rates
(for 10 year period) of 2.5. Does this still hold?
(as compared with leased space)
Answer
Using the same formula that was used in developing the tangible
cost benefit ratio of 2.5 for the 1962 prospectus will produce
a tangible cost benefit ratio of 2.1 when applied to the current
prospectus.
Question - 13
The 1962 prosptectus shows design and supervision costs about
107. of the total estimate and alterations about 902. What
is breakdown now.
Answer
The estimated percentage cost for supervision and design is
approximately the same as they were in 1962. For this prospectus
at this time, the estimated cost is 6.67~ for design and specification
and 3.27~ for supervision and management. The balance of 90.27~ is
for construction.
Question - 14
The current prospectu~ shows that $441,000 has been spent
in the past 15 years on repair and alterations - aside from
the 1962 authority, any other appropriations.
Answer
The figure $441,000 is incorrect. It was apparently developed
by adding, the following figures:
From current prospectus
1963 - Elevator and roof repairs $89,000
1960 -. Space alterations 23,000
1961 - Airconditioning and heating repairs 107,000
$219,000
GSA-PBS -6-6-74
PAGENO="0134"
128
From 1962 prospectus
Repairs during past five years . $222,000
Total $441,000
The costs for 1960 and 1961 amounting to $130,000 are included
in both figures ($219,000 and $222,000). The total cost should
be $222,000 plus $89,000 equals $311,000. This has been the
total repair costs charged to this building. All funds have
come from the Annual R&I portion of GSA's Annual Appropriation.
Question - 15
What work was accomplished under the earlier prospectus? How
much was spent? What contemplated work was not completed, and
why?
Answer
The. answer to Question 2 provides this information.
Question - 16
What are the components of the new costs: Heating, airconditioning,
elevators, executive dining room, facilities for the handicapped,
etc?
Answer
The answer to Question 3 also provides the information to this
question.
Ouestion - 17
When would you cxpcct the work to begin?
Answer
The entire project was included in the FY 1915 Program as submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget. When 0MB reauced tne
Repair. and Alteration target for FY 1975, the Tariff Building
project was rescheduled into FT 1976. If we receive an approval
of the prospectus, the project will be designed during FY 1975,
and included for construction in the FY 1976 Program.
GSA-PBS-6-6-74
PAGENO="0135"
129
Ouestion - 18
Since part of the work involves development of luncheon space,
and since the existing vending services are provided by blind
persons, what will GSA do to assure a continued livelihood for
the blind worker at the Tariff Building.
Answer
The Tariff Commission does not expect to provide daily luncheons
for their employees from the small kitchen and limited dining area
desired by their Commissioner. The dining area requested is to be
utilized for small special occasions as described in the answer to
Question 5.
We cannot foresee that the small Executive space will have any adverse
effect on the existing vending services provided by blind persons.
GSA-PBS-6-6-74
PAGENO="0136"
130
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PTX-74Oll
PROJECT NUMBER : LTX-745ll
PROSPECTUS FOR PROPOSED LEASE
UNDER THE PUBLIC BUILDINGS ACT OF 1959, AS AMENDED
LEASED OFFICE BUILDING DALLAS, TEXAS
1. DESCRIPTION:
This prospectus proposes the acquisition of approximately 180,000 square
feet of net occupiable space under a firm 10 year lease to provide a
consolidated location for the Regional Office activities of the Department
of Health, Education and Welfare (DHEW) in Dallas, Texas, at an estimated
annual cost of $1,305,000. Agency expansion in recent years has resulted
in housing Regional Office employees in approximately 206,000 square feet
of space which includes 124,000 square feet in the Federal building complex
at 1100 Commerce Street and about 82,000 square feet of leased space in
six locations. Due~~to the increasingly adverse effect the present housing
has on agency operat~ions, it is proposed that 80,000 square feet be delivered
no later than December 1974, with occupancy of the remaining 100,000 square
feet no later than June 1975. In addition to improving the effectiveness of
Regional Office operations, the consolidated location will result in improved
space utilization.
2. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
a. PROJECT NEED:
The L5HEW Regional Office is now housed in eight locations, two of which are
Government-owned and six are in leased space. The quality of the space
ranges from poor to good. It is essential for the effective operation of
the Regional Office that their activities be consolidated. This will result
in more efficient use of available space, reduce the total amount of space
required and will permit space adjustments due to changing requirements of
individual Regional Office activities without necessitating more space. It
will also permit the Regional Director of DHEW to properly direct and control
Regional Office operations. The leased building will provide a total of
180,000 square feet of space, including about 139,000 square feet of office
space. The space vacated by DHEW at 1114 Commerce Street will provide a
staging area for work authorized by Repair and Improvement Prospectus
Number 42-0058-2. When the alteration work is completed, agencies will be
relocated from leased space to 1114 Commerce Street with a resultant annual
rental savings of about $200,000.
b. DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES:
1. Alteration of existing GSA controlled buildj~gs.
The Federal building complex at 1100-1114 Commerce Street consists of a
Federal building constructed in 1928 and acquired by the Federal Government
in 1942 and an adjoining Federal Building-Courthouse completed in 1971. The
PAGENO="0137"
131
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PTX-740l1
PROJECT NUMBER : LTX-7451l
b. DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES: (Cont'd)
buildings contain a total of about 927,300 square feet. Alterations and
improvements to the Federal building at 1114 Commerce Street are now being
scheduled. The 81,000 square feet occupied by DHEW in that building is
required for staging space during the alteration. Space occupied by other
agencies would have to be vacated for this purpose if DHEW were not moved.
In addition, the move of other DHEW components into space in 1114 Commerce
would be delayed while agencies were being relocated and space modernized.
Space could be provided at 1100 Commerce Street but this would also require
the relocation of approximately 140,000 square feet of other agency space.
This would take much longer to accomplish and would be more costly since it
involves moving other agencies as well as the DHEW Regional Office.
2. Acquisition of space in a buildinq to be constructed.
Construction of a new Federal building would not meet the urgent requirements
to consolidate DHEW activities because of the time required to obtain
authorization for and construct a Federal building.
3. Acquisition of Space by Lease.
The acquisition by lease of space for the activities of DHEW in accordance with
the authority of Section 21O(h)(l), of the Federal Property and Administrative
Services Act of 1949, as amended, is the most economical and expeditious
method of consolidation. In recent years, private interests in Dallas have
constructed an abundance of office space for lease. As an example, within two
blocks of the Federal building complex at 1100-1114 Commerce Street, there
are three recently constructed buildings available which could accommodate
DHEW needs at competitive rental rates. It is estimated that rental cost will
range from $6.50 to $7.50 per net usable square foot for space contained in
these buildings. (See Exhibit A for Present Value Analysis of Alternatives).
3. ESTIMATED MAXIMUM COST: (180,000 square feet)
Net Average Annual Rental $ 809,100
Estimated Cost of Services and other costs . . . . 495,900
Total Annual Cost $T,3O5,00U
4. CURRENT HOUSING COSTS:
For agencies to be housed in the proposed leased space.
a. Leased Space: Area Sq. Ft. Annual Cost
Rent (Unserviced) 82,000 $211 ,478
Services 154,200
Total
PAGENO="0138"
132
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PTX-74Ol1
PROJECT NUMBER : LTX-74511
4. CURRENT HOUSING COSTS: (Cont'd)
b. Government-owned Space: Area Sq. Ft. Annual Cost
Operation, maintenance, and upkeep
costs 124,000 $223,200
Total Costs ~588,B78
5. SPACE PLAN:
The relocation of DHEW to leased space in proximity to the Federal buildings
on Commerce Street will permit consolidation and expansion of DHEW Regional
Office activities, and facilitate expansion and consolidation of other
Federal agencies in the Dallas area. A proposed plan for housing Federal
activities in Dallas is attached as Exhibit B.
6. STATEMENT OF NEED:
It has been determined that suitable Government-owned space is not available
for consolidation of the expanded Regional Office activities of DHEW.
Submitted at Washington, D.C., on APR 4 1974
Recommended: ____________ _______________________________________________
Co 55 , Public Buildings Service
Approved : A i ator o/e~a~~ervices
PAGENO="0139"
133
PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS
EXHIBIT A
DALLAS, TEXAS
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PTX-740ll
PROJECT NUMBER : LTX-745l1
Alternative No.1
Alteration of 1100 Commerce Street Federal Building.
Alteration Cost
Operation, Maintenance and Repair Costs
Real Estate Taxes
Residual Value
Sub-Total
Relocation to Lease Locations - Rent
Total
Alternative No. 2
Construction of a Federal Building.
Site Cost
Design and Review
Supervi si on
Construction
Operating, Maintenance, and Repairs
Real Estate Taxes
Residual Value
Alternative No. 3
Acquisition of Leased Space.
Annual Rent
Present Value Cost
Present Value
$ 700,000
3,571 ,758
1,902,735
(2,810,746)
$ 3,363,747
11,642,050
$15,005,797
$ 3,500,000
1 ,245,895
785,998
18,113,539
4,994,416
4,994,118
(4,426,424)
$29,207,542
$ 1,305,000
14,968,350
PAGENO="0140"
134
EXHIBIT B
DALLAS, TEXAS
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PTX-74011
PROJECT NUMBER : LTX-745ll
HOUSING PLAN
Proposed Health, Education & Welfare Lease Square Feet Personnel
Office of the Secretary 55,500 289
Office of Education 23,900 163
Food & Drug Administration 4,000 24
H.S.M.H.A. 26,300 156
Social Security 51 ,000 317
Social & Rehabilitation Services 19,300 154
Occupiable Area 180,000 1,103
Retained Government-owned Space:
U.S. Courts 70,198 87
Department of Agriculture 31,680 144
Action 5,730 54
Civil Service Commission 45,718 186
Congressional 7,694 20
Bicentennial Commission 740 3
Commerce 13,661 94
Defense 72,216 477
Executive Office of the President 30,547 195
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 12,600 64
Federal Communication Commission 2,780 9
Federal Energy Office 25,000 190
Federal Home Loan Bank Board 2,380 13
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service 2,379 4
Federal Trade Commission 5,760 30
General Accounting Office 7,123 90
Government Printing Office 6,110 18
General Services Administration 121 ,203 143
Housing & Urban Development 46,821 349
Interstate Commerce Commission 1,900 13
Interior 21,493 103
Justice 53,807 230
Postal Service 6,475 8
Railroad Retirement Board 1,946 6
Selective Service System 8,190 25
Small Business Administration 20,075 118
State 270
Transportation 3,755 23
Treasury 250,016 1,181
Veterans Administration 9,750 51
Occupiable Area 888,017 3,929
PAGENO="0141"
135
EXHIBIT B (Cont'd)
DALLAS, TEXAS
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PTX-740l1
PROJECT NUMBER : LTX-7451l
Retained Leased Space: Square Feet Personnel
Agriculture 1 ,064 2
Consumer Prod. Safety Comm. 3,500 30
Defense 85,763 679
Environmental Protection Agency 42,732 238
General Services Administration 88,758 8
Health, Education & Welfare 56,930 1/ 122
Housing & Urban Development 54,000 577
Justice 20,094 145
Labor 103,470 2/ 460
Treasury 40,648 84
Occupiable Area 496,959 2,345
1/ DHEW non-regional office activities
2/ To be occupied July 1974
PAGENO="0142"
136
DALLA~ TEXAS
NEW LEASE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE - CONSOLIDATION
A -1. THE PROSPECTUS SPEAKS OF "EXPANDED' ACTIVITIES, YET IT IS NOTED THAT
THE PROPOSED ACQUISITION OF 180,000 SQ. Fr. IS SUBSTANTIALLY LESS
THAN THE 206,000 SQ. FT. CURRENTLY OCCUPIED AT OTHER LOCATIONS. WHY?
The 206,000 sq. ft. reduction in space is achieved by obtaining
increased efficiency and better space utilization as a result of
reducing the current number of HEW locations.
A -2. ONLY 139,000 SQ. FT. OR 77 PERCENT WILL BE OFFICE SPACE. REMAINDER?
The remaining 23 percent (41,000 sq. ft.) is storage space.
A -3. GSA IS CURRENTLY PAYING ONLY $4.46 PER SQ. FT. FOR 82,000 SQ. FT. OF
LEASED SPACE. THE PROSPECTUS STATES OTHER COMMERCIAL SPACE IS
AVAILABLE AT $6.50 AND THAT DALLAS HAS AN ABUNDANCE. WHY IS THE $7.25
SPACE UNDER CONSIDERATION WHEN THE $6.50 COMPARABLE WOULD SAVE
$1,350,000?
There are at least two buildings located in downtown Dallas that can
satisfy this requirement. Competitive offers will be solicited. The
estimate of ~7.25 per square foot is an estimate of the maximum cost
of the space to be acquired. We will make every possible ef fort during
the negotiations with the competiting property owners to acquire the
space at a figure which will be less than this estimated maximum
cost.
A -4. WHY IS "RENT, UNSERVICED" CONTEMPLATED? WHAT ARE SEPARATE SERVICE COSTS?
"Rent, Unserviced" is not contemplated. "Service and other costs" are
itemized separately and include electric, maintenance, janitorial and
other operating costs which are negotiable as to whether lessor or
Government will pay and/or provide separately. Cost cited is estimated
total annual cost including services, etc.
A -5. OF LEASED SPACE TO BE RETAINED, WHY WILL GSA WITH ONLY 8 EMPLOYEES
RETAIN 18 PERCENT?
GSA space is as follows:
Feet
5,311 Maintenance and custodial
27,000 Automated Data and Telecommunications
31,289 Motor Pool
GSA-PBS May 31, 1974
PAGENO="0143"
137
3,780 Maintenance and custodial
7,439 Joint-use
13,000 Vacant at time of prospectus submission
87,819
All of this space is used by functions where few employees are needed.
A -6. WHAT IS THE TINE URGENCY - TO BEGIN RELOCATION THIS YEAR?
Scattered locations impede agency operations and keep operating
costs at unnecessarily high levels.
A -7. WHAT IS THE STATUS OF ALTERATIONS PROPOSED TO THE FEDERAL BUILDING ON
COMMERCE STREET, WHERE MUCH OF HEW IS NOW HOUSED? WHY IS THE 81,000
SQ. FT. OCCUPIED BY THEM THERE NEEDED FOR A "STAGING AREA" DURING
RECONSTRUCTION? WHY CAN'T SOME OTHER ACTIVITY BE MOVED?
Alterations not scheduled at this time. Relocation of smaller agencies
with unrelated functions would result in higher costs.
A -8. WHAT ARE THE ESTIMATED RELOCATION COSTS FOR HEW? THESE ARE NOT
INDICATED IN THE PROSPECTUS IN CONNECTION WITH LEASING. AREN'T THEY
PART OF THE TOTAL COST? WHY WEREN'T THEY SHOWN IN NEW CONSTRUCTION
ALTERNATIVE COSTS ALSO?
We estimate that it will cost about $100,000 to physically move
HEW to the new location. The space will be conditioned to meet
the agency's requirements in return for the rental consideration,
thus the costs associated with the relocation to the new space
to by occupied by HEW are included in the estimated rental.
A -9. THE $15,000,000 ESTIMATED FOR REHABILITATING THE 1100 COMMERCE STREET
BUILDING, CONSIDERED AS AN ALTERNATIVE, INCLUDES TAXES, REPAIR, AND
MAINTENANCE COSTS. THE PROPOSED LEASING FOR 10 YEARS WILL COST $14.9
MILLION. ALSO, IF TAXES AND MAINTENANCE COSTS WERE DEDUCTED FROM ALTER-
NATIVE 2 THE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION COST OF A NEW BUILDING WOULD ONLY BE
$24.8 MILLION. ISN'T ALL THIS RATHER MARGINAL AND WOULDN'T THE
GOVERNMENT BE BETTER OFF OWNING A NEW BUILDING?
The need to provide a consolidated location for HEW is urgent. It can
be met promptly by leasing, whereas authorization, funding and
construction of a Federal building must compete with other urgent
projects and result in delay.
A-lO. WHAT DETERMINED THE $3.5 MILLION SITE. COST?
Estimates for site are based on regional appraisals for land in the
areas being considered for a project. Minimum site studies are
prepared as to site size.
GSA-PBS May 31, 1974
PAGENO="0144"
138
B -1. WHERE IS ALL THE SPACE THAT WILL BE LEASED? WHO OWNS IT?
The final location of space and owners will not be known until after
a solicitation for offers is made, responsive offers evaluated, and
best offer determined.
B -2. WHAT ARE THE "INCREASINGLY ADVERSE EFFECTS THE PRESENT HOUSING HAS
ON AGENCY OPERATIONS?"
The limited amounts of space available has prevented obtaining
consolidated space for HEW components, resulting in organizations
scattered in many locations which prohibits efficient management,
organization and operations.
B -3. HOW LONG WILL THE REPAIR WORK TAKE UNDER PROSPECTUS NO. 42-0058-2?
WHAT DOES THAT INVOLVE? PLEASE PROVIDE US WITH A TI1IETABLE ON VARIOUS
MOVES BY HEW STAFF AND TI~E MOVES REQUIRED FOR RENOVATION.
Actual repair work to the Federal building will take 670 days from notice
to proceed. Repairs include modernization of electrical system, roof
and structural repairs, replacement of plumbing, and adjustments of
interior space. Listed below is a timetable for HEW staff moves.
Internal moves into staging areas during renovation will not be known
as actual date of R&I commencement is not established and tenants
requiring move may change significantly prior to construction start.
Timetable For
Move To New Building
Phase I 80,000 sq. ft.: Move to begin as soon as possible
and take 6 months to complete.
Social Security
Off ice of Civil Rights
Facilities Eng. Constr.
Phase II 100,000 sq. ft.: To be available within 6 months
after award with move to start as
space becomes available. Move to
take six months.
Office of Secretary
Regional Director Food & Drug
Personnel HSMSHS
Financial Management SRS (Statistical Reporting
Office of Child Development Service)
Reg. Council
Audit Agency
Surplus Property
Office Services
GSA-PBS May 31,1974
PAGENO="0145"
139
B -4. WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE LEASED SPACE THAT HEW IS VACATING? IS THERE
A LEASE CANCELLATION PENALTY? IF SO, WHAT DOES IT INVOLVE?
The space will be backfilled. Lease cancellation penalties will not
occur as space will be reused.
B -5. DOES GSA CONTEMPLATE THAT THE 10-YEAR LEASE OF THIS SPACE WILL BE
* FOLLOWED BY SUBSEQUENT RENEWALS OF THIS LEASE?
Yes.
GSA-PBS May 31, 1974
36-623 0 - 74 - 10
PAGENO="0146"
140
ppnSPECTUS NUMBER: PM174812
PROJECT NUMBER: 250017-2
PROSPECTUS FOR PROPOSED ALTERATION
PROJECT UNDER THE PUBLIC BUILDINGS ACT OF 1959
FEDERAL BUILDING-POST OFFICE-COURTHOUSE MISSOULA~ MONTANA
1. Description of Proposed Project
This project provides for major repairs and improvements
which should be undertaken in this building for its con-
tinued use to provide adequate housing for Federal agencies.
Major items contemplated include major airconditioning
improvements, alteration of the U.S. Postal Service space
to general office use, acquisition and improvement of
additional land for offstreet parking, modernizing office
space, replacement of floor covering, installation of
acoustical tile, modernizing court space, new building
entrance doors, driveway repairs, pointing and cyclic
painting, lawn sprinkler system and driveway lighting.
This work is to be accomplished within five years after
approval of this prospectus. It does not include (1) the
day-to-day maintenance and recurring repairs which must be
undertaken annually to keep the building in a tenantable
condition, (2) alterations to the building and its equipment
which may be occasioned by space reassignments which cannot
be identified at this time and (3) repairs and replacements
which may be occasioned by an emergency or breakdown which
interrupts use of the building.
2. Estimated Maximum Cost of Prolect
Previously Approved Prospectus (March 15, 1962) $1,020,000
Additional Authorization L874,000
Revised Authorization Required $2,894,000
3. Justification
The Federal Building-Post Office-Courthouse was constructed
in 1913 and extended in 1927, 1938, 1950 and 1952. It has a
gross floor area of 144,165 square feet and a net assignable
area of 91,380 square feet. The U.S. Postal Service is
vacating approximately 13,000 net square feet of space which
PAGENO="0147"
141
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PMT74812
PROJECT NUMBER: 250017-2
3. Justification (Cont'd)
will be altered to office space and assigned to other
Federal agencies. The building structure is of steel and
reinforced concrete, faced with stone and brick. It is
structurally sound and will be continued in use for an
indefinite period.
The first prospectus for this building approved in March
1962, included general repairs, airconditioning and toilet
modernizations. Some of the items have been completed.
This prospectus provides additional authority required
to complete these work items because of increases in con-
struction costs since 1962 and the additional work items
which have developed since that date. The project will
complete the modernization planned for this building.
To replace the building would cost approximately $5,152,800.
Housing of Federal agencies in suitable leased space would
cost approximately $6 per square foot annually.
Approximately $366,000 has been spent in the last nine years
for window replacements and repairs, heating modifications,
attic insulation, sidewalk and driveway repairs, upgrading
lighting and electrical systems, painting and partial improve-
ments to toilet rooms. The repairs and improvements proposed
under this project are essential to the economic and efficient
use and occupancy of the building.
4. Current Housing Costs* Net Area Sq~ Ft. Annual Cost
A. Leased Space
Rent and Other Cost 5,132 $ 4,116
B. Government-owned
Space to be vacated 6,875 $ 8,600
C. Operation, Maintenance
and Upkeep Cost 78,385 $160,689
* For agencies to be housed in the building after completion of
the alteration.
PAGENO="0148"
142
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PMT74812
PROJECT NUMBER: 250017-2
5. Proposed Space Plan for Housing Federal Agencies
There are approximately 1,331 Federal employees housed in
416,840 net square feet of Government-owned space arid
46,412 net square feet of leased space in Missoula, Montana,
(Exhibit A). Retention of this building for the foreseeable
future is an essential part of the comprehensive space plan
for housing the Federal population in the city.
6~ Environmental Assessment
In the construction of this project, General Services Admin-
istration will make studies of the water supply, sewage dis-
posal, solid waste disposal, storm water drainage, erosion
control, fuel types, etc., in order to comply strict:ly with
the purpose and intent of Executive Order 11514, Protection
and Enhancement of Environmental Quality.
A determination has been made based on a current assessment
of the project, that construction and operation of the
building will not have a significant effect on the human
environment. As the project develops, additional assessments
will be made, and if it is determined after amy assessment
that it will have a significant effect on the human environment,
an environmental statement will be prepared and submitted in
accordance with the requirements of Section 102(2)(c) of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and the guidelines
of the Council on Environmental Quality.
7. Statement of Need
It has been determined that (1) the needs for space of the
Federal Government in this area cannot be satisfied by the
utilization of other existing suitable property now owned by
the Government and (2) suitable rental space is not available
at a price commensurate with that to be afforded through the
proposed action.
Submitted at Washington, D.C. on M,4R 2~ 9/4
Recommended: - -
Ectin~ o iss ner, Pu ic Buildings Service
Approved: _______________________________
Administrat of General Services
PAGENO="0149"
~L
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ,~ ~f~::~:::: ~
~
~ .~ ~
~
~ ~I,,,.,, ~ ~
~
1:: a
a
U
p
a.~ a
a a
~
a a
n-..
gt~
PAGENO="0150"
144
Missoula, Montana
Question - 1
What items authorized in 1962 remain uncompleted? Which were
completed? How much of that authorization was spent?
Answer
Projects completed under prospectus approved in 1962
Interior and exterior painting $ 67,000
Repair and replace windows (30 windows) 4,400
Sidewalk and driveway repairs 3,500
Insulate attic 2,900
Upgrade electrical system 58,346
Heating conversion and controls 132,680
Modernize toilet facilities 9,883
Ventilate toilet rooms 7,585
Design and supervision 26,706
$313,000
Projects uncompleted under prospectus approved in 1962
Vestibule doors $ 4,000
Replace 170 windows in old portion of building 31,000
Replace entrance doors with aluminum doors 17,000
New lighting (Remainder of lights not accomplished) 49,750
Acoustical ceiling tile 64,000
Install fire alarm system 4,000
Airconditioning 499 ,000
Convert greenhouse to office space and corridor 19,000
Design and supervision 19,250
$707,000
Question - 2
The 1962 prospectus authorized installation of airconditioning.
This one authorizes airconditioning'Inprovenents.t' What will be
done and what is the cost?
Answer
No airconditioning work was accomplished under the 1962 prospectus
because insufficient funds were appropri~ted to provide for this
work,
GSA-PBS-6-6-74
PAGENO="0151"
145
Question - 3
Explain reference to "improvement of additional land for off-
street parking~" What is proposed?
Answer -
The additional land, 40,000 or 50,000 square feet located
within a half block of the building is necessary to provide
offstreet parking for Government-owned vehicles and selected
tenants of the building. At present, there are only two
parking spaces, one for the Judge and one for the Postmaster.
The city engineer has requested that the Government-owned
vehicles be removed from the street to ease the congestion
around the building. New total will be 141 spaces; 18
official, 25 visitors, and 98 employees. There are 390
employees in the building which will provide a ratio of
4 employees to each parking space.
~~tion - 4
The 1962 prospectus proposed replacement of entrance doors
and so does this one. Were they replaced?
Answer
The proposed new entrance doors were not installed under the
1962 prospectus because insufficent funds were appropriated
to provide for this work. They have been included in the
revised prospectus because they are still needed and because
construction costs have increased.
~estion - 5
How about "modernizing" of office space, proposed in both
prospectuses?
GSA-PBS -6-6-74
PAGENO="0152"
Answer
Office space modernization was not accomplished under the 1962
prospectus because insufficient funds were appropriated to
provide for the proposed modernization~ The 13,000 square
feet being vacated by the USPS is additional space to be
modernized which has come about since the 1962 prospectus was
approved.
Question-6
What are additional work items developed since 1962?
Answer
The following listing shows the work authorized in the 1962
prospectus, the work accomplished under that prospectus amd
the authorization with the current prospectus.
Repair and/or replace
windows
Replace sidewalk, driveway
and landscaping
Interior & exterior painting
Replace entrance doors with
aluminum doors
Insulate attic
Install convectors & controls
Replace & upgrade electrical
systems
Space modernization
Modernize restroom fac~
Convert greenhouse space
Install firesafety items
Airconditioning
Lawn sprinkler system
Driveway lighting & repairs
Acquisition & improve, of
land for parking
Interim relocation costs
Design and supervision ___________
146
Work Description
Obligations
Authority
Previous
Prospectus ____________
$ 35,900 $ 4,400
3,500
67,000
3,900
67,000
17,000
6,000
84,000
108,100
68,000
7,000
19,000
4,000
499 ,000
1Ol,~Q~
$1,020,000
Authority
Current
Prospectus
$ 148,500
25,000
40,000
675,000
24,900
900 ,000
20,000
18,300
243,400
300 ,000
185,900
$2,581,000
2,900
132,680
58,346
17,468
26,706
$313,000
GSA-PBS-6-6-74
PAGENO="0153"
147
Question -7
What condition is the roof in, which was replaced in 1961?
Answer
The roof is in good condition.
Question -8
The 1962 prospectus notes the building's replacement cost as
$3,160,000. This one states $5,152,800 or an increase of 63
percent in 12 years. Is that figure correct?
Answer
Based on reported construction cost indices the escalated
figure for construction cost is correct.
Question - 9
The previous prospectus indicates comparable leased space
would cost $3.44 per square foot annually. This one states
$6, or an increase of 74 percent. Is this correct?
Answer
In the view of the escalation of leased costs that has
taken place since 1962, this figure is correct.
~k~-rnb-o-o- /(4
PAGENO="0154"
148
~estion - 10
The prospectuses state that $533,300 has been spent during the
last 15 years on repairs and improvements. What work was
included?
Answer
Prospectus Work Accomplished at This Location
Repair and replace windows $ 4,400
Replace sidewalk, driveway, and landscaping 3,500
Interior and exterior painting 67,000
Insulate attic 2,900
Heating conversion and controls 132,680
Replace and upgrade electrical systems 58,346
Modernize restroomfacilities 17,468
Design and supervision 26,706
Prospectus Work Total $313,000
Non-Prospectus Work Accomplished at This Location
Minor repairs $ 12,373
Elevator conversion and minor repairs 59,785
New piping and condensate pumps for
heating plant 17,673
Handicapped facilities 52,984
Miscellaneous repairs and replacements ji,485
Non-Prospectus Work Total $220,300
Total Prospectus and Non-Prospectus Work $533,300
guestion - 11
Was any other work done under separate appropriations?
Answer
No other appropriations have been made for any specific projects.
Question - 12
The previous prospectus refers to a tangible cost benefit ratio
,-,ç 1 ~ c,~. in ~ ~ ~4-~-,' ~ ~
L
apply now?
GSA-PBS-6-6- 74
PAGENO="0155"
149
Answer
The cost effectiveness ratio for the revised prospectus is 1.1
for leasing and 1.5 for new construction. The ratios result
from an analysis which considers operation, maintenance and repair
costs, real estate taxes, leasing and new construction costs and
residual value of the property.
Question - 13
The 1962 prospectus stated that 645 employees were housed in
210,998 square feet of space in Missoula. This one refers
to 1,331 employees housed in 509,664 square feet of space which
is a 41 percent increase. Explain.
Answer
Upon review, we found that the revised prospectus shows 1,331
employees housed in 416,840 net square feet of Government-owned
space and 46,412 net square feet in leased space in Missoula
for a total of 463,252 net square feet and nOt 509,664 as referred
to in the question. The above figures cited refer to the
housing in Missoula and not just the P0 CT. The increase in
personnel and space between the 62 prospectus and the present
one is due to the expansion of the Agriculture Department and
the Department of Defense~ The additional square feet of space
was obtained in the following manner.
In 1960 construction was started for
Area Fire Depot (4 Buildings) Approx. 79,000 sq. ft.
In 1961 construction was started on
Fire Lab Approx. 35,000 sq. f~
In 1966 construction was started on
Forest Science Lab Approx. 11,000 sq~ ft.
Space made available at Ft. Missoula Approx. 112,000 sq~ ft.
Additional leased space l5~~ sq. ft~
Total Since 1962 Prospectus 252,254 sq. ft.
210,998 + 252,254 = 463,252 sq. ft.
Question - 14
Who will be assigned to 13,000 square feet vacated by the
USPS?
GSA-PBS-6-6- 74
PAGENO="0156"
150
Answer
The 13,000 square feet vacated by the Postal Service will
be assigned to the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture.
Question - 15
Explain the 4,665 square feet reserved for expansion.
Answer
The 4,665 square feet is being assigned to the Forest Service,
Department of Agriculture. Knowing that the Department of
Agriculture had this need, the space had been put in a reserved
category.
~estion - 16
The prospectus states that 39,478 square feet of presently
leased space will be retained. What is the average cost of this
per square foot? Is it expected to increase appreciably?
Answer
As a result of the present leases made for the 39,478 square
feet of space, the average rental cost is $3~50. However, if
new leases were to be initiated at this time for that amount
of space the expected cost to lease this space is estimated to
be approximately $5~50.
Question - 17
The 906 employees housed in this building represent 68 percent
of the total in Missoula. Are the remainder suitably housed?
Answer
The region reports that all leased personnel are suitably housed.
~estion - 18
The ratio of Government-owned to leased space in Missoula
is about 9 to 1. Is this proportion expected to change? How
does it correspond with the national average?
GSA-PBS- 6-6-74
PAGENO="0157"
151
Answer
The current ratio of Government to leased space is 416,840
square feet to 46,412 square feet or approximately 9:1. We
do not anticipate any change. The national average ratio of
Government-owned to leased space is approximately 3:1.
Question - 19
The prospectus does not indicate that any alternatives to this
project were considered. Were they?
Answer
A Cost Effectiveness Analysis was completed for both leasing and
new construction alternatives as a part of the decision to proceed
with this project. -
Question - 20
What has been done under the previous alteration prospectus?
TJ1-~- 1-~~ ~ 1-1~ ~-~-~-~1 ~ r~4 i-1-~ ~p1~~A ~~L9 TJhy ~
the remaining work on the earlier prospectus not undertaken?
Answer
The first two parts of this question is answered under the
answer to Question No. 1. The remaining work on the earlier
prospectus wa~ not undertaken, because the region had higher
priority work necessary at other locations with the limited
amount of funds available.
GSA-PBS-6-6-74
PAGENO="0158"
152
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PMO-73802
PROJECT NUMBER : IMO-73757
BUILDING NUMBER : 24-0073
PROSPECTUS FOR PROPOSED ALTERATION
UNDER THE PUBLIC BUILDINGS ACT OF 1959, AS AMENDED
U.S. COURTHOUSE AND CUSTOMHOUSE
1114 MARKET STREET ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT:
This project provides for major replacements and space alterations
which should be undertaken in this building for its continued use
to provide adequate housing for Federal agencies and the U.S. Courts.
Major items contemplated include conversion of former postal workroom
and mezzanine space to courtrooms arid related space, additional air-
conditioning and repairs, additional electric power and repairs, new
acoustic ceilings, toilet room modernization and ventilation, and
water and waste piping replacement. It does not include (1) the day-
to-day maintenance and recurring repairs which must be undertaken
annually to keep the building in a tenantable condition, (2) alter-
ations to the building and its equipment which may be occasioned by
future space reassignments which cannot be identified at this time,
and (3) repairs and replacements which may be occasioned by an
emergency or breakdown which interrupts use of the building.
Approximate Areas: Gross - 534,534 Sq. Ft. Net - 400,582 Sq. Ft.
2. ESTIMATED MAXIMUM COST OF PROJECT
Total Estimated Maximum Cost $2,964,000
3. JUSTIFICATION
There are approximately 33,900 Federal employees housed in
7,501,000 square feet of Government-owned space and 747,600
square feet of leased space in Metropolitan St. Louis.
PAGENO="0159"
153
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PMO-73802
PROJECT NUMBER : IMO-73757
BUILDING NUMBER : 24-0073
3, JUSTIFICATION (Cont'd)
The Courthouse and Customhouse, located in downtown St. Louis is
a monumental type structure constructed in 1935. It has a gross
floor area of 534,534 square feet, a net area of 400,582 square
feet and a net assignable area of 321,199 square feet. The
building, which houses functions of the United States Courts,
Departments of Agriculture, Justice, Treasury and other Federal
activities, is structurally sound and will be continued in use
for an indefinite period.
Retention of this building is an essential part of the comprehensive
plan for housing Federal activities in St. Louis. The previous
prospectus for this building, approved in April 1962, provided
for office area improvement, roof replacement, fluorescent light-
ing, floor replacement, driveway replacement, elevator moderni-
zation, suspended ceilings, mechanical improvements and emergency
lighting. All of this work has been completed. The United States
Courts and related activities occupy about 69,000 square feet of
space in the building. The space occupied includes six courtrooms
used by the U.S. Circuit Court and four hearing rooms used by the
Referees in Bankruptcy and the U.S. Magistrates.
The U.S. Courts have determined, based on their caseload, and
number of judges authorized for and assigned to St. Louis, that
present facilities are inadequate. To partially relieve this
inadequacy, one new District Courtroom and related facilities are
being constructed utilizing funds appropriated under the heading
"Additional Court Facilities" in GSA Supplemental Appropriation
Act for FY 1971 (P.L. 91-665), dated January 8, 1971.
Authorization for construction of two additional courtrooms and
related facilities requested by the U.S. Courts and other necessary
work to the building is being sought by this prospectus. Upon
completion of all alterations in the building a total of nine
courtrooms and four hearing rooms will be available for current
and foreseeable needs of the Courts, Magistrates and Referees in
Bankruptcy. Approximately $975,000 has been spent in the past
five years for elevator modernization and repairs, lighting
improvement, fire surge tanks, and space alterations. The ex-
pansion of court space and repair and improvements proposed under
this project are essential to the economic and efficient use and
occupancy of this building.
PAGENO="0160"
154
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PNO-73802
PROJECT NUM~ER : INO- 73757
BUILDING NUMBER : 24-0073
3. JUSTIFICATION: (Cont'd)
In the alteration of this building the applicable provisions of
the following will be complied with: The Intergovernmental
Cooperation Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-577), the Office of Civil Defense
Technical Standards for Fallout Shelters (April 1969) and Executive
Order 11512.
4. CURRENT HOUSING COST:
For agencies to be housed in altered Courthouse and Customhouse
Area Sq. Ft. Annual Cost
Operation, maintenance
and upkeep costs 278,891 $588,460
5. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS:
In the planning of this project, General Services Adciinistration
will make studies of the water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste
disposal, storm water drainage, erosion control, fuel types, etc.,
in order to comply strictly with the purpose and intent of Executive
Order 11514, "Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality",
and will follow the requirements of Section lO2(2)(c) of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Public Law 91-190), as
amended, and the guidelines prescribed by the Council on
Environmental Quality.
6. PROPOSED SPACE PLAN FOR HOUSING FEDERAL AGENCIES:
The alterations proposed in the U.S. Courthouse and Customhouse will
not affect the housing of other Federal agencies in St. Louis,
therefore, the comprehensive housing plan attached as Exhibit A
reflects only the housing of agencies in this building.
PAGENO="0161"
155
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PMO-73802
PROJECT NUMBER : IMO-73757
BUILDING NUMBER : 24-0073
7. STATEMENT OF NEED:
It has been determined that (1) the need for space of the Federal
Government in this area cannot be satisfied by utilization of
other suitable property now owned by the Government, and (2) suit-
able rental space is not available at a price commensurate with
that to be afforded through the proposed action.
JAN 14 1974
Submitted at Washington, D.C. on_______________________________
Acting Con~tissioner, blic B dings Service
Approved : ~7.. 141974
~ct1ng Admin'ist~ator of* neral Services
36-623 0 - 74 - 11
PAGENO="0162"
156
~J ~
~ ~c~i ~
- ~
~ ~
Hi
*
11
~ii~ ~ilP
~
1~8
3
1
*
* 2
PAGENO="0163"
157
St. Louis, Missouri
Question - 1
On what basis did the U.S. Courts determine their present
facilities to be inadequate?
guestion - 2
Have more judges been authorized? Work load increased? Justify.
Answer to 1 & 2 above.
Specific courts' space requirements are based upon statistical
records of courts' activities, projections of future courts'
activity and other factors. All requirements are usually first
determined by the local courts with the Administrative Office of
the U.S. Courts and then are subject to review by the General
Services Administration.
Since FY 1971, the Court of Appeals has increased their staff of
judges for the Eighth Circuit by four. There are two additional
£ ~ L~....eiLL J ~ ~LI(.~ LWt) aL&LL.L LLUiia i.. L1011 L e~ LUeLIL J ~ .LOL LJL~
circuit. The caseload for the Court of Appeals for that circuit
has increased by 737~ since FY 1971.
For the Eastern Missouri District Court, there has been an increase -
of two additional judges and one additional magistrate since FY 1971.
The District Court has projected that they will require another
additional judge for St. Louis for fiscal year 1975-1976. The
caseload for the District Court has increased by 527~ for civil cases
and by 327. for criminal cases since FY 1971.
Question - 3
How much office space will proposed conversion of the mezzanine
add?
Answer
No office space will be developed, the mezzanine space will be used
as an assembly and waiting room by court reporters and as an exhibit
room for the courts, adding 4,515 net assignable square feet.
GSA-PBS- 6-6-74
PAGENO="0164"
158
Question - 4
The space plan shows that 27 percent of the total building
occupied by the courts provides for only 9 percent of the
personnel. Why?
Answer
Courts activities are quite different from office or other
non-courts' activity. Courtrooms, hearing rooms and libraries,
for example, do not have "occupants." These areas should not
be included in comparisons of occupancy ratios.
Question - 5
Are courtrooms and hearing rooms interchangeable?
Answer
Court and hearing rooms are ndt interchangeable. While hearings
could normally be conducted in either a court or hearing room,
hearing rooms are usually inadequate for formal court activities.
Question - 6
What size courtrooms are proposed? Are they the "mini" types?
Answer
The two courtrooms involved measure 36' x 44' and 31' x 45'
and are classed as small standard courtrooms. "Mini" courtrooms
are 28' x 40'.
Question - 7
What are the "related facilitics" notcd?
Answer
Judge& chambers for each of the two courtrooms, a library,
a jury room, and an attorney's room.
Question - 8
How long wilL, t~his old building be used?
GSA-PBS-6-6-74
PAGENO="0165"
159
Answer
With the proposed modernization and changes, this building
will remain in use indefinitely.
Question - 9
The ratio of Government-owned space to leased space in St. Louis
is about 10 to 1. How does this relate to the national average?
What other Government buildings are here? Who occupies the
leased space?
Answer
The national average ratio of Government-owned to leased space is
approximately 3 to 1 excluding the Washington, D.C. area. Other
covernment-owned facilities operated by GSA in St. Loui~ are:
Federal Building, 208 N. Broadway
Federal Building, 405 S. ~Cwelfth Street
Federal Records Center, 111 Winnebago
Federal Office Building, 1520 Market
Military Personnel Records Center, 9700 Page Blvd.
Federal Center, 4300 Goodfellow
There are 17 leased properties ~cc~ip{ed b~y the following agencies:
Treasury
DOD Recruiting
Social Security
Defense Supply Agency
Agriculture
Labor
Army
Justice
Qj~estion - 10
What work authorized in 1962 remains uncompleted? What was
completed?
GSA-PBS-6-6-74
PAGENO="0166"
160
Answer
No work remains uncompleted from the 1962 prospectus. Under
that prospectus, the following work was done:
Structural repairs $ 109,057
Upgrading of electrical system 408,120
Elevator conversion and repairs 632,730
Modernization of office space 309,457
Modernization of restrooms 20,000
Roof repairs 72,620
Mechanical equipment repairs 14,052
Painting and pointing 155,000
Design and supervision 125,884
$1,846,920
Question - 11
Were appropriations made for any other work?
Answer
$560,500 has been funded for one additional courtroom and for
adjoining court facilities for new judgeships (PL 91-272).,
Question - 12
What airconditioning work is proposed? Describe the other
work briefly.
Answer
Installation of new airconditioning for space on first floor
to be converted to courts~ use from Postal Service workrooms.
Modification of duct wozk on the fifth and seventh floors is
also included. Work to be done in the building under this
prospectus:
1. Convert USPS workroom space into courtrooms, judges suites,
a library, a jury room, an attorney's room and a witness room,
Convert mezzanine space for court reporters and exhibit rooms.
$906,000.
GSA-PBS-6-6-74
PAGENO="0167"
161
2~ Relocate files storage and expand clerk of court office
area on third floor. $61,000
3. Convert fourth floor judge's suite to court administrator's
space. $30,000
4. Convert fifth floor space to judge's suites~ $364,000
5. Convert seventh floor space for use by Referee in
Bankruptcy. $139,000
6. Repair existing airconditioning system. $225,000
7. Install new acoustical ceilings in public areas. $100,000
8. Install a new ventilating system for toilet rooms. $100,000
9. Replace water and waste piping. $200,000
10. Repairs and replacements to existing electric distribution
system and provide additional electric power. $250,000
11. Modernize toilet rooms including handicapped facilities. $200,000
12. Additional airconditioning, first floor. $100,000
13. Design and supervision. $289,000
Total $2 964 000
Question - 13
Is there a cafeteria or restaurant? Will these be modernized?
Answer
~io cafeteria or restaurant is in the building. There is a vending
room on the seventh floor with seating for 184, plus a blind operated
stand on the first floor. No modernization of these facilities is
proposed under this prospectus. The food service facilities are
relatively new. -
GSA-PBS-6-6-74
PAGENO="0168"
162
Question - 14
What condition is the roof in, which was repaired in the 1960's?
Answer
The roof was replaced about one year ago and is in good
condition.
Question - 15
What kind of fire protection system is there?
Answer
A few areas used for document and paper storage are sprinklered
and added sprinkler coverage for the basement is programed for
FY 1975. The building has a manual fire alarm system and interior
standpipes. The elevators have been equipped with firesafety controls,
Question - 16
What facilities exist to aid the handicapped?
Answer
Toilets for use by the handicapped have been completed on the
first floor as a part of renovations for the courts. Additional
handicapped facilities will be provided as a part of the work
programed
Question - 17
What is the parking situation?
Answer
The only parking space available is at the back dock area, a
total of 26 spaces for an intended building occupancy of
1,209 or a ratio of about 1 to 47~ This restricted site
provides no opportunity for expansion of parking facilities,
however, the building is centrally located downtown and accessible
to public transportation. A pay parking lot is also available
only one block away.
Question - 18
Have any energy conservation measures been taken into
consideration?
GSA-PBS -6-4-74
PAGENO="0169"
163
Answer
Yes, temperatures have been reduced for heating, increased for
cooling and lighting levels reduced. Energy saving equipment
will be considered during design to maximize energy savings.
Additional fluestions
1. Please break down for us the components of total cost: How
much is needed for courtroom conversion, how much for aircondition-
ing, how much for electric power, how much for ceilings, etc.?
Answer
See answer to No. 12 above.
2. If this prospectus were approved today, when would anticipate
that work could begin? When could it be completed?
Answer
Work is currently in progress in this building under additional
courts funding, with all parts of the project coordinated to this
proposed prospectus. If this prospectus is approved before June 30,
1974, GSA will have $1,707,000 of work programed on the building
for FY 1975. Final completion of the entire project is estimated by
June 30, 1976.
GSA-PBS-6-6--74
PAGENO="0170"
PAGENO="0171"
VARIOUS PENDING BUILDING PROJECTS
TUESDAY, JULY 30, 1974
U.S. SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC Woi~xs,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 4200,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Dick Clark (chairman of the
subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senator Clark.
Senator CLARK. The hearing will come to order.
We are going to discuss today and have testimony on 10 pending
prospectuses. Mr. Loy Shipp, Assistant Commissioner, Space Manage-
ment, General Services Administration is here.
LEASED OFFICE SPACE, JACKSON, MISS.
Senator CLARK. Mr. Shipp, if you would be kind enough to come
to the table, along with any other persons from GSA whom you want
to have with you, the first prospectus that we are going to consider
is Jackson, Miss., which is a lease contract. Would you please proceed
with that, please?
STATEMENT OP LOY SHIPP, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SPACE
MANAGEMENT, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
Mr. SHIPP. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, this prospectus proposes the
acquisition of 277,000 square feet of space in an office building to be
constructed by a private developer in Jackson.
Senator CLARK. Before we get started, I think it would be appro-
priate to have, at this point in the record, questions submitted in
writing from the minority staff prior to the hearing.
[The questions referred to follow:]
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FROM THE SENATE PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
MINORITY STAFF
1. The Committee on Public Works presently has 10 alteration prospectuses
before it. Would you please provide a detailed breakdown, prior to the next
hearing, on the specific cost items that makes up each of these alteration re-
quests. (Tucson and Nashville only.)
Where applicable, please specify the work that was contemplated under the
earlier prospectus: The work actually accomplished, the cost of that work, and
the need and cost of the work not accomplished.
See attached sheet No. 1.
lA. Has GSA provided its list on all D.C. leases from the last hearing? What
long-range plans exist for the D.C. area. There are 242,000 Federal employees in
the capital area in 33,000,000 square feet of Government-owned space, and
19,000,000 leased square feet.
(165)
PAGENO="0172"
166
Attached is a listing of lea$es of more than 100,000 square feet in the Wash-
ington metropolitan area. GSA has developed projections of long term space
needs in the Washington metropolitan area and proposed various construction
projects as a means of satisfying these needs. We will be pleased to brief the
Committee staff on these projections and plans. A listing of blocks of vacant
unassigned space in excess of 10,000 square feet each and plans for utilization
of these blocks of space is being prepared.
2. Several of the lease proposals have sharply differing services and utility
costs. For example, the prospectus for the Rockville NOAA facility shows that
combined servicing and utilities for 136,000 square feet of space has risen to
$267,000 from $147,000. The prospectus for 1111-20th Street shows combined
services and utilities as costing $218,000, up from $162,000 for 130,000 square feet.
WASHINGTON SCIENCE CENTER 1 & 2-11800 OLD GEORGETOWN RD.
Per staff appraisal of December 4, 1973, operating expenses were estimated as
follows:
Building No. 1-$1.63 per sq. ft.
Building No. 2-$1.57 per sq. ft.
Building measurements per the appraisal were 91,370 square feet for Building
No. 1 and 44,814 square feet for Building No. 2 for a total of 136,184 Net Rentable
square feet (Net Rentable was considered the same as Net Assignable for pur-
poses of this appraisal). Per the existing lease, we are leasing 139,482 net usable
square feet.
Therefore, 91,370X$1.63 plus 44,814x$1.57 equals $210,291.08 rounded to
$220,000.
or
139,482X $1.60 equals $223,171.20 rounded to $224,000.
The $147,000 as shown in the prospectus was based on an estimate of about
10 years ago and would appear to be correct based on 10 year ago costs. Costs
have increased over 10 years and we believe an increase in estimated costs from
$147,000 ($1.05/sq. ft.) to $224,000 ($1.60/sq. ft.) is reasonable.
The $267,000 cost for services, etc., as shown in the prospectus is incorrect.
The current estimate is $224,000, of which $111,000 is for services and $113,000
is for utilities paid by the Government.
1111 20TH STREET
The reason for the difference is estimated costs for 1111 20th Street ($218,000
vs. $162,000) is that it is estimated services and utilities will cost approximately
$1.60 per net usable square foot, or about $218,000, whereas at the time the
original lease for this property was executed (1964), it was estimated that
services and utilities would cost about $1.19 for this building, or about $162,000.
This lease provides that the lessor pays for all services and utilities. We do
not have actual costs and do not require the lessor to provide them. Accordingly,
the figures presented in the prospectus are only estimates. While $162,000 seems
low compared to $218,000 it is important to note that $102,000 was a ten year
ago estimate and costs have increased since that time to what is estimated
today, on the average, to be about $1.00 per square feet.
1750 PENNSYLVANIA AVENIJE
The reason for the small difference in estimated costs for 1750 Pennsylvania
Avenue is that current costs were based on an estimate made at the time for re-
newal option was exercised just over a year ago ($182,000 estimated on 2/1/73)
whereas we estimate services and utilities will cost approximately $180,000 upon
commencement of the succeeding lease.
2A. Status of Fort Lincoln?
A prospectus proposing acquisition of space under a lease arrangement in a
building to be constructed is pending before the Public Works Committees.
The District of Columbia's Redevelopment Land Agency (RLA) has reached
an agreement with Building Systems International (BSI) on the Fort Lincoln
project. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is cur-
rently reviewing the contract and RLA is expected to reply shortly. The General
Services Administration (GSA) expects RLA and BSI to contact GSA for fur-
ther meetings on the proposed GSA Fort Lincoln prospectus project once RLA,
BSI and HUD have all approved the agreement.
PAGENO="0173"
167
3. Several of your prospectuses refer to the "substantial backlog of construc-
tion projects in the National Capital region." Would you please specify what
buildings you are referring to, their cost, and the anticipated completion date.
Estimated
total project
Construction project cost Estimated completion date
Department of Labor: Superstructure $63, 504, 968 November 1974.
Federal 1 riangle: Pennsylvania Avenue annex, Grand 135, 056, 600 Prospectus at PWCs.
Plaza parkway facilities, IRS Building extension.
FBI Building: Superstructure, phase II 92,642,000 Dec. 31, 1974.
Old EOB renovation and restoration 31,349,000 R. & I.
South portal FOB 40, 357, 800 Aug. 31, 1975.
1951 Constitution Ave 12,248,000 Revision to authorized prospectus at 0MB.
SESA 30, 329, 000 Prospectus at 0MB.
3A. Is the $2,198,000 replacement cost for Tucson P.0.-Courthouse (43,000
square feet) cheap? Other examples.
See attached sheet No. 2.
4. Why is the cost of site, design, etc., for the Laredo, Texas, border station
so high: about 35 percent of the prospectus cost?
The cost of site, design, etc., for the Laredo, Texas, Border Station is high due
to the cost of the land consisting of 15.6 acres, 13 of which are located in a highly
developed residential area and requires relocation assistance for the residents.
Design, site costs are normal for a project of this type.
E'ite and ewpenses estimates:
Land Cost $3, 276, 000
Expenses of Acquisition 85, 000
Relocation Cost 600, 000
Design 778, 000
Total S & E (35.4% of total project cost) $5, 477, 000
4A. Status of NASSIF parking?
The last condemnation action filed by the Department of Justice on behalf of
GSA for use and occupancy of the Nassif Building Garage expired on June 30,
1974. The Department of Justice acting upon the Department of Transportation's
request condemned the garage for the period of July 1, 1974 to October 30, 1974.
The Department of Transportation has obtained appropriations approval of FY
75 in the amount of $882,900 for the acquisition and maintenance of the garage
facility under its direct authority.
GSA does not intend to take any action at this time to withdraw the prospec-
tus for leasing the Nassif Garage. Our position on this matter will be re-evaluated
within thirty days.
5A. Other buildings that are pending?
See attached sheet No. 3.
GA. Status of 0MB parking review?
On August 23, 1973, responsibility for developing a parking policy was trans-
ferred from the Office of Management and Budget to GSA. The GSA has devel-
oped a tentative policy which is currently under review within the agency. This
policy considers Federal needs, availability of public transportation, local codes,
car pooling and availability of private facilities. Firm conclusions are not yet
available, however, it is anticipated a tentative management circular will be
completed by October 1974 and the final circular issued by the end of calendar
year 1974.
7A. Status of purchase contract buildings? How many finished? How many
under construction? Actual cost?
See attached sheet No. 4.
8A. Could we do the same thing with Jackson that we did with Columbia?
This project can be accomplished as a purchase contract or Federal Construc-
tion project in the same manner as project recently authorized for Columbia,
South Carolina.
HEARING MATERIAL FOR AN R&A PRosPEcTus AT NASHVILLE, TENN.
ATTACHMENT No. 1.
Building Name: U.S. Courthouse
City and State: Nashville, Tennessee
Street Address: Broadway & Eighth Avenue; City Population 261,000
PAGENO="0174"
168
OPENING STATEMENT
This prospectus provides for major repairs and alterations which should be
undertaken in this building for its continued use to provide adequate housing
for Federal agencies, at a cost of $1,872,000.
The Courthouse, constructed in 1952, has eight floors above ground; an attic,
and a full basement and has never been extended. The structure is steel and rein-
forced concrete faced with limestone and granite base. It has a gross area of
189,282 square feet.
Major items of work include space alterations for IRS and the Veterans
Administration; replacing battleship linoleum with vinyl tile in corridors and
carpet in office space; providing facilities for handicapped; landscapng; installa-
tion of a lawn sprinkler system; replacement of deteriorated acoustical ceiling
and installation of recessed lighting; conversion of three elevators from manual
to automatic operation; pointing and cyclic painting; installation of fire sub-
divisions arid an emergency communication system.
Approved prospectus amount
Additional authorization requested $1, 872, 000
Total revised prospectus 1, 872, 000
Expenditure through fiscal year-(year of prospectus)
Expenditure through fiscal year- (since prospectus submitted)
Total expenditures (through fiscal year-)
Balance available (after fiscal year-) 1, 872, 000
Programed for fiscal year 1975 1, 000, 000
Explain:
Acoustical ceilings 270, 000
Upgrade electrical system 480, 000
Install carpets and vinyl tile 210, 000
Landscape and lawn sprinkler system 20, 000
Painting 40, 000
Subtotal 1, 000, 000
STATUS
Sent to 0MB January 26, 1973
Approved by 0MB September 18, 1973; Approved by House
Sent to Public Works Commission April 11, 1974; Approved by Senate
BUILDINGS MANAGEMENT-REPAIR AND ALTERATION OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS
NASHVILLE, TENN.-U.S. COURTHOUSE DETAILED COST ESTIMATES
Description and estimated cost
Acoustical ceilings: Dropped ceilings are unsightly and pulling loose
throughout building $270, 000
Upgrade electrical system: Replace two tube fixtures (halfmoon type)
with recessed lighting fixtures 480, 000
Space alterations: Principally for IRS and VA 480, 000
Floor covering: Vinyl tile in corridors and carpet in office space (re-
placing battleship linoleum) 210, 000
Lawn sprinkler system and landscaping 20, 000
Elevator conversion (3 elevators) 2 passenger, 1 freight 96, 000
Airconditioning improvements: Modify and balance due to space
alterations 24, 000
Fire subdivisions and emergency communication system 110, 000
Pointing and cyclic painting 120, 000
Plaster repairs and replacement of vinyl wall covering in corridors
and elevator lobbies 62, 000
Total 1, 872, 000
PAGENO="0175"
169
ATTACHMENT NO. 1A
LEASED BUILDINGS OF MORE THAN 100,000 NET USABLE SQUARE FEET, AS OF JUNE 30, 1974
Lease
expiration
Buildingaddress Squarefeet date
Washington, D.C.
806 Connecticut Ave. NW 104,609 Sept. 30,1983
1725-35 15th St. NW 115, 996 Jan. 9,1976
1776 Pennsylvania Ave. NW 151, 331 May 31, 1982
1717 H St. NW 273,678 Aug. 1,1975
1201 E St. NW 101, 315 May 22,1978
1825 Connecticut Ave. NW 128, 292 Jan. 16, 1975
1717 Pennsylvania Ave. NW 138, 934 Sept. 30 1975
1101 Pennsylvania Ave. NW 127, 163 Sept. 5, 1982
1875 Connecticut Ave. NW 200,933 Nov. 14, 1974
1111 20th St. NW 136,428 Aug. 4 1974
1325 KSt. NW 113,863 Feb. 28, 1975
1750 Pennsylvania Ave. NW 116,423 Jan. 31, 1975
633 Indiana Ave. NW 102,408 Jan. 31, 1983
1200 19th St. NW 178,212 Jan. 13, 1975
1800GSt.NW 406,234 May 15,1975
500 North Capitol St 169,694 Apr. 20,1976
3300 Whitehaven St. NW 102, 563 July 27, 1977
400 6th St. SW 110, 887 Apr. 2, 1977
1441 LSt. NW 149,967 Mar. 15, 1977
1919 M St. NW 212,634 Oct. 10,1977
1121 Vermont Ave. NW 126,600 Nov. 22,1977
400 7th St. SW 1,068, 897 Jan. 1,1990
1405 1St. NW 169,450 Nov. 1,1978
1020 11th St. NW 368,431 May 31,1980
500 12th St. SW 308, 841 July 2,1980
55OllthSt.NW 160,178 July 14,1980
1310 LSt. NW 174,488 Dec. 14, 1980
1425 KSt. NW 173,731 Sept.21,1976
2000 M St. NW 195, 769 Nov. 30, 1976
4th and MSts.SW 697,166 Sept.13,1992
2025 MSt.NW 130,554 Miy 23,1977
825 North Capitol St 246, 626 Mar. 31,1993
2100 2d St. SW 484, 985 May 15, 1993
10 P St. SW 130,000 Dec. 13, 1978
6th and D Sts. NW 429, 796 Oct. 20,1993
425 1St. NW 135,216 Jan. 14,1984
2301 E St. NW 422, 118 Oct. 14, 1993
VIRGINIA
5611 Columbia Pike, Falls Church, Va 216, 521 Apr. 29, 1984
2221 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Va 123, 689 Feb. 28, 1975
1200 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Va 103, 221 Dec. 31, 1974
1820 North Fort Meyer Dr., Arlington, Va 129,020 Jan. 23,1976
800 North Quincy St., Arlington, Va 128, 982 May 4, 1976
4040 North Fairfax Dr., Arlington, Va 118, 526 June 28,1976
2211 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Va 120, 677 Feb. 26,1976
1621 North Kent St., Arlington, Va 128,454 Sept. 10,1976
2121 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Va 429, 347 Jan. 18, 1978
1735 North Lynn St., Arlington, Va 208,562 Oct. 6,1977
801 North Randolph St., Arlington, Va 142,364 Jan. 4,1979
8600 Morrissette Dr., Springfield, Va 107, 880 Sept. 8,1978
2011 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Va 160, 700 Dec. 7,1978
1320 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Va 215, 906 Dec. 31,1977
1921-31-41 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Va 725, 712 Feb. 11, 1989
2461 Eisenhower Ave., Alexandria, Vu 252, 187 May 24,1989
841-881 South Picket St., Alexandria, Va 122, 220 Sept. 15, 1979
2511 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Va 201, 151 Jun. 18,1990
2521 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Va 280, 880 Jul. 7,1990
1411-21 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Va 387,361 Apr. 30, 1990
2531 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Va 354, 550 Sept. 19, 1990
4600 North Fairfax Dr., Arlington, Va 106, 608 Nov. 20, 1975
5001 Eisenhower Ave., Alexandria, Va 477, 171 Jan. 15, 1993
200 Stovall St., Alexandria, Va 506, 123 Feb. 25, 1993
4015 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Va 133,632 Apr. 1,1981
1201, 1211, 1221, and 1301 South Fern St., Arlington, Va 104, 911 Nov. 25, 1977
12201 Sunrise Valley Dr., Reston, Va 669, 887 Dec. 19,1993
PAGENO="0176"
170
ATTACHMENT NO. lA-Continued
LEASED BUILDINGS OF MORE THAN 100,000 NET USUABLE SQUARE FEET, AS OF JUNE 30, 1974-Continued
Lease
expiration
Building address Square feet date
MARYLAND
5333 Westbard Ave., Bethesda, Md 169, 994 May 15, 1978
7915 Eastern Ave., Silver Spring, Md 117, 811 Jan. 9, 1977
6505 Belcrest Rd., Hyattsville, Md 222, 247 Jul. 24, 1983
11800 Old Georgetown Rd., Rockville, Md 139, 482 Aug. 14, 1974
8060 13th St., Silver Spring, Md 155, 258 Apr. 10, 1975
3700 East-West Highway, Hyattsville, Md 294, 850 Jan. 21, 1979
5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Md 1, 069, 256 Dec. 15, 1989
6525 Belcrest Rd., Hyattsville, Md 156, 750 Mar. 22, 1976
6501 Lafayette Ave., Riverdale, Md - 212, 460 Oct. 31, 1991
7910 Woodmont Ave., Bethesda, Md 112, 725 Oct. 31, 1982
5401 Westbard Ave., Bethesda, Md 111, 537 Feb. 15, 197
METRO DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA VACANT SPACE
[Blocks of 10,000 002 or morel
Federal buildings Square feet Remarks
Tempo "A", 2d and Q St. SW 56, 500 Space is obsolete; building proposed for demolition.
Tempo "B", 2d and Q St. SW 25, 800 Do.
Winder Bldg., 600 & 17th St. NW 44, 700 Building scheduled for total interior renovation (R. & A.) in
4th quarter, fiscal year 1975.,
Alexandria Federal Center, 100 North 31, 800 Facility in process of being transferred to city of Alexandria-
Union St., Alexandria, Va. to be completed by 1975.
Leased buildings:
Presidential Bldg., 6525 Belcrest 13, 200 Space committed to IRS area office for relocation and expansion
Rd., Hyattsville, Md. from Wheaton Plaza. Layouts sire being prepared. Occupancy
expected within 60 days.
Williams Bldg., 7923 Eastern Ave., 45, 200 Customs will occupy 1st, 2d and half of 3d floors weekend of
Silver Spring, Md. July 27. The balance of the 3d floor and the 4th floor will be
used by NIH for turnaround space while Wiscon Bldg. roof
is being repaired. The balance of the space has been com-
mitted to Labor to house employees under new pension
legislation.
Arlington Towers, 1011 Arlington 47, 700 This space is of a poor quality and we are attempting to
Blvd., Arlington, Va. negotiate an early termination of the lease, but will vacate
no later than March 1975 when the lease can be terminated.
Columbia Plaza, 2301 E St. NW. 411, 000 Approximately 175,000 ft2 of this space has been committed
Washington, D.C. To EEOC and ARBA. Space for ARBA has been altered and
we are awaiting telephone installations. Negotiations are
in progress for alterations to space committed to EEOC.
Commitments for the balance of the space are currently
being finalized.
Iverson Mall S/C, 3737 Branch Ave., 28, 900 Uncommitted. However, we are currently exploring the possi-
Marlow Heights, Md. bility of the use of this space by the Department of Com-
merce for expansion.
Suitland Medical Arts, 5001 Silver 10, 900 This space has been committed to Commerce. Census for
Hill Rd., Suitland, Md. expansion from the FOB. Alteration plans are being de-
veloped with projected move in 60 days.
1016-16th St. NW., Washington, 11, 100 Approximately 6,400 ft2 of this space has been committed
D.C. to LEEA for expansion. The balance (4,700 ft2) is vacant and
we currently have no commitment for this space.
STATUS OF ORIGINAL 63 PUR
CHASE CONTRACTS-PAYMENTS SCHEDULE
Number and location
Principal
Interest Taxes
1. Tucson, Ariz., Federal building $6, 100, 000 $9, 089, 626 $9, 895, 681
2. Batesville, Ark., courthouse, Federal building, post office 2, 280, 000 3, 535, 908 1, 427, 400
3. San Diego, Calif., courthouse, Federal building, and parking facility - - 48, 000, 000 69, 542, 948 40, 383, 959
4. Santa Ana, Calif., Federal building 12, 400, 000 18, 477, 262 16, 746, 539
5. Van Nuys, Calif., Federal building 7, 350, 000 10, 952, 248 13, 011, 872
6. LosAngeles,Calif.,parkingfacility (i) (1) (1)
7. Santa Rosa, Calif., Federal building 5, 663, 500 8, 676, 532 5, 455, 092
8. New Haven, Conn., Federal building and post office (2) (2) (2)
9. Dover, Del., Federal building 1,950, 000 2, 672, 125 694, 668
10. Or!ando, FIa., courthouse and Federal building 10, 049, 700 15, 396, 228 4, 041, 248
11. Griffin, Ga., Post Office and Federal building (2) (2) (2)
12. Rome, Ga., Post Office and courthouse 3, 650, 000 5, 772, 139 2, 641, 871
See footnote at end of table, p. 171.
PAGENO="0177"
171
STATUS OF ORIGI NAL 63 PURCHASE CONTRACTS-PAYMENTS SCHEDULE-Continued
Number and location Principal Interest Taxes
13. Athens, Ga., Federal building
14. Atlanta, Ga., Courthouse and Federal building
15. Waycross, Ga., Post Office and Federal building
16. Honolulu, Hawaii, Federal building
17. Moscow, Idaho, Courthouse and Post Office
18. Sandpoint, Idaho, Federal building
19. Chicago, Ill., Federal Receiving center
20. Mount Vernon, Ill., Federal building
21. Indianapolis, nd., Federal building
22. Iowa City Iowa, Federal building and Post Office
23. New Orleans, La., Courthouse and Federal building
24. Waterville, Maine, Post Office and Federal building
25. Baltimore, Md., courthouse and Fede al building
26. Fitchburg, Mass., Federal building and Post Office
27. New Bedford, Mass., Federal building
28. Ann Arbor, Mich., Federal building
29. Detroit, Mich., Federal building
30. Saginaw, Mich., Federal buiI~ing
31. Hattiesburg, Miss., Courthouse and Federal building
32. Lincoln, Nebr., Courthouse, Federal building, and parking facility_ -
33. Manchester, N.H., Federal building
34. Las Cruces, N. Mex., courthouse and Federal building
35. Auburn, N.Y., post office, courthouse, Federal building
36. Albany, N.Y., Federal building
37. Hempstead, N.Y., Federal building
38. New York, N.Y., CU, courthouse, and Federal building annex
39. Syracuse, N.Y., courthouse and Federal building
40. Winston-Salem, N.C., courthouse and Federal building
41. Akron, Ohio, courthouse and Federal building
42. Daytcn, Ohio, courthouse and Federal building
43. Eugene, Oreg., courthouse and Federal building
44. Portland, Dreg., Federal building
45. Williamsport, Pa., courthouse, post office, and Federal building
46. San Juan, P.R., courthouse and Federal building
47. Woonsocket, RI., Post office and Federal building
48. Florence, S.C., courthouse and Federal building
49. Aberdeen, S. Oak., Federal building
50. Huron, S. Oak., Federal building
51. Rapid City, S. Oak., courthouse and Federal building
52. Nashville, Tenn., courthouse and Federal building, annex
53. Denton, Tex., post office and Federal building
54. Fort Worth, Tex., parking facility
55. Houston, Tex., Federal motor vehicle facility
56. Pearsall, Tex., Federal building and post office
57. San Angelo, Tex., post office, courthouse, and Federal building
58. Essex Junction, Vt., Federal building and post office
59. Roanoke, Vu., courthouse and Federal building
60. Charlotte Amalie, V.1., courthouse and Federal building
61. Wenatchee, Wash., Federal building and post office
62. LaCrosse, Wis., post office and courthouse
63. Madison, Wis., Federal building
I Canceled.
2 Not funded.
4,321,280 2,163,107
98, 358, 638 56, 980, 000
(2) (2)
47, 494, 579 20, 742, 082
4, 997, 553 2, 983, 545
3,710,103 529,513
8, 296, 983 9, 500, 000
1,858,908 1,712,713
27, 760, 344 29, 942, 643
6, 048, 258 6, 936, 486
41,976, 587 11,740, 400
(2) (2)
14, 473, 115 19, 078, 150
7, 599, 514 10, 841, 190
4, 098, 277 5, 674, 000
11,777,839 4,680,501
82, 119, 244 69,206,37 6
(2) (2)
5, 748, 079 3, 639, 120
31,836,132 18, 166, 672
13, 180, 944 12, 210. 0110
5,199,299 1,903,200
(2) (2)
20, 861, 434 32, 174, 119
(2) (2)
67, 878, 100 113, 247, 982
22, 137, 100 28, 970, 401
23, 149, 725 8, 891, 340
18, 006, 900 11, 235, 800
15, 433, 150 7, 124, 185
9, 488, 803 7, 752, 829
24, 221, 500 23,057, 939
7,605,811 500,610
24, 144, 300 27, 410, 647
(2) (2)
5,648,976 1,511,475
9, 685, 643 10, 467, 600
5, 738, 089 5, 709, 600
18, 687, 571 15, 763, 920
(2) (2)
6, 079, 279 4, 758, 000
(2) (2)
612,921 342,000
(2) (2)
857,553 642,262
24, 072, 760 7, 811, 559
12, 331, 751 20,677,635
6,183,930 921,626
(2) (2)
(2) (2)
Number and location Principal Interest Taxes
Not yet financed:
1. Columbia, S.C., courthouse, Federal building, and parking facility,
VMF
2. Marfa, Tex., border patrol station
Financed:
(1) (1) (1)
(1) (1) (1)
1. Anchorage, Alaska, courthouse, Federal building, and parking
facility $100,432,800 $145,602,376 $51,412,240
2. Fairbanks, Alaska, Federal building and parking facility 21, 904, 000 31, 759, 233 7, 899, 880
3. Richmond, Calif., SSA payment center 37, 153, 500 52, 980, 051 40, 700, 000
4. Carbondale, Ill., Federal building 6, 734, 000 9, 763, 818 4, 875, 153
5. Chicago, Ill., SSA payment center 48, 139, 750 68, 646, 195 73, 260, 000
6. Topeka, Kans., post office, Federal building, and parking facility_ 18, 914, 400 27, 424, 527 15, 873, 000
7. Columbus, Ohio, Federal building and parking facility 19, 545, 100 29, 943, 264 10, 393, 584
8. Oklahoma City, OkIa., Federal building 22, 702, 200 34, 779, 969 9, 361, 000
9. Philadelphia, Pa., SSA payment center 32, 206, 750 45, 926, 097 26, 862, 000
NOTES
2,900,000
64, 202, 400
(2)
36, 612, 100
3, 100, 000
2,450,000
5, 350, 000
1, 300, 000
22,700,000
3,900,000
34,600,000
(2)
9,447,200
5, 100, 000
2, 675, 100
7,687,900
65,300,000
(2)
3, 700, 000
25, 100, 000
8,603,700
3, 450, 000
(2)
14,000, 000
(2)
88,053,999
28, 717, 070
15, 110, 700
23, 359, 221
10, 073, 800
6, 193, 700
31,421,032
4,964,600
31,320,885
(2)
3,687,300
6, 500, 000
Not funded
3, 700, 000
12, 050, 000
(2)
3, 800, 000
(2)
447, 289
(2)
552,983
15,713,200
8,050,400
4, 150, 000
(2)
(2)
1. Principal, interest, and taxes are the estimated cumulative totals over the term of the purchase contract.
2. Taxes escalated at 3 percent per year.
3. Principal represents total project cost plus all costs incident to the purchase contract method of financing.
36-623 0 - 74 - 12
PAGENO="0178"
172
ATTACHMENT No. 4.
SUMMARY
STATUS OF ORIGINAL 63 PURCHASE CONTRACTS
1. Projects under construction 30
2. Projects under design 6
3. Construction completed 13
4. Canceled or withdrawn 9
5. Projects pending 3
6. To be included in fiscal year 1975 2
Subtotal 63
7. Purchase contract prospectuses since Public Law 23-313 11
Total 74
PAGENO="0179"
STATUS OF ORIGINAL 63 PURCHASE CONTRACTS
1. Tucson, Ariz.: Federal building
2. Batesville, Ark.: Courthouse, Federal building,
post office.
3. San Diego, Calif.: Courthouse, Federal building,
and parking facility.
4. Santa Ana, Calif.: Federal building
5. Van Nuys, Calif.: Federal building
6. Los Angeles, Calif.: Parking facility
7. Santa Rosa, Calif.: Federal Building
8. New Haven, Coon.: Federal building and post
office.
9. Dover, Del.: Federal building
10. Orlando, Fla.: Courthouse and Federal building
11. Griffin, Ga.: Post office and Federal building_ - -.
12. Rome, Ga.: Post office and courthouse
13. Athens, Ga.: Federal building
14. Atlanta, Ga.: Courthouse and Federal building__
15. Waycross, Ga.: Post office and Federal building
16. Honolulu, Hawaii: Federal building 137,425 1,530,175 30,434,300 385,000 32,486,900
17. Moscow, Idaho: Courthouse and post office 302, 100 167, 000 2,457, 800 134, 200 3,061, 100
18. Standpoint, Idaho: Federal building (2) 135, 000 2,119,300 156, 000 2,410,300
19. Chicago, Ill.: Federal receiving courthouse (1) 285, 800 157, 500 4, 588, 500 5, 031, 800
20. Mount Vernon, Ill.: Federal building 241, 600 74, 100 1, 139, 000 56, 200 1, 599, 000
21. Indianapolis, Ind.: Federal building 14, 100 538, 300 15, 907, 500 242, 000 16, 701, 900
22. Iowa City, Iowa: Federal building and post office 1,350,000 135, 500 3,542,800 80, 000 5, 108, 300
23. New Orleans, La.: Courthouse and Federal 3, 775, 000 589, 500 26, 980, 500 847, 000 32, 192, 000
building.
24. Waterville, Maine: Post office and Federal
building.
25. Baltimore, Md.: Courthouse and Federal building 3, 238, 000 758, 300 19, 680, 000 825, 000 21, 503, 900
26. Fitchburg, Mass.: Federal building and post 413, 800 308, 600 3, 937, 500 156, 000 4, 815, 900
office.
27. New Bedford, Mass.: Federal building 360, 000 178, 000 1, 731, 000 139, 000 2, 408, 000
28. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Federal building 1,504,700 348, 000 4, 167, 000 268, 000 6,278,700
29. Detroit, Mich.: Federal building 2, 717, 200 1, 257, 600 54, 282, 460 1, 585, 200 59, 842, 360
30. Saginaw, Mich.: Federal building 1, 488, 000 366, 000 4, 126, 000 264, 000 6, 244, 000
31. Hattiesburg, Miss.: Courthouse and Federal 323, 000 104, 300 3, 307, 500 58, 700 3, 793, 500
building.
See footnotes at end of table, p. 175.
Design
and
Management
and
No. and location Site review Construction inspection Total Status
338, 300 267, 400 5, 301, 000 168, 000 6, 074, 700 Completed March 1974.
427, 500 137, 500 2, 054, 300 121, 000 2, 740, 300 Completed June 1974.
307, 800 803, 100 40, 175, 850 1, 168, 100 42, 454, 850 Underconstruction; estimated completion May 1975.
28, 000 343, 800 10, 993, 500 221, 400 11,586,700 Underconstruction; estimated completion December1974.
892, 800 309, 100 6, 668, 000 265, 100 7, 935, 000 Under construction; estimated completion September 1974.
10, 000 678, 000 8, 968, 000 575, 000 10, 231, 500 Design estimated to be completed October 1974.
(1) 267, 020 4,764,705 307, 575 5,339,300 Under construction; estimated completion December1974.
967, 000 815, 000 10, 425, 000 771, 000 3, 170, 000 Design deferred pending site resolution.
54, 200 108, 500 1, 485, 800 178, 000 1, 826, 500 Completed January 1974.
550, 000 415, 590 8, 525, 000 419, 301 10, 394, 491 Under construction; estimated completion June 1975.
640, 700 85, 000 1,690, 000 136, 000 2, 551, 700 Withdrawn August 1972; transferred to Postal Service.
478, 700 176, 500 3, 176, 300 100, 000 3, 931, 500 Construction completed February 1974.
213, 470 235, 430 2, 434, 000 152, 000 3, 034, 900 Construction completed March 1974.
2, 852, 000 2, 041, 540 59, 883, 995 1, 820, 475 66, 598, 000 Design to be completed July 1974; construction award scheduled -1
October 1974.
Withdrawn August 1972; transferred to Postal Service.
Under construction; estimated completion August 1975.
Completed September 1973.
Under construction; estimated completion September 1974.
Under construction; estimated completion August 1974.
Completed April 1974.
Under cooctruction; estimated completion November 1974.
Completed June 1974.
Under construction; estimated completion November 1975.
Withdrawn August 1972: transferred to Postal Service.
Under construction; estimated completion December 1975.
Under construction; estimated completion September 1974.
Design completed June 1974; construction award scheduled for October
1974.
Design estimated to be completed Ociober 1974.
Under construction; estimated completion July 1975.
Design completed March 1974; construction award scheduled for late
July 1974.
Under construction; estimated completion August 1974.
PAGENO="0180"
STATUS OF ORIGINAL 63 PURCHASE CONTRACTS-Continued
Under construction; estimated completion February 1975.
Under construction; estimated completion May 1975.
Under construction; estimated completion November 1974.
Under construction; estimated completion April 1975.
Under construction; estimated completion February 1975.
Under construction; estimated completion April 1975.
Redesign to be completed late July 1974; construction award scheduled
for September 1974.
Under construction; estimated completion May 1975.
Withdrawn August 1972; transferred to Postal Service.
Under construction; estimated completion May 1975.
Completed March 1974.
To be included in fiscal year 1975 purchase contract program.
Completed May 1974.
Design
and
Management
and
No. and location Site review Construction i nspection Total Status
1,713,800 677,200 15,592,500 212,000
256, 000 573, 500 7, 200, 800 457, 000
86, 675 240, 798 2, 750, 000 125, 000
18, 195, 500 Under construction; estimated completion November 1974.
8, 505, 100 Under construction; estimated completion December 1975.
3, 047, 200 Completed April 1974.
Proposed for cancellation.
32. Lincoln, Nebr.: Courthouse, Federal building and
parking facility.
33. Manchester, N.H.: Federal building
34. Las Cruces, N. Mex.: Courthouse and Federal
building.
35. Auburn, N.Y.: Post office, courthouse, and
Federal building.
36. Albany, N.Y.: Federal building 0 367, 200 11,456 600 171, 000 11,994,800 Under construction; estimated completion October 1974.
37. Hempstead, N.Y.: Federal building Design deferred pending resolution of housing plan.
38. New York, N.Y.: CU, courthouse, and Federal (2) 1,570,400 57,408,000 391,000 59,369,400 Under construction; estimated completion July 1975.
building annex.
39. Syracuse, N.Y.: Courthouse and Federal building 801, 610 847, 700 17, 845, 214 674, 986 20, 169, 510
40. Winston-Salem, NC.: Courthouse and Federal 282, 000 961, 592 12, 608, 707 564, 275 14, 416, 574
building.
41. Akron, Ohio: Courthouse and Federal building_ - 520, 400 666, 200 14, 191, 600 245, 000 16, 332, 200
42. Dayton, Ohio: Courthouse and Federal building__ 10,000 427,300 8,128,800 456,000 9,022, 100
43. Eugene, Oreg.: Courthouse and Federal building_ 1, 872, 400 265, 700 5, 560, 628 295, 000 7,993, 728
44. Portland, Oreg.: Federal building_.._ - 1,226,600 720, 100 19, 824, 000 207, 000 21, 977, 700
45. Williamsport, Pa.: Courthouse, post office and 459, 000 314, 000 3, 983, 000 247, 000 5, 003, 000
Federal building.
46. San Juan, P.R.:Courthouseand Federal huilding. (3) 700,800 19,891,200 270,000 20,862,000
47. Woonsocket, RI.: Post office and Federal build-
ing.
48. Florence, S.C.: Courthouse and Federal building 781, 500 475, 200 3, 372, 964 230, 000 4, 859, 684
49. Aberdeen, S. Oak.: Federal building 549, 699 192, 700 6, 111, 200 191, 500 7, 050, 000
50. Huron, S. Dak.: Federal building 36, 000 608, 000 5, 674, 000 501, 000 6, 819, 000
51. Rapid City, S. Dak.: Courthouse and Federal 376, 278 181, 700 3, 357, 800 145, 500 4, 101, 800
building.
52. Nashville, Tenn.: Courthouse and Federal build- 454, 100 372, 000 10, 518, 200 106, 100
ing annex.
53. Denton, Tex.: Post office and Federal building Withdrawn August 1972; transferred to Postal Service..
54. Fort Worth, Tex.: Parking facility__ . (2) 130, 600 3, 554, 300 80, 600 3, 765, 500 Completed May 1974.
55. Houston, Tex.: Federal motor vehicle facility_. - Canceled; lack of space requirements.
56. Pearsall, Tex.: Federal building and post office__ 53, 980 30, 220 349, 700 79, 000 512, 900 Completed August 1973.
57. San Angelo, Tex.: Post office, courthouse and Canceled; lack of space requirements.
Federal building.
11,450,400 Under construction; estimated completion August 1974.
PAGENO="0181"
58. Essex Junction, Vt.: Federal building and post 88, 100 48, 600 512, 300 60, 000 709, 000 Completed June 1973.
office.
59. Roanoke, Va.: Courthouse and Federal building__ 520, 000 514, 000 11, 964, 342 552, 000 13, 550, 342 Under construction; estimated completion August 1975.
60. Charlotte Amalie, V.1.: Courthouse and Federal 10, 000 355, 000 5, 802, 000 318, 000 6, 485, 000 Under construction; estimated completion October 1975.
building.
61. Wenatchee, Wash.: Federal building and post 271, 200 216, 600 3, 553, 100 149, 600 4, 136, 500 Completed October 1973.
office.
62. LaCrosse, Wis.: Post office and courthouse_ Withdrawn August 1972; transferred to Postal Service.
63. Madison, Wis.: Federal building___... - 1, 100, 000 1, 091, 000 13, 810, 000 1, 028, 000 17, 029, 000 To be included in fiscal year 1975 purchasecontractprogram.
PURCHASE CONTRACT PROSPECTUSES SINCE PUBLIC LAW 92-313
NOT YET FINANCED
1. Columbia, S.C.: Courthouse, Federal building and
parking facility, VMF.
2. Marfa, Tex.: Border patrol station
FIN AN C ED
74, 404, 000 Design started June 1974; estimated completion July 1975.
15, 677, 000 Estimated design start to be August 1974.
34, 942, 189 Under construction; estimate completion June 1975.
4, 741, 000 Estimated design start to be August 1974.
46, 318, 254 Under construction; estimate completion November 1975.
18, 128, 000 Estimated design start to be August 1974.
17, 377, 000 Under design; estimate completion September 1974.
20, 100, 000 Design completed May 1974; estimate construction award August 1974.
29, 269, 231 Under construction; estimate completion July 1975.
3, 545, 000 1, 525, 000 20, 223, 000
(2) 173,000 1,505,000
1, 382, 000 26, 675, 000 Financing scheduled for October 1974.
140,000 1,818,000 Do.
1. Anchorage, Alaska: Courthouse, Federal building 5, 400, 000 4, 060, 000 61, 881, 000 3, 063, 000
and parking facility.
2. FairLanks, Alaska: Federal building and parking 1,530,000 1,038,000 12,062,000 1,047,000
facility.
3. Richmond, Calif.: SSA payment center 3, 692, 345 1, 730, 587 28, 992, 191 527, 006
4. Carbondale, Ill.: Federal building_ 660, 000 331, 000 3, 448, 000 302, 000
5. Chicago, Ill.: SSA payment center 5, 248, 883 2, 288, 840 38, 083, 444 697, 087
6. Topeka, Kans.: Post office, Federal building, and 1, 486, 000 1, 030, 000 14, 587, 000 1, 025, 000
parking facility.
7. Columbus, Ohio: Federal building and parking 1,789,000 967,000 13,846,000 775,000
facility.
8. Oklahoma City, OkIa.: Federal building__ - 1, 614, 000 1, 133, 000 16, 584, 000 769, 000
9. Philadelphia, Pa.: SSA payment center__ - (4) 4, 278, 840 81, 008, 100 2, 191, 760
Transfer.
Donated.
Oi
Exchange.
2 Government owned.
PAGENO="0182"
176
Mr. SHIPP. The project will have a gross area of about 440,000 square
feet, provide parking for about 40 official vehicles in the basement
garage. The new building will provide housing for the Departments of
Agriculture, Treasury, and 16 other Federal agencies.
The lease will be for a firm term of 20 years at an estimated annual
cost of $2,361,600.
Senator CLARK. Nearly a quarter of the increase in agency space is
requested in this prospectus. I should say about a 25-percent increase
in space. Why is it necessary to have that quantity of expansion?
Mr. SHIrP. In the development of this project, Mr. Chairman, we
consulted with the agencies that would be housed in the building and
asked their headquarters to provide us with their requirements so that
the requirements for expansion are based on the advice we receive
from the agencies that will be housed in the building.
Senator CLARK. The estimated total cost of leasing the 224,313
square feet is a little over $2.3 million, which includes $590,000 for
services and utilities. Will the yearly expense to the Government for
the services and utilities vary or will they remain constant?
Mr. SHIPP. The yearly expense for services and utilities will vary
because in this particular lease contract we will include an escalator
clause for taxes and for services that would be provided by the lessor
to the extent he provides them.
On the other hand, if the Government provides all services and
utilities in the building, we can expect the cost of those services and
utilities to increase over the period of the lease.
Senator CLARK. It is now part of the rental agreement?
Mr. SHIP?. The lessor will be required to do certain maintenance
and services in terms of maintaining the building in a watertight,
weathertight condition and other certain minor services.
The Government will provide char services and the usual mainte-
nance and operation, day-to-day maintenance and operation on the
services plus pay for the utilities.
Senator CLARK. That is why you list operation and maintenance and
utilities separately here?
Mr. Srnr~. Yes, sir. What we are doing is to show you the net rent
and the cost of services and utilities plus the total cost to the Govern-
ment of the project.
Senator CLARK. Going to a slightly different subject now, one of the
things that I know that has been discussed a lot, in the Federal Gov-
ernment, is the philosophy or question of whether long-term leases or
to build buildings and pay for them by some direct Federal method
is more advantageous to the Government.
Don't you think in this case, for example, that the Government's
best interest would be served by constructing a building for $29 niil-
lion and own it rather than leasing it for $4~t million for 20 years and
in the end not owning it?
Mr. Smpp. Senator, if we sum up the total cost. just in terms of
dollars of the lease payments over the term of the lease and compare
PAGENO="0183"
177
that with the construction cost, there is no question but. we get a larger
sum under a leasing program.
On the other hand, if we apply the present worth factor, the discount
rates, and so forth, as the economists would have us do, we find that
the leasing is the least expensive of the three methods of providing the
space. So I think it depends upon which philosophy you adopt.
Senator CLARK. But it is your opinion that buildings, generally
speaking, not just with regard to this prospectus, that the same amount
of material can be made available to agencies of the Government
through a leasing process at a cheaper rate than direct construction?
Mr. SHIPP. Applying the present worth concept to the total dollars
expended.
Senator CLARK. Would you describe the effect which containment
of Town Creek will have on the construction of this building?
Mr. Srnpr. The city of Jackson has a project that involves the
relocation of what is known as Town Creek, which meanders through
the downtown area of Jackson.
The city has proposed that we utilize a site which will be bounded
on one side by this creek. They plan to construct a large culvert, suf-
ficiently large to drive a dump truck through for that matter on one
side of the site. The design of the building and the design of that large
culvert will have to be coordinated.
Senator CLARK. The area is known to have subsoil conditions, as
I understand it, which is referred to as the creeping clay. If a project
is constructed by the Federal Government, what provisions could be
made to preclude requests for additional authorization that might
result from that condition?
Mr. SHIPP. Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask Mr. Tom Peyton,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Construction Management, to
speak to that technical point.
Mr. PEYTON. In the case of lease construction at the expense of the
owner, he would have to properly provide for.
Senator CLARK. So there is no condition under which you would be
in any way responsible for that, should that occur?
Mr. PEYTON. That is correct. On the other hand, if the Government
were to build the building provision would be made for the special
foundation conditions.
Senator CLARK. Would funding this project under purchase contract
authority hamper the Town Creek project?
Mr. SHIPP. It would not.
Senator CLARK. The staff has another question here that I will read
to you. Going back to the question of leasing versus construction, I
understand the GAO issued a report stating that over the long term
it is cheaper for the Government to own its own office space rather
than lease. Was that their conclusion? .
Mr. Srn~r. I think so. I believe that was their conclusion.
[The prospectus and a letter from Senator Stennis follows:]
PAGENO="0184"
178
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PMS-74012
PROJECT NUMBER : LMS-74512
PROSPECTUS FOR PROPOSED LEASE
UNDER THE PUBLIC BUILDINGS ACT OF 1959, AS AMENDED
LEASED OFFICE BUILDING JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT:
This prospectus proposes the acquisition of 277,000 square feet of space
in an office building to be constructed by a private developer in Jackson.
The project will have a gross area of about 440,000 square feet and provide
parking for about 40 official vehicles in a basement garage. The new
building will provide housing for the Departments of Agriculture and
Treasury and for 16 other Federal agencies now located in Jackson. The lease
will be for a firm term of 20 years, beginning on or about January 1, 1976,
at an estimated total annual cost of $2,361,600. Adequate public parking
facilities located in proximity to the building will be available for employee
use.
2. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
a. PROJECT NEED:
The new facility is required to consolidate and provide modern, functional
space for the Federal activities located in 20 leased locations which
provide about 224,313 square feet of space. These leased locations are of
varying quality and scattered throughout the metropolitan area. This impairs
agency operations, increases operating costs and requires the duplication of
many facilities. The new building will improve the quality of agency housing
and provide the additional space required to meet increased agency needs.
The Post Office and Courthouse provides about 72,500 square feet of space
housing U.S. Postal Service, U.S. Courts and other agencies. This building
cannot be enlarged.
Upon completion of the proposed office building, all Federal activities
in the city will be consolidated in two buildings, with the exception of
the Department of Agriculture's Forest Service which will remain at its
present location.
b. DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES:
1. Alteration of existing POCT.
The POCT, constructed in 1934 is inadequate to meet total needs and cannot
be extended because of site and design limitations. However, the building
provides adequate space for the requirements of its present occupants and
will be retained indefinitely.
PAGENO="0185"
179
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PMS-740l2
PROJECT NUMBER : LMS-745l2
b. DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES: (Cont'd)
2. Construction of a Government-owned building.
The construction of a Federal building would be more costly than acquisition
of a building to be constructed under a lease arrangement, therefore, as there
are no other overriding factors this alternative is considered not in the best
interest of the Government.
3. Acquisition of leased space.
Existing rental space is not available in sufficient quantity in one location
to permit consolidation and generally fails to meet Federal quality standards.
As a result, it has been determined that acquisition of space in a building
to be constructed is the most practicable means of providing for the current
and foreseeable needs for Federal office space in Jackson, Mississippi.
It will improve agency housing, consolidate agencies in a single location,
increase efficiency and provide improved convenience to the public. The
acquisition of space under a lease arrangement is less costly than public
building construction. Therefore, it is planned to enter into a lease for
construction of.the building in accordance with the authority contained in
Section 210(h)(l) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act
of 1949, as amended.
3. ESTIMATED MAXIMUM COST: INITIAL LEASE
Estima ted Net Average Rental $1 ,771 ,200
Estimated Cost of Services and Utilities 590,400
Estimated Total Annual Cost $2,361,600
4. CURRENT HOUSING COSTS:
For agencies to be housed in proposed building.
Area Sq. Ft. Annual Cost
Leased Space:
Rent 224,313 $983,965
5. SPACE PLAN:
(See attached Exhibit A)
6. PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES:
(See attached Exhibit B)
-2--
PAGENO="0186"
180
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PMS-74O12
PROJECT NUMBER : LMS-745l2
7. STATEMENT OF NEED:
It has been determined that (1) the needs for space of the Federal Government
in this area cannot be satisfied by utilization of existing suitable property
now owned by the Government, and (2) suitable rental space is not available
at a price commensurate with that to be afforded through the proposed action.
f~AY ~~74
Submitted at Washington, D.C. on ____________________
Recommended: .1c,
mm oner, Pu ic uildings Service
Approved : __________________________________
~oting Admi istrator of neral Services
PAGENO="0187"
181
PROPOSED BUILDING
U.S. Courts
Referee-in-Bankruptcy
Dept. of Agriculture
Emergency State Office
Agriculture Stabilization
and Conservation Service -
State Office
Consumer and Marketing Service
Meat and Poultry
Animal and Plant Health Service
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
Soil Conservation Service
Office of the Inspector General
Forest Service - Supervisors Office
Food and Nutrition Service
Farmers Home Administration -
State Office
Civil Service Comission
Dept. of Commerce - Economic
Development Admini stration
Dept. of Defense
Air Force - Recruiting
Army - 5 Agencies
Navy - 3 Branches
Office of Equal Employment
Opportunity
General Services Administration
Public Buildings Service:
Basement Parking - Official and
Government-owned (40 vehicles)
Building Service and
Joint Use Space
Reserve for Expansion (Estimated)
Dept. of Health, Education
and Welfare
Food and Drug Administration
Bureau of Hearings and Appeals
Social Security Administration
EXHIBIT A
JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI
PROSPECTUS NUMBER:
PROJECT NUMBER
COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING PLAN
PMS-74Ol 2
LMS-745l 2
PROPOSED HOUSING
OCCUPIABLE SQ. FT.
UNIT TOTAL
4,200
53,300
PERSONNEL -
UNIT TOTAL
6
348
1,200 9
6,500
1 ,300
7,100
2,700
16,600
1 ,000
10,300
1 ,000
5,600
1 ,O5O
5,610
2,340
14,150
25,900
23,500
400
5,500
8,300
45
10
34
15
95
13
76
8
43
4,500 - 15
1,100 5
9,000 56
7
36
13
9,300 37
63,550 210
45
165
14,200 85
2
40
43
PAGENO="0188"
182
EXHIBIT A (Cont'd)
JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI - Page 2
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PMS-74Ol2
PROJECT NUMBER : LMS-745l2
PROPOSED HOUSING
OCCUPIABLE SQ. FT. PERSONNEL
PROPOSED BUILDING UNIT TOTAL UNIT ~TOTAL
Dept. of Housing and Urban
Development 24,300 ~ 189
Office of the Director 2,040 10
Administrative Division 3,600 12
Equal Opportunity Division 660 4
Production Division 3,020 28
Single Family Operations 5,690 52
Technical Services Branch 5,400 52
Housing Services and Property
Management Division 3,890 31
Dept. of Interior 7,200 36
Bureau of Mines 600 2
Geological Survey 6,600 34
Interstate Commerce Commission 600 3
Dept. of Justice 22,000 137
(Excl. U.S. Atty/Mar.)
Civil Rights Division 400 4
Bureau of Prisons 300 2
Bureau of Narcotics and
Dangerous Drugs 1,900 7
Community Relations Service 1 ,700 6
Federal Bureau of Investigation 17,700 118
Dept of Labor 1,500 13
Employment Standards Admin.
and Manpower Admin.
Railroad Retirement Board -
Off ice of Supply and Service 800 4
Selective Service System 7,700 28
Small Business Administration 5,700 ) 37
Dept. of Transportation 4,800 30
Eighth Coast Guard District 500 2
Federal Highway Administration 4,300 28
Dept. of the Treasury 43,500 258
Savings Bonds Division 695 2
lnternal Revenue Service 39,255 232
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms 3,550 ______ 24
OCCUPIABLE AREA OF BUILDING 277,250 1,497
Rounded - 277,000
Utilization Rate Office Type Space - 163
PAGENO="0189"
183
EXHIBIT A (Cont'd)
JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI - Page 3
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PMS-740l2
PROJECT NUMBER : LMS-74512
Retained Government-owned Building: OCCUPIABLE SQ. FT. PERSONNEL
Post Office and Courthouse:
U.S. Postal Service 35,945 283
U.S. Courts, including U.S. Atty/Mar. 25,805 46
Other Agencies 5,964 30
Services & Custodial Areas 4,765 13
OCCUPIABLE AREA OF BUILDING 72,479 372
Retained Leased:
Dept. of Agriculture 2,200 2
PAGENO="0190"
184
EXHIBIT B
JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI
FEDERAL OFFICE BUILDING
PRESENT VALISE COST SUMMARIES FOR
ALTERNATIVE ~THODS OF ACQUISITION
(in thousands of dollars)
Item 30 Years 7%
PURCHASE : *
Improvements 21,080
Site, design, etc 3,973
Repair and Improvement l,7~40
Property taxes 8,225
Subtotal 35,018
Less residual value -2,052
Total 32,966
LEASE:5
Total annual payments~ 18,118
PURCHASE CONTRACT5
Annual uayments~ 21,588
Repair and Improvement 1,7~4O
Property Taxes 8,225
Subtotal 31,553
Less residual value -2,052
Total 29,501
*ODeraticn and maintenance costs are borne by the Government and
are assur.ed to be ideatical for all three acquisition methods.
Therefore, they are omitted in ~bhis conparison. Imputed insur-
ance rremiums are estimated to be negligible relative to other
costs and therefore omitted.
**Anai:r:is includes the application of a deflator to each annual
payment thereby showing payments in constant dollars based on
the ~nicial annual raynent. Then, each constant dollar payment
is iictounted at 7 percent.
PAGENO="0191"
185
U.S. SENATE,
Washington, D.C., July 25, 1974.
Hon. DICK CLARK,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Buildings and Grounds, U.S. Senate Public Works
Committee, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The purpose of this letter is to express my continued
strong interest in the approval by your Subcommittee of the prospectus for the
proposed construction, under a lease arrangement, of a much needed new Federal
building in Jackson, Mississippi.
I wrote to you on May 22, 1974, responding to your invitation for me to express
my views and comments, and I advised you of my full support to the proposal.
I will not repeat in this letter the facts in justification for the construction of
the new building, but I would like to point out now the special and unique
circumstances requiring this particular building, in my judgment, to be built
under a lease arrangement rather than through a direct appropriation.
Over the past few years in Jackson, Mississippi, the prime downtown busi-
ness area has deteriorated substantially, primarily because of the severe and
periodical flood conditions caused by the overflow of Tom Creek which meanders
through the major part of the business area. As a result of extensive local plan-
ning by officials and civic leaders of Jackson and the full cooperation of the
Federal Government, a project has been developed for the improvement, reloca-
tion and containment of Town Creek. The Department of Housing and Urban
Development has made substantial Federal funds available for what is known as
Town Creek Project, Miss. A-8. In conjunction with this project, the Jackson Re-
development Authority has acquired 34 parcels of land to be used in connection
with the relocation of Town Creek. It is anticipated that the proposed new
Federal building will be located on one of these parcels and the Jackson Rede-
velopment Authority will make this parcel available for that purpose. Private
land owners in the downtown area will have an opportunity to borrow money
from the Jackson Redeveloment Authority, at favorable interest rates, to mod-
ernize and improve their buildings-
The commitment by the Federal government to a long-term lease for the con-
struction of the new Federal building will serve a salutary purpose in getting
the entire work started quickly and convincing all the property owners of the
area of the determination of the City of Jackson and the Federal Government
to cooperate in the revitalization of this important downtown area of the City.
Also, the City of Jackson has acquired from the legislature of the State of
Mississippi the authority to exempt new construction in the neighborhood devel-
opment program area from ad valorem taxes for a period of seven years from
January 1, 1974. This is an additional incentive to induce these property owners
to improve their buildings and the entire area.
The design work for the Town Creek Tube is expected to begin within the next
month or two and since this Tube may be under a portion of the proposed new
Federal building, it might be necessary to incorporate a portion of the building's
foundation in the design work to be accomplished for the Town Creek Tube.
The construction of a new Federal building by the direct appropriation method
would entail several years and might unnecessarily delay the entire redevelop-
ment program for the downtown area of the City of Jackson while the early
approval of the construction of such building under a lease arrangement would
permit the project to proceed in a matter of a few months.
In view of these unique and compelling circumstances, I sincerely urge your
Subcommittee to approve the prospectus submitted by General Services Adminis-
tration for the Jackson Federal building. The building is urgently needed to pro-
vide essential office space for the various agencies of the Federal government in
Jackson, all as outlined in the prospectus, and if authority is given to proceed
under the lease arrangement, it can also serve the additional purpose of being
perhaps the key factor in the prompt implementation renewal and revitalization
plan for the downtown business area of the City of Jackson, which has been
planned so extensively and so carefully.
In this connection, I enclose herewith a copy of a letter I have received today,
dated July 22, 1974, from Mayor Russell C. Davis of the City of Jackson in sup-
port of some of the points made herein.
I realize that your Subcommittee may be reluctant to approve the prospectus
under a lease arrangement, in view of the fact that an annual rental expenditure
of $2.3 million is anticipated over the twenty year life of the proposed lease con-
tract, and yet the Federal Government will not hold title to the building after
such payments. Perhaps this particular Federal building project would be better
PAGENO="0192"
186
suited for approval under existing contract purchase arrangements, but as I
understand, that legislation is expiring and there is not sufficient time to get this
project under contract under that program before the law expires. I think the
officials of the City of Jackson would approve an arrangement whereby the
lease contract would call for the proposed builder to erect the building as pro-
vided in the prospectus, and at the expiration of the lease, to convey the building
to the Federal government for a nominal consideration. If the Subcommittee feels
that either of these plans are inappropriate, then I would hope the Subcommittee
would approve the construction of the new Jackson Federal building by direct
appropriation under circumstances that provide for the project to be commenced
at the earliest possible date.
Thank you very much for your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
JOHN 0. STENNIS,
U.S. ,S1enator.
[Enclosure.]
JACKSON, Miss., July 22, 1974.
Subject: Federal office building for Jackson, Miss.
Hon. JOHN STENNIS,,
Old Senate OyJlce Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR STENNI5: I have heard from reliable sources that the Federal
Building prospectus for Jackson has been presented to the Public Works Com-
mittee for review.
If I might, I would like to re-emphasize for your consideration a number of
basic reasons in support of the Building being built on a lease contract arrange-
ment rather than the conventional method.
1. The Building hopefully will be located on land which is being assembled by
the Jackson Redevelopment Authority for purposes of the Neighborhood Devel-
opment Program Mississippi A-8.
2. The assemblage of this land will be accomplished by August 1, 1974, at
which time design work for the Town Creek Tube should begin, and it might
be necessary to incorporate a portion of the Building's foundation in this design
work.
3. As you know, the area in which we would like to locate this building is the
initial IJrban Renewal Project for the City, and as such will be undergoing a
complete rehabilitation change, and it is our feeling that the Federal Building
will be a tremendous incentive to property owners in developing and renovating
their land and buildings.
4. Speaking of incentives for property owners, the City and the Jackson
Redevelopment Authority have initiated two (2) programs to induce property
owners to proceed with their development work.
a. State enabling legislation was obtained to allow a waiver of municipal
ad valorem taxes for a period of seven (7) years on any construction work in the
Neighborhood Development Program area, and with this seven (7) year time
element, we feel the need is great to proceed as soon as possible for the benefit
of surrounding properties: and
b. The Jackson Redevelopment Authority is getting the cooperation of local
financial institutions in long term financing at low interest rates to be made
to property owners wishing to proceed with their construction w-ork.
Hence, it is my feeling that if the lease contract approach to construction is
implemented, it will have the greatest impact on the area and can be initiated
in the shortest time frame possible.
Senator Stennis, let me thank you again for your efforts in our behalf. If you
would need testimony before your committee on this, please let me know.
With kindest regards,
RuSSELL C. DAvIS.
FEDERAL OFFICE BUILDING, HURON, S. flAK.
Senator CLARK. If you will proceed with South Dakota.
Mr. SHIPP. Thank you. This revised prospectus provides for the
construction of a Federal office building in Huron. 5. Dak.
PAGENO="0193"
187
In May 1968, the Public Works Committee of the Congress ap-
proved a report of building project survey, which proposed construc-
tion of a post office and Federal office building.
Subsequently, the Postal Service decided to utilize the existing post
office building, which is under their ownership and withdrew from
participation in the proposed project.
The requirement continues to exist for the improved consolidated
housing for nonpostal agencies. The proposed building designed
through tentative drawing stage for construction on the Government-
owned site acquired by exchange will provide about 108,000 gross
square feet, 68,200 occupiable square feet of space. The total esti-
mated cost is $6,819,000.
Senator CLARK. Currently reserve expansion space is one-tenth less
of that programed in the 1966 project survey report. Why is that?'
Mr. SHIPP. Again, we went to the agencies and asked them to bring
us up to date on their expansion requirements. In a number of in-
stances in Huron, we found that the agencies' requirements had actu-
ally decreased.
So the space requirements as outlined in the prospectus now reflect
the current requirements of the agencies.
Senator CLARK. So you really don't have an answer in terms of ex-
plaining why other than that the agencies requested that much more?
Mr. SHIPP. Sir, I have no knowledge of the intricacies of their pro-
gram, which perhaps have decreased or expanded. This is based on the
best advice we have from them.
Senator CLARK. As I understand, your jurisdiction does not allow
you to make that determination? They make that determination?
Mr. Srnpr. Yes, sir. They make that determination as to what their
requirements are, community by community. We respond to those
requirements.
Senator CLARK. This is a purchase contract acquisition. Was direct
construction considered as an alternative? If so, why was that rejected?
Mr. SHIPP. We did not consider direct Federal construction in this
particular instance because Huron was one of the original 63 projects
that was blanketed in under the 1972 amendments to the Public
Buildings Act.
Senator CLARK. What is the approximate dollar obligation for the
Government under this purchase contract authority for the Huron
project?
Mr. 5mm'. I would anticipate that the approximate payments under
the purchase contract authority would range in the neighborhood of
$800,000 to $850,000.
[The prospectus follows:]
REVISED PROSPECTUS FOR PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION UNDER THE PUBLIC BUILDINGS
ACT OF 1959, AS AMENDED
FEDERAL OFFICE BUILDING, HURON, S. DAK.
1. Description of proposed project:
This revised prospectus provides for the construction of Federal Office Build-
ing (FOB) which is required to consolidate Federal agencies now located in the
Postal Service-owned Post Office Building and nine scattered leased locations.
In May 1968, the Public Works Committees of the Congress approved a Report
of Building Project Survey which proposed construction of a Post Office and
36-623 0 - 74 - 13
PAGENO="0194"
188
Federal Office Building. Subsequently, the Postal Service decided to utilize the
existing Post Office Building which is under their ownership and withdrew from
participation in the proposed project. A requirement continues to exist for im-
proved, consolidated housing for nonpostal agencies. The revised project has been
reduced in scope to reflect withdrawal of the Postal Service requirements. The
proposed building, designed through the tentative drawing stage for construction
on a Government-owned site acquired by exchange, will provide about 108,000
gross square feet and 68,200 occupiable square feet of space. (On-site parking
will be provided for about 180 vehicles.) The total estimated project cost is
$6,819,000.
2. Comprehensive plan:
a. Project need:
Federal activities occupy 21,000 square feet of space in the existing Post Office
Building (the only Government-owned building in the community) and about
54,100 square feet of general purpose leased space in nine scattered locations.
The Postal Service occupies 11,900 square feet in the Post Office Building and
nonpostal agencies occupy the remaining 9,100 square feet. The space available
in the Post Office Building and in leased space does not permit efficient space
utilization and is not sufficient to provide for the consolidation of general purpose
nonpostal agencies. There is currently no first class space occupied by Federal
agencies and over 90 percent of the agency space is rated third class.
The proposed building will improve agency housing and provide consolidation
for most lPederal activities requiring general purpose space. The consolidation
will also result in improved management of space and permit merger of common
administrative support services, as well as provide greater convenience to the
public.
b. Discussion of alternatives:
1. Retention, renovation and extension of the existing Post Office Building.
The existing building was constructed in 1914 and extended in 1937. It is func-
tionally obsolete and does not contain adequate space to consolidate the general
purpose requirements of the nonpostal agencies. Because of this obsolescence it
is not feasible to acquire the building from the Postal Service for a second exten-
sion project.
2. Acquisition of consolidated, modern leased space. Consolidation of Federal
activities in leased space is not feasible since existing rental space is not avail-
able in sufficient quantity at a single location. In accordance with the approved
Report of Building Project Survey, a site has been acquired. However, GSA has
no legal authority to convey this property to a private developer to construct a
building for lease back to the Government. The use of this site for a new Federal
Building is consistent with the planning objectives of the community, and GSA
is committed to this location for the new facility. Thus lease construction, on
this or any other site, is not a viable alternative.
3. Acquisition of space in a building to be constructed. Architectural drawings
have been completed through the tentative stage based on utilization of the
acquired site. In view of this and since thirty-five of the thirty-seven structures
on the site have been demolished and the site cannot be legally conveyed to a pri-
vate developer, it has been determined that the best interests of the United States
will be served by providing for the construction of the project described herein
under the purchase contract provisions of section 5 of the Public Buildings
Amendments of 1972, P.L. 92-313.
3. Estimated maximum project cost; *
Site, Design, and Review $644, 000
Construction (As of June 1975) 5, 674, 000
Cost per gross sq. ft. $52.54
Management and Inspection 501, 000
Total Project Cost 6, 819, 000
*Exclusive of financing and other costs attributable to the purchase contract method
of acquisition.
PAGENO="0195"
189
4. Current housing cost: For agencies to be housed in the proposed building.
Area square feet
Annual cost
(a) Leased space 44,709
(b) Government owned 5,914
$143,989
25,051
Total
169,040
5. Space plan: (See attached Exhibit A).
6. Present value analysis of alternatives: (See attached Exhibit B).
7. Statement of need: It has been determined that (1) the needs for space of
the Federal Government in this area cannot be satisfied by utilization of existing
suitable property now owned by the Government, and (2) suitable rental space is
not available at a price commensurate with that to be afforded through the
proposed action.
Submitted at Washington, D.C. on June 4, 1974.
Recommended.
Approved.
JOHN F. GALIJARDI,
Acting Commissioner, Public Buildings Service.
Administrator of General Services.
EXHIBIT A
HURON, S. DAK.-COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING PLAN
Proposed building
~epartment of Agriculture
Stabilization and Conservation Service
Farmers Home Administration
Soil Conservation Service
Inspector General
Food and Nutrition Service
Congressional
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare: Social Security Administration -
Department of Interior
Bureau of Reclamation
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
Geological Survey -
Department of the Treasury: Internal-Revenue Service
General Services Administration
Garage (25 cars)
Service and custodial
Reserve for expansion -
Occupiable area of building
Retained Government-owned building: U.S. post office (USPS controlled)
Retained leased (5 locations)
Utilization of rate of proposed project (187).
Proposed housing
Occupiable
square feet
unit Personnel unit
19,955 111
6,905 29
3,200 22
8,260 47
1,440 12
150 1
700 3
3,110 12
27, 190 144
21,530 120
1,120 8
4,450 16
910 -~
16, 335 20
8,750
6,385 12
1,200 8
68,200 295
21, 025 88
22,265 49
PAGENO="0196"
190
PRESENT VALUE COST SUMMARIES FOR ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF AcQuiSITIoN
{In thousands of dollars; 30 years 7 percent]
Item
Purchase: 1
Improvements $5, 674
Site, design, et cetera 1, 411
Repair and Improvement 392
Property taxes 3, 461
Subtotal 10, 938
Less residual value -592
Total 10, 346
Purchase contract: 1
Annual payments2 6, 105
Repair and improvement 392
Property taxes 3, 461
Subtotal 9, 958
Less residual value -592
Total 9, 366
1 Operation and maintenance costs are borne by the Government and are assumed to be
Identical for all 3 acquisItion methods. Therefore, they are omitted in this comparison.
Imputed insurance premiums are estimated to be negligible relative to other cost and
therefore omitted.
2 Analysis Includes the application of a deflator to each annual payment thereby showing
payments in constant dollars based on the initial annual payment. Then, each constant
dollar payment is discounted at 7 percent.
NoTE-Leasing is not a viable alternative solution.
LEASE RENEWAL~ WASHINGTON, D.C.
Senator CLARK. Let us go on to the lease extensions now. Washing-
ton, D.C., first, on 20th Street NW.
Mr. Srnrr. This prospectus proposes the extension of the leasehold
interest covering 136,428 square feet of space presently occupied by
the Department of Labor (DOL), the Foreign Claims Commission,
the Railroad Retirement Board, and the Department of the Treasury
at 1111 20th Street NW.
The space was originally acquired in May 1964. The succeeding lease
will be for a term of 5 years and 3 months and will provide space
for the Department of Labor dislocation until the new Department of
Labor Building under construction is completed in late 1974 and will
continue to satisfy the requirements of the other agencies now in the
building.
In addition, it will be used to satisfy requirements of the Bureau
of Mines and after the Department of Labor moves to its new build-
ing. The estimated annual rental is $840,000.
Senator CLARK. The lease is for a period of 5 years and 3 months?
Mr. SHIPP. Yes, sir.
Senator CLARK. The Labor Department occupies 72 percent of the
leased space. When they move into the new Labor building, who will
be housed in that space?
Mr. Smpp. Our present plan contemplates that the Bureau of Mines,
which is now located at three different locations, will be brought to-
gether in a partial consolidation at this location.
PAGENO="0197"
191
Senator CLARK. Does their need match this?
Mr. SHIPP. Yes, sir, it does.
Senator CLARK. There are three new buildings in the downtown
area, as I understand it: Labor, South Portal, and the J. Edgar
Hoover Building, and these, would become a part of your inventory in
1974-75.
Mr. SHIPP. Yes, sir.
Senator CLARK. There will be a great deal of reshuffling obviously at
that time, or I would assume there would be a lot of reshuffling at that
time.
Mr. Srnpr. Yes.
Senator CLARK. Would you submit an outline of space redistribu-
tion and the resulting savings from that as a result of these, for the
committee's record?
Mr. 5~jjpp. Yes, sir. We will be pleased to.
[The Washington, D.C., prospectus follows:]
PAGENO="0198"
192
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PDC-74O71
PROJECT NUMBER : LDC-7457l
PROSPECTUS FOR PROPOSED LEASE
UNDER THE PUBLIC BUILDINGS ACT OF 1959, AS AMENDED
LEASED OFFICE SPACE - WASHINGTON, D.C.
1. DESCRIPTION:
This prospectus proposes extension of the leasehold interest covering
136,428 square feet of space presently occupied by the Department of Labor
(DOL), the Foreign Claims Commission, the Railroad Retirement Board, and
the Department of the Treasury at 1111 20th Street, N.W. The space was
originally acquired in May 1964. The present lease costs $660,964.80
annually and expires without renewal options on August 4, 1974. The
succeeding lease will be for a term of 5 years and 3 months, and will
continue occupancy of the 136,428 square feet of space comprised of the
2nd through 8th floors in their entirety at a total annual cost of $840,000.
The Department of Labor currently occupies space in 6 Government-owned and
12 leased buildings, including 1111 20th Street, in the Washington metro-
politan area. Upon completion of the new Department of Labor Building
in late 1974, major components of the Department will be relocated to the
new Federal building. As the leased building is well located in the prime
area of Washington's office and retail district, GSA will utilize the
space vacated by the Department by reassigning it to the Bureau of Mines,
Department of the Interior, which is now located in three scattered locations.
2. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
a. PROJECT NEED:
To provide space for the Department of Labor at this location until the
new Department of Labor Building under construction is completed in late
1974, and to satisfy the continuing requirements of the other agencies now
in the building. In addition, it will be used to satisfy the requirements
of the Bureau of Mines after the Department of Labor moves to its new
building.
b. DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES:
1. Utilization of Government-owned space.
Three new Government-owned buildings, Labor, South Portal and the J. Edgar
Hoover Buildings, will become a part of GSA's inventory during 1974 and 1975.
These buildings were designed, and are being constructed to meet the specific
operating needs of the Department of Labor, the Department of Health, Education
and Welfare, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, respectively. The major
needs of the Department of Labor will be satisfied as a result. However,
in view of the additional cost that would be required to redesign, change
partitions, remove certain special facilities and construction work in place,
it is not practical to consider use of these buildings by the other agencies
in the building to be leased.
PAGENO="0199"
193
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PDC-7407l
PROJECT NUMBER : LDC-74571
b. DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES: (Cont'd)
In addition, there is no other space in GSA's inventory currently available
or is anticipated to become available by August 1974, to satisfy the require-
ments of these agencies.
2. Construction of a Government-owned building.
The long-range need for space of the Department of Labor will be satisfied
by the completion of the Department of Labor Building. However, in view
of the substantial backlog of construction projects in the National Capital
Region requiring the expenditure of capital funds and ongoing commitments
with respect to buildings under construction, the construction of a new
building is not considered a viable alternative in relation to the total
funding capabilities of GSA.
3. Acquisition of leased space.
It is not considered feasible to relocate the Department of Labor offices
to another location with less than one year remaining until the scheduled
occupancy of the new Federal building for the Department. Additionally,
GSA has conducted, a market survey to identify buildings which are available
for lease and are suitable with respect to location, cost, amount of space
and delivery date. The building, best meeting overall GSA requirements
is the one currently under lease. Therefore, it is proposed to enter into
a succeeding lease in accordance with the authority contained in Section
2l0(h)(l) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949,
as amended.
3. ESTIMATED MAXIMUM COST:
Estimated Net Annual Rental $622,000
Estimated Services and Utilities 218,00p
Total Annual Cost $840,000
4. CURRENT HOUSING COSTS:
Area Sq. Ft. Annual Cost
Rent 136,428 $498,615.48
Services and Utilities - 162,349.32
Total $660,964.80
5. SPACE PLAN:
See Exhibit A, attached.
PAGENO="0200"
194
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PDC-7407l
PROJECT NUMBER : LDC-74571
6. ST4TEMEDT OF NEED:
It has been determined that (1) the needs of the Federal Government in this
area cannot be satisfied by utilization of existing suitable property now
owned by the Government, and (2) other suitable rental space is not avail-
able at a price commensurate with that to be afforded through the proposed
action.
Submitted at Washington, D.C. on ___________________
Recommended: _____________________________________
~~oting C mm ~sioner, Pub c uildings Service
Approved : /
Administrator of Genera Services
PAGENO="0201"
195
EXHIBIT A
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PDC-74071
PROJECT NUMBER : LDC-74571
HOUSING PLAN
OCCUPIABLE
AGENCY SQ. FT. PERSONNEL
Department of Labor 93,925 (72%) 448
Office of the Secretary
Employment Standards Administration
Occupational Safety & Health Administration
District of Columbia Manpower
Administration Field Office
Office of Federal Labor-Management
Relations Field Office
Manpower Administration National
Office
Foreign Claims Settlement Commission 7,385 ( 6%) 14
of the United States - Headquarters
Department of the Treasury 16,070 (12%) 95
Savings Bonds Division
Railroad Retirement Board 975 (0.6%) 4
Washington District Field Office
Department of Health, Education and 650 (0.4%) 4
Welfare - Office of Education
Department of the Interior 11 ,525 ( 9%) 72
Bureau of Mines
Total 130,530 637
i/Same as 136,428 net usable sq. ft.
PAGENO="0202"
196
LEASE RENEWAL, ROCKVILLE, ND.
Senator CLARK. I would like to go on now to Rockville, Md.
Mr. SHIPP. This prospectus program proposes extension of the
present leasehold interest covering 136,298 square feet of space
occupied by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) at 11800 Old Georgetown Road, Rockville, Md.
The space was originally acquired in 1964 at an annual rental of
$512,000, including services, expiring without renewal options on~
August 14, 1974.
The succeeding lease will continue occupancy of the entire two-
building complex for 5 years and 3 months at an annual cost of ap-
proximately $862,000.
Senator CLARK. lVhile the rental costs per year on this facility has
risen about 25 percent, the cost of services has more than doubled, to
$154,000 from $63,000. Could you give us a somewhat detailed ex-
planation of the reasons for this sharp increase?
Mr. SHIPP. First of all, the $63,000 figure is based on the costs that
prevailed 10 years ago. In the intervening period, there have been sub-
stantial increases in the cost of services and utilities, particularly in
the service area which covers char service and personnel services.
This has been averaging at about 13 percent per annum during that
10-year period. Any lease that will be negotiated today is going to
reflect the higher level of cost, or any estimate that we prepare is
going to reflect the higher level of service cost and utility cost pre-
vailing today, but essentially the very significant increase here is re-
lated to the fact that the cost estimate that we have in there for cur-
rent costs goes back to the time when the lease was entered into 10
years ago.
Senator CLARK. Then you think that this is a very typical increase,
that the services are increasing no more in this particular facility than
in most others?
Mr. Srnrp. I think we are going to find this as rather typical. It
will vary from building to building. There will be very significant
increases in utility as well as service costs when you compare them
with the levels of costs that prevailed 10 years ago.
Senator CLARK. When utilities are included, the combined costs of
services and utilities are estimated at $267,000 for 136,000 square feet
of space.
By contrast, services and utilities for virtually the same amount of
space, 130,000 square feet, will cost $49,000 in the lease each year at
1111 20th Street in downtown Washington, the one we have just
looked at.
How do you explain that basis of discrepancy?
Mr. SHIPP. Actually, Senator, we had the cost estimates reexamined
for this particular building.
Senator CLARK. You mean the building at 1111 20th Street?
Mr. SHIPP. No, sir. In the Rockville building. Our people reexamined
the situation and came up with a cost estimate of $224,000 rather than
$267,000.
I think you will find on a square-foot basis that this cost of services
and utilities at 1111 20th, and at this location, will compare very favor-
ably. I think it is approximately $1.60 a square foot.
PAGENO="0203"
197
Senator CLARK. You are saying that the actual cost of those two
facilities is very similar?
Mr. SHUT. Yes. These are estimated costs. We think they will be
based on a relook at the cost figures for Rockville, and adjusting them
downward; we think that the two figures then will be very compatible.
Senator CLARK. Why is this extension for 5 years and 3 months
rather than 5 years, just out of curiosity?
Mr. SHIPP. The lease actually expired on the 15th of May of this
year. We had no authority, because it was a prospectus lease, to enter
into a lease agreement at a higher rental rate that would exceed the
$500,000 average annual rental.
We were successful in having the lessor agree to extend the lease
at a rate which would be below the prospectus limitation so that we
could pay him rent for the space during this period of time when we
were seeking approval to enter into the longer term lease.
One of the conditions that was negotiated, one of the conditions
that he imposed, is if he would agree to a lower rental rate for this
interim period, that for each month that he agreed to that rental, we
would add that to the lease term. Consequently, it started out at 5
years and 3 months.
Senator CLARK. Why didn't the prospectus come up sooner?
Wouldn't that have been a better solution to it?
Mr. SHIPP. That would have been a better solution.
Senator CLARK. Was it one that just slipped by GSA's attention?
Mr. SHUT. This was in that transitional period when we weie try-
ing to get a handle on all of the leases that we had around the country
so that we could get them up here in time for you all to have the 60
days in which to consider these prospectuses.
Senator CLARK. You don't have the system where that automati-
cally occurs?
Mr. SHIPP. We have a system that is again tied in with our com-
puter system. As I indicated, we were changing the computer system
completely, a new system altogether.
Senator CLARK. I think you explained that the last time you were
here.
Mr. SHUT. All of this had to be done manually; that is, by visible
inspection.
Senator CLARK. So you wouldn't anticipate that to happen again
unless there is a computer failure?
Mr. SHIPP. I issued all sorts of instructions to our people in the field
advising me of these things at least a year before the renewal is re-
quired, in an effort to avoid this situation.
Senator CLARK. In paragraph 1, you speak of 250 parking spaces,
free of charge, in a lease agreement. Could you explain that?
Mr. SHTPP. Yes, sir. Under the Montgomery County Code, the owner
of a building is required to provide a certain number of parking spaces
in relation to the amount of space in the building.
The legal counsel for the county has held that these spaces must be
made available to the occupants of the building. In other words, the
lessor cannot take these spaces and operate them as a commercial park-
ing lot so as to charge a fee for the rental and a fee for the rental of
the parking spaces.
PAGENO="0204"
198
He must include these parking spaces along with the building.
Consequently, when we say they are free, we mean that we are not
identifying in the lease and paying a separate sum for the parking
which under the ordinance must be provided with the space that we
lease.
Senator CLARK. Is the basis for limiting the lease to 5 years the
proposed lease and the building to be constructed at Fort Lincoln
in the District?
Mr. SHIPP. That is the primary consideration involved in limiting
this lease to that period of time.
Senator CLARK. What will you do if the Fort Lincoln project is not
approved or for some reason it is not built?
Mr. SHIPP. We would continue the occupancy at this location and
at the appropriate time we would have to consider whether or not we
would want to enter into a succeeding lease at this location or propose
similar alternative for housing.
[The Rockville, Md., prospectus follows:]
PAGENO="0205"
199
~S?iJ I~iS MUMB~P' MD-~7*5O3i
PROJECT ~JWBE~ .
PROSPECTUS FOR PROPOSED LEASE
UNDER THE PUBLIC BUILDINGS ACT OF 1959, AS AMENDED
LEASED OFFICE BUILDINGS ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT:
This prospectus proposes extension of the present leasehold interest covering
136,298 square feet of space occupied by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) in the two building complex known as the Washington
Science Center Nos. 1 and 2, at 11800 Old Georgetown Road, Rockville,
Maryland. The space was originally acquired in 1964 with the present lease
at a rental of $512,000 annually, including services, expiring without
renewal options on August 14, 1974. In addition, the Government pays
approximately $84,000 per annum for meterable utility charges. The succeeding
lease will continue occupancy of the entire two building complex for five years
and three months beginning August 15, 1974, at a total annual cost of $862,000,
including services and utilities. The lessor will provide 250 parking spaces
free of charge. The lease will provide for adjustment of the annual rental
rate to provide for increases or decreases in general real estate taxes and
operating costs at the end of the first three years.
2. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
a. PROJECT NEED:
There is a need to provide space for the activities of NOAA housed at this
location until such time as a new building planned to provide consolidated
space for their use in Washington, D.C., can be constructed.
b. DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES:
1. Utilization of Government-owned space.
There is no vacant Government-owned space available in the Washington, D.C~,
area to accommodate the requirements of NOAA.
2. Construction of a building.
A new building to provide permanent housing for NOAA is planned for construction
at Fort Lincoln New Town, Washington, D.C. A prospectus for this proposal has
been submitted to the Committees on Public Works of the Congress for their
consideration. It is not anticipated, however, that the proposed building will
be available for at least five years.
3. Acquisition of leased space.
In view of the foregoing proposal to provide for the present and future needs
of NOAA through construction of a new building designed specifically to meet
the agency's requirements, the acquisition of this leased building is not
considered a viable alternative. Acquisition of alternative leased space
is not feasible due to the large amount of special equipment now in place
which would be very costly to duplicate at another location, or to relocate.
PAGENO="0206"
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PMD-74031
PROJECT NUMBER : LMD-74541
b. DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES: (Cont'd)
Accordingly, the alternative to extend the existing lease under the authority
df Section 2l0(h)(l) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act
of 1949, as amended, is considered to be in the best interest of the Government.
3. ESTIMATED MAXIMUM COST:
Estimated Net Average Rental
Estimated Services
Estimated Utilities (Paid by Government) _______
Estimated Total Annual Cost
4. CURRENT HOUSING COSTS:
For agency to be housed in proposed leased space.
Area Sq. Ft. Annual Cost
Leased Space:
Rent
Services
Utilities (Paid by Government) _______
Total
5. SPACE PLAN AND RELATED COST DATA:
The continued occupancy of NOAA at this location will not result in the
relocation of Federal agencies or affect the housing of agencies in the
Washington metropolitan area, therefore, the comprehensive housing plan
attached is limited to 11800 Old Georgetown Road, Rockville, Maryland.
6. STATEMENT OF NEED:
It has been determined that (1) the need for space of the Federal Government
in this area cannot be satisfied by the utilization of existing suitable
property now owned by the Government, and (2) other suitable rental space
is not available at a price commensurate with that to be afforded through
the proposed action.
Submitted at Washington, D.,C. on __________________
Recommended:
Acting Co is ioner, Publ uildings Service
Approved : /
Administrator o General Services
200
$595,000
154,000
113,000
$~7OtU
136,298 $449,000
- 63,000
- 84,000
$596 ,000
1974
PAGENO="0207"
201
EXHIBIT A
WASHINGTON SCIENCE CENTER
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PMD-74O3l
PROJECT NUMBER : LMD-7454l
HOUSING PLAN
OCCUPIABLE
AGENCY &COMPONENTS SQ. FT. PERSONNEL
National Oceanic and AtniosphericAdministration:
National Ocean Survey (PART) 113,500 496
Office of Administration Operations (PART) 22,798 70
TOTAL 136,298 566
PAGENO="0208"
202
LEASE RENEWAL, HONOLULU, HAWAII
Senator CLARK. Let us turn to Honolulu.
Mr. SHIPP. This prospectus proposes continued occupancy by the
Government under a succeeding lease of 75,400 square feet of space
housing nine Federal agencies at 1833 Kalakaua Avenue, Honolulu,
Hawaii.
The space is under a 10-year firm term lease at an annual cost of
$380,890. This lease expires on September 3, 1974, and contains no
renewal option. Continued occupancy of the entire building is neces-
sary until the new Federal Building, U.S. Courthouse, now under
construction, is completed.
The succeeding lease will be for a firm term beginning September 4,
1974, through December 31, 1975, at a total annual cost of $746,510.
Mr. Chairman, the lease term here is for a period of 18 months.
Senator CLARK. I am rather curious, why was a 10-story building
constructed in 1964 at Government specifications, leased for only 10
years?
Mr. SHIPP. At that time we had an authorized project for the con-
struction of a Federal Building. in Honolulu. In accordance with nor-
mal procedures, we solicited offers for space to house these agencies on
both a 5- and 10-year firm term.
Our analysis showed that it was much less costly on a per square
foot basis than an annual rental basis to go to a 10-year firm term.
Considering the fact that the delivery of the Federal Building, the
date of delivery was quite uncertain at that time, we felt that the expo-
sure for additional cost over the 10-year term was wothwhile.
So we entered into the 10-year firm term rather than a 5-year firm
term.
Senator CLARK. V~Thy does the prospectus refer to a wholly service
lease when actually the Government will pay the service costs?
Mr. Srnrp. Apparently there is a contradiction. Actually, there are
certain services and utilities that are paid by the Government. We talk
about a full service lease and we are speaking really in terms of what
it costs, the total cost to the Government whether the costs are paid by
the lessor or by the Government. Paragraph 4 of the prospectus states
that the Government pays for services.
These are the total costs for the continued occupancy of the facility.
Senator CLARK. It is just inadvertently put in the prospectus?
Mr. SHIPP. Yes, sir.
Senator CLARK. V\Tith regard to service costs, why were service costs
in this building shown to increase only 9 percent while rental rates
increased 163 percent?
Mr. SHIPP. Again, these are estimated costs and in this particular'
instance I found that the cost for services and utilities paid by the
Government represented the most recent costs rather than costs of
10 years ago, but more recent costs.
Consequently, we do not have any significant increase in that esti-
mate that we have as in the ca.se of the other prospectuses.
Therefore, you only have an increase in the 165,000-plus to 180,000-
plus. On the other hand, the rental rate, the market for space in
Honolulu is in the range of $8 to $10 per square foot.
PAGENO="0209"
* 203
When we negotiated an extension of the lease with the lessor, the
investor required us to come up with a price which would, considering
the fact that he didn't have to pay for the utilities, and so forth,
would reflect the going market rate for substitute space in Honolulu.
Senator CLARK. It is your impression then that space has gone up
at a rate that exceeds services by roughly that amount in Honolulu?
It is just a very different situation than in Washington, D.C., Rock-
ville?
Mr. Smpr. The rental rates in Hawaii have accelerated very
rapidly.
Senator CLARK. And services have not?
Mr. SHIPP. Services again have not in this particular instance be-
cause the service costs that were used here represented service costs
that occurred during the 9th and 10th years of occupancy as opposed
to the estimate that was originally prepared back in 1964.
Senator CLARK. For the other buildings?
Mr. Srnpp. Yes. For the other buildings we had the original cost as
compared to 64. This represents possibly 1972 or 1973 year costs.
Senator CLARK. I understand.
What is the rental rate to be charged to the occupant agencies?
Mr. SHIPP. Space with a class A rating of 100 percent in the down-
town area of Honolulu is renting for $8.98 a square foot. The leased
building has a quality rating of 99 percent and the standard level
charge rate would be $8.93 per square foot.
Senator CLARK. Will the current dewatering or other construction
problems at the site of the new Federal building delay its occupancy?
Mr. SHIPP. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have Mr. Steve Lesko,
who is our project manager in the purchase contract area, and who has
been to Honolulu twice very recently and is familiar with many of the
problems that are involved with this building.
I would like to have him answer the questions with respect to the
new Federal building.
Mr. LESKO. Mr. Chairman, we have had management problems and
technical problems on this project. The project will be delayed.
Senator CLARK. By how much?
Mr. LESKO. At the present time the schedule we developed last week
showed about a 11-month delay. We are a little optimistic. We think
we can reduce that to about 8 months.
Senator CLARK. How will that affect this lease? Do you have pro-
visions in the lease?
Mr. SHIPP. No, sir. At this time, at the time the prospectus was
submitted we did not contemplate this delay problem. Consequently,
unless the committee would authorize us to extend or enter into an
agreement, lease agreement that would allow us to occupy the build-
ing through July 1976, we would have to come back to the committee
at the appropriate time and ask for further authorization to extend the
lease again for a short period of time to coincide wth the delivery of
the building.
[The Honolulu, Hawaii prospectus follows:]
36-623 0 - 74 - 14
PAGENO="0210"
204
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PHI-74011
PROJECT NUMBER : LHI-7451l
PROSPECTUS FOR PROPOSED LEASE
UNDER THE PUBLIC BUILDINGS ACT OF 1959, AS AMENDED
LEASED OFFICE SPACE HONOLULU, HAWAII
1. DESCRIPTION:
This prospectus proposes continued occupancy by the Government, under a
succeeding lease, of 75,400 square feet of space housing nine Federal
agencies at 1833 Kalakaua Avenue, Honolulu, Hawaii. The space is in a
ten story building constructed to Government specifications and occupied
on September 4, 1964, under a ten year firm term lease at an annual cost
of $380,890. This lease expires on September 3, 1974, and contains no
renewal option. Continued occupancy of the entire building is necessary
until the new Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalanianole Federal Building, U.S.
Courthouse, now under construction, is completed in late 1975. The
succeeding lease will be for a firm term beginning September 4, 1974
through December 31, 1975 at a total annual cost of $746,510.
2. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
a~ PROJECT NEED:
The proposed lease is required to provide space for the agencies already
housed at this location until the Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalanianole Federal
Building, U.S. Courthouse, now under construction, is completed late in 1975.
The term oftthe lease will provide for the continued occupancy of the
building until the new facility is completed.
b. DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES:
1. Utilization of Government-owned space.
There is no Government-owned space available in Honolulu to accommodate the
requirements of these agencies.
2. Federal construction.
A Federal building is under construction which will house these agencies, as
well as all other Government activities in Honolulu requiring general purpose
office space.
3. Acquisition of Leased Building.
The acquisition of this building by the Government is not considered feasible
or desirable since the long-range space requirements of these agencies, as
well as all other Federal agencies requiring general purpose space in the city,
will be satisfied in the new Federal building now under construction.
PAGENO="0211"
205
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PHI-74O11
PROJECT NUMBER : LHI-745ll
b. DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES: (Cont'd)
4. Acquisition of Leased Space.
A market survey revealed that the cost of comparable leased space is between
$8 and $10 per square foot, fully serviced. The cost of the succeeding lease
at 1833 Kala~kaua Avenue will be $9.90 per square foot, fully serviced. Since
the Federal activities now housed at 1833 Kalakaua Avenue will be relocated to
the new Federal Building-U.S. Courthouse within two years and the rental rates
during the interim period will be comparable to other available space in the
community, it is in the best interest of the Government to continue occupancy
at the present location. It is planned, therefore to enter into a succeeding
lease in accordance with the authority contained in Section 21O(h)(l) of the
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended.
3. ESTIMATED MAXIMUM COST: SUCCEEDING LEASE
Net Average Annual Rental $565,550
Cost of Services & Utilities Paid by the Government. . . 180,960
Total $74~~5TO
4. CURRENT HOUSING COSTS:
For agencies to be housed in the leased space.
Area Sq. Ft. Annual Cost
Rent 75,400 $215,370
Cost of Services & Utilities
Paid by the Government - 165,520
Total $380,890
5. SPACE PLAN:
The continued occupancy of this location by the Government will not result in
the relocation of Federal agencies or affect the housing of other agencies in
the Honolulu area; therefore, the housing plan attached as Exhibit A is limited
to the building at 1833 Kalakaua Avenue.
PAGENO="0212"
206
6. STATEMENT OF NEED:
It has been determined that (1) the needs for space of the Federal Government
in this area cannot be satisfied by the utilization of existing suitable
Government-owned property, and (2) other suitable rental space is not
available at a price commensurate with that to be afforded through the
proposed action.
~74
Submitted at Washington, D.C. on
Recommended:
Acting
Approved
PAGENO="0213"
207
EXHIBIT A
HONOLULU, HAWAII
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PHI-74O11
PROJECT NUMBER : LHI-74511
COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING PLAN
1833 Kalakaua Avenue Building
Sq. Ft. Personnel
Department of Agriculture
Stabilization & Conservation Service 2,084 9
Farmers Home Administration 532 4
Soil Conservation Service
Total 3,150 20
Department of Defense
Defense Supply Agency 925 6
Department of Health, Education and Welfare
Food & Drug Administration 550 2
Department of Interior
Geological Survey 7,575 48
American Samoa Liaison Officer 875 2
Total 8,450 50
Department of Labor
Apprenticeship & Training 825 4
Employee Compensation 1,645 8
Labor Management Service Administration 1,165 3
Wage Hour Public Contract 1,000 5
Total 4,635 20
Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration 43,775 346
General Accounting Office 3,625 19
Congressional 1,075 4
Federal Mediation & Conciliation Service 625
General Services Administration 1' 8,590 3
Net Occupiable Area 75,400 471
1/ This space will be assigned to other Federal agencies, scheduled to be
housed in the new Federal building, whose existing leases cannot be
renewed or extended beyond their termination dates.~
PAGENO="0214"
208
LEASE RENEWAL, SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO
Senator CLARK. Let us look at San ,Juan, Puerto Rico.
Mr. Srnrp. This prospectus proposes the extension of the present
leasehold interest covering 106,126 square feet of space occupied by
12 Federal agencies at 255 Ponce de Leon Avenue, San Juan, Puerto
Rico.
The space was originally acquired in 1966 with the present lease
costing $476,662 annually, expiring without renewal option on Sep-
tember 28, 1974.
The succeeding lease would continue the same occupancy until the
new courthouse and Federal office building is completed in 1975. The
new lease would be for 1 year at a total annual cost of $933,908.
Senator CLARK. The new lease will increase the rental rate 96 per-
cent over the previous one. The 1-year option is an additional 11 per-
cent. What were the reasons for that large an increase?
Mr. SHIPP. First of all, the going rate for comparable space in San
Juan is in the range of $10 to $12 per square foot. This initial 1-year
extension is at the rate of $8.80 a square foot.
We feel that we have negotiated a rate which is on the low side of a
range of market prices. Again, the rental increases are tied to the
market that prevails in the community at the time the lease was
negotiated.
Senator CLARK. You say the comparable space in San Juan rents
for $10 to $12 a square foot and lease is for $8.80, second year option
$9.90. What will the occupant agencies be charged?
Mr. Srnrp. This building has a quality rating of 92. And the stand-
ard level user charge rate for office space is $8.07 a foot. And the rate
for parking is $3.44 a square foot.
Senator CLARK. The 119 parking spaces are part of the previous
rental agreement?
Mr. SHIPP. Yes, sir. They were covered under the previous rental
agreement.
[The San Juan prospectus follows:]
PAGENO="0215"
209
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PPR-74Oll
PROJECT NUMBER : LPR-745l1
PROSPECTUS FOR PROPOSED LEASE
UNDER THE PUBLIC BUILDINGS ACT OF 1959, AS AMENDED
LEASED OFFICE SPACE SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO
1. DESCRIPTION:
This prospectus proposes extension of the present leasehold interest covering
106,126 square feet of space occupied by 12 Federal agencies at 255 Ponce de
Leon Avenue, San Juan, Puerto Rico. The space was originally acquired in
April 1966, with the present lease costing $476,662.63 annually expiring without
renewal options on September 28, 1974. The succeeding lease will continue the
same occupancy, i.e., the entire 2nd, 4th, and 5th floors, and part of the 1st,
3rd, 6th, 7th, 8th, 11th, and 14th floors of the 16 story building known as the
Pan Am Building, plus 119 covered parking spaces until a new Courthouse and
Federal Office Building is completed in 1975. The new lease will be for one
year at a total annual cost of $933,908.80, and will have an option to renew
for two additional one year periods at a total annual cost of $1 ,O4O,034.80.
2. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
a. PROJECT NEED: -
To provide space for the agencies at this location until the Courthouse and
Federal Office Building under construction is completed in early 1975.
b. DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES:
1. Utilization of Government-owned space.
There is no vacant Government-owned space available in San Juan to accomodate
the continuing requirements of these agencies.
2. Federal Construction.
A Courthouse and Federal Office Building is under construction which will house
these agencies, but occupancy is not scheduled until mid 1975.
3. Acquisition of Leased Building.
The acquisition of this leased building by the Government is not considered
feasible or desirable. The Government does not require the entire building,
and the agencies long-range space requirements will be satisfied in the
Federal building now under construction. -
4. Acquisition of Leased Space.
It is in the best interest of the Government to continue occupancy at the
present location. A market survey of comparable office space revealed that
similar space is leasing at $10 to $12 per square foot, serviced, which
is more than the Government will pay if it extends this lease. These rates
do not include parking which is very limited and would add about $.3O per
square foot to the annual cost. Additionally, moving costs would amount to
PAGENO="0216"
210
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PPR-740ll
PROJECT NUMBER : LPR-745ll
b. DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES: (Cont'd)
over $50,000. Prior to exercising the renewal option, a determination will
be made that there is a continuing need for such a lease and that the proposed
rental rates are competitive. Therefore, it is planned to enter into a
succeeding lease in accordance with the authority contained in Section 210(h)(l)
of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended.
Approval of this prospectus will be deemed to authorize the Government to
exercise the options in the event the new Courthouse and Federal Office
Building is not timely completed.
3. ESTIMATED MAXIMUM COST: SUCCEEDING LEASE RENEWAL OPTION
Net Average Annual Rental $733,239.80 $ 815,285.52
Estimated Cost of Services 200,669.00 224,749.28
Total Annual Cost $9~3,9O8.8O $1,040,034.80
4. CURRENT HOUSING COSTS:
For agencies to be housed in the leased space.
Area Sq. Ft. Annual Cost
Rent 106,126 $311,257.83
Services 165,404.80
Total $476,662.63
5. SPACE PLAN:
The continued occupancy by the Government of this location will not result in
the relocation of Federal agencies or affect the housing of agencies in the
San Juan area; therefore, the housing plan attached as Exhibit A is limited to
the building at 255 Ponce de Leon Avenue.
6. STATEMENT OF NEED:
It has been determined that (1) the needs for space of the Federal Government
in this area cannot be satisfied by utilization of existing suftable property
now owned by the Government, and (2) other suitable rental space is not avail-
able at a price commensurate with that to be afforded through the proposed
action.
Submitted at Washington, D.C. on
Recommended:
~etiflg
~9/4
Approved
PAGENO="0217"
211
EXHIBIT A
SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PPR-740ll
PROJECT NUMBER : LPR-745l1
CURRENT HOUSING PLAN
Leased Buildij~: _______ _________
Dept. of Housing and Urban Development
Dept of Justice
National Labor Relations Board
Small Business Administration
Dept. of Treasury
Other Agencies (7) _______
OCCUPIABLE AREA
S~ Ft.
33,000 (31%)
23,200 (22%)
7,800 ( 7%)
13,300 (13%)
16,000 (15%)
12,826 (12%)
106,126
Personnel
184
194
25
66
81
43
593
PAGENO="0218"
212
Senator CLARK. Let us go to the alterations now, first, Tucson,
Ariz., the post office and courthouse.
Mr. SHIPP. Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask Mr. Fred Wendehack,
who is the Acting Assistant Commissioner for Buildings Manage-
ment, to speak to these particular projects.
Senator CLARK. I would like, prior to doing that, to make as part of
the record a letter from Senator Barry Goldwater, dated May 9, 1974,
supporting this prospectus.
[The letter referred to follows:]
TJ.S. SENATE,
Washington, D.C., May 9, 1974.
Hon. DICK CLARK,
Chairman, ~nbcommittee on Bnildings and U-rounds, ~cnate C&nim4ttee on
Pnblio Works, Washington, D.C.
DEAR DICK: Many thanks for the opportunity to comment on the proposed
improvements for the TJ.S. Post Office-Courthouse in Tucson, Arizona.
This building is in a prime downtown location in the second largest city in
our state and serves as the focal point for many of the Federal services necessary
to the citizens of the area. Although public transportation in Tucson is limited
at best, this building is better served than any other location due to its central
location.
It would be greatly appreciated if every possible location would be given to the
recommendation of the General Services Administration and approve the re-
quested authorization.
Many thanks.
With best wishes,
BARRY GOLDWATER.
ALTERATIONS TO POST OFFICE AND COURT HOUSE, TUCSON, ARIZ.
Mr. WENDEBACK. This project for the U.S. Courthouse, Tucson,
Ariz., provides for major replacement and improvements which should
be undertaken in this building for its continued use to provide ade-
quate housing for the U.S. courts.
It was completed in 1930, has a net area of 43,960 square feet. The
building is structurally sound, is located in a prime business area,
and intended for indefinite retention.
Approximately $39,000 has been spent in the last 5 years for repairs
and improvements which include exterior cyclic painting and fire
safety improvements.
Authorization is being sought by this prospectus to complete neces-
sary work to the building at a total estimated maximum cost of
$1,035,500.
Major items contemplated include rewiring of the building, a new
main switchboard, modernization of space, maj or air-conditioning
PAGENO="0219"
213
improvements, installation of an emergency generator, interior and
exterior cyclic painting, and miscellaneous repairs and improvements.
Senator CLARK. Can a cost breakdown with the description of major
elements of work proposed be provided?
Mr. WENDEHACK. Yes. I can provide it for you.
[The information requested follows:]
BUILDINGS MANAGEMENT-REPAIR AND ALTERATION OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS, TUCSON, ARIZ., U.S. COURTHOUSE
DETAILED COST ESTIMATES
Description
Estimated Percent of
cost total
Rewire building and install new main switchboard
Replace controls on east elevators
Remove and replace leaky steam lines
Install suspended acoustical ceiling with recessed lighting (existing ceiling is a variety of
ceilings such as exposed concrete,tile cemented to concrete and old suspended tile;
existinglighting figures are old fashion stem mounted)
Remove cast iron radiators (they have outlived their usefullness; system being converted
to forced hot air)
Upgrade toilet rooms
Cover corridor door louvers to reduce noise
Seal transoms, lay carpet in corridors, and place carpet or tile in office space to reduce
noise
Replace exposed windows and solar screens on east, south, and west sides of building with
solar bronze plate glass
Refinish natural interior woodwork
Install locker room in basement
Enclose rear 1st floor exit and stairway to basement with firedoors and necessary
partitions
Miscellaneous improvements
Replace faulty heating and plumbing valves
Install emergency generator and elevator safety controls
Repair the air-conditioning system including replacing the air distribution system, fans
and fan mounts (new system will provide both heat and air-conditioning)
Install entrance ramp for the handicapped
Perform interior and exterior cyclic painting
Install power operated sliding entrance doors for the handicapped
Total
$75, 000 7. 3
45, 000 4. 3
25, 000 2. 4
152, 825 14.8
40, 524 3.9
2, 455
1, 228 . 2
53, 295 5. 2
4, 544 . 4
18, 420 1. 8
7, 982 . 7
2, 272 . 2
29, 455 2. 9
7, 000 . 6
42, 500 4. 2
463, 000 44. 8
4,800 .5
56, 600 5. 5
3,600 . 3
1,035,050 1000
Senator CLARK. What has been done with the $39,000?
Mr. WENDEHACK. The $39,000 involved painting, exterior painting,
a total of $7,100 and included three fire safety items, upgrading the
exit lights for $6,700, installation of fire alarm systems for $13,400,
and enclosing some of the public stairs at the first floor level for
$12,800.
Senator CLARK. How much longer will the building be used?
Mr. WENDEHACK. It is slated for indefinite retention at this point.
[The Tucson, Ariz., prospectus follows:]
PAGENO="0220"
214
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PAZ74761
PROJECT NUMBER: 020015-1
PROSPECTUS FOR PROPOSED ALTERATION
PROJECT UNDER THE PUBLIC BUILDINGS ACT OF 1959
U.S. POST OFFICE-COURTHOUSE TUCSON, ARIZONA
1. Description of Proposed Project
This project provides for major replacements and improve-
ments which should be undertaken in this building for its
continued use to provide adequate housing for Federal
agencies. Major items contemplated include rewiring of
electrical system and new main switchboard, modernization
of space, major airconditioning improvements, emergency
generator, interior and exterior cycle painting, and
miscellaneous repairs and improvements. This work is to
be accomplished within five years after approval, of this
prospectus. It does not include (1) the day-to-day main-
tenance and recurring repairs which must be undertaken
annually to keep the building in a tenantable condition;
(2) alterations to the building and its equipment which
may be occasioned by future space reassignments which
cannot be identified at this time; and (3) repairs and
replacements which may be occasioned by an emergency or
breakdown which interrupts use of the building.
2. Estimated Maximum Cost o,f Project
Authorization Required $1,035,500
3. Justification
The U.S. Post Office-Courthouse was completed in 1930.
Its gross floor area is 70,580 square feet and net area
43,960 square feet~
The building is structurally sound, located in a prime
business area, and intended for indefinite retention.
Approximately $39,000 has been spent in the last five
years for repairs and improvements which included exterior
painting and firesafety improvements.
The replacement cost of this building is approximately
$2,198,000 exclusive of the site. The space modernization
PAGENO="0221"
215
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PAZ74761
PROJECT NUMBER: 020015-1
3. Justification (Cont'd)
is needed to provide a modern environment commensurate
with the missions of the agency assigned. The electrical
switchgear is obsolete, the wiring is old and both have
deteriorated and do not meet the present code requirements.
The airconditioning distribution system is obsolete and
creates operating problems and distractive noises. Portions
of the system have deteriorated requiring replacement for
continued use. The emergency generator is needed to provide
emergency lighting and to power sump pumps to prevent
flooding. Interior and exterior painting is necessary to
protect the surfaces and maintain the appearance of the
building. The repairs and improvements proposed are es-
sential for the continued economic and safe use of this
building.
4. Current Housing Costs Net Area Sq. Ft. Annual Cost
Operation, Maintenance 43,960 $231,797
and Upkeep Costs
5. Proposed Space Plan for Housing Federal Agencies
There are approximately 881 Federal employees housed in
60,235 square feet of Government-owned space and 129,423
square feet of leased space in Tucson, Arizona. Retention
of this building for the foreseeable future is an essential
part of the comprehensive space plan for housing the
Federal population in this city.
6. Environmental Assessment
In the construction of this project, General Services Admin-
istration will make studies of the water supply, sewage
disposal, solid waste disposal, storm water drainage,
erosion control, fuel types, etc., in order to comply
strictly with the purpose and intent of Executive Order
11514, Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality.
PAGENO="0222"
216
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PAZ74761
PROJECT NUMBER: 020015-1
6. Environmental Assessment (Cont'd)
A determination has been made based on a current assess-
ment of the project, that construction and operation of
the building will not have a significant effect on the
human environment. As the project develops, additional
assessments will be made, and if it is determined after
any assessment that it will have a significant effect on
the human environment, an environmental statement will be
prepared and submitted in accordance with the require-
ments of Section l02(2)(c) of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, and the guidelines of the Council on
Environmental Quality.
7. Statement of Need
It has been determined that (1) the need for space of
the Federal Government in this area cannot be satisfied
by the utilization of other existing suitable property
now owned by the Government and (2) suitable rental
space is not available at a price commensurate with that
to be afforded through the proposed action.
APE~ 1 ~974
Submitted at Washington, D.C. on __________________________
Recommended: ______________________________________
Co i oner, bli Buildings Service
Approved: 2 _____________________
Adm~~s t ra~6r General Services
PAGENO="0223"
217
ALTERATIONS TO U.S. COURTHOUSE, NASHVILLE, TENN.
Senator CLARK. Thank you very much. We will go now to Nash-
ville, Tenn.
Mr. WENDEHACK. This prospectus for the U.S. courthouse in Nash-
ville provides for major repairs and alterations, which should be un-
dertaI~en in this building ~or its continued use to provide adequate
housing for Federal agencies at the cost of $1,872,000. The court-
house was constructed in 1952 and has eight floors above ground, an
attic, a full basement, and has never been extended.
The structure is steel and reinforced concrete, base of limestone and
granite base. It has an assignable area of 189,282 square feet. Major
items of work include space alterations for IRS, and the space now
occupied by the Veterans' Administration, replacing worn battleship
linoleum flooring, provision of facilities for the handicapped, land-
scaping and installation of a lawn sprinkler system, replacement of de-
teriorated acoustical ceilings, and installation of recessed lighting,
conversion of three elevators from manual to automatic operation,
pointing and cyclic painting, and installation of fire subdivisions and
emergency communications system.
Senator CLARK. What has been done with the money, $172,800 spent
in the past 5 years on repairs and upgrading of the buildings? Are
there any overlaps with the current proposal?
Mr. WENDEHACK. No; there are not. The work that has been done
involved a new roof, some space alterations on the first floor which
don't involve the space alterations we are proposing under this pro-
spectus, security devices on the entrance door, and some space altera-
tions on two additional floors.
Senator CLARK. What provisions exist for the physically handi-
capped in this building.
Mr. WENDEHACK. At the present time it has a ground level entrance
and there is no problem as far as entrance to the building. We have
provided for one public telephone at a lower level and the elevators.
Under this prospectus we propose to provide additional public tele-
phones at the lower height and installation of special facilities in the
toilet rooms and also lowering of some drinking fountains to provide
access for the handicapped.
Senator CLARK. I would like to ask the same question with regard
to Tucson, if we might go back to that.
Mr. WENDEHACK. At Tucson at the present time we have made pro-
vision for the public telephones, elevators, and provision for the toilet
room facilities. Under the proposed prospectus we are providing access
ramps into the building and the automatic doors at a cost of $8,500.
Senator CLARK. Thank you.
[The Nashville, Tenn., prospectus follows:]
PAGENO="0224"
218
PROSPECTUS FOR PROPOSED ALTERATION PRO~rECT UNDER THE PUBLIC BUILDINGS
ACT OF 1959
U.S. COURTHOUSE, NASHVILLE, PENN.
1. Description of proposed project
This project provides for major repairs and improvements which should be
undertaken in this building for its continued use to provide adequate housing for
Federal agencies. Major items contemplated include space alterations, floor
repairs, landscaping, installation of lawn sprinkler system, acoustical ceilings,
lighting improvement, elevator conversions, pointing and cyclic painting, fire-
safety projects, and improvements to the air-conditioning system. This work is
to be accomplished within five years after approval of this prospectus. This does
not include (1) the day-to-day maintenance and recurring repairs which must
be undertaken annually to keep the building in a tenantable condition, (2) altera-
tions to the building and its equipment which may be occasioned by space
reassignments which cannot be identified at this time and (3) repairs and
replacements which may be occasioned by an emergency or breakdown which
interrupts use of the building.
2. Estimated mawimuni cost of project
Authorization required, $1,872,000.
8. Justification
The Courthouse building consisting of eight floors, an attic and a full basement
was constructed in 1952 and has never been extended. The structure is steel and
reinforced concrete faced with limestone and granite base. It has a gross area
of 316,673 square feet and a net area of 189,282 square feet. Approximately $172,-
800 has been spent in the past five years for a new roof, interior painting, and
space alterations for tenant agencies in the building. The repairs and improve-
ments proposed under the project are essential to the economic and efficient use
and occupancy of the building. Space alterations will be required to backfill areas
vacated by agencies which will be consolidated and/or relocated when the new
Courthouse Annex is completed. Most of the lighting in the building is substand-
ard and needs to be upgraded. Three elevators in the building need to be converted
from manually-operated to automatic operation. The battleship linoleum floors
and acoustical ceilings throughout the building are rapidly deteriorating and
need to be replaced. The landscaping needs upgrading including a new lawn
sprinkler system. The pointing and cyclic painting are necessary to protect the
surfaces and maintain the appearance of the building. The firesafety projects
are required to meet GSA's safety requirements. Booster fans are needed in the
present air-conditioning system for better air distribution. To replace the existing
facility would cost approximately $12,800,000, excluding the site. Housing Gov-
ernment agencies in suitable leased space in Nashville, Tennessee, would cost
approximately $6.00 per net square foot annually.
4. Current housing costs
Operation, maintenance and upkeep costs:
Net area square feet 189, 282
Annual cost $407, 042
5. Proposed ~S~pace Plan for Housing Federa7 Agencies
There are approximately 1,953 Federal employees housed in 284,132 square
feet of Government-owned space and 93,156 square feet of leased space in Nash-
ville, Tennessee. Retention of the building for the foreseeable future is an essen-
tial part of the comprehensive space plan for housing the Federal population
in this city.
6. EnvIronmental Assessment
In the construction of this project, General Services Administration will make
studies of the water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, storm water
drainage, erosion control, fuel types, etc., in order to comply strictly with the
PAGENO="0225"
219
purpose and intent of Executive Order 11514, Protection and Enhancement of
Environmental Quality.
A determination has been made based on a current assessment of the project,
that construction and operation of the building will not have a significant effect
on the human environment. As the project develops, additional assessments
will be made, and if it is determined after any assessment that it will have a
significant effect on the human environment, an environmental statement will be
prepared and submitted in accordance with the requirements of Section 102(2)
(c) of the Nationa' Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and the guidelines of the
Council on Environmental Quality
7. Statement of Need
It has been determined that: the needs for space of the Federal Government
in this area cannot be satisfied by the utilization of existing suitable property
now owned by the Government and (2) suitable rental space is not available
at a price commensurate with that to be affOrded through the proposed action.
Submitted at Washington, D.C. on April 11, 1974.
Recommended.
JOHN F. GALIJARDI,
Acting Commissioner, Public Buildings Service.
Approved.
A. F. SAMPSON,
Administrator of General Services.
BUILDINGS MANAGEMENT-REPAIR AND ALTERATION OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS, NASHVILLE, TENN., U.S. COURT
HOUSE, DETAILED COST ESTIMATES
Description
Estimated
cost
Percent of
total
Acoustical ceilings: Dropped ceilings are unsightly and pulling loose throughout building_ -
Upgrade electrical system: Replace 2.tube fixtures (halfmoon type) with recessed lighting
fixtures - -
Space alterations: Principally for IRS and VA
Floor covering: Vinyl tile in corridors and carpet in office space (replacing battleship
linoleum)
Lawn sprinkler system and landscaping
Elevator conversion (3 elevators-2 passenger, 1 freight)
Air-conditioning improvements: Modify and balance due to space alterations
Fire subdivisions and emergency communication system
Pointing and cyclic painting
Plaster repairs and replacement of vinyl wall covering in corridors and elevator Iobbies_ -
Total
$270, 000
480, 000
480, 000
210, 000
20, 000
96, 000
24, 000
110, 000
120, 000
62, 000
14. 4
25. 6
25.6
11. 2
1. 1
5. 1
1. 3
5.9
6. 5
3.3
1, 872, 000
100. 0
BORDER STATION FACILITY, LUKEVILLE, ARIZ.
Senator CLARK. Now the new construction increased authorization,
first for Lukeville, Ariz., the border station facility.
I wish to include a letter for the record from Senator Paul Fannin
of Arizona, strongly supporting this request to revise the estimated
maximum cost to $2,081,000. Would you proceed with that?
[The letter referred to follows:]
U.S. SENATE,
Washington, D.C., July 25, 1974.
Hon. DICK CLARK,
U.S. Sen at o~,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR DICK: Thank you for sending the prospectus for the Border Station
Facility at Lukeville, Arizona, now being considered by the Building and
Grounds Subcommittee of the Committee on Public Works.
36-623 0 - 74 - 15
PAGENO="0226"
220
This station has been a constant source of irritation for many thousands of
Arizonans and tourists who use the border crossing at Lukeville. The problem
is especially critical on major holiday weekends.
Constituents tell me that they sometimes have to wait several hours in line
to get back into the United States after spending a weekend in Mexico. From
what I have been told by the Bureau of Customs, a part of the problem is dif-
ficulty in adequately staffing this somewhat remote post. It is evident, however,
that the facility itself was designed for the 1940s and is badly out of date.
I strongly support this request to revise the estimated maximum cost to $2,-
081,000 in view of the inflation of the past two years.
With warmest regards.
Sincerely,
PAUL FANNIN,
TLAS~. Senator.
Mr. SHIPP. This amendment to the prospectus approved in late
1972 and again in late 1973 is submitted to increase the authorized
maximum limited cost for the border station at Lukeville, Ariz.
The estimate of cost previously authorized was based on construc-
tion cost indexes current at the time of the preparation of the
prospectus.
Subsequently, construction costs increased to an extent that the
project cannot be constructed within the previously authorized limit
of cost. We are requesting an increase in authorized maximum cost
on the $1,786,000 to $2,081,000.
Senator CLARK. In 1972, three border station prospectuses were sub-
mitted to this committee for direct construction authorization: Luke-
yule, Ariz., Laredo, Tex., and Blame, Wash.
In 1973, GSA requested that these same projects be authorized for
funding under the purchase contract authority. In 1974 there was an-
other request for increased funding for the Lukeville and Laredo
projects and change back to direct Federal construction.
I think we would like an explanation and justification of why a
cost increase in these projects but not in the Blame project and also
the basis for indecision in choosing the method of financing these
projects.
Mr. SHIPP. Mr. Chairman, the history of this indecision is as fol-
lows: The projects were approved for direct Federal construction in
late 1972. Right after that we went to the Office. of Management and
Budget with our proposed budget for fiscal year 1974.
The Office of Management and Budget. suggested to us that we could
not include Laredo and Lukeville in the direct Federal construction
area and suggested to us that we return to the Public Works Com-
mittees for authorization as purchase contract projects.
PAGENO="0227"
221
Senator CLARK. So let me just stop at that point for a second. This
wasn't a decision of the GSA to switch fro,m direct Federal to pur-
chase contract. It was something that you were directed to do from
the Bureau of the Budget?
Mr. SHier. Yes~ sir. Subsequently the purchase contract authoriza-
tion was secured in late 1973. At that time we were preparing our
fiscal year 1975 budget. When we returned to 0MB to review that
budget with them 0MB agreed to include the projects in the direct
Federal construction area.
In the meantime, the costs have increased. Consequently, now that
we can include them in our fiscal year 1975 budget for direct Federal
construction we have had to return for increased authorization, due
to the increased costs as a result of the 2-year delay.
Senator CLARK. Another question in that regard, what is your un-
derstanding as to why the Bureau of the Budget changed its mind
on that, reversed itself?
Mr. Srnrr. I do not know because I did not participate in the dis-
cussions with them.
Senator CLARK. There wasn't a change of philosophy that you are
aware of in terms of-
Mr. SHier. I have no indication that they have changed their
philosophy with respect to lease versus direct Federal construction
or purchase contract.
Senator CLARK. Is the delay and the additional cost caused by that
reversal of condition or other factors?
Mr. SHIPP. I believe that is basically the reason.
Senator CLARK. Why not the Blame project? Why these two but
not the Blame project?
Mr. SHIPP. There are two border inspection facilities planned at
Blame. One of the two, the Peace Arch Station, was totally funded
in fiscal year 1973. As one station had to remain in operation, the
second station, known as Pacific Highway, was estimated for a later
construction start. As a result, the project is still within authorized
amounts.
Senator CLARK. In the original?
Mr. SHIPP. Yes, sir. We will be able to accomplish it within the
authorization.
[The Lukeville, Ariz., prospectus follows:]
PAGENO="0228"
222
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PAZ-74021
PROJECT NUMBER : NAZ-7452l
(Formerly numbered 02-0670)
AMENDMENT TO A PUBLIC BUILDING PROSPECTUS
APPROVED UNDER TH~ PUBLIC BUILDING ACT OF 1959, AS AMENDED
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT:
The attached amendment is submitted to increase the authorized maximum limit
of cost for the public building project identified below.
The justification for the project, as described in the approved prospectus,
has not lessened and the scope of the project has not changed. However,
the estimate of cost previously authorized was based on construction cost
indices current at the time of preparation of the prospectus. Subsequently,
construction costs have increased to an extent that the project cannot be
constructed within the previously authorized limit of cost.
2. PI~OJECT IDENTIFICATION:
Revised Estimated
Location Project Maximum Cost
Lukeville, Arizona Border Station Facility $2,081,000
3. STATEMENT OF NEED:
It is reaffirmed that (1) the needs for space for the Federal Government
in this community cannot be satisfied by utilization of existing suitable
property now owned by the Government; and (2) suitable rental space is not
available at a price commensurate with that to be afforded through the
action proposed herein.
~jj~y131W4
Submitted at Washington, D.C. on ________________
Recommended:
~j~otin~
Approved
General Services
PAGENO="0229"
223
PROPOSED AMENDMENT No. 1 TO:
BORDER STATION FACILITY LIJKEVILLE, ARIZONA
Prospectus Number - PAZ-74O21
Project Number - NAZ-74521
(Formerly numbered- 02-0670)
DATE SUBMITTED TO CONGRESS:
Original Prospectus - February 28, 1972
DATE OF APPROVAL BY COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC WORKS:
House - September 27, 1972
Senate - May 22, 1972
This project was approved for direct Federal construction by the Committees
on Public Works of the Congress in 1972; however, in order to maintain
capital expenditures at the lowest possible level, a request for funds was
not included in the President's budget for Fiscal Year 1974. Subsequent
consultation with the Office of Management and Budget indicated that
companion authority to proceed with this project under the purchase
contract provisions of the Public Buildings Amendments of 1972, would provide
additional funding flexibility to assure initiation of these urgently needed
facilities at the earliest practicable date. Accordingly, we requested and
received the Committees' approval to proceed with a purchase contract project.
We have reexamined our fiscal posture and now plan to finance this project by
direct appropriation, using funds to be made available for this purpose in
accordance with subsection 210(f) of the Federal Property and Administrative
Services Act of 1949, as amended. A request for the funds needed to proceed
is included in our Fiscal Year 1975 Budget.
Approved Revised
Estimated Maximum Cost Estimated Maximum Cost
ESTIMATED COST:
Site, Design, Management
and Inspection $ 300,000 $ 397,000
Construction l,486,000 ~84~900
TOTAL COST $1,786,000 $2,081,000
APPROXIMATE AREAS:
Gross Square Feet 36,300 36,300
Net Square Feet 31,300 31,300
PAGENO="0230"
224
BORDER STATION, LAREDO, TEX.
Senator CLARK. Let us look now at Laredo, Tex.
Mr. SHIPP. This prospectus amendment is submitted to increase
the authorized maximum limited cost for the border station at Laredo,
Tex., from $13,857,000 to $15,462,000.
The estimate of cost previously authorized was based on construc-
tion cost indexes current at the time of the preparation of the pro-
spectus. Subsequently, construction costs have increased to the extent
that the project cannot be constructed within the previously authorized
limit of costs.
Senator CLARK. The site and design costs have increased 16 percent
since 1972. Is that correct?
Mr. SHIIP. Yes, sir.
Senator CLARK. Is the explanation for that simply a 16-percent
inflation in design and site?
Mr. Srnrr. Actually, the greater portion of this cost is involved
with the land costs and the relocation costs. We are going to acquire
approximately 15 acres of land; that is, densely populated, and has
a large number of residences on it.
This land has an estimated value of around $3.2 million. In addi-
tion to that, we will have to pay relocation costs for the individual
families and business people who are located in that area and we
estimate this cost to approximate $600,000. So the great bulk of our
increased costs relate to those two factors.
Senator CLARK. It might be good for the record if you would give
us a breakdown of the components for the purchase of the land,
the relocation assistance, construction and design and so forth.
Mr. SHIPP. We would be glad to do that.
[The information requested is contained in the answer to question
four of the minority staff questions previously entered into the record
at p. 167.]
[The Laredo, Tex., prospectus follows:]
PAGENO="0231"
225
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PTX-74O2l
PROJECT NUMBER : NTX-74531
(Formerly numbered 42-0282)
AMENDMENT TO A PUBLIC BUILDING PROJECT
APPROVED UNDER THE PUBLIC BUILDING ACT OF 1959, AS AMENDED
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT:
The attached amendment is submitted to increase the authorized maximum limit
of cost for the public building project identified below.
The justification for the project, as described in the approved prospectus,
has not lessened and the scope of the project has not changed. However,
the estimate of cost previously authorized was based on construction cost
indices current at the time of preparation of the prospectus. Subsequently,
construction costs have increased to an extent that the project cannot be
constructed within the previously authorized limit of cost.
2. PROJECT IDENTIFICATION:
Revised Estimated
Location Project Maximum Cost
Laredo, Texas Border Station Facility $15,462,000
3. STATEME~jT OF NEED:
It is reaffirmed that (1) the needs for space for the Federal Government
in this community cannot be satisfied by utilization of existing suitable
property now owned by the Government; and (2) suitable rental space is not
available at a price commensurate with that to be afforded through the
action proposed herein.
MAY 1 3 ~974
Submitted at Washington, D.C. on _______________
Recommended:
~otifl~
Approved
PAGENO="0232"
226
PROPOSED AMENDMENT No. 1 TO:
BORDER STATION FACILITY LAREDO, TEXAS
Prospectus Number - PTX-74O41
Project Number - NTX-.7453l
(Formerly numbered- 42-0282)
DATE SUBMITTED TO CONGRESS:
Original Prospectus - February 28, 1972
DATE OF APPROVAL BY COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC WORKS:
House - September 27, 1972
Senate - May 22, 1972
This project was approved for direct Federal construction by the Committees
on Public Works of the Congress in 1972; however, in order to maintain
capital expenditures at the lowest possible level, a request for funds was
not included in the President's budget for Fiscal Year 1974. Subsequent
consultation with the Office of Management and Budget indicated that
companion authority to proceed with this project under the purchase
contract provisions of the Public Buildings Amendments of 1972, would provide
additional funding flexibility to' assure initiation of these urgently needed
facilities at the e~rli~sst practicable date. Accordingly, we requested and
received the Committees~ approval to proceed with a purchase contract project.
We have reexanined our `fiscal posture and now plan to finance this project by
direct appropriation, using funds to be made available for this purpose in
accordance with subsection 210(f) of the Federal Property and Administrative
Services Act of 1949, as amended. A request for the funds needed to proceed
is included in our Fiscal Year 1975 Budget.
Approved Revised
Estimated Maximum Cost Estimated Maximum Cost
ESTIMATED COST:
Site, Design, Management
and Inspection $ 4,713,000 $ 5,477,000
Construction ~,144~,,pOO ~,985,OOO
TOTAL COST $13,857,000 $15,462,000
APPROXIMATE AREAS:
Gross Square Feet 228,000 228,000
Net Square Feet 199,000 199,000
PAGENO="0233"
227
Senator CLARK. That concludes the hearing. Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 11 :10 a.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene
Thursday, August 8, 1974.]
PAGENO="0234"
PAGENO="0235"
VARIOUS PENDING BUILDING PROJECTS
(Consolidated Federal Law Enforcement Training Center,
Beltsville, Md.)
THURSDAY, AUGUST 8, 1974
U.S. SENATE,
COMMIrrEE ON PUBLIC WORKS,
SUBCOMMITrEE ON BUILDINGS ANI) GROUNDS,
Washi~qton, D.C.
*The subcommittee met at 11 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 1318,
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Quentin N. Burdick presiding.
Present: Senators Burdick and Scott.
OPENING STATEMENT OP HON. QUENTIN N. BURDICK, U.S.
SENATOR PROM THE STATE OP NORTH DAKOTA
Senator BURDICK. Although not a member of the Buildings and
Grounds Subcommittee, I am a member of the Full Committee on
Public Works, and as such was asked by the subcommittee chairman,
Senator Clark, to substitute for him today because he could not be here.
We are going to discuss an amended prospectus which proposes
construction of a new Federal law enforcement training center at
Beltsville, Md. It is the fourth time the project has been brought be-
fore this committee.
Hearings were previously held in May 1969 and July 1971, during
which testimony was presented by the various participating agencies
in support of their law enforcement training program needs. The need
for improvement in the efficiency of law enforcement practices has
been repeatedly emphasized by the administration, Congress, and
those outstanding in the profession. A need has been strongly advo-
cated for the establishment, within the Federal Government, of a law
enforcement training center which will provide participating agen-
cies with adequate facilities to pursue and fulfill this objective.
It is not the intent of this committee to again go into and rehash the
academic and real questions of whether this center should be combined
with the FBI training facilities at Quantico, or whether specific agen-
cies will or will not participate, so long as no eligible contingents are
excluded. These subjects were discussed at previous hearings and are
now a matter of record. They were taken into account when the pro-
spectus was approved in 1971.
Of course, should the FBI. Narcotics Bureau, or others not plan-
ning to participate wish to submit testimony in support of their posi-
tions, it will be most helpful and will be included in the record.
(229)
PAGENO="0236"
230
But at this time we do not plan to challenge decisions previously
made with respect to law enforcement training procedures or priori-
ties. For the record we would appreciate an up-to-date account of what
each of the agencies represented here today is doing in the way of
training recruits and providing refresher courses, where and how
these are conducted, and how each would benefit by construction of the
proposed consolidated center.
What we do intend to do today is explore the reasons for the dra-
matic increase in cost because this is a matter of deep concern to us.
One of the conditions upon which approval of the previous prospectus
was based is .that under no circumstances must GSA request more
money than the $52 million authorized in 1971.
Chairman Randolph emphasized this in a letter to the GSA Ad-
ministrator at the time, which I shall make a part of the record, [The
letter referred to also submitted by Senator Scott appears at p. 255.]
Now we must address ourselves to determining whether a cost increase
of this or any magnitude can be sufficiently justified to warrant a re-
versal of the committee's prior decision that the limit had been reached.
We have no formal agenda this morning, nor schedule of who should
speak first, or in what order. I would suggest that General Services
Administration witnesses lead off, perhaps as a panel with Treasury
Department, since these were the principal participants in develop-
ment of the project from its inception.
You may call on representatives of the other agencies who are here,
to assist in the presentation of your testimony as appropriate.
It is very probable that this hearing will have to be adjourned, due
to time limitations, before all of you have had an opportunity to tes-
tify. So it will remain open for the time being if necessary, subject
to the chairman's recall, and also the record until all testimony is
received. Further, a written response from GSA is requested, to a list
of technical questions that will be submitted later today, which are
desired in the record for documentary purposes. [Questions referred
to appear on p. 264.]
[Prospectus and amended prospectuses follow:]
PROSPECTUS FOR PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION UNDER THE PtTBLIC BUILDINGS
ACT OF 1959
(Project Number: 19-0049)
U.S. SECRET SERVICE TRAINING CENTER, BELTSVILLE, MD.
1. Description of Proposed Project
The project contemplates the construction of a special purpose Training Center
for the United States Secret Service of the Treasury Department on land owned
by the Government.
Approximate Area: Gross-28,100 sq. ft.; net-25,300 sq. ft.
2. Estimated Maximum Cost of Project
(a) Design, engineering, supervision, etc $117, 000
(b) Improvements 1, 232, 000
Total estimated maximum cost 1, 349, 000
8. Justification
It is imperative that the U.S. Secret Service be provided with adequate facili-
ties in order to effectively carry out its protective responsibilities. Determina-
PAGENO="0237"
231
tions made with regard to the scope of the project were based primarily on
functional and technical necessities prescribed by the U.S. Secret Service.
The present facilities, occupying approximately 5.2 acres at the National
Arboretum are outmoded, inadequate, and from a safety standpoint present seri-
ous hazards ~o participants and the general public. The use of lethal weapons
requires proper back drops, deflecting baffles and adequate periphery fencing.
Large groups of participants must be provided with adequate sanitary facilities,
lockers, parking spaces, etc. It is also imperative that the center be completely
adequate from the standpoint of classrooms; both indoor and outdoor ranges;
and be placed in a readily accessible location to participants and visitors.
The firearms center located on grounds of the National Arboretum in Washing-
ton, D.C., was originally established in 1937 following a request made by the
President to secure a pistol range for the White House Police. Land was made
available for this purpose by the Department of Agriculture.
There is an urgent and compelling need for expanding the firearms range
capacity and a coexistent requirement for classroom space in which to instruct
Secret Service personnel, the White House Police and others concerning this
aspect of protective activity. Cogent factors which preclude the accomplishment
of these objectives are (1) the current range is so limited in size and scope that
it cannot be expanded, (2) the range constitutes a hazard to those visiting the
National Arboretum and (3) officials of the Arboretum have requested return of
the area loaned to the Secret Service in or'der that they might expand their
research activities.
Prior to 1951 the majority of firearms training was conducted indoors. Since
then there has been an increasing need for intensified outdoor ballistics training
and such a program has been steadily implemented. Moreover, the need for other
than firearms training has become increasingly evident during the ensuing years.
Among these are use of riot control equipment, fire fighting techniques, radio-
logical detection devices, etc. Due to the severe limitations of the Arboretum
range, night firing procedures and other training innovations cannot be placed
on the present curriculum.
In addition to safe and adequate accommodations for conducting the diverse
types of training noted above, the need for the proposed Center is further accen-
tuated by the fact that training man-hours increased from 1,116 in 1954 to 10,400
in 1962. These figures are illustrative only of the quantitative increase for mem-
bers of the Secret Service, White House Police and Treasury Department Law
Enforcement Schools. In addition other Governmental organizations are afforded
limited use of range facilities whenever such use does not conflict with regularly
scheduled departmental training.
The proposed project will provide a two-story Training Center Building of
masonry construction. Its exterior facades will feature contemporary design.
It should be noted that dormitory accommodations will not be included, since
such facilities are not required. Great emphasis will be placed on plan layout
since the primary reason for this building is that of providing for the functional
requirements of the U.S. Secret Service. Four (4) outside ranges will be con-
structed in accordance with specialized requirements prescribed by the U.S.
Secret Service. Each range will be built with due regard for the safety of par-
ticipants and visitors alike. In the interest of safety an 8'-O" high chain link
peripheral fence will be installed at the Training Center. The fence will be
approximately 18,500 feet in length and parallel both sides and rear of the
property. The proposed site is adjacent to the Washington-Baltimore Parkway
and comprises approximately 25 acres. An asphalt paved open area with a 100
vehicle capacity will provide parking for official, visitor, and employee use.
Provision has been made in the estimated project cost for fallout protection in
the building in accordance with Office of Civil Defense Technical Requirements
for Fallout Shelters issued August 1964.
4. AnaZysis of Providing Space by New Construction Compared With Leasing
The alternate method of providing suitable space by leasing privately owned
facilities cannot be compared with the proposed installation cost since there is no
suitable rental space available to satisfy the needs of this special purpose
requirement.
5. Current Housing Costs
Government-owned space:
Operation, maintenance, and upkeep-area sq. ft., 600; annual cost, $750.
PAGENO="0238"
232
6. Proposed Space Plan for Housing the U.S. Secret Service Training Center
A plan for housing the U.S. Secret Service Training Center is attached (Exhibit
A). Upon completion of construction, assignment and reassignment of si~ace will
be made in accordance with existing law.
7. Statement of Need
It has been determined that (1) the need for space of U.S. Secret Service
Training Center cannot be satisfied by utilization of existing suitable property
now owned by the Government, and (2) suitable rental space is not available at a
price commensurate with that to be afforded through the proposed action.
Submitted at Washington, D.C. on March 2, 1965.
Recommended: WILLIAM A. SCHMIDT,
Acting Commissioner of Public Buildings Service.
Approved: LAWSON B. KNOTT, Jr.,
Acting Administrator of General Services.
EXHIBIT A
HOUSING PLAN-U.S. SECRET SERVICE TRAINING CENTER
Housing as of August 31, Proposed housing (net
1964 (net square feet) square feet)
___________________- Proposed disposition of exist-
Total Personnel Total Personnel ing space
National Arboretum, Washington, 600 3 Return to National Arboretum.
D.C.
Training Center Bldg., Beltsville, 10, 240 10
Md.
Total 600 3 10,240 10
Analysis of proposed project
Net sq. ft.
Agency space (including cafeteria) : G/O space to be reassigned, 600;
Agency expansion, 9,640 10, 240
Field buildings 14, 830
Total net assignable 25, 070
Aisles and corridors 200
Total net area 25, 270
Rounded 25,300
PROSPECTUS FOR PROPOSED PUBLIC BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
(Project Number: 19-0049 (Revised))
FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER, BELTSVILLE, MD.
1. Description of Proposed Project
The project contemplates the construction of a consolidated Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center, on land owned by the Government.
Approximate Area: Gross-519,200 sq. ft.; net-467,300 sq. ft.
2. Estimated Ma~vimum Cost of Project
Original
Revised
(a) Design, engineering, etc
(b) Improvements
$117,000
1,232, 000
$1,676,000
15, 537, 000
Subtotal 1,349,000
(c) Equipment
17, 213, 000
860, 000
Total estimated cost
1,349,000
18, 073, 000
PAGENO="0239"
233
8. Justification
The need for improvement in the efficiency of law enforcement and realism in
the administration of justice has been repeatedly emphasized by the President
and the Congress. To this end Federal law enforcement agencies must have addi-
tional training and technical assistance to meet their large and growing burdens.
There is a recognized and demonstrated need for the establishment within the
Federal Government of a law enforcement training center to irovide participat-
ing agencies with adequate modern facilities, to conduct common in-service train-
ing, for various law enforcement personnel in an effective and economical manner.
A prospectus which proposed construction of a special purpose Training Center
for the United States Secret Service of the Department of the Treasury was
approved by the Committees on Public Works of the House of Representatives
and the Senate on April 7, 1965, and April 13, 1965, respectively. Funds were ap-
propriated in Fiscal Year 1966 for design and ~800,000 was appropriated in FY
1969 to begin the construction of one phase of the plan.
Subsequently, an in-depth study of training requirements of other Federal agen-
cies such as the Departments of Justice, Interior, State and Health, Education,
and Welfare revealed that:
Federal law enforcement functions require personnel thoroughly equipped with
knowledge and skills in the techniques necessary for criminal investigation and
the prevention of crime. These skills are rarely found in new Federal agents re-
cruited without experience or education in law enforcement.
Training and facility requirements are quite similar for new Federal agents
with a wide variation in training programs which range from no formal training
to a maximum of 18 weeks.
The training facilities being used by the agencies included in the study are in-
adequate at best. The Federal law enforcement agencies which will use the cen-
ter are too small to justify the construction of an adequate modern training fa-
cility for each group of agents.
The use of facilities now being constructed for a new FBI Academy at Quan-
tico, Virginia, has been considered but it has been determined that their use
would not be compatible with the training programs planned for the project.
The agencies involved in the study concerned in the finding and initiated a
joint effort to develop detailed plans for the establishment of a consolidated, in-
teragency training center to provide training for their law enforcement personnel
as the most economical and feasible method for satisfying the training need. Col-
lectively, by pooling their resources they can be provided with a higher level of
instruction, achieve more effective utilization of a complete facility and derive
many other advantages from consolidation of common training courses.
The consolidated center will be jointly sponsored and controlled on a coopera-
tive basis by the participating agencies. A core staff will conduct the common
training for the agencies, carry out research in law enforcement training methods
and curriculum content, operate and maintain the physical plant, and provide
necessary support services under the administrative supervision of the Secretary
of the Treasury.
A determination has been made, based on studies by the Treasury Department
and the General Services Administration, that the most suitable site in the area
is the Department of Agriculture property northeast of the intersection of the
Washington-Baltimore Parkway and Powder Mill Road near Beltsville, Mary-
land. About 60 acres of that property have been transferred to the Treasury De-
partment for construction of ranges and motorcade training area, as Phase 1 of
the project, from funds appropriated to the Department of the Treasury. The De-
partment of Agriculture has indicated that sufficient additional Government-
owned land adjacent to that property can be made available for the Consolidated
Center. Exhibit "B" is a location map of the area and a plat indicating the spe-
cific property selected.
The Center will be designed to provide facilities for training of other law
enforcement personnel, including State and local officials, where such training
is related to the performance of the mission of a participating Federal agency
or is an assigned function of a participating Federal agency. The agencies will
continue to rely on universities for basic education and knowledge of academic
disciplines, preparation for professional careers, broad learning about our society,
and for horizon stretching for selected experienced career officers.
Other Federal agency programs and facilities for management or administra-
tive training and for vocational training in fields other than law enforcement,
PAGENO="0240"
234
even though the duties are performed by law enforcement personnel, will continue
to be used. Field organizations will also continue to conduct local training to
maintain proficiency or update operating skills, as required by individual agency
policies. However, for those local training programs of field organizations of
the participating agencies located in the Washington area, facilities will be
available in the consolidated Training Center.
The facility will consist of a campus-like training center with modern class-
rooms, ranges, specialized training areas and equipment, dormitories, support
facilities and services to accommodate 750 resident students at any given time.
4. Analysis of Providing Space by New Construction Compared With Leasing
The alternate method of providing suitable space by leasing privately owned
facilities cannot be compared with the proposed installation since there is no
suitable rental space available to satisfy this unusual requirement.
5. Current Housing Costs
The cost of present facilities is insignificant.
6. Participating Law Enforcement Agencies
A list of participating agencies is attached as Exhibit "A".
7. Statement of Need
It has been determined that (1) the need for space for the Law Enforcement
Activities to be accommodated in this facility cannot be satisfied by utilization of
existing suitable property now owned by the Government and (2) suitable rental
space is not available at a price commensurate with that to be afforded through
the proposed action.
Submitted at Washington, D.C., on January 13, 196g.
Recommended:
WILLIAM R. SCHMIDT,
Commissioner, Public Building Service.
Approved:
LAWSON B. KNOTT, Jr.,
Administrator of General Services.
EXHIBIT A
PARTICIPATING LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, FISCAL YEAR 1973-74 ESTIMATES
Agency
Total
authorized
agents
New
agents
annually
Department of Justice:
U.S. Marshals
Border Patrol Inspectors
Immigration Investigators
Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs
Treasury Department:
Secret Service Special Agents
White House Police
Customs Port Investigators
Customs Agents
Internal Revenue A. &T.T. Special Investigators...___
Internal Revenue Intelligence Special Agents...
Internal Revenue Internal Security lnspectors___ -
Department of the Interior:
U.S. Park Rangers
900
1, 504
800
1, 174
780
213
987
451
1, 015
1, 809
365
906
65
200
40
144
60
20
180
37
80
125
40
102
U.S. Park Police.___ -
501
35
Bureau of Indian Affairs:
Investigators~_ -
Indian Police
76
519
4
50
Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Game Management Agents
Commercial Fisheries
200
21
10
1
Post Office Department: Postal lnspectors__... -
Department of State: Security Agents...~ -
Zoo Police, Smithsonian
Total
1, 730
110
35
200
15
8
14, 096
1, 416
PAGENO="0241"
235
PROSPECTUS FOR PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION UNDER THE PUBLIC BUILDINGS ACT OF 1959
(Project Number: 19-0049 (Revised))
CONSOLIDATED FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER, BELTSVILLE, MD.
1. Description of Proposed Project
The project contemplates construction of a Consolidated Federal Law En-
forcement Training Center, partly on Government-owned land and partly on
land to be acquired.
Approximate Area: Gross-772,000 sq. ft.; net-587,000 sq. ft.
2. Estimated Ma~vimum Cost of Project
Previous project Current project
(a) Site, design, management and inspection
(b) Construction
(c) Furniture and equipment
$1, 676, 000
15, 537, 000
860, 000
$4, 275, 000
43, 438, 000
4,951, 000
Total estimated maximum cost
18, 073, 000
52, 664, 000
3. Justification
A prospectus which proposed construction of a consolidated Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center at a total estimated maximum cost of $18,073,000,
was authorized by the Public Works Committees of the Congress in May 1969.
This prospectus was based on facility requirements and cost estimates coordi-
nated with an Interagency Steering Committee comprised of representatives of
law enforcement and other appropriate agencies. Subsequently, an indepth re-
view and analysis has been made of the approved prospectus and new require-
ments have been developed. These new requirements, which will provide 480,000
net assignable square feet of space, together with adjustments in previously
estimated costs and project scope, have resulted in an increase in the estimated
cost of the project and the revised project cannot be constructed within the
previously authorized limit of cost.
Significant factors which have contributed to the higher cost are increases in
the gross area. of the facility resulting from a more complete analysis of training
requirements as the basis for defining physical plant needs, costs for extra work
which will be required to meet the provisions of new legislation and regulations
designed to minimize possible adverse environmental, ecological or demographic
effects, including provision for control of air and water pollution, and Soil
erosion. Provision will also be made in the design for acoustical control of high
noise level functions, such as firing ranges, and studies have been made to ensure
minimum adverse effect of the project on local transportation, housing, and other
socio-economic systems in the area.
In addition, the expanded project will provide such additional features as
increased exterior lighting, expansion of the road and path networks, changes
in the utility systems serving the site, an audio-visual system for both education
and protectional purposes, and modifications to the dormitory facilities. There
are also added costs for outdoor weapons firing facilities and a motorcade train-
ing area which were not included in the authorized prospectus.
The project, as authorized, did not contemplate a cost for land acquisition;
however, funds are now included for the purchase of a 47 acre tract of additional
land presently in private ownership. Acquisition of this tract will allow the site
to be used for the pursuit driving course with the least displacement of vegeta-
tion and ecological impact and to be bounded by public highways, enabling the
provision of better security.
In addition, the revised authorization is based on the actual and projected
increase in the construction cost index from the original estimate in August
1968, to January 1972, the estimated date of award of construction contract.
The justification for the project, as described in the approved prospectus, has
not lessened, and the following summation of events is provided to indicate the
urgency for this facility.
36-623 0 - 74 - 16
PAGENO="0242"
236
The Cohsolidated Federal Law Enforcement Training Center will provide basic
recruit, specialized recruit, and advanced, in-service and refresher training for
18 Federal li~w enforcement agencies. (See Exhibit "A"). Training will be limited
to police officers and criminal investigators who carry firearms and have explicit
arrest authority as Federal agents. The only major agencies meeting these
criteria which will not train at the center are the Federal Bureau of Investi-
gation, the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, and the criminal investi-
gation units of the military services.
Training facilities of the participating agencies currently are not adequate.
In view of ever increasing skills and techniques required for successful law
enforcement, thorough training in the complex disciplines involved is mandatory.
This can be best achieved by extensive training in a modern facility where the
latest training techniques can be employed.
Many of the recommendations in the Report of the President's Commission on
the Assassination of President Kennedy regarding improved Secret Service
operations could only be carried out if excellent training programs were offered.
A project was developed because of the pressing need of the Secret Service for
training facilities to carry out the required training program. In April 1965, the
Committees on Public Works of the House of Representatives and the Senate
approved a prospectus in the amount of $1,349,000 for construction of a United
States Secret Service Training Center.
Later, when reviewing budget requests to fund the newly authorized project,
particularly subsequent requests for construction funds, the Bureau of the
Budget became concerned about the overall training needs not only of the Secret
Service but also of the other Federal law enforcement agencies. A study of these
needs was conducted by the Bureau of the Budget. The study revealed sub-
stantial inadequacies in existing training programs and facilities and focused*
attention on the critical need for up-to-date training facilities to be used by
most of the concerned Federal agencies.
As a result, the Bureau of the Budget formed an Interagency Steering Com-
mittee to develop plans for a facility to provide the training required. The con-
cept of the Consolidated Federal Law Enforcement Training Center was a direct
outgrowth of the work of this committee. All of the agencies involved agreed
that such a center would be the most practical and economical means of satis-
fying their training needs. By pooling their resources, they could provide better
instruction, achieve more effective utilization of a training facility and derive
many other advantages from offering common training courses. The use of
facilities now being constructed for the FBI Academy at Quantico, Virginia, was
considered, but a determination was made that those facilities would be needed
to meet the training requirements of the FBI.
Since trainees would be recruited from all over the United States. considera-
tion was given to establishment of two or more regional centers. This was con-
sidered impractical, and a concept of a joint training center sharing an esti-
mated cost of $18,073,000 was presented in a second prospectus. In May 1969, the
Committees on Public Works of the House of Representatives and the Senate
authorized construction of the proposed Center to house 750 resident students
and to supersede the prospectus for the U.S. Secret Service Training Center.
From the funds appropriated since the beginning of the project through FY
1971, approximately $1,967,000 has been obligated for construction of outdoor
firing ranges and a motorcade training area, and for master planning and design
of parts of the total center.
The planning to date indicates that a core staff should conduct the common
basic recruit training for the participating agencies. carry out research in law
enforcement training methods and curricula content, operate and maintain the
physical plant and provide necessary support services under the administrative
direction of the Secretary of the Treasury. Specialized training peculiar to a
given agency should be conducted by that agency in the center facility.
Current planning further suggests the focus of the center should consist of
a central structure providing space for administration, classroom instruction,
physical training, housing, dining, service, and maintenance. Accessory structures
and facilities located at various points on the site would provide for training in
weapons firing, crowd control, staging raids, vehicular driving and investigative
techniques, and similar courses.
A joint study by the Treasury Department and General Services Administra-
tion concluded that the most desirable location for the center would be on a
PAGENO="0243"
237
tract of primarily Government-owned land in Beltsville, Maryland. The site
is naturally bounded by the Baltimore-Washington Parkway, Powder Mill Road
and the proposed outer beltway. It contains a total of approximately 491 acres of
which 47 acres are privately owned. Ample room for expansion for the fore-
seeable future is available in the 491 acre tract. About 61 acres of that property
have been transferred to the Treasury Department for construction of ranges
and a motorcade training area. The Department of Agriculture has transferred
the remaining 383 acres of Federal land to the GSA for the center. Exhibit B
is a location map of the area and Exhibit C is a plat indicating the specific
property selected.
4. Analysis of Providing Space by New Construction Compared With Leasing
The alternate method of providing suitable space by leasing privately owned
facilities cannot be compared with the proposed installation since there is no
suitable rental space available to satisfy this unusual requirement.
5. Current Housing Costs
The current training activities and facilities vary widely in location cost and
are difficult to determine. Therefore, these costs are not provided.
6. Participating Law Enforcement Agencies
A list of participating agencies is attached as Exhibit "A".
7. Statement of Need
It has been determined that (1) the need for space for the law enforcement
activities to be accommodated in this facility cannot be satisfied by utilization
of other existing suitable property now owned by the Government and (2) suit-
able rental space is not available.
Submitted at Washington, D.C. on March 31, 1971.
Recommended: A. SAMPSON,
Commissioner, Public Buildings Service.
Approved: ROBERT L. KUNZTG,
Administrator of General Services.
PARTICI PATING LAW EN FORCEMENT AGENCI ES-SEPTEMBER 1970 ESTI MATES
Authorized New agents,
Agency agents, 1972 annually
Department of Justice:
U.S. marshals 1,776 120
Border patrol inspectors 1,659 150
Immigration investigators 832 100
Treasury Department:
Secret Service special agents 1,244 120
Executive Protective Service 829 120
Customs agents 972 122
Internal Revenue:
ATF special investigators 1,759 80
Intelligence special agents 2,053 130
Internal security inspectors 356 47
Department of the Interior:
U.S. Park Rangers 700 90
U.S. Park Police 453
Bureau of Indian Affairs:
Investigators 70 4
IndianPolice 676 30
Sport Fisheries and Wildlife:
Game management agents 175 12
Visitor protection specialists 10 3
Commerical Fisheries 1 25 3
Post Office Department2 Postal inspectors 1,550 119
Department of State: Security agents 100 15
Zoo Police, Smithsonian 31 0
Total 15,270 31,319
1 New in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce.
2 Now the U.S. Postal Service. . . .
3 In addition to the 1,319 new agents, all of whom will take either the new Police Recruitor the Basic Criminal Investigation
Recruit 12 weeks training courses at the center, agents already on board will be given refresher and specialized training
periodically. It is expected the total number of `different" students trained in any given 12 mo. period will be approximately
8,725.
PAGENO="0244"
238
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CONSOLIDATED FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
TRAINING CENTER, BELTSVILLE, MD.
(Prospectus Number-PMD--74054; Project Number-NMD-74554 (Formerly
Numbered-19--0049 Revised))
Date $ubmitted to Congress
Revised Prospectus-March 31, 1971.
I)ate of Approval by Committees on Public Works
House of Representatives-May 14, 1971.
Senate-November 18, 1971.
Design of this project has been substantially completed. The start of con-
struction was delayed by litigation which was resolved in the Government's
favor on May 8, 1974. This revised authorization request is required primarily
because of increases in the construction cost index from January 1972 to Octo-
ber 1974, the estimated date for the start of construction and added design re-
quirements due to implementation of new criteria, standards and legislative
programs. Other increases are required because of poor subsurface soil conditions
which required use of a foundation pile system for the Central Structure and
more extensive earth moving than contemplated for the Driving Ranges; because
of the expansion of the dam and lake area to have it comply with environmental
requirements; and because of inclusion of the most recent findings in the field
of personnel life safety in connection with the Driving Ranges.
Estimated maxi
mum cost
Approved
Revised
Estimated cost:
Site, design, management, and inspection
Construction
Furniture and equipment
Total cost
Approximate areas:
Gross square feet
Net square feet
Occupiable square feet
$4, 275, 000
43, 438, 000
4,951,000
~5, 556, 000
62, 700, 000
6, 139, 000
52, 664, 000
74, 395, 000
772, 000
587, 000
480, 000
700, 000
586, 000
479, 000
PROSPECTUS TO AMEND A PUBLIC BUILDING PROJEcT AUTHORIZED UNDER THE
PUBLIC BUILDINGS ACT OF 1959, AS AMENDED
(Prospectus Number: PMD-74054; Project Number: NMD-74554 (Formerly
Numbered 19-0049 Revised))
1. Description of proposed amendment:
This amendment is submitted to increase the authorized maximum limit of
cost for the public building project listed below. The justification for the project,
as described in the approved prospectus, has not lessened; however, the maximum
limit has increased above the amounts authorized by section 7(b) of the Public
Buildings Act of 1959, as amended. There is attached a detailed explanation of
the increased cost.
2. Proposed amendment:
Locatioii.-Beltsville, Md.
Project-Consolidated Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.
Total estimated maximum cost.-$74,395,000.
3. &atcment of need:
It has been determined that (1) the needs for space of the Federal Govern-
anent in this community cannot be satisfied by utilization of existing suitable
Property now owned by the Government; and (2) suitable rental space is not
available at a price commensurate with that to be afforded through the action
proposed herein.
Submitted at Washington, D.C., on June 27, 1974. -
Recommended: JOHN F. GALUARDI,
Acting Com~missioner, Pnblic Buildings Service.
A. SAMPSON,
Administrator of Goneral Services.
Approved:
PAGENO="0245"
239
AMENDED PROSPECTuS FOR CONSOLIDATED FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING
CENTER, BELTSVILLE, MD.
CHRONOLOGY
A March 2, 1965 prospectus submitted by GSA proposed construction of a
special purpose Training Center for the U.S. Secret Service of the Treasury
Department, on Government-owned land near Beltsville, Md. A 2-story 28,100
sq. ft. building was contemplated, providing classroom facilities, cafeteria, in-
door and outdoor target ranges, and parking, on a 25 acre fenced site at an
estimated cost of $1,349,000. This prospectus was approved in April 1965. Design
funds and $800,000 in partial construction funds were appropriated in 1966, and
work was begun.
Treasury Department and GSA subsequently re-evaluated the project, and de-
termined that a Consolidated Federal Law Enforcement Training Center should
be constructed for training investigators and police officers of 19 agencies who
participated in a study of law enforcement training needs. FBI had their own
training facilities and was not included, at their request. A January 13, 1969
prospectus proposed an expanded facility to accommodate 750 resident trainees
at a cost of $18,073,000, to be constructed on 60 acres of Government-owned prop-
erty. Hearings were held in May 1969 and the amended project was approved.
Due to budgetary restrictions, howev~r, appropriations were limited to less than
$2 million which were used to construct firing ranges and a motorcade training
area.
Further evaluations were made and an amended March 31, 1971 prospectus
was submitted, requesting an increase in authorization to $52,664,000 for the
project. In addition to expanded facilities, acquisition of privately owned prop-
erty was proposed, and also transfer of 838 more acres from Agriculture Depart-
ment. Proposed building space was enlarged from 467,300 to 587,000 sq. ft., and
also other elements were added. However, the planned resident trainee popula-
tion remained unchanged at 750. In the meantime, the Bureau of Narcotics and
Dangerous Drugs ceased to be a participant, having made other arrangements.
Two days of hearings were held in July 1971 and the project was approved, but
with stipulations that (1) the facilities be made available to other agencies,
(2) the drawings and specifications be reviewed by value-engineering experts in
an effort to reduce costs, and (3) no further funds be requested by GSA for the
project under any circumstances.
Soon afterward the project became enmeshed in litigation resulting from envi-
ronmental problems and was closed down until May of this year. Due to design
costs and contract awards, a total of $7,198,107 had been obligated by them.
Now a June 27, 1974 prospectus is pending which requests an increase in au-
thorization to $74,395,000 ($22 million more than the amount approved in 1971).
GSA attributes this to escalation of the construction cost index, unforeseen
foundation and excavation overruns, and design changes necessitated by energy-
conservation requirements. They state that work proposed is substantially the
same as that previously approved in 1971.
The purpose of this hearing is to re-examine basic aspects of the proposal and
determine whether the additional cost is justified.
Senator BIJRDICK. Now, would you please introduce yourselves,
gentlemen, and proceed as you wish during such time as we may
have. As I suggested, GSA witnesses are to appear first.
STATEMENTS OF LOY SHIPP, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SPACE
MANAGEMENT, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; ACCOM-
PANIED BY ROY ECKERT, PROJECT MANAGER; AND DAVID
MACDONALD, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, ENFORCEMENT, OPERA-
TIONS AND TARIFF AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY;
ACCOMPANIED BY WILLIAM BUTLER, DIRECTOR, CONSOLIDATED
FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER; AND ROBERT
G. EFTELAND, DEPUTY DIRECTOR
Mr. SHIPP. Mr. Chairman, my name is Loy M. Shipp, Assistant
Commissioner for Space Planning and Management of Public Build-
ings Service, GSA. We are pleased to be able to appear before you
PAGENO="0246"
240
today in support of the prospectus to amend the authorization for the
construction of a consolidated law enforcement training center at
Beltsville, Md. This amendment is submitted to increase the estimated
maximum cost from $52,664,000 to $74,395,000. There are a number
of aspects of this proposal which we would like to explain with the
use of several exhibits prepared for this purpose.
Mr. Roy Eckert, GSA project manager for this facility, will make
a short presentation using these exhibits after which he and Treasury
representatives will be pleased to answer questions you may have con-
cerning this project.
Mr. ECKERT. My name is Roy S. Eckert, GSA project manager for
the consolidated Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. The
prospectus amendment for the Consolidated Federal Law Enforce-
ment Training Center at Beltsville consists basically of the same
program as the previously approved prospectus. [The prospectus and
amended prospectuses appear on p. 234.]
However, because of escalation, new legislation requirements and
unforeseen conditions the estimated cost has increased. The startup
of construction has been delayed due to a lawsuit which began in
February 1972. Design is now substantially complete; the litigation
has been resolved; funds in the amount of $21 million have been ap-
portioned; and construction can now begin.
I would like to show you a plan of the site, of the existing construc-
tion and of the proposed construction.
We have obligated to date some $7.2 million and put in place con-
struction valued at over $3.6 million. The site is located in the area
of the Agriculture Research Center in Beltsville, Md., approximately
15 miles north of downtown Washington.
It is bounded on the west by the Baltimore-Washington Parkway,
on the south by Powder Mill Road and on the north by the future
outer beltway. The total acreage is 481 acres, all in U.S. land holdings.
The existing development is on the western portion of the site as noted
by the dotted line.
It includes an outdoor motorcade training area, a semienclosed fir-
ing range, a special training building of approximately 40,000 gross
square feet which includes two indoor firing ranges, classrooms and
other facilities.
The remaining construction will be developed to the east. This
includes a security control center which will monitor the entry to the
site.
The niajor construction consists of a central structure noted here
which consists of the educational area, administration area, the hous-
ing and dormitory areas, the heating and refrigeration plant, service
shops and dining room.
These two elements are connected by a student union or commons
area. The facility consists of 562,000 gross square feet with parking
facilities around the periphery for 700 vehicles. The athletic fields are
in this area. To the northwest we have a raid and crowd control train-
ing area made up of a one-story building and garage, a two-story
house and several false-front buildings.
A service garage of 17,000 gross square feet will be built in this area
to service all of the training and operational vehicles to be used on the
site.
PAGENO="0247"
241
In this area is the vehicle driving ranges. The large driving range
forming the perimeter is for high-speed pursuit training. Skill pads
are to be constructed here to be used for training in low-speed maneu-
vering. There will be a defensive driving range in this area for train-
ing in city driving.
This is a skid pan for training in control of automobiles under low
friction conditions. A driving range building of 6,000 gross square
feet will be constructed here and will include classrooms, administra-
tive offices, vehicle storage and a tower to monitor and control all
training on all of the ranges.
I would like to now show you two photographs taken of the model
of the central structure. This is a view from the southeast to the north-
west and shows the educational, academic, administration complex,
the dormitory or housing and here the dining, heating-refrigeration
and service area, all connected by the student union or commons
bridge.
The second photograph is a view looking from the southwest to
the northeast. Again it shows the educational-academic-administra-
tion area, the dormitory wings, and over here is the heating-ref rigera-
tion area with dining room and service shops. Here is the commons or
student union facility.
We have prepared a chart which identifies the elements making up
the cost increases. First, those resulting directly from litigation de-
lays; next those which are derived from additional requirements, ex-
ternal to the project over which we had no control; finally, those
which developed as a result of the development of design.
[The chart referred to follows:]
PROSPECTUS AMENDMENT INCREASE
Consolidated Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, Beltsville, Md.
Prospectus (1971) $52, 664, 000
Direct cost of delay:
Construction escalation (January 1972 to January 1974) 4, 560, 000
Construction escalation (January 1974 to award) 5, 420, 000
Furniture, equipment, escalation 1, 188, 000
Additional management, inspection 213, 000
Increase in land cost 186, 000
A/E claims 135, 000
Total 11, 702, 000
Cost of additional requirements:
OSHA, NEPA, et cetera 4, 682, 000
Energy conservation study:
Cost of study 100, 000
Redesign cost 315, 000
Total 5, 097, 000
Cost of changes:
Design and review (revised diagrammatics and miscellaneous
changes) 332, 000
Vehicle driving ranges 2, 730, 000
Dam and lake 880, 000
Pile foundation system 990, 000
Total 4, 932, 000
Grand total 74, 395, 000
PAGENO="0248"
242
Mr. ECKERT. The first category-the cost of delay. The original
prospectus which was approved by the Senate Public Works Com-
mittee in November of 1971 projected construction to start in January
1972. Between January 1972 and January 1974 considerable construc-
tion cost escalation occured. That figure is $4,560,000.
We also projected estimated escalation costs from January of 1974
to the planned date of award of the first construction contract, Octo-
ber 15, 1974. That is the $5,420,000 figure shown.
Escalation for furniture and equipment which was included in the
previous prospectus has been included in this amendment for con-
sistency. That figure is $1,188,000.
Because of the stretch out of the project there will be additional
management costs incurred by the project manager's office and due
to additional increases in site inspection costs. That figure is $213,000.
Land costs have also increased. We acquired some 46 acres from
private ownership and the increase in cost between the 1970 estimate
and the 1974 actual cost is reflected in the figure of $186,000.
The AE presented claims for additional overhead costs resulting
from the stretch out; that figure is shown as $135,000.
These costs total some $11,702,000 additional.
Next are the costs of additional requirements which were external
to the project `and beyond our control. These costs have resulted from
such things as the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the National
Environmental Policy Act, and compliance with policies concerning
noise and air pollution control, GSA fire safety criteria and other
things such as increased construction interest rates. These are noted
as $4,682,000.
Early in January of 1974, GSA came out with the Energy Conserva-
tion Guidelines and we decided to try to implement as many high
energy conservation measures as practicable. The cost of the AE
study undertaken to examine these measures is reflected as $100,000.
Assuming we will incorporate many of the recommendations result-
ing from the study into the design we have set up a projected figure of
$315,000 for redesign costs.
The last major category is cost of changes. These items emerged as
the result of the development of the design.
They include an item of $332,000 for design and review, which in-
cluded design changes at the diagrammatic stage and other miscel-
laneous changes. We had the architect redesign the diagrammatic
drawings `and as a result we saved some 72~000 gross square feet of
building space. This item includes the fee for that change and some
other miscellaneous changes.
Vehicle Driving Ranges. Reevaluation of the original design by the
engineering consultants which considered life safety criteria resulted
in a redesign which embodies the least additional work to make the
track safe within the context of the training objectives. The increased
construction cost attributable to this redesign is $2,730,000.
On the dam and lake-the original program estimate planned an
impoundment which did not include some of the design elements which
we have now found to be required. That figure is reflected in the
amount of $880,000.
PAGENO="0249"
243
On the Pile and Foundation system-due to the poor soil conditions,
the soil consultant determined that pile foundations were required in
lieu of the normal spread footings. That figure is $990,000.
This concludes our summary of the items which make up the in-
creased costs in the $74,395,000 prospectus amendment now before you.
Mr. SHIPP. Mr. Chairman, we would be pleased to answer any ques-
tions you may have at this point.
Mr. MACDONALD. Mr. Chairman, my name is David Macdonald. I
am Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Enforcement Operations,
and Tariff Affairs, and Chairman of the Board of Directors of the
Consolidated Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. I have with
me William Butler and Robert Efteland, who are the Director and
Deputy Director of the Center. WTe will also be available for questions.
I would just like to say in answer to one of the statements made in
your opening statement that the center does hold itself out to receive
all qualified applicants from all agencies with the exception of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Senator BURDICK. Do you gentlemen have any statement to make?
Mr. BUTLER. No, Mr. Chairman.
Senator BURDICK. If you have all made your statements, I have some
questions.
When the 1965 prospectus for the Secret Service Training Center
was submitted was it intended that this be part of an eventual consoli-
dated training center complex? Why then did the subsequent pro-
spectuses refer to this initial work as phase 1?
Mr. BUTLER. I can answer the first part of that, sir. The original
Secret Service center, the small one, was not intended as a part of
the larger center that has developed. The larger one is something that
was developed as a result of a study after the 1965 prospectus was
presented.
As to why it is referred to as phase 1, my only conjecture is it is just
a matter of terminology to keep it separate. Perhaps GSA could re-
spond more directly.
Mr. SHIPP. That is correct. It is just a means of identifying a seg-
ment of the total project.
Senator BURDICK. The first proposal in 1965 was for a basic training
facility to accommodate approximately 750 students on a daytime
basis. No dormitories with the campus type installation were planned.
It would have occupied only 25 acres and cost $1,349,000.
Wasn't that sufficient at that time?
Mr. BUTLER. That was planned for only the needs of the Secret Serv-
ice, sir. No other agency would have been entitled to training there
and none would have been trained there except as they might go in
at the invitation of the Secret Service.
This later and larger plan includes all of the other law enforcement
bureaus of the Treasury and the law enforcement officers from all of
the other Federal agencies with the exception of the FBI. So that
there are many, many more people that will be serviced and many
agencies which could not take care of their own law enforcement train-
ing requirements which or are to be serviced at this new facility.
PAGENO="0250"
244
Senator BURDICK. WThen the witnesses came before the committee
in 1965, did they tell us they were going to expand it to include these
other areas?
Mr. BUTLER. I think at that time, sir, the witnesses who came before
the committee were not even aware that this would occur. What hap-
pened, as I understand the background of it, was that at the time the
request for funds, for the construction of the Secret Service Training
Center went to the then Bureau of the Budget. There were other re-
quests for funds for construction of other training facilities, particu-
larly a request by the Park Police for funds to build a training center
on a site near the site of the Secret Service Center.
At that time the Bureau of the Budget held back and originated a
survey of the needs of law enforcement training for all of the Federal
officers. This developed the recommendation for the construction of
the Consolidated Federal Law Enforcement Training Center which
would incorporate what had already been planned for the Secret Serv-
ice and replace what was then tentatively being considered for the
Park Police as well as any others that might be requesting funds at
that time.
Senator BtTRDICK. Let's take another step. In 1969 just 4 years later,
the prospectus also proposed a facility for training and accommodat-
ing approximately 750 resident trainees, the same number as before,
but the cost had increased to $18,073,000. What specifically was pro-
posed at this time to justify that increase from $1,349,000 to $18,073,-
000 for the same number of trainees?
Mr. BUTLER. I don't know exactly where the 750 for the earlier
Center comes from. I am inclined to believe that that may have been
the entire personnel of the Secret Service at that time. At least there
was no intention that there would be residents at this site.
The 750 or 745 is what we refer to as a pipeline. It is a number of
students in residence at any one time and over the period of a year the
total students who will pass through and be trained there will be some
8,700 or more.
So the $18 million facility was the expansion from the small 25
acre or 60 acre Secret Service facility to the much larger Consolidated
Center.
The $18 million figure. I think, came' out of the Bureau of the
Budget study. Later, when GSA submitted the prospectus. it used
that same figure.
Senator BURDICK. Our file-we can get this clarified-indicated
it is about the same number of trainees in 1969 as there was in 1965
involved.
Mr. MACDONALD. I think there is something inaccurate about that,
Mr. Chairman. I would like to submit for the record an explanation
of that.
Senator B1IRDICK. I wish you would.
[The supplemental statement follows:]
SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT
At the hearing on August 8, questions were asked on the premise that the
Secret Service Training Center, authorized in 1965, and the Consolidated Federal
Law Enforcement Training Center, authorized in 1969. were both designed to
take care of 750 trainees This appears to be a misunderstanding.
PAGENO="0251"
245
The files of the Secret Service on the proposed Secret Service Training
Center do not show that it was designed to take care of any specific number of
trainees at one time, but in 1065 when it was authorized, the total authorized
strength of the Secret Service, including the White House Police and the
Treasury Guard Force, was less than 900. in 1968, when the Center was to have
become available, the total strength of the Secret Service, including the White
House Police and the Treasury Guard Force was 943.
The file contains an informal estimate that during the first year of the opera-
tion of the Secret Service Training Center, 1425 persons from Secret Service
would receive training at the center in courses that would be from one week to
six weeks in length. This informal estimate also shows that it was anticipated
that there might also be as many as 200 officers from state and local police
agencies who would receive a course in protective techniques that would be
approximately one week in length. None of these trainees would have been
housed or fed at the training center.
The design program for the Secret Service Training Center calls for only
three classrooms, each of which would hold 35 persons, so that no more than
105 persons could have received classroom training at the center at any one
time. There might have been additional persons trained on the firing ranges, but
it appears that it would not have been possible for the total number of persons
in training at one time to be anywhere near the 750 expected to be in training
at one time at the facilities to l)e built under the 1969 Prospectus.
A comparison of the capacities of the two centers could better be made
comparing the 1625 (1425 Secret Service personnel plus 200 local police officers)
expected to receive training in one year at the Secret Service Center with
the 8725 persons expected to receive training at the consolidated center con-
templated in the 1909 Prospectus. However, a simple mathematical comparison
would probably be misleading since a large part of the 8725 persons expected
to pass through the consolidated center were expected to attend 12-week courses
where only a comparatively small portion of the 1425 Secret Service personnel
projected for the Secret Service Center were expected to attend the six weeks
basic course for new Secret Service Agents, and most would be in attendance for
a much shorter period.
Probably the best comparison would be to take the number of students expected
to go through the tw-o training centers in a year, determine how long each
course would be. thereby determining the man weeks of training to be given,
then using the assumption on which the size of the 1969 and 1971 training work-
load for the consolidated center w-as based (that training could be given 48
weeks of the year) and divide the total man weeks of training by 48 to get the
average number to be in at a time. It w-as on this basis that the 750 pipeline
for the 1969 Prospectus and the 745 pipeline for the 1971 Prospectus were
determined.
While there are no figures to show how long the courses for the 1625
trainees at the Secret Service w-ould be, except that the 200 state and local
police would take a one-week course, it seems reasonable to assume that the
average would be two weeks. On that basis, the 1625 trainees would receive
3250 man weeks of training. Dividing that by 48 indicates that on the average,
68 trainees would be at the Secret Service Center each week.
It is believed that this estimate of an average training load of 68 persons
at the Secret Service Center authorized in 1965 would be a better figure to
use for comparison with the size of the 1969 center than the 750 trainee figure
for which no documentary support can be found. If that be accepted as accurate,
then the 1969 Prospectus would provide training facilities for about 11 times
as many trainees at the 1965 center, in addition to providing dormitory and
dining facilities for theni while the 1965 facilities would provide only for train-
ing during the daytime.
Senator Bimrncic. Who initiated and who made the study which
~ed to a determination that additiona' participants and facilities were
needed and that size of increased cost was justified?
Mr. BUTLER. Do you mean this one now?
Senator BITRDTCTc. The one between 1965 and 1969.
Mr. BUTLER. The study at that time was initiated by the Bureau of
the Budget. and carried on under the chairmanship of the Bureau of
PAGENO="0252"
246
the Budget by representatives from about 10 different agencies, the
Civil Service Commission, the White House Staff, the Treasury De-
partment, the Justice Department, Interior Department, Post Office
Department, Department of State. Department of Transportation,
Smithsonian Institution, General Services Administration, the Dis-
trict of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department.
Senator BURDICK. Did these people collectively representing the
departments determine that this was needed?
Mr. BUTLER. Yes, sir. Representatives from each of those agencies
served on this committee that was chaired by the representative of the
Bureau of the Budget.
Senator BuIWICK. I didn't think the Bureau of the Budget alone
recommended additional facilities. It must have been the departments.
Mr. BUTLER. A report came out in June 1967 that surveyed the needs
of all the agencies and the recommendation in that study, which was
put out by the Bureau of the Budget, was for the creation of a consoli-
dated law enforcement training center in place of separate facilities
for each of the different agencies.
Senator BURDICK. Were the Treasury Department and GSA prin-
cipal participants?
Mr. BUTLER. Yes, sir.
Senator BURDICK. I do not know how many security agencies GSA
has at this time for training, in the 1969 prospectus, it indicates that
while the Treasury Department had 5,620, Justice Department had
4,378, nearly 80 percent as many.
Why didn't they also take a leading part in this? They were used in
justification and proposal. I am talking about the Justice Department.
Mr. BUTLER. The Justice Department was a part, representatives of
the Justice Department were a part of the study group, sir.
Senator BURDICK. Why did the 1,174 narcotics agents subsequently
drop out who are listed as program students in the 1969 prospectus?
Mr. MAcDONALD. The status of that results from an exchange of let-
ters between George Shultz and the then Attorney General. The At.-
torney General said that the nature of drug enforcement training re-
quired very specialized trainers, instructors, and facilities. Mr. Shultz
was at that time, I believe, the Director of the Office of Management
and Budget. He agreed by a letter that. the training of what was then
the BNDD would at that time not be included in the CFLETC but
that the matter would be reviewed at a future date. That is where the
matter now stands, as I understand it.
Senator BURDICK. IJnder the present plans the narcotics agents
aren't to be students?
Mr. BUTLER. It is a bit difficult to answer that question, sir. We do
not have them in our projection at this time. We have maintained that
if they want to come for training, we will take care of their training
needs. But they are not a part of the projections that we have made at
this time, sir.
Senator BURDICK. But they were in the 1969 prospectus.
Mr. BUTLER. Yes, sir.
Mr. MACDONALD. I suppose this is a question that might be answered
better by the Justice Department than by us. We hold ourselves out. to
give them their basic training and would be happy to do so.
PAGENO="0253"
247
Senator BtJRDICK. But there is what bothers this committee and me.
We have the extensive facilities of the FBI. This is supposed to be a
combined facility. Now we have a third facility for the narcotics
agents. It seems to me there is going to be some duplication along the
line here.
We have one for narcotics agents, one for the FBI agents and one
for somebody else. Now the costs have escalated from $1,300,000 to $75
million. That is a pretty heavy escalation when you consider the other
facilities.
Mr. BUTLER. Let me str~~ighten out one thing. The escalation from
the $1,300,000 facility at the 1965 prices to the present facility was a
major expansion of the program. This is a much larger facility than
the one for which the $1.3 million was authorized. From the facility
for which $18 million was authorized up to the present the program
has remained essentially the same. It is other factors that have caused
the increases.
Senator BURDICK. Your square footage of the buildings on the $18
million project is about the same now, isn't it?
Mr. BUTLER. Yes, sir.
Senator BURDIcIC Yet, the costs went from $18 to $75 million.
Mr. BUTLER. That is correct, sir. The explanation of the costs from
the increase from the $18 to the $52.6 million that is presently author-
ized was explained at the time of the 1971 hearings. I can repeat the
essence of that testimony.
Senator BURmCIc. It is a. fact that the facilities are substantially the
same in size now as they were in the 1969 prospectus.
Mr. BUTLER. That is correct, sir. In fact, redesign has made them
slightly smaller.
Senator B1IRDICK. It was $18,073,000 at that time.
Mr. BUTLER. That was the estimate.
Mr. MACDONALD. I think the difference between the $18 and the $52
million-
Senator BURDICK. I am talking about $75 million, the price tag
today.
Mr. MACDONALD. Both of those figures, the $18 to $52 to $75 million
might be explained by GSA.
Mr. SHIPP. Mr. Chairman, at the time we submitted the prospectus
to increase the authorization from $18 to $52 million, there were ap-
proximately four principal factors related to the increased costs.
First of all, there was the cost of extra work which was being re-
quired to meet the provisions of new legislation and regulations de-
signed to minimize possible adverse environmental, ecological or
demographic effects, including provision for control of air and water
pollution, and soil erosion.
Provision will also be made in the design for acoustical control of
high noise level functions, such as firing ranges, and studies have been
made to insure minimum adverse effect of the project on local trans-
portation, housing, and other socio-economic systems in the area.
In addition, the expanded project will provide such additional fea-
tures as increased exterior lighting, expansion of the road and path
networks, changes in the utility systems serving the site, an audio-
visual system for both education and protectional purposes, and modi-
fications to the dormitory facilities.
PAGENO="0254"
248
Third. there was a matter of additional land costs because we had
to acquire an additional 47 acres to provide the proper amount of land
for the facility.
j: dlv. there was the escalation in construction costs between 1968
an~ 1972. Tn general, the increase from $18 million to $52 million was
justified on the basis of these four principal factors.
Senator BURDICIc. In the 1969 prospectus including the number of
authorized agents or students for fiscal year 1973-1974. it was sub-
mittecL the justification was for requested increase in funds from $1.3
million to $18 million at that time.
Nine hundred TJ.S. marshals were listed and it is stated that 65 new
marshals would be recruited annually. Yet, the 1971 prospectus sub-
mitted only 27 months later stated that the 1,776 were authorized in
program and that 120 new ones would be recruited annually.
This would help justify a cost increase from $18 million to $52 mil-
lion. The 1969 prospectus further stated that 780 Treasury Depart-
ment Secret Service agents were authorized, yet the 1971 prospectus
showed L244.
This represents an increase of 60 percent in the aut.horized Secret
Service agents in 27 months. Can these figures be verified first or were
they adjusted for the purpose of increasing staff estimates to justify
this project or were they adjusted to make up for the 1.174 Narcotics
Bureau agents who were dropped out of this program and have gone
elsewhere?
Mr. BUTLER. The number of agents projected were based on state-
ments made to the center personnel who put together the material for
the prospectus to the best estimates that those people could give them
as to what was then authorized and what was then expected in the
future.
We continually receive from the participating agencies a report of
their projected training needs and of their authorized agencies and
there usually are changes. For instance, returning to the marshals,
our projection for fiscal 1975 on the marshals made just last fall was
that the marshals would have 1,500. That was after the budget had
gone from the 0MB to the Congress. But after the Congress got
through with it, they came back and reported to us that their author-
ized strength would be only 1,300 or a little less than 1.300.
Many of the changes are the result of that sort of variations, either
an inciease in responsibility of the agencies and more agencies put in
or the result of a. cut of their personnel.
The figures put in there are the best ones that we can come up with
at any one time on the basis of the information furnished to us by the
agencies.
Senator BURDICK. It looks to me that the increase that you refer to
just about offsets the 1,174 Narcotics Bureau agents that have dropped
out of the program.
Mr. MACDONAD. It was not done for that purpose. Let me assure you.
Senator BURDICK. It looks that way mathematically.
Mr. BUTLER. The appearance is there, but I assure you, Mr. Chair-
man, it is a matter of coincidence in putting the thing together. Just
as more recent studies that we have made, and more recent data that
we have obtained, shows a much h1gher number of personnel in the
agencies than were reflected in the data submitted in 1969 or again in
1971.
PAGENO="0255"
249
Mr. EFTELAND. Mr. Chairman, I was the acting director at the time
the new figures were put together. This was in 1970 and 1971, at that
time and we had the projectioils that were in the 1968 proposal.
The 1968 proposal contained projections that were from 2 to 3 years
out of date. We therefore asked the agencies to provide projections
for fiscal year 1973 through fiscal year 1982.
We took the figures for fiscal year 1977, the midpoint in the period,
to project the needs.
The number of new agents annually project for fiscal year 1977 ran
to 2,557 agents. This was cut by the Bureau of the Budget to a figure
of 1,519 and at that time the exchange of letters that the Assistant
Secretary referred to had taken the BNDD out of the Center and the
1,519 was reduced to 1,319, which was the basis for the estimation of
the size facilities that we needed. The 1,319 figure was the basis for
the 1971 prospectus.
Senator BURDICK. At the 1971 hearing before this committee to
justify an increase in costs from $18 million to $52 million the Treas-
ury Department witness said, and I quote him:
I think we have the most accurate estimate possible of what is presently
required.
Was this based on 780 agents or 1,244? Call you tell me?
Mr. MACDONALD. You mean 745 in the pipeline at any given time
which, depending upon the length of training, can work out to train-
ing a multiple of that number, probably around between three and
four times that number.
Mr. EFTELAND. It takes a pipeline of 8,725 different students being
trained anywhere from 1 day up to 12 weeks and when you average
this out, it comes out to the pipeline of 745 and all facilities were
generally projected to take care of that, sir.
Mr. MACDONALD. But I think at that time there was a 1971 state-
ment. At that time the proposal was $52 million?
Senator BuiuIuK. That is the time von went from $18 million to
$52 million.
Mr. MACDONALD. Yes. At that time I think that was a fairly correct
statement. That was fairly accurate in 1971. The changes that have
occurred since that time are not changes in the program. There are a
few changes in design, but by and large the changes as GSA has
pointed out, are inflationary changes, changes caused by the legal re-
quirements of complying with OSHA and with NEPA and the other
laws that have been passed in the interim that bear on the construc-
tion and operation of facilities, sir.
Senator BURDICK. During the 1971 hearing GSA admitted to having
made a $6,477,000 mistake in their estimate due to a mixup in com-
puting areas. They also disclosed that no provision had been made
for escalation which added another $10 million, that the need for a
boiler plant and other things had been overlooked.
Is this consjdered good estimating?
Mr. Srnpr. I would not consider it good estimating, Mr. Chairman.
Senator BURDICK. Pardon?
Mr. SHIPP. I would not consider it good estimating.
Senator BIJRDICK. Thank you for your frankness. In view of the
history of this project, doesn't this prospectus leave the door open for
PAGENO="0256"
250
additio~ial unknown future costs like energy conservation measures
not yet determined in the design, to continue the cost escalation and
redesign costs? Is there an end?
Mr. ECKERT. Mr. Chairman, we think we have included all of the
costs perceived for the future. They are included in our prospectus
amendment presently now before you, sir. It does include such things
as energy problems.
Senator BURDICIc. Do you think it is possible this project can be
scaled down and revised so it can still be constructed within the $52,-
600,000 authorized?
Mr. BtITLER. Mr. Chairman, during the time of the delay from the
lawsuit that held us up for so long, we carried on a continual study
of reducing the costs of the program to keep it within the authorized
$52.6 million.
We found various things that we could cut out and reduce to keep
the project within what was then estimated to be the escalation, until
we found out that it wouldn't be possible to start construction in the
first of January of 1974. That was also just about the time the heavy
escalation from the energy crunch was hitting. The study that we had
going on at that time just indicated that if we tried to build the fa-
cilities with only the $52.6 million we would have to make such a major
change in the program, perhaps leave out something like the dormi-
tories entirely, that we just wouldn't have a facility that would func-
tion the way this was planned to function.
Senator BURDICK. I am going to yield to Senator Scott for the
moment. He has another engagement.
Senator SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your yield-
ing and also the question you were asking.
I have a considerable concern about this project and have macIc
that concern known to the General Services Administration.
Let me ask all of you gentlemen. Do you conceive that this com-
mittee does have jurisdiction and that you have no authority to go
ahead and construct, this building without. the approval of this com-
mittee? Is that conceded?
If it isn't, we are wasting our time. We might. as well do what you
think you want to do.
Mr. MACDONALD. I am advised, in the first place we think it is
highly desirable to go back to Congress generally when there is this
kind of a change. I should say that as a matter of policy.
I think the Treasury feels that way and has always felt that way
with almost any program.
Second, I do believe that there is an inflation factor that we could
have worked-
Senator Scoru. I am not asking you to justify now. I am asking
you do you conceive that this committee has authority over whether
you can construct this building or not under the Public Buildings
Act?
Mr. MACDONALD. Yes, we do.
Senator SCOTT. That is also true with the-
Mr. Siiipp. Yes, sir. GSA agrees with that.
Senator Scorr. Having said that, are all of you gentlemen familiar
with the letter that the chairman of this committee wrote on Novem-
PAGENO="0257"
251
her 20, 171, and the restrictions that are put in that letter on your
authorization to proceed when the committee approved the $52 million
figure
Mr. Sm~p. Yes, sir.
Mr. Brrri~ER. Yes, sir.
Senator SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I would ask consent to insert that
letter in the record at this point.
Senator BURDICK. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[The letter referred to follows:]
U.S. SENATE,
COMMITThE ON PUBLIC WORKS,
Washington, D.C., November 20, 1971.
Hon. ROBERT L. KuNzIG,
Administrator, General services Administration,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR Mn. KuNzm: Pursuant to the provisions of the Public Buildings Act of
1959, as amended, enclosed is a resolution adopted by the Committee on Public
Works on November 18, 1971, approving the revised prospectus for the Consoli-
dated Federal Law Enforcement Training Center at Beltsville, Maryland, dated
March 31, 1971.
In approving this revised prospectus, the Committee set forth the following
conditions:
(1) That the Training Center be available as a training facility for criminal
law enforcement personnel of the civilian Federal agencies, except the FBI, in-
cluding but not limited to, the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, the
U.S. Capitol Police, the General Services Administration, and all components of
the Department of Agriculture;
(2) That at such time as plans, design, and specifications for the Center are
complete, and prior to advertising for construction bids, the General Services
Administration shall have these plans and specifications reviewed by experts in
Value Engineering for the purpose of reducing costs of construction through
more efficient space design and the use of the most economical materials; and
(3) That the Center be completed within the authorized costs as set forth in
the revised prospectus, and under no conditions request the Committee to further
increase the authorization.
While the above conditions have not been incorporated in the body of the
Resolution, they are, nevertheless, a part of the approval action and it is the
Committee's desire that they be complied with.
With warm regards,
Truly,
JENNINGS RANDOLPH, Chairnian.
Senator SCOTT. It does say that this is the limit, and not to come back
here for any more, any increase and this is the decision of the commit-
tee as indicated by Mr. Randolph who was the chairman then and is
still chairman of our full committee.
My concern, Mr. Chairman, is that each member-I assume the
members of the subcommittee and chairman of the full committee, the
ranking member of the full committee-received a letter dated June 6
from the Administrator of General Services, Mr. Sampson.
The last sentence in the last paragraph says: "In an effort to try to
reduce overall costs, I am advising the Committee on Public Works I
plan to proceed with advertising and awarding of bids for the site
preparation and initial items of construction unless you advise me
within 30 days that you object to this course of action."
That seems a rather pompous, contemptuous statement, contempt
for this committee its authority,, to say I am going to do it unless you
take action' within 30 days.
`36-823-----74----17
PAGENO="0258"
252
Do you feel this is a proper thing and can you speak for the General
Services Administration on this, Mr. Shipp.
Mr. Siiipr. Senator Scott, at the time this letter was written it was
the legal position of the Administrator-
Senator SCOTT. I can't hear you, sir.
Mr. Srnpr. At the time the letter was written, it was the legal posi-
tion of the Administrator that lie could proceed with certain awards
and that is so indicated in the letter. I do not have a formal written
legal opinion in that regard.
Since that letter was written, lie has recoiisidered the entire matter
and has stated that as a policy matter no awards will be made until
the committee gives us the increased authorization.
Senator SCOTT. How far has he gone pursuant to this? Has he ad-
vertised for bids now?
Mr. Smri'. Yes, sir, lie has. However, in the invitation for bids we
have put the bidders on notice-or we are putting them oii notice that
no award caii be made until we do have proper authorization.
Senator SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I would ask permission to insert a
copy of the letter from the Administrator of GSA in the record, the
one I referred to.
Senator BURDIcIC Without objection, it is so ordered.
[The letter referred to follows:]
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
Washington, D.C., June 6, 1974.
Ho11. HOWARD H. BAKER, Jr.,
Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Public Works, U.S. Senate, Wash-
ington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR BAKER: On May 8, 1974, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia affirmed the May 11, 1973, judgment of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia dismissing the action under the National
Environmental Policy Act against the Secretary of the Treasury and the Admin-
istrator of the General Services Administration (GSA), which action prevented
completion of the facilities for the Consolidated Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center (CFLETC), Belt'sville, Maryland. Consequently, the Executive
Branch is now free of legal restraint on the completion of this project.
Design of this project is essentially complete; however, estimates of the cost
of construction now are that the planned facilities cannot be completed for the
$52.6 million authorized by the approval of the revised prospectus submitted on
March 31, 1971. The normal procedure would be to submit a revised prospectus
or a prospectus amendment to the Public Works Committees of the House and
Senate and await action on that prospectus before resuming the construction at
Beltsville. Processing such a revised prospectus in the normal manner could re-
sult in that prospectus being forwarded to the Congress about August 15, 1974.
I ani fully aware that considering the anticipated schedules and the other
duties of the Congress, it would be unreasonable to expect action on a prospectus
submitted that late during this session of Congress, and that action could be
deferred until the early days of the new Congress. For that reason the GSA and
the Treasury Department are making a particular effort to process the prospectus
amendment promptly, and to obtain approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (0MB) for the submission of it. We have set June 30, 1974, as our
taiget date to get the prospectus to the Congress.
A current estimate of the cost of constructing the Beltsville facilities is about
$74.4 million, an increase of $21.8 million over the authorization given in 1971.
This estimate is based on starting construction in October of 1974. If it is neces-
sary to hold up the start of construction later than that, the increase in cost
estimated to be about $500,000 a month. Similarly, if construction can start
earlier, and there are no delays because of lack of funds, savings at about the
same rate can be realized.
PAGENO="0259"
253
There is now underway a study to determine how these facilities can be modi-
fled to reduce the amount of energy that will be needed to operate them. We
do not expect to have the results of that study before the prospectus amendment
is submitted to you. Consequently, if the study report indicates that substantial
changes in the already completed plans and specifications for this project are
advisable to conserve energy, it could become necessary to revise the cost esti-
mates in the amended prospectus. However, I feel that the cost of delay through
escalation of construction costs is so high that we should not wait until tins
study is completed before we start the initial part of the construction, particu-
larly since we do not anticipate that the study report will recommend any changes
in those first items of construction.
Since the project is essentially the same as that originally submitted on March
31, 1971, I am hopeful that your Committee will approve the prospectus amend-
ment. Assuming the Executive Branch can submit the prospectus amendment
to you by June 30 and the two Public Works Committees could complete action
in 45 days, there would be a time lapse from now until the Committees' approvals,
which means escalation of about $500,000 per month to the project.
In an effort to try to reduce overall costs, I am advising the Committee on
Public Works I plan to proceed with advertising and awarding of bids for the
site preparation and initial items of construction unless you advise me within
30 days that you object to such course of action.
Sincerely,
ARTHUR F. SAMPSON,
AdmInistrator.
Senator Sco~. A copy of my response to the Administrator, a copy
of the letter to the General Accounting Office, asking for a ruling
from the General Accounting Office as to the authority of the General
Services.
[The letters and response referred to follow:]
U.S. SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS,
Washington, D.C., June 20, 1974.
Hon. Dicrc CLARK,
404 ~S'enate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR DICK: I believe the Administrator of General Services is presumptuous
in indicating he is going ahead with construction of the Federal Law Enforce-
ment Training Center at Beltsville, Maryland, as indicated in his letter of June 6,
a copy of which is enclosed, unless the Committee advises him to the contrary,
within the next 30 days.
A copy of my response to the Administrator and of a letter to the Comptroller
General, requesting to be advised whether or not this is proper, are enclosed for
your information.
In my opinion we have a difficult enough job without the Athninistrator corn-
pounding it. You will note, however, that he intends to get the prospectus to us
by the end of the month, and I believe we should attempt to consider it as
promptly as possible after our return from the Independence Day recess.
With kind regards,
Sincerely,
WILLIAM L. SCOTT, U.S.S.
Enclosures.
U.S. SENATE,
Washington, D.C., June 20, 1974.
HOn. ARTHUR F. SAMPSON,
Administrator, General ~Services Administration,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. ADMINISTRATOR: I have your letter of June 6 regardin~ conStruction
of a Consolidated Federal Law Enforcement Training Center at Beltsville Mary-
land, indicating that, unless advised to the contrary by the Committee on Public
Works within 30 days, you intend to proceed w-ith advertising and the awarding
of bids for the site preparation and initial items of construction.
I am concerned about the wisdom of proceeding in this case without approval
of the amended prospectus by the proper committees of the 1-louse and Senate.
PAGENO="0260"
254
Baying tried unsuccessfully to reach you by telephone to discuss this matter7 I
ani requesting the General Accounting Office to provide an opinion on whether
it is appropriate that GSA proceed in this fashion.
If you believe there is any need for legislation in this area, I of course will be
pleased to work with you to evaluate such a change.
With kind regards,
Sincerely,
WILLIAM L. SCOTT, LT.S.S.
15.5. SENATE,
Washington, D.C., June 20, 1074.
Hon. ELMER B. STAATS,
Comptroller General of the United States,
Geaerai Accounting Office, TlTcrshington, D.C.
DEAR GENERAL STAATS: Enclosed is a copy of a letter, dated June 6, from the
Administrator of General Services, indicating that he intends to proceed with
advertising and the awarding of bids for the site preparation and initial items of
construction of the Consolidated Federal Law Enforcement Training Center at
Beltsviile, Maryland, unless advised to the contrary by the Committee on Public
Works within 30 days.
As explained in the letter, this project has been subject to a variety of delays;
and although the Congressional committees have authorized construction at a
construction cost of $52.6 million, the current estimate of construction is about
Z74.4 million, an increase of $21.8 million.
I would appreciate your opinion on whether it is appropriate for the Adminis-
trator of General Services to advertise and let bids for a portion of any project
when it is known that the existing authorization ceiling is inadequate to com-
plete the project.
With best wishes,
Sincerely,
Wu~LL&M L. SCOTT, 15.5.5.
GENERAL SERvIcEs ADMINISTRATION,
Washington,D.U., August. 7, 1974.
Hon. WILLIAM L. SCOTT,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR SCoTT: Thank you for your letter of June 20, 1974, advising
that you have requested the General Accounting Office for an opinion whether
we could proceed with advertising and award of the first phases of construction
of the Consolidated Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, Beltsville, Mary-
land project.
It is my understanding that your Subcommittee on Public Buildings and
Grounds will hear the Beltsville prospectus amendment on August 8. I appreciate
the Subcommittee's timely consideration of this project anft my staff has been
meeting with the Subcommittee staff to resolve any questions.
Although the advertising and bidding process has been initiated in an effort
to cut cost escalation, you may be sure that award of initial construction con-
tracts will not occur prior to approval of the Beltsville amendment by the
Senate and House Committees on Public Works. Do not hesitate to contact me if
you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
ALLAN C. KAUPINEN,
Assistant Administrator.
JUNE, 26, 1974.
Hon. ELMER B. STAATS,
Comptroller General of the United States,
General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C.
DEAR GENERAL STAATS: This refers to our letter of June 20, 1974, regarding
the contemplated action of the Administrator of General Services to advertise
and award bids for site preparation and initial items of construction for the
Consolidated Federal Law Enforcement Training Center at Beltsville, Maryland.
PAGENO="0261"
255
Your opinion was requested as to whether it was appropriate under the conch-
tions mentioned therein for the Administrator of General Services to advertise
and let bids for the project. In making your determination of the matter. the
enclosed copy of a letter, dated November 20, 1971, from the Chairman of the
Senate Committee on Public Works to the then Administrator granting condi-
tional approval of the project for a lesser amount than the present estimated
cost, may be helpful.
With kind regards,
Sincereh~,
WILLIAM L. SCOTT, U.S.S.
Senator SCOTT. I am told by the General Accounting Office that they
have asked the General Services Administration for their position.
They have received no response. Could you tell us about this?
Mr. Siiirr. Yes, sir. On July 15 the General Accounting Office wrote
a letter to the Administrator-
Senator SCOTT. July 15?
Mr. SIIIrP. July 15, yes, sir. They wrote to the Administrator ask-
ing for a report. We have prepared that response and it is being
mailed to the GAO today. In that response-
Senator SCOTT. You might carry it over there, you know, if you
are in a hurry to get this approved because, as far as this one Senator
is concerned, I have a reluctance to vote favorably on this thing if
you continue to show this kind of contempt for this committee.
Frankly, expressing only my own views~ the Congress, you know,
i~nder the Constitution controls the purse strings. We do have the
Public Buildings Act and we have heel recent examples of arrogance
on the part of the executive branch of the Government.
WTe are seeing the results of that. I have been one that has firmly
supported the Administration. I would want to work with the Admin-
isti'ator of General Services. If he shows contempt for the Congress
and for this committee, then I will not work with him.
I don't believe any member of this committee will react favorably
to any disrespect for our committee and for the chairman, as expressed
in his letter.
Do you feel that you can-I believe the chairman just asked the
question-do you feel that on can pioceed under this November 21,
1971, authorization at this $52.6 million authorization and to what
extent can von meet the needs of the consolidated training school with
your present authorization?
WThat would you have to eliminate to meet this? This is all you have
authority to do, in my opinion.
Mr. Sn~rr. Senator Scott, after exhaustive study of the alternatives,
it has been determined that a viable training facility that will meet
the. needs of the agencies involved cannot be ~roduced at the $52 niii-
lion level.
Senator SCOTT. Suppose the Congress doesn~t-I realize. You see,
I have been in the Government a long time. While I am new in the
Senate, I was over in the House. I know that the executive depart-
ments continue to come back and they have raised the amount and
the Congress authorizes it and we reauthorize and we rubberstamp
whatever they do.
This letter from Mr. Sampson, saying we are going to do it unless
you tell us to the contrary, putting the burden on us to say no when
in my opinion you don't have any authority to do a thing until this
committee says you can do it.
PAGENO="0262"
256
This is not a good thing. It is not a way for anybody in the execu-
tive branch of the Government to act. I am asking if this is all you
have~ and if this is all you will get, not suggesting that we are not
going to go ahead and rubberstamp again before the thing is over,
I have a reluctance to do it.
The chairman can speak for himself and the other members of the
committee, but suppose we don't do anything else. Then what are
you going to do?
Mi~. Smrp. My reaction to that would be that we would have to
consult with the Treasury Department very seriously about what
further course of action we couldpursue.
Senator SCOTT. Am I correct, and I don't know whether I am or
not, but am I correct in that we have a consolidated agency for the
purpose of furnishing buildings for all of the Government depart-
ments and agencies now?
That is the General Services Administration and regardless of
what the Treasury Department wants, you folks are the ones that
are supposed to consider the views and to make this determination
and recommend it to the appropriate committees of the Congress.
Is the burden on you in this respect?
Mr. Si-iirr. We have a certain burden with regard to providing
theseS facilities, hut we also have the responsibility of providing
facilities that will assure efficient operation in performance of the
missions of the agencies to be housed in those facilities.
So we cannot impose our own ideas as to just what kind of train-
ing facilities should be constructed. These facilities have to be based
on the requirements as communicated to us by the agencies who will
function in them.
If we cannot provide the facilities they need, it is as though we
didn't provide them at all.
Senator SCOTT. Who decides whether this is the facility they need
or not? Do they decide or do you decide? Can you veto what they
ask ou to do?
Mr. SrnPP. Through a series of discussions we try to be responsive
to their needs. Any time we feel that we have sufficient grounds to
say that what they are asking for is excessive or of that nature,
then we would suggest to them that the scope of the project should
be reduced or otherwise changed.
Senator SCOTT. I don't have any reservations at all what you should
try to work out between the various Government agencies, but I
am asking who has the final authority? Does the Administrator of
General Services or does someone in oiie of the executive departments
or agencies? In this case the Treasury Department.
Mr. 5i-iipr. The final authority ultimately rests in the Administrator
in that lie can refuse to submit a prospectus seeking authorization.
Senator SCOTT. That is the only answer that I wanted on this.
Mr. Chairman, I am not satisfied with the way that this has
progressed. I have only served on this subcommittee for 2 years. I
have seen this in the prospectuses that have come before our subcom-
mittee many times, that, the amount has been raised and I realize that
in this particular instance that you have had some handicaps and the
suit was brought against you, the efforts to comply with new laws that
Congress has even acted.
PAGENO="0263"
257
But, you know, I am concerned about this deficit in our budget and
the amount of it and the inflation that we have. I feel that when Con-
o'ress approves something and then it comes back and they approve it
second time and then it comes back and they approve it a third time,
for still a greater amount when it has grown from something in the
neighborhood of $2 million to $25 million, it looks to me like that is
enouoh rather than to go on to the $74 million.
I ~preciate the Chair yielding to me. I do have a 12 o'clock lunch-
eon engao'ement. Mr. Chairman, my own suggestion, and I hope you
will consi~ier that, is that the staff check this more carefully and advise
the~ members of the subcommittee, furnish their recommendations as
to what we should do.
It is not my job to chastise any witnesses that appear before our
committee. But I just detest arrogance and that letter was arrogant
in my opinion.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator BiJRDICK. I have another area that bothers me. Is there any-
body here representing the Attorney General's Office?
We have authorized a muitimillion dollar FBI Building. I know
there are law enforcement officers in my State who go there for peri-
odic training.
Senator SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, if you would yield, I believe they
have a new building down at Quantico to train.
Senator BimDICK. I want to know something about whether these
facilities are inadequate for that purpose. Do you have any testimony
like that?
Mr. MACDONALD. Yes, absolutely.
Mr. BuTLER. I am not sure that I understood your question, Mr.
Chairman; was it why we could not train at Quantico where the FBI
does its training?
Senator BURDICK. Or some other place under, that is under jurisdic-
tion of the FBI.
Mr. BUTLER. This facility started after the FBI's new academy at
Quantico was already underway. In 1965, when the original request
for the Secret Service Training Center was presented, there was con-
sideration given to consolidating the small Secret Service Training
with the FBI Academy. The decision was made at that time that it
could not be done or it wouldn't be efficient to do it.
Then later on at other times that question was reconsidered. In 1971,
when the $52.6 million prospectus was before this committee a very
thorough study was macic of the possibility of consolidating the facil-
ities. At that time the conclusion was reached that it would not save
money because the FBI facilities are programed to be used to capacity
and these facilities are programed to be used to capacity. There are
only a couple of rather minor things which could be used in conjunc-
tion. One would be an auditorium and the other a library. For the rest
of the things, the classrooms, the dormitories, and so forth, the same
amount would have to be constructed whether it was constructed at
Quantico or at Beltsville, and the Marines testified Ill the 1971 hear-
ings that there wasn't space available at Quantico, where that could
be done.
Money has already been committed. At this stage in the game, if we'
would try to move to Quantico, we would have to duplicate at Quan-
PAGENO="0264"
258
tico, or any other location, the same facilities that are planned for
Beltsville without being able to save any substantial amount, and there
would be some increase in operational costs resulting from that.
Senator BuRmcIc I don't quite follow that. Are you going to have
two administrations? You mean to say that two administrations are
cheaper than one?
Mr. BUTLER. The basic administrative costs, I don't think are a
mai or~
Senator BURDICK. You mean to say it is cheaper to have two sets?
Mr. BUTLER. It would take the same number of people to clean up
two separate facilities as it would to clean up one of the same size and
maintain it.
There would probably be, when you reach the top level of manage-
ment, a certain reduction there, although this has not been thoroughly
studied. I couldn't make a completely responsive answer to that par-
ticular question. The study that I have worked on didn't go into that
aspect.
It was just a matter of combining the training facilities not the ad-
ministrative facilities.
It was determined that there would be no saving in combining the
training facilities.
Senator BURDICK. I would like to get their present views on this
possibility.
The next question I have got is, is there going to be a separate facil-
ity asked for the 1,174 Narcotics Bureau Agents? Would there he
a third facility we will have to build?
Mr. MACDONALD: ~Te would like to be able to train those agents. I
think that question really should be addressed to the~ Justice
Department.
Senator BURDICK. The staff advises me that there is consultation
going on with the Drug Enforcement people, that they do want an-
other facility. Have you heard anything about this?
Mr. Smpp. Yes, sir, I have. The top administrative man. Mr. Coon.
who is with PEA, came to see me about 0 weeks ago. saying that they
had been looking at various locations where they might establish a
training center of their own.
Our conversation did not go beyond that particular fact that they
were looking and they were thinking about establishing a center. To
the best of my knowledge they have made no request to GSA or com-
mirnicated to us in any formal way over the signature of a responsible
official of that agency a request for the development of such a center.
Senator BURDICK. You don't include it in the program now. They
have been thinking about a facility. So it looks highly suspicious to
me that they are after their own facility.
Mr. MACDONALD. On July 31, 1974 pursuant to the old exchange of
correspondence between 0MB Director George Shultz and the then
Attorney General, we invited the Justice Department to reconsider the
Drug Enforcement Training situation.
On July 31, 1974, a letter was written to the Justice Department
offering to develop a program at the Center which would take care of
their training needs.
Senator BURDICK. That is just conversation. That is just an offer.
Here the other conversation indicates they want their own facility. We
can't go on conversation.
PAGENO="0265"
259
Mr. MACDONALD. It is news to us.
Senator BunDIcic. This is a complicated problem and the taxpayers
spend a ~ot of money on the FBI facilities. I don't know whether we
could justify two more facilities or not.
We have a statement from Mr. Davis S. Aflshouse of the Depart-
meiit of Agriculture which, without objection, will be placed in the
record.
[The statement follows:]
STATEMENT OF DAvID S. ALLSHOUSE, ACTING ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
INVESTIGATION, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
The Office of Investigation and the Forest Service employs all the criminal
investigators in the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The following statement is
directed to their planned participation in the Federal Law Enforcement Train-
ing Center.
OFFIdE OF INVESTIGATION (01)
The Office of Investigation is the investigation arm of the Department reporting
directly to the Secretary~ It employs most of the criminal investigators (Special
Agents) operating in the Department. 01 has no facility designed for its train-
ing needs. New hires receive short office orientation followed by several months
of on-the-job training under experienced investigators. The OJT is followed by
a two week formal orientation course which emphasizes professional ethics
and standard investigative techniques including interviewing, report writ-
ing and case studies. Later, special training is derived by rotating assignments,
by special courses in rules of evidence, court room and grand jury procedures
and other specialized techniques related to criminal investigations.
01 does plan to participate in the federal training center. We believe it will
provide the most comprehensive basic criminal investigator training available
to our special agents. It will be the only facility we will have which is devoted
to training.
01's authorized fiscal 1975 strength is 239 field investigators. Our plan is to
send 30 agents through the facility this fiscal year and to continue to send an
average of 40 men to the center annually. On July 25, 1974 01 began a survey to
determine our training needs more precisely. Questionnaires have been distributed
to each of our investigators which, when completed and analyzed, will provide
nn accurate basis for determining individual as well as agency training needs.
The result of the survey will affect the use 01 makes of the training center.
FOREST SERVICE
The Forest Service is a fully participating agency in the Consolidated Federal
Law Enforcement Training Center. We expect to continue this participation.
The purpose of this participation is to train Forest Officers with law enforce-
ment responsibilities in Federal law enforcement and investigative procedures.
We plan to train replacements for the present Forest Service criminal investi-
gators, when they retire, transfer or leave the Forest Service, and to train new
investigators as they are employed by the Forest Service. At present we have
39 investigators and this number is likely to increase in the future. We would
also train other Forest Officers who have law enforcement responsibilities. In
addition, we plan to conduct refresher, in-service and specialized training at the
facility. We estimate annual training for approximately 25 Forest Service per-
sonnel. The Forest Service does not have a law enforcement training facility.
In the past 20 Forest Service investigators and three other Forest Officers have
been trained at the Consolidated Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.
Eleven investigators have been trained at other Federal training facilities-
FBI Academy, military and other Federal facilities. Eight investigators on duty
now have not been trained at a Federal facility and training is planned in the
next year. One hundred and fifty one Forest Officers have been trained at State
or local police academies.
Senator BTIRDICK. Gentlemen. thank you very much. I am not on
this subcommittee and, as a resiilt, it is all new to me. I am just trying
to find out as much as I can about it.
PAGENO="0266"
260
We will keep the hearings open. In the meantime, I will contact the
Attorney General's Office for more information.
I believe there are some questions that Senator Scott h'~s and theic
will be. some questions that the staff has which we will* submit to you
in writing and will be made a part of the record.
[The questions referred to follow :]
STAFF QUEsTIoNs
la. Question: When the 1905 prospectus for a Secret Service Training Center
was submitted, was it intended that this be a part of an eventual consolidated
training center complex?
Answer: When the 1965 Prospectus was submitted, the Secret Service Training
Center was cönsidëred as complete in itself and it was not intended that it would
be a part of an eventual consolidated training center complex. It was determined
that additional training for the U.S. Secret Service was essential and, therefore,
a training center for the Secret Service was proposed.
A prospectus for a Secret Service Training Center (estimated total project
cost $1;349,000 for a gross area of 28,100 square feet) was approved by the Public
Works Committees of the House and Senate in April 1965. Out of GSA's FY 1960
appropriation, $175,000 was made available for design of the Center and an
initial design contract was awarded on February 11, 1966.
However, before the first appropriation was made for construction, in FY 1909,
the Bureau of the Budget conducted a survey. The report of that survey pub-
lished in 3une 1967 stated that:
"(T)his survey was initiated to determine the total requirements of all Fed-
eral law Onforcement officers * * and to evaluate the means by which these
requirements are now being met. The ultimate objective was the development
of recommendations as to the most effective and economical method of over-
coming whatever deficiency was found."
This report also pointed out that the report did not cover the needs of the
FBI and the criminal investigative units of the military services, because they
had adequate facilities, nor of the Metropolitan Police of the District of Colum-
bia, because it had been the subject of a then recent special study.
A part of the introduction to the BoB report is:
"D. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
"1. Federal law enforcement functions require personnel thoroughly equipped
with knowledge and skills in the techniques of the prevention of crime and
criminal investigation. Nearly all new Federal agents are recruited with no
experience or education in law enforcement. It is therefore incumbent upon the
agencies to provide the necessary training in order to accomplish their missions.
This responsibility was recently emphasized by the President's statement in
Executive Order No. 11348, April 20, 1967, that'.. . It is the policy of the Govern-
ment of the United States to develop its employees through the establishment
and operation of progressive and efficient training programs, thereby improving
public service, increasing efficiency and economy, building and retaining a force
of skilled and efficient employees, and installing and using the best modern
practices and techniques in the conduct of the Government's business
"2. Millions of dollars of Federal funds are being provided for training State
and local law enforcement officials and for training foreign police officials. How-
ever, except for the Special Agents of the FBI, very little funds are available
for the Federal agents. Neither the Law Enforcement Assistance Act of 1965 nor
the new `Crime Control' legislation now before the Congress provides funds or
assistance for training Federal law enforcement officers. The regional police
academies contemplated under this legislation were also found to be unsuitable
for training the Federal agents covered by this study because of their primary
orientation to state and local police operations and the absence of national
standards to assure comparability.
"3. There is a wide variation in the training programs for new agents. They
range from no formal training to a maximum of 18 weeks. although the duties
~and responsibilities are* ~quite~ similar and the training facilities needed are very
nearly identical.
PAGENO="0267"
261
"4. The training facilities being used by the agencies included in the study
are inadequate at best. In some cases there are no training facilities at all.
With few exceptions, those groups that have some facilities available have ac-
quired them only through unusual and outstanding efforts on the part of the
individual agents or officers who have constructed, renovated, and maintained
the facilities on their own time with materials and equipment obtained through
personal channels. This is particularly true of the firearms ranges. The only
adequate law enforcement training facilities is the survey team found, operated
by the Federal Government, are the International Police Academy, training for-
eign police officials exclusively; the new FBI Academy being built at Quantico,
where the majority of trainees will be state and local police officials; and some of
the facilities of the military services in the Department of Defense.
"5. The Federal law enforcement agencies are too small to justify the con-
struction of an adequate modern training facility for each group of agents.
The agent groups range in size from 76 to 1,850. The annual recruit traii.iing
workload ranges from 4 to 213. A minimum modern training center, including
classrooms, equipment, ranges, and other necessary facilities, could not be fully
utilized by any one of the groups. However, the 19 agencies combined have a
total of 11,000 agents, w-ith an annual recruit input of less than 1,200. This
represents only a little more than half of the projected capacity of the new FBI
Academy at Quantico, Virginia.
"6. The White House Police and the Secret Service protective forces have a
positive need for training facilities located in the Washington area. For the
remainder, no overwhelming arguments were presented which would dictate any
particular location."
All agencies involved and the Bureau of the Budget and the Civil Service
Commission concurred in the idea of the establishment of a consolidated inter-
agency training center as the most economic and feasible method of satisfying
Federal agency law enforcement training needs. On September 5, 1968, a joint
study was released by the Bureau of the Budget and eleven other agencies en-
titled Proposal for a Consolidated Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.
A part of the summary of that was:
"Justification-All of the Federal agencies participating in this proposal are
urgently in need of modern facilities with which to train their law enforcement
agents. Some have neither training programs nor training facilities. Others have
only classroom space or minimal, even primitive, facilities. None have adequate
facilities at the present time, nor are suitable facilities available from other
sources. Individually, none can fully utilize a complete, fully modern facility.
Collectively, they can provide a higher level of instruction by pooling their
resources; achieve more effective utilization of a complete facility; as well
as derive many additional advantages from joint use and consolidation of com-
mon. training courses."
lb. Question: Why, then, did subsequent prospectuses refer to this initial work
as Phase 1?
Answer: Construction of the facilities planned for the Secret Service Training
Center did not get underway until after the January 13, 1969 Prospectus for
the Consolidated Federal Law Enforcement Training Center n-as submitted to
the Congress. At the hearings before the Senate Subcommittee on Public Build-
ings amid Grounds on May 13, 1969, Senator B. Everett Jordan, Chairman stated:
"On April 13, 1965, the committee approved a prospectus for the construction
of a U.S. Secret Service training center at Beltsville. This project was to pro-
vide necessary ranges, training areas, and a building containing 28,100 gross
square feet of space, at a total estimated cost of $1,349,000. The present project
has been submitted as a revision of the original project
When construction began, it was logical for GSA to designate as Phase I the
facilities originally planned for the Secret Service, hut which had been incorpo-
rated into the consolidated training center with very little change and which
were being constructed while the balance of the facility was being planned.
2. Question: The first proposal in 1965 was for a basic training facility to
accommodate approximately 750 students on a day time basis. No dormitories
or other campus-type installations were planned. It would have occupied only
25 acres and cost $1,549,000. Why wasn't this sufficient?
Answer: We find no reference in the 1965 Prospectus to the facility being
designed for use by 750 students. The Secret Service Training Center was to
PAGENO="0268"
262
provide necessary ranges, training areas, and a building containing 28,100 gross
square feet of space to meet the requirements for training the Secret Service and
the state, local or other law enforcement personnel utilized from time to time
to augment the Secret Service forces when extraordinary demands for man-
power are placed on the Secret Service, such as every four years during Presi-
dential campaigns when a large number of officially designated individuals re-
quire protection. It was intended that trainees would come to the Center for
4raining daily and return to their homes or hotels at the end of the day. As of
April 1965, when the prospectus of the Secret Service Training Center was pre-
isented and approved, the total personnel in the Secret Service, including the
iVhite House Police and the Treasury Guard Force, was less than 900 nation-
wide. The $1.3 million Center would have been adequate for training the law
enforcement personnel among those persons. It would not have been adequate to
meet the needs found to exist by the BoB study quoted in the response to Ques-
tion A-la.
3. Question: The 1969 prospectus also proposed facilities for training and ac-
commodating approximately 750 resident trainees but the cost had increased to
$18073000. What, specifically, was proposed at this time that could justify such
expenditure?
Answer: The 1969 Prospectus proposed construction of a campus-type facility
With buildings containing 519,175 square feet for classrooms, dormitories, eating
facilities, and other services, plus ranges and specialized training areas to ac-
commodate 750 resident students at any given time. The consolidated center was
designed to take care of 20 different agencies of government from six major
Executive Department and Independent Agencies projected to have a total au-
thorized strength in FY 73-74 of 14,096 and expected to employ 1,416 new agents
nnnually by the time the center facilities would become available.
It was proposed that the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center be a
multiple-building, campus-like facility, designed to make Federal law enforce-
ment officers highly trained professionals. A quiet, dignified atmosphere con-
ductive to study and learning was to be emphasized in the design and layout
of the buildings. The architect was to be enjoined to incorporate the latest fea-
tures of educational facilities development consistent with the requirements of
the training programs. Maximum flexibility was to be a major goal to assure
the capability of adopting advances in educational techniques and training
methods as they might he developed and validated.
The individual course requirements for recruit training facilities were com-
piled to identify~ the annual capacity of each facility required to support that
program. Agency needs for projected advanced, in-service, refresher and spe-
cialized courses, provided by the agencies, were then added to obtain the total
capacity for each type of training facility. Using these summaries as a base,
facilities planners were then able to add the necessary community and support
facilities to arrive at a total statement of the capacities required.
To meet the total planned training requirements, approximately 520,000 square
feet~ of space was found to be needed in the various types of training and sup-
port facilities. Construction of the space, including site work and landscaping,
was estimated at $14532 million. Architectural and engineering services, includ-
ing the supervision of construction and allow-ances for contingencies, was esti-
mated at $2681 million. A breakdown of the facilities estimated in 1969 to be
required is set forth in Exhibit No. 1.
The requirements for equipment estimated to be needed to support the opera-
tion of the Training Center and carry out the training programs are set forth
in Exhibit No. 2.
FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER-EXHIBIT No. I
FACILITIES ESTIMATE
Scope: Construction of all buildings to be as follows: Masonary exterior wails,
reinforced concrete and structural steel framing, flat built-up composition roof,
suspended acoustical tile ceiling, resilient floor tile, recessed fluorescent light-
ing fixtures, air conditioning and gas heating. Site work to consist of clearing
course area and provide bituminous Paved roadway and parking (650 vehicles)
with necessary drainage and exterior utilities, concrete sidewalks, curbs and
PAGENO="0269"
263
gutters, seeding. and landscaping. Furnish and erect one 40-foot height observa-
tion tower and one 25'O" x 40'&" office and training building.
square
feet
Gross areas -
Auditorium building 28, S3a-
Administration building 32, ~O4
Dinning ball ~
Shops 1~,
Physical education building 4_. 3
Dormitories 230. i4~
Education building 10~
Special training building ~1. ~
`Fotal gross area 519, 17~
ExmnIT No. 2
EQUIPMENT ESTIMATE
Auditoriuni.-ProjectiOn equipment and screen; stage curtain; conference
room furniture: meditation room (chapel) chairs; and worship table, etc.
Post exchange-Display cabinets, shelving, fixtures; office furniture and
machine; snack bar; barber shop; recreation room equipment; and recreation
lounge furniture. --
Administration-Office furniture (35 staff) ; desks, tables-instructors (4a)
library, furniture, including stacks; and dispensary.
Dining hall-Kitchen-food preparation (750) ; dining room-tables and
chairs; staff dining room tables and chairs; and staff quarters l)eds, chair, table,
chest.
Shops-Equipment and tools; auto shop; grounds maintenance-mowers, etc.;
and trucks (3).
Physical education-Gym, baskets, mats, gear; pool, cleaning, diving boards;
and therapeutic, tables, etc.
Dormitories (3) --Bedroom furniture, linens, etc. (750).
E(lueation.-T~ systems-sets, 2 per classroom (50) ; labs, photo; classroom
furniture ; and training aids, audio, visual.
Special training-Back stops; guns (24) ; racks and cabinets; repair shop,
benches, tools: and crossman range.
Special facilities-Automobiles, pursuit training vehicles (13) ; pick-up truck,
specially equipped (1) ; visual acuity test equipment ; and related equipment.
Fire safety-Extinguishers-all facilities.
B u ilding operating and maintenance-Polishing machines, scrubbing, clean-
ing gear.
Question. 4. Who initiated and u-ho made the study which led to a determina-
tion that all these additional facilities were needed, and that the increased cost
was justified?
Answer. The Executive Branch under the leadership of the Bureau of the
Budget (BoB) made the study whichi led to a determination that these addi-.
tional facilities were needed and tlìat the increased cost was justified. The fol-
lowing agencies participated with the Bureau of the Budget in the formulation
of the Proposal for a Consolidated Federal Law Enforcement Training Center--
Civil Service Commission, White House Staff. Treasury Department, Justice
Department, Interior Department. Post Office Department, 1)epartment of State,
Department of Transportation, Smithsonian Institution, General Services Ad-
ministration, and D.C. Metropolitan Police I)epartment.
At the time of the study, all agencies were equal participants.
Question. 5. Why were Treasury Department and GSA the ijrincipai partici-
pants? I do not know how ninny security agents GSA had at that time, who were
programmed for training, but the 1969 prospectus indicates that while Treasury
Department had 5,620, Justice Department had -1,378 or nearly 80 percent an
many. Why didn't they also take a leading part in. this? They u-crc used: an
justification in the proposal.
Answer. In 1968, as the result of the discussions among the Civil Service Com-
mission. the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Attorney General and representa-
tives of the other participating agencies, it was agreed that the Department of
PAGENO="0270"
V 26.4.
the Treasury would be the executive* agency for operating the Center and serve
as the established point of authority for implementation of Federal regulations
and policies having government-wide application. Within this concept:
a. All employees of the Center staff would be appointed under the authority of
the Secretary of the Treasury and would be employees of the Department of the
Treasury; - . . . . .
b. Center operation would be financed by a separate appropriation to the De-
partment of the Treasury to be used to pay cost.s of salaries, equipment, and other
expenses in connection with:
(1) Administration.
(2) Maintenance and operation of the physical plant (including dormitories
and dining facilities).
(3) Conducting common training courses,
(4) Operation of the laboratories, library, and other support services.
(5) Research conducted in law enforcement curriculum and training methods.
c. Staff offices in the Office of the Secretary would provide support and assist-
ance, related to:
(1) Organizational structure, management system, and administrative
procedures;
(2) Staffing patterns; manpower utilization and control, and personnel
administration.
(3) Design, construction, and maintenance of facilities; and
(4) Financial management systems and budgetary processes, including plan-
ning, programming, and budgeting.
These arrangements were accomplished on March 2, 1970, when the Secretary
Of the Treasury issued Treasury Department Order No. 217 and established the
Consolidated Federal Law Enforcement Training Center as an organizational
entity within the Department of the Treasury to function as an interagency train-
ing facility. On September 30, 1970, a Memorandum of Understanding for the
~S"ponsorship and Operation of the Consolidated Federal Law Enforcement Train-
ing Center was signed by the Secretary of the Interior, the Attorney General, the
Director, Office of Management and Budget, the Postmaster General, the Secre-
tary of State, the Chairman of the U.S. Civil Service Commission, and tile Secre-
tary of tile Treasury. In order to afford all parties to the Understanding a voice in
the determination of the policies and programs of the Center, there was created a
Consolidated Federal Law Enforcement Training Center Board of Directors. The
Memorandum of Understanding provides that:
* 1. The Board shall consist of seven members to be appointed from the parties
to the understanding as follows: One member each to be appointed to unlimited
terms by the respective heads of the Departments of Interior, Justice, Post Office
and Treasury; as decided by the Board, one member to be appointed by the head
of an additional agency or department with fewer than 500 authorized law en-
forcement officers who will be appointed for a two-year term to represent all such
departments and agencies; and one non-voting member of the Board each to be
appointed to unlimited terms respectively by the Director, Office of Management
and Budget, and the Chairman, Civil Service Commission.
2. The Center Director shall serve as the non-voting Executive Secretary of the
Board, and shall provide the secretarial and support services required by the
Board. In the absence of the Center Director, the Deputy Director will serve as
Acting Executive Secretary of the Board.
3. The internal organization of the Board, including designation of officers,
methods of their selection, and terms of office, shall be established by the Board;
how-ever, the Treasury member will serve as interim Chairman through June 30,
1971.
4. The Board shall meet quarterly and at such other times as may be. deter-
mined by a majority of the Board or its presiding officer. A quorum shall consist
of a majority of the voting members of the Board and decisions of the Board
~ha11 be by majority vote.
The Board shall have final authority over training policy, training programs,
training criteria, and training standards of tile Center and for resolving matters
of conflicting training requirements. This authority shall include:
1. Establishment of common training policy.
2. Establishment of criteria for identification of training needs common to the
various criminal law enforcement personnel of the parties to this understanding.
PAGENO="0271"
265
3. Establishment of criteria for, and approval of, training curriculum and
individual course content and teaching methods for all common training con-
ducted b.y the Center staff..
4. Establishment of priority systems governing the scheduling of courses and
use of training facilities.
5. Establishment of policy as to student residence requirements, leave, and
other matters relating to student administration.
6. Approval of a student evaluation system.
7. Establishment of criteria for the position cf Center Director and approval
of the selection of the Director. The Board also may recommend removal of the
Director to the Secretary of the Treasury.
S. Establishment of criteria for Center staff instructor positions.
9. Review of the Center budget as to meeting Center mission accomplishment
aiid make budget recommendations tO the Secretary of the Treasury.
10. Evaluate the effectiveness of the overall training program.
The Secretary of the Treasury agreed to appoint a Director of the Center
subject to the approval of the Board of Directors.
As a result of the Memorandum of Understanding, Treasury only has one vote
on the Board of Directors, the same as the Department of Justice and GSA,
which now fills the position on the Board of Directors which rotates among the
Participating Agencies not regularly represented on the Board. 1-lowever, ap-
iearances before the Congress in support of this Prospectus are only indirectly
related to these positions on the Board of Directors and are even less related
to the number of personnel to be trained at the Center. The appearances are the
result of the responsibilities for planning, construction and operation of the
facilities.
The Center is an organizational entity within Treasury which provides admin-
istrative guidance and support for the Ceiiter, and serves as the established point
of authority for the implementation of Federal fegulations and policies having
Government-wide application. It is because of that that Treasury appears before
the Congressional Public Works Committees to speak on behalf of the respective
prospectuses.
The General Services Administration, because of its responsibilities under the
law. made the estimates of the cost of constructing the facilities, and coordinated
the preparation of, and submited, the Prospectuses. it is because of these respon-
sibilities and activities, and not the fact that some of its personnel will be
trained at the Center, that GSA appears to testify in support of this revised
Prospectus.
Question 6. Why did the 1,174 Narcotics Agents subsequently drop out, who
were listed as programmed students in the 1969 prospectus? l)o they ever plan to
use the proposed facility? Where are they training now?
Answer. On August 10, 1970, the Attorney General wrote to the Director, Office
of Management and Budget, as follows:
"Director Mayo of the then Bureau of the Budget wrote to me on June 5, urging
that the Department of Justice continue to participate in the Consolidated Fed-
eral Law Enforcement Training Center, and that the Departnient decide to in-
clude BNDD personnel, as well as those from the immigration Service and the
Office of United States Marshals, in the program for the Training Center.
I have naturally given the most careful consideration to Director Mayo's let-
ter and the reasons which he adduced for the taking of the steps which he rec-
ommended. I can assure you that the Departnient of Justice will fully participate
in the planning for the Center, and I have appointed William H. Rehnquist, As-
sistant Attorney General for the. Office of Legal Counsel, as the Departments
representative on the Center's Board of Directors.
`While I did not feel there was good reason to question the planned participa-
tion in the Center of the personnel of the Immigration Service or of the Office
of United States Marshals, participation by the Bureau of Narcotics and Dan-
gerous Drugs personnel seemed to me to raise more serious questions. Since the
establishment of the new Bureau in this Department, there have been significant
changes in both its training requirements and its capacity to satisfy these re-
quirements. For this reason, I decided to reexamine the earlier commit-
mnents by the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Health,
Education and Welfare when the two predecessor components of BNDD were
lodged in those Departments. To assist me in this reconsideration, I referred the
question to a permanent group of diverse senior officers within the Department
PAGENO="0272"
266
for a detailed review and recommendation as to participation by personnel of
BNDD, Immigration and the Office of U.S. Marshals, respectively.
"This group reviewed a mass of material on the subject, carefully considercd~
all the arguments pro and con, and unanimously recommended to me that BNDD
not participate, but that the Office of U.S. Marshals and Immigration Service
participate.
"It is impossible within reasonable limits to fully articulate all of the factors
which have led me to adopt as the policy of this Department separate training
of BNDD personnel; however, I can at least refer to a few. While there are un-
doubtedly some common elements in the training of a drug agent and the training
of another type of law enforcement agent,~ there are several significant differ-
ences. BNDD is uniquely subject to pressures from individuals w-ho would cor-
rupt its personnel if they could; no other federal investigative agency deals with
crime involving the amounts of money routinely found in drug cases. The past
problems with corruption in the predecessors of the present Bureau are an un-
fortunate indication of the seriousness of this problem. In view of this fact, it is
imperative for BNDD to maintain the highest degree of professionalism and
morale, as well as esprit do corps, among its agents. It was the view of all of
those in this Department who reviewed the matter that such goals could best
be accomplished by the Bureau's retaining complete control of their special agent
training.
"Because of recently established training improvement as well as other factors,
I am of the opinion that the BNDD training program is presently a highly suc-
cessful one. It is geared to mesh with training programs offered by BNDD to
state and local drug agents and with its educational programs for community
leaders dealing with drug abuse-programs which would have to be separately
conducted in any event.
"I have no doubt that in time the technical program of the Combined Law En-
forcement Training Center will equal or surpass the present technical training
afforded BNDD agents. Because of the extreme importance of the drug problem
now, however, and the President's rightful insistence that it be treated as a top
priority item in his domestic program, I do not feel that I can at the present time
agree to the risks necessarily involved in terminating a very successful program
in a top-priority area for a highly promising but not yet functioning substitute.
"I naturally appreciate the role of the Department of Justice, and of the At-
torney General, in coordinating President Nixon's overall Executive Branch effort
to reduce crime. I have no doubt whatever that the Center will make a substan-
tial future contribution to that effort, and my assurance of the Department's
continued participation in the program of the Center is indicated both by the as-
signment there for training of the personnel of the U.S. Marshals and of the Im-
migration Service, and the appointment of a Department representative to the
Board of Directors. My decision to continue the separate training of BNDI)
agents, therefore, iii no way bespeaks either lack of confidence or lack of interest
in the Center on the part of the Department of Justice."
On October 21, 1970, the Director, Office of Management and Budget, replied to
the Attorney General as follows:
"This is to acknowledge your letter of August 10, 1970, indicating that the
Department of Justice will continue to participate fully in planning the program
of the Consolidated Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, and that person-
nel of the U.S. Marshals and of the Immigration Service will be assigned to
the Center for training.
"With respect to the question of BNDD agents, there is no objection to con-
tinuing their separate training at this time for the reasons you mentioned in your
letter. However, I know that you share my belief that the establishment of the
Consolidated Federal Law Enforcement Center is a major step in the develop-
ment of an effective Federal law enforcement capability and that it is important
to gain the fullest possible participation of the various agencies. Therefore, we
should reconsider this questionat an early date when the programs and facilities
of the Center are further developed."
On July 31; 1974, the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Enforcement
Operations and Tariff Affairs) wrote to Assistant Attorney General, Criminal
Division, as follows:
"As a member ~of the Board of Dh~èctors of the Consolidated Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center, you no doubt are aware that the Center is now
PAGENO="0273"
267
free of legal restraint on the construction of its facilities at Beltsville and
expects to start construction on the balance of those facilities as soon as the
1974 Amended Prospectus now before the Congress is approved. The present
construction schedule calls for the Center to occupy the facility the early part of
1978.
"Originally, the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD) was listed
as a participating Agency in the Center in the Prospectus submitted to the Con-
gress January 13, 1969, and approved by the Congress in April of that year. How-
ever, on August 10, 1970, before Attorney General Mitchell signed the Septem-
ber 30, 1970 Memorandum of Understanding for the Sponsorship and Coopera-
tioa of the Consolidated Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, he wrote
to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget saying that at that time
he intended to continue separate training for BNDD agents rather than have
them receive their basic training at the Center. The then Director of 0MB,
George Shultz, replied on October 21, 1970, that there was no objection to the con-
tinuing of separate training for BNDD agents at that time, but that the matter
should be re-examined when the programs and facilities of the Center had been
further developed. [See correspondence previously quoted.]
"Subsequently, on November 20, 1971, Senator Jennings Randolph, as Chair-
man of the Senate Public Works Committee, advised that approval of the 1971
Revised Prospectus for the construction of the Center's facilities at Beltsville
had been given contingent on the facilities being available for training the
criminal law enforcement personnel of all Federal agencies (other than the
FBI) and, specifically, the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs.
`The Center continues to be available for training personnel of the Drug En-
forcement Administration (DEA), as successor agency of BNDD. both as a part
of the Center's interim program in its current temporary quarters and as
participant in the training program at Beltsville as those facilities become avail-
able. Indeed, I can conceive that cooperation in the field and on the firing line
between individual enforcement officers of our various agencies might be greatly
enhanced by their sharing a common basic training background.
"If you and DEA are now receptive to reconsideration of the Federal training
center concept, it would be helpful if DEA could begin to work with the Center
in planning a program to accommodate all the advanced, in-service, refresher
and specialized training DEA may wish conducted at the Beltsville facilities.
`1 would appreciate having your thoughts on this matter as soon as you can
conveniently do so."
As of September 3, 1974, Treasury had not received a reply from the Depart-
ment of Justice.
It is understood that the the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, now
the Drug Enforcement Administration, conducts much of its training in rented
facilities at 1405 Eye Street, NW., Washington, D.C. 20537.
In this connection, it appears appropriate to call attention to the response to
Question B-2 in which it is stated:
"The Drug Enforcement Administration of the Department of Justice on
March 5, 1974, requested GSA's aid in selecting a site for a new I)EA National
Training Institute. They indicated that a facility of about 1S9,000 square feet
was required and as a first priority they recoinniended that it be located within
a 50--ulle radius of Washington, D.C. GSA on April 9, 1974, suggested to DEA
several surplus government-owned sites located around the country and sug-
gested that DEA examine these locations with respect to location of their facility.
Within the last 30 days DEA has talked again with GSA and indicated that it has
not found a suitable location. A formal request for construction of a new facility
has not yet been sent to GSA."
Question 7. In the 1969 prospectus, the proposed square footage of building area
had increased from 23,500 sq. ft. in 1965 to 467,300 sq. ft. Why?
Answer. Our records indicate that the 1965 Prospectus contemplated construc-
tion of a training center of 25,300 net square feet providing classroom space and
related training facilities for [1.5. Secret Service, including the White House
Police and Treasury Guard Force personnel only. At that time, the total of
these personnel was 900 nationwide. ~No dormitories or food preparation facilities
were included in that project.
The 1969 Prospectus proposed construction of a center of 467,300 net square
feet providing classroom, dorniitory, kitchen and dining, auditorium, adminis-
trative and operational space for a resident student population of 750 to meet
PAGENO="0274"
268
the needsof 19 t~gencies whose law enforcement personnel for fiscal 1973-74 was
tlieii estimated at over 14 thousand.
The 1969 Prospectus represented a totally different training concept from
that proposed in 1965. The ~i965 project was a school to be attended intermit-
tently on a daytime basis. The 1969 project was an intensive study-learning cen-
ter to be lived in 24 hours a day, and for some trainees, for weeks at a stretch.
Question 8. Were these square-footage requirements computed on a per-person
basis? Who estimated them?
Answer. It is not feasible to estimate space requirements for a specialized
facility such as this on a square foot per person basis. Although most of the
working papers and early correspondence dealing with this project have been
disposed of in accordance with established records management procedures, there
is sufficient information available to reconstruct the events in question with
reasonable accuracy. Essentially, in the case of the 1965 Prospectus, the square
foot requirements and estimated costs were based on architectural drawings
developed by the Department of the Treasury and GSA. Sufficient space was
planned for 10 permanent instructors and a limited number of Treasury law
enforcement personnel to be trained, primarily Secret Service agents assigned to
the Washington field office, and White House police.
The following additional information is available on the 1909 Prospectus. In
September 1968 a Proposal prepared by the Bureau of the Budget and other
Federal agencies determined the need for a major facility to serve many Federal
law enforcement activities. The exhibits to that study listed the number of
agents expected from the participating agencies in FY 73-74; the training facili-
ties (e.g., classrooms, breakout rooms. firing ranges, etc.) needed and the number
of hours each would be needed during the year; and the gross areas of space
needed for the various types of facilities. The 1969 Prospectus lists the same
number of participating agencies, square footage and estimated costs as appear
in the 1968 Proposal, and also used the same figure, 750, as the number of stu-
dents who would be in residence at one time.
Question 9. In 1971, a third prospectus was submitted, proposing further ex-
panded facilities and requesting an increase in authorization to ~52,664000. The
building area was increased to 587,900 sq. ft. and the site from CO acres to 430
acres, 47 of which had to be purchased from private owners. What generated
this necessity?
Answer. The 1968 Proposal was submitted on September.5, 1968. Between that
time and May 1909 when the Executive Branch (a new Administration) ap-
peared to defend the Prospectus, apparently the Executive Branch represent-
atives overlooked the statement on page 27 of the Proposal that:
"The preceding cost estimates have been developed by the staff of the General
Services Administration, Public Buildings Service. No allowance has been in-
cluded for escalation of construction costs, salary increases or other price in-
creases that may occur before construction."
Accordingly, after Congressional approval was received in 1969, the Assist-
ant Secretary of the Treasury assigned his special assistant to scrutinize the
lOGS Proposal and take the leadership in developing precise and complete plans
for the Center. The studies undertaken by the Executive Branch were to become
a reformulation of the Center concept so that the GSA could develop design plans
and cost estimates based upon a firm educational plan and training requirements.
Some of the educational concepts developed in numerous interagency meetings
and utilized in order to schedule the basic criminal investigator and police cur-
riculums to be taught in the facility to be built at Beltsville follow:
1. Classes will begin on Tuesday and end on Fridays at mid-day so as to cut
down on per diem and overtime costs.
2. The school day will consist of 9 hours, as follows: Instruction-7 hours;
break time-i hour (1/2 a.m.; 1/2 p.m.) ; and lunch-i hour.
3. Driver training will be scheduled in units of 3 hours. No travel time between
classrooms and the driving ranges will be scheduled; it is assumed the 10 minute
break will be sufficient.
4. Firearms training was scheduled in 2½ hour units. One-half hour of this
time is for travel to and from the range. (Planners previously did not include the
1/0 hour for travel in the schedule and it will have to be added.)
5. The Police planners scheduled the standard First Aid Course in conjunction
with the Indoor Range. This makes better utilization of the two hours at the
range. During the first hour, one 12-man group will fire while the second 12-man
group will have first aid~ The groups will reverse activities for the second hour.
PAGENO="0275"
269
0. One hour per day will be scheduled for gym (Physical Defense Tactics),
Investigators first thing in the morning and Police last thing in the afternoon.
7. A change of pace will be built into the school day by scheduling physical
activities as well as classroom instruction.
8. Course times will be adjusted to the hour or to the half hour.
9. The schedule will be based on a 40-hour week (instead of 48 hours as set
forth in the 1908 Proposal), and on 48 weeks of full capacity training each year.
10. The schedules for Police and Criminal Investigators will not be mixed;
they will attend separate classes. (Note: No time was scheduled for counseling,
remedial work, retesting, recycling of students or make-up work which will take
place outside the regular 9-hour day.)
Extensive interagency meetings were held in order to adjust the length of the
two basic curriculums. Key factors involved in this work follow.
1. September 1968
The 1968 Proposal for a Consolidated Federal Law Enforcement Center pro-
posed two Basic Curriculums: (1) an 11-week Criminal Investigator Curriculum
and (2) a 13-week Police Curriculum.
These figures were determined on the basis of a 48-hour week and the tota'
number of instructional hours in each curriculum as indicated in the Proposal
at Appendix 1, Criminal Investigator Recruit Training Requirements, and
Appendix 2, Police Itecruit Training Requirements. (The total number of hours
in each curriculum were interpreted as being pure instruction time with no built-
in time for breaks or administrative matters.)
2. June 1970
Part of the information required by the Educational Consulting Firm to de-
ter~nine the facilities needed at Beltsville was a general training schedule of the
two Basic Curriculums. On the 11th, 12th, and 15th of June, 1970, two subcom-
mittees convened to produce the schedules-one for each of the two Basic Cur-
riculums. The result was an 18-week schedule for the Police Curriculum and a
15-week schedule for the Investigator Curriculum. The following scheduling
assumptions led to this increase from the original 13 and 11 week figures: (1)
40 hour w-eek instead of a 48 hour week and (2) 7 hours of instruction per day
instead of 8 hours. One hour of break time and one hour for lunch complete the
9 hour day.
3. June 1970
On June 19, 1970, another subcommittee met to reduce time Police Curriculum
from 18 to 16 weeks.
4. Prior to December 1970
The decision was made by the Board of Directors that both Basic Curriculums
would be 12 weeks in length.
5. January-February 1971
Two subcommittees were again convened for the purpose of reducing each
Basic Curriculum to the required 12 weeks.
During 1970, all of the Participating Agencies were asked to submit updated
J)roJeetiomls of authorized agents as of FY-72 and projected annual attendance
for basic training for each of the 10 years for the period F~ 19i3-FY 1982 so
that tue Governnient could be assured time facilities w-ould adequately meet
training needs. After the figures furnished by the agencies had been tabulated,
the projections were substantially reduced by direction of 0MB. The projections
for FY-77, midway in the ten-year projection, were utilized to determine the
size of the required facilities.
The projected annual attendance figures for FY-77 came to 1519. Because of
the exchange of letters between the Attorney General and the Director, Office
of Management and Budget (quoted in the response to Question 6), the require-
ments of the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs were eliminated, and
the total projected annual attendance for the basic recruit curriculums was re-
duced by 200 to 1319-the figure included in Exhibit A to the Revised Prospectus
submitted by the Administrator, General Services Adnilnistration, on March 31,
1971.
Based on the above information, the participating law enforcement agencies
concluded that the following training facilities would be required to carry out
PAGENO="0276"
Total, A-4 area-
A-5. Common use--Recreation: Total, A-5 area
A-6. Service and maintenance:
(a) Service and maintenance
(b) Heating and air-conditioning
Total, A-6 area
Total areas, central structure
B. ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
270
the projected* training ~of the 1:319 basic recruits expected to require training as
of FY-77, and the AIRS training to be conducted by the participating agencies as
subsequentiy mentioned.
NET ASSIGNABLE AND GROSS AREAS-SPACE REQUIREMENTS
Net assignable Gross
(square feet) (square feet)
A. CENTRAL STRUCTURE
A-i. Administration and operations:
(a) Directors and staff 9, 060 15, 600'
(b) Learning resources center (see exhibit No. 1) 12, 595 21,000
(c) Computer center 4,170 7,300'
(d) Administrative services 4,880 8. 300
Total, A-i area 30, 705 52, 200'
A-2. Instruction:
(a) 4 standard instructional clusters (see echibit No. 2) 90, 000 061, 000
(b) Special central instruction (see exhibit No. 3) 14, 440 25, 900
Total, A-2 area - 004,440 106,900'
A-3. Physical training (see exhibit No. 4): Total, A-3 area 28, 200 40, 400
A-4. Housing and dining:
(a) Housing 123, 395 226, 500
(b) Dining and kitchen - 22, 325 38, 300
345,726
264,800
03,400
21,400
9,C00 13,919
15,000 30,000
24,000
43,909
346,465
608,019
B-i. Special training building (see p. 8)
B-2. Raid and crowd demonstration area (see C-4, p. 7)
B-3. Hangar-type structure 14, 000 05, 300
B-4. Driving range building 2,000 2,975
B-5. Storage garage 14, 000 21, 479
B-6. Service garage 7, 725 8, 700
13-7. Gatehouse 1, 200 0, 800
Total areas, accessory structures (not including items B-i and B-2) 39, 025 50, 554
Net assignable Gross
(acres) (acres)
C. OUTDOOR FACILITiES -
C-i. Driving ranges-including skid pan, skill driving pads, defensive driving range,
pursuit driving range: Total, C-i area_.._ - 76
C-2. Vehicular accident scenes (1)
C-3. Demolition demonstration 8 8
C-4. Raid and crowd demonstration__ - 3 3
C-5. Athletic fields,. 12 12
CO. Circulation (2) (2)
C-7. Parking-700 spaces 5
C-8. Erosion control reservoir 20 20
V-9. Landscaped areas (2) (3)
C-l0. Site utilities (square feet) 3,300 4,000
Existing facilities ±60
Total areas, outdoor facilities (new and existing) 4 024 184
1 Along road network.
2 To be designed.
o To be determined.
`4 Plus structures to be designed.
At that time, it was noted that: `The acreage for development does not include acreage for circulation, landscaped
areas, buffer areas separatingfacilities, boundary buffers, etc.,which will seed to be determined during study of the site
and the interrelating of all required facilities. Portions of the site cannot be develope'i because major stream valleys, im-
portant wooded areas, and other natural features preclude the use of certain areas for construction or grading. Final
determinations can be made after the.Master Plan studies are completed."
PAGENO="0277"
271
5The preceding space requirements did not include the following areas:
BUILDING AREA
Description
Net assignable
Gross
Reason for omission
Special training building -
31, 186
41, 350
Being designed and constructed prior to
the balance of CFLETC.
Outdssr firing ranges and motorcade training
60, 127
66, 808
Design complele; construction in progress.
area.
Total
91,413
108,158
Adding the building areas of the two above facilities to the building areas of
the balance of the CFLETC (pages 5-7) provides the building area for the total
Center.
BUILDING AREA
Description
Net assignable
Gross
Central structure
Accessory structures
Outdoor facilities'
Special training Luilding, outdoor firing ranges, and mutorcade training area
346, 465
39, 025
3,300
91, 413
609, 619
50, 554
4,000
108, 158
Total
482,203
772,331
Includes building areas only, nsf develsped site work.
The Participating Agencies also submitted requirements for advanced, in-
service, refresher and specialized (AIRS) training in classes of one or two days
*dscra tion to over two weeks duration. The requirements of the two basic cur-
riculums and for AIRS training were accumulated and converted to the need
for a facility to train 745 students at a given tune (the student pipeline) or
:S72~i `different" law enforcement officers trained annually.
The number of anticipated student trainees is depicted as follows.
Itraber of Stedent Trainees
7406 - `different' students for
courses of varying lengths
of tins
Pi~u0ise depicting sake-up
of 74t student population
SIPS - Advanced, In-Serving, Refres0~r and Specialized
At the time of the preparation of the initial submission of the Secret Service
request for funds for new ranges and training facilities, a determination had
isoen made, based on studies by the Treasury Department and the General Serv-
1319 - stuients annually irs
courses of 12 seeks
duration
PAGENO="0278"
272
ices Administration, that the most suitable site in the area was the Department
of Agriculture property northeast of the intersection of the Washington-Balti-
more Parkway and Powder Mill Road near Beltsville, Maryland. About 60 acres
of that property~ was transferred to the Treasury Department for construction
of the ranges and motorcade training area. The Department of Agriculture indi-
cated that sufficient additional Government-owned land adjacent to that prop-
erty could be made available for the Consolidated Center.
The exact required, acreage was not known in 1068 at the time of the Proposal
because the land need was dependent to a large extent on the physical design and
layout of the facility yet-to-be-developed by,a contract architect as funds might
become available. At that time, it was not anticipated that more than 200 acres
- of the total tract available would be required.
The $1,349,000 Secret Service Center was originally to be sited on a 61-acre
tract. In OctOber 1969, the architect was told to investigate the extent of land
required to satisfy the needs of the $18,073,000 project. Concepts of a master
plan were submitted in December 1969 showing a site development for 265 acres,
including Driving Ranges w-ith a requirement for SO acres.
Between November 1969 and March 1970, Treasury and the other agencies
3vorked to refine training requirements. Based on these, the architect began
development of a revised master plan which included 305 acres. However, before
this plan was completed, the architect was requested in early May 1970, to de-
velop several alternate master plan schemes showing site requirements for a
20-year period. In late May 1970, a site encompassing 491 acres was approved.
This increased site provides sufficient land for expansion for the next 20 years,
if necessary, and also provides necessary physical barriers (roadways) between
the Center and the surrounding properties.
EXHIBIT 1
LEARNING RESOURCE CENTER
Net assignable
Facihty Size square feet
Number
Stacks 2,000
Materials distribution area 7-man 100 each
1
3
Drafting room 4-man 400
1
Workshop 4-man 600
Offices 1-man 100 each
CCTV studio 2,500
Control room 4-man 300
1
10
1
1
Mediastorage 3,000
Offices 1-man 100 each
1
2
Maintenance shop 8-man 600
Study carrels 1-mon 25 each
Study area 1-man 15 each
Library work station 1-man 80 each
1
25
50
4
EXHIBIT 2
ONE STANDARD INSTRUCTIONAL CLUSTER
S
, Net assignable
Facility Size square feet
Number
Learning resource center 1,000
Reception area 500
General support area 4-man 1,200
Course aides' office 2-man 150 each
Instructor offices 1-man 70 each
1
I
I
2
30
Clerical work station 1-man 50 each
5
Conference rooms 6 to 8-man 300 each
4
Materials storage 400
1
Classrooms: 2 30-man rooms can be combined to make a 60- 30-man 800
8
man room.
Breakout rooms 6 to 8-man 275 each
12
Laboratory 4 to 12-man 400
Audio-visual area 3 to 4-man 1,800
Student lounges 1,600
Equipmentstorage 150
1
1
2
2
PAGENO="0279"
273
EXHIBIT 3
SPECIAL CENTRAL INSTRUCTION
Net assignable
Facility Size square feet
Number
Language laboratory 60-man 2,100
Driving simulator room 8-man 6000
Laboratory: Fingerprints, photography, chemical analysis 2,000
Crime scene rooms 250 each
I
1
1
2
Detention cell 1-man 200
1
Offices 1-man 70 each
Conference rooms 6- to 8-man 300 each
12
1
Clerical work stations 1-man 50 such
2
Auditorium 600-seat 7,500
2
EXHIBIT 4
PHYSICAL TRAINING
Net assign-
able square
Facility Size feet
Number
Gymnasium 5oftby94ft, 150 seat 9000
1
Unarmed defense training room 24-man 1,500
Therapeutic room 12-man 800
Special exercise and storage room 2, 500
Aquatic instruction 25 by 50 mzters 7,000
Men's lockers, showers, toilets 4,000
Women's lockers, showers and toilets 1,000
Instructor offices 1-man 150
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
Staff assistance offices 1-man 100
2
Conference roam and lounge 400
1
Question lOa. The 1971 Prospectus notes that the Center would accommodate
750 resident trainees, the same as originally contemplated, yet betweesi lOGO
and then the construction cost per student had increased from $24,097 to $70,219.
Why?
Answer. The Executive Branch has submitted construction cost estimates for
this project based on the estimated cost of constructing the facilities called for
by the program not on the basis of cost per student. As the testimony given in the
1971 hearings explained, there are a number of reasons why the $18 million cost
estimate used in the 1969 Prospectus had to be raised to $52.6 million at the
time of the 1971 Prospectus. These are:
1. The original estimates in August 1968 made no provision for escalation.
In the 28-month period which elapsed between the preparation of the 1969
prospectus and the preparation of the 1971 prospectus, construction costs had
escalated and this added $3,140,000 to the estimate.
The 1971 prospectus anticipated construction costs for the entire facility to
the time when contracts for the various phases of the project were expected to
be awarded. Calculating future inflation of costs in this manner, for the larger
total project, added $7,237,000 to the original estimate.
Thus, the total attributable to escalation were $10,337,000.
2. In late 1968, when the prior prospectus was prepared, the square feet of
space required was interpreted as gross area for estimating costs when, in reality,
they were intended to be net assignable areas. The difference in the new and old
Prospectus was $6,477,000.
3. The 1971 estimates were based on a more complete analysis of training
requirements. The use of the most current educational techniques defined addi-
tional space needs of 50,000 square feet of space, which included modern and
specialized educational facilities. The cost for this increase was $3,052,000.
4. The Environmental Policy Act, including the requirements to minimize ad-
verse enviromnental, ecological or demographic effects, to control air and water
pollution (erosion, acoustical control of noise levels) and to eliminate, to the
maximum possible extent, any adverse effects of the project on local transporta-
PAGENO="0280"
274
tion, housing and another socio-economic systems in the area added $1,466,000
to the estimate.
5. The underground water and sewer lines were designed to provide for pos-
sible future expansion for the next 20 years and space for the kitchen, com-
puter, and boiler plant for a possible 10-year expansion. This added $861,000
to the estimated cost.
6. The outdoor firing ranges and motorcade training areas bad not been in-
cluded before and this added $1,907,000 to the estimate.
7. The acquisition of the privately-owned 47-acre site was not included before
and this added $250,000 to the estimate.
8. The studies of the architect and educational consultant developed require-
ments for equipment and furniture and furnishings which added $4,091,000 to
the estimate.
9. The master plan revealed the requirement for certain additional features
such as a central boiler plant, exterior lighting, an expanded road and path
network, an audio-visual system, modifications to housing facilities, and changes
in utility facilities serving the site. These changes added $6,110,000 to the
estimate.
The total of these increases added $34,591,000 to the original estimate.
Question lob. Weren't the requirements based on space per student?
Answer. The requirements for the Beltsville facilities were not directly based
on space per student, but the size of the facilities needed was determined on the
basis of the number of students to be trained and the total population at the
Center required to conduct the training and to operate the Center. To determine
this, the participating Agencies were asked to submit the numbers of new
agents annually projected for Fiscal Year 1977. The agencies were also asked to
indicate the number who would be taking basic training and the list of types of
classes and numbers of students who would be a part of the Advanced, In-
Service, Refresher and Specialized (AIRS) training.
Certain educational-conceptual and management assumptions were made. It
was generally agreed that the basic instruction would take place before classes
of 24 trainees and that the basic curriculum would be taught in classes of 12
weeks duration. On the other hand, the AIRS courses could be as short as
one-clay seminars up to five to eight weeks of highly technical, specialized instruc-
tion. The number of trainees in any given AIRS class could average from as
low as six to eight all the way up to 60 students. An Educational Technology
firm developed training requirements and recommended that the facilities at
Beltsville should include 32 regular classrooms for the 24-man classes. It was
further recoiumended that the facilities be designed in such a way that certain
pairs of the regular classrooms could be combined to form large classrooms. In
other words. the Center could at any given time operate with a mix of eight
large classrooms and 16 regular classrooms to any other mix of no large class-
rooms and 32 regular classrooms. The dormitory was sized to sleep 748 students.
To the above extent, the facility requirernent.s were based on spaces per stu-
dent. Other facilities were sized more in accordance with the numbers of students
expected to utilize such facilities. For example, generally the trainees receiving
criminal investigator instruction were not to receive driver training instruction.
Therefore, the driver training facilities were sized to fit the requirements of the
trainees from agencies with police type responsibilities. (Since designing the
original facilities, more and more of the agencies with criminal investigator re-
sponsibilities are looking into the matter of having some of their criminal in-
vestigators receive driver training.)
Another example; all of the students receving basic training will receive
training in the proper handling, care and use of firearms. Not all trainees attend-
ing AIRS courses will have reason to use the firing ranges. Some AIRS training
is specifically related to the use of the firearms however.
The service and maintenance areas, for example, are sized in terms of the
heating, lighting, air conditioning, communications, security, etc., services re-
quired in different areas of the facilities.
Some provisions for expansion were also included in the 1971 Prospectus. The
Program Guidance document states on page A-28:
"It is probable over the next 10 years that the increasing need for trained law
enforcem~nt officers will require the expansion of the programmed 745 man
facility to one serving approximately 1,500 trainees. Planning for expansion at
the present time has been projected so that the enlarged facility would be a
PAGENO="0281"
275
logical expansion of the original, would operate efficiently as a total facility,
and would result in an integrated, harmonious building design. If the present
facility were designed without this consideration for expansion, a future need to
increase the facility could result in unnecessary expense as well as in a poor
solution not only in appearance but in function as well.
"Accordingly, this Guidance provides for sizing the kitchen (but not all
equipment), the computer area (also necessary structural strength and air-
conditioning, but not equipment) and the air-conditioning, heating and service
areas (but not all equipment) for 1,500 resident students who it is estimated
will require training annually during the ten year period ending FY 1982. The
underground utilities are sized for 2,200 resident students. (The land area set
aside for the Center is based on estimates of physical plant needs to meet 20*year
training requirements-the period of time for which a Master Plan for a project
must be projected to obtain approval by the National Capital Planning Com-
mission.)
"It is reasonable to expect the Center to move continuously in the direction
of providing more individualized instruction. Much of the instruction could be
packaged in such a way that instructors outside of the Center can make effective
and efficient use of it. There would be many advantages, including huge potential
cost savings, if the Center were to disseminate such learning packages to the
participating agencies. This would enable the Center to train many times more
persons that it can physically accommodate at the Center itself."
Question 11. The 1969 prospectus includes an attachment showing the number
of authorized agents programmed as students through FY 1973 and 1974. It
was submitted as justification for a requested increase in funds from $1.3 to $18
million at that time. 900 US. Marshals were listed and it stated that 65 new
Marshals would be recruited annually. Yet the 1971 Prospectus, submitted only
27 months later, stated that 1,776 were authorized and programmed, and that
120 new ones would be recruited annually. This was to help justify a cost in-
crease from $18 to $52 million. The 1969 Prospectus further stated that 780
Treasury Department Secret Service Agents were authorized and programmed as
students, yet the 1971 Prospectus showed 1,224. This represents an increase of
00 percent in authorized Secret Service Agents in 27 months. Cami these figures
he verified? Or were they adjusted for the purpose of increasing staff estimates
to justify this project? Or were they adjusted to make up for the 1.174 Narcotics
Bureau Agents who had dropped out of this training program and gone
elsewhere?
Answer. The projected training requirements for the 1971 Prospectus were
not adjusted for the purpose of justifying this project; nor to make up for the
1,174 Narcotics Bureau Agents who had temporarily dropped out of the con-
solidated program.
The projections of authorized agents and of new agents annually for the two
Prospectuses were made on different bases. The figures utilized for the 1960
Prospectus were those included in the interagency Proposal issued in Septem-
ber 1968. They were projections for Fiscal years 1973-74 made in Calendar Year
1968. The projections of authorized agents and the projections of new agents
annually utilized in the 1971 Prospectus were compiled from materials for each
of the years in the ten-year period, Fiscal Years 1973-82, submitted to the
Treasury by each of the participating Agencies. The authorized agents were
projected for Fiscal Year 1972 and the new agents annually (attrition plus new)
projected for Fiscal Year 1977 were utilized for program definition. The reason
for selecting Fiscal Year 1977 as the year of the projection of new agents an-
nually is because the Fiscal Years 1973-74 projections had been made in 1968
and more recent projections were believed to be more accurate. Also, the figures
in the 1968 Proposal (which had been compiled in FY-69) w-ere projections for
a time frame five years in advance. As stated earlier, it had been deemed advis-
able to have the participating Agencies project their needs over the 10-year
period, Fiscal Years 1973-82. The mid-point of these projections was Fiscal Year
1977, a period just a little over five years in the future from the time the pro-
jections were compiled. The Fiscal Year 1977 projections were for 2,557 new
agents annually. After the projections were analyzed by representatives of the
Bureau of the Budget, this figure was cut back to what was considered a more
realistic figure of 1,519 which included a projection of 200 new agents annually
for the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs. During the period of analysis,
the letters between the Attorney General and the Director, Bureau of the Budget
(quoted in the response to Question 6) were exchanged. The Bureau of the
PAGENO="0282"
276
Budget representative therefore eliminated the projections for 200 new agents of
the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs to be trained and the figure of
new agents annually projected for Fiscal 1977 became 1319. The 1,319 figureis
in the 1971 Prospectus.
Question 12. At the 1971 hearing before this Committee, to justify an increase
in cost from $18 to $52 million, `a Treasury Department witness stated. "I think
we have the most accurate estimate possible, of what is presently required." Was
this based on 780 agents or 1,244?
Answer. The estimate used in the 1971 hearing before this Committee was
based on authorized agents projected for the ITS. Secret Service of 1,244 for
Fiscal Year 1972.
Questwn 13. During the 1971 hearing GSA admitted to having made a $6,477,-
000 mistake in their estimate, due to a mixup in computing areas. They also dis-
`closed that no provision had been made for escalation which added another $10
million, and that the need for a boiler plant and other things had been over-
looked. Is this considered good estimating? Could the one before us now be
wrong too?
Answer. No. The GSA has worked extensively with the Construction Man-
.ager and the best engineering and cost estimates available have been utilized,
und it is believed that the prospectus now before you is correct.
Question 14. Doesn't this prospectus also leave the door open for additional
unknown future costs, like energy conservation measures not yet determined or
designed, and continued cost escalation?
Answer. At the time the June 27, 1974 Prospectus was submitted, an effort had
been made to project as accurately as possible the effect of inflation on the costs
~f construction of the Center's Beltsville facilities, and to include all costs ex-
cept as to possible changes in plans to conserve energy. At that time there was
the possibility that energy conservation measures could increase the cost of the
project above the amount for which authorization is now sought.
Prior to June 27, 1974, the Executive Branch authorized a study of key energy
conservation measures which might point to the desirability of redesigning
`existing plans. It was estimated that firm decisions regarding the desirability
of including certain of the energy conservation measures could not be made
until August/September and if submission of the Prospectus should be delayed
until those decisions could he made, the amended Prospectus could not reach
the Congress until sometime in early 1975. It was believed that as much as eight
months of extra delay would be incurred (the difference between hoped-for
~Tongressional approval in July 1974 vis-a-vis hoped-for Congressional approval
in March 1975).
Because of the escalation in construction costs occurring at this time. the
`GSA estimates that the cost of completing the Beltsville facilities increase $500,-
000 for every month of delay. Therefore, the eight-month delay could have
resulted in an increase in cost of up to $4 million.
When the determination was made to submit the Prospectus on June 27, 1974,
the Executive Branch knew that it would later receive a preliminary estimate
of the cost which would be necessary in the event it were to be desired to adopt
all of the key energy conservation measures under study. (About 14 have been
selected for study because they had been preliminarily judged as being measures
which might conserve the greatest amount of energy.)
The plans will not be changed to adopt any specific energy conservation meas-
ures unless the total cost of the project, including the amount added by the
change, would not exceed the amount authorized by the approval of the 1974
Prospectus now before the Committee.
Disregarding the cost of any particular item, no change in plans will be made
to accommodate an energy conservation measure if the change would delay the
now projected completion date of February 19~8 and therefore escalate construc-
tion costs.
The Prospectus does not leave the door open for unknown future costs.
Question 15. ` The prospectus requesting an increase to $74.4 million justifies
this by attributing it to cost escalation, added design requirements, excessive
earthwork, and unforeseen foundation problems. Instead of placing buildings in
a low wet area requiring piling, and cutting into a hill to build an auto track,
why didn't the designer reverse the procedure and eliminate both problems?
Answer. The basic principle of land-use planning subscribed to by the various
federal and local planning agencies in the Washington metropolitan region has
been that of "wedges and corridors." All intensive development was to be estab-
PAGENO="0283"
277
lished in the "corridors" radiating from Washington, D.C. These in turn were
to be separated by "wedges" of green open space.
In reviewing the Master Plan for this project, the National Capital Planning
Commission (NCPC), the federal region planning agency, emphasized that since
the Center was to be located in a wedge area, the paramount principle which
should be followed in locating the various components of time Center within the
site should be that of maintaining the character and appearance of the green
wedge. Specifically, the design was to approach total concealment of the con-
struction from public view. Achieving this required placement of the Central
Structure, the tallest element, at the low point of the site. After siting the Central
Structure the driving range was placed in its present location after careful plan-
ning to assure the least obtrusive remaining location and the most economical.
Placement of the ranges in the area now proposed for the Central Structure
would probably have required not only extensive earthmoving but also a consider-
able investment in construction to bridge the stream and marshy areas in that
location. On the other hand, siting of the Central Structure in the location now
proposed for the ranges would not necessarily effect a dramatic cost reduction
because subsurface conditions at both locations are similar and foundation and
pavement designs would therefore also be similar. In addition, dewatering sys-
tems, and large scale eartbmoving would still be necessary.
Question 16. Were the plans reviewed by value engineering experts, as directed
by the Committee Chairman in 1971 when the last prospectus was approved?
What savings were effected?
Answer. As requested by the Chairman, Senate Public Works Committee, in his
November 20, 1971 letter, the General Services Administration had experts in the
field of Value Engineering review the plans and specifications for the purpose of
reducing costs of construction through the use of more efficient space design and
the use of the most economical materials. Intensive reviews were made in October
1972 and May 1973. One hundred and eighty-six items were examined and of these
thirty-two were accepted and incorporated into the final design. The resultant
savings amounted to approximately one quarter of a million dollars.
Question 17. What sewage treatment and water supply facilities are proposed?
Are any serious problems anticipated? What will the cost of each system be, and
is this included in the current prospectus estimate?
Answer. Plans are to connect the sewer system from the Consolidated Federal
Law Enforcement Training Center (CFLETC) to the nearby Agriculture Re-
search Center's (ARC) sewage treatment facilities. This is consistent with the
Environmental Protection Agency's recommendation that a joint solution for
sewage waste disposal by the CFLETC and ARC would be economically and
environmentally sound. The ARC has developed engineering plans and specifica-
tions for converting its secondary sewage treatment facilities to a tertiary system
and has included capacity for handling the CFLETC effluent.
For water service, the CFLETC also plans to connect to the existing ARC
water distribution system.
The costs for sewage treatment and the water supply in the estimate used for
the amended Prospectus are $1,200,000 and $1,180,000 respectively.
Question 18. I-low can the project be scaled down or revised, so that it can still
be constructed within the $52.0 million authorized?
Answer. The project could, of course, be scaled down in a number of ways, but
any of them which would only reduce the size of the facilities to be constructed
would make it impossible for the Center to perform the functions for which it was
created. and any that leave out $22 million of the planned facilities would
drastically change the educational concepts which were the basis of the 1971
Prospectus. Of the other alternatives mentioned below, none are desirable; be-
cause none will provide the training so urgently needed by law enforcement
officials in today's world. Many of the recommendations in the report of the Presi-
dent's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy regarding im-
proved Secret Service operations can only be carried out if excellent training
programs are offered. A similar requirement for good training exists for all of
the Federal Law Enforcement agencies.
In the period of December 1973 and January 1974, while construction at Belts-
ville was enjoined by the Court of Appeals pending its disposition of the action
filed under the National Environmental Policy Act, the Center made a study
of ways other than completing the Beltsville project that training facilities for
law enforcement could be furnished, and compared those possible alternatives
PAGENO="0284"
278
for attaining that objective with completion of the facilities at Beltsville. For
the purposes of the study, it was assumed that further construction at Beltsville
would continue to be prohibited by the Court until May 1, 1974, but on that
clirte a favorable decision of the Court would remove legal constraints on complet-
ing those facilities. (Actually the favorable judgment was rendered on May 8,
1914.) The tabulation set out below is a summary of the results of that study.
The costs shown are only the costs of providing the facilities. Except for the
mention in the footnotes of per diem costs, operating costs are not included. Con-
sequently, no consideration was given to such factors as the fact that in the
completed facilities at Beltsville, the cost, in time and money, of busing trainees
from downtown Washington to the firing and driver training ranges would be
avoided, or to the lesser costs of housing and feeding the students in the Center's
facilities as compared with paying them per diem.
It should be noted that the first three alternatives (lb, 2 & 3) did not consider
any limitation on the amount that could be spent, although the first, identified
as lb, would avoid the greatest portion of the immediate capital outlay. The last
three, i.e., (4a, 4b(1) and 4b(2)), assumed that no more than the presently
authorized $52.6 million would be available and therefore are, in effect, ways
that the project could be scaled down.
It should also be noted that any method of scaling down the project other
than those listed would necessarily result in junking all or most of the now
completed plans (for which nearly $2 million have been paid or obligated) and
an additional delay of a year or more for the development of a new design and
preparation of new plans, plus additional time for review by regional and local
planning bodies during which time continuing escalation of construction costs
would cut into the savings to be effected by reducing the size of the facility to be
constructed.
Estimated corn-
Alternatives pletion date
Average
annual cost
(millions)'
1(a) Completion of construction of facilitiesat Beltsville February 1978
1(b) CompleteconstructionatBeltsvillebylease/buybackagreument do
2. Planto buildfacilitiescomparableto Beltsvilleata newsite April 1982
3. Adapt 30-yr-old structures at an abandoned military base and construct build- February 1981
jogs to reach comparability with Beltsville.
4(a) Omit dormitories, but otherwise complete construction at Beltsville February 1978
4.(b)(1) Build at Beltsville the driver training ranges, the driving range building, February 1977
and the raid and crowd demonstration area to be used with the special training
building, firing ranges, and dignitary protection areas now constructed and rent
additional space in the Metropolitan Washington area.
4.(b)(2) Build at Beltsville the driver training ranges, the driving range building, Septernbnr 1975
and the raid and crowd demonstration area to be used with special training
building, firing ranges, and dignitary protection areas now constructed and con-
tinue training in classrooms at 1310 LSt. NW., without obtaining additional space.
$3.7
235.
4.6
4. 2
2. 8
3.0
1. 8
I Very gross estimates were made for capital outlays and tha costs for operating physical facilities only over a 30-yr time
frame. Estimates were totalled and the total over thu 30-yr period was cosver~ed to the vary rough average annual cost
shown.
2 The total outlay for the 30-yr period was reduced by the gross amsunt estimated to account for interest savings on a
lessercapital outlay which would be required by this alternative.
Per diem costs are not included. It is estimated the per diem cost to the government would approximate $5,003,000 per
year, making the average annual cost for this alternative $7,800,000.
4 Per diem costs are not included. It is estimated the per diem cost to the government would approximate $5,000,003 per
year, making the average annual cost for this alternative $8,000,000.
o Per diem costs are not included. It is estimated the per diem cast to the gavernment would approximate $5,000,000 per
year, making the average annual cost for this alternative $6,800,000.
After making the above analyses, it appeared clear that all alternatives avail-
able to the Federal Government were less desirable than completion of construc-
tion of facilities at Beltsville. This w-as true both in terms of the average annual
cost to the government and in terms of making available at the earliest possible
time the high quality training urgently needed for Federal law enforcement offi-
cials. In the work on the development of the Center, a number of reasons why it
is needed and should be built have been identified and articulated. Among the
more important ones, which are as valid now as when they were first identified,.
and which are the basic reasons why the Executive Branch strongly urges favor-
able consideration of the 1974 Prospectus for an increase in the authorization
level, are:
(1) Federal Offlcer.u 2s7eed Good Training.-Federal law enforcement functions.
require personnel thoroughly equipped with knowledge and skills in the tech-
PAGENO="0285"
279
niques of the prevention of crime and criminal investigation. Nearly all Federal
a aents are recruited with no experience or education in law enforcement. It is
therefore incumbent upon the agency to provide the necessary training in order
to accomplish their mission.
(2) Available Facilities Are Inadequate.-The training facilities being used
by the agencies are inadequate and the temporary facilities being used by
CFLETC are not satisfactory. CFLETC's temporary facilities are in a building
designed as an office building and not well adapted to use as an educational fa-
cility. Housing and dining facilities are not available and the training facilities
are too small to permit all the advanced, in-service, refresher and specialized
training of the agencies to be conducted there. It does not have the specialized
facilities which will be available in the proposed facilities at Beltsville.
(3) Individual Facilities Are Not Practical-Most Federal law enforcement
agencies are too small to justify the construction of an adequate, modern train-
ing facility for each group. A minimum modern training center, including class-
rooms, equipment, ranges, and other necessary facilities, could not be fully
utilized by any one of them.
(4) Divided Facilities Are Ine~lc'ie'nt.-Conducting training at the temporary
facilities at 1310 L Street and on the portion of the facilities available at Belts-
ville, which requires that the trainees be bused from one location to the other, is
costly and wastes the time of the trainees and the faculty.
(5) $pecialized Facilities Are Needed.-The nature of the law enforcement
function requires a high degree of individual skill in dealing with a wide variety
of emergency-type reactions and instinctive decision-making situations. The most
vital ingredient of a training program for law enforcement personnel is to place
the trainee in an environment as closely approaching that of the real situation as
is possible and teach him to deal with it properly. This is difficult to do, and the
effectiveness is frequently reduced, without the specialized facilities of the type
planned for Beltsville.
(6) A Consolidated Center Will Be Efticient.-A consolidated center is the
most efficient way to train. It minimizes the need for instructors and reduces the
drain on operating law enforcement agencies of furnishing instructor personnel.
It reduces duplication of effort and lowers cost.
(7) A Central Repository Is Needed.-Constant development in the investi-
gative art dictates that a central repository for the required skills and arts be
established. This is best done by a consolidated training center at which instruc-
tors teach only the latest, best and correct skills and arts.
(8) Interpersonal Relationship Will Be Fostered.-A consolidated center helps
the formation of the useful, interpersonal relationships which help assure more
effective operations during the professional careers of the trainees and can result
in massive savings in operations and hence more effective law enforcement
results.
(9) Proper Instructions To Guard the Rights of Citizens Will Be Fostered.-
A consolidated center can best assure that all Federal law enforcement officers
receive adequate and uniform instruction relating to due process and criminal
interrogation, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, legal aspects of search
and seizure, interviewing and interrogating witnesses and suspects, and all the
civil rights of our citizens.'
(10) A Better Faculty Will Be Available.-A consolidated center can maintain
a higher standard of instruction by attracting and maintaining a faculty of
highly trained instructors than could a number of smaller training centers forced
to depend largely upon part-time instructors who also have operating responsi-
bilities, while keeping in close contact with the developments in the field by pro-
viding for operational personnel to be rotated from the field to the Center for
two or three year instructional tours and then back to the field.
Quir~sTIoNs FROM SENATOR SCoTT
Question 1. In a letter dated November 1, 1971, Chairman Randolph notified
CSA of the Committee's approval of the previous Beltsville prospectus, with
three conditions. These conditions included the requirements that work be
completed within the authorized $52 million and that the Center be available
f~r all "criminal law enforcement personnel" including "the Bureau of Nar-
cotics and Dangerous Drugs." That bureau-now the Drug Enforcement Ad-
ministration-has refused to relocate its training to Beltsville.
a~ Does the Beltsville facility have the space to train the DEA personnel?
Answer. Yes.
PAGENO="0286"
280
b. Are, to your knowledge, there any special needs the DEA would require?
Answer. No.
c. Is there any reason they couldn't be trained at Beltsville?
Answer. No.
d. Would inclusion of DEA require any expansion of facilities and costs?
Answer. Not at this time.
Question 2. Does GSA have any knowledge of any plans or programs by the
DEA to seek their own training facilities? Please detail.
Answer. The Drug Enforcement Administration of the Department of .Tustice
on March 5, 1974, requested GSA's aid in selecting a site for a new DEA Na-
tional Training Institute. They indicated that a facility of about 189,000 square
feet was required and as a first priority they recommended that it be located
w-ithin a 50-mile radius of Washington, D.C. GSA on April 9, 1974, suggested
to DEA several surplus government-owned sites located around the country
and suggested that DEA examine these locations with respect to location of
their facility. Within the last 30 days DEA has talked again with GSA and
indicated that it has not found a suitable location. A formal request for
construction of a new facility has not yet been sent to GSA.
Question 3. How many non-military Federal law enforcement agencies now
exist? What is the authorized size of each? Which of these agencies have pledged
to do all or part of their training at Beltsville? What is the anticipated enroll-
ment at Beltsville on an agency-by-agency basis?
Answer. The Consolidated Federal Law Enforcement Training Center has
information on the agencies having law enforcement responsibilities which
are listed below. The Center considers these to be 49 agencies, but by separating
or combining related agencies in making the count, a different total could be
reached. (The guard force at Walter Reed Medical Center is not counted
because, although all the personnel are civilians, it is considered an agency of
the military.)
This listing is of agencies with which the Center has had contact. Some
may not qualify as "law enforcement agencies" because the employees do not
have the power of arrest and the authority to carry firearms. In addition. there
ore other agencies which have responsibility for administering certain Federal
laws where criminal prosecutions for violations may be possible, but the Center
does not know whether their investigators would qualify as law enforcement
officers. Examples are investigators for the Securities and Exchange Commis-
sion and examiners for the Home Loan Bank Board.
The best information available to the .Center on the authorized strength of
each organization and the number of persons they are expected to send for
training to BeTtsville is shown as of August 1974 in the following table. In the
column headed Authorized Officers the figures shown, except as indicated by
footnotes, were obtained from the agencies and represent the agencies' state-
ments of their authorized strength for FY 75. The number expected at Beltsville
is shown in two columns. The one headed Recruits is the number of new officers
which, according to their most recent statements, the agencies expect to recruit
each year. This is taken as the number the agency will send for training in the
ba~ic courses to be conducted by the Center w-hen the Beltsville facility opens.
Although the agencies were not asked to project the number of recruits antici-
pated for FY 78. when Beltsville is expected to open. the number of recruits
anticipated in FY 75 is used, except as indicated hr the footnotes, because the
data is more recent than the projections for FY 77 made in the fall of 1970.
The numbers in the column headed AIRS are given in terms of expected use of
dormitory spaces by the agency for its Advanced, In-Service, Refresher and Spe-
cializedtrainipg. For example, if an agency intends to givea one-week in-service
training course for 40 people, and a two-week special course for -20 people, each
would be considered as~ising 40 weeks of a dormitory space. In the aggregate
that would be 80 weeks of a dormitory space to be used by that agency. On the
assumption that a dormitory space can be used 48 weeks out of the year, that
agency would be considered as having a call qn 1.6064- dormitory snaces (out
of the 745 to be constructed) for the year for its AIRS program and would he
shown as 1.7 in the AIRS column, although 60 different persons would be in-
volved. For the Participating Agencies (Category A) the figures are projec-
tions made in the fall of 1973 of what the agencies then anticipated would be
their requirements for AIRS training at the Beltsville facilities in FY 197T.
PAGENO="0287"
281
The agencies are listed in four categories:
a. The Participating Agencies. There are the agencies which expect to send
their officers to the Center for basic training, and to conduct AIRS training at
the Center.
b. Eligible Agencies. These are agencies which are believed to be eligrble to
be Participating Agencies and which have indicated that they want to have
personnel trained at the Center, but which have not yet been accepted as partici-
pants by the Board of Directors.
c. Space-Available Agencies. These are agencies which have not been ac-
cepted as Participating Agencies. Although there are other reasons as to sense
agencies, this is usually because their personnel are not qualified under the cri-
teria that a law enforcement officer must have the power of arrest and the au-
thority to carry firearms. Personnel from these agencies have been trained when
space has been available. The figures shown are those as of August 174 that the
agencies anticipate that they would seek to have trained at Beltsville.
d. Others. The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Drug Enforcement
Administration. The FBI has its own facility and has never been considered for
training at the CFLETC. DEA is eligible to be a participant, but, as shown in
correspondence quoted in the response to Question A-fl, has not yet indicated
whether it will send its personnel to Beltsville for training.
Expected to train at Beltsvillo
Authorized
agents
AIRS
(equivalent
fiscal year 1975
Recruits
darmitsiy
spaces>
A. PARTICIPATING AGENCIES
Department of Agriculture:
U.S. Forest Service:
Special agents
Forest'efficers
Department of Commerce:
National Marine Fisheries: Service investigators
Department of the Interior:
Bureau of Indian Affairs:
Investigators
Indian police
National Park Service:
U.S. Park Police
U.S. Park Rangers
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:
Special agents
Visitor protection specialists
Department of Justice:
Immigration and Nate ralization Service:
Border Patrol inspectors
Immigration investigators
U.S. Marshals Service
Department of State: Security agents
Department of Transportation:
Federal Aviation Administration: Metropolitan Washington airport
service police~
Department of the Treasury:
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms: Special agents
Internal Revenue Service:
Intelligence special agents
Internal security inspectors
U.S. Customs Service:
Special agents
Customs patrol officers
U.S. Secret Service:
Special agents
Executive protective service officers
General Services Administration:
Office of investigations investigators
Federal protective service investigatnrs
Smithsonian Institution: National zoological park pnlice
U.S. Postal Service: Postal inspectors
B. ELIGIBLE AGENCIES
Department of Agriculture: Office of investigations
U.S.Capitol Police
Footnotes at end of table.
39 39 3.0
211 4
68 29
82 9
613 4
551 190 53.3
250 100 38. 1
228 16 26. 6
280 15
239 30
1,000 175
12122
`1,383
1,600
145
201
1,670
2, 770
414
633
1,256
1,214
838
33
40
31
1, 753
2150 19.6
2100 14.3
117 14.7
215
125
70 12.0
350 48. 2
50 11.0
40 23.8
60
90 52.4
25 37.2
5 .4
2 1.4
3119 44.3
PAGENO="0288"
282
Expected to train at Beltsvitle
AIRS
(equivalent
agents
fiscal year 1975
Recruits
dormitory
spaces)
C. SPACE-AVAILABLE AGENCIES
Department of Commerce: Office of Export Administration 20 2
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare: Sccial Security Adminis-
tration 15 6
Department of I-lousing and Urban Development: Office of Inspector
General 60 1
Department of Labor: Office of Investigations and Security 5 3
Department of Transportation:
Office of Investigations and Secority 3
U.S. Coast Guard 83 8
Department of the Treasury:
Bureau of Engraving and Printing 170
Bureau of the Mint 224 72
Treasory Guard Force - 65
Environmental Protection Agency: Office of Security and inspection 15 1
Federal Reserve Board 65 2
General Servicss Administration: Federal Protective Service: Protective
officers 4, 000 25
Government Printing Office 131 24
Library of Congress 100 24
National Security Agency
Smithsonian Institution:
Smithsonian guards 50
Smithsonian policemen 20 5
Smithsonian investigators 6 6
Walter Reed Army Medical Cent 22 4
Washington Metropelitan Area Transit Authority 200 200
D. OTHERS
Department of Justice:
Drug Enforcement Administration:
Special agents 1 2, 207
Compliance investigators 1 206
Federal Bureau of Investigation 1 8,496
1 Fiscal year 1974 authorized as shown for fincal year 1975 budget in hearings before House Appropriations Subcommittee.
2 Projections made in September 1970. At thin time the projection for authorized agents for fincal year,1972 was 1,659
border patrol inspectors and 832 immigration investigators.
a Projection made in September 1970.
Question 4. What use is being made of the present facilities at Beltsvllle? How
many agents are being trained there?
Answer. The Special Training Building is used by the Secret Service for ad-
vanced, in-service, refresher and specialized (AIRS) training for Secret Service
and Executive Protective Service officers. Projections for FY 75 are that the
following courses will be taught in this building:
Executive Protective Service Specialized Recruit Course;
Executive Protective Service Basic Course;
Executive Protective Service Officers In-Service;
Executive Protective Service Officials In-Service;
Executive Protective Service Motorscooter Course;
Executive Protective Service Motorucooter In-Service;
Special Qfficer;
Treasury `Security Force In-Service;
Counter Sniper Course;
Firearms/First Aid' Instructor Course;
Special Agent Training Course;
Protective Operations Briefing;
Technical Operations Briefing;
In-Service Training Course;
Protective Forces Training Course;
Shift Leader Training Course;
Administrative Personnel;
Protective Forces Driving Course; and
Supervisory Protective Operations Briefing.
It is anticipated that 2,385 "different" persons will be trained in these courses.
In FY 1974, 1598 "different" persons were trained in courses of this type.
The firearms training ranges, both the indoor ranges in the basement of the
Special Training Building and the outdoor, or semi-enclosed, ranges are used for
basic firearms training for all persons attending the basic courses at CFLETC,
PAGENO="0289"
283
for advanced firearms training for some officers and for periodic requalification
for others. The projections for FY 1975 are that the following firearms training
will be given:
Basic (including all CFLETC) 2,000
Advanced 1, 200
Requalification 2, 400
Total 5, 600
In FY 1974, 4,023 "different" persons were trained in these courses.
The Motorcade Training Area is used to train Secret Service agents in the
techniques of protection of the President, high officials of the government, and
other designated dignatories.
Some old farm buildings on the property are used as temporary facilities for
training investigators in the techniques of conducting outdoor raids, and a tent
on the property is used for familiarization training with tear gas.
Temporary driver training ranges at the Beltsville airport, about two miles
from the site where the driving ranges are to be constructed, are used to train
all personnel attending the Police School in automobile driving techniques and
in training other officers in handling of other vehicles used in operations. The
projection for training for FY 75 is as follows:
Number of
hours Classes
Course title per course per year
Students
per class
Total
students
Total
man-hours
Cruiser 24 13
Motorcycle 80 2
44
5
572
10
13,728
800
Motorscooter 32 10
Patrol wagon 8 5
9
5
90
25
2,880
200
Vans and trailers 8
2
5
10
80
Mobile headquarters 8
1
10
10
80
Bus (civilian) 8
1
10
10
80
Bus (police) 8
1
10
10
80
Bicycle 8 2
Defensive driving (civilian) 8 2
Defensive driving (police) 8 2
instructors 80 2
in-service 12 45
Specialized 8 10
Retraining 8-80 4
5
10
10
8
20
10
2
10
20
20
16
900
100
8
80
160
160
1,280
10, 800
800
64-640
Question 5. (a) Would you please give us a detailed breakdown on the various
cosnponents in the $22 million cost increase in the prospectus?
Answer. The items that make up the $21,731,000 increase between the 1971
prospectus and the 1974 prospectus amendment increase are:
Construction escalation (January 1972 to January 1974) $4, 560, 000
Construction escalation (January 1974 to award) 5, 420, 000
Furniture, equipnsent escalation 1, 188, 000
Additional management, inspection 213, 000
Increase in land cost 186, 000
A/E claims 135, 000
OSHA, NEPA, et cetera 4, 682, 000
Energy conservation study:
Cost of study 100, 000
Redesign cost 315, 000
Design and review (revised diagrammatics and miscellaneous
changes) 332, 000
Vehicle driving ranges 2, `30, 000
Dam and lake 880, 000
Pile foundation system 990, 000
Total 21, 731, 000
Question 5. (b) Also please provide us with a list of any cost savings that
have been achieved since the 1971 prospectus, such as the value of any space
reductions.
Answer. The 1971 prospectus provided for 772,331 gross square feet of space.
This has now been reduced to 700,000 square feet, an increase in the ratio of
occupiable (or net assignable) square feet to gross square feet from .62 to .68.
The overall resultant saving from this reduction in square feet amounted to
36-623-74-----1O
PAGENO="0290"
284
$4,500,000. As a result of an extensive value engineering review, 32 recommen-
dations were implemented resulting in an overall savings of a quarter of a mil-
lion dollars.
Question 6. The 1971 prospectus called for a facility with 772,000 gross square
feet of space and 587,000 net square feet. The new prospectus calls for 700,000
gross square feet and 479,000 occupiable square feet. Please explain where the
reductions in gross and occupiable space were achieved, and detail the impact
of these cuts on the value and usefulness of the facility.
Answer. A comparison of the areas in square feet of the 1971 and 1974 prospec-
tuses is shown by the following tabulation
1971
1974
Grossarea
Net area
Occupiable area (net assignable)
Ratio of occupiable (net assignable) space to gross space
772,000
587,000
480, 000
. 62
700,000
586,001
479, 000
- 68
The total reduction in gross area of 72,000 square feet stems from the reduc-
tions in the gross areas of almost every structure making up the 1971 prospec-
tus. The net areas and the occupiable areas in both prospectuses are essentially
the same.
The reduction in gross area has no deleterious effect on the usefulness of the
facility but rather indicates an improvement in the utilization of the total gross
space available.
Question 7. Please explain how GSA has managed to increase the number of
dormitory spaces 801 from 748, while reducing the dormitory space to 00,000
square feet from 123,000 square feet.
Answer. The 1971 Prospectus included dormitory space for 748 students, 50
temporary instructors, and five guests for a total of 803. This was modified
slightly as design developed and now consists of space for 744 students, 52 tem-
porary instructors and five guests for a total of 801.
The reduction in gross area of the dormitory is attributable to greatly im-
proved space utilization.
Question 8. As I understand it, the size of the dining room, including kitchen
and serving areas, is now- 21.600 gross square feet. The cost, including kitchen
equipment and furniture, is $2,116,000. How do these figures compare with the
1971 figures for identical features?
Answer. The size of the dining room, including kitchen and serving areas, pro-
vided for in the 1974 Prospectus is 28,109 square feet. (The size of the dining
room alone is 21,600 gross square feet.) Comparable facilities in the 1971 Pros-
pectus totaled 38,300 gross square feet. Thus, the 1974 design is 10,191 gross
square feet smaller than that projected in the 1971 Prospectus. The estimated
cost of constructing the kitchen and dining area now planned, including furni-
ture and equipment, is $2,116,000. The estimated cost for the same facilities in
the 1971 project was $1,888,600. Escalating this figure to 1974 would result in a
total cost for the 1971 kitchen and dining area, including furniture and equip-
ment, of $2,750,000.
Question .9. What is the status of contracting on the Beltsville facility?
Answer. Approximately $3.5 million in construction has been completed, prior
to the negative impact of the law suit.
One contract, for Clearing and Grubbing, was awarded in June 1973, after
the favorable decision in the law suit by the District Court. Work on this contract
was halted in July 1973 by an injunction by the Court of Appeals and resumed
in May 1974 when the litigation was resolved in the Government's favor. All work
under this contract is scheduled for completion in September 1974.
Several other contract packages are presently on the market. All bidders have
been advised that award of these contracts will be contingent upon availability
of funds. Funding in turn will be contingent upon approval of the $74.4 million
prospectus amendment by the Public Works Committees.
Question 10. (a) What is the justification for the $4 million driving range?
Answer. (a) All police officers need training in special and emergency driving
techniques. The Federal Government does not have any facilities for giving
driver training to law enforcement officers other than the temporary facilities
being utilized by CFLETC on the Beltsville Airport, which probably will not be
available after 1975.
At the present time, officers attending the Police School are trained in the
handling of automobiles, defensive driving, and techniques of handling skidding
PAGENO="0291"
285
automobiles in low friction conditions. Training is also given in other specialized
vehicles used in police work, including motorcycles and motorscooters. In addi-
tion, those officers, primarily the U.S. Park Police, whose duties require it. are
trained in high-speed pursuit driving. A number of other Federal officers, par-
ticularly the Customs Patrol Officers and some investigators, want to receive
driver training. Plans are now being developed to give that training.
The projections for the driver training to be given in FY 75 are contained in
the answer to Question B-4.
Question 10. (b) What work has been undertaken on this driving range?
Answer (b) The plans arid specifications for the ranges have been completed
and the design for the driving range building is being completed, but no con-
struction has been started on either the ranges or the building.
Question 11. Of the $7.2 million already obligated, how much represents com-
pleted work? Please itemize.
Answer. Payments against the $7.2 million obligated thru Jrme 30, 1974, are
as follows:
Payments
Design costs (AE) $1, 911, 774
Design review 240, 400
Surveys and tests 106, 839
Reproduction, invitation and bid expense
Construction 3. 523, 917
Reservations 3 108
Management and inspection:
Project manager 230, 407
Other GSA 230, 500
Construction manager 148, 855
Land acquisition 363, 104
Travel 1,
Total 6, 758. 557
Question 12. About $21000000 is listed in the Beltsville plan under "outdoor
facilities", both for "operation" and support. Would you give us a detailed
breakdown on what these outdoor facilities involve and how the cost has changed
since 1971? What changes in actual requirements for outdoor facilities has oc-
curred since 1971?
Answer. See below.
Outdoor facilities 1971 1974
Operational:
Pursuit driving range $804, 000 $2 580 000
Skid pan 317, 000 960 000
Skill driving pads 318,000 1,020000
Defensive driving range 445, 000 1,440,000
Subtotal 1,184,000 6000000
Accident scenes 91,000 0
Demolition demonstration 161, 000 0
Athletic field 190, 000 509, 000
Total 2,326,000 6,509,000
Support:
Roads and walks 3,025,000 4,641,000
Surface 311, 000 493, 000
Fire protection facilities (dam and lake) 151, 000 1,532,000
Public utilities for site (sewer and water) 1,956,000 2,380,000
Electric distribution 521, 000 803, 000
Water distribution 200, 000 309, 000
Perimeter fencing and security 251, 000 394 000
Tower 46, 000 0
Landscaping 282, 000 1,587,000
Powder Mill Rd 0 175, 000
Construction manager -------- 2,000,000
Total 6,743,000 14, 314, 000
The requirements for outdoor facilities in the 1974 Prospectus are essentially
unchanged from those in the 1071 Prospectus with the following exceptions:
(1) The Driving Range Complex, including the Pursuit Driving Range, Skid
Pan, Skill Driving Pads and Defensive Driving Range, had to be modified after
completion of a reevaluation of time original plan by traffic engineering consult-
ants. The finally developed design was a direct result of consideratioi~ of life
PAGENO="0292"
286
safety criteria and embodies the least additional work to make the track safe
within the context of the training objectives.
(2) Construction for Accident Scenes has been deleted. Accident scenes will
be located alongside the roadway without special construction.
(3) The Demolition Demonstration Area has been deleted because of environ-
mental considerations.
(4) The Fire Protection Facilities (Dam and Lake) as originally envisioned
consisted of an earthen dam backing up a lake. As the design developed the need
for such things as rip-rap, concrete weir, stream crossing culverts, extensive
grading. etc., became apparent and were incorporated into the design.
(5) A Tower will not be constructed. This feature has been incorporated into
the Driving Range Building.
(6) As a result of a traffic consultant study made as design developed, widen-
ing of Powder Mill Road was determined to be necessary for adequate ingress
and egress to the site.
Question 13; -Beside the FBI facility at Quantico, what other formal law en-
forcement training centers exist for Federal officers?
Answer. CFLETC is not aware of any other interagency law enforcement
Straining centers. Agencies have facilities for training their own personnel and
frequently law enforcement officers receive limited types of training at agency
:-facilities used primarily to train non-enforcement personnel. CFLETC is aware
that:
a. The Drug Enforcement Administration has training facilities in its building
~tit 14th and Eye Streets in Washington, D.C.
b. The Immigration and Naturalization Service has a training facility at Port
Jsabel in Texas.
c. The Postal Service has a training facility in Bethesda, Maryland.
d. The Bureau of Indian Affairs has an Indian Police Academy at Brigham
City, Utah.
e. The special agents of the Internal Revenue Service receive some training at
the IRS National Training Center in Arlington, Virginia.
f. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has one classroom with some
training equipment in Washington, D.C.
g. The Customs Service has a National Training Center at Hempstead, New
York. In the past some law enforcement training has been done there, but at the
present time all Customs enforcement training is being done by CFLETC or in
CFLETC's temporary rented facilities at 1310 L Street, NW., in Washington.
h. The Secret Service has training facilities for its own personnel at 1717 H
Street, NW., in Washington.
Question on contract letting. About six weeks ago, Administrator Sampson
wrote to the Committee members announcing that GSA intended to go forward
under the 1971 prospectus, prior to approval of the new prospectus. Senator
Scott of Virginia subsequently wrote to the General Accounting Office requesting
an opinion as to whether GSA has the legal right to go out for bids under
an older prospectus w-hen it knows it cannot complete the project under the
existing dollar limitation. We will insert the various letters in the hearing
record. In following up on Senator Scott's request, GSA has failed to respond
to Senator Scott's request. GAO has merely asked GSA for its views on the
legality question. These views, I understand, have never been provided. Could
you tell us when GSA plans to respond to GAO's request for views? Does GSA
have the legal authority to go forward under old out of date dollar figures?
If so. please cite the legal basis for your opinion.
Answer. At the time of our letter to the Committee we believed, based on our
judgment that funds would be available from the Department of Treasury,
that we had the authority to proceed with award. However, in light of the
Committee's position, and subsequent notification from Tree sury that until
the revised prospectus is approved, funds appropriated to Treasury are not
available for expenditure (except with respect to previously awarded con-
tracts). GSA has determined that we do not have authority to make an award
until the prospectus amendment is approved.
Our reply of August S to GAO's July 15 letter states that GSA will-not award
flny coflStrUCtlOfl contracts until after amendment approval.
[The fol1owin~ are replies to questions submitted subsequent to the
above questions :1
Question la. In the answer to Question B-13, eight existing training facilities
were listed:
PAGENO="0293"
287
What will happen to these facilities after the CFLETC is complete and hi
operation?
Answer. 1. At the present time, there is no indication that DEA intends to dis-
continue its training center in Washington.
2. The Immigration and Naturalization Service was directed to consolidate its'
law enforcement training facilities at the CFLETC by the Attorney General. At
the present time, there is no indication that once the Center is constructed, I&NS
would not actively participate.
It would not be practicable to duplicate at the CFLETC the facilities and
environment required by the unique nature of certain work performed by Border
Patrol agents. Because of this, it is our understanding that the facility at Port
Isabel, Texas, will continue to operate, but at a much reduced level, to provide
for advanced training.
3. It is our understanding that the Postal Service training facility in Bethesda,
Maryland, will continue to exist primarily since much of the training conducted
there is non-law enforcement related; i.e., management training specialized
training unique to the Postal Service, and non-law enforcement related seminars.
4. The Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian Police Academy, Brigham City, Utah,
will in all probability continue to exist to provide training unique to the needs
of the Indian Police. Normal law enforcement training facilities will be pro-
vided by CFLETC.
5. Training for law enforcement personnel of the Internal Revenue Service
will be conducted at the Center. To the best of our knowledge, the facilities at
the IRS National Training Center will continue to operate to provide training
to non-law enforcement employees.
6. All Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms training will be conducted at
Center facilities. It is anticipated that they will no longer need their existing
training space.
7. It is our understanding that the Customs Service National Training Center
at Hempstead, New York, will continue to exist to provide training for non-law
enforcement personnel. All Customs law enforcement training is now- conducted
in Center facilities.
8. It is our understanding that the Secret Service will continue to maintain
the 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. facilities for non-law enforcement
programs and possibly for certain specialized law enforcement training.
Question lb. Will I&NS consolidate its law enforcement training facilities at
the CFLETC?
Answer. See answer to question 1a. 2 above.
Question Ic. What will happen to the I&NS training facility in Texas?
Answer. See answer to question la. 2 above.
Question 2. What is meant by aquatic instruction facility and how much are
you spending on the swimming pool?
Answer. The aquatic instruction facility is a standard size swimming pool
which will be used to provide:
(1) Swimming Instruction.
(2) Instruction in Life-saving and Underwater Recovery Techniques.
(3) Other specialized training as identified by the agencies.
Additionaly, this area will be utilized as a recreational area during non-train-
ing hours by the student body.
The estimated cost of the facility including the enclosure and the equipment
is $180,000.
Question 3. How much is it costing to build a 600-seat auditorium?
Answer. The cost of the auditorium including seating is $415,000.
Question 4. What makes up the $1,587,000 cost for Landscaping listed in ques-
tion B-12?
Answer. Landscaping is broken down as follows:
Stockpile and respread topsoil 254, 800
Seeding 284, 800
Clear under brush around lake 7, 900
Fine grading 350, 000
Shrubs, trees and ground covering 656, 000
Stabilized path 7,900
Sodding 25, ~0Q
Total 1 1, 587, 000
1 Included in this figure are, escalation, contingencies and reservation costs of $392000..
PAGENO="0294"
288
Question 5. How many miles of roads are in the Roads and Walks item listed in
Question B-42, this sounds high.
Answer. There are 2 miles of roads to be constructed (outside the Vehicular
Driving Range area). The category Roads & Walks from question B-12, is broken
down as follows:
Clearing and grubbing $200, 000
Grading 1, 266, 565
Dewaterin~ 365, 000
Roads and walks, preparation and installation, retaining walls,
curbs, asphalt block boarder, et cetera, escalation contingencies
and reservation 807, 000
Drainage (site) 550, 019
Total 4, 641, 000
Question 6. Are the G.S.A participants to be trained at CFLETC Federal Pro-
tect~ve Officers or Guards?
Answer. They will be Federal Protective Officers.
Question 7. In question B-3, the exhibit on page 285 lists in the third column
a total of 400 dormitory spaces. What happened to the remaining dormitory
spaces?
Answer. These are AIRS students only. The balance of the dormitory spaces
will be occupied by personnel taking the recruit courses.
Question 8. Why isn't Beltsville Airport acceptable or available for training?
Answer. The Beltsville Airport is acceptable as a site but would have to 1)0
modified extensively to provide equivalent facilities to those planned. Further
we understand that this site will not be available because it will be utilized for
the Bicentennial celebration.
[Prior to the hearing a telegram was sent to various agencies;
that telegram and the replies follow:]
[TELEGR AM]
In 1971, the Committee on Public Works authorized monies for construction
of the proposed Consolidated Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Belts-
rule, Maryland with the stipulation that the following condition be met: That
the training Center he available as a training facility for criminal law enforce-
inent personnel of the civilian federal agencies, except the FBI, including but
not lImited to, the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (now the Drug
Enforcement Administration) the U.S. Capitol Police, the General Services Ad-
ministration and all components of the Department of Agriculture.
At that time your Department expressed an interest in participating in the
project. Several delays including litigations on environmental impact matters
have forced the General Services Administration to submit a prospectus request-
ing a second increase in authorization. The first increase was from $18 million
to $52 million; the present request is to $74 million.
Do you plan to participate in this facility? If no. why? Will this be your only
training facility? To what degree will you participate?
In either case, if you do or do not intend to participate, the Subcommittee on
Buildings and Grounds of the Public `Works Committee wishes a description of
your present training facilities and needs including number of personnel and
respective training received (e.g., police, investigative) in law enforcement
techniques.
The hearing on time prospectus is scheduled for August 8, 1974 at 10 :00 A.M.
in Room 1318 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. You are invited to partici-
`pate. A written response to the above questions and copies for the hearing record
are requested. For further information, please contact Veronica Holland, Com-
mittee on Public Works at (202) 225-7847.
DICK CLARK,
Cl, ((jiflUn), Subcommittee on Be ildings and Gro en ds.
CommIttee on Public Works, U.S. Senate.
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION.
Washington, D.C., Aug. 8, 1974.
I-Ion. DIcI~ CLARK,
Chairman, Sn beommittee on Buildings and Groun (is, Committee on Public Works,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR CLARK: Reference is made to your telegram of August 4, 1974,
relating to the General Services Administration's participation in the Consoli-
PAGENO="0295"
289
dated Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Beltsville, Maryland.
in aswe.r to your inquiry, GSA will participate, on a space available basis, in
the Training Center. We currently operate three training academies of our own,
with eight instructors each, located respectively in Washington, D.C.; Marietta,
Georgia; and Alameda, California. The curriculum concentrates 011 fundamen-
tals. The basic course is of six weeks duration and includes instruction in the
irilnary police functions, i.e., law, arrest procedures, jurisdiction, courts, fire-
arias, and related subjects. The Federal Protective Service has a current author-
ized ceiling of 4200 men.
Participation in time Consolidated Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
would supplement our basic curriculum by offering training in specialized areas,
such as, investigations and advanced police operations. Experience has shown
that such specialized training is needed and that it will l)e of considerable bene-
fit to the Federal Protective Service. In Fiscal Year 1975, we anticipate sending
28 or more candidates to the Center, of which 23 will he uniformed personnel
and five Criminal Investigators.
If we can be of further assistance in this matter, please advise.
Sincerely,
ALLAN G. KATJPINEN,
Assistant Administrator.
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL,
Washington, D.C., August 8, 1974.
I-ion. Dici~ CLARK,
(1i.cirman, $ubcommittce on B u-mldmngs and- Grounds, Cominittec on Public Works,
U.~8. &~nate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR Mn. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your telegram of August 2 concerning
plans for todays hearing on the prospectus for the Consolidated Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center at Beltsville and requesting informiiation about
Postal Service l)articil)ation in the Center.
The Postal Inspection Service is one of the Centers J)articipatmg agencies.
Gimlet Postal Imispector William J. Cotter has been a member of the Center's
Board of I)irectors since the organization's establishment in September of 1970.
Postal Inspectors investigate violation of postal related statutes. Consequently,
the Postal Service became associated with the Centers C.riaiina,l Investigators
School at the time it was conceived. Currently our particiPatiOn is iiiiniiaal. 1-low-
ever, when the Center's Beltsville facility is operational it is anticipated that
much of our Inspection Service training can be accomplished tlieie.
The Centers proposed facility can be used to provide the basic criminal in-
vestigative training for newly recruited Inspectors. In addition, it will be neces-
sary for the Inspection Service to conduct specialized basic traiiiing, refresher
training, and basic training for our Security Police Force which is our uniformed
protective unit. When the Center opens the Inspectiomi Service will l)e required
to maintain a training staff. 1-lowever, time question of an independent training
location is not yet resolved.
Postal Inspection Service participation in the Ceiiter's activities once the
permanent facility opens is expected to be similar to other major law enforce-
ment agemicies. Instructors are to be assigned to the Center. Class enrollmemits
are to he filled in accordance w'ith policies estal)lished by the Board of Directors.
Current enrollment projections include 144 Postal Inspector basic recruits per
year.
Present Inspection Service training is mostly accomplished at the Postal Serv-
ice Training and Development Institute, located in Bethesda, Maryland. The
Inspection Service utilizes one floor of a commercial building which houses the
Institute. It conducts basic Inspector training over a 16 week period, and various
one- and two-week refresher courses.
rl~lii.ee full-size classrooms together with several workshop rooms are available.
Addit~onaI accoinmnoclmitions imiclude a projection room, specially designed rooms
for practical demonstrations, and staff offices. The Institute provides supple-
mental classroom space when needed. Auxiliary facihitier include adequate space
for unarmed defense instruction and an indoor firing range located in a postal
facility in ~orthern Virginia. Government housing is provided for students
through time Postal Service Training and Developmmient Institute. Time facilities
now in use are satisfactory for Inspection Service training needs. A full-tune
Instruction staff of six is augmented by field expertise in order to efficiently
conduct all centralized training efforts.
PAGENO="0296"
290
In addition to classroom instruction, the training location serves as a coordi-
nation point for a Criminal Justice correspondence course, and a variety of train-
ing efforts conducted at the local level in the field. A summary of Inspection
Service training provided during the past two fiscal years is attached, in keeping
with your request.
I believe this letter will eliminate the need for Postal Service testimony at
the hearing. Please let me know if additional information would be helpful.
Sincerely,
E. T. KLA55EN.
(Enclosure.)
Postal inspection service training activities-Number of
enrollees, fiscal years 1973 and 1974
Fiscal year 1073:
Basic inspector training (129). Duties of a postal inspector criminal in-
vestigations audit/service work and
administrative responsibilities.
Security police officer training Protective and preventive role of law
(211). enforcement officer in postal facili-
ties and certain court facilities.
Special investigator training (87). Investigative law enforcement training.
In-service refresl1er training (217). Specialized subject matter related to
participants' specific investigative
area.
Correspondence course (237). Criminal justice.
Fiscal year 1974:
Basic inspector training (204). Duties of a postal inspector criminal in-
vestigations audit/service w-ork and
administrative responsibilities.
Security police officer training Protective and preventive role of law
(896). enforcement officer in postal facili-
ties and certain court facilities.
In-service refresher training (253). Specialized subject matter related to
participants' specific investigative
area.
Correspondence course (183). Criminal justice.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, D.C., August 8, 1974.
HON. RICHABD C. CLARK,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR CLARK: The Secretary has asked me to reply to your telegram
of August 2, 1974, regarding the Department of State's participation in the Con-
solidated Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Beltsville, Maryland.
The Department plans to participate in this facility on a limited basis con-
sistent with our training requirements. The Training Center will be utilized to
a limited degree for the training of investigators in criminal type investigations.
In addition, the firearms training facilities will be used for qualification and
familiarization purposes.
The Department of State at the present time does not have a facility for train-
ing of personnel in criminal type investigations. Firearms training is. accom-
plished at various police departments' firing ranges in the area and through use
of military facilities at Fort Belvoir.
It will still be necessary for the Department of State to maintain its own in-
ternal training facility and staff for highly specialized training which is not
available within the framework of the Consolidated Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center.
The Department of State does not maintain a separate training facility, as
such, but utilizes available conference rooms and working areas within the De-
partment. The training includes lectures and practical instructions. The lecturers
and instructors are regular staff members who provide this training in addition
to their regular duties.
PAGENO="0297"
291
The Department trains on an annual basis approximately 50 officers for over-
seas duty and approximately 120 officers for domestic duty. At the present time
none of the officers receive training in criminal type investigations or law en-
forcement techniques.
Please do not hesitate to call on me if I can be of any further assistance.
Cordially,
LINWOOD HOLTON,
Assistant Secretary for Congressional Relations.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,
Washington, D.C., August 8, 1974.
Hon. RICHARD C. CLARK,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds, Senate Committee
on Public Works, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR CLARK: This is in response to your telegram to Secretary Simon
of August 2, 1974, relating to the hearings on the Consolidated Federal Law En-
forcement Training Center (CFLETC). The CFLETC, an organizational entity
of the Department of the Treasury:
1. Serves as an interagency law enforcement training center.
2. Provides necessary facilities (currently rented), equipment, and support serv-
ices for conducting recruit, advanced, specialized and refresher law enforcement
training for personnel of participating Federal agencies, including, when the
facilities at Beltsville are completed, housing, feeding, and recreation programs
and administrative services for students.
3. Provides support, administrative, and educational personnel for common
training courses to:
(a) Consolidate requirements of participating agencies and develop pro-
posed curricula;
(b) Develop content and teaching techniques for courses;
(c) Instruct and evaluate students.
The Department of the Treasury is the Executive Agency for operating the
Center and serves as the established point of authority for implementation of
Federal regulations and policies having government-wide application. Within this
concept, Center operations are financed by a separate appropriation to the De-
partment of the Treasury to be used to pay costs of salaries, equipment, and
other expenses in connection with:
(1) Administration.
(2) Maintenance and operation of the physical plant (including dormities and
dining facilities).
(3) Conducting common training courses.
(4) Operation of the laboratories, library and other support services.
(5) Research conducted in law enforcement curriculum and training methods.
The question you asked and the Treasury responses follow:
Question. 1. Will the CFLETC be your oniy training facility for criminal law
enforcement personnel?
Answer. All law enforcement bureaus of the Department of the Treasury will
utilize the CFLETC to the fullest extent possible in accordance with the Center
functions and Center operations as set forth above.
In the event that the Center facilities are not adequate to meet the needs of
Treasury bureaus (until such time as the Congress might consider it appropriate
to expand the currently projected facilities under consideration at Beltsville),
other additional training arrangements might be necessary as the law enforce-
ment responsibilities of Treasury bureaus may be increased by the Congress.
Specific information pertaining to individual Treasury bureaus follows:
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATE) .-Yes.
Bureau of Engraving and Printing (Engraving and Printing) -Yes, except
selective specialized training of security personnel will be given at the Bureau.
Bureau of the Mint (Mint) .-Yes.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) .-Yes, for basic training for both the Intelli-
gence Division and Inspection; however, the Intelligence Division will continue
to provide a Basic Income Tax Law Course for special agents at the IRS
National Training Center, Arlington, Virginia (this Center is utilized by the
Service for extensive training of a non-law enforcement character) and Inspec-
tion will conduct a specialized Internal Security Basic School in non-IRS
training facilities.
PAGENO="0298"
292
United States Customs Service (Customs) -All criminal investigators of the
Office of Investigations and the Office of Security and Audit will l)e trained at the
CFLETC. Customs will continue operation of its National Training Center
presently located at Heinpstead, New York, to provide teelmical, administrative
and management training to Customs non-law enforcement employees. Certain
select employees may be trained elsewhere than the National Training Center
as may~ be required.
United States Secret Service (Secret Service) -Yes.
Question. 2. What training in criminal law enforcement will be conducted for
you at the CFLETC or by you at the CFLETC?
Answer. a. Training conducted for Treasury bureaus by the CFLETC:
The Criminal Investigator School (CIS) or the Police School (PS) will con-
duct the basic training for the criminal investigators or police officers of the
Treasury bureaus. The Center plans to provide some advanced, in-service,
refresher or specialized courses for the Treasury bureaus. The only training
developed to date in this category is the Advanced Photography School.
All firearms training provided in the CFLETC facilities already constructed
at Beltsville is conducted by U.S. Secret Service personnel. In FY-T5. 5(500
shooters will be trained. (The law enforcement personnel of the six Treasury
bureaus are included in this figure.)
The Department of the Interior (National Park Service. U.S. Park Police)
personnel conduct all instruction in vehicle operations on the CFLETC driver
training ranges. Personnel from some 15 agencies are trained on the Beltsville
airport (until the Center's driving range can be built) and it is anticipated that
over 43~1 law enforcement officers will be trained in FY-75.
b. Training to be conducted by the Bureaus at the CFLETC:
ATF.-Special Agent Basic School, Special Agent Refresher Training, Spe-
cialized Refresher Training, Instructor Training for Special Agents, Specialized
Investigative Language Training. Criminaflstic Photography, Treasury Enforce-
ment Communication System, Identification (Laboratory), Firearms Training
(Response Firing), Undercover Techniques.
Engraving ~ Printing-Some additional specialized training relating to Bureau
techniques will be given by the Bureau.
MInt.-None.
IRS.-Special Agent Basic School (sequel to CIS).
Customs-Special Agent Training School including training in preventing
fraud, advanced supervisory training and training of investigators regarding the
use of the computer. Customs also utilizes the CFLETC to train Customs Patrol
Officers.
Secret Service-All specialized training or training peculiar to the needs of
the Secret Service, including the Executive Protective Service; also training
of personnel of other law enforcement agencies w-ho come to the Secret Service
for assistance in matters relating to the Secret Service primary mission.
Question. 3. Describe your present training facilities and indicate any which
will be closed after CFLETC is operating fully at Beltsville.
Answer:
ATE-The Bureau will retain its present training facilities which include one
classroom approximately 30'xGO' with an audio visual control booth and a
recording studio, and one classroom approximately 20'x30'.
Engraving cf~ Printing.-The Bureau currently has a Training Room and a
Firearms Range, which is open on a 24-hour basis to meet the needs of its three
shift operation. These facilities will be retained for specialized training.
ihIint.-The Bureau has no independent training facilities for security per-
sonnel, except local pistol ranges available to its field personnel. The ranges
would remain open for re-qualification purposes.
IRS-The Intelligence Division will continue to utilize tl1e IRS National
Training Center. Inspection does not possess any centralized training facilities.
Customs-The National Training Center (NTC) w-ill be retained for training
of non-law enforcement personnel. The NTC includes six classrooms and a
television studio. Current plans are to increase the Center by six classrooms to
meet increasing technical, operational and managerial needs.
Secret Service-The Secret Service occupies 23.022 square feet at its 1T17 H
Training facility in Washington, D.C. This footage includes eight formal class-
rooms, an auditorium, administrative, clerical and support space, together with
physical fitness rooms and situation rooms which relate to both protective and
criminal investigative responsibilities.
PAGENO="0299"
293
In addition, for fiscal year 1075, the Secret Service has requested 6,000 addi-
tional square feet to meet new programs. The Secret Service operates an Indoor
Pistol Range in the Main Treasury Building in Washington. The Service presently
occupies the CFLETC Special Training Building and CFLETC range complex at
Beltsville, Maryland. Included are four classrooms, an exercise room, special
purpose rooms, and administrative, clerical and support area.
The amount of training space which the Secret Service will be able to close
after the CFLETC is fully at Beltsville is directly related to the extent
to which the Center can absorb the Secret Service law enforcement training
requirements as projected for Fiscal Year 1977.
Qvestion. 4. Describe your present training needs, including the number of
l)ersonnel and the respective training to be received in law enforcement
techniques, i.e., investigative training or police training.
Answer
ATF.-The Bureau's present needs for training in law enforcement techniques
include
S~ecial Agent Basic School (6 weeks), 70 Agents.
Criminal Investigation School, 70 Special Agents.
Specialized Refresher Training (1-2 weeks), 1.307 Special Agents.
Advanced Explosives Training (1-2 weeks), 1,650 Special Agents.
Firearms Training (Response Firing) (2 days), 1,650 Special Agents.
Criminalistic Photography (1 week), 38 Special Agents.
~ Enforcement Communication System Training (4 clays), 56
Sijecial Agents.
Instructor Training for Special Agents (2 weeks), 54 Special Agents.
Specialized Investigative Language Training (3 weeks), 50 Special Agents.
Undercover Techniques (2 weeks), 75 Special Agents.
Functional Training for Criminal Enforcement Supervisors (1 week),
200 Supervisors.
The above training needs represent present requirements and do not reflect,
needs for projected hiring in Fiscal Year 1976 and thereafter.
Engraving b PrintIng-In the event that the guard (085) series at this Bureau
is reclassified to police (083) series, which reclassification is currently under re-
view, there will be a need to send 186 personnel for this training in law enforce-
iuent techniques, i.e., police training, to the CFLETC. This training will also he of
a continuous nature for new enoployees and refresher courses for incumbents as
needed.
The training personnel assigned to the Office of Security will continue to train
Bureau guard personnel in the necessary security techniques which are applicable
to the Bureau.
Mint-The Bureau of the Mint has a security force of approximately 280
officers. They are located in Philadelphia; New York City; West Point, New
York; Denver, Colorado; Fort Knox, Kentucky; and San Francisco, California.
The Bureau has a definite and pressing need for police-type law enforcement
training, with some emphasis on investigative training. First input to a 4-week
Police School course starts August 28.
Ift~$.-An average of 350 new Special Agents of the Intelligence Division per
year require basic criminal investigative training and an average of 50 new
Internal Security Inspectors of Inspection per year require basic criminal
investigative training.
Customs-The Service projects the following will require training in CFLETO
facilities
Criminal
investigator
school
Special agent
training
school 1
Fiscal year:
1975
60
400
1976
1977
200
145
400
400
1978
1979
180
205
400
400
1~o
180
400
1 Training in law enforcement techniques conducted by customs in CFLETC space (2 classrooms, a room for a computer
terminal tied to the Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS), plus storage space). The training is is tech-
niques to prevent fraud, in supervisory techniques, and in the use of the computer.
PAGENO="0300"
294
Secret Service-In Fiscal Year 1975 the Secret Service will be offering 26 dif-
~terent training programs, not including firearms training, for some 3,000 law
enforcement officers. As noted earlier, the Secret Service conducts the firearms
training utilizing the Center's Beltsville Firing Ranges and will in Fiscal Year
1975 process over 5,600 shooters. (Training of all Secret Service agents is included
~tn this figure.)
Sincerely,
DAVID R. MACDONALD,
Assistant Secretary (Enforcement, Operations cQ Tariff Affairs).
U.S. CAPITOL POLICE,
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF,
Washington, D.C., August 7, 1974.
lion. DICK CLARK,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Buildings and Grounds, Dirksen Senate Oy~ce Build-
ing, Washington, D.C.
DEAR Mn. CHAIRMAN: In response to your letter of August 1, 1974, I am pleased
to report that the Capitol Police Board has concurred in my recommendation that
the Capitol Police utilize the facilities of the Consolidated Federal Law Enforce-
ment Training Center.
As you are perhaps aware, since 1971 the Capitol Police and the Executive Pro-
tective Service have of necessity expanded their forces considerably. Initially
when these expansions developed the training facilities were not adequate to ac-
commodate all participating agencies. Therefore the Capitol Police developed a
temporary training program with very limited facilities.
Although during this interim period we have steadily improved our training
program there is no doubt that it is very essential for the Capitol Police to par-
ticipate in the Consolidated Federal Law Enforcement Officers Training Program.
At present 23 Capitol Police officers are attending a twelve week training ses-
sion at the Center. It is a conservative estimate that it will be necessary for ap-
proximately 200 Capitol Police officers to attend the regular twelve week training
session each year in the future.
The Capitol Police Force has a total authorization of 1040 members. Approxi-
mately 65 members are assigned to various areas of investigative duty.
I would estimate that an average of at least one week per officer each year will
be necessary for special training in the investigative field.
Our participation in the Consolidated Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center will enable us to use the limited facilities now available for Capitol Police
for short refresher training courses dealing specifically with problems peculiar
to the Capitol Buildings and Grounds.
I completely agree with the need for the proposed Consolidated Law Enforce-
ment Center at Beltsville, Maryland.
I will be available to appear before your committee if you so desire.
Sincerely,
JAMES M. POWELL,
Chief of Police.
Senator BURDIcIc. The meeting will be adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene.
Oil Wednesday, September 18, 1974.]
PAGENO="0301"
VARIOUS PENDING BUILDING PROJECTS
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1974
U.S. SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met at 10 :05 a.m., pursuant to call, in room
4200, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. William Lloyd Scott~
presiding.
Present: Senator Scott.
FEDERAL OFFICE BUILDING, NORFOLK, VA.
Senator SCOTT. The committee will come to order.
The purpose of this hearing is to discuss two prospectuses cur:
rently pending before the subcommittee. The first proposes construc-
tion of a new Federal Office Building and parking garage in down-
town Norfolk, Va., at the cost of $14,561,000.
rfhe other requests a $21,731,000 increase in the authorization for
construction of a new Federal Law Enforcement Training Center at
Beltsville, Md.
My colleague on the House side, Mr. Wliitehurst of Norfolk, wanted
to be here but could not because of other committee hearings. He. re-
quested that we insert his statement in the record, and, of course, we
are glad to do that.
[tm1Ie statement follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. G. WILLIAM WHITEIiTJRST. A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FR0u TIlE STATE OF VIRGINIA
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much having this opportunity to testify in
support of Congressional approval of the proposed Norfolk Federal Building.
Your Committee is to be commended for promptly scheduling these hearings so
that the merits of time proposed federal building can be considered expe-
ditiously. I am confident that the House Public Works Committee will also act
quickly on this proposal, and that final Congressional approval of this most
important project will be attained in the near future. This prospect is par-
ticularly gratifying to me, as my initial request to the GSA for a new federal
building for Norfolk was one of the most important actions of my first term in
Congress five years ago.
As you know, the General Services Administration and the Office of Manage-
n~eat and Budget have recommended the construction of a new federal building
in Norfolk after an exhaustive study. As one who has worked with 1)0th the city
officials in Norfolk and the affected federal agencies for several years to make
the Norfolk Federal Building a reality. I can assure you that the GSA and 0MB
have considered the need for the new facility in great detail. Ta may judgment,
it is clearly in the best interests of time federal government and the people of
Southeastern Virginia to move forward rapidly to the final completion of this
project.
(295)
PAGENO="0302"
296
The GSA prospectus which has been sul)mitted to this Committee indicates
that federal agencies in Norfolk are now located at ten different sites. By
bringing together all of these agencies in one building, the provision of services
to the large number of people who must deal with more than one federal agency
will be facilitated. For example, many elderly residents in the Norfolk area
receive both social security and veterans benefits, and therefore, must deal with
both the local Social Security Administration and Veterans Administration of-
fices. Because the SSA and VA offices are now some distance apart in Norfolk,
the older citizens must bear substantial inconvenience and cost in travelling
to each of these offices.
A c:e11t~~al location will also improve the coordination between the federal
agencies whose functions overlap. Again, I believe the SSA and VA can be used
as examples. Under existing law, an individual's veterans benefits are, to an
extent, based on the amount of social security he or she might receive. Con-
sequently, there is an obvious need for close cooperation between the SSA and
VA, and it is my opinion that housing these agencies in the same building is
bound to facilitate the necessary coordination.
An additional benefit of this project will be the enhancement of the major
redevelopment efforts now underway in the downtown area of Norfolk. For
the past several years, private industry, in cooperation with the federal, state,
and local governments, has made substantial progress in restoring the heart of
the city. Construction of a new federal building will complement these ongoing
projects to revitalize downtown Norfolk.
In the prospectus, the GSA stated its preference for construction of the fed-
eral building by purchase contract. I know that there is some disagreement
among Members of this Committee as to whether the purchase contract method
~is preferable to direct federal construction. However, I would point out that the
GSA economic analysis demonstrates that the purchase contract method would
be significantly less costly. City officials in Norfolk have also indicated to me
their strong preference for purchase contract financing.
~nfortun'ately, it is my understanding that the authority for purchase eon-
tracts, provided in Section 5 of the Public Buildings Amendments of 1972, will
expire at the end of this fiscal year. Thus, if a purchase contract is not awarded
by the end of fiscal year 1975, it is likely that direct federal construction will
have to l)e utilized. Since both the GSA and the City of Norfolk agree that pur-
chase contract financing is preferable to direct federal construction. I believe
it is of the utmost importance that your Committee approve this project in the
very near future to insure that a purchase contract can be awarded by the end
of this fiscal year.
Once again, I urge your prompt approval of the Norfolk Federal Building.
Thank you for your attention.
Senator Scorr. We will take up the Norfolk project first. Jf you
gentlemen from the General Services Administration would identify
yourself for the record and then proceed as you see fit.
STATEMENT OP LOY SHIPP, SR., ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR.
SPACE MANAGEMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE, GENERAL
SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT RICE,
ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL, AND TOM L. PEYTON, ER., ACTING
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT,
PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE
Mr. Smpp. Mr. Chairman, I am Loy Shipp, Jr. I am Assistant
Commissioner for Space Management. Public Buildings Service of the
GSA. On my right is Mr. Robert Rice, Assistant General Counsel.
Public Buildings Service. On my left is Mr. Tom Pc ton, Acting As-
sistant Commissioner for Construction Management. Public Buildings
Service.
This prospectus provides for construction of a Federal Office Build-
ing and parking facility at Norfolk, The facility will replace the func-
PAGENO="0303"
297
tionally obsolete U.S. Customhouse and consolidate agencies located
in seven widely dispersed leased locations throughout the community.
rfl~e facility will have a gross area of about 299,000 square feet and
an occupiable area of 203,500 square feet. The occupiable area includes
70.200 square feet of space which will be located in a separate parking
structure which will provide a total of 200 parking spaces for 100
government-owned, 30 visitor. and 70 employee vehicles.
It is proposed that the new facility will be constructed on a site to
be acquired of about 94,000 square feet in the city of Norfolk. The
estimated cost of the project is $14,561,000.
Senator SCOTT. Mr. Shipp, where would this building be located in
Norfolk?
Mr. SinpP. It is our plan to locate the building in downtown Norfolk.
In fact, we had some discussions with the Norfolk Redevelopment
Housing Authority with regard to the possibility of a site in the urban
renewal area which is in proximity to the heart of the downtown area.
Senator SCOTT. But you don't have a definite location?
Mr. Sinpp. We have not as yet selected a site.
Senator SCOTT. When do you anticipate that you might be able to
begin construction if both committees give their approval?
Mr. SHIPP. I am going to ask Mr. Peyton to give us that informa-
tion.
Mr. PEYTON. There are several important prelimin aries prior to the
start of the construction, and one has just been mentioned: The ques-
tion of selecting the site and making it available. The other is insur-
ing that there are no problems in complying with the provisions of the
Environmental Policy Act.
But assuming that all goes well in those two important areas, we
should be able to start construction in the late summer.
Senator SCOTT. Would you anticipate any question with regard to
the environment, since this is an office building? Are you anticipating
any problem in the construction?
Mr. PEYTON. No. We are not anticipating any. We have learned from
experience this is a matter that has to be gone into very carefully, and
we certainly propose to do so.
Senator ScorT. You mentioned an approximate date when you might
he able to begin construction?
Mr. PEYTON. Yes, sir.
Senator SCOTT. What did you say?
MI. PEYTON. In the late summer of 1975.
Senator Scorr. If you are able to begin then, when would you antici-
pate that the building would be completed?
Mr. PEYTOX. A building of this size we would anticipate would. take
approximately 30 months.
Senator SCOTT. Thirty months, two and one-half years.
Mr. PEY'roN. Yes, sir.
Senator SCOTT. That would take you into 1977 or 1978.
Mr. PEYTON. Early 1978.
Senator SCOTT. What would we do with the customhouse. the Federal
customhouse? I believe it was described as "functionally obsolete."
Mr. Sj-iipp. We have had some preliminary discussions with the
city with regard to disposal of this building to them or to some other
public interest group that would pi~esemve the- building. It is our plaim
the building would be preserved.
PAGENO="0304"
298
Senator SCoT1~. You are not going to take it down?
Mr. Si-iirr. No, sir.
Senator Seo~r. Does it have some historic value in the Norfolk area?
Mr. SIIIPP. Yes, sir, it does.
Senator SCOTT. How about the energy demands in the design of this
building? Is there anything being done that would reduce energy
consumption?
Mr. PEYTON. Yes, sir. We recently completed a rather comprehensive
assembly of guidelines for consideration in the Federal Office Build-
ing. They are also applicable to other office buildings-but in our case
the Federal Office Building-and we expect to make those guidelines
fully applicable.
Senator SCoi~r. What are we talking about?
Mr. PEYTON. The guidelines relate to such things as the fenestration
or sizing of windows in the building to insure heat loss or heat gain
is minimized.
Senator SCOTT. Does that mean smaller windows?
Mr. PEYTON. Yes, sir. It could mean that. This is a matter which
must be reviewed to insure that the occupant's needs for outside light
are taken into consideration. But generally speaking, large glass ex-
pansions in buildings are wasteful of energy.
Senator Scorr. I have no expertise in this field, and yet I have
heard that much of the heat or the coolness that you get is dissipated
through the windows. But isn't there a way tha.t you can increase
window thickness to avoid losing all that outside light?
Mr. PEYTON. Yes, sir, there is. And the glass industry is responding
to some of the contemporary problems that have been brought to light
with the concern over energy; our offering double and triple glassing,
as you mentioned, as well as new types of glass that particularly speak
to the problem of losing heat or gaining heat, depending on the
situation.
Senator Sco'rr. It just seems a shame to me that. in the name of
conserving energy-and I am for that as all of us are-you make the
windows smaller so that, perhaps, you have to turn the lights on all
the time because you don't have any direct lighting. Is General Serv-
ices working on that?
Mr. PEYTON. We have some very structured studies that assess this
on a very carefully calculated basis. I am confident it will speak to the
problem.
Senator SCOTT. The subcommittee. of course, does want to go over
this prospectus carefully, and we will have our staff do that. Also. the
prospectus says that if General Services cannot go forward under a
purchase contract arrangement, then it would go forward under Sec-
tion 210 (f) of the Federal Property Administrative Services Act.
What does that subsection provide?
Mr. Siiipp. This sets up what is known as a Federal building fund
from which we obtain1 through the appropriation process, the funds
necessary to construct Federal buildings.
What that really means is that there would be direct Federal con-
struction. We would not proceed under the purchase contract method.
Senator Scorr. What would you do with regard to parking on this
site? Would you have parking at the same site?
PAGENO="0305"
299
Mr. Smrr. Yes, sir. Our minimum site study on which we based
our prospectus contemplates that a three-story parking facility would
be located adjacent to the proposed building on the same site.
Senator SCOTT. Would that just be a parking lot?
Mr. Srnpp. It would be a parking facility. It is a three-story park-
ing facility.
Senator SCOTT. What would it cost, the estimate? I see from the
prospectus that the cost of the project is $14,561,000. Does that include
parking?
Mr. PEYTON. That does, sir, and the component of that cost that
would be attributable to the parking structure would be $1,747,000.
Senator SCOTT. We talked about the environment a few minutes ago.
Is there any specific environmental problem that you foresee?
Mr. Srnpp. No, sir.
Senator SCOTT. I-low about zoning? Is there any problem with zon~
ing in this area?
Mr. Si-iipp. If we went into an urban renewal area, there certainly
would be no problem. We would conform to the local urban renewal
plan.
Senator SCOTT. We talked about the old Customhouse. Are your
thoughts still somewhat tentative? Have you entered into any sort of
arrangement with the city yet?
Mr. Siin~r. We have not entered into any arrangement with the city,
although we have had preliminary discussions with them looking for-
ward to the preservation of the building. This building is on the Na-
tional Register of Historic Places. We would hope to convey it to a
public body.
Senator SCOTT. You have, no intention of destroying it?
Mr. Smpp. No, sir. Our intent is to make arrangements for it to
be retained.
Senator SCOTT. Do you think there might be some exchange of land
with the city?
Mr. Smrp. I am not aware of any plans of that type.
Senator SCOTT. Thank yom gentlemen. I do want to insert, for the
record a telegram from the city manager of the city of Norfolk and
make that a part of the record.
[The telegram referred to, the prospectus, and additional questions
follow:]
[Telegram]
NORFOLK. VA.
Hon. WILLIAM L. SCOTT.
Senator SCOTT. It is my understanding that the Senate public works subcom-
mittee on Buildings and Grounds will hold a public hearing on the proposed
Norfolk Federal office building, Wednesday, September 18, 1974, at 10 am. The
city offers `its support for the proposed project and would hope that the sub-
committee would see fit to approve this project. This proposed project would
centralize all existing Federal agencies currently dispersed across the city. thus
providing better service to the community. Secondly, the Federal office building
would compliment upwards to $125 million in new construction to revitalize
downtown. `This new construction includes several hotels and office buildings,
a $60 million complex known as Norfolk Gardens, and an $18 million urban
transit system if agreeable. We would like to file a formal statement with the
subcommittee at a later date.
Sincerely,
G. ROBERT HOUSE Jr., City Manager.
36-623-74-----2O
PAGENO="0306"
300
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PVA-7403l
PROJECT NUMBER : NVA-74531
PROSPECTUS FOR PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
UNDER THE PUBLIC BUILDINGS ACT OF 1959, AS AMENDED
FEDERAL OFFICE BUILDING & PARKING FACILITY NORFOLK, VIRGINIA
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PIOJECT:
This prospectus provides for construction of a Federal Office Building and
Parking Facility at Norfolk. The facility will replace the functionally
ossolete U.S. Customhouse and consolidate agencies located in seven widely
(hspersed leased locations throughout the community. The facility will
have a gross area of ahout 299,000 square feet and an occupiable area of
203,500 square feet. The occupiable area includes 70,200 square feet of
space which will be located in a separate parking structure which will
provide a total of 200 parking spaces for 100 Government-owned, 30 visitor,
and 70 employee vehicles. It is proposed that the new facility will be
constructed on a site to be acquired of about 94,000 square feet in the
City of Norfolk. The estimated cost of the project is $14,561,000.
2. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
a. PROJECT NEED:
Federal agencies in Norfolk requiring general purpose space are housed in.
about 159,000 square feet of Government-owned space at two locations and
about 100,000 square feet of leased space at eight locations. The Government-
owned space consists of the Post Office and Courthouse and the U.S. Customhouse,
The Post Office and Courthouse is under the control of the U.S. Postal Service,
There is a need to provide consolidated space for other agencies; however,
the postal building is too small to provide sufficient space to effect
consolidation and it cannot be enlarged because of design and physical
location. The. other general purpose Federal building in the community
is the U.S. Customhouse constructed in 1859. The building is also not
large enough to effect a consolidation and cannot be altered or enlarged
for continued use. In addition to the functional obsolescence of the
Customhouse which effects agency operations, about 50 percent of the
leased space is rated as second class.
5. DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES:
1. Utilization of Government-owned space.
The U.S. Post Office and Courthouse and the Customhouse are not large enough
to satisfy the space needs of Federal agencies in Norfolk. There are no
other Government-owned buildings or other space in GSA's inventory in the
community currently available nor is it anticipated that any will become
available to satisfy the requirements of Federal agencies. Although the
PAGENO="0307"
301
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PVA-74031
PROJECT NUMBER : NVA-74531
b. DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES: (Cont'd)
U.S. Customhouse is an important landmark in Norfolk, it is functionally
obsolete and does not lend itself to efficient utilization: Since the
u.s. Customhouse is on the National Register of Historic Places and will no
longer be required by the Federal Government, every effort will be made to
convey the building to an appropriate public body which will preserve it.
The City of Norfolk has expressed some interest in acquiring this property.
2. Construction of a Government-owned building.
A Federal building project will improve agency operating efficiency and
convenience of service to the public, as well as inter-agency comrnunicatiort
and cooperation. The approval of this project will allow GSA to carry out
its newly established policies in the field of energy conservation through
effective control and reduction of energy consumption in the proposed
building. Additionally, this project will enable the Government to exert
a positive economic effect on the redevelopment of the downtown ares of
Nor folk.
A present value cost analysis comparing direct Federal construction with
purchase contract financing has been prepared which indicates that acquiring
the space through purchase contract funding is less costly. A copy of the
analysis is attached as Exhibit B. Therefore, it has been determined that
the best interests of the United States will be served by providing for
construction of the facility described herein under the purchase contract
provisions of section 5 of the Public Buildings Amendments of 1972
(Public Law 92-313). In the event the authority contained in section 5
expires before a purchase contract is awarded, or the Administrator
determines, pursuant to section 5(b)(2) of the Public Law 92-313 that a
ronsonable rate of interest cannot be obtained for construction of the
project by purchase contract, GSA will proceed with the project utilizing
funds to be made available for this purpose in accordance with subsection
210(f) of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949,
as smended.
3. ESTIMATED MAXIMUM COST:*
Site, design and review $ 1,677,000
Construction (as of June 1975) 11,966,000
Cost per gross sq. ft. $40.00
Estimated management and inspection
Total Project Cost $14,561,000
5Excluaive of financing and ether costs attributable to the purchase
contract method of financing.
PAGENO="0308"
302
PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PVA-74031
PROJECT NUMBER : NVA-74531
4. CURRENT HOUSING COSTS:
For agencies to be housed in proposed building.
Ares (Sq. Ft.) Annual Cost
A. Leased Space:~
Rent (B locations) 100,869 8348,613.70
Other Costs (ServIces) 161.39040
Sub-total $510,004.10
B. Government-ow-ned Space:
Operation, maintenance and upkeep costs 16,925 31,572.50
Reimbursement to USPS 3,455 14,610.00
Sub-total $ 46,182.50
Total $556,186.60
*A copy of the Lease Analysis is attached as part of Exhibit B.
5. PROPOSED SPACE PLAN FOR HOUSING FEDERAL AGENCIES:
A comprehensive plan for housing Federal agencies in the community is attached
(Exhibit A). Upon completion of construction, assignment and reassignment of
space will be made in accordance with existing law.
6. STATEMENT OF NEED: -
It has been determined that (1) the needs for apace of the Federal Government
in this area cannot be satisfied by utilization of existing suitable property
now owned by the Government, and (2) suitable rental space is not available
at a price commensurate with that to be afforded through the proposed action.
crP ~1 1q74
Submitted at Washington, D.C. on _______________________
Recommend ed:
Coma tsione~/Pd~3i~ Buildings Service
Approved :
Administrat5~of General Services
PAGENO="0309"
303
E ~
2 2
2 5 5 2
PAGENO="0310"
304
PRESENT VALUE COST SUMMARIES POR
ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF ACQUISITION
(in thousands of dollars)
EXHIBIT B
!~ORFOLK, VIRGINIA
PURCHASE CONTRACT : *
Annual payments**
Repair and Improvement
Property Taxes
Subtotal
Less residual value
Total _______
~a~ion and maintenance costs are borne by the Government and
are assused to be identical for both acquisition methods. Therefore,
they are omitted in this comparison. Imputed insurance premi~s are
estimated to be negligible relative to other costs and therefore omitted.
**Analysis includes the application of a deflator to each annual payment
thereby showing payments in constant dollars based on the initial
annual payment. Then, each constant dollar payment is discounted
at 7 percent.
Item 30 Years7~
PURCHASE: *
Improvements
Site design, etc
Repair and Improvement
Property Taxes
Subtotal
Less residual value .
Total .
$11 ,966
2,694
912
3,987
$19,559
~65
$18,294
$12,632
01 ~
3,987
$17,531
-1,265
$16,266
PAGENO="0311"
EMUE13I1~ 8 (Cent'd)
NORFOLK, VIRGINIA
LEASE ANALYSIS
ANNUAL EXPIRATION CANCELLATION QUALITY CLASS
LOCATION/AGENCY SQ. FT. COST DATE RIGHTS ~ATING OF SPACE DISPOSITION
1516 Harmon St., 2,287 $ 9,834.10 3-12-79 Cancellable on 89 First Cancel
HEW-SSA 30 days' notice Class
after 3-12-77.
290 Janaf Shopping Centir 4,875 24,131.25 3-12-79 Cancellable on 89 First Cancel
NE Corner No. Military Hwy. 120 days' notice Class
and Virginia Beach Blvd. after 3-12-77,
DOD-Army Recruiting
Janaf Office Bldg. 670 3,015.00 1-30-77 Cancellable ott 80 Second Cancel
NE Corner No. Military Hwy. 30 days' notice Class
and Virginia Beach Blvd.
DOT-Coast Guard Recruitin.g
Military Circle East Bldg. 15,688 78,824.00 2-28-78 No cancellation 93 Pirat Retain until expiratioc.
Military Hwy. and rights. q~asa
Virginia Beach Blvd.
Treasury-IRS
870 No. Military Hwy. . 29,409 161,479.44 6- 7-75 No cancellation 89 First Renewal options to be
Fed. Communications Cosus. rights; five one year Class exercised to try to coincide
DOD-Army Recruiting renewals until 6-7-80. with cospletion of construction.
GAO
Treasury-Sec. Svs.
Treasury-ATF
Justice-FBi
Justice-INS
Just ice-Bi1D13
PAGENO="0312"
LEASE ANALYSIS (Cont'd)
EXHIBIT B (Cont'd)
NORFOLK, VIRGINIA
LOCATION/AGENCY
3661 K. Virginia Beach Blvd.
lIE W-SSA
Lab or-OSHA
-Wage-Hour
-Ernp. Comp.
-Apprent. Trng.
HID -FIIA
Interior-USGS
Ra~Jroad Ret. Board
Veterans Admin.
Agriculture-Animal & Plant
-Marketing Svs.
-Food & Nutrition
DOT-Fed. RR Admin.
DOD-Defense Supply Agency
GSA-Joint-Use
GSA-PBS
14995 sq. ft. are
firm thru 3-31-75
with annual renewal rights
upon 90 days' written notice
through 3-31-77; termination
rights anytime upon 90 days'
notice. Balance of space
is firm thru 10-14-78.
82 Second Renewal opt ion to be
Class exercised annually on
14,995 sq. ft. to coincide
with construction completion.
Balance of space to be retained
until expiration.
415 St. Paul's Blvd.
Civil Service Comm.
DOD-Army Mobile
Equip. Command
300 E. Main St.
DOT-Coast Guard
Treasury- ERS
15,361 68,722.89 8-31-75 No cancellation rights;
one year renewal option
to 8-31-76.
74
8,934 51,273.42 1-27-78 814 sq. ft. (IRS). 81
Cancellable on 90 days'
___________ notice after 2-28-75;
balance cancellable on
100,869 $510,004.10 90 days' notice after 1-27-76.
Second Lease extension will be
Class discussed and attempted to be
negotiated with date to
coincide with construction
completion.
Second
Class
Cancel
ANNUAL EXPIRATION CANCELLATION
SQ. FT. COST DATE RIGHTS
23,645 $112,724.00 10-14-78
QIJALITY CLASS
RATING OF SPACE DISPOSITION
TOTAL
PAGENO="0313"
307
GSA RESPONSES TO ADDITIoNAL QUESTIONS
Question 1. What agreement will be made with the city regarding the old
Customhouse? Will it be exchanged for land? For the full 94,000 sq. ft. required?
A. A representative of the City of Norfolk has informally advised us that they
may be interested in acquiring the property. They have made a tentative analy-
sis of the space and indications are the building could be used for educational
purposes. We have agreed with the Historic Preservation Office that the prop-
erty be screened in advance with public agencies including the State Historic
Liaison Office. No formal exchange plans have been made with the city of Norfolk.
Question 2. (a) Will the proposed parking structure be on the same site? (b)
Describe this, and what will it cost? (c) Are there any environmental, zoning,
or other problems to be resolved?
A. (a) In addition to the Federal Building, the site area proposed will be
adequate for construction of a separate parking facility which will provide about
200 parking spaces for Government-owned, visitor and employee vehicles. (b)
The parking flicility will have reinforced concrete and structural steel franiing
and will be three levels high. See attached sheet concerning cost of the parking
facility. (c) There are no anticipated environmental or zoning problems.
Question 3. See attached sheet.
Question 4. Why is leasing not included as an alternate proposal? What were
all the alternates considered?
A. Lease construction was not considered viable at the time of prospectus prep-
aration because it was assumed a site would be required which would involve the
assembly of a large number of individual parcels. In the absence of the availabil-
ity of such a site the project would be frustrated because neither the lessor nor
the Government has the authority to condemn property that would be needed as a
site for the building for use by a private developer. Leasing and Federal construc-
tion were both considered during the planning stages of the project.
Question 5. See attached sheet.
Question 6. If the purchase contract authorization expires, how will the pro-
posed building be financed? How will the cost compare? When would construction
be started?
A. If purchase contract authorization expires GSA will proceed with the proj-
ect utilizing funds from the Federal Building Fund. The construction cost would
be the same. Assuming the availability of funds, June 1975 is the anticipated con-
struction contract capability date.
Question 7. See attached sheet.
Question 25. What will the proposed parking structure cost?
Response. The estimated cost of the parking structure is as follows:
Site, design and review ~435. 000
Construction as of June 1075 1, 20'), 000
Management and Inspection 92. 000
Total project cost 1, 747, 000
Construction cost per gross square foot $15.38
Nuiuber of cars 200
Question 3. (a) Including design, etc., the square foot cost will be $48.70
instead of the $40.00 noted.
(13) How was the square foot cost determined, since the office building and
parking facility are lumped together in the prospectus estimnte?
Response. (a) The $40.00 was obtained by dividing the construction cost (as of
June 1975) by the gross area. Both GSA's and the commercial construction
industry's cost data files are expressed in this manner, with site, design and
inspection costs being excluded.
(b) The estimate was prepared using historical costs corrected for time and
place for the various required functions. The parking and office spaces were
estimated separately and then combined for the prospectus.
Question 5. What are GSA's new policies, noted in the prospectus, with regard
to energy conservation through effective control and reduction of energy conser-
vation? Could you spell out in more detail?
PAGENO="0314"
308
Answer. Energy conservation has been a prime concern of GSA for many years.
In 1972, we established a goal to design new Federal buildings so they would
operate at 20% to 30% at less energ~y. To meet this goal we developed energy
conservation design guidelines that can be used by designers, builders, owners,
and managers in both the public and private sectors. A goal for energy use has
been established at 55,000 Btu's per gross square foot per year for the design of
all projects. `We believe this goal to be realistic and attainable, however, as we
gain information from new projects in other climates the number will be adjusted
if necessary. The 55,000 Btu's was developed from computer studies performed
for the design of the Manchester, N.H. Federal Building, GSA's energy conser-
vation demonstration project.
Questioa 7. `Why is the construction estimate projected only through June
1975? `What if contracts are not awarded until later? `What would the cost
increase be?
Response. The June 1975 is the anticipated contract capability dhte when GSA
plans to obtain lump-sum bids for the major portion of the project. In our
opinion the construction costs will continue to increase at a rate of about 1%
per month for any delays experienced by the project beyond the June 175 date
presently planned.
CONSOLIDATED LAW ENORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER,
BELTSVILLE, MD.
Senator SCOTT. The second proposal before the subcommittee has
been reviewed on several occasions. It involves the authorization for
the Consolidated Law Enforcement Training Center at Beltsville,
Md.
The committee in 1971 approved a prospectus that authorized $52
million for the Beltsville facility. Now General Services is asking the
comm ittee to increase that authorization to $74 million.
I am not convinced by the testimony to date that a justification exists
for this increase. I was concerned about a letter from Mr. Sampson
that indicated they were going ahead on this matter unless we advised
them t~o the contrary. I thought that was a bit arrogant on his part and
have no hesitancy in saying so. If he was going ahead, there was no
purpose in a meeting by this committee. I have asked the General
Accounting Office to check into that.
I would hope we would have no recurrence of any such arrogance
as was displayed by Mr. Sampson's letter. Maybe some of you gentle-
men prepared it. If you did, I would hope you don't give any such
advice in the future.
We are in a period of deep inflation and excessive Government
spending. President Ford has indicated that inflation is our No. 1
problem. He says we nmst reduce Federal expenditures.
I agree with the President in this respect. I feel that we must bear
down on expenditures and limit extravagance. To me construction
of an elaborate campus at Beltsville for training may not be the wisest
use for our dollars.
I believe it is extravagant, for example, to spend $5 million for roads
around the training campus. It may be extravagant to include a so-
called aquatic instruction facility, which I am assuming is a swim-
ming pool for recreation.
I believe we ought to consider eliminating the gyn'masium and ten-
nis courts as part of the facility. There may be other questions that
need `answering.
I would like to hear the discussion from the General Services AcT-
ministration and others. Perhaps we should hear first from the Under
PAGENO="0315"
309
Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Schrnults. He might give us his testi-
mony at this time.
STATEMENT OP EDWARD C. SCHMULTS, UNDER SECRETARY OP THE
TREASURY, ACCOMPANIED BY 3AMES CLAWSON, DEPUTY ASSIST-
ANT SECRETARY; ROY ECKERT, GSA PRO~E~T MANAGER; WIL-
LIAM BUTLER, DIRECTOR; AND ROBERT EPTELAND, DEPUTY
DIRECTOR
Mr. Sci-nIULTs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With me today are
James Ciawson, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury; William
Butler, who is Director of Federal Law Enforcement; and Robert
Efteland, Deputy Director. Also present is Roy Eckert of GSA.
I am pleased to appear before you this morning to support a re-
quest for an increase in the authorization for the construction of the
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.
The Department of the Treasury has appeared before this body
several times in the past to get its approval for authorization to con-
struct this facility. I am appearing here today in order to express the
strong concern and interest of Secretary Simon and the administra-
tion for this project. I know that you are fully aware of time details
of the request so I will not dwell on that.
However, I do want to discuss with you briefly the increasing need
this Government and this society have for this facility. I also want
to make clear that our appearance before this committee for another
increased authorization is a net result of a lengthy delay in construc-
tion caused by litigation involving the Center.
Be assured that it has never been the intent of the Department of
the Treasury to ignore your directives or to question your authority
in this matter.
From February 1972 until May 1974 we were involved in a. lawsuit
concerning our alleged failure to comply with the National Environ-
mental Policy Act. After substantial j uclicial deliberation, a decision
in the suit was made in favor of the Department of the Treasury and
the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.
The decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia stated that the Department of the Treasury and the Gen-
eral Services Administration had indeed complied with the provisions
of NEPA.
However, this long delay has resulted in a significant increase in
the cost of construction of the facility. At the time of this subcomn-
mittee's authorization for the $52.6 million prospectus, construction
was expected to begin in January 1972. We are all aware of the effects
inflation has had on our society and most of this can be attributed to
the. effects of inflation during this 2-year period.
Just as delay has increased the cost of constructing this facility,
so has the delay brought forth increased demands for the existence
of such a facility. Harcll a week passes that additional needs are
not highlighted in the Government for law enforcement training
that can be met by the CFLETC.
For example, the Center was established and designed for 19
Federal law enforcement agencies and at present 24 agencies are
PAGENO="0316"
310
formal participants. In addition, another 25 Federal agencies do from
time to time seek assistance from the CFLETC, which can oniy be
provided on a space-available basis due to the limited facilities now
available to the Center.
The need for high-quality professional training has not decreased.
The necessity to have adequate facilities to conduct the most modern,
up-to-date training for law enforcement officers has increased.
The relatively brief history of the Center has demonstrated the cost
savings to be effected by the consolidation of law enforcement train-
ing as well as the ability of the Government to provide to all en-
forcement personnel the finest law enforcement training possible.
Recently within the Department of the Treasury alone, we have
seen the need to upgrade the retraining of the security personnel and
special policemen assigned to the Bureau of Engraving and Printing,
the Bureau of the Mint, and the Treasury guardforce.
To meet this need, the Center has created a special 5-week pro-
gram, the Protective Services School. We soon discovered tl~at other
agencies in both the executive and legislative branches had a similar
requirement for this type of training. The Library of Congress, the
Government Printing Office, and the Federal Aviation Administra-
tion have been included in the program.
Senator SCOTT. Let me interrupt a moment, Mr. Secretary. The
Government Printing Office? What are you talking about? Building
guards?
Mr. SCHMtTLTS. Yes, sir. Basically, the security force.
Senator SCOTT. They don't need the same training that the regular
law enforcement officers need, do they?
Mr. SCHMULTS. I don't believe they need the same training. They
get a special 5-week program that involves training on the range and
classroom training. But the point is that this is now centralized.
Senator SCOTr. What about the Bureau of Eneravin~ and Printin~?
Are you talking about building guards again?
Mr. SCHMULTS. Essentially, yes. A security force again.
Senator SCOTT. Quite frankly, I would like for you, if you will,
to tell us who else is to be included in this. This is the first time I ever
heard of building guards being included. We have heard testimony
that indicated you weren't sure just who was going to be in it. and
who was not. Perhaps the entire matter had not been settled.
If you desire, of course, go ahead with your prepared statement, and
then I would like to ask you just who is going to be in it.
Mr. SCI-I~rur~Ts. Fine. We will return to that issue later.
In addition, an 8-week program has been established for the U.S.
Capitol Police, and we hope in the very near future to make this
organization a formal participant in the CFLETC.
I am certain that the members of this committee understand the
significance and the im}?Ortance of this facility to the Federal Gov-
ernment's law enforcement program.
Secretary Simon and I are. mos~. grateful for the strong support
that we have received in the past from this committee, and we urge
your favorable consideration of this request..
I think that I would like to add several points to my statement..
First of all, we are really here today from the Treasury Department
in a sense representing various other law enforcement agencies
PAGENO="0317"
311
throughout the Government. We are convinced and they are con-
vinced there is a need for a centralized law enforcement training
facility.
Of course, at the Treasury Department, we share your concern-
Secretary Simon certainly has expressed this-about the inflation
that is rampant in our country today. It is no doubt, as the President
has said, the No. 1 problem.
I think each project, notwithstanding the inflation problem, has to
be evaluated as to need. The Attorney General has said that crime
is on the increase in this country. It seems to me one thing that is
badly needed is yery good and e~hQctive training in the enforcement
area and the investigatory area as well as straight police training for
our Federal law enforcement officers.
There is great concern in the Congress and elsewhere about the
right to privacy; taking care that citizens' rights are maintained
and upheld. This also requires training in the law enforcement area.
We have to have schools so that these officers are aware of what
the citizen's rights are and what should be done. We think that we
ha.ve looked at this project very carefully. We have measured it
against the stringent fiscal policy which the President and Secretary
Simon have supported, and we think the Center continues to be
justified.
I can understand your problem when you look back over the Center's
history and see how the costs have escalated. We have had lawsuits.
We have had bad estimates of what the costs were or would be. So
these are all problems.
I would hope today we would look at the need for the Center. We
think we have the problems behind us now. We would like to proceed
with the construction, and we are here to ask your approval.
Senator SCOTT. Let inc say that I don't think there is any question
but that the committee favors this project. It is a question as to just
how -far you should go and how much you should build.
If you recall, the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Randolph,
back in 1971 did indicate to the Administrator of General Services
that the 1971 increase was the last increase that would be approved by
the committee. We originally had a building of around a million
dollars, although the first figure for the facility we are talking about
was $18 million. That was in 1969.. Then, pursuant to a request, the
committee approved it at $52 million in 1971.
Now, suppose the committee says~ "That is all we are going to
approve," and that may well be the decision of the committee. WThat
can you do with the amount that has been approved to date?
I am concerned-all of us are concerned-about crime. But I think
we have to distinguish between meeting the essential needs of the
Government in the field of law enforcement and providing tennis
courts and swimming pools, although I don't believe there is a golf
course included in this.
I think we also have to distinguish between our professional law
enforcement agents and building guards. When you talk about people
at the Government Printing Office, they are performing an essential
function. But I can't see that a guard at a building needs to have the
same facility and the same training.
PAGENO="0318"
312
It just seems to me if we cut back on the people who are going to
use this facility, we can cut back on the building. I think some of these
fringes could be eliminated. It would be a little presumptuous for me
to say, "Eliminate this and keep this." I think it is something that
requires a study within the executive branch of the Government.
But what can you do with the amount that has been approved?
Where would you cut back if the committee sticks by what Chairman
Randolph has indicated and makes no further authorization?
Mr. SCHMULTS. Costs have gone up. We have been concerned, as
you have. We have looked at the project. We have looked at alternative
sites. We have looked into moving it to an abandoned military base and
to other buildings, things like this.
I think there should be some degree of assurance from your stand-
point in view of the time which has gone by and the degree of scrutiny
that has been given to this project.
Some of the sums you have mentioned-the amount for roads, for
example-is not just for roads to drive people on a pleasure ride
around the property. There will be a driver instruction school requir-
ing a lot of paving to train people to drive cars in various situations.
Senator Scorr. Mr. Secretary, we know there is an inflation problem.
But even you attribute only $10 million out of the $22 million to
inflation.
Mr. SCHMULTS. That is right.
Senator SCOTT. So we are not talking entirely about inflation. YOU
have expanded the plane you previously submitted to this committee.
Mr. ScI~IuLTs. If I could finish on this point, the so-called aquatic
training, if you are going to have students out at the school for a
12-week period, it seems to me-and this is true in military bases and
other schools throughout the country-there should be some recreation
for them.
Second, as far as aquatic training is concerned, this is also physical
training, physical fitness. Thus, I believe this is justified and some-
thing we would not like to abandon.
Sure, there are aspects of the school I suppose could be abandoned.
But we think as an integral concept that the Center is sound, and we
would hope the committee would support us in our present plans.
Senator Sco~. What can you build for $52 million, Mr. Secretary?
Mr. SCHMnLTS. For $52 million, we would have to cut out more than
things like the swimming pool and some of the paving. As I under-
stand it, we would have to make choices like are we going to have a
dormitory. In other words, to cut back $20 million would mean a.
significant change in the concept that we think would not be desirable.
It would be likely that at some point in the future you would want
to build a dormitory there, and, with costs escalating as we have seen
over the past several years, and since we have the plans in place and
we are ready to go, not to build the dormitory now would be a false
economy. We would hope we would not be asked to make a cutback of
a $20 million magnitude.
Senator SCOTT. I understand that. You are here testifying in favor
of $74 million. But I am not at all sure that the committee will author-
ize a further increase.
Perhaps it is unfair to ask you, off the cuff, what you ivill do with
the $52 million. But can you prepare for the record and tell us what
PAGENO="0319"
313
you will do in the event that the Congress goes no further? It might
take a little thought where the cuts could be made to meet the previous
statement by the chairman of our committee.
Mr. SOHMULTS. Yes. We would be happy to do that.
[The information to be furnished follows:]
THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,
B7 asltington, D.C., November 20, 1974.
Hon. DIcK CLARK,
Subcomni ittee on Public Buildings and Groun ds, Pahlic TVorks Committee, U.S'.
Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR CLARK: At our request, Senator Bill Scott met with Under Secre-
tary Ed Schinults and myself to discuss the maximum authorization which could
be considered for the Consolidated Federal Law Enforcement Training Center by
the Senate Public WTorks Committee (Subcommittee on Public Buildings and
Grounds). It was suggested by Senator Scott that an amount equal to the $52.6
million previous authorization reflecting inflation-caused increases in construction
expenses would be given serious consideration. As a result of this advice, we have
carefully reviewed our cost items and eliminated or reduced features now in cur-
rent design plans, resulting in a new estimated aggregate cost for the facility of
$65.5 million.
This approximates the original estimated cost of the facility, plus inflation-
caused construction increases which include a portion of what GSA labelled
OSHA, NEPA, ETC. We l)eheve that this review in detail of our plans was a
beneficial exercise.
We hope that these extensive cuts, listed and itemized below, w-hich according
to the estimates now available to us will be sufficient to reduce the total cost of
construction to $65.5 million, will meet with your and the Committee's approval.
The actioiis we propose to take and the amount w-hich it is estimated that each
will reduce construction costs below the $74,395,000 requested in the amended
Prospectus are:
Estimated
Item re(luctwn
in costs
Eliminate from current design plans:
1. Gate house $100, 000
2. Improvements of some internal circulation roads 233, 000
3. Outdoor sports facilities 500, 000
4. Service garage 1, 404, 000
5. Building for vehicular driving ranges 682, 000
6. Structures for raid and crowd training area 187, 300
7. Tear gas training building 44, 700
8. Pool in dormitory courtyard 33, 500
9. Terrace on dormitory roof 72, 000
10 Suspended ceilings in portions of central structure 200, 000
11. Drapes 921, 000
12. Redesign for energy conservation 400, 000
Reduce in current design plans:
a. Furniture, furnishings and equipment 2, 000, 000
b. Landscaping 793, 500
c. Movable partitions 720. 000
d. Carpeting 514. 000
Total 8, 895, 000
I would like to point out that the mere passage of time is costing approximately
$500000 per month and that it would be a distinct economy if this urgently needed
facility could be approved as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
DAvID R. MACDONALD,
Assistant Secretary (Enforcement, Operations, and Tariff Affairs).
Mr. SCHMULTS. We have given thought to this. We have looked at
alternatives. My response was one based on the thought we have given
PAGENO="0320"
314
to it. We will be happy to provide you with the alterative things that
we can do.
But as I indicated, and a point I would like to stress, it would mean
a significant change in the concept as approved by committees of Con-
gress in the past.
Senator Scorr. You know, Mr. Secretary, you talk about curtailing
inflation and Government* spending. We have to consider individual
projects. Obviously, you are quite right. But the only way to cut is
to cut. That means considering economy in each project.
It seems to me as if this is an ideal one. We are not talking about
cutting what has previously been approved. We are talking about
keeping it where it has previously been authorized, and to restrict it
in accord to what the committee said in 1971: That there would be no
increase.
Could you give us some figures on the size and the estimated cost of
the various athletic training facilities, the swimming pool, the gym,
the handball courts, the athletic fields, the tennis courts, the locker
rooms, and things of that nature? What is that in total cost?
Mr. SCHMULTS. We would have to ask GSA to give us a detailed
figure. We have Mr. Eckert here with us.
Senator Score. All right, sir. Whatever you have.
Mr. ECKERT. I think to break it down in the categories you have men-
tioned that we will have to provide for the record the individual items
you have asked for.
Senator Score. Can you give us anything now?
Mr. ECKERT. No, sir. In other words, you asked specifically for the
athletic field, the handball courts, the tennis courts. We don't have it
as an itemized figure.
S~~nator ScOTT. All right. You can supply that for the record.
I The information requested appears on p. 331.]
Senator Score. Can you gentlemen tell me, why do you have 150
seats planned as part of the gynmasium?
Mr. Bumnn. Perhaps I might give a development of the gymnasium.
Basicall~ the gymnasium starts out as an area in training in arrest
techniques and unarmed defense work. We have rooms in our present
building which we use for that purpose. In fact, we had to expand
them to take care of our present load.
So this was planned into the building. At that point you have nec-
essary what is basically a gymnasium. For a slightly, comparatively
smalL additional cost it can be made into an actual gymnasium, which
basically would be just raising the roof and putting some basketball
goals on either end.
Senator SCOTT. You say, raising the roof. How much does that cost?
I can understand that if you have a large, open floor space that you
might use that for training. But when you start raising the roof, I
don't see how that would increase your training ability. Isn't that
done for the purpose of sports?
Mr. BUTLER. Yes, sir.
Senator SCOTT. Not training? You don't raise the roof for training?
Mr. BUTLER. You take the building that was necessary for training
purposes and by raising the roof somewhat-I couldn't give you the
exact figure-you make it into an area which could be used as a recrea-
tion as well as a training area.
PAGENO="0321"
315
Senator Soorr. Again, I am not expert in this field. When you
start raising the roof, it would seem that you would be adding sub-.
stantially to the cost.
If you have an 8-foot ceiling used for training and you raise it to
20 or 25 feet, I don't know what it would be, but we would be talking
about a sizable item, wouldn't we?
Mr. EFTELAND. Yes, sir. There would be increased cost.
I am Robert Efteland, Deputy Director. I wonder if I might give
you a little of the educational philosophy that lies behind our design,
which might be helpful.
We are planning to put at the present time, if we are to open as
projected, around 8,700 different students through that facility in
a year.
Senator ScoTr. These 8,700 students, how many of those are building
guards?
Mr. EFTELAND. That projection includes none of those, sir. The
building guards are people who have come to us with an urgent need
now, and we are making space available, if it is available, to meet. their
needs in our rented facilities. These are needs which have surfaced
since the Gravel hearings. We would hope to include them, if necessary,
by shifting facilities, if that is the desire of the committee.
The instruction they receive is of much shorter duration and geared
entirely to the function they need, and they have no other place to go
for that training in the Federal Government.
Of the numbers who will be going there, 745 will be in residence at
any given time. These are young, active men in their 20's and 30's and
they will be there, living in a training and educational environment.
A good deal of the value of the training, we hope-and this is
based on the advice from education consulting firms-that a good
deal of the learning will take place in the dormitory rooms, around
the eating areas, and the follow-on during the day.
If you have, as our concept is laid out, the 745 men in residence,
you must have some kind of both recreational and educational pro-
gram in the evening, and the gymnasium is there for that purpose.
The auditorium is there for not only graduation purposes but for
lectures by outstanding law enforcement authorities.
Senator Scorr. How often would that be used, this 600-seat
auditorium?
Mr. EPTELAND. We can give you an illustration. At the present
time we are putting a class through our rented facilities about every
2 weeks. It will get down to every week out there, and we will have
graduation ceremonies each week.
Senator SCOTT. For how many people each week?
Mr. EPTELAND. The size of the class will vary between 24 to 48,
depending on how they are fed in and what the requirements will be.
Senator SCOTT. Would it be feasible to use this 150-seat gymnasium
for your graduation exercise rather than the 600-seat auditorium?
Mr. EFTELAND. No question about that, unless there are family and
visiting officials from the Federal Government and an important
speaker, in which case you have some of your law enforcement officials
from your operating agencies present also.
Senator SCOTT. Gentlemen, what I am trying to impress on you is
the need to look very carefully at this specific project. We can't re-
86-623-74-------21
PAGENO="0322"
316
duce Government spending and say "Let's go ahead with whatever
scheme or whatever `idea anybody has with the individual projects."
We can't decrease the total and increase the individual projects
that are under consideration Th'it is why, at least this one individual
Senator-and I don't speak on behalf of the full committee-thinks
there are lots of things here that you can eliminate.
Mr BUTLLR Senator, we have made a study At this time a ycar
ago we ~ ere in the course of a study trying to s we money, which
then under projected costs would keep the Center within the author-
ized $52.6 million. This was before the great big rush of cost increase
had been felt, just general inflation.
We* had a study where we got to the point where we could cut S6
million out of the then estimated costs by doing the sort of things you
are talking about now. That is, we couldn't afford to take the gymna-
sium out of the project or we couldn't afford to take the auditorium
out of the project because that would mean redesigning the project.
Senator SCOTT. You might take it out. Let me say this.' I am' not at
~all sure if I will get support from other members of the subcommittee,
but I believe I will. You may take some of this out and I would prefer
that you tell us what you can do with :the $52 million that has pre-
viously been authorized, because to me t~hat is the best w~ay.
But the only way we can `cut is to cut. I am not for in6reasing this.
I say that in all candor to you gentlemen. We want to hear `you. We
don't want to set our minds in concrete. But my inclination is not to
authorize any additional money for this.
Mr. BUTLER. If I could explaim Senator. When I said at that time
we determined we could not t'Lke the gymnasium out oi take the audi
torium out~ the reason for that was that would require a major re-
~`design of the facility, and the time it would take the architects and
the engineers to redesign, drawing new plans and so forth, inflation
would have eaten up all we would save by cutting the facilities.
What we worked out at that time be to cut back, just leave these
spaces unfinished, leave the space there, and reduce all sorts-
Senator SCOTT. And then come back for further authorization at a
later date. I don't believe that is a proper approach.
Let me ask you `this, gentlemen. As I understand it, there are 31/2
miles of roadway. Is that correct~ That is rOads to be included as a
part of the facility? ,
`Mr. ECIcERT. About 4 `miles, sir.
Senator Sco~rr. The cost of these roads is listed in the information
that has been provided to the committee as close to $5 million. I am
informed that 3~/2 or 4 miles of interstate highways can be built for
about the same amount.
This Beltsville facility, does it need such an extravagant roadway
system? We are talking about comparing the cost with the Interstate
System. It just doesn't seem reasonable. Can you explain that?
Mr. ECKERT. I would like to, sir. The figure we have is around $4.6
million. It `does include such items as clearing and grubbing, grading
for about $1.2 million,' and dewatering.
Senator SCOTT Wh'it do you me'in by "dewaterrng" ~ Is this a
~wampy area? `
Mr. ECKERT. 1~es, sir. That is correct.
PAGENO="0323"
317
Senator Scorr. Why did you choose a swamp? Maybe that is part of
your cost and maybe that is part of the trouble here.
Mr. ECKERT. It is a long history, sir, regarding the selection of the
site. It is a Government-owned site and we had to obtain the approval
from the National Capital Planning Commission, the regional plan-
ning organization. And, of course, after you finally have a mnster
plan approved by the regional planning bodies, you have then iden-
tified the locations of the prospective buildings.
Senator Sco~rr. How far are you committed to this site right now?
Mr. ECKERT. Sir, we have completed the plans and specifications.
We are ready for construction. We already have approximately $3.5
million construction in place at the site.
Senator Scorr. How much is building in a swamp to add to the total
cost?
Mr. ECKERT. It will add to cost. It is not an unsurmountable engi-
neering problem.
`Senator Sco~r. If you had another site, could you stay within the
$52 million and still have the same thing that you want?
Mr. ECKERT. No, sir. In other words, you couldn't build the same
program for $52.6 million. The answer is no~ sir. No way.
Senator SCOTT. I am told by the staff that the main building is in the
middle of a swamp. Can you move the main building somewhere else
on the site?
I didn't know until you volunteered it that we were talking about
swampland. But the staff tells me the main building is going `to be ir~
the middle of the swamp.
Mr. ECKERT. Again I would like to review the reasons for the selec-
tion of `the site. First, as I did mention, the National Capital Planning
~ommission reviewed the `master plan which identified the location
of the prospective facility.
Senator So&rr. The National Capital Planning Commission did
not pick this site, did it?
Mr. ECKERT. No. sir.
Senator SCOTT. They just approved' something that somebody else
picked.
You have a site' for the main building. Is all of the site as swampy
One place as it is anOther?
Mr. EcIcEiiT. Yes, sir.
Senator SCOTT. Swampy all over.
Mr. ECKERT. There is a high water table up at the northern end as
well as the southern end of the site.
Senator SCOTT. I am told you have 461 acres. Is all of it swamp?
Mr. ECKERT. The site borings we have to `date have identified a high
water table.
Senator SCOTT. It is 461 acres of swampland?
Mr. ECKERT. No, sir. You understand, we have a high water table,
in other words, there is water at a high level in the grounds which is
not saying it is all swampy.
Senator Scorr. What I am really asking here is if the main building
is going into the middle of the swamp? We have 461 acres. Is there
another place within that 461 acres where you have better ground to
build on than the site that you hai e chosen ~
PAGENO="0324"
318
Are you able to answer this? Maybe it ought to .~ome* from someone
else.
Mr EOKLRT I think a professional architect would have to answer
it However, it is my professional position that you have the prob
lem-
Senator Scorr. Aiid your profession?
Mr. ECKERT. My professional position.
Senator Scorr. What is your profession?
* :Mr.'EOKERT. lam amechanical engineer.
* Senator Scorr. Good. That is what I am trying to find out. It is
your professional judgment that this is the best place; that the place
for the main building is in the middle~of the swamp. The best site on
this 461 acres that you can put' the main building on is in the middle
of the swamp.
Mr. ECKERT. 1 thought your question originally was would you have
the same pro'blem if you located elsewhere.
Senator Soo~rr. On this site, is there a better place to put this main
building?'
Mr. ECKERT. I don't really think there would necessarily be a better
place. We have two things you have to contend with. Although you
do: have the swamps, they are a prOblem that you can overcome by
drainage control I do not feel that we have a problem of locating this
construction.
in otliet words, I do feel ~e can locate the structure `at this location
and still not have a problem greater'than if you try to locate at an-
other point on the site. We `would still have problems elsewhere be-
cause of the high water table~
Mr. Btr'rrnR. Senator, perhaps a nontechnical mind would help the
explanatiOn, beCause this same problem you raised was raised in my
mind.
`Yoii:sãy,' "have this loCated in a swathp, it is a low area where the
streams converge." But the problem is not the surface problem but
the fact that all this land out there is a series of ~iay and sand layers;
the clay keeping the water from going on through so that you h'ave a
high level of water anyplace that you go in.
There is .a substantial differehce in height in different places. The
surface of the higher places will, of course, `be dried. But if you go in
underneath the surface you will find the same sort of soft soil because
the water is kept there by the layers of clay in there.
So in order to get a sufficiently strong foundation to hold up the
building anywhere on the site-that is, anywhere where borings have
been made and we found `the same problem-it would take the same
sort of reinforced foundation tha't is needed at this low spot. So it
is not the surface swamp area that causes the trouble but the general
underground conditions.
Senator SCOTT. I can understand that. But we are talking about
461 acres. I am told that the east half of this property doesn't have
any streams on it.
it just `seems re'saonable that if the clay is keeping the soil from
draining, the Same clay might keep the water `from the streams off of
this east half of the property. *
I think perhaps we ought to have some statement from professionals
for the record as to whether or not this is the best place. We need some
PAGENO="0325"
319
e~plaiiation if, in fact,the èasthnlf of the property has nostreams,
and if savings might be achieved by using that area
[Information relative to the above discussion follows:]
Some confusion about the soil conditions at the proposed site for the OFLETO
arose in the foregoing testimony in that certain initial answers on the subject
indicated that the site is swampy. In general, the OFLETC site has a high
water table ; however, the site is not swampy. As shown on the plan furnished
to the Committee,1 the topographical survey, made February 1972, indicated
that only five small areas in the whole 481 acres are swampy. These areas total
about 3.6 acres, less than 1% of the total site area. One of these, in the area
of the proposed lagoon, touches one corner of the proposed Central Structure.
None of the others are in the areas where construction is planned.
The soil conditions were described on page 6 of the final Environmental Tm-
pact Statement for the Location and Construction of the Proposed Facilities at
the CFLETC issued jointly by the Department of the Treasury and the General
Services Administration, November 24, 1972, as follows:
C. GEOLOGY AND SOIL5
A thorough study of the basic geology and soils of the proposed site has
jeen made by a firm of geotechnical and materials engineers. The report 2 in-
dicates that the conditions are in general suited to the project, but that the
high level of the water table will require attention and some expense in con-
struction, through drainage and other well recognized engineering techniques.
The letter of April 28, 1972, from the Law Engineering Testing Company
transmitting its report to Chloethiel Woodard Smith & Associated Architects,
general architects for the CFLETC project, states:
"Our investigation generally shows that the site has a water table close to
the surface and that surface soils are soft. The subsurface soils generally con-
sist of erratically spaced layers of sands and clays. Fairly continuous clay zones
were encountered in the northeastern area of the site. Alluvial sands and clays
were encountered in the drainage swales. Penetration resistances were relatively
high except at sand-clay interfaces where the pre-consolidated clays had be-
come saturated and soft."
A very brief review of several primary recommendations are provided below
for a quick overview. Temporary and permanent groundwater control is ex-
pected to be necessary for this project in all areas of the site. Major drainage
channels should be established as soon as construction starts to enhance surface
working conditions and expedite the project. The dam does not offer any un-
usual problems; however, we suggest that the spillway be rerouted through the
abutments because of potential erosion problems.
Recommended foundation systems in the building area shown on Drawing No.
23 and are summarized as follows:
1. Individual footings designed for 5000 psf in the dormitory and educa-
tion-administrative areas.
2. Combined footings designed for 3000 psf for the dormitory portion
adjacent to the lake.
3. 60-ton piles in the remaining building areas.
Thus, it is clear that the soil and water conditions at the site of the Central
Structure do not present any unusal problem and can readily be met by normal
engineering techniques. Appropriate measures have been incorporated in the
plans for the building.
Although no soil borings were taken in the eastern area of the site, there is
every reason to believe that geological conditions in this area are comparable
to those in the western area where extensive borings were made. One stream is
in the western area. On the other hand, three of the five swampy areas are located
in the eastern area as is, near the far eastern end, some of the most severe slopes
on the entire site.
On the feasibility of moving the site of the Central Structure to the eastern
portion of the CFLETC tract. there follows a statement prepared by Chloethiel
Woodard Smith & Associated Architects, the design architect for the project,
`The plan referred to has been retained in the committee's files.
2 Feport of ~S~ubsurf ace Studies-Consolidated Federal Law Enforcement Training Cen-
ten, by Law Engineering Testing Company, April 28, 1972.
PAGENO="0326"
320
which concludes that there would be no advantage from such a-relocation where-
as, on the other hand, other factors having major significance have dictated the
siting of the structures in their present locations
SUMMARY OF FACTORS GOVERNING THE ARCHITECT'S DESIGN Pnocuss IN
DETERMINING THE DISPOSITION OF ELEMENTS COMPRISING THE MASTER PLAN
FOR THE CONSOLIDATED FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER
Two distinct sets of design criteria influence any building design; one set
composed of physical conditions, the other administrative. Most of these con-
ditions inherently or absolutely limit the ultimate (building/site) design in
one manner or another thus reducing the many theoretical design options to an
actual few. Once the project design program is established and a parcel of ground
selected, these two sets of criteria have automatically started shaping the ulti-
mate form of whatever is built before the architect ever sets to work.
The physical criteria include `those of climate, topography, geology and ecology.
The teèhnology available to architects and engineers permits most of these factors
to be modified, controlled or resisted so that a satisfactory design solution can
be achieved whatever the prevailing conditions. -
The administrative criteria include those of land planning controls, zoning
law-s. building codes and budgets. These factors are essentially immutable hold-
ing firm dominion over the `boldest technology. Thus it is that in virtually every
project and certainly in this one, the architect first examines the administrative
citeria to learn what mandatory limits they impose upon the architectural possi-
bilities. Considering first, then, the dominant administrative controls on this
parcel of ground one finds:
1. The entire 481 acres are situated in one of the "green wedges" established
in the Year 2000 Master Plan for Metropolitan Washington. A green wedge
limits development to that compatible in character with rural or park-like
settings-low density, passive, unobtrusive.
- 2. The National Capital Planning Commission acting in its regulatory
capacity established several planning requirements for this project in its
enforcement of the green wedge concept, such as:
(a) All proposed structures must be sited and sized so as to minimize
* their visual intrusion upon adjacent public roads and private properties;
(b) All proposed site development and activities must be sited so as
to minimize their visual and acoustical intrusion beyond the project
boundaries;
(c) A buffer strip of existing or new- trees no less than 100 feet deep
must he maintained along the entire boundary of the site;
(d) No more of the natural existing vegetation on the site is to be re-
moved than is essential to accommodate the proposed project.
The consequence of these controls was to keep various elements toward the
interior of the site, to keep them closely related and to keep the building on lower
ground.
`The dominant physical conditons at the site are:
1. Heavily wooded, rolling land of essentially homogenous character.
- 2. Several watercourses of constant and intermittent streams and five
small bodies of surface water located in the central and eastern portions
of the site.
3. Recently completed buildings and site facilities in the extreme western
end of the site, all in use by the Treasury Department and all to be in-
corporated into the proposed project.
Subsurface soil conditions having low to moderate load bearing capacity
and a relatively high water table, these conditions apparently prevailing
over most of the site. -
Placing the stipulated program elements onto the site given the many con-
ditions described above, led to certain ineluctable decisions: to integrate the
existing facilities w-ith the new, keep them all close together; to facilitate
rapid movement (by foot or vehicle) among the elements, keep the total project
compact; to preserve the natural character of -the site, utilize existing roads and
cleared areas (all in the central and western portions of the site) and keep the
project compact; to have one fire protection reservoir economically serve both
existing and new facilities, place it close to both and where served by the largest
available watershed (in the western end of the site) ; to keep -the buildings
from public view, place the-tallest element (the Central Structure.) on the lower
ground where trees and higher ground will conceal it; to minimize clearing and
PAGENO="0327"
321
earthmoving for the largest site activity (the Vehicular Driving Range), place
it where cleared land exists and grade differentials are least (in the north-cen-
tral portion of the site).
Since these decisions could all be accomplished by using conventional design
and construction techniques, they were used as the basis of the final design
which does fulfill the program requirements within the imposed limits, both
explicit and implied, and on this basis is the "best" solution.
What may be the best theoretical design of any one element in isolation may
well not be the best when it is placed in the real context of a group of closely
interrelated elements. The best solution is that which achieves the goals of
the various elements cOllectively without impairment of any individual function.
The final design achieved the established goals.
CHLOETHIEL WOODARD SMITH, F.A.I.A.
Senator SCOTT. Gentlemen, we are going to have some bells in a
few minutes and I am going to have to vote. I would like to get as
much information as possible. I will try to be concise in my questions
and ask you gentlemen to be concise in your answers.
Mr. SCIIMTJLTS. If I could add to that last point when we do sub-
mit the alternative arrangements we would have to make to go back
to $52 million, I think what the director was saying is that we would
like to show that there will be a cost of doing that.
There are really two costs. One will be the cost of redesigning be-
cause you don't just extract rooms. And another will be the cost of
delay which, with our double digit inflation, is going to add to all of
the other costs. So without trying to play a shell game or anything
else, we will want to show those "costs" as offsets.
Senator SCOTT. Gentlemen, pardon me, but I only have 5 minutes
to answer a roilcall. I didn't hear the first bell. If you gentlemen
could wait, I will be back in just a few minutes.
We will recess.
[Brief recess.]
Senator SCOTT. The committee will resume its session.
I apologize for keeping you but we had three votes that came to-
gether, and I had no alternative but to be there.
There are several questions I would like to pose to you. Perhaps
you can supply this for the record, because time has run along and we
want to hear some other witnesses.
What is involved in the $1,587,000 expenditure for landscaping?
What will be done with the space and facilities now used for training
by the Postal Service, the Immigration Service, the Customs Service,
the Secret Service~ the Internal Revenue Service, and the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, all of which have existing facilities
but will move to Beltsville?
If you could answer that for the record, just in the interest of time,
it will be helpful-
[Answers to the above questions may be found at p. 334 and p. 336.]
Senator SCOTT. Gentlemen, I talked with the Secretary informally
just a few minutes ago and I believe he is in agreement that you will
take another look at things and see what you might come up with
and advise the committee on the $52 million. We certainly would
appreciate it if you would do that.
If you look at it carefully, then the committee of course will try
to be sympathetic with whatever is the reasonable thing to do in
considering all the circumstances.
Mr. ScImrlmTs. Sure. We would be glad to do that.
PAGENO="0328"
322
Before I leave,H I would iike~ to reiterat~ the point I wa~s'm~kihg
before the recess If we enter into a full redesign of the facility in
volving new plans and new. clearances and approvals, that is going
to be a very real cost, one, of just doing that work. Second, ` we are
going to pay another infl'ition cost th~t may well be `~ large offset
to. whatever we save in scaling back.
Inflation, as Secretary Simon points out, is an insidious and arbi-.
trary tax on everyone, really. 1-Towever; in view of the clear need,
we would hope that same sort of inflationary bite wouldn't' be levied
arbitrarily on the law enforcement training center.
By that I mean you should not legislate or say "Let's forget about
the costs of inflation-we are going to build a $52 million facility."
We don't like those costs but they are there.
Senator SCOTT. I have to rebut thinking like that because I believe
this very thing is one of the major causes of inflation: Federal
spending.
Mr. SCIIMULTS. I agree with you.
Senator Sco!rr. I think it is a question of the chicken and the egg.
I think `we ought to curtail the spending. The very increase we are
talking about here is one of the factors that contributes to inflation.
Mr. SCHMULTS. I don't disagree with you. Federal spending is one
factor, but I think we should look very hard at the need for the project.
Just as you said, let us give a look and see what can be cut back
without disturbing, hopefully- and we will take a. hard look at that-
the basic concept of the facility. In view of your concern about the
higher costs, and our concern, quite frankly. we will take another hard
look at the project and get back to you in the very near future as to
what our recommendations are.
`Senator SCOTT. Mr. Secretary, we appreciate it and I am told other
members of the subcommittee share the same concern I have expressed.
Thank you, gentlemen, for being with us.
Mr. SCHMULTS. Thank you very much.
Senator SCOTT. We have someone from the Department of Justice,
Mr. Berkman. Is he present?
Mr. Smith. if you would, I have another commitment and I would
ask if you could submit your statement. for the record. If you would
care to summarize in some way. we would be glad to have you do so.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT S. SMITH, DIRECTOR, PERSONNEL AND
TRAINING STAFF, ON BEHALF OF 0. T. BERKMAN, ACTING DEP-
UTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR ADMINISTRATION,
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OP flJS-
TICE, ACCOMPANIED BY WARREN OSEN, CHIEF CAREER DEVEL-
OPMENT AND MANPOWER RESOURCES GROUP
Mr. SMITH. Mv name is Robert Smith and `I am director of the per-
sonnel and training staff. and I would like to submit Mr. Berknian's
statement for the record and just give briefly a few highlights.
One, our law enforcement training facilities and' our future needs
are under study in the Department at the request of the Attorney Gen-
eral. We expect that our report will be ready for his review in~ about
3 months.
PAGENO="0329"
323
The second part of the statement deals with our current training
activities and broken down by the various component parts of the
Department.
I would like to say that the Department does support the concept of
a consolidated law enforcement training center and we are now in fact
participating in that center.
I am open to questions now, sir.
Senator Scorr. Mr. Smith, we have a number of questions that I
will submit for the record and we would ask that you respond to
them.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Berkman and the additional ques-
tions referred to follow:]
STATEMENT OF 0. T. BERKMAN, JR., ACTING DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
GENERAL FOR ADMINISTRATION, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND FINANCE, DEPART-
MENT OF JUSTICE
Mr. Chairman, I am 0. T. Berkman, Jr., Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney
General for Administration, Department of Justice. I appreciate the opportunity
to appear before your Subcommittee to discuss the Department's position re
garding the Consolidated Federal Law Enforcement Training Center at Belts-
yule, Maryland.
The Department has experienced ever-increasing training requirements, par-
ticularly in the last few years. The needs have been generated to a significant
extent by the expanded emphasis on drug law enforcement, including the re-
organization of the drug effort incident to formation of the Drug Enforcement
Administration. The United States Marshals Service assumed a major role in the
anti-air piracy efforts in the early 1970s and has since been given an expanded
role in the area of witness protection, and the protection of Federal courts per-
sonnel. The Immigration and Naturalization Service commitments are also
increasing.
The spiraling costs for training of our own law enforcement personnel and for
carrying out our training efforts at the state, local and international levels have
been the cause of great concern. Aëcordingly, in June of' this year, the Attorney
General asked that an intensive study be conducted of our law enforcement
training and facility requirements to determine how best to meet the program
and facility requirements of the Department over the next several years in the
most effective, efficient and economical manner. The study is being conducted
by our Office of Management and Finance and will include all of the Depart-
ment's component activities that have a role in training law enforcement and
related personnel. Included in this category are the FBI, Drug Enforcement
Administration, Immigration and Naturalization Service, U.S. Marshals Service
and the Bureau of Prisons.
The study will develop specific information on areas such as the following.
(a) Existing classes-content, type of students, facilities and equipment
utilized.
(b) Proposed classes-content, type of students, facilities and equipment
anticipated. ` `
(c) Unmet training needs.
(a) Use of or need for Interagency Training Programs.
(e) Direct and' indirect costs for `training, e.g., instructors, support, travel,
services, equipment, structures,' etc.. , "
`ObviOusly, the scope of our' internal' `management study indicates that we
share the Committee's concern for cost effectiveness in the area of law enforce~
ment' training. All of the questions in which' the Committee has indicated an
interest should be answered by this study. We anticipate that the study will be
concluded in about three months and the results will `be considered by the At-
torney General.'short'ly thereafter.
.1 :`kno~'~th'atyOliP Subcommittee would like definitive information now on the
extent of our planned use of `the Beltsville facility. I am not able to predict how
the matter wIll be finally resolved, although certainly `the PBT will continue
to trainseparately and DEA has indicated that the unique requirements of nar-
cotics law `enforcement, and i'ts significant role in training state, local ~nd inter-
national law enforcement personnel cannot be met by the Beltsville facility.
PAGENO="0330"
324
I would now like to outline the existing Department training facilities and
the extent of training being conducted.
I. Federal Bureau of Investigation-The facilities of the FBI at Quantico,
Virginia, are well known to this Committee. I can furnish you specific informa-
tion if you desire.
2. Drug Enforcement Administration-PEA's National Training Institute
consists of 5 classrooms in their headquarters building in Washington, D.C.
In addition, extensive on-site training in state, local and foreign areas is con-
ducted in rented or borrowed facilities. Courses range from three days to ten
weeks in duration and cover a broad range of topics such as Special Agent
Training, Compliance Investigator Training, Forensic Chemistry Workshop
and International Drug Enforcement.
Approximately 400 DEA investigators are trained each year. During F~T 74,
4,194 state and local and 2,225 foreign police officers were trained by DEA.
Projections indicate that in FY 75 these figures will grow to 6.815 state and
local and 3,333 foreign police officers.
3. U.S. Marshals Service.-USMS Training Academy consists of 11/2 class-
rooms in their headquarters in Washington, D.C. Approximately 120 new re-
cruits are trained each year in a 13-week program, 12 weeks of which are con-
ducted at OFLETC. Approximately 600 members of the Service receive spe-
cialized training each year in specialized areas such as Court Security. Witness
Protection and Civil Disturbance Confrontation Management. These specialized
programs range from one day to two weeks in duration.
4. Immigration a'nd Naturalization Service-INS operates an Officer Devel-
opment Center at Port Isabel, Texas, which has approximately 1.600 acres. 18
buildings and 27 3-bedroom housing units. Each year the facility trains approx-
imately 550 service employees. Course offerings include programs such as
Border Patrol Agent Training. Journeyman Patrol Agent Training. Anti-Smug-
gling Training and Basic Immigration Officer Training. Course offerings range
from 3 days to 16 weeks in duration.
5. Bureau of PrisonR.-BOP maintains Staff Training Centers in Atlanta,
Georgia, and Dallas, Texas, which are primarily concerned with correctional-
type training. Atlanta's facility consists of a large 2-story house and trains
approximately 1,000 individuals. Occasionally, state and local employees are
accepted. The Dallas Center occupies approximately one floor of space and trains
approximately 1,000 per year also. Course offerings include such topics as In-
troduction to Correctional Techniques and Advanced Correctional Techniques.
The duration of the program ranges from one to two weeks. Additional special-
ized on-site training is conducted at most institutions.
BOP also maintains small training facilities in Springfield. Missouri. and
Oxford, Wisconsin, for training Physician Assistants and Food Service Managers.
If the Committee or its staff needs any further detailed information on any
of these facilities, I will be pleased to make it available.
This concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to try to answer
any questions you may have.
DEPARTMENT OF JUsTIcE,
Washington, D.C.. November 8, 1974.
Hon. DICK CLARK,
Chairman, subcommittee on Buildings and GrOunds of the .~Jommittee on PublIc
Works,
Uf~. senate, Washington, D.C.
Dn.&n MR. CHAIRMAN: Enclosed are the responses of the Drug Enforcement
Administration and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to questions submitted
by you relating to the proposed Consolidated Federal Law Enforcement Training
Center (CFLETC). We hope they are satisfactory.
If I or my. office can be of any further assistance in this matter, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
W. VINCENT RAKESTRAW,
Assistant Attorney General.
RESPONSES FROM THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF I~VE5TIGATIoI\
Q. 1. At our hearings in 1069 and 1971, Bureau representatives were extremely
cooperative in presenting excellent testimony that helped the committee better
PAGENO="0331"
325
understand some problems inherent in the administration of law enforcement
training techniques. Do you still think we are heading in the right direction?
A. 1. The Bureau has not changed its position from testimony previously sub-
mitted before the various committees holding hearings on the question of consoli-
dation of all Federal law enforcement training. This Bureau continues to main-
tain that the primary missions of the two facilities a~e sufficiently distinct so
that the Federal Government will receive no direct benefit by physically coml)ining
the two projects. The primary intent of the FBI Academy is to provide training
assistance to local law enforcement agencies with secondary consideration given
to the training of FBI personnel.
Q. 2. For the record. as the principal Federal law enforcement agency in the
country, has the Department of Justice given any thought since our previous
hearings to developing and promulgating a national policy for training law en-
forcement officers?
A. 2. The Department of Justice does not plan to develop or promulgate a
national policy for training law enforcement officers.
Q. 3. Have you reconsidered, in any w'ay, the advisability and possible economy
of combining all Federal enforcement training facilities, including the FBI
Academy and proposed Beltsville facility, into one centralized operation?
A. 3. FBI officials have considered the possibility of combining all Federal law
enforcement training at Quantico, Virginia, and we still contend that after taking
into consideration the work and planning already directed to the Beltsville proj-
ect, no direct benefits will be realized by the Federal Government. There is
presently an acute shortage of office space for the FBI Academy instructional
staff. It was necessary to convert a small building previously used as a mess hall
to office space for our firearms instructors. Other instructors are presently using
facilities located in the Emergency Operating Center.
Classroom instructional space is already fully committed. Strict control is re-
quired in scheduling the classroom facilities to obtain maximum utilization. Any
increase in the scope of training will requre additional classroom space, instruc-
tional office space, and administrative support areas. The FBI has already re-
quested funds in Fiscal Year 1976 for the construction of additional laboratory
teaching areas for a planned expanded forensic science program. The combining
of the Consolidated Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (CFLETC) at
Quantico, Virginia, would necessitate the construction of additional classroom
and office buildings. It would appear that any expansion of training for other
Federal law enforcement officers at Quantico would have to be done at the
expense of a reduction in our commitment to afford such training to state and
local law enforcement officers. This is contrary to the intent of Congress when
it approved the amended prospectus for the construction of the FBI Acadethy
in 1969.
The authority for this training lies in Public Law 90-351, 90th Congress,
HR5037, June 19, 1968, cited as the "Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets
Act of 1968" which states under Title 1, Part D, Section 404(a), "the Director
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation is authorized to (1) establish and conduct
training programs at the Federal Bureau of Investigation National Academy at
Quantico, Virginia; (2) provide at the request of a state or unit of local govern-
ment training for state and local law enforcement personnel." Thus, the primary
purpose for the construction of the new FBI facility was to provide needed traifi-
ing assistance to the police, with training of FBI personnel a secondary
consideration.
Q. 4. Is there any sense of rivalry between officials of the academy at Quantico
and the proposed training center atBeltsville, with respect to what one has that
the other may not ha~ e ~
A. 4. Officials within the FBI are not cognizant of any rivalry existing betweeti
the two training centers. The FBI Academy was specifically designed to meet
the training needs as we saw them at the time. This w'as done independently and
without consultation with those agencies included within the CFLETC.
Other than that information appearing in the news media, the FBI has no
knowled~e as ~to the design requirements or other specifications of CFLETC.
Previous testimony by officials of the FBI and representatives of other agencies
in support of CFLETC were in complete accord in that the training objectives
were basically such that two facilities, separate and distinct were required. It
was also pointed out that the FBI Academy would be open to the public within
certain restrictions~ While there is nothing classified or secret about our' firearms
training, it is an entirely different matter with the Secret Service in developing
PAGENO="0332"
326
training programs for the protection of the President and other similar
assignments.
Q. 5. We were advised in 1971 that the Bureau's academy at Quantico cost
approximately $22 million to construct. Has this figure been revised since then?
A. 5. The current cost for complete construction of the new FBI Academy is
25.6 million dollars.
Q. 6. How many students are being processed through the Academy now, at any
one time? Is it still around 750?
A. 6. The FBI Academy dormitories can accommodate 722 students at one
time. Due to the classroom limitations and continuing necessary repair and
maintenance in the dormitories, the total number of students on hand at one
time is held at a ceiling of 700 students. The Academy can accommodate 35,000
"weekly students" per annum. Approximately 55% of this capacity is devoted
to the training of local law enforcement. This consists of four sessions of the
National Academy (NA) with 250 students in each. In addition, there are numer-
ous specialized short courses of one to three weeks in length. The remaining 45%
capacity is devoted to the training of FBI employees. The training mix between
New Agents, in-service, and specialized schools for non-Agent personnel would
vary depending on the current needs of the FBI.
Q. 7. How long do the resident students ordinarily stay?
A. 7. The length of stay for resident students is dependent upon the program.
The length of our current programs is:
A. New Agents training-14 weeks, four days.
B. National Academy training-il weeks, four days.
C. In-service courses for Agent personnel-five and one half days to six
weeks.
D. Specialized police training-five days to three weeks.
E. Non-Agent FBI personnel-three days to five days.
F. Symposia-three days to five days.
Q. 8. Have the size or scope of any of your facilities increased since then,
which would enable you to expand your . training capabilities and accept more
students?
A. 8. The facilities at the FBI Academy have not been expanded and, as stated
above, the maximum ceiling for accommodating students is 700 at any one time.
Q. 9. Is there any room left at all-vacant or unused land that could be used
to expand the training facility at Quantico, in case some still think the two schools
should be combined?
A. 9.. The United States Marine Corps, (IJSMC), is presently in the process
of making available an additional 204 acres of land. Its primary purpose, de-
pending upon future funding, is to provide training facilities in the areas of
stamina, obstacle and confidence courses as part of the physical training afforded
to FBI and police Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams, as well as a
Combat Village to be used in practical problems of arrest covering movement,
clearing buildings, rappelling, and team techniques. It should be noted, as pre-
viously testified, that this acquisition will still not permit. the FBI to expand
their firearms ranges, which are currently fully utilized.
Q. 10. What sore of outdoor recreational facilities do you have at the academy?
How many basketball or football~ fields, etc.? Do you have a swimming pool?
Indoor or outdoor? Are these facilities in constant use, as a part of tlie training
program, or used only in off-hours for recreation purposes?
A. 10. There are no outdoor recreational facilities at the FBI Academy and
consequently there are no football fields or outdoor basketball courts. The com-
plex does include an indoor swimming pool. The indoor swimming pool is used
daily and its primary purpose is to teach and develop self-preservation skills for
the non-swimmer in and on the water and for rendering basic. assistance to others
in jeopardy situations. It is also used for instruction .in drowriproofing and cloth-
ing flotation for SWAT teams. The indoor swimming pool is available for recrea-
tional purposes in the evening hours and on weekends. .
Q. 11. &boflt what percentage of your students have cars and use the parking
are.a? Howmany parking spaces do you have at the academy?
A 11. There are 482 parking spaces available at the FBI Academy of which 339
are designated for student parking. There are 107 spaces. for staff employees and
36 are ieseived for visiting lecturers and guests Experience indicetes th'~t ap
proximately 55% of the student body bring vehicles to the Academy This does
not include automobiles driven by FBI kgents a~siirned in the Wa~hington D C
and Richmond Virginia `ireas to tiavel to the FBI ranges for their recuired out
door shooting. . . .
PAGENO="0333"
327
Q. 12. Is there a motorcade training area or pursuit driving course at the
Academy-that is, any kind of track where automobiles are used as a part of
training?
A. 12. The FBI does not provide any motorcade training or pursuit driving. At
present, there are no facilities for this type of instruction. A limited defensive
driving course is conducted through the use of auto simulators in a classroom en-
vironment.
Q. 13. Do you have any type of underwater rescue training facility?
A. 13. As previously indicated, the FBI Academy does have an indoor swim-
ming pool wherein courses are conducted in small craft safety, clothing flotations,
rescue techniques, and self-preservation. There are no facilities for underwater
rescue training.
Q. 14. How many firing ranges do you have, for your 750 students, and would
you describe them?
A. 14. The FBI has 12 ranges for its maximum student population of 722. It
should be noted that these ranges are also used by Agents assigned at FBI
Headquarters, and the Washington, Alexandria, and Richmond FBI Field Offices.
The 12 ranges and their general purpose are as follows:
Range
Electric range
Training
Revolver training is afforded to new agents, NA,
in-service Bureau SWAT, police antisniper
and survival training (ASST), and head-
quarters personnel.
Revolver training is afforded to new agents, NA,
in-service, and headquarters personnel.
Handgun, shotgun, rifle, Thompson submachine
gun, and M-16 training is afforded to new
agents, NA, in-service, Bureau SWAT, police
ASST, Alexandria personnel, Richmond per-
sonnel and Washington field personnel.
Rifle, shotgun, and handgun training are af-
forded to new agents, NA, in-service, Bureau
SWAT, police ASST, headquarters personnel,
Alexandria personnel, Richmond personnel,
and Washington field personnel.
Shotgun training is afforded to new agents, NA,
in-service, Bureau SWAT, police ASST, head-
quarters personnel, Alexandria personnel,
Richmond personnel, and Washington field
personnel.
Rifle training is afforded to new agents, NA,
elective, in-service, Bureau SWAT, and police
ASST.
Revolver training is afforded to new agents and
NA.
RESPONSES FROM THE DImG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION
Q. 1. How many agents does DEA have? How many does it expect to hire in
FY 1975?
A. 1. PEA is authorized 2207 agents (1S11) in FY 1975. We expect to hire
and provide basic entry level training to approximately 200 new agents in FY
1975. Thirty-five of the 200 are new positions and the remainder are expected
to result from normal attrition.
Q. 2. What special needs would prevent DEA from training its officers at
Beitsviile?
A. 2. The core argument in favor of CFLETC is that training requirements
for all new federal agents are quite similar. This premise is simply not true for
the Drug Enforcement Administration. PEA operates under different laws which
place different burdens on PEA agents. It uses unique investigative techniques
and employs a different pedagogic strategy in its training program. Further,
DEA is charged with drug law enforcement training for state, local and foreign
police officials for whom the CFLETC concept makes no provisions.
Drug laws require technical expertise in such areas as drug search and seizure,
drug identification and field testing and drug evidence handling. Drug investi-
gative, undercover and surveillance techniques, and applications of the law are
unique to drug law enforcement.
Indoor range
Practical pistol course (three
ranges).
Rifle range
Skeet field (four ranges)
Sniper tower
Surprise range (Hogan's
Alley).
PAGENO="0334"
328
DEA's agents must learn to operate effectively within the criminal element,
and their undercover role is extremely hazardous. PEA's training program must
develop unusual amounts of self-confidence in agents to enable them to con-
vincingly play the role of drug dealers during investigative activities.
The extensive surveillance and undercover activities involved in PEA opera-
tions require intensive practical training. Sixty percent of DEA's basic training
involves practical exercise activity to reinforce classroom instruction. The exer-
cises provide trainees with over 300 hours of realistic experience in challenging
drug investigative situations under the critical scrutiny of experienced agent
instructor personnel.
DEA's unusually hazardous operations require specialized and most rigorous
physical and firearms training which is not necessary for many other agencies.
The current schedule requires exclusive utilization of gymnasium and firearms
training facilities over six hours each day. The FY 1976 schedule is expected to
be even more demanding.
Despite pre-employment screening efforts, many special agent trainees must he
removed during training in order to eliminate unqualified or unsuitable person-
nel. Our training program has a high attrition rate of over 10%, and as high
as 20% have been removed from individual classes. DEA must have exclusive
control of this process because of the high potential for corruption and the
hazardous nature of drug law enforcement. Given the techniques of informants
and undercover work, given the large amounts of money involved, given the fact
that many in the community do not support the narcotics laws, given the danger.
there are enormous pressures on the agent. The most effective shield against these
pressures is a strong sense of professionalism which is buttressed by a sense of
pride and identification with his own agency. PEA must develop high esprit de
corps among its agent personnel to assure discipline and integrity and this is
accomplished in great part during training. Failure to prepare personnel ade-
quately to deal with these situations can result in scandalous conduct. Continuous
screening and conditioning of personnel is a necessity that cannot be accom-
plished in a school conducted by another department.
Beltsville was not intended for the training of non-federal personnel, but over
50% of DEA training is for state, local and foreign police. During FY 1974.
4,194 state and local and 2,233 foreign police officers were trained by DEA. These
programs will not diminish in FY 1975. It is extremely important that DEA
training programs build working relationships and a spirit of cooperation be-
tween city, state and foreign police participants and DEA. One of the primary
reasons they have for cooperating with us currently is respect for our profes-
sionalism and identification with the agency. Absorption by CFLETC would
destroy this identification.
In order to accomplish significant economies in manpowerrequirements, PEA's
NTI manages a continuing program of interdivisional instructor utilization.
Instructors from each of the divisions are employed in training programs con-
ducted by other divisions to insure optimal utilization of personnel and effective-
ness of instruction. Because of the high degree of cross utilization employed by
the NTI, separating the agent training activities from the state, local and foreign
programs of the NTI would cause severe diseconomies and would require signifi-
cant increases in staffing.
Finally, DEA's National Training Institute is recognized nationally and inter-
nationally as the leader in all drug law enforcement training. To separate the
agent training program from the other diverse training programs conducted by
the National Training Institute would have a severe adverse effect on all pro-
grams conducted and on the accomplishment of PEA's `total drug law enforce-
ment mission.
Q. 3. What does DEA training involve? Could it be accomplished by allowing
PEA to take over the whole Beltsville Cent~r for a couple of weeks at a time?
A. 3. DEA provic~es a wide range of training programs for PEA employees:
`state. local and other federal employees; and foreign police officials. In FY 1974.
for example, training conducted in PEA facilities in Washington, P.C., included
the following:
`(a) Basic `Agent' Schools (10 weeks) : 5'schools with a total `of 182 students.
(b) Compliance Investigator Schools (6 weeks) : 1 school with 21 students.
(c) Technical Skills Schools (2 weeks): 7 schools with a `total of 184 students.
(a) `Law Enforcement Officers Schools (2 weeks) : 11 schools with `533 state.
local and other federal students. ` ` ~` ` , , , : ,
(e) Drug Enforcement Officers Academy (10 weeks) : 4 schools with 133 state,
local, other federal and foreign students.
PAGENO="0335"
329
(f) Advanced International School (6 weeks) : 5 schools with a total of 143
foreign students.
In FY 1975, the Basic Agent and Drug Enforcement Officers Academy pro-
grams are expected to remain at the same levels. However, 1 additional Com-
pliance Investigator School is planned along with 1 additional Advanced
International School, a new program of 3 schools of 4-weeks each for Intelligence
Analysts, and an additional 6 Technical Skills Schools. A decrease of six 2-
week Law Enforcement Officers Schools in D.C. has been made to accommodate
the additional programs for DEA employees.
Training programs conducted in DEA facilities are spread over the whole
year. They could not be accomplished by taking over the Beltsville Center for
`a couple of weeks at a time." Programs vary in length up to 10 weeks and
staffing for training activities is based on a 52 week year of active programs.
Q. 4. Could DEA do its training at Quantico? If not, why not?
4. DEA could do its training at Quantico, however, it is very important to
distinguish between simply sharing a building and sharing an administration,
a curriculum, a faculty, etc.
With respect to simply sharing a facility, DEA has some strong reservations.
Our reservations are based on the difficulty of getting DEA students to identify
with the agency if the facility in which they are trained is operated or primarily
identified with another Federal enforcement agency. Such identification is vital-
ly important to us both in training our own agents and in training State and local
or foreign police.
It is important in training our own agents simply because narcotics enforce-
ment has the greatest potential to demoralize an agent of any enforcement
function. Given the techniques of informants and undercover work, given the
large amounts of money involved, given the fact that many in the community
do not support the narcotics laws, given the danger, there are enormous pressures
on the agent.
The only effective antidote to such temptations is a strong sense of pro-
fessionalism which is buttressed by a sense of pride and identification with his
own agency. In creating such pride and identification, it helps to have a facility
which gives a physical representation of the values and achievements of the
profession. One might be able to achieve the same effect by covering the walls
of one wing of a building with DEA plaques, but I doubt it.
A separate facility is important in training state and locals for almost the
same reasons. It is urgent for our overall program that state and local and
foreign police cooperate with us. The only reason they have for cooperating
with us currently is a respect for our professionalism and some identification
with the agency. This effort is encouraged if DEA has its own facility. It is
diluted if it shares a facility with others.
With respect to sharing an administrative structure, curriculum, or facility,
DEA is adamantly opposed. PEA operates under different laws which place
different burdens on DEA agents (e.g., identifying drugs). It uses unique in~
vestigative techniques (e.g. undercover buys). And, it employs a different peda~
gogic strategy in its training program (e.g., over 50% of the curriculum is de-
voted to practical exercises). As a result, we estimate that there is less than a
30% overlap between our curriculum and that of other enforcement agencies.
Since we do not believe that the economics of teaching 30% of our curriculum
are sufficiently large to offset the losses in morale and identification in having
a joint facility and a common structure, we consider it mandatory to keep at
least an independent curriculum, staff and administrative structure.
Q. 5. Does DEA plan to request construction of its own separate training
facility?
A. 5. PEA has no plans at this time to request construction of its own separate
training facility.
Senator SCOTT. We also have some questions for the Treasury De-
partment rep~esentatives we would submit for the record.
[The questions and answers follow:]
Question 1. Why won't Treasury train its own guard forces, such as the Mint
Guards, atBeltsville?
Answer. The Center was established to train law enforcement officers em-
powered to carry firearms and to make arrests. The Mint guards do not fall into
this category; therefore, original planning did not include training of Mint
Guards.
PAGENO="0336"
330
There is an additional category of personnel, Special Police, whose work is
somewhat akin to that of guards but who are in the civil service personnel
series 083 (Police Series), as distinguished from the 085 series for guards. The
Center is developing a course to train Special Police, including Special Police of
the Bureau of the Mint. (Because the duties of the Special Police do not extend
to the full range of police activities, this course will be only about five weeks in
length rather than the 12 weeks for the regular Police School.)
Question 2. One of the tables presented to the committee shows a need of only
393 dormitory spaces needed for the agencies that have agreed to use Beltsville.
Why does the facility need to be twice that size?
Answer. The facilities planned for Beltsville are not larger than needed.
Apparently this question refers to the table attached to the response in Question
B-3. That table shows two categories of persons who will come to the Center.
One category covers officers coming to the Center for AIRS (Advanced, In-
service, Refresher and Specialized) training. AIRS training is the responsibility
of the participating agencies. Although the Center will assist the agencies in
putting on the AIRS training, the Center's primary responsibility for AIRS
training is only to furnish facilities and services. Because the varied length of
the AIRS courses makes a mere count of individuals involved of little value in
determining the call on the facilities, the AIRS projected workload was shown
as projections of the dormitory rooms which AIRS trainees would require. As
shown in the right~hand column, it is anticipated that the AIRS trainees will
use 400 dormitory spaces.
The other category covers basic training. The Center is responsible for giving
basic training as well as furnishing facilities and services for such training.
Projections of the numbers to receive basic training are made. These numbers
are shown in the left-hand column in the tabulation. They will occupy the balance
of the dormitory spaces.
Question 3. A 1967 report by the Bureau of the Budget on the Beltsville pro-
posal noted that, except for the Secret Service and what is now the Executive
Protective Service, "no overwhelming arguments were presented which would
dictate any particular location" for training. If this is true, is a consolidated
facility still desirable? Would it not be more efficient to disperse training among
several locations around the nation?
Answer. Dispersal of training would be less efficient rather than more efficient.
The quotation given from the Bureau of the Budget report dealt with the
question of the location for a consolidated center. The subject of location was
considered against the background that earlier in the report the question of
whether there should be one consolidated center or several dispersed ones had
been considered and the decision bad been made that a single consolidated cen-
ter was preferable for a number of reasons.
That decision, along with all others concerning the Center's operations, has
been reviewed periodically. While there have been suggestions that a second
location for certain specialized operations might be needed, no formal considera-
tion has been given to any of the suggestions. The conclusions that the more
efficient operations and better training would be available in a single facifity that
led to the decision to have a single facility at Beltsville still appear to be
valid.
Senator SCOTT. We appreciate your being here. It is unfortunate
that we have these hearings at the same time that the Senate is in ses-
sion. We have to be called away.
Mr. SMrni. I understand fully.
Senator SCOTT. We are limited in time. Thank you very much for
being with us. We appreciate your answering the questions for the
record.
General Services representatives are here. I believe* you testified
previously with regard to this. Would you care to make a further
statement? We would hear from you at this time.
Again, we are going to ask that you be concise in whatever you tell
us
Mr. Sm~r. Mr. Chairman, we have no further statement to make.
Senator Sco~rr. We will submit some questions that we will ask you
answer for the record.
PAGENO="0337"
331
[The questions follow:]
QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR SCOTT
Qi~estion 1. Please give us figures on the size and estimated cost of the various
athletic training facilities: The swimming pool, the gym, the handball courts,
the athletic fields, the tennis courts, the locker rooms, etc.
Answer. The swimming pool, handball courts, soccer field, softball fields, foot-
ball field and tennis courts are of standard size.
The size and estimated costs for these athletic-training facilities are:
Size (square Estimated con-
feet) struction cost
Swimming pool (including opecialties) 3, 712 $180, 000
Gym (including specialties) 12, 020 675, 000
Handballcourts(8) 9,215 189,500
Softball fields (4) 120, 000 56, 300
Soccer field 71,400
Football field 57, 600
Tennis courts (6) 35, 520 69, 200
Locker rooms (including lockers) 3, 125 195, 250
Question 2. Why are 150 seats planned as a part of the gymnasium?
Answer. The seats planned are folding bleachers which telescope back against
the wall. There are three contemplated uses for these seats. One is for train-
ing purposes when instruction in unarmed defense, arrest techniques or first aid
requires instructor demonstrations to groups of students. The seats will permit
more persons to observe the training safely and more effectively than would
be the case if the trainees were only standing around the instructor. The second
is to provide a place from which visitors may observe the training being given
in the gym without getting in the way or risking being injured. The third is in
connection with the use of the gym for recreational purposes. It is contemplated
that there will be semi-organized competition in the after hours periods, and
on some occasions this may lead to sports activities for which there will be
spectators.
Question 3. What is the cost of the 600-seat auditorium? How often will it be
used?
Answer. a. The estimated cost of the auditorium, including the furnishings,
is $415,000.
b. We anticipate that the auditorium will be used:
1. For graduation ceremonies for basic classes, and final ceremonies for
AIRS (Advanced, In-service, Refresher and Specialized) classes one to
three times a week. There will be at least two basic classes graduating
every week. There will be 8 to 10 AIRS courses finishing each week. Some
of the ceremonies will be combined so that the numbers of graduates and
guests for each ceremony will be larger than can be accommodated in the
classrooms. The gymnasium will not be available as it will be in use for
training.
2. For talks by members of Congress, judges, or officials in the Executive
Branch when groups of 100, 200 or 300 trainees will attend-once a week.
3. For guest lecturers who appear for a fee that could be justified only
if more persons attend than~~ ~could~ be accommodated in the largest class-
room-two or three time's~( month.
4. For orientation fOr trainees reporting to the Center for the first time-
once or twice a week.
5. For seminars put on by the Center or one of the participating agencies
that will last one to three days-three to six times a year. A part of the mis-
sion of CFLETC is carrying on research in law enforcement training. This
will include seminars of leading law enforcement personnel.
6. For briefings or training by one of the participating agencies for state
or local police with whom they cooperate-three or four times a year.
7. For conferences of national or international organizations relate~T to
law enforcement that would last two to five days-once or twice a year.
8. For showing of training films for more than one class-once or twice
a week.
36-623-74-----22
PAGENO="0338"
332
9. For showing television broadcasts of major news events, such as
Presidential Press Conferences, or events of particular interest to law en-
forcement personnel such as prison riots, or hostage situations. These
might be live or recorded on video tape and reshown later about once or
twice a week.
10. Recreational-MovieS or projected television of sporting events three
or four times a week in the evenings and over weekends.
Question 4. Please give us a breakdown on the items included in the $4,682,000
cost listed to meet requirements of OSHA., NEPA, etc.
Answer. The $4,682,000 included as one of the elements in the rise of the esti-
mated cost of construction is not an aggregate of separate costs but is a figure
reflecting the portion of the increased construction costs that are the result
of more stringent requirements under which contractors must function, as dis-
tinguished from the economic factor normally designated inflation.
This figure, 71/2 percent of the estimated construction cost, is attributable to
added requirements as a consequence of implementation of new Federal legis-
lation, changes in industry standards and new GSA criteria. These items, al-
though noted by GSA estimators, appear only as a part of higher gross bids, and
cannot be separately itemized.
Question. 5. Please provide a detailed list of the items to be acquired under
the heading "furniture and equipment."
Answer. There has not been a study of all of the items of furniture and equip-
ment that will be needed at the Beltsville facilities since the preliminary pro-
jections made for determining the amounts to be used in the 1971 Prospectus.
A breakdown of the headings of the items in that 1971 Prospectus is set out
below. To get the figure for the 1974 Prospectus, the total estimated cost for
these items as of 1971, $4,951,000, was increased to $6,139,000 to provide for
cost escalation.
Furniture
Area Amount
1. Administration and operations $179. 000
2. Instruction 570, 000
3. Housing 588, 000
4. Dining 50,000
5. Physical training 20, 000
6. Common use recreation ~- 61, 000
7. Service and maintenance I
8. Vehicle crime building 1. 000
9. Driving range building 12, 000
10. Gate house ~ 000
11. Service garage 1,000
12. Training vehicle storage- 500
13. Service vehicle storage 500
14. Tower 1, 000
Total 1, 495~ 000
Motor Equipment
Raid and crowd area vehicles $16, 000
Vehicle accident scenes (wrecked autos) 1, 800
Vehicle Crime scene building (autos for problems) 30, 000
Training vehicles 76, 000
Service vehicles (buses, vans, trucks) 215, 000
Sewage treatment plant vehicles 17, 900
Roads and grounds maintenance vehicles 33. 300
Total 390, 000
PAGENO="0339"
333
Education a~ Equipment
Descriptions subtotal
Central lab (wet) $40, 000
Photo lab 39, 000
Chemistry lab 10, 000
Fingerprint
Language lab (1 lb w/30-inan console) 20, 000
Six driving simulators 30, 000
TV. sets (800) 480, 000
Multi-media carrels (25) 500, 000
Portable cassette tape recorders (800) 80, 000
Media's for instructional clusters (4) 1, 000, 000
Central T.V. studio 800, 000
Graphic equipment 75, 000
Total 3, 065, 000
Question 6. As I understand it, there are about 31/2 miles of roadways included
as a part of this facility. The cost of roads is listed, in information provided
to the committee, at close to $5,000,000. Since 31/2 miles of rural interstate high-
way can be built for about $5,000,000, can you tell us why the Beltsville facility
needs such an extravagant road system?
Answer. The Beltsville facility does not need and will not receive an extrava-
gant road system. In the responses to the question previously submitted (identi-
fied as Question B-12) which requested that the items in the outdoor facilities
be listed, an item labeled "roads and walks" is included. The estimated cost is
given as $4,641,000. That amount covers much more than the direct construction
costs of the roads and walks. It also includes other items which precede road-
work in the normal construction process, or which are associated with it in the
construction process or grouped with it in developing cost estimates.
Question B-12 included a request that costs for outdoor facilities in the current
Prospectus be compared with costs of the same items in the 1971 Prospectus.
In an attempt to respond to that request, the categories used in the earlier Pro-
spectus were used. Such a comparison is difficult, however, in that plans and spe-
cifications were not availa~bie when the 1971 estimates were prepared and these
estimates were based in large part on budget costs and the experience and judg-
ment of the GSA estimators. The 1974 estimate on the other hand was based on
completed plans and specifications. This latter estimate included items, such as
clearing and grubbing, grading, dewatering, and site drainage, width were not
identified as separate line items in the 1971 estimate (but which nevertheless
were included as part of the original budget costs).
In comparing the 1974 detailed estimate with the 1971 more general estimate
the many specific line items in the 1974 estimate which had no exact counterpart
in the 1971 estimate were grouped and compared with the most logical line item
available in the 1971 estimate.
In considering the costs of roads, it is important to distinguish the roadways
which are a part of the driver training ranges (which include the mile-long loop
around all the other ranges which will be used for training in high-speed or pur-
suit driving, as well as the other roads inside this oval) from the access or cir-
culation roads. Apart from the driver training ranges, there are only about two
miles of access or circulation roads on the project. The estimated cost of con-
structing these roads, plus about % of a mile of outdoor sidewalks, including
preparation and installation of retaining walls, curbs, asphalt block borders and
asseciated items, is $1,451,816.
Question 7. How' many miles of walkways are planned? Why are 700 parking
spaces needed at a live-in facility?
Answer. a. There are approximately 4,000 linear feet, or approximately ~
of a mile, of sidewalks in the present design.
b. Of the approximately 700 parking spaces in the present design, approximately
50 are located at the Driver Training Ranges. These will be for the automobiles
used In the Driver Training instruction, the vehicles of the instructors and
visitors to that activity, and vehicles used to get the students from the other parts
of the training center to the driver training area.
The remaining 650 spaces are around the Central Structure. Approximately
~00 of those will be for the up to 745 trainees and up to 50 temporary instructors
who will live in the dormitories. A large number of the trainees and temporary
PAGENO="0340"
334
instructors will come from places within one days' drive of Washington. In
view of the isolated location of the Center and the lack of public transportation
to it, it is anticipated that 35 to 40 percent of the trainees and temporary in-
structors will drive to Washington and keep their cars near the dormitories.
Even though every effort will be made to encourage the use of car pools and
to develop public transportation, it is estimated that there will be 250 spaces
needed for the permanent staff.
At least 50 parking spaces will be needed for visitors coming to the Center.
Using these spaces will be members of the public, members of the Board of
Directors, agency representatives attending graduation ceremonies or having
other business at the Center, and persons attending seminars and briefings.
in addition, parking spaces will be needed for Washington-based personnel of
the participating agencies who attend AIRS courses. Also, one of the ways in
which the Center's capacity could be expanded, if it is called on to train more
persons than can be housed in the dormitories, is to have the trainees who live
in the Washington area stay at home and come to the Center for training each
day. That means of expanding facilities could not be used unless there are park-
ing spaces available for the vehicles used to transport those trainees to the
Center.
Question 8. What is involved in the $1,587,000 expenditure for landscaping?
Answer:
The estimate of the cost of landscaping including escalation, contingencies,
and reservations is:
Stockpile and respread topsoil $254, 800
Seeding 284, 800
Clear underbrush around lake 7, 000
Fine grading 350, 000
Shrubs, trees and ground covering 656, 000
Stabilized path 7, 000
Sodding 25, ~00
Total 1, 587, 000
Question 9. What has been done specifically as a result of the $100,000 study
to find ways to conserve energy?
Answer. An Energy Conservation Study has been received from the engineers
and architects, identifying nine areas in which changes could save enough energy
that, over the projected life of the structure, the cost of the energy saved would
equal or exceed the cost of making the change. In two areas, change in the lighting
system and modification of the fenestration, the estimate is that adoption of the
energy conservation measures will reduce the cost of construction. If necessary
redesign will not result in time delays-the cost of which would exceed the amount
to be saved through adoption of the energy conservation measures-these meas-
ures will be incorporated in the plans.
Other areas require only changes in operating procedures. These will be adopted.
The balance of the energy conservation measures, several of which will, ac-
cording to the report, save four or more times as much money over the expected
life of the building than it would cost to implement them, cannot be implemented
because funds will not be available.
Question 10. If there were no increase in the Prospectus authorization, what
can be built for $52,000,000?
Answer. Without a detailed study, only a rough estimate can be given of what
could be constructed with the unexpended balance of the $52.6 million previously
authorized. Plans based on severance of any part of the project must take into
consideration the delay that would be caused and the increase in cost that would
result therefrom. Because the current program is one which has been carefully
developed and the parts interrelated, the deletion of any item would require a
reexamination of the entire program.
If, as an example, the dormitory were to be deleted, the beating, refrigeration
plant, dining room, service shops, etc., would still be needed, but would be substan-
tially smaller. A major redesign would require a resubmission of the regional
planning bodies and the possibility of the need to prepare a new master plan.
These actions require time during which escalation of construction costs would
continue. Thus, the design program, nowconsistent with educational needs, would
have to be restudied, redeveloped and resubmitted to appropriate planning bodies.
The Environmental Impact Statement would in all probability have to be re.
PAGENO="0341"
335
written and again pass through the review process. Even if done as efficiently as
is reasonably possible, this could take a year.
Of the $52.6 million now authorized, $7.2 million has already been obligated
so that only about $45 million remains available. After making provision for
utilities, furniture, equipment, site work, roads, architects and engineering fees
for redesigning, etc., only about $31 million would be available for construction.
Considering escalation that would occur during the year required for the devel-
opment and approval of a new design and before plans and specifications could be
prepared, we could build training facilities of about 357,000 square feet or only
about 60 percent of the present project. A facility of this size will not permit the
CFLETC to carry out all of the mission assigned to it.
Question 11. GSA lists $3,523,917 as spent to date on construction. Would you
please list those expenditures in detail?
Answer. Construction costs as of 6/30/74 are as follows:
Award
Contract -~;i~--
1. Substructure for firing ranges and motorcade training area March 1969 $705, 600
2. Superstructure for above October1970 864,000
3. Special training building, stage 1 March 1971 33?, 777
4. Special training building, stage 2 May 1971 1,124,700
5. Observation platform November 1971 39, 375
6. Firing range paving March 1972 39,853
7. Sewage pumping station do 150, 000
8. Firing range toilets January 1973 70, 600
9. Claaring and grubbing June 1973 104, 444
Change orders for above contracts 182, 888
Total 3,619,237
Question 12. Beltsville airport is now being used for motorcade training. Is it
being used effectively? Why won't it be available after 1975? If it were available,
could it be used for all of this kind of training?
Answer. The training given at the Beltsville airport is driver training or more
explicitly vehicular operations trailing. Motorcade training is the particular
part of dignitary protection training which deals with techniques of protecting
the President or some other dignitary in a parade or motorcade. That type of
training is given in the special dignitary protection area already constructed as a
part of the Center's permanent facilities.
At the Beltsville airport the principal training is in the operation of auto-
mobiles in four categories-pursuit, skill, skid pan, and defensive driving. In
addition, there is a comparatively small amount of training given in the operation
of other vehicles such as motorscooters, motorcycles, horse vans for the Park
Police mounted officers, buses and the heavy armored limousines used for the
Presiclent.
* This area is being used for want of better facilities. However, the training
would be much more effective if facilities designed for the training were avail-
able. *
The Training Center has been advised that the Beltsville airport will not be
available after 1975 because it is in thO part of thO Beltsviiie Agricultural Re-
search Center of tile Department of Agriculture that has been declared~ surplus
and there are other plans for it. However, if it should become available to the
Center permanently, substantial construction would be required before satisfac-
tory training could be given there. That, of course, would require a new Environ~
mental Impact Statement, a new submission to and approval by the National
Capital Planning Commission with the delays and additional expenses incident
thereto.
* Qi'estion IS. In answer to a previous question, GSA stated that ithad already
spent $240,000 for "design and review." Is that another phrase for "value en-
gineering?~' If not, what was the cost of the value engineering?
* Answer. Design review is not the same thingas value engineering. Designre-
viOw is a normal function performed by GSA on all of its construction projects.
At various stages of a design, a team of engineers and architects reviews plans
and specifications to insure compliance with GSA standards and criteria and to
insure adherence to the requirements given by the agency for which the project
i~ to be constructed. *
PAGENO="0342"
336
Value engineering has been an integral part of this project and was performed
by the construction manager. The fee for the construction manager does not
separately itemize the charges for value engineering, so that no specific cost for
it can be given.
Question 14. What will be done with the space and facilities now used for train-
ing by the Postal Service, the Immigration Service, the Customs Service, the
Secret Service, the Internal Revenue Service and the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms, all of which have existing facilites but will move into
Beltsville?
Answer. According to existing information the Postal Service training facility
in Bethesda, Maryland, will continue to exist for non-law enforcement training
conducted by the Postal Service. The Immigration and Naturalization facility
at Port Isabel, Texas, will continue to operate, but at a reduced level, to give
specialized training required by Border Patrol Agents and other elements of
the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The Customs Service National
Training Center at I-Iempstead, New York. will continue to exist to provide train-
ing for non-law enforcement personnel. All Customs law enforcement training
is now conducted in Center facilities. The Secret Service will continue to main-
thin the facilities at 1717 H Street, NW., Washington. D.C.. for training in non-
law enforcement programs and possibly for certain specialized law enforcement
training. The IRS National Training Center will continue to operate to furnish
training to non-law enforcement employees. The existing training facilities of
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms will be closed as all of their law
enforcement training will be conducted at the Center facilities.
Question 15. This facility will require some 80 acres for all facilities, includ-
ing playing fields. Why are nearly 500 acres needed for this facility?
Answer. The total area already improved and to be improved, including all the
cleared area around the driver training ranges, the presently existing improve-
ments in the special training building, firing ranges, and dignitary protection
area, the access roads, the Central Structure and related facilities, plus the
buffer zone required for screening of the site, will be about 265 acres. The balance
of the site is necessary to comply with the National Capital Planning Commis-
sion guidelines, to provide for the security of the site, and to permit placing im-
provements in the best available locations.
The master plan for the Washington metropolitan area prepared by the Na-
tional Capital Planning Commission provides for development of the area in a
series of corridors of intense development divided by green wedges of less in-
tensive usage. The CFLETC is located in an area intended as a wedge, in which
there will be low-density occupancy and maximum retention of existin~ open
green space characteristics. Under the NOPO guidelines, permissible land uses
in the green wedges vary from boy scout camps up to institutional uses. The
general principles for property within a wedge require that `substantial portions
be undeveloped. Under the present plans, about 216 acres of the CFLETC site
will he left entirely undisturbed to keep the low density required to comply with
these criteria. `
Maintaining the security of the site will he facilitated by the boundaries which
are the edges of rights-of-way of the existing roads on the western and southern
sides and the proposed Outer Beltway along the northeastern line. Adoption of
these boundaries, fixed for other purposes, and which enclose a tract of `land
roughly the size of that indi'cated by other `requirements; determined the exact
size of the property. ` ``` ` ``
If less property than that contained in the site were available, particularly if
the property at the eastern end were not available, it would be necessary to
locate all of the improvements toward the western end of the tract. If this. were"
done, the Central `Structure would' be moved into' the arsa now designated for.'
the lake. This would require either the lake be `omitted, and some other provision
be made for `a' reservoir for fire flghtinr water. or' that more exp~nsive style
of `construction be utilized to accommodate the Central Structure with the lake
area. ` `
If the driver training ranges `were `shifted' as close to' the western' boundary
of the tract as possible considering the requirements of the NCPC for a buffer
zone, the results would be that they would be directly across the stream feeding'
into the northern end of the lake. This would require first that urovision he made'
for bridging the stream and conducting the water which flows through it throu~h
the driver training area, and secondly for constructing the driver training areas
in the valley of this stre~im which i~ `ihout 39 feet deep This would require much
PAGENO="0343"
337
greater movement of dirt, and hence greater expense, than would be required
for construction in the area where the driver training ranges are now sited.
Moving the driver training ranges to the western portion of the site would
result in substantially greater changes to existing conditions, particularly
in the need to contain or channelize the existing stream, and hence a greater
impact on `the environment than would construction at the present site.
Question 16. Is further expansion of the tract planned? If not, why are 1400
feet of ten-inch water lines being run out to the tract site and dead-ended? And
why is `the road stubbed off in the northeast corner, just beyond the big diamond-
shaped intersection?
Answer. No expansion of the driver training ranges is planned. The ten-inch
water line running to the driver training ranges site is to provide domestic
water and water to the fire hydrants for the driver training range building and
wa'ter for the vehicular skid pan. The road stub off the northeast corner of the
tract is an integral part of `the training facilities. The loop, approximately a
mile long, which goes around the other driver training ranges, is the pursuit
range for training in high-speed vehicular operations. The four ramps leading
from this pursuit range, which form the diamond-shaped intersection, are the
facilities for giving training in leaving and entering a high-speed roadway at
different angles and under different conditions. The stub at the end of the two
ramps on the outside of the pursuit range will provide the facilities for the
vehicles which come off to turn around.
Question 17. Please explain the selection of the track site. Topographic drawings
show it to be `the roughest terrain in the entire area, which would `be the most
expensive to excavate and drain. Couldn't utility and other costs be reduced
if the track's location were changed?
Answer.
A. LOCATION
Limitations imposed by the National Capital Planning Commission require
that the Central Structure be sited in its present location. The motorcade train-
ing area has already been constructed and is located directly north of the out-
door or semi-enclosed firing ranges, and east of and adjacent to the Baltimore-
Washington Parkway. These presently existing facilities occupy the west end
of the site.
The pursuit driving range, which is the outer loop surrounding the other
driver training ranges, could he located in the northwest area closer to existing
facilities. However, a site in the northwest corner would probably impinge on
the area where the Department of Agriculture has a continuing silva culture
research project which the Center agreed to leave undisturbed at the time it
acquired the property from the Department of Agriculture. In addition to the
sharp rise and fall of the land from elevation 120 to 150 feet in this area, one
of the streams draining the area is also located here. If the ranges were to be
sited here, the stream would have to be bridged and more extensive earthwork
accomplished than necessary at the existing site.
The existing water courses on the property and their confluence near the dam
site dictated the location of the reservoir which would serve as the source of fire
protection water.
These restrictions left only two available sites for the driver training ranges,
the one shown in the present plans and the east end of the site. By locating the
driver training ranges at the site provided in the present plans, advantage is
taken of the one sizeable cleared location in this heavily wooded site. For purposes
of driver safety, the entire track area must be cleared. Utilizing the existing
cleared area minimizes the additional clearing that must he done, thus reducing
expenses and also complying with the requirement of the National Capital Plan-
ning Commission that the additional clearing be kept to a minimum.
The east end of the site was considered as a possible location for the driver
training ranges, but the presence of a S5-foot ravine would have required exten-
sive earth moving and grading, probably more so than at the present site where,
although the total changes in elevation are about the same, the grades are not
as steep. Also, in the area east of the Central Structure. the surveys indicate the
presence of swampy areas which would have further complicated earth moving
and drainage problems.
B. UTILITIES
The plans which provide for sewer and water facilities being available in the
northwest corner of the tract w-ere prepared at the time that plans called for tying
PAGENO="0344"
338
in the sewer disposal facilities and the water supply to the lines of the Washing-
ton Suburban Sanitary Commission. Since WSSC has refused to furnish service
to the Center, and since the sewage disposal system and the supply of water will
come from the Agricultural Research Center, the sewer and water lines will not
run through this northern portion of the property.
Resiting to where the false-front buildings and one-story dwelling are located
(the raid and crowd training area) would probably increase rather than de-
crease the cost of roads and utilities. The existing motorcade area could not be
used as a means of access to the driver training ranges without seriously interfer-
ing with its use for training. At present, access to the driver training ranges is
by the road (450 feet) which leads from the northeast corner of the parking
area. An access road to ranges sited in the northwest corner would probably still
originate iii the parking lot and in all probability be longer than the present
road.
The utilities now run from the Central Structure to the site of the driver train-
ing range building near the center of the pursuit ioop. It is doubtful that resiting
the driver training ranges in either the northwest portion of the tract or the east
end of it would shorten the distance that those utilities would have to be carried
from the Central Structure.
Question 18. Why is it necessary to build a concrete and earth dani 750 foot
long and 15 foot high?
Answer. The lake impounded by the dam was designed as a source* of water
for fire protection. Since in periods of drought the flow of the streams feeding
the lake is small, it was necessary to make the lake sufficiently deep that evapora-
tion would not cause it to dry up. To obtain a lake of this depth, the darn was
required to be of the height and length provided in the present plans. The* dam
itself is an earthen structure with an impervious clay core. As such, it is an
economical structure. The only concrete is in the spillways and weir which are
designed in accordance with recognized engineering design criteria. This design
has been reviewed by the U.S. Corps of Engineers and the State of Maryland.
GENIERAL SERVICES ADMINSTRATION,
Washington,D.CY., October 21, 1974.
Hon. DICK CLARK,
Chairman subcommittee on Buildings and Grounds Committee on Pubiw Works
U ~ senate Washington 13 C
DEAR SENATOR CLARK: Attached in accordance with your request are answers to
questions presented at the hearing on September 18, before your Subcommittee
for the Consolidated Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, Beltsville,
Maryland.
We will continue working with the Subcommittee staff to resolve anyfurther
questions regarding this project. . , .
Sincerely, . . . .` .
LARRY `F~ . Rousu.
Acting Assistant Administrator.
Enclosure. ` .
DEPARTMENT OF' THE TREASURY,
. ` ` GE~ERA~ SERVI~ES ADMINSTRATION,
October 2 1974
Question 1.-How big is the proposed project site? " . ` . `
Answer. The ~ite contains approximately 481 acres. ` ` .~
Question `2. A review of the site plan indicates that all of the facilities could
be placed on 68 tO 70 acres. Why is so much land needed? . .
Answer. The total `area already improved and to `be improved.' including all
the cleared area around the driver' training `ranges, the presently existing im-
provements in the' special' training building, firing ranges, and dignitary pro-
tection area, the access roads, the Central Structure and related facilities, plus
the buffer zone required for screening `of the site, will' be about' 265 `acres. The
bal'ince of the site is neces~arv to comply with the National Capital Planning
"Commission guidelines, to `provide for the security" of th'e `site,. `and to permit
placing improvements in the the best available locations. `
The master plan for the WashihgtOn' metropolitan area prepared by the
National Capital Planning Commission provides for development of the area
in a series of corridors of intense development divided by green wedges of
less' intensive usage. The OFLETO is `located in an area intended' `as a wedge,
in which there will be low-density occupancy and maximum retention of existing
PAGENO="0345"
339
open greert space characteristics. Under the NCPC guidelines, permissible land
uses in the green wedges vary from boy scout campS up to institutional uses.
The general principles for property within a wedge require thSt substantial
portions be undeveloped. Under the present plans, about 216 acres of the CFLETO
site will be left entirely undisturbed to keep the low density required to comply
with these criteria.
Maintaining the security of the site will be facilitated by the boundarieS
which are the edges of rights-of-way of the existing roads on the western and
southern sides and the proposed Outer Beltway along the northeastern line.
Adoption of these boundaries, fixed for other purposes, and which enclose a
tract of land roughly the size of that indicated by other requirements, determined
the exact size of the property.
If less property than that contained in the site were available, particularly
if the property at the eastern end were not available, it would be necessary to
locate all of the improvements toward the western end of the tract. If this
were done, the Central Structure would be moved into the area now designated
for the lake. This would require either the lake be omitted, and some other
provision be made for a reservoir for fire fighting water, or that more expensive
style of construction the utilized to accommodate the Central Structure with the
lake area.
If the driver training ranges were shifted as close to the western boundary
of the tract as possible considering the requirements of the NCPC for a buffer
zone, the results would be that they would be directly across the stream feeding
into the northern end of the lake. This would require first that provision be
made for bridging the stream and conducting the water which flows through
it through the driver training area, and secondly for constructil1g the driver train-
ing areas in the valley of this stream which is about 35 feet deep. This would
require much greater movement of dirt, and hence greater expense, than would
be required for construction in the area where the driver training ranges are
now sited.
Moving the driver training ranges to the western portion of the site would
result in substantially greater changes to existing conditions, particularly the
need to contain or channelize the existing stream, and hence a greater impact
~n the environment than would construction at the present site.
Question 3. Why is it necessary to purchase 47 acres of private property? What
will it cost? Who owns it?
Answer. a. The Center's site has as its boundaries the presently existing Balti-
more-Washington Parkway and Powder Mill Road, plus the right-of-way for
the proposed Outer Beltway. All of the property within those boundaries, except
for the 47 acres, was Government-owned and was acquired by the Center by
transfer from the Department of Agriculture. To maintain these clear boundaries,
to keep the integrity of the site and to simplify the security problems, it was
desirable that the right-of-way of the Outer Beltway be kept as the northern
or northeastern boundary of the Center.
For safety reasons it is essential that unauthorized persons be excluded from
the training areas. Keeping the property boundaries along the roads will simplify
somewhat problems of exclusion of trespassers from the Center's site. However, if
this 47 acres had been left in private hands, it could have been, and probably
would have been, developed in some sort of a high-density residential area. The
existence of an enclave of private development on this high point would greatly
increase the problems of excluding trespassers. In addition, the design of the
improvements for the property as developed in a logical manner indicated that
the driver training range should be sited at this location. In order to complete
that driver training range in the most efficient and economical manner, acquisition
of this private tract of land was necessary.
b. The cost has not yet been determined. It will be fixed by the court in the
eminent domain proceeding under which the property is being obtained. $357800
has been deposited into the registry of the court under the requirements of the law
that there be a deposit available to the land owner while the value of the land
taken is being determined.
c. The property is now owned by the United States as the result of the filing of
the Declaration of Taking in the eminent domain proceeding filed in June of 1974.
Prior to the filing of the Declaration of Taking the owner was 107 Investment
Partnership (a Maryland general partnership).
Question 4. Why can't the motorcade and pursuit training tract be located in the
northwest corner of the site, closer to the existing facilities? Wouldn't this sig-
nificantly reduce the amount of roads and utilities now proposed
PAGENO="0346"
340
Answer. The motorcade training area has already been constructed and is
located directly north of the outdoor or semi-enclosed firing ranges, and east of
and adjacent to the B~ltjmore-WftShingtOn Parkway.
The pursuit driving range, which is the outer loop surrounding the other
driver training ranges, could be located in the northwest area closer to existing
facilities. However, a site in the northwest corner would probably impinge on
the area where the Department of Agriculture has a continuing silva culture
research project whièh the Center agreed to leave undisturbed at the time it ac-
quired the property from the Department of Agriculture. In addition to the sharp
rise and fall of the land from elevation 120 to 150 feet in this area, one of the
streams draining the area is also located here. If the ranges were to be sited
here, the stream would have to be bridged and more extensive earthwork ac-
complished than necessary at the existing site.
The plans which provide for sewer and water facilities being available in
the northwest ëorner of the tract were prepared at the time that plans called
for tying in the sewer disposal facilities and the water supply to the lines of the
Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission. Since WSSC has refused to furnish
service to the Center, and since the sewage disposal system and the supply of
water will come from the Agricultural Research Center, the sewer and water
lines will not run through this northern portion of the property.
Resiting to where the false-front buildings and one-story dwelling are located
(the raid and crowd training area) would probably increase rather than decrease
the cost of roads and utilities. The existing motorcade area could not be used as
a means of access to the driver training ranges without seriously interfering
with its use for training. At present, access to the driver training ranges is by
the road (450 feet) which leads from the northeast corner of the parking area.
An access road to ranges sited in the northwest corner would probably still
originate in the parking lot and in all probability be longer than the present road.
The utilities now run from the Central Structure to the site of the driver train-
ing range building near the center of the pursuit loop. It is doubtful that resiting
the driver training ranges in the northwest portion of the tract would shorten
the distance that those utilities would have to be carried from the Central
Structure.
Question 5. Why is such an elaborate and intricate track layout necessary?
Couldn't it be reduced in size? How much will it cost?
Answer. a. The driver training ranges have been designed to provide the facili-
ties for training in the various types of vehicle operations that are necessary in
order properly to train the law enforcement officers; The outer loop, which goes
all around the other ranges is the pursuit driving range for training in high speed
vehicle operations. The shape provides the varying types of curves that could
be encountered in normal highways. The length could be reduced only by seriously
impinging on the quality of the training that could be given on it. During the
course of the design of the Center, a thorough study of the design for the driver
training ranges was made by a panel of engineers and traffic consultants seeking
ways to reduce the size of the track and particularly the size of the area which
would have to be cleared for the construction of it taking into consideration life
safety criteria. In the course of this study, the length of the pursuit tract was
reduced about 650 feet. Because of that, the maximum speed at which training
can be given was reduced. Any further reduction in the size of the loop would
still further reduce this speed and deny to the trainees the benefit of training
at high speeds.
In the western portion of the area inside the pursuit driving range, there are
a series of crossing streets and open paved areas which are designed for special-
ized types of training. The open paved areas are for skill training. Rubber cones
will be placed on them in different patterns in order to give the students training
in precise handling of their vehicles. The intricate road network is designed for
defensive driving. Traffic lights will control each intersection. Some of these are
normal intersections while some will be offset in order to give training in defensive
driving.
The long wide paved strip will consist of three parallel lanes containing a
series of traffic lights controlled by the instructor to give training and to develop
trainee judgment in the area of lane changing. To the east, but still inside the
pursuit driving range, is the range for training in low friction or skid control
driving.
b. If any of these ranges were decreased in size, the value of the training given
on them would be reduced.
PAGENO="0347"
341
ë. It `is now estimated that the cost of constructing the driver training is
$3,900,000.
Question 6. 1s the Beltsville airport currently being used for motorcade train-
in~? Can it continue to be? Isn't there another track on the site also?
Answer, a. The Beltsville airport is not used for motorcade training. It is used
for driver or vehicular' operation training.
b. The Beltsville airport can continue to be used for the driver training now
conducted there so long as the site remains available to the Center. Beltsville
airport is being used for driver training pursuant to a revocable permit originally
issued `by the Department of Agriculture to the United States Park Police. The
property has been `declared surplus by the Department of Agriculture, and the
Center has been advised that it will not' be available for use for driver training
when the plans for this area have been fully developed.
c. Motorcade training is part of the training in dignitary protection. ,There is a
motorcade training area now existing on the Center's permanent site. It is located
north of the outdoor `or semi-enclosed firing ranges. It is here that all motorcade
training is and will be provided.
Question 7. Is further expansion of the proposed new tract planned? Why are
1400 feet of ten-inch water line being run out to the tract site and deadended?
Why is the road being stubbed off in the northeast corner near the big diamond-
shaped intersection?
Answer. No expansion of the driver training ranges is planned. The ten-inch
water line running to the driver training ranges site is to provide domestic water
and water to the fire hydrants for the driver training range building and water for
the vehicular skid pan. The road stub off the northeast corner of the tract is an
integral part of the training facilities. `The loop, approximately a mile long,
which goes around the other driver training ranges, is the pursuit range for
training in high-speed vehicular operations. The four ramps leading from this
pursuit range, which form the diamond-shaped intersection, are the facilities for
giving training in leaving and entering a high-speed roadway at different angles
and under different conditions. The stub at the end of the two ramps on the out-
side of the pursuit range will provide the facilities for the vehicles which come
off to turn around.
Question 8. Why was this particular site selected for the track, since topo-
graphical drawings show it to be the roughest terrain in the area, and most ex-
pensive to develop? When was it selected, and by whom?
Answer. a. Limitations imposed by the National Capital Planning Commission
require that the Central Structure he sited in its present location. The motorcade
training area has already been constructed and is located directly north of the
outdoor or semi-enclosed firing ranges, and east of and adjacent to the Baltimore-
Washington Parkway. These presently existing facilities occupy the west end
of the site.
The pursuit driving range, which is the outer loop surrounding the other driver'-
training ranges, could be located in the northwest area closer to existing facili-
ties. However, a site in the northwest corner would probably impinge on the area
where the Department of Agriculture has a continuing silva culture research
project which the Center agreed to leave undisturbed at the time it acquired the~
property from the Department of Agriculture. In addition to the sharp rise and
fall of the land from elevation 120 to 150 feet in this area, one of the streams
draining the area is also located here; If the ranges were to be sited here, the
stream would have to he bridged and more extensive earthwork accomplished
than necessary at the existing site.
The existing water courses on the property and their confluence near the dam
site dictated the location of the reservoir which would serve as the source of
fire protection water.
These restrictions left only two available sites for the driver training ranges,
the one shown in the present plans and the east end of the site. By locating the
driver training ranges at the site provided in the present plans, advanage is taken
of the one sizeable cleared location in this heavily wooded site. For purposes of
driver safety, the entire track area must be cleared. Utilizing the existing cleared
area minimizes the additional clearing that must be done, thus reducing expenses
and also complying with the requirement of the National Capital Planning Com-
mission that the additional clearing be kept `to a minimum.
The east end of the site was considered as a possible location for the driver
`training ranges, but the presence of a 35-foot ravine would have required ex-
tensive earth moving and grading, probably more so than at `the present site
PAGENO="0348"
342
where, although~the total ~change~:in elevation are about the same, the-grades are
not as steep. Also, in the area east of the Central Structure, the surveysindicate
the presë~ncé ofz ~ further. complicated: earthrnov-
inganddrainageproblems:~ ~ ~ ~:: : ::
b. This site* for the driver training ranges was selected in 1970 by the archi-
tects after a study of the entire site and the reqtñrements for the facilities to be
erected to enable the Center to meet the various training requirements of the
participating agencies.
QuestiOn 9. The site plan shows the tract to be only 000 feet from the adminis-
tration building and dormitory parking lot. Yet nearly two miles of winding
access and peripheral roads with elabOrate intersections and cul de sacs are
proposed to connect the two areas. Why? In all there are about four miles of
roads proposed which will cost some $5 million. Why does this facility need such
an extensive network?
Answer. a. The extent and purpose of the driver training ranges is more fully
explained in the response to Question G-5. The two miles of winding roads with
elaborate intersections and cul de sacs are specifically designed for driver training
and are part of those ranges.
b. Outside Of thO roads which are a part of the driver training facilities, there
are only about two miles of access roads. Concerning these and the cost of them,
as was explained in the response to Question F-0, the actual cost of construction
of these roads, along with the approximately three-quarters of a mile of outdoor
sidewalks, including preparation and installation of retaining walls, curbs, as-
phalt block borders, and associated items is $1,451,810. Apart from the roads which
are part of the driver training facility, the roads on the site are simple access
roads from the Powder Mill Road entrance of the property to the various train-
ing facilities on the site, and roads connecting the training facilities with each
other.
Question 10. How many miles of walkw-ays are planned? Why are 700 parking
spaces needed in a live-in facility?
Answer. a. There are approximately 4,000 linear feet, or approximately % of
a mile of sidewalks in the present design.
b. Of the approximately 700 parking spaces in the present design, approxi-
mately 50 are located at the Driver Training Ranges. These will be for the
automobiles used in the Driver Training instruction, the vehicles of the instruc-
tors and visistors to that activity, and vehicles used to get the students from the
other parts of the training centerto the driver training area.
The remaining 050 spaces are around the Central Structure. Approximately 300
of those will be for the up to 745 trainees and up to 50 temporary instructors who
will live in the dormitories. A large number of the trainees and temporary in-
structors will come from places within one day's drive of Washington. In view
of The isolated location of the Center and the lack of public transportation to it,
it is anticipated that 35 to 40 percent of the trainees and temporary instructors
will drive to Washington and keep their cars near the dormitories.
Even though every effort will he made to encourage the use of car pools and to
develop public transportation, it is estimated that there will be 250 spaces needed
for the permanent staff.
At least 50 parking spaces will be needed for visitors coming to the Center.
Using these spaces will be members of the public, members of the Board of Di-
rectors, agency representatives attending graduation ceremonies or having other
business at the Center, and persons attending seminars and briefings.
In addition, parking spaces will be needed for Washington-based personnel of
the participating agencies who attend AIRS courses. Also, one of the ways in
which the Center's capacity could be expanded, if it is called on to train more
persons than can be housed in the dormitories, is to have the trainees who live
in the Washington area stay at home and come to the Center for training each
day. That means of expanding facilities could not be used unless there are park-
ing spaces available for the vehicles used to transport those trainees to the
Center.
Question 11. Since test borings were not made until March 1972, and site draw-
ings not finished until late 1972 and early 1973, upon what were estimates based
which were submitted with the 1971 Prospectus? Was there a previous master
plan, and when was it made? Who approved it?
Answer. The estimate for the 1971 Prospectus was made in December 1970. It
was based, as are other Prospectus estimates almost without exception, on unit
sqwir~foot costs applied to the areas shown in the Guidance document which
PAGENO="0349"
343
was then, and still is, the basic statement of the design requirements for this
project. In addition; it was based on a preliminary master plan which was avail-
able at the time, and which, except for the layout of the driver training ranges,
was essentially the same as the present master plan. Neither test borings nor .a
topographic survey was available to the estimators at the time the cost estimates
used in the 1971 Prospectus were prepared.
The original master plan for. the CFLETC was prepared in 1971 and approved
by the National Capital Planning Commission in May of 1971. It was modified to
show the revised tract layout and was again approved by NCPC in January
of 1974.
Question 12. The western half of the site is virtually all swamp-land, situated
in a drainage area. Why is construction proposed here instead of on the east half,
which comprises higher ground and where ground water problems could be
resolved with subdrains and swales at a reasonable cost? Doesn't the government
own all the land permitting a choice?
Answer. a. There is very little swampy area in the western half of the site.
The southwest corner of the property is the lowest area. The stream leaving the
property near the extreme southwest corner carries all the run-off water from
the portion of the property to be improved, and much of it from the eastern end
of the property. However, the surveys made have not revealed any swampy areas
in the part that will be improved with the exception of one lust east of the Central
Structure. That particular area covering approximately 8/4 of an acre will not
interfere with construction. The survey shows three other small swampy areas
further east of the Central Structure but these are not in the area that will be
improved.
The western half of the site contains one area of about 34 of an acre designated
on the topographic survey of the site as being swampy. Those swampy areas which
do exist on the site are concentrated in the eastern half which is not being
developed. On the eastern half also are located the greater grade differentials
found on the entire site and more surface water than found on any other part of
the site.
Since no borings were taken on the eastern part of the, site, we have no specific
information on groundwater conditions there, but a reasonable engineering infer-
énce is that they are similar to the known conditions.
Construction was originally planned on the western part of the site to be con-
tiguous with existing and designed Secret Service facilities which were to be
incorporated into the CFLETC. Development of the facilities on the eastern end
of the site would have required construction of excessive connecting roads to
connect these new facilities with the existing Secret Service facilities. Since the
Government does own the entire site, the new facilities could have been placed
anywhere on it.
b. The Government does own all of the property and at the time the site
selection was made owned all except the 47 acres since acquired in the condemna-
tion proceedings. The ownership of the property was not a factor in the selection
of the locations of the improvements within the 481 acres of the Center's site.
Question 13. When was the main building location determined, and by whom?
The 1972 soil boring logs indicate a relatively low load-bearing capability. Was
any though given to shifting the buildings up to the higher ground after these
were reviewed? If not, why?
Answer. The location of the main building was determined by the architect in
1970. After the soil borings were taken in 1972, the question of the location of
the building was again considered. However, analysis of the load-bearing capacity
of this soil in every location where soil borings were taken indicated that the
bearing capacity was generally uniform over the entire site. From general knowl-
edge of the geologic formation in the area, there was no reason to believe that
soil borings taken on the eastern end of the site would show any material differ-
ence in the load-bearing capacity of the soil.
Question 14. What will the cost of the foundation piling be, which was noted
as an extra cost in the Prospectus?
Answer. As stated in the response to Question B-5, the estimated cost of the
pile foundation system will be $990,000.
Question 15. If the Dormitory, Administration Building, and Service Garage
were shifted due west to where the athletic fields are shown on the plan now, and
closer to Powder Mill Road, wouldn't this not only eliminate the need for the
extensive piling but also the "drainage" lagoon that is proposed now?
PAGENO="0350"
344
Answer. If the Central Structure were moved close enough to Powder Mill
Road to get completely away from:the small stream that will be channelized into
the lagoon under the present plan, it is extremely doubtful that the approval of
NOPO for the master plan would have been obtained. In any event, the changing
of the location of the Central Structure to the playing field area would not mate-
rially affect the need for piling under the foundation. Piling is needed because
of the poor load-bearing capacity of the soil which appears to~ be of similar capac-
ity e~ erywhei e on the site
Relocation of the Central Structure and the service garage would not neces-
sarily eliminate the need for some containment of the stream. The rip-rapped
lagoon is merely a channelization of the existing meandering stream, with the
weir creating a constant water level within the lagoon. The components of the
lagoon collectively contribute to the reduction of soil erosion during the periods
of heavy rainfall and permit rapid drainage of the area during such periods with-
out flooding that would normally occur if the lagoon were not there.
Question 16. If these building locations were readjusted, couldn't a ditch or a
series of swales then be dug along the rear of the parking lot to intercept and
divert run-off, at a greatly reduced cost' as compared to that of the lagoon?
Answer. The lagoon is a channelization of the existing stream which naturally
drains the central section of the site. Since this stream exists, it would seem
more practical to improve it rather than to construct artificial swales at the back
of the parking'area. Even if these swales were constructed, the stream would still
exist and would have to be controlled. The alternative of creating culverts~ to
carry this water off would be more expensive than the present plan of channeliza-
tion through the lagoon.
Question `17.~ Please describe this lagoon, and all of the necessary structure
implemented to create it. What is its primary purpose? Why was it incorporated
or blended into the building plan itself and forced to flow beneath the Dormitory
and Administration Buildings as a decorative architectural feature?
Answer. The lagoon is the existing streamS channelized as it passes under the
Central Structure. It is 66 feet wide at the bottom, 102 feet wide at the top with a
depth' of 3~/2 feet. The total length is 650 feet. It provides a source of water for
`fire protection purposes close to the Central Structure. It controls flooding of the
stream during heavy rainfalls and acts as an erosion and sedimentation contrOl
`basin. The only structure associated with it is the weir at its west end. The top
of this weir is at elevation 118.5, while the lake is at elevation 116.0. The bottom
of the lagoon is at elevation 115.0. From these figures, it is apparent that without
the weir the depth of the water in the lagoon would only be one foot, which. would
be useless for fire fighting purposes.
Two alternate methods of increasing the depth of the water in the lagoon are
available if the existing three and one-half foot water depth is to be maintained.
One is to excavate an additional two and one-half feet from the bottom of the
lagoon. The other is to raise the overall lake level by two and one-half feet by
raising the height of the dam. Construction of the weir is the most economical
of these three methods.
The stream which was channelized to form the lagoon is an existing one. It was
not forced to flow between the twO major segments of the building. Rather the
building was sited at the low point of the site, as required by the National Capital
Planning Commission, and serendipitously the stream was there to provide the
source of water for the fire fighting reservoir.' This feature of the terrain was
taken into consideration by the architect in creating the design. The structure
is adapted to existing site conditions while maintaining the advantages to he
obtained from the impoundment of the water in the existing stream to serve as
the immediately available source of water for fire fighting purposes.
Question 18. It is an elal)orate structure of heavy reinforced-concrete and rlp-
rap construction like a major Corps of Engineers' flood control project. exceed-
ing Soil Conservation Service requirements for a water-impoundment device.
Shown on the drawings as 650' long, 128' wide, and over 8' deep, with an adjust-
~able weir at the lower end and massive inlets, it appears a very expensive
ornamental arrangement. Why can't drainage just be diverted with simple
ditches and under-drains instead? What would this lagoon arrangement cost?
Answer. The lagoon will be created by excavation. It has no reinforced con-
crete in it, `n'or any bulk concrete. It is an earthen `channel with rip-rapped
banks. The' rip-rap is designed to prevent scouring and erosion of the banks dur-
ing periods of heavy rainfall when considerable quantities of water are expected
to flow through it. ` ` ` `
PAGENO="0351"
345
The design complies with the State of Maryland Department of Water
Resources requirements for dams. These requirements include adherence to the
methods for design flood calculations outlined in the National Engineering Hand-
book, Section 4, Hydrology, Chapter 21, as published by the Soil Conservation
Service.
The lagoon is 65Q feet in length, 102 feet wide at the top of the rip-rap and
three and one-half feet from the top of the weir to the bottom of the channel.
The distance between the two segments of the Central Structure is 128 feet.
Although it is eight feet from the bottom of the lagoon channel to the top of the
sidewalks bordering the lagoon on either side, the lagoon itself has a design
water depth of only three and one-half feet.
The weir, which impounds the water in the lagoon, is a normally reinforced
multi-purpose structure. It is basically a weir but it is also a concrete encase-
ment for the electrical conduit carrying the primary electrical service from the
south half of the building to the north half. It is also a walkway which will
permit firemen readily to reach the surface of the water and to place their suc-
tion hoses in the middle of the lagoon and also into the lake on the opposite
ends. It is also a pedestrian bridge across the lagoon primarily intended for use
by service and maintenance personnel. It is a fixed weir rather than being adjust-
able. The inlet at the eastern end is a culvert under the road which is sized to
carry the stream at all flows normal to it. The size and design of this inlet was
dictated by the utilitarian nature of It and in no way is intended to be
ornamental.
A simple ditch substituted for the lagoon would have to be roughly the same
cross-sectional area as the lagoon to adequately handle storm run-off. For erosion
control, such a ditch should be rip-rapped in some manner.
The estimated cost of the construction of the lagoon is $405,000.
Question 19. Why is it necessary to build another dam, some 750 feet long, 15
feet high, and from 50 to 120 feet wide immediately northwest of the athletic
field? What will this accomplish and what will it cost?
Answer. The dam was included in the design to impound the water in the exist-
ing streams as the primary source of fire fighting water for the site in the event
that water in the quantities required (3,000 gallons per minute) could not be
obtained from the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission. Since WSSC has
refused to furnish water service to the site, arrangements have been made with
the Department of Agriculture to furnish water. The Department of Agriculture
can furnish adequate water for normal needs, but does not have the capacity
to furnish the large flow that would be needed for fire fighting purposes. There-
fore, it is necessary to create on the site the reservoir to store water for fire
fighting purposes. The estimated cost of the dam, and the lake to be impounded
behind it is $1,011,000.
In addition to its value as a reservoir for water to be used in fire fighting the
lake will also serve as a sedimentation basin for entrapment of eroded material
during and after completion of the construction. It is possible that the lake may
also be used for training in underwater recovery techniques and for recreational
purposes.
Question 20. Is the main purpose of all this just to create a man-made lake
on the site? To provide another recreational amenity, regardless of cost? How
can the cost-benefit ratio of this be rationalized?
Answer. The main purpose of the lake Is to serve as a fire protection reservoir.
In the event of a fire, the $1,011,000 cost of the dam and lake could be recovered
many times by limiting damage to the $36,000,000 Central Structure which could
he completely destroyed or at least severely damaged by the fire for want of a
water supply.
Question 21. When the 1971 prospectus was approved, GSA was instructed to
have the plans reviewed by competent experts in the value engineering discipline
for the purpose of eliminating unnecessary features of the project and reducing
costs. These plans were finished in late 1972 and early 1973. When did the value
engineering people review them? Did they consider any of the items discussed
above? What changes were made, and when, and how much money was saved?
Answer. a. An initial review was done in June 1972. Other reviews were made
in October 1.972and May 1973.
b. As requested in Senator Jennings Randolph's letter, all major areas of con-
struction were examined by a multi-disciplined team headed up by one of the
foremost experts in the field of value engineering to determine where costs
could be reduced by more efficient design and material economies.
PAGENO="0352"
346
c. As a result of the value engineering effort, some thirty-two
u~ ere accepted During the ~ `trious reviews these were incorporated into the final
design The resultant sa~ ings are estimated at appioum'itely one quarter of a
million dollars.
Question 22. It was stated that $240,000 has already been spent for "design
review". Was this value engineering, and if not, what was spent on. value
engineering?
Answer. Design review is not the same thing as value engineering. Design
review is a normal function performed by GSA on all of. its construction projects.
At various stages of a design, a team of engineers and architects reviews plans
and criteria and to
and specifications to insure compliance with GSA standards
insure adherence to the requirements given by the agency for which the project
is to be constructed.
and
performed
Value engineering has been an integral part of this project
was
by the construction manager. The fee for the construction manager does not sep-
cost for it
arately itemize the charges for value engineering, so that no specific
can be given.
construction to
Question 23. $3,523,917 has been noted as the amount spent on
date. Please furnish a detailed list of expenditures.
Answer. Construction costs as of 6/30/74 are as follows:
Award
Contract Date . Amunt
1 Substructure for firing ranges and motorcade training area March 1969 $705 600
2. Superstructure for above October 1970 864, 000
3. Special training building, stage 1 March 1971 337, 777
4. Special training building, stage 2 May 1971 1, 124, 700
5. Observation platform November 197L _ 39, 375
6. Firing range paving March 1972 39, 853
7. Sewage pumping station March 1972 150, 000
8. Firing range toilets January 1973 70, 600
9. Clearing and grubbing June 1973 104, 444
Change orders for above contracts 182, 888
Total 3, 619, 237
Question 24. Please furnish a breakdown of items comprising the $4,682,000
expenditure attributed* to OSHA, NEPA, and other similar requirements.
Answer. The $4,682,000 included as one of the elements in the rise of the esti-
mated cost of construction is not an aggregate of separate costs but is a figure
reflecting the portion of the increased construction costs that are the result of
more stringent requirements under which contractors must function, as dis-
tinguished from the economic factor normally designated inflation.
This figure, 71/2 percent of the estimated cOnstruction cost, is attributable to
added requirements as a consequence of implementation of new Federal legisla-
tion, changes in industry standards and new GSA criteria. These items, although
noted by GSA estmators, appear only as a part of higher gross bids, and cannot
be separately itemized.
Question 25. Please break down the $1,587,000 expenditure for landscaping.
Answer. The estimate of the cost of landscaping including escalation, contingen-
cies, and reservations is:
Stockpile and respread topsoil $254, 800
Seeding 284, 800
Clear underbrush around lake 7, 900
Fine grading 350, 000
Shrubs, trees and ground covering 656, 000
Stabilized path 7, 900
Sodding 25, 600
Total 1, 587, 000
Question 26. What has been done specifically as a resut of the $100,000 study
on energy conservation?
Answer. An Energy Conservation Study has been received from the engineers
and architects, identifying nine areas in which changes could save enough energy
PAGENO="0353"
347
that, over the projected life of the structure, the cost of energy saved wouldequal
or exceed the cost of making the change. In two areas, change'in the lighting sys-
tem and modification of the fenestration, the estimate is that adoption of the
energy conservation measures will reduce the cost of construction. If necessary
redesign will not result in time delays-the cost of which would exceed the
amount to be saved through adoption of the energy conservation measures-these
measures will be incorporated in the plans.
Other areas require only changes in operating procedure. These will be adopted.
The balance of the energy conservation measures, several of which will, ac-
cording to the report, save four or more times as much money over the expected
life of the building than it would cost to implement them, cannot be implemented
because funds will not be available.
Question 27. What will be done with the space and facilities currently used
for training by the Postal, Immigration, and Customs Services, the Secret Serv-
ice, Internal Revenue, and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms who will
he transferring to Beltsville?
Answer. According to existing information the Postal Service training facility
in Bethesda, Maryland, will continue to exist for non-law enforcement training
conducted by the Postal Service. The Immigration and Naturalization facility
at Port Isabel, Texas, will continue to operate, but at a reduced level, to give
specialized training required by Border Patrol Agents and other elements of
the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The Customs Service National
Training Center at Hempstead, New York, will continue to exist to provide
training for non-law enforcement personnel. All Customs law enforcement train-
ing is now conducted in Center facilities. The Secret Service will continue to
maintain the facilities at 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, D.C., for training
in non-law enforcement programs and possibly for certain specialized law en-
forcement training. The IRS National Training Center will continue to op-
erate to furnish training to non-law enforcement employees. The existing train-
ing facilities of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms will be closed as
all of their law enforcement training will be conducted at the Center facilities.
Question 28. An example of undue extravagance in design is the Gate Control
House designated Building No. 1, which represents excessively-expensive con-
struction. Are such architectural features as textured, reinforced concrete, pol-
ished' tinted glass, ceramic tile, suspended plaster ceiling, terrazzo floor, and
an ornamental iron fence necessary? What is the estimated cost of this building?
Answer. When the design criteria were established, the primary requirement
for Building No. 1, the Security Control Center, was 300 degree visibility with
minimum visual obstructions. This requirement dictated the use of exterior
glass walls with minimum `interfering structural framing. The solution, as found
in the control center, is a reinforced concrete core with the roof cantilevered
therefrom. Not only does this concept eliminate structural framing on the wails,
but by placing the mechanical equipment on the roof rather than within the
core, the total area and hence the cost of the building is reduced.
In designing' the gatehouse, consideration was given to the fact that the
CFLETC receives vistors from all over the world. When it is located at Belts-
vile, the first impression any visitor will receive will be provided by the en-
trance fence and the Security Control Center. It was believed that the use of
a wooden guard post would not be consistent with the mission of Center.
For security and public safety purposes, the entire site is surrounded by a
chain link fence. At the Security Control Center, the design calls for this to be-
come an ornamental fence for a distance of 238 feet or 1.5% of the perimeter
of the site which amounts to 15,800 feet. The ornamental fence itself is made
up of stock shapes and represents no esoteric architectural effort.
The tented glass walls of the building. polished as is all clear glass, are die-
signed to reduce glare within and reduce heat build-up during the cooling season.
It was anticipated that during the year, visitors and security personnel will
carry dirt, snow, and salt into the building on their shoes. AmQng the best mate-
rials to withstand the abrasive and corrosive effects of these materials is terrazzo
and ceramic tile. A lesser material, such as carpeting or vinyl asphalt tile, while
initially less expensive, would, over the life of the structure, prove to be the
more expensive material.
Plaster ceilings were used because of the shape of the building. The architect
tried to utilize the less expensive lay-in tile ceiling system hut found that the
hearing channels and the tiles would require so much cutting and hand fitting that
the plaster would be more economical.
36-623-74-----23
PAGENO="0354"
348
The estimated cost of the building, including escalation, contingencies and
reservations is $111,500.
Question 29. How about the Maintenance Garage? This is designed of tex-
tured pre-cast architectural panels, hand-finished, brick, bronze-tinted windows,
and a hand-cambered concrete fill roof among other special features. What is the
cost of this building? What was done to economize in the design? Was it re-
viewed by the value engineers?
Answer. The Service and Maintenance Garage has exterior walls of brick with
a precast facia at the roof line. The building has a total window area of 72
square feet.
The concrete fill on top of the structural T roof system is sloped from the
building perimeter to interior roof drains and will be machine placed and hand
finished. Since this concrete is under the roofing surface, very little hand fin-
ishing other than screeding will be required. In developing the design for this
building, several major economics were effected by the architect:
1. The Service Vehicle Garage and the Maintenance Garage were combined
into a single structure with the resultant saving in exterior wall surfaces and
other savings in utility operation costs.
2. The gross area was reduced from 21,804 square feet to 17,275 square feet
without loss to the functional intent of the structure.
3. Approximately 2,250 gross square feet of space was designed as mezzanine
space rather than by extending the exterior envelope of the structure. This mez-
zanine space is considerably less expensive than it would be to extend the build-
ing 2,250 gross square feet.
The design, as were all designs, were reviewed by value engineers.
Question 30. What will Buildings Nos. 3, 4 and 5 cost, respectively?
Answer. The estimated cost of Buildings 3, 4 and 5, including escalation, con-
tingencies and reservations are as follows:
Tear gas house $ 44,700
One story dwelling and garage 112,400
False front houses 74, 900
Question 31. Although the Administration and Dormitory Buildings appear well
designed, some extravagance in these might also be eliminated. Why is a 45' x 83'
swimming pOol with 7 lanes essential? And the huge gymnasium generally, with
basi etball and volleyball courts specril exercise iooms and sauna baths~ And
also 4 baseball diamonds outside, a football field, soccer field, 6 tenniz courts, and
8 handball courts? Please furnish a cost breakdown for each of these.
Answei a The swimming pool is `i stand'iid sized pool The prolections of train
ing `it Beltsville made by the p'irticip'iting `igencies `it the time the requirements
foi the facilities were being formulated show ed th'tt there w ould be a demand for
the `iquatic training area for 96 hours durmg thu planning week Since there will
be only one pooi tw o oi more classes w ill use it at one time The 3 712 square foot
area of the swimming pooi w ill not be large for this use
b. The gymnasium was sized to provide sufficient floor space and wall space
foi training in arrest techmques and unai med defense It w ill be used for backet
ball or volleyball as a part of the physical conditioning program deemed impor-
tant to improve the results of the training given, hut only after regular training
hours.
c. The special exercise rooms are a part of the physical training program.
Trainees in unarmed defense and arrest techniques get many minor injuries. The
number of disabling injuries of this kind is substantially reduced if they are given
a physical conditioning program.
d. The sauna is primarily for therapeutic purposes to counteract the effects of
the bruises and muscle strains that result from the training in arrest techniques
and unarmed defense for persons not in top physical condition.
e. The softball diamonds, football field, soccer field, handball and tennis courts
are primarily for recreational sports activities which are important in the train-
ing program to counteract the tensions and mental exhaustion generated by the
intensive training activities conducted at the Center.
PAGENO="0355"
349
Estimated costs for the above are as follows:
1. Swimming pool w/specialities $180, 000
2. Gymnasium w/specialities 675, 000
3. Special exercise rooms 134, 650
4. Sauna `10, 000
5. Softball 56, 300
6. Football field, and 7. Soccer field 10, 300
8. Tennis courts (6) 69,200
9. Handball courts (8) 189,500
1 This is the estimated cost of constructing the room. The sauna Is now in use at the
.QFLETC leased facility at 1310 L Street, NW., Washington, D.C. It is portable and will
be moved to Beltsville.
Question 32. Please provide a detailed list of items to be acquired under the
heading "furniture and equipment." Also describe any motion picture or visual-
arts facilities included.
Answer. There has not been a study of all of the items of furniture and equip-
ment that will be needed at the Beltsville facilities since the preliminary projec-
tions made for determining the amounts to be used in the 1971 Prospectus. A
breakdown of the headings of the items in that 1971 Prospectus is set out below.
To get the figure for the 1974 Prospectus, the total estimated cost for these
items as of 1971, $4,951,000, was increased to $6,139,000 to provide for cost
escalation.
Furniture
Area Amount
1. Administration and operations $179, 000
2. Instruction 570, 000
3. Housing 588, 000
4. Dining 50, 000
5. Physical training 20, 000
6-7. Common use recreation, and Service and maintenance 67, 000
S. Vehicle crime building 1, 000
9. Driving range building 12, 000
10. Gate house 5, 000
11. Service garage 1, 000
12. Training vehicle storage 500
13. Service vehicle storage 500
14. Tower 1, 000
Total 1, 496, 000
Motor equipment
Raid and crow d area iehicles $16 000
\Tehjcle accident scenes (wrecked autos) 1, 800
Vehicle crime scene building (autos for problems) 30, 000
Training vehicles 76, 000
Service vehicles (buses-vans-trucks) 215, 000
Sewage treatment plant vehicles 17, 900
Roads and grounds maintenance vehicles 33, 300
Total 390, 000
EDUCATIONAL EQUIPMENT
Description Quantity Subtotal
Central lab (wet) $°0, 000
Photo lab 30, 000
Chemiotry lab 10,000
Fingerprint
Language lob 1-lab w/30 man console 20, 000
Driving simulators 30, 000
TV sets 800 480, 000
Multi-medin carrels 25 500. 000
Portable cassette tape recorders 800 80.00
Media's for instructional clusters 4 1,000,000
Central TV studio 800, 000
Graphic equipment 75, 000
Total 3,065,000
PAGENO="0356"
350
Because of the rapid developments in audio-visual equipment, the selection
of the equipment for the Beltsville facility will be deferred until close to the
date that the facilities will be occupied. However, the Center now anticipates
that when the audio-visual equipment (part of the above program) is acquired,
it will include projectors for movies and for slide and other still training material,
screens, T.V. distribution, projection and display equipment, radios, tape re-
corders, audio equipment, cameras, and maintenance and repair equipment.
Que&tion 33. Why is a 600 seat auditorium necessary? How often will it be
used? What will it cost? Why~ is it necessary to also provide 150 seats in the
gymnasium?
Answer. (a) The auditorium is required and will be used.
1. For graduation ceremonies for basic classes, and final ceremonies for AIRS
(Advanced. In-service, Refresher and Specialized) classes one to three times
a week. There w-ill be at least two basic classes graduating every week. There
will be 8 to 10 AIRS courses finishing each week. Some of the ceremonies will
be combined so that the numbers of graduates and guests for each ceremony
will be larger than can be accommodated in the classrooms. The gymnasium
will not be available as it will be in use for training.
2. For talks by members of Congress, judges, or officials in the Executive
Branch when groups of 100, 200 or 300 trainees will attend-once a week.
3. For guest lecturers who appear for a fee that could be justified only if
more persons attend than could be accommodated in the largest classroom-two
or three times a month.
4. For orientation for trainees reporting to the Center for the first time-once
or twice a week.
5. For seminars put on by the Center or one of the participating agencies that
will last one to three days-three to six times a year. A part of the mission of
CFLETC is carrying on research in law enforcement training. This will include
seminars of leading law enforcement personnel.
6. For briefings or training* by one of the participating agencies for state or
local police with whom they cooperate-three or four times a year.
7. For conferences of national or international organizations related to law
enforcement that would last two to five days-once or twice a year.
S. For showing of training films for more than one class-once or twice a
week.
9. For showing television broadcasts of major news events, such as Presiden-
tial Press Conferences, or events of particular interest to law enforcement per-
sonnel such as prison riots, or hostage situations. These might be live or re-
corded on video tape and reshown later about once or twice a week.
10. Recreational-Movies or projected television of sporting events three or
four times a week in the evenings and over weekends.
(b). The estimated cost of the auditorium, including the furnishings, is
$415,000.
(c). There are three contemplated uses for the gymnasium seats. One is for
training purposes when instruction in unarmed defense, arrest techniques or first
aid requires instructor demonstrations to groups of students. The seats will
permit more persons to observe the training safely and more effectively than
would be the case if the trainees were only standing around the instructor. The
second is to provide a place from which visitors may observe the training being
given in the gym without getting in the way or risking being injured. The third
is in connection with the use of the gym for recreational purposes. It is con-
templated that there will be semi-organized competition in* the afterhours peri-
ods. and on some occasions this may lead to sports activities for which there
will be spectators.
The gymnasium cannot be used in lieu of the auditorium because:
1. It will not have seating capacity for more than 150 persons at any one
time and it has not been acoustically designed to accommodate the type of
activities planned for the auditorium.
2. It will be in use for training in arrest techniques and unarmed defense al-
most constantly during the ordinary working hours and therefore not available
for auditorium type usages.
Question 34. The drawings indicate water distribution lines throughout the
project, supplied from a 16" main, but the source is not shown. Will water be
furnished by W.S.S.O., or others? If on-site wells are planned, who will they
belong to and who will operate and maintain them? Please furnish documen-
PAGENO="0357"
351
tary evidence of an adequate water supply to service all needs of the proposed
facility. Is the cost of this included in the Prospectus estimate? Please provide
.a detailed cost breakdown.
Answer. When the 16" water main was designed, all planning was based on a
written offer from WSSC to provide water service for the Center from a 24"
main to be installed on the west side of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway.
Connection from this main across the Parkway to the 16" main at the extreme
northwest corner of the site was to be provided by the Government. WSSC sub-
sequently withdrew the offer and as such we now plan to secure water service
from the Department of Agriculture. The water main running roughly from
the Special Training Building to the northwest corner of the site will not be
-installed. Although the line to Agriculture has not been designed, it will con-
nect to the Center's system somewhere in the vicinity of the Special Training
Building.
Copies of letters dated July 25 and 31, 1974, to and from the Department of
Agriculture concerning domestic water service for the Center are attached.
The Department of Agriculture does not presently have sufficient capacity to
provide the high flow of water which would be needed by the Center for fire
protection purposes. etc. This will be provided by using the lake and lagoon
as reservoirs.
Under present plans, there will be no on site wells. Agriculture will furnish
water from its water system for the Agriculture Research Center augmented
by reactivation of two wells not now in use. The Center will reimburse the
Agricultural Research Center for the $55,000 estimated to be the cost to acti-
vate the wells. The cost to run a new water service to the site is estimated to
cost $250,000. These costs are included in the Prospectus amendment along with
the other costs of the water system.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,
CONSOLIDATED FEDERAL LAw ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER,
Tl7ashington, D.C., July 25, 1974.
:Mr. TALCOTT W. EDMINISTER,
Administrator, Agricultural Research Service, Department of Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. EDMINI5TER: This is a request that the Beltsville Agricultural Re-
serach Center furnish water service on a permanent basis to the facilities of the
Consolidated Federal Law Enforcement Training Center now being constructed
on the tract near the intersection of the Baltimore/Washington Parkway and
Powder Mill Road.
In connection with prior discussions concerning the furnishing of sewage
disposal service and temporary water service by BARC to those facilities, I
have discussed with Mr. Robert Almond and Mr. Dominic Milano the question
of whether BARC could furnish permanent water service to CFLETC. I ad-
vised them that we anticipate that 100.000 gallons a day would be the maximum
that we would require after our facilities are completed and in operation.
Mr. Almond and Mr. Milano have advised me that it would be questionable
whether BARC could furnish that amount of water to CFLETC with the water
system as it is presently being operated. Mr. Milano explained that the peak
demand for the BARC operations is about 900.000 gallons per day and that his
-present productive capacity is 1,080.000 gallons per day. 1-lowever, he and Mr.
Almond advised that there are two additional wells on the BARC property that
are not now being used. If these wells are reactivated, which can be done at
a reasonable cost, and if there is some additional expansion of the purification
plant. BARC would have an ample supply of water to furnish this service to
CFLETC.
CFLETC would be happy to reimburse BARC for the cost of the expansion of
its water facilities necessary to furnisth this service. In addition, we would, of
course, pay for the water furnished under this arrangement just as we anticipate
paying for the sewage disposal service we will receive for these facilities, and as
we are now paying for the water and sewer service being furnished to the Special
Training Building.
Please advise me whether arrangements c-an be made for BARO to furnish this
water service to CFLETC.
Yours sincerely,
WILLIAM B. BUTLER, D ire ctor.
30-023-74------24
PAGENO="0358"
352
I)EPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE,
Washington, D.C., July 31, 1974..
Mn. WILLIAM D. BTJTLER,
Director, Department of the Treasury, Consolidated Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center, Washington, D.C.
I)EAR MR. BULTER: This is in response to your letter to Mr. Talcott W. Edrninster~
dated July 25, 1975 (sic), requesting that this Agency furnish water service on
a permanent basis to the facilities of the Consolidated Federal Law EnforcemenP
Training Center.
As you pointed out, there are two inactive wells that we can reactivate to
provide this service. We are presently conducting a study to determine the cost-
of this reactivation, and as soon as that cost is known, we will advise. However,
in the meantime, you may be assured that we will provide water service to
CFLETC.
Sincerely,
R. R. RHODES,
Acting Deputy A dministiator, Administrative Management.
Question 35. Sanitary sewerline distribution is shown on the drawings, but no
evidence of the method proposed for treating and disposing of raw sewage~
Please furnish a detailed description of what is planned, and documented.
evidence of its adequacy. If the previously proposed pond retention and effluent-
spray technique is still contemplated, for what length of time would this be-
employed, until connection could be made to a more conventional treatment sys-
tem and outfall? The procedure now proposed is considered temporary at best..
Please furnish details of arrangements made with the Agriculture Department,
with regard to use of their treatment facilities, and spraying effluent on their
property. Does the current Prospectus estimate include the cost of sewage
treatment and disposal? Please provide a complete and comprehensive cost
breakdown.
Answer. Sewage from the CFLETC will pass through the existing on-site
sewage pumping station and then be pumped by force main to the Department of
Agriculture's sewage treatment plant. Design required for this force main has
not been started yet. It should be noted than an identical system now exists and
is providing sewage service for the Special Training Building. The only differ-
ence between this system and that required to handle the entire Center will be in
the size of the pumps and impellers to be installed in the existing pumping station.
and the size of the new force main to be installed. Attached is a letter dated
October 19, 1972 from Matz, Childs and Associates, Inc., documenting the feasi-
bility of cOnnecting waste water from CFLETC to the waste water treatmsnt
facilitiPs at ARC.
The existing se\vage treatment plant at the Agricultural Research Center is.
a' conventional `secondary treatment plant certified by the State of Maryland and
the Environmental Protection .Agency as being adequate to handle a 20,000'
gallon per `day discharge from the Special rrrainhllg Building in addition to the
Other demands on it. Modernization and conversion of this plant will be a
permanent improvement and will remain in use for the foreseeable future.
The tertiary sewage treatment process proposed by the Department of Agricul-
ture i'~ as described in time draft environmental impact statement submitted to-
the CEQ. This tertiary process proposes use of the pond retention and effluent'
spray technique. Plans and specifications for the proposed modernization of the
plant were reviewed 1)y EPA and appreved subject to minor modifications as
meeting all EPA roquirements.
When the plans for the present facilities were formulated. it was contem--
plated that the total sewage discharge from the Center w-ould' go to the sewage
disposal system of the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission. However,.
in 1971. WSSC withdrew the offer previously made to furnish service to the
Center and it will not now authorize such a tie-in. Thereafter, to avoid the prob-.
lems and cost of constructing and operating its own sewage disposal plant, the
Center and the Treasury Department made arrangements with the Agricultural
Research Center to contribute to the cost of enlarging and upgrading the ARC
pla;il'. Ccpies of the correspondence by which these arrangements were confirmedT
are attached.
PAGENO="0359"
353
Operation of the plant and hence the method of treatment of the CFLETC
effluent is under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture. Under the
terms of the agreement, the Treasury Department agreed to pay its proportionate
shaie (based on total capacity of the plant) of the design and construction of the
plant and also to pay Agriculture a user charge for sewage processed. Design
funds in the amount of $6000 have been transferred for this purpose.
~The pending Prospectus amendment does include costs for all construction
items associated with the Center's connection to the Department of Agriculture
sewage treatment plant. These estimated costs are as follows:
Modifications to existing sewage pumping station, installations of force
main, and modifications to existing Department of Agriculture grav-
ity sewers $550, 000
Treasury's share of the cost of modernizing and extending Agriculture's
plant 140, 000
MATZ, CIIILDs & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Engineers,
Baltimore, Md., October 19, 1972.
Mr. HAL BEEHLER,
aeneral services Administration,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR Mn. BEEHLER: At your request we have prepared a feasibility statement
concerning connection of the wastewater from the Consolidated Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center to the wastewater treatment facilities at the
Agricultural Research Center, Beltsville, Maryland.
This letter has been typed on a separate sheet for ease of reproduction and is
transmitted herewith. Should you have any question relative to the data therein,
please feel free to contact the writer at any time.
Very truly yours,
BERNARD S. HYATT, Jn., P.E.
Enclosure.
Based upon recent population data projections, the anticipated wastewater
flows frOm the Center are as follows:
1974:
0.084 MGD (59 GPM) Avg.
0.337 MGD (234 GPM) Peak
The Agricultural Research Center at Beltsville operates a wastewater treat-
ment plant (East Plant) with an existing capacity of approximately 400,000
GPD. The effluent from this plan is discharged into Beaver Dam Creek. The
average daily flow from the Agricultural Research Center, determined for the
period May 30, 1971 to April 30, 1972, is 328,000 GPD. The present average 24
hour weekday flow is 370,000 GPD, and the average daytime (9 n.m-S pm.) flow
rate is 540,000 GPD.
The Agricultural Research Center is now having plans prepared to increase
the capacity of the East Plant to 750,000 GPD by expansion of the existing
primary and secondary facilities, and to upgrade the plant effluent by the addi-
tion of tertiary treatment facilities in the form of a Lagoon and Spray Irrigation
System. The effluent from the completed plant will meet the treatment require-
ments established by the Potomac River-Washington Metropolitan Area Enforce-
ment Conference (PRWMAEC). These requirements are as follows:
Percent removal
5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) 96
Total nitrogen(N) 8S
Total phosphorus (P) 96
The pumping station and force main recently installed to serve time Special
Training Building are temporarily connected to the sewer system at time Agricul-
ture Research Center. The 4-inch force main discharges into a gravity sewer
which, in turn, discimarges into another pumping station operated by the Agricul-
tural Research Center further dowLstream. This station then pumps into an-
other gravity sewer which transports the flows to the East Treatment Plant.
The expanded treatment plant will have sufficient capacity to accept the 1974
flows from the Center and has sufficient site area to provide for any future flows
PAGENO="0360"
354
from the Center, as hypothesized in the Guidance for the Consolidated Federal
Law Enforcement Center.
The sewerage system of the Agricultural Research Center does not now have
sufficient capacity to handle the additional flows which would be generated by
providing service to the Center. in order to serve the Center through the East
Plant it will be necessary to increase the capacity of portions of the collection
system.
The required improvements would consist of reinforced gravity sewers up-
stream from the Pumping Station an increase in the capacity of the existing
Agricultural Research Center Pumping Station and force main, and reinforcing
the capacity of the gravity sewer between the force main discharge point and
the East Plant. The estimated construction cost of these facilities is considerably
1ess than the construction cost of a treatment plant to serve the Center only.
The schedule under which the Agricultural Research Center is now proceeding
:anticipates that construction of the treatment plant expansion and upgrading
will require approximately one year, with construction to be completed by
-October, 1074.
By making the required improvements to the collection system, the expanded
wastewater treatment plant can handle the estimated 1974 flows generated by the
Center.
Question 36. Please furnish details of the electric power supply proposed, docu-
:mented evidence that it will be adequate, and a detailed cost estimate. Is the
-cost of this included in the prospectus estimate? Also, the gas system?
Answer. a. The electrical service to the Beltsville, Maryland, site will be two
500MCM, 13.2KV., 3 Phase, 4 Wire, Grounded WYE primary feeders each
with a capacity of 13,600 KVA~
b. For documentary evidence that the electrical service will be adequate see
letter attached from Syska & Hennessy dated September 27, 1974.
c. The local electrical utility will provide underground electrical service to
the main circuit breakers in the building at no cost to the Government.
d. There is no gas service planned for this facility in the present design.
SYSKA & HENNESSY, INC.,
september 27, 1974.
Re Consolidated Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.
CHLOETHIEL WOODARD SMITH & ASSOCIATED ARCHITECTS
Washington, D.C.
(Attention Mr. Fredric A. West)
GENTLEMEN: The attached statement was requested by Mr. Roy Eckert of the
General Services Administration for use in anSwering questions asked by the
Sehate Public Buildings Sub-Committee during their hearing on the requested
additiOnal appropriation for the CFLETC Project.
Please forward to Mr. Eckert.
Very truly yours,
* DONALD H. MACCORMACK.
Enclosure.
SYSKA & HEr~NRSSY ~September 27 1974
iI'he professional engineering services provided Chloethiel Woodard Smith &
AssoCiated Architects under General Services~ Administration Architect-Engine~rs
Conti'icts GS-00-B-00905 foi the electrical design of the Consolidated Fedeial
* Law Enforcement Training Center, B~ltsvih1e, Maryland, Central Structure
complies with current and good engineering practices including the General
Services Administration Engineering Handbook andapphicable local and national
codes.
Question 37. If design changes were required, to relocate facilities on the site
and effect cost reduction generally, how much of the funds expended on design
to date would be lost? This should take into account the fact that most of the
building desmgn~ would still apply `md m'ijor iedesign would be on site woik
Answer. Although it is possible to relocate the presently designed facility to
O~her locations, it does not appear possible to effect cost savings by doing so; In
addition, some of the facilities would be inappropriately situated in the new
loc'ttion The drl\ mug range du~ ing range building `md ser~ ice gur'mge could
probably be moved with only a redesign of site work and minor changes to the
design for the foundations. However, moving the Central Structure to another
location would probably require substantial redesign of the foundations, the
site work, and possibly the overall structure, and would result in the building
PAGENO="0361"
355
which is specially designed for its present location, being inappropriate in the
new location in which it would be placed.
About $2 million has been spent for design up to this stage. It is not possiblete
allocate specific parts of this to the design for site work and the design tor
the foundations of the buildings that would be moved. Also, it is not possible to
make a realistic estimate of what part of the foundation work would have
to be redone without knowing which of the facilities would be moved. Assuniing,.
however, that all of the facilities would have to be moved to other locations
and hence new foundations designed for each one, and that all of the site work
designs would have to be replaced, a rough estimate would be that 10% of tha
design fee heretofore expended would be wasted.
If the buildings are relocated, it would be necessary to develop a new master
plan with related resubmissions to the National Capital Planning Commission.
The delay in doing that, and in obtaining the approval from NCPC is estiamated
to be from six to nine months. This would add a minimum of $3 million to the
construction costs through escalation.
Question 38. Could such a revised or reduced facility be feasibly or economi-
cally constructed at Quantico instead, on available land adjacent to the F.B.I.
Academy there?
Answer. Although it seems certain that space for the CFLETC could be found
somewhere in the Quantico reservation, when a move to Quantico was considered
previously both the F.B.I. and the Marine Corps stated that there was not
space enough adjacent to the F.B.I. Academy for the construction of CFLETC.
However, assuming that a site would be available, construction of a reduced or
revised facility at Quantico would be possible but not economically feasible.
An independent study of whether the facility could be located at Quantico,
Virginia, was made for Senator Gravel in August 1971. This study concluded
that there would be a minimum program delay from 12 to 18 months and a
related cost of $5.5 and $7.1 million if a move were made to Quantico.
An analysis was recently made based on moving the presently. planned
facilities to Quantico. That showed that there would be an increased cost of
$23 million and a probable delay in construction completion of two years above
the presently planned completion date at Beltsville. This extended delay is the
result of a number of factors such as preparation of a new Prospectus, obtaining
Office of Management and Budget approval, obtaining Congressional approval
of the Prospectus, acquisition of the land, preparation of a new Environmental
Impact Statement, architect/engineer selection and negotiation, preparation
and review of design plans, and submission of plans to regional planning bodies.
The approval time required for most of these would be beyond the control of
GSA or the Center.
No study has been made directed to constructing a reduced facility at Quantico
or any other location. However, regardless of the size of the facility to be con-
structed, the delay and the loss of the awounts already expended at Beltsville
would be the same as for moving the full facilities there. Consequently, construc-
tion of revised or reduced facilities at Quantico would cost more than building
the same revised or reduced facilities at Beltsville.
Question 39. If additional funds are not authorized, what can be built for the
$52,000,000 already appropriated?
Answer. Without a detailed study, only a rough estimate can be given of what
could be constructed with the unexpended balance of the $52.6 million pre-
viously authorized. Plans based on severance of any part of the project must
take into consideration the delay that would be caused and the increase in
cost that would result therefrom. Because the current program is one which
has been carefully developed and the parts interrelated, the deletion of any item
would require an reexamination of the entire program.
If, as an example, the dormitory were to be deleted, the heating, refrigera-
tion plant, dining room, service shops, etc., would still be needed, but would l)e
substantially smaller. A major redesign would require a resubmnission to the
regional planning bodies and the possibility of the need to prepare a new master
plan. These actions require time during which escalation of construction costs
would continue. Thus, the design program, now consistent with educational
needs, would have to be restudied, redeveloped, and resubmitted to appropriate
planning bodies.
The Environmental Impact Statement would in all probability have to be
rewritten and again pass through the review process. Even if done as efficiently
as is reasonably possible, this could take a year.
PAGENO="0362"
356
`Of the $52.6 million now authorized, $7.2 mililon has already been obligated
`so that only about $45 million remains available. After making provision for
utilities, furniture, equipment, site work, roads, architects and engineering fees
for redesigning, etc., only about $31 million would be available for construction.
Considering escalation that would occur during the year required for the de-
velopment and approval of a new design and the additional 12 months before
plans and specifications could be prepared, we could build training facilities of
about 357,000 square feet or only about 60 percent of the present project. A
:facility of this size will not permit the OFLETO to carry out all of the mission
`nssigned to it.
Question 40. Is any litigation pending, or injunctions or petitions, which could
`further tie up or delay the start of this project?
Answer. No. The plaintiffs in the action which previously delayed the con-
struction program have filed an application for writ of certiorari, seeking to
have the U.S. Supreme Court review the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals
which dismissed their complaint under the National Environmental Policy Act.
The Court has not yet acted on this application, but in the opinion of counsel,
there is almost no chance that it will be granted.
Senator SCOTT. Thank you, gentlemen, for, being here.
We h'tve received additional statements which will be included in
the record. . .
[The statements follow:]
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT ~p THE INTERIOR,'
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Was hi?? gton, D.C., Oct. 2, 19.74.
`Hon. DICK Or~ARK,
U.S. Senate, Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds, `New
Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Enclosed you will find a statement I wish to file on behalf
of the Interior Department in support of the request for increased authoriza-
tion for the construction of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. Due
to my previous commitment to testify before another Congressional sub-com-
mittee on September 18, I was unable to `attend the hearings you held on this
request. .
With our increasing law enforcement needs, the `Interior Department depends
heavily on the Center for the training of our law enforcement personnel. For
this reason, and in the interest of avoiding duplication of facilities in the Fed-
eral Government, we have closed virtually all our law enforcement training
facilities and we strongly support a consolidated center concept.
As one of the largest non-Treasury participants, I respectfully request your
continued support and approval of the increased authorization for the construc-
tion of the Federal Law Enforcement `I~raining Center.'
`Sincerely,
. ` ` `JAMES T. CLARKE,'
Assistant Secretary, Management.
Enclosure. ` ` ` . ` ` `
STATEMENT OF' HONORARLE JAMES T. CLARK, `ASSISTANT SECRETARY,'
MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Thank you, Mr. `Chairman. It is with pleasure that I appear before this `sub-
committee to support the request for increased authorization for the construc-
tion of the Federal law enforcement training center.
The Department of the Interior has a special interest in the Federal law en-
forcement training center, since we are dependent on the center for the training
of our law enforcement personnel. During the last four years, 458 of our em-
ployees have graduated from the Center's courses. Because of our increasing law
enforcement needs, we estimate our training needs at 500 students per year for
the foreseeable future.
The concern for quality law enforcement training has always been of para-
mount importance to Interior. With the creation of the Center, the Federal
Government took a giant step forward in establishing a capability whereby Fed-
eral law enforcement officers could qualify as true professionals. We see the
Center as an opportunity for Federal agencies, such as ourselves, with limited
PAGENO="0363"
357
budgets, inadequate facilities and few qualified instructors, to provide the citizens
of our nation with well-trained officers. Obviously, it also helps avoid the need-
less duplication of facilities.
When the Center originally became operational, Interior closed the U.S. Park
Police training facility located at Jones Point in Alexandria, Virginia. The Na-
tional Park Service rangers have also been incorporated into the `basic police
course; to date 235 of our' graduates have been from this service. Prior to the
creation of the `Center, the park ranger received little or no law enforcement
training; this has changed.
Additionally, law enforcement agents `from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management are partici-
pating.
Presently, millions of people visit the vast natural resource lands which we
manage. Unfortunately, these increasing numbers of visitors have brought an in-
crease in `the amount of crime with them and our law enforcement responsthilities
have grown accordingly. As a result, in the pa'st four years, we have looked in-
crea'singly to the Center as a source for training our personnel. To date, only a
portion of our training requirements have been met. We intend to increase our
input considerably once the Center is fully operational at Beltsville.
The `Center not only fulfills the `basic training needs of the Department of the
Interior, but it ha's consistently provided our Bureaus with resources, facilities
and the instructional support necessary to implement many of our in-service
programs.
As `one of the `largest non-Treasury participants of the Center, we are totally
committed to the consolidated center concept. Much of our internal planning is
predicated upon its continued success and development. We have, as I previously
`noted,' closed virtually all of our law enforcement training facilities.
We have participated in the Centers' planning from its inception-including
development of the physical facilities and its curriculum. We believe this facility
is badly needed `by t'he Federal law enforcement community.
The Department of the Interior wishes to express its appreciation to the
Committee for its foresight in authorizing the establishment of a consolidated
law enforcement center and the appropriations allocated to date.
I recognize that all increases in authorization and appropriation authority
are receiv'ing especially close scrut'iny in an effort to control total federal ex-
penditures.
1 still believe this is one project worthy of your continued support and I re-
spectfully request your approval of the increase in the authorization authority.
THE MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION,
Silver Spring, Md., September 23, 1974.
Subject: Request for Additional Appropriation for Consolidated Federal Law
Enforcement Training Cen'ter (CFLETC).
Senator WILLIAM LLOYD SCOTT,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Public Works, Senate Office Building, Wash-
ington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR SCOTT: I request that the attached statement submitted by The
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission be introduced and
read into the record of hearings of your Committee on the request for additional
appropriations for the construction of CFLETC near Beltsville, Maryland (Prince
Georges County).
The Commission became aware of the hearings that were held only through
newspaper accounts and, therefore, could not avail the opportunity to submit
testimony.
The Commission appreciates the opportunity to submit this statement.
Very truly yours,
ROYCE HANSON, Chairman.
Attachment.
STATEMENT OF THE MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING CoM-
MISSION OPPOSING ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR CFLETC AND REQUESTING
RECONSIDERATION OF THE PROJECT LOCATION
INTRODUCTION
The Maryland-National Capital Park and Plannin~ Commission is created by
Chapter 780 of the Laws of Maryland, 1959, as amended, and is charged by that
PAGENO="0364"
358
law with certain powers and authority relating to planning, zoning, administra--
tion of subdivision regulations, and other related matters for the Maryland-
Washington Regional District and the acquisition, development and maintenance
of public parkiand within the Maryland-Washington Metropolitan District. These
districts include, generally, all of Prince George's and Montgomery Counties in
Maryland, adjoining the northern boundaries of the Natior's Capital. It is the
position of this Commission that the decision to locate CFLETC near Beltsville,.
Maryland, requires reconsideration beacuse of adverse environmental impact
consequences. They fall within the purview of the NEPA, 1969, and are germane'
to decisions pertaining to Federal land use with impact on local govermiients~
We wish to be brief and would focus these aspects in our submission.
ENvIRoNMENTAL FACTORS
The Environmental Impact &atement for this project was filed on November
24, 1972, after withdrawing an earlier "inadequate" statement. It is our conten-
lion that an objective, good-faith assessment of the environmental consequences
of this project was not made by a responsible Federal official as required by
NEPA and that the statement of environmental impact falls far short of the'
"full disclosure" requirement mandated by law.
For instance, the fact that the entire 490 acres of land in which this project
is sought to be located is a "swamp" is disclosed for the first time in these Sub--
committee hearings-not voluntarily, but in response to probing questions of the'
Committee. The Environmental Impact Statement of November .24, 1972 (at
pages -67 and 69) devoted to the "character of the site," is silent about this'
vital fact. On page 6, in the two sentences discussing the geology and soils, no.
reference is made to this site as being a "swamp." We are assured, in one sen-
tence, that the soil conditions are, in generaL. suited to the project, but that the
high level of the water table will require attention and some expense in construc--
tion through drainage and other ~well recognized engineering techniques. From
an environmental standpoint the impact of construction and consequent elim-
ination of this swamp is not considered and assessed. Whetherthe existence of this'
swamp, in its natural state is necessary or not for the continued . existence of
the wedge of green space between the corridors of development is a pertinent
matter to be discussed in the impact statement.
.4. Project Location TTiolates "Wedges a-nd Corridors" Plan
The National Capital Planning Commission in 1961 published a plan for the
physical development of Washington Metropolitan area entitled "A Plan For'
The Year 2000-The Nation's Capital." Under this plan, growth of this area'
would take place along six radial corridors separated by open space wedges. The'
wedges and corridors radiate from the District of Columbia. The Maryland-
National Capital Park and Planning Commission, in 1964, adopted in accordance
with the above plan, the "Wedges and Corridors Plan." In, the Commission's
opinion, the GFLETC is sought to be located within the open space wedge in
violation of these plans.. The NCPC approved this project by projecting the
maximum potential increases in the utilization of OFLET.C against the 5,000
acres of Agricultural Research Center instead of against the 490 acres of the'
CFIiDTC development. This approach is~ in error as, 1) there `is no master plaiv
for the 5,000 acres of ARC land, 2) there is an unwarranted, assumption that
ARC and NASA employment would not increase and continue the piecemeal'
development of the open space wedge by other agencies.
If the population of CFLET'C .is projected against the land of CFLEPC (about'
500 acres), it is far in excess of the permissible density of population. This-
simple error in reckoning vitiates the entire discussion in the Impact Statement'
in pages 69. through 143. The Impact Statement does not attach significance `to'
the fact `that while the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Com-
mission considers 0.5 residents per acre as permissible in an open space, the'
Center is designed and .projected for 4.6 residents per acre, nearly 9 times more.
Similarly, the Commission considers 1.5 person's per acre as permissible em-
ployment level. The Center is projected for 2.'5. The Metropolitan Council of
Governments considers that open space use is preserved even if 10% of the land'
involved i's developed. Here, 34% of the land is slated for development.
The basic questions are whether a wedge space would remain as such in the'
wake of such excessive development? Would there be adverse ecological con-
sequences on the entire wedge when a portion is intensely developed? Would
the construction of the CFLETC be a stimulus for further development of the~
PAGENO="0365"
359
wedge? Instead of facing such crucial questions, the Impact Statement strives
to achieve "compatibility" with open space use by calling in aid incorrect data.
B. Sewer Facilities.
The project is expected to be serviced by the expanded sewerage treatment
~ilant of the Agricultural Research Center. As of this date, such a plant has not
yet been designed, its environmental impact has not yet been determined, and
no funds are appropriated for its construction. There is a sewer moratorium in
~effect in Prince George's County and the situation is critical. The estimated
`65,000 gals. of sewer, along with the unknown quantity of sewerage generated
by the expanded ARC plant when treated and released into the Patuxent River,
would have an adverse effect on the river, and its biology. This is a matter of
serious concern to the Commission. The Environmental Tm-pact Statement does
not discuss this aspect as the arrangements with ARC were concluded after the
statement was filed. The -~FLETC planners seem to be assured that the sewer
problem is non-existent, as there is an agreement with ARC. What if the ARC
is not able to provide the sewer capacity? In this context, it is significant to
mention that on account of a sewer moratorium the private development of land
in the entire Prince George's County was halted and the economy of the County
is vitally affected .by the sewer moratorium and the Federal agencies are ignoring
the enormity of the near-crisis situation.
As for the other alternatives, the impact statement has rather unique solutions,
a) discharge the effluent after tertiary treatment into the river, b) recharge the
lake with the treated effluent, or c) spray the effluent into the open space or
wooded areas, i.e. spray the trees with sewerage (p. 171). Such solutions, though
feasible, are inappropriate in areas where thousands of people live in close prox-
imity and the site itself is an environmental amenity to relieve urban conges-
tion. A swamp sprayed with sewerage is, to say the least, not desirable as an
~open space wedge separating corridors of development.
0. Trajjlc Problems.
The only access to the -CFLETC is from Powder Mill Road. The Impact State-
ment (p. 171) fairly conceded that "improvements to Powder Mill Road" are
imcessary. This is aFederal facility and local government will not have to pick
up the financial burden. But what are the costs to the Federal government? What
are the environmental impacts of the iinprovenients? Would the improvements
to the road spur further intense use of ARC? Would the wedge space be ulti-
mately destroyed by intense use? An answer to such crucial questions is post-
poned.
There are other environmental problems which the statement either ignores.
-or explains away and the above is only a representative sampling.
On a careful reading -and analysis of the Environmental Impact Statement,
it would appear that far from complying with the mandate of NEPA. 1969, the
author of the impact statement seeks to justify the decision to locate the Center
at Beltsville, Maryland, by narrowly drawing the criteria for site selection (when
such is the case) and by not approsching the question of location from -the stand-
point of realistic assessment -of the needs for training and their relationship to
-the- proposed site. Moreover, while purporting to comply with the mandate of
law and explore alternatives on the one hand, the -officials of the Treasury De-
partment and GSA went on expending Federal funds in design an-d construe-
tion at this very site and foreclosed the possibility of meaningful exploration of
alternatives. It is significant to n-ote that the Hybla Valley. Virginia site was
rcjected because it was "too swampy" (p. 199) and now we learn thatthis site is
also a "s~vamp" ! -
While the cost of a propOsed $15 miflion project was escalated to $74 million,
this is by n-o means the final figure as appropriations have t-o he made for widen-
ing the Powder Mill Road and for other purposes, all of which may require a
~nnl capital outlay of $100 million, which reflects a lack of Comprehensive plan-
iiiiig and assessment of projeCt costs.
I w ould `ilso point out that the litigation regarding the location of this proieet
in violation of NEPA has nOt ended as stated by the Federal officials in their
testimony -before the Committee and the fac-t is that a Petition for Writ of Certio-
rari is pending -before the Supreme Court of the United States.
The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission requests that
additional appropriation for this project be defeired until the Committee
PAGENO="0366"
360
thoroughly satisfies itself that the location of this project at Beltsville, Mary-
land, is. a sound decision from an environmental standpoint.
ROYCE HANSON,
Chairman, the Maryland-National Capital
Park and Planning Commission.
CALVERTON CITIZENS AssoCIATIoN,
Beltsville, Md., September 20, 1974.
Hox. RICHARD CLARK,
Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Public Buildings,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR CLARK: The front page story by Stephen Green in the September
19, 1974 issue of the Washington Post reported the latest development in the
continuing saga of the Consolidated Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
(`CFLETC)-the request for a supplemental appropriation of $22 million. Our
Citizens Association, the Calverton Citizens Association, is very familiar with
the project and we feel that there are certain matters which should be brought to
the Subcommittee's attention in order that the project can be properly evaluated.
1. In 1972, the Calverton Citizens Association and the Maryland National
Capital Park and Planning Commission filed an action against the Departmeht
of the Treasury and the Government Services Adminstration charging that the
National Environmental PrOtection Act had been violated. A new environ-
mental impact statement was filed correcting the deficiencies of the initial state-
ment. The District Court determined that by correcting the procedural de-
ficiOncies the agencies had complied with the requirements of NEPA and despite
affidavits of experts, refused to assess the merits of the report or the decision
to construct the project on the research farm. The Court of Appeals for the Dis-
trict of Columbia Circuit affirmed the decision of the lower court without opinion.
A petition for certiorari has been filed with the Supreme Court and all the work
at the project site has been stayed awaiting final determination by the Court.
The news article in the Post, stated that the litigation has been concluded. This
is not correct-as of this writing the Supreme Court has not acted on the peti-
tion for certiorari.
Further, even if the Court were to deny the petition for review, the substan-
tive matters raised by the project still have not been reviewed and could be the
subject of still another lawsuit.
2. In 1963 after the assassination of John F. Kennedy, it was thought that addi-
tional training facilities were necessary for the Secret Service. Accordingly, a
special exception was agreed to for the use of some 60 acres of the Agricultural
Farm. From this minimum facility costing no more than $2-3 million, someone
conceived the idea for a $52 million complex to be located On 480 acres of the farm.
The extravagance is mind boggling.
In its impact statement, considerable time is devoted to the demonstrated need
for the facility. In view of the disclosure in Mr. Green's report, that the facility
will be used to train building guards, the need for such an extravagant complex
becomes suspect.
3. The selection of the Beltsville site as set forth in the impact statement
contains some revelations which might be of interest to the Committee. Quantico,..
Virginia, site of the FBI facilities, was rejected as an alternative site without
reason. The Naval Station in Alexandria Virginia was rejected because the
ground was not suitable. This is an interesting basis consIdering the fact that
apparently the 480 acres at the agricultural farm is "swampy". Ft. George Meade,
an existing facility was rejected, as was Ft. Dietrick, without any substantive
explanation. Why were existing facilities rejected in favor of the expenditure of
multi-millions of dollars?
4. Moreover, it is beyond dispute that construction of the project at the Belts-
ville site will require the construction of a sewerage treatment facility or some
kind Of sewerage treatment process. Such a project in and of itself would require
an environmental impact statement and another large expenditure of money. An
immediate question which is raised is whether such an item is included in the
present budget request or will this require a supplemental appropriation.
5. From a purely environmental standpoint, the project is destructive of the
green space and the ecological balance. While such matters are not strictly within
the purview of your Committee, certainly someone should be asked why has this
PAGENO="0367"
361
site been selected. So far the only reason given is that $3.8 million has already
been spent on this site. The following questions must therefore be answered: How:
much money has been spent on the Secret Service facilities presently in exist-
ence? Certainly such facilities can be used without any addition in size. What
are the costs to use already existing facilities? Is such a grandiose facility really
necessary or is this another incidence of federal empire building? How much
money has been spent on the preparation of environmental impact statements
justifying a bad decision. Indeed, one of the chief arguments made to the District
Court was that an adverse decision would result in a multi-million dollar loss.
Why was this money spent before the environmental problem had been resolved?
It has been stated that the land at Beltsville is "swampy." Before sinking into
the quagmire of a supplemental appropriation, the Subcommittee on Public
Buildings should re-examine the entire situation and reconsider its options. It
is still not too late to withdraw to safe solid ground.
Sincerely,
MICHEL S. YAROSCHTJK,
Legal Counsel,
Calverton Citizens Association.
Mrs. LINDA H. Foirs,
Chairman, Zoning and Legal Action Committee,
Calverton Citizens Association.
CALVERTON CITIZENS ASSOCIATION,
Beltsvilie, Md., September 20,1974.
Hon. RICHARD CLARK,
Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Public Buildings,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR CLARK: The enclosed letter from the Calverton Citizens Asso-
ciation regarding the proposed Consolidated Federal Law Enforcement is of vital
information to your Subcommittee.
We would also like to request that the record of the Subcommittee hearing
he kept open for fifteen days, so as to permit the submission of additional in-
formation.
If it would be so desired, we would have a representative meet with the Sub-
committee or staff on this matter.
Sincerely,
Mrs. LINDA H. FOHS.
Board Member, Caiverton Citizens Association.
Senator SCOTT. Is there anyone else in the room that wants to be
heard on this Beltsville project?
If not, the committee will stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11 :4~ a.m., the subcommittee recessed, subject to
the call of the Chair.]
[The following relates to other projects considered subsequent to the
hearings:]
FEDERAL OFFICE BUILDING, MANCHESTER, N.H.
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
Warhington, D.C., October 15, 1974.
Hon. HOWARD H. BAKER, Jr.,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DRAR SENATOR BAKER: Knowing of your interest in having the necessary back-
ground information when considering public buildings prospectuses, we are
pleased to provide you with additional informntion concerning the prospectus
a mendment for the construction project at Manchester, New I-Ia mpshire. which
was submitted to you on October 10.
The Public Works Committee of the House of Representatives on October 10
approved the amendment and there is attached for your consideration additional
justification concerning the increased cost and need for this urgent project.
PAGENO="0368"
362
I would like to express my appreciation for the cooperation your committee
- has given us and trust that this information is satisfactory.
Sincerely,
L. F. Rotsu,
Comnvissioncr, Public Bit ildings Service.
Enclosure.]
West End Iron Works, Mr. Joseph Bradford.
-4~3 Tons in place.
1'resent price-$.35/lb. equals $700 Basic plus extras and delivery.
Fabricator on quota which disrupts planning and scheduling. Fabricator will
quote prices subject to increase at time of delivery.
~flectrical conduit-WESCO-9/18/74
Increase: 80-95% 73 catalog to 8/74 10% average additional 8/74 to 9/74.
Price 100 feet
Wesco Cat., August September
Conduit size (inches) ~ 1973 1974 1974
$18. 55 $35. 85 $39. 44
/ 24.25 45.83 50.41
34.17 64.94 71.43
44. 63 86. 33 94. ~
53.25 103.48 113.83
2 72.87 193.51 212.86
23'~ 112.14 218.50 240.35
3 146.55 282.29 310.52
33i 186. 55 356. 60 392. 26
4 220. 85 400. 16 440. 18
in addition, recent testimony of 3 major steel companies to the Joint Economic
Committee indicates a 44% increase in steel prices during the past 12 months.
IV. GSA SURVEY 09' sTEEL PRICE
Concurrent with the analysis contained in III above, GSA sur~~ëd steel
fabricators in the project area to determine price trends and recent percent of
cost increases based on the 900 tons of steel required on this project. The findings
were as follows:
STRIYCTURAL STEEL
Novel Iron Works 322-7950 Mr. Francis Power; 900 Tons Steel in place. In-
crease-25% to 9/74, 50% to 4/75.
April 1974, $700-800/Ton.
September 1974, $900-1,000/Ton.
April 1975. $1,200/Ton (estimated).
Comments: Fabricators on allocation by mills in proportion to last years orders.
Future Deliveries to be determined on individual basis between fabricator and
nupplier. Mill prices to be determined at time of delivery.
Warehouse prices also variable. Cost determined at time of delivery.
Eastern Bridge Co. 666-3400 Mr. Julius Wolozin; 900 Tons in place. Increase-
33%.
September 1974, $900/Ton.
April 1975, $1,200/Ton (estimated).
Fabricators on quota from mills. Amount of steel delivered is based on last
years order by beam sizes. Quota system in effect until delivery in 1976. Fabrica-
tor cannot mix sizes of beams to make up order.
Cost of mill extras- gone up.
Cost of mill delivery-gone up $20/Ton.
Cost of detailing-doubled $40/Ton.
Mill prices of raw material-$.12--.14/lb.
Light weight sections-$.16/lb.
Warehouse prices-$.22-.25/lb. plus cost of extras for cutting, etc.
PAGENO="0369"
363
III. ANALYSIS OF COST INCREASES
Analysis by GSA, the A-E and the low bidder indicated the cost increases were
in 4 major areas as follows:
Work
Estimate
Bid price
Difference
I. Concrete, including reinforcing steel (Rebars) $1, 110, 000 $1, 700, 000
2. Masonry and esterior treatment 950, 000 1,300,000
3. Structural steel and metal deck 1,042,000 1,500,000
4. Mechanical systems, controls and plumbing 1,000,000 1,250,000
Remaining net difference consisted of a number of variations between
the GSA estimate and the price included in the bid, some of which were
plus and some minus
$590, 00(0
350, 000
458, 000
250, 000
87,20(0
1, 735, 2.1)
MANCHESTER, N.H., FEDERAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION-PHASE II
DESCRIPTION OF BIDS AND ALTERNATES
Base bid No. 1: for completing all work as shown and specified within 510
calendar days after initial notice to proceed.
Base bid No. 2: for completing all work as shown and specified within 600
calendar days after the initial notice to proceed.
Alternate "A" for furnishing and installing resin matrix pre-case panels In
lieu of granite panels and pre-case concrete panels at penthouse as showa on
drawing Nos. 4-lA, 4-2A, 4-3A, 4-4A.
Alternate "B" for installation of snow melting equipment in the garage ramps.
Alternate "C" for installation of elevator No. 3 as shown and specified.
Alternate "D" for installation of mail chute as shown and specified.
Alternate "E" for planting as shown and specified.
Alternate "F" for discount percentage (See paragraph 14.6 Section 01100).
(Elimination of the 10% retention amount withheld from Contractor's progress
payment.
Alternate "G" for furnishing and installing precast concrete panels, in lien
of granite panels as indicated in Amendment No. 1 and Amendment No. 4.
PAGENO="0370"
- PROJECT NO. 28-0037 ~REV) NNH 72303 (ifiD op
ENING DATE,
SEPT. 4, 1974-
BIDS EXPIRE
SEPT. 24, 1974
WACE RATES
EXPIRE INDEF.)
Bid No. 1
Bid No. 2
"D"
"E" Alt. "F"
Alt. "0"
Bidders (610 cd.)
(600 cd.)
Alt. A
Alt. "B"
Alt. C
Alt.
Davison Construction Co., Inc., Manchester, N.H 8, 150, 000
F. U. Rich Housing Corp., Stamford, Cone
Harvey Construction Co., Inc., Manchester, N.H 8, 730, 000
The Volpe Construction Co., Inc., Maiden, Mass 8, 820, 000
Franchi Construction Corp., Newton, Mass 9, 565, 000
8, 091, 000
8, 585, 000
8,900,000
8, 820, 000
9, 315, 000
-118, 000
-163, 000
-220,000
-250, 000
-238, 000
+11, 500
+8, 000
+11,000
+17, 000
+11, 600
+84, 000
+85, 000
+85,000
+92, 000
+84, 900
+3, 000
+27, 000
+5,000
+3, 500
4, 900
+10, 000 -30, 000
+5, 000
+5,000 3/~ of 1%
+7, 000 --4, 000
+14, 900 3/~ of 1%
-140, 000
-30, 000
-240,000
--24, 000
--12, 000
Source: Prepared in Office of Construction Management (PBS) PCCC: L. H. Jones.
PAGENO="0371"
363
11.-BACKGROUND-FEDERAL OFFICE BUILDING, MANCHESTER, N.H.
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Estimated
Bid
Construction phase costs
amount Status
Phase 1-Excavation and foundation `$722,000 2 $654, 594 Contract awarded: May 8, 1974, notice to
proceed: June 6, 1974, completion
expected: Oct. 24, 1974.
Phase 2 -Building superstructure `6, 464, 300 8, 199, 500 Contract cannot be awarded because of
________________ insufficientfunding authority.
Total `7,186,300 8, 854, 094
`April1974.
2 May 1974.
`September 1974.
4 Low base bid for phase 2, bid No. 2 (600 days completion time) plus alternates B, C, D, E (see bids attached).
Note: Psrtion of prospectus authorized budget available for construction: $7,219,300 (August 19, 1974).
COMMENTS
Even though the project has been designed as an Energy Conservation Dem-
onstration Building including many innovative features, the A-E/GSA estimates
indicated that the project could be constructed within the authorized budget.
In early 1974, just prior to advertising Phase 1 for competitive bids, the esti-
mates for Phase 1 ($722,000) and Phase 2 ($6,464,300) indicated that the project
could be constructed within the authorized budget. The competitive bids for
Phase 1 were within the estimated cost and thus were a further indication that
the funding would be adequate. However, the bid prices for Phase 2 substantially
exceeded the estimated costs and funding authority.
I. GENERAL
In view of the special importance of the Manchester, NH, FOB project, extraor-
~inary measures were taken to insure that the building design and bidding docu-
irients were free of unnecessary and costly embellishments. This was done inde-
j~endently in a specially directed effort by the architect-engineer, the GSA
regional staff in Boston and the GSA Central Office staff in Washington. Addi-
tionally, extra measures were taken to promote the widest publicity for prospec-
tive bidders, their subcontractors avid vendors. Nationwide publicity has been
given the project in professional and trade journals. Firms in the New England
area that have previously bid GSA work were sought out and encouraged to bid
the Manchester project.
A response of five firms for a project of this size in this geographic location
is excellent. Furthermore, the price spread between the firms is considered highly
competitive. We are reasonably convinced that the bids opened in September
accurately reflect the current, actual cost of the Manchester, NH, FOB, as de-
termisied by the competitive market place.
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION,
Washington, D.C., October 17, 1974.
lion. HOWARD H. BAKER,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR BAKER: In view of your interest in the basis for the increase in
cost of the Federal Office Building in Manchester, New Hampshire, we are
pleased to provide the following additional information. The total project cost
of $12,021,000 (construction component $10,613,000) stated in the amendment to
the approved prospectus now pending before the Public Works Committee assumed
a construction contract award in April 1975 because General Services Adnuinis-
tration (GSA) could not be certain that Office of Management and Budget and
Public Works Committee of the Congress approvals would be obtained before
the end of the year.
Further, the Senate Public Works Subcommittee on Public Buildings and
`Grounds in its letter of August 9, 1974, indicated that the prospectuses received
PAGENO="0372"
366
after the 10th day of the first month of any quarter might not be considered:
until the next quarter. On this basis the possibility existed that the Manchester
project would not be considered until sometime in the third quarter of FiscaL
Year 1975. As a result of this a construction contract award date in April 1975
was selected.
However, inasmuch as the proposed increase is based on actual bidding experi-
ence, plus a month-by-month allowance for escalation to a new bid opening:
date of April 1975, it is possible to reduce the proposed increase 011 a similar
basis if the amended prospectus approval date is advanced. If approvals were
grailted in October 1974, the amended total project cost could `be reduced to
$11,090,000 (construction component $8,982,000). Such early approval would:
also permit us to negotiate `with all previous bidders, inasmuch as previous bids
were opened in September 1974 and are considered sufficiently current to permit
negotiation. However, a delay in reprocurement until March 1975 would neces-
sitate formal readvertising, a more time consuming process.
We would like you to know that we appreciate the fact that you and other
members of your committee have given the prospectus amendmellt' such prompt
consideration and GSA is presently prepared to enter into negotiations and ex-
pedite the award of the construction contract if early approval of the amended:
prospectus is granted by the Senate Committee.
Sincerely,
LARRY ROTJSH,
Commissioner, Public Buildings Service.
GENERAL SERvicEs AD~rINIsTRATIoN,
Washington, D.C., October 24, 1974..
Hon. HOWARD H. BAKER,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR BAKER: This letter will serve to provide supplemental informa-
tion concerning the proposed amendment to the approved prospectus for th~
Federal Office Building at Manchester, New Hampshire. This information was
requested during a meeting. between members of the Public Works Committee
staff and representatives of the Public Buildings Service .on October 22, 1974.
1. Comparison of Project Costs Between September and November 1974.-
(Attachment A)
2. Bid Acceptance Period-Twenty days were established following the bid.
opening of the Phase II construction (superstructure) for acceptance of the
lowest responsive bid. Toward. the end of this period, during which GSA was.
evaluating the courses of action available, all bidders were asked to extend their-
bids to October 26, 1974. The apparent low bidder and two other firms declined
and their bids expired. The apparent second low bidder and one other firm agreed
to extend their bids as requested. Inasmuch as GSA believes that a lower price
can be negotiated than the apparent second low bidder's price (including selected
alternates), the two extended bids were rejected on October 10, 1974. If the pro-
posed amendment is approved, GSA would seek to negotiate with all five previous.
bidders.
3. Increased eosts between phase II Government estimate and phase II Septem--
ber 1974 construction' bid price.
1. Phase II Gover'nment estimate, April 1974 $6, 464, 300
2. Unanticipated cost increases, detailed in attachment,B 1, 735, 200
3. Low bid, plus selected alternates 8, 199, 500
4. Use of Construction Cost Contingencies-GSA customarily reserves an.
amount over and above the funds obligated at the time of a construction contract
award, to provide for unforeseen contract changes required during the period o~
contract performance. For a project `the size of the Manchester Federal Office
Building, 5% of the contract `award price is the GSA standard reservation for
contingencies. A similar practice is followed by other Federal agencies and most
prudent owners in the private sector.
We `are pleased to provide this and any other information which will assist the-
Committee in reviewing this proposed action.
Sincerely,
W. A. MEI5EN,
Acting Commissioner, Public Buildings Service.
Enclosures.
PAGENO="0373"
367
ATTACHMENT A
MANCHESTER, N.H. FEDERAL OFFICE BUILDING
COMPARISON OF PROSPECTUS COSTS BETWEEN SEPTEMBER AND NOVEMBER 1074
1. Prospectus authorization requirements based on bids opened in September'
1974 for phase II.
A. Phase II construction (superstructure)
Low bid (600 c.d.)
Alternate B
Alternate C
Alternate D
Alternate E
$ 8, 091, 000'
11, 500
84, 000
3, 000
10, 000
8, 199, 500
Total
B. Allowance for Phase II:
Construction contingencies (5 percent) 409, 775
C. Phase I construction (substructure) 700,000
D. Site acquisition, design, management and inspection 1, 408, 000
Total 10, 717, 275
Rounded 10, 717, 000
2. Prospectus authorization requirements based on negotiation in November
for phase II.
A. Phase II construction (superstructure)
Same as 1A above $ 8, 199, 500
B. Allowance for Phase II:
Construction contingencies (5 percent), same as lB above 409, 775
C. Allowance for phase II:
Construction cost escalation, September-November (21/4 percent
per month for 2 months) 373, 000'
D. Phase I construction:
Same as 1C above
E. Site acquisition, design, management and inspection-Same as
1D above
700, 000'
1, 408, 000'
F. Total revised estimated cost November 1974 11, 090, 275
Rounded 11, 090, 000
ATTACHMENT B
CONSTRUCTION COSTS, FEDERAL OFFICE BUILDING, MANCHESTER, N.H
[Portion of prospectus authorized budget available for construction-$7,219,300 (August 1974)[
Construction phase
Estimated
costs (April
1974) Bid amount Status
Phase 1, excavation and foundation_ $722, 000 `$654, 594 Contract awarded, May 8, 1974.
Notice to proceed, June 6, 1974.
Completion expected, Oct. 24, 1974.
Phase 2, building superstructure._ 6,464,300 23 8, 199, 500 Contract cannot be awarded because of insufficient
funding authority.
Total 7, 186, 300 8,854,094
`June 1974.
2 September 1974.
Low base bid for phase 2, bid No. 2 (600 days completion time) plus alternates B, C, D, E (see bids attached).
Note: Even though the project has been designed as an energy conservation demonstration building including many'
innovative features, the A-E/GSA estimates indicated thta the project could be constructed within the authorized budget
In early 1974, just prior to advertising phase 1 for competitive bids, the estimates for phase 1 ($722,000) and phase 1
($6,464,300) indicated that the project could be constructed within the authorized budget. The competitive bids for phase 1
were within the estimated cost and thus were a farther indication that the funding would be adequate. However, the bid
prices for phase 2 substantially exceeded the estimated costs and funding authority.
36-1323---74----25
PAGENO="0374"
368
AMOUNT AND REASON FOR INCREASED COSTS
[Bid prices for major segments of work greatly exceeded estimated due to sharp upturn in escalation as follows]
Work Estimate Bid price Difference
350,000
1, 042, 000
1, 500, 000
458, 000
1, 000, 000
1, 250, 000
250, 000
87,200
1, 735, 200
U.S. SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON PuBLIc WORKS,
Washington, D.C., October 29, 1974.
950,000
(a) Concrete, including reinforcing steel ~880, 000 $1, 700, 000 ~590, 000
(Rebars) 1230,000
Total 1,110,000
There was an error in the estimate because of incorrect takeoff of
rebars vihich would account for ~230,000 of the difference.
(b) Masonry and exterior treatment 1,300,000
GSA had a fairly firm price from a potential supplier who sold his
business just before bids were taken.
(c) Structural steel and metal deck
There was a 32-percent increase in price of steel just before bidding
due in part to the serious shortages in the steel industry.
(d) Mechanical systems, controls and plumbing
Mechanical systems included many innovative designs.
(e) Remaining net difference consisted of a number of variations between
the GSA estimate and the price included in the bid, some of which
were plus and some minus
Total
1 Adjusted.
Note: PCDR: M. R. Whitley, Construction Management, 202-343-5256, Oct. 4, 1974; information from Lamborghini,
region 1, by telephone on Oct. 4, 1974; Rev: Oct. 8, 1974: PCDR: M. R. Whitley, Coyle, Construction Managemnnt,
202- 343-5256.
Hon. ARTHUR F. SAMPSON,
Adrnin4strator, General Services Adminisiration,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR Mn. SAMPSON: Enclosed is a resolution approving a revised prospectus
for completion of the new Federal Building in Manchester, New Hampshire,
which is currently under construction. You will note that a curtailed expenditure
of $11,090,000 is authorized, reflecting General Services Administration's esti-
mated actual cost shown in your letter of October 24 provided award is made in
November.
The Committee is cognizant that this total includes $108,500 for contemplated
alternates that may or may not be needed, and also $700,000 for completing sub-
structure work now underway. Since the low bid for the latter was only $654,000,
the remainder should be sufficient to cover contingencies on this portion. $409,000
has also been allowed for contingencies that may be encountered during construc-
tion of the superstructure.
It is requested, that upon completion of the building, a detailed report of all
circumstances contributing to increased costs be submitted to the Committee for
record purposes. This should include not only basic construction cost data but
also a breakdown of all other costs attributable to alternates and contingencies,
documenting the justification for each.
* Your consideration in this matter will be genuinely appreciated.
With warm regards, I am,
Truly,
JENNINGS RANDOLPH, Chairman.
Enclosure
U.S. SENATE-COMMITTEE ON PUBLIc WORKS
COMMITTEE RESOLUTION
RESOLVED by the Committee on Public Works of the United States Senate,
That pursuant to the provisions of the Public Buildings Act of 1959, as amended,
the revised prospectus for a Federal Office Building in Manchester, New Hamp-
shire, is approved in the amount of $11,090,000 for 175,000 gross square feet, the
description of which is attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof.
Adopted: October 10, 1974.
JENNINGS RANDOLPH, Chairman.
PAGENO="0375"
MANCHESTER, NEW HAMPSHIRE
Proposed amendment to: Federal Office Building.
Prospectus No.: PNH-75013.
Date submitted to Congress: Original prospectus, August 1, 1966. Revised pros-
pectus (to eliminate Post Office from project and increase office space),
`June 2, 1972.
Date of approval by Committees oai Public Works: Senate, September 21, 1972.
House of Representatives, June 14, 1972.
This amendment to the approved prospectus is submitted to increase the author-
ized maximum limit of cost for this project to $12,021,000. The building has been
designated as an Energy Conservation Demonstration building. Design has been
completed and the building is expected to operate with from 40 to 50 percent less
energy requirements than comparable modern buildings subjected to the same
climate conditions.
Proceeding under the current authorization a contract in the amount of $654,-
594 was awarded in April 19, 1974, for excavation and the foundation for the
building. This work is scheduled for completion on October 24, 1974. Even though
numerous innovative energy conservation features, interface equipment for solar
collectors, and the addition of a high-rise fire safety system are included in the
design of the building, the construction cost estimate projections at the time of
award of Phase 1 showed the project cost within the authorized limitation. How-
ever, when the bids were received on September 21, 1974, for the construction of
the superstructure and the completion of the building, all five bids were substan-
tially in excess of the Government estimate and the remaining prospectus author-
ity. Therefore, the bids were rejected.
Our analysis of the bids showed they reflected current market prices in the
Manchester area and that the Government estimate was defective in not reflecting
the sharp upturn in construction costs precipitated by the international oil crisis
and related inflationary factors. The Government estimate has been revised
accordingly.
A comparison of the approved prospectus estimated cost, authorized escalated
costs and the revised estinsiated maximum cost to complete the project is as
follows:
.
Estimated cost
Approved
prospectus
estimated
cost
Escalated
maximum
cost
Revised estimated
cost 1
Site, design, management and inspection
Construction
Total cost
~t, 280, 000
6,563,000
$1, 408, 000
7,219,300
$1, 408, 000
10, 613, 000 (4/75)
7,843,000
0,627,300
12, 021, 000
I Exclusive of financing or other costs attributable to the use of the methed of construction authorized (sec. 5(e), Public
Buildings Amendments of 1972).
Nete: Approximate areas: Gross square feet, 175.000; eccupiable square feet, 118,400; net square feet, 131,000.
The construction of the Manchester project has received both National and
International publicity and its conipletion as a demonstration project is important
in the planning of future buildings. The information gained from this demon-
stration project will likewise be useful in retrofitting existing buildings to make
them more energy efficient. Finally, the knowledge obtained during and after
construction will he made available to other Federal agencies as well as the
design professions throughout the country, plus placing the Government in the
position of leadership by example.
Submitted at Washington, D.C. October 10, 1974.
Recommended:
LARRY F. RousH,
Commissioner, Public Buildings, ~S~erviee.
Approved:
ARTHUR F. SAMPsoN,
Administrator of General Seicices At7~inistration.
Enclosure.
PAGENO="0376"
370
FEDERAL OFFICE BmLDING, MANCHESTER, N.H.
ENERGT CONSERVATION DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FOR REVISED PROSPECTUS
Importance
GSA's Energy Conservation Demonstration Project was conceived to show that
buildings could be designed to operate without the extravagant energy usage
resulting from usual building design practices. Commercial buildings are esti-
mated to consume approximately 15% of the United State's total energy con-
suinption. This building is expected to operate with 40 to 50 percent less energy
than comparable modern buildings.
Wide range impact
This project provides the real-world opportunity to clearly substantiate theory
by actual measured performance.
Recognizing the importance of this project and its potential benefit to the entire
country, both the National Bureau of Standards and the Federal Energy Admin-
istration have joined with GSA to support this energy conservation project.
NBS performed extensive computer studies early in the design process to
determine the effect from the standpoint of energy consumption of modifications
in the building shape; windows, including type, size and summer shading;
insulation, orientation, etc. These studies showed that large energy savings were
possible through control of the building shell. Later studies showed the additional
savings that could be made by optimizing the mechanical/electrical/lighting
systems in the building and by taking maximum advantage of heat recovery
systems.
Although many design professionals are skeptical about claims, PEA recognized.
that if the expected performance of this building could be proven, architects and.
engineers would then be convinced. Thus, arrangements have been made with.
NBS and FEA to completely instrument this building after occupancy so as to
permit the collection of detailed performance data. The information on proven.
performance will then be disseminated to the design professions throughout the~
country. This technology transfer will have countrywide beneficial impact.
Authorized project cost
The construction of the project was phased to expedite completion, with Phase
1 consisting of the excavation and foundation, and Phase 2 consisting of the
building superstructure.
In April 1974, a total project estimate was completed for the project which
indicated that the construction could be completed within the authorized pros--
pectus limitation. This was partially confirmed by receipt of competitive bids for-
Phase 1 within the estimate allocated for that phase. However, as Phase 1 neared
completion, the lowest bid received for Phase 2 in September 1974 was substan-
tially in excess of the estimate for Phase 2. Therefore, it was not possible
to make an award.
An analysis of the bids received has lead us to conclude that we were mislead
by the success achieved in Phase 1. We failed to properly perceive the sharp-
upturn in construction escalation that, in fact, started with last winter's oil..
crisis.
COURTHOUSE AND FEDERAL OFFICE BUILDING,
FORT LAUDERDALE, FLA.
U.S. SENATE-COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
COMMITTEE RESOLUTION
Resolved by the Committee on Public Works of the United ~.S'tates ~Sena.te, That
there is hereby approved pursuant to the provision~ of section 5 (f) of the Public
Buildings Amendments of 1972, and section 7 of the Public Buildings Act of 1959,
as amended, a project for construction, under a purchase contract arrangement,
01 a Courthouse and Federal Office Building and Parking Facility in Fort*
Lauderdale, Florida, containing approximately 218.295 square feet of occupiahie
space, as described in Exhibit A to the prospectus therefor dated August 12. 1974,.
at an estimated cost, including construction, design, management and inspection,..
PAGENO="0377"
371
and site acquisition, of $19,122,000 (exclusive of interest and other costs attribut-
able to the purchase contract method of acquisition) ; provided, that in the event
the authority contained in section 5 of said Amendments expires before a pur-
-chase contract is awarded, or the Administrator of General Services determines,
pursuant to subsection 5(b) (2) of said Amendments, that a reasonable rate of
Interest cannot be obtained for construction of this project by purchase contract,
-the General Services Administration may proceed with the project utilizing funds
to be made available for that purpose in accordance with subsection 210(f) of the
-Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended.
Adopted: October 10, 1974.
JENNINGS RANDOLPH, Chairman.
[Prospectus No. PFL-74012-----Project No. CFL-745121
PnosPEcTUs FOR PROPOSED LEASE UNDEB THE PUBLIC BUILDINGS ACT OF 1959, AS
AMENDED
COURTHOUSE AND FEDERAL OFFICE BUILDING AND PARKING FACILITY,
FORT LAUDERDALE, FLA.
1. Description of Proposed Project
This prospectus proposes the lease acquisition of space in an office building,
with an adjacent parking facility, to be constructed by a private developer. The
-new buliding will house the United States Courts and other Federal agencies and
replace inadequate space now leased for the U.S. Courts and the U.S. Attorney
-and Marshal and space leased at eight additional locations which are occupied
by other nonpostal Federal activities. In addition, it will provide space for those
agencies now housed in a U.S. Postal Service builidng. When completed, the new
building will result- in consolidation of all nonpostal Federal activities now
housed in 10 scattered locations, provide for their increased space needs and
improve the quality of agency accommodations.
The new Courthouse and Federal Office Building (CT-FOB) will provide a
total occupmble area of 142,345 square feet and the Parking Facility (PF), will
-provide 75,950 square feet for 92 Government-owned, 61 visitor and 82 employee
vehicles. The buildings will be constructed on a site of approximately 88,000
square feet to be acquired by the private developer iii the downtown business
area or fringes thereof. Local zoning ordinances do not require provision of off-
street parking in the downtown area; however, it has been determined that 235
-parking spaces are required by the Government.
The lease will be for a firm term of 20 years, at an estimated total annual
cost of $1,188,581 for the CT-FOB and $113925 for the PF. Appropriate renewal
-options for an additional period of up to 20 years in 5 year increments will be
-included in the lease agreement.
2. Comprehensive Plan
a. Project Need.-There is a need to provide additional space for the U.S.
`Courts and the U.S. Attorney and Marshal, and certain other nonpostal Federal
:activities as well as a need to consolidate these activities and improve the quality
of housing. Federal agencies in Fort Lauderdale presently occupy 460,353 square
feet of space. Of this total, 21,231 square feet is general purpose Government-
owned space in the Post Office Building, and the Post Office and Federal Office
Building-Oakland Park Branch which are the property of the U.S. Postal Serv-
ice, and the U.S. Customhouse. About 60,300 square feet is general purpose space
at nine scattered locations leased at a total annual cost of $238,420. The remaining
378,855 square feet is special purpose Government-owned and leased space which
h-as no bearing on this proposal and will be retained for continued use by the
occupying agency activities.
Fort Lauderdale has been a statutory location for holding sessions of court
since June 1970, but no permanent housing has been provided for their use.
Initially, all court activity was, of necessity, conducted in Miami. In the fall of
1972, the City of Fort Lauderdale completed construction of a new City Hall
and remodeling of the old building as a City Hall Annex. The City has made
temporary arrangements with the courts for use of 7,961 square feet of space
in the remodeled building until such time as the city requires its use. The lease
is renewable on a year to year basis, at an annual cost of $1.00, with Govern-
ment or lessor having the right to terminate at any time upon 90 days written
PAGENO="0378"
372
notice. Effective date of the lease is from January 1, 1973, to November 30,.
1977. The lease has recently been renewed until November 30, 1075. The U.S.
Attorney and Marshal are sharing this space with the courts. The space is en-
tirely inadequate for the needs of these activities which currently have a com-
bined current requirement for 20,475 square feet. At the present time, there is
one District Judge headquartered in Fort Lauderdale. It is anticipated that
because of the large increase in population in the area and the amendment of
the Jury Plan of the Court to provide a separate jury division for Bro\vard
County with its site at Fort Lauderdale, court cases will have increased to the
extent that in the next several years tw-o full time judges will be required and
that by 1985, five full time judges will be required. The project as proposed will
initially provide two finished courtrooms and related space and include pro-
vision for three future courtrooms.
The balance of the general purpose space is occupied by 12 Federal activities.
The space is first and second class with the majority being of the latter, and it
generally fails to meet Federal quality standards. Due to the character of the
community, primarily retirement developments and tourism, there is a larze
amount of agency contact with the public. The scattered locations are a handicap,
particularly for the elderly. General purpose agency requirements are increasing
rapidly and the fragmentation impairs efficiency, causes duplication of common-
use facilities and increases operating costs. The amount of space leased in the
community has nearly doubled in the past three years, and. excluding the needs
of the Courts and the Attorney and Marshal, there is a current need for over
16.000 square feet of additional space.
The Post Office Building which was constructed in 1037. provides 6.392 square
feet of space consisting of a first floor and mezzanine ai.md is occupied entirely
by the Postal Service. The building lies within an area scheduled for a planned
shopping mall redevelopment by the Downtown Development Authority (DDA)
of Fort Lauderdale. The DDA plans to acquire the building from the Postal
Service in late 1974 and provide the USPS with substitute space in a leased fa-
cilitv to accommodate downtown postal activities.
The Post Office and Federal Office Bui1d~ng-Oaltland Park Branch was con-
structed in 1065, and extended in 1969, to provide expanded space for the Postal
Service and in 1972, additional land was acquired to enlarge the postal parking
and maneuvering area. The building is a one story structure providing hOST
square feet of space which is primarily occupied by the Postal Service with the
Defense Supply Agency and the Vetèraiis Administration occupying 780 feet.
Due to the remote location of the building, the latter two activities will be
relocated to the proposed new building where they will he more centrally located.
The building will be retained for continued postal use.
The Customhouse, constructed in 1940, is a one story structure containing
3,752 square feet of space. The building, which is located near the waterfront in
Port Everglades, is in good repair and centrally airconditioned. Adequate park-
ing is provided through h4~ outside spaces on the Customhouse site and eight
spaces on the street in front of the building with 30 additional street spaces
available within a block radius. The building is totally occupied by the U.S.
Customs whose operations require close contact with incoming and outgoing
shipping. The building will provide for their requirements for the indefinite
future.
b. Discussion of Alternatives. TJtiiizat~on of emvisting Goverlnn&nt-owved build-
ings.-Tltilization of the three Government-owned buildings in lieu of the pro-
posed project is not feasible. The Post Office Building is being acauirecl by the
Downtown Development Authority of Fort Lauderdale. Extending the Post
Office and Federal Office Building-Oakland Park Branch and the Customhouse
are not considered practical or economically feasible due to architectural. struc-
tural and site limitations, their remote location, anti the fact that each building
would require an extension completely out of proportion to the existing structure.
In addition, Custom activities are not compatible with the functions of the U.S.
Courts and other nonpostal activities.
Acquisition of enistinq leased. spaee.-$uitable leased space in an existing build-
ing in the quantity and quality required in the downtown area is not available.
particularly for the special requirements of the U.S. Courts. The majority of
the existing space is rated second class and generally fails to meet Federal
quality standards. New commercial construction of major office buildings in the
downtown area has not kept pace with the rapid population growth. It has only
PAGENO="0379"
373
been in the past few years that new office buildings have been developed. Re-
cently completed is the 28-floor First National Bank Building which is entirely
occupied by commercial enterprises. Several other new office buildings are
being constructed but they are far removed from downtown Fort Lauderdale,
being as far as 62 blocks away. The release of space leased by the Government
will not have an adverse effect upon the local economy.
Acquisition of space in a building to be constructed-A present value analysis
comparing direct Federal construction with lease construction has been prepared.
The analysis indicates that acquiring the space under a lease arrangement is
significantly less costly than public building construction. Therefore, it is
planned to enter into a lease for construction of the buildings in accordance with
the authority contanied in Section 210(h) (1) of the Federal Property and Ad~
ministrative Services Act of 1949, as amended. GSA will defer contracting for
the parking facility until a parking policy is determined.
Initill lease
CT-FOB
3. Estimated maximum cost:
Estimated net average rental $960, 829 $113, 925
Estimated cost of services 227, 752
Estimated total annual cost 1, 188, 581 113, 925
Area squaro
fect Annual cost
4. Current housing casts: Foragenciesto be housed in the proposed building:
a. Leased space: rent 60,267 $238, 420
b. Government-owned space: reimbursement to U.S. Postal Service 780 3, 120
Total 241,540
5. Comprehensive housing plan-See attached exhibit A. -
6. Present value analysis and other support data.-See attached exhibit B.
7. Statement of necd.-I[t has been determined that (1) the need for space of
the Federal Government in this area cannot be satisfied by utilization of existing
suitable property now owned by the Government, and (2) suitable rental space
is not available at a price commensurate with that to be afforded through the
proposed action.
Submitted at Washington, D.C. on August 12, 1974.
Recommended:
LARRY F. Rousll,
Commissioner, Pu blie Buildings Service.
Approved:
ARTHUR F. SAMPSON,
Administrator of General Services.
ExHIBIT A
SEcuRITIEs & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, WASHINGTON, D.C.
1. Present value cost summaries for alternative methods of acquisitions
(in thousands of dollars)
Item
Purchase: 1 30 Years, 7 Pea'ce;at
Improvesnents $34, 534
Site, design, et cetera 23, 331
Repair and improvement 2, 1~5
Property taxes - 13, 282
Subtotal 73, 312
Less residual value -6, 459
Total 66. 853
See footnotes at end of table.
PAGENO="0380"
374
Lease: 1
Total annual payments $22, 795
"Purchase contract 1
Annual payments 2 48, 863
Repair and improvement 2, 165
Property taxes 13, 282
Subtotal 65, 310
Less residual value -6, 459
Total 58, 851
1 Operation and maintenance costs are borne b~ the Government and are `assumed to be
"identical for all three acquisition methods. Therefore, they are `omitted in tills comparison.
"Imputed premiums are estimated to be negligible relative to other costs and therefore
omitted.
2 includes the application of a deflator to each annual payment thereby showing
payments in constant dollars based on the initial annual payment. Then, each constant
dollar payment is discounted at 7 percent.
II. LEASE ANALYSIS-Continued
Cancel~
Square Annual Expiration lation Quality Class
Location feet cost date rights rating of space Disposition
500 North Capitol St., çi 169. 094 $893, 636 Apr. 20, 1976 None 85 1st class____ Retain or
Washington, D.C. 2 600 dispose.
1020 11th St., Washington, 1 66, 203 460, 787 May 31, 1980 None 87 __do Reassign.
D.C. 2 32, 785
Ballston Tower 3, 4015 Wit- 1 7, 030 35, 288 Apr. 1, 1981 None 94 -- _do Do.
son Blvd., Arlington, Va.
Total 275, 712 1, 389, 711
I Office.
2 Parking.
Ill. GOVERNMENT-OWNED BUILDINGS
Location Square feet Annual cost Class of space Disposition
iAuditors building-annex 2 3, 610 $9, 061 Storage Future demolition.
Navy yard annex 197 8, 330 8, 830 do Do.
Total 11,940 17,891
PAGENO="0381"
375
II. LEASE ANALYSIS
Cancel-
Square Annual Expiration lotion Quality Class
Location feet cost - date rights rating of space Disposition
2, 000 M Street, NW 70, 190 $572, 751 Nov. 30, 1976 None 95 1st class_~ Reassign.
Ill. GOVERNMENT-OWNED BUILDINGS
Cancel-
Square Annual Expiration lotion Quality Class
Location feat cost date rights rating of space Disposition
New post office 213, 504 $591, 406 (1) (1) 98 1st cIa ss~.... Reassign
New Executive Office 5, 150 21, 115 (1) (1) 100 do Do.
Building.
I Not available.
EXHIBIT B
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fi~n., COURTHOUSE, FEDERAL OFFICE BUILDING
AND PARKING FACILITY
SUPPORT DATA
I. Present value cost summaries for alternative methods of acquisition:
Itenc 30 Years~.
Purchase: 1 7 Perceni~
Improvements $15, 398
Site, design, et cetera 3, 969
Repair and improvement 1, 021
Property taxes 9, 174-
Subtotal 29, 568
Less residual value -1, 737
Total 27, 831
Lease: ~
Total annual payments 12, 413
Purchase contract 1
Annual payments 16, 689
Repair and improvement 1, 02T
Property taxes 9, 174
Subtotal 26, 890
Less residual value -1, 737
Total 25, 153~
1 Operation and maintenance costs are borne by the Government and are assumed to be
identical for all three acquisition methods. Therefore, they are omitted in this comparison...
Imputed Insurance premiums are estimated to be negligible relative to other costs and.'
therefore omitted.
2 Analysis includes the application of a deflator to each annual payment thereby show-
ing payments in constant dollars based on the initial annual payment. Then, each con-
stant dollar payment is discounted at 7 percent.
PAGENO="0382"
376
II. LEASE
DATA AS 0
F MAR. 4, 1974
Cancel-
Square
feet
Annual
cost
Expiration
lation Quality
(days) Class rating
Dis-
position
City Hall Annex:
U.S. courts 7,961 $1 Nov. 30, 1977 90 2 89 (`).
U.S. attorney and marshal 2
Amman Building, Port Everglades: V
Animal and plant health inspec- 794 5, 187 Dec. 14, 1975 60 2 87 (0.
tion service.
Immigration and Naturalization 798 5, 187 do 60 2 87 (1).
Service. V V
440 South Andrews Ave.: Congres- 400 (3) (2) (3) (3) (~) (1)
Vsional (Representative Burke). V
Romark Building, 3521 West Broward
Blvd.:
Collocated recruiting 2, 882 16, 748 V June 30, 1976 60 2 71 (`).
Federal Bureau of lnvustigatian.... 1, 690 8, 602 V Mar. 31, 1976 60 V 2 V 71 (1). V
Wage-hour 1,496 8, 206 June 30, 1976 60 2 71 (1).
South Andrews Professional Bldg., V
1525 South VAndrews Ave.: V V V
Federal Home Loan Bank Boarth - - 1, 245 5, 938 July 31, 1976 (4) 2 74 (`).
National Portrait Gallery 238 1,500 V (3) (3) 1 74 (1).
Third Corporation Building, 315 North- 13, 233 54, 881 Oct. 31, 1976 90 1 73 (`).
east 3d Ave.: SSA District Office.
Bridge Bldg., 3200 Oakland Park 2, 250 11, 556 Nov. 30, 1976 (4) 2 78 (1).
Blvd.: Occupational Safety and V
Health Administration. V
Las Olos Bldg., 305 South Andrews 2, 552 13, 675 Feb. 28, 1978 60 1 73 (0.
Ave.: Selective Service Local Board
FederalVHighway Bldg., 2309 North 24, 728 106, 939 Aug. 31, 1975 60 1 91 (`).
Federal Highway: Internal Revenue
Service.
Total 60, 267 238, 420
I Cancel.
2 Uses space jointly with courts.
Not available.
Firm.
III. PLANNING COORDINATION V
As required by the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-577)
and Executive Order 11512, the development of this proposed project has been co-
ordinated with Federal, state and local agencies. It has been found to be com-
patible with other plans and wouldhavea positive impact on the local community
development and economy. The consolidation: of the majority of all levels of gov-
ernmental activities at one location would facilitate delivery of Federal public
service programs to local governments, as well as providing better and more
efficient service to the public. V V V V
Iv. PARKI2~G V V
The zoning regulations of the City of Ft. Lauderdale do not include ordinances
governing the provision of on-site parking in the core of the central business
district.
On January 1, 1972, Ft. Lauderdale and Hollywood's privately-owned bus lines
merged under the Broward County Transit Authority to insure continued opera-
tion of a public transit system. The authority plans to purchase 75 new buses to
add to the 62 now in service. Current fares range from 30 to 45 cents, but will be
reduced to about 25 cents under the new authority as transit plans materialize.
V Although there is a total of 29 routes, new routes are planned and old ones are to
V be restructured to be more responsive to county-wide needs. At present there is
V only one bus route that travels from the southern half of the county to the north-
ern half. Within Ft. Lauderdale proper, the systems' major transfer point is
V Stranahan Park located iii the downtown area. Existis1g and planned parking
within the area will not accommodate future needs.
It is planned to provide 235 parking spaces in a separate parking facility ad-
jacent to the CT-FOB. The spaces will be utilized as follows:
Government~owned 40
Official 42
Heads of agencies 10
Employees 82
visitors 61
Total 235
PAGENO="0383"
377
The employee parking requirements were derived as follows: Total employees
to be assigned at time of building occupancy (541.) minus the sum of official and
`head of agency (52) equals 489 divided by parking ratio of 1 space for every six
employees.
V. HOUSING
In accordance with Executive Order 11512 and the DHIJD/GSA Memorandum.
of Understanding this project is being coordinated between these two agencies~
The development of the project to date has disclosed deficiencies in respect to the'
availability of low and moderate income housnig on a non-discriminate basis.
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
In the development of this project studies will be made of the water suppIy~
~sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, storm water drainage, erosion control,
fuel types, etc., in order to comply strictly with the purposes and intent of Execu-
tive Order 11514 "Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality'~ and
will comply with the requirements of Section 102(2) (c) of the National Environ-
mental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-190). as amended, and the guidelines pre-
scribed by the Council on Environmental Quality.
VII. CONSIDERATION UNDER TIlE RURAL DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 172 (PL. 92-419)
As required under this act first priority consideration has been given for the-
location of this facility in rural areas as defined in the private business enterprise
`exception in section `306(a) (7) or'tlie' Consolidated Farmers Home. Administra-
tion Act of 1961, as amended (7 USC 1926). It has been determined that the func-
tions of the courts and of the Federal agencies to be housed present overwhelming
reasons that this facility not be located iii a rural area.
LEASED OFFICE SPACE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Federal Energy Office
U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
COMMITTEE RESOLUTION
Eesolved by the Committee on Public Works of the United States Senate, That
`pursuant to Section 7 of the Public Buildings Act of 1959, as amended, the pro-
posed leased office space `for the Federal Energy Administration in Washing-
ton, D.C., a description of which is attached hereto, and by this reference made a
part hereof, is approved as amended by deleting 225 parking spaces and limiting
the lease term to five years with renewal options contingent upon the Public
Works Committees approval.
Adopted: October 10, 1974.
JENNINGS RANDOLPH, Chairman.
[Prospectus No. PDC-75021]
PROSPECTUS FOR PROPOSED LEASE UNDER THE PUBLIC BUILDING ACT OF 1959, AS
AMENDED
LEASED OFFICE SPACE, METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON, D.C.
1. Description of proposed project
This prospectus proposes the acquisition under a lease arrangement of approxi-
`mately 378,750 occupiable square feet of Space, of which 78,750 square feet will be
`for parking of 225 vehicles to house the consolidated headquarters operations of
the Federal Energy Administration (FEA). The proposed lease will be for a term
not to exceed 20 years at an estimated annual cost of approximately $2,368,000,
including all services and utilities. The lease will contain an escalator clause pro-
viding for adjustments in the annual rental rates based on tax and operating cost
increases (or decreases). It is expected to commence on or about January 1, 1975.
2. Comprehensive Plan
a. Project need: The proposed space is needed to consolidate PEA operations
from the locations they were temporarily provided during the "energy crisis"
PAGENO="0384"
378
in late 1973 and early 1974. The temporary locations were provided by deferring
housing plans for other Government agencies. A consolidation of all FEA opera-*
tions will alleviate its current operating problems.resultiflg from separated loca-
tions and also provide approximately 11,000 square feet of expansion space to~
satisfy present space needs.
While Congressional authorization for PEA's programs at this time extends
to June 30, 1976, it is reasonable to assume that these programs will continue*
and expand well beyond that date. Project Independence, for example, which
pursues a major national objective of energy self-sufficiency will continue into the*
1980's. Other PEA continuing functions* will include maintaining the National
Energy Information Center, contingency planning for future fuel disruptions, and
programs involving energy conservation and research and development. It is esti-
mated that Project Independence alone will encourage estimated investments of
$700 billion in the vast domestic energy potential of the United States. All of these
functions will require substantial staff and facilities beyond PY 1976 to provide
continued Government management on energy related matters. Plans for dealing
with energy production shortages, expansion of readily usable energy sources, im-
plementation of voluntary and mandatory energy conservation programs, and
the need to expedite the development of. energy resources .to meet the energy
needs of the Nation are manifestly not short-term efforts.
The. PEA, with 1,940 employees, presently occupies 70,190 square feet of leased
space at 2000 M Street, N.W., and 218,654 square feet of Government-owned space
in the New Post Office and the New . Executive. Office buildings. The physical
separation of staff components reduces the effectiveness and efficiency of the~
Executive Branch in dealing with PEA priorities, resulting in delays in the corn-*
munication process and the flow of documents. Key Federal, state and local
officials as well as industrial representatives, have difficulty in locating FEA
staff members in these separate buildings.
PEA management problems are further compounded by the major renovation
work presently in progress in the New Post Office Building, constructed over 40
years ago, where the major portion of their components occupy approximately
213,500 square feet of space. Staging requirements for this renovation, which
will continue through 1975, have already caused considerable disruption of
important energy programs through the shifting of personnel to different loca-
tion in the building. The renovation work is requiring the relocation of many
PEA employees from the New Post Office Building to temporary quarters in the
adjacent Old Post Office Building causing a fragmentation of the staff.
These problems can be eliminated or alleviated by locating the agency at a
single location.
The space in the New Post Office was originally planned for utilization by the
Treasury Department to consolidate certain elements of the Internal Revenue
Service including additional expansion space. The ~Ian was postponed in order
to meet the immediate, urgent requirement to house PEA. Consolidation of PEA
to another location will allow the General Services Administration to follow
through on the original planned occupancy of this building by the Treasury
Department.
Previous studies in other agencies located in areas with relatively poor transit
service indicates an employee parking requirement of about 350 spaces for this
agency. However, assuming a location with good transit service, the requirement
for employee parking for this agency,. based on extensive carpooling. could most
likely be reduced to about 200 spaces. Therefore, this proposed lease includes
225 parking spaces, of w-hich 25 are for official vehicles and visitors, and the
balance for employee parking. .
The zoning requirements with respect to parking for a building of this size
vary between one space for each 600 square feet and one space for each 1800
square feet, depending on the exact location of the building.
The zoning . requirements with respect to parking for a building of this size
vary between one space for each 600 square feet and one space for each 1800
square feet, depending on the exact location of the building.
b. Discussion of alternatives: Utilization of Government-owned space.-FEA's
total present space need is approximately 300.000. square feet. This amount of
satisfactory Government-owned space is not presently available or expected to
become available in GSA's inventory.
Construction of a Government-owned building-It would take approximately
four to five years to obtain the necessary approvals, acquire land, finance, design,
and construct a building for occupancy by PEA. The need to renovate the New
PAGENO="0385"
379
Post Office Building precludes the continued use of this building by FEA and
makes it necessary to obtain replacement space as soon as possible.
Purchase of an er'iuting btiiiding.-There are no known buildings being offered
for purchase or exchange that would meet the requirements of FEA. Therefore,
this is not considered a viable alternative.
Five-year short-term lease with concurrent Federal construction-While this
is a feasible alternative, it is considered unlikely that funds will be available
in the next two to three years to start construction of a new Federal Office Build-
ing for FEA.
Acquisition of leasehold interest-GSA has conducted a market survey to
identify buildings which are available for lease and are suitable with respect to
locations, amount of space and delivery date. Several buildings which can pro-
vide the needed accommodations have been identified. Therefore, upon approval
of this prospectus, GSA plans to enter into a lease for the required space in
accordance with the authority contained in Section 210(h) (1) of the Federal
Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended.
3. Estimated ma~imum cost
Estimated net average rental $1, 888, 000
Estimated cost of services 480, 000
Estimated total annual cost 2, 368, 000
.4. Current housing costs
For agency to be housed in the proposed leased space.
Area
(square
feet)
Annual
cast
(a) Government-owned space: Operation, maintenance, asd upkeep 218, 654
(b) Leased space (1 location):
Net average rental 70, 190
Cost of services
Total annual cost
~612, 521
374, 113
198, 638
1, 185, 272
5. Space Plan
The space to be leased is to be occupied entirely by personnel of the head-
quarters operations of the FEA. Therefore, no Washington, D.C. housing plan
is attached. Existing housing is reflected in Exhibit A.
6. Statement of Need
It has been determined that the need of the Federal Government for space to
house the headquarters operations of the FEA cannot be satisfied by utilization of
existing property now owned by the Government.
Submitted at Washington, D.C. on September 25, 1974.
Recommended:
JOHN F. GALUARDI,
Acting Commissioner, Public Buildings Service.
Approved:
ARTHUR F. SAMPSON,
Administrator of General Services.
Securities and Exchange Commission
ITS. SENATE-COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
COMMITTEE RESOLUTION
Resolved by the Committee on Public TVorhs of the United States Senate,
That pursuant to the provisions of Section 7 of the Public Buildings Act of
1959, as amended, the acquisition of space in Washington, D.C. by lease for a
term of 5 years with renewal options contingent upon approval by the Committee
on Public Works, in the amount of approximately 460,000 square feet at an
PAGENO="0386"
380
estimated annual cost of $2,800,000 to house the consolidated operations of the
Securities and Exchange Commission, in lieu of the estimated square footage-
and cost as described in the prospectus therefor dated August 2, 1974, is hereby
approved.
Adopted: October 10, 1974.
JENNINGS RANDOLPH, Chairman.
[Prospectus No. PDC-74121-Project No. LDC-74621]
PROSPECTUS FOR PROPOSED LEASE UNDER THE PUBLIC BUILDINGS ACT OF 1959,.
AS AMENDED
LEASED OFFICE SPACE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
1. Description
This prospectus proposes the acquisition of about 403,000 occupiable square
feet of space, which includes space for the parking of 271 vehicles in a building(s)
in Washington, D.C. The space will house the consolidated operations of the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The proposed leasehold (s) Will be
for a period not to exceed twenty (20) years at a total estimated annual cost
of about $2,471,500. Additionally, the lease (s) will contain escalation clauses
providing for adjustments in the annual rental rate based on tax and operating
cost increases (or decreases).
2. Comprehensive Plan
a. Project Need: There is a need for suitable and adequate permanent space
for consolidation of SEC.
The SEC presently occupies 275,712 square feet of leased space, including
33,385 square feet of parking, at three scattered locations with a total annual
cost of $1,389,711 and 11,940 square feet of Government-owned space at two
locations. Its headquarters staff is located primarily at 500 North Capitol Street
where it occupies 169,090 square feet of space under a lease which expires
April 20, 1976.
The SEC is handicapped by having its staff, records, and facilities split
between five separate locations. Communication problems have become severe.
The Commission's divisions are interdependent and organizational realignments
cannot solve the difficulties. Space assignments must be constantly juggled to
meet even the minimum needs. The Commission is beset also by constantly
growing requirements for space to house the voluminous records which statutes
require it to keep. These records must be located close to the staff members
who use them.
A consolidation of all SEC operations into one or two closely located buildings
will alleviate its current operating problems by improving communications
between offices, by reducing travel time between buildings, by locating records:
in the same building as personnel, and by making the agency's administrative
services readily available to all staff members.
The proposed project also will provide space for planned growth in personnel.
SEC had 1,100 employees in Washington on June 30, 1973. For Fiscal Year 1974,
it was authorized 1,279. SEC is planning for 1,335 personnel for Fiscal Year
1975, and an increase to 1,500 for Fiscal Year 1976, when the new space would
be occupied.
Additionally, the proposed lease will provide 271 parking spaces of which 21
are for official vehicles and visitors, and the balance for employee vehicles.
b. Discussion of Alternatives: Utilization of Go-temnnzent-o-wned buildings.-
There are no Government-owned buildings or other space in GSA's inventory
in the Washington area currently available nor is it anticipated that any will
become available to satisfy the requirements of the SEC.
Construction of Government-owned by ulding.-In view of the substantial
backlog of construction projects in the National Capital Region requiring the
expenditure of capital funds and ongoing commitments with respect to buildings
under construction, construction of a building is not considered a viable alterna--
tive in relation to the total funding capabilities of GSA.
Acquisition of leasehold interest-A present value analysis comparing direct
Federal construction with leasing has been prepared. The analysis indicates that
acquiring the space under a lease arrangement is significantly less costly than
public building construction. A copy of the analysis is attached as Exhibit A.
PAGENO="0387"
381
Therefore, it is planned to enter into a lease for the required space in accordance
with the authority contained in Section 210(h) (1) of the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended.
3. Macijim.uan Estimated Cost
Area
(sqasre Annual
feet) cost
Estimated net average rental 403, 000 $1, 978. 700
Estimated cost of services 492, 800
Estimated total annual cost 2,471,500
4. Current housing costs (for agency to be housed in proposed leased space): 1
(a) Leased space:
Runt (3 locations) 275, 712 976, 066
Services 413, 645
Total annual cost 1,389,711
(b) Government-owned space:
Operation, maintenance, and upkeep 2 11,940 17, 891
Total annual cost 1,407, 602
1 Lease analysis is attached as exhibit A.
2 Located in 2 obsolete buildings scheduled for future demohtisn.
5. space plan
The occupancy by SEC in the proposed leased space w-ill not result in the re-
location of other Federal agencies or affect the housing of agencies in the Wash-
ington metropolitan area; therefore, no comprehensive housing plan is attached.
6. $tatement of 9aecd
It has been determined that the need for space of the Federal Government in
this area cannot be satisfied by utilization of existing suitable property now
owned by the Government.
Submitted at Washington, D.C. on August 2, 1974.
Recommended:
LARRY F. Rousn,
Commissioner, Pu blic Buildings Service.
Approved:
ARTHUR F. SAMPSON,
Ad nainistra tm of Gen ei-al Services.
0
PAGENO="0388"