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"