Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on the 

Legislative Branch, Committee on 

Appropriations, U.S. Senate 

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10:30 a.m. EDT 

Thursday, July 14, 2005 CAPITOL VISITOR 

CENTER 

Update on Status of 

Project’s Schedule and 

Costs 

Statement of Bernard L. Ungar, Director 

Terrell Dorn, Assistant Director 

Physical Infrastructure Issues 

GAO-05-910T 
Page 1 GAO-05-910T 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

We are pleased to be here today to assist the Subcommittee in monitoring 

progress on the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC) project. As requested, we will 

focus our remarks today on the Architect of the Capitol’s (AOC) progress 

in achieving selected project milestones and in managing the project’s 

schedule since the Subcommittee’s June 14 hearing on the project.1

 We 

will also discuss the project’s costs and funding, including the potential 

cost impact of schedule-related issues. Our observations today are based 

on our review of schedules and financial reports for the CVC project and 

related records maintained by AOC and its construction management 

contractor, Gilbane Building Company; our observations on the progress 

of work at the CVC construction site; and our discussions with AOC’s 

Chief Fire Marshal and CVC project staff, including AOC, its major CVC 

contractors, and representatives of an AOC schedule consultant, 

McDonough Bolyard Peck (MBP). We did not perform an audit; rather, we 

performed our work to assist Congress in conducting its oversight 

activities. 

In summary, AOC and its major construction contractors have made 

progress on the project since the Subcommittee’s June 14 hearing, but 

work on some of the selected milestones scheduled for completion by 

today’s hearing is incomplete; some work has been postponed; and some 

new issues have arisen that could affect the project’s progress. 

Specifically, as of July 12, AOC’s sequence 2 contractor, Manhattan 

Construction Company, had completed work on 11 of the 17 selected 

milestones scheduled for completion before today’s hearing; however, it 

completed only 3 of the 17 milestones on time. The sequence 2 contractor 

missed the 14 remaining milestones for such reasons as unforeseen site 

conditions, design problems, and more time being taken to complete some 

other work than expected. In addition, the date scheduled for the initial 

operation of the utility tunnel is now about 5 months later than AOC had 

anticipated, and unforeseen conditions could delay the installation of 

stone in the East Front. Although the June project schedule shows that the 

delay on the East Front stonework would move the scheduled opening 

date for the CVC project to October 19, 2006, AOC does not expect the 

delays in completing the remaining milestones, including the utility tunnel 

 1

GAO, Capitol Visitor Center: Effective Schedule Management and Updated Cost 

Information Are Needed, GAO-05-811T (Washington, D.C.: June 14, 2005). See also GAO, 

Capitol Visitor Center: Priority Attention Needed to Manage Schedules and Contracts, 

GAO-05-714T (Washington, D.C.: May 17, 2005). 
Page 2 GAO-05-910T 

and East Front stonework, to postpone the project’s scheduled September 

2006 completion date. In AOC’s view, the contractor can recover the time 

lost in completing these milestones, as well as make up for delays in 

completing interior stonework, by such means as using temporary 

equipment, adding workers, or resequencing work, although using 

temporary equipment or adding workers will also increase the project’s 

costs. Largely because of past problems, remaining risks and uncertainties, 

and the number of activities that are not being completed on time, we 

continue to believe that the project is more likely to be completed in the 

December 2006 to March 2007 time frame than in September 2006. AOC 

and its construction management contractor have continued their efforts 

to respond to two recommendations we made to improve the project’s 

management—having a realistic, acceptable schedule and aggressively 

monitoring and managing adherence to that schedule. However, we still 

have some concerns about the amount of time scheduled for some 

activities, the extent to which resources can be applied to meet dates in 

the schedule, the linkage of related activities in the schedule, and the 

integration of planning for completing construction and starting 

operations. Since the Subcommittee’s last CVC hearing, AOC has engaged 

contractors to help it respond to two other recommendations we made—

developing risk mitigation plans and preparing a master schedule that 

integrates the major steps needed to complete construction with the steps 

needed to prepare for operations. AOC has also been taking a number of 

actions to improve coordination between the CVC project team and AOC’s 

Fire Marshal Division. Insufficient coordination in this area has already 

affected the project’s schedule and cost, and could do so again if further 

improvements are not made. 

We continue to believe that the project’s estimated cost at completion will 

be between $522 million and $559 million, and that, as we have previously 

indicated, AOC will likely need as much as $37 million more than it has 

requested to cover risks and uncertainties to complete the project. At this 

time, we believe that roughly $5 million to $15 million of this $37 million is 

likely to be needed in fiscal year 2006, and the remainder in fiscal year 

2007. In the next 2 to 3 months, AOC plans to update its estimate of the 

project’s remaining costs. We will review this estimate and provide 

Congress with our estimate together with information on when any 

additional funding is likely to be needed. During the next several months, 

AOC is likely to face competing demands for funds that can be used for 

either CVC construction or operations, and it will be important for AOC to 

ensure that the available funds are optimally used. Finally, we are 

concerned that AOC may incur costs to open the facility to the public in 

September 2006 that it would not incur if it postponed the opening until 
Page 3 GAO-05-910T 

after the remaining construction work is more or fully complete—that is, 

in March 2007, according to AOC’s estimates. 

We are recommending that AOC designate who will be responsible for 

integrating the planning and budgeting for CVC construction and 

operations and notify Congress in advance of any estimated costs it 

believes it will incur to open CVC to the public in September 2006 rather 

than when the facility is more complete. AOC agreed with these 

recommendations. 

AOC and its major construction contractors have moved the CVC project 

forward since the Subcommittee’s June 14 hearing, although the majority 

of the selected milestones scheduled for completion by today’s hearing 

have not been completed on time. According to the construction 

management contractor, the base project’s construction was about 70 

percent complete as of June 30, compared with about 65 percent as of May 

31. The sequence 1 contractor, Centex Construction Company, which was 

responsible for the project’s excavation and structural work, has 

continued to address punch-list items, such as stopping water leaks. 

Although AOC had expected the sequence 1 contractor to complete the 

punch-list work and be off-site by June 30, some of this work remains to 

be done. The sequence 1 contractor has closed its on-site project office 

and plans to send workers back to the site to complete the remaining 

work. AOC has retained funds from the sequence 1 contractor that it 

believes will be sufficient to cover the cost of the remaining work. 

Furthermore, the sequence 2 contractor, which is responsible for the 

mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and finishing work, has continued to 

make progress in these areas, including erecting masonry block, placing 

concrete, and installing finish stone, drywall framing, plaster, and granite 

pavers. Many of the granite pavers that were installed on the plaza deck 

for the inauguration have to be replaced because of problems with quality 

or damage after installation. The sequence 2 contractor plans to replace 

these pavers when the plaza deck will no longer be needed for deliveries 

of construction materials. The sequence 2 contractor has also continued 

work on the utility tunnel, and in June, AOC executed a sequence 2 

contract modification to construct the House connector tunnel. AOC 

expects this work to begin soon. 

As the Subcommittee requested, we worked with AOC to select sequence 2 

milestones that the Subcommittee can use to help track the project’s 

progress from the Subcommittee’s May 17 hearing to July 31. We and AOC 

selected 22 milestones, of which 11 were scheduled for completion before 

Schedule Milestones 

and Management 
Page 4 GAO-05-910T 

June 14, 6 others before July 14, and 5 others before July 31. These 

milestones are shown in appendix 1 and include activities on the project’s 

critical path, as well as other activities that we and AOC believe are 

important for the project’s timely completion.2

 As we reported during the 

Subcommittee’s June 14 hearing, AOC’s sequence 2 contractor completed 

6 of the 11 selected activities scheduled for completion before that date—3 

were completed on time and 3 were late. The remaining 5 activities had 

not been completed as of June 14. Of these 5, 4 have now been completed 

and as of July 12, 1 remained incomplete. In addition, as of July 12, the 

contractor was late in completing 1 of the 6 selected activities scheduled 

for completion between June 14 and July 14 and had not yet completed the 

remaining 5. AOC does not expect these delays to extend the project’s 

scheduled September 2006 completion date because it believes that the 

sequence 2 contractor can recover the lost time. 

A few months ago, AOC expected the utility tunnel to be operational in 

October 2005, but it extended that date to March 20, 2006, before the June 

hearing. The June schedule shows the tunnel being operational on March 

7. The sequence 2 contractor has indicated that the impact of the Octoberto-March delay on CVC construction could be mitigated by using 

temporary dehumidification equipment, adding more workers to certain 

utility tunnel activities, or both. However, this mitigation approach would 

increase the government’s costs. We previously identified the utility tunnel 

as a project schedule and cost risk because of possible unforeseen 

conditions associated with underground work, and AOC and the sequence 

2 contractor believe that such risk still exists with respect to the remaining 

tunnel work. Given this risk and the importance to the rest of the project 

of having the utility tunnel operational as soon as possible, AOC has asked 

the project team to explore options for accelerating the completion of the 

work necessary to begin the tunnel’s operations. We agree with AOC that 

delays in making this tunnel operational could have significant adverse 

effects on other project elements and that priority attention should be 

given to this area. Accelerating work may be cost-beneficial in this case. 

 2

A critical path is a sequence of activities in a schedule that has the longest duration. There 

is no scheduling flexibility or slack time associated with the activities. This means that a 

delay in a critical path activity will delay the entire project unless a way is found to reduce 

the time required for other activities along the critical path. A schedule may have multiple 

critical paths simultaneously, and the critical path through a project can change as the 

project is updated and as the time estimated to complete the tasks changes. Currently, 

AOC’s schedule shows CVC’s critical path running through some interior wall stone and 

East Front stonework. The schedule also shows other work elements, such as the utility 

tunnel and millwork, as near critical (i.e., having little slack time). 
Page 5 GAO-05-910T 

Since the June 14 hearing, the sequence 2 contractor has also encountered 

unforeseen conditions that, according to AOC’s construction management 

contractor, could delay the installation of stone on the Capitol’s East 

Front. Unless mitigated, this delay, in turn, could delay AOC’s estimated 

September 15, 2006, opening date. In fact, the June schedule shows a 24-

day delay for this work, which is on the project’s critical path, and 

therefore pushes AOC’s scheduled date for opening CVC to the public to 

October 19, 2006. AOC and its construction management contractor are 

assessing the situation and expect to have more information on this 

problem within the next month. However, they believe that they will be 

able to recover the lost time by resequencing work, although they 

acknowledge that their mitigation approach would require sufficient stone 

to be available. The project has not been receiving stone in the quantities 

set forth in the delivery schedule—a risk that we previously identified—

and AOC and its contractors have been taking action to address this 

problem, but have not yet resolved it. Mitigating this potential delay in 

East Front stone installation could increase the government’s costs if the 

mitigation involves, among other actions, expediting the installation to 

recover lost time. 

Our May 17 and June 14 statements contained several observations on 

AOC’s management of the project’s schedules, including our view that 

problems in this area contributed to slippage in the project’s scheduled 

completion date and additional project costs associated with delays. The 

statements also discussed recommendations we had already made to AOC 

to enhance its schedule management. AOC had agreed with these 

recommendations and had generally begun to implement them, but we 

believed that it still needed to give priority attention to them to keep the 

project on track and as close to budget as possible. An updated discussion 

follows of the issues that need AOC’s priority attention, along with current 

information on the status of AOC’s actions to address these issues. 

• Having realistic time frames for completing work and obtaining 

fully acceptable schedules from contractors. Over the course of the 

project, AOC’s schedules have shown dates for completing tasks that 

project personnel themselves considered optimistic or unlikely to be met. 

In addition, the master project schedule (prepared by AOC’s construction 

management contractor) that AOC was using in May 2005 (the April 

schedule that AOC said it would use as a baseline for measuring progress 

on the project) did not tie all interrelated activities together and did not 

identify the resources to be applied for all the activities, as AOC’s contract 

requires. During the Subcommittee’s June 14 hearing, AOC said that it 

would reassess the time scheduled for tasks by today’s hearing. Since the 
Page 6 GAO-05-910T 

Subcommittee’s June 14 hearing, AOC’s construction management and 

sequence 2 contractors reviewed the reasonableness of the time scheduled 

for 14 critical or near-critical activities and determined that, in general, the 

time shown in the May 2005 schedule reasonably reflected the time 

required to perform 11 of these activities. In addition, the sequence 2 

contractor agreed to provide more detail about the 3 remaining activities 

so that the reasonableness of the time scheduled for them could be 

reviewed later. 

Although the contractors’ review did not involve a detailed, data-based 

analysis of the time scheduled for activities using such information as 

crew size and worker productivity, AOC’s construction management 

contractor said that it would do such analyses in the future, as 

appropriate. The construction management contractor said it has not yet 

done such an analysis for stonework because, to date, less stone has been 

delivered to the site than was expected and more stone workers have been 

available than could be used, given the shortage of stone. In AOC’s view, 

this stone shortage has begun to delay important activities, and as we 

previously indicated, AOC is working with its contractors to resolve the 

problem. 

According to AOC’s construction management contractor, both the 

project’s May and June 2005 master schedules (1) reflect significant 

improvement in the linkage of interrelated tasks, although the contractor 

recognizes that more work needs to be done in this area and (2) generally 

provide sufficient information to manage the project’s resources. 

However, the contractor also recognizes the need for the sequence 2 and 

other contractors to continue adding more detail to the activities 

scheduled for some project elements, such as the exhibit and expansion 

spaces, so that more of the interrelated activities will be linked in the 

schedule. The contractor also said that it will be continuously reassessing 

the extent to which construction contractors identify the resources they 

plan to apply to meet scheduled completion dates, as contractually 

required. Both adding detail to activities and identifying the resources to 

be applied are helpful in assessing the reasonableness of the time 

scheduled and in managing contractors’ performance. The sequence 2 

contractor has provided a separate schedule showing its target dates for 

adding more detail to 30 project tasks. On July 8, AOC’s construction 

management contractor accepted the April project schedule, subject to 

several conditions. 

Because the May 2005 master schedule for the CVC project contains 

additional detail on activities and information on resources to be applied, 
Page 7 GAO-05-910T 

we agree with AOC’s construction management contractor that this 

schedule represents an improvement over earlier schedules. However, we 

still have concerns about the extent to which the schedule links related 

activities, which the construction management contractor has agreed to 

address, and about whether AOC’s September 15, 2006, target date for 

opening the facility to the public is realistic. For the following reasons, we 

continue to believe that the project is more likely to be substantially 

completed in the December 2006 to March 2007 time frame than by 

September 2006: 

• Because of unforeseen site conditions and other problems, AOC’s 

construction contractors have had difficulty meeting a number of 

milestones. The project still faces risks and uncertainties that could 

adversely affect its schedule. As we noted in our June 14 testimony, the 

number of critical and near-critical paths the construction management 

contractor has identified complicates schedule management and increases 

the risk of problems that could lead AOC to miss the scheduled 

completion date. Like the project’s May 2005 schedule, the June schedule 

shows seven paths that are critical or near critical. Among the critical 

paths are East Front stonework and some interior stonework, which 

slipped by 24 days and 3 days in June, respectively. In addition, some other 

interior stonework that is not generally on a critical path, such as the 

installation of wall stone in the Great Hall, has slipped by about 4 months 

since April because of stone shortages according to AOC. Continued 

slippages in interior stonework could make it difficult for the sequence 2 

contractor to meet the September 15, 2006, completion date. Although the 

CVC project team believes that it can recover this time, its ability to do so 

is not yet clear, given the stone supply problem facing the project. 

Furthermore, although work on the utility tunnel progressed during June, 

the tunnel work continues to face risks and uncertainties that could delay 

the project, and the May and June schedules show that the start and finish 

dates for a number of activities have continued to slip. Although it is 

possible for AOC to recover this time, continued slippage could push so 

many activities to later dates that the contractors may not be able to 

complete all the work in the remaining available time. 

• In our opinion, AOC lacks reasonable assurance that its contractors have 

accurately estimated the time necessary to complete work for a number of 

activities in the schedule. Although the construction management 

contractor’s recent review of how much time is needed to complete 

schedule activities was helpful, we are still concerned about the 

reasonableness of the time allowed for a number of the activities. For 

example, one of the activities reviewed in June whose scheduled duration 

was found to be generally reasonable was final occupancy inspections. 
Page 8 GAO-05-910T 

Although AOC’s Fire Marshal Division is to do critical work associated 

with this activity, the duration review that took place since the June 14 

hearing occurred without any input from that division, which is to conduct 

fire safety and occupancy inspections for the project and approve its 

opening to the public. The Chief Fire Marshal told us that although 

coordination has improved between his office and the CVC project team, 

he has not always had an opportunity to review project documentation 

early in the process and has not yet received the project schedule. As a 

result, he was uncertain whether the schedule provided enough time for 

his office to do its work. For example, as of July 8, he had not yet received 

documentation for the fire protection systems, which his office needs to 

examine before it can observe tests of these systems as the CVC team has 

already requested. The Fire Marshal Division will also be involved in fire 

alarm testing; the construction management contractor plans to assess the 

duration of this activity later after more detail is added to the schedule. In 

addition, at the time the construction management contractor performed 

its duration reassessment of East Front stonework, the project was 

experiencing difficulty getting stone deliveries on time. It is unclear to us 

how the duration of the stonework could have been determined to be 

reasonable given this problem and the lack of a clear resolution at the 

time. 

• The May 2005 schedule includes a number of base project activities that 

could be completed after September 15, 2006, even though their 

completion would seem to be important for CVC to be open to the public. 

Such activities include installing security systems, kitchen equipment, and 

theater seating. According to the schedule, the late finish dates for these 

activities are after September 15. The late finish date is the latest date that 

an activity can be completed without delaying the scheduled completion 

date for the entire project. According to the construction management 

contractor, a number of activities in the schedule that are important to 

CVC’s opening were not linked to the September 15 opening date in the 

schedule. The contractor agreed to address this issue. 

• Last week, we began to update our risk assessment of the project’s 

schedule and plan to have this update completed in September. AOC has 

also engaged a consultant to perform a risk assessment of the project’s 

schedule and expects the assessment to be done by mid-September. We 

believe that better information on the likelihood of AOC’s meeting its 

September 15, 2006, opening date will be available after our update and 

AOC’s schedule risk assessment are done. 

• Aggressively monitoring and managing contractors’ adherence to 

the schedule, including documenting and addressing the causes of 
Page 9 GAO-05-910T 

delays, and reporting accurately to Congress on the status of the 

project’s schedule. We noted in our May 17 testimony that neither AOC 

nor its construction management contractor had previously (1) adhered to 

contract provisions calling for monthly progress review meetings and 

schedule updates and revisions, (2) systematically tracked and 

documented delays and their causes as they occurred or apportioned their 

time and costs to the appropriate parties on an ongoing basis, and (3) 

always accurately reported on the status of the project’s schedule. On June 

7 and July 8, AOC, its construction management contractor, the sequence 2 

contractor, and AOC’s schedule consultant conducted the first and second 

monthly reviews of the schedule’s status using a newly developed 

approach that we discussed during the Subcommittee’s June 14 hearing. 

Additionally, on June 28, we met with AOC and its construction 

management contractor to discuss how delays are to be analyzed and 

documented in conjunction with the new approach to schedule 

management. During that meeting, AOC’s construction management 

contractor agreed to have its field supervisors document delays and their 

causes on an ongoing basis and its project control engineer summarize this 

information for discussion at the monthly schedule reviews. After 

assessing the new approach and observing the first two review sessions, 

we believe that, if effectively implemented and sustained, this approach 

should generally resolve the schedule management concerns we 

previously raised, including how delays will regularly be handled and how 

better information on the status of the project will be provided to 

Congress. As we indicated on June 14, we are encouraged by the 

construction management contractor’s addition of a full-time project 

control engineer to the project and have seen noteworthy improvements in 

schedule management since his arrival. Nevertheless, we plan to closely 

monitor the implementation of this new approach, including the resources 

devoted to it, the handling of delays, and the accuracy of the information 

provided to Congress. 

• Developing and implementing risk mitigation plans. While 

monitoring the CVC project, we have identified a number of risks and 

uncertainties that could have significant adverse effects on the project’s 

schedule and costs. Some of these risks, such as underground 

obstructions and unforeseen conditions, have already materialized and 

have had the anticipated adverse effects. We believe the project continues 

to face risks and uncertainties, such as unforeseen conditions associated 

with the project’s remaining tunnels, the East Front, and other work; 

scope gaps or other problems associated with the segmentation of the 

project between two major contractors; and shortages in the supply of 

stone and skilled stone workers. As discussed during the Subcommittee’s 

June 14 hearing, AOC has not yet implemented our recommendations that 
Page 10 GAO-05-910T 

it develop risk mitigation plans for these types of risks and uncertainties, 

but it has agreed to do so by mid-September. On July 1, AOC added 

assistance in risk mitigation to the scope of its contract with its schedule 

consultant. 

• Preparing a master schedule that integrates the major steps 

needed to complete CVC construction and the steps necessary to 

prepare for operations. A number of activities, such as obtaining 

operators’ input into the final layouts of retail and food service areas, 

hiring and training staff, procuring supplies and services, and developing 

policies and procedures, need to be planned and carried out on time for 

CVC to open to the public when construction is complete. Although AOC 

has started to plan and prepare for CVC operations, as we indicated in our 

May 17 and June 14 testimonies, it has not yet developed a schedule that 

integrates the construction activities with the activities that are necessary 

to prepare for operations. The Subcommittee requested such a schedule 

during its April 13, 2005, hearing on AOC’s fiscal year 2006 budget request. 

Because it lacked funds, AOC had not been able to extend the work of a 

contractor that had been helping it plan and prepare for operations. 

During the week of June 6, AOC received authority to spend the funds 

needed to re-engage this contractor, and on June 30, AOC awarded a 

contract for the continued planning and preparation for CVC operations. 

Now that AOC has re-engaged its operations planning contractor, we 

believe that close coordination between AOC staff working with this 

contractor and the CVC project’s construction team will be especially 

important for at least two reasons. First, the operations planning 

contractor’s scope of work includes both the design of certain space 

within the CVC project and the wayfinding signs that are to be used within 

the project, and the timing and content of this work needs to be 

coordinated with CVC construction work. Second, about $7.8 million3

 is 

available for either CVC construction or operations, and it will be 

important for AOC to balance the need for both types of funding to ensure 

optimal use of the funds. Moreover, it is not clear to us who in AOC will be 

specifically responsible for integrating the construction and operations 

schedules and for overseeing the use of the funds that are available for 

either construction or operations. 

 3

See footnote 6. 
Page 11 GAO-05-910T 

As we said during the Subcommittee’s May 17 and June 14 hearings, we 

estimate that the cost to complete the construction of the CVC project, 

including proposed revisions to its scope, will range from about $522 

million without provision for risks and uncertainties to about $559 million 

with provision for risks and uncertainties. As of July 11, 2005, about $483.7 

million had been provided for CVC construction.4 In its fiscal year 2006 

budget request, AOC asked Congress for an additional $36.9 million for 

CVC construction. AOC believes this amount will be sufficient to complete 

construction and, if approved, will bring the total funding provided for the 

project’s construction to $520.6 million. Adding $1.7 million to this amount 

for additional work related to the air filtration system that we believe will 

likely be necessary brings the total funding needed to slightly more than 

the previously cited $522 million. AOC believes that it could obtain this 

$1.7 million, if needed, from the Department of Defense, which provided 

the other funding for the air filtration system. AOC’s $36.9 million budget 

request includes $4.2 million for potential additions to the project’s scope 

(e.g., congressional seals, an orientation film, and storage space for 

backpacks) that Congress will have to consider when deciding on AOC’s 

fiscal year 2006 CVC budget request. 

AOC has not asked Congress for an additional $37 million (the difference 

between $559 million and $522 million) that we believe will likely be 

needed to address the risks and uncertainties that continue to face the 

project. These include, but are not limited to, shortages in the supply of 

stone, unforeseen conditions, scope gaps, further delays, possible 

additional requirements or time needed because of life safety or security 

changes or commissioning, unknown operator requirements, and 

contractor coordination issues. These types of problems have been 

occurring, and as of June 30, 2005, AOC had received proposed sequence 2 

change orders whose costs AOC now estimates exceed the funding 

available in fiscal year 2005 for sequence 2 changes by about $1.3 million. 

AOC’s estimate of these change order costs has grown by about $900,000 

 4

This amount does not include $700,000 made available by the Capitol Preservation 

Commission from the Capitol Preservation Fund for the design of the Library of Congress 

tunnel. 

Project Costs and 

Funding 
Page 12 GAO-05-910T 

during the past 4 weeks.5 AOC plans to cover part of this potential shortfall 

by requesting approval from the House and Senate Committees on 

Appropriations to reprogram funds that AOC does not believe will be 

needed for other project elements. At this time, AOC does not believe that 

it will need additional funds in fiscal year 2005, assuming it receives 

reprogramming authority for sequence 2 changes, unless it reaches 

agreement with the sequence 2 contractor on the costs associated with 10 

months’ worth of delays that have already occurred. If AOC needs funds 

for this purpose or for other reasons, it can request approval from the 

Appropriations Committees to use part of the $10.6 million that Congress 

approved for transfer to the CVC project from funds appropriated for 

Capitol Buildings operations and maintenance.6

For several reasons, we believe that AOC may need additional funds for 

CVC construction in the next several months. These reasons include the 

pace at which AOC is receiving change order proposals for sequence 2 

work, the problems AOC has encountered and is likely to encounter in 

finishing the project, the uncertainties associated with how much AOC 

may have to pay for sequence 2 delays, and uncertainty as to when AOC 

will have fiscal year 2006 funds available to it. For example, AOC is likely 

to incur additional costs for dehumidification or for additional workers to 

mitigate the expected delay in the utility tunnel. AOC may also incur more 

costs than it expects for certain activities, such as those necessary to 

support security during the remainder of the project’s construction. AOC 

may be able to meet these needs as well as the other already identified 

needs by obtaining approval to use some of the previously discussed $10.6 

 5

In our May 17 testimony, we reported that AOC had about $700,000 remaining in its fiscal 

year 2005 funding for sequence 2 changes after deducting the estimated costs for proposed 

changes it had received. As of June 1, the estimated costs for sequence 2 changes exceeded 

the amount available for such changes by about $400,000. Since then, another $900,000 in 

estimated costs for potential change orders has been identified. About two-thirds of the 

$900,000 increase in estimated costs for sequence 2 changes during June was for additional 

fire safety work. 

6

Public Law 108-447, enacted in December 2004, provided that up to $10.6 million could be 

so transferred upon the approval of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 

for the use of the CVC project. In March 2005, AOC requested that about $4 million of these 

funds be transferred to CVC, including some funds for such work as the design of the gift 

shop space and consultant services to transition the project from construction to 

operations. As of June 10, AOC had received approval to use about $2.8 million of this $10.6 

million, leaving a balance of about $7.8 million that can be used in the future. None of the 

$10.6 million is included in the previously cited $483.7 million. 
Page 13 GAO-05-910T 

million and by additional reprogramming of funds.7 However, these funds 

may not be sufficient to address the risks and uncertainties that may 

materialize from later this fiscal year through fiscal year 2007. Thus, while 

AOC may not need all of the $37 million we have suggested be allowed for 

risks and uncertainties, we believe that, to complete the construction of 

CVC’s currently approved scope, AOC is likely to need more funds in fiscal 

years 2006 and 2007 than it has already received and has requested. 

Although the exact amount and timing of AOC’s needs are not clear, we 

believe that between $5 million and $15 million of this $37 million may be 

required in fiscal year 2006. Effective implementation of our 

recommendations, including risk mitigation, could reduce AOC’s funding 

needs. 

Since the Subcommittee’s June 14 hearing, three issues related to the 

project’s costs have emerged that we believe should be brought to your 

attention. Discussion of these issues follows. 

• First, coordination within the CVC project team and between the team and 

AOC’s Fire Marshal Division has been an issue, especially with respect to 

the project’s fire protection systems. Although the CVC project team 

established biweekly meetings with Fire Marshal Division staff in March 

2005 to enhance coordination, gaps in coordination have, as discussed, 

already led to uncertainty about whether enough time has been scheduled 

for fire alarm testing and for building occupancy inspections. Such gaps 

have also increased the costs associated with the fire protection system. 

For example, AOC recently took contractual action costing over $90,000 to 

redesign the mechanical system for the Jefferson Building connection to 

the Library of Congress tunnel to meet the Fire Marshal Division’s fire 

safety requirements. According to the Chief Fire Marshal, he was not given 

the opportunity to participate in the planning process before the design of 

the Jefferson Building connection was substantially completed. In 

addition, several fire-safety-related contract modifications and proposed 

change orders for additional work now total over $3.5 million. With better 

coordination between the CVC project team and the Fire Marshal Division, 

the need for some of this work might have been avoided or identified 

sooner, and had this work been identified during the original competition, 

the price would have been subject to competitive pressures that might 

 7

AOC has requested approval to reprogram about $1.6 million from sequence 1 

construction and the East Front Interface to fund anticipated additional costs for the 

House connector tunnel, the Jefferson Building connection to the Library of Congress 

tunnel, and certain security-related work. 
Page 14 GAO-05-910T 

have resulted in lower costs. Because of the fire protection system’s 

increasing costs, disagreements within the CVC team and between the 

team and the Fire Marshal Division over fire safety requirements, 

problems in scheduling fire safety activities, and other related issues, we 

suggested that AOC take appropriate steps to address the coordination of 

fire protection activities related to the CVC project. AOC agreed and has 

taken action. For example, starting this week, AOC’s Fire Marshal Division 

agreed to have a staff member work at the CVC site 2 days a week, and 

AOC CVC staff recently agreed to provide the necessary documentation to 

the Fire Marshal Division before its inspections or observations were 

needed. 

• Second, as we indicated earlier in our testimony, we are concerned about 

the integration of planning, scheduling, and budgeting for CVC 

construction and operations. While the CVC project team has been 

overseeing CVC construction, other AOC staff have been assisting the 

operations planning contractor in planning and budgeting for CVC 

operations. Close coordination between the two groups will be especially 

important in the next few months, when decisions will likely have to be 

made on how to use the $7.8 million remaining from the $10.6 million that 

Congress made available to the CVC project for either operations or 

construction. The Architect of the Capitol agreed to give this issue priority 

attention. 

• Finally, we are concerned that AOC may incur additional costs for interim 

measures, such as temporary walls that it may have to construct to open 

CVC to the public in September 2006. Such interim measures may be 

needed to make the project safe for visitors if some other construction 

work has not been completed. For example, AOC may have to do 

additional work to ensure adequate fire protection for CVC, since the 

House and Senate expansion spaces are not scheduled to be done until 

March 2007. In addition, AOC may have to accelerate some work to have it 

completed by September 15, 2006. While it is not necessarily unusual to 

use a facility for its intended purpose before all construction work is 

complete, we believe that it will be important for Congress to know what 

additional costs AOC expects to incur to open CVC by September 15, 2006, 

so that Congress can weigh the costs and benefits of opening the facility 

then rather than at a later date, such as March 2007, when AOC plans to 

complete the House and Senate expansion spaces. 

To ensure that (1) Congress has sufficient information for deciding when 

to open CVC to the public and (2) planning and budgeting for CVC Recommendations for 

Executive Action 
Page 15 GAO-05-910T 

construction and operations are appropriately integrated, we recommend 

that the Architect of the Capitol take the following two actions: 

• In consultation with other appropriate congressional organizations, 

provide Congress with an estimate of the additional costs that it expects 

will be incurred to open CVC to the public by September 15, 2006, rather 

than later, such as after the completion of the House and Senate expansion 

spaces. 

• Promptly designate who is responsible for integrating planning and 

budgeting for CVC construction and operations and give this activity 

priority attention. 

AOC agreed to take the actions we are recommending. According to AOC, 

information on the estimated costs of the additional work necessary to 

open CVC to the public in September 2006 may not be available until this 

fall. In addition, AOC said that the recent re-engagement of the contractor 

assisting AOC in planning for CVC operations and the hiring of an 

executive director for CVC, which AOC plans to do in the next few 

months, are critical steps for integrating CVC construction and operations. 

Mr. Chairman, this completes our prepared statement. We would be happy 

to answer any questions that you or other Subcommittee Members may 

have. 

For further information about this testimony, please contact Bernard 

Ungar at (202) 512-4232 or Terrell Dorn at (202) 512-6923. Other key 

contributors to this testimony include Shirley Abel, Maria Edelstein, 

Elizabeth Eisenstadt, Brett Fallavollita, Jeanette Franzel, Jackie Hamilton, 

Bradley James, Scott Riback, and Kris Trueblood. 

Agency Comments 

Contacts and 

Acknowledgments 
Page 16 GAO-05-910T 

Source: AOC’s April 2005 CVC sequence 2 construction schedule for the scheduled completion dates and AOC and its construction 

management contractor for the actual completion dates. 

Note: Actual completion information was obtained on July 12. 

a

These activities are critical. 

b

This activity was scheduled for completion by the Subcommittee’s May 17 hearing but was not done 

as of that date. 

Appendix I: Capitol Visitor Center Critical 

Construction Milestones, May 2005-July 2005 

Activity Location 

Scheduled 

completion

Actual 

completion

Wall Stone Area 1 Great Halla,b 5/11/05 6/06/05

Scheduled for completion between 

5/17/05 and 6/14/05 

Wall Stone Area 3 Base Support Great Halla 5/20/05 5/20/05

Wall Stone Layout Area 4 Great Hall 5/20/05 6/06/05

Saw Cut Road at 1st Street Utility Tunnela 5/24/05 6/27/05

Wall Stone Area 4 Base Support Great Halla 5/27/05 6/15/05

Wall Stone Layout Area 5 Great Hall 5/27/05 5/27/05

Masonry Wall Lower Level East Cong. Auditorium 6/03/05 5/25/05

Wall Stone Area 5 Base Support Great Halla 6/06/05 6/09/05

Wall Stone Layout Area 6 Great Hall 6/06/05 6/15/05

Drill/Set Soldier Piles at 1st Street Utility Tunnela 6/08/05

Wall Stone Area 6 Base Support Great Halla 6/13/05 6/17/05

Scheduled for completion between 

6/15/05 and 7/31/05 

Wall Stone Layout Area 8 Great Hall 6/20/05

Masonry Wall Orientation 

Theater 

6/24/05 6/28/05

Wall Stone Layout Area 9 Great Hall 6/24/05

Wall Stone Area 9 Base Support Great Halla 7/05/05

Wall Stone Installation Area 2 Great Hall 7/06/05

Wall Stone Installation Area 3 Great Hall 7/06/05

Wall Stone Installation Area 4 Great Hall 7/15/05

Wall Stone Area 9 Base Great Halla 7/15/05

Excavate/shore Station 0-1 Utility Tunnela 7/21/05

Concrete Working Slab 1st Street Utility Tunnela 7/26/05

Waterproof Working Slab Station 0-1 Utility Tunnela 7/29/05

(544112) 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER