pE N D I N G LEGISLAT ION and prop osed federal

1 9 BUILDING CONSTRUC TION PRO SPE CTU SES

GOVERNMENT

Storage H E A R I N G S

BE FO RE T H E

SI 'U'

W “ ¥ITTEE 0 N BUILDINGS and grounds

, OF TH E

B s IMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS

____ zr

= = = =

=

*ov = o

UNITED STATES SENATE

t NIN ETY-F OU RTH CONGRESS

KANSAS ST.

i-A

rA S 1

t R S 11

FIR ST SESSION

ON

S. 971

a BILL AUTHORIZIN G fu r t h er a ppro pria tio n s to t h e

SECRETARY OF TH E INTERIOR FOR SERVICES NECESSARY TO 

THE NONPERFORMING ARTS FUNCTIONS OF THE JOHN F. 

KENNEDY CENTER FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS, AND FOR 

OTHER PURPOSES

H.R. 12

AN ACT TO AMEND TIT LE 3, UNIT ED STATES CODE, TO PROVIDE FOR THE PROTECTION OF FOREIGN DIPLOMATIC MISSIONS, TO INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE EXECUTIVE PROTECTIVE SERVICE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSE S 

COMPLETION OF THE NEW U.S. TAX COURT BUILDING, 

WASHINGTON, D.C.

CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW GOVERNMENT PRIN TING 

OFF ICE BUILD ING 

AND

CONSTRUCTION OF THE RICHARD B. RUSSELL FEDERAL 

BUILDING, ATLANTA, GA.

JUNE 9 AND 11, 1975

SERIAL NO. 94-H19

«

Printed for the use of the Committee on Public Works

56-363 O

U.S. GO VE RN ME NT PR IN TI NG OFF IC E 

WA SH INGT ON : 1975
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS

JENNIN GS RA ND OL PH , West Virginia, Chairman

ED MU ND S. M US KIE, Maine 

JO SE PH M. MONTOYA, New Mexico 

MIKE GR AV EL , Alaska j

LL OY D M. BE NTSE N, Texas 

QU EN TI N N. BU RDIC K, North Da kot a 

JO HN C. CU LV ER , Iowa 

RO BER T MO RG AN , North Carolina 

GA RY H ART, Colorado

HOW ARD H. BA KE R, J k., Tennessee 

JAM ES L. BU CK LE Y, New York 

ROBER T T. ST AF FO RD , Vermont 

JAMES A. M cCLU RE, Idaho 

PETE V. DO ME NICI, N ew Mexico

M. Barry Mey er, Chief Counsel and Chief Clerk

Bailey Guard, Minority Staff Director

Leon G. B illings and Richard D. Grundy, Senior Professional Staff Members

Richard A. Hellman, Minority Counsel

John W. Yago, Jr., Assistant Chief Clerk; Philip T. Cummings, Assistant Chief Counsel

Harold H. Brayman, Senior Professional Staff Member (minority)

Professional and research staff: Karl R. Braithw aite, James W. Case (Assistant Counsel), Paul C himes, 

T renton Crow, Katherine Y. C ud upp, P aul F. Ebeltoft, Jr., George F . Fenton, Jr., Randolph

G. Flood, Kathaleen R. E. Forcum, Ann Garrabrant, Richard T. Gre er, Richard M. 

Harris (Assistant Counsel), Wesley F. Hayden, Richard E. Herod (Assistant Counsel, Minority),

Veronica A. Holland, R onald L. Katz, John D . Kwapisz, Michael McFarland, Larry D. Meyers, 

J udy F. Par ente, J ohn B. Purinton, Jr. , Margaret E. Shannon, Charlene A. Sturbitts, E. 

Stevens Swain, Jr. , and Sally W. Walker

Subc omm ittee on B uild ings and Grounds

RO BE RT MORGAN, North C arolina, Chairman

MIKE GR AV EL, Alaska JAM ES L. BU CK LE Y, N ew York

JO HN C. CU LV ER , Iowa JAM ES A. M cCLU RE , Idaho
I

C O N T E N T S

I

OPE NIN G STAT EM EN TS

„ Page

Buckley, Hon. James L., U.S. Senator from the Sta te of New York-------- 1 Burdick, Hon. Quentin N., U.S. Senator from the Sta te of No rth Da kota. 53 

LIST OF WITNESS ES

J ohn F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts

Curry, Dr. Rich ard C., Associate Director for Legislation, National Park Service, accompanied by Manus J. Fish, Director, National Capital Pa rk s_________________________________________________________ 2

Executive Protective Service

Featherstone, James J., Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Enforcem ent, accom panied by Paul S. Rundle, Deput y Assistant Director, Secret Service, and Earl L. Drescher, Chief, Executive Protec­ tion Service___________________________________________________ 15

Tax Court

Dawson, Hon. H. Jr., Chief Judge, U.S. Tax Court, Washington, D.C., accom panied by Loy Shipp, Assistant Commissioner for Space Manage­ me nt and Planning, General Services Adm inistration; Frank Matzke, Acting Assistant Commissioner for Construction Management; and Mr. Crewe, court executive___ ______ ________ __________________ 36

Government Printing Office

McCormick , Thomas F., Public Printer of the U nited States, accompanied by Tho mas L. Peyton, Acting Deputy Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, General Services Adm inistration; Charles H. Conrad, Executive Director, National Planning Commission; Jo hn Loxley, Project Manager for GPO Project, General Services Adm inistration; and Joseph Palank, Director of Engineering, Gov ernm ent Printing Office.......... ............. ....... 54 Peyton, Thomas L., Acting Deputy Commissioner, Public Buildings Serv­ ice, GSA_____________________________________________________ 56 Conrad, Charles H., Executiv e Director, National Cap ital Planning Commission___________________________________________________ 57

«

Richard Russell Building

Peyton, Thomas, Acting Deput y Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, GSA, accompanied by Loy Shipp, Assistant Commissioner for Space Manage ment and Planning, GSA, and Jam es Sorg, Acting Director, Program Managem ent Division, GSA________________ ____________ 71

AD DITIO NA L MA TERIA L 

John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts

Interior, Department o f: Letter to Senator Ran dol ph dated July 4, 1975, transmitting amen d­ ments to S. 971_______________ ____________________________ 9 Joh n F. Kennedy Center, estimate of operating needs thr ough 198 5.. 10 S. 971, reprint of_________________________________________________ 2

(in)
IV

E x ec u tiv e P r o t e c t iv e S er v ic e

Pag e

H.R . 12, rep rin t of_________________________________ _____ _______ 12

Statements:

Javits, Hon. Jacob K., U.S. Senator from the State of New York ___ 35 *

Kiernan, Edward J., president, Intern ational Conference of Police

Associations_______________________________________________ 35

Treasury, Department of, responses to questions from Senator Buckley. _ 20

T ax C o u r t *

General Services Administration:

Meisen, Walter A., statem ent of_______________________________ 42

Responses to questions from Senator Buckley____________________ 43

G o v e r n m en t P r in t in g Of f ic e

General Services Administration:

Responses to questions fro m:

Senator Morgan___________________ 63

Senator Buckley_________________________________________ 66

Report of building project sur vey ______________________________ 68

R ic hard R u ss e l l B u il d in g

Building Owners and Managers of Atlanta, Inc., May office space occupancy sur vey__________________________________________________ 101

General Services Administration:

Shipp, Loy M., sta tem ent o f___________________________________ 76

Responses to additional que stio ns_______________________________ 86

Prospectus __________ 78

M is c e l l a n e o u s P ro je c ts

FB I parking facility, West Los Angeles, Calif.:

General Services Administration responses to questions from Senator

Buckley________________________________ __________________ 110

Federal Office Building, East St. Louis, Ill.:

General Services responses to questions from Senator Buckley______ 113

*
PENDING LEGISLATION AND PROPOSED FEDERAL

BUILDING PROSPECTUSES

MONDAY, JU NE 9, 1975

U.S. S e n a t e,

C o m m it te e on P u blic W ork s, 

S ubcom m it te e on B u il d in g s an d G ro u n d s,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 10:05 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 4200, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. James L. Buckley presiding.

Present: Senator Buckley.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES L. BUCKLEY, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Senator B u c k l e y . Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We are here today to discuss two pieces of legislation and the building pro­ spectus currently pending before the subcommittee. The first is S. 971, which authorizes continued financing to the Interior Department for the maintenance and work performed at the John F. Kennedy Center. The history of the Center has been unfor­ tunate. Thousands of words have been written and spoken both of 

criticism and defense. During the years since its completion in 1971, a series of lawsuits and damage claims have been filed which are still unresolved and have been continuously. They are in debt and trying to get out. But no one knows for certain when or even if they can. By legislation the Center is now a national memorial, second only to the Capitol as a visitor attraction. It is visited by 3 million persons 

annually. It is hoped one day the auditors and accountants and directors can get all the difficulties straightened out so the Center can stand on its own. But it is not that which we are here to discuss primarily today. Instead we came to considers. 971 and a companion bill, H.R. 6151, which would authorize the Park Service to continue to perform its maintenance duties. Their present authorization runs out on June 30 

of this year. The time element is critical.

[The bill S. 971 follows:]

(1)
2

94th CONGRESS 

1st Session S. 971

IN TH E SENA TE OF TH E UN ITED STA TES 

March 5,1975

Mr. Baker introduced the following b ill ; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Public Works

A BILL

Authorizing further appropriations to the Secretary of the Interior 

for services necessary to the nonperforming arts functions of 

the John F. Kennedy Center for the Perform ing Arts, and 

for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Sen ate and House of Bepresenta2 tives of the United Sta tes o f Am erica in Congress assembled,

3 That the second sentence of subsection (e) of section 6 of

4 the John F. Kennedy Center Act (72 Stat. 1098), as

5 amended, is amended to read as follows: “There are hereby

6 authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be neces7 sary for carrying out this subsection.”.

I I

J ohn F. Kennedy Center

Senator Buck ley. Would the people from the I nterior De pa rtm en t 

please come forw ard and ide nti fy them selves?

STATEMENT OF DR. RICHARD C. CURRY, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR 

LEGISLATION, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, ACCOMPANIED BY 

MANUS J. FISH, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CAPITAL PARKS

Senator B uckley. Good mornin g.

Mr. Curr y. Good mornin g, Senator Buck ley. I am Richa rd Cu rry ,

Associate Direc tor for Leg islation , Na tional Pa rk Service. To m y r igh t
3

is Mr. Jack Fish, who is Director of National Capitol Parks, division of the Park Service, within whose jurisdiction the Kennedy Center 

rests.

* I have a very brief statement. With your permission, I would like to

read it for the record.

Senator Buckley. Certainly, please do. 

t Mr. Curry. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to testify on S. 971, a bill to authorize appropriations for services necessary to the nonperforming arts functions of the John F. 

Kennedy Center. Section 10 of the Public Building Amendments of 1972, approved June 16, 1972, added a new subsection (e) to section 6 of the John F. 

Kennedy Center Act, as amended. The new subsection directed the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the National Park Service, to provide maintenance, security, information, interpretation, janitorial, and all other services necessary to the nonperforming arts functions of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. It authorized such sums as may be necessary to carry out these functions, but only for the fiscal year ending June 30, 

1973. ‘ Section 6 was further amended on July 10, 1973, by Public Law 93-67 which authorized not to exceed $2.4 million for fiscal year 1974 and $2.5 million for fiscal year 1975. Further legislation, such as the Department of the Interior submitted to the Congress on February 13, 1975, is therefore necessary to authorize appropriations beyond June 

30, 1975. S. 971 would authorize such sums as necessary to carry out these nonperforming arts functions. However, the President’s 1976 budget request for this activity included an amount of $2,575,000. We would therefore recommend an appropriation authorization consistent with 

tha t request. In addition, we recognize that there may be salary increases, related employee benefits, and other mandatory items which may be au­ thorized after S. 971 is enacted. Accordingly, we recommend tha t the bill be amended to authorize appropriations for such additional amounts as necessary to provide for these items for the 1976 fiscal year and for the transition period ending September 30, 1976. Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to answer any questions you or the other members of the committee may have.

Senator Buckley. Thank you very much. Firs t of all, could you advise me what the present status is of the agreement drawn up in 1972, by the Center’s Board of Directors and

• the Interior Department?

Mr. Fish. That was amended, Mr. Chairman, in July 16, 1973. That has run out right now. Th at amended the agreement. The reason is tha t we were waiting for the filing of the GAO report, done

• at the request, I believe, of the Senate Public Works Committee.

Senator Buckley. The report is now filed?

Mr. Fish. Yes, sir; I think so, I think about a month ago.

Senator Buckley. Do you contemplate a new agreement to be 

drafted shortly?

Mr. Fish. Yes, sir; we do.

Senator Buckley. Do you have an agreement in existence before 

the pending bill is enacted into law?
4

Mr. Fish. No, sir. We would extend the existing agreement which 

we have done before.

Senator Buckley. Have any of the provisions in the agreement ,

proven to be invalid or unenforceable?

Mr. Fish. No, sir. We have looked a t it initially. There were some 

changes tha t we wanted to make. That is why we amended it in 

July of 1973. I think it basically is a very workable agreement right *

now.

Senator B uckley. I believe one portion of the agreement establishes 

the formula for distinguishing between nonperforming arts and performing arts responsibilities, so far as maintenance and protection 

are concerned. Could you tell me a little bit about these arrangements?

Mr. Fish. es, sir. That formula was devised by an accounting 

firm. I t was based on the number of hours tha t performing arts were 

occurring at the Center. It broke down as to 2 dark days per week, 

then 5 hours of a 15-hour day were allocated to performing arts. So, 

on the basis of those figures, it figures out about 23 percent allocated 

to the performing arts and the remainder, 76 percent, a little more, is 

allocated to the nonperforming arts function. That is the basis that 

we distribute the costs at the Center. The Park Service is responsible 

for the nonperforming arts costs.

Senator Buckley. Are separate records for payrolls kept for those 

tha t are engaged in cleaning up in the theater area as opposed to outside maintenance?

Mr. Fish. Yes. The custodial ra te is done under a contract that we 

have the records for. The distribution is made according to the 

formula.

Senator Buckley. In other words, the distribution of those custodial costs, cleaning and maintenance, is done not with respect to 

the area cleaned and maintained, but rather on the 5-day-a-week 

formula?

Mr. Fish. Yes, sir.

Senator Buckley. It seems sort of arbitrary. Are separate records 

kept for security employees, electricians, carpenters and others?

Mr. Fish. The security employees are the 100 percent responsibility 

of the National Park Service. All the costs are kept for the electricians 

and other trades there. Then it is distributed, however, it would be 

on the basis-of that formula. But the security is 100 percent the responsibility of the National Park Service.

Senator Buckley. Would you by chance know the number of 

Park Service employees now working at the Center?

Mr. Fish. Yes, sir; 82 Park Service employees. Twenty-five of 

those are security personnel. •

Senator Buckley. 1 assume a breakdown of maintenance, manpower hours worked and so on, would be available?

Mr. Fish. Yes, sir.

Senator Buckley. Is the formula you referred to, what the GAO 

was referring to when it suggested tha t if another method of allocating maintenance costs was used tha t between half a million and 

$750,000 would be saved?

Mr. Fish. I believe they made tha t comment in the report. As I 

recall in reading that report, they indicated they felt what we were 

doing now was the best method of distribution of costs.
If I may, on page, I believe it is “i” or something of the GAO 

report, it says “allocations are based on the estimated hours the center is used for nonperforming arts and performing arts. GAO believes this allocation is acceptable.” That is a summary of this report.

Senator Buckley. Does the Park Service itself have any views 

regarding the budget allocation? *

Mr. Fish. No, sir. It seems to be a fair distribution. If there were any differences in hours or something like that, I think tha t we would look at tha t in accordance with the agreement between us and the 

board of trustees at the Kennedy Center. Basically, I think tha t approach is a valid one as GAO has indicated.

Senator Buckley. As I understand, the philosophy of this thing is to segregate the sightseeing from the performing. Is tha t more or 

less it?

Mr. Fish. Yes, sir. It is a memorial to a former President. It is treated much like the Lincoln, Washington, and Jefferson Memorials. It is tha t memorial aspect tha t the Park Service is responsible for.

Senator Buckley. On the 2 days per week in which under the exist­ ing formula, the performing a rts part is not in effect, made responsible for the maintenance of the space, is the public admitted to the theaters 

on those 2 days?

Mr. Fish. Oh, yes; the public wouldn’t be admitted when there is a performance. Sometimes there are rehearsals and things like that.

Senator Buckley. Do the maintenance funds appropriated since 

the fiscal year 1973, also go for repairs?

Mr. Fish. No; they go for normal wear and tear repairs, but no major construction items. Th at is the responsibility of the Board of 

Trustees.

Senator Buckley. No capital-----

Mr. Fish. No capital investment, that is correct, Mr. Chaiiman.

Senator Buckley. Have the Park Service maintenance expenses ever exceeded the appropriated funds during any fiscal year to date?

Mr. Fish. No, sir.

Senator Buckley. If we could move on to the underground parking garage, what is the situation with respect to its maintenance?

Mr. Fish. That is u nder a concessions contract with the Kennedy Center Board of Trustees. So, we are n ot really basically involved in 

that.

Senator B uckley. What about the lighting?

Mr. Fish. The lighting?

Senator B uckley. Yes, in the garage.

Mr. Fish. The amount of light at the Center?

Senator B uckley. Who pays for the lighting?

Mr. Fish. That is distributed, too, in accordance with the formula.

Senator Buckley. Is there any reason why the garage and the 

resta uran ts ought not to be independently metered?

Mr. Fish. There was a question about the independent metering. I think tha t if th at were necessary, tha t frankly could be done without 

spending, I think it is a bout $100,000 or more to place those meters 

in there. I believe the amount of energy could be estimated very closely without the need for the meters. There is the contract between the Board of Trustees and the concessionaire that stipulates tha t metering would be necessary. However I would think, and in discus-
6

sions with the Board of Trustees they have agreed tha t they could do 

tha t on an estimated basis.

Senator Buckley. Will tha t subject be covered in the forthcoming 

renewal of the contract so th at the Federal Government is not paying *

for any portion of that electricity?

Mr. Fish. Yes, sir; we will cover tha t in our discussions.

Senator Buckley. Does the Park Service see a necessity as GAO 

has recommended for auditing the Center’s records periodically to *

achieve a more accurate record of allocations based on cost experience? Mr. Fish. We commented on tha t aspect of the record. We didn’t 

really have the authority to do that. However, the books are open to 

us at any time that wre would want to do that. Our situation is th at it 

is not authorized and therefore, we wouldn’t formally take the manpower to do that.

Senator Buckley. Wouldn’t you recommend that you be au­ thorized to do it?

Mr. Fish. Well, I am not really too sure of that.

Senator Buckley. Do you think that the audit is not necessary?

Mr. Fish. I think in any business venture that an audit is necessary.

I think tha t the books are audited.

Senator Buckley. We are talking about the Park Service auditing 

them for the purpose of determining whether or not the allocation cost 

is accurate.

Mr. Fish. Oh, yes, sir; for the distribution of the cost, yes, sir.

Senator Buckley. ou would like to have the authority to audit 

the books; if you had the authority, would you?

Mr. Fish. Yes, sir.

Senator Buckley. What would be the advantages if the Park 

Service did not have to come before the subcommittee for authorization? Is there any long-range program contemplated tha t would 

eventually include this?

Mr. Curry. I can address that in a general way. This is the only 

operating area within the National Park Service where we have to 

come up for an annual authorization. What we would suggest is tha t 

the Kennedy Center be treated just like any other unit of the park 

system. I hat is obviously what we would ultimately prefer. We 

would justify our position before our appropriate budget committees 

each year through a line item for the Kennedy Center.

Phis is a part of our general, overall system of operating costs.

Senator Buckley. When do you think the time might arrive for the transfer of th at system?

Mr. Curry. WThen the Congress is ready.

Senator Buckley. As far as the Park Service is concerned, you are 

ready to go forth? " ’

Mr. Curry. It really facilitates planning for the system. It is very 

difficult to operate a single unit on an annual basis projecting some of 

these costs. A good example is this year at the Kennedy Center where 

we anticipated our costs, but we were unable to anticipate what 

would happen to us on uti ities.

W’e had almost a 50-percent increase on utilities. While we were 

still exercising good conservation, reducing our electrical output 

by some 40 percent, we nevertheless, had an increase in costs.

Mr. Fish can supply the precise details of those figures. But they 

are very impressive. It really hurts us. If it were put in as part of the
7

system we have greater flexibility to put resources in where they are needed rather than adjusting a specific line authorization.

Senator Buckley. Do you feel that you now have enough experi- * ence with the particular situation at the Kennedy Center to be able to move it from its assessment period into the permanent status?

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir.

Senator Buckley. One item you referred to in your statement was 

1

 the request for an open ended authorization. I was wondering why this request was made since II. R. 6151 and S. 971 for these unspecified amounts to salaries for employees. What do you anticipate, was this

an afterthought or what?

Mr. Curry. Yes, sir. Our original request th at was cleared through the administration was for an open ended authorization tha t would permit us to make this as the rest of the system. There was then a decision to come back and request for specific line items tha t was more in conformance with the present immediate budget needs. T hat is why we adjusted that. But in our adjustment we overlooked this flexibility tha t we subsequently asked for.

Senator Buckley. Do you have any idea what figures you are 

speaking of?

Mr. Fish. Yes, sir. That could run anywhere from $60,000 to maybe $100,000. Already there is one wage increase that would amount to about $30,000 which would begin in October of 1975. Then if there is a police increase, tha t could be another $30,000. So it could run from 

$60,000 to $100,000.

Mr. Curry. Our needs obviously for the area are quite substantial. But to be in conformance with the President’s request, this is just an effort on our part as an agency. T hat is what this figure represents.

Senator Buckley. I understand the GAO report has the following: “It is doubtful tha t sufficient revenue can be generated to enable the Center to pay the bond interest in 1978 out of distribution and sources of funds.” Do you happen to know what the Center is doing to rectify 

this situation?

Mr. Fish. Tha t is a Board of Trustees matter. Other than a member of the Park Service sitting on the board, I guess we are really not too deeply involved in that. That again, is not a Park Service cost.

Senator Buckley. Here is one tha t I suppose is a Center concern, except it must inevitably have an impact on the Park Service. I t says, “The Center is now about $150,000 behind in its payments for utilities and janitorial service.” Obviously, this can’t go on indefinitely. If you are picking up the balance of the janitorial and utilities services, I assume you are concerned over what the Center is doing. Would you advise me how they intend to catch up with this?

Mr. Fish. Yes. That does happen periodically. We notify the Center. Usually they come forth with a payment.

Senator Buckley. Do you happen to know what the impact has been on the Center’s profits and costs from this takeover of the 

National Theater?

Mr. Fish. No, sir. I really don’t know. Again, tha t is a Board of 

Trustees matter.

Senator Buckley. You are on the board of trustees?

Mr. Fish. I sit as an alternate occasionally. I personally have not seen any financial report on the National Theater. Tha t was just a few months ago, I think, that that was taken over.
8

Mr. Chairman, if I may correct that, it was not a take over, I used 

the wrong word. The Board of Trustees at the Kennedy Center provides certain managerial services to the National Thea ter and are 

reimbursed for those services.

Senator Buckley. I believe there have been some complaints about 

leaks in the roadways and the terraces. These fall within the Interior 

Department to repair. Have they been cared for?

Mr. Fish. No, sir, they have not been cared for. This matter is 

rather involved right now. There are claims that the contractor has 

made against the Board of Trustees under the original construction 

contract.

There are counterclaims tha t the Justice Department put in tha t 

amount to about $2 million. Included in those counterclaims are some 

of those leaks. The repair of those leaks would be very expensive as the 

two major ones are around the roof terraces. These are not Park 

Service costs as we see it.

Senator Buckley. In a recent letter from the Interior Department 

it mentions a pending payment. Have you any estimate?

Mr. Fish. It was about $60,000.

Senator Buckley. Right. I think it would be useful to provide the 

committee the breakdown of the number of personnel assigned on each 

operation where costs shared together, with the annual costs of each 

group.

Mr. Fish. Yes, sir.

Senator Buckley. In connection with shared costs, my understanding is tha t the Interior Department pays 100 percent of all 

security costs; is tha t correct?

Mr. Fish. That is correct, yes, sir.

Senator Buckley. What is the rationale behind tha t decision?

Mr. Fish. I assume it is the fact that the building itself is the memorial and tha t the security of that building would be the responsibility 

of the National Park Service because it is a memorial to a former 

President.

Senator Buckley. I s there sort of an inner layer security that affects 

the theaters in contrast to the building itself?

Mr. Fish. No, sir; other than what you might consider security given 

by the ushers, if I understand you properly. You mean, are there additional people?

Senator Buckley. Are there people outside the theater doors at 

night?

Mr. Fish. We have people within the building, U.S. Park Police.

Senator Buckley. But the thea ter operation doesn’t pay any part 

of that?

Mr. Fish. No, sir.

Senator Buckley. I think tha t covers most of the matters I have 

before me. I w ant to thank you for your presence.

A letter addressed to Senator Randolph and dated June 4, 1975, 

from the Assistant Secretary of the Interior together with the annual 

cost estimates of the John F. Kennedy Center through fiscal year 1985 

will be made a part of the record at this point.

[The letter and attach ment follow:]
9

U.S. Department of the Interior,

Office of the Secretary,

Washington, D.C., Jun e 4, 1975.

Hon. J ennings Randolph,

Chairman, Committee on Public Works,

U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. Chairman: On April 21, 1975 this Department transm itted to you its views on S. 971, a bill “Authorizing fur the r appropriations to the Secretary of the Inte rior for services necessary to the nonperforming arts functions of the John F. Kennedy Cen ter for the Performing Arts, and for other purposes.” In our letter of th at date we recommended th at S. 971 be enac ted without amendment. While we con tinue to recommend th at S. 971 be enacted, we would prefer th at a specific dollar amount be sub stituted for the phra se “such sums as may be necessary” in the authorization. In addition, we have been advised by the Office of Mana gement and Bud get th at provision should be made in this bill for wage increases and other ma ndato ry items which may be authorized after its enact­ ment. Accordingly, we recom mend th at S. 971 be amended by deleting all after the word “follows” in line 5 and inserting in lieu thereof the following language: “There is authorized to be app ropriated no t to exceed $2,575,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1976, and not to exceed $741,000 for the tran sition period ending September 30, 1976; Provided, th at for the fiscal year ending Jun e 30, 1976, and for the transition period ending Septemb er 30, 1976, there are au thor­ ized to be app ropriat ed such ad ditional a mounts as may be necessary for increases in salary, pay, retirement, and employee benefits authorized by law and other manda tory items which arise subs equent to the date of enactm ent of this Act.” This ame ndment would make S. 971 consistent with the President’s FY 1976 budget requ est for the nonperforming arts functions of the Kennedy Center. The Office of Manageme nt and Budget has advised th at there is no objection to the presentation of this supp leme ntal rep ort from the standpoin t of the Administr ation’s program.

Sincerely yours, Nathaniel R eed, 

Assistant Secretary of the Interior.
NATI ONAL PAR K SERVICE

JOHN F. KEN NEDY CENTER FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS— ESTIM ATED OPE RATING NE EDS*

Fiscal year 

1976

Tra ns ition 

pe rio d Ju ly 1 Fiscal ye ar—

to Sept. 30,

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985

Maintenance and ope ra tio n:

E le ctric ity............

Ja nito ria l c o n tra c t.. . 

A ir-c onditio nin g co ntract. 

Elevator and escalator

$9 00,000 

28 0,000 

17,000

$2 25,000 

70 ,000 

6,00 0

$980, 000 

308, 000

20, 000

$1 ,0 68 ,000 

338,000 

22 ,000

$1,12 1, 00 0 

35 5,000 

23 ,000

$1,177, 000 

373,00 0

24 ,000

$1, 2 36,00 0 

381,000

25 ,000

$1 ,2 98 ,000 

40 0,00 0 

26 ,000

$1, 363, 000 

420, 000

27, 000

$1 ,4 31 ,000

441,00 0

28 ,000

$1, 503, 000 

46 3,00 0 

30, 000 contract_____

Maintenance , op eration 58 ,000 15,00 0 65 ,000 72 ,000 76, 000 80 ,000 84, 000 88 ,000 92, 000 97 ,000 10 2,000 and re p air ___

In te rp re ta tion_____

Pro te ct io n__________

946, 000 

179,0 00 

420, 000

245, 000

60, 000

120 ,00 0

1, 065, 000 

200, 000 

462, 000

1,170 ,0 00 

220, 000 

510, 000

1, 35 9,000 

231, 000 

535,000

1,44 1, 000 

243, 000 

562,00 0

1, 529, 000 

255, 000 

590,000

1, 600, 000 

268, 000 

62 0,000

1, 666, 000 

28 1,000 

65 1,000

1, 749, 000 

295, 000 

684,00 0

1, 87 4,000 

310, 000 

71 8,000 T o ta l______ . . 2, 800,00 0 74 1,000 3,10 0, 000 3, 400, 000 3, 700, 000 3, 900, 000 4,10 0, 000 4, 300, 000 4, 500,00 0 4, 72 5,000 5, 000, 000

‘.P ro je ct ed nee ds are base d on incre ased cost of ab ou t 10 pe rcen t pe r ye ar fo r the 1st 3 yr pe rcen t pe r ye ar fo r re m ain ing 7 yr ju s t to ke ep pres en t leve l of op er at ion. In add ition $100 01 been includ ed in fiscal ye ar 1979 to cover a prog ram of nee ded re plac em en ts each ye ar of meet and 5 1,000 has I me chanical eq uip ment and fu rn ishings re sulting from no rm al wea r and tear. Th e buildin g w ill be ab ou t 7 yr old at th at tim e. No inc rease in staffin g is proposed.
11

Senator Buckley. The next matter is H.R . 12, the bill that would amend title 3, United States Code authorizing an increase in the

« Executive Protective Service personnel. Those who are testifying in favor, please come up and identify yourselves for the record. Before you identify yourselves, I might say I would like to make a statement of my own. As I have introduced S. 1798, the companion

* bill to H.R. 12, which I believe represents a matter of fairness and justice, I would like to jus t summarize some of the facts. A decade ago, American cities would gladly assume the financial responsibility of providing police protection to diplomats. I think the record in New York City has been excellent. But then the social ferment of the 1960’s made mass demonstrations common and brought to our national scene the threat of violence. The situation has changed. I think it is a sad comnientary tha t an entire generation of young Americans reaching maturity without remembering the time w’hen political passions could be expressed without the need for armed and vigilant police. It is n ot only law enforcement officers tha t bear the bru nt of political protests. The taxpayers of those large cities which contain numerous diplomatic missions must pay for the very expensive protection of diplomatic property and personnel. This is a serious inequity. The safety of foreign visitors is a national obligation and no t 

a local one. H.R. 12 recognizes that fact and acts upon it. To give the benefit of the record, the size of this impact on the city of New 1 ork alone was estimated in 1974 to be $3 million, as the cost of providing police protection to the diplomats tha t have been attracted to the U.N.; $700,000 of extra cost was provided for the security at the time the head of the Palestine Liberation Organization visited the U.N. As the members of this committee know, I am usually reluc tant to approve new Federal expenditures, especially during a period of economic recession. B ut I believe the Congress does have the obliga­ tion to act with fairness. We must help pay the costs tha t are imposed on cities by the Federal Government. If this committee agrees that the United States has a need to impose on New York, Los Angeles, Houston, New Orleans, Chicago, Boston, and San Francisco, then H .R. 12 offers the opportu nity to do equity by helping to compensate these cities or extending to them the services of 

the Federal Government. [The Act, H.R. 12, follows:]
12

94th CONGRESS 

1st S E 8 8 I0 N H. R. 12

IN TH E SEN ATE OF TH E UN ITED STATES 

May 20,1 975

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Public Works

AN ACT

To amend title 3, United States Code, to provide for the protection of foreign diplomatic missions, to increase the size of 

the Executive Protective Service, and for other purposes.

1

 Be it enacted by the Sen ate and House of Bepresenta2

 tives of the Uni ted Sta tes o f Am erica in Congress assembled,

3 Tha t (a) the second sentence of section 202 of title 3,

4 .United States Code, is amended by striking out “and (7 )”

5 and inserting in lieu thereof the following: “ (7) foreign dip6 lomatic missions located in metropolitan areas (other than

7 the District of Columbia) in the United States, and in its ter8 ritories and possessions, where there are located twenty or 

0 more such missions headed by full-time career officers, except

10 tha t such protection shall be provided only on the basis of 

II
13

2

1 extraordinary protective needs required and then only upon

2 request of the affected metropolitan areas and (8) ”.

3 (b) Section 20 2(8) of title 3, United States Code,

4 as renumbered by subsection (a) of this section, is amended

5 by striking out “ other”.

6 (c) Subsection (a) of section 203 of title 3, United

7 States Code, is amended by striking out “eight hundred

8 and fifty” and inserting in lieu, thereof “twelve hundred” .

9 (d) (1) Section 208 of title 3, United States Code, is

10 amended by redesignating section 208 as section 209, and

11 by inserting the following new section 208:

12 “§ 208. Reim bursement of State and local governments

13 “In carrying out its functions pursuant to section 202

14 (7) and (8 ), the Secretary of the Treasury may utilize,

15 with their consent, on a reimbursable basis, the services,

16 personnel, equipment, and facilities of State and local gov17 ernments, and is authorized to transfer funds made available

18 pursuant to this chapter to such State and local governments

19 as reimbursement in full for the utilization of such services,

20 personnel, equipment, and facilities.”.

21 (2) The table of sections for chapter 3 of title 3 of the

22 United States Code is amended by striking out 

“208. Appropriation to carry out provisions.”

23 and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

“208. Reimbursement of State and local governments^

“209. Appropriation to carry out provisions.”.

55-353 0 - 75 - 2
14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

8

(e) The amendments made by subseCtiohs (a ), (b ), 

and (d) of this section shall take effect as of July 1, 1974.

Sec» 2t (a) Section 6315 of title 5, United States 

Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following 

new paragraph:

*(10<) Director, United States Secret Service,

Treasury Dep artm ent.”

(b) Section 5316 of title 5, United States Code, is 

amended by adding at the end thereof the following new 

paragr aph :

“ (139) Deputy Director, United States Secret

Service, Treasury Departm ent.”

Sec. 3. Section 5108 (c) of title 5, United States Code, 

is amended—

(1) by striking out “and ” at the end of paragraph

(1 3);

(2) by striking out the period at the end of paragraph (14) and inserting in lieu thereof and” ; and

(3) by adding a t the end thereof the following new 

paragr aph :

19

20
15

*

t

4

1 “ (15) the Secretary of the Treasury, subject to the

2 standards and procedures prescribed by this chapter,

3 may place an additional ten positions in the United

4 States Secret Service in GS-16, GS-17, and GS-18.”

Passed the House of Representatives May 19, 1975.

Attest: W. PAT JENN INGS ,

Clerk.

*

E xecu tive P rotective S ervice

Senator Buckley. Gentlemen, if you will proceed.

STATEMENT OF JAMES J. FEATHERSTONE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY, ENFORCEMENT, ACCOMPANIED BY

PAUL S. RUNDLE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, SECRET SERVICE, AND EARL L. DRESCHER, CHIE F, EXECUTIVE PROTECTION

SERVICE

Mr. Featherstone. My name is James Featherstone. I am D eputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Enforcement. Representing the Treasury Dep artm ent with me are Paul Rundle, the Deputy Assistant Director of the Secret Service and Earl Drescher, Chief of 

the Executive Protective Service. I have a statement, Senator. May I read it?

Senator Buckley. Yes, please.

Mr. Featherstone. I am pleased to appear before this subcom­ mittee to discuss the further review by the Treasury Department of the need to raise the statuto ry ceiling on the number of uniformed officers in the Executive Protective Service from 850 to 1,200. My testimony today is directed specifically to certain proposals which are 

presently embodied in H.R. 12. As you are aware, on March 17, the Treasury Department testified before the House Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds concerning the urgent need of the Executive Protective Service to raise its manpower ceiling in order to assign more officers to foreign mission duty in Washington, D.C. Most of the descriptive p art of that testimony is also reflected in the report accompanying H.R. 12, and 

I shall not repeat it today. Since tha t time, we have carefully reviewed our position and consulted with the Office of Management and Budget regarding the cost aspects of H.R . 12. As a result, we have concluded that the reimbursement provisions contained in section 1(d)(1) of H.R . 12 are not acceptable since they would require substantial outlays at a time when we are making strong efforts to reduce Federal spending and assist the recovery of our economy. We must also realize tha t the cost expansions through such a program are likely to prove to be 

far beyond current annual expectations.
16

Instituting reimbursements for State and local governments for 

the assistance which is an historic part of their duty under our Federal 

system of government is contrary to the cooperative nature of law 

enforcement in the United States and would augur a shift in the 

balance of law enforcement responsibility from the State and local 

authorities to the Federal Government.

Furthermore, the use of reimbursements in this area of principally 

State and local responsibility will act as a precedent for similar 

procedures in other areas. This is not in the best interests of either 

the Federal Government or the State and local entities which comprise our Federal system of government. We, therefore, must oppose 

the reimbursement provisions of H.R. 12.

The same general considerations of budgetary restraint on Federal 

programs, particularly in a time of economic difficulty, also call for 

our opposition to the creation of additional supergrade positions in 

the Secret Service.

We also believe it is important to note tha t our concurrence in section 1(a) of H.R. 12, which provides for assignment of EPS officers in 

metropolitan areas with 20 or more foreign missions, is based upon the 

construction of section 202, as amended by H.R. 12, tha t the determination of “extraordinary protective needs required” is to be made by 

the Secretary of the Treasury. The request of the “affected metropolitan area” is nothing more than a request; and, presumably, some 

demonstration of “extraordinary protective needs” will be presented 

for the Secretary’s consideration.

Of course, the Secretary is not bound by the request or the evidence 

of local authorities in support of their request; and he may make his 

determination based upon information presented only from sources 

other than the requesters. This authority of the Secretary is embodied 

in his authority to supervise the Executive Protective Service.

With the elimination of the reimbursement provisions of H.R. 12, 

the retroactive effective date of July 1, 1974, is superfluous and should 

be stricken. If some form of reimbursement were to be entertained by 

the subcommittee despite our objections, we believe tha t the effective 

date must not be retroactive but instead concurrent or prospective.

The bill as drafted is not consistent with administration objectives. 

However, with amendments deleting both the reimbursement provisions and the additional supergrade positions which are contrary to the 

budgetary program of the administration, and with the understanding 

that the legislative history and report on the bill will reflect the exclusive authority of the Secretary to determine extraordinary protective 

needs, we will support this legislation to increase the manpower ceiling 

of the Executive Protective Service.

I shall be glad to answer any questions you may have.

Senator Buckley. Thank you very much.

First of all, I say that I am wholeheartedly in favor of the administration’s efforts to cut back expenses. But as I suggested in my 

own statement on behalf of the bill, there has been a burden imposed 

on the cities, certainly New York City. But I know from personal experience it certainly goes far beyond any historic burden before we had 

such a thing as an obligation imposed by the Federal Government on 

the city. One that the equity does need some kind of reimbursement.
17

You oppose the retroactive feature in II. R. 12. Could you tell me what would he the estimated cost of this bill if enacted for the period 

since July 1 of last year?

Mr. Featherstone. I don’t think I can answer tha t accurately. I 

think it is $3.2 million.

Senator Buckley. I believe the figure was about $3 million a year.

Mr. Featherstone. To New York C ity; $3 million a year, is th at 

just for New York?

Senator Buckley. No, the cost of the bill.

Mr. Featherstone. I think it would be very difficult really to 

estimate what the cost would be in the future.

Senator Buckley. You have made no atte mpt to assess this. You 

have had many years of experience, certainly.

Mr. Featherstone. I don’t think the Secret Service made any estimates because of the time and the lack of basic data. We have no 

experience in making reimbursements.

Senator Buckley. Your statem ent made reference to substantial outlays. I am jus t trying to figure how substantial were these outlays.

Mr. Featherstone. I think it would be very difficult to estimate how substantial they will be, especially with the Bicentennial 

coming up.

Senator Buckley. Would you dispute the estimate of $3 million 

made by the House?

Mr. Featherstone. I have no basis on which to dispute it or to support it. I don’t know just how tha t $3 million was arrived at.

Senator Buckley. Unless you can come up with other information, this committee will proceed on the assumption tha t we were talking 

about $3 million.

Mr. Featherstone. We will look into it further and see if we can supply something for the record at a later date. [See the response to question 2 of the second submission of questions and answers, p. 31.]

Senator Buckley. What evidence has there been since the summer of 1973, that threats and dangers exist to the diplomatic community in Washington, D.C., tha t cannot be met effectively by the EPS in its present size and thus, justifies an increase to 1,200 officers?

Mr. Featherstone. Mr. Drescher will answer that question.

Mr. Drescher. Mr. Chairman, since 1973, as the Executive Protective Service has become better known to the diplomatic community, the increase in requests for services of the EPS by the diplomatic community in Washington, D.C., has been substantial. Fixed posts, the assignment of officers to particular locations, have increased from 72 to 171. Blair House details have just about doubled, from 8 to 15. Special protective attention has more than doubled, 

from 92 to 198. The number of receptions that take place in the diplomatic com­ munity in Washington, D.C., and which have been used as vehicles for terrorist activities in other parts of the world, have increased from 132 to 334. There is every indication tha t these requests will continue as a result of the terrorist situation throughout the world from domestic crime in this area. [See also the response to question 3 of the second submission of questions and answers, p. 32.]

Senator Buckley. Would it be fair to suggest tha t the same esti­ mation that has been presented will make the need for police protection existent wherever you have a large diplomatic community?
18

Mr. Drescher. Yes. I would have to say so.

Senator Buckley. Therefore, Los Angeles, New Orleans, New York 

City and others-----

Mr. Drescher. Well, maybe not to the same extent that the 

threat is prevalent and protection is sought after here in the Nation’s 

Capital, where the Ambassadors are. Of course, the consulates are 

extensions of the Ambassadors’ authority, which is situated here in 

Washington.

Senator Buckley. In New York City we have some high grade 

Ambassadors to the U.N.

Mr. Drescher. Yes.

Senator Buckley. Section 1 of H.R. 12 refers to the increasing size 

of the Executive Protective Service. Yet section 3 authorizes 10 

additional GS-16,-17,-18 supergrades. Who will those be assigned to 

and for what purpose?

Mr. Rundle. Mr. Chairman, at the time H.R. 12 was submitted, 

the submission for supergrades was made to cover supergrades within 

the Secret Service, which supervises the Executive Protective Service. 

There have not been any supergrade additions to the Secret Service 

since our reorganization in 1965, following the Warren Commission 

report.

Senator Buckley. What does the phrase, "extraordinary protective 

service” mean? Does it include any continuing protective services for 

certain consulates for a certain period?

Mr. Rundle. The term as used in the statute has only been used 

for New York City, to date. Tha t is our only history.

It has been used at the United Nations in New York on previous 

occasions and for the police strike in New York. That is the only 

time the term has been applied.

Senator Buckley. I gather from your answer that these are really 

short-term assignments?

Mr. Rundle. Yes, sir. As the legislative history of the original EPS 

bill revealed during the time tha t the bill was originally considered, the 

intent was th at the assignments would be made under extraordinary 

circumstances for a brief period of time. [See also the response to 

question 4 of the second submission of questions and answers, p. 33.]

Senator Buckley. I believe in your statement tha t you, while 

rejecting H.R. 12, would propose an alternative to utilize your own 

personnel as needed. Wouldn’t this be more costly?

Mr. Rundle. The present law as it exists, sir, will allow the President on a case-by-case basis, to send the Executive Protective Service 

to protect any foreign diplomatic mission in the United States.

We have not attempted a comparative cost basis as to the operation 

of the Executive Protective Service versus local police, because we 

feel the two are not comparable. The Executive Protective Service 

would be sent from Washington, for a very short period of time on a 

limited basis and then return to Washington. Whereas, the police 

would be engaged in a 24-hour day, month-by-month operation.

Senator Buckley. Before the enactment of the Executive Protective 

Service, do you happen to recall what the Federal Government paid 

the District of Columbia annually for providing the protection to the 

diplomats?

Mr. Rundle. I do not know, sir.
19

Senator Buckley. Is my information correct that there was a 

payment for the protection of diplomats?

Mr. Rundle. 1 would have no knowledge of that, sir.

• Mr. Featherstone. I don’t know either, sir.

Senator Buckley. I would appreciate it if you could provide for the record an answer to this question. Before the enactm ent of the Executive Protective Service legislation, did the Federal Government 

4 make annual payments to the District of Columbia, for the protection provided to diplomats and if so, over the period of say 5 years, how 

much per year?

Mr. Rundle. Yes, sir. We can look into that. We will request those figures from the Department of State. [See the response to question 9 of the submission of questions and answers, p. 27.1

Senator Buckley. I am sure the thru st of the question is self- evident to determine whether or not the Federal Government recog­ nizes a specific responsibility for this type of protection. If diplomatic property is destroyed in New York, Chicago, or New Orleans, is reimbursement made to a foreign government, and if so, is it made by the Federal Government in the name of the American people or is it made by the local government?

Mr. Rundle. Again, sir, I would have to refer tha t to the Depart­ ment of State. We are operating police personnel. We don’t get involved in the international situation.

Senator Buckley. I would appreciate it if you can ferret out the information as to whether or not foreign government is compensated for damage to its diplomatic property. If so, who makes the payment.

Mr. Rundle. I wonder if it would be proper for me to suggest for the committee to go directly to the Department of State rather than 

asking us.

Senator Buckley. Your position is well taken. We shall make that 

necessary request. How would the EPS have considered the visit of the head of the PLO to the United Nations to be in and of itself in a position of 

extraordinary protection needs?

Mr. Rundle. Tha t would be a little bit difficult for me to answer in tha t the U.S. Secret Service was directed to protect the leader of the Palestine Liberation Organization during tha t period. We were directed to provide tha t protection by the President of the United 

States.

Senator Buckley. Was the judicial effort by the New York Police 

Department superfluous or required?

Mr. Rundle. I could not comment on that, sir.

Senator Buckley. I have a feeling tha t I have a whole series of questions here tha t you probably are not in a position to answer off the bat. What I would like to do is to submit to you the questions that 

have been prepared. If you could then provide for the record tha t information tha t you think you are in a position to answer, tha t is what we want.

Mr. Rundle. We will be glad to, sir.

Senator Buckley. I will therefore, on this matter say tha t the record will be held up for a period of 5 days. The questions are not 

tha t complicated.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Featherstone. Than k you.

[The questions and responses follow:]
20

DEPARTM ENT OF THE TREASURY

W AS HIN GTO N, D.C . 20220

Deputy Ass ist an t Secretary Ju ne 27, 1975

De ar S e n a to r B uck le y:

R e fe re n c e i s made to your l e t t e r o f Ju ne 17 , 

19 75 , e n c lo s in g a l i s t o f q u e s tio n s r e l a t i n g to 

your c o n s id e r a tio n o f H. R. 12, a b i l l to in c re a s e 

th e s iz e o f th e E x e c u ti v e P r o te c tiv e S e rv ic e . 

E n clo se d a re th e answ er s to th e q u e s tio n s .

We hav e a tt e m p te d to an sw er th e q u e s tio n s as 

f u l ly as p o s s ib le a lt h o u g h o u r kn ow ledg e in some 

a re a s is lim ite d . Where a p p r o p r ia te , we ha ve 

su g g e ste d t h a t th e Com mitt ee d ir e c t i t s q u e s tio n s 

to th e D epar tm en t o f S ta t e . A ls o e n c lo se d i s th e 

e d ite d t r a n s c r i p t o f o u r te sti m o n y on Ju ne 9 . I 

ho pe t h a t our re sp o n se s to y o u r q u e s tio n s an d our 

c l a r i f i c a t i o n s in th e t r a n s c r i p t w i l l a id yo u in 

c o n s id e r a tio n o f H. R. 12 .

S in c e re ly y o u rs

James J . F e a th e rs to n e 

D ep uty A s s is ta n t S e c re ta ry 

(E nfo rc em ent)

The H onora ble 

James L. B uc kle y 

U n it ed S ta te s S e n a te 

W as hin gto n, D. C. 20510

E n c lo su re s
21

H.R. 12 (Executive Protective Service)

Questions & Answers

1. Q. Last year a Senate Bill (S.3124) was introduced and passed,

at the request of Executive Protective Service, which 

authorized an increase in uniformed officers from 850 to 

1200. The Director said it was urgent. Is this still 

des ire d, and if so, why isn't it included in the present 

bill?

A. Language providing for an increase in the legislative

ceiling of the EPS from 850 to 1200 officers is included 

in the present bill. The Secret Service considers this 

ceiling increase to be an urgent matter, and essential to 

provide adequate protection to the approximately 300 foreign 

diplomatic missions located in the Washington Metropolitan 

Area. Treasury has requested that the ceiling be raised 

to 1200 to allow for possible future expansion. However, 

at this time we have requested from our appropriations 

committee authorization to hire an additional 166 officers, 

which would bring the total EPS strength to 1016 officers, 

and which would be adequate for the present based upon the 

intelligence information available. The 1200 ceiling is 

needed to allow for reasonably anticipated expansion wit hout further statutory amendment.

2. Q. What is the present personnel strength of Executive Pro­ tective Service, and what increase is anticipated during 

the next five years?

A. Present strength: 850 ---- 1976 budget amendment request

is pending for 166 additional officers. If approved, total 

strength would be 1016. Future increases during the next 

five years would depend upon the international situation,
acts of international terrorism and incidents of local

crime in the Washington Metropolitan Area.

Section 1 of H.R. 12 refers to increasing the size of 

the Executive Protective Service, yet section 3 auth orizes ten (10) additional GS-16, 17, and 18 super-grade 

employees for the Secret Service. Who will these be 

assigned to, and for what purpose?

Since the reorganization of the Secret Service in 1965, 

significant additional responsibilities have been 

assigned without a concomitant increase in supefgrade 

positions. Included in these additional duties are 

the creation of the EPS to provide protection to foreign 

missions, the protection of visiting chiefs of state 

and heads of government, and, at the direction of the 

President, other distinguished foreign visitors and 

Americans on official missions abroad; the protection 

of major Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates 

and nominees, former Presidents and their wives, the 

widows and minor children of former Presidents, the 

immediate family of the Vice President and temporary 

official residence of the Vice President.

During this time, the number of positions in the Service 

has increased from less than 900 in 1965 to over 3,100 

in 1975 without an increase in higher level positions. 

Accordingly, the 10 additional supergrades will be
23

assigned to the senior operational and management 

personnel within the Service, so as to bring their 

grades in line with the additional responsibilities 

assumed and to more closely equate the positions with 

those of other law enforcement agencies.

The Treasury Department believes, however, that we must 

conform the needs of the Secret Service for more supergrade positions to the overall request for Executive 

Branch supergrade positions which is submitted by the 

Civil Service Commission each fiscal year. This comports 

with the Administration's program for overall management

of costs and resources.

4. Q. Why isn't the existing law satisfactory, which authorizes assignment of officers to the protection of foreign mis ­ sions outside the D.C. area on a case-by-case basis?

Why is blanke t authority desired and necessary?

A. Basically, the existing law is satisfactory, with the 

exception of the 850 ceiling. The alteration of the 

existing law to allow the Secretary of the Treasury to 

authorize EPS coverage of foreign diplomatic missions 

outside of the metropolitan D.C. area for "extraordinary 

protective needs" would seem to be less cumbersome than the 

present law which states "as the President, on a caseby-case basis, may direct".

*
24

5 . Q. Who a l l a re th e S e c re t S e rv ic e a u th o r iz e d to p r o te c t? 

Can ’ t th ey p ro v id e p r o te c tio n fo r fo r e ig n m is sio n s 

w it h o u t a d d itio n a l a u th o r ity ?

A. The S e c re t S e rv ic e is a u th o r iz e d to p r o t e c t th e P re s id e n t 

o f th e U nit ed S ta te s an d memb ers o f th e im m ed ia te fa m il y , 

The P r e s id e n t- E le c t, th e V ic e P re s id e n t an d memb ers o f 

th e im m ed ia te fa m il y o r o th e r o f f i c e r n e x t in th e o rd e r 

o f s u c c e s sio n to th e O ffic e o f P r e s id e n t, an d th e V ic e 

P r e s id e n t- E le c t; th e p r o te c tio n o f th e p e rs o n o f a v i s i t ­

in g he ad o f a fo r e ig n s t a t e o r fo r e ig n gove rn m en t an d , 

a t th e d ir e c ti o n o f th e P r e s id e n t, o th e r d is tin g u is h e d 

fo r e ig n v i s i t o r s to th e U n it ed S ta te s an d o f f i c i a l 

r e p r e s e n ta tiv e s o f th e U n it e d S ta te s p e rf o rm in g s p e c ia l 

m is sio n s a b ro a d ; th e p r o te c tio n o f p e rs o n s who a re 

d e te rm in e d to be m ajo r P r e s id e n ti a l o r V ic e P r e s id e n ti a l 

c a n d id a te s , u n le s s su ch p r o te c tio n i s d e c li n e d ; th e p ro ­

t e c t io n o f a fo rm er P re s id e n t an d h is w if e d u rin g h is 

li f e t i m e ; th e p r o te c tio n o f th e p e rs o n o f th e wid ow o f 

a fo rm er P re s id e n t u n t i l h e r d e a th o r re m a rria g e , an d 

m in or c h ild r e n o f a fo rm er P re s id e n t u n t i l th ey re a c h 

s ix te e n y e a rs o f a g e , u n le s s su ch p r o te c tio n i s d e c li n e d . 

The E x ecu ti v e P r o te c tiv e S e rv ic e i s a u n if o rm ed d iv is io n 

o f th e U .S . S e c re t S e rv ic e w hic h is a u th o riz e d by T i t l e 3, 

S e c ti o n s 202 & 20 3, to p r o t e c t: (1 ) e x e c u ti v e m an si on
25

and grounds in the District of Columbia (2) any 

building in which Presidential offices are located

(3) the President and members of his immediate family

(4) foreign diplomatic missions located in the met ropolitan area of the District of Columbia (5) the temporary official residence of the Vice President and grounds 

in the District of Columbia (6) the Vice President

and members of his immediate family (7) foreign diplomatic missions located in such other areas of the 

United States, its territories and possessions, as the 

President on a case-by-case basis may direct. No 

additional authority is deemed necessary.

6. Q. Why are only those cities having 20 or more foreign consular offices singled out as requiring protection? Who would furnish protection in those having 18 or 16 or less? And does this include protection of trade missions or other semi-official contingent groups?

A. Secret Service has no knowledge in this area. This 

criterion was established by the House Public Works 

Committee. Proposed H.R. 12 would not appear to include 

protection for trade missions or other semi-official 

esta blishments.

7. Q. Will extended authorization eventually be requested, to include protection of all such missions, regardless of 

number or size?
26

A. I t i s n o t th e in t e n ti o n o f th e T re a su ry D ep art m ent to

re q u e s t su ch a d d it io n a l a u th o r iz a tio n . I t i s re a s o n a b le 

to assu me th a t v a rio u s l o c a l i t i e s w i l l make re q u e s ts 

f o r p r o te c tio n .

8. Q. On w ha t b a s is i s i t d e te rm in e d th a t th e nee d fo r p r o te c ­

tio n i s in c r e a s in g , an d how can we know when th e u ltim a te 

h as been ach ie v ed ? I s th e an sw er mo re mo ney, mo re manpow er , o r w ha t?

A. The ne ed f o r a d d itio n a l p r o te c tio n in th e W ash in gto n, D.C . 

a re a i s base d up on th e fo ll o w in g D ep ar tm en t o f S ta te r e ­

q u e s ts fo r s e c u r ity .

1971 1972 1973 1974

F ix ed P o sts 72 127 168 171

B la ir House * 8 11 14 15

S h o rt B eats 9 17 24 33

S p e c ia l A tt e n tio n 92 162 171 198

R e c e p ti o n s 132 362 427 334

* Ea ch d e t a i l a ss ig n e d to th e B la ir Ho use r e q u ir e s a

minimum o f Ten o f f i c e r s an d One s e r g e a n t.

A d d itio n a lly , th e p r e s e n t w o rl d s i t u a t i o n sho ws an in -

c re a s e in a c ts o f w o rl d -w id e te r r o r is m d ir e c te d to w ar d

d ip lo m a ti c o f f i c i a l s and d ip lo m a ti c m is s io n s . In c re a se d 

in t e ll ig e n c e in fo rm a ti o n sho ws more an d mo re a tta c k s ca n 

be e x p e c te d a g a in s t f o r e ig n d ip lo m a ti c i n s t a l l a t i o n s in
27

the United States. The Executive Protective Service 

presently has a great need for an additional 166 officers 

to fulfill its present responsibilities for protecting 

the 300 diplomatic missions in the W ashington metropolitan

area.

9. Q. To what extent have local communities been called upon to'bear the responsibility for and expense of protecting foreign missions? Pursuant to what authority has this been d on e, and how have they been compensated?

A. Treasury has no knowledge in this area and suggests that

this question be directed to the Department of State --

Deputy As sistant Secretary Victor Dikeos.

10. Q. What is considered an extraordinary protection need, referred to in the House Committee Report on H.R. 12? Who determines this? Under what circumstances would affected metropolitan areas request reinforced protection, 

as the report indicated they would?

A. The phrase "extraordinary protective need" referred to in

the House Committee Report is not used bv the Secret Service. 

Hence, we can onl y surmise its definition. The Secret Service 

interprets this phrase to indicate temporary situations which 

present more serious protective needs than those routinely 

handled on a day-to-day basis. Under H.R. 12 the Secretary of 

the Treasury wo uld make a final determination as to whether such 

a situation exists in cases where requests for assistance are 

made by local authorities. The President would retain his 

authority to assign EPS personnel on a case-by-case basis 

in accordance with Section 202 of Title 3, United States 

Code. The Secret Service is not able to determine under 

what circumstances affected metropol itan areas would request

assistance.
28

11 . 0. What is m ea nt by " C o n fro n ta ti o n s bet w ee n N a tio n a l is ti c

G ro up s" r e f e r r e d to un d er "n ee d fo r l e g i s l a t i o n " in th e

re p o rt? What i f th e ne ed fo r p r o te c tio n o c c u rr e d as a

r e s u l t o f lo c a l c o n f r o n ta tio n o r d e m o n s tr a ti o n s n o t h av in g *

fo re ig n im p li c a ti o n ? Un de r wh ose j u r i s d i c t i o n wou ld t h i s

b e , an d a t w hat p o in t w ou ld d e c is io n s be mad e?

A. I t i s as su med t h a t " C o n fro n ta ti o n s betw ee n N a tio n a l is ti c »

Gro up s" r e f e r s to in c id e n ts su ch as Arab d e m o n str a to rs 

v s . I s r a e l i d e m o n s tr a to rs an d v ic e v e r s a , Je w is h D ef en se 

Le ague d e m o n s tr a ti o n s a g a in s t fo re ig n m is s io n s , e tc .

I f th e nee d f o r p r o te c tio n o c c u rr e d as a r e s u l t o f a 

lo c a l c o n f r o n ta tio n o r d e m o n str a ti o n n o t h av in g fo re ig n 

im p lic a tio n s , u n d e r p re s e n t la w , th e P re s id e n t o f th e 

U nit ed S ta te s w ou ld ha ve to d ete rm in e th e p r o te c tiv e ne ed 

an d su b se q u e n t u t i l i z a t i o n o f E x e c u ti v e P r o te c tiv e S e rv ic e 

O f f ic e r s . Und er H.R. 12 , th e S e c re ta ry o f th e T re asu ry 

c o u ld make th a t d e te rm in a ti o n i f th e lo c a l a u t h o r i t i e s 

so u g h t h e lp .

12 . Q. Would lo c a l p o lic e by u se d o n ly in th e c a se o f la rg e

p u b li c g a th e r in g s o r d r a s t i c e m e rg e n c ie s, o r wou ld th is 

be on a r o u tin e p ro c e d u ra l b a s is ?

A. The T re a su ry D epart m ent ha s no kn ow ledg e in t h i s a re a ,

an d d e fe r s to th e D ep ar tm en t o f S ta te ---- Dep uty A s s is ta n t

S e c re ta ry V ic to r D ik eo s.
29

13. Q. How would compensation or reimbursement be determined in these cases? Would these transactions be subject to GAO audit, and by virtue of what authority?

A. We have no knowledge in this area.

14. Q. Would local police departments tend to set aside a certain percentage of their facilities for this purpose, 

as a permanent arrangement?

A. We have no knowledge in this area.

15. Q. Wouldn't jurisdictional conflict be involved, if local police were delegated responsibili ty for protecting foreign mi ssions under Federal control? Whose orders woul d be followed, and what laws or regulations would 

govern?

A. Apparently yes, but we d o not believe this is appropriate 

for speculative comment by the U.S. Secret Service or 

the Treasury Department.

16. Q. Would local police be stationed in front of these places, as Executive Protective Service Officers now are? Would mobile units ever be used? Are protective training tech­ niques similar, or would additional training of local 

police be necessary?

A. We have no knowledge in this area.

17. Q. Why should local government officially be given the optio n to decide wh o would provide protection and when, as the report on H.R. 12 suggests? Won't the President still have authority to act on a case-by-case without local 

consent?

A. Upon requests by local officials for protective assistance, 

the Secretary of the Treasury would exercize final authority 

relative to the assignment of EPS personnel. We cannot 

support H.R. 12 unless the exclusivity of the Secretary's 

authority is clear. The President's authority to assign 

EPS personnel on a case-by-case basis where he deems appro ­

priate is not affected by H.R. 12.

55-353 0 - 75 - 3
30

18. Q. How were the estimated costs of reimbursements to local 

governments computed for protective services that might 

be rendered during fiscal years 1976 thru 1980? What 

accounts for the substantially higher cost for FY-1976, 

in the H.R. 12 report, than the ensuing years?

A. We have no knowledge in this area.
31

Second Submission of

• QUESTIONS & ANSWERS ON H.R, 12

1. Q. The Bill, as written, would be retroactive to July 1, 1974,

« covering a number of events on which the costs can be estimated. Could you tell us the estimated cost of this 

Bill for the period since July?

A. No. We have no way of determining the type of coverage 

provided by the various agencies involved.

2. Q. The House Report places the estimated cost of the reimbursement feature of the Bill at $3,000,000 yearly. Do you agree? What is the basis for that estimate?

A. Since the regulatory procedures of the reimbursement

portion of this Bill are not defined, we have no way of 

estimating the actual cost. We are not aware of how the 

House Public Works Committee arrived at this figure. It 

woul d be impossible for the U.S. Secret Service to estimate 

the annual cost of this legislation. We are not aware 

of the numbers or depth of Department of State requests 

to local police to provide security for foreign missions 

outside the Washington, D.C. area. We are also not aware 

of whether the police departments respond to these request 

partially, fully, or with what equipment and manpower. 

Additionally, we have no way of auditing local police 

quality of response.
32

3. Q . What evidence has there been since the summer of 1973 

that threats and dangers exist to the diplomatic 

community in Washington, D.C. that cannot be met 

effectively by the EPS in its present size and thus 

justify an increase to 1,200 officers?

A. The authorized number of EPS officers has remained

constant since the inception of EPS in 1970. However, 

the multitude of world-wide terrorist incidents has 

markedly increased the demands for EPS services by 

foreign governments. These requests continue to grow. 

There have been instances where coverage had to be 

reduced at a particular location and diverted elsewhere, 

even though intelligence indicated that coverage should 

have been continued on the original assignment. The 

outlook for the future is that the trend in the number 

of politically motivated acts of terrorism has not yet 

reached its peak.

The present force of officers is having difficulty 

responding to the number of requests for services 

generated by the current level of terrorist activities. 

The Treasury Department feels that it is an urgent matter 

to increase the legislative ceiling of the EPS from 850 

officers to 1200. The urgency of this matter is to
33

provide adequate protection to the approximately 

300 Foreign Diplomatic Missions located in the Washington 

Metropolitan area. The Treasury has requested that the 

ceiling be raised to 1200 to allow for possible future 

expansion. However, at this time we have requested 

from our Appropriations Committee authorization for an 

increase of only 166 officers w hich would bring the total 

EPS strength to 1016 officers and which would be adequate 

with the intelligence information available to date. 

Please see also the answers to Questions 1 and 2 of

the first set.

4. Q. What does the phrase "extraordinary protective need" mean 

Does it include any continuing protective services at 

certain consulates for indefinite periods?

A. Please see the response to Question Number 10 in the 

first set. Since this phrase is not one used by the 

Secret Service, we can only surmise its definition.

The Secret Service interprets this phrase to mean 

situations whic h are more serious than the day-to-day 

protective needs which are routinely handled. Furthermore, we believe it refers to protection on a temporary

basis to be terminated at the conclusion of the extreme

threat, or when local police forces are able to satisfy 

the protective need.
34

5. Q. Is i t c o r r e c t th a t th e E x e c u ti v e P r o te c tiv e S e rv ic e 

p r o te c ts th e m is s io n s , an d th a t an y e x tr a o rd in a ry

a s s is ta n c e wou ld go o n ly to g u ard in g a c tu a l m is sio n *

b u il d in g s ?

A. The EPS m an da te in 3 USC 202 re a d s in p a r t " (5 ) F o re ig n

D ip lo m ati c M is si o n s lo c a te d in su ch o th e r a re a s in th e

6. Q.

U n it ed S ta t e s , i t s t e r r i t o r i e s an d p o s s e s s io n s , as th e

P r e s id e n t, on a c a s e -b y -c a s e b a s i s , may d i r e c t . " W ith

r e s p e c t to F o re ig n D ip lo m a ti c M is si o n s th e EPS is

s t r i c t l y e n jo in e d to p r o t e c t o n ly a c tu a l m is sio n

b u il d in g s .

Does th e A d m in is tr a ti o n su p p o rt th e a d d itio n a l 10 

su p e rg ra d e p o s itio n s in th e B il l? Ar e th ey n e c e ssa ry ?

A. P le a se se e th e re sp o n se to Q u e sti o n Number 3 o f th e

f i r s t s e t .

*
35

Senator Buckley. Our final matter today is the amended pro ­

spectus, U.S. Tax Court, District of Columbia. As far as the completion of the U.S. Tax Court Building, which was authorized in 

1963, unforeseen design changes and spiraling inflation have increased 

costs since then that an additional $2 million is needed to complete 

the work which is planned.

Will those who are going to testify please come forward and identify 

themselves for the record?

If I may insert into the record for the la st bill, H.R. 12, statements 

of Senator Jacob Javits and also Mr. Edward Kiernan, president/of 

the International Conference of Police.

[The statements follow:]

Statement of Hon. Jacob K. Javits, U.S. Senator prom the State of New

York

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am here to express m y s tron g supp ort for H.R . 12 which amends the legislation establishing the Executive Protective Service.

In 1970, P.L. 92-217 was enacted which estab lished the Executive Protective 

Service, changing the name of the White House Police and adding the responsibilities of protectin g foreign diplomatic missions in the Wash ington D.C. area 

and in other areas as the President directs on a case-by-case basis. Protection in 

oth er areas would only be authorized when local authorities are not capab le of 

providing it at the desired level. The Executive Protective Service has served 

its purpose well in Wash ington D.C. and has lessened the burden on the local 

police force concerning protection of foreign missions.

However, since 1970 it is become appar ent th at ade quate protection of foreign 

missions should be extended to areas other tha n Washington D.C. Over the last 

several years because of the continuing crisis in the Middle East Executive Pro ­

tective Service officers have been assigned to protect the missions of various Arab 

countries and of Israe l in New York City.

This situatio n is certain to continue for the foreseeable futu re. Protection of a 

large num ber of foreign diplomatic missions often involves large numbers of local 

police and high expenditures of local money. This is especially true in the case of 

New York City in which is loca ted approximately eighty-four different diplo matic 

missions. In 1974, Mayor Beame of New York indicated th at the city was incurring a cost of $3.1 million to protect diplomatic missions including $700,000 

spent during the visit of Yasir Arafat to the United Nations. These types of expenses are clearly national in character and should not be left to cities such as 

New York to pay on its own.

H.R . 12 would auth orize an increased level of Executive Protective Service 

personnel up to 1,200 officers. This would be an increase of 350 over the present 

level. In addition the bill provides the Secretary of the Tre asury with autho rity 

in cases of extraordinary need to provide protection for foreign diplomatic missions 

located in metropolitan areas, other tha n Washington D.C., where there are 

twe nty or more such diplomatic missions headed by fulltime career officers. 

Presently this would cover missions in New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, 

Houston, New Orleans and San Francisco. A request would be required from the 

particular metropolitan area for Executive Protective Service personnel or as an 

alte rna tive reimbursement would be provided for use of local or sta te personnel, 

equipment and facilities.

I believe th at H.R . 12 is a responsible solution to an evergrowing problem. It 

is important th at foreign diplomatic missions be protected particularly when 

internatio nal terrorism has becam e commonplace. At the same time it is u nfa ir 

to have local governments shoulder the entire burden of protection of these missions. I urge the Subcommittee to approve this bill so th at the Senate may act 

on it as quickly as possible.

Statement of Edward J. Kiern an, Presid ent I nternational Conference

of Police Associations

Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Edw ard J. 

Kiernan and I am P resident of the In ternation al Conference of Police Associations.
36

On behalf of our more than 150,000 members, I wish to go on record as supporting 

H.R . 12.

This bill would authorize an increase of 350 officers in the Executiv e Protectiv e 

Service bringing the total force to 1200 men. There is no dou bt th at the need for 

these a dditional men exists and th at conditions thro ugh out the world have created 

an atmosphere of political terro rism and tension. As the most prestigious country 

in the world, we should realize th at our responsibility to pro tect and safeguard 

our foreign visitors and dignitaries should be one of our main concerns.

In addition, H.R. 12 authorize s the Secretary of the Treasury to compensate 

State and local jurisdictions for the use of personnel, equipment, and facilities 

when members of the Executive Protective Service are unavailable. In the City 

of New York especially, with the routine policing of the United Nations complex 

plus all of the Embassies, Missions and offices of its member nations, the Police 

Department is called upon on a daily basis to prov ide services. Most of the 

demonstrations are of a highly emo tional ty pe and it is no t unusual to have factions 

from both sides of the issue dem onstrating at the same time. This entails having 

available a sufficiently mobile force to adjust to these various locations, all of 

which require a great deal of expense on the pa rt of the Police Departm ent. The 

same holds true to a lesser degree to cities such as Chicago, Los Angeles, Houston, 

New Orleans, Boston, and San Francisco.

In light of the fears expressed by some members of Congress th at the use of 

Executive Protective Service Officers in places oth er than Washington, D.C. 

would be equivalent to the creation of a national police force, I feel th at the 

Federal Government should assume its rightful responsibility of reimbursing 

these cities for police expenditures.

I sincerely urge you to report favorably on this bill and make it possible for the 

above mentioned cities to continue to provide efficient, courteous and effective 

protection to the foreign guests of our government.

Tha nk you.

T ax Court

Sen at or B uc kl ey. Gen tle men , yo u may pro cee d.

STATEMENT OF HON. H. DAWSON, JR., CHIEF JUDGE, U.S. TAX

COURT, WASHINGTON, D.C., ACCOMPANIED BY LOY SHIPP, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR SPACE MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING,

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; FRAN K MATZKE, ACTING ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT; AND MR. CREWE, COURT EXECUTIVE

M r. D aw son. Mr. C ha irm an , I am How ard A. Da ws on , Jr ., chief 

judg e, U.S. Tax Cou rt. W ith yo ur perm ission , I will mak e my sta te ­

m en t first.

Sen at or B uc kl ey , Ple ase .

M r. D aw son. The am en de d pr os pe ctus now befor e th is su bc om ­

m itte e re qu es ts a $2 millio n incre ase to the ori gin al pr os pe ctus for 

th e co mpletion of th e plaz a in fron t of the U.S . Tax C ourt Bu ilding .

We prev ious ly prov ided some pi ctur es to th e co mmitt ee , ph ot os ta ts 

which de pi ct the co nd ition of th e pa rtia lly co mpleted pla za. I don’t 

kn ow w he th er y ou ha ve thos e or no t, Mr. Cha irm an .

Sen at or B uc kl ey . T he co m m itt ee ha s them . B ut I don’t ha ve them 

ri ght in fron t of me now .

Mr. D aw son. M r. Crewe, ou r c ou rt ex ecutive, will ha nd them to yo u.

Sen at or B uc kl ey . We ha ve a se t here, M r. Crewe.

M r. D aw son. The pl az a wa s inclu ded in th e origi nal pros pe ctus . 

Ho we ve r, there were ce rtai n de lays in th e ap pr ov al of pe rm its by the 

D is tr ic t of Colum bia go ve rn m en t th at pr oh ib ite d le ttin g th e bid for 

th e plaza. The ramps an d sid ew alks were co mpleted so th a t the Tax 

C ou rt Bu ild ing cou ld be occu pie d an d th e be am s we re pla ced across 

th e ce nt er leg of In te rs ta te 95, as sho wn in th e ph ot og raph s.
37

The money remaining from the original appropriation is not adequate 

to complete the plaza. The Tax Court feels very strongly tha t the plaza should be completed. It is unsightly with the rusty beams protruding across 1-95 immediately in front of the entrance to the 

building. We urge that this subcommittee act favorably upon the amended prospectus submitted by the General Services Administration. It contains the details of the request. I would be glad to answer any questions that you may have. I believe Mr. Shipp has a statement on behalf of General Services 

Administration.

Senator Buckley. Thank you very much. This is one of the many items around. It has been about 12 years since the authorization.

Mr. Dawson. Yes. It was in 1963.

Senator Buckley. At that time the estimated cost was about $10 million or $37 per square foot. Even though the building was re­ designed and approved in 1971, even though it was then 18 percent smaller, the cost has gone up to $88 per square foot. Is this more than doubling of the cost in a 9-year period and an 11-year period com­ parable to general experience?

Mr. Shipp. Mr. Chairman, my name is Loy Shipp. I am Assistant Commissioner for Space Management and Planning, Public Buildings Service. With me is Mr. Frank Matzke, who is the Assistant Com­ missioner for Construction Management. Mr. Matzke will answer 

tha t question.

Mr. Mat»ke. Mr. Chairman, comparing the original cost estab ­ lished in 1963 to our current costs, which we incidentally have com­ puted at $87 per square foot with the plaza construction estimate included in that, the cost escalation since tha t time have been in this order. We have been experiencing throughout the country, escalation in cost that range from 8 to 12 percent a year. But you have to remem­ ber tha t this cost escalation is compounded over that period. So, it 

goes up on this ratio.

Senator Buckely. The original building as originally authorized had a ratio of a sizable space of 61 percent with a redesign building as 

one of 59 percent. Isn ’t this rathe r a low efficiency rating and if so, does it make sense to ask for more nonproductive space?

Mr. Matzke. Well, the ratio is based on the ratio of net usable square footage to the actual gross area of the building. This particular type of facility has a high ratio because of the spaces. In fact, there are actually two circulation systems, public and private circulation systems, the private being for the judges and others. It is also the type of building that has a higher amount of space in the gross area because of the large areas required for circulation of large groups of people in a court type facility. The adding of the plaza, which is a feature outside of the building, could be considered. But normally, we don’t consider tha t type of an area in the computation of square foot costs.

Senator Buckley. I t is rather an extensive area, $62.50 per square foot. What are the benefits to be derived from this rather large 

expenditure?

Mr. Matzke. The principal benefit to be derived from the construc­ tion of the plaza is to provide an open space which will ultimately
38

connect up two Federal buildings. The site opposite the Tax Court is 

now occupied by the Federal City College. But this has been reserved 

as a site for a future Federal building. The open space between the two 

buildings actually was mandated by the National Capital Planning 

Commission at the time they approved the original plans for the 

facility.

Senator Buckley. What about the cost of $62.50 per square foot?

Mr. Matzke. This is a cost of what amounts to a supported plaza 

or structure to actually support a landscaped area which would have 

walkways, a reflecting pool and extensive landscaping. Considering 

the normal cost of landscaping and finishing a plaza of this type, then 

adding to it the fact that it has to be a supported structure over an 

expressway, brings it up to tha t order of magnitude.

Senator Buckley. Would you have any way of estimating what 

percentage of tha t cost is estimated by the need to support that?

Mr. Matzke. I don’t have the actual figures. I have some people 

with me who might have that.

I think, if it is possible, we will compute tha t and provide it for the 

record.

Senator Buckley. Yes.

[The information requested follows:]

The cost of the plaza being a raised structur e over an activ e freeway is approximately $1,175,000.

Senator Buckley. Why was there a delay in the approval for the 

permits for constructing the plaza?

Mr. Matzke. There was delay brought about by the District of 

Columbia Highway Department, related to this because of the factors 

involved in putting this structure over 1-95. It meant actual demolition 

of some of the walls along the side and putting a supporting structure 

in the median strip in the middle of the roadway. The District of 

Columbia Highway Department had some reservations about this 

construction and how it would impose on the highway system itself.

Mr. Dawson. Mr. Chairman, it wasn’t until Janu ary 1974 tha t the 

District of Columbia Highway Department actually approved the 

plaza construction over the freeway.

Senator Buckley. My understanding is tha t the invitation to bid 

on the Tax Court building did not include the plaza. Is that correct?

Mr. Matzke. That is correct.

Senator Buckley. How come the existing heavy steel substructure 

was built across 1-95 to support the plaza?

Mr. Ship p. The plaza area steel construction was separated out of 

the project because a t the time we were having some uncertainty with 

the District with regard to a permit. Once th at preliminary approval 

was given, they gave their first approval back in late 1973, it was 

determined tha t we would then proceed with the award of a contract 

for the construction of that steel because we were still within what we 

estimated to be a maximum limitation of costs for the project.

At tha t time, the cost of steel and construction was still escalating 

at a very rapid rate. We wanted to take advantage of the situation 

and try to bring the project within our estimated maximum limit of 

costs. T hat is why the award was made at tha t point.

Mr. D awson. 1 believe it was split into phases 1 and 2 a t that time. 

Phase 2 included the completion of the sidewalks and the ramps as
39

well as the installation of the steel beams. Then later tha t was divided into phases A and B. Some savings were effected by the purchase of the steel beams. At tha t time they cost around $564,000. The price of 

steel has gone up since then.

Senator Buckley. Of course, this platform has been left unfinished in this interim period. Has tha t created hazards for motorists and 

others?

Mr. Shipp. We don’t feel it has created a hazard. The main prob­ lem is the unsightliness in front of a very beautiful building.

Senator Buckley. My understanding is tha t the original plan in 1963, was considered to visage a different site. The change of sites resulted in delays and the delays have resulted in a tripling of costs. I am not sure whether it is a direct relationship, but in retrospect, was the decision to change the site a good one and how has the Tax 

Court benefited?

Mr. Shipp. The original site that was selected for this building is the site tha t is occupied by a temporary building tha t was at tha t time occupied by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Subse­ quently, we were able to lease space with SEC, relocating them out of the building, so as to free up the site for possible use by the Tax 

Court. But in the interim, the Federal City College came into existence. They came to GSA and asked for those buildings on an interim basis, pending a selection of a permanent location for the college. To this date, the college has not moved. It is uncertain as to when it will move. Had we stayed with tha t particular site, we would still be without a Tax Court building. The cost would continue to escalate. We feel that by selecting an alternate site, we were able to proceed with a much needed project at an earlier date than would be otherwise possible. To tha t extent, even though costs have gone up, they would be no higher than if we were delayed at this time to sta rt on the project.

Mr. Dawson. Once the construction was started by the George Hyman Construction Co., in the summer of 1973, it was completed in a little less than 2% years, pre tty much on schedule.

Senator Buckley. To get back to the plaza, you say it doesn’t present a real hazard at the present time. Are you under obligation to place a structure there? You do not have the option of just doing away with the plaza and lifting up those beams?

Mr. Shipp. We don’t feel tha t we do, Mr. Chairman. The original approval by NCPC of the siting of the Tax Court building on the new site was conditioned upon the construction of this plaza to connect 

across the freeway.

Senator Buckley. Was this committee fully apprised of t ha t fact at 

tha t time?

Mr. Shipp. Not at tha t particular time. In our revised prospectus, the second one tha t was submitted, I believe this was brought out. The plaza was included in tha t total project cost.

Senator Buckley. In other words, at the time the appropriations were approved to get us to where we are now, the Congress was fully apprised tha t this was a package deal?

Mr. Shipp. Yes, sir.

Mr. Dawson. Mr. Chairman, Public Law 92-607, dated October 31, 1972, provided for the additional funds. It reads as follows: “For
40

necessary expenses to complete the construction of the U.S. Tax 

Court building project including a plaza, the bridge Interstate Highway 95 between the Tax Court building and 2d street, Northwest, in 

the District of Columbia,” and so on.

Senator Buckley. In any event, we have then a commitment to a 

plaza and we have got a price tag of $2 million, a large square footage 

of space of which a substantial amount is directly related to the fact 

that we are bridging a highway. Are there ways we can cut back on the 

cost of this item? For example, is a reflecting pool necessary? Do we 

need two large stainless steel storage cans? Are there any cheaper 

alternatives, not to be considered eyesores?

Mr. Matzke. The present design is the design tha t was developed by 

the architect for the facility, recognizing tha t this would serve as a 

central plaza and a connecter between two Federal buildings.

The reflecting pool is a design feature. It is incorporated in the 

development of the plaza. It serves a purpose of the same as the trees 

and the other aspects of the landscaping. We do have an alternative 

plan which would be the substitution of concrete in lieu of granite.

But this is not a desired plan because of the fact th at the granite has 

a much better record for lower maintenance. It has a higher first cost, 

but a lower maintenance cost.

The reflecting pool itself would be lined with stainless steel, to 

insure it being waterproof so it could not cause a problem with the 

highway below. At the same time it is lined with granite so tha t at 

certain times of the year when it is inappropriate to keep the pool 

filled with water, it still is a pleasant thing to see. It is not an eyesore 

during certain months of the year.

Senator Buckley. Do you happen to know what might be the 

saving if that architecture feature were eliminated?

Mr. Matzke. You mean the pool itself?

I do not have the figures on that. If the pool itself were taken it 

would probably be replaced by some other form of landscaping. But 

we could get those figures for the record.

Senator Buckley. Thank you.

[The information requested follows:]

The present estim ated construction cost of the plaza including the pool is 

$1,825,000. In order to remove the pool it would be necessary to remove certain 

portions of the granite now in place, and delete from the design th e pool’s stainless 

steel pan and its associated appurtena nces. Removal of these items would reduce the 

construction cost by about $285,000. In addition it would be necessary to modify 

the present structura l steel in place as well as replace the pool with some sort of 

planter or appropriate walkway which would result in increasing construction 

costs about $200,000. However, the revised construction costs are depe nden t on 

the redesign and are therefore difficult to pinp oint a t this time. It must be pointed 

out that care must be taken in redesign to insure that the plaza will not lose the 

design continuity desired for the project. In addition, due to the time required for 

redesign and the need to obtain reapproval from the District of Colur bia Government and the National Capital Planning Commission cost escalation in the amo unt 

of $160,000 is anticipated. As a result of redesign to eliminate the pool, the additional cost resulting from structural steel changes and reapprovals, it is estimated 

that it would cost $1,900,000 to construct the plaza w ithout the pool.

Senator Buckley. I am advised tha t the tunnel underneath would 

be lined with ceramic tile and have fluorescent lights. Would this 

create a serious continuing maintenance problem?

Mr. Matzke. I might respond to tha t by first sayirtg, in effect, 

it really isn’t quite the same as a tunnel underneath because the form
41

of the plaza has an opening in the center and has two landscaped, 

what really amounts to bridges across the highway.

But the space under tha t has been lined with ceramic tile, the walls 

with ceramic tile and fluorescent lighting to be used is the lowest 

form of maintenance to be used. It is consistent with the construction 

tha t is being used in all of the areas through the District, where we 

have highways passing under either buildings or plaza surfaces above.

It is consistent with the work th at was done under the Department 

of Labor building.

Senator Buckley. I drive on tha t one every day. I have been 

struck by what seems to me an excessive amount of light.

Mr. Matzke. I am not sure about the levels of light. But they are, 

I assume, consistent with whatever the requirements are for an 

underground roadway.

Senator Buckley. When'*the appropriation was sought, I think it is 

about $1,900,000 for the tax building in 1972. I am informed that 

nothing was said about the cost of finishing the plaza. If this is correct 

information, why was this not brought to the committee’s attention at 

tha t time?

Mr. Shipp. Mr. Chairman, at the time of tha t appropriation we 

had a prospectus th at authorized the project in the amount of approximately $19.16 million. Under the Public Buildings Act, we are authorized to escalate the projects up to a maximum of 10 percent. 

So, at the time tha t appropriation was sought by the Tax Court and 

made by the Congress, there was no requirement for GSA to submit 

an amendment to the prospectus because at tha t time we were within 

the maximum authorized limit of costs as escalated.

Mr. Dawson. In appearances before the Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate for the Tax Court, we did alert 

them to the fact tha t we might not have sufficient funds to complete 

the plaza. This was in last year’s budget request.

Senator Buckley. You said tha t you might not have enough. You 

certainly knew you wouldn’t have enough?

Mr. Dawson. Not being an engineer and having to rely on General 

Services Administration, I wasn’t sure. But at least we mentioned 

it to the committees.

Senator Buckley. I just wondered if it wouldn’t be a more appropriate procedure in the future when an obvious expense can be anticipated, irrespective of 10-percent limits, whether it wouldn’t be a 

better practice to bring the total package as estimated at the time to 

the attention at least to the appropriate committees.

Mr. Shipp. We worked out a number of arrangements along this 

line with the subcommittee staff. I am sure as time goes by we will 

be bringing these things to the attention of the staff and the committee. 

We are not going to be able to make an award or the award to be 

made would cause us to exceed the maximum limit of costs. But it 

might cost us anyway. We are going to be working very closely with 

the committee staff to inform them about this.

Senator Buckley. I think tha t is very important. I think this 

committee needs to have a firmer grasp as to what is in effect. There 

would be fewer surprises, anyway.

Is there any other unfinished work relating to the Tax Cou rt 

building tha t will require more funds than we don’t know about at 

this time?
42

Mr. Matzke. The funds presently being sought, it is my understanding, tha t that will clean up all the present items including an 

allowance for anticipated claims and matters not ye t been settled with 

the contractor. We foresee no additional funds being required at this 

time.

Senator Buckley. I understand this matter was brought to the 

Appropriations Committee before it was brought to the Public Works 

Committee.

Mr. Shipp. Yes, sir. That is correct.

Senator Buckley. Is tha t the appropriate procedure?

Mr. Shipp. Considering this is a transfer project, this building is 

not in GSA’s inventory. The funds have been appropriated to the 

Tax Court. At the same time, the more appropriate procedure probably would have been to have the prospectus here at about the same 

time the request for appropriations was made or better still have it 

here before tha t time. This is not a situation where GSA is requesting 

an appropriation of funds. Th at Tax Court is requesting it. So it has 

gotten a little bit close in coordination. Ordinarily, we would have 

had the prospectus out sometime before.

Senator Buckley. Are there any other equivalent situations that 

are lurking on the shelf somewhere?

Mr. Shipp. Well, they lurk from time to time. Right now, I am not 

aware of any.

Senator Buckley. I have one final question; What construction 

claims are outstanding against the Government, if any?

Mr. Matzke. Apparently, there is a pending delay claim for time 

extension on the project of 600 and some days, a pending claim 

relating to the area of the cables tha t were used in post-tensioning 

the structure itself. But these claims have not as vet been submitted 

by the contractor. It is 270 days, excuse me.

Senator Buckley. Do you have any estimate of the possible liability?

Mr. Matzke. We have set aside some funds for this.

Mr. Shipp. We have about $965,000 that has been set aside, are 

being held for potential claims of that type. So, it would be adequately 

covered.

Senator Buckley. Thank you very much.

[A state ment from the General Services Administration responses 

to additional questions from Senator Buckley, and the prospectus 

follow:]

Statement of Walter A. Meisen

The construction of the United States Tax Court building was authorized by 

the Com mittees on Public Works of the Congress in Jun e of 1963, at a tota l cost 

of $9,848,000. Subsequently, a chang e in site location required redesigning of the 

structure. In addition, increases in construction costs due to the passage of time 

from the original estimate in Jan uary 1963 to a revised construction contract 

award estimated date in April 1972, resulted in the reau thoriza tion of the project 

at a total cost of $19,162,000 in June of 1971. Additional financing was provided 

to the Tax Court on October 31, 1972, by Public Law 92-607 to complete the 

project. The amount provided to complete the project at t ha t time has not been 

sufficient. This is due to cost increases resulting in part from the I).C. Highway 

Depar tment’s refusal to issue per mits for plaza construction. The prospectus 

amendment now before the subc ommittee requests an increase in the project’s 

authorization of $3,916,000 above the prospectus amendment authorized in 1971 

to a t ota l of $23,078,000. Of this am ount an additional appropriation in the amount 

of $2,000,000 is required.
The Tax Co urt building was completed and occupied January 1975. The ramp* 

and sidewalks to the building were completed at th at time so th at the building could be occupied and beams for the plaza were placed across the cen ter leg of 

Inter sta te 95. Your approval of this prospectus amendmen t is requested so t hat the construc­ tion of th e plaza can be completed in tim e for the 1976 Bicentennial.

Q u e stio n s to t h e G e n e r a l S e r v ic e s Ad m in is tr a tio n F rom S en a to r B u ckley

Question 1: What construction claims are outstandi ng aga inst the 

government? Answer: There are no construction claims outstandi ng against the government on this project. The prime contrac tor, George Hyman Construction Company, did make claims on this project in the past. These two claims (docket numbers 

3772 and 3879) have both been closed.

Question 2: How much has been spent on the plaza to date, $564,000? Answer: Expenditures for the plaza to date have been $564,000. This amount covered the costs of structura l steel, foundations, and freeway modifications to 

sup port the plaza.
44

Prospectus Number: PDC-7S043

PROSPECTUS TO AMEND A PUBLIC BUILDING PROJECT 

AUTHORIZED UNDER THE PUBLIC BUILDINGS ACT OF 1959, 

AS AMENDED

1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED AM ENDMENT:

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, as a result of construction 

delays caused by the District of Columbia's refusal to issue permits 

for Plaza construction and unanticipated additional costs resulting 

from implementation of requirements of the Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration, the project cannot be completed within the 

previously authorized limit of cost and the appropriations, which 

exceed the limit made directly to the U.S. Tax Court. Approval 

of this prospectus would authorize an appropriation of $2,000,000 

to complete the project.

2. PROPOSED AMENDM ENT :

Total Estimated

Location Project Maxi mum Cost

Washington, D.C. U.S. Tax Court Building $23,078,000

3. STATEMENT OF NEED:

The building providing 127,599 occupiable square feet of space 

including onsite and offsite improvements has been completed except 

for the Plaza and minor items such as entrance ramp, roll up doors, 

and driveway gratings. The building was occupied by the Tax Court 

on January 20, 1975, and the Court is now functioning. The Plaza 

has not been completed because the District of Columbia refused to 

grant construction permits until January 15, 1974. An attempt was 

made to negotiate a construction contract to complete the Plaza 

with funds remaining. Because of escalating construction costs, 

however, it was not possible to negotiate a bid within the limit 

of funds available. A financial summary, including detailed 

supporting information, and an estimate of costs to complete the 

Plaza work are included with and attached to this amended prospectus.
45

Prospectus Number: PDC-75043

Upon approval of this amended prospectus and the appropriation of 

funds, GSA is prepared to move forward expedi tiously with this project so that it will be completed in time for the 1976 Bicentennial

APR 1 4 1975

Submitted at Washington, D.C. o n ______ _____________________ ________

55-353 0 - 75 - 4
46

U.S. Tax Court 

Washington, D.C.

DESCRIPTION OF 

U.S. TAX COURT PLAZA

The Plaza consists of a 200 foot by 160 foot structural steel and 

concrete bridge spanning Interstate highway 95. The top of the 

Plaza will have a central 30 foot wide raised granite covered re ­

flecting pool surrounded by a 15 foot granite walk. The remainder 

of the Plaza top will be earth covered and planted with grass, 

shrubbery, and sixty honey locust trees.

The freeway or bottom side of the Plaza will be treated similarly 

to the Labor Department Building Tunnel to the South. The walls 

of the freeway will be covered with ceramic tile and the ceiling 

will consist of concrete filled ceramic coated metal pans. Vaporproof fluorescent lights will be over each of the eight traffic 

lanes and a system of eight ventilating fans will be activated by 

a carbon monoxide sensor. -
47

E x h ib it A

U .S . Tax C o u rt 

W as hin gto n, D.C.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO:

U .S . Tax C ourt B u il d in g W ash in gto n, D.C.

P ro sp e c tu s Num ber: PDC -75043

(F orm erl y - P r o je c t Number 49 92 5)

D at e S ubm it te d to C o n g re ss:

O rig in a l P ro sp e c tu s - J a n u a ry 31 , 1963

Amended P ro sp e c tu s - May 19, 1971

D at e o f A ppro vals by C om m itte es on P u b li c W orks :

O rig in a l P ro sp e c tu s

Ho use o f R e p re s e n ta ti v e s 

S en ate

Amended P ro sp e c tu s

Ju ne 23 , 1971 

Ju ne 22 , 1971

A p ril 4, 196 3 

Ju ne 13, 1963

E sti m a te d C os t:

S i t e , D es ig n 

Ma nag em ent 5 

In s p e c ti o n

C o n str u c ti o n

T o ta l C os t

O rig in a l

P ro s p e c tu s

$ 2 ,0 2 2 ,0 0 0

$ 7 ,8 2 6 ,0 0 0

$ 9 ,8 4 8 ,0 0 0

Amended

P ro sp e c tu s

$ 4 ,1 6 2 ,0 0 0

$ 1 5 ,0 00,0 00

$19,1 6 2 ,0 0 0

P ro pose d

In c re a se d

A u th o riz a ti o n 

$ 88,0 00

$ 3 ,8 2 8 ,0 0 0

$ 3 ,9 1 6 ,0 0 0 *

R ev is ed

E sti m a te d

Maximum C ost 

$ 4 ,2 5 0 ,0 0 0

$18,8 2 8 ,0 0 0

$ 2 3 ,0 7 8 ,0 0 0

* T h is in c lu d e s $ 1 ,9 1 6 ,0 0 0 (S ee E x h ib it B) a p p ro p ria te d d i r e c t l y to th e Tax C ou rt p e r P u b li c Law 92 -6 07 on O cto b er 31 , 19 72 . T his p ro s p e c tu s p ro v id e s f o r an a d d itio n a l in c r e a s e o f $ 2 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 

(E x h ib it C) to co m p le te th e f a c i l i t y .

An agre em en t bet w ee n th e U .S . Tax C o u rt, GSA, The N a ti o n a l C a p ita l P la n n in g Co mmiss ion an d th e Co mm iss ion on F in e A rt s cu lm in a te d in a b u il d in g d e sig n f o r a U .S . Tax C ourt B u il d in g . The d e sig n in c lu d e d a 200 fo o t by 160 fo o t s t r u c t u r a l s t e e l and c o n c re te p la z a sp an n in g I n t e r s t a t e hi gh way 95 . (S ee a tt a c h e d d e s c r i p t i o n .) A c o n s tr u c tio n 

c o n tr a c t was aw ar de d on Ju ne 30 , 19 72 .
'4 8

Exhibit B

U.S. Tax Court 

Washington, D.C.

ANALYSIS OF INCREASED CONSTRUCTION COSTS

1. Breakdown of $1,916,000 supplemental funding appropriated in 

October 1972.

a. Plaza Construction

b. Dining Room 5 Kitchen 

Finishes f, Equipment, 

Health Suite, Suites 106, 

107, and 108

c. Heating 5 Chilled Water 

Lines to Labor Building

$2,407,700

208,300

150,000

Subtotal 2,766,000

Cont ingencies 133,000

Air Rights Payment 50,000

Bids, Duplication § 

Material Testing 20,000

Management §

Inspection Cost 135,000

Total Estimated Cost - Phase I 

Changes 5 Phase II Construction 3,104,000

Less Balance Available from Original 

Appropriation (October 1972) 1,188,000

Total - Supplemental Funding $1,916,000
Exhibit C

U.S. Tax Court 

Washington, D.C.

Cost Increase since October 1972.

Escalation from October 1972 to present on 

value of plaza due to delays caused by 

D.C. Highway Department's refusal to issue 

permits for plaza construction 

27% of $2,700,000

Escalation to April 1975 on balance of 

plaza work to be contracted.

9% of $1,825,000

Additional cost for phasing plaza 

construction due to D.C. Highways 

refusal to issue permits.

20$ of $2.5 million

Additional cost to complete plaza 

construction over active highway 

due to D.C. Hig hway’s imposed delays.

Additional costs due to more stringent 

OSHA requirements effected since 1972.

$ 735,000

165,000

500,000

400,000

200,000

TOTAL $2,000,000
U .S . Tax C o u rt 

W a s h in g to n , D.C E x h ib it D

COST SUMMARY

M arc h 1975

6 /1 3 /6 3

O r ig in a l

P ro s p e c tu s

6 /2 3 /7 1

Amended

P ro s p e c tu s Re marks

R e vis e d 

E s ti m a te d 

Maximum C ost Re marks

S it e , D e s ig n ,

Man ag em ent § 

In s p e c tio n $ 2 ,0 2 2 ,0 0 0 $ 4 ,1 6 2 ,0 0 0 $ 4 ,2 5 0 ,0 0 0

S it e 1 ,5 0 0 ,0 0 0 3 ,0 4 1 ,8 0 0 Ch ange o f s it e 

n e c e s s it a te d la n d 

a c q u is it io n .

2 ,6 4 0 ,9 0 5 S it e c o s t le s s th a n 197 1 

e s tim a te .

D esig n 346,0 00 515,2 00 D e sig n co m p le te d f o r 

b u ild in g on o r i g i n a l 

s i t e . R ed e sig n r e ­

q u ir e d when s it e 

changed.

800,0 30 D e sig n r e v is e d f o r D.C . 

re q u ir e m e n ts 6 a d d it io n a l 

p h a s in g o f c o n s tr u c tio n .

Man ag em en t § 

In s p e c tio n 176,0 00 605,0 00 Tim e d e la y r e s u lte d 

in in c re a s e d s a la r y 

c o s ts f o r in s p e c tio n 

du e to i n f l a t i o n § c o s t o f l i v i n g a d d it i o n a l l y in c re a s e d 

sc ope o f p r o je c t , i . e . p la z a 5 m a jo r 

s t r u c t u r a l ch a n ge s, 

e t c .

809,0 65 C ost in c re a s e s in c e p r o je 

e x te n d e d beyond e n v is io n e 

p r o je c t c o m p le tio n d a te . 

T h is is m a g n if ie d by i n ­

c re a s e d s a la r y c o s ts a t tJ 

tim e .

C o n s tru c tio n 7 ,8 2 6 ,0 0 0 1 5 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 E s c a la tio n fr om 

J a n u a ry 19 63 to

A p r i l 1972.

1 8 ,8 2 8 ,0 0 0 See A n a ly s is o f In c re a s e d 

C o n s tru c tio n C o st fr o m 

June 1972 to June 1975.

TOTAL COST: $ 9 ,8 4 8 ,0 0 0 $ 1 9 ,1 6 2 ,0 0 0 $ 2 3 ,0 7 8 ,0 0 0

C
51

Senator Buckley. These hearings are adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m., the subcommittee was recessed, to 

reconvene Wednesday June 11, 1975.]

PENDING LEGI SLAT ION AND PROPOSED FEDER AL

BUILDING PROSPECTUSE S

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11, 1975

U.S. Sen ate,

C om mittee on P ub lic W or ks , 

Sub co mm itte e on B ui ld ings and G ro un ds,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 9:40 a.m., pu rsuant to call, in room 4200, 

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Quentin Burdick presiding.

Present: Senators Morgan and Burdick.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. QUENTIN N. BURDICK, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

Senator B urd ic k. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We are here 

this morning to discuss two very important projects pending before 

the subcommittee, which involve not only a great deal of money but 

some basic issues as well.

The first is a proposal to construct a new Government Printing 

Office in Washington, which has been under consideration for the past 

several years because the existing downtown facilities are inadequate 

and obsolete. The Government Printing Office is responsible for the 

reproduction and dissemination of all published material generated 

by the Congress, including legislative documents, reports and other 

compilations of various kinds, including the Congressional Record. 

This amounts to literally tons of paperwork each year, and the demand 

has been increasing steadily, to such extent tha t an ever-growing 

backlog now exists, resulting in delays and impaired efficiency.

The need for modern facilities and adequate space has long been 

recognized, but plans have been deferred for one reason or another. 

Funds were recently authorized for an environmental impact study, 

and it is now hoped that preliminary planning, at least, can get underway.

The other matter to be considered is a prospectus which requests 

additional funds to construct a courthouse and Federal office building 

in Atlanta, Ga. This was originally authorized in 1966, but a subsequent site change, design revisions, and escalation have increased the 

cost to such extent tha t committee approval is required before construction can be undertaken. Consolidation of several agencies is 

desired, a t one location, to increase efficiency and reduce costs.

An unforeseen demand for additional courtroom space is another 

factor contributing to the need for this new building.
54

Gov er nm en t P r in tin g O ff ic e

Would tho se who wish to tes tif y in su pp ort of the Go ve rnme nt 

Pr intin g Office please come forw ard first, and ide nti fy yours elv es for 

the rec ord ?

STATEMENT OF THOMAS F. McCORMICK, PUBLIC PRINT ER OF THE

UNITED STATES, ACCOMPANIED BY THOMAS L. PEYTON, ACTING

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE, GENERAL

SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; CHARLES H. CONRAD, EXECUTIVE

DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION; JOHN LOXLEY,

PROJECT MANAGER FOR GPO PROJECT, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; AND JOSEPH PALANK, DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING, GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

Mr. M cC orm ick. Mr. Ch air man , I am Th om as F. Mc Cormick 

Publi c Pr in te r of the Un ited State s.

I ap prec iat e the op po rtu ni ty to ap pe ar before this co mm itte e to 

pro vid e such da ta as you ma y dee m ap prop ria te in con nec tion with 

ou r requ es t to reloca te the Go ve rn men t Pr intin g Office.

As you m ay know , the need to im pro ve the pr es en t Go ve rn me nt 

Pr intin g Office facilities ha s bee n reco gniz ed and gen era lly acc ept ed 

for ne arl y 20 years . I t was in 19 56 th at the Jo in t Co mmittee on 

Pr intin g fir st ord ere d an in ve sti ga tio n int o the p oss ibi lity of exp andin g 

the Go ve rn men t Pr int ing Office’s faciliti es.

Th e resu lt of th at inv estig ati on and su bseq ue nt revi ews ha s consis tently bee n a res oun din g “yes .” Th e only quest ion s ove r the years , 

and the only quest ion s in my opi nio n tod ay, are “w her e” the fac ilit y 

sho uld be loc ate d and “w ha t” type of fac ilit y it sho uld be.

At lea st two efforts have bee n directed tow ard expanding the 

pr esen t fac ilit y. On each of thes e occa sion s, bo th leg isla tive au th or iza tio n and ap pr op ria ted fun ds were pr esen t bu t, in the final ana lyses, 

the Pu bli c Pr in te rs involve d, inc lud ing myse lf, could no t, in good 

cons cien ce, au tho riz e the ex pe nd itu re of Go ve rnme nt fun ds to enla rge 

an inhe re nt ly inefficient ei gh t-s to ry printin g plan t.

I t bec ame increas ingly cle ar th at the taxp ay er would no t ge t his 

mo ne y’s wo rth unle ss the Go ve rn men t Pr intin g Office rel ocate d into 

a fac ilit y designe d to imp rov e the efficien cy of the print ing , bin din g, 

and di stribu tio n op era tio ns inv olv ed.

Th e loc ation of a su ita ble site was more difficult th an exp ect ed. 

Fi rst, the site had to me et the crite ria of bein g ne ar a rai lro ad siding 

and tru ck ro ute s and still be no fu rth er th an one hal f ho ur ’s driv e 

from Ca pit ol Hill, the source of the majo rit y of work to be pro duced 

in the new fac ilit y. Nex t, the site ha d to be suita ble for our nee ds and 

ou r pres enc e accep tab le to the co mm un ity involve d.

Th e last qualif ication pro ved to be a ma jor obs tacle. Sites loc ated 

withi n the D is tric t of Col umbia, wh ich met the ot he r crite ria w7ere 

deemed to be need ed more for publi c hou sing th an for a print ing 

pl an t and a site along the bel tway in Mary lan d was opp ose d by the 

D is tric t bec aus e of the loss of a va lua ble em plo ym ent base and also 

by the M aryl an d com mu nit y inv olv ed.

Mo reo ver , the idea th at the Go ve rn me nt Pr intin g Office was going 

to exp and and thu s reduce the am ou nt of Go ve rnme nt pri nti ng
55

P

rocured from private industry also brought objections from the 

usiness community.

It is with great pleasure, therefore, tha t I can now state tha t we 

have found a site which fully meets our criteria and is devoid of the 

obstacles which hampered past attempts to relocate.

First, the site is located about 10 to 15 minuted from the Capitol; 

it is located next to a railroad siding and adequate truck routes are 

available;

The site seems unsuitable for housing;

The relocation of the Government Printing Office to this site is 

endorsed by the District of Columbia government because it takes 

otherwise low value land and turns it into an anchor for a light 

industrial complex which will provide a needed economic base for the 

District;

The relocation to this site is also endorsed by the National Capital 

Planning Commission for a number of reasons, including the fact tha t 

the present facilities are not compatible with its proposed visitor 

center concepts.

The proposed site is located next to a Metro station and will also 

provide for adequate parking.

Last, but far from least, the proposed relocation is not opposed by 

the business community because it is now clear tha t the Government 

Printing Office is not expanding its size or capacity to produce work 

other than tha t presently produced in-house. Rather we are primarily 

increasing GPO’s efficiency, cost effectiveness and ability to serve.

I cannot emphasize this last point too much. We expect tha t the 

new facility will have fewer square feet than our present facilities 

and will not affect the Federal printing procurement program. We 

will continue to purchase printing services from commercial sources 

whenever feasible. We intend to continue to follow our present policies 

in this regard.

The payoff comes from increased efficiency and cost effectiveness. 

We estimate annual savings of about $11 million per year primarily 

through improved materials handling. Additional savings, not in the 

$11 million, include the following:

1. About $3 million of one-time cost required to bring the present 

facilities into compliance with the Occupational Safety and Health 

Act, and

2. The annual savings associated with the availability of high 

ceilings and unbroken space which will allow greater use of the 

systems approach involving more modern in-line production equipment. The annual savings from the expanded systems approach and 

other technology improvements tha t would be available in a new 

facility should at a minimum equal the already documented savings.

Thus, Mr. Chairman, I am in tha t happy situation of presenting 

for your consideration a project which will:

1. Increase the efficiency of our sendee to the Congress and our 

other customer agencies;

2. Provide the community with an improved economic base;

3. Provide a major public building project at a time when the 

construction industry needs a boost;

4. Assist in accomplishing the objective of the National Capital 

Planning Commission comprehensive plan for the National Capital; 

and
5. Give our employees a be tter and healt hie r working environme nt 

with imp roved tra ns po rta tio n facilities.

All of this and an ann ual savings well in excess of $11 million.

It m ay sound too good to be true bu t I have brou gh t along the men 

who have the facts and figures which I believe will convince you . 

Mr. Th om as Pey ton , Acting Dep uty Com missioner, Public Buildings 

Service, General Services Ad mi nis tration, and Mr. Charles Conra d, 

the Execu tive Director of the Na tio nal Ca pital Pla nning Comm ission, 

are here to give testim ony on this pro jec t and my associates and I are 

ava ilab le for any que stio ns you may have.

Tha nk you.

STATEMENT OF T. L. PEYTON, ACTING DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, 

PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE, GSA

Mr. P eyton. Mr. Ch air man, I am Thom as Pe yton , Acting Dep uty 

Com mission er for the General Services Ad mi nis tra tio n. With me this 

mo rning is Mr. John Loxley, sea ted to your extrem e lef t at the table, 

who is the Acting GSA Pr ojec t Manager for this pro ject.

Th e General Services Ad mi nis tra tio n indeed endorses this pro jec t 

and welcomes the op po rtu ni ty to su pp ort the Go vernme nt Pr intin g 

Office w ith our knowledge and bac kgroun d in planning, design, and 

constru ction of large scale public build ings. Fo r some months now we 

have wor ked closely with GP O ma nageme nt in developing a scope for 

the prop osed project.

This pro spe ctu s conte mpla tes the .cons truc tion of an indu str ial typ e 

building to house the con solidated opera tions of the Governm ent 

Printin g Office. The fac ility will con tain appro xim ate ly 2,100,000 

gross square feet of space, with parking for 1,160 vehicles to be 

pro vid ed in a separa te facility ad jac ent to the new buildin g. The total 

estim ate d pro ject cost for this facility is estim ate d at $158,034,000.

Th e ma jor cost bre akd ow ns are as follows:

Site acquisition and relocation, $10,153,000; design and review, 

$5,639,000; construction costs as of J uly 1976, $139,546,000; manag emen t and inspection, $2,696,000.

A dr af t env iron mental im pa ct statem en t is pre sen tly being developed and is scheduled to be com pleted by mid -Au gus t. It will 

provide an hon est app raisal of no t only the im pact of the presen t 

opera tion bu t also the im pa ct of fut ure ope rations , utilizing new 

techn ologies, at the new loca tion.

The org anizational rel ationships con tain ed under this prospectus 

envision the Go vernm ent Pr intin g Office as the owne rs of the building 

and the agen cy thr ough which fun ding for the proje ct will be accom plished. The Gen eral Service s Ad mi nis tration will act as the 

agent for the Go vernme nt Printin g Office by pro vid ing technical 

supp ort du rin g the p lan nin g for the facility and during the ad mi nis tra ­

tion of the design and construc tion.

We are prepar ed to continue to work with the Go vernme nt Print ing 

Office to assist them in realizin g the ir goal of r elocating to a new facility 

to ma ke it possible for th at org ani zation to fully me et the ir mission 

responsibilities.
57

STATEMENT OF CHARLES H. CONRAD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. 

NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION

Mr. Conrad. Mr. Chairman, my name is Charles Conrad. I am the Executive Director of the National Capital Planning Commission. 1 am pleased to appear before you today in support of the proposed relocation of the Government Printing Office to a site in the northeast 

section of the District of Columbia. The staff of the Planning Commission has been working with the Government Printing Office for many years to assist it in any way we could to meet its requirements for a new modern efficient operation. We have investigated possible development sites, both within and o utside the city. We feel that it is desirable, both from the standpoint of the long- range planning for Federal functions and the development of the National Capital, to retain the 7,500 jobs at the Government Printing Office within the District of Columbia, within a planned industrial area, and in close proximity to the Congress and to other agencies 

which GPO serves. Sites large enough to accommodate GPO requirements with adequate truck and rail access are difficult to find in the District of Columbia. However, the site proposed on Brentwood Road meets these conditions and would provide excellent access for employees via Metro, which is constructing a station in the immediate vicinity at Rhode Island 

Avenue. The "General Land Use Objectives” element of the Comprehensive Plan for the National Capital identifies the Brentwood Road site as part of an "independent employment center.” Located here, the GPO could provide a much-needed stimulus for attracting light indus­ trial development and employment to the adjoining area. The comprehensive plan also anticipates the development of an "Uptow n C enter” around the Metro station at Rhode Island Avenue. This center is envisioned as a concentration of retail office and high density residential uses. GPO employees could patronize this center. The existing location of the GPO is within an area tha t is under­ going a transition or change in land uses. With the opening of the National Visitor Center at Union Station for the Bicentennial and the completion of urban renewal efforts, this area offers potential for commercial development in which industrial type operations such as 

GPO are not desirable. As commercial development intensifies in the area, the materials handling operation of GPO will become increasingly difficult. The GPO relocation would make available sites for development with uses 

more related to downtown activities. However, the historic original GPO Building, a designated land­ mark of the National Capital, should be retained and used, in part, for the convenience of the public as a bookstore by the Superintendent 

of Documents. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I believe tha t the proposed site is consistent with the comprehensive plan for the National Capital and is in the best interest of the Federal Government and the N ation’s 

Capital.
58

Senator Burdick. Thank you, gentlemen.

The first question is: If we didn’t need it for so many years, why do 

we need it now?

Mr. McCormick. It has been needed for a long time. Had we 

relocated several years ago, we would now have the facility in place to 

accomplish the efficiency tha t we are talking about, at a far lower 

capital cost.

The significant justifications, in my mind, are the improved efficiency and cost effectiveness. We can document approximately $11 

million of annual cost savings. We feel there are even more savings 

available to us in a new facility in tha t we will be able to take greater 

advantage of new technology than we can in our present older facility.

In addition, we fit in more with the locale of the proposed location 

than we do in our present location which is going to be b uilt around 

the Visitor Center. I think those are the principal reasons.

Senator Burdick. Is there an urgency at this particular time? 

Couldn’t you operate for several years yet?

Mr. McCormick. Yes, sir, we could. But eventually, I think tha t 

we must take a look a t the efficiency of the operation. The longer we 

wait, the more costly tha t structure is going to be.

Senator Burdick. Why do you say that?

Mr. McCormick. Primarily because of inflation.

Senator Burdick. Are we going to cure it; are we going to stop this 

inflation?

Mr. McCormick. I hope so, Senator. But I think tha t it will be 

with us for a while at any rate.

Another reason for acting now is tha t we must eventually bring 

our buildings in to compliance with OSHA regulations as they will 

exist some 4 to 5 years from now.

We are in compliance at this point in time, b ut we estimate it will 

cost between $3 and $5 million to bring our existing facilities into 

compliance with the OSHA stand ards over the next several years.

Senator Burdick. Does the current occupied space belong to GPO?

Mr. McCormick. Yes, sir.

Senator Burdick. Will GPO be able to trade or dispose of it independently, or must this be through GSA?

Mr. McCormick. It would seem to me th at GSA would be involved 

in the ultimate disposition of the building. We, at GPO would not 

take it upon ourselves to dispose of it. I would assume tha t analyses 

would be made of which disposition is in the best interest of the 

Government.

We are part of the legislative branch. We look to a remodeling of 

the buildings for offices as one possibility. The disposition recommendation would probably be a joint effort on the pa rt of the Architect 

of the Capitol, General Services Administration, and the National 

Capital Planning Commission.

Senator Burdick. Are you saying it is too old for printing but not 

too old for Congress?

Mr. McCormick. No, sir. I certainly wouldn’t say that. I say it is 

not well designed for a modern printing facility, but could possibly 

be used as an office building. I t is a good sturdy structure.

Senator Burdick. Tha t is no t selling your case very well if it is a 

good sturdy building. Why can’t we remodel it for printing?
59

Mr. McCormick. I don’t think it could be economically remodeled for an efficient, cost effective printing plant. I would like to emphasize tha t the ceilings are too low for the type of printing equipment tha t 

is generally used today. Moreover each floor is broken up with air shafts, ventilation shafts, elevators such tha t there is very little opportunity to use in-line production methods. In addition, it is an eight-story structure which is the primary feature of inefficiency. We spend a significant amount of money moving materials. Generally, you would like to have heavy production activities on a single floor in-line production. I have with me Joseph Palank, director of engineering at GPO who is on your far right. He is be tter qualified than I to speak to that particular point. If I may, I would like to call upon Mr. Palank 

now.

Mr. Palank. To amplify Mr. McCormick’s statement, we have a 32-scale drawing here of the GPO. This area is our building 3. This area is our building 1, and this area, over here, is our building 2. Mr. McCormick alluded to the concept of straight-line production. I have indicated in red the areas that constitute stairways, fan 

rooms, elevators, light courts, et cetera. In the design of any new modem building, I think you would find most of these utility areas on the perimeter of the building, leaving a wide open expanse in the center. This then would afford us an oppor­ tunity to run in-line printing equipment down this way and then come back this way and run in tha t direction until we finish our process. 

Th at is basically the point he was making before.

Senator Burdick. I assume the answer is th at you want to relocate 

those services t ha t this would be very costly?

Mr. Palank. Yes, sir. In fact, as it now stands our bay sizes are very limited. In other words, we have been precluded from purchasing larger and faster presses because of our low ceilings and small bays. In the new building we anticipate to have high ceilings, in the area of say, 30 feet. Bay sizes currently run 15 by 25 feet. We would run in the area of 25 to 40 feet, which would accommodate the new equipment 

we are talking about.

Senator Burdick. How many floors would be in the proposed new 

building?

Mr. Palank. Th at would essentially be determined by the study tha t we are asking to have done. But it could range anywhere from 

two to three stories.

Senator Burdick. How can you determine the cost when you.don’t know how many floors you are going to have? I have a figure in front 

of me now. How did you arrive at that?

Mr. McCormick. GSA made that estimate based on some standards we proposed. At that time we were talking about a three-story facility.

Senator Burdick. This price tag here is just a horseback estimate?

Mr. McCormick. I wouldn’t say a horseback estimate at all. It is based on the criteria which we gave to GSA, based on our in­ house studies. The ultimate design will be dependent upon the re­ sults of studies which will have to be accomplished with outside con­ sultants. Although we have established criteria, we are saying we want to get study money to make sure our criteria are the appropriate 

ones for the most effective facility.
60

Senator Burdick. Then these figures aren’t firm?

Mr. McCormick. No, sir, they are not. They may change.

Senator B urdick. Is there any chance of their changing downward?

Mr. McCormick. Yes, sir, there is a good possibility, because we *

have made the assumption tha t the space requirements are going to 

be approximately, the same, 2.1 million square feet, as our existing 

facility.

As we get into the detailed analyses of the pieces of equipment that *

will be housed therein; we may very well find tha t the space requirements will be less. But at this point in time can’t guarantee that.

I would like to amplify also the discussion of the nature of our 

building. We have looked at the contiguous expansion as one of the 

basic alternatives, tha t is, what can we do with our existing facility.

The last estimate we had in order to do the type of thing we would 

like to do to make it more effective; tha t is, to put anoth er eightstory addition on to our existing facilities, was approximately $110 

million and tha t estimate is now 2 years old and we would still not 

be able to achieve the types of cost reductions that we could in a new 

facility. With about $110 million of improvements to our present 

facility, we would be able to achieve some savings but I believe we 

can double those cost savings in a new facility.

Mr. Peyton. I would like to respond furth er to the question about 

the cost. The principal means of arriving at projected construction 

costs at this particular point in the project development, is related to 

the square footage needs of the organization or agency that would 

occupy the space. In the prospectus in exhibit A there is an analysis 

of the Government Printing Office’s space requirements.

Based on these requirements, which incidentally reflect the downward adjustment from their present space utilization, it is on this 

basis that we arrive at a construction cost.

We believe it is a reasonable cost for a light industrial facility of the 

general natu re tha t is characteristic of the Government Printing 

Office operation.

Senator Burdick. That raises another question. In this project 

cost estimate you have here, land acquisition and relocation totals 

$10,153,000. Design and review will cost $5,639,000. Wha t is tha t; 

architectural work?

Mr. Peyton. This is the cost of engaging architects and engineers 

as well as any consultants they may need to develop the design of the 

facility as well as GSA costs for administering the contract for the 

architect-engineer.

Senator B urdick. Engineer’s contracts and GSA work? What else?

Mr. Peyton. That is the major component of that.

Senator Burdick. Construction costs total $139,546,000 and * 

management and inspection $2,696,000. What in the world is that for?

Mr. Peyton. This would be additional cost incurred in connection 

with engaging an architect-engineer to assist in supervising the construction.

Senator Burdick. What are we paying the $5,639,000 for?

Mr. Peyton. This would be for the development of the design of 

the project and preparation of specifications leading to placing the 

job on the market for construction bids.
61

Senator Burdick. Do you mean they don’t supervise it after they 

draw up the plans?

Mr. Peyton. They do, for an additional fee, sir. Th at is included 

in the last item tha t you asked about.

Senator Burdick. This is architectural supervision then?

Mr. Peyton. Under the category of management and inspection we have the architect-engineer’s tees for work during the construction phase, which includes supervision as well as GSA costs tha t relate to administration contracts and some GSA supervision.

Senator Burdick. In other words, you ’ve got almost $10 million tied 

up in architect drawings and supervision?

Mr. Peyton. Plus GSA costs, yes, sir; tha t is correct.

Senator B urdick. Isn ’t that high?

Mr. Peyton. For this size project we believe tha t it is within the 

allowable limits.

Senator Burdick. Allowable? You must have some pretty high limits. It seems to be a very high cost. But maybe I don’t understand 

building here in Washington.

Mr. Peyton. We believe tha t this cost could be applicable regardless of the location of the building.

Senator Burdick. I am sure of that.

Mr. McCormick. Mr. Chairman, to tha t point, this is an industrial complex unlike many of the Federal buildings which are primarily office in nature. A part of th at design cost is the design of the materials handling activities tha t are involved tha t will be necessary to do the job properly. The layou t of machinery and equipment are also included in tha t design cost.

Senator Burdick. For $10 million I would hope so. Does GSA have any plans as to disposal or retention of the old buildings?

Mr. Peyton. We don’t at this time, sir. But if the building were turned over to GSA in the course of the normal disposal action, we would recognize the historic value of the building and current trends toward recycling and reutilization of suitable buildings. Initial indica­ tions are tha t it could be successfully remodeled for office use. The location of the principal buildings are also very valuable.

Senator Burdick. You are not inferring that we aren’t going to extend the Senate Office Building now because of this?

Mr. Peyton. I am not familiar with that, sir. I don’t think I could 

respond.

Senator Burdick. I d on’t think so. Does the District of Columbia government own any of the construc­ tion site now proposed for the new GPO buildings, and who are the owners of the 34 acres you need, and who owns the remaining 50 or 60 

acres?

Mr. Loxley. I am John Loxley. I think I can answer that for you. The present contemplated site, none of which is owned by the D istrict of Columbia, we are presently looking at approximately 34 acres of a site somewhat south of the District portion. There are presently four owners on the site, one of which is Corson and Gruman, second, George and Sadie Hyman. Their property is held in trust by National Bank of Washington; Chessie System, the B. & O.-C. & O. Railway system and Trailways Bus system.

55-353 0 - 75 - 5
62

On the site there are some nine structures, some of which are owned 

by the owners and some of course, are leased by the owners.

Senator Burdick. The ground is actually privately owned?

Mr. L oxley. Yes, it is, sir.

Senator Burdick. What relocation cost might be involved?

Mr. McCormick. I think I can answer that.

Senator Burdick. Wouldn’t this be in addition to the estimated 

total cost?

Mr. McCormick. No, it is not in addition to the estimated total 

project cost. The total project cost as we developed before, is $158,- 

034,000. Within that we have set out approximately $9 million for the 

cost of the site with approximately $1,100,000 set out for relocation 

of the nine different tenants of the site.

Senator Burdick. Gentlemen, why couldn’t the old Fort Lincoln 

site be used, which is further out on New York Avenue? And couldn’t 

something be worked out in the way of a trade with the District of 

Columbia government?

Mr. Conrad. I believe tha t site has had more study, possibly, than 

any other Federal building site in the District of Columbia. Several 

years ago related agencies did a study of the National Training School 

for Boys site. As a result of these studies, it was felt tha t tha t site 

could be better utilized for the housing needs of the District of Columbia, which were acute at tha t time and which are also acute at the 

present time.

In view of this, the site at Fort Lincoln was set aside and there are 

approved plans now for tha t site, for a balanced residential community. In view of that studies were furthered to find another suitable 

site for the Government Printing Office.

As a result this site, which was one of those studies back at that time, 

was selected. Another thing about the Fort Lincoln site is tha t it is 

rather hilly. I t was found difficult to get the necessary highway access, 

truck access, plus the railroad access into tha t site. The railroads 

granted are near the site and a siting could be made available to the 

Fort Lincoln area.

Because of the topography conditions and particularly being adjacent to where the traffic comes into the District, it was very costly 

as well as physically difficult to get this kind of access into the site.

In trying to provide an orderly development for our Nation’s 

Capital, Fort Lincoln was set aside as a residential community. New 

York Avenue’s corridor, with all of its railroads and its truck access 

and the obvious use of industrials, is an ideal location for the Government Printing Office.

The Government Printing Office would have railroad sidings 

adjacent to the facility itself. There will be no topography conditions 

whatsoever to deal with. The good truck access along New York 

Avenue, cannot be met any other place in the District of Columbia.

It was felt that with the GPO in the industrial New York Avenue 

corridor, it would be a better location for the Government Printing 

Office by far than the naturalist Fort Lincoln site. It would also further 

the plan for the Nation’s Capital which has the New York Avenue 

corridor as an industrial area which the GPO would definitely enhance 

and actually we believe, start the renewal and the redevelopment of 

tha t whole corridor for service industries related to the printing 

industry.
63

Another reason for the selection of this New York Avenue corridor site over the Lincoln site, which is by no means a small criteria, was the access through Metro. Immediately adjacent to this site is the Rhode Island Avenue station. As a part of the design of this facility, the access of the Government Printing Office can have a direct re­ lationship to a Metro stop. The employees of GPO would have good access throughout the metropolitan area to this facility. Fort Lincoln’s site does not have a Metro station, sir.

Senator Burdick. Are the views you are expressing now those of the 

National Capital Planning Commission?

Mr. Conrad. I believe I am expressing the views of the National 

Capital Planning Commission.

Senator Morgan. Thank you, Senator Burdick. Do you gentlemen have anything you want to add for the record on this project, in addition to what you have told Senator Burdick?

Mr. McCormick. No, sir. I don’t believe so.

Senator Morgan. Thank you very much. [Questions from Senator Morgan and Senator Buckley to GSA relative to the Government Printing Office and a report of building 

project survey follow:]

A n sw er s to S en a to r M o r g a n ’s Q u e s t io n s

1. Question. Please describe the functions of the Governmen t Printin g Office, 

and their relationship to Congress. Answer. Par amount func tions of the Governm ent Printing Office (GPO) are to the printing, binding and distribu tion needs of the Gov ernmen t in a manne r which is cost effective and timely. Highest in-plant prioritie s are direc ted to the printing of Congressional work since most of the printing for the other branch es of the Governm ent can be produced commercially.

2. Question. App roximately what is the volume of work turned out? Do they 

work on a 24-hour basis? Answer. Projecting FY -75 prin ting and binding revenues, we an tic ipate the

following billing volume:

Inhouse pro duc tion_________________________________________ $138,00 0,00 0

Commercial (outside) pro curem ent___________________________ 302 ,000,000

Total billing________________________________________ 440 ,000,000

Yes. We work on a sta nd ard 24 hour per day basis, 5 days per week.

3. Question. Is there any comparable pri nting or pu blish ing facility in the coun­ try? Does the Gov ernmen t maintain any o the r similar facility? Answer. No, there is no comparable facility in the cou ntry and the G overnm ent does not maintain similar facilities.

4- Question. Please describe the facilities th at GPO now occupies. Answer. The GPO consists of four buildings which constitute ages of 70, 50 and two at 37 years of age. Thre e of these buildings (No. 1, 2 & 3) are located on the west side of No rth Capitol Street, while Building No. 4 is located on the

♦ east side of this street. Buildings 1, 2 and 3 consist of eight stories and house all pri nting functions (except postal card production) of GPO and a ma jority of 

administrative areas Building 4 is utilized prim arily for storage and postal card production. An underground tunnel connects Building 4 to the other buildings.

* 5. Question. What will become of these if a new plant is constructed? Answer. T here is no firm decision at th e present time as to the future use of th e existing GPO buildings. However, the plans for the Northwest Urban Renew al Project #1 indicated continued use of the area for Governm ent purposes.

6. Question. What is th e urgency for a new plant at this time? How much longer could GPO continue to ope rate effectively withou t it? Answer. The urgency for a new pla nt has been with us for sometime now. Specifically, the core of the need is the requirem ent to provide Congress with more cost effective printing products. We can reduce Federal printing a t least $11 million annually in a new facility.
64

7. Question. How would this benefit the Government, from the standpoint of 

efficiency and economy? The project re port refers to an $11 million annual savings.

Can this be substantiat ed?

Answer. The building would be designed and constructed to meet the current 

and future needs of GPO. As a result, the utilization of men and materials would 

be such th at nearly maximum efficiency and effectiveness would be realized. We 

cann ot only sub sta ntiate the $11 million annu al savings but we would be happy 

to explore with your staff, and at their convenience, other areas of cost redu ction 

which we believe will double our projected annual savings of $11 million. *

8. Question. Are GPO operations audited on a regular basis by GAO? Have t hey 

expressed an official opinion regarding the current proposal, and is a copy available?

Answer. GAO has a perm anen t staff assigned to GPO to perform financial 

audits. GAO has not, however, offered an opinion on the proposal and, consequently, no copy is available.

.9. Question. Does th e current occupied space belong to GPO? Will G PO be able 

to sell or trade it independ ently or must this be through GSA?

Answer. The main facilities (GPO office and plant) are owned inde pen den tly 

of GSA, and while we are under no obligation to GSA, it would seem prudent to 

seek the benefit of their expertise in this regard.

10. Question. Does GSA have any firm plans as to its disposal, or rete ntio n, as 

the case may be?

 Couldn’t it be converted to office space for oth er agencies, 

particularly in accordance with the concept of S. 865 now pending before the 

Committee, which would authorize the rehabilita tion and continued use of old and 

archite cturally significant buildings as Governm ent office space?

Answer, (a) No, we do not have any plans, (fe) Yes, it could be converted to 

office space for o ther agencies use. In this regard, a feasibility study was made by 

GSA in August 1964 th at assumed the availab ility of the building upon the 

construction of new facilities for GPO. The study indicated th at alth oug h the 

buildings were constru cted at different periods over the past 60 years, the ir 

specialized uses are of sound construction and in reaso nably good condition. The 

report further st ate d th at th ey could economically be renovated to office typ e use.

11. Question. Has the D.C. Governm ent expressed any inte rest in acquiring this 

prop erty? They have recommended the project, unconditionally.

Answer. To date, the D.C. Gov ernm ent has expressed no inte rest in acqu iring 

any of the present GPO space or property.

12. Question, (a) Does the D.C. Governm ent own any of the construction site 

now proposed for the new GPO Building? (6) Who are the owners of th e 34 acres 

th at will be required initially? (c) Who owns the remain ing 50 or 60 acres?

Answer, (a) The D.C. Government does not own any portion of the proposed 

site. (6) There are 4 owners of the a pproximately 34 acres: (1) Corson & Gruman,

4.4 acres; (2) George & Sadie Hyman, 11 acres; (3) Chessie System (B&O/C&O 

Railroads), 18 acres; and (4) Trailw ays Bus System 1.3 acres, (c) The remaining 

undeveloped area (Ha rmo ny Cemetery tra ct) comprises only abo ut 22 acres, and 

is owned by the D.C. Government.

13. Question, (a) What is on this pro per ty now: (6) Especially the 34 acre«?

Answer (a) On the 22 acre property owned by the D.C. Government, the

D.C. Departme nt of Highways and Traffic utilizes a portion to store equipm ent, 

gravel and salt. The D.C. Environmental Services maintains a truc k alert service 

center, which provides for truck parking, and storage.

(6) The following businesses are on the 34 acre property now: (1) "Super Con ­

crete” , Concrete Manufactu re; (2) "M art in-M arietta ”, Cement Manufacture ;

(3) "Un ited Broadcasting ”, Broadcasting Tower; (4) "Corson & Grum an”,

Asphalt Con struction ; (5) “H udso n” Sup ply/Equipment, Building Supply; (6) 

"Consolidated Fibers Inc .”, Recycling Broker; (7) "As phalt Construction Co.” , ♦

Asphalt Manufacture; (8) "Trailways Bus System” , Maintenance Garage/ 

Purchasing De partm ent; and (9) “Jam es Parreco & Sons”, Excavating Con ­

tractor.

H. Question, (a) Wh at will the prop erty cost? (6) Are appraisal or purchase 

negotiations alrea dy underway? *

Answer (a) The pro per ty cost is estimated at $9,000,000. (6) Neither app rais al 

nor purchase ne gotiation s are underway. They will be initiate d when funds become 

available.

15. Question, (a) What relocation costs might be involved? (b) Are these firm? (c) Could we have a breakdown of the estimate for this?

Answer: (a) Funds have no t been appropriated to perm it letting a c ontract with 

the D.C. Government to handle relocation of the ten ants on the proposed site
65

so that actua l relocation costs have not been obtaine d. At this time GSA does not feel it would be in the best inte rest of eith er the Gov ernm ent or the ten ants, to request of the tena nts t ha t they provide a to tal inventory of their pro perty as well as requesting th at they obtain bids for moving prior to this projec t being authorized. (b) Our estimate of $1,100,000 for relocation is not firm. (e) GSA has only been able to estimate the cost of relocation as a percen tage of the purchase price; therefore, a cost breakdown is n ot available.

16. Question, (a) Why can ’t the old For t Lincoln site be used, which is furth er out New York Avenue? (b) Couldn’t something be worked out in the way of a trade with the D.C. Government, eliminating the $9 million site cost? Answer, (a) It is our und erstanding th at Fort Lincoln has been set aside for residential housing and the presence of a large-scale industrial plant there would not conform to the planning objectives of either the D.C. Governm ent or Nation al Capital Planning Commission. Additionally, Fort Lincoln topography is a pro b­ lem since it is contemp lated th at the proposed building will cover a much larg er ground area tha n would be the case were an office building of similar occupiable area located here. Another complication arises in th at the Fort Lincoln site does not complement indu strial usage as does the Brentw ood site. On the other hand, the use of th e Brentwood site for the proposed building would be com plim enta ry to the basically indu strial cha racter of the area and would tend to con cen trate industrial uses so as to minimize any adverse imp act on the NE area of the cit y. (6) The D.C. Governm ent has expressed no inte rest in effecting a trade for th e Fort Lincoln site. A second alternativ e to the Fort Lincoln site was the 22 ac re Harmony Cemetery tra ct which is immediately adjacent to the proposed location for the GPO. The use of this tra ct was explored with the D.C. Governm ent and they do not favor the use of this land for the G PO. The District Governm ent is prese ntly engaged in preparing Metro Impac t area plans considering GPO being located on the proposed 34 acre tra ct with medium to high density housing and commercial proposed for the Harm ony Cemetery portion. It is possible, th at because placement of the proposed GPO on either the Fort Lincoln or the Ha rmo ny tracts would not be consistent with NPCS or D.C. Government planned uses for those sites, that G SA/GPO could be in conflict with th e Intergovernmenta l Act of 

1968. 17. Question. (a) Although the project is estim ated to cost $140,000,000 only $15.5 million are being requested now. (b) What, precisely, will th is cover? (c) If a land trad e could be effected, eliminating the property cost, how much would then be needed to get the p roje ct underway? Answer (a) A note of clarification is in orde r for 17(a). The constru ctio n is estimated to cost $139,546,000, th e to tal project cost, not including new equipment or moving the present GPO operation, is estim ated to cost $158,034,000. (b) The requested $15.5 million will perm it the project to proceed up to the first construction con trac t package. It will include the acqu isitio n of the site and relocation of present tenants, estimated to cost $10,153,000; an a rchitec t-en gineer­ ing firm will be engaged to prepare concept, diagramatic; and ten tative drawings up to the working drawing stage at an estimated cost of $3,099,000. An in dus tria l engineering firm and a printing consultant will be employed to prepare the pro ­ gram of requirements, and planning of th e facility at an e stim ated cost of $1,253,- 000; a construction manager firm will be engaged during this period to value engi­ neer the design an d plan the future construction activ ities at a cost of $350,000; surveys, soil tests, printing and duplication are estimated to cost $160,000; the GSA Project Managem ent Office is estimated to cost $274,000 and the review and adm inistration costs are estimated at $211,000. (c) The prop erty and relocation costs are estimated at $10,153,000. If these costs were eliminated, it would require $5,347,000 for the project to reach the stag e 

described above. 18. Question, (a) How much of the building design work would this cover? (b) Wh at percentage would be allocated to industrial engineering or materials handling studies, and is this considered a part of design? (c) How long would this take? Answer, (a) The $5,347,000 will allow design work up to bu t not including the preparation of working drawings for construction con tract packages. (o) We have estimated th at the industrial engineering would comprise about 23% of the design effort. The industrial engineering is considered a pa rt of the 

design. (c) The industrial engineering studies are expected to tak e 10 months.

19. Question, (a) How would the a rchitect or con sultant for this design work be selected? (b) Would this represen t complete design of the building or only part?
(c) At which point would construction authorization be requested? (d) What is the projected time frame for both design and construction?

Answer, (a) GSA will follow the standard selection process as prescribed by the 

Arch-Eng Selection Act, PL92-582, tha t is:

1. Place a notice in Commerce Business Daily to solicit for firms to make their 

interest known for this project.

2. Evaluate, by a panel, made up of architects and engineers from private 

industry, the qualifications of all interested firms or joint ventures.

3. Identify 5 to 8 of the most qualified firms or joint ventures.

4. Request of each that they submit information setting out their methods for 

approaching the design of this project.

5. Interview each of the prospective teams on their capabilities and management approach.

6. Provide, to the Administrator, GSA, a documented ranking of the top 3 

design teams in order of preference for his selection.

(b) The above selection process will provide a design team to design the complete project. We will also utilize the services of a construction management firm 

to interface with the design team and to supervise construction. The procurement 

for C.M. Services will be a separate, but concurrent process.

(c) Construction authorization would be requested within 1 year after design is 

started to permit the initiation of construction as soon as design documents are 

approved.

(d) The projected time frame for design and construction is as follows: Initiate 

design (concepts and master plan) Ja nuary 1976, Initiate site purchase/relocation 

January 1976, Design approved thru concepts and master plan Janu ary 1977, 

Site purchased and all tenants relocated January 1977, Design started on separate 

bid packages January 1977, Construction started April 1977, Design completed 

for separate bid packages September 1978, and Construction completed April 

1981.

20. Question. Has any objection been raised for any reason by anyone to the 

proposed project?

Answer. As part of the development of the Environmental Impact Statement 

our consultants are required to solicit comments, questions, and any objections 

from all interested parties. To date there have been no objections raised from any 

of the Federal or D.C. Government Agencies polled.

Our consultants have had several meetings with the Executive Board of Upper 

Northe ast Coordinating Council. The Northwest Community has voiced objections, 

although not against the project per se. Their major concerns are those tha t any 

Community might have when they want to maintain the relative stability of their 

environment. The major concerns voiced to date are:

1. The community wants to maintain a stable residential area (the site for the 

proposed project is on the periphery of the northeast communities rather than 

being surrounded residential development).

2. Concerns tha t the Government is being "honest” with the community in 

tha t the justification for relocation is real. That our requirements will remain 

relatively stable, that, as an example, the GPO will not stop all outside contract 

work and suddenly expand the facility to satisfy additional work load.

3. Concerns'over air quality, noise, traffic patterns, and parking (the possibility 

of employees using neighborhood streets to park).

4. The lack of design documents (drawings) on which to formulate a total 

evaluation.

5. The lack of a detailed comprehensive plan, by the D.C. Government for the 

whole northeast area (allowing for uncoordinated development).

An sw er s to S e n a t o r B u c k l e y ’s Q u es t io n s

1. Question. What plans does GPO have to improve its production efficiency at 

the new facility through installation and use of more modern printing technologies?

Answer. As part of the contemplated Industrial Engineering Study, the consultant will be directed to study each area of new printing technology and determine its applicability to the GPO type of operation. Any applicable technology 

would be further studied to determine its cost effectiveness before any implementation would be suggested for use in the new building.

2. Question. Do you believe tha t the present GPO buildings, if vacated by 

GPO, could reasonably be renovated for use as Federal office space?
67

Answer. Yes, we believe that the pre sen t GPO buildings could be reasonably 

renovate d for use as Federal office space. 8. Question, (a) Wh at was the basis of th e estimated cost of construction of the proposed facility? (6) How does it compare on a per square foot basis with oth er 

prin ting facilities? Answer, (a) The estimate of costs was developed,*based on information provided by the Governm ent Printing Office, such as floor loads, num ber of floors, bay sizes, site location, and squa re footage requ irements.

(b) The cost for building construction estimated at $48.37 per square foot compares favorably with th at of other recent prin ting plants. 40,000 squ are feet is presen tly being added to the Hartford Courant at $70 per square foot, and a construction contract was recently awarded in April 1975 for a 250,000 square foot printing pla nt in Chuster, Illinois at a cost of $15,000,000 

or $60 per square foot. ,

Developing com parativ e costs with o the r new printing facilities is difficult. 1 ne fact th at 80 percent of all printin g plants in this c oun try employ 20 people o r less indicates th at n ot many large facilities are being built.

4. Question. Does G PO ’s proposal, a t th is time, call only for C omm ittee approval of $15,500,000 for land and planning, with the Committee to consider a proposal for the construction at a later date? Answer. The approval of this prospectus will authorize the GPO tota l project a t a maximum cost of $158,034,000. At this time we are requesting $15,500,000 for land acquisition and planning purposes. A furth er request for funds needed to proceed with con stru ctio n will be m ade when the site has been acquired and the planning completed. So long as the estimated cost is within the authorized limit as escalated, a revised p rospectu s would no t be submitted to the C omm ittees. We will notify th e Com mittees when the req ues t for construction funding is sub mi tte d to the Appropriations Committe es.
68

PROJECT NUMBER: NDC-08200

REPORT OF BUILDING PROJECT SURVEY 

ON THE REQUIREMENT FOR

A NEW GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON, DC

1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT

T h is p r o je c t c o n te m p la te s th e c o n s tr u c t io n o f an i n d u s t r i a l ty p e F e d e ra l b u ild in g 

to house th e Gov ernm en t P r i n t i n g O f f ic e (GPO) on a s i t e to be a c q u ire d w ith in 

th e D i s t r i c t o f C olu m bia . The f a c i l i t y w i l l c o n ta in a p p ro x im a te ly 2 ,1 0 0 ,0 0 0 

s q u a re f e e t o f s p a c e , an d w i l l p e rm it th e c o n s o lid a tio n o f a l l GPO o p e r a tio n s 

in to a s i n g l e , m ode rn , f u n c tio n a lly e f f i c i e n t f a c i l i t y . I t w i l l re p la c e th e 

p r e s e n t o u td a te d GPO b u ild in g s on N o rt h C a p ito l S t r e e t an d s u p p o rti n g w are house 

b u ild in g s , s e v e r a l o f w hic h a r e lo c a te d in th e n e a rb y s u b u rb s . A sp a c e co m pari so n 

betw ee n th e GPO b u ild in g re q u ir e m e n ts p r o je c te d to Ju n e 1976 an d th e p ro p o sed 

f a c i l i t y i s c o n ta in e d in E x h ib it A.

T h is w i l l be a GPO p r o je c t w it h GSA a c t in g as th e d e s ig n an d c o n s tr u c t io n agen cy 

u t i l i z i n g GPO t r a n s f e r fu n d s .

2 . COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:

a . PROJECT NEED:

(1 ) GPO

The re q u ir e m e n t f o r im pro ved o p e r a tio n a l f a c i l i t i e s f o r th e GPO h a s b e en re c o g n iz e d 

by th e C ongre ss an d th e P u b li c P r i n t e r s in c e 1954. The b a s ic d e f i c i e n c i e s in th e 

e x i s t i n g p la n t I n c lu d e : a m a te r ia ls h a n d li n g sy st em t h a t r e l i e s w h o ll y on f r e i g h t 

e le v a to r s an d i n d u s t r i a l tr u c k s f o r p ro d u c t d i s t r i b u t i o n ; la c k o f a s t r a i g h t l i n e 

arr a n g e m e n t o f p ro d u c ti o n e q u ip m e n t; lim ite d f l o o r c a p a c i t i e s ; low c e i l i n g s ; in ­

a b i l i t y to u t i l i z e la r g e , f a s t e r and mo re e f f i c i e n t p r e s s eq u ip m e n t; an d la c k o f 

a re a r e q u ir e d to u t i l i z e th e e f f i c i e n c i e s o f m e c h a n iz a ti o n , a u to m a ti o n , an d th e 

l a t e s t a d v an c e s in p r i n t i n g te c h n o lo g y .

F a c i l i t y an d o p e ra tio n s s tu d ie s by th e GPO have in d ic a te d th a t a new p la n t u t i l i z i n g 

mos t o f th e e x i s t i n g equip m ent w ould p ro duce an e s ti m a te d s a v in g s o f a t l e a s t $ 1 1.6 

m illi o n p e r y e a r in o p e r a tin g c o s ts o v e r th e p r e s e n t l o c a t i o n . (S ee a tta c h e d E x h ib it 

B ). In a d d i t i o n , th e f a c i l i t y w i l l b e c o n s tr u c te d to in c o r p o r a te th e c o n c e p ts , 

d e s ig n s an d atm o sp h ere w hic h w i l l a ll o w th e I n tr o d u c t io n o f m od er n p r i n t i n g te c h n o lo g y . 

I f p la n n e d s tu d ie s j u s t i f y th e in tr o d u c tio n o f new equip m ent an d su ch equip m ent i s 

appro ved f u r t h e r s u b s ta n tiv e s a v in g s in o p e ra tin g c o s ts w i l l b e r e a l i z e d .

S e v e ra l s tu d ie s hav e b een c o n d u c te d s in c e 1954 f o r b o th c o n ti g u o u s e x p a n sio n an d 

r e l o c a t i o n o f th e GPO. Th e l a t e s t s tu d y s u p p o rts r e l o c a t i o n an d h a s s a n c tio n from 

th e N a ti o n a l C a p ita l P la n n in g Com m ission (NC PC), D i s t r i c t o f C ol um bi a G ove rn m en t, 

an d th e J o i n t G o v e rn m e n t/ In d u str y A d v is o ry B oar d.
69

PROJECT NUMBER: NDC -08 200

(2) DC GOVERNMENT

The DC City Council Specia l A dvisory Com mis sio n on Indus tria l and Comm erci al Deve lop ­ ment has recommended und er report of J anuary 1974 a fe asibil ity analysis of a light Industrial park complex in the Northeast Corr ido r (New Yor k A ve nu e) , to inclu de relocating the GPO into the park. The GPO wou ld serve as an ancho r for further developm ent in the area. The industri al par k complex is designed to impro ve the District's economic base by attracting light industry (electronics, printing, etc.) and to stem the flow of jobs from the Dist ric t to the ne igh bor ing suburbs.

At a meeting on July 8, 1974, the full DC Council reviewed the p ropos ed rel ocation and supported the concept. By letter of July 12, 1974, to the Committee s on Public Works, Mayor Walt er E. Was hin gton confirmed the DC G ove rnme nt support of the 

relocation concept.

The proposed site is well served by the New York, Rhode Island and Brentwoo d Avenue road nets. It wil l be immediate ly adjacent to the propo sed Metr o Rhode Island Avenue Station, and also has excellent rail facilities. There are public bus lines on both New York and Rhode Island Avenues. Staff studi es by NCPC also recommend the select ion 

of the proposed site.

b. DISCUSSION OF ALTERNA TI VE S:

(1) Moderniza tio n of Existing GPO

Modern iza tio n and contiguous expansion of the presen t site on North Capitol Street has been considered and rejected as being u neconom ical and operatio nall y impra ctica l. Aside from the negative aspects previou sly indicated the GPO woul d still be saddled with buildings of 72, 52 and 37 years of age; little p rod uct ion department relief; OSH A compliance costs; perma nen t obstr ucti ons (stairs, elevators, fan rooms, utility shafts) in premiu m produ ction w orkfl ow areas; only a fair transpo rtat ion system; and continued hig h buildi ng mainte nan ce costs. This alter nati ve w ould provide G PO with more square feet than reloc ation ; however, the bu lk of this space 

wou ld be marginal to their need.

Aside from contiguous expan sio n GPO ha s inves tiga ted alterna tive s such as: decentralization, reloc ati on of administ rati ve functions, mov ing Do cumen ts out of the complex, elimina tion of GPO and even doing nothing. All of these consider atio ns result in c ounter produ cti ve elements whi ch in one way or another adver sely affect the GPO missio n in support of the Congress and other Fede ral agencies.

(2) Acqu isition of Exi sti ng Leased Space

Existing rental space is not availabl e in suff icie nt quan tit y in one location to permit consolidation, and fails to meet Federal quality stan dard s and the special 

industrial type facility n eed ed by the GPO.
70

PROJECT NUMBER: NDC -08200

DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES: c o n t. *

(3 ) A c q u is itio n o f L ease d Spac e in a B u il d in g to b e C o n s tr u c te d .

In le a s e c o n s tr u c t io n f o r a p r o je c t th e 6 iz e o f th e p ro p o sed GPO f a c i l i t y th e s i t e 

s e l e c t i o n bec om es a c r i t i c a l m a tte r . C o n s id e rin g th e r e l a t i v e l y la r g e s i t e a re a 

r e q u ir e d , GSA w ould lo s e s i g n i f i c a n t c o n tr o l o f th e s i t e s e l e c t i o n an d a c q u i s i t i o n •

p ro c e s s s in c e n e i t h e r a le s s o r n o r th e Gov er nm en t c o u ld e x e r c i s e c o ndem nati on a u t h o r i t y .

In vi ew o f th e e x tr e m e c o m p le x it y o f t h i s p r o j e c t , i t s c o s t , th e re q u ir e m e n t to co nfo rm 

to NCPC an d DC Gov er nm en t p la n s f o r th e N o rth e a s t C o r r id o r , a s w e ll a s th e lo n g te rm 

re q u ir e m e n t f o r th e f a c i l i t y , i t h a s b e en d e te rm in e d t h a t le a s e c o n s tr u c t io n a s a me ans 

f o r m e e ti n g th e GPO re q u ir e m e n t i s n o t i n th e b e s t i n t e r e s t o f th e G over nm en t.

3. DISPOSITION OF OLD GPO:

S tu d ie s w i l l be u n d e rt a k e n to d e te rm in e ec onom ic f e a s i b i l i t y o f re n o v a ti n g 

b u ild in g s 1 , 2 , 3 an d 4 on N o rt h C a p ito l S t r e e t b etw een G an d H S t r e e t s i n t o 

o f f i c e sp ac e f o r o th e r F e d e ra l agen cy u s e . A d d itio n a lly , th e P o s ta l S e rv ic e h as 

re q u e s te d r i g h t o f f i r s t r e f u s a l on B u il d in g #4 a d ja c e n t to th e c i t y P o s t O f f ic e .

The A r c h ite c t o f th e C a p ito l h a s a ls o in d ic a te d a p o s s ib le re q u ir e m e n t f o r p a r t 

o r a l l o f th e o ld GPO f o r u se a s s to r a g e and o v e rf lo w a r e a f o r C o n g re s s io n a l su p p o rt 

f a c i l i t i e s .

4. SPACE PLAN (s e e a tt a c h e d E x h ib it A)

5. ESTIMATED PROJECT COST

S i t e a c q u i s i t i o n an d r e lo c a tio n $ 1 0 ,1 5 3 ,0 0 0

D esi gn an d re v ie w 5 ,6 3 9 ,0 0 0

C o n s tr u c tio n c o s ts a s o f J u ly 19 76 1 3 9 ,5 4 6 ,0 0 0

Manag em en t an d in s p e c tio n 2 ,6 9 6 ,0 0 0

TOTAL $ 1 5 8 ,0 34,0 00

6 . STATEMENT OF NEED:

I t h a s b e en d e te rm in e d t h a t (1 ) th e n eed f o r sp a c e o f th e F e d e ra l Gov er nm en t 

i n t h i s a r e a c a n n o t be s a t i s f i e d by u t i l i z a t i o n o f e x i s t i n g s u i t a b l e p r o p e r ty now 

owned by th e G ove rn m en t, an d (2 ) s u i t a b l e r e n t a l sp a c e i s n o t a v a i l a b l e a t a p r ic e 

co m m en su ra te w it h t h a t to be a ffo r d e d th ro u g h th e p ro p o se d a c t io n .

S u b m it te d a t W as hin gto n, DC on_

FEB 1 0 1975

Re comm ended:

A ppro ved:

P u b li c B u il d in g s S e rv ic e

G e n e ra l S e rv ic e s
71

Richard Russell Building

Senator Morgan. We will go on now to the Richard Russell Building in Atlanta, Ga. Will you gentlemen please identify your 

selves for the record?

STATEMENT OF THOMAS PEYTON. ACTING DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE, GSA, ACCOMPANIED BY LOY S HIP P, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR SPACE MANAGEMENT AND PLAN­ NING, GSA, AND JAMES SORG, ACTING DIRECTOR. PROGRAM

MANAGEMENT DIVISION, GSA

Mr. Peyton. Mr. Chairman, I am Thomas Peyton, Acting Deputy 

Commissioner-----

Senator Morgan. Of the General Services Administration?

Mr. P eyton. Yes, sir. With me this morning is Mr. Loy Shipp, Jr., Assistant Commissioner for Space Management of the Public Buildings Service and Mr. James Sorg, Acting Director of the Program Management Division.

Senator Morgan. Tell us about this building. When was it first authorized? What is the cost and what do you propose to do now, 

please?

Mr. Peyton. A prospectus recommending construction of a courthouse—

Senator Morgan. Are you reading a statement, sir?

Mr. Peyton. Yes, sir.

Senator Morgan. Would you please submit your statement for 

the record, and just tell me about it?

Mr. Peyton. All right, sir. [The statement appears at p. 76.]

Mr. Peyton. The prospectus for this project was originally ap­ proved by the Public Works Committee in 1966. Subsequent to tha t time, the General Services Administration proceeded with site selec­ tion in Atlanta. The identification of this particular site was bounded by Mitchell Street, Central Avenue, T rinity Avenue, and Prior Street. However, subsequently Federal court action invalidated the method which we were utilizing to acquire this site, which involved an exchange of Federal property. Accordingly, it was necessary for GSA to search 

for another site. In 1971, GSA received a proposal from the Southern Railway offer­ ing a site it owned. This particular site is bounded by the Hunter Street viaduct, Mitchell Street, and the Spring Street viaduct, which is approximately three blocks from the original site. This site has been 

acquired. Meanwhile, during this period following the selection of the initial site, design had proceeded and the design had developed to approxi­ mately 25 percent of the normal work tha t an architect-engineer does, leading up to the award of construction contracts.

Senator Morgan. How much did t hat cost?

Mr. Peyton. At tha t particular point in time?

Senator Morgan. Yes.

Mr. Peyton. $723,000.

Senator Morgan. All that has gone down the drain?

Mr. Peyton. Tha t is correct, sir. With the acquisition of the new site it was then necessary to redesign the building so tha t the new
72

building could be accommodated for a t the new location. The design 

of this building then proceeded at tha t point in time until approximately 2 years ago, at which time GSA took note of significant development of new criteria and high rise fire safety as well as increase in 

requirement for court space by the U.S. courts.

There was a requirement for seven new courtrooms in the building. 

Therefore, it was necessary to effect additional design changes. These 

factors led to an inability on our part to proceed from the approved 

prospectus in 1966, to an early initiation of construction. We are now 

up to the present time where the design work has been completed on 

the building.

The working drawings are complete as well as specifications.

Senator Morgan. What are the costs?

Mr. Peyton. We are prepared to put them on the construction 

market. It is $2,319,000.

Senator Morgan. In other words, we spent $3 million on design 

and still haven’t started the building?

Mr. Peyton. That is correct, sir.

Senator Morgan. I don’t understand how you can continue to do 

it. I reckon t hat is the policy of the Federal Government and maybe 

we aren’t ever going to change it. What prompted you to go from 10 

to 24 stories? Just solely the increased demand for courts?

Mr. Peyton. The original conceptual estimate in 1966 envisioned 

a 14 story structure, however this concept was preliminary in nature 

and subsequent design studies prepared by the AE resulted in a 24 

story structure considering the configuration of the site.

Senator Morgan. What caused a 10-year delay? I know you had 

to change sites, but for goodness sake, was 10 years necessary to do 

it, or was it tha t you just didn’t really need the building?

Mr. Shipp. Senator, my name is Loy Shipp. This project was authorized in 1966. It wasn’t until 1970, tha t we were able to fund the site 

acquisition and a design of the project. We could not sta rt design 

until tha t time.

We were also working on the acquisition of the site by exchange, 

but we did not have money to buy the site. Ordinarily, if we had proceeded earlier, assuming the money was available for design in 1970, 

we would have funded the construction about 1972.

However, it would appear from just looking at dates there was a 

10-year delay. But actually the delay was much shorter as a practical 

matter because we didn’t have the funds and couldn’t proceed with 

any real design until at least 4 years after the project was authorized.

Senator Morgan. Have you explored the possibility of using already 

existing Federal buildings in Atlanta for courtroom and judges’ 

offices, or utilizing other space available there?

Mr. Shipp. Sir, the existing Post Office-Courthouse building contains about 120,000 square feet of space. We need, in order to house 

the total requirements of the courts in Atlanta, in excess of 160,000 

square feet. It is not possible to utilize tha t particular building to 

house the courts exclusively.

Senator Morgan. Who designs courtrooms, judges’ offices, and 

so on? The most palatial and luxurious offices I have ever seen anywhere have been judges’ offices. Do you do this or does the court do 

it? How do you arrive at it? It seems an extravagant waste of the 

taxpayers’ money to me.
73

Mr. Shipp. The GSA supervises the architect in his work of designing the courtroom facilities. These courtroom facilities are designed in accordance with standards t hat have been agreed to bv the Administrative Office of Courts and the Judicial Conference. It is all set forth in a handbook tha t establishes these standards. Senator Morgan. Is GSA bound by them?

Mr. Ship p. Yes, sir; we are.

Senator Morgan. Why?

Mr. Shipp. First of all, we have to satisfy the needs of our clients. We may have some difficulties with them as to how these should be satisfied. But eventually we have to arrive at an accommodation with them as to exactly what will be provided. The guidelines tha t we have today are the result of a dialogue between GSA and the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office of Courts, arriving at standards tha t both of us could agree to. Senator Morgan. In other words, then, you really have no choice? You have got to satisfy the clients you are building for?

Mr. S hipp. Yes, sir. We have to satisfy them. But the only way to satisfy them is do not take carte blanche. If we are taking carte blanche of the requirements, we would really see some very elaborate court facilities. Senator Morgan. I can show you some th at are anyway. And I see you are asking for over $8 million in parking. Is this 

right?

Mr. Sorg. On the parking, the new facility provides 129,000 square feet of parking space in the basement. The $8 million tha t apparently you are speaking of is applying the average cost of the building, which is $63, against that. In reality, the parking space, since it does not have heat, air conditioning and other finishes, tha t would be associated with office and court space, in reality costs $20 a square foot. So, the parking costs $2.4 million in the building.

Senator Morgan. GSA would occupy the space in this?

Mr. Sorg. I am sorry?

Senator Morgan. Will GSA be assigned space in this building too?

Mr. Shipp. Yes, sir; GSA will occupy space.

Senator Morgan. Why has this been increased by 132 percent 

in the new building?

Mr. S hipp. There are several factors tha t contribute to this increase. First of all, GSA in Atlanta, will move into this building. Between 1966 and today, that particular office will be expanded from about 88,000 square feet to 120,000 square feet. In addition to tha t the method of presenting the statistical data with respect to agency assignments have changed. Back in 1966, the service areas, custodial areas, cafeterias and this type of thing were not logged against GSA assignments. Today they are. So, in effect we have expansion of the GSA require­ ments in terms of offices we have in Atlanta, plus the change in the manner in which the statistics regarding the space in the building are 

handled. Senator Morgan. Would your moving into this building free up any other Federal space for the agencies?

Mr. Shipp. It will free up some other Federal space. Under the prospectus that was submitted in 1966, the US. Post Office-Courthouse
was to be vacated by U.S. courts who were to be relocated into 

the new building. If we continue with tha t plan, tha t space would be 

freed up and it would be utilized for backfill by other Federal agencies.

Senator Morgan. How much space is being rented in Atlanta now? 

Does anybody know?

Mr. Ship p. Yes, sir; we do know. Right now we have under lease in 

Atlanta about 1,800,000 square feet of space.

Senator Morgan. What is the average cost of rental space there? 

Mr. Ship p. The average cost is around $5 a square foot.

Senator Morgan. Does that include janitorial services and utilities? 

Mr. Ship p. Yes, sir.

Senator Morgan. What is going to be the construction cost per 

square foot of this new facility?

Mr. Sorg. The total cost of the new facility will average out to 

$63.50. This is not an approved operating expense which has not been 

calculated as yet.

Senator Morgan. You mean operation of the building?

Mr. Sorg. Yes, sir.

Senator Morgan. The actual construction cost is what?

Mr. Sorg. $63.50 per square foot.

Senator Morgan. Is there any way you can reduce that cost?

Mr. Sorg. There are always possibilities for reducing the cost. 

However, to the design which has been completed, to reduce the cost 

would reduce quality and possibly the effectiveness of the building. 

However, the building could be value engineered to reduce areas of 

cost possibly to make it a little more effective.

Senator Morgan. You have got more than $1 million in the estimate 

for a cafeteria, have you not?

Mr. Sorg. Yes, sir.

Senator Morgan. Who is tha t going to serve? Jus t Federal employees?

Mr. Shipp. Yes, sir, it will serve the employees. There will be about 

2,700 people in this building. We have examined the availability of 

other facilities in proximity to the building, within a three- or fourblock radius. We identified restaurants having a seating capacity of 

around 900 persons. At least one or possibly more of these restaurants 

will be lost due to the subway construction that will be taking place in 

Atlanta.

Our buildings management people feel tha t for this size building 

population, a cafeteria is needed.

Senator Morgan. Only about 60 percent of this building is going to 

be used for office space, isn’t it?

Mr. Shipp. That is about right.

Senator Morgan. Where does the rest of it go? For parking and 

courtrooms?

Mr. Shipp. I t goes into courtrooms, parking, custodial areas, service 

areas.

Senator Morgan. Have you actually looked into the need for increasing the number of courtrooms from 7 to 14, or are you ju st taking 

the Judicial Conference’s wTord for it?

Mr. Shipp. We are taking the Administrative Office’s and the 

Judicial Conference’s word for their need for this space.

Senator Morgan. What did you say you are goirtg to do with the 

old post office space?
75

\lr Shipp The old U.S. post office-courthouse space will be when it is vacated—again, I say, if we proceed with our Present plan to 

vacate that space, it will be renovated and assigned to other h

a g Senator Morgan. Do you have anything else you want to offer for 

the record?

Mr Peyton. No, sir; we do not.

Senator Morgan. We have a list of questions here, and some may be redundant. But I would like to leave them with you and ask that 

you submit answers for the record.

‘ Mr Peyton. We would be pleased to do so. fA statem ent from GSA, the prospectus, responses to additional qu llion s,M ate ria l submitted by the Building Owners. and .Managers 

of Atlanta Inc. and responses from GSA to questions li t m 

Senator Buckley relating to the FBI parking facility West Los Angeles Calif., and the Federal Office building in East St. Louis, 111. foil 1
76

RICHARD B. RUSSELL FEDERAL BUILDING 

ATLANTA, GEORGLA

BEFORE THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS,

COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS

STATEMENT BY LOY M. SHIPP , JR . ON THE AMENDED PROSPECTUS 

A p ro sp e c tu s rec om me nd ing c o n s tru c tio n o f a C ourt house and F e d e ra l O ffi c e 

B u il d in g in A tla n ta , G eo rg ia , was ap pro ved by th e P u b lic Works Com m itt ee s 

o f th e C ongre ss in O ct ober 19 66 . T h is a u th o r iz a tio n p ro v id ed f o r 

c o n s tru c tio n o f a b u ild in g w it h a g ro ss a re a o f 1 ,1 2 5 ,0 0 0 sq u a re f e e t o f 

sp a c e , a t an e s ti m a te d t o t a l c o s t o f $ 2 7 ,3 5 3 ,0 0 0 . The c o s t e s tim a te 

assu med a 14 s to r y b u ild in g w it h su b-b as em en t and ba se m en t an d co n te m p la te d 

th e in c lu s io n o f se ven co u rt ro o m s, an a u d it o riu m , an d i n t e r i o r p a rk in g f o r 

230 v e h ic le s ; th e b a la n c e o f th e b u ild in g was d ev o te d to s ta n d a rd o f f ic e 

' an d o th e r g e n e ra l purp ose sp a c e . In a d d itio n to ac co mmod ating th e U nit ed 

S ta te s C o u rts , i t was pla nned to r e lo c a te o th e r F e d e ra l a g e n c ie s from abou £ 

420, 000 sq u a re f e e t o f le a s e d sp a c e , c a rry in g an an n u al r e n ta l o f about 

$ 1 .4 m illio n . A s i t e in v e s tig a tio n wa s co nduct ed i n Ju ne 19 68 , an d a s i t e 

bo un de d by M itc h e ll S t r e e t , C e n tr a l Ave nu e, T r in ity Ave nu e, an d P r i o r 

S tr e e t wa s s e le c te d . To co n serv e a p p ro p ria te d fu n d s, an ag re em en t to 

a c q u ir e th e s i t e by an ex ch an ge o f Go ve rnmen t—owned r e a l p ro p e rty was 

e x ecu te d in J u ly 19 70 . How ev er, i n Ju n e 1971 th e U .S . D i s t r i c t C o u rt fo r 

th e S o u th ern D i s t r i c t of F lo rid a in v a lid a te d ou r ex ch an ge ag re em en t. In 

Sep te m be r 1971, a p ro p o sa l was re c e iy e d fro m S ou th ern R ai lw ay o f f e r in g a 

s i t e bo un de d by H unte r S tre e t v ia d u c t, M it c h e ll S t r e e t , an d th e S p ri n g 

S tr e e t v ia d u c t, abo u t th re e b lo c k s from th e o r ig in a l s i t e .
77

A f e a s i b i l i t y s tu d y , co m ple te d in O cto b er 19 71 , re v e a le d th a t th e

• S outh ern R ai lw ay s i t e was s u p e rio r in many im p o rt a n t re s p e c ts an d i t was 

su b s e q u e n tl y pu rc h ase d a t a c o s t o f ab o u t $2. 9 m illio n .

♦ The c u r re n t e s ti m a te d c o s t o f t h i s p r o j e c t , as su m in g th a t we can aw ard 

th e c o n s tru c tio n c o n tr a c t p r i o r to th e en d o f t h i s m on th , i s 

$ 7 7 ,0 6 6 ,0 0 0 . S e v e ra l f a c to r s c o n tr ib u te to t h i s in c r e a s e . The in c lu s io n 

o f se v en a d d itio n a l co u rt ro o m s, e x te n s iv e h ig h r i s e f i r e s a f e t y f e a t u r e s , 

an d e n v ir o n m e n ta l im pr ov em en ts a c c o u n t f o r a p p ro x im ate ly $7 m illio n of 

th e i n c r e a s e . The i n f la ti o n a r y f o rc e s th a t hav e p re v a ile d s in c e th e 

o r i g in a l e s tim a te i n 1966 i s much more s i g n i f i c a n t , ho w ev er , a c c o u n ti n g 

f o r ab o u t $36 m illio n . The re m ain d er o f th e in c r e a s e i s a t t r i b u t a b l e to 

in c re a s e d s i t e , d e s ig n , an d managem ent an d in s p e c tio n c o s ts , t o t a l l i n g 

ab o u t $ 6 .7 m illio n .

The s i t e f o r t h i s p r o je c t h a s bee n a c q u ire d , th e d e s ig n i s c o m p le te , 

p u rc h ase c o n tr a c t fin a n c in g i s a v a ila b le and, m ost im p o rta n tly , com p le ti o n 

o f t h i s b u ild in g w i l l e n a b le us to v a c a te ap p ro x im ate ly 34 2,0 00 sq u a re 

f e e t o f le a s e d sp ace whi ch now a c c o u n ts f o r r e n t a l s ap p ro ach in g (o r in 

ex cess o f) $ 1 .6 m illio n a n n u a lly . You r a p p ro v a l o f th e re v is e d p ro sp e c tu s 

i s r e s p e c tf u l l y re q u e ste d so th a t we ca n pro ceed w it h t h i s p r o j e c t w it h o u t 

f u r th e r c o s tly d e la y .

55-353 0 - 75 - 6
78

PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PG A-7 501 5

PROSPECTUS TO AMEND A PUBLIC BUILDING PROTECT 

AUTHORIZED UNDER THE PUBLIC BUILDINGS ACT OF 1959, AS AMENDED

1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT:

T h is am endm ent i s s u b m it te d to in c r e a s e th e a u th o riz e d maximum l i m i t of 

c o s t f o r th e p u b lic b u il d in g p r o je c t l i s t e d belo w . The g ro s s a r e a o f 

th e new b u ild in g p r o je c t has n o t in c r e a s e d be yo nd a u th o riz e d li m i t s an d 

i t s j u s t i f i c a t i o n , a s d e s c rib e d in th e appro ved P ro s p e c tu s fo r P ro p o se d 

C o n s tr u c tio n , h a s n o t le s s e n e d ; h o w ever, th e maximum l i m i t o f c o s t has 

in c re a s e d above th e am ou nt s a u th o r iz e d by S e c ti o n 5 (e ) o f P u b li c Law 

92 -3 1 3 . T here i s a tta c h e d a d e t a i l e d e x p la n a tio n o f th e in c re a s e d c o s t .

2. PROPOSED AMENDMENT:

T o ta l E sti m a te d

L o c a ti o n P r o je c t Maximum C ost

A tla n ta , G eo rg ia R ic h ard B. R u s s e ll

F e d e ra l B u il d in g 

(F o rm erl y C o u rt h o u se an d 

F e d e ra l O f f ic e B u il d in g )

§ 7 7 ,0 6 6 ,0 0 0

3 . STATEMENT OF NEED:

I t has been d e te rm in e d th a t (1 ) th e n e ed s f o r sp ac e of th e F e d e ra l 

G ov er nm en t in t h i s co mmun ity c a n n o t be co n"' 1 » s a t i s f i e d by

u t i l i z a t i o n o f e x i s t i n g s u i t a b l e p ro p e rty 

m ent; an d (2 ) s u i t a b l e r e n t a l sp ac e i s n o t 

co m m en su ra te w it h t h a t to be a f f o r d e d th ro 

h e r e in .

ed by th e G overn - 

b le a t a p r ic e 

a c t io n p ro posed

' 0 )7r

S u b m it te d a t W ashin gto n, D.C. on

Recomm ended: _________________________

C om m is si oner, P u b li c B u il d in g s S e rv ic e
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO :

RICHARD B. RUSSELL FEDERAL BUIL DING ATLANTA, GEORGIA

(F o rm e rly C o u r th o u s e ar .d F e d e r a l O f f i c e B u il d in g )

PROSPECTUS NUMBER: PG A -7 50 15 

(F o rm e rly n u m b e re d - 1 0 -0 1 2 1 )

DATE SUBMITTED TO CONGRESS: A u g u st 3 0 , 19 66

DATE OF APPROVAL BY COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC WORKS:

S e n a te - S e p te m b e r 2 0 , 19 66

H ou se o f R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s - O c to b e r 6 , 1966

B e c a u se o f th e e x p a n d e d r e q u i r e m e n t s o f th e U n ite d S t a t e s C o u r t s , w h ic h 

h a s r e s u l t e d in a n i n c r e a s e in th e nu m b er o f p r o p o s e d c o u r tr o o m s fr om 

7 to 1 4 , th e i n c l u s i o n o f h i g h - r i s e f i r e s a f e t y s t a n d a r d s , s p e c i a l 

a c o u s t i c a l e n g i n e e r i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s d u e t o a n e a r b y r a i l r o a d , an d th e 

a d d i t i o n o f a c a f e t e r i a n o t o r i g i n a l l y c o n t e m p l a te d , c o n s t r u c t i o n c o s t s 

h a v e b e e n g r e a t l y i n c r e a s e d . As a r e s u l t o f th e s e d e s ig n c h a n g e s an d 

d e l a y s i n s i t e a c q u i s i t i o n th e p r o j e c t h a s n o t p r o c e e d e d a s s c h e d u l e d .

B ased on a c t u a l an d p r o j e c t e d i n c r e a s e s i n s i t e an d d e s ig n c o s t s an d i n 

c o n s t r u c t i o n i n d i c e s fr o m A u g u st 1966 t o J u n e 1 9 7 5 , th e e s t i m a t e d d a t e 

o f c o n s t r u c t i o n c o n t r a c t a w a rd , t h e p r o j e c t c a n n o t b e a c c o m p lis h e d w i t h i n 

th e a p p ro v e d l i m i t o f c o s t . A lth o u g h t h e o c c u p i a b l e a r e a o f th e p ro p o s e d 

b u i l d i n g h a s i n c r e a s e d a b o u t 13 %, o r 9 1 ,1 5 0 s q u a r e f e e t , th e g r o s s a r e a 

h a s i n c r e a s e d o n ly 8% o v e r th e o r i g i n a l a u t h o r i z a t i o n . T he h ig h e r r a t i o 

o f o c c u p i a b l e to g r o s s a r e a i s th e r e s u l t o f a m o re e f f i c i e n t d e s i g n th a n 

a n t i c i p a t e d . T h is am en dm en t i s s u b m it te d t o i n c r e a s e t h e l i m i t o f c o s t to 

c o m p le te th e p r o j e c t . T he p ro p o s e d am en dm en t d o e s n o t a f f e c t th e c o n v e r s i o n 

an d a l t e r a t i o n p r o j e c t o f th e e x i s t i n g P o s t O f f i c e a n d C o u r th o u s e a u t h o r i z e d 

i n th e o r i g i n a l p r o s p e c t u s . A d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s o f th e c o s t i n c r e a s e s i s 

a t t a c h e d a s E x h i b i t A.

ESTIMATED COST:

A p p ro v ed E s tim a te d 

Maxim um C o st

R e v is e d E s tim a te d 

Maxim um C o s t

D i f f e r e n c e 

a n d %

S i t e .............................

D e s ig n & R evie w . 

M an ag em en t an d 

I n s p e c t i o n . . . 

C o n s tr u c t io n . . . 

TOTAL COST

$ 1 ,6 5 2 ,0 0 0 

1 ,0 2 9 ,0 0 0

4 6 0 ,0 0 0

2 4 ,2 1 2 ,0 0 0

$ 2 7 ,3 5 3 ,0 0 0

$ 2 ,9 0 0 ,0 0 0 

3 ,5 1 1 ,0 0 0

3 ,3 2 1 ,0 0 0 

6 7 ,3 3 4 ,0 0 0 

$ 7 7 ,0 6 6 ,0 0 0 *

$ 1 ,2 4 8 ,0 0 0 - 76Z

2 ,4 8 2 ,0 0 0 - 241%

2 ,8 6 1 ,0 0 0 - 621% 

4 3 ,1 2 2 ,0 0 0 - 178% 

$ 4 9 ,7 1 3 ,0 0 0 - 182%

APPROXIMATE AREAS:

G ro ss S q u a re F e e t 

O c c u p ia b le S q u a re F e e t

1 ,1 2 5 ,0 0 0

7 0 3 ,4 5 0

1 ,2 1 3 ,2 0 0

7 9 4 ,6 0 0

8 8 ,2 0 0 - 8% 

9 1 ,1 5 0 - 13%

* E x c lu s iv e o f f i n a n c i n g an d o t h e r 

m eth o d o f a c q u i s i t i o n .

c o s t s a t t r i b u t a b l e to th e p u r c h a s e c o n t r a c t
80

EXHIBIT A

PROPOSED

RICHARD B. RUSSELL FEDERAL BUILDING 

(F o rm e rl y C o u rt h o u se an d F e d e ra l 

O f f ic e B u il d in g )

ATLANTA, GEORGIA

PROSPECTUS NUMBER: 1-7 5015

HOUSING PLAN

PG7

Age nc y A re a (S q. F t . ) P e rs o n n e l

U .S . C o u rt s 157,8 23 221

Ta x C o u rt 4 ,3 0 0 4

U .S . A tt y /M a r. 21,1 49 85

ACTION 11,0 00 45

A g r ic u ltu r e 3 0,9 00 302

C i v i l S e rv ic e 40,0 00 158

Com m ission on C iv il R ig h ts 2,7 50 12

D efe n se 20,6 00 123

E qual Em ploy men t O p p o rtu n it y 20,9 00 77

E x e c u ti v e O ffic e o f th e P r e s id e n t 500 2

G e n e ra l S e rv ic e s Ad min. 3 4 7 ,5 75 725

G ov er nm en t P r in tin g O f f ic e 2,5 0 0 12

H e a lt h , E d u c a ti o n , & W elf a re 18,0 00 125

H ou si ng & U rb an D ev el op m en t 43 ,4 0 0 430

J u s t i c e ( e x c l. U .S . A tt y /M a r.) 3 7,6 00 140

R a ilr o a d R e ti re m e n t Bd . 2,7 00 15

S e le c tiv e S e rv ic e Sy stem 10,0 00 67

T r a n s p o r ta tio n 7 ,0 00 45

T re a s u ry 7,3 00 35

T o ta l A ss ig n ed Spa ce 785,9 97 2,,62 3

R ese rv e f o r E xpansio n 8,6 03 57

TOTAL OCCUPIABLE SPACE 794,6 00 2,,680
81

EXHIBIT A (C o n t’ d)

RICHARD B. RUSSELL FEDERAL BUILDING 

ATLANTA, GEORGIA

ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED PROJECT

Item A re a (S q. F t . ) P e rs o n n e l

Age nc y Spa ce 560,6 22 2,5 38

P a rk in g G ar ag e 129,1 66 -

S e rv ic e A re as 66,2 09 55

A u d it o ri u m 4 ,0 7 4

B li n d S ta nd 329

C a f e t e r ia 17,7 27

C om m unic at io ns 7 ,6 12

C o n fe re n ce Rooms 7 ,0 00

C re d it U ni on 1,0 17

F e d e ra l In fo rm a ti o n

C en te r 1,0 17

F e d e ra l P r o te c tiv e

S e rv ic e 144

F e d e ra l S upply S to r e 5,6 14

H e a lt h U n it 3 ,2 0 5

L oadin g P la tf o rm 6 ,8 34

M ail Room 555

M ot or Pool O ffic e 1 ,4 7 2

P r in tin g P la n t 8 ,7 0 0

S h re d d in g Room 144

T ele phone Fr am e Room 765

C u s to d ia l 3 0 ,0 0 0 30

T o ta l A ss ig ned Spa ce 785,9 97 2,6 23

Gov er nm en t-ow ne d to be

re a s s ig n e d 67,2 42

L ease d Spac e to be

re p la c e d 341,3 64

Age nc y E xpansi on 377,3 91

R ese rv e fo r E xpansio n 8 ,6 0 3 57

T o ta l O c c u p ia b le Spa ce 794,6 00 2 ,6 8 0
82

EXHIBIT B

RICHARD B. RUSSELL FEDERAL BUILDING 

(F orm erl y C o u rt h o u se an d F e d e ra l O f f ic e B u il d in g )

ATLANTA, GEORGIA

A. A n a ly sis of In c re a se d C o n s tr u c tio n C o sts S in c e 1966.

1 . E sti m a te d C o n s tr u c tio n C o sts -

P r o s p e c tu s s u b m it te d 8 /3 0 /6 6 . $ 2 4 ,2 1 2 ,0 0 0

2. In c re a s e d sc ope r e f l e c t e d in f i n a l w ork in g d ra w in g s (1 96 6 p r i c e s ) .

a . Added 88,0 00 to g ro s s a r e a i n c l .

7 co u rt ro o m s 1 ,6 4 3 ,0 0 0

b . Added F ir e S a fe ty C r i t e r i a 

an d s p r i n k l e r s 2 ,5 4 0 ,0 0 0

c . Added m is c . it e m s : t r a s h c h u te , 

m a il e q u ip ., so un d i s o l . 552,0 00

d. A d d it io n a l e le v a to r s 244,0 00

e . F u r n itu r e fo r 7 ad ded c o u rt ro o m s 260,0 00

f . C a f e t e r ia e q u ip , due to in c re a s e d 

s iz e 399,0 00

g> 24 s to r y b ld g . v s . 10 s t o r i e s - 

a d d itio n to s t r u c t u r e 778,0 00

h . New a c c e s s to hig hw ay 750,0 00

7 ,1 6 6 ,0 0 0

3. H i s t o r i c a l C ost In c r e a s e s to D a te :

C o st in c r e a s e fro m 7/6 6 to 1 /7 5 =

86.6% b a se d on a c t u a l c o s t in d ic e s

f o r th e p e rio d ($ 3 1 ,3 7 8 ,0 0 0 x 86 .6%) 2 7 ,1 7 3 ,0 0 0

4 . P r o je c tio n s f o r F u tu re E s c a l a t i o n :

E s ti m a te d c o s t in c r e a s e fr om 1 /7 5 to 6 /7 5 

@ . 6%/mo. • 3%, p lu s in c r e a s e to 50% 

o f c o n s tr u c t io n ti m e = 20 mo . @ .6% /m o. = 

12.0% to th e e s ti m a te d e s c a l a t i o n ”

15% (5 8 ,5 5 1 ,0 0 0 x 15% )**

5. E sti m a te d C o n s tr u c tio n C o st (6 /7 5 )

8 ,7 8 3 ,0 0 0 *

$ 6 7 ,3 3 4 ,0 0 0 *

* Th e f i n a l c o n s tr u c t io n c o s t e s ti m a te i s b ase d on 1974 c o s ts fo r 

m a t e r i a l s , la b o r , p r o d u c t i v i t y , e quip m ent an d a ll o w a n c e s fo r 

c o n t r a c t o r s ' overh ead an d p r o f i t . E s c a la tio n ( a t th e r a t e o f 0.6% 

p e r m onth ) h as bee n added up to th e m id - p o in t o f c o n s tr u c t io n in 

o rd e r to f o r e c a s t a n t i c i p a t e d in c r e a s e s d u rin g th e c o n s tr u c tio n 

p e r io d in m a te r ia l c o s t s ; unknow n f a c t o r s fa c e d by b id d e rs in th e
83

EXHIBIT B (C o n t'd )

RICHARD B. RUSSELL FEDERAL BUILDING 

ATLANTA, GEORIGA

o b ta in in g o f fi rm s u b c o n t r a c t o r s ' q u o te s an d d e la y e d d e liv e r y d a te s ; 

h ig h e r c o s ts fo r q u o ta tio n s on heav y e quip m ent an d lo n g - le a d ti m e s ; 

a n t i c i p a t e d in c r e a s e s in la b o r c o n tr a c ts f o r w or k w hic h w i l l be 

p erf o rm ed in 1975, 1976, an d 19 77 ; an d a s s o c ia t e d in c r e a s e s in 

c o n t r a c t o r s ' o v e rh e ad f o r h ig h e r i n t e r e s t r a t e s , h ig h e r in s u ra n c e 

c o s t s , c r i t i c a l f u e l s u p p ly s h o r ta g e s , in c r e a s e d s a f e ty re q u ir e m e n ts 

an d a n t i - p o l l u t i o n c o n t r o l s .

**Th e r a t e o f e s c a l a t i o n i s 0.6 % p e r m onth . A cco rd in g to th e A m er ic an 

A p p ra is a l Co . (B o e c k h 's In d e x ) th e A tla n ta , G e o rg ia , a r e a h a s in c re a s e d 

11.3% in th e p e rio d 1/7 4 to 1 /7 5 . We a r e ass um in g t h a t th e lo ng ra n g e 

r a t e o f e s c a l a t i o n f o r t h i s p r o j e c t w i l l be 0.6 % p e r m o nth , w hic h is le s s 

th a n th e h i s t o r i c a l a v e r a g e .
EXH IBIT B (C o n t’ d )

RICHARD B. RUSSELL FEDERAL BUILDING, ATLANTA, GEORGIA

(F o r m er ly C o u rth o u se an d F e d e r a l O f f i c e B u ild in g )

A n a ly s is o f I n c r e a s e d S i t e s an d E x p e n se s C o sta S in c e 19 66

ITEM

REASONS FOR INCREASES PROSPECTUS

8 /3 0 /6 6

0MB APPROVED

AMENDMENT

2 /1 1 /7 5

S i t e C o s ts

1 . S i t e $ 1 ,6 0 0 ,0 0 0 $ 2 ,8 0 0 ,0 0 0 2s A c q u i s it io n e x p e n s e s 5 2 ,0 0 0 1 0 0 ,0 0 0

$ 1 ,6 5 2 ,0 0 0 $ 2 ,9 0 0 ,0 0 0 ( 8 0 ,0 0 0 sq u a r e f e e t ) (1 7 6 ,0 0 0 s q u a r e f e e t )

D e s ig n C o s ts

1 . A r c h it e c t - E n g in e e r (A -E )

a . D e s ig n F ee $ 7 2 3 ,2 0 0 $ 2 ,3 1 9 ,5 0 9 b . P o s t C o n tr a c t S e r v i c e s 9 8 ,6 1 8 3 2 7 ,*000

2 . GSA S a la r i e s 1 6 5 ,6 1 9 2 3 6 ,0 0 7 2 ,

3 . D u p lic a t in g , A d v e r t i s in g , e t c . 2 5 ,0 0 0 1 3 7 ,4 8 4 3 .

4 . S o i l T e s t & M a t e r ia ls T e s t s 1 1 ,0 0 0 3 8 2 ,0 0 0 4 .

5 . T r a v e l an d M Isc . 5 ,5 6 3 1 0 9 ,0 0 0 5 .

$ 3 ,5 1 1 ,0 0 0

I n c r e a s e d s i t e c o s t b a s e d on a c t u a l c o s t s .

M an ag em en t 6 I n s p e c t io n C o s ts

1 . A r c h it e c t - E n g in e e r (A- E)

2 . CSA S a la r i e s

3 . T e s t in g

$ 2 3 0 ,0 0 0

2 3 0 ,0 0 0

$ 9 0 8 ,2 0 0

9 0 8 ,2 0 0

1 0 0 ,6 0 0

4 . C o n s t r u c t io n M an ag er F e e s 1 ,3 5 3 ,0 0 0

5 . C r i t i c a l P a th S c h e d u lin g (CPM)

T o t a l S i t e , D e s ig n , M an ag em en t an d

I n s p e c t io n

$ 4 6 0 ,0 0 0

$ 3 ,1 4 1 ,0 0 0

$ 3 ,3 2 1 ,0 0 0

$ 9 ,7 3 2 ,0 0 0

I n c r e a s e d A- E f e e s d ue t o ad ded c o u r t s ,

r e d e s ig n f o r new s i t e , c h a n g e s in c r i t e r i a

an d s t a n d a r d s an d o t h e r m o d i f i c a t i o n s .

GSA s a l a r y i n c r e a s e s s i n c e 1966 an d adde d

r e v ie w c o s t s f o r r e d e s ig n .

E s tim a te d c o s t s f o r d u p l ic a t i o n , e t c . a t1 9 7 5 p r i c e s .

E s tim a te d c o s t s f o r mor e s o i l t e s t s p lu s

a llo w a n c e s f o r s p e c i a l c o n s u lt a n t s .

Ad ded c o s t f o r CPM an d ad ded e x p e n s e s f o r

la r g e r p r o j e c t . N o t e ;’ l a , 2 , an d 5 — The se

ite m s a r e n e a r ly c o m p le t e .

1 , 2 , 3 . GSA ’ s C o n s tr u c t io n Pro gr am S tu d y Team

r e p o r t a d o p te d In 1967 by GSA A d m in is t r a to r

r e q u ir e d a g r e a t e r l e v e l o f I n s p e c t io n and

p r o j e c t m an ag em en t su p p o r t th an a n t i c i p a t e d

in 1966 p r o s p e c t u s e s t im a t e .

4 . C o n s t r u c t io n M an ag er now r e q u ir e d f o r CSA’ s

p r o j e c t s In e x c e s s o f $ 5 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 . (n o t r e ­

q u ir e d In 1 9 6 6 ) . N o t e ; The c o n s t r u c t io n

c o s t e s t im a t e h a s b een re d u ce d to r e f l e c t

t h o s e s e r v i c e s p erfo rm e d by CM In l i e u o f th

g e n e r a l c o n t r a c t o r .

5 . CPM 's now r e q u ir e d f o r C SA 's p r o j e c t s In

e x c e s s o f $ 1 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 ( n o t r e q u ir e d In 1 9 6 6 )

OC
EXHIBIT 

RICHARD 

ATLANTA,

B (C o n t' d )

B. RUSSELL FEDERAL BUILDING 

GEORGIA

O b lig a tio n s a s o f F e b ru a ry 28, 197 5

P u rc h a se

C o n tra c t

F in a n c in g

D ir e c t

A p p ro p ria te d

Fun ds T o ta l Re marks

S i t e A c q u is itio n (c o m p le te ) $ 2 ,8 5 0 ,0 0 0 

Land $ 2 ,8 5 0 ,0 0 0

A p p r a is a l, t i t l e

e v id e n c e

$ 6 ,8 3 2

$ 6 ,8 3 2

$ 2 ,8 5 6 ,8 3 2

$ 2 ,8 5 0 ,0 0 0

$ 6 ,8 3 2

D esi gn

A E C o n tr a c t

GSA e x p e n s e s , s o i l t e s t s , 

m is c e ll a n e o u s p r i n ti n g 

an d o th e r

$ 1 ,7 4 5 ,3 8 0

$ 1 ,5 5 6 ,6 4 7

$ 188,7 33

$ 1 ,7 4 5 ,3 8 0

$ 1 ,5 5 6 ,6 4 7

$ 188,7 33

F in a l w ork in g dra w in g c o m p le te . 

P o s t c o n s tr u c tio n s e r v ic e s 

o p tio n h a s n o t been e x e r c is e d . 

A d v e r tis in g an d p r i n t i n g of 

b id d in g docu m en ts have n o t been 

a c c o m p li s h e d .

TOTAL $ 2 ,8 5 0 ,0 0 0 $ 1 ,7 5 2 ,2 1 2 $ 4 ,6 0 2 ,2 1 2
86

G e n e ra l S e r v ic e s A d m in is tra tio n

QUESTION 1:

ANSWER:

Ju ly 10, 1975

'R ic h a rd B. R u s s e ll F e d e ra l B u il d in g 

A tla n ta , G eo rg ia

Why was th e pro pose d s i t e ch an ge d a f t e r t h i s b u il d in g wa s *

a u th o riz e d in 196 6? Who owned th e s i t e o r ig in a lly pro pose d 

an d wha t i s on i t now? Why wer e u n fa v o ra b le s u b s o il 

c o n d itio n s , s in c e r e p o rte d , n o t known p re v io u sly ?

A f e a s i b i l i t y st u d y of th e p re s e n t s i t e was u n d ert ak en a f t e r 

th e s i t e was o ffe re d by S outh ern R ailw ay. The st udy 

re v e a le d th a t c e r ta in b e n e f its wo uld accru e to th e Go vernme nt 

i f th e S outh er n Rai lw ay s i t e wer e s e le c te d in lie u o f th e 

o r i g in a l s i t e . The se b e n e f its in c lu d e th e fo ll o w in g :

(a ) The p re s e n t s i t e i s much la r g e r th an th e one 

p re v io u s ly c o n s id e re d .

(b ) Many c o n s tru c tio n d i f f i c u l t i e s wo uld be a l l e v ia te d 

du e to more co m p ati b le su b s u rfa c e c o n d itio n s .

(c ) R e lo c a ti o n ex penses wo uld n o t be n e c e s sa ry .

(d ) U nli ke th e o r i g in a l s i t e , no m aj or u t i l i t y lin e s 

a re known to c ro s s th e p re s e n t s i t e .

(e ) A d d it io n a l p a rk in g sp aces (a p p ro x im ate ly 80) ca n 

be p ro v id e d .

( f) V eh ic le in g re s s an d e g re ss as w e ll a s su rr o u n d in g 

t r a f f i c p a tte r n s ca n be s im p lifie d mo re e a s ily th an 

a t th e o r ig in a l s i t e .

(g ) The p re s e n t s i t e ca n acc om mo date th e b u il d in g 

d esig n re q u irin g o n ly m o d if ic a ti o n s to th e su bs tr u c tu r e .'

The o r ig in a l s i t e was com posed o f a v a r ie ty o f p a rc e ls 

owned by n in e in d iv id u a ls o r g ro u p s. The se ow ner s, as o f 

May 22, 19 70 , w ere :

(a ) H a rr is o n Company

(b ) Yonan Codex F o u n d a ti o n , In c .

(c ) D ail y R eport Company

(d ) Ja co b Gor do n, R o b e rt Gor do n, an d C h a rl es Go rdo n

(e ) A llr ig h t P ark in g o f G eo rg ia , In c .

( f ) Eva B e ll W ilso n

(g ) Morton R e a lt y Company

(h ) Jo hn M. R it tl e ia e y e r

( i ) Hugh P en d le to n N u n n all y , C h a rl es T. N unn all y , and 

Mrs. C a th e ri n e N. Rawson
87

ANSWER 1: ( c o n t’d )

• The s i t e to day i s e s s e n t i a l l y un ch an ged . The s i t e I s s t i l l 

a m ix tu re o f p ark in g l o t s an d sm a ll mixed u s e s .

A ll GSA s i t e a c q u is itio n agre em en ts a re s u b je c t to th e r e s u l t s o f s o i l b o rin g s to a s s u re s u b s o il s u i t a b i l i t y fo r c o n s tru c tio n T h e re fo re , GSA ca nnot in an y way be co m m itte d to a s i t e w it h 

s o i l c o n d itio n s u n fa v o ra b le fo r c o n s tru c tio n .

In t h i s c a s e , th e s u b s o il c o n d itio n s on th e p re s e n t s i t e were 

mo re s u i t a b l e f o r c o n s tru c tio n of t h i s b u ild in g .

QUESTION 2: Who p re v io u s ly owned th e p r e s e n tly pro po se d s i t e ? How much did o r w i l l i t c o s t th e Go vernment? Is an y a d d itio n a l la n d ne ed ed ? What i s on th e s i t e now? W il l 

an y r e lo c a tio n c o s ts be in v o lv ed ?

ANSWER: P rio r to F e d e ra l p u rc h a se , th e s i t e bel onged to S outh er n R ailw ay. The s i t e was pu rc h ase d fo r ap p ro x im ate ly $2 .9 m illio n . No a d d itio n a l la n d p u rc h ase i s co n te m p la te d . The a p p ra is e d f a i r m ar ket v a lu e o f th e s i t e i s $4.0 m illio n . . The s i t e i s p r e s e n tly v a c a n t. No r e lo c a tio n c o s ts w i l l 

be in v o lv e d .

QUESTION 3: In a d d itio n to r e a l e s t a t e c o s ts , th e ne ed to b u ild a new a c c e ss ro a d , an d th e in co n v en ie n ce of a 1 0 -y ear d ela y in c o n s tru c tin g a b u il d in g a lre a d y a u th o riz e d , a l l t h is p la y in g ar oun d w it h s i t e s and re -d e s ig n has in c re a s e d th e c o s t of t h i s p r o je c t by 182 p e rc e n t in 10 y e a r s . Does t h is r e p re s e n t f o r e s ig h t, good p la n n in g , an d econom y? Who w i l l 

ha ve b e n e f ite d fro m th is ?

b ANSWER: As a p r a c t i c a l n a t t e r , th e d e la y in c o n s tru c tio n was s h o r te r 

t h a n . i t a p p e a rs to be in te rm s o f c a le n d a r d a te s . A lthou gh th e p r o je c t was a u th o riz e d in 19 66 , fo u r y e a rs e la p s e d b e fo re fu nds becam e a v a ila b le in 19 70 f o r s i t e a c q u is itio n and • b u ild in g d e s ig n . In an e f f o r t to conserv e a p p ro p ria te d fu n d s, an ag re em en t to a c q u ir e a s i t e by an ex ch an ge o f Gov er nm en t- owned r e a l p ro p e rty wa s ex ecu te d in J u ly , 19 70 . Ho we ver, th e U .S . D i s t r i c t C ou rt fo r th e South ern D i s t r i c t o f F lo rid a in v a lid a te d th e ex ch an ge ag re em en t. Sub se qu en t to t h is i n v a lid a tio n , an o th e r s i t e bec am e a v a ila b le . A f e a s i b i l i t y s tu d y , co m ple te d in O ct ober o f 19 71 , showed t h is s i t e to be mo re s u i t a b l e th an th e p re v io u s on e an d i t was p u rc h ase d .
88

ANSWER 3: ( c o n t’d )

I t wa s th en n e c e ssa ry to und er go ti n e-c o n su m in g re d e s ig n to 

ad a p t th e b u il d in g to t h i s s i t e .

<1

W hi le no one ca n use t h i s p r o je c t as an ex am ple of f o r e s ig h t 

an d goo d p la n n in g , th e re hav e be en so ne l a t e n t b e n e f its to th e 

Gov er nm en t. A mo re s u ita b le s i t e was a c q u ir e d d uri ng th e 

in te r im . B e n e fic ia l f e a t u r e s , su ch as h ig h - r is e s a fe ty 

sy ste m s, en er gy c o n s e rv a ti o n , an d f a c i l i t i e s fo r th e 

h an d ic ap p ed , which wo uld n o t ha ve bee n in c lu d e d in an e a r l i e r 

d e s ig n , ha ve bee n in c o rp o ra te d in to p re s e n t b u il d in g p la n s .

•

QUESTION 4: What b u il d in g ch an ge s a re pro pose d? Did i t ha ve to be 

re -d e sig n e d fro m s c ra tc h ? I s n ’ t a ch an ge fro m a 10 to a 24 

f lo o r b u il d in g r a th e r d r a s tic ?

ANSWER: D es ig n ch an ge s in th e b u ild in g ca n be c a te g o riz e d as (1 ) 

th e b a s ic d esig n s o lu tio n o f a 2 4 -sto ry f a c i l i t y by th e 

A rc h it e c t/ E n g in e e r in 197 0 whi ch d if f e r e d fro m th e 14- 

s to r y b u il d in g which wa s as su med in th e de ve lo pm en t of th e 

o r i g in a l p ro sp e c tu s in 196 6 and (2 ) d e sig n ch an ge s an d 

ad de d sc op e item s w hi ch w er e n e c e s s ita te d by th e 

a c q u is itio n of a se co nd s i t e in 19 72 .

An ex am ple of th e f i r s t ty p e o f d esig n ch an ge, l i s t e d in

E x h ib it B of th e p ro s p e c tu s , wo uld be it em g ) . Ex am ple s 

o f th e se co nd ty pe o f d e s ig n ch an ge, re q u ir e d because o f. 

r e s i t i n g th e p r o je c t an d ad de d sc op e it e m s , a re item s a) 

th ro u g h f ) and it em h .)

The re -d e s ig n re q u ir e d f o r th e new s i t e c o n s is te d o f 

co m ple te re -d e s ig n o f th e p la z a an d bel otf gra d e le v e ls of 

th e b u ild in g . The upper 24 s t o r i e s wer e n o t m a te r ia lly 

ch an ge d in 1972 ex cep t f o r th e a d d itio n a l c o u rts and 

e le v a to r s .

We do not c o n s id e r a ch an ge fro m 14 s t o r i e s to 24 s t o r i e s 

a d r a s t i c ch an ge sin c e th e A rc h it e c t/ E n g in e e r was n o t 

r e ta in e d u n t i l 197 0 an d th e c o n c e p tu a l e s ti m a te (w it h o u t 

b e n e f it of any d e sig n s k e tc h e s o r s tu d ie s ) was p re p are d 

in 19 66 .
89

QUESTION 5:

ANSWER:

The prospectus emphasizes that the gross square footage has 

been increased by only 8 percent. How, then, can the 182 

percent increase in cost be accounted for? Was this due 

mainly to inflation?

As shown on Exhibit B with the amended prospectus, the 

$44,122,000 construction cost increases were due to 

$7,166,000 (17Z) in scope changes and $35,966,000 (83Z) in 

added costs due to slippage of tine.

QUESTION 6:

ANSWER:

It is noted that design and review costs increased from 

$1,029,000 to $3,511,000 or by 241 percent. Why?

And why have Management costs increased by 621 percent?

Would GSA agree to an audit of these estimated figures?

The design and review costs have increased from $1,029,000 

estimated in 1966 to $3,511,000 as of 1975. A large part of 

the increase was In Architect/Engineer fees, w hich had to be 

renegotiated upon the change in site. These fees increased 

due to higher construction costs resulting from escalation 

and scope changes. Other design and review costs, such as 

GSA salaries, duplicating and advertising, soil tests and 

materials tests, and travel also increased due to site 

change, escalation, and scope changes.

Similarly, the estimated management and Inspection costs 

have increased 621 percent due to the larger construction 

costs. These costs have also increased due to more realistic 

estimates prepared to reflect the use of improved inspection 

techniques and the use of Critical Path Method (CPM) for 

scheduling. These costs are discussed further in Exhibit B 

of the amended prospectus.

Since we now do not plan to u3e a construction manager 

(fee - $1,353,000) as shown on Exhibit B, the increase in 

Management and Inspection Costs is now 428 percent. The 

basic construction cost would increase $1,353,000 since a 

general contractor wi ll now perform the same duties as the 

previously proposed construction manager.

GSA will cooperate in any audit the Committee may wish to 

conduct.
QUESTION 7: I t i s note d th a t 17 p e rc e n t o f a s s ig n a b le sp ace in th e 

pro pos ed b u il d in g w i l l be a llo c a te d to p ark in g an d n o to r 

pool f a c i l i t i e s . At $63.5 0 p e r sq u a re f o o t, th e av era g e 

c o s t of c o n s tru c tio n , t h i s wo uld t o t a l $ 8 ,2 9 5 ,5 1 3 . I s n ’ t 

t h i s r a th e r ex p en siv e p ark in g ? Where i s th e n o to r p o o l 

lo c a te d now?

ANSWER: W hile 12 9, 16 6 sq u a re f e e t o f p ark in g an d a 1, 47 2 sq u a re 

fo o t n o to r pool a re p ro v id ed in th e b u ild in g , th e c o s t o f 

t h i s sp ace i s ap p ro x im ate ly $2,5 83,3 20 o r $2 0. 00 p e r sq u a re 

f o o t. Inasmuch as g ara g e sp ace do es n o t re q u ire h e a tin g , 

a i r c o n d it io n in g , or a r c h i t e c t u r a l f in is h e s w hi ch a re fo un d 

in th e o f f ic e an d c o u rt sp a c e s , a p p lic a tio n of th e av era g e 

$6 3.5 0 c o st i s e rro n e o u s . A n o to r p o o l o f f ic e i s p ro v id ed 

to ho use p e rso n n e l r e s p o n s ib le fo r a d m in is te rin g an d 

c o n tr o llin g th e Go ve rnmen t v e h i c l e s .

The m otor p o o l i s c u r re n tly in le a s e d sp ace a t 6 th an d Cyp re ss 

S tr e e ts . The c o s t o f t h i s sp ace i s $3 3, 20 0 a n n u a ll y .

QUESTION 8:

ANSWER:

17 ,7 27 sq u a re f e e t a re pro pose d as c a f e t e r i a sp a c e , w hi ch 

w i l l c o st w e ll o v er $1 m illio n . A c tu a lly , only 56 0,6 00 

sq u are f e e t w i l l be a llo c a te d as ag en cy o r o f f ic e sp a c e , 

w hi ch am ou nts to o n ly 60 p e rc e n t o f th e t o t a l sp ace to be 

a s s ig n e d . W ould n't a s m a ll e r b u il d in g be adequate ?

Our f ig u re s in d ic a te t h a t ag en cy sp ace (5 60 ,0 00 sq u a re f e e t) 

com pri se s 71% of o c c u p ia b le sp ace (7 94,0 00 sq u a re f e e t ) .

A sm a ll e r b u ild in g w ou ld n o t be ad e q u a te . The d if fe r e n c e 

in sp ace be tw ee n 560,0 00 sq u a re f e e t a s sig n e d as ag en cy 

sp ace and 79 4, 00 0 sq u a re f e e t of o c c u p ia b le sp ace r e p re s e n ts 

g a ra g e , b u ild in g s e r v ic e , an d su p p o rt a r e a s .

T h is b u ild in g w i l l house abo u t 2, 70 0 em pl oy ee s. A stu d y of 

e a tin g f a c i l i t i e s w ith in a t ’n re e -b lo c k ra d iu s o f th e p r o je c t 

in d ic a te s th a t o n ly 920 s e a ts w i l l be a v a ila b le d u rin g th e 

lu n ch p e ri o d fo r em pl oy ee s o f t h is b u ild in g . The se 

ac co mmod ations a re in te n e s ta b lis h m e n ts , a t l e a s t on e o f 

w hi ch w ill be fo rc e d to c lo s e in two o r th re e y e a rs because 

of subway c o n s tru c tio n .
91

QUESTION 9: Why has the space for GSA been increased by 132 percent?

ANSWER: The statistical data used in 1966 with respect to GSA 

space differs from the present method of presenting this 

information in that non-office type space such as garage, 

custodial, and service areas were not charged to the

General Services Administration as they are today. In 

addition, there has been an increase in the GS A space 

requirements for its Regional Office from 86,500 square 

feet to 122,200 square feet.

QUESTION 10: Why have court room furnishings and cafeteria equipment 

been included in the cost estimate for the building? Is 

there anything else?

ANSW ER : It is standard practice to include these items where required.

Only Courtroom furnishing and cafeteria equipment are 

segregated as cost elements in quantifying the cost 

increase from scope changes. The court-furnishing costs 

shown cover the cost for the special millwork (judge's 

bench, witness stand, juror box, etc.) normal to courtrooms.

This cost does not include portable furniture such as 

tables and chairs.

The cafeteria-equipment costs represent the costs of a

serving line, refrigerators, food preparation equipment,

and condiment stands, but exclude portable furnishings and 

equipment such as tables, chairs, trays, dishes, etc.

There are no similar costs that are not included in all construction projects of this nature. These items would be structural 

electrical, or mechanical fixtures necessary for the operation 

of the agencies. Examples are plumbing and ventilation fixtures 

for labs, increased electrical fixtures for print shops, conduits 

to roof top communication facilities, and seats for the

auditorium.

fc e

QUESTION 11: Why are 14 courtrooms being provided in lieu of the 7 

originally proposed?

ANSWER: The extremely heavy case load on the U.S. Courts 

necessitated the increase.

QUESTION 12: Were alterations completed on the old Post Office and

Courthouse whic h wer e authorized in 1966?

ANS WER : The conversion and alteration work included in the 

prospectus approved in 1956 has been deferred tending 

relocation of the U.S. Postal Service. Che only work that 

has been done to the building was replacement of the roof 

at a cost of $167,474.
92

QUESTION 13: What c o u rtr o o o sp ace e x i s t s th e re nov? I s t h i s n o re o r 

. ' l e s s th an th ey ha d b e fo re a l t e r a t i o n s ?

ANSWER: T her e a re f iv e co urt ro om s f o r th e D i s t r i c t C ourt and one

. co urt ro om fo r th e C ou rt o f A pp eals . T his i s th e sa ne

numb er of co urt ro om s a s in 19 66 .

QUESTION 14 : I s an y sp ace le a s e d fo r th e c o u rts ?

ANSWER: No.

QUESTION 15: Did th e P o s ta l S e rv ic e g e t t h e i r new b u ild in g , w hi ch was 

a u th o riz e d in 1966? Do th ey s t i l l oc cu py th e F e d e ra l 

Ann ex , whi ch p ro v id e s 242,0 00 sq u a re f e e t , an d whi ch i s 

* s t r u c t u r a l l y so un d an d in a goo d down town lo c a tio n ? What

o th e r F e d e ra l B u il d in g s a r e th e r e in A tl a n ta ?

ANSWER: (1 ) No. A s i t e i s under c o n s id e ra tio n . (2 ) Yes . Th ey s t i l l

oc cu py th e F e d e ra l An ne x. (3 ) A F e d e ra l O ffic e B u il d in g .

QUESTION 16: Wou ld th e pro pose d new b u ild in g p erm it c o n s o lid a ti o n o f 

a l l F e d e ra l a c t i v i t i e s t h e r e , o th e r th an th e c o u rts ?

ANSWER: No. G enera l p urp ose sp a ce dem and s ex ce ed 2.5 m illio n

sq u a re f e e t . The pro pose d b u ild in g in a d d itio n to th e 

e x is tin g F e d e ra l O ffic e B u il d in g wo uld n o t p ro v id e 

' s u f f i c i e n t sp ace to house th e s e de mands.

QUESTION 17: Why c a n 't th e c o u rts a l l be p u t in to th e o ld P o st O ffi c e 

B u il d in g an d le a s e d sp a ce u t i l i z e d fo r re m ain in g ne ed s?

I s n 't th e re a s u rp lu s o f su ch sp ace now , in A tla n ta , ev en 

, th ough th e p ro sp e c tu s i n d ic a te s d if f e r e n tly ?

»

ANSWER: Th e o ld P o st O ffic e an d C ourt house B u il d in g , c o n ta in in g

ab o u t 12 0, 00 0 sq u a re f e e t , i s n o t la rg e en ou gh to acc om mo date 

a l l th e C ou rt a c t i v i t i e s in A tl a n ta (1 58 ,0 00 sq u a re f e e t 

nee ded fo r D i s t r i c t an d A ppea ls C o u rts , an d 4,4 00 sq u a re f e e t 

f o r Tax C o u rt) . An a tt e m p t to ho us e a l l p re s e n t c o u rt sp ace 

in th e co n v ert ed P o st O ffic e an d C ourt house wo uld r e q u ire th a t 

th e U .S . A tt o rn ey an d M ars hal be lo c a te d in a s e p a ra te b u ild in g .

A lthough th e re a r e in d ic a tio n s o f o v ers u p p ly in th e p r iv a te 

s e c to r a t t h i s ti m e, GSA le a s e s ab out 1 .8 m illio n sq u a re f e e t 

o f sp a c e . D eli v ery o f th e R u s s e ll B u il d in g an d su b seq u en t 

• a l t e r a t i o n s to th e Old P o s t O ffic e and C ourt house w i l l r e le a s e 

380,0 00 sq u a re f e e t o f s p a c e . T his a c tio n w i l l n o t a d v e rs e ly 

a f f e c t th e A tla n ta r e n t a l m a rk e t. *
93

QUESTION IS : How m ig ht t h is p r o je c t be m o d if ie d to p ro v id e o n ly w ha t i s a c tu a lly n eed ed , and s u b s t a n t i a l l y re duce th e c o st?

ANSWER: D es ig n of t h is b u ild in g ha s be en co m ple te d an d any m o d if ic a ti o n o f d esig n wo uld be c o s t ly . Any p o te n tia l b e n e f its wo uld be o f f s e t by th e d e la y . P u rc hase c o n tra c t fin a n c in g , w hi ch is a v a ila b le , re q u ire s th a t a l l d is b u rs e m en ts be made by May 3 1 , 19 77 . A ls o , f a i l u r e to p ro ceed w it h c o n s tru c tio n a t t h i s tim e w i l l r e s u l t in f u r th e r c o s t e s c a la tio n an d w i l l je o p a rd iz e ou r per fo rm an ce under th e P u b li c B u il d in g P urc has e C o n tr a c t an d T ru s t In d e n tu re 

d ate d Aug us t 1, 19 73 .

The re g io n a l o f f i c e e v a lu a te d th e p r o je c t to re duce c o n s tru c tio n c o s ts by e li m in a tin g c e r ta in f e a t u r e s . The r e s u l t o f t h i s stu d y was th a t r e d u c tio n s in c o s ts co uld o n ly be a tta in e d by ma king th e b u ild in g le s s liv e a b le o r by e lim in a tin g f a c i l i t i e s th a t wo uld r e s u l t in in c re a se d o p e ra tin g an d m ain te nance c o s ts in th e f u tu r e . Ex am ple s of p o s s ib le c o s t re d u c tio n s w er e (a ) th e re d u c ti o n of e l e c t r i c a l f i x tu r e s , (b ) an e li m in a tio n o f la n d s c a p in g , (c ) a re v is e d tr a s h re m ov al sy ste m , and (d ) a re v is e d v e n t i l a t i o n sy st em in 

th e g a ra g e .

55 -353 0 - 75 - 7
94

. June 23,

GENERAL SERVICES A DMINISTRATION

Senate P u b li c Works Co mmittee

Q uesti ons an d An swers on R ic har d B. R u s s e ll F e d e ra l B u il d in g , A tla n ta , G eo rg ia

197

* «.

QUESTION 1: Where w ill th e b u il d in g be lo c a te d ?

ANSWER: The b u il d in g w ill be lo c a te d on a s i t e boun ded by th e H unte r S tre e t

v ia d u c t, M it c h e ll S t r e e t , an d th e Spri ng S tr e e t v ia d u c t.

QUESTION 2: Has an y money bee n a p p ro p ria te d to d a te f o r t h i s p r o je c t? I f

s o , how much?

ANSWER: Fu nd s wer e a p p ro p ria te d under th e S ite s an d E xpen se s, P u b li c

B u il d in g s P r o je c ts , a p p ro p ria tio n :

F is c a l Ye ar P u b li c Law Amount

1970 91 -1 26 $1 ,1 5 2 ,0 0 0 .0 0

1972 92 -4 9 2 ,0 3 7 ,0 0 0 .0 0

1973 92 -3 51 800,0 00.0 0

T o ta l A p p ro p ri a ti o n $ 3 ,9 8 9 ,0 0 0 .0 0

As a r e s u l t o f PL 93-3 81, GSA’s FY 75 A p p ro p ri a ti o n A c t, only 

$7 00 ,0 00 o f th e u n o b li g a te d b a la n c e o f fu nds p re v io u s ly 

a p p ro p ria te d may be use d in FY 19 75 .

QUESTION 3: How much ha s be en o b lig a te d to d a te fo r t h i s b u il d in g ?

ANSWER: T o ta l o b lig a tio n s as Of Ma rch 3 1 , 197 5 a r e $ 1 ,7 5 2 ,2 8 7 .8 4 com puted

as f o llo w s :

S ite s and E xpense s, PBP 6-3 0-7 4 $1,7 4 6 ,9 2 8 .8 4

F e d e ra l B u il d in g s Fund 3-3 1-7 5 5 ,3 59.0 0

TOTAL $1,7 5 2 ,2 8 7 .8 4

The am ount o b lig a te d was fo r d e s ig n o f th e p r o je c t, ex cep t fo r 

m is c e ll a n e o u s s i t e c o s t s , in c lu d in g a p p r a is a ls . The s i t e was 

purc hase d w it h p u rc h ase c o n tr a c t fin a n c in g a t a c o s t of 

$ 2 ,8 5 0 ,0 0 0 .
95

QUESTION 4: How w ill th is b u ild in g be fi n an ced ?

ANSWER: The b u il d in g i s b ein g fi n an ced w it h P urc has e C o n tr a c t fu nds un der th e dual sy st em w it h th e ex c e p ti o n o f GSA and m is c e ll a n e o u s 

ex pen se s which th e F e d e ra l B u il d in g s Fund w ill fin a n c e .

QUESTION 5: When do es t h i s p ro sp e c tu s a n t ic ip a te a s t a r t on c o n s tr u c ti o n ?

Com pl etio n?

ANSWER: Ju ne 1975 — we a r e now p ro je c tin g Se ptem be r 197 5 w it h b e n e f ic ia l

oc cu pa nc y in Novem ber 1977 (26 mon ths c o n s tru c tio n ti m e ).

QUESTION 6: How do es th e pro pose d ho usi ng p la n compare w it h th e one ap pr ov ed in

1966?

A tla n ta , G eo rg ia

C ourt house an d F ed era l O ffic e B u il d in g 

P ro pose d Ho using P la n

ANSWER:

Agency 

U .S . C ourt s 

Tax Cou rt

U.S . A tt o rn ey /M ars h al

ACTION

A g ric u lt u re

C iv il S erv ic e

Commerce

Comm ission on C iv il R ig h ts

D ef en se

Equ al Employm ent O ppo rt u n it y 

E xecu ti v e O ffi c e of th e P re s id e n t 

F e d e ra l Co mmun ica tio ns Co mm ission 

F e d e ra l D ep osi t In su ra n ce C o rp o ra ti o n 

G enera l A cc ou nt in g O ffi c e 

G enera l S erv ic es A d m in is tr a ti o n 

Go vernme nt P rin tin g O ffi c e 

H e a lt h , E duca ti on & W el fa re 

Hou sin g & Urban De ve lopm en t 

I n t e r s t a t e Commerce Comm ission 

J u s tic e (e x c l. U.S. A tt y ./ M a r.)

La bo r

O ffi c e o f Econo mic O p p o rt u n it y 

R a il ro ad R etire m en t Bo ard 

S e c u r itie s & Ex change Comm ission

Squa re F eet

Ap proved P ro sp e c tu s Amendment 

________19 66________ _ 1975

79 ,8 15 15 7, 82 3

— 4, 30 0

26 ,0 00 21 ,1 49

— 11 ,0 00

200 30 ,9 00

25 ,0 00 40 ,0 00

26 ,5 00 —

— 2, 75 0

— 20 ,6 00

— 20 ,9 00

300 500

1, 50 0 —

5, 00 0 —

5, 00 0 —

86 ,5 00 12 2, 20 0

— 2, 50 0

98 ,3 00 18 ,0 00

11 1, 60 0 43 ,4 00

4, 80 0 —

4, 50 0 37 ,6 00

37 ,9 00 —

17 ,0 00 —

3,1 00 2, 70 0

4, 00 0 —

1 / T o ta l GSA Sp ace - 34 7, 57 5
9G

QUESTION 6: (c o n t. d )

Agency

Ap proved P ro sp ectu s 

1966

Amendment

1975

S e le c tiv e S erv ic e System 3, 40 0 10 ,0 00

Sm all B usi nes s A d m in is tr ati o n 20 ,0 00

S ta te 200 ___

T ra n s p o rta ti o n __ 7,00 0

T re asu ry 16 ,5 00 7, 30 0

S u b to ta l— Agency Sp ace 57 7,11 5 56 0,62 2

Garag e 81 ,3 00 12 9,16 6 1/

S erv ic e A re as 35 ,7 25 66 ,2 09 1?

C u sto d ia l 9, 31 0 30 ,0 00 1/

S u b to ta l— Ass ig ne d Sp ace 70 3, 45 0 ' 78 5,99 7

Res er ve d f o r Exp an sion ... 8, 60 3

T o ta l O cc upia ble Sp ace 70 3,45 0 79 4,60 0

QUESTION 7: The la r g e s t ag en cy in th e p r o je c t w i l l be GSA w it h 725 em ploy ee s 

and 34 7, 00 0 sq u a re f e e t o f sp a c e . P le a se p ro v id e d e t a i l s on th e 

n a tu re o f t h is work an d sp a c e .

ANSWER:

F u ncti on Squ ar e F e e t P ers o n n el

P ark in g G ar ag e: 12 9, 16 6 0

S e rv ic e A re as:

A ud itorium 4, 07 4

B lind st an d 329 1

C a fe te ria 17 ,7 27 10

Co mm un ica tio ns 7, 61 2

C onfe re nce Rooms 7, 00 0

C re d it Un ion 1, 01 7 2

F ed era l In fo rm ati o n C ente r 1, 01 7 3

F e d e ra l P ro te c tiv e S erv ic e 144 6

F e d e ra l Su pp ly S to re 5, 61 4 3

1 / T o ta l GSA Sp ace - 34 7, 57 5
97

QUESTION 7s (c o n t. d )

4

F u n cti o n Sq ua re F eet P ers o n n el

H ea lt h U nit 

Lo ad in g P la tf o rm 

M ai l Room 

Mo tor P ool O ffi c e 

P rin tin g P la n t 

Shre ddin g Room 

Tel ep ho ne Fram e

3, 20 5

6, 83 4

555

1, 47 2

8, 70 0

144

765

2

5

3

20

S u b to ta l 66 ,2 09

C u sto d ia l 30 ,0 00

50

30

GSA R egio nal O ffic e :

O ffi c e o f R eg io nal A d m in is tr a to r 

B usin ess S erv ic e C ente r 

O ffi c e o f A d m in is tr a ti o n 

F e d e ra l Su pp ly S erv ic e 

R egio nal Cou ns el 

R egio nal OOP

O ffi c e of C iv il R ig hts 

R egio nal O ffi c e of A udit s 

R egio nal F e d e ra l Su pp ly S e rv ic e 

R egio nal NARS

R egio nal PBS

R egio nal Tel ec om m uni ca tion s 

R egio nal ADTS 

I n te r n a l C onfe re nc e Room 

E xp an sion

2, 25 5

1, 61 6

16 ,9 57

7, 59 4

1,0 91

943

2, 55 3

890

21 ,0 18

1, 36 2

32 ,2 81

7, 28 6

6, 12 2

3, 266

4

6

94

4

8

13

16

6

240

8

222

55

4

S u b to ta l 12 2,20 0

T o ta l GSA 34 7, 57 5

650

735

QUESTION 8: How many p ers o n s w i l l th e a u d it o ri u m s e a t? Why i s i t ne ed ed ?

ANSWER: The a u d it o ri u m w i l l s e a t 350 p e rso n s . I t w ill be us ed fo r a u d io v is u a l p r e s e n ta tio n s , tr a in in g s e s s io n s , c o n fe re n c e s, sp eak in g en gag em en ts , and fo rm al and in fo rm al a d d re ss e s to 

la rg e g ro u p s.
98

QUESTION 9: What existing restaurant facilities exist near the site of the

proposed building? Why is an enlarged cafeteria needed?

•

ANSWER: A survey of the area indicates that there are ten eating

establishments within a three block area of the proposed building;

they have a total capacity for feeding a maximum of 920

additional customers. However, at least one and perhaps more

will be forced to close when the rapid transit system is built ’

within the next two to three years.

QUESTION 10: What is a "telephone frame room"?

ANSWER: A "telephone frame room" is the central location of incoming 

trunk lines, cables, terminals, etc., for the building's entire 

telephone system.

QUESTION 11: What items were dropped from the earlier prospectus to make room 

for the additional courtrooms, the larger cafeteria, etc.?

ANSWER: Approximately 90,000 fewer square feet of non-court agency space

are Included in the current prospectus, as compared with the 1966 

prospectus. This reduction reflects the changed space requirements 

of the courts and the cafeteria. For instance, the HUD regional 

office was originally to be located in over 100,000 square feet 

of space. However, HUD decentralized and now an area office of 

only about 43,000 square feet is planned. Also, the space requirements for HEW have almost tripled. To accommodate this agency 

entirely in the proposed office building would restrict space 

flexibility.

QUESTION 12: Why was the design changed from a 10-story building to a 24-story 

building?

ANSWER: Design changes in the building can be categorized as (1) the basic 

design solution of a 24-story facility by the Architect/Engineer 

in 1970 which differed from the 14-story building which was assumed 

in the development of the original prospectus in 1966 and (2) design 

changes and added scope items which were necessitated by the 

acquisition of a second site in 1972.

4
99

QUESTION 12: (c o n t. d )

An ex am ple o f a c a te g o ry (1 ) d esig n ch an ge l i s t e d In E x h ib it B of th e p ro sp e c tu s wo uld be Item g ) . T w en ty -f o u r- sto ry b u il d in g v e rsu s fo u rte e n s t o r i e s and th e re m ain der of th e sc op e it e m , a) th ru f ) p lu s h ) , wo uld be ex am pl es o f cate g o ry (2 ) d esig n ch an ge s re q u ir e d du e to r e s i t i n g th e p r o je c t an d ad de d sc op e it e m s.

The re -d e s lg n re q u ir e d fo r th e new s i t e c o n s is te d of co m pl et e r e -d e s ig n o f th e p la z a and be low gra de le v e ls of th e b u ild in g . The upper 24 s t o r i e s wer e n o t m a te r ia lly ch an ge d in 1972 ex cep t fo r th e a d d itio n a l c o u rts an d e le v a to r s . ,

We do n o t c o n sid e r a ch an ge fro m 14 s t o r i e s to 24 s t o r i e s a d r a s t i c ch an ge s in c e th e A rc h it e c t/ E n g in e e r was n o t re ta in e d u n t i l 197 0 an d th e co n cep tu al e s ti m a te (w it h o u t b e n e f it of an y d esig n sk e tc h e s o r s tu d ie s ) was p rep are d in 19 66 .

QUESTION 13: What has be en done to im pr ov e en er gy e ffic ie n c y of th e b u il d in g ?

ANSWER: GSA Is s u e d th e En erg y C o n serv ati o n G u id e li n e s fo r O ffi c e B u il d in g s in 19 74 . The d esig n of th is A tl a n ta f a c i l i t y was s u b s ta n tia lly co m pl et e a t th a t tim e b u t en er gy c o n s e rv a ti o n e f f o r t s ha ve r e s u lte d in th e use o f double g la zed wind ow s, re duce d lig h tin g re q u ir em en ts (ta s k l i g h t i n g ) , use of o u ts id e a i r fo r v e n t i l a t i o n when f e a s ib le p lu s pla nned o p e ra ti o n p ro ced u re s w hi ch w i l l re d u ce en er gy co ns um pt io n on a y e a rly b a s is .

QUESTION 14 : P le a se id e n tif y th e s p e c if ic sa v in g s a n tic ip a te d un der " c o n s tru c tio n " to o f f s e t th e $1,3 53,0 00 c o s t of th e c o n s tr u c ti o n man agers* f e e .

ANSWER: The e s ti m a te d sav in g s in c o n s tru c tio n c o s ts , due to th e in c lu s io n o f a c o n s tru c tio n man ag er in th is p r o je c t, c o n s is te d of th e 

fo ll o w in g :

R educt io n in 10 /7 2 e s ti m a te by

A/E fo r b id bond and over hea d

It em s re q u ir e d fo r c o n v en ti o n al

p r o je c t o f t h i s s iz e an d sc ope $ 56 9, 00 0

R educt io n o f a p o rtio n of th e

p r o f i t sin c e G en er al C o n tr a c to r

w i l l not be re q u ir e d w it h use of

c o n s tr u c ti o n m an ag er . 42 8, 00 0

S u b to ta l (1 0/7 2) $ 99 7, 00 0
100

QUESTION 14 : (c o n t. d )

S u b to ta l (1 0/7 2) $ 99 7,00 0

♦

H is to r ic a l Cos t In c re a se s from 

10 /7 2 to 10/7 4 . (1 8 .3X) 18 3,00 0

S u b to ta l $1 ,1 80 ,0 00

E s c a la tio n fro m 10 /7 4 to midp o in t of c o n s tru c tio n (23 mo nths 

a t .6% p e r month - 13.8%)

T o ta l E st im ate d Sav in gs 

in C o n s tr u c ti o n C os ts

17 3,00 0

$1 ,3 53,0 00

The ab ov e a n a ly s is was p re p are d in Ja nuary of 19 75 . We ha ve 

sin c e det er m in ed t h a t a c o n s tr u c ti o n m anager's in p u t would 

n o t be c o s t- e f f e c tiv e sin c e p la n s an d s p e c if ic a tio n s a re now 

co m pl et ed on th e b a s is of a s in g le lump sum b id . The 

maximum lim it o f c o s t of $77,0 66,0 00 wo uld s t i l l re m ai n th e 

same re g a rd le s s o f w het her we use d th e C o n str u c ti o n Manager 

fo r t h is p r o je c t o r n o t.
101

Building Owners and Managers of Atlanta, Inc.,

Atlanta, Ga., June 10, 1976.

# Hon. Robert Morgan,

Chairman, Senate Subcommittee of Buildings and Grounds, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

Dear Senator Morgan: At the suggestion of Congressman Elliott Levitas of Georgia’s F ourth District, we are pleased to enclose copies of a recently prepared

• May Office Space Occupancy Survey. This information is for the use of the members of your Subcommittee on Buildings and Grounds, Public Works Com­ mittee, in their deliberations on the proposed Russell Federal Office Building in 

Atlanta. As indicated by the attached correspondence with Congressman Levitas, the Board of Directors of our Association will meet with representatives of the General Services Administration in Atlanta. This meeting could not be scheduled prior to the meeting of your Subcommittee. Without the information we hope to gain from the General Services Adminis­ tration, our Board cannot reach a determination on this project. We will be pleased to be responsive to any request for additional information which your Subcommittee members might wish to make of our Association.

Cordially, Stewart M. Huey, CAE,

Executive Vice President.

[Enclosures.] Building Owners and Managers of Atlanta, I nc.,

Atlanta, Ga., June 10, 1976.

Hon. Elliott H. Levitas,

Congress of the United States, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

Dear Congressman Levitas: Enclosed with this letter are several copies of the May Office Space Occupancy Survey. This information is transmitted to you in response to your letter of June 6th concerning the proposed Russell Federal 

Office Building. Duplicate information has been forwarded to the Honorable Robert Morgan, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Buildings and Grounds, for his meeting on Wednesday. Due to the short interval of time for preparation, BOM A will not submit a position statement before his Committee, but forwards our survey for the information of the Committee members. We met on Monday with Mr. Robert McCollum, Director of Space Management for General Services Administration in Atlanta and have scheduled a meeting between our Board of Directors and GSA representatives. We anticipate that this meeting will resolve the major questions we have on this project and will allow our Board to reach a decision well in advance of th e scheduled House Subcommittee hearings in Atlanta this fall. We sincerely thank you for your continued assistance in this matter. We believe the statistics in the report will explain our deep concern to you.

Cordially, Stewart M. Huey, CAE,

Executive Vice President.

[Enclosures.]
102

BUILDING OWNERS and M AN AG ER S Of ATLA NTA, Inc.

220 0 Parklak i O riw - Suita ISO

Atlanta. Gaorgia 3 03 45

404/9 39 5480

OFFICE SPACE OCCUPANCY SURVEY

AS OF MAY 1 , 1975

" O rertu tr x w » n w .,«> r<> hlJ ii lt i o i/ i, \ ImiUbig i iK bim - "
103

BUILDING OWNERS and MA NA GE RS Of AT LA NTA , Inc.

220 0 Parfclaks Driw - SuiM 160

Atlanta. Gaorgia 30 34 6

40 4/939-6460

OF FI CE S PACE OCCU PAN CY SURV EY

May, 1975

Our Spri ng bian nual Surv ey of Occ upancy/Vacancy In c o mercial off ice buildin gs and office parks in Met rop olitan A tlanta is complete. This repor t shows the double- edged effec t o f n ew space bei ng b rought Into the mark et and the alow absor pti on

gen era lly att rib ute d to the econo my.

For example, the occ upa ncy r ate In comp etitiv e build ing s in the U rban ar ea droppe d fro m 91.0 perce nt in Oc tob er to 84.8 percent as of this report. In Suburb an Atlant a the occu pan cy rate dec lined fro m 86. 0 percent in Oct ober to 74.3 perc ent. In both cases a larger amount of com petitive space is incl uded in thia Surve y, whi ch night

effect the re sults.

The Urb an report includ es onl y two of seven ma jor project s. We ant icipate that over 1.6 mil lio n s quar e feet of additio nal competi tive squa re feet wil l be add ed to the

Urb an Inven tory by the end of 1975.

In the Suburban mark et repo rt a com bination of ne w cons tru ction and addit ion s-t o existi ng o ffice parks account' for most of the d ecline in the occ upancy rate. It is interes ting to note that the remova l of our arbitra ril y d efi ned "unabao rbed space " from the vacan t com petitive space, wou ld decre ase the v acancy rate to less

than 10 percent in both the U rb an and Subu rban reports.

BOMA express es its a ppr eciation to the owners and ma nagers of the 272 off ice parks and offi ce buildin gs who coo perated wit h the BOMA Staff and Researc her M ich ael E. Paris, thro ugh the sub mis sio n o f dat a on wh ich these report s are based. As always, reque sts for a ddit ion al informa tio n o r 'questions concern ing this repo rt or other act ivities of Buil din g O wne rs and M ana ger s of Atlanta shou ld be refer red to this

office.

"Over w ttv vran n f te rr kr hi Allan la i nfflre building in dutlry

a
104

BUILDING OWNERS and M AN AG ER S Of ATLA NTA , Inc.

22 00 Psrklaks Drive - Suita 160

Atlan ta. Georgia 30 34 6

40 4/930- 64 60

OFFICE SPACE OCCUPANCY SURVEY

May 1 , 19 75

METROPOLITAN ATLANTA

1 . T o ta l Number o f O ff ic e B u il d in g s and Pa rk s In clu ded in t h is Surv ey :

IA . C om p eti ti ve Pa rk s and B u i l d i n g s . , , . , . . . , . ........................... 197

IB . T o ta lly N on -C om pet itiv e Pa rk s and B u i l d i n g s . . . . . . ’ . ” ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ” 75

T ota l Pa rk s and B u il d in g s R e p o r ti n g ................................................. 27 2

2. C o m p eti ti v e O ff ic e R en ta ble Are a:

O cc up ie d..............................................................................

V acan t..............................................................................* ’ *" ’ ’

T o ta l........................................................................................

2A. Un ab so rb ed Space *l n 59 Pa rk s and B u il d in g s ..................

3 . N on -C om pet it iv e Sp ace Rep or te d in 1A................................

N on -C om pet it iv e Sp ace Rep or te d in IB ................................

4 . T o ta l Sp ac e In cl uded in t h is S u rv ey ..................................

2 0 ,0 0 4 ,6 1 2 sq . f t . o r 8 0 .3 2

4 .8 9 3 ,3 2 8 s q . f t . or 1 9 .7 2

2 4 ,8 9 7 ,9 4 0 s q . f t . or 10 02

3 ,2 2 9 ,5 3 0 sq . f t .

2 ,2 5 6 ,7 5 9 s q . f t . in 41 b u il d in g s

5 ,7 6 6 ,9 0 3 sq . f t . in 75 b u il d in g s

3 2 ,9 2 1 ,6 0 2 s q . f t .

O ffic e Sp ac e In cl ude d in 1A and IB o ccu p ie d by G ov ernm en ta l A g e n c ie s:

6.

F e d e r a l............................................................................................

S ta te and L o ca l........................................................................ 1 ,8 7 5 ,7 3 6 sq . f t .

2 ,8 9 6 ,8 0 8 s q . f t .

in 43 b u il d in g s

in 41 b u il d in g s

R e t a il S to re Occup anc y in clu d ed in t h is Sur ve y:

O cc up ie d....................................................................

V acan t............................................................................................... 5 0 2 ,6 2 0 sq .

9 9 ,3 1 9 sq .

f t . or 8 3 .5 2

f t . or 1 6 .5 2

T o t a l ...................................................................................................... 6 0 1 ,9 3 9 s q . f t . o r 10 02

* NOTE: I f "New Sp ac e" , b u ilt w it h in 24 months and never o c c u p ie d , in 59 b u il d in g s o f

3 ,2 2 9 ,5 3 0 sq . f t . we re rem ove d from th e "va ca nt c o m p etit iv e " c a te g o r y , th e oc cu pa nc y

r a te wo uld be 9 2 .3 2 .
105

BUILDING OWNERS and MAN AG ER S Of AT LA NTA , Inc.

1 .

22 00 Parfclafca Drive ■ Suita 160

Atlanta. Gaorgia 3 03 45

40 4/03 9- 64 00

OFFICE SPACE OCCUPANCY SURVEY

May 1 , 19 75

URBAN ATLANTA

Urban B u il d in g s In cl u ded in t h is Sur ve y:

IA. C om p eti ti ve B u il d in g s ...........................

IB . T o ta lly N on -C om p eti ti ve B u il d in g s

T o ta l Urban B u il d in g s R e p o r t in g .. ..

2 . C om p eti ti ve O ffic e R en ta b le Are a:

O cc up ie d........................................................................................

V acan t.............................................................................................

T o ta l........................................................................................

2A. Un ab sorb ed Sp ac e* in 8 B u il d in g s ..........................................

3 . Non -C om pet itiv e Sp ac e R ep or te d in 1A................................

N on-C om pet itiv e Sp ac e R ep or te d in IB ................................

4 . T o ta l Urban O ffic e Sp ac e in t h is S u rvey.........................

1 2 ,1 5 7 ,5 4 9 s q . f t .

2 ,1 8 1 ,5 6 1 s q . f t .

1 4 ,3 3 9 ,1 1 0 sq . f t .

1 ,0 8 1 ,1 1 0 sq . f t ,

2 ,0 3 9 ,4 7 7 s q . ft

4 ,5 3 9 ,3 8 7 sq . f t

2 0 ,9 1 7 ,9 7 4 s q . f t

or 8 4 .8 2

or 1 5 .2 2

or 10 02

in 31 b u il d in g s

in 60 b u il d in g s

5 . O ffic e Sp ace in clu d ed in 1A and IB occu p ie d by Gov er nm en ta l A g e n c ie s:

................................ 1 ,3 6 0 ,0 2 8 s q . f t . in 31 b u il d in g s

................................ 2 ,8 2 4 ,3 4 7 s q . f t . in 32 b u il d in g s

6 . R e ta il Sto re Oc cu pa nc y In clu d ed in t h is Surv ey :

Hr 1 H .............................................. 5 0 2 ,6 2 0 sq . f t . or 8 3 .5 2

y .............................................. 9 9 ,3 1 9 sq . f t . or 16 .5 2

T o ta l............................................... ............................................... 6 0 1 ,9 3 9 sq . f t . or 10 02

* NOTE: I f "New Sp ac e" , b u i lt w it h in 24 months and n ever o c c u p ie d , in 8 b u il d in g s o f

1 ,0 8 1 ,1 1 0 s q . f t . we re remo ved from th e "v ac an t c o m p etit iv e " c a te g o r y , th e oc cu pa nc y

r a te wo uld be 9 1 .7 2 .

0
BUILDING OWNERS and M AN AG ER S Of ATLA NTA, Inc .

220 0 Parklaka O riw Suita 160

Atlanta. Gaorgia 30 34 6

40 4/93 9-64 60

OFFICE SPACE OCCUPANCY SURVEY

May I , 1975

URBAN ATLANTA

C o m p e t it iv e B u ild in g s

RENTAL COST

CLASSIF ICA TIONS U nder $ 4 .5 0 $ 4 . 5 1 / 6 . 0 0 $ 6 .0 1 and U £

1 . Nu mb er o f B u ild in g s 21 54 41

2 . C o m p e t it iv e O f f i c e

R e n t a b le A rea

O cc u p ie d 6 5 2 ,7 6 2 ( 7 9 .5 ) 4 , 2 1 9 ,3 8 8 ( 9 1 . 2 ) 7 ,2 8 5 .3 9 9 ( 8 1 .8 )

V a ca n t 1 6 7 ,5 2 0 ( 2 0 .5 ) 4 0 2 ,7 0 8 ( 8 . 8 ) 1 ,6 1 1 ,3 3 3 ( 1 8 .2 )

T o t a l 8 2 0 ,2 8 2 ( 1 0 0 ) 4 , 6 2 2 ,0 9 6 ( 1 0 0 ) 8 , 8 9 6 ,7 3 2 ( 1 0 0 )

3 . N o n -C o m p e tit iv e

O f f i c e R e n ta b le

A r ea R e p o r te d 1 8 6 ,0 3 4 [6 ] 1 ,0 2 0 ,6 5 9 [1 4J 1 ,0 6 3 ,7 9 3 [ 1 1 ]

4 . T o t a l O f f i c e S p a c e

R e p o r te d in t h i s

S u r v ey 1 ,0 0 6 ,3 1 6 5 ,6 4 2 ,7 5 5 9 ,9 6 0 ,5 2 5

5 . O f f i c e S p a ce O ccu p ie d

by G o v er n m e n ta l A g e n c ie s

F e d e r a l 4 6 5 ,7 7 3 [6 ] 7 9 8 ,9 6 6 [ 2 0 ] 9 5 ,2 8 9 [5 ]

S t a t e an d L o c a l 2 ,4 4 3 ( 1 ] 5 0 ,5 2 3 [ 5 ] 7 6 ,4 4 4 [ 3 ]

6 . R e t a i l S t o r e O cc upancy

w i t h i n S u r v ey ed B ld g s .

O c c u p ie d 4 8 ,7 5 6 ( 9 0 .1 ) 1 5 9 ,2 0 9 ( 8 6 .0 ) 2 9 4 ,6 5 5 ( 8 1 .0 )

V a c a n t 5 ,3 5 0 ( 9 .9 ) 2 5 ,1 2 7 ( 1 4 . 0 ) 6 8 ,8 4 2 ( 1 9 .0 ) T o t a l 5 4 ,1 0 6 ( 1 0 0 ) 1 8 4 ,3 3 6 ( 1 0 0 ) 3 6 3 ,4 9 7 ( 1 0 0 )

NOTE: F ig u r e s In p a r e n th e s e d e n o te p e r c e n t a g e s .

F ig u r e s in b r a c k e t s d e n o t e num be r o f b u i l d i n g s r e p o r t i n g .
107

BUILDING OWNERS and MAN AG ER S Of ATLA NTA , Inc .

22 00 P irk lak a Drive ■ Suita 150

Atlanta. Gaorgia 303 45

40 4/93 9- 54 90

OFFICE SPACE OCCUPANCY SURVEY

May I , 19 75

SUBURBAN ATLANTA

1 . Sub urb an Par ks and B u il d in g s in clu d ed in t h i s Su rv ey :

IA . C o m p eti ti v e Park s and B u il d in g s ........................................................... 86 IB . T o t a lly N on -C om p eti ti ve Pa rk s and B u il d in g s ........................................ 15

T o ta l Su bu rban Pa rk s and B u il d in g s R e p o r ti n g .......................................... 101

2 . C om p eti ti ve O ffic e R en ta b le Are a:

. . . . 7 ,8 4 7 ,0 6 3 sq .

. . . . 2 ,7 1 1 ,7 6 7 sq .

. . . . 1 0 ,5 5 8 ,8 3 0 sq .

f t .

f t .

f t .

or 7 4 .3Z

o r 2 5 .7Z

T o t a l................................................................................. or 100Z

2A. Un ab sorb ed S p ace*in 51 Par ks and B u il d in g s ........... . . . 2 ,1 4 8 ,4 2 0 sq . f t .

3. N on -C om pet itiv e Sp ac e Rep or te d in 1A........................ ............ 2 1 7 ,2 8 2 sq . f t . in 10 b u ild in g s

4 .

N on -C om pet itiv e Sp ac e Rep or te d in IB ........................

T o ta l Sub urban O ff ic e Sp ac e in t h is S u r v e y .....

.......... 1 ,2 2 7 ,5 1 6 sq .

. . . . 1 2 ,0 0 3 ,6 2 8 sq .

f t .

f t .

in 15 b u ild in g s

5 . O ffic e Sp ac e In clu d ed In 1A and IB o ccu p ie d by Gov er nm en ta l A g en cie s:

F e d e r a l................................................................................................ 5 1 5 ,7 0 8 s q . f t . in 12 b u ild in g s S ta te and L o c a l............................................................................... 7 2 ,4 6 1 s q . f t . in 9 b u ild in g s

6 . R e ta il S to re O cc up an cy : I n s u f f ic ie n t in fo rm a ti o n r e p o r te d .

* NOTE: I f "New Spac e" , b u i l t w it h in 24 mon ths and n ev er o c c u p ie d , in 51 b u ild in g s o f 2 ,1 4 8 ,4 2 0 sq . f t . wer e remo ved from th e "v ac an t c o m p etit iv e " c a te g o r y , th e occ up an cy

r a te wo uld be 9 3 .3Z.
108

BUILDING OWNERS and M AN AG ER S of AT LA NTA , Inc.

22 00 Parttlaka Drive - Suite ISO

Atla nta. Georgia » M S

404/n e-B M O

OFF ICE SPACE O CCU PANCY SURVE Y

Nay 1, 1975

SUBURB AN A TLANTA

Compe tit ive Parka and Buil dIn ga

RENTAL CO ST

CLAS SIF ICA TIO NS $4. 50/ 6.00 $6.01 and up

1. Numbe r of O ffi ce Parka

and Building s Rep orting 25 61

2. Compet iti ve Off ice

Rent abl e Ar ea

Occupied 1,278,9 08 (73.9) 6,568,15 5 (74.3)

Vacant 451.478 (26.1) 2,260,28 9 (25.7)

Total 1,730,3 86 ( 100) 8,82 8,444 ( 100)

3. Non- Com pet iti ve Off ice

Ren tabl e Ar ea Repor ted 72,066 [4] 177,016 [61

A. Total Office Space Re ported

in this Survey 1.80 2,4 52 9,00 5,4 60

5. Office Space Occup ied by

Goverm aen tal Agenci es

Federal 31,7 62 [3] 34,080 [6]

State an d Local 42,4 34 [31 30,027 [61

NOTE: Figures In p arentheses denote percentag es.

Figures In b rocke ts den ote numb er of par ks and b uil din gs reporting.

<
109

BUILDING OWN ERS and M AN AG ER S Of ATLA NTA, Inc

220 0 P ar i lake D o w ■ S uit* ISO

A tla n ta Georgia 30 34 6

40 4/9 39 6 400

TEN YEAR SUMMARY OF COMPETITIVE OFFICE SPACE OCCUPANCY SURVEY RESULTS

T o ta l

Date

No . o f

P a r tic ip a tin g

B u il d in g s

C om p eti ti ve

Space

Rep or ted Oc cupancy Va canc y

5 -1 -7 5 27 2 2 4 ,8 9 7 ,9 4 0 8 0 .3 1 9 .7

1 0 -1 -7 4 148 2 1 ,3 8 0 ,9 5 9 8 9 .1 1 0 .9

5 -1 -7 4 13 0 1 9 ,0 1 1 ,3 3 0 8 6 .2 3 1 3 .7 7

1 0 -1 -7 3 121 1 7 ,2 6 9 ,8 1 5 86 .1 2 13.8 8

5 -1 -7 3 131 1 7 ,5 8 6 ,4 9 1 8 6 .9 7 1 3 .0 3

1 0 -1 -7 2 113 1 3 ,1 9 0 ,2 9 4 8 6 .3 0 1 3 .7 0

5 -1 -7 2 91 1 0 ,5 0 6 ,3 7 7 8 6 .1 0 13.9 0

1 0 -1 -7 1 78 8 ,4 2 8 ,7 7 5 8 3 .0 0 1 7 .0 0 (1 )

5 -1 -7 1 60 6 ,0 1 3 ,6 1 5 84 .8 3 15.1 7

1 0 -1 -7 0 61 5 ,9 0 1 ,2 5 6 8 5 .0 8 14.9 2

5 -1 -7 0 25 3 ,4 6 3 ,7 1 0 77.0 4 22 .9 6 (2 )

1 0 -1 -6 9 78 6 ,2 4 8 ,3 3 1 8 2 .8 7 17 .1 3

5 -1 -6 9 76 6 A U , 10 0 8 8 .0 2 11.9 8

1 0 -1 -6 8 71 6 ,3 9 3 ,2 4 1 8 7 .8 3 12.1 7

5 -1 -6 8 80 6 ,9 2 6 ,9 1 5 8 6 .2 2 13 .7 8

1 0 -1 -6 7 52 5 ,6 5 9 ,6 3 8 8 4 .8 2 15 .1 8

S -l- 6 7 50 5 ,3 3 6 ,9 7 3 8 2 .1 4 17.8 6

1 0 -1 -6 6 53 4 ,3 8 8 ,7 1 0 9 2 .3 9 7.6 1

5 -1 -6 6 50 4 ,1 9 0 ,4 8 8 9 0 .8 3 9 .1 7

1 0 -1 -6 5 55 4 ,3 7 7 ,9 2 6 90 .8 1 9 .1 9

(1 ) In co rp o ra te s s u b s t a n tia l suburban r e p o r ts fo r th e f i r s t ti m e .

(2 ) Note lim it e d number o f r e p o r ts .

55-353 0 - 75 - 8
110

G en e ra l S e r . i c e s A d m in is tr a tio n July ,10, 1975

Senat e Publi c Wo rk s Committ ee

Questions Relating to the FBI Parking Fac ili ty, '.Vest Los Ang eles, ’Ca lifornia 

Senat or Buckl ey

QUES TI ON 1: If the p res ent FBI pa rking faci li ty is on ly pro te ct ed by a fence , 

wi th no inc idents of va nd al is m ocur rin g, wh y is the n ew fo rt re ss ­

lik e par ki ng l ot neces sary?

ANS WER: Th e p re sent FBI parking f ac il it y is n ot o nly c om pl et el y sur rounded

by a cyclone a nd ba rbed wi re f ence; al l doors, and win do ws a re 

al ar me d a nd the area is co ve re d b y cl os ed circ ui t televi sio n. The 

al ar m an d telev ision sy st em is mo ni to re d 24 hours a d ay, sev en days 

a we ek b y the d ut y agent. In add iti on, th e f ac il it y is m an ne d b y 

FBI personnel fr om 6:00 a.m. to 11: 00 p.m. daily. Th e complet e 

perime te r is illum inated dur in g the d ar k hours. Th ese sec uri ty 

meas ur es d is courage v andalis m. Am y ne w par ki ng f ac ility w ou ld 

nece ss ar il y h av e to ha ve th e gr ou nd le vel c om pletely encl os ed for 

security of FBI operations' a nd to sa feguard the areas w he re radi o 

an d automotive ma in te na nc e equ ipment wo ul d b e ma int ained.

QU ESTION 2: In response to a p revious question, GS A s aid t hat the ra di o r epair 

area--ne ar ly as lar ge as a footb all fie ld- -is n ee de d b as ed on 

FBI servicing nee ds in 1982. Pl ease e xpla in. Ho w ma ny ca rs wi ll 

be u nd er s ervice at on e time? Ho w wi ll 25, 000 squ are fee t-- enough 

space to par k a t least 70 ca rs--be use d for ra dio repa ir wo rk?

ANSWE R: Th e p re se nt radio re pair f acility has the c apacity for pe rforming

ra di o repair a nd/or in st allation an d removal ser vice to 25 v ehi cle s 

at any on e time. On num er ou s occ asi ons thi s m an y v eh ic le s are be ing 

wo rk ed on si mu ltaneously wh en the r em ov al of ra dio equipment is 

pe rf or me d o n vehicles be in g su rv ey ed out of the f lee t an d wh en radio 

equipment is b eing instal le d in ne w ve hicle s. . The pr op os ed 2 5,000 

« square f eet for the ra dio mai nt en an ce wi ll not only b e us ed to pa rk

vehicles for au to repa ir serv ice , but wi ll pr ov id e spa ce for 

re pa ir wo rk benches for th e n in e rad io main te na nc e technic ian s and 

an of fice f or the ch ief ra dio technician to p er fo rm ne ce ss ar y ad mi nistrative a nd cl eri cal fun cti ons . Th e Los An geles FBI O ff ic e h as 

sam e fifteen r ad io r ep ea te r stati ons throu gho ut So ut he rn Ca lif orn ia 

gi vi ng two-w ay ra dio co ve ra ge from Sa n Lui s Ob is po t o Sa n Diego.

Th e equipment at these locatio ns is lar ge an d b ul ky an d spa ce is 

ne ed ed to h ouse b ackup eq ui pm en t for these sit es an d to pe rf or m 

necess ar y repa ir and ma in te na nc e on this equ ipme nt. In additi on, 

ad equate spa ce is n ee de d to ac commodate the v ehicles us ed to 

transport this equ ipment.

4
I ll

QUESTIGN 3: How often does the FBI provide maintenance work on the rad io equipment in it s cars? How long does it take to se rv ice a rad io 

in a typi ca l car?

ANSWER: Preventive maintenance and alignment services are performed on . a ll mobile rad io un its on at le as t a semi-annual bas is . In ad ditio n, the average car rad io needs re pa ir work twice annually and i t has been determined th at i t tak es approximately four hours to ser vic e a mobile unit. With the lar ge number of vehicle s in the fl eet in Los Angeles, there is rad io re pai r and maintenance work being 

performed da ily .

QUESTION 4: Please provide more d eta il on the use of the proposed 35,000 square fe et of sto rag e space. What w ill be sto red the re? Will i t be ju st equipment re la te d to the gar age , or w ill i t be general 

FBI equipment?

ANSWER: The sto rag e space w ill be used to house eviden tia ry material th at has been seize d through o ff ic ia l in ve stig at io ns . This m at er ia l, must be maintained in a secure area as i t has been seized by cou rt or de r, is irre pla ce ab le , and requ ire s a cou rt order fo r it s dispos al. I t should be note d th at in the pre sent fa c il it y at Los Angeles the re are 58,000 cubic fe et of space being used to st or e evidentia ry 

m aterial.

Storage space is needed fo r fir ea rm s, ammunition, trai nin g and re la te d quipment. This are a w ill house spa re ti re s and w ill serve as sto rag e space fo r o il, gre ase, an tifr ee ze , and 

automotive p a rts .

QUESTION 5: In response to a previous que stion GSA estimate d th at i t would co st $1,189,000 to buy a lo t fo r 600 FBI cars and b ui ld a concrete pr ot ec tiv e wa ll around the lo t. Please provide a breakdown on th is co st es tim ate, as well as an assessment of why th is would or would 

not meet FBI needs.

ANSWER: The in it ia l est im ate of $1,189,000 fo r such-a parking fa c il it y did not include the cost of a s it e . The breakdown of th is

• estim ate is as follow s:

210,000 square fe et of pavin g $630,000

1,840 linear fe et of con cre te wall 150,000

Gates . 7,000

Guardhouse 20,000

Miscellaneous 25,000

• $832,000

Escalat e to 10/75 67,000

$899,000

(Continued)
112

Landscaping § re la te d exp end itures 

Contingen cies (5% of $899,000) *

Expenses (20% of $989,000) 

Estim ated To tal Pr oject Cost

QUESTION 6:

ANSW ER:

45,000

45,000

989,000'

$200,000

$1,189,000

A fa c il it y of th is type would not be su ite d to the needs of the FBI 

because of environmental co ns iderations . The problems of storm 

water dra ina ge from such a large paved are a would have adve rse 

consequences on the environment as well as on FBI op erati on s.

I note th at the annual co st fo r th is facility- -m ainten an ce , 

op erations, plus in te re st and pr in ci pa l on the ca pital 

cost- -t ota ls $1,091,000, ye t the FBI w il l pay only $586,250 

in SLUC fees to GSA. Would the FBI agree to paying the fu ll 

co st of the fa cil it y ?

The FBI would not agree to paying the fu ll amount fo r the bu ild ing 

because they ar e not acquiring an equity in te re st in the prop erty. 

The GSA w ill own the prop ert y aft er a ll payments ar e made.

The 'SLUG fe es, sin ce they are based on the co st of comparable 

fa c il it ie s on the pr iv at e market, ar e su bjec t to change in 

subsequent fis c a l ye ar s.

The SLUC fee quoted in our response to a prev ious question 

($586,250) was based upon charges fo r standard parking and 

re pa ir f a c il it ie s in the Los Angeles area . However, GSA w ill 

tak e in to co ns ideration the added pr oj ec t co sts att ri buta ble to 

the in sta ll ati o n of se cu rity equipment and the FBI w il l be bil le d 

on a reim bursable ba sis fo r any co sts found to be above Standard 

Level as defin ed in FPMR 101-21-606, Amendment D-47, June 1974.
113

G e n e r a l S e r v ic e s A d m in is tr a tio n Ju ly 10, 19

S en ate P u b li c Works C c rr .i t te e

Q uesti o n s R e la ti n g to th e E ast S t. L ouis P ro sp ectu s

S en ato r Buc kley

QUESTION 1: I am to ld th a t th e e x is tin g b u ild in g ca n be r e fu r b is h e d , r a th e r th an d is p o sed o f . In view of th e A d m in is tra tio n 's re c e n t s tr o n g su p p o rt o f S. 86 5, and th e la b o r in t e n s i t y o f p r o je c ts to r e f u r b is h o ld e r b u ild in g s , why h a s n ’ t GSA co n sid e re d re c o n d it io n in g ? K i l l GSA re c o n s id e r re c o n d itio n in g b e fo re b id s 

on t h i s b u il d in g ?

ANSWER: GSA d id c o n s id e r r e c o n d itio n in g th e e x is tin g P o st O ffi c e and U .S . C ourt house an d co ncl uded th a t i t wo uld n o t be in th e b e s t i n t e r e s t o f th e Go vernment fo r GSA to a c q u ir e and c o n v e rt th e e x is tin g b u ild in g . R e fu rb is h in g c o s ts wo uld am oun t to ap p ro x im ate ly 85% o f th e c o s t o f new c o n s tru c tio n b u t wo uld p ro v id e a f a c i l i t y w it h o n ly a 20 y e a r l i f e compared to a 50 y e a r l i f e from new c o n s tru c tio n . See a ls o 

Q uesti o n 3.

QUESTION 2: What i s th e e s ti m a te d v a lu e of th e e x is tin g b u ild in g s i t e , 

i f d is p o se d of?

ANSWER: An e s tim a te o f v a lu e was made in 19 74 , whi ch in d ic a te d a 

v a lu e o f $180, 00 0 f o r th e p ro p e rty .

QUESTION 3: In re sp o n se to an e a r l i e r q u e s tio n , GSA s ta te d th a t "R en ov at ed sp a ce wo uld n o t, ho w ev er , be e q u iv a le n t to sp ace in a new b u ild in g ." Why not? A lso GSA e s ti m a te d th e c o s t of re n o v a ti o n a t $ 4 ,2 2 4 ,7 4 9 . Would yo u p le a s e do cu men t th a t 

e s ti m a te ?

ANSWER: As s ta te d in th e p ro s p e c tu s , th e b u ild in g i s over 63 y e a rs o ld an d has many f u n c tio n a l an d s t r u c t u r a l in a d e q u a c ie s . Bec au se o f th e e x c e s siv e c o s ts in v o lv e d , th e ty pe o f c o n v e rsio n p r o je c t th a t we wo uld c o n s id e r wo uld n o t c o r re c t a l l o f th e pro ble m s r e s u ltin g from su ch d e f ic ie n c ie s as i n t e r i o r lo ad b e a rin g w a lls and i r r e g u l a r colum n sp a c in g s th a t e x is t in th e b u ild in g . A ls o , b ecau se o f th e h ig h v i s i t o r r a t e an d th e ty pe o f c l i e n t e l e s e rv ic e d by th e S o c ia l S e c u rit y A d m in is tr a ti o n O ffic e t h a t wou ld be lo c a te d in th e b u ild in g , th e e ig h t s te p w alk -u p , o r ev en th e a d d itio n of a ramp to th e f ro n t e n tra n c e , wo uld be u n s a tis f a c to r y . The se an d o th e r b u i l t - i n d e f ic ie n c ie s

ft

<»
114

ANSWER 3: (c o n t'd )

th a t co uld n o t be c o rre c te d in th e o ld b u il d in g w ith in a 

4

re a so n a b le c o s t wo uld be e li m in a te d in a new b u ild in g .

Due to an e r r o r in a d d itio n , th e t o t a l e sti m a te d amoun t is 

$4,6 03,7 24 in s te a d of $ 4 ,2 2 4 ,7 4 9 . A copy o f th e GSA

e s ti m a te i s a tta c h e d . •

QUESTION 4 : In an sw er to a p re v io u s q u e s tio n , GSA n ote d s e v e ra l pr ob le m s

w it h th e e x is tin g f a c i l i t y : in a d e q u a te a c c e ss fo r th e 

h an d ic ap p ed , po or a i r c o n d itio n in g , worn h e a ti n g and 

e l e c t r i c a l sy ste m s, d e te r io r a te d window fr am es, ne ed fo r 

ro o f r e p a i r s . What wo uld be th e c o s t o f b rin g in g ea ch o f 

th o se in a d e q u a c ie s up to sta n d a rd ?

ANSWER: F oll ow in g a re e s tim a te s fo r b rin g in g ea ch o f th e l i s t e d

In a d e q u a c ie s up to s ta n d a rd :

In ad eq uac y E st im ate d C o rre c ti o n

Cos t

1. A cc ess f o r han dic ap ped $ 12 ,0 62

2. A ir c o n d it io n in g sy st em 82 4, 84 0

3. H eati n g sy st em 10 0, 68 4

4. E le c t r i c a l sy st em 29 8,19 2

5. Window re pla cem en t 11 3, 17 6

6. Ro of r e p a ir s 23 0, 62 1

TOTAL $ . 1,5 79,5 75

The ab ov e e s tim a te s ha ve bee n p ro p o rt io n e d fro m th e t o t a l 

c o n s tru c tio n c o s t. I f ea ch jo b w er e to be done s e p a ra te ly , 

th e c o s ts wo uld be h ig h e r.

QUESTION 5: The p re s e n t b u ild in g I s se rv ed by s ix p u b li c t r a n s i t bu s

r o u te s . Would th e p o te n tia l s i t e s ha ve co m pa ra bl e a cce ss to 

p u b lic t r a n s i t ?

ANSWER: The p o t e n t i a l s i t e s wo uld ha ve co m pa ra bl e ac c e ss to p u b li p

tr a n s p o r ta tio n .

<1

*
115

ATTACHMENT

P r e l i m i n a r y C o s t E s t i m a t e f o r C o n v e r s io n 

a n d R e m o d e li n g

U .S . P o s t O f f i c e a n d C o u r th o u s e

E a s t S t . L o u i s , I l l i n o i s

W or k t o b e P e r f o r m e d M a t e r i a l L a b o r

EXTER IOR PA INTIN G $ 9 86 $ 2 ,4 4 0

IN TE RI OR PA INTIN G 8 ,6 1 2 2 2 ,8 1 0

POINT CAULK & CLEAN 4 7 ,5 3 4 EXTERIO R MASONRY

REPLA CE WOOD WINDOWS

6 ,1 7 8

WITH METAL & INS TA LL 1 5 ,0 4 8 3 0 ,6 8 0

WINDOW SAFETY HOOKS

REPLA CE TERRAZZO

1 ,9 0 0 4 ,9 2 0

& MARBLE FLOOR

LEVEL FLOOR <3 2n d FL

5 00 4 ,2 1 7

& REPLACE FLOOR COVERING

REPLA CE EX IS TI NG GUTTERS

5 00 1 ,5 0 0

& DOWN SPOU TS INTE RIOR 1 6 ,1 8 1 & EXT ERIOR

PROVIDE NEW HEATING

8 ,8 3 0

SYSTEM (EX CEP T NEW BO ILE R) 2 3 ,7 6 9 2 3 ,7 6 9

REBUILD PLUMBING SYSTEM 4 5 ,0 0 0 4 5 ,0 0 0

CONVERT P . 0 . SPACE TO 1 5 0 ,5 5 5 CURRENT NEW OFF IC E STANDARDS 1 6 4 ,3 5 0

PROVID E 3 NEW CELLS 1 0 ,3 0 0 FOR U S . MARSHALL LOCKUP

RES ET & REB UILD ENTRANCE

1 2 ,9 0 0

STA IR WAY

REPLACE BU ILT UP ROOF

800 4 ,6 2 0

& FLASH INGS 2 6 ,0 6 2 5 6 ,0 3 8

REMOVE & REPLACE

COOLING TOWER 8 ,0 0 0 4 ,0 0 0

ENCLOSE EX IS TI NG STAIR 3 ,4 2 4 5 ,9 9 2

INSTALL NEW ST AI R @ EAST 

END OF BU ILD ING $ 9 ,8 0 0 $ 9 ,8 0 0

0

0
116

ATTACHMENT

COST ESTIMATE: (cont’d)

INSTALL NEW FIRE ALARM

SYSTEM

INSTALL EXIT LIGHTING

1,881 3,819

SYSTEM

REPLACE WOOD DOORS &

FRAMES W/2HR RATED

1,881 3,819

DOORS & FRAMES (3)

INSTALL HANuRAILS

1,080 900

(3 BASEMENT STAIR

REMOVE & REPLACE WOOD

300 150

LOADING DOCK W/MASONRY 3,000 6,000

WALL & WINDOWS 4,205 9,232

REPLACE RETAINING WALL 980 1,400

PAVE PARKING LOT 2,200 900

INSTALL SPRINKLERS IN BSMT. 10,000 15,000

HANDICAPPED FACILITIES 2,900 2,800

BLIND STAND 3,000 2,000

NEW A.C. SYSTEM

INSTALL CAPTURE FEATURE

182,000 182,000

ON ELEVATOR 1,500 2,000

WORKING - FOREMAN (102 LBR) 114,862

REWORK COURT SPACES

UPGRADE REMAINING 2ND

149,400 149,400

& 3RD FLOOR OFFICE SPACE 201,600 201,600

TEST & BALANCE A.C. 10,000

POWER MODIFICATIONS

PARKING REQUIREMENT (EXCLUDING

10,000 ' 10,000

LAND COST) 66,250 61,250

REWORK EXISTING LOT 10,000 11,000

BUILDING LIFE SAFETY 30,000 35,000

TOTAL ■ $1,018,836 $1,263,488
117

ATTACHMENT

COST ES TIMAT E: ( c o n t 'd )

SUMMARY

MATERIAL 1 ,0 1 8 ,8 3 6

LABOR 1 ,2 6 3 ,4 8 8

6% S . TAX (MATL) 6 1 ,1 3 0

16% IN S . & WELF (LBR ) 2 0 2 .1 5 8

2 ,5 4 5 ,6 1 2

21% OH & PR 5 3 4 ,5 7 8

3 ,0 8 0 ,1 9 0

7% CONTRACT COMMISSION

ON SUBS 2 1 5 ,6 1 3

3 ,2 9 5 ,8 0 3

6.4 % FIC A & FOTA (LBR ) 8 0 ,3 6 3

3 ,3 7 6 ,6 6 6

ESCALATION TO AUGUST

1 9 7 6 @ 15% 5 0 6 ,4 9 9

ECCA 3 , 8 8 3 ,1 6 5

CONTINGENCY 2 7 1 ,8 2 1

EST. CONTRACT COST 4 ,1 5 4 ,9 8 6

DESIGN & REVIEW 3 0 3 ,3 1 4

MANAGEMENT & IN S P . 1 4 5 ,4 2 4

TOTAL E S T . PROJE CT COST 4 ,6 0 3 ,7 2 4

ESC ALATION TO

OC T. 1 9 7 7 (2 0 .7 5 % ) 7 0 0 ,6 5 8

4 ,0 7 7 ,3 2 4

2 8 5 ,4 1 2

' I , , 3 6 2 ,2 3 6

3 1 8 ,4 7 9 

1 5 2 ,6 9 5

4 ,8 3 3 ,9 1 0

S IT E & BLDG. FROM POSTA L SERV ICE 1 8 0 ,0 0 0

$ 4 ,7 8 3 ,7 2 4

S e n a t o r MOR GA N. T h a n k y o u . [ W h e r e u p o n , a t 1 0:3 0, t h e s u b c o m m itt e e r e c e s s e d , t o r e c o n v e n e s u b j e c t t o t h e c a ll o f t h e 

C h a ir .]

0

<1
<

<

♦/
a*




iII<r