General HARDIN. The original work, though, has changed so much, Mr. Donnelly, that you cannot quite say that, as I see the situation. The same items to be built are not in that $300 million program as it stands now, as they were in it originally. There have been so many changes in the program that I think it would not be right to say that.

If I may try to clarify that statement just a little bit more, Mr. Chairman: the $300 million worth of work allied to particular items in the program now we believe we are going to build for $300 million, but they are not the same $300 million worth of items that were in the program originally.

Mr. RILEY. In other words, in my layman's language, if the master plan had remained the same as was originally contemplated you could have done the work for $300 million, but the increased length of runways and other facilities, and the relocation of bases, is largely responsible for this increased cost which we are now facing; is that correct?

General HARDIN. A broad statement of that character is pretty difficult to say "Yes" or "No" to, because some features of the original $300 million program were underestimated. I think that that was the reason why, in that statement which Mr. Donnelly is referring to, there were pluses and minuses.

Mr. RILEY. But that would be true of the over-all cost, or the lump-sum cost?

General HARDIN. We would have had a usable facility under this $300 million worth of work which is in the program now if we had finished that. It would not have been the same degree of facility which is in the program now for $421 million, or $398 million.

General PICK. What he is saying, Mr. Chairman, is this: That to the original program there have been additions and subtractions. The original program was estimated at $300 million initially. That same $300 million worth of work is in the program now, and we expect to do that for $300 million; but the additions and subtractions do not leave you with the same items of work you started out with.

Mr. DONNELLY. Well, in summing up, was the original estimate of the Corps of Engineers of $300 million a good estimate, or was it way short of the mark, and is this job going to cost, for the originally contemplated work, some $400 or $421 million?

Colonel DERBY. The original estimate was not the Corps' estimate. The Air Force gave that to us.

Mr. RILEY. As I understand it, it was a pretty good estimate, although some facilities might have cost more and some less.

Colonel DERBY. Yes, sir.

Mr. RILEY. Now we have increased facilities there which account for considerable of the cost. Then you have a change in location, which is bound to cost you something, plus any rise in the cost of materials which has taken place in the interim.

Is there anything else that could be added to that?

Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. DONNELLY. May I ask the Corps of Engineers this question: I understand that the prime contract with Atlas, covering both phases, is $300 million, and that that is the price tag for the project which everyone has come to associate with the project. Does that include

the fee for PUSOM, the architect-engineer; and does it include the Government cost of administering the contract?

General NOLD. I think we will have to look that up, Mr. Chairman. Mr. RILEY. Somebody ought to know that.

Colonel DERBY. The $300 million is the face value of the Atlas contract alone and does not include the PUSOM fee or the Government administrative cost, nor does it include certain Government items of material that were furnished.

Mr. DONNELLY. Well, will the corps insert in the record at this point a breakdown of the additional cost above the $300 million, to clear up any possible misconception. That would be the fee for PUSOM, the architect-engineer; the Government cost of administering the contract; and the cost of Government material supplied. (The information is printed in the appendix at p. 209.)

Mr. DONNELLY. Mr. Chairman, I have not sought to go into every page, paragraph or sentence of the Maxon report. The report in toto has been printed in this hearing. I have sought to cover only what struck me as the highlights, the areas in which it appeared desirable to ask for amplification for the Maxon group.

I wonder if the members of the committee desire to ask any questions with regard to this.

Mr. RILEY. I have no questions. Mr. McGrath?

REASONABLENESS OF COST OF MOROCCAN PROJECT

Mr. McGRATH. Mr. Rowe, I would like to ask you one question, please.

Based upon your experience and your investigation in this matter, would you be in a position to give us your opinion as to whether or not the United States Government paid a fair and reasonable price for this work, or whether or not the United States Government paid an excessive amount?

Mr. Rowe. You mean for the entire lot of the work, sir?

Mr. McGRATH. For the part you have seen during your survey. Mr. Rowe. I think the Government has gotten value received for the money it has expended to date.

Mr. McGRATH. When you say that, do you mean that they paid the fair and reasonable amount for the work that was done?

Mr. RowE. Under the circumstances.

Mr. McGRATH. Under all the circumstances?

Mr. RowE. Under all the circumstances.

Mr. McGRATH. That would be your best opinion, based upon your years of experience and your observation while over in Morocco; is that correct?

Mr. Rowe. Yes, sir.

Mr. McGRATH. Now, could you give this committee any evidence of any overcharging or any inferior work or anything which might be of help to this committee in correcting a situation which, in your judgment, would be improper?

Mr. RowE. Beyond the airfield facilities we found no evidence of inferior work of any kind.

Mr. McGRATH. From your experience would you be in a position to tell us whether we have gotten a fair value for the United States Government contribution and payments here?

Mr. RowE. I think the Government has gotten the fair value for the money expended.

Mr. MCGRATH. And that opinion of yours is predicated not only upon your observations there, but I understand that you have made some physical inspection and borings while your committee or group was over there; is that correct?

Mr. RowE. We made one boring, sir.

Mr. McGRATH. Yes, but other people made other inspections and borings, did they not?

Mr. RowE. That is right.

The other people were the agencies

who are now in charge of those tests.

Mr. McGRATH. Did you have access to their findings?

Mr. RowE. We did.

Mr. McGRATH. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RILEY. Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS. I have some loose ends here that I jotted down a few notes on as we went along, so this won't fit in any pattern.

CONSTRUCTION UNDER WAY DURING MAXON SURVEY AT NOUASSEUR

First of all, your on-the-spot visit to north Africa was made in the first 2 weeks of August of this year?

Mr. Rowe. First 2 weeks, yes.

Mr. DAVIS. What actually was being done at Nouasseur in the way of construction?

Mr. MAXON. I don't know that I could detail it at this moment. Could you answer that, Mr. Keenan?

Mr. DAVIS. Were they actually laying additional runways or aprons at Nouasseur?

Mr. KEENAN. Laying black-top.

Mr. MAXON. There was some building construction under way.

Mr. DAVIS. My primary interest is with respect to runways and aprons and parking space and things of that kind. Was there new construction going on, or were they repairing old construction, or both, or what were they doing, if you can recall that specifically?

Mr. KEENAN. There were new roads going in, new buildings, new black-top surfaces going in.

Mr. DAVIS. Did you notice any construction that appeared to be for drainage facilities? Was any indication made to you by those on the spot as to whether those were drainage facilities that were being built as a result of their experience in the runway failures that they had had there previously on the apron, or whatever it was that did fail?

Mr. KEENAN. I don't know.

Mr. RowE. At the time we were at Nouasseur there was a new apron being built, and new buildings were being built, including hangars, warehouses, and so forth. Answering your question specifically, Mr. Davis, they were constructing substantially 100,000 square yards of apron which was entirely new construction which I understood had started this year, and that included the excavation, the special fill material, special bases, and black top.

DRAINAGE FACILITIES

Mr. DAVIS. Perhaps I should explain that the basis of this questioning is the fact that there is testimony in the record with respect to Nouasseur that part of the responsibility for failure there was the fact that proper land had not been obtained for the construction of drainage facilities. Had such facilities been constructed at the time you visited north Africa in August of this year?

Mr. MAXON. You mean drainage facilities, or the lack of drainage facilities?

Mr. DAVIS. The lack of drainage facilities that had caused the failure.

Mr. MAXON. If that refers to the things which affected the drainage during construction, I don't think I can answer it. No, I will change that. Let me give you the history of that as we learned it.

We were told that during the early construction there was insufficient land available to store and properly remove from the site certain top soil. That top soil therefore had to be stored in dikes and fills above the ground level and surrounding the area of this construction under question. When the rainfall came, those dikes formed a pool. Those dikes largely have been removed since that time and drainage provided for the general over-all purpose.

If your question applies to drainage under the pavement constructed, that I don't believe has been adequately taken care of. It was my understanding that is part of the problem they are now facing.

Mr. DAVIS. Is that going to be a permanent problem there, or would you say that the acquisition of additional land would make it possible to clear that up so that it would no longer be a problem there at Nouasseur?

Mr. MAXON. It is an engineering problem. I don't think the acquisition of land-wait a minute. We are talking about two things; first, the general drainage during the early days of the construction, which was restricted by the lack of sufficient land upon which to place the removed top soil far enought away from he project to provide proper drainage; and second, we are talking about drainage of the subsoil under the present construction. The first one was the problem of acquiring property. I believe that one has been solved. Mr. DAVIS. Let's see if we can get that answered definitely. it been solved?

Has

General HARDIN. Yes. There was the problem of a ditch that would lead water from the operational apron at the time the rains came last year. That was rectified soon thereafter, and the drainage ditches were completed to provide the capacity to carry the surface water off.

General PICK. Is that your version of it, General Walsh?
General WALSH. That is my version of it also.

Mr. DAVIS. Then as to the second part of it.

Mr. MAXON. That is, to drain the subsoil under the existing construction. That part of it I do not believe has been fully determined. It is an engineering problem that was awaiting determination of the question of how much remedial work was necessary on that apron. That is my understanding of it. There are people here better informed on that than we are.

Mr. DAVIS. Would you care to comment on that?

General HARDIN. The drainage of the subgrade under the operational apron does not require any additional real estate or drainage structures, except that we have determined that it would be advisable to supplement the drainage planned under the operational apron by installing a catch basin to eliminate the formation of what are commonly called bird baths, very shallow depressions of an inch or fraction of an inch of water. That is one of the corrective methods authorized in the study, and that minor catch basin facility is being installed now, General Walsh tells me.

As to the problem of eliminating mositure in the subgrade of the operational apron, the forces of nature are drying it out and we are preventing, by compaction, the reabsorption of excessive amounts of water; and also by completing the asphalt concrete pavement in that

area.

EXCAVATION FOR DUCT LINES

Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Maxon, what were you referring to in your report when you referred to rough spots caused by excavation for duct lines? Mr. MAXON. Certain duct lines were installed under the runways from one side to another, transversely, at intervals along the distance of the runway and where the fill had been remade over them, those duct lines, we were informed, were placed subsequent to the placing of the sub-base. When the heavy roller went over the top, there was an additional compaction of the sub-base, resulting in a dip.

Mr. DAVIS. Is that in connection with some of the corrective action taken there, General Hardin?

General HARDIN. Yes.

Mr. DAVIS. Those ducts were not planned at the time the runways were originally laid?

General HARDIN. Yes, I think those were always planned. That is to provide the necessary night-lighting installations, and it is the habitual procedure in flexible pavement construction to compact the base courses, and during that time you try to get your conductors in and avoid the situation which arose in this instance, where you had to cut a trench across completed work and put your conductors in, and then backfill the trench.

I am not informed as to how it occurred. I would rather ask the district engineer, who was there then, as to why the trenching had to be done across the runway.

Colonel DERBY. We were not able to get the material we needed. We had to build the taxiways without tile pipes and other things that had to go in there, and then cut it afterward. I think we got them all under the runway before we were finished, but not the taxiways. Mr. MAXON. I think that is correct.

Colonel DERBY. We gave priority to the runway, and then we ran short, and we felt the taxiways could wait, because it didn't make too much difference if there was a rough spot there. Of course we would have liked to have done it the other way.

CONSTRUCTION IN PROGRESS DURING MAXON SURVEY AT SIDI SLIMANE

Mr. DAVIS. Continuing with my previous line of questioning, Mr. Maxon, and switching over to Sidi Slimane, do you recall what type of construction work was in progress there during the first 2 weeks in August?