Mr. CAYWOOD. No, sir. Mr. BURTON. Have you ever asked them? Mr. BURTON. You figure, if they have something to tell you, they would be telling you. You are not looking for problems? Mr. CAYWOOD. I felt that our role was to go on with the program as it has been outlined to us previously and do our best to proceed with it on that basis. If there were some changes, in due time they would notify us and we would react accordingly. Mr. BURTON. Mr. Maguire? Mr. MAGUIRE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I feel as though we are caught somewhere here between a technicality and a blockbuster. Mr. BURTON. The difference between them? Mr. MAGUIRE. No. I say I feel we are caught somewhere between those two. Mr. BURTON. Yes. Mr. MAGUIRE. Mr. Caywood, Mr. Sawyer stated to the committee earlier that the cause of the disagreements between your firm's report and his assessment of work completed is that Mr. Sawyer is judging "trends" toward completion rather than actual mileage improved. In the discussion I had with him I think it became clear that he was substituting a set of his own standards for what most of us would agree were the more objective standards that were outlined in the work program. For example, he cites the procurement of material for later work as one of the key factors. Since they were finally moving along with that, that made him feel things were positive. What is your reaction to the process that he uses to make his own assessment of progress? Second, do you feel objectively that you can agree with him that as of early this year we were on schedule? Mr. CAYWOOD. The only response I can make to that is that we reported on the 1977 program as it was set forth, agreed to by Amtrak, and agreed to by FRA. The trackwork portion of that program was completed in March of 1978. About 63 percent of the work had been accomplished at about 104 percent of the original budgeted cost for the entire program. There were certain elements of that program where we had higher productivity figures, somewhere up into 80 percent. I have the exact figures. You probably have them in front of you there in the reports. It was without DCP's sanction or FRA's sanction or direction that adjustment was made by Amtrak in September 1977, when they lowered their program requirements to what they thought their productivity standards could produce. On that basis they completed about 80 percent of the program by the end of March. Mr. MAGUIRE. As I understand his testimony, he did not disagree with any of the statements that you have made in your report with respect to how much was accomplished objectively on each of the tasks. I think that is faithful to the gentleman's testimony. What I am asking you is not to restate your position, which apparently is not in dispute here, but for you to give an assessment of his method of making an assessment, which you heard described this morning. He talked as though the resolution of the indemnification problem, the improvements in organization, the training of people, the hiring of superintendents, and the work completed through the winter, and so on, if I recall his testimony correctly were the types of improvements which indicate progress in the program. He felt that by the end of the year they were 100 percent on schedule with respect to the "trends." I would like to have your assessment of that method of assessment. Mr. CAYWOOD. When you are program manager, you have to base your assessment on the program as set forth and the production that is required to obtain the end results. There is no question that if you are improving your productivity as time goes on perhaps you will catch up. Hopefully, this will take place with respect to Amtrak. Their productivity on the 1978 program has picked up. However, the latest construction report which I have here says that progress on the 1978 work package continues to lag at about the same rate as the last 2 weeks. "The program is not 17.7 percent complete. Scheduled completion for this date is 26.8 percent." So there is a lag in 1978. Mr. MAGUIRE. By the end of 1978 we were supposed to have 26.8 percent. Mr. CAYWOOD. At the date of this report, which is the period ending June 7, yes, sir. Mr. MAGUIRE. So you are saying we are still behind in 1978. Mr. CAYWOOD. Yes, sir. Mr. MAGUIRE. Yet, according to Mr. Sawyer, we are not behind at the end of 1977. Mr. CAYWOOD. I don't think Mr. Sawyer said that. Mr. MAGUIRE. According to his assessment of trends. Mr. MAGUIRE. But you believe these trends are not shown in the figures. Mr. CAYWOOD. There is improvement, but it is not 100 percent yet; no, sir. Mr. BURTON. Would you yield for a moment? Mr. MAGUIRE. Yes. Mr. BURTON. What is the percentage of the cost? If we had 63 percent cost and 104 percent, which does not look like a good trend, what was the cost trend on the 28 percent? Do you have that? Mr. CAYWOOD. Do you mean the one I just recited, sir? Mr. BURTON. Yes. You answered Mr. Maguire that they did 63 percent Mr. CAYWOOD. I do not have that figure. I will be glad to furnish it for the record. Mr. BURTON. Please do. I am curious to see if that trend has changed. [The material follows:] COST BY AMTRAK FOR THE 1978 PROGRAM TO DATE VS. PRODUCTIVITY The cost for performing Amtrak trackwork for FY '78 to June 3, 1978, as reported in the Amtrak PACCS Report was $4.7 million or $5.5 million including G&A at 16.9 percent. $7.1 million including G&A was scheduled for completion. However, experience has shown that this amount may be changed as final invoices, accounting activities and final G&A rates are processed. The 1978 Trackwork program totals $26.1 million. COPY OF DCP CONSTRUCTION STATUS REPORT CITED AT JUNE 15, 1978, HEARINGS لطعام June 12, 1978 DeLeuw, Cather/Parsons & Associates Mr. Bob B. Myers, Chief Federal Railroad Administration 2100 Second Street, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20590 Dear Mr. Myers: Enclosed is the composite construction report for the period ending June 7, 1978. Progress on the 1978 work package continues to lag at about the same rate as the last two weeks. The program is now 17.7% complete, 1.7% having been completed this last week. Scheduled completion for this date is 26.8%. Very truly yours, F.R. Worthen F. R. Worthen, Chief Office of Construction Management Enclosure CC: D. S. Gedney, FRA R. J. Rogers, FRA D. S. Hammond, FRA H. R. Davis, FRA D. W. Kornreich, FRA L. R. Dreihaup, FRA, Phila. G. E. Ellis, Amtrak, Phila. J. A. Caywood, DCP C. C. Lutman, DCP R. P. Howell, DCP 31-665 -78-4 COMPOSITE CONSTRUCTION REPORT NARRATIVE PERIOD ENDING JUNE 7, 1978 Work on the 1978 Trackwork Program continues at a lower than scheduled rate. The percent completed last week was 1.7 for a to-date total of 17.7. Scheduled completion for this time is 26.8%. Overall achievement is holding steady at about 65% of planned. General 1. Speno Ballast Cleaning: Production in the Baltimore region Increased considerably last week. This was due in part to reduction of work-train lost time. 2. 3. Tie and Surfacing: Work on this item in the Philadelphia region is being hampered by equipment breakdown and labor absenteeism. Absenteeism runs as high as 25%. Production comes to a virtual halt whenever the general foreman is called into the office for administrative matters. A total of 3,318 ties was installed in the Baltimore region last week. This record installation for the region was achieved by splitting a gang and adding 15 men to the two units. Production was increased by 35%. The tie renewal gang working inthe New York region had a record production of 990 ties installed in one day. The week's production was 4,053 ties which is more than scheduled production. Tie renewal was slowed in the Boston region when high temperatures on two days began to create "snaking" in the track. Undercutting: a. New York Region On Friday, 6/2/78, the undercutter switched to a night-time operation, working from 12:00 midnight to 8:00 a.m. During four days of night-time operation, the undercutter traversed a distance of 3.1 miles. This is above scheduled production. There was no undercutting performed on Thursday, 6/1/78, because of the extremely high temperature. Substandard disposal of ties and undercutter spoils is continuing. This is an issue that has been discussed at all of our weekly meetings with NEC and NECIP. They promise corrective action which has not been forthcoming; accordingly, an NCR will be issued. OTM Clean Up. Work crews cleaned up OTM and tie butts along both Tracks 1 and 2 and at the New London Station and dumped the tie butts at MP 126.6 in a ravine. Boston Region (Continued) 4. Undercutter. The section from 154.0 to 158.0 was completed 6/7 with the completion of approximately 9066 TF this period in 22.5 hours of machine time. The undercutter works only 4 days a week at this time, with Amtrak working Friday to close up the track and make it ready for traffic. Another operational change has occurred with the undercutter now scheduled to work on a night schedule of 3:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.; this allows Amtrak time to surface the rail before the highest temperatures are reached in the early afternoon. Rail Welding: Production held up well for the second week running. An average of 207 welds was made each day. Down time was 20 hours of the 80 available working hours. The H. P. weld-monitoring unit has been installed and has been operating continuously. 5. TLS: A rough evaluation (based on information available at this region) of the state of readiness to begin TLM operations in this division follows: a. Tie production appears to be capable of supporting the program, provided that test results are acceptable. b. C. d. e. f. g. The TLM and the Davisville support site are essentially Readville is available as a support base, but with limited Undercutter operations in advance of TLS is barely adequate. There are still shortages of TLS support equipment (reflected in circulated procurement status reports). Some shortages, such as locomotives and cabooses, can choke up the TLM support very badly. Parts support for many recently-procured support equipment As previously reported, we cannot determine firm plans for (1) Award of tie processing contract. (2) (3) Location of adequate tie storage areas for ties, both Lack of equipment to off-load ties (as they are removed) 2 |