« PreviousContinue »
SUMMARY AND JUSTIFICATION OF APPROPRIATION ES
TIMATES FOR ACQUISITION OF SITE AND GENERAL PLANS AND DESIGNS OF BUILDINGS, FISCAL YEAR 1980
In 1956, the Joint Committee on Printing directed the Public Printer to investigate the possibility of expanding the Government Printing Office's warehouse facilities.
In 1961, as a result of that investigation and study, requests for funding were submitted and the Congress authorized the construction of a four-story and basement fireproof annex to the Government Printing Office (Public Law 87–373). However, the growing space requirements soon made it apparent that additional space, over and above that provided by the annex, would be needed. Consequently, Public Printer Harrison asked the General Services Administration to delay action on the annex until such time as the Government Printing Office could reexamine its overall space requirements.
After discussion with officials of Congressional committees and the General Services Administration, a decision was made to attempt relocation of the Government Printing Office to a plant designed and engineered to meet our specific needs. Several sites were reviewed and discussed with officials in and out of Government. Eventually, the decision was made to remain at the present location and to attempt to solve the Government Printing Office's space dilemma through expansion adjacent to its present location.
In July of 1973, representatives of the National Capital Planning Commission recommended relocation of the Government Printing Office within the District of Columbia on a site located in the New York Avenue industrial corridor.
The Commission has developed a master plan for renewal of the downtown area which includes the present Government Printing Office site. This area is to be converted to visitor-oriented purposes, including hotels, motels, and office buildings. Conversion of Union Station, which is located one block east of the present Government Printing Office, into a Visitors Center has already been completed.
The Government Printing Office which is an industrial type operation does not fit in with the Commission's master plan and therefore & study was made by the Commission to relocate the Office. The study forecasts a growth in the Federal Government with a continuing need for government printing. The availability of sites in the District of Columbia, economic factors, accessibility to transportation, and objectives of the Commission were all considered and resulted in the recommendation to relocate the Government Printing Office to the site in the New York Avenue industrial corridor.
This area has been designated for industrial purposes and is served by several highways, railroads, and the new Metro transit system. The site is approximately a 10-minute drive to the Capitol and offers
sufficient space for the present Government Printing Office complex, parking lots, and Documents warehousing operations.
A new Government Printing Office (GPO) is required to consolidate and provide operationally efficient space to accommodate the 7 major operational areas now housed in the grossly inadequate federallyowned complex on North Capitol and H Streets Northwest, and in 8 leased facilities scattered at several suburban locations. The requirement for improved operational facilities for the GPO has been recognized by the Congress and the Public Printers for over 20 years. The basic deficiencies in the existing plant include: documents storage areas costing $1.6 million annually in leased locations, separated by the city from one another and removed from central user agencies and the general public; a paper storage warehouse located 16 miles from the printing plant; a materials handling system that relies wholly on freight elevators and industrial trucks for product distribution: lack of space to accommodate straight line arrangements of production equipment; limited floor load capacities and low ceilings resulting in an inability to use large, faster and more efficient press equipment; and the lack of area required to utilize the efficiencies of mechanization, automation, and the latest advances in printing technology.
Construction of a new Government Printing Office is considered the most desirable means of providing for its combined requirements. This solution will permit the consolidation of all GPO operations into a single, modern, functionally efficient facility. It will replace the present outdated buildings on North Capitol Street and supporting leased warehouses located in the suburbs. It will improve agency operations, provide a centralized location to consolidate common use facilities, reduce utility consumption, promote more cost effective management of materials, space, and personnel. In addition, continually increasing operating costs and annual expenditures for leased space can be eliminated. Finally, if located on the Brentwood Site it will also help to promote the objectives of the city and the National Capital Planning Commission, by serving as an anchor for further planned development in the area, by attracting other related businesses, thereby improving the District's economic base and helping to stem the flow of jobs from the District to nearby suburbs.
The General Services Administration has estimated total construction costs for the new 1.8 million square feet GPO to be about $188.1 million. Resources requested in fiscal year 1980 ($19.4 million) will provide funding for site relocation, partial design and review, and part of the management phase.
In accordance with a resolution adopted by the Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the House of Representatives on June 13, 1978, the General Services Administration has investigated the feasibility and need for construction of a new Government Printing Office in Washington, D.C.
The GSA has determined that a new facility is needed to consolidate and provide operationally efficient space to accommodate all major operational areas now housed in the inadequate federally owned complex and in eight leased facilities scattered at several suburban locations. This project contemplates consolidation of all GPO operations into a single, modern, efficient, industrial-type Federal building of approximately 2,077,000 gross square feet and 1,818,000 occupiable square feet, including 130,000 square feet of open roof parking. GSA is to serve as the design and construction agency.
In summary the GSA Report states:
Need for a new GPO facility has been recognized since 1954. Present building deficiencies include lack of straight-line layout of production equipment; and outdated materials handling system comprised principally of elevators and fork trucks; and limited weight and height capacities which preclude the use of faster and more efficient press equipment, as well as the ability to utilize automation and available advances in printing technology.
Savings available with a new straight-line facility are estimated at over $17.1 million annually. This figure includes the reduction by 396 employees and 600,000 square feet of space from current levels which can be achieved by the improved efficiency of the new layout, as well as savings in materials handling, utility costs, and the elimination of, $2.1 million in annual leasing costs.
Several studies dealing with contiguous expansion versus relocation have recommended relocation to a light industrial complex in the Northeast corridor (New York Avenue). This relocation enjoys the support of the National Capital Planning Commission, District of Columbia Government, the Joint Government/Industry Advisory Board, the District of Columbia Council, the District of Columbia Board of Trade and the Printing Industries of America.
The proposed site is served by the New York, Rhode Island, Brentwood Avenue road nets, is adjacent to the Metro Rhode Island Avenue Station, and has excellent rail facilities.
On June 13, 1978, President Carter “concluded that the new facility is indeed warranted” and designated it as a public building, pursuant to section 13 of the Public Buildings Act of 1959.
On August 2, 1978, the House Committee on Public Works and Transportation, pursuant to the provisions of section 7 of the Public Buildings Act of 1959, approved the construction of a new Government Printing Office. We need the approval of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and of both Appropriation Committees before site acquisition and design can begin.
Mr. BENJAMIN. Would you summarize for the record, if you will, the factors necessitating the construction of a new plant? I think you have alluded to them in some detail in our previous discussion. [The information follows:]
SUMMARY OF FACTORS NECESSITATING A NEW PLANT The requirement for improved operational facilities for the GPO has been recognized by the Congress and Public Printer for over 20 years.
The interior configuration and construction of the existing facilities which have ages ranging from 40 to 70 years do not efficiently lend themselves to the utilization of modern printing technologies. The basic deficiencies in the existing plant include: Documents areas costing about $1.6 million annually in leased locations, separated by the city from one another and removed from central user agencies and the general public; a paper storage warehouse located 16 miles from the printing plant; a materials handling system that relies wholly on freight elevators and industrial trucks for product distribution; lack of space to accommodate straight-line arrangement of production equipment; limited floor load capacity and low ceilings resulting in inability to use large, faster and more efficient press equipment; and the lack of area required to utilize the efficiencies of mechanization, automation and the latest advances in printing technologies. These inefficiencies annually accrue to more than $17 million in unnecessary taxpayer expenses.
Additionally, there would be one-time avoidance expenditures of at least $7 million in order to bring the current facilities in line with OSHA, EPA and the current life safety codes and regulation.
NEW PLANT SAVINGS FORECAST Mr. BENJAMIN. Would you tell us what savings and other bene fits you expect to result from the new plant?
Mr. BOYLE. Yes, sir. We feel that we have a lot of agreement in the industry, the commercial printing industry association, the Printing Industry of America agrees that we need a new building.
The justification for the new building is that, first of all we are in a complex that is totally obsolete as far as running an in-line manufacturing operation. It is eight stories high with another story in the basement. It is in a complex of four different inter-connected buildings. All of the savings that we see to amortize this $188 million building—and that includes the cost of moving our equip ment; it does not include the cost of any new equipment-we can amortize that building in savings just in manpower and reduction of damage to paper in 10 to 11 years. We believe that we can do it even faster than that. We can eliminate a number of positions that are needed just to move materials around and move materials to the press. We can automate much of that in a new building. The savings in manpower and the savings in not having to spend money that we would have to if we stay in this building amount to about $17 million a year.
I don't know of any other government building, and not many commercial buildings, that can be totally paid off by reduction of costs to the benefit of the government in 10 years. Mr. BENJAMIN. How much of that $188 million is moving cost?
BREAKDOWN OF BUILDING COSTS Mr. BOYLE. $642 million has been set aside for moving heavy equipment.
Mr. BENJAMIN. So that would leave $18142 million for the building?
Mr. BOYLE. I have it right here.
Site purchase and relocation of present occupants, that is, the relocation of the present occupants on the site, $11,654,000. This is the 1979 figures. Architectural engineering construction documents, $7,742,000.
These figures have been furnished by GSA. Those two together make up the request that we have right now and that is-
Mr. BENJAMIN. What two?
Mr. BOYLE. The A&E construction, preliminary plans and the site acquisition.
Now construction management and consultant contracts—this is a GSA figure-$2,133,000; review of the contract, $748,000; site preparation and construction, $151 million, so the site preparation and the actual construction of the building is $151 million; construction management and inspection, again by GSA, $8,270,000; equipment moving cost, $6,534,000; which totals up this year to $188 million. And for each year that we do not build, or there is further delay, there is an anticipated 10 percent increase in the cost of the building. So next year, if we don't receive approval this year, we will be back for $204 million, and following that, $220 million, and then we will be back for $235 million, and then for $251 million, and this building could have been built 10 years ago for about $70 million.
SIZE OF NEW BUILDING
Mr. BENJAMIN. What is the square footage of the building? Mr. BOYLE. 1.8 million, which is less space than we have now. Mr. BENJAMIN. That is about the size of the James Madison Library Building, isn't it? How much of that is usable? Mr. BOYLE. That is all usable. Mr. BENJAMIN. How much is the total space then? Mr. BOYLE. I am sorry. Total net floor space usable is 1.5 million square feet; total floor space, 1.8 million; that is compared to 2.4 million total now, counting our leased space we use for warehousing and Documents.
Mr. BENJAMIN. But if I understand, everything is going to be moved into that building.
Mr. BOYLE. Everything would move into the new building. Part of our cost savings are the termination of the leases on the rental space. Mr. BENJAMIN. What is the location?
Mr. BOYLE. It is in a triangle, bounded by the railroad yard on New York Avenue, Brentwood Road and Rhode Island Avenue. It is part of a large acre site that the National Capital Planning Commission hopes can be developed into a complex of light industry and light commercial of which we would like to acquire about 30 acres. It would abut the Rhode Island Avenue Metro Subway Terminal.
DOUBLE CHECK COSTS Mr. BENJAMIN. There are two glaring things that stand out as you describe this, and I would appreciate your submitting that table that you are looking at, for the record. I would advise you to