Page images

Chairman HAYDEN. No questions.
Senator MonRoNEY. Senator Yarborough?
Senator YARBOROUGH. No further questions, Mr. Chairman.
(The pages referred to follow:)


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 this study, 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 and rising dollar volume soon made it apparent that additional space, over and above that provided by the annex, would be needed. Consequently, the Public Printer asked that General Services Administration delay action on the annex until such time as the Office could reexamine its overall storage and production space requirements. In April of 1963 Congressman Robert E. Jones, chairman of the Public Buildings Subcommittee of the House Public Works Committee, asked why the delay was requested. The Public Printer met with Chairman Jones and explained that a comprehensive reevaluation of our needs seemed advisable before proceeding with construction. He also explained that such a study was presently underway. As a practical matter, transferring certain operations to the proposed annex would further complicate the vertical-handling problems associated with moving paper and printed materials, not moderate them. Chairman Jones, Deputy Administrator Knott of General Services Administration, and the Public Printer met in May to review the Government Printing Office space problem. The Public Printer stated that he felt the most lasting and desirable Solution to the Government Printing Office's space dilemma was relocation to a plant designed and engineered to the Government Printing Office's specific needs. Deputy Administrator Knott agreed and offered the full cooperation of the General Services Administration. At Mr. Knott's suggestion a meeting was arranged with Mr. Robert T. Daly, Commissioner of Public Buildings, General Services Administration, to discuss the relocation concept. At this meeting Mr. Daly strongly favored the relocation idea. His office proceeded to locate a number of sites which the Public Printer and staff members visited. The site which most nearly met the criteria for the proposed relocation was a portion of the Bolling-Anacostia airbase. Practical studies of paper movement from railroad car and truck to storage locations, and later to production areas, were conducted. These studies revealed that vertical movement by elevator, plus time lost waiting for elevators, caused movement costs to be many times greater than supposed. The straight-line arrangement of key production equipments is prohibited by insufficient floor space plus restricted floor loadings and in many instances limited ceiling height and columnar spacing. Crowding high-Speed machinery into severely cramped locations prevents its being used to full advantage by restricting running rates and making periodic stoppages necessary for feeder loading and delivery unloading. The complete dependence upon elevators for movement between manufacturing stations nullifies efforts to streamline production operations. Safety hazards and spoilage of both materials and products are created by crowding skid storage into work areas. Moreover, fixed rental and transportation costs are incurred for storage at locations far removed from the main plant where these materials are used. The best solution to this problem is storing paper at, or near work areas which use it. The Government Printing Office's present needs do not contemplate calling in work which is now procured commercially. They are predicated upon presentday requirements and projections of these requirements into the immediate future. On the contrary, contract printing has shown a regular annual growth rate. It now accounts for more than one-third of our annual dollar volume. The Government Printing Office will continue its long-established policy of buying specialty printing, and book and job printing which exceeds its normal capacities, consistent with Joint Committee on Printing regulations and the prudent expenditure of public funds. The Government Printing Office's steady business growth and the static space situation is shown in the following chart. This chart compares dollar volume h gross floor space.

[blocks in formation]

Since occupying building 3 in 1940 (Government Printing Office's last expansion) dollar volume has steadily trended upward from approximately $20 million in 1940 to nearly $130 million in 1963.

Pounds of paper used is an even better yardstick with which to measure growth. (See chart below.) For example, in 1940 the Government Printing Office used 111 million pounds of paper. By 1963, however, the Government Printing Office was using more than twice this amount-236 million pounds. Almost every pound of this paper has been printed, cut, folded, bound, or subjected to many hand and machine operations in the same floor space which was considered only adequate 24 years ago when building 3 was occupied.


[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

At the present time the Government Printing Office rents 171,000 square feet of Storage Space at the General Services Administration's Parr-Franconia warehouse, located approximately 15 miles from this Office. The annual cost of this operation exceeds $300,000. Warehousing 28 million pounds of paper, 8 million envelopes, and 140,000 cartons at this location is inconvenient, costly, and wasteful, since every pound of paper must be rehandled and transported 15 miles to place it at the point of use. If sufficient space were available at the plant to include this storage, more than four-fifths of the total cost of the Franconia operation would be eliminated. The General Services Administration has been most patient in view of their own pressing need for space which we now occupy in this facility. Recently the Government Printing Office also found it necessary to rent 30,000 square feet of storage space at the Washington Star Warehouse.


The present system of distributing printed material is both costly and time consuming. Throughout the Federal Establishment in the Washington area a great many individuals are engaged in this activity—one which is more often than not, accomplished by hand. Using this method, printing is counted, wrapped, packaged, labeled, and delivered by this Office to the ordering agency. They in turn must again handle this material by unwrapping, counting for each distribu-tion point, rewrapping, repackaging, and relabeling for shipment in mail bags or cartons to Secondary destinations. The Public Printer has been approached repeatedly with requests that the Government Printing Office assume the distribution of Government publications for its customer agencies. The lack of adequate space has prevented the Government Printing Office from providing this service. When sufficient space is made available, the Public Printer hopes to concentrate these fragmented distribution activities in a centralized distribution facility within the Government Printing Office. By doing this, it will be possible to automate many of the functions now performed by hand and eliminate the duplication of effort and delay in putting Government publications in user's hands.



Faced with growing demands for printing, and the attendant need for warehousing greater paper tonnages, provisions for more space at the present location would only partially ease the situation. The real need is not only for additional space but space which can be used most effectively. In order to fill congressional and agency requirements, meet production schedules, and still maintain a reasonable and competitive price Structure, the Office must modernize and streamline production operations along the lines tested and proven by comInercial establishments. Basically, costs incurred by the vertical movement of raw stock and printed material, from processing point to processing point, are excessive. The only practical way to attack these costs is to place printing equipment, using paper and printed Stock, close to paper storage points, and in turn these storage points should be placed close to receiving operations. This concept requires that printing presses and bindery machinery be placed on one level. If this idea is carried out paper storage and warehousing facilities would be placed on the same level. In short, to obtain maximum production and storage effectiveness it is necessary to relocate to a new structure designed and built to meet these criteria. By far the greatest percentage of prime stock is received by rail. Rail shipments must be made to warehouse building No. 4, across North Capitol Street from production installations in buildings 1, 2, and 3. Each pound of paper received must be lowered from storage levels in building 4, power-trucked through the underground tunnel connecting buildings 4 and 3, and then raised to points of use in buildings 1, 2, or 3. These points of use are vertically separated by as many as seven floors. (See drawing p. 15). Most of the truck-transported paper stock, while only a fraction of that received by rail, must also be delivered to receiving docks at the building 4 warehouse. Therefore, this paper, too, must be subjected to multiple lifting and transporting to place it at points of use. The advantages to be derived from relocation of the Government Printing Office to a site such as the Bolling-Anacostia Air Base, where vertical movement of materials could be eliminated (see drawing, p. 16), may be summarized as follows: 1. Will permit construction of a functional two-story building engineered to meet the Government Printing Office's specific needs. 2. Will place production equipment in best location, and on same level with storage and shipping areas, assuring the free flow of work in and out, 3. Preferred type of construction will be far less costly than multistory construction. 4. Will significantly lower the costs of moving rail-received paper to production areas, and reduce attendant stock damage. 5. Will enable existing buildings 1, 2, and 3 to be conveyed to General Services Administration, thereby helping to alleviate the Government-wide shortage of office space in the close-in metropolitan area. 6. Will make warehouse building No. 4 available to the Post Office Department. 7. Will allow for concentration of distribution center activities which will reduce costs and delays presently associated with this activity. 8. Will lower fixed maintenance costs for building and facilities. 9. Will permit logical and simplified expansion should the need arise in the future. 10. Will permit free access by truck, auto, and rail traffic. 11. Will provide for employee parking. 12. Will permit type of construction which will reduce noise levels and vibration associated with high-speed printing machinery. 13. Will allow centralized utility systems to be “built in,” thereby reducing fixed costs and improving reliability. 14. Will improve plant safety. 15. One level for heavy production operations will permit machine grouping for maximum output. 16. Will improve supervisory efficiency and overall communications. 17. Will serve to improve standards of service to the Congress and other customer agencies through simplified work flow and materials handling. With the foregoing advantages in mind estimated costs were developed for production and storage operations in a two-story structure. The two-story plan was selected since it offered sufficient floor area for heavy pro" ion and

[ocr errors]

paper storage and would permit the light production units responsible for supporting operations, such as composing, platemaking and planning, on the second level. By placing heavy production on the ground floor, high floor loading and wide bay spacing could be obtained without resorting to heavy expensive bearing walls. Most important, however, it places paper receiving and storage areas contiguous to press and bindery equipment. This type of construction also tends to reduce noise and vibration. It is anticipated that administrative offices would also be placed on the second level. A space comparison table showing present and proposed allocations of floor space is located on page 13.

The results of this study are shown in the following cost statement which compares present costs with estimated costs in the proposed relocated facility.

Present annual operating costs compared with projected annual operating costs in

new structure

[blocks in formation]

Material handling labor in production... 2. Other labor in production. 3. Paper and material handling in stores. 4. Manning elevators.. 5. Modernization and depreciation of elevators. 6. Elevator and conveyor maintenance (in

cluding escalators). 7. Incinerator operation and maintenance. 8. Window maintenance.. 9. Door maintenance.. 10. Building structure maintenance. 11. Driveways, sidewalks and lawns. 12. Plumbing maintenance.... 13. Air-conditioning, heating and ventilation

maintenance. 14. Electric truck maintenance. 15. Other costs, including administration and


(a) Field service.
(b) Details
(C) WAE, Superintendent of Docu-

(d) WAE, disbursing office.

[blocks in formation]

$657,000 30, 320,000 1,077, 000

None 10,000 18,000

7,000 16,000

5,000 100,000 30,000 32,000

23. O 3. O 4. O 2. 5

7.0 -6.0


[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]


50, 459,000

7, 234

47, 476,000

390. 5

Note : Net annual savings, $2,984,000.


Design, engineering, supervision, etc.-
Fallout shelter..
Costs incident to moving--

$3, 07, 00)
43, 028, 000

), (0 3,000,000

Total estimated cost.

49, 163, 000 Appropriated, Public Law 88-454, for the site selections and general plans and designs of buildings.

-2, 500,000 To be appropriated.

46, 603,000 Annual gross savings.

2,984, 000 Annual rental value of space to be conveyed to GSA (based on GSA estimates) : Office space at $3 per square foot-107,209 square feet ---

3.22.000 Industrial space at $1.50 per square foot-394,933 square feet --- 12.000 Storage space at $1 per square foot-322,874 feet.

3h, 1

Total rental value.

1, 537, 000

Total savings..

* 4, 521.000 Amortization period.


10. S 1 This total savings figure does not include the savings which are anticipated through assumption of distribution responsibilities by the Government Printing Office.

NOTE. - This reestimate dated June 1965 is based on the assignment of a specife site at the National Training School area and on studies of this particular site made by GSA and Charles T. Main, Inc. These figures are the best possible estimates as of this date.

« PreviousContinue »