Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. STEWART. They were looking for established, outstanding firms. Senator PROXMIRE. Why did they pick only 42?

Mr. STEWART. That was all who asked to be considered.

Senator PROXMIRE. How thorough and comprehensive a process did they go through? Did they make an effort to consider architects, for example, from the Middle West?

You haven't mentioned any from the Middle West, my area.

Mr. STEWART. There was one firm considered from the Middle West, but that firm was loaded up with work at that time and could not undertake any of our work then.

Senator PROXMIRE. Couldn't they find anybody in the Middle West that was not loaded?

Mr. STEWART. Not at that time. We tried to be as fair as we could.

MADISON MEMORIAL CONTRACT LETTING

Mr. HENLOCK. All the contracts mentioned were let in 1955 and 1956, with the exception of the one for the two House underground garages in 1962, and the Madison Memorial, which was let in 1966.

Senator PROXMIRE. What are we discussing now? Isn't this on page 188, the Madison Memorial? When was that contract let?

Mr. HENLOCK. The first contract for preliminary studies for an additional building for the Library of Congress was let in 1961.

Those plans, prepared by De Witt, Poor & Shelton and their associates were not carried into execution. They provided for an additional building directly east of the Library annex; an underground structure for the Library in square 732, located directly south of the main Library building, with a Madison Memorial structure above ground. The present architectural contract for the Library of Congress, Madison Memorial Building, now authorized by law, was let in 1966.

CONTRACTOR SELECTION PROCEDURE

Senator PROXMIRE. This was 1954 that this list was selected. Is it closed after that?

Mr. HENLOCK. No, sir. Actually, the recommendation in the case of the Madison Memorial was made by one of the members of the Commission, and his recommendation was approved by the CommissionCommittee's Coordinating Committee, and, later, by the Commissions and Committees, themselves.

Mr. Stewart did not submit any recommendations in that instance, as to what architects should be selected.

Senator PROXMIRE. One of the members of what Commission?

Mr. HENLOCK. Of either the House Office Building Commission, the Senate Office Building Commission, the Madison Memorial Commission, or the Joint Committee on the Library.

Senator PROXMIRE. This goes back to the original contention that you have on the first page, when you say:

In the case of every project listed, the congressional commission or committee, charged by law with jurisdiction over the construction, selected the architect-engineers.

Mr. HENLOCK. Yes, sir.

RELIANCE UPON EXPERT COUNSEL

Senator PROXMIRE. Sure, but after all, we are all very, very busy, as you know, and have many, many responsibilities. I perhaps have less than some of the senior Members, but I am on three committees and 15 subcommittees.

What busy men do is to delegate this to those in whom they have trust and faith, and who have the expert knowledge and, if you make a recommendation, it is given tremendous consideration.

It is very hard for a Member of Congress, almost none of whom are architects, I suppose exactly none of whom are members of the AIA, in a position of responsibility, here, to make any selection except the one you recommend.

Mr. HENLOCK. We did not actually submit a recommendation in the case of the Madison Memorial project.

Mr. STEWART. No.

Senator PROXMIRE. Well, there must have been some discussions with you. After all, weren't you the group that went to the three members of the Fine Arts Commission?

Mr. STEWART. In 1955, when I was instructed to so do.

Mr. HENLOCK. That was back in the beginning, 1955.

Mr. STEWART. In the very beginning, before anything was done. Mr. HENLOCK. In this most recent project, I believe that 30 Members of Congress are involved. It is, of course, a tremendous committee or combination of committees overseeing the Madison Memorial project.

Senator PROXMIRE. That makes it all the more likely that they would make the selection based upon your expert recommendation.

MEMBERSHIP OF COMMISSION FAMILIAR WITH WORK OF SELECTED ARCHITECTS

Mr. HENLOCK. Actually, these particular architects had, as previously indicated, been engaged in an earlier year, 1961, to make some studies for a library building that was planned to go on a site east of the Library of Congress Annex. In making their studies, they proposed that, in addition, an underground structure for the Library to be constructed in square 732, with a small structure above ground as a memorial to Madison.

Members of the Commissions were familiar with their work. The Joint Committee on the Library approved their selection to make the original Library studies, and actually they and the Madison Memorial Commission were favorably impressed with the work of these particular architects.

OFFICE RESPONSIBILITY TO INCREASE TALENT AVAILABILITY

Senator PROXMIRE. You see, you put us in a difficult position, because I can recall very well a hearing that we had last year or the year before, in which there was great objection raised by you gentlemen to the notion that we ought to have competition based primarily on price, and I could understand that, and there was a great deal of sympathy with that notion, although I frankly think we could do better if we had more competition based on price, but, if we don't have that, it seems to me that there ought to be a very definite and concerted effort on the part of

those of you who have the expertise, the knowledge, and the prestige, and the ear of Congress, to try and get as much of the talent of America in this area to be available as you possibly can.

And to hear that the principal recommendation for the buildings we have here were made in 1954, at which time a very small number of architects, seven, were selected, who have worked in one way or another together on virtually all the architecture that has been done on the Capitol in the ensuing few years, suggests to me that we have not done that, that we have not brought in the great diversity of talent in this country that we ought to have brought in, and we probably haven't done as economical a job as we ought to have done.

So that I would hope that there would be an effort to reach some kind of an understanding with people like Mr. Hutchinson, who, as I say, is in a very, very responsible position among architects, represents the biggest architectural organization in the country.

Mr. CAMPIOLI. He is not an architect; he is not the head of the AIA Mr. Chairman. He is only the director of their government affairs committee and as such is a paid employee. He is not qualified in my opinion to make the statement he has made.

Senator PROXMIRE. But after all, he is speaking for the AIA in connection with Government projects, and, as one who speaks in this position, nobody else can speak with the same kind of authority.

It seems to me you don't have to be a chicken to tell whether an egg is good or bad. You don't have to be an architect, necessarily, to recognize monopoly and a concentration of opportunity among a very, very small group.

Mr. CAMPIOLI. Well, I think the president of the AIA who is an architect is more qualified to speak, and I think the executive director of the AIA who is also an architect is also qualified to speak on this subject. There never has been anything irregular with architects receiving repeat jobs from their clients. This is common in private work as well as with work for other Government agencies.

Senator PROXMIRE. I presume if the president or executive director of AIA disputed Mr. Hutchinson, they would say so.

This has been given a great deal of publicity in the Nation's biggest news service the Associated Press. It was prominently reported in the New York Times, one of the great papers of the country, has been carried in the Congressional Record, and I haven't heard a murmur of dissent from this charge of architectural monopoly.

Mr. CAMPIOLI. I am a member of the AIA, and I know a little about this subject.

Senator PROXMIRE. I am sure you are, but I am sure you would agree, sir, that you are in a position which is one that makes it difficult for you to use objectivity in giving your own view on the matter. I don't say your viewpoint isn't right, but I say it is not an objective view, because you are certainly an interested party in this particular concern.

If this is the case, then, if you are telling me that Mr. Hutchinson doesn't speak with the authority of the AIA

Mr. CAMPIOLI. I say he is not an architect, and in my opinion not qualified to speak on this subject.

Senator PROXMIRE. Well, he is not an architect, and, if you don't think he is qualified, would you be willing to get the opinion of the head of the AIA, the executive director of the AIA on this r

?

Mr. CAMPIOLI. We generally have to work through our committees on these projects, and can't take a unilateral attitude or go off on our own and request such information.

Senator PROXMIRE. We will be happy to do it. We will write them and ask them to give us their opinion, and the fact that you feel you would place more credence, more reliance, on the AIA executive director or president I think makes it necessary for us to do that. We will do that.

(See page 264 for a letter from AIA.)

COMPTROLLER GENERAL RECOMMENDATION

How about the Comptroller General of the United States, a man whom you have cited this afternoon two or three times as a competent authority and a man in whom you have faith? He is not an architect, either, but one who has great competence in the whole area of Government procurement and Government expenditure for construction, and he says the following:

We have been criticized by the architects and engineers for our recommendation

That is the recommendation that they get adequate competition, here

it is therefore of interest to have the architects and engineers join in the criticism as to what they regard as a near monopoly by this particular firm.

ARCHITECTURAL SELECTION PROCEDURE

Mr. CAMPIOLI. There again, Mr. Chairman, the question of competition on the basis of fee for architectural services is an unethical procedure, as far as the American Institute of Architects is concerned.

Architects are not permitted to compete with each other on the basis of fee. Also, as I understand from statements made by Congressman Brooks, who heads up the House subcommittee on this subject, he has indicated that competition on the basis of fee is not a requirement of the law which exists on this subject. For an architectural firm to receive repeat jobs from his clients has never been considered a monopoly in the past by the AIA.

Senator PROXMIRE. Well, I disagree very vigorously with that position, but it seems to me that that is irrelevant.

We are not talking here about competition on the basis of fee. We are talking about competition on the basis of design, on the basis of competence, and any other basis besides the basis of which architect will do it for the smallest fee.

I am sure that Mr. Hutchinson, although he is not an architect, and speaks simply for the governmental side of the AIA, would not have made this kind of criticism directed at the absence of fee competition.

I am sure that that is not what the AIA is talking about; aren't you? Mr. CAMPIOLI. If it is talking about competition on the basis of design, that would have to be part of the project legislation. The Architect of the Capitol would then be required to hold a competition on the design of a structure, and that has not been a part of any of the legislation on these projects. As far as competence is concerned, most of the architects used here are fellows in design of the ALA, just about the highest classification an architect can obtain in the Institute.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT L. DURHAM, FAIA, PRESIDENT, THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, BEFORE HOUSE PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

Senator PROXMIRE. I understand that in hearings before the House Public Works Committee on the master plan for the Capitol, in the middle of March, the president of the AIA questioned the architectural selection procedure.

I will put that statement by the president of the AIA in the record at this point.

(The statement follows:)

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Robert Durham, an architect from Seattle, Washington, and President of The American Institute of Architects. Sitting beside me is David Yerkes, a practicing architect from Washington, D.C., a member of AIA's Board of Directors, and Chairman of The Institute's Committee on the National Capital.

The AIA appreciates the honor of appearing before this subcommittee today. We respectifully direct your attention to the recorded positions of, among others, many members of Congress, the Joint Committee on the National Capital, the Urban Land Institute, the Garden Clubs of America, the American Society of Landscape Architects, the American Institute of Planners, and the Commission of Fine Arts-their positions support the legislation which is before you.

Since the inception of the AIA over 100 years ago, we have been very much concerned about the quality of this city as the capital of a great nation. As representatives of the architectural profession, we have felt a special responsibility to make Washington, as far as possible, a model for the rest of the country in planning and design.

In both 1957 and 1958, The Institute opposed expansion of the Capitol Building and urged adoption of legislation calling for long-range planning and a study of Capitol Hill space needs. Again in 1965 and 1966, we supported S.J. Res 76 and H.R. 16100 calling for comprehensive planning on Capitol Hill and a Commission on Architecture and Planning.

Today, we again put on record our belief that Capitol Hill, of all urban areas in this country, should set an example of farsighted, comprehensive planning and wise design policies.

I would like to comment individually on each of the three principal provisions of this legislation.

1. Comprehensive Plan for Capitol Hill.

Both bills provide for the employment of a qualified firm or firms to prepare a comprehensive plan to guide the development of Capitol Hill. As you know, the need for this kind of planning has been accepted throughout the country. The disastrous conditions which result when planning is postponed too long, or when plans are ignored in the process of development, are painfully evident. It seems incredible that Capitol Hill-an area of unsurpassed national interest and importance should not have the benefit of comprehensive planning. These benefits are clearly recognized in other Federal legislation.

We firmly believe that the existence of a carefully prepared plan will significantly reduce delays in bringing building projects to completion, will eliminate unnecessary waste of construction funds, and will produce a complex of buildings which will function more efficiently. The long-range gain which can be expected in the appearance of Capitol Hill as a national symbol cannot be over-emphasized. H.J. Res 914 and S.J. Res 74 quite rightly provide for periodic updating of the comprehensive plan. For the planning process to be successful, there must be a periodic review.

2. Architect Selection Committee.

An effective procedure for selecting architects is vital to the success of any building project.

We believe that two components are essential to this process. First, it is highly desirable that all interested architects be invited to submit their qualifications for consideration by the Selection Committee. Second, the assistance of qualified and objective professionals can be invaluable since the selection of an architect depends upon a wise appraisal of professional qualifications. The proposed bills provide for both these features.

« PreviousContinue »