« PreviousContinue »
SAVINGS THROUGH RAILROAD TRACKAGE Senator YARBOROUGH. This site will be on trackage; will it have railroad trackage?
Mr. HARRISON. Yes, sir.
Senator MONRONEY. This in itself will eliminate perhaps 1 or 2 or 5 percent of the cost of movement of the raw stock in and the raw stock out, will it not?
Mr. HARRISON. About 50 percent. We now have to bring half of our raw stock in from Franconia, Va., by truck. It is delivered there by freight, and trucked in from Franconia, which is 16 or 17 miles a way.
Senator MONRONEY. You can bring it clear in by rail ?
Senator MONRONEY. So it is just rolled off into the storage dock; is that correct?
Mr. HARRISON. That is right, sir.
Senator MONRONEY. And unloaded out of the storage dock and right into the area where it is needed ? Mr. HARRISON. That is right.
Senator MONRONEY. The cost of handling then would represent a very definite saving in personnel and overhead that today is not possible.
Mr. HARRISON. It would save us nearly 300 employees.
Senator MONRONEY. 300 employees would be saved in handling that stock?
Mr. HARRISON. Yes, sir.
Senator MONRONEY. May I ask Mr. Main's representative again, what is your name?
Mr. FLINT. Mr. Flint, sir.
ADVANTAGES OF RAILROAD TRACKAGE
Senator MONRONEY. May I ask you if in your recommendations for locations for new printing plants in
your business, do
you consider the location on trackage as an advantage to be sought for?
Mr. Flint. Yes, we do.
Senator MONRONEY. And wherever possible you would recommend they be on trackage for a large, major operation?
Mr. Flint. Yes, sir. For a large major operation that is using a large quantity of paper. We have on several occasions located plants that are not on trackage, but those are generally job printing plants using small quantities of paper.
Senator MONRONEY. Do you have any percentage in mind in your surveys the economies would represent, 2, 3, 5 percent in handling costs?
Mr. FLINT. I do not.
Mr. Flint. It is not a universal figure. It depends on whether you buy roll stock
Senator MONRONEY. This is an essential advantage, to be on trackage so the paper only has to be moved once and can be rolled into
and Mr. Flint. Yes, sir. There are other advantages than just the handling of paper and that is paper damage. Every time you handle a roll or skid of paper, you take a chance of damage to paper and this paper costs a lot of money.
Senator MONRONEY. This paper now has to be moved under how long a tunnel
Mr. HARRISON. Under North Capitol Street.
Mr. HARRISON. Tiber Creek; every once in a while we get a leak and have to go in and put a patch on it. I might add, Mr. Chairman, that one of the requirements that the Committee on Printing approved was that this be on trackage.
Senator MONRONEY. One of the problems at the Bolling site was you had to put trackage down?
Mr. HARRISON. No, the track did come fairly close to the site. They have a B. & O. spur line that goes down to the Navy operations further down that track.
Senator MONRONEY. What is the situation regarding dockage for trucks loading in and loading out vis-a-vis the old location in relationship to the new!
DOCKAGE IN PRESENT LOCATION Mr. Harrison. We have practically no dockage in our present location. I think the maximum number of trailer trucks that we can handle would be six at any one time and we have about five docks for short-coupled trucks, and that is it. It means a long line of trucks standing, waiting to get to the docks, and it means that in our own operation we cannot handle tractor-trailer trucks because we do not have a place for them, so we have to handle all short coupled or motor bed attached trucks.
Senator MONRONEY. Which adds to the cost of doing business materially?
Mr. HARRISON. And we cannot jockey them in Jackson Alley where the only docks are located which have direct entrance into the plant proper. The other docks are away around in back of the post office building in our paper warehouse.
BREAKDOWN OF ESTIMATED COST
Senator MONRONEY. In your estimates of your $49 million, $49,163,000, you state design engineering supervision is $3,055,000; improvements, $43,028,000; fallout shelter, $80,000; costs incident to moving, $3 million ; for the total of $49,163,000.
INCREASE OVER ORIGINAL ESTIMATE
Now, will you show where the increase of the $2 million occurred? Did it occur in the improvement portion of the bill? I am sure it must have.
Mr. HARRISON. You see on page 11(a), Senator, which is just under that, I believe, a complete breakdown showing the difference in cost of site 1 compared to site 7.
Senator MONRONEY. But your original estimate—what is bothering us was the original estimate based on General Services Administration prospectus of $47,287,000. Now the estimate for site No. 7, which is Anacostia-Bolling, I would presume, was $52,140,000.
Mr. HARRISON. Total; yes, sir.
Senator MONRONEY. So you dropped back to $49,163,000, but you are still roughly $2 million above the original estimated cost. Now,
this original estimated cost is not broken down. It lumps all the basic improvements. What I wish you to tell us is why the site No. 1 figures against the basic improvement are some $2 million more than the original GSA estimate? Is this because it was made earlier and construction costs have gone up?
Mr. HARRISON. Partially that. Mr. Chairman, when General Services Administration made this original estimate it was, as I understand, on a so much per-square-foot basis for building an industrial building.
When the engineering concern came on board and began to study the problems of adapting a building to fit a particular type of operation such as a printing plant, there were some increases in costs.
For instance, the original estimate as I understand from General Services Administration covered only air cooling for comfort. In a printing plant you have to have humidity control in some departments as well, so there was an increase in air conditioning. There was an increase in several other small items to amount to that $1.8 million.
ADDITIONAL INCREASES COMPENSATED
Senator MONRONEY. I note in here, too, site development for the Anacostia site was $569,000 but the site development for the training school site is $3,627,000.
Mr. HARRISON. Yes, sir.
Senator MONRONEY. But you compensate for that by the lack of relocating sewer costs at $1,750,000, extra foundations, $2,811,000; and roof parking of $600,000.
Mr. HARRISON. Yes, sir.
SITE DEVELOPMENT COST
Senator MONRONEY. Now, why is the cost of the site development so much higher than at Anacostia ?
Mr. HARRISON. Because of the movement of the earth, Senator.
Senator MONRONEY. That is a pretty cheap part of the construction cost. That is the one thing we can do cheaper now than before World War II.
Mr. HARRISON. The moving of earth for that is $2,371,000.
Senator MONRONEY. That is just for the site. That is not for any additional space you are giving to the Boys Training School?
Mr. HARRISON. No; this is just the site that will be assigned to the Government Printing Office. There is an under drainage situation there that we have to consider of $69,000 because the earth is heavy; the engineers tell us before we put the slab on we will have to put some under drainage. There is also a spread footing which will be about a half a million dollars which would not have been used if we piled. In the total, it washes itself out, the lack of piling.
Senator MONRONEY. You say the site will leave unencumbered most of the area there to be used for other purposes, and you will reallyyou utilize all of the space that will be taken away from the Boys Training School?
Mr. HARRISON. Yes, sir.
Senator MONRONEY. I want to ask that the papers submitted, 11 and 11(a) be printed in the record, of course.
(These pages appear on pp. 192 and 193 of this hearing.) Senator Hayden, do you have any further questions?
Chairman HAYDEN. No questions.
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 with gross floor space.