Page images
PDF
EPUB

REASONS FOR RESTORATION REQUESTED

The line item cost estimates in the fiscal year 1966 military construction program Were prepared by competent architect-engineers and reviewed by the Several echelons of experienced cost analysts in the executive branch. Based On recent bidding experience at the Camp Pendleton area and backed by the engineering for the fiscal year 1966 program, these estimates are considered to be the most sound and reasonable estimates of the amount required to accomplish the work proposed.

Accordingly, it is strongly recommended that the $214,000 reduction imposed by the House be reinstated.

HOUSE REPORT STATEMENT (P. 20)

“The committee has approved $20,584,000 for Marine Corps facilities including $8,437,000 for the continued modernization and construction of permanent facilities at Camp Pendleton, Calif.”

RECLAMA

Installation: Naval Academy, Annapolis, Md.

Item Budget House action | Restoration estimates requested Science building----------- -- --- $13,652,000 —$352,000 +$352,000

REASONS FOR RESTORATION REQUESTED

(a) The Navy's request of $13,652,000 is based on estimated costs developed at the 30-percent stage of final design. Plans and specifications are now in the final review checking stage and scheduled for completion in September 1965. Review of the cost estimates of the plans and specifications at this final stage of design reconfirms this $13,652,000 estimate. It is impracticable to reduce either the scope or cost of the primary line item for this important building fully equipped to serve its function.

(b) Restoration of the $352,000 cost reduction in order to permit the development and completion of an adequate setting for this important structure is requested Strongly.

HOUSE REPORT STATEMENT (P. 821)

“The principal item is $13,300,000 for construction of a science building at the Naval Academy, Annapolis, Md.” RECLAMA

Installation: Naval dispensary and naval dental clinic, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii

Item Budget House action | Restoration request requested Dispensary and dental clinic---------------------------------- $2,800,000 | –$2,800,000 +$2,800,000

REASONS FOR RESTORATION REQUESTED

(a) The requirement for the requested dispensary and dental clinic is based upon the fact that medical and dental facilities in the Pearl Harbor complex are substandard for the provision of approximately 170,000 Outpatient services a year. Consolidation of the services in one facility is feasible and required; however, no one existing medical or dental facility is large enough to handle the entire workload. The requested dispensary and dental clinic will (1) provide consolidated and comprehensive medical and dental outpatient care, (2) establish a broad base for staffing of Specialists and economic use of medical resources, thereby providing complete and better care, (3) centralize command and support of medical and dental services, (4) eliminate duplication of facilities, services, and personnel, (5) relieve the workload situation at Tripler Army Hospital, thus permitting utilization of the hospital for other critical requirements, (6) result in a savings of $550,000 of military construction funds by building a consolidated facility for $2,800,000 vice constructing 3 separate replacement facilities for $3,373,000 which were planned military construction projects, and (7) reduce medical personnel allowance by 30 persons, thereby permitting reassignment to other areas where requirements are critical.

(b) The existing facilities being replaced will be used primarily for military functions supporting the elements of the operating forces on shore activities. Of the 60,000 square feet of space to be retained for use after demolition of the submarine base dental department, 30,000 square feet is adequate for occupancy by activities providing direct support in the areas of escape tank training, industrial medicine, preventive medicine, sanitation, medical repair, health and nuclear physics. The remaining space, which is substandard for medical and dental functions, will permit the consolidation of some fleet and force administrative personnel, and other shore activity personnel as previously reported. It is not feasible or economical to use any of the existing spaces to be retained for the consolidation of medical and dental services in the Pearl Harbor complex.

House REPORT STATEMENT (P. 21)

“The request of $2,800,000 for the construction of dispensary and dental clinic, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, is denied. More detailed consideration is necessary to determine the extent of the requirement for this facility and to achieve a more realistic utilization of existing permanent facilities of this nature than is contemplated in the program presented to the committee.”

RECLAMA

Installation: Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C.

Item Budget House action | Restoration request requested Chemistry laboratory $6,642,000 —$6,642,000 $5,000,000

[ocr errors][merged small]

There are a host of chemical problems faced by the Navy of such a nature as to preclude their being studied or accomplished by either university laboratories or industrial organizations. The work being done by the chemistry staff is directly related to the short- and long-term vital needs of the Navy. It involves problems associated with environmental control of nuclear submarines, problems of both high- and low-temperature lubrication, problems involving effective bacteriological and chemical warfare defense and ships at sea, storage and utilization problems associated with aircraft fuel, among others. The research in physical and surface chemistry performed by this group (representing only one of the several elements of the program) has resulted in applications which have been assessed by the Department of Defense as saving the Government $16 million in the last 5 years.

It is essential that the work of the chemistry staff continue to be effective. Present facilities for their work were built under conditions of emergency during World War II. In spite of increased maintenance, problems depending on necessary control of environment directly affecting the research and in protecting the expensive research tools are extremely critical. The laboratory can show repeated instances where its chemists have been in the forefront of their field with the result that industry has come to them for advice and assistance in a variety of defense-related applications.

The economic feasibility of relocation of laboratory facilities was examined in detail in the years 1957–60. Relocation costs were compared against the current investment at the present location, the availability of land, and the ready availability of the educational resources of the community. The decision for local redevelopment was made accordingly. Attention is respectfully directed to the hearings before the Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, 88th Congress, 1st session on H.R. 9139, page 310. Quoting from Senator Saltonstall's remarks on the NRL redevelopment program, “* * * but this is all for modernizing and these are some things we approved a number of years ago and if we hold it up we are just slowing down everything. If we decide to hold it up, you could get along, but if we are going to really do the job, you ought to go forward with this each year * * *.”

HOUSE REPORT STATEMENT (P. 22)

“The amount of $6,642,000 (authorization reduced to $5 million) requested for the construction of a chemistry laboratory at the latter installation (NRL, District of Columbia) is denied. More adequate consideration should be given to meeting any requirements which might exist for a laboratory of this type through utilization of existing facilities within the Government and in private industry and nongovernmental institutions. The committee is not convinced of the desirability of locating this laboratory in the Metropolitan Washington area and will expect additional studies to include the economic feasibility of locating this and additional facilites that mght be required at this laboratory outside of this area either in whole Or in part.”

RECLAMA

Installation: Naval Air Station, Cecil Field, Fla.

Item Budget House Restoration request action requested Administration building-------------------------------------- $415,000 | —$415,000 +$415,000

REASON FOR RESTORATION REQUESTED

(a) The existing administration building was constructed in 1941 when Cecil Field was a small auxiliary air station ; it is a temporary WOOd frame structure which has had progressive internal and external deterioration. This structure can accommodate only one-third Of the total administrative personnel who should be located in it.

(b) Administrative functions that are now performed in the building are: CO and XO offices, central files, administrative section, classified files, printing and reproduction, management analysis, legal office, military personnel office, OOD and JOOD. Thirty-tree personnel occupy these spaces. Functions which should be performed in the administration building and which are now dispersed in parts of five other structures include: industrial relations office, safety office, station investigation, station information Office, information and education, comptroller, disbursing and C.O. conference • room. Sixty-three personnel Occupy these Spaces.

(c) By combining all of the administrative personnel in one building, and by rearranging spaces in other buildings it will be possible to demolish not only the present administration building but one other World War II building as well.

(d) The gross space requirement for the new administration building has been computed by criteria as follows:

Square feet

98 persons X130 square feet (net) ---------- –––– 12, 740 12.750X factor of 0.85––––––––––––––––––.------ --- 4,459 Total - --------------------------------- * 17, 199

1 Round to 17,200 square feet gross.

The difference between the net and gross areas are those Spaces required or corridors, toilets, secret vaults, machinery/equipment rooms, outside walls and interior partitions.

House REPORT STATEMENT (P. 22)

“The committee has denied the request of funds for administration buildings at NAS Cecil Field, Fla., and Miramar, Calif., requested in the respective amounts of $415,000 and $424,000. Additional studies are required relating to specific cost savings which will be achieved as a result of the construction of the facility at Miramar and the size of the facility at Cecil Field.”

[ocr errors]

RECLAMA

Installation: Naval Air Station, Miramar, Calif.

Item Budget House Restoration request action requested Administration building-------------------------------------- $424,000 —$424,000 +$424,000

REASON FOR RESTORATION REQUESTED

(a) Efficiency: Less than 50 percent of the 125 people required in the administration building can be accommodated. The remaining personnel are scattered in six other buildings located up to 1% miles from the existing administration building. Most of these buildings are of substandard World War II temporary wooden frame construction. The distances involved between the Various locations are not conducive to efficient management.

(b) Economy: A time study conducted by Naval Air Station, Miramar, revealed that a minimum of 31 man-hours and 4 Vehicle-hours per day would be saved by the new facility at $5 per man-hour and $6.50 vehicle-hour—$65,160 annually would be saved, amortizing the cost of the new administration building in 7 years.

(c) The centralizing of the administrative functions would make possible the abandonment and removal of the four World War II Substandard WOOden frame buildings now being used.

HOUSE REPORT STATEMENT (P. 22)

“The committee has denied the request of funds for administration buildings at the naval air stations, Cecil Field, Fla., and Miramar, Calif., requested in the respective amounts of $415,000 and $424,000. Additional studies are required relating to specific cost savings which will be achieved as a result of the construction of the facility at Miramar and the size of the facility planned at Cecil Field.”

RECLAMA

Installation: Naval Air Station, Oceana, Va.

Item Budget House Restoration request action requested High altitude and survival training building------------------ $503,000 –$503,000 | +$503,000

REASON FOR RESTORATION REQUESTED

(a) Naval Air Station, Oceana, has no existing facilities for high altitude and survival training, nor are there any existing spaces that could be converted for this use. The only service that Naval Air Station, Oceana, can perform is physical examination for pilots and crew and this is done in the station hospital. Consequently, all training must be done at Naval Air Station, Norfolk, some 20 miles distant. The training unit at Naval Air Station, Norfolk, trained 3,534 personnel during the last 6 months and 1,803, or 51 percent, of those trained were from Naval Air Station, Oceana.

(b) The tempo of training for Naval Air Station, Oceana, based personnel will rise due to the functional base-loading concept being implemented, wherein Naval Air Station, Oceana, will have F-4, A-6, and eventually F-111B aircraft assigned, all of which are two seated. The crew is comprised of pilot and one reconnaissance intelligence officer (RIO).

(c) In addition to the pilots and RIO's that must be trained, instruction must be given to a new group. These people are known as “Seal” teams. They are underwater demolition team members that are parachuted into the water and then perform their mission. Inasmuch as they are passengers in aircraft they must be trained as aircrew personnel.

(d) Pressure-suit indoctrination and ejection-seat training will be dropped from the curriculum at Naval Air Station, Norfolk, when the Naval Air Station, Oceana, unit becomes active. Even so, there is enough work for the Naval Air Station, Norfolk, unit to keep active by training the ASW, utility, and transport squadrons and Reserves from the east coast area. Training of Reserves is becoming increasingly important due to the current world situation.

(e) Existing facilities at Naval Air Station, Norfolk, are overtaxed with the present workload. Even though a facility is constructed at Naval Air Station, Oceana, the water training must continue at Naval Air Station, Norfolk. However, the man-hours lost by travel of Naval Air Station, Oceana, personnel to and from Norfolk will be reduced by approximately 70 percent, a reduction of approximately 300 man-hours per week.

HOUSE REPORT STATEMENT (P. 23)

“The request of $503,000 for a high altitude and survival training building at the Naval Air Station, Oceana, Va., is denied. This same facility was denied by the Congress last year when it was presented as a physiological training building. Existing facilities at this location and at the Naval Air Station, Norfolk, Va., which are presently being used to meet this requirement, are adequate for the immediate future.”

RECLAMA

Installation: Naval Air Station, Oceana, Va.

Item Budget House ReStoration request action requested Aircraft maintenance hangar---------------------------------- $2,983,000 —$2,983,000 | +$2,983,000

REASON FOR RESTORATION REQUESTED

(a) The Navy performs three levels of aircraft maintenance: (1) Depot, which is performed by civilian employees at overhaul and repair facilities and consists of major Overhaul and rebuilding of aircraft, engines, and components; (2) intermediate, which is performed by station military personnel for assigned Squadron aircraft and consists of shop-type repair and test work on aircraft components, equipment, engines, and airframes; and (3) organizational, which is performed by fleet squadron military personnel and consists of inspections, minor adjustments, and equipment and associated tests, repairs, and adjustments.

(b) Naval Air Station, Oceana, supports carrier fighter and attack squadrons. The Squadrons and the aircraft maintenance department (AMD) perform organizational- and intermediate-level maintenance respectively in only 40 percent of the space they should have. At Naval Air Station, Norfolk, the only other naval air station in the area—20 miles distant—organizational and intermediate maintenance is performed for ASW, helicopter, and transport squadrons. Space is marginal.

(c) Work performed at the overhaul and repair hangars at Naval Air Station, Norfolk, is on a scheduled basis. A specific number of engines/aircraft are scheduled for major overhaul each quarter. The work at Naval Air Station, Oceana, is accomplished as it arises. There is no way of telling when a piece of electronic gear will fail or when something will go wrong with a hydraulic system. In order to utilize the facilities at Norfolk this piece of equipment or the whole aircraft (which cannot fly under the condition of hydraulic malfunction) would have to be transported to Naval Air Station, Norfolk. It would then have to be sandwiched into the overhaul and repair schedule. These socalled minor repairs would completely disrupt the overhaul and repair schedule.

(d) Under this type of maintenance structure, it would be completely unworkable to send the aircraft and personnel to Naval Air Station, Norfolk, to perform these functions even though excess facilities did exist. If excess facilities did exist at Naval Air Station, Norfolk (which they do not), the only way this system would work would be to transfer fighter-attack squadrons to Naval Air Station, Norfolk, and have them operate on a runway that is too short for normal jet operations. Any transfer of squadrons to Naval Air Station. Norfolk would have to be accompanied by similar construction to that proposed at Naval Air Station, Oceana.

« PreviousContinue »