Mr. BROOKS. By the Bureau of the Budget?

Mr. LITTLEPAGE. I think Mr. Pyle shared in that, but it was by the Bureau of the Budget, their coordinating office of cartography. We were of course denied a copy from the Air Force. The Bureau of the Budget told us to go ahead and produce the charts.

Mr. BROOKS. Turning to another aspect of the GAO recommendation, does the Army use the Coast and Geodetic Survey charts for its Army Air Corps?

ARMY USES COMMERCIAL MAPS

Mr. LITTLEPAGE. No, sir. Oddly enough, the Army procures their charts from a commercial source. They do not comply with the detailed specifications of the FAA which the Army helped to develop and approve.

Mr. BROOKS. Didn't the Army ever request the Coast and Geodetic Survey, maybe in 1957, to furnish them with an estimate of cost for supplying the necessary charts covering the United States to use with its Army Air Corps pilots?

Mr. LITTLEPAGE. Yes, sir.

Mr. BROOKS. What were the results of this? Did you furnish them with the facts?

Mr. LITTLEPAGE. We did.

Mr. BROOKS. What did they do about it?

Mr. LITTLEPAGE. Nothing. They continued their commercial procurement.

Mr. BROOKS. Did they ever go into detad with you as to whether your rates were lower or what was wrong with the maps that you said were available?

Mr. LITTLEPAGE. No, sir. They never covered any details. We were never informed of any deficiencies. Of course, the General Accounting Office reported on that duplication. I believe that their report is consistent with what we were told by the people in the army with whom we worked, that there was a considerable difference in cost between the Coast and Geodetic Survey product and the commercial product to which they were subscribing.

Mr. BROOKS. When you submitted these costs and the detail of what you had available to the Army, did you just send them a letter or did you go over to the Pentagon and talk to a committee, or what was the procedure of this submission?

"SERVICES WERE NOT NEEDED"

Mr. LITTLEPAGE. Finally, after we had worked up the details of the Army requirements they specified in detail how they wanted these charts to be assembled for them-we were called to a meeting in the Pentagon to present the Coast and Geodetic Survey products which the Army had asked us to submit estimates on. When we arrived at the Pentagon we were placed in an anteroom and, strangely enough, with the commercial producer. We both sat there and cooled our heels for several hours while the Army people examined our product and the product that they were then using, the commercial product. We were told that our services were not needed at the meeting and we were excused. They apologized for having us stand around.

That is all we were told, that we were not needed, and that they would let us know. They finally told us that they would continue their commercial procurement.

Mr. BROOKS. This was in what? 1958? 1959?

Mr. LITTLEPAGE. It must have been in 1959, sir. The initial request was in 1957. By the time they worked up their detailed requirements for a package, including their binders, and so forth, it was about 1959 before any action was taken at all.

Mr. BROOKS. Since that date the Army Air Corps has not utilized your visual air charts?

Mr. LITTLEPAGE. No, sir. about the instrument charts? Mr. BROOKS. Yes.

They are not visual.

They are not visual. You are talking

Mr. LITTLEPAGE. The instrument charts.

Mr. BROOKS. Did they try any of them on a test basis after this last GAO report?

Mr. LITTLEPAGE. Yes, sir. They approached us last year and asked us if we would furnish them with our services to 500 selected Army pilots for an operational test and evaluation. This was to last for a period of 6 months, ending in March of 1962.

Mr. BROOKS. What was the result of this sampling?

Mr. LITTLEPAGE. The only thing that we know, sir, is that the Continental Army Command was the unit selected to make the test for the Army. In their report they recommended, of course, that the Coast and Geodetic Survey be advised of their findings. They recommended that the Coast and Geodetic Survey product be adopted for Army use.

There were certain modifications which they said should be taken care of. Most of these were modifications that were directly specified by the Army and not deficiencies in the chart product itself.

Mr. BROOKS. Then I guess you are now supplying the Army with those air charts?

Mr. LITTLEPAGE. No, sir. We haven't had a decision since that test was concluded back in March.

Mr. BROOKS. Why, apparently, has there been no decision of a test which ended in March, this being August?

Mr. LITTLEPAGE. We can't answer that, sir. We hoped to get an answer as to an idea of their course of action before we came over here, and also before we answered your letter. In a telephone conversation they said that they had not arrived at a decision but would notify us within a couple of weeks.

Mr. BROOKS. I would like to put in the record at this point a letter from Admiral Karo which is dated August 3, 1962, indicating that you have been trying for some time to obtain a response to this question, particularly in view of the subcommittee's interest and concern in the matter of the receipt of the GAO report. This is your letter in reply to us. We will submit this at this point. (Document referred to follows:)

Hon. JACK BROOKS,

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,
U.S. COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY,
Washington, August 3, 1962.

Chairman, Government Activities Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. BROOKS: This is in further reply to your letter of June 28, 1962, regarding duplication of effort in the field of aeronautical charting.

You raise two specific questions:

1. "To what extent has the duplication of efforts between Coast and Geodetic Survey and the Air Force been corrected along the lines recommended by GAO?"

The duplication of efforts between the Coast and Geodetic Survey and the Air Force has not been resolved along lines recommended by the General Accounting Office. The reason for this is that the roles to be undertaken in this area by the respective organizations as spelled out by the Federal Aviation Agency have not been accepted by the Air Force.

2. "Likewise, a similar recommendation was proffered by GAO relative to duplicative activities by the Coast and Geodetic Survey and the Department of the Army. What is the present status of this recommendation?" Prior to the release of the General Accounting Office report, the Army reopened negotiations with this Bureau concerning the use by Army pilots of Coast and Geodetic Survey produced aeronautical charts. The Army Aviation Flight Information Office prepared detailed requirements for a test service of instrument flight charts and entered into a reimbursable agreement with the Coast and Geodetic Survey to furnish this service to 500 selected Army pilots. The agreement was dated July 19, 1961, and the test of the flight information service covered a 6 months period beginning October 1, 1961.

Informal conversation with the Department of the Army indicates that a final report with definite recommendation as to whether the Army would procure instrument flight charts from the Coast and Geodetic Survey will be made in the near future. The subcommittee will be furnished a copy of the recommendation as soon as it is received by this Bureau.

I hope that this information fully answers your questions, and I assure you of my desire to be of assistance in any way possible.

Sincerely yours,

H. ARNOLD Karo,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, Director. Mr. BROOKS. I note also from page 32 of the report to the Congress by the GAO relating to the review of the Coast and Geodetic Survey for the fiscal years 1959 and 1960-quoting from page 32

The bure u (that is, the Coast and Geodetic Survey) estimated the cost to the Army for an initial subscription of the charts and services in 1959 for 5,000 pilots at about $485,000 from the commercial concern compared with about $185,000, if procured from Coast and Geodetic Survey. A difference of about $300,000. The bureau estimated that subsequent savings to the Army by use of bureau services would total about $493,000 over the first 3 years and about $213,000 for each year thereafter.

While the GAO found a number of possible inaccuracies in the Coast and Geodetic Survey estimate primarily relating to costs of leather binders, plotters, and other navigational accessories, which would be included in the map cost, the GAO concluded that "We believe that it was sufficient indication of substantial economy to warrant further consideration of this matter by both the Army and the Coast and Geodetic Survey."

Will you comment on the validity, Admiral, Mr. Klotz, or Mr. Littlepage, on the validity of the Coast and Geodetic Survey mentioned above?

Admiral KARO. Mr. Chairman, until you actually go into production it is awfully hard to determine what the full cost will be. These costs, the estimated costs that we provide, were based on our records of cost of producing similar materials. It was pointed out in the GAO report, I believe, that some of the things that we did not add into the cost were, as mentioned, some of the binders which the Army

themselves would provide. On the other hand there was more material as we got into it that we would add into it also than we had in our first statement. So that while perhaps the figures, the actual magnitude of them, or the actual amounts, cannot be fully substantiated except in a general way, still the disparity is there and there would be a considerable savings.

Do you have anything else, Gordon, on this?

Mr. LITTLEPAGE. I would only add this, Mr. Chairman: that the charts produced by the Coast and Geodetic Survey are available to the Army at the cost of printing and paper, as required by law. We maintain these costs on a month-to-month basis by accounting procedures. So that as long as we know what goes into the package, we can price them out, and they are very accurate.

Mr. BROOKS. On the basis of an increase in the number of planes and possibly the number of flying hours, or the activity, would there be the possibility that the savings might be increased by an increased demand for such charts?

Admiral KARO. I would think so, Mr. Chairman; yes. The larger the number, of course

Mr. BROOKS. Has the demand increased?

I realize you are not in the Army, Admiral.

Mr. LITTLEPAGE. There is a spread. 1 believe there are 5,000 pilots the Army provides for now. They did provide for an increase to 9,000.

Admiral KARO. It depends on whether Congress increases the general aviation.

COSTS $300,000 MORE

Mr. BROOKS. So you think the difference would be at least the $300,000?

Admiral KARO. In that neighborhood; yes.

Mr. BROOKS. This is for the first year in the acquisition cost as between $485,000 and $185,000? That is the first year's acquisition costs?

Mr. LITTLEPAGE. Yes.

Mr. BROOKS. And the annual savings after that would be about $213,000?

Mr. LITTLEPAGE. Yes.

These are General Accounting Office figures. We, of course, didn't have access to the Army contract figures.

Mr. BROOKS. Which they did.

Mr. LITTLEPAGE. We don't have any quarrel with these.

Mr. BROOKS. You feel they reflect an accurate estimate of costs in buying commercially?

Mr. LITTLEPAGE. Yes, sir.

Mr. BROOKS. At this time I will submit for the record this letter of April 5, 1962, signed by Mr. Gordon B. Littlepage, Jr., which will be included in the record. That gives a breakdown on figures. (Document referred to follows:)

APRIL 5, 1962.

Re Aeronautical chart and information center contract with Jeppesen & Co.
Mr. MALLORY J. READ,

Technical Assistant to Assistant Director for Cartography,

Department of Defense.

The Federal responsibility for producing aeronautical charts of the United States, its territories, and possessions, and of international airways primarily used by U.S. civil aviation is vested in the Coast and Geodetic Survey by Public Law 373 as amended by Public Law 86-409.

The military departments of the Department of Defense procure their U.S. aeronautical chart requirements from the Coast and Geodetic Survey at the cost of printing and finishing as provided by the language of the Bureau's appropriation acts since 1952. No charge is made for chart compilation, maintenance, or reproduction work prior to the press printing for C. & G.S. products. Prior to 1952, military requirements for C. & G.S. charts were issued without charge.

Since the publication of radio facility charts on the Federal Aviation Agency's specifications, beginning in March 1961, the Bureau has produced duplicate negatives for delivery to a USAF ACIC contractor for printing and distribution of Air Force-Navy requirements. C. & G.S. is reimbursed for the actual cost of preparing the duplicate negatives.

On January 19, 1962, ACIC signed a negotiated contract with Jeppesen & Co., Denver, Colo., for compilation, maintenance, reproduction, and distribution of instrument flight charts and publications required for Air Force-Navy use. This contract includes commercial production of U.S. radio facility charts and U.S. instrument approach procedure charts which are now produced by C. & G.S.

The radio facility charts of the United States produced by C. & G.S. are in exact compliance with the specifications issued by the Federal Aviation Agency. They were developed by the FAA in cooperation with the Departments of the Air Force, Army, and Navy, and representatives of civil aviation organizations, as a joint military-civil specification, and are published for the en route low-altitude and en route intermediate altitude charts. Federal specifications for the en route high-altitude charts are nearing completion and will be released in the next few months.

The commercial charts published by Jeppesen & Co. do not comply with the FAA specifications, and charts produced for the Air Force under the contract will require separate maintenance and reproduction apart from that of the company's commercial product.

The net effect of the contract between the Air Force ACIC and Jeppesen & Co. will be to pay a commercial contractor to duplicate the cost of maintaining charts now being produced by the Government and which the Government will continue to produce.

RADIO FACILITY CHARTS

Present procedure: C. & G.S. now produces a duplicate set of printing negatives every 28 days in accordance with FAA specifications which are shipped to an Air Force printing contractor for printing and distribution. Air Force pays C. & G.S. only the cost of making the duplicate negatives.

Contract procedure: Air Force will provide contractor with a set of C. & G.S. duplicate printing negatives which will serve for producing compilation drawings by the contractor. The contractor will maintain these drawings, duplicating the maintenance of C. & G.S., and will produce printing negatives every 28 days which will be shipped to a subcontractor in a different city for printing and distribution.

INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURE CHARTS

Present procedure: C. & G.S. now furnishes Air Force with printed copies of the instrument approach procedure charts of U.S. civil fields on a weekly revision schedule. Air Force pays C. & G.S. in accordance with law only for the actual cost of printing, paper, and finishing. In addition, charges are made to the Air Force for cartographic maintenance of a special military plate for printing on instrument approach procedure charts.

Contract procedure: Air Force will provide contractor with reproduction copy of C. & G.S.-produced instrument approach procedure charts. Contractor will maintain drawings and produce printing negatives for shipment to a subcontractor for printing and distribution to Air Force-Navy users.