Page images
PDF
EPUB

General TRUDEAU. Yes, there was one built and tested in 1958 and thrown out as being unsatisfactory, and the U.S. Army today is using the French assault bridge and ferry because we have not been able to build as good a one, and that is what we are trying to do here.

Mr. SANDWEG. Well, in effect, General, would it be right in saying for the amounts of money spent here, you verified your own feeling that what you were designing was the best that could be designed as of right now?

General TRUDEAU. I think that is right.

Mr. NEW. General, if I may, we did verify that, but we also obtained considerable information on equipment layout and details of some of the components, and I think Mr. Mullins should speak on this point because we didn't get a report that merely said we think you have the ultimate in design, you should go ahead.

Mr. HARDY. You are a fine fellow, you did a good job.

Mr. NEW. We obtained a lot more than that, and I think Mr. Mullins should speak to that point.

Mr. HÉBERT. Well, they did give recommendations?

Mr. MULLINS. That is correct.

Mr. HÉBERT. That is sufficient.

Mr. HARDY. Could I ask just one more question; now what did you get for the $64,000 that you paid Jared Industries? You got a book from them, too.

Mr. MULLINS. Well, sir, we had another study of everything in there and they came back and recommended a slight variation in the end of the boat, which we did not adopt. They recommended a combination mechanical and hydraulic drive back to the propeller, which you saw folding up there, which we did not adopt, because we didn't think that that was the way to do it.

Mr. HARDY. Don't take anything that folds up.

Mr. HÉBERT. Thank you very much. Thank you, General, very much, for your appearance. And thank your colleagues who appeared with you.

We appreciate your cooperation. The committee will stand recessed until 10 o'clock, Wednesday morning.

(Whereupon, at 4:04 p.m., the subcommittee recessed to 10 a.m., Wednesday, August 16, 1961.)

CONTRACTING-OUT PROCEDURES

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 16, 1961

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES,
SUBCOMMITTEE FOR SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS,

Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10:10 a.m., the Honorable F. Edward Hébert (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, if we may resolve ourselves into a continuation of another hearing on contracting out, we have a statement from the National Society of Professional Engineers, dated August 11, 1961, which I will ask to be included in the record as though read, as a matter of contracting out for services, relating to the employment of professional engineers.

Mr. HÉBERT. It may be inserted at this point as though having been read.

(The letter above referred to is as follows:)

Hon. F. EDWARD HÉBERT,

NATIONAL SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS,
Washington, D.C., August 11, 1961.

Chairman, Subcommittee for Special Investigations,
House Armed Services Committee,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. HÉBERT: In connection with the current hearings of the subcommittee on contracting-out procedures of the military departments, we should like to present for the record this letter of comment and some reference material which we hope will be of interest and value.

The National Society of Professional Engineers is composed of 55,000 members, all of whom are registered under the appropriate State engineering registration laws, through 53 affiliated State societies of professional engineers and approximately 400 local community chapters. Our membership includes professional engineers in all categories and fields of employment and professional activity, with substantial numbers in both governmental employment and private practice.

Within the society considerable attention has been given to the formulation of appropriate policies as a guide for determining the most suitable methods of administering engineering projects for various governmental bodies. Our functional sections for consulting engineers in private practice and engineers in Government practice have particularly collaborated in these studies. Quoted below is the policy statement developed by these two units of the society and approved by the society's board of directors. We would particularly like to emphasize that the major consideration should be for the planning and execution of engineering projects which will most effectively protect the public interest, health, and safety, and that all engineering projects undertaken by or for governmental agencies should be under the direct supervision of professional engineers.

NSPE policy No. 63, engineering services for Government projects, NSPE advocates and supports the practice of high quality engineering services in both Government and private practice, and maintains that engineering services should be under the direction of registered professional engineers. Professional engi

neers in Government employ should perform the highest quality engineering services for preliminary study, preplanning and budgeting, and essential supervisory management and control of governmentally funded activities. Governmental agencies should contract for engineering services with highly qualified private engineering consultants to the extent consistent with national security, proper continuity of governmental programs and the public interest. NSPE further reaffirms its traditionally stated position that engineers in Government and private practice recognize a need for engineering activities of a complementary nature.

With regard to the matter of costs for employment of consulting engineers on governmental projects, we enclose a copy of a comprehensive survey report by our functional section for consulting engineers in private practice, "The Role of the Consulting Engineer in Federal Public Works Projects." We believe that the factual information in this report will be pertinent to your study. If additional copies of this report are desired by the members of the subcommittee, or its staff, we would be happy to oblige.

Very truly yours,

PAUL H. ROBBINS, P.E.,
Executive Director.

Mr. COURTNEY. Additionally, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Lyle Jones, who represents the Society of Consulting Engineers, who has at many times requested to be heard and has been advised of this hearing. I am sure that he is here this morning.

Mr. SANDWEG. Apparently his representative was unable to be here at this time.

Mr. HÉBERT. Well, we will accord Mr. Jones the privilege of filing his statement at this point in the record. (The statement referred to follows:)

Hon. F. EDWARD HÉBERT,

CONSULTING ENGINEERS COUNCIL,
Springfield, Ill., August 15, 1961.

Chairman, Subcommittee for Special Investigations, Committee on Armed Services, House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Inasmuch as it was not convenient for Mr. Harold P. King, president, Consulting Engineers Council to appear as a witness before your subcommittee on August 16, I am respectfully submitting his testimony for filing with the committee.

It is my understanding that it will be printed in the official records of the hearings on the subject of contracting out.

Very truly yours,

LYLE W. JONES,

Washington Representative, Consulting Engineers Council. CONSULTING ENGINEERS COUNCIL-CONGRESSIONAL STATEMENT TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE FOR SPECIAL INVESTIGATION OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

Consulting Engineers Council, Springfield, Ill., July 1961

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I wish to express the appreciation of the Consulting Engineers Council for the opportunity of appearing before you today.

My name is Harold P. King, a consulting engineer of Sherman Oaks, Calif., and I am speaking in my official position as president of the Consulting Engineers Council. The council is a national organization consisting of 33 State or area associations, and thereby represents some 1,300 engineering firms in private practice. The firms vary in size from individuals to some with hundreds of employees.

The consulting engineers of our Nation firmly believe that we have a real responsibility to our Government and our citizens for the planning and design of Government projects involving engineering skills and techniques. We are ready and willing to accept this responsibility and feel that established consulting engineer firms with proper qualifications and proven ability have demonstrated this acceptance in the past and can do so in the future. It is also our conviction

that, in accepting this responsibility, we can serve our Nation further by direct reduction of the cost of engineering services that are now being furnished by Government agencies. Gentlemen, all of this depends upon private enterprise and its judicious application.

It is our understanding that your committee is interested in the so-called contracting out practices of the Armed Forces. To us, this means the retaining of consulting engineers or architects, or both, to provide qualified professional planning and design services for specific Armed Forces projects.

We believe that there are distinct advantages to our Government and therefore the public in the use of services provided by engineers in private practice by Government agencies. Briefly, these advantages may be listed as follows: (1) Affirmation of the principle of private enterprise, (2) greater national security, (3) opportunities for selecting specialists, (4) greater alertness to effective prosecution of the work, (5) a deterrent to overexpansion of governmental staffs, (6) true and complete records of engineering costs, and (7) economy. Each of these items is discussed in some detail in the remainder of this presentation.

1. Affirmation of the principles of private enterprise which are implicit in the concepts of sound economy under a democratic form of government: From time to time we must all reaffirm our belief in the principle of private enterprise. Our democratic form of government is based upon this premise and a sound economy depends upon it. We are very much concerned that if the philosophy of using engineers in private practice is eliminated by Government agencies, it will lead to a complete destruction of an important segment of the private enterprise system. Remember, when Government competes with private business, it foreshadows the eventual denial of the right of its citizens to engage in business. We do not wish to infer that this principle applies to engineers only, but that it should be the guide for our Government in the procurement of all services and goods. Please refer to appendix A, below, entitled "Statement of Consulting Engineers Council Policy Regarding Private or Public Engineering." Your particular attention is directed to Bulletin 60-2, issued by the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, which states:

"2. Policy. It is the general policy of the administration that the Federal Government will not start or carry on any commercial-industrial activity to provide a service or product for its own use if such product or service can be procured from private enterprise through ordinary business channels."

The council subscribes wholeheartedly to this philosophy and recommends its adoption by the present administration.

2. Greater national security through buildup and strengthening of a pool of highly qualified specialists whose services are available in times of emergency: The use of private practicing engineers by our Government can provide a very important reservoir of engineering talent. The Armed Forces can become acquainted with the particular qualifications of various firms and thereby have ready an engineering force to call upon at a time of a major emergency. This has been necessary twice in the last two decades. During World War II and the Korean conflict, the engineering profession has provided the know-how in both the military and civilian fields. This facet can be a very important part of our national defense. We believe strongly that if this reservoir of scientific and engineering talent is destroyed by the nonuse of the private practicing engineer and architect for Armed Forces projects the Nation will be the ultimate loser. The established Government staffs have never been and never will be of sufficient size to cope with major emergencies unless the "state" is substituted for private enterprise. This we are sure is not your desire or ours.

3. Opportunities for selecting specialists whose unusual skills, knowledge, and experience would not otherwise be available to public agencies: Consulting engineers in private practice can be selected whose qualifications are particularly suited to that required for a specific project. The present method in use by the Armed Forces for obtaining professional services by interview and negotiations provides an opportunity for the selection of a properly qualified firm. Consulting engineers approve of this method and believe that it is in the public interest for it provides the best possible results for the least cost. Engineering staffs of private practicing engineers are easily adjusted to meet the demand to properly handle specific problems and can augment the talent either by direct employment of experts or by joint venture with other firms. An engineering staff tends to reflect the ability and ingenuity of the men who are at its head. Private engineering firms can stay in business only if they are receptive to new ideas and more economical methods of providing quality service. However, it seems that, in general, the competitive challenge to adopt new concepts does not exist

« PreviousContinue »