normal civilian practice, command a much higher fee. Actually it appears from this data that on an average basis, it neither commands an adequately higher fee nor results in a sufficient profit to compensate for the added work. 8. Civilian work for the Corps of Engineers also appears to suffer from an inadequate fee. While these projects are of their nature large and should carry low percentage fees, it would appear that the fee is now set too low to result in what could be considered an adequate return. 9. Subcontract work for prime architect-engineers while, not the direct responsibility of the Department of Defense, reflects the fees awarded to the architect-engineer. Here again, this work can only be considered marginal from the profit standpoint. 10. Over 34 percent of the projects on which complete data was received showed a net loss to the architect-engineer. 11. In most cases, the fees reported are below the minimum fees as set forth in accepted fee schedules for comparable civilian work. 12. A study of the profits shown on these returns indicate why many medium and large architect-engineers do not regard projects for the Department of Defense very desirable. Mr. COURTNEY. We have also had a request from the National Education Association to be allowed to submit a statement for the record. Mr. HÉBERT. Without objection, it is so ordered. (The statement is as follows:) NATIONAL EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Hon. F. EDWARD HÉBERT, Chairman Subcommittee for Special Investigations, Committee on Armed Services, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. HÉBERT: Thank you for your letter of August 9 advising me that your hearings on contracting out practices began on August 8, 1961. After receiving your letter, I requested to talk with counsel of the subcommittee and on August 10, Mr. William H. Sandweg, counsel, was able to confer with me and with Mr. Robert R. Shafer, president of the Far East Education |