Mr. COLLINS. It is self-evident. I don't think the man was lying. I must have known about it by the 8th or before, maybe. But I couldn't say the definite time because really an area manager in GSA is pretty well kept busy. I didn't attach any great importance to this thing at the time I was going out there. What happened afterward was very important. But at the time I was going out to make an inspection it didn't mean much. I didn't Mr. BROOKS. Didn't you really think it was sort of unusual that any Government agency would have had some work done, improving their office space, without having a positive approval as to who was going to pay for it, and then come tell you to come look at it? Didn't that sound a little unusual to you? Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I will tell you what Mr. BROOKS. Just candid frankness. Mr. COLLINS. Don't ask me for a "Yes" or "No" answer. I will tell you something. The Henges Co. had been the subcontractor for partitions for the prime owner, or the owner in this construction. After that they were also doing some work direct for Commodity Stabilization. At the time I saw these, believe it or not, I didn't know they were ours until after I had talked to Mr. Moran, and he told me about the difficulties they had. I believe I would try to help them again, if I possibly could, within limits, although I don't think I would "goof” all over the place next time as I did this time. Mr. BROOKS. As soon as you inspected it, then you had called Mr. Lund? Mr. COLLINS. That is right. Mr. BROOKS. And reported? Mr. COLLINS. Yes. Mr. BROOKS. So it might well have been prior to September 8-it must have been. It had to be then. Mr. COLLINS. Right. Mr. BROOKS. In that call of September 8 didn't you ask if Mr. Jay had authorized the work? . Mr. COLLINS. I asked Mr. Lund that, if he knew. And he said that he was quite sure that Mr. Jay had not approved the work. These are notes that, if you must, you can have a copy. I have, as you found out, a rare memory. Mr. BROOKS. The reporter is getting it. Your memory was pretty good when you wrote those notes. Mr. COLLINS. No, it wasn't, because I still have the 10th down here on the notes. You have disproved that, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BROOKS. How long have you known Mr. Jay? Mr. COLLINS. I have known him for, I would say, quite a long number of years. He is not that old, but quite a few years. I knew him when he was with the Post Office Department as the representative for bureau facilities, Kansas City, and at that time I was an engineer with D. & C. and the GSA, and we shot a little trouble together at different times in the area where it was needed. We worked in conjunction to help out each other and to get some work done. Mr. BROOKS. What date did you become area manager? Mr. COLLINS. I started signing papers on July 1, 1958, I believe it was. Mr. BROOKS. Could it have been 1957? Mr. COLLINS. No, it wasn't that far. They didn't have area managers then. It wasn't quite that far, I don't think. Mr. BROOKS. I have a couple of other items. Isn't it normal procedure when an agency requests GSA to order certain work for your office to handle it if it is below $2,000, or the design and construction division if it is in excess of $2,000? Mr. COLLINS. That is right, yes. Mr. BROOKS. You have the authority to negotiate on all items below $2,000. A job order is sent to you and you are supposed to make arrangement for getting it done, to go on and process it. Mr. COLLINS. If it is a reimbursable item, a job order is issued. Otherwise, we go right ahead on the basis of any other written memorandum approval where it is GSA money. It gives us the basis of what we shall charge against. Mr. BROOKS. Even though GSA should be reimbursed, by another agency for work that they have requested, isn't it the GSA's responsibility to handle it, to inspect it, to see that it is properly installed? Mr. COLLINS. Right. Definitely. Mr. BROOKS. And that value is received and so forth? Mr. COLLINS. Right. Mr. BROOKS. Even though you can negotiate on amounts less than $2,000, you are supposed to get informal competitive bids and make your award to the low man; is that correct? Mr. COLLINS. Yes. And in the area manager's office here we have always two or more competitve bids on anything over $100. We have made our own rules in that respect, to be sure we are safe. Mr. BROOKS. You just call around and if you don't know exactly what the going price is Mr. COLLINS. I can check with any number of construction outfits that wouldn't be party to this but would have good pricing. I can check on it and also watch our own trends on the matter. Mr. BROOKS. Don't you feel that it might be abusing the spirit of the law to purposely break a $3,000 job down into $1,400 and $1,600 jobs in order to avoid advertised competitive bidding so that you might very handily award the job by negotiation? Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, if that were done, it would be wrong. Mr. BROOKS. You think that would be a violation? Mr. COLLINS. I think definitely it would. Mr. BROOKS. Of the $2,000 limit? Mr. COLLINS. I would like to add to that, this: Where there are several different kinds of work involved, sometimes it is to the Government's advantage to do that, to separate the work here from this work here, and you can get a better price on the two. Mr. BROOKS. Such as? Partitions from partitions? Mr. COLLINS. Demolition, we will say, or masonry, or any of the mechanical trades where they come in on the thing. That as against general construction. You can find, if you can get within your limit, you can come up to the Government's advantage by maybe saving a substantial amount on that. By having two contracts rather than one, and you are still not grouping or cutting down one project. If they are located, separated within a building, we will say, and are different types, it wouldn't be considered as a consolidation unless 58364-60- 8 you wanted to throw into something that you wanted to give some job to a general contractor and pay the additional ads that will come in on that thing, which I found out in most cases run up to about 20 or 25 percent additional. Mr. BROOKS. Didn't you say that you explained the GSA procedure on such matters to Mr. Moran, of Commodity Stabilization, when you talked to him between September 1 and September 8 ? Mr. COLLINS. That is right. And I think I am quite sure he understood it. Mr. BROOKS. How do you account for the fact that the work represented by job order 60078 and 60079 exceeds the total of $3,000 and therefore partition work requested by the Commodity Stabilization Service, performed by the Henges Co., work was done after you received the request for the work, but prior to the issuance and approval of the job order? Will you explain why this work wasn't put out for competitive bids? This is two separate jobs, you see, called partitions and the second job, partitions, movable. Mr. COLLINS. Removable, removing, reinstalling. May I see the copy of the ones you have in mind? Mr. BROOKS. GSA has a copy of this letter. Mr. COLLINS. I have it right here, if I can identify it. I just wanted to know which it is. Mr. BROOKS. 60078 and 60079. They are issued pretty close together. Mr. COLLINS. 60079: Remove 600 square feet of ceiling-high partitions; repair walls and floor and reinstall partitions in new locations on the second floor of the building at 560 Westport Road. I have it for the total of $1,247, reimbursable job order. Mr. BROOKS. And the other? Mr. COLLINS. What was the number? Mr. BROOKS. 60078, the one just before that. Mr. COLLINS. What was the amount, please? Mr. BROOKS. $1,785. Mr. COLLINS. I have here-and this is definite, this will prove the point. This is the installation of 240 lineal feet of bank-type partitions on the second floor of 560 Westport Road. Mr. BROOKS. Is that the same building? Mr. COLLINS. It is the same building, and the second floor. Mr. COLLINS. Yes. This is a different type partition entirely. It is an enclosure partition of 5 feet 6 high, ordinarily bank type. The other, the original one that we talked about, was to remove ceiling-high partitions, repair the walls, and reinstall these same partitions in new locations on the second floor. In other words, to move them from here right over here, reinstall them and check in there. There were no new partitions on that thing at all. That was a thing of absolutely labor Mr. BROOKS. Where they took the old ones out? Mr. COLLINS. Labor, demolition, taking down, repairing, and reinstalling right over there. I didn't know that they could do the work. But they said very definitely their forces could do it. Mr. BROOKS. Their forces did the same work Mr. COLLINS. That is right. Mr. BROOKS. They all stayed on the second floor? Mr. COLLINS. On the same floor. The bank-type partitions were entirely new installations, were assembled and installed on that same floor. Mr. BROOKS. And you think that the people who put the new installations in under the $1,200 project were the same type mechanics who put the new installation in on the bank-type? Mr. COLLINS. I believe they must have been, although I would normally have used a cheaper grade of labor for demolition workMr. BROOKS. I didn't ask that question. Mr. COLLINS. After installing. Mr. BROOKS. All the installing was probably done by the same mechanics? Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I don't know exactly of my own knowledge. Mr. BROOKS. But probably so? Mr. COLLINS. Yes. The same company handled the contract. Mr. BROOKS. And used common labor to tear them out, possibly, if they weren't afraid they would tear it up too bad? Mr. COLLINS. They had to reinstall them and they were made responsible; if there was any damage in the demolition, or in the removal, it was up to them to see that that was taken care of. Mr. BROOKS. If the work done by the same people, by the same company, on the same floor, all on partitions, tear some out and put some in, you admit they would probably use the same personnel, same mechanics, artisans, craftsmen, men to put in both types of partitions that you are putting in; don't you think then that the same sort of job could have been on one order? Mr. COLLINS. It is possible that it could have. I wouldn't give you an argument on that because you are coming awful close here. But at the time I got the job and I got them at two different times Mr. BROOKS. 60078 and 60079? Mr. COLLINS. They reached our office at different times. Mr. BROOKS. How far apart would you say they reached your office, these requests, for work on the same floor of the same building, and had to be approved by the same manager of that Government agency? Mr. COLLINS. Approved the same day. They were completed the same day. Mr. BROOKS. It sure looks like they were timed pretty close together. Mr. COLLINS. They are, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BROOKS. Pretty close. Mr. COLLINS. They are. The same day. Mr. BROOKS. That is what I thought. Mr. COLLINS. And you know what? I"goofed" again. Mr. BROOKS. You don't make a habit of this, do you? Mr. COLLINS. Ordinarily, that is the funny part of it. I think I have had a lot of years as an engineer. I didn't know I could "goof" so much, but I was making up for a long time. That isn't facetious. Mr. BROOKS. That is sort of risky to keep doing that, unless management approves of that, that you work for. Mr. COLLINS. I don't think they approve. And really I would normally consider those two, though, to start with, as different type work to be considered. Mr. BROOKS. You don't think you "goofed," to quote you? Mr. COLLINS. Oh, no; no. But I have to protect what little respect I have from my own professional status on this, after all. Mr. BROOKS. We don't want to affect your professional status. Mr. COLLINS. I want to leave at least a question mark, at least. Let's don't condemn. Mr. BROOKS. I would like to point out that they look pretty close. And it looks to me like and I am inclined to think that you would agree that if we follow as a policy in region 6 the lumping together of projects, whether by intention or not, if we lump together projects so they are under the $2,000 limit, we will be negotiating an awful lot of contracts and thereby depriving the free competitive bidding that is the law of the land and the law under which the GSA is theoretically supposed to be operating, not just in Washington but in region 6. It can be a very entertaining thing when the two are close, and the same people do it and it is the same kind of work. But as a matter of policy it can set a precedent that can be quite dangerous, I think, to the American system that we have tried to follow through GSA policies. I don't like to be unreasonable about it, and I don't think Congress wants to be. But you can see readily that while it is humorous to say that you made a little error again, if we keep making those little errors they are going to get to be big errors. And the next thing you know we will break a nice big fat $50,000 one into 25 little ones, and just schedule them and pay them off every month, and you can keep the same men on the job and just work year round. I think that it is a bad policy. I think it is one that maybe you made an error in. Everybody makes errors. But I would think that the management here would want to remedy that instead of condoning it. Mr. COLLINS. I don't think anybody condoned it, Mr. Chairman. I would like to call Mr. Dee Patterson. Would you raise your right hand? Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give this subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. PATTERSON. I do. TESTIMONY OF DEE A. PATTERSON, CHIEF, OPERATIONS BRANCH, BUILDING MANAGEMENT DIVISION, PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, REGION 6, KANSAS CITY, MO. Mr. BROOKS. Will you be seated and give us your name and your position? Mr. PATTERSON. My name is Dee A. Patterson. I am chief of the operations branch, building management division. |