« PreviousContinue »
How much money did you pay Food Machinery altogether on this? Mr. MULLINS. The total, we paid $93,260.
Mr. Hardy. That included a drive line business which we have just been talking about, plus a design study!
Mr. MULLINS. That is right, a design study plus what work they had done to the time we closed it out on the electric drive line.
Mr. HARDY. Then this $116,705 figure we have is a wrong figure.
Mr. MULLINS. It is for the overall study plus the design of the electric drive line.
Mr. HARDY. But that finally didn't come up to about $95,000.
Mr. New. The original contract price was set at this figure you have before you, $116,000. That called for two items of work, as just explained, one for the overall study, one for the electric drive system. When the first study was made, the 4-month study, it was determined that the mechanical drive should be adopted, so all work was ordered stopped on the electric drive. Therefore the original amount of the contract was reduced from the $116,000 to the figure just quoted, $93,000, which is the total amount paid or to be paid to Food Machinery.
Mr. Hardy. In other words, you amended their contract and stopped what they were doing on the electric drive line?
Mr. New. Yes, sir. And had they recommended the electric drive, we probably would have gone on through with the contract, but they said "We think the mechanical drive is better," so we stopped work on the electric drive.
Mr. Hardy. And so instead of $116,000 you had $90-some thousand that you actually paid them?
Mr. New. Yes, sir.
Mr. New. It is not incorrect, sir, for the contract as a whole. The contract was a combination; it covered two items.
Mr. Hardy. It was amended. Mr. SANDWEG. It was my assumption that the figures in here were what was paid.
Mr. MULLINS. No, that is the original figures on the contract.
Mr. Hardy. Now did they also carry a recommendation that the contract for the production of this vehicle be negotiated with Food Machinery?
Mr. MULLINS. No, Sir.
Mr. SANDWEG. Have either of these companies ever built assault ferries before? Has anyone built them, of the nature you are speaking of here?
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. 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
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.)
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 16, 1961
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES,
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:)
NATIONAL Soci TY OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS,
Washington, D.C., August 11, 1961. Hon. F. EDWARD HÉBERT, 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 engineers 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:)
CONSULTING ENGINEERS COUNCIL,
Springfield, IU., August 15, 1961. Hon. F. EDWARD HÉBERT, Chairman, Subcommittee for Special Investigations, Committee on Armed Serv
ices, 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