DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY Fiscal 1964 military construction program PROGRAM V-NAVAL RESERVE FORCES AUTHORIZATION Alvin Callender Field (NAS New Orleans), La.: Storage, ammo AD, GAR-11.. Communications training facility, 12,500 square feet 2_. 176 73 249 Berry Field, Nashville, Tenn.: Maintenance dock, medium A/C, 1 each. Runway-taxiway extension, 1,000 feet.. 576 Group O. & T. building, 18,600 square feet.. 278 854 Capitol Airport, Springfield, Ill.: Taxiway extensions, 2, at 1,000 feet.. Fort Smith Municipal Airport, Ark.: Apron, operational, 28,000 square yards. Grenier Field, Manchester, N.H.: Apron, operational (strengthen and extend). Kelly AFB, Tex.: Security sentry house (GAR-11 complex).. Lambert Field, St. Louis, Mo.: Apron, operational, 14,500 square yards. O'Hare International Airport, Chicago, Ill.: Taxiway, apron access, 5,400 square yards.. 99 99 Olmsted AFB, Pa.: Maintenance dock, medium A/C, 1 each. 330 330 Portland International Airport, Oreg.: Group O. & T. building, 18,600 square feet.. Theodore Francis Green Airport, R.I.: Operations and training building, 20,000 square feet.. Toledo Express Airport, Ohio: Group O. & T. building, 18,600 square feet.. 1 Quantity and estimated cost reduced as a result of analysis of space requirement. 3 Comparative analysis of functional space to be submitted prior to 10 U.S.C. 2233a (1) notification to Congress. 3 Revised estimated cost submitted by Air Force. 162 630 15, 654 AIR FORCE RESERVE Fiscal year 1964 military construction program Location and project: 1. Hamilton Air Force Base, Calif.: (a) Hangar Res. Forces, 64,000 square feet.. 2. Homestead Air Force Base, Fla.__ (a) Apron operational, 82,600 square feet__. Amount (in thousands of dollars) 900 1, 530 950 (b) Wing A and T Building, 18,600 square feet...-- 580 3. March Air Force Base, Calif.: (a) Maintenance dock, large, 1 each. 4. McClellan Air Force Base, Calif.: (a) Hangar addition (2) lump 400 sum.. 450 5. Portland IAP, Oreg.: (a) Maintenance dock, large, 1 each. 500 893 230 438 225 4, 673 6. Richards-Gebaur, Mo.. (a) Hangar addition w/o leanto, lump sum (b) Maintenance dock, large, w/leanto, 1 each. Total Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Saltonstall? Senator SALTONSTALL. I would like to ask why do you need any amendment to section 2233a? Why isn't the present law satisfactory? As I read the present law, no expenditure or contribution over $50,000 may be made under section 2233. I am omitting a portion, for any facility that has not been authorized by law authorizing appropriations for specific facilities for reserve forces. This requirement does not apply to (a) facilities acquired by lease, and (b) facilities acquired, constructed, and so forth, to restore or replace facilities damaged or destroyed where the Senate and the House of Representatives have been notified of that action. That includes a lease. Why isn't that satisfactory in Rochester and Troy? Mr. DEININGER. Senator, the change that we are proposing here is not in section 2233a, it is in section 2233 (b), which in itself says that anything built under that authority you have just mentioned, title has to be vested in the Federal Government. And obviously, if you do anything on leased property within leased facilities this cannot be. We are just trying to make the 2233(b) consistent with the authority that is given above. Senator SALTONSTALL. This runs over $50,000. Mr. DEININGER. It does run more than $50,000, at both of these locations. Senator SALTONSTALL. How much? Mr. DEININGER. At Rochester it is $100,000 and at Troy $200,000. Senator SALTONSTALL. Is that why you want this change in the law because these two really run into too much money? Mr. DEININGER. Well, yes, and also, sir, for those under $50,000, I believe there is still inconsistency in 2233 (b), and this is what we are trying to get cleared up. Chairman RUSSELL. A couple of years ago we authorized a field maintenance shop for the Army National Guard at Point Pleasant, W. Va., in the sum of $340,000. I understand that the lowest bid made for this project exceeded the authorization by $84,000. How do you account for that much overrun on a project of that size? It looks as if somebody made a terrible miscalculation, 25 to 30 percent. Mr. DEININGER. Mr. Chairman, that would appear to be the case. These estimates are made out in the State, and this estimate was made originally quite a few years ago, so it is possible a big part of this overrun, so-called, would be due to faulty estimating. We have inquired into this project. We find there hasn't been any increase in the actual physical scope of the project as it was originally authorized and we are prepared to accept the facts of life here that this is a genuine case of unexpected high cost. Chairman RUSSELL. Haven't we been constructing other field maintenance shops for $340,000 and less? Mr. DEININGER. As far as the unit cost, the square-foot cost on these, this job is not out of line with experience. Chairman RUSSELL. It is just a larger depot, more square feet. Mr. DEININGER. Yes, sir; every one of these is tailored to the size of the National Guard organization within the respective State. I don't believe there are any two of them really that are typical. Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Byrd has come in since I asked a ques tion. Does Point Pleasant have an unusually large National Guard organization? General Wilson, do you know anything about this? STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. WINSTON P. WILSON, CHIEF, NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU General WILSON. Yes, sir; I am quite familiar with the Point Pleasant maintenance shop. That, sir, was authorized and was held up for a period of time based on site location. The size of it is about the same as it has been. It is the only maintenance shop in the State, consolidated maintenance shop, it is a rather large one. Prices have been increased during the years, and we feel the square footage of the present base, as Mr. Deininger said, is now about what we would normally pay in other places, sir. Chairman RUSSELL. So you recommend this increase in the authorization? General WILSON. Yes, sir; I recommend the increase. Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Byrd, do you have any question? I think we have covered this but you, of course, are at liberty to go ahead with it. Senator BYRD of West Virginia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your calling on me. I will insert in the record, if I may, a memorandum on this item. Chairman RUSSELL. It would be very gratefully received if you would. (The memorandum referred to follows:) RÉSUMÉ OF PLANNING FOR THE COMBINED FIELD MAINTENANCE SHOP, (Dated at Beckley, W. Va., this 18th day of July 1963) (1) The combined field maintenance shop, Point Pleasant, W. Va., was authorized by Public Law 87-57 (fiscal year 1962), and, thereafter, $340,000 was appropriated for this project. (2) The construction of this project in fiscal year 1962 was deferred by the National Guard Bureau, due to nonconcurrence in the proposed location. The National Guard Bureau preferred the location to be at Buckhannon, W. Va., and, the adjutant general of the State of West Virginia preferred that the location of the existing combined field maintenance shop be retained and the new construction be at a site in Point Pleasant, W. Va. (3) On August 28, 1962, a meeting was arranged by Senator Robert C. Byrd at his office in Washington, attended by Brig. Gen. Gene H. Williams, the adjutant general of the State of West Virginia, and Maj. Gen. D. W. McGowan, Chief, National Guard Bureau, to discuss the proposed location of this project. (4) On October 22, 1962, the State of West Virginia submitted a study to the National Guard Bureau supporting the State's proposed location for the combined field maintenance shop at Point Pleasant, W. Va. (5) The National Guard Bureau concurred in the Point Pleasant location and authorized the State of West Virginia to proceed with the project. (6) On November 28, 1962, the architect-engineer contract with William R. Frampton, a Huntington architect, was approved by the National Guard Bureau. (7) On February 14, 1963, preliminary plans prepared by the architect were approved by the National Guard Bureau. (8) On March 7, 1963, an estimated cost breakdown for the combined field maintenance shop, along with intermediate plans, was submitted to the National Guard Bureau for approval. The Department of Defense effected a 5-percent cut of the appropriation on this proposed construction, as well as all proposed construction, and the funding limitation, therefore, amounted to $323,000. (9) On March 12, 1963, revised intermediate plans and outlined specifications were approved by the National Guard Bureau and the State of West Virginia was authorized to proceed with preparation of final plans, specifications, and bidding documents. (10) On April 17, 1963, final plans and specifications were approved by the National Guard Bureau and the State of West Virginia was authorized to solicit bids for this project. (11) On May 23, 1963, bids were received in Charleston, W. Va., under separate trades contracts, for general contractor, electrical contractor, plumbing contractor, heating contrator, and accessories. The total amount of the low bid for each trade amounted to $438,910, and since the low bid exceeded the project authorization of $340,000 (after cut $323,000), all bids were rejected by the National Guard Bureau. (12) On May 29, 1963, the State of West Virginia was advised by the National Guard Bureau that the project should be rebid, after some revisions and/or modifications of the plans. These revisions did not decrease the scope of the project, but it was estimated that the cost of the project would be reduced thereby. (13) On June 7, 1963, the architect for the project submitted to the undersigned Armory Program Coordinator his estimate of savings by this revision. (14) On June 17, 1963, the State of West Virginia submitted revised drawings and specifications to the National Guard Bureau for approval. (15) On June 25, 1963, bids were received by the State of West Virginia, at Charleston, W. Va., and were taken in the form of one-trades contract, and the low bid at this time amounted to $424.176. thereby exceeding the maximum funding limitations. Prior to this rebidding for the project, the National Guard Bureau had secured permission from Department of Defense to restore the 5-percent cut in the appropriation, thereby restoring this figure to $340,000. In |