Mr. KREGER. Right. Mr. WRIGHT. And in 1971 by the Senate? Mr. KREGER. That is right. Mr. WRIGHT. The Post Office has withdrawn from the project, is that right? Mr. KREGER. That is right. Mr. WRIGHT. You were saying that you do not know whether or not this project is going to be built? Mr. KREGER. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. This project was 61 percent space required by the Post Office, so obviously it would have to have careful study before we could know whether or not we could go ahead with a much smaller building. Mr. WRIGHT. In any event, if you were to come forward with a much smaller building, it would be necessary for you to submit another prospectus; is that right? Mr. KREGER. Yes, sir. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, not another prospectus, but a prospectus, since this project resulted from 11 (b) report. Mr. CONSTANDY. Could we go to the material in your folder, which you have prepared on each of the projects? I think you have before you the schedule that we have prepared. I have to say that the schedule has some difference in figures from your own material. I assume that that comes about as a result of the difference in time that the material was submitted to us for the purpose of preparation of the schedule and your later work on preparing these other documents. Mr. KREGER. I can only hope that your assumption is correct. Mr. CONSTANDY. We will include in the record the material from your latest report, OK? Mr. KREGER. Thank you. Mr. CONSTANDY. If we begin with Athens, I think in each case the significant thing in your remarks is the bottom of it. Perhaps we could quickly go through these and get an idea of what GSA proposes to do. Mr. KREGER. All right. Athens is a building, proposed building of 98,000 square feet, 83,000 square feet of net usable space, 56 percent of which was for the Post Office Department. The design was completed in 1967. The Post Office withdrew in 1970. We propose to reduce the project and send a revised prospectus up to the Congress. This is in the process of being developed right now. Mr. CONSTANDY. Your expectancy there is to go ahead with a small project? Mr. KREGER. Yes, sir. POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, Mr. ARTHUR F. SAMPSON, DEAR MR. SAMPSON: After careful consideration, the Postal Service has decided to withdraw from the proposed Athens, Georgia, project. The prospectus for this project was approved in 1964 and apparently a construction award date for this project is not yet certain. In the meantime, our need for space at Athens has become more urgent and our mail handling concepts have changed. It now appears that we can meet our space needs in Athens by the acquisition of an existing building appropriately located to serve as a mail processing facility. This of course results in satisfying our space needs much more rapidly than would be true if we awaited the construction of a Federal building. And of course the cost of space in an existing building is much less than the cost of comparable space in a new Federal structure. These are the reasons for our decision. If you have any questions, I will be more than glad to meet with you and discuss the matter further. Sincerely, (Signed) HENRY LEHNE, Assistant Postmaster General. ATHENS, GA., POST OFFICE AND FEDERAL OFFICE BUILDING Prospectus approved: Senate-4/30/64, House-4/14/64. Site: Size and Location: 235,006 Sq. Ft.; bounded on the north by Dougherty and Strong Streets, on the south by Hancock Avenue, on the east by Thomas Street; the site is located within the city's College Avenue Urban Renewal Project. Status of Acquisition: Completed 1/4/68. Building area: Gross-98,000 Sq. Ft. Net-83,200 Sq. Ft. 56% of space for Postal use. Status of design: Completed 9/25/67. Date of postal withdrawal: 10/28/70. Remarks: Reduced project and revised prospectus contemplated; scope and cost now being developed. Mr. CONSTANDY. We might move on to Honolulu. Mr. KREGER. Honolulu: A building of 629,000 net usable square feet of space, 29 percent of space was for the Post Office Department. The design was completed in 1969. A contract for revised design is now being negotiated. The Post Office withdrew in October of 1969. In fiscal year 1972 we propose to go ahead to ask for funds for the revised design. A postal station will be provided in the building, a small postal station. The revised prospectus has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget. As soon as we receive approval from them, it will go to the Congress. Mr. CONSTANDY. That went to them on May 11, 1971? HONOLULU, HAWAII, COURTHOUSE AND FEDERAL OFFICE BUILDING Prospectus approved: Senate 4/29/60. House-5/17/60. Site: Size and Location 347,281 square feet; Halekauwila Street on East, Kakaako Street on South, Alamoana on West, State owned parcel on North. Status of Acquisition Completed 5/23/69. Building area: Gross 869,000 square feet Net 629,000 square feet. 29% of space for postal space. Status of design: Original design completed 4/9/69; A/E contract for revised design being negotiated. Date of Postal withdrawal: 10/17/69. Remarks: Revised design to be undertaken with FY 1972 funds; postal station only to be provided in revised design. Revised prospectus submitted to OMB on 5/11/71. Mr. GROVER. May I ask a question? That prospectus was approved by the House and the Senate in 1960, and the scheduled design completion was for April 1969. Is there any logical explanation why it took 9 years to complete the design? Mr. KREGER. It did not take 9 years to complete the design. The problem we had with Honolulu is the same problem we had with many of our buildings. Funds are appropriated, but before we get to the construction stage, a couple of years have passed, and with the 10 to 12 percent escalation in building costs every year, we have to go back to Congress and request more funds, and in some cases request approval of a revised prospectus. This was the holdup on the Honolulu building. It was not that it took the architect 9 years to design the building. Mr. GROVER. So it was a funding problem. I did not think that it would take an engineer that long to design a building, but I guess that is what brings your average up to 512 years. Mr. CONSTANDY. If we could then take New Bedford, Mass. Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, before we leave that, might I ask a question whether in connection with the Honolulu project there is to be a redesign of the space utilization in which 29 percent was the post office, or is there an overall redesign of the entire project? Mr. KREGER. Partial redesign of the entire project. Mr. TERRY. In effect you are scrapping the design which included the post office, exterior, interior? Mr. KREGER. We are just redesigning that portion of the building representing the 29 percent of the space that the post office had originally intended to go into. Mr. WRIGHT. You were saying you will construct a building in Honolulu? Mr. KREGER. Yes, sir. Mr. WRIGHT. Would it be necessary for you to come back with another prospectus to the Congress? Mr. KREGER. Yes, sir; that is in the process now. It is at the Office of Management and Budget, and we will come to the Congress as soon as it is approved there. Mr. WRIGHT. My understanding is that the Post Office Department does intend there to construct its own facility? Mr. KREGER. That is my understanding, also. Mr. WRIGHT. So we do wind up with a situation that you sought to avoid that of two Federal buildings to be constructed in the same locality where one had been planned as sufficient? Mr. KREGER. We will end up with two buildings, but with this larger percentage of space it may be the most economic thing with the post office needing that amount of space, and chances are and I am only guessing now-their space needs have increased since the prospectus was first approved. Mr. WRIGHT. How about other Federal agency needs? Have they increased? Mr. KREGER. If they have not, it is the only place in the country that they have not. I am sure they have. Mr. WRIGHT. Well, that is true in your case, then, is it not? Mr. KREGER. It is true in a great many cases, yes, sir, and especially in the 10-year span with this prospectus approved in 1960. Mr. WRIGHT. Why was it so long after the approval of the prospectus by the House and Senate before any building was started? Were you unable to get funding through the appropriations process? Mr. KREGER. We were unable to get funding on several occasions. But each time we got the funding, before we could get into construction, the escalation had taken the project up above the funds available, and we had to go back and ask for additional funds. Mr. WRIGHT. Escalation-you mean the needs of the Government, or do you mean the inflationary impact of the building? Mr. KREGER. The inflationary costs in the building industry. Mr. CONSTANDY. If we could go then to New Bedford, Mass. Mr. ARTHUR F. SAMPSON, Washington, D.C. POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, BUREAU OF FACILITIES, Washington, D.C., November 5, 1970. DEAR MR. SAMPSON: Thank you for the letter from Acting Commissioner Sanders asking whether the Postal Service will continue to participate in the proposed public building project for New Bedford, Massachusetts. Over the last several months the Postal Service has conducted an intensive review of our small handling plans for the Boston-Providence area. As a result, we have decided to adopt new mail handling concepts which make the acquisition of additional space in a new building in New Bedford unnecessary. Accordingly a decision has been made to withdraw from that project. I realize that this decision may cause some difficulties for your Agency and, for this reason, I would be glad to discuss it with you, at your convenience, if you desire to do so. Sincerely, (Signed) Henry Lehne, Assistant Postmaster General. Site New Bedford, Mass., Post Office and Federal Office Building Prospectus approved: Senate, May 9, 1968; House, May 9, 1968. Funds appropriated: Site Total__. Design.. Total.. Site: Size 200,000 Sq. Ft. (estimated). 0 0 Status of acquisition: Site investigation made August 1970 but no selection made due to Post Office withdrawal. Building area: Gross-162,900 Sq. Ft. Net-134,800 Sq. Ft. 57% of space for postal use. Status of design : Design not started; funds not available. Remarks: Reduced project and revised prospectus contemplated. Scope and cost now being developed. Mr. KREGER. New Bedford is a building proposed at 162,900 square feet, with 134,800 net assignable square feet. Fifty-seven percent of the space in that building was proposed for the Post Office Department, the design is not yet started, because the funds were not avail able. The post office withdrew in late 1970. We propose a reduced project with a revised prospectus to be presented some time in the future. The prospectus is now being developed. Mr. CONSTANDY. All right. Manchester, N. H. Mr. KREGER. Manchester, N.H., was proposed at 243,000 gross square feet and 223,800 net square feet. Again 52 percent of the space was for the post office use. The design was stopped in 1970 after an expenditure of $73,000. The post office withdrew in April 1970. We propose a reduced project with a revised prospectus which is now being developed. POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, BUREAU OF FACILITIES, Washington, D.C., April 29, 1970. MR. ARTHUR F. SAMPSON, DEAR MR. SAMPSON: This will confirm the understanding reached at our meeting of April 22, 1970, about continued Post Office Department participation in your Manchester, New Hampshire, project. It is my understanding, as a result of our conference, that this building has such a low priority with your Agency that you no longer wish to delay the |