B. Metropolitan areas with exceptions C. & D. (urban). C. Aberdeen, Everett, Olympia, Seattle, Wash.; New Hampshire; Houston, Tex; New Orleans, La.; Pittsburgh, Pa.; Mass. except in D; Detroit, Ann Arbor, Mich.; Vermont; Akron, Ohio; Trenton, N.J.; San Francisco, Los Angeles, Calif.; Delaware; Hawaii; New York except D; Portland, Oreg.; Augusta, Portland, Presque Isle, Maine; Puerto Rico except D. D. Chicago, Ill.; Alaska; Phoenix, Ariz.; Denver, Colo.; Connecticut; Boston, Cambridge, New Bedford, Springfield, Worcester, Mass.; Newark, N.J.; Brooklyn, Queens, Manhattan, White Plains, N.Y.; Philadelphia, Pa.; San Juan, P.R.; Providence, R.I.; Virgin Islands. (d) GSA will reimburse the Postal Service for space in Postal Service buildings occupied by GSA, other Federal agencies, or Members of Congress, and the Postal Service will reimburse GSA for space in GSA-controlled buildings occupied by the Postal Service, in accordance with the schedule of rates as shown in Table 1. These rates are subject to adjustment by mutual agreement and will be reviewed jointly in February of each year. A survey shall be jointly conducted within 6 months of the date of this agreement to determine the allocation of space occupied and reach agreements as to the type, quantity and quality of that space. There will be a net reimbursement of funds on or about July 1 of each year. (e) Tenants occupying space in Postal Service buildings will be instructed to place their request for repairs, improvements, or alterations with GSA. GSA will refer any such request for repairs and improvements, or alternations to the Postal Service for approval. Requests for repairs, improvements, or alterations in USPS occupied space in GSA operated buildings will be referred to GSA for approval. The agency operating and maintaining the building either GSA or the Postal Service will handle complaints and requests relating to building operation or maintenance. 12. Disposal of Excess and Surplus Real Property (a) The Postal Service or its agent will notify GSA of the availability of real properties which the Postal Service has determined are excess to its needs, and will notify GSA of its needs for real properties, giving the land area needed, the preferred location and suitable alternate locations, and the type of property needed. (b) Within 30 days from the date of notice of availability of excess Postal Service property, or within such additional period as is agreed to, and if there is a Federal need for the property, GSA will arrange for the transfer of such property to a Federal agency for an amount equal to the fair market value of the property, as agreed to by GSA and the Postal Service, and will pay to the Postal Service the proceeds of such transfer minus the cost of any appraisal obtained by GSA. (c) If, within 30 days from the date of notice of availability of excess Postal Service property, or within such additional periods as is agreed to, GSA does not arrange for the transfer of such property to a Federal agency, the Postal Service may dispose of the property, or it may designate GSA to dispose of the property. If the Postal Service designates GSA as the disposal agency and GSA agrees to such designation, it will promptly dispose of the property at not less than its agreed fair market value, to a public agency or other interested organization or person, and shall pay to the Postal Service the proceeds of the disposal minus the reasonable expenses incurred by GSA to accomplish the disposition. (d) Promptly after receiving notice of a Postal Service need for real property, GSA will review its records of property believed or known to be considered excess by holding agencies, its inventory of excess property, and its inventory of surplus property, not already commited to a disposal action, and will inform the Postal Service whether property suitable for the needs of the Postal Service is or will become available. In addition, GSA will submit to the Postal Service any notices of availability of Federal real property which it submits to other Federal agencies, If the Postal Service notifies GSA within 30 days from the date of receipt of notice of availability of real property that a tentative requirement exists, and within an additional 30 days that a firm requirement exists, and requests transfer of the property (utilizing GSA Form 1334, if required). GSA shall transfer the property to the Postal Service for an amount equal to the fair market value of the property, securing the concurrence of the Office of Management and Budget, if necessary. (c) In keeping with the above provisions, exchanges of real properties shall be arranged by GSA and the Postal Service, to be accompanied by reimbursement, or not, as may be agreed, whenever such an exchange shall be determined to be in the public interest. (f) The provisions of this Section 12 shall not apply to the properties covered by Sections 13 and 14 below. 13. Joint GSA-POD Projects (a) Any or all of the following joint-project Federal buildings scheduled for construction will be constructed by GSA with existing and requested appropriations and may, if the Postal Service agrees, be transferred to the Postal Service under 39 U.S.C. 2002d, upon completion, with or without reimbursement : Houma, Louisiana Mansfield, Ohio Midland, Texas West Palm Beach, Florida Keene, New Hampshire (b) Each of the remaining joint GSA-POD projects which has been approved by the Committees on Public Works of the Congress but for which funds have not been appropriated shall be subject to review and determination as to whether it shall be constructed as a joint project, constructed unilaterally by either agency, or discontinued. 14. Any or all of the following sites may, if the Postal Service agrees, subject to the approval of the Presdient, be transferred to the Postal Service under 39 U.S.C. 2002d with or without reimbursement : San Diego, CA-Northwest corner of Barnett Avenue at Midway Van Nuys, CA Area bounded by Sherman Way, Wyandotte Street, Bronx, NY-A city block bounded by Fordham Road, Washington Akron, OH-Area bounded by Wolf Ledge, Thornton, Grant and Voris San Antonio, TX-Area bounded by South Flores, Sheridan, South For the Postal Service: HAROLD F. FAUGHT, Senior Assistant Postmaster General, Mail Processing Group. LOUIS A. Cox. Acting Assistant Postmaster General, For the General Services Administration: A. F. SAMPSON, Deputy Administrator for Special Projects, GSA. JULY 1, 1971. JULY 23, 1971. Hon. WINTON M. BLOUNT, Postmaster General of the United States, U.S. Postal Service, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. BLOUNT: As you know, this subcommittee has been holding hearings since July 13 on the Impact of the Postal Building Program on Federal Agencies. During the course of these hearings there has been testimony which relates to the USPS (Post Office Department) and actions which you have taken in its behalf. With the foreknowledge that these matters would be inquired into, I instructed my staff to contact your office and convey to you the fact that the subcommittee was desirous of your presence for purposes of testimony in order that the record might be developed in fuil. I understand that on June 28 a representative of your office was advised that the most efficacious date for your appearance would be either July 15 or July 22, and that on July 6 he was informed the date had been firmly set for July 22 at 10:00 a.m. Subsequently I was told that your office advised my staff on July 15 that you would be unable to appear on the 22nd due to a speaking engagement you had accepted for that date in California, and that you had proposed instead that we have testimony from certain of your representatives. While I appreciate your offer, their appearance without you was not satisfactory to the needs of the subcommittee and your office was so informed. We were agreeable to adjust the format of our hearing to accommodate you on either July 20 or 21 and so advised your office. When my staff was told that you could not attend on either of those two dates, we made inquiry as to your availability during the week of July 26 and have had no definitive answer to date. We have received your invitation to have breakfast with you in your office where a few members might discuss these matters with you informally. We appreciate your proffered hospitality and I shall be happy to join you for breakfast on Tuesday. However, an informal off-the-record "briefing" would not satisfy the purposes of the subcommittee. In view of the literally hundreds of millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money which is directly involved in these transactions, we feel very strongly that such information as the subcommittee develops must be divulged in open hearings for the public record. It is my considered opinion, and I believe that opinion is shared by other members of the subcommittee, that the testimony we have received thus far has been significant and conclusive on the major points covered. It would be helpful, of course, to have your confirmation and further elucidation on certain details since apparently you personally managed and directed most of the negotiations with which our inquiry is involved. My purpose in addressing this letter to you at this time is to make the record clear that we have attempted to accommodate your very busy schedule and to offer you the opportunity to appear and clarify any matter which you felt necessitated it. In the absence of a request by you to appear before the subcommittee at some mutually agreeable date next week, we will consider that you have no objections to our closing the transcript and having it printed. As you are undoubtedly aware, Congress will be in recess during most of the month of August. It may be that, following our resumption in September, the membership of the subcommittee may elect to resume hearings and that your presence may be required at that time. Very best wishes. JIM WRIGHT, Chairman, Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight. THE POSTMASTER GENERAL, on Hon. JIM WRIGHT, Chairman, Subcommittee on Investigation and Oversight, Committee Public Works, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter of July 23 regarding the hearings that your Subcommittee has been holding on the impact of the postal building program on Federal agencies. I appreciate your thoughtfulness in writing, and I would like to express my acknowledgement and thanks, both for your offer to let me testify before the transcript is closed and for your effort to accommodate my schedule in this regard. As you know, the Postal Service has been involved in critically important collective bargaining negotiations that have occupied a major portion of my time during the course of your hearings. After marathon negotiating sessions, we finally reached an agreement that was signed at 4:30 p.m. Tuesday, July 20, and I was thus enabled to keep a commitment in California that I had been hoping to be able to honor, and that required me to leave Washington the next day. Since my return, I have been very much involved in monitoring employee reaction to the contract in New York City, and in view of the uncertainty of the situation there, I think it best to avoid commitments during the next several days. Our labor agreement, furthermore, leaves a number of items open for further negotiations, and bargaining over these matters will begin August 16, 1971. In the interim, I shall be deeply involved in work relating to the implementation of the new agreement and preparations for the next round of negotiations. Our top field managers will be meeting with me this week on these and other subjects, and the demands on my time are such that I honestly do not believe I could make a significant contribution to your hearings at this time. I regret that the Subcommittee did not hear the testimony of Mr. H. F. Faught, Senior Assistant Postmaster General for Mail Processing, whom I had designated as my spokesman for your hearings. His testimony was ready for delivery to your Subcommittee July 20. If you should like to have his statement, I will be glad to make it available. It is my understanding that representatives of the Corps of Engineers, the General Services Administration, the General Accounting Office and the Office of Management and Budget have all testified before your Subcommittee, as have several officials of the Postal Service. I am sure that the testimony of these witnesses has been significant, and I am not aware of any major addition that I could make to the Subcommittee's understanding of the impact of our postal building program on other Government agencies. Regarding my involvement in the negotiation of the Corps of Engineers agreement, I also understand that the Subcommittee has entered into the hearing record the text of my letter of April 2, 1971 to Mr. George P. Schultz, Director of the Office of Management and Budget. This letter to Mr. Schultz contains a full report on the Corps of Engineers negotiations, and I will be happy to stand on it. An additional copy is enclosed for ready reference. In addition, your staff presented mine with some 59 written questions. My staff has drafted answers to these questions, and they are enclosed herewith, with the exception of three answers, containing voluminous technical material, which were delivered to your staff earlier. Sincerely, WINTON M. BLOUNT. QUESTIONS FROM THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS AND OVERSIGHTANSWERS FROM THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE ITEM NO. 4 Question. Recap of the postal building funding since 1966, to include POD requests to the Bureau of the Budget or OMB, the amounts authorized and appropriated by Congress, and the amount obligated by POD for each year. Answer. Under Section 15 of the Public Buildings Act of 1959, 73 Statute 479, as amended, the Administrator, General Services Administration, on December 1, 1966, delegated to the Postmaster General, the authority to acquire sites, design, and construct postal facilities required for postal purposes. In general, these facilities were the larger type which could not be appropriately provided in multi-tenant buildings constructed by GSA. The original delegation included fourteen projects previously approved by the Congress. The initial site and design funds for Akron, Ohio, Van Nuys, California, and San Antonio, Texas, were included in GSA's FY-1967 appropriation. Site and design funds for the remaining eleven projects were included in our initial Postal Public Buildings Budget submission for FY 1968, together with construction funds for Saint Louis, Missouri, and for the substructure for Morgan Station in New York. Starting in FY 1968 the Department was responsible for carrying out each project in its entirety, including site selection, and acquisition, design supervision of A-E contracts, construction contracting, and supervision. ATTACHMENT TO ITEM NO. 4 RÉSUMÉ OF POSTAL PUBLIC BUILDINGS APPROPRIATION, FISCAL YEARS 1968-71 Question. What are USPS overhead costs in the postal building program, i.e., supervision of design, construction, mechanization, administration, and support costs? This should include the actual total overhead rate for any project completed and the rate budgeted for on a program basis for the others. Answer. Postal building program overhead costs fell within the following approximate ranges: 1. 1.5 to 2.5%-design supervision and contract support. 2. 1.7 to 2.3%-construction and mechanization supervision costs and warranty inspections. 3..5 to 1.0%-administrative and support costs. 3.7 to 5.8%-total overhead costs. These percentages for overhead costs reflect, in general, actual experience on completed projects. It should be noted that the USPS did not perform on-site construction supervision with postal employees. The cost of A/E supervision as used by USPS would add another 1.25 to 1.5% to the total overhead costs. The Corps of Engineers performs on-site supervision with C.O.E. personnel. Question. POD land acquisition overhead costs with a separation of cost experience for site selection and acquisition on an average or some other perparcel basis. This would relate again to the Post Office "Public Building Program." Answer. The cost to select and control varies substantially as the environment and size fluctuated; however, on an average the cost to affect site selection is approximately $2,000 while the average cost of controlling the site including prerequisite data essential to site utilization planning is approximately $22,700 per site. |