[The justification materials follow:] SUPREME COURT, CARE OF THE BUILDING AND GROUNDS Supplemental estimate, fiscal year 1975 This supplemental estimate is made up of 2 items-one, $93,500, as an additional amount to complete the remodeling of the cafeteria; and the other, $165,000 to convert space on the ground floor, formerly used as a storage vault, into offices for the use of Court personnel. These items are explained, as follows: Remodeling of the cafeteria-additional amount required____ An appropriation of $377,000 was provided by Congress in the Supplemental Appropriation Act, 1974, on a "No Year" basis, for remodeling the cafeteria in the Supreme Court Building. Up to August 2, 1974, obligations and expenditures, totaling $308,965, were incurred, of which $142,225 was for day labor for structural, mechanical, and electrical work, $51,226 for electrical, mechanical, and structural supplies and materials, and $115,514 for cafeteria and carry-out food service equipment; leaving an available balance on that date of $68,035. In order to complete the remodeling work, it is necessary to request an additional $93,500, due to the following circumstances: Items necessitating request for additional funds Overtime work, at premium pay rates, required during the period July 1 Unknown physical conditions at the site__ Additional storage facilities- Total additional funds required____. The overrun of $93,500 is explained in more detail, as follows: $258, 500 93, 500 31, 000 12, 500 41, 000 3,500 5,500 93, 500 OVERTIME WORK, PREMIUM PAY, THROUGH AUGUST 2, 1974 ($31,000) The appropriation of $377,000 allowed for 1974 for remodeling the cafeteria and for a carryout food facility included an allowance of $5,000 for overtime work scheduled for performance during the period, March through June 30, 1974. in connection with the carryout food service, which amount was required and expended. The appropriation did not include any allowance for overtime work during the subsequent period, July 1 to October 7, 1974, as the Court was expected to be in adjournment during such period. Due to unanticipated circumstances, the Court actually remained in session through July 25, 1974. Work, scheduled for performance during the period, July 1 to August 2, 1974, in connection with the remodeling of the cafeteria, accordingly had to be performed to a substantial extent, on an overtime basis-that is, on Saturdays, at nights, and to some extent on Sundays. In accordance with the requirements of law, such overtime work had to be compensated on a time-and-a-half, premium pay, basis. One of the reasons why overtime was required was due to the fact that work which had to be performed during the month of July required the use of jackhammers, which is a very noisy operation. In summary, the cost of overtime work, prior to June 30, 1974, was $5,000, which was provided for in the estimates, and for the subsequent period. July 1 to August 2, 1974, $31,000 not provided for in the estimates, or an overrun of $31,000. OVERTIME WORK, PREMIUM PAY, FOR PERIOD AUGUST 3 TO OCTOBER 1, 1974 ($12,500) Notwithstanding the amount of work performed during the period July 1 to August 2, 1974, on Saturdays, at nights, and on Sundays, the amount of work that could be performed during daytime hours was limited to the point where the time loss, through reduced productivity, could only be offset, in part, through the overtime work. Accordingly, it has been necessary since August 2, 1974 and will continue to be necessary through to October 1974 to continue performance of work on an overtime basis, although to a reduced extent, in order to compensate for the time loss in the month of July. It is estimated that the cost of such additional overtime work will amount to $12,500. This procedure is necessary in order to have the cafeteria ready for operation by the time the Court convenes on October 7, 1974, for its next term. In this connection, it may be noted that this is the first time in the past 10 years that the Court has remained in session beyond June 30, except for 1 day (July 7) in 1973. This overtime work results in an overrun of $12,500. UNKNOWN PHYSICAL CONDITIONS AT THE SITE ($3,500) As part of the renovation program, it was necessary to remove the 44-inch concrete fill from the old floor in the area converted for kitchen use and from the floor in the area where the carryout facility was constructed, down to the top of the concrete floor slab, before reconstructing such floors. When the slab areas were exposed, it was discovered that no waterproof membrane had been installed on the slab surface when the building was constructed. In constructing the new floors in these two areas, a waterproof membrane covering was placed on the top of the floor slabs before installing a new concrete floor surface, in order to provide proper protection. This required an expenditure of $3,500, not provided for in the 1974 appropriation request. ADDITIONAL STORAGE FACILITIES ($5,500) During the course of the project work, a larger storage area than originally proposed was constructed, with masonry wall plastered on both sides, which required installing two new frames and doors. This improvement, desired by the Court to provide more adequate space for dry storage of supplies for the cafeteria operation, resulted in an expenditure of $5,500, not included in the 1974 appropriation request. INFLATION BEYOND THAT ANTICIPATED AND INCLUDED IN THE 1974 APPROPRIATION REQUEST ($41,000) Food service equipment-$9,000 Most of the items of food service equipment for the cafeteria and carryout facility were included in a contract awarded April 4, 1974. Four competitive bids were received for this equipment-the lowest bid, $115,480; the second bid, $135,989; the third bid, $144,061; the fourth bid, $146,275, or an average bid price of $135,450. The low bid, $115,480, was accepted, pursuant to the bidding conditions. In addition, supplemental items of equipment have been ordered since August 2, 1974, in the amount of $2,520, or a total obligation, to date, of $118,000 for food service equipment. The amount included in the 1974 appropriation request for these items was $105,000; and, in addition, an allowance of $4,000 was included in the request to provide for projected escalation for the 6-months period between the time of submission of the estimate in October 1973 and the award of a contract in April 1974, or a total of $109,000 for such equipment. The increased cost of these items, procured on the basis of competitive bids, exceeded the allocation of $109,000 by $9,000, due, primarily, to the fact that escalation during the period involved substantially exceeded the amount provided therefor in the estimates for this type of equipment and also due to market conditions at the time of bidding. Other work under project—$32,000 As hereinbefore indicated, a total of $193,451 was obligated and expended through August 2, 1974, for day labor, electrical, mechanical, and structural supplies and materials, required for structural, mechanical, and electrical work under the project. In order to complete the project, it is estimated that an addi tional $159,049 will have to be obligated and expended during the period, August 3 to October 7, 1974, for structural, mechanical, and electrical work, or a total obligation and expenditure of $352,500 for such work. The amount of $159,049 is based on day labor payrolls projected at $15,000 per week for 8 weeks, or $120,000 for such period; $9,840 for floor tile work; $10,000 for acoustical ceiling construction; $6,500 for millwork; $4,000 for lighting fixtures; and $8,709 for painting and other miscellaneous items. The total included in the 1974 appropriation request for structural, mechanical, and electrical work was $268,000, which included an allowance of $38,000 (or 17 percent) for cost escalation and other unpredictable cost variations, due to unpredictable market conditions prevailing at the time of actual performance of the work. Accordingly, the present projected total expenditure of $352,500 for such work represents an overrun of $84,500. This overrun is accounted for, in more detail, as follows: Three items of structural, mechanical, and electrical work, totaling $52,500, have been explained on the foregoing pages-$43,500 for overtime, $3,500 for unknown physical conditions at the site, and $5,500 for additional storage space. The balance, $32,000, represents cost inflation beyond the allowance of $38,000 included for cost variations in the 1974 appropriation request. According to the Engineering News Record cost index, inflation for the first 8 months of this year has averaged about 121⁄2 percent for construction work, while other sources indicate an inflation rate as high as 16 percent, dependent upon the nature of the construction work. An example of such variation in inflation is the range of the competitive bids received for furnishing, delivery, and installation of the food service equipment for the cafeteria project. The low bid received for the major items of equipment, as hereinbefore cited, was $115,480, while the other three bids ranged from $135,989 to $146,275. Similar variations are being experienced with respect to other work being done by this office. Converting space, ground floor, no longer required as a storage vault for records, into offices for use of Court personnel__ $165, 000 Funds, in the amount of $165,000, are requested to be included in the pending supplemental appropriation bill for converting a storage area on the ground floor of the building into offices, to provide additional accommodations and for effecting functional rearrangements. Since completion and occupancy of the Supreme Court Building in 1935, no major structural changes for accommodation of the Court were made until recently, when the Justices' chambers were remodeled in 1972-73 and the cafeteria remodeled and refurbished in the past and present fiscal years. The present request for $165,000 is, accordingly, the third such request for a major structural change. The building, being a magnificent marble structure designed and constructed in the classical architectural sytle befitting the role of the Supreme Court as the highest tribunal of the United States, contains a vast expanse of hallways and open areas not suitable for use as administrative space. Since the building was not designed as a modern office building, as measured by today's standards, and since much of the building is devoted to hallways and open areas, less desirable areas must be considered in order to meet the requirements of the Court for additional administrative space. The permanent Court staff in 1935 numbered 113 employees. Today, the staff numbers 254 employees, including 10 new positions allowed by the committee for the fiscal year 1975. SPACE STUDY AND RECOMMENDATIONS At the request of the Chief Justice, a survey was made of all areas of the building, in order to determine how additional administrative space might be provided. The survey was only recently completed and the results and recommendations were presented to the Chief Justice and the Court. The outcome of this survey was that the judicial conference approved the recommendation that an area on the ground floor (room 39), used for record storage, be converted into office space, following decision of the Court to transfer records from that space to the National Archives. AREA PROPOSED TO BE CONVERTED The storage area on the ground floor, proposed to be converted into offices, consists of approximately 4,300 square feet of open space, without windows. In order to make the area usable for office purposes, it will have to be partitioned into individual rooms, conforming insofar as feasible with other administrative areas, and must also be provided with suitable lighting and with heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning adequate to maintain proper climatic conditions. PROPOSED UTILIZATION OF CONVERTED SPACE AND OTHER AREAS The Court advises that the accounting and finance function, with its staff of four employees, will be relocated to the converted area; also, the secretarial pool consisting of six employees, and the three legal officers and their secretarial staff of two employees. Two of the legal officers and one of the secretaries are new positions allowed for 1975, as are also two of the accounting-finance staff. Following these relocations, other rearrangements are proposed which will enable the Court to group together common functions, which are now dispersed throughout the building; also, to provide accommodations for appointees to the following four new positions allowed for 1975: One personnel officer, one assistant to the Chief Justice's Administrative Assistant, and two additional employees in the Reporter of Decisions office. TIMING OF REQUEST The Chief Justice has directed that a request for funds for this project be included as part of the budget submission containing the request for urgently required additional funds for the remodelling of the cafeteria, necessary to submit at this time, in order that the funds for space conversion might also be provided at the same time, thereby enabling the conversion project to be accomplished by the end of this fiscal year, without delay of another year before funds would otherwise become available in next year's regular appropriation and the conversion work performed. This change is desired by the Court in the interest of more efficient operation and to alleviate present space deficiency for administrative functions. Breakdown of estimate Partitioning of area into individual rooms, by construction of 6 Miscellaneous, including $5,000 allowance for overtime work and $2,500 for material handling and clean-up.. 10, 400 Administrative supervision_-_ 8, 500 Allowance for contingencies and escalation to end of present fiscal year 28, 000 Total estimate_____ 165, 000 Mr. SLACK. Do you have a statement with regard to this request, Mr. White? Mr. WHITE. I do not have a prepared statement, but I can highlight the justification materials if you would like. Mr. SLACK. Very well. GENERAL STATEMENT Mr. WHITE. The request is made up of two basic items. One of them is a $93,500 additional amount to cover the cost of remodeling of the cafeteria, beyond the amount of $377,000 already appropriated. The other, $165,000, is to convert space on the ground floor, formerly used as a record storage vault into offices for the use of court personnel. REMODELING CAFETERIA The $93,500 item, which is an additional amount for the completion of the cafeteria, as well as the carry-out restaurant facility, is composed mainly of two basic items. One of them is an overtime amount. The other is additional inflation beyond that which was estimated when we came in for our original appropriation request. There were also two minor items involving some unknown physical conditions and some additional minor storage facilities which we added to the work. Both of those items together amount to only $9,000, so the bulk of the problem has to do with overtime and inflation. The overtime results basically from the fact that, for the first time in the last 10 years, except for one day, the Court remained in session. after June 30, until July 25 this year, so that during the month of July regular daytime working conditions were just not available to us, except to a limited extent, thereby necessitating overtime work on Saturdays, Sundays, and at nights. That is the basic presentation. COMPLETION OF CAFETERIA Mr. SLACK. When is the cafeteria project scheduled for completion? Mr. WHITE. On October 1. This is the second reason necessitating further overtime, in that we have to complete the work prior to the Court's coming into session again in the fall, so we have limited time within which to complete our operations. Mr. SLACK. Will this $93,500 complete the project? CONVERSION OF STORAGE SPACE The second item has to do with conversion of existing storage space for office use. Mr. SIKES. Is that $165,000? Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir. Mr. SLACK. Is that additional space needed for new positions which were allowed in the 1975 budget? Mr. WHITE. As I understand it, that is right, as well as for coordination of functions, Mr. Chairman. As you know, from our standpoint, as the architect, if the Court asks for additional space we do not look into the reasons why the space is needed, from the standpoint of increased personnel or other cause. That is a policy matter, as far as the Court is concerned. As I understand it, it is the result of the additional personnel and coordination of functions. Mr. SLACK. There was no mention made in the justifications at that time so far as you know-or was there? Mr. CANNON. Mr. Cederberg asked Justice White if there was a space problem. He mentioned there was a space survey going on at that time. It would have been preferable had we been able to make the request at that time, but we, frankly, did not yet know the most desirable way of obtaining that space. We found an economical way as a result of the survey. Mr. SLACK. When will this work be completed? |