the construction aspect of the $2,390,000 which we would intend to spend in this first year, primarily as we described. Mr. BENJAMIN. That is your division, right? Mr. WHITE. That is correct. It is in-house activity. I might say that the funds, the $250,000 as you may recall, became available in October, and we proceeded long before then with an effort to provide this in time for these hearings. There would have been no way to prepare this information in a timely manner otherwise. We have interviewed prospective design firms, but we haven't hired anyone yet even for the initial stages of preliminary drawings with that $250,000. We are about to do so, but there wasn't time to do that prior to the preparation of this budget. Mr. BENJAMIN. The funds that you are requesting would become available October 1, 1980? Mr. WHITE. That is correct. Mr. BENJAMIN. How long would it take for the work on architecture and engineering? Mr. WHITE. It would probably take close to a year. The portion of it that is necessary for the initial construction, which would be the installation of the sprinkler system in the book stacks, would be done more rapidly than that so that we could immediately proceed with that amount of expenditure for construction purposes. Mr. BENJAMIN. Is that the $2.39 million? Mr. WHITE. That is correct, so that the bulk of the architectural work would then be available in time for the following year's appropriation and use of those funds. Mr. WELSH. Mr. Benjamin, may I add that this is a very carefully integrated plan developed by the Library of Congress and the Architect of the Capitol to ensure that as we move into the Madison-and you are aware we have already begun that—and as we move out of rental facilities, we have the capacity for removing the partitions that exist, for refitting those areas, and then in certain areas to begin a restoration process. REMOVAL OF PARTITIONS Mr. BENJAMIN. Within the first year of the requested appropriation? Mr. WELSH. As a matter of fact, beginning as soon as one of the divisions of CRS is moved, we will begin to remove with in house staff, the partitions in the southwest pavilion on the second floor. We will continue that through 1981 with restoration not beginning until a later date. For example, as the Manuscript Division moves from the third floor of the Thomas Jefferson building, to the Madison, we have to prepare that space for occupancy by personnel who are now located in the Navy Yard annex, in order to reduce our rental costs as soon as possible. All of these thoughts have been taken into consideration in this plan. Mr. BENJAMIN. The first year costs are about 8 percent of the total projected costs. Mr. WHITE. Pardon me? Mr. BENJAMIN. The $4 million, is that 8 percent of the total projected cost? Mr. WHITE. It is 9 percent, and we are not prepared to say that we need all of that, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BENJAMIN. Would you need all of that in the first year? Mr. WHITE. No, we would not necessarily need all of it in the first year, but we may need to obligate it. We tried to cover ourselves, as I say, for the maximum amount that we might need. We would need to engage architectural and engineering services in total. Whether it would cost that much is something I am not yet prepared to say. 9 percent will cover it, but we think we can do it for less, particularly since if we do it in house we don't need-Mr. BENJAMIN. That is my next question. Are you planning to do it in house? IN-HOUSE CONSTRUCTION Mr. WHITE. I shouldn't have said it that way; no. I was referring to doing the construction in house, in which case we don't need the same level of detail in drawings and specifications that we do for public bidding; therefore, we think that we can save some money in the engaging of professionals to do that kind of work. It is a similar circumstance to that which we had in Annex No. 2, where we didn't require the drawings to be prepared to a high degree of detail, since we didn't have to go out for public bidding and thus require all of the items spelled out in great detail so that everyone is bidding in precisely the same way. The information we needed for our own in-house employees was substantially different, except of course for the purchase of equipment and material. So we think that the amount of money that we have allocated here for architectural and engineering fees is more than we really need, but we weren't sure of that, so we tried to cover any eventuality. Mr. BENJAMIN. You did the House Annex No. 2 in house. If I recall the cost for that went from $15 million or so to $30 million. Mr. WHITE. That was for another reason. You are right, and that is one of the reasons that the question you asked previously I responded to by saying there were a number of charges made to construction which were not a part of construction, where it was deemed by the committee at that time that since the money was appropriated, it should be used for maintenance, and when we needed more, we were to come back. Then of course the program for the building changed substantially when it was decided to locate the Congressional Budget Office there and such additional features as that and other elements required. PAST PROJECTS DONE IN-HOUSE BY AOC Mr. BENJAMIN. Don't you have another in-house project? Mr. WHITE. Not of that magnitude, but we do many things. We do most of our own alterations. Mr. BENJAMIN. Is the power plant an in house project? Mr. WHITE. No. Some items of the power plant were done in house, but they were minor items. As a better example, the resto ration of the old Senate chamber and the old Supreme Court chamber in this building were done in house, and we stayed within the budget as a result, which we doubt we could have done otherwise. We are of course doing many alteration projects in house. In general, virtually all of the alteration and repair projects that are requested in this budget will be done in house. For example, the repair of the Rayburn Building fountain and the leaks coming in the building from the terrace were all done in house. Mr. BENJAMIN. Wouldn't you think it would be more practical to remove those partitions or any other temporary parts of that building, before you are able to say: "My figure is going to be $56 million"? Are you sure you are fully aware of the work that has to be done? FEASIBILITY STUDY Mr. WHITE. Yes. You may recall, Mr. Chairman, that we had a feasibility study made, for which we spent $72,000, and a copy of which we presented to the committee last year. I am sure we have another one that we can present to you. In the course of that study, people went through those buildings with a fine-toothed comb insofar as they could and looked behind partitions and above ceilings and that sort of thing. It was not done in a casual way. We think we know rather well where we are. That is not to say that you aren't correct, Mr. Chairman, in that when you open the patient up for an appendectomy you may find out he needs his gallstones removed as well and you may not discover that until you get him open. Mr. WELSH. We have already had some exploratory surgery and there is the evidence of disease. We had a number of photographs taken of the damage done. I want to share this with you and Mr. Michel. Mr. BENJAMIN. Let me yield to Mr. Michel. LENGTH OF RESTORATION PERIOD Mr. MICHEL. This whole restoration thing is going to run over how many years? Mr. WHITE. Seven years. Mr. MICHEL. And a total cost? Mr. WHITE. $56 million plus. Mr. WELSH. There are two principal elements of the $56 million cost, Mr. Michel. Restoration is $22,669,800 and the fire protection, estimated to cost about $23 million, is the other major element. Mr. MICHEL. But that fire protection is practically half of that. Mr. WELSH. Yes, sir. For sprinkler and various warning devices the main building estimate is $10,845,000 and $12,026,000, for the Thomas Jefferson building. Mr. MICHEL. Is all that stuff insured currently? Mr. WELSH. No, sir. Mr. MICHEL. You have no insurance? Mr. WELSH. No, the government is self-insured. We have staff and over 75 million pieces of material that must be protected. Mr. MICHEL. And then in this year's request the amount again is what? Mr. WELSH. $7 million. Mr. WHITE. $7 million to begin. I might point out just for the sake of information from the October 1979 issue of Architectural Record an article calling attention to the fact that the Congress was preparing last month to vote-I am not sure whether that passed or not, but just to give an idea of magnitudes-$25 to $30 million for the restoration of the U.S. Customs building in New York City, expecting to take five years. I only make the comparison in terms of the number of years it takes to do that kind of restoration work. That is the only reason I indicate this. It is a lengthy process, particularly where the building is occupied, and we are doing two buildings here. Of course, both buildings are included in this $57 million. Dr. BOORSTIN. Mr. Michel, there is another element to be considered, when you consider the cost of the protection. Unlike commercial warehouses which store objects that can be reproduced, a very large proportion of the items in our collections are unique, and although we can put a market value on some of them, if they were destroyed there would be no way of replacing them. I am appalled, as you are, by the costs of the fire protection, but that seems to be the fact. Mr. MICHEL. You will have to forgive the provincialism. In one of our hotels, the old one, we put in a sprinkler system, and I was looking at the difference in the insurance rates when we didn't and when we do. My next question was going to be, do we get a break? Do we recoup part of the insurance, but I realize it is an uninsurable. The flow charts over that period of years will be expenditures over that seven-year period of what now?" Mr. WELSH. Do you have a copy of this, Mr. Michel? Mr. MICHEL. I probably do someplace. Is this then all pretty well detailed? Mr. WELSH. Yes. Mr. MICHEL. As to what we are going to do each year? Mr. WELSH. Yes, sir. Dr. BOORSTIN. This chart shows the plan for the original building, which indicates the categories of items that would be assigned to each fiscal year all the way down to 1988. Mr. WHITE. Mr. Michel, the program at the moment, as we have planned it, presumes expenditures in succeeding years after this $7 million of $9.7 million, $11.5 million, $9.3 million, $9.2 million. We tried to divide it more or less equally while at the same time trying to safeguard against increased inflation on certain items. ESTIMATE OF WORK TO BE DONE IN-HOUSE Mr. MICHEL. When you speak of being able to do this in-house as distinguished from contracting out, what portion of the work can actually be done, what percentage of the total job can be done inhouse? Mr. WHITE. In this instance it is probably 80 percent or more. We would probably let out some contracts. House Office Building Annex No. 2 was done in-house, and that was $25 million worth of work. The only work we contracted out was a prefabricated steel stair, which was made by an outside contractor and then brought in and installed; the cost was but a very small percentage of the $25 million. I should clarify what is meant by "in-house." When I use that term I mean that we hire workmen just as a contractor would hire workmen, direct from the union halls. We provide our own supervision and our own foremen. We may provide some of our own staff, if we have them available, but basically we act as though we were a contractor for ourselves, so they are all temporary employees. That gives us an opportunity when we reach certain stages of construction to reduce costs by reducing forces as we did on House Office Building Annex No. 2. When we reached the end of a phase and could not begin the next phase because of a delay that may have taken place, such as, for example, people not moving from one room to another on time, we simply had to lay the people off just as a contractor would do. We have laid off 30 and 40 people at a time when that condition occurred, so we thus immediately cut off the expenditure of funds, just as a contractor would do. Mr. MICHEL. You anticipated my other question there as to whether or not we ever run afoul of the criticism that you are doing it for the express purposes of avoiding, for example, union labor. Mr. WHITE. No, we use union labor. I might say, just to refresh your recollection, than when we talk about how much these things cost, if you look at the journeymen rates per hour of an electrician at $14.66 and a steamfitter at $14.59 multiplied by 2,000 hours a year, these are people making close to $30,000 a year for the building trades, and that adds up to a lot of money in a construction project. AOC EXPERIENCE WITH HOBA NO. 2 Mr. BENJAMIN. The Architect's experience with House Annex No. 2 shows the problems that occur when you try to renovate a building that is occupied. Based on a recent discussion with the GAO staff who are studying several of the Architect's projects, it appears the current plan is to occupy the building during restoration. In fact I see here you have a calculation for interim occupancy of $466,000 in the main building. Mr. WELSH. In the Jefferson Building it is $1,086,000. Mr. BENJAMIN. What is the exact plan for the occupation of the building during restoration? Mr. WHITE. I am not sure that we can say what the exact plan is. The plan is based on taking a wing at a time and perform work in that wing. Referring to the main building, for example, we would take the wing that runs along East Capitol Street and isolate that from the rest of the building in terms of dust and noise, and so on; we would work in that wing while people from that location are transferred to someplace else in the building. |