The decision reflected in this letter has not been made hastily. Rather, our careful examination of all the factors bearing on the decision, particularly the matter of improved mail service on a timely basis, has led to our decision to meet our space needs for main post offices by utilizing the authority contained in the Postal Reorganization Act. I solicit your understanding of our position. HENRY LEHNE, Assistant Postmaster General. MAY 4, 1971. List of Joint Postal Service-GSA lease construction projects from which the Postal Service is withdrawing : Batesville, Ark.; Griffin, Ga.; Rome, Ga.; Waycross, Ga.; Moscow, Idaho; Iowa City, Iowa; Waterville, Maine; Fitchburg, Mass.; Oxford, Miss.; Woonsocket, R.I.; Florence, S.C.; Denton, Tex.; Houston, Tex.; Pearsall, Tex.; Essex Junction, Vt.; Wenatchee, Wash.; Elkins, W. Va.; and La Crosse, Wis. Mr. CONSTANDY. Of the 18, there are two other projects to which we have to address ourselves to, separate from the 18. Of the 26, 18 were contained in the present 1972 budget as part of your lease-construction project? Mr. KREGER. Proposed lease-construction program. Mr. CONSTANDY. Elkins, W. Va., and Oxford, Miss., have since been funded by Congress in the GSA's fiscal year 1972 budget for direct Federal construction. There is one other that we should mention before we get into them, and that is San Angelo, Tex., if you could turn to your material on that. Mr. KREGER. Right. Mr. R. I. NIXON, POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT, BUREAU OF FACILITIES, Washington, D.C., April 7, 1971. Assistant Commissioner for Operational Planning, Public Buildings Service, General Services Administration, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. NIXON: This is in response to your letter of March 30, 1971, asking whether we have firm plans for participating in your proposed project for San Angelo, Texas. As you know, by letter dated December 2, 1968, the Postal Service advised your Agency that it desired to participate in your San Angelo project. This participation, it was indicated, included space for the main post office at San Angelo, totaling about 63,000 square feet. San Angelo is a sectional center and the facility we require must serve as a processing plant not only for San Angelo but for mail originating from and destined for 26 surrounding post offices associated with the San Angelo office in its sectional center activity. Our needs call for a single-story mail processing plant, located in an outlying area, readily accessible to trucks from sectional center post offices and from other mail sources. For our purposes, the building should be surrounded by extensive acreage for employee parking and for the parking and maneuvering of postal vehicles. These requirements do not lend themselves to a limited site (five acres) and the business district location contemplated and indeed required for the Courts and other Federal Agencies. We would expect to meet our business district space requirements by retaining a station in the downtown area, probably located in the existing Federal building which will become the property of the Postal Service upon formal implementation of the Postal Reorganization Act. An additional factor of course is that of time. Since the prospectus for the San Angelos project is just now being considered by the Office of Management and Budget, it is reasonable to expect that it will be a considerable length of time before a construction contract is awarded. We believe that, under the provisions of the Postal Reorganization Act, the Postal Service will be in a position to act much more rapidly in obtaining a new facility than would be the case under the provisions of the Public Buildings Act of 1959 and other statutes governing the procedures of your Agency. These considerations have led to a decision to withdraw from the San Angelo project and from other projects of similar status (where prospectuses have not been approved) insofar as main post office space is concerned. If your Agency decides to proceed with this project for the purpose of providing for the needs of the Courts and other Federal Agencies of San Angelo, we will be glad to provide you with such needs as we have for the location of a station in that facility. This, of course, would be an alternative to utilizing the existing Federal building for this purpose. We regret the necessity for this and other similar decisions, and particularly the resulting disruption of your plans which is bound to occur. We feel that we are bound in good faith to utilize the new Postal Reorganization Act to the maximum extent possible for the benefit of the Postal Service and of course this means the adjusting of planning procedures based on conditions existing before the passage of this important Act. Sincerely, HENRY LEHNE, Assistant Postmaster General. SAN ANGELO, TEX., POST OFFICE, COURTHOUSE, AND FEDERAL OFFICE BUILDING Prospectus (11(b) report) approved: Senate 4/29/71, House-8/11/69. Total estimated project cost: $5,513,000. Site: Size 169,800 SF (estimated). Status of Acquisition-Site not selected. Building area: Gross-125,300 SF; Net-96,500 SF; 61% of space is for Postal use. Status of design: Design not started. Date of postal withdrawal: 4/7/71. Remarks: Above data taken from Section 11 (B) report. On September 30, 1970, a prospectus based on revised postal requirements was submitted to OMB proposing construction of PO-CT-FOB. This prospectus replaced the Section 11 B report. On March 19, 1971, OMB returned prospectus for restudy in view of possibility POD might withdraw from project and to review court requirements. Reduced project and revised prospectus contemplated. Scope and cost to be developed. PBS-GSA, 7/10/71. Mr. CONSTANDY. I think we might dispose of that one. I think you have it in your prepared material there. Mr. KREGER. Right. San Angelo, Tex., was a project which originated from the 11(b) report which was approved by both the Senate and the House. It was approved by the House in 1969, and by the Senate in April of 1971. It is a $5,513,000 cost. There have been no steps taken yet as far as acquiring a site or designing the building. Mr. WRIGHT. Now, the San Angelo, Tex., project was approved in 1969 by the House? 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 51⁄2 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? |