Lapas attēli

(d) Safety Office. Provides advisory safety engineering services in support of accident prevention, including features of design, occupational health, fire prevention and protection; and safety in all end-use items or services.

(e) Office of Counsel. Provides staff advice on legal matters, including negotiation of contracts and contract termination matters; reviews contracts and drafts non-standard form contracts; processes claims and appeals; and handles labor relations.

(f) Personnel Office. Provides civilian personnel services and manpower management functions, including position and pay management, recruitment, selection, and personnel action processing.

(g) Office of Administrative Services. Performs services common to and required by all elements of command, such as, printing and preproduction, photography, administration of records, management of forms, receipt and issue of office supplies and equipment, and travel services. (h) Security Office. Responsible for physical security at construction sites.

(i) Automatic Data Processing (ADP). Develops ADP business systems and engineering applications to support administrative and technical activities of district and operates or controls input to computer. 2. Method of Calculation. The accounting system, which the Corps uses for distributing support costs, was established in 1927 and has been under refinement and improvement since that time. This system has been approved by the Comptroller General of the United States. Two factors determine the allocation of support costs to each program:

(a) the relative size of each program to the total district workload, and (b) the application of weighted factors to the various program elements. This weighting system gives recognition to the fact that certain type programs and program elements require less support effort than others. The established weight factors were developed by a field survey of all field offices during a 12-month period of the years 1964-65. These weight factors are:

[blocks in formation]

(b) Division. Whereas only the costs of the executive, advisory, and administrative staffs of the District Office are classified as support costs, the entire cost of the Division Office is considered as a support cost. Thus, in the Division Office, the technical personnel of the Engineering and Construction/ Operations Divisions are, for accounting purposes, treated as support costs in the same way as are the personnel of the executive, advisory, and administrative staffs. Technical support provided by Division personnel includes inspection of construction work in progress, technical consultation when problems develop, and general supervision to ensure quality construction. The only exception to charging Division costs as support costs is when Division personnel are detailed to a District to perform work normally accomplished by District personnel. For example, if a District requires the services of a geologist and does not have one at the time, the Division geologist would be made available to the District. In this case, the geologist's services would be charged as a direct charge against the project rather than as a Division support cost.

(c) Office, Chief of Engineers. OCE costs are charged to specific programs executed by the Corps of Engineers. This means that the costs of the Directorate of Civil Works are paid for by Congressional civil works appropriations. The Directorate of Military Engineering costs are covered by the Operations and Maintenance appropriations of the Army. The Directorate of Military Construction costs are assigned to the Air Force, NASA, Army, and other programs which the Directorate supervises. Thus, the costs of technical personnel are charged against their respective programs. Additionally, each program is assigned its proportionate share of the OCE executive, administrative, and advisory staffs; this cost is currently computed at 32.5% of the technical staff costs.

b. Historical Design and Construction Costs. Indicated below are cost figures which the Corps has experienced in the past.

(1) NASA. In the case of the NASA program, costs for accomplishing design and construction from fiscal year 61 through fiscal year 68 as related to a total program of $1,012,669,000 were:

(a) E&D-7.8 percent of direct construction costs (includes A-F fees). (b)*S&A-5.8 percent of direction construction costs.

This gives a total of 13.8 percent of direct construction costs.

(2) Fiscal year 1970. The following cost figures pertain to the Corps military construction effort administered during the entire year of fiscal year 1970.

(a) Supervision and Review (S&R). Costs for S&R were $3,306,000 involving A-E design contracts of an accrued value of $14,567,000; this gives a ratio of 22.7 percent. Relating the S&R costs to the estimated cost of construction of these A-E contracts gives a percentage of 1.03.

(b) Supervision and Inspection (S&I). These costs relate to CONUS districts (excluding Huntsville; Alaska, and CEBMCO) and total $16,520,000. When related to the value of work placed, which was $351,553,000, a ratio of 4.7 percent was experienced.

(c) Overhead.

1. District support costs for supervision and review of A-E contracts were tabulated as $788,000, which relates to the estimated cost of construction designed of $320,643,000 as .25 percent. For District support costs associated with construction, $3,967,000 were expended, which, when related to value of work placed of $351,553,000, gives a percentage of 1.13. Thus, District support for 1970 totaled 1.38 percent of value of work placed.

2. Division and OCE support costs expressed as percentages of value of construction and as submitted to Congress in the Section 704 reports for fiscal year 1970 for completed Army construction, were as follows:

[blocks in formation]

The value of construction completed was $239.9 million. 3. Thus, the total overhead costs for the military construction program during fiscal year 70 was 2.78 percent of value of work placed.

(d) Summary. The total costs comprising S&I, S&R, and support costs were (a) S&R. Costs of $1,301,000 for Supervision and Review of A-E contracts amounts.

(3) First Half Fiscal Year 1971. For the first two quarters of 1971, the costs experienced for 1970 CONUS districts (excluding Huntsville and Alaska) were: (a) S&R. Costs of $1,301,000 for Supervision and Review of A-E contracts were associated with A-E design contracts with an accrued value of $6,634,000: this is a ratio of 20 percent of accrued value of A-E contracts. The ratio of costs for S&R of A-E contracts to estimated cost of construction of the plans and specificatins developed by these A-E cntracts was .88 percent.

(b) S&I. S&I costs were $6,461,000 with work placed valued at $165,795,000 giving a ratio of 3.9 percent.

(c) Support Costs:

1. The District overhead support costs for S&I, which were $1,459,000, when applied to the value of construction placed, which was $165,795,000, gives a percentage of .9.

2. District overhead support costs o the Supervision and Review of A-E contracts were $179,000, when related to the estimated cost of construction designed, $147,277,000, a percentage of .1 results.

3. Divisions and OCE. There are no derived data from the first two quarters of FY 1971, since these data are developed only on an annual basis. The Division and OCE support factors currently used are those developed for fiscal year 70.

*S&A costs are composed of S&I costs plus overhead costs.

(d) Summary. Based on total costs to data for fiscal year 71 the percentage of Corps in-house costs (excluding A-E contract costs and Division and OCE support costs) to value of work placed is 5.78. Using 1970 Division and OCE support costs, the cost ratio is 7.18.

c. Design and Construction Costs for Postal Public Building Program.

(1) Conceptual Approach. It has been suggested that the Corps establish a program percentage rate as a firm cost for accomplishment of the Postal Public Building Program.

(a) Impact of the Law. Statutory references which preclude this approach are as follows:

1. 31 USC 686 provides that an agency may be required to pay estimated costs of work performed by another, but that proper adjustments must be made on basis of actual costs.

2. 31 USC 628 provides "Except as otherwise provided by law, sums appropriated for the various branches of expenditure in the public service shall be applied solely to the objects for which they are respectively made, and for no other."

3. 633 USC 576 provides that the CE revolyving fund may furnish services for other agencies, as authorized by law, and receive reimbursement for costs of services furnished.

Based on the above, the Corps may not provide a predetermined unadjustable rate or amount for performing Post Office work because, if such rate or amount should prove to be less than actual costs, the Corps has no appropriation or fund which could legally be charged with the deficit. (b) Difficulties in Estimating a Program Percentage Cost. The Corps accounting system provides for costing for support services provided by the Corps for each program and the appropriate billings thereto. In any program, the numerous factors which contribute to the cost of providing Corps design and construction services are subject to variance throughout the life of the program, thus, precluding precise estimation of their magnitude. Additionally, regarding the Postal Public Building Program, while general information is available, many details required for estimating purposes are lacking. For example, the number of projects in the entire program is not known. Likewise, composition of the program is not known, i.e., number of preferential vs bulk facilities. Another item that influences cost is the construction period which has not been, and cannot be, established at this time because most of the facilities have not been designed; construction periods determine the period over which Government costs are incurred. Other items influencing construction periods are strikes, weather, criteria, and design changes, which, in turn, affect Government costs. Additionally, there is the fact that the Corps has little experience yet in working with the Post Office Department. It is possible that administrative costs involved in furnishing reports, the handling of Congressional inquiries, etc., may vary from those the Corps has experienced in executing other programs.

(c) Summary. In view of the many factors of unknown dimensions, it is considered that the only practicable approach is to establish a range of values for the estimated total program costs for Corps design and construction services. This range can be established based on historical costs and taking into consideration the general characteristics of the Postal Public Building Program.

(2) Supervision and Review (S&R). Based on the Corps recent experience, the S&R rate for other Corps composite military programs has been in the range of 0.88 to 1.03%. Considering what is currently known of the Postal Public Building Program. it is estimated that the program S&R rate will range from 0.8 to 0.88%. The actual S&R costs will depend on the factors involved in project design, to include accuracy and completeness of criteria, complexity of design. mechanization interface, site conditions, the design schedule, and extent of standardization.

(3) Supervision and Inspection (S&I). Based on the Corps recent experience, the S&I rate for other Corps composite military programs has been in the range of 3.5 to 4.7%. In view of the apparent nature of the Postal Public Building Program with concentrated, high value projects, it is estimated that the program S&I rate will range from 3. to 3.9%. The actual S&I cost for individual projects and the total program will depend on the factors involved in project execution to include size and location of project, complexities, strikes, weather, and change orders.

(4) Support Costs. (a) District.

1 Functions. It is considered that the Postal Public Building Program will require the support of all elements of the district executive, administrative, and advisory staffs. While all functions will be exercised, it is thought the not all of them will be exercised as frequently as for other programs. This recognizes the fact that postal facilities tend to be large installations located near cities where many Corps district offices are located. The proximity of the district office means lower travel costs for district personnel. A large project involves lower costs associated with contract administration and finance and accounting than in the case of several small projects with an equivalent total cost. Because it is considered, at this time, that the projects of the Postal Public Building Program will require less support than other military programs, it is proposed to use the civil works weighted factors in calculating support costs for this program. As will be noted in page 14, these are the lower figures. These weights will be used until such time as sufficient experience is gained to establish a weighted factor solely for this program.

2 Estimated Range of Support Costs. Based on recent experience, District support costs have ranged from 1.0 to 1.38% for military projects. Based on use of the civil weighted support factors, it is estimated that the District support costs for this program will range from 0.9 to 1.0%.

(b) Division and Office, Chief of Engineers:

1. Division. It is considered that all elements of the Division executive, administrative, advisory, and technical staffs will be utilized in rendering support to the Districts in the execution of the Postal Public Building Program, though less intensively in some functions when compared to other programs. The only exception is those elements associated with the planning and program development functions of the Civil Works Program; these elements will not be associated with the Postal Public Building Program. With the central management office (CEPCSO) established in the Office of the Chief of Engineers and having a strong design orientation, the Divisions will not be as actively involved in the design process as is the normal practice. 2. Office, Chief of Engineers. With the interface between the Corps of Engineers and the Post Office Department occurring at the Washington level, OCE will be actively engaged in this program. As was indicated previously in paragraph 2b, a central management office (CEPCSO) has been established which is dedicated solely to the Postal Public Building Program. If this program develops as currently envisioned this office could reach a peak strength of 43 people. It is further estimated that as much effort as the equivalent of 20 man-years could be provided by the rest of the OCE staff in terms of executive, technical, advisory, and administrative support.

3. OCE and Division Support Costs. Based on the Corps experience for 1970, the OCE and Division support costs were 1.4%. In view of the downward trend of support costs in the Corps, the apparent nature of the Postal Public Building Program, the planned organization for providing OCE and Division support thereto, and the envisaged working relationships between the Corps and the Post Office Department, it is estimated that the support will range from 0.8 to 1.2%. The estimated distribution of this cost is as follows:

a. Division: 0.3-0.4%.

b. OCE: 0.5-0.8%.

(c) Total Support Costs. Based upon the above analysis, it is considered that total Corps support costs will lie in the range of 1.7 to 2.2% of total value of the construction contracts for the Postal Public Building Program.

(5) Estimated Rangs of Corps (In-House) Cost Rates. Based on the above analysis, it is considered that the program cost for Corps (in-house) design and construction services in support of the Postal Public Building Program will fall within the range of 5.5 to 6.98% of the total value of construction contracts. The Corps will aggressively manage its activities to ensure that costs remain within this range and will endeavor to achieve, if possible, a rate below this range. d. Real Estate Costs.

(1) Definitions. There are three kinds of costs associated with real estate activities envisaged for the Postal Public Building Program:

(a) Land Costs. This is the price paid for real property.

(b) Administrative Costs. Administrative costs include the costs incurred in contracting for title data, mapping, tract descriptions, procuring appraisals by staff and contract, negotiations and closings, filing condemna

tion cases to include costs of services furnished by the Department of Justice, maintenance of records, and preparation of reports.

(c) Support Costs. Support costs, which are the advisory and administrative staff costs, are related to the in-house costs of the Real Estate organization and average about 22% of those Real Estate in-house costs. Support costs are not calculated on the basis of value of land or contract payments. (2) Services and Associated Costs.

(a) Site Selection.

1. Functions. The Corps assists in developing comparative analyses to serve as a basis for site selection. After the customer has selected a site, a planning report is prepared which includes a description of the improvements, land use, location, land costs, contingencies, and administrative costs.

2. Costs. The average administrative cost for the preparation of a Real Estate Planning Report is $1,150.

(b) Site Acquisition.

1. Functions. Upon approval of the Real Estate Memorandum or Planning Report, the District Engineer acquires the land required for the project. This includes procurement of title data mapping and description of individual tracts, appraising, negotiating and, when required, condemnation.

2. Costs.

a. Administrative Costs. Over the past three years, it has cost on the average of $1,105 to acquire one tract (ownership) of land. This included tracts of varying sizes, a wide range in values, fee title, and lesser interests, large projects with several hundreds of tracts and isolated single tracts. The extent of the variation in costs is not available as the records for projects do not break down in this way. Some of the variables in the administrative costs are higher appraisal fees on large high value or urban tracts, extended negotiations due to multiple ownerships, and title requirements which are time consuming and costly to satisfy. In summary, the total Government and contract effort represented in the administrative costs can vary widely depending on the cooperativeness of the owners and conditions of titles.

b. Support Costs. We estimate that support costs average about $240.00 for each tract acquired. Our experience data are not of sufficient detail to permit calculation of this cost factor. Contractual fluctuations in administrative costs will not affect the support costs.

e. Real Estate Costs for Postal Public Building Program.

(1) Concept. No element of administrative cost except title insurance premiums bears any relation to value of the tract. Complexity of negotiations is a function of the owner rather than of the land. On a percentage basis, the administrative cost of acquiring a tract of land cannot be associated with either the value of the tract or the value of construction placed thereon. Realistic estimates cannot be based on such values; the expense of acquiring a $100,000 tract could be about the same as to acquire a $10,000 tract, depending on location, improvements, etc.

(2) Cost of Site Selection. Based on the planned location of the sites, it is estimated that the cost to the Post Office Department will average approximately $3,500 per location. This includes salaries, transportation costs, per diem, and secretarial services for an average of 10/15 days per project.

(3) Site Acquisition. It is anticipated that most appraisals will be acquired by contract and that a second appraisal will be required in a substantial number of cases, particularly those in which condemnation is required. Relatively high value tracts will be involved and the appraisal fees and title costs will be well above average. Negotiations also will probably not be routine and may require participation at the Division and OCE levels. Considering the type of properties involved, it is estimated that the average administrative cost will be $3,500 per tract. Additional benefits in addition to the fair market value, which will be provided by Public Law 91-646, will be considered as part of land costs rather than administrative costs. It is estimated that the support costs will remain at an average of $240.00 per tract. These costs are more or less fixed and would not increase due to greater contract costs.

f. A Perspective. As a final matter. it might be well to place the Postal Public Building Program in perspective with relation to the total efforts of the Corps elements which will be involved in the Postal Public Building Program. Below is a table showing the estimated total in-house costs and total personnel require

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »