« iepriekšējāTurpināt »
PROJECTS FROM WHICH THE POST OFFICE HAS WITHDRAWN IT'S REQUIREMENTS
Griffin, Ga.: PO, FOB.
Sept. 20, 1966 Oct. 6, 1966 do.
891, 000 134, 700
460,000 88, 100 4,308,000 796,000 2,694, 000 610,000
0 $488,000 $376, 937 $64, 210 187, 300 487, 300
487, 300 265, 126 165, 863 313, 000 800,000
0 800,000 279, 123 112,463 152, 900 455,000 $1,201,000 1,656, 000 301, 448 133, 729 196, 800 996, 800
0 996, 800 731, 983 167, 156 224,500 675, 400
0 675, 400 449, 662 72, 615
0 427, 900 3,700 113,268
0 1,350,000 11,100 62,793
0 467, 900 274,675 49, 663
0 501,300 352,900 122, 609
0 290, 200 152, 100 61, 368 202,000 575,000 916,000 1,491, 000 320, 884 145, 151 57,300 192, 000
0 192,000 134, 700 49, 006 23, 100 77, 100
0 77, 100 53,976 19, 326 55,900 144,000 295,000 439,000 87,100 38, 486 222,000 1,018, 000
0 1,018, 000 264, 663 178, 102 132,000 742, 000
0 742,000 34,000 72,450 2, 939, 900 10,430,700 1,564,000 14,110,700 4,505, 561 1,732, 256
55, 202, 500
6, 237, 817
1 1971 Treasury, Post Office, Executive Office of the President, and related agencies appropriation provides under Title IV-Independent Agencies, GSA, $3,248,000 for Oxford, Miss., and $2,454,000 for Elkins, W. Va. PROJECTS FROM WHICH THE POST OFFICE HAS WITHDRAWN IT'S REQUIREMENTS—Continued
Prospectus approved by
Sept. 20, 1966 Oct. 6, 1966 in process.. ..do. _do.
31 Aug. 26, 1970
.Apr. 30, 1964 Apr. 14, 1964 Yes.
Sept. 20, 1966 Oct. 6, 1966 In process..
69 Jan. 31, 1969
1, 1967 Nov. 9, 1967 Yes.
54 July 15, 1971
64,210 Jan. 21, 1970 Design completed. 127,261 Mar. 25, 1971 Design completed Apr. 26, 1971. 88, 255 .....do. Stp. tent stage; 25 percent com.
pleted Mar. 25, 1971. 133, 728 Jan. 21, 1971 Design completed. 94, 716 Dec, 22, 1970 Design deferred; 40 percent com
pleted Feb. 22, 1971.
Oct. 15, 1970.
46, 788 do.
Apr. 30, 1964 Apr. 14, 1964 Yes.
2 1971 Treasury, Post Office, Executive Office of the President, and related agencies appropriation provides under Title IV-Independent Agencies, GSA, $3,248,000 for Oxford, Miss,, and $2,454,000 for Elkins, W, Va,
Location and type of project
Griffin, Ga.: PO, FOB.
Project total cost
$11, 676, 600
$5, 773, 600
$17, 460, 260
$23, 256, 200
$10, 472, 070
Mr. CONSTANDY. I would just like to call the attention of the committee to the grand totals on page 3, which I think begins to give some idea of size that we have been talking about from the dollar standpoint. Those 26 projects had a total estimated cost at the time of the prospectus, is that not right, Mr. Kreger?
Mr. KREGER. Right.
Mr. CONSTANDY. At that time it was $173 million, and that is broken down to $117 million some odd to the group 1 projects, $55 million in
1 the group 2 projects.
Of course, those figures today would be appreciably more than that. Mr. KREGER. Yes, sir; they would.
Mr. GRAY. Mr. Kreger, I want to ask one more question before you go.
As I pointed out, there were two ways. I say “were” in the past tense. There were two ways that the Post Office could proceed immediately before the Postal Reorganization Act in constructing buildings.
One, which I alluded to a moment ago, was where if the project is less than $200,000, they needed no congressional authority.
Secondly, all they had to do on any project over $200,000 that has been approved, was to ask you for delegation of authority. Since you have served in your position either as Deputy Administrator at the present time, or Assistant Administrator, do you know of any instance where the Post Office has come to GSA and said, "I want a delegation of authority to proceed with the construction of a building," and that delegation of authority being denied ?
Mr. KREGER. I do not think we have ever refused any delegation of authority, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. GRAY. So, the allegation that Congress is sluggish and GSA is sluggish in providing space needs has no basis in fact. All they needed to have done was to come to GSA and ask for a delegation of authority.
Mr. KREGER. We gave them a delegation of authority. Mr. GRAY. Do you know at any point where that authority was denied ?
Mr. KREGER. There may have been one, Mr. Chairman. I am not sure.
Mr. GRAY. I want to thank you gentlemen for coming. You have been very helpful to the committee.
Thank you very much.
Our next witness is Mr. Henry Lehne, Assistant Postmaster General—facilities, U.S. Postal Service, accompanied by Mr. Frederick Bat Assistant Postmaster General-engineering and logistics, U.S. Postal Service, and Mr. Robert E. Isaacs, technical adviser for construction programing, U.S. Postal Service. Would you gentlemen please rise and raise your right hands?
Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
(Messrs. Lehne, Batrus and Isaacs answered in the affirmative.) Mr. LEHNE. Mr. Chairman, if I may, there is another witness who was overlooked, Mr. Jim French.
Mr. GRAY. Mr. French, do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
(Mr. French answered in the affirmative.)
Mr. Gray. Thank you, gentlemen, for coming, and thank you for your patience. It has been a long day, but we have no control over these rollcalls.
General Lehne, you have a prepared statement. You may proceed in your own fashion.
TESTIMONY OF HENRY LEHNE, ASSISTANT POSTMASTER GEN
ERAL-FACILITIES, U.S. POSTAL SERVICE; ACCOMPANIED BY FREDERICK BATRUS, ASSISTANT POSTMASTER GENERAL-ENGINEERING AND LOGISTICS, U.S. POSTAL SERVICE; ROBERT E.
ISAACS, TECHNICAL ADVISER FOR CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMING, · U.S. POSTAL SERVICE; AND JAMES H. FRENCH, DEPUTY ASSIST
ANT GENERAL COUNSEL, REAL PROPERTY AND PROCUREMENT
Before getting into the prepared statement, I think it would be appropriate for me to comment a little bit more about these colleagues at the witness table with me.
If I may, Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce my colleagues here at the witness table a little more fully to describe their role in the new U.S. Postal Service facilities program.
Mr. Frederick E. Batrus was recently appointed Assistant Postmaster General for Engineering and Logistics. He has been with the Postal Service since 1946, and has served as Assistant Postmaster General for Transportation—the last Presidential appointee to hold that position. Since October 1969, he has been Executive Assistant to the Deputy Postmaster General. Mr. Batrus, in his new position, will have overall authority over the facility needs and construction program of the U.S. Postal Service
Mr. Robert E. Isaacs is an architect who was in private practice in Cincinnati for 20 years. He came to the Postal Service in May of 1970 as Deputy Assistant Postmaster General for construction engineering in the facilities department. Mr. Isaacs was recently appointed technical adviser to the Senior Assistant Postmaster General for construction programing and, as such, will have liaison responsibility between the Postal Service, General Services Administration, and the Corps of Engineers in the implementation of the Postal Service facilities construction program.
Mr. James H. French is Deputy Assistant General Counsel in the real property and procurement division. He has been in the General Counsel's office for 2 years. Prior to that, he was in private practice in Washington for 11 years.
Mr. GRAY. We are glad to have that information.
Mr. LEHNE. I would like to read the prepared statement, if you do not mind. Mr. GRAY. Proceed any way you wish.
Mr. LEHNE. Mr.Chairman, I have been advised by your Assistant Chief Counsel that the subcommittee desires me to testify concerning
joint Postal Service/General Services Administration construction projects.
While I will be glad to try to answer any question put to me, this prepared testimony deals only with the subject of the joint GSA/POD projects.
These joint projects antedate the Postal Reorganization Act, which was enacted on August 12, 1970, by as many as 11 years, and by 3 years in the case of the most recently approved project. The Post Office Department's space requirements for most of the projects were given to the GSA in 1964, 1965, or 1966.
In the case of Elkins, W. Va., the POD's space requirements were given to the GSA in April 1960, and in the case of Moscow, Idaho, they were given prior to April 1964, although the precise date is uncertain.
By providing in the Postal Reorganization Act that the Postal Service be financially independent and largely self-sustaining, Congress created a new and different relationship between the GSA and the Postal Service affecting these joint projects. The Postal Service, unlike the former Post Office Department, must pay rent for the space it occupies in GSA buildings.
In addition, the Postal Service's facilities decisions must be shaped by considerations of mail processing efficiency, service improvement, and economy-with due regard for customer convenience and the creation and maintenance of safe and desirable working conditions for Postal Service employees.
The other major change affecting the joint GSA/POD projects was the statement in the appendix to the President's Budget for fiscal year 1972, at pages 810-811, to the effect that funds were not being requested to construct these projects, but that the projects were being scheduled for lease construction under the authority of legislation which will be proposed to the Congress in the future.
Since the Postal Reorganization Act was signed, the Postal Service has made repeated requests of GSA for a commitment of early construction of the projects in question. Most of these projects had been pending for many years, and the need for action by the Postal Service had become critical.
In addition, the new responsibilities and authorities conferred on the Postal Service by the Postal Reorganization Act, coupled with the need to integrate all new facilities into our nationwide bulk and letter mail processing systems, made it incumbent on the Postal Service, we felt, to review these projects at an early date and come to a decision in time to include them in our own fiscal 1972 construction program.
No commitment from GSA was forthcoming. The uncertain status of lease projects to be constructed under the authority of legislation not yet proposed-much less enacted-made it highly improbable that the projects could be constructed in time to meet the needs of the Postal Service.
Accordingly, I wrote the Commissioner of the Public Buildings Service on May 5, 1971, that the Postal Service was withdrawing from the projects. In this letter, I stated that the Postal Service planned to satisfy postal needs in the affected localities by the most economical and expeditious method possible and would be glad to consider including, and leasing to GSA, space for other agency needs.