[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
RICHARD H. POFF FEDERAL BUILDING
RENOVATION: IS IT COSTING
THE TAXPAYER TOO MUCH?
=======================================================================
(112-27)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 14, 2011
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
65-222 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey Columbia
GARY G. MILLER, California JERROLD NADLER, New York
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois CORRINE BROWN, Florida
SAM GRAVES, Missouri BOB FILNER, California
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
DUNCAN HUNTER, California RICK LARSEN, Washington
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
BILLY LONG, Missouri HEATH SHULER, North Carolina
BOB GIBBS, Ohio STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania LAURA RICHARDSON, California
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana
STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida
JEFF DENHAM, California
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
VACANCY
(ii)
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency
Management
JEFF DENHAM, California, Chairman
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Columbia
Arkansas, HEATH SHULER, North Carolina
Vice Chair MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
BOB GIBBS, Ohio DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania BOB FILNER, California
RICHARD L. HANNA, New York NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee (Ex Officio)
JOHN L. MICA, Florida (Ex Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vi
TESTIMONY
Dudley, Julia C., Clerk of Court, United States District Court,
Western District of Virginia................................... 4
Ehrenwerth, David, Regional Administrator, Mid-Atlantic Region,
General Services Administration................................ 4
Goodlatte, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Virginia.................................................... 4
Miller, Hon. Brian D., Inspector General, General Services
Administration................................................. 4
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes, of the District of Columbia......... 30
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Dudley, Julia C.................................................. 32
Ehrenwerth, David................................................ 35
Goodlatte, Hon. Bob.............................................. 39
Miller, Hon. Brian D............................................. 41
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
General Services Administration, responses to questions from the
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and
Emergency Management........................................... 45
ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD
Karnes, Daniel E., LTC, AUS, (Ret), President of the Roanoke
Valley Veterans Council, letter to Hon. Jeff Denham, a
Representative in Congress from the State of California........ 48
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 65722.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 65722.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 65722.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 65722.004
RICHARD H. POFF FEDERAL BUILDING
RENOVATION: IS IT COSTING
THE TAXPAYER TOO MUCH?
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 2011
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
Buildings and Emergency Management,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:09 a.m. in
Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jeff Denham
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Denham. The subcommittee will come to order. First, let
me welcome our witnesses here with us today. I especially want
to recognize Representative Goodlatte. Thank you for joining
us. Virginia--the renovation of the Richard H. Poff Federal
Building in Roanoke, Virginia, is on GSA's list of Recovery Act
projects, costing the taxpayer more than $50 million, not
including the cost of temporary space for the tenant agencies.
Last Congress the Recovery Act provided $5.5 billion from
GSA's Federal building fund, $4.5 billion of which was
designated for converting Federal buildings into high-
performance green buildings, trumping job creation as a
priority. Greening buildings can be good if it is cost
effective. But as Chairman Mica's ``Sitting on our Assets''
report pointed out, certain features like solar panel roofs
typically do not see any return until well after the useful
life of the roof.
In fact, the GSA inspector general has found in a number of
cases pay-back periods well beyond reasonable return to the
taxpayer. It is unclear whether this lack of reasonable return
was taken into account before GSA proceeded with this project,
and whether any such analysis guided GSA in which greening
features made sense and which did not.
In addition to the cost, this project is expected to have a
detrimental impact on the operations of the tenant agencies.
The Poff Federal Building houses critical Federal entities,
including the Department of Veterans Affairs and the U.S.
Courts. The renovation will likely disrupt these operations,
including relocation, relocating the VA in up to four different
locations, raising concerns among a number of Members from the
Virginia delegation as to how they will impact the processing
of veterans' claims.
And on top of these issues, the GSA IG has raised questions
as to whether GSA followed all applicable contracting laws in
awarding the construction contract, further bringing into
question whether the costs are justified. Last November the GSA
inspector general issued a report on this project, concluding
that GSA failed to get an independent government estimate for
the construction, and that by including the guaranteed maximum
price in the RFP, GSA's pricing was not based on competition,
as required by law.
Some of the questions we hope will be addressed today
include: is this renovation costing the taxpayer too much
money; did GSA fully weigh the costs and benefits of the
greening features and alternative housing solutions before
proceeding with this project; did GSA get the best price for
this deal; what steps is GSA doing to comply with the
contracting laws; how many local jobs will this project create;
and what is GSA doing to minimize the impact on the building's
tenants?
Again, I want to thank Congressman Goodlatte for his
leadership on this issue, and hope we can get the answers to
these important questions.
I would now like to recognize Ranking Member Norton from
the District of Columbia for 5 minutes to make any opening
statement she may have.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you very
much for calling this hearing.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided
$5.5 billion to the General Services Administration, $4.5
billion of which was to convert GSA buildings into high-
performance green buildings in all 50 States, the District of
Columbia, and the 4 territories. The Recovery Act's primary
purpose is to stimulate economic activity through investments
and preserve and create jobs, spur technological advances to
enhance energy conservation, and improve infrastructure to
provide long-term economic benefits for the government and for
the people.
The Federal Government and the States were responsible for
addressing the badly needed infrastructure upgrades that we got
done in the Recovery Act, which pushed the government's
responsibilities further during the response, which pushed
GSA's responsibilities further during this recession, since
infrastructure construction would also create jobs during the
worst recession since the Great Depression.
Our goal, however, has been not only to distribute the
funds quickly to spark job creation, but to ensure that these
investments lead to long-term savings.
We are especially grateful that a recent Congressional
Budget Office report on the Recovery Act released 2 months ago
shows that the Recovery Act has had a positive effect on the
Nation's economy. CBO estimates that the Recovery Act lowered
the unemployment rate between .7 and 1.9 percentage points,
increased the number of people employed by 1.3 million to 3.5
million Americans, and increased the number of full-time jobs
by 1.8 million to 5.0 million, compared with what would have
occurred without the Recovery Act.
According to CBO, the Recovery Act saved jobs, increased
job opportunities, and increased the gross domestic product by
3.5 percent. The Recovery Act was enacted while I chaired this
subcommittee, when jobs were all that was on the country's
mind. I see the--to see the quickest possible job creation, the
subcommittee held six tracking hearings.
We should give GSA credit, because credit is due. GSA has
awarded contracts and begun work on 273 Recovery Act projects
worth $5.2 billion, which was almost all of the Recovery Act
funds under their jurisdiction. As of January 2011, GSA had
already completed work on 26 projects, totaling $100 million.
With bids for infrastructure projects coming in much lower than
expected, GSA has saved the government $565 million, and has
redirected these funds to 17 additional projects which urgently
needed infrastructure upgrades. These projects will result in
the installation of 78 roofs, including 68 photovoltaic rays on
roofs, putting in place 140 light systems, installing 52 water
systems, as well as completing 222 system tune-ups and
recommissionings.
Because of the high level of transparency, and the
reporting requirements the committee insisted upon, there has
been an unprecedented level of accountability while
implementing these projects. Moreover, the Recovery Act
actually established a special recovery board composed of
inspectors general of the agencies that received funds. This
unusual approach assured an environment where taxpayers'
dollars would be sent quickly and--spent quickly and well, and
the posting online of projects on each project, along with our
frequent subcommittee hearings, all contribute to GSA's
progress in meeting the mandate to get the funds on the street
quickly but carefully.
Along with other Federal agencies and the States, GSA
stretched Recovery Act dollars further than anticipated.
However, GSA should get special credit. Because, unlike most of
the agencies, GSA was not a pass-through to the States. GSA was
directly responsible for getting the funds out and working on
the construction that produced the jobs. However, GSA did the
work and deserves the credit. However, although GSA did the
work and deserves the credit, GSA also must take a
responsibility for whatever issues we find as today's hearing
indicates.
The success of the Recovery Act in helping the Nation
emerge from the Great Recession in no way negates the need for
continuous vigorous oversight by this subcommittee, or suggests
that there are not problems from which GSA and the subcommittee
can learn. Our subcommittee continues to bear a direct
responsibility for the stimulus funds under our jurisdiction.
Again I want to thank Chairman Denham for continuing these
oversight efforts. Today we will focus our oversight on the
renovation and modernization of the Richard H. Poff Federal
Building in Roanoke, Virginia, funded by the Recovery Act. The
Poff Building was constructed in 1975. It is owned by the
government, and it is approximately 316,000 gross square feet
of space occupied by the Department of Veterans Affairs, the
U.S. Courts, the U.S. Marshal Services, and other agencies.
Although the building is 35 years old, it has never had a
comprehensive modernization. The Recovery Act modernization of
the Poff Building includes a replacement of the window curtain
wall, installment of an HVAC system, renovations of the
bathrooms, upgrades to the lighting fixtures, and the
installation of new, sustainable roofs, including a solar
system to generate electricity. This project will increase the
life of this Federal asset, and will result in a high-
performing, energy-efficient Federal building and ensure that
the Federal investment in space the government owns is
preserved, ensuring the highest and best use and its continuing
contribution to the Federal building fund, as well as avoiding
the need for rental space for these agencies.
However, in reviewing this particular project, the GSA
inspector general has raised concerns about whether the
procurement for this project met competition requirements, and
whether GSA has an adequate system of controls to ensure that
the Poff Building project met competition requirements. GSA has
concurred with both findings of the IG report, and is committed
to implementing its recommendations.
In addition, the U.S. representative from Roanoke,
Virginia, and the two U.S. senators from Virginia have raised
concerns about the impact of the operations of the Roanoke
Veterans Affairs regional office, the building's largest
tenant, and the efficacy of the energy improvements. We need to
hear from GSA about what gave rise to the problems in order to
ensure that they have been ameliorated, and will not occur
again.
I encourage GSA to allocate funds to projects that provide
the best return in maintaining our public building inventory,
and putting even more Americans to work. I look forward to
hearing from the witnesses today about the modernization of the
Poff Building and the cost benefit analysis used in selecting
this project for modernization.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Denham. Again I would like to welcome our witnesses
here today. We will now call our panel of witnesses. The first,
Honorable Bob Goodlatte from Virginia. Welcome.
TESTIMONY OF HON. BOB GOODLATTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA; HON. BRIAN D. MILLER, INSPECTOR
GENERAL, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; DAVID EHRENWERTH,
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR, MID-ATLANTIC REGION, GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION; AND JULIA C. DUDLEY, CLERK OF COURT, UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Mr. Goodlatte. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member Norton, other members of the committee. I very much
appreciate the subcommittee's willingness to hold a hearing on
this important issue, and for allowing me to testify regarding
the Richard H. Poff Federal Building renovation in Roanoke,
Virginia.
My statement exceeds 5 minutes, so I know that is a part of
the record, and I will summarize the points.
First of all, I want to say that when this--this building
was built in 1975 at a cost of approximately $14 million. And
when it was announced in April 2 years ago that this would be a
renovation project that would cost initially $51 million to
replace the roof, windows, bathrooms, and HVAC system, I
immediately began receiving lots of contact from my
constituents, who thought that this was a gross waste of money
on a building that has received not a lot of plaudits over the
years from the people who occupy it as being a good building.
And that investment did not seem worthwhile to them. This
included contacts from architects and engineers and others who
have experience with these types of contracts.
And so, I immediately began asking questions of the GSA.
And for about a year, that correspondence took place just
between me and the GSA. I did not go public with it, because I
really wanted to get to the bottom of this. I was not looking
for any kind of attention to the project, other than what was
already being received. And then, when I repeatedly did not get
any cooperation from the GSA, I finally went public with the
issue, and a lot more information has been forthcoming, as a
result of that, which is, I think, of benefit to the committee
in examining what went wrong here.
The GSA repeatedly failed to fully answer my many questions
about the project's bid process and design process, in a
pattern defined by a lack of transparency, unresponsiveness,
and dismissal of the public's concerns about this project from
its inception. The GSA's inspector general audited the project,
and found that the agency provided the bidders the maximum
contract amount, in violation of Federal procurement laws,
giving bidders that information and depriving taxpayers of a
fair process to determine the true cost of the project.
The Ranking Member correctly noted that the environment for
these types of projects has been very good, in terms of getting
bids below the estimated cost. That did not happen in this
instance because the GSA said the maximum amount that they
would pay, and guess what? That is what the bids were.
In addition, because of the lack of study ahead of time, it
has now been determined that the primary tenant of the building
will have to move out for a long period of time. So this is
going to be a cost overrun of at least in excess of $60
million, probably $65 million.
Other than a two-page summary prepared after the project
was commenced, the agency has never provided a comprehensive
cost benefit analysis showing that the renovations would be
more fiscally responsible than constructing a new building, nor
have they considered a number of other alternatives that could
be less expensive and more effective, including not doing major
renovations, selling the building, building a new Veterans
Affairs building, as was suggested by Virginia Senators Warner
and Webb, or building a new courthouse. The GSA bypassed the
normal procurement process, similar to what was used to build
the new Social Security Administration building in Roanoke,
preventing the full disclosure of the supposed benefits and
project costs of green updates.
The safety and security of the Poff Building has been given
only cursory attention, despite the structure being located
along a major thoroughfare in Roanoke's central business
district. I attended a meeting in October of 2010 with members
of the Poff Building's security committee and GSA officials to
discuss the security of the building. To my knowledge, no
action regarding the security of the building has been taken
since then, even though it is widely known that there are major
security concerns with this building that houses the United
States District Court, which deals with a lot of controversial
and high-profile criminals and other types of court
proceedings.
The security upgrades to the building, which will have to
be done, will require additional funds, because the planned $51
million renovation does not include funding to address the
security needs of the building. The project's costs have
ballooned by more than $10 million, due to the need to relocate
the Veterans Affairs offices to four different locations in
downtown Roanoke for up to 3 years, posing logistical concerns
and inconveniencing veterans, many of whom are disabled.
Many concerns have been raised about the disruption of the
processing of claims, inadequate work facilities, problems with
employee morale, files being separated in five different
locations. The central file storage will remain in the Poff
Building while the construction is going on, while the walls of
the building are off of it for periods of time. The files will
have to be shuffled around between different floors in order so
that they are not exposed to the environment. There are serious
problems with what is being planned for this process.
I have received many complaints from veterans organizations
and individual veterans, as well as from many employees in the
building. In fact, one local veterans organization filed for an
injunction, seeking to block the relocation of the Veterans
Affairs office while the renovation project proceeds.
I have called for the project to be halted, because I do
not believe it is worthwhile. Failing that, my faith in the GSA
remains deeply shaken, and I hope that this public hearing will
offer additional opportunities to understand why the Poff
Federal Building project has been conducted in such an
unconvincing manner to date.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Denham. Thank you.
Now the Honorable Brian Miller, inspector general, U.S.
General Services Administration.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Chairman
Denham, Ranking Member Norton, distinguished members of the
subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify here
this morning.
My office reviewed the Poff Federal Building in Roanoke,
Virginia, and found that GSA awarded the contract without
adequate price competition, in violation of the law. This
hearing asks the question: ``Are taxpayers paying too much for
the renovations to the Poff Building?'' The answer is we cannot
tell, and we cannot tell because of how GSA awarded the
contract. GSA set the price for construction, instead of using
competition. Without competition, we cannot gauge whether the
prices are fair and reasonable.
Additionally, GSA did not obtain an independent cost
estimate to evaluate price reasonableness. Thus, GSA did not
follow the proper procedures for ensuring fair and reasonable
prices for the Poff Federal Building.
On top of all this, we have an untimely and ineffective
cost benefit analysis. A cost benefit analysis compares
alternatives of building a new building, or renovating an
existing building. This is done as part of the decisionmaking
and planning process to inform the decision that is ultimately
made later. GSA, however, performed its cost benefit analysis
after the decision had already been made, and the contract
awarded.
Even the amounts of Federal dollars spent on this project
do not seem to add up. This project was listed on the Recovery
Act's spending plan at $51 million. As of April 6th of this
year, however, the contract amounts for the design,
construction, and management of the Poff Building reported in
the Federal procurement data system were $52.3 million, an
increase of over $1 million.
The Poff Building is not the only project where competition
was lacking. We have identified six Recovery Act projects where
GSA violated the Competition in Contracting Act by incorrectly
using the construction manager as constructor methodology. I
will refer to that as CMC.
In each case, the construction price lacked price
competition, as it was either set by GSA or set through sole-
source negotiation with the contractor. In each case, the
Competition in Contracting Act was violated.
My office has recommended that GSA institute a system of
management controls to ensure that contractors, using the CMC
methodology, meet competition requirements. In response, GSA
has developed a corrective action plan. The plan includes
standardizing the CMC methodology, issuing guidance, and
providing training to GSA project and contracting staff, and
having CMC procurements reviewed on an annual basis. GSA has
begun to implement these corrective actions by issuing a
standard contract template and guidance for CMC contracts.
However, other steps are yet to be completed.
GSA has an obligation to spend the taxpayers' money on
sound, well-thought-out projects that make the best use of
taxpayer dollars. Our reviews show that GSA does not always
meet this obligation, and did not do so here, at the Poff
Federal Building.
I welcome any questions the subcommittee may have. Thank
you.
Mr. Denham. Thank you, Mr. Miller.
Mr. David Ehrenwerth, regional administrator, U.S. General
Services Administration. You may start your testimony. Thank
you.
Mr. Ehrenwerth. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Denham,
Ranking Member Norton, and distinguished members of the
subcommittee. I very much do appreciate the opportunity to come
here today and discuss this really exciting renovation of the
Richard H. Poff Federal Building and courthouse in Roanoke.
This absolutely critical project, which is funded by the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, is a much needed
investment in the GSA inventory that is going to keep a core,
long-term asset functioning, while increasing its performance
and its energy efficiency. This building modernization is part
of our commitment to help the Nation's economic recovery by
investing in aging infrastructure while creating jobs in local
communities.
As a responsible asset manager, GSA must ensure that our
buildings are well-functioning, safe, and welcoming for all
tenants and visitors. We have expertise in effectively managing
building operations, and responding to the concerns of our
occupants.
The Poff Federal Building, which, as you have heard, houses
the Department of Veterans Affairs and the courts, is 36 years
old, and has never had a major renovation. The building is
really in need of significant repairs to ensure that the
building operates efficiently and provides a workplace
environment that helps these crucial tenant agencies meet their
missions. A modernization of this facility is simply the most
cost effective way to meet the government's housing needs in
Roanoke.
The Poff Federal Building was categorized as an under-
performing asset in GSA's inventory. Our building surveys and
studies show that significant reinvestment is needed to repair
this aging building. The Recovery Act provided us with the
opportunity to invest the funds necessary to update the
building systems and features with high-performance ones. Once
this project is complete, the building will be a performing
asset with an anticipated strong financial return, while
satisfying the long-term customer needs. This project will
extend the useful life of the building, and will improve public
accessibility, while keeping Federal workers in owned and not
leased space.
Specifically, this renovation includes replacing the
inefficient, poor quality, and leaking single-pane glass
curtain wall with a new energy-efficient curtain wall that will
better regulate the building's internal temperatures, and
reduce operating costs. Currently, the windows are so bad that
some of the tenants cannot even see out them, including our
marshals.
The project will also replace the deteriorating roof with a
solar system to generate electricity. This new roof will
prevent heat build-up and reduce the building's air
conditioning load. Additionally, this project will improve the
building's lighting and mechanical systems with new, energy-
efficient systems and technologies. We are replacing failing
building systems that have simply reached the end of their
useful life, including the heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning systems.
Currently, half of the tenants in the space are hot, while
half of the other tenants are cold, often on the same floor. A
new system must be installed to improve building conditions and
reduce further repair costs.
GSA is also addressing deficiencies that impair our
tenants' ability to serve the public, particularly the Veterans
Administration and the veterans that they serve, which occupies
about half the building. We are improving the accessibility for
handicapped individuals. We are renovating public restrooms to
better serve our Nation's disabled veterans who visit this
building, by meeting the Architectural Barriers Act
accessibility standards, which is the Federal equivalent of
complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Additionally, the floor structure will be strengthened to
ensure that it is capable of safely supporting the current and
future weight file needs of the VA, a crucial activity.
GSA wants to ensure that we pursue this project in
partnership with the community and to help create jobs. I have
participated in a number of meetings and forums in Roanoke,
including one with the city council of Roanoke, to explain the
benefits and opportunities of the project, and why we are
pursing it. The very enthusiastic response we received was
quite gratifying.
In these forums I have discussed the importance of ensuring
that GSA assist the general contractor, Balfour Beatty, in
outreach to the community and seeing where there might be
opportunities for subcontracting participation. And there are
many. Balfour Beatty has held a number of small business forums
on its own, including one just this week with veterans groups
and others. And they will continue to do so throughout the
project to help engender the participation of local businesses
in subcontracting.
The design of the Poff Federal Building is now complete.
The swing leases have been awarded. And construction begins
this summer. The investments in the Poff Building will help
stimulate job growth, increase building performance, and
transform the Poff Federal Building into something it is not
now, a welcoming, sustainable, productive workplace for Federal
employees and for the public who come to this building to
receive necessary and important services.
As I said at the beginning, I greatly appreciate the
opportunity to come here today, and to discuss this important
investment. And I welcome any questions you have.
Thank you.
Mr. Denham. Thank you.
And now, Ms. Julia Dudley, clerk, U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Virginia. Welcome.
Ms. Dudley. Good morning, Chairman Denham, Ranking Member
Norton, and esteemed members of the subcommittee. I am the
clerk of court for the Western District of Virginia. And I
appreciate you giving me the opportunity today to come and give
testimony of the impact this project is going to have on the
operations of the court.
Last July, the clerk's office moved from the third floor of
the Poff Building into renovated space on the fifth floor. This
move, in itself, was a long time coming. The move put 24 of my
staff members into contiguous, well-designed, and functional
space. The environment of the office--the morale lifted, the
staff is very, very happy with our new space. It is a
significant change from the chopped-up, cramped, and
dysfunctional space we once occupied.
The new space also provides a private office where
attorneys and the public can access a public computer terminal.
And there they can file pleadings, they can check court
records. We also have an appropriately sized and comfortable
assembly room for our jurors and grand jurors, and also for the
citizens-to-be where they can wait until a naturalization
ceremony begins.
However, by this summer, we will be relocating staff around
and within our space to accommodate the replacement of windows,
lights, and the HVAC system, all part of the ARRA project, as
we call it.
GSA has hosted numerous informational meetings with the
court family. These meetings have been good. The GSA project
manager and other project participants have walked us through
the phasing and construction details of the project. GSA has
also been very responsive to our requests to accommodate the
operational needs of the court. However, once the ARRA project
begins, and for its duration, we will again occupy chopped-up,
cramped space, and lose privacy and functionality.
Neither the clerk's office nor the probation office nor the
four judges whose chambers are located in the Poff Building
will move during this project. Not that we elected to stay in
this space, but because of lack of rentable space with
courtrooms in the Roanoke area. So, instead of moving away from
the construction, we will stay put throughout the 3 years, or
however long it takes to finish the construction, as we carry
on with our duties.
Some of the direct impacts of this project will be: lost
work time as we shuffle and relocate within our own spaces;
additional work for our IT department; reduced courtroom
capacity--we will lose the magistrate judge's courtroom for
approximately 12 months to however long during one phase of
this project. Also, work on the mechanical, electrical, and
plumbing will go on every day on every floor throughout the
project. Noise, dust, the presence of workmen will be a
distraction to the staff.
There likely will be temporary loss of power, heating, air
conditioning. There could be a disruption to our security
system and our IT infrastructure. The cafeteria in the building
closes during the project. Because the windows will be blocked
by temporary walls, we will lose some of the natural lighting
in our space. The employees who are now in offices along the
perimeter of the building will be relocated to temporary
cubicles constructed within the interior of our office. It is
like we are all squeezing together, and we will have to learn
with inconvenient clutter for the next several years.
Gone will be the private office for where the computer
terminal is located. Gone will be the appropriately sized and
comfortable room for our jurors, grand jurors, and citizens-to-
be. Additionally, the probation officers will have to move out
of their offices into temporary structures that will afford
little privacy to the officers and the clients who must visit
them.
My staff, just as all Federal employees, have been asked to
conserve materials and cut back on spending. Now, we are being
told that we will have to endure much disruption and
distraction for the next several years while at work. With GSA
being unable to relocate the court to outside space, the court
and its related agencies will be the only occupants coming to
work in what essentially will be a largely empty 14-story
construction zone. No doubt you can imagine the impact this
will have on the morale of the staff.
Though I fully expect my staff to weather this construction
period and continue to give services to the court and to the
public, disruption of the work environment and our operations
is just a fact of construction life. As with any construction
project, you go into it with high hopes that the result will be
good. However, you also have anxiety and uncertainty as to how
long the project will actually last. But we are trying to keep
the end in sight, and that end will be, hopefully, windows we
can actually see out of, heating and air conditioning that
works well, and a return to appropriate and functional space.
Thank you for your time. I would be happy to answer any
questions.
Mr. Denham. Thank you, Ms. Dudley. I would at this time ask
unanimous consent that our witnesses' full statements be
included in the record. Without objection, so ordered.
We will have two rounds of questioning this morning. We are
going to keep a real strict time limit on the 5-minute rule. I
would like to start, first of all, with Representative
Goodlatte.
You have been--you have done a lot of work investigating
this topic, this project. From what you have found, do you
believe GSA got the best deal for the taxpayers, and could you
expand on----
Mr. Goodlatte. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. As Mr. Miller
says, we will never know what the best deal was. But, as the
Ranking Member pointed out, on a multitude of these projects
around the country, bids have come in lower than was
anticipated. That did not take place here, because the GSA
broke the law and who knows how much the savings might have
been--$10 million, $15 million.
And that just is--in terms of the cost of this project,
there was no cost benefit analysis done to determine whether
not doing this building or doing this project in a completely
different way would have been more effective, and addressed the
needs of the tenants. We have heard from the clerk of the
court. The VA has an even bigger problem, in that they are
dispersed to four different locations, while their files remain
in the construction zone.
I call your attention to all members of the committee. This
is the cost benefit analysis that was done after the decision
was made. Two small paragraphs on this page, and two columns of
figures on this page, and some of the assumptions made here--I
would love to have the committee ask some other contractors or
architects or engineers whether, if you built a new building,
your energy costs would be identical to this building.
It seems to me--and I am not an architect or engineer--but
if you build a new building, the energy efficiency with new
materials and new design is going to yield savings that are not
achieved here. And yet, even after they are all done with this,
the savings over the life of the 30-year projected life of this
is only $8 million out of $111 million that they are talking
about.
In addition, the alterations, both by the building owner,
the GSA, and by the tenants are estimated to be the same. The
construction costs are estimated to be vastly higher for a new
building, and yet there is no documentation of that. And the
design costs are double. But I think they have put an awful lot
of effort and energy into the design of this building for not
much benefit.
Mr. Denham. And could you also explain how the law was
broken in this case?
Mr. Goodlatte. Yes. As the inspector general discovered,
the GSA transmitted to the bidders the maximum amount that the
government was willing to pay on the project, prior to the
bidding taking place. That, I think, resulted in all of the
bidders bidding that maximum amount. And did we lose $10
million, $15 million? I do not know how much we lost. But
clearly, this was not done properly, and should have been done
properly, and perhaps still could be done properly. But it is
very disappointing to me and to my constituents.
Mr. Denham. And, Mr. Miller, as you look at GSA contracts,
is this typical, where the max bid is given out, or is it a
more competitive process, secret bid process?
Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman, the GSA is required to get
competition under the Competition in Contracting Act by not
getting--by giving out the maximum guaranteed price, they
essentially did not get competition for this project, in
violation of that act.
They have had this problem in other projects. I have listed
six of those projects in my written testimony. And they are
primarily connected to the use of this vehicle, the
construction company as constructor methodology. And that
methodology does have its virtues, which perhaps Mr. Ehrenwerth
would like to explain. But it does create problems if it is not
used correctly. And one of the chief problems is no
competition, sole sourcing, and the result is taxpayers do not
get their money's worth.
Mr. Denham. But in this case there was competition. You had
10 bidders, correct?
Mr. Miller. There was--first of all, there was competition
at the design phase, and that is $225,000 worth. So there was
some competition. But the bulk of the project, the $39 million
worth of it, the bulk of the project was not adequately
competed, because they gave out the maximum price. And all the
contractors, not surprisingly, put in the maximum--guaranteed
maximum price. So there was no competition there, they all put
the same price in, the price they got from GSA.
Mr. Denham. And how many bids came in on the final process?
Mr. Miller. I am not aware of exactly how many bids came
in, but they all bid the same amount, so the competition
element was not there.
Mr. Denham. Mr. Ehrenwerth, how many bids came in in the
final process?
Mr. Ehrenwerth. I can confirm that to you. I believe it was
10.
Mr. Denham. Would that have completed the entire process?
Mr. Ehrenwerth. No, it did not. If I might explain how this
works to you----
Mr. Denham. Briefly, and then we are going to go on to
other questions, and I want to follow up on this on the second
round, as well. But if you could, briefly----
Mr. Ehrenwerth. Well, thank you. I respect and admire your
interest in this, as well as the IG's, from whom we learn
often.
But the way this works, which I think is crucial to an
understanding of the process, is that we use this construction
method to get the contractor in earlier, to collaborate in the
design, to have efficiencies and cost savings. It is true, as
the IG points out, that, as we acknowledge, the guaranteed
maximum price was not appropriate, and we are changing that.
But what is missing from that analysis is that the vast,
vast majority of the work on the project is accomplished by
subcontractors who always were intended to be competitively bid
in an open process, and under our contracts and procedures, all
the vast majority of that saving is recouped by the government.
So the bottom line of all of this is that there will be a
competitive bidding of virtually the vast majority of this
project. And the vast majority of that saving, after a small
incentive to the general contractor to make sure we get the
best and cheapest prices, will go right back to the Federal
Government.
So, the procedures, while clearly needing to be modified,
are designed to preserve the best product for the best price,
and get any savings back to the government.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman, if I could, very briefly? The----
Mr. Denham. Very briefly.
Mr. Miller. It is better to compete it upfront, so that you
get the savings upfront. There may be some savings later on
with subcontractors. Any savings, however, would have to be
shared with the contractor, itself, so that that savings is----
Mr. Ehrenwerth. Well----
Mr. Denham. Thank you, thank you. We are not going to get
into a debate here, but I would like to follow up on this on
the next round of questioning.
At this time I would like to turn it over to Ranking Member
Norton.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Ehrenwerth, you began to explain the
agency, but I just want to say for the record I found your
testimony wholly unresponsive to the subject matter of this
hearing. This hearing is not about the project and its strong
points and energy conservation. It is not about the local
community--and I congratulate you on all of that.
The very serious question is raised about the price
competition. And the subcommittee, we have had some concerns
about price that have emerged over time. For example, we have
supported best value, because of the technical details and the
need to take everything into account. But increasingly, best
value does not seem to take price enough into consideration.
You need to explain, first of all, if six projects were
done, were these all six Recovery Act projects that were done
using this?
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Ms. Norton. Yes, says Mr. Miller. So, all the other
projects--none of the other projects uses construction manager
approach?
Mr. Miller. All six do.
Ms. Norton. None of the other projects. They have 200-some
projects. None of your other projects use this approach to the
renovations that you know of, Mr. Miller or Mr. Ehrenwerth?
Mr. Ehrenwerth. The technique is a standard one for the
good purpose, as I believe, as I indicated----
Ms. Norton. All right. If six used it----
Mr. Ehrenwerth. Right----
Ms. Norton. I have 5 minutes. If six used it, Mr. Miller,
do you know of any other of the 275 or so that also used this?
Mr. Miller. There are others, and they are under review
currently.
Ms. Norton. Other than the six?
Mr. Miller. Yes.
Ms. Norton. All right.
Mr. Miller. And it is----
Ms. Norton. Then we got to get at the root of this, because
you concur, Mr. Ehrenwerth, with the inspector general. And you
did so without much explanation. And you say that savings
occurred--this time, certainly, you say--at the subcontractor
level. If that is the case, then I want to know what was the
disadvantage of proceeding with the usual competition for this
project?
Mr. Ehrenwerth. I think there are----
Ms. Norton. Or perhaps put the other way, what was the
advantage of proceeding in this way?
Mr. Ehrenwerth. I believe the advantage of using this
method was to have a coordinated approach between the
contractor and the design process, so that it was effective and
efficient----
Ms. Norton. Did you anticipate that putting a price out
there would mean that every single bidder would come up with
the same price, implying no competition whatsoever?
Mr. Ehrenwerth. Let me try to explain that the price, of
course, was not picked from thin air. The price was the
result----
Ms. Norton. No, I understand that.
Mr. Ehrenwerth [continuing]. Of all the estimates that----
Ms. Norton. You know what? That is what--I understand that.
But there is a marketplace out there, and people anxious to get
work. So, when the government says, ``Here is the number,'' why
in the world--and who knows, they may have been talking to one
another, because we will never know that--but why does that
encourage competition?
Mr. Ehrenwerth. I think that we agree that that approach of
the guaranteed maximum price should not be used in the future.
The point I was trying to make, however, is that the
process that was established--let's understand that well over
80 percent of the price is really established by what
subcontractors bid. And let's understand that----
Ms. Norton. So if that is the case, you see, I have a
problem understanding why we ever, then, use competition on the
front-end of a project.
Mr. Ehrenwerth. Oh, I have agreed with you, I think, that
that is--best guaranteed maximum price, which is the maximum
price, not the price that will be paid, and what I have been
trying----
Ms. Norton. You have given no explanation as to why you
have used this construction manager price approach. Have you no
justification for it?
Mr. Ehrenwerth. It is a--the construction management
contractor approach, as distinct from the guaranteed maximum
price, which was part of it, is highly used, and a well-
established, efficient----
Ms. Norton. Oh, yes. I am talking about construction
manager approach.
Mr. Ehrenwerth. Well, that approach, without the guaranteed
maximum price, is well established to create efficiencies and
effective ways to design and build a building.
The guaranteed maximum price, which was utilized here in
the context of the Recovery Act to move these projects along
and create jobs, is clearly not one that we should use, as the
IG said, and we are correcting that. I am not trying to justify
it. I am trying to explain that through the subcontracting
process, we believe that the vast majority of--if there is any
excess amount in that guaranteed maximum price, which was the
result of very substantial GSA calculations, the vast majority
of that will be recouped through the subcontracting price, and
we will not be using that guaranteed maximum price in this
context again.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Chairman, my time is up. Could I ask,
though, since we have learned that there are even more than the
six that may have used this form, this construction manager
form, and we have been told that there is going to be savings
to the government from the subcontracts, that on each of these
projects, the six and any others that are found, the savings
or, if no savings, be reported to the chairman of the
subcommittee, be shared with the subcommittee?
Mr. Denham. Thank you.
Mr. Ehrenwerth. Happy to do that.
Mr. Denham. Thank you. The chair now recognizes Mr.
Hultgren for 5 minutes.
Mr. Hultgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let us start with
Mr. Ehrenwerth, just a couple of questions, if that is OK.
Current estimate for the renovation of the Poff Building is
$51 million. Just wondered, does that include cost for
temporary space for VA? And, if not, what are the costs
associated with swing space, including moving costs?
Mr. Ehrenwerth. No, Congressman, it does not. As was
pointed out, it is crucial to us that the remodeling and
modernization occur in a way that does not disrupt tenants. So,
in collaboration with the VA and all involved, we have set up
an arrangement where there will be four temporary swing space
locations established in a manner to serve the VA and that has
a cost to it. One has to move in there, pay rent, in lieu of,
of course, what would be paid in the Federal building. So there
is a cost of an additional $10 million, approximately, for all
that process.
Mr. Hultgren. So it is $10 million for the space, including
moving costs?
Mr. Ehrenwerth. A lot of it is dependent, of course, in
terms of how long we are there, because we pay rent at new
space depending on how long we are in the new space. If it is
shorter, it will be less. If it is longer, it will be more. But
the overall project is in the $10 million, plus or minus,
range.
Mr. Hultgren. OK. Including the moving----
Mr. Ehrenwerth. For what we are talking about, the----
Mr. Goodlatte. Congressman Hultgren, if I might add, I do
not believe that does include the $3 million cost of moving the
VA out to these four locations and moving them back.
Mr. Ehrenwerth. Oh, I am sorry. Would you like me to
analyze the----
Mr. Hultgren. No, I just wanted to know the cost of it. So
it is $10 million for the rental of the space, and $3 million--
--
Mr. Ehrenwerth. The rental of space----
Mr. Hultgren [continuing]. For the move to the four other
spots, is that right?
Mr. Ehrenwerth. The rental--Congressman Goodlatte makes an
appropriate point. The rental of the space, the build-out of
what we need to do to make the VA function, and so forth, is in
the $10 million or small amount more than that range.
There is a cost to move, and to coordinate the move, and to
do all that goes with that. Very complicated move. That could
be another $4 million, roughly.
Mr. Hultgren. So $4 million for the move. OK.
According to the GSA inspector general, current GSA data
indicates that the Poff Building renovation has already
exceeded the amount listed in GSA's Recovery Act spending plan.
How do you account for this increase, and what assurances do we
have that the cost will not increase further?
Mr. Ehrenwerth. That, I believe, is an accounting
bookkeeping entry. We have not expended, and do not intent to
expend more money than is budgeted. The vast majority of it is
in our Recovery Act major fund. There is a separate fund for
which the other part is budgeted. All--I would be happy to very
transparently convey all of this to you, but there is no
expenditures that are not covered in our budgeted plans.
Mr. Hultgren. Congressman Goodlatte, do you have a comment
on that?
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Congressman Hultgren. First of
all, the reason why we have $10 million plus $3 million plus we
do not know how much more, is because there was not proper
planning done in advance, and a proper cost benefit analysis
was not done in advance.
Secondly, there are major security issues with this
building. And it is agreed that those are going to have to be
addressed. No plan has been put forward on how it is going to
be addressed, or who is going to pay for it, and how much it is
going to cost. But that is also an additional substantial cost
that is not accounted for at this point.
Mr. Hultgren. Well, that is something I wanted to ask, as
well. With the security questions of the move here, I wondered
how that is going to be addressed, and wanted to make sure we
get a commitment from you to brief us on these security issues
and what GSA plans are to remedy security issues.
Mr. Ehrenwerth. Well, you certainly can have that
commitment, Congressman, and we are happy to brief you.
We have worked very closely with Homeland Security, with
Federal Protection Service, with the marshals, with the judges,
to make sure that this building is safe and secure. Remember,
we are doing this with Recovery Act funds that have specified
purposes to the extent that--and there is no security issue
that makes this a high-risk building, based on all we have been
told by the experts.
To the extent security upgrades are appropriate or
necessary, separate funding is being sought for that.
Mr. Hultgren. Congressman Goodlatte, it looked like you
maybe had something to say on that.
Mr. Goodlatte. Let me just--some of this you might want not
to discuss in a public hearing, because we do not want to go
into too much detail about what those----
Mr. Hultgren. Well, and that is fine. I do think we need to
get this information, though, to our subcommittee, at least.
But----
Mr. Goodlatte. Some of these issues have been raised
publicly. This building is vulnerable. I have attended meetings
of the security committee, which is a group of representatives
from the various agencies that are in the building, none of
which have authority--nor does this committee have authority--
to act, unless the parent agencies provide agreement and
funding to proceed.
And so, to put money into a building that has this kind of
a problem and not have a plan to address these major security
concerns which exist right now at the building--and Homeland
Security and others responsible for security in the building
will tell you that, the U.S. Marshal's office and so on will
tell you that right now--is, I think, irresponsible.
And the construction project is about to move forward. The
court is still going to be operating there. There are going to
be lots of unusual activities taking place on a construction
site, and there is no coherent plan to address the security
during that part of the process.
Mr. Hultgren. My time is up. I yield back.
Mr. Denham. Thank you, Mr. Hultgren. Mr. Ehrenwerth, what
is the security level of the building?
Mr. Ehrenwerth. I am sorry, could you repeat that?
Mr. Denham. What is the security level of the building?
Mr. Ehrenwerth. I am not sure I understand your question.
The building is deemed to be appropriately secure for a
courthouse. Every courthouse can be improved. There are things
to be----
Mr. Denham. There are different security levels, as I
understand it, for--depending on----
Mr. Ehrenwerth. Oh, for different Federal buildings?
Mr. Denham. Yes.
Mr. Ehrenwerth. Let me inquire.
Mr. Denham. Number five is the White House. Is it the same
as the White House?
Mr. Ehrenwerth. It is not----
Mr. Denham. Is it a four, then?
Mr. Ehrenwerth. It is not like the White House. There are--
--
Mr. Denham. Is it a level four?
Mr. Ehrenwerth. I do not have the information in that
context for you. I would be happy to get it for you.
My point simply was that, in collaboration with all the
affected parties, we regularly address security and----
Mr. Denham. And it is not my time right now, but my point
is I am just--I am alarmed at not knowing, first of all, what
level of security it is. But, secondly, I would want to make
sure that whatever the current level of security is, that the
temporary facility is that same level of security or higher, so
that we make sure that the good folks of Congressman
Goodlatte's district are safe.
Mr. Ehrenwerth. Absolutely.
Mr. Denham. And now I will recognize Mr. Gibbs for 5
minutes.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ehrenwerth, I
assume that you are the guy that signed off on all this. You
are in charge, right?
Mr. Ehrenwerth. Well, I am the regional administer. GSA has
a number of people that approve what goes on, some of which
occurred before I got here, but I am----
Mr. Gibbs. How long have you been in this position?
Mr. Ehrenwerth. I have been here since last August.
Mr. Gibbs. Last August?
Mr. Ehrenwerth. Yes.
Mr. Gibbs. What did you do before that?
Mr. Ehrenwerth. I was a partner at a law firm specializing
in real estate development law for 35 years.
Mr. Gibbs. OK. I have a lot of concerns. I mean this is
really embarrassing, I think, that your testimony--to follow up
on Congresswoman Holmes Norton, you know--is about the project,
and all the good things you are doing with the building. But,
you know, you broke the law, as far as I am concerned.
Did you do a cost benefit analysis if we should sell the
building, versus renovate? Whenever I do a project--I do some
stuff back home in Ohio--you know, I determine if it is worth
putting the money in an old project, or to build it new. Did
you guys do an analysis?
Mr. Ehrenwerth. Absolutely. I am very glad you asked that
question, because I think we may have not focused enough on the
fundamental question here. We are, at core, an asset manager.
The first question we ask: ``Is this an important asset that,
if an amount of money that is rational is spent on it, will
extend its useful life to make it an effective building at a
much lower cost than building a new building, or any other
alternative?'' And we looked at it closely, and the answer was
a clear yes.
The reason for that is it would cost twice as much to build
a new building, and the building simply could not continue to
function. And if we did not spend this money, it would
deteriorate further, the cost would be greater, and there was
simply no alternative. It was suggested also, for example, that
we sell the building to some private developer and let that
person spend the money. Well, I have been in the real estate
legal world long enough to know that any developer who would do
that would have to make a profit. So, you have all the costs
that we have, plus his profit. And at the end of it, guess
what? We do not own the building. So, none of those
alternatives made sense.
Mr. Gibbs. Well, I think that is questionable. I think my
colleague wants to respond to that.
Mr. Goodlatte. Well, I think the claim that a cost benefit
analysis was done is simply not accurate. The fact of the
matter is no cost benefit analysis was done prior to the work.
The inspector general has confirmed that. And if you call this
a cost benefit analysis, I think that any private entity making
the kind of decision that you are talking about here, involving
the expenditure of $65 million or more, would spend a little
more effort and a little more energy in doing it.
And then, I think it is worth looking at some of the
conclusions they have drawn in here, saying that, for example,
the energy efficiency on a retrofitted building will be the
same as a new building of the same amount of square footage.
It also does not address the needs of the United States
District Court--and perhaps the clerk would like to address
it--but they have specific needs that are not addressed in this
building, and will not be addressed after this retrofit. And
the VA has told us the same thing. So, while this is
definitely, you know, going to improve the building, the cost
benefit analysis has not been done.
And one of the big advertisements in green energy--the
local newspaper, The Roanoke Times, did a Freedom of
Information Act request, and finally got some information on
which to do some analysis of the energy savings involved here.
And one conclusion was that it could take as long as 218 years
to achieve a payback on the energy savings in this building.
Now, I do not know if it would be that long, but clearly that
is way beyond the life of the building or the equipment that
will be put in the building to achieve that energy efficient. I
do not think a cost benefit analysis was done.
Mr. Ehrenwerth. If----
Mr. Gibbs. Go ahead.
Mr. Ehrenwerth. If I just might clarify one thing, remember
now, the base reason we are doing this is because the systems
are no longer operational. We need to act to improve them, or
this building will not be viable.
As a bonus of that, there are various energy efficiencies
and sustainable goals. That is not why we are spending all this
money. We are spending all this money to make this building a
strong asset for many years to come, which we have done, in
collaboration with the VA and the local courts.
And, by the way, I have just been advised that the building
is level four, and of course all the contracting staff is
cleared by the Department of Homeland Security. We are taking
every step----
Mr. Gibbs. This is my time. I am very concerned. I think,
Mr. Chairman, that, you know, obviously there was not
competitive bidding done, there was not a cost analysis study
done that, to my level, that should be. And I think that, you
know, the first thing that comes to my mind is just plain
incompetence.
And then, if it is not incompetence of how this has been
handled, it really does kind of smell of how the use of the
stimulus dollars was used. And, you know, and I think we
really--I do not know if the inspector general--this might be a
question for the inspector general. Will there be more
investigation, because this was a political favors payback with
stimulus money? Because this thing really, to me, smells.
Mr. Miller. Congressman, we are reviewing other uses of the
construction company as contractor. They are under review. We
are currently working with the Public Building Service to find
out the root cause, the root problem involving the construction
manager as contractor, and we have had discussions with the
commissioner of the Public Building Service, which is--who is
the highest ranking member of the Public Building Service. And
we are currently working with him and the Service to find out
what is causing this.
One of the--I am sure Mr. Ehrenwerth would confirm that one
of the virtues of the construction manager as contractor
vehicle, as far as it concerns the Federal Government, is that
it gets the money out quickly. It commits it quickly, the money
gets obligated quickly.
Mr. Gibbs. My time is up.
Mr. Denham. Thank you. The chair now recognizes Ranking
Member Norton for 5 minutes.
Ms. Norton. The ultimate cost benefit analysis for this
committee has always been will we end up leasing, where the
money goes to a private contractor forever, just as what
happened in the Transportation building, located right here in
this city.
Representative Goodlatte, we have a letter from January the
7th that you wrote to Mr. Ehrenwerth, where you said you had
received a letter from a constituent, Mr. Jake Kofter of
Feldheimer Commercial Real Estate. You met with Mr. Kofter
regarding his proposal for a private alternative to the
government's renovation of the Poff Federal Building. And you
even say in your testimony that there were a number of
alternatives that could be less expensive and more effective,
including not doing major renovations, selling the building, et
cetera. And you point to the OMB analysis.
I am not sure, Mr. Goodlatte, if you are aware. This
building would have been amortized, had it been sold, over the
first term of the lease--usually that is about 15 years--you
are talking about selling the building, a building we own, to
another owner on a lease-back arrangement, which you seem to
favor for your constituents, which would mean that the Federal
Government would then pay rent on a building it once owned.
And if the experience of this committee is any guide,
particularly since, in effect, we would have paid for the
renovation anyway, we will pay for the rent, and the building,
and, at the end of the lease, we will go again. We will lease
it again. Because, after all, we have made a considerable
investment in it. It is as if you had a house, it needs a lot
of repair, but you say to somebody else, ``You repair it, and I
will lease it, and I will keep leasing it for my life and for
the life of everybody in the--who wants to live in this
house.''
Now, this has been one of the great wasters of money of the
Federal Government. The Transportation building is a prime
example of it. We are not going to move from that building. But
because of the way in which scoring works, we are in the
outrageous position of, in effect, leasing back the building
that is the headquarters building we will never move from.
Whatever they did wrong--and I certainly have nothing to
say about what--nothing good to say about what the GSA did--I
must say----
Mr. Goodlatte. Congresswoman----
Ms. Norton [continuing]. I find your proposal even worse.
Mr. Goodlatte. Congresswoman, may I respond to that?
Because that is not my proposal at all.
Ms. Norton. Well, you say it even in your testimony, Mr.
Goodlatte.
Mr. Goodlatte. Well, let me respond, if I might. First of
all, I received inquiries from constituents about what was
going on. One individual came to me and said, ``We think we
have a better idea. We forwarded it to the GSA.''
We are not advocating that. We are saying that a cost
benefit analysis should have been done that took into account
all of the different options that were available, including the
option proposed by anybody--not that particular individual,
because this would have been done before this all ever took
place--but anybody could certainly have an idea. No such study
was done by the GSA to make any determination about that.
If you talk to people who are in the building, they will
tell you that that building does not suit their needs. So one
option would be to sell the building and use the money that was
made available here to do something different, whether it is to
build a new building or to build a courthouse and move the VA
to a different facility. There are lots of different options
that were not----
Ms. Norton. We do not know that, Mr. Goodlatte. We do not
know if, you know, if----
Mr. Goodlatte. We do not know any of that.
Ms. Norton. Go around Roanoke and just do a new building.
We know that they have invested in this building. Your options
were not doing major renovations--I think we can cross that
off. The courts, the vets who were seriously dislocated, all
agreed that this was not a suitable facility. Selling the
building with us leasing it back, do you understand that that
would not have been a viable alternative for the taxpayers?
Mr. Goodlatte. I think that there are different
alternatives in----
Ms. Norton. Would you--I am asking about this one, Mr.
Goodlatte.
Mr. Goodlatte. Well, look, I do not know whether that is a
good alternative or not, because no effective study was done to
determine whether or not any of these alternatives made more
sense than what was decided to do here for a project that was
supposed to be shovel-ready, and here, 2\1/2\ years later, they
have still not begun construction on the project.
So, the fact of the matter is that, like you, when I get
inquiries from constituents I forward them on to the agency so
they can consider whether they are good ideas or not. That in
no way, shape, or form, constitutes----
Ms. Norton. Well, I am glad you do not endorse selling----
Mr. Goodlatte [continuing]. Any particular idea.
Ms. Norton. I am very glad you do not endorse what would
clearly have been the worst of the alternatives, Mr. Goodlatte.
Mr. Denham. Thank you. The chair now recognizes Mr. Hanna
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Hanna. Good morning, everyone. I have been in the
building business for about 30 years, probably bid 2,000 jobs
in my life. Been pretty successful. The one thing I have
learned about the business is that competition is not only
free, but it is your friend. And when you exclude it, you
automatically get something different than the optimum outcome.
I am curious, Congressman. What would be your remedy to all
this, if you had a chance to do it all over right now?
Mr. Goodlatte. First of all, I think you would do a cost
benefit analysis of whether this building is worth putting $65
million into it when it cost $14 million to build just 30, 35
years ago.
Secondly, you would look at whether or not it makes sense,
given the heightened security concerns that certainly have
taken place in the last--certainly since this building was
built, to determine whether it made sense to have the largest
tenant in the building, the Veterans Administration office,
having a key role in determining security issues with a United
States District Court, which has very, very different security
concerns.
And it would make sense to me to look at whether you would
move the court out and build a smaller building to house the
court, and make some renovations to this building, and give the
VA more space, which they say they will need, even after this
process is conclude. Those would certainly be good
alternatives.
Given the economic environment that we are in today, and
given the fact that this building is functioning, I would think
that a very legitimate thing to consider would be to not do
anything major with these dollars right now. Rather, take the
time to figure out what the long-term needs are.
I think what happened here is that the GSA had a building
that they want to keep, clearly, and they suddenly had a lot of
money made available to them. This building generates--I
believe, if you look into it--a net revenue to them, because
the tenants in the building, the court and so on, make their
books look better. Why not take free money and put it into an
old building, regardless of the cost, and let us keep that
revenue stream flowing?
None of that was properly openly analyzed and reviewed
before this decision moved forward and was made.
Mr. Hanna. So it is safe to say that you are not here with
any particular predisposition, you just would like to maximize
the opportunities to find the best outcome.
Mr. Goodlatte. That is correct.
Mr. Hanna. Mr. Ehrenwerth, do you think that because of the
stimulus package and the rush to get that money out there for
what was generally regarded--and hopefully were shovel-ready
products--projects, do you think that that was a cause for this
type of sloppy process, which I think we would all agree is?
Mr. Ehrenwerth. Well----
Mr. Hanna. A less-than-optimum. How is that?
Mr. Ehrenwerth. Well, certainly there is always room for
improvement. The Recovery Act in this particular case, and in
all cases that I am aware of, is creating a lot of jobs and
doing a lot of necessary work on our properties.
It is agreed, as we told the IG previously, that we agree
with his criticism with respect to the guaranteed maximum
price. That is being fixed.
But at the bottom line, the end of the day, this is a very
needed project that will be done for an appropriate price, and
our subcontracting process will ensure that. So I think we are
very convinced that it is the right thing to do to move
forward.
Mr. Hanna. Is it possible to start over?
Mr. Ehrenwerth. I think it would be--anything is possible,
of course. But it would be a waste of funds, it would delay the
project, and it is a much-needed project. So I do not believe
we should start over, no.
Mr. Hanna. I yield back.
Mr. Denham. Thank you. The chair now recognizes Ranking
Member Norton for 5 minutes.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ehrenwerth,
perhaps this is for both Mr. Miller and Mr. Ehrenwerth. This
subcommittee is always concerned about the Federal building
fund, which is one of the reasons that we look carefully before
we decide to lease. We already have tipped the point now on
leasing.
Will the rate of return to essentially the building fund,
and therefore to the taxpayers, after the completion of this
modernization of this building, be--what will the rate of
return--than it is now, what will the rate of return be?
Mr. Ehrenwerth. I can get you specifics I do not have with
me on the calculations of that. But I can say this, that the
rate of return on a deteriorating building whose systems are
falling apart is going to get worse and worse. With this
expenditure, we believe that over the life of this building,
which will be, literally, generations, the rate of return will
be much improved and very, very elongated as compared to not
doing this.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Miller?
Mr. Miller. Congresswoman, problems existed prior to the
Recovery Act, as well. And the Recovery Act did prompt GSA to
fast-track projects, and they did not correctly follow the CMC
(construction management contract), for example. The problems
existed before, and will exist even after all the Recovery Act
money is spent.
Ms. Norton. But affecting the rate of return of the Federal
building fund was my--yes. And I hope those problems will be
corrected. I am asking about the Federal building fund. You are
aware that the upkeep of this building, of buildings all around
the United States so they do not deteriorate the way this
building has, it depends upon whether or not the buildings pay
into the Federal building fund instead of to a private
developer. I am asking about the return to the Federal building
fund.
Mr. Miller. We have not evaluated the rate of return. The
agency would have to provide data on that.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Ehrenwerth, I wish you would, because that
is of great concern to us. That building fund does not do what
it is supposed to do now.
Mr. Miller, does the sale and lease-back of--is the sale
and lease-back of a government-owned building, is that a good
deal for the government?
Mr. Miller. Congresswoman, that is a policy question that
we do not usually get into. We would have to look at the facts
and the numbers. It does seem odd to lease--to build a building
to lease out and to buy back. That generally does not strike me
as a good deal.
But it is essentially a policy area that I would leave to
the policymakers----
Ms. Norton. I guess I should add that, too. I could ask
that to the average person walking down the street, frankly. It
does not require much expertise. What we do want to make sure
is if--is that whatever we do with buildings we own, in fact,
gives us the best, the most competition, not the least. And
that is the problem we are having here.
For the courts, I understand your concern, and I understand
the dislocation. Some of the dislocation, I think, is what
every homeowner experiences. When I renovated my kitchen, I
could not believe it. And that, of course, is something that is
the price of--and I do not mean the cost--of renovation.
But I would be concerned at how that price that the courts
and especially the veterans, how it was handled. Now, there is
concern, and Mr. Goodlatte raised concern about the cost of
what is essentially swing space, the cost of moving people
around. Ms. Dudley said she was pleased that they were able to
remain in the building, especially the courts, even while she
discussed some of the inconvenience.
Would you make us understand the cost, essentially, of
relocation, and the files, and the swing space cost, and how
much of that is taken into account when one renovates a
building?
Mr. Ehrenwerth. Yes. Well, you raise a very good point, of
course. The first basic building block is it is extraordinarily
expensive to move courts to temporary space, because they need
courtrooms and chambers, and all the security that goes with
it. So when you are trying to preserve the taxpayers' dollars,
unless there is some unique situation where you can place court
somewhere else, it is advisable to keep them there, and cost
effective to do so.
With respect to the Veterans Administration, and due to the
size of their space, the need to strengthen the floors and all
that we had to do, it was not viable, because of everyone's
concern, including the GSA, and----
Ms. Norton. It is the veterans I am most concerned about.
It is the veterans I am----
Mr. Ehrenwerth. Well----
Ms. Norton. In fact, the senators were basically concerned
about the veterans. They want to make sure that veterans and
their files--and let me tell you it is interesting to note that
the government has centralized veterans concerns so that even
veterans from the District of Columbia relay to this office in
Roanoke. So they do have a large caseload.
Mr. Ehrenwerth. That is right. And I agree with you in
full.
And what we did--and I personally have met with the
national director of facilities for the VA, for the local VA
office, for the veterans groups. We have done this not by
edict, but by collaboration, to make sure that every veteran
and every veteran's group has the best result out of this, not
only as we see it, but as they see it. And the decision was
that we needed to move them, we would have liked to have moved
them to one building, of course. That was not available.
So, we took those aspects of the Veterans Administration
operations, the service centers where the veterans come, the
service-related private organizations that serve the veterans,
and put them together right across a little street from each
other, making sure there was parking, handicap parking, and
brought their files over to them, again, in very, very, very
regular collaboration with the veterans. And we are spending
some money to do this, because we are achieving the very
important goal of minimizing any disruptions to the VA while we
are doing this.
The VA facilities office nationally has signed off on it,
and is very pleased with what we are doing. We have spent--as
we indicated earlier, there is a substantial cost--$4 million
to move, $10 million-plus for this temporary space--for the
goal of having this operation of the VA continue to run
smoothly and effectively as our veterans deserve, and have them
come back to a better building--for example, where there are
accessible restrooms, where disabled veterans can utilize when
they are meeting the VA, which is not currently the case.
So, we are trying to take care of them permanently, as well
as temporarily, in the most effective way we can.
Mr. Denham. Thank you. Ms. Dudley, you mentioned in your
testimony space was already being renovated when the Recovery
Act project started. Can you briefly describe what the
renovation was?
Ms. Dudley. It predates my time in the office. But I think
about 10 years ago a project was planned to renovate judges
chambers on the third floor and the clerk's office and the
probation office and other offices. It took 2 years to actually
finish the construction work on the clerk's office. Part of the
phasing has now been interrupted by the ARRA project. The
construction on the judges chambers has been halted. But
halted--but now we are going to roll it into the ARRA project.
So it will be done, it is just kind of delayed.
Mr. Denham. And what has GSA done to mitigate the impacts
on your operation?
Ms. Dudley. Well, we have had good meetings with the GSA,
and we have talked about logistics of moving the IT, the phone
lines, the data lines. They worked with us to kind of smooth
out those issues. They have worked with us in terms of making
sure that when areas are blocked we will have other cubicles
and other space to go to.
So, GSA, the project manager, and the other participants
have been very responsive to our requests for accommodation.
Mr. Denham. And from a security perspective, same level of
security as you have always had?
Ms. Dudley. Well, I do not know. You know, that probably
goes a little bit beyond what I am actually able to talk about
today. That would get the marshal's input on that.
Mr. Denham. OK.
Ms. Dudley. Thank you.
Mr. Denham. Thank you. And Mr. Ehrenwerth, I just wanted to
go back to the thinking on the analysis itself, what did or did
not happen. And I would certainly like to see a better cost
benefit analysis than what has currently been provided us.
But just from the rough numbers, a $14 million facility in
1975, now spending $65 million to renovate. Could we not have
built an entire new facility for that, state-of-the-art
facility with all the green bells and whistles that were wanted
for $65 million?
Mr. Ehrenwerth. Congressman, we looked into that. And the
cost of building an adequate new building would be
approximately $124 million, double the cost.
Mr. Denham. What would you have been able to sell the
current facility for?
Mr. Ehrenwerth. Well, I have been in the real estate
business long enough to know that you do not know. You put a
sign on the door, say ``For Sale,'' and it would depend on,
first, the condition of the building, which is not anywhere
near what it should be----
Mr. Denham. Isn't that part of the cost benefit analysis?
Mr. Ehrenwerth. You can do all the cost benefit analysis
possible, but you do not know what a building will sell for
until you see what the marketplace will buy.
Our experience is, and our cost benefit analysis suggests
that a building in this condition would not yield a high price,
not anywhere near the cost of building a new building, nor
anywhere near the cost of selling this----
Mr. Denham. You do not do a rough market analysis? I mean I
can tell you what my house is worth before I put it on the
market. I mean I have got a pretty good idea, just by looking
at what the market is doing.
Mr. Ehrenwerth. Well, let me--to be specific, if we sold
the building as it now stands, we think we could get
approximately--assuming someone was ready and able to buy--$23
million for it. And if you use that $23 million against the
price of a new building, then your new building would net cost
you $100 million, in comparison to what we are spending here,
$40-some million less.
Mr. Denham. And you had said we have not started the
Recovery Act work until this summer?
Mr. Ehrenwerth. We have----
Mr. Denham. That is projected to start the Recovery----
Mr. Ehrenwerth. We have--we are doing the actual
construction of the building starting later this summer. Of
course, we have been doing other work that has created jobs,
getting the four swing spaces ready and all the preliminary
activity that goes with it.
Mr. Denham. And the Recovery Act dollars were for shovel-
ready projects. What is your definition of shovel-ready?
Mr. Ehrenwerth. The Recovery Act dollars obviously had the
goal of moving as quickly as possible. That goal had to be
combined with the goal, as I mentioned earlier, of doing this
in a way that did not disrupt the VA, that considered
everyone's concerns. So, in this particular case, shovel-ready
was combined with the goal of having the right building done
with the right swing space. And so it has taken a bit longer.
Mr. Denham. And your definition of shovel-ready?
Mr. Ehrenwerth. Shovel-ready, I believe, is that you can go
as quickly as possible, and most is in order. In this
particular case, as I indicated, there were important things to
do, such as not disrupt the VA. And that is why it has taken a
bit longer.
Mr. Goodlatte. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Denham. You have a number of different projects under
GSA where you are doing Recovery Act dollars, right?
Mr. Ehrenwerth. Yes.
Mr. Denham. And you had to justify on those projects what
the timeline was for shovel-ready. We are trying to put people
back to work as quick as possible. So what is your timeline on
a shovel-ready project?
Mr. Ehrenwerth. Our timeline----
Mr. Denham. Is it 5 years? Is that shovel-ready?
Mr. Ehrenwerth. The--many of the projects are in order. Let
me back up, if I might, to answer you honestly.
Mr. Denham. We are short on time. We are going to come
back. We are going to do another round of questions. But just a
ballpark. Is it 5 years? Two years? One month? What is shovel-
ready?
Mr. Ehrenwerth. As soon as possible. We obviously like to
do them within months. But we have to look at what is the
requirement. Here we have a project----
Mr. Denham. It is either shovel-ready or it is not. You
must have some type of criteria. If the President says, ``Here,
here is a pot of money for shovel-ready projects,'' which
projects are shovel-ready?
And you cannot say that there is a 5-year project that is
shovel-ready today. I mean I have got to imagine the American
public believes shovel-ready is, ``We can get out there and
start immediately.'' So what is ``immediately,'' in your
definition?
Mr. Ehrenwerth. I do not think there is a particular number
of days or weeks. ``Immediately'' means as soon as possible to
achieve an important goal by--the goal being fast and
appropriately done to preserve a substantial asset.
Mr. Denham. Thank you. Mr. Goodlatte?
Mr. Goodlatte. Mr. Chairman, two things. First of all,
because no study or cost benefit analysis was done before this
quick decision was made, an assumption was made at the outset
that was faulty and very costly, and that is they assumed that
the VA would be able to stay in their space, just like the
courts are staying in their space. And when they got into it,
they discovered that that was not possible, and the VA was
going to have to move out, at an additional cost of at least
$14 million. So, that, I think, is part of their problem. But
this clearly was not shovel-ready from the get-go.
Mr. Chairman, I have been advised that I am needed in the
Judiciary Committee. We are marking up the patent bill, and I
am the chairman of the subcommittee. I wonder if I might be
excused.
Mr. Denham. Absolutely. One final question. In your
definition, what is shovel-ready?
Mr. Goodlatte. In my opinion, shovel-ready would be
something where you are pretty close to being able to take the
plans off the shelf and get to work on the project right away.
Mr. Denham. Now, this is government. Is 5 years shovel-
ready?
Mr. Goodlatte. I think it would be, to me, a lot less than
that. I would think you would be talking months, as opposed to
years.
Mr. Denham. Thank you. The chair will now recognize Ranking
Member Norton for 5 minutes.
Ms. Norton. Well, I think that it is a fair question to ask
what is shovel-ready. I do note that in my testimony I
indicated that GSA had obligated virtually all the funds, and I
do think that if shovel-ready means anything, it is that you
are working on the money and getting it out.
Now, if there is any criticism to be made of the shovel-
ready nature of this project, I am sure it was on a list to be
renovated, given its needs. It is the time it takes that is--
was perhaps not included to make sure that the veterans were
accommodated and that the courts were not disrupted. Did that
delay going into the ground with this project, Mr. Ehrenwerth?
Mr. Ehrenwerth. Well, I think--yes, I think, as we have
heard this morning, we would be subject to great criticism if
we put moving rapidly ahead of making certain that the veterans
and courts were not disrupted, at least any more than we had
to. So, as we explored options for moving quickly, the decision
was made to do what we need to do to minimize. And, yes, that
requires a little more time, and that is what happened.
Ms. Norton. I have only one more question. I just want to
say this hearing has been very important, because it has made
clear to me, and I think the GSA, that even if you are trying
to get work out on the street quickly, there are great problems
with violating--if it was not a violation, at least with
skirting the price and competition requirements of the
government.
But this hearing has also convinced me that you certainly
could not have built a building for what you are renovating
this building for, and that it would have been a disaster if
you had brought the--had taken the proposal of Mr. Goodlatte's
constituent, and put us in the position of selling the building
for $23 million and then leasing it back to him and making him
a rich man forever, because we would have had to lease it
forever from him.
I might also say that I do not see how you could have done
that in the first place, because we do not allow courts to be
in leased space. So we have to own space where our Federal
courts are.
My final question to you is how many jobs were created or
are expected to be created as you continue with this work?
Mr. Ehrenwerth. Quite a substantial number. There are over
100 people working already, preparing the swing space. We
expect there to be 550 direct and indirect jobs as a result of
the construction, and goodness knows how many ripple effect
jobs with more business at the restaurants and hotels, and all
that goes with it. So, several hundred jobs, at a minimum.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
Mr. Denham. Thank you. I wanted to just go back. You said--
again, Ranking Member Norton re-emphasized the point about not
disrupting the veterans. I agree. I could not agree more. I am
on the veterans committee, I am a veteran myself. We do a lot
of work in that area. The last thing I want to do is disrupt
the veterans, or create a security issue with the courts and
the local folks.
What my concern is--is this shovel-ready? So, if we have to
have greater planning, because of a situation with veterans or
a hospital or courts or--regardless of what the project is,
then maybe that is on a capital plan where we are putting
assets out there, or funding available out there for a long-
term, 2-year, 5-year, 10-year plan. But if it is shovel-ready,
I believe the American people believe that a shovel-ready
project is going to be ready to put a shovel into the ground,
not push paperwork for several years, or several months.
So, one of the things that this committee would like to see
is, what is your definition for a shovel-ready project. You
must have some criteria available that, when the President
comes and says, ``I have got stimulus dollars, I have got
Recovery Act dollars, we are going to work on putting people
back to work,'' that there must be some type of criteria to
actually getting people back to work, and getting projects
moved forward.
Not only on this project, but we have--in my district, we
have got high-speed rail where we are putting stimulus dollars
on something that we are not going to see a shovel into the
ground for 4, 5, or 6 years, which again, in my definition, is
not shovel-ready. So I would like to see specific criteria on
what your shovel-ready projects are, or what your goals are,
specifically, for Recovery Act and stimulus dollars.
As well, I would like to see the cost benefit analysis that
you have already provided, as well as any other information
that has come out, either after the bid, as well as prior to
accepting the bid.
And then, lastly--this is more of a comment than a
question--it appears to me, from my conversations with
Congressman Goodlatte, that he has not had the greatest level
of cooperation. I am working very well with GSA and OMB right
now. We are getting a great deal of cooperation. But this--
certainly from past history with Ranking Member Norton a number
of projects, as well as taking over this chairmanship, there
has not been the greatest track record there. And once again,
we are seeing from another congressman, from his local
perspective, not the greatest cooperation, as far as getting
information.
I would hope that we would continue, as we have seen over
the last month, a greater working partnership here, so that we
can avoid having these types of conflicts in the future.
Final comments from Ranking Member Norton?
Ms. Norton. Thank you. You are speaking for me, as well,
Mr. Chairman, about cooperating with the subcommittee and
promptly getting information to the subcommittee. You only gain
the resentment of the subcommittee when you do not get
information, whereas the subcommittee--and you have seen
Chairman Denham runs the committee just as I do--they are
willing to work with you. But if we do not get the information,
then we are working against you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Denham. Thank you for your testimony. Your comments
have been very insightful. We will look forward to getting this
information back on the various questions.
If there are no further questions from the committee, I
would like to ask unanimous consent that the record of today's
hearing remain open until such time as our witnesses have
provided answers to any questions that may be submitted to them
in writing, and unanimous consent that the record remain open
for 15 days for any additional comments and information
submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in the record
of today's hearing.
[No response.]
Mr. Denham. Without objection, so ordered. I would like to
thank our witnesses again for their testimony today. If no
other Members have anything to add, the subcommittee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:42 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]