[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 10]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 14428]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    INTRODUCTION OF ``THE SAFETY, EFFICIENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ON 
    TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS THROUGH PUBLIC INSPECTION ACT OF 2007''

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. BOB FILNER

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 24, 2007

  Mr. FILNER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Safety, 
Efficiency and Accountability in Transportation Projects through Public 
Inspection Act of 2007 (H.R. 2485).
  This bill would require public employees to perform the inspection 
and related essential public functions on all state and local 
transportation projects. My bill is intended to ensure that public 
safety is protected, transportation funds are not wasted and projects 
are delivered in a timely manner.
  On transportation projects, the construction inspector is the eyes, 
ears and voice of the public. Inspectors ensure that construction and 
seismic standards are met, that projects meet safety requirements and 
that the materials used will stand the test of time. In short, 
inspectors are there to ensure that the motoring public gets what they 
pay for and public safety and the public interest are protected.
  When the construction inspection function is outsourced to a private 
company, there is no longer a representative of the public on the job 
site. In this circumstance, one private company is charged with the 
task of inspecting the work of another private company. This creates 
multiple conflicts for the private inspector. First, the private 
inspectors' primary obligation and responsibility is not to the public, 
but to the success and profitability of his company. Because the 
private construction company whose work they are inspecting on one 
project may be a business partner on a future project, private 
inspectors may also feel pressure from the private contractor to take 
steps that ensure larger profits for both firms. I am concerned that 
these conflicts have led private inspectors to cut corners and overlook 
problems that threaten public safety, increase costs and delay 
projects.
  There are many examples in which public safety has been threatened by 
the use of private inspectors, including Boston's ``Big Dig'' (where a 
concrete slab from a tunnel ceiling fell and killed a woman), the L.A. 
Redline subway (Hollywood Blvd. collapsed), the 8-805 Interchange in 
San Diego (10,000 defective welds on a seismic retrofit), the 
Connecticut I-84 project (hundreds of drains that lead nowhere).
  Contracting out public inspection work also does not save money. 
Defective work requires extensive repairs, and inevitably, the taxpayer 
gets stuck with the bill. Comparative studies have also found that 
contracting-out engineering, design, and inspection costs more than to 
do this work in-house, and none of these studies found that consultant 
engineers were less expensive. Factors that contribute to consultants' 
excessive costs include the lack of competitive bidding, cost-plus 
provisions in contracts, salary differentials between the private and 
public sectors, profit margins of from 10 percent to 15 percent, and 
additional costs connected with selecting and supervising consultants.
  Failure to have public construction inspectors has also delayed 
projects in the past and will undoubtedly do so in the future. One such 
example is the privately inspected $12 million carpool bridge 
connecting the San Diego (405) and the Costa Mesa (55) Freeways. The 
project was to have been completed in April 2003. However, work was 
halted in August 2002 when chunks of concrete were falling from the 
structure and many cracks were noticed. Contractor and private 
inspector errors were later discovered and the carpool ramp did not 
open until January 2005.
  The public and the Federal Government understand what's at stake. In 
a 2006 California public opinion poll, 71 percent of those surveyed 
said they want State engineers to inspect the construction of State 
highways; only 20 percent found private firms acceptable for the task. 
David M. Walker, the Comptroller General of the United States, said in 
a recent interview: ``There's something civil servants have that the 
private sector doesn't, and that is the duty of loyalty to the greater 
good--the duty of loyalty to the collective best interest of all rather 
than the interest of a few. Companies have duties of loyalty to their 
shareholders, not to the country.''

                          ____________________