[Senate Hearing 109-260]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-260
PROGRESS OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER, 2005
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SPECIAL HEARINGS
MAY 17, 2005--WASHINGTON, DC
JUNE 14, 2005--WASHINGTON, DC
JULY 14, 2005--WASHINGTON, DC
SEPTEMBER 15, 2005--WASHINGTON, DC
OCTOBER 18, 2005--WASHINGTON, DC
NOVEMBER 16, 2005--WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
22-426 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
__________
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri TOM HARKIN, Iowa
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
CONRAD BURNS, Montana HARRY REID, Nevada
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire PATTY MURRAY, Washington
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado
J. Keith Kennedy, Staff Director
Terrence E. Sauvain, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado, Chairman
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
(ex officio)
Professional Staff
Carolyn E. Apostolou
Terrence E. Sauvain (Minority)
Drew Willison (Minority)
Nancy Olkewicz (Minority)
Administrative Support
Christen Taylor
C O N T E N T S
----------
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Page
Architect of the Capitol......................................... 1
Government Accountability Office................................. 9
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Architect of the Capitol......................................... 35
Government Accountability Office................................. 39
Thursday, July 14, 2005
Government Accountability Office................................. 63
Architect of the Capitol......................................... 75
Thursday, September 15, 2005
Architect of the Capitol......................................... 90
Government Accountability Office................................. 96
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Architect of the Capitol......................................... 124
Government Accountability Office................................. 129
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Architect of the Capitol......................................... 152
Government Accountability Office................................. 159
PROGRESS OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 17, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch,
Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:30 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building. Hon. Wayne Allard (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Allard, Cochran, and Durbin.
STATEMENT OF ALAN M. HANTMAN, FAIA, ARCHITECT OF THE
CAPITOL
ACCOMPANIED BY BOB HIXON, PROJECT DIRECTOR, CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER,
ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
opening statement of senator wayne allard
Senator Allard. The subcommittee will come to order. We
meet today to take testimony from the Architect of the Capitol,
Alan Hantman, and the Comptroller General, David Walker, on the
progress of the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC).
Accompanying Mr. Hantman is the CVC Project Director Bob
Hixon. Mr. Walker is joined by Terrell Dorn of GAO.
As chairman of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee, I
intend to monitor progress of this critical project closely, to
ensure the Architect is doing all in his power to finish this
project in a timely and cost effective fashion.
While the AOC met a major milestone in ensuring the east
front plaza was in sufficient condition to accommodate the
requirements of the 2005 inaugural, we are a long way from
completion of this project. It is at least 20 months behind the
original schedule and many dollars over the 2002 budget, which
included new security requirements and expansion of House and
Senate space. The budget and schedule for this 580,000 square
foot underground facility have been concerns for at least 3
years. Today's hearing will focus on getting further
clarification on the budget and schedule.
There are many other CVC-related issues, particularly those
associated with the operation of the visitor center. But we
will save those for another day. We have asked the Comptroller
General to testify today since the Government Accountability
Office has been monitoring the project closely from the start.
We will first hear the Architect's opening statement
followed by Mr. Walker's and then we'll have 5-minute rounds of
questions. I have been informed that the minority member,
Senator Richard Durbin, will be here a little bit later this
morning and when he arrives, we'll give him an opportunity to
do an opening statement if he'd like, and then I'd call on the
chairman of the full committee to see if he has any statements
that he'd like to make.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the convening
of the hearing and for your leadership as chairman of this
subcommittee. We think it is very important for us to
understand fully what the needs are and what our interests are
in connection with the expansion of the Capitol and the
improvements that are being made for our capabilities for
screening and other security measures that will help protect
the Capitol, and also enhance the opportunities of visitors to
the Capitol to enjoy and appreciate the U.S. Capitol.
So, it's a big undertaking. We know it's not easy to
address all of these issues in a hearing of this kind. But,
over the last several months I think the subcommittee has shown
a willingness to get involved in an understanding of the
challenges so that we can better respond to the needs that we
have for an orderly and thoughtful support effort by the
Congress for the work that's being done to try to help improve
the lines of communication between the Architect's office and
others who are involved in this project. And I think great
progress on this plan, Mr. Chairman, is being made, and much of
that is due to your leadership and I appreciate that and I want
to commend you for it.
We also recognize the fact that others are working hard,
conscientiously in connection with this project to discharge
their responsibilities and I think we need to recognize that
and express our appreciation to the Architect and all of those
who have been involved in this project over the last several
years.
Senator Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate
your personal interest in coming to these meetings. We very
much appreciate your support.
Mr. Hantman, we'll go ahead and ask you to begin your
testimony. Welcome to the subcommittee, along with Mr. Hixon.
OPENING STATEMENT OF THE ARCHITECT
Mr. Hantman. Thank you.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Cochran. Thank you for
this opportunity to testify today, and to report to you on the
progress made on the CVC project since we last met on April 13.
While a little more than 4 weeks have passed, we have
indeed achieved some significant goals that we discussed with
you last month. Mr. Chairman, you pointed out, and we all
acknowledged that the most important of these goals was the
need for a fully integrated project schedule. One that
encompassed not only construction, but the myriad ancillary
activities necessary to open the Capitol Visitor Center to the
public. While we had a construction schedule and a master
schedule, the two were not fully integrated. I am pleased to
report that we now have that fully integrated schedule in hand,
which gives us the tool necessary to monitor more closely and
accurately the progress of our contractors. I should note that
with more than 4,000 scheduled activities remaining,
refinements to the schedule will continue to occur as we move
forward.
But certainly we are in a better position than ever before
to track construction activities, identify issues and perhaps
most importantly, recognize the relationship between
activities. Seeing the fully integrated picture will help us
minimize the ripple effect that can occur when a problem of
delay in one area affects several other areas or activities. I
look forward to discussing this with you in some detail at this
hearing.
We also spoke last month, Mr. Chairman, about the need to
award the contract to construct the exhibition galleries phase,
a key component of the visitor experience in the CVC. Again, I
am pleased to report that since our last meeting, we received
the necessary approvals to award the contract, and that award
occurred on May 4. We're now evaluating the exhibition gallery
construction schedule to ensure that delay in the award does
not affect our ability to complete this space in September
2006, to coincide with the completion of other visitor-related
activities.
And finally, as you know, the President signed a
supplemental appropriations budget last Thursday. Therefore,
just yesterday, Mr. Chairman, we awarded the contract for the
build out of the House and Senate expansion space, a very
significant milestone.
As we discussed in April, while work on the expansion space
will extend beyond the completion of the visitor center
facilities by several months, we do not, at this time, expect
it to delay our abilities to open the doors of the visitor
center to the public.
Now, Mr. Chairman, while you visited the project site with
me just last month, much additional progress has been made,
which I would like to detail for you at this time, if I may. As
I discuss specific areas, I have four photo boards which will
help you see the progress we have made in several areas.
First, let me say that our sequence 2 contractor, Manhattan
Construction, continues its operations in all areas of the
project site. We have completed fireproofing on all three
levels of the CVC including the Congressional Auditorium. We
are now working on remaining fireproofing work on the east
front extension inside the Capitol building itself, while
contractors continue to install duct work and piping for all
heating, cooling, supply and waste water, and fire protection.
Concrete masonry block walls continue to rise to define
interior spaces. In the exhibition gallery, for example, block
walls now define the virtual House and Senate theaters. And
here on this rendering, Mr. Chairman--this is the South
Orientation Theater--it's now almost entirely enclosed as the
block work for the screen wall up here is done, the columns are
in place; you can see a worker up over here finishing that up.
We are now getting it completely detailed and laid out, so that
we can begin stone installation in this area.
The bottom rendering essentially is just that--it's a
rendering of what this space will look like once it is
completed and you can see the form and the shape of the space
is taking shape very nicely.
On the next board it shows the Great Hall and the majestic
view of the Capitol Dome in the rendering over here through one
of the skylights. You can see some of the block work columns
are already in place. This, in fact, is the view through the
skylight, the fastening elements, the support elements are
being installed around the fascia of the skylight, and you can
see again the space is taking shape. It's going to turn out to
be very much as we show in the rendering over here and we're
moving along well on that.
Now, outside at the CVC entrance area, stone crews are
beginning to install exterior wall stones at the retaining wall
along the pedestrian ramp leading down from the Senate side
here. And as you can see on this board, the view from the
rendering is very much like what essentially is being built
right now. So the reality of the physical form is taking shape
and people can begin to appreciate the physical finality of the
project as we continue to move ahead.
And finally, on this last board it shows a broader view of
the east front plaza. Our deck, as you can see, is entirely in
place, the crews continue to set some of the 200,000 granite
pavers that will cover the plaza, the entrance zones in the
foreground are near their final graded elevations and we
continue to move ahead. And here is the rendering essentially
from that same angle of what this will look like as we complete
the work.
Once again, I thank you for this opportunity to report to
you on the CVC project. I do thank you also for your active
involvement on this subcommittee. It clearly has helped move
the project forward just over the last month in fact. I'd be
happy to answer any questions you might have at this time.
Senator Allard. Thank you Mr. Hantman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Alan M. Hantman, FAIA
Mr. Chairman, Senator Durbin, members of the Committee, thank you
for this opportunity to testify today and to report to you on the
progress made on the Capitol Visitor Center project since we last met
on April 13.
While little more than four weeks have passed, we have, indeed,
achieved some significant goals that we discussed with you last month.
Mr. Chairman, you pointed out, and we all acknowledged, that the most
important of these goals was the need for a fully integrated project
schedule--one that encompassed not only construction, but the myriad
ancillary activities necessary to open the Capitol Visitor Center to
the public. While we always had a construction schedule and a master
schedule, the two were not fully integrated. I am pleased to report
that we now have that fully-integrated schedule in hand, which gives us
the tool necessary to monitor more closely and accurately the progress
of our contractors. I should note that with more than 4,000 scheduled
activities remaining, refinements to the schedule will continue to
occur as we move forward, but certainly, we are in better position than
ever before to track construction activities, identify issues and
perhaps most importantly, recognize the relationship between
activities. Seeing the big--and fully-integrated--picture will help us
minimize the ripple effect that can occur when a problem or delay in
one area affects several other areas or activities.
We also spoke last month, Mr. Chairman, about the need to award the
contract to construct the Exhibition Gallery space, a key component of
the visitor experience in the CVC. Again, I am pleased to report that
since our last meeting, we have received the necessary approvals to
award the contract and that award occurred last week. We are now
evaluating the Exhibition Gallery construction schedule and are working
to ensure that the delay in the award does not affect our ability to
complete this space in September 2006 to coincide with the completion
of the other visitor facilities.
And finally, now that the President has signed the Supplemental
Appropriations budget, we are poised to award the contract for the
build-out of the House and Senate Expansion Space and we are hopeful
that will occur within the next several days. While work in the
expansion space will extend beyond the completion of the Visitor Center
facilities by several months, we do not, at this time, expect it to
delay our ability to open the doors of the Visitor Center to the
public.
Mr. Chairman, while you did visit the project site with me just
last month, already much additional progress has been made, which I
would like to report to you at this time.
First, let me say that our Sequence 2 contractor, Manhattan
Construction, continues its operations in all areas of the project site
and we have completed fireproofing on all three levels of the CVC,
including the Congressional Auditorium. We are now completing the
remaining fireproofing work in the East Front Extension inside the
Capitol Building. While contractors continue to install ductwork and
piping for all heating, cooling, supply, waste water, fire protection,
and electrical systems, the concrete masonry block walls continue to
rise to define interior spaces. In the Exhibition Gallery, for example,
blockwalls define the virtual House and Senate theaters and now hide
the East Front concrete columns along the west wall of the gallery. The
south orientation theater is now almost entirely enclosed as the
blockwork for the screen wall, interior columns and elevator shaft is
complete.
In the Service Level, the delivery and installation of air handling
units continue to be the most critical and sensitive activities in this
area. The units are so large, Mr. Chairman, that they must be delivered
in up to five pieces to be able to fit through openings and between
columns as they are transported and maneuvered into place on concrete
equipment pads. The largest unit is approximately 40 feet long, 20 feet
wide and 12 feet high.
Outside, at the CVC entrance zone, a stone crew began to install
the first exterior wall stone to the retaining wall along the north
pedestrian ramp.
Finally, at the CVC utility tunnel along East Capitol Street,
trench excavation was completed to a depth of 20 feet and a concrete
slab was placed. The pre-cast concrete tunnel sections began to arrive
late in the month and installation will continue through May. We are
still on schedule to bring steam in the CVC this October.
Again, thank you for this opportunity to report to you on the CVC
project and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have at
this time.
CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER EXPLANATION OF ACTUAL AND EXPECTED COST
INCREASES \1\--APRIL 7, 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The cost estimates and categorizations discussed are based on
the best information readily available, does not include potential
additional scope items ($4.2 million), and could change in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Project
The 1999 project budget was $265 million.
Congress added $38.5 million for five additional scope items (LOC
and House Connector tunnels, extension of East Front elevators,
enhanced perimeter security, and temporary operations and security),
which brought the budget to $303.5 million. These items are now
expected to cost substantially less (about $30 million) than
anticipated when the funds were appropriated.
The project experienced significant unexpected cost increases of
about $34 million in its early stages. The bid prices for Sequences 1
and 2 contracts exceeded the budget by $4 million and $14 million,
respectively, and pre-construction costs exceeded the budget by about
$16 million due largely to unforeseen circumstances and increased
scope.
Sequence 1 work experienced significant delays (about a year) due
to such factors as unforeseen conditions, weather, and schedule
management issues, and these delays, in turn, delayed the start of
Sequence 2. Costs associated with delays are expected to be about $36
million, of which AOC has already paid $10.3 million for Sequence 1
delay costs.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ No funds were initially included in the budget for delays, but
$3.9 million was added in 2003 for delay costs (part of $47.8 million).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AOC soon plans to award contracts for several design-to-budget
items (e.g. exhibits, House Connector tunnel, and equipment) that are
now expected to overrun the budget by about $6 million, due largely to
higher than expected bid prices.
In an attempt to save money the AOC delayed proceeding with
construction of the Utility Tunnel while it was deciding on design
options. This delay will cost about $1 million.
AOC has or plans to make about $5 million in design changes due to
such problems as necessary redesigns resulting from expansion space
requirements, scope gaps between Sequences 1 and 2, and designs that
were initially incomplete or inaccurate. At least some of these costs
are due to fast tracking design and procurement.
AOC had to or expects to make about $7 million in changes for
security and enhanced fire protection and about $4 million in changes
due to unforeseen field conditions during construction.
AOC will likely need about $7 million for future changes to
Sequence 2.
Expansion Spaces and Filtration
An additional $70 million was added to the project budget for the
construction and fit-out of the House and Senate expansion spaces. In
November 2004 AOC received higher than expected bid prices for the fit-
out work. These increased prices together with provision for additional
contingency are likely to exceed the budgeted cost by about $15
million.
USCP has recently identified the need for a contractor to monitor
SCIF space construction and it roughly estimates this will cost about
$3.9 million. It is not clear if these funds will be funded by the CVC
or the USCP budget.
AOC received an additional $35 million from DOD for an enhanced air
filtration system. AOC returned about $1.7 million in unobligated funds
to DOD at the end of fiscal year 2004. This $1.7 million may be needed
for future work on the filtration system due to its uniqueness and
complexity.
CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER ADDITIONAL FUNDS NEEDS TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT--APRIL 7, 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GAO Estimated Variance from
Project Budget Cost Budget Summary Reasons for Additional Funds Needed
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base Project:
AOC Administration..................... $7,600,000 $8,567,000 $967,000 Additional staff costs due to delays.
Design and Construction Admin.......... 22,288,780 22,885,000 596,000 Cost of extending consultant contracts due to delays and additional commissioning.
Construction Management................ 16,000,000 19,218,000 3,218,000 Cost of extending construction manager contract due to delays.
Pre-Construction Work.................. 27,400,000 26,996,000 (404,000) Funds no longer needed per AOC
Sequence 1............................. 114,950,000 113,953,000 (997,000) Delay costs; net reduction due to work transferred from Sequence 1 to Sequence 2 contractor.
East Front Interface................... 13,600,000 15,494,000 1,894,000 Changes due to differing site conditions, design changes and additional contingency.
Sequence 2............................. 106,300,000 139,086,000 32,786,000 Delay costs ($18.2 million), known and forecasted changes, and additional contingency
Jefferson Building Modification........ 3,300,000 3,577,000 277,000 Additional funds for punching through Jefferson Bldg.
Equipment (Kitchen & AV)............... 4,300,000 4,843,000 543,000 Additional contingency.
Exhibit and Film....................... 18,000,000 21,979,000 3,979,000 Higher than expected bid prices and additional contingency.
Security............................... 17,350,000 18,218,000 868,000 Additional contingency.
--------------------------------------------------
Base Project Subtotal................ 351,088,780 394,816,000 43,727,000
==================================================
Expansion Space:
House.................................. 35,000,000 43,200,000 8,200,000 Additional contingency and higher than expected bid prices.
Senate................................. 35,000,000 42,100,000 7,100,000 Additional contingency and higher than expected bid prices.
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................. 70,000,000 85,300,000 15,300,000
==================================================
Filtration................................. 33,300,000 35,000,000 1,700,000 Additional contingency.
--------------------------------------------------
Total................................ 454,388,780 515,116,000 60,727,000
==================================================
Reserve Fund............................... N/A 43,500,000 ............... For additional risk and uncertainty.
Potential additional scope items........... N/A 4,232,000 ............... As requested in AOC's fiscal year 2006 budget.
SCIF construction monitoring............... N/A 3,900,000 ............... Monitoring necessary for accreditation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE:
Delay cost estimates are for budgetary purposes only; the basis for contractor equitable adjustments has not been evaluated.
Expansion space costs are based on bids received 11/09/2004 and have not been fully evaluated by the AOC.
Estimate for SCIF construction monitoring provided by USCP.
CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER RECONCILIATION OF ORIGINAL ESTIMATE TO FUNDING PROVIDED AND REQUESTED --APRIL 7, 2005
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Estimate (1999)....................... 265.0 Funding Dates/Sources:
$100.0--Oct. 1998 (Pub. L. No. 105-277)
$100.0--Sept. 2001 (Pub. L. No. 107-38)
$65.0--April 2003; CPC approval of amount from
Capitol Preservation Fund.
Additional Scope Items:
Library of Congress Tunnel................. 12.0
Improved House Connection.................. 6.0
Extend Existing East Front Elevators....... 6.0
Enhanced Perimeter Security................ 3.5
Temporary Operations and Security.......... 11.0
-------------
Additional Scope Items................... 38.5 Sept. 2001 (Pub. L. No. 107-38)
=============
Original Estimate plus Additional Scope 303.5
Items.
=============
Adjustments Based on Gilbane/Tishman/GAO 47.8 Sept. 2003 (Pub. L. No. 108-83) \1\
Analyses.
-------------
Adjusted Estimate After Analyses......... 351.3
Rescission Applied Against $47.8 million (0.2)
Additional Funding.
-------------
Adjusted Cost Estimate--Base Project..... 351.1
=============
Expansion Space:
Senate..................................... 35.0
House...................................... 35.0
-------------
Expansion Space.......................... 70.0 Nov. 2001 (Pub. L. No. 107-68)
-------------
Base Project plus Expansion Space........ 421.1
=============
Security Enhancements.......................... 35.0 April 2003: Funding provided by DOD
-------------
Total Security Enhancements.............. 456.1
Security Enhancement Funds Returned by AOC..... (1.7) July 2004: Funding returned to DOD
-------------
Total Funding Provided (Base Project plus 454.4
Expansion Space plus Security
Enhancements).
=============
Funding Requested:
Transfer from Emergency Response Fund \2\ 26.3
(November 2004/January 2005)..............
Fiscal Year 2006 Budget (construction only) 36.9
-------------
Total Funding Requested.................. 63.2
=============
Total Funding Provided and Requested..... \3\ 517.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Comprised of $35.8 million appropriated to AOC and $12.0 million made available to AOC through transfer from
AOC account ``Capitol Police Buildings and Grounds'' to AOC account ``Capitol Visitor Center.'' The funds
being transferred were appropriated under Pub. L. No. 108-11.
\2\ In addition, the November 2004 and January 2005 letters included a request for obligation authority of
previously provided funding.
\3\ In addition, Pub. L. No. 108-447 authorizes the transfer of not more than $10.6 million from AOC's Capitol
Building account to the Capitol Visitor Center project.
Senator Allard. I would like to next call on Mr. Walker to
give us his testimony. We appreciate you helping us with this
project, Mr. Walker.
STATEMENT OF DAVID M. WALKER, COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF
THE UNITED STATES, GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
ACCOMPANIED BY TERRELL DORN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Mr. Walker. Thank you, Chairman Allard, Chairman Cochran,
it's a pleasure to be before you to be able to discuss GAO's
ongoing work regarding the progress of the Capitol Visitor
Center project. As you both know, we testified on this topic
before the Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch, the House
Committee on Appropriations in July 2003, and we continue to
periodically brief congressional representatives, the CVC
Project Executive, and the Architect of the Capitol with regard
to our related activities. Before I come to the bottom line,
Mr. Chairman, I assume that my entire statement will be
included in the record.
Senator Allard. Yes.
Mr. Walker. Thank you.
Senator Allard. Yes, your statement will be made a part of
the complete record.
Mr. Walker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Therefore, I'll
summarize the critical elements.
I think it's important to note that the AOC has overall
responsibility for this complex project, but a construction
management firm, mainly Gilbane Building Company, is providing
a range of construction management services in support of the
AOC, including coordinating the activities of the major
construction contractors, monitoring worker safety and
providing AOC with the status information for reporting to the
Congress. The Architect of the Capitol has decided to implement
the project in two phases or sequences. In June 2002 it awarded
the sequence 1 contract, the excavation and structural work to
Centex Construction Company, and in April 2003, it awarded the
sequence 2 contract for the mechanical, electrical, plumbing
and interior finishing work to Manhattan Construction Company.
In summary, the CVC project is taking about 2 years longer
than originally planned, is expected to cost between $522
million and $559 million, significantly more than originally
estimated. However, the majority of the delays and cost
increases were largely outside of AOC's control. But weaknesses
in AOC's schedule and contract management activities have
contributed to a portion of the delays and the cost overruns.
Of the project's estimated cost increase, about $147
million is due to scope changes, such as the addition of the
House and Senate expansion spaces. About $45 million are
attributed to factors that are partially or outside the ability
of AOC to control, such as higher than expected bids on the
sequence 2 contract, due to some--in part due to some--
unexpected conditions below ground. And about $58 million are
due to factors that were somewhat within AOC's ability to
control, such as delays.
Also, our analysis of the CVC worker safety data show the
injury and illness rate for 2003 was about 50 percent higher
for the CVC than for comparable construction sites, and that
the rate for 2004 was about 30 percent higher than 2003. I
will, however, note Mr. Chairman, that we have done a little
bit of work for 2005, for the first quarter of 2005 and things
seem to have improved in the first quarter of 2005, although we
haven't completed that work yet.
Finally, a number of monthly reports to the Congress in our
view have not fully and fairly reflected the status of the
project's construction schedules and costs, and in some cases
are not including accurate worker safety data. This has led to
certain expectation gaps within the Congress. I might also note
that AOC's current schedule completion date for the CVC is now
September 2003--pardon me, 2006. I apologize. We believe
however that given past problems and future risks and
uncertainties, that the completion date may be delayed to
between December 2006 and March 2007. Additionally AOC's
scheduled completion date of the interior of the House and
Senate expansion spaces is now March 2007.
I think it's important to note that the AOC has taken a
number of actions to improve its management of the project. I
will also note that since Bob Hixon has joined the AOC in March
2004, we have seen a significant improvement, and I think that
should be noted for the record.
However, a number of actions still need to be taken in
order to fully identify the challenges that we have brought
forth. To help prevent further schedule delays, control cost
growth and enhance worker safety, AOC urgently needs to give
priority attention to managing the project's construction
schedules and contracts, including those contract provisions
that address worker safety. These actions are imperative if
future cost growth, schedule delays and worker safety problems
are to be avoided.
AOC also needs to see that it reports accurate information
to the Congress on the project. Furthermore decisions by the
Congress will have to be made regarding additional funding
needed to complete construction and to address any related risk
and uncertainties that may arise. Mr. Chairman, that summarizes
my statement. I'll be happy to answer any questions that any of
you may have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of David M. Walker
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am pleased to be
here today to discuss GAO's ongoing work on the progress of the Capitol
Visitor Center (CVC) project. As you know, we have been performing this
work in response to requests from members of the Capitol Preservation
Commission (CPC) and as directed by the Conference Report to the
Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act,
1999 (House Conference Report 105-825) and the Conference Report on the
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2004 (House Conference Report
108-279).
Approved in the late 1990s, CVC is the largest project on the
Capitol grounds in over 140 years. Its purposes are to provide greater
security for all persons working in or visiting the U.S. Capitol and to
enhance the educational experience of visitors who have come to learn
about Congress and the Capitol building. When completed, this three-
story, underground facility, located on the east side of the Capitol,
is designed to be a seamless addition to the Capitol complex that does
not detract from the appearance of the Capitol or its historic
landscaping. According to current plans, it will include theaters, an
auditorium, exhibit space, a service tunnel for truck loading and
deliveries, storage, and additional space for use by the House and
Senate.
In my testimony today, I will discuss the Architect of the
Capitol's (AOC) management of the project's schedules and contracts;
the project's estimated costs, including risks and uncertainties;
worker safety issues; and AOC's monthly reporting to Congress on the
project. I will also discuss recommendations that we have made in
previous testimony and briefings and the actions AOC has taken in
response. We testified on this topic before the Subcommittee on the
Legislative Branch, House Committee on Appropriations, in July 2003,\1\
and we have periodically briefed congressional representatives, the CVC
project executive, and the Architect of the Capitol since then.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ GAO, Capitol Visitor Center: Current Status of Schedule and
Estimated Cost, GAO-03-1014T (Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My statement is based on our monitoring of the CVC project, which
included reviewing monthly status reports, contract files, schedules,
contractors' cost estimates, other organizations' construction
management policies and procedures, industry best practices, and data
for construction projects compiled by the Construction Industry
Institute and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. We have attended
regularly scheduled meetings on the CVC project's progress; observed
construction work at the site; and discussed management, procurement,
and safety issues with AOC, contractor personnel, as well as
experienced construction and contract management personnel at other
organizations. Additionally, we obtained expert assistance in analyzing
construction project costs and schedules from KPMG, Hulett &
Associates, and the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA). We did not
perform an audit; rather, we performed our work to assist Congress in
conducting its oversight activities.
Before I summarize our principal observations and recommendations
for moving forward, let me briefly set the stage. As previously noted,
AOC is managing and has overall responsibility for this complex
project, but a construction management firm, Gilbane Building Company,
is providing a range of construction management services in support of
AOC, including coordinating the activities of the major construction
contractors, monitoring worker safety, and providing AOC with status
information for reporting to Congress. AOC is implementing the project
in two phases, or sequences. In June 2002, it awarded the sequence 1
contract for the excavation and structural work to Centex Construction
Company, and in April 2003, it awarded the sequence 2 contract for
mechanical, electrical, plumbing and interior finishing work to
Manhattan Construction Company.
In summary, the CVC project is taking about 2 years longer than
planned and is expected to cost between about $522 million and $559
million--significantly more than originally estimated. The majority of
delays and cost increases were largely outside AOC's control, but
weaknesses in AOC's schedule and contract management contributed to a
portion of the delays and cost overruns. Of the project's estimated
cost increase, about $147 million is due to scope changes, such as the
addition of the House and Senate expansion spaces; about $45 million to
other factors also outside or largely outside AOC's control, such as
higher than expected bid prices on the sequence 2 contract; and about
$58 million to factors more within AOC's control, such as delays. Also,
our analysis of CVC worker safety data showed that the injury and
illness rate for 2003 was about 50 percent higher for CVC than for
comparable construction sites and that the rate for 2004 was about 30
percent higher than the rate for 2003. Finally, a number of AOC's
monthly reports to Congress have not accurately reflected the status of
the project's construction schedules and costs and have transmitted
inaccurate worker safety data. This has led to certain ``expectation
gaps'' within Congress.
AOC has taken a number of actions to improve its management of the
project; however, these actions have not yet fully corrected all
identified problems. To help prevent further schedule delays, control
cost growth, and enhance worker safety, AOC urgently needs to give
priority attention to managing the project's construction schedules and
contracts, including those contract provisions that address worker
safety. These actions are imperative if further cost growth, schedule
delays, and worker safety problems are to be avoided. AOC also needs to
see that it reports accurate information to Congress on the project.
Furthermore, decisions by Congress will have to be made regarding the
additional funding needed to complete construction and address any
risks and uncertainties that arise.
Enhanced Schedule Management Needed
According to AOC, the entire base project is about 60 percent
complete.\2\ Except for some punch-list items, such as fixing water
leaks, construction work under the sequence 1 contract is now complete.
This work includes the basic structure, the truck and Library of
Congress tunnels, and the East Front interface. AOC and its contractors
also completed work associated with the Inauguration. Work has started
on the sequence 2 contract, including fitting out and finishing the
basic structure and the Library of Congress tunnel and constructing the
utility tunnel and space for the exhibits. AOC has just made
contractual arrangements for fitting out and finishing the Senate and
House expansion spaces and is now procuring the House Connector tunnel
and the connection between the Library of Congress tunnel and the
Jefferson building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The base project includes a finished visitor center shell and
core, an extended loading dock service tunnel, exterior finishes,
improvements to the East Plaza, construction of unfinished House and
Senate expansion space shell, exhibits, technical security systems, a
utility tunnel, and a connecting tunnel to the Library of Congress. The
base project does not include other items, such as finishing the House
and Senate expansion space and certain security-related enhancements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AOC's scheduled completion date for CVC is now September 2006,
nearly 20 months later than originally planned. We believe, given past
problems and future risks and uncertainties, that the completion date
may be delayed until sometime between December 2006 and March 2007.
Additionally, AOC's scheduled completion date for the interior of the
House and Senate expansion spaces is March 2007.
The project's schedule delays are due in part to scope changes,
design changes, and unforeseen conditions beyond AOC's control (e.g.,
adding the Senate and House expansion spaces and encountering
underground obstructions). However, factors more within AOC's control
also contributed to the delays. First, the original schedule was overly
optimistic. Second, AOC has had difficulty obtaining acceptable,
contractually required schedules from its contractors, such as a master
summary schedule from its construction management contractor. In
addition, AOC and its contractors did not adhere to contract provisions
designed for effective schedule management, including those calling for
monthly progress review meetings and schedule updates and revisions.
AOC and its construction management contractor also had difficulty
coordinating the work of the sequence 1 and 2 contractors and did not
systematically track and document delays and their causes as they
occurred or apportion time and costs to the appropriate parties on a
timely basis. Additionally, AOC has not yet reached full agreement with
CPC on the extent to which construction must be completed before the
facility can be opened to the public, and AOC has not yet developed an
overall summary schedule that links the completion of construction with
the steps necessary to prepare CVC for facility operations. Finally,
AOC needs to fully implement our recommendation that it develop plans
to mitigate the project's remaining risks and uncertainties, such as
shortages in the supply of stone or skilled stone workers, unforeseen
conditions associated with the remaining underground tunnels, and
commissioning the building in the allotted time.
We have made numerous recommendations to improve schedule
management, and AOC has taken actions to implement most of them. We
believe, however, that both AOC and its construction management
contractor will need to sustain their attention and apply additional
effort to managing the project's schedule, as well as fully implement
our recommendations, to help keep the project on track and as close to
budget as possible. More specifically, AOC needs to give priority
attention to: obtaining and maintaining acceptable project schedules,
including reassessing the times allotted for completing sequence 2
work; aggressively monitoring and managing contractors' adherence to
the schedule, including documenting and addressing the causes of
delays; developing and implementing risk mitigation plans; reaching
agreement on what project elements must be complete before CVC can open
to the public; and preparing a summary schedule, as Congress requested,
that integrates the major steps needed to complete CVC construction
with the steps necessary to prepare for operations.
Stronger Contract Management Needed
AOC is relying on contractors to design, build, and help manage
CVC's construction and help prepare for its operation. AOC has
obligated over $350 million for contracts and contract modifications
for these activities. We found that AOC needed to take additional steps
to ensure that it was (1) receiving reasonable prices for proposed
contract modifications, (2) obtaining adequate support for contractors'
requests for reimbursement of incurred costs, (3) adequately overseeing
its contractors' performance, and (4) taking appropriate steps to see
that contractual work is not done before it is appropriately authorized
under contractual arrangements.
--Initially, AOC was not preparing independent government estimates
as part of its price analyses for proposed modifications to the
two major contracts. In early 2004, AOC hired an employee for
the CVC staff with contract management experience, and AOC has
improved its capacity to obtain reasonable prices by, among
other things, preparing government estimates as part of its
effort to evaluate the reasonableness of prices offered by the
contractors for the proposed modifications.
--Although most CVC work is being done under fixed price contracts,
for which payment is not based on incurred costs, AOC has
received or is anticipating requests for reimbursement of over
$30 million in costs that the contractors say they incurred
because of delays.\3\ In addition, AOC has awarded some
contract modifications for unpriced work that will require
reliable information on incurred costs. According to the
Defense Contract Audit Agency, several concerns relating to the
contractors' accounting systems need to be addressed to ensure
the reliability of the contractors' incurred cost information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Reimbursements for the costs of non-weather-related delays not
attributable to the contractor are standard practice in the
construction industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--AOC has continued to experience difficulty getting fully acceptable
performance from contractors. For example, as of April 30,
2005, the construction management contractor had not provided
an acceptable master schedule identifying appropriate links
between tasks and key milestones, and it has not been providing
AOC with accurate safety data for an extended period of time.
Similarly, one of AOC's major construction contractors had not
corrected recurring safety concerns over an extended period.
--One of AOC's CVC consultants began work several months before AOC
had awarded a contract to it authorizing the work. AOC agreed
to take action to prevent this type of problem from recurring.
We have made several recommendations to enhance AOC's contract
management. AOC has generally agreed and taken action to implement
these recommendations. For example, it has enhanced its capacity to
review cost-related data submitted by contractors with requests for
reimbursement based on incurred costs, and it has better evaluated its
construction management contractor's performance and taken action to
obtain improvements. To help prevent further schedule delays and
control cost growth, AOC needs to aggressively manage its contractors'
performance, particularly in the areas of managing schedules and
obtaining reasonable prices on contractual actions, and continue to
ensure that contractors' requests for payment based on incurred costs
are adequately evaluated. It also needs to ensure that its contractors
report accurate safety data and promptly act to correct safety
concerns.
Project Costs and Funding Provided as of May 2005
We currently estimate that the cost to complete the construction of
the CVC project, including proposed additions to its scope, is about
$522 million without any allowance for risks and uncertainties.\4\ Of
this amount, $483.7 million has been provided to date.\5\ In November
2004, we estimated that the cost to complete the scope of work approved
at that time was likely to be about $515 million, without an allowance
for risks and uncertainties. Since November 2004, AOC and the U.S.
Capitol Police have proposed about $7 million in scope changes that we
included in our current estimate, bringing it to $522 million.\6\
However, the project continues to face risks and uncertainties, such as
unforeseen conditions, scope gaps and changes, and possible further
delays.\7\ To provide for these, we estimated in November 2004 that an
additional $44 million would likely be needed, bringing our estimate of
the total cost to about $559 million. We continue to believe that this
estimate of the project's total costs is appropriate. We have not
increased our allowance for risks and uncertainties in response to the
recent requests for $7 million in scope changes because we consider
such changes among the risks and uncertainties that the project faced
in November.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Our November 2004 estimate of $515 million was similar to AOC's
estimate based on work done by one of its consultants; however, except
for the $4.2 million in additional scope items, AOC has not requested
funds to cover risks and uncertainties provided for in our $44 million.
\5\ Public Law 108-447, enacted in December 2004, provided that up
to $10.6 million could be transferred from funds appropriated for
Capitol Buildings operations and maintenance to CVC upon the approval
of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. In March 2005,
AOC requested that about $4 million of these funds be transferred to
CVC, including some funds for construction-related work, such as design
of the gift shop space. As of May 12, the House Committee had not yet
approved this transfer, and none of the $10.6 million has been included
in the $483.7 million figure above.
\6\ Last week, Congress enacted legislation that provided the
additional funding requested by the Capitol Police for security
monitoring. Public Law 109-13, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005 (May
11, 2005).
\7\ Other risks and uncertainties that continue to face the project
include, but are not limited to, shortages in the supply of stone and
skilled stone workers, possible additional requirements for life safety
or security changes, unknown operator requirements, and contractor
coordination issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the years, CVC construction costs have increased considerably.
Most of these costs were outside or largely outside AOC's control, but
other costs were more within its control. About $147 million of the
cost increase was due to changes in the project's scope, many of which
were for security enhancements following September 11 and the anthrax
attacks in October 2001. Congress added the House and Senate expansion
spaces and the Library of Congress tunnel to the project's scope after
the original project's cost was estimated; similarly, the Department of
Defense recommended and funded an air filtration system for the
facility. Other factors also outside or largely outside AOC's control
contributed about $45 million to the increase. For example, bid prices
for the sequence 1 and 2 contracts exceeded budgeted costs, and
unforeseen field conditions, such as underground obstructions,
necessitated additional work. Finally, factors more within AOC's
control accounted for about $58 million of the expected additional
project costs. For example, the project experienced significant delays
during sequence 1, and we expect AOC will incur additional costs in the
future because we believe the sequence 2 work will not be done by AOC's
September 2006 completion date; slow decision-making by AOC also
contributed to higher costs.
In its fiscal year 2006 budget request, AOC asked Congress for an
additional $36.9 million for CVC construction. AOC believes this amount
will be sufficient to complete the project's construction and, if
approved, will bring the total funding provided for the project to
$520.6 million. AOC's request includes the $4.2 million for potential
additions to the project's scope (e.g., congressional seals, an
orientation film, and backpack storage space), but does not include
$1.7 million for the air filtration system--an amount that AOC thought
it would not need and returned to DOD, but that we believe AOC will
still likely need. AOC believes that it could obtain these funds from
DOD if needed. Thus, with a $1.7 million increase for the air
filtration system, the total estimated cost to complete the project's
construction would be the $522.3 million cited above without provision
for risks and uncertainties.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Essentially, AOC's $36.9 million fiscal year 2006 budget
request was consistent with our $515.1 million estimated cost at
completion except that it included $4.2 million for the additional
scope items and excluded the $1.7 million for filtration--$517.6
million less $4.2 million plus $1.7 million equals $515.1 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To continue to move the project forward, Congress will have to
consider the additional funding AOC has requested for fiscal year 2006
to complete the project, including the $4.2 million in additional scope
items. Through effective risk mitigation, as we have recommended, and
effective implementation of our other recommendations for enhancing
schedule and contract management, AOC may be able to avoid some of the
$44 million that we allowed for risks and uncertainties. However, given
the project's complexity and the additional requests for funds already
made and anticipated, we believe AOC will likely need much of this $44
million even with effective implementation of our recommendations.
Already, it appears that AOC may need additional funds for sequence 2
changes in fiscal year 2005. For example, as of April 30, 2005, AOC had
identified proposed changes to the sequence 2 contract that it
considered necessary and expected to cost about $13.8 million. This sum
is about $700,000 less than the $14.5 million AOC has available during
fiscal year 2005 for sequence 2 changes.
Worker Safety Issues
Because the number of construction workers at the CVC site is soon
expected to increase significantly, worker safety will continue to be
an important issue during the remainder of the project. Our review of
worker safety issues found that the construction management
contractor's monthly CVC progress reports contained some inaccurate
data for key measures of worker safety, including injuries and
illnesses and lost time. For example, the contractor reported 3 lost-
time incidents for 2004, but our analysis identified 45 such incidents.
These inaccuracies resulted in both overstatements and understatements
of rates.\9\ For instance, the contractor reported a rate of 6.3
injuries and illnesses for April 2004, whereas our analysis identified
12.5.\10\ The construction management contractor attributed the
inaccuracies to key data missing from its calculations, unawareness of
a formula change that began in 2002, mathematical errors, and poor
communication with the major construction contractors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) calculates the number of
injury/illness incidents per 100 full-time workers as follows: (N/EH)
200,000, where (N) equals number of injuries/illnesses, (EH) equals
total hours worked by all employees during the calendar year, and
200,000 equals base for 100 equivalent full-time workers (working 40
hours per week, 50 weeks per year). BLS calculates the number of lost-
time incidents per 100 full-time workers as follows: (LT/EH) 200,000
where (LT) equals cases of (1) days away from work, (2) restricted work
or (3) work transfer, (EH) equals number of employee hours for the
desired period and 200,000 equals base for 100 equivalent full-time
workers (working 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year).
\10\ In early 2005, the major contractors provided us with updated
data for injuries and illnesses and lost time in 2004. We used these
data to recalculate the 2004 rates. For example, the monthly rate for
injuries and illnesses in April 2004 increased to 15.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to our analysis, the rates for injuries and illnesses and
for lost time were higher for CVC than for comparable construction
sites. For 2003, the injury and illness rate was about 50 percent
higher, and the lost-time rate was about 160 percent higher.\11\
Additionally, both the numbers and the rates for injuries and illnesses
and for lost time worsened from 2003 to 2004. For example, the injury
and illness rate increased from 9.1 in 2003 to 12.2 in 2004, and the
lost-time rate increased from 8.1 to 10.4. AOC and its contractors have
taken some actions to promote and manage safety on the site, such as
conducting monthly safety audits and making recommendations to improve
safety. However, at the time of our review, neither AOC nor its
construction management contractor had analyzed the results of the
monthly safety audits to identify trends or concerns, and neither had
reviewed the safety audit findings in conjunction with the injury and
illness data. Our analysis of key safety audit data for the first 10
months of 2004 identified about 700 safety concerns, the most frequent
of which was inadequate protection against falls. Furthermore, AOC had
not fully exercised its authority to have the contractors take
corrective actions to address recurring safety concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The CVC rates are sensitive to small variations in the number
of injuries, illnesses, or lost-time incidents for a given year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We recommended that, to improve safety and reporting, AOC ensure
the collection and reporting of accurate injury and illness and lost-
time data, work with its contractors to develop a mechanism for
analyzing the data and identifying corrective actions, and more fully
exercise its authority to take appropriate enforcement actions when
warranted. AOC agreed with our recommendations and initiated corrective
actions. However, follow-up work that we did in early 2005 at AOC's
request indicated the corrective actions had not yet fully eliminated
errors in reporting. AOC agreed that continued action on our
recommendations was essential.
Reporting to Congress
Both AOC and its construction management contractor prepare monthly
progress reports on CVC. AOC relies heavily on its contractor for the
information it puts into its own reports, which it sends to Congress.
We have found that AOC's reports have sometimes failed to identify
problems, such as cost increases and schedule delays. This has resulted
in certain ``expectation gaps'' within Congress. We have suggested to
AOC that its reports could be more helpful to Congress if, for example,
they discussed critical issues facing the project and important
upcoming decisions. AOC has been making improvements to its monthly
reports and has agreed to continue doing so.
Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. We would be
happy to answer questions that you and other Subcommittee Members may
have.
COMPLETION DATE
Senator Allard. Thank you for your testimony, we appreciate
that. I'll proceed to some of our questions.
Mr. Hantman, you say in your statement that the Architect
of the Capitol now has a fully integrated master schedule, and
you say the project can be completed by September 2006. Does
this date reflect any known changes that could affect the
completion date, but have not yet been incorporated into the
schedule such as the exhibit construction, and some sequence 2
change orders?
Mr. Hantman. Mr. Chairman, relative to the exhibit
construction, our sense at this point in time, since we just
signed the contract on May 4, is that it should not impact the
opening. Clearly, as we discussed at our last hearing, the
total visitor experience is an important one for people to come
on in, to be screened respectfully, to go down into the Great
Hall to see the orientation film, and to be brought into the
building for their tours and also to have the exhibit
experience. As we are looking at the schedule right now, now
that we were able to sign it on the 4th, we do not see, at this
point, any impact to completing that in concurrence with the
visitor portion as well. As Mr. Walker indicated, of course,
the expansion areas which we just awarded yesterday, in fact,
will be later on.
And one of the concerns that we have been discussing
clearly with the Capitol Preservation Commission senior staff
is what really needs to be in place for the visitors to be
welcomed effectively to the building. And we believe because of
the nature of the setup of the mechanical room, we have 23
separate air handling units, the air handling units that deal
with the areas in the exhibition--I'm sorry--the expansion
space, could essentially be serving just those areas. Therefore
any dust in the air would be taken up in those areas as opposed
to in the central visitor center portion, or in the exhibition
area, which was a concern of Ms. Reynolds and the people from
the Archives. So we believe that the whole visitor experience
with all the areas that are under contract as of now, will be
ready for them in September. That's basically what Bob Hixon
can talk to in terms of the whole schedule and show you some
boards on where we are on that.
SEQUENCE 2 CHANGE ORDERS
Senator Allard. Did you talk about some of your sequence 2
change orders?
Mr. Hixon. At this time, all of the sequence 2 change
orders, the impact of all those is included in our schedule to
the extent that we are aware of them. There are new change
orders coming on board all the time, and as those come on, we
continue to evaluate those to see if there is an impact. At
this time, based on all the information that we have to date,
we are in good shape. There are a couple of areas of concern.
There are several elements that still need to be procured--
there's the House connector tunnel, there is the Jefferson
Building work that needs to be factored into the Library of
Congress tunnel. There is a little bit to be finished as far as
connections to the utility tunnel, all of those items suppose
some risk which could have some impact. We certainly want to
make sure we don't have an impact, but those areas are still
ahead of us as far as an evaluation.
Senator Allard. Could you give me a little clearer
understanding of how the change orders come about?
Mr. Hixon. Certainly, change orders come to us usually in
one of two ways, either the contractor discovers something that
they feel is extra under the contract or that ask a question of
the designer, or the designer discovers an issue that needs to
be changed in some manner. For example, they may find that a
dimension doesn't work correctly, and they have to adjust
ceiling height or they have to adjust the width of a corridor,
or we may discover that materials that were selected don't work
well in that, say the wainscot in the Great Hall for example,
the stone, when you put the two pieces together and the mock up
didn't match and we had a change in the stone--so those kinds
of things are occurring all the time. There are some things in
the project that sometimes don't dimensionally fit, we have
materials that no longer are available that have to be replaced
with other materials, or you put something like stone together
and you create the mock up to make sure it does work well, and
you find out you need to----
CONTRACTOR CHANGE ORDERS
Senator Allard. I can understand that. But on the
contractor's side, what drives change orders?
Mr. Hixon. From the contractor side, more often than not
there are different site conditions, especially during the
sequence 1 contract, or else they will find issues associated--
if we are in sequence 2 right now, for example--there are some
issues associated with the installation of the sequence 1 work,
a concrete column may be an inch out of position and have to be
chipped in order for the sequence 2 work to be done, things of
that nature.
Senator Allard. Aren't these things that ordinarily the
contractor should figure into his quote when he initially gives
you the bid?
Mr. Hixon. Well, the sequence 2 contractor, when he gives
you his quote, is going to assume that the sequence 1
contractor's work is in place, he will ask for extra for
whatever work he has to do, we will have to back charge the
sequence 1----
Senator Allard. And part of the problem is the sequence 1
contractor didn't do the work or the sequence 2 contractor has
some concerns with sequence 1 work, is that how that comes
about?
Mr. Hixon. If he finds that something is not in the right
location, he will alert us and we will have to either have the
work done by the sequence 1 contractor to correct it, or else
the sequence 2 contractor will perform the work and we'll back
charge the sequence 1 contractor. It should be a no net cost to
the Government.
Senator Allard. That's what I wanted to make sure, that
it's no net to the Government. It seems to me these are
contractor responsibilities.
Mr. Hixon. They are, yes. Those kinds of deficiencies, if
it's a different site condition issue, for example, work is
occurring in the utility tunnel, and something unknown is
discovered, then that's a different site condition, and the
contractor is entitled to compensation for added costs for
things that are different from what he could have reasonably
contemplated.
Senator Allard. There may be some unknown event that you
didn't anticipate.
Mr. Hixon. That's correct.
Senator Allard. Okay, my time is expired, Mr. Chairman, do
you have any questions?
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT MANAGEMENT
Senator Cochran. Mr. Walker, you said that the AOC should
improve its management of the construction contract if further
delays and cost increases are to be avoided. What do you
suggest the AOC do that is not being done already?
Mr. Walker. We have had a number of recommendations, Mr.
Chairman, one of which Alan talked on earlier, and that is, we
recommended for a long time that there needs to be a
comprehensive and integrated project plan that, my
understanding is they have one now, we have not had an
opportunity to review it in detail, we've received a very high
level briefing on that.
Second, there are a number of issues that are very
fundamental, like how do you define complete? That still has
not been defined yet, there is not an understanding between the
Capitol Preservation Commission personnel and AOC yet on what
the term ``complete'' means. There are a number of----
Senator Cochran. We can look in the dictionary and find out
what it means, can't we?
Mr. Walker. You're correct that Webster's does provide some
help in this regard, however, the details matter. For example,
Alan talked about at what state do things have to be in before
you start allowing the public to be able to come in? Now,
candidly that might be deemed to be complete for purposes of
being able to allow public access, but on the other hand there
could be still be activities undergoing which could require
time and money before----
Senator Cochran. Well, what's the Architect supposed to do
about that?
Mr. Walker. Well, I think it's important for the Architect
to be able to work constructively, as he's trying to do, I
believe, with the key personnel in the Congress to be able to
make sure that there's not an expectation gap that exists.
Senator Cochran. Well, we have got some in Congress whose
expectations are way beyond reality.
Mr. Walker. That can happen, Mr. Chairman. If you have 100
Members of the Senate, and 435 Members of the House, not
everybody thinks the same way.
Senator Cochran. Well, if he tries to please every Member
of Congress, we are going to be working on this forever.
Mr. Walker. And that would be totally inappropriate and
unrealistic. Just as we find ourselves sometimes not being able
to please every Member of Congress as well.
Senator Cochran. I have no further questions.
INTEGRATED SCHEDULE
Senator Allard. Mr. Hantman, the GAO has reported several
times that your schedules were somewhat optimistic. Your staff
agreed to have the durations of the schedule's tasks
reassessed. Has this reassessment been done?
Mr. Hantman. Yes, and we're constantly doing that. Maybe it
would be appropriate, Mr. Chairman, for us to walk you through
a few of the things that we've done since our last hearing in
response to the imperatives of this integrated schedule, and
tell you what we have done, where it's going and how we are
constantly reviewing these issues.
Senator Allard. And while you are doing that, could you
reassure me and the subcommittee as to how you know that this
latest schedule is realistic, and when you think the total
reassessment will be done.
Mr. Hixon. You can see from the board here that we have
established this integrated project master schedule. We now
have everything tied into one large schedule, both the
Manhattan work and all the other items of work, such as way
finding and things of that nature, that are all associated with
completion of space. We have gone through this, and to ensure
that all the activities that are required will result in a
completion date in September 2006 for all of those activities,
except the expansion space, and I wanted to show you a couple
of boards just to give you some idea of what we are doing. We
are not looking for anybody to read this, obviously, because
you can't.
Senator Allard. You can't see it from here.
Mr. Hixon. I think it's too low behind the--what we've done
is we've--this is just an example of one of the charts, this is
the critical path, all those activities that are required that
have what we call zero float in them, every activity has to
occur on schedule to be completed, other activities--you can
see this is only a minor portion of the 3,500 to 4,000
activities depending on where we are in the process. But you
can see this is only a few of those activities, but these are
all critical to being done on time.
Mr. Hantman. But before you leave that----
Senator Allard. Those red lines, it looks to me like those
are dates or activities that have been extended----
Mr. Hixon. Okay, well what you see here this one set of
activities across here is the House and Senate expansion space,
the blue line that runs vertically here is the date, the
current date, what this allows us to do is say, ``Okay, on a
particular date, what activity should be finished and which
activities are yet to be done in the future?'' Activities are
indicated here on the left side of the chart, and like I say,
these are only the critical activities, so it may be something
like the pedestals that support the Tennessee marble base in
the Great Hall, and when does that have to be done, that is a
critical activity, and it's reflected on the chart.
But the bottom line here, Mr. Chairman, is at the bottom
line. It basically shows that in September 2006, all of this
whole string of activities will be completed--again with the
exception of the two broad lines that talk about the expansion
space for the House and the Senate.
Senator Allard. And you think this is realistic, Mr. Hixon?
Mr. Hixon. Yes, sir. At this point, based on everything
that we are aware of, this is entirely realistic. We have
looked through the individual dates, we have brought an
engineering firm that does construction management to assist us
in this, as well as Gilbane's review of the Manhattan schedule,
and we all feel comfortable that we can achieve this date, the
durations are good, the logic is good.
POTENTIAL RISK
Mr. Hantman. One of the things, clearly, that GAO and we
are working together on, and what they have been doing with us
in the past, is they are assessing potential risk. We are
assuming that, again, nothing untoward happens with the tunnel
that we are excavating on East Capitol Street, that we are able
to do the work under the house stairs for the connector tunnel
there, things of that nature. So, in terms of our discussion
with GAO, clearly in terms of dollars and time, they are
looking at things that we don't see on the horizon at this
point and time, and can't predict. But everything that we are
aware of right now, even the level of risk that we believe we
have on those pieces of work, we believe it is a tight
schedule, but it is a doable schedule now.
Senator Allard. And Mr. Walker, Mr. Hantman has indicated
that he had been working with your office on this and I assume
that your staff has had an opportunity to review this new
integrated schedule, and you believe it's complete and
accurate?
Mr. Walker. Well, first, Mr. Chairman, we received a high-
level briefing of this new integrated schedule, we have not had
an opportunity to review it in detail, we do plan to do that
and we obviously will report back to the interested parties
after we have a chance to do that. I think in fairness----
Senator Allard. Maybe you can follow up on this, this would
be a good follow-up question a month from now, we can follow up
on that.
Mr. Walker. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. I think it's
important to note that the AOC is making a good faith effort to
come up with what they think the schedule is going to be, what
they think the cost is going to be. Reasonable people can and
will differ on these factors. I think history will show in the
past they've tended to be overly optimistic, and that we looked
at it more from the standpoint, well what are some of the risks
that could happen typically in construction projects and have
happened, what are some of the uncertainties that we may not be
aware of, and our general view is you're better to exceed
expectations then to continue to disappoint people. I think our
history has been pretty accurate over the past with regard to
schedule and costs, I think a couple of examples of things that
have been or are to be resolved would be, for example, it's my
understanding that even if the September 15 date is met, that
there will not be full security features in place at that point
in time. I don't know what security features would be in place,
and whether or not they would be acceptable to Congress and
whether or not they would be acceptable to the Capitol Police
and other interested parties. It's also my understanding that
certain things will be completed to a temporary state, not a
final state. That may or may not be acceptable to Congress, all
the more reason why I come back to--what's the definition of
complete, and what status has to exist in order for the
facility to be utilized?
EXPANSION SPACE
Senator Allard. We haven't talked any about the expansion
space here and that's been awarded. I think you indicated that
in your remarks. What is the completion date now for the
expansion space?
Mr. Hixon. The completion date for the expansion space
contractually is March 18, 2007. We expect the work, except for
the integration of systems, to be done September 18, 2006.
Senator Allard. And that's all been worked into the master
schedule I assume?
Mr. Hixon. That has got to be put into the master schedule,
the award made occurred on Monday, and we haven't----
Senator Allard. But it will be.
Mr. Hixon. Yes, sir.
Senator Allard. And that would be another question we might
have a month from now.
Now, back to you, Mr. Walker, in November 2004, GAO advised
that the project was likely to be completed in late 2006, or
early 2007 due to optimistic durations and risks and
uncertainties. Since that time additional issues have arisen
that may extend the projects timeline. Mr. Walker, what is the
GAO's current assessment for when the project could be
certified to be opened?
Mr. Walker. Mr. Chairman, our view is considering certain
risks and uncertainties, we think it's more realistic to expect
for the project, the base project, to be done in December 2006
to March 2007, and at the present point in time, we don't have
a basis to differ with the Architect of the Capitol on the
March 2007 date for the expansion. We take some comfort in the
fact that contract has now been awarded, but that's where we're
at at the present point in time.
COMPLETION AND OCCUPANCY
Senator Allard. I assume that when we talk about certified
to be open, that's actually an occupation time, is that
correct?
Mr. Walker. Candidly, Mr. Chairman, these are some of the
issues that have to be worked out, I think there's two issues--
one of which is, what has to be done in order for it to be
occupied, or utilized in some way? And then second, when is it
totally done? Such that we are no longer incurring any related
costs.
Senator Allard. And totally occupied.
Mr. Walker. Not only totally occupied, but totally
complete, such that the contractors are no longer on the site,
we're no longer incurring any additional costs. Those are two
different dates. There may be several dates involved here.
Senator Allard. But the practical date is when is it going
to be finished so it can be totally occupied. Do you have a
time in mind when that might be possible?
Mr. Walker. The timeframes that I am talking about, Mr.
Chairman, really envision that you would be occupying within
those timeframes--in other words, December 2006 to March 2007,
and March 2007 for the House and Senate expansion space. We are
not quite as optimistic as the Architect of the Capitol, based
on past experience.
Senator Allard. Do you think he has reason, Mr. Hantman, or
Mr. Hixon for his projections? Or do you feel comfortable with
what you are telling us here today?
Mr. Hantman. Mr. Chairman, the things that Mr. Walker
talked to specifically that may not be ready in our September
timeframe that we are working to have ready, he mentioned
security features, for instance. We are working with the
Capitol Police who have a responsibility to install their
cameras inside conduit that we provide for them, so we need to
make sure that they are fully integrated into our schedule, so
that those comments could be there. But in reality, if they
don't make that date, we have Capitol Police officers who could
be there, and be providing the security in any event. So it's a
question of evaluating, at that point, what level of security
we do have, and is it adequate for the public to come in.
Another thing that I think Mr. Walker was referring to was
a contract that we have not let yet, we have an obligation
plan--from March of this year--which gave us some funding, and
it's not been authorized for us yet, on signage, to design and
put in way finding signage.
So the issue there is if--we assume given the
appropriations, the authority to award that way finding sign
program--that perhaps we won't need temporary signage that
would otherwise go up. So, it's that kind of finishing element
that we are talking about.
In terms of the basic facility, in terms of operations, in
terms of mechanical systems, in terms of security systems, the
air-conditioning, the electrical, the lighting, all of those
things, all of the architectural finishes are on our integrated
schedule, and show a completion date in September. Clearly one
of the big issues which you indicated in your opening remarks,
and we'll talk about later on, is the whole operations issue.
What staff would be there to welcome people, what kind of
programs would be in place, and how the staff essentially would
work, that is another issue.
Senator Allard. Mr. Chairman, I noticed you are taking
notes, do you have more questions?
COST IMPLICATIONS
Senator Cochran. I don't want to get in way over my head,
because I know everybody has more experience in this project
than I do, but I am interested in trying to figure out exactly
what the impact on the appropriations process--some of these
changes that have recently been discovered, and the cost
implications of changes--what that's going to have on the
appropriations schedule, and whether or not the request
submitted for this fiscal year is adequate to really meet the
needs. I don't want us to be a part of the problem, this is
another thing I want to make clear. Does the appropriation of
funds, in your view, have an impact on your ability to
efficiently manage the work and complete the contract, Mr.
Hantman?
Mr. Hantman. Well, first of all, Senator, I want to thank
you for signing our March obligation plan. The Senate has
signed off on that, which does impact the way finding and other
issues, and we are waiting on the House for their signoff right
now. But clearly, the ability to award the expansion spaces,
that was delayed somewhat. When we submit an obligation plan we
have the responsibility of giving you adequate information to
know what it's all about and what kind of timing there is so
that you can effectively react, and not be impacting the
project. That's our responsibility to give that to you, and we
still have this issue on the operations side. One of the things
that we are discussing right now is the effective opening date,
and clearly that opening date impacts the cost for personnel--
how many people you have on board and need to have on board
that time whether it's September or another time--will depend
upon, again, when the opening date is. So that will be an
appropriations related issue.
But in general, the requests that we have made in the
budget for this year, the $36.9 million, in our view makes us
whole without the risks that the GAO is talking about.
Senator Cochran. I want to ask Mr. Walker the same
question.
Mr. Walker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's my understanding
that the $36.9 million is based on estimated total costs of
$517 million. Our current estimate is $522 million, without
risks and uncertainties, and with risks and uncertainties,
potentially as high as $559 million. So I think clearly there
are appropriations issues here that I think need to be
monitored closely.
Furthermore, it's my understanding that there are limited
reserves still available for the AOC and that obviously
Congress has to approve certain reprogramming requests and I
think, you know, that there could be issues coming up in the
interim, even if this total amount of money is allocated, the
need for certain reprogramming requests in the interim that the
Congress would have to deal with. Terry, did you have anything
else that you wanted to add to that?
Mr. Dorn. We're concerned for the balance of fiscal year
2005, that there may be not much more than, say, $1 million or
so left, assuming that their temporary estimates are accurate,
to get to the balance of 2005 unless there's some reprogramming
done, moving money around between different accounts.
Like Mr. Walker said, I'm concerned in 2006 that the $36.9
million that you all would appropriate would not cover any risk
and uncertainties so that according to the assessment that we
did, that $36.9 million would not be sufficient for 2006.
FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET REQUEST
Senator Cochran. Do you have another number in mind that
you would include as a request of the Congress if you were
responsible for submitting a budget request?
Mr. Dorn. Back in November when we did our last cost-to-
complete estimate we estimated that there would be additional,
I believe it was $42 million or so, up to that amount, could be
needed for risks and uncertainties. We recommended at that time
that that money be set aside in something like a reserve
account that you all could control, but you could give to the
AOC as they really proved that they needed it. We were
reluctant to recommend that that full amount be appropriated
all at once.
Senator Cochran. Well, I don't think you ought to put the
Appropriations Committee in the management of this project. Do
you really believe that we should be assuming more
responsibility in the fiscal management of the contract?
Mr. Walker. I don't think you should be getting involved in
that level of detail, Mr. Chairman. I think, my understanding
as I understand the numbers that we have been dealing with and
the AOC has been dealing with--at a minimum there's a $5
million difference between what we say is going to be needed,
and what they are estimating. We are saying $522 million and
they are saying $517 million. So that would be a $5 million
difference between----
Senator Cochran. That's kind of a guess, too, I mean, we
all realize those are guesses. You're using facts and
understanding and knowledge and experience and judgment and
everything else. But there's no way to be certain at this
point. But our responsibility is to appropriate money on an
annual basis, and so what I'm hoping to learn at this hearing,
in addition to whatever else you think we need to know, is
whether or not the fiscal year 2006 budget request is
sufficient to meet the needs for the project. And if we
appropriate that amount, it would be a positive contribution to
the appropriate management of the contract. If we underfund it,
we have got to expect problems. That's my question. Have we
asked for enough money in this next fiscal year, in your
opinion?
Mr. Walker. And my answer is, Mr. Chairman, I think you
should consider appropriating an additional $5 million.
Obviously if it turns out these risks and uncertainties
manifest themselves, and if it turns out that the project does
take longer than what the AOC estimates, then you'd be getting
into fiscal 2007, and there might be enough lead time to be
able to consider that as part of the fiscal 2007 budget
requests, or other supplemental actions at a later date.
Senator Cochran. Okay, thank you.
Senator Allard. Senator Durbin.
WORKER SAFETY
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hantman, several years ago when I first came to this
subcommittee, we had a long discussion about worker safety, and
my concern about the Architect of the Capitol's office, and the
fact that the accident and injury rate among employees in your
office was way above the average for Federal agencies,
dramatically. And after some discussion we brought in outside
consultants that have dramatically improved those numbers, and
that's why I was really stunned to read the report from the GAO
about safety at the CVC work site. This appears to be one of
the most dangerous work sites in Washington, and I don't know
why.
If I read this correctly, and I'm anxious to hear a
response to it, the reports that you have been receiving, the
progress reports have been giving inaccurate data about worker
safety, including injuries, illnesses and lost time. The GAO
analysis, and I read from the report, says that from 2003, the
injury and illness rate was about 50 percent higher than
comparable construction sites and the lost time rate, 160
percent higher. Additionally, both the numbers in the rates for
injuries and illnesses, and for lost time worsened from 2003 to
2004.
It goes on to say that neither the Architect of the Capitol
nor the construction management contractor, which I assume is
Gilbane, had analyzed the results of these monthly safety
audits to identify trends or concerns. The GAO prefaced this
section by saying the number of construction workers is soon
expected to increase significantly. Why would we even want to
send people into this dangerous situation? What is being done
about it, and how can an issue, which you and I had a very
public flare-up over, be allowed to deteriorate to this point?
Is this the most dangerous construction site in Washington? And
if so, why aren't you embarrassed by it?
Mr. Hantman. Well, first of all may I please state that
your interest, and our working together over the past years
have, in fact, as you said, really improved the working
conditions at the AOC. We are down to basically a better record
than most of our blue collar sister organizations in security
and safety, and almost approaching the level for white collar
organizations right now. So I take very seriously what we have
done these past years within the agency itself.
Now, in terms of monitoring the security and the safety of
the workers on the site, this is a function that Gilbane
Associates, our construction manager, has been tasked with, and
may I ask Bob Hixon to talk that through.
Mr. Hixon. Gilbane, under their contract, is required to
monitor the safety records. They have been doing that, we have
a monthly safety audit by one of their safety professionals who
comes through and has done this, both for Centex and Manhattan.
They will evaluate through their site inspection and they'll
generate a report that tells us all of the issues that they
have found with pictures, so that we've got it all documented
what problems there are.
Currently, as a result of GAO's coming in and talking with
us about safety for the last few months, we've had monthly
meetings with both the Manhattan people--Centex is essentially
off the site now--with Manhattan, and Gilbane and my field
representatives. They've gone through all of these reports,
Manhattan has responded to each item that's noted within the
report that has been generated by Gilbane so that they've
responded to each one. They have been very conscientious about
safety; this is a change from what we had going on in 2003 and
2004 with the sequence 1 contractor.
SAFETY RECORDS
Senator Durbin. Well, let me ask you, was inaccurate data
given to the Architect of the Capitol about the number of
injuries and illnesses and lost time?
Mr. Hixon. Yes, it was, there was inaccurate information
provided by Centex to Gilbane, and they conveyed that
information to us. There were some 16 accidents that were never
reported, there was also a difference of opinion in how to
account for lost time or light duty if someone was injured and
came back and performed light duty. Effective in 2003, OSHA
changed the requirements to require that that be reported as
lost time as well; it was not being recorded that way.
Senator Durbin. Is the GAO accurate in saying that the
injuries and illnesses at the CVC site were 50 percent higher
than comparable construction sites, and the lost time rate 160
percent higher and increasing from the year 2003 to 2004, is
that accurate?
Mr. Hixon. That is accurate.
Senator Durbin. And this did not come to the attention of
either Gilbane or the Architect of the Capitol?
Mr. Hixon. We were not aware that the situation was as bad
as it has been until recently when the Government
Accountability Office went directly to the sequence 1
contractor to get their safety records. The data was differing
from the data that had been transmitted to Gilbane.
Senator Durbin. So who dropped the ball here, did Gilbane
drop the ball? Or your office?
Mr. Hixon. I believe it's the sequence 1 contractor failed
to report accurately the safety information to Gilbane, who was
collecting the data from both Centex and Manhattan, and
reporting it to us. I don't think there was an intention there,
I think they had incomplete information.
Senator Durbin. That dramatically? I mean, that big a
difference?
Mr. Hixon. Well, there are two issues. One of them is the
16 or so accidents that the Gilbane people had never received
an accident report for these individuals, they knew nothing
about it. The other aspect of it is this lost time, the
calculation of lost time where the calculation was done
inaccurately.
INCREASED INSURANCE COSTS
Senator Durbin. So, aside from the personal loss to the
victim of the accident, has this added to the cost of the
project, the fact that it's a dangerous work site?
Mr. Hixon. It would have probably added to the insurance
cost of the construction contractor, it should not have added
to the Government's cost for the project.
Senator Durbin. So, when we talk about the increased costs
of the Capitol Visitor Center, you're saying that those
increased insurance costs were not passed on to be paid for by
the taxpayers.
Mr. Hixon. The Manhattan Construction Company has had a
good safety record, as has Gilbane, for that matter, and those
insurance rates would be good, and so they wouldn't be
excessive. The insurance rates under the sequence 1 contract,
and particularly some of their subcontractors, when you look at
the sheet, you can see that there were a lot of accidents by
one particular subcontractor in the September/October period;
their insurance rates, I expect, are very high.
Senator Durbin. And we don't pay for their higher
insurance? That's not an add-on cost?
Mr. Hixon. I suspect that their insurance cost is part of
their overhead which is included in their bid pricing and that
would price them out of the market compared to others.
CONTRACTOR SAFETY RECORDS
Senator Durbin. So now we're going to have more
construction workers on the scene. What have you put in place,
or what will you put in place, to make sure that you receive
accurate information and that Gilbane or the Architect's Office
ask the hard questions of the contractors about their safety
records?
Mr. Hixon. Currently every time there is an accident, I
receive the accident report myself, it comes through to me to
review. But monthly what we are doing, we have a meeting
monthly with Manhattan, Gilbane and the AOC to review the
safety inspection that was done by Gilbane safety
professionals. They go through each item on that, and they are
to go through each accident report to ensure that we identify
what the cause is and eliminate that as a recurring problem, so
it's a very active program now.
Senator Durbin. The GAO thinks they've found a trend in
these accidents, have you identified one?
Mr. Hixon. No, I have not.
The other--the trends that they have talked about is fall
protection. I mean, there was one other one, but--fall
protection was clearly an issue. One of the things they would
like us to do, that we have not done in the past, is do some
kind of a trend analysis based on the data; I think that's a
good idea.
Senator Durbin. Well, I think it sure is a good idea this
far in the project to think about that. Mr. Walker, would you
like to comment?
Mr. Walker. Yes, Senator Durbin.
I think it's important to put things into perspective. I
understand your concern and share your concern with regard to
worker safety, and the optics of having a site that has a much
higher incidence of accidents and lost time than would be
expected, and also your concern about the potential additional
costs that could be incurred to the Government as a result of
that as well.
I think it's fair to say that there's a shared
responsibility for this between the contractor, between Gilbane
and between the AOC, but I think it's also fair to say that
this was a disproportionate problem for the sequence 1
contractor, Centex. Centex is basically gone now.
We have seen in the last several months, in 2005 the AOC
paying much greater attention to this, as was mentioned by the
fact that they are now having regular recurring meetings.
Manhattan has a much better safety record than Centex, and
I would hope and expect that things would be getting better
from this point forward. The facts are what they are, but I do
think it's important for AOC to continue to try to act on some
of the recommendations that we've made to minimize the
possibility of having problems going forward.
But the most recent trend based on preliminary work that we
have done in the first quarter of 2005 is a significant
improvement over the past.
Senator Durbin. Mr. Chairman, you've been kind enough to
give me a little extra time here, and I just want to say that
you have said we are going to be on top of this project and I'm
glad we are doing this. And I hope that the regular reports
relative to the schedule and the costs will include reports on
worker safety. Maybe that will be an incentive for all of us to
take this more seriously.
Thank you.
COST OVERRUNS
Senator Allard. I think that's a reasonable request and
hopefully we'll be getting a report. In the last year, there's
been about $100 million override and there haven't been any
scope changes. Most of what has been justified on cost overruns
have been explained by scope changes. So, I would like to have
a little better explanation of what has happened to cause that
$100 million growth in costs which wasn't anticipated in the
last year when there wasn't any scope changes.
Mr. Hixon. I wanted to be able to find the sheet that I had
here that talks about some of the increases that have occurred
in the last year, what they were for. Much of that has to do
with the delay cost associated with the sequence 1 contractor's
late completion of his work as a consequence of the scope
increases that we previously talked about and different site
conditions. As a consequence of sequence 1 being late by 10\1/
2\ months, the sequence 2 contractor, in lieu of starting in
January 2004, actually commenced his work in November 2004, 10
months late. The costs associated with that delay, together
with the extended period that the construction manager, AOC and
the Architect will have to be on site is significant. That--
together with several other issues, we have talked about the
utility tunnel, there was a delay--while we looked at
alternatives on the utility tunnel and there was a material
escalation cost associated with that. There are some life
safety issues associated with stair pressurization and damper
monitoring on behalf of the fire marshal. There are some scope
gaps that we have identified as a consequence of what's going
on with the various designs between sequence 1 and sequence 2,
there are some elements that we left out, the exhibit prices
came in higher than expected, the House and Senate expansion
spaces came in higher than expected; all of those things
together add up to the total of $38.6 million that was the
increase that we had in our cost-to-complete and that's between
last year--that was done last year in October and reported in
November.
Senator Allard. When you said higher than expected, are you
referring to inflated costs----
Mr. Hixon. That's correct, sir. Yes. Some of these elements
such as the House and Senate----
Senator Allard. I assume it's inflated costs of raw
material?
Mr. Hixon. We have had both because we have got steel
material, for example, which has jumped up dramatically in the
last couple of years, but in addition to that, we've had an
inflation rate in the construction area, the escalation in
cost, that had typically been running about 3.5 percent, and
the estimates for the cost were made at about 3.5 percent per
year. In reality, they were more than twice that.
Senator Allard. Is that labor cost?
Mr. Hixon. That would be labor and material.
Engineering News Record is reporting it at just over 7
percent, I believe. So those things together with some of these
other items, with coping with the delay costs associated with
the late start, is what has caused the majority of the increase
in costs here in the last year.
Senator Allard. Mr. Walker?
Mr. Walker. Mr. Chairman, it's my understanding that the
estimate 1 year ago was about $454 million, and as I mentioned
before, estimate without risks and uncertainties is $517
million now. And it's my understanding that there are two
primary reasons for those variances in the last year.
First, delay costs of about $32 million, and second, design
to budget gaps for the Senate and House expansion spaces, as
well as the exhibits, of $21 million, in other words, the idea
that rather than cutting back to meet the budget, the decision
was made to go ahead and continue to do things in accordance
with the preliminary specifications, but it would cost $21
million more in order to be able to meet those preliminary
specifications.
PROJECT SCOPE CHANGES
Senator Allard. Thank you for that clarification. Now, Mr.
Hantman, I understand that at the recent House Appropriations
Committee hearing, it was suggested that some cost increases
occurred because staff of the Capitol Preservation Commission
were routinely requesting changes to the project scope. Is this
true, and have there been any budget increases because of staff
directives?
Mr. Hantman. Most of the discussions that we have on our
standard Monday afternoon meetings are issues where we are
trying to resolve things in terms of the type of work that we
want to do. For instance, we bring in fabrics and stones and
say, ``This is what we are going to be doing,'' because when
the Capitol Preservation Commission originally approved the
concepts, it certainly wasn't down to the level of actual
finishes and quality of materials. So those are the kinds of
things that we would generally be discussing. Operations
issues, we had a couple of meetings where we talked about, for
instance, open captioning in the orientation theater. This is
something that goes beyond what code really calls for, what the
ADA really calls for in terms of people who are hearing-
impaired being able to be accommodated, so we had a series of
discussions on whether or not we should be requesting--I think
it was an additional $85,000 for instance--for open captioning.
So there was some very significant discussions on the part of
the subcommittee to say that yes, this should be something that
we put in our $4.2 million below the line types of things. So
talking about all those below the line issues and what they
want to support, has certainly been elements that we have
discussed. In fact they are in our request for this year, the
$36.9 million includes many of those issues. One of the
discussions that we had at these meetings was the issue of
seals, congressional seals that would be in the atria, the
circular stairways of the House and Senate expansion space, and
on the floor of the Great Hall. There's been no real agreement
in terms of doing that or not doing that. So we are planning,
potentially, to do that in the future, if in fact we are given
that clearance to do so.
COST TO COMPLETE
Senator Allard. Now, I want to get down to the final
question here, and I'll address this to Mr. Walker.
Last November you released your GAO report on an update of
the assessment of the cost to complete the project, and when
should the process of updating the current cost to complete
take place, when would you suggest?
Mr. Walker. We do believe that it's appropriate to do a new
cost to complete, and it should be done subsequent to the AOC's
current completion of its integrated scheduling efforts. We
think once that's agreed, I'm sure you are going to want us to
take a look at that and provide our comments back to the
Congress, we think it's appropriate at that point in time to
come up with another estimate.
Senator Allard. Mr. Hantman, when do you think you are
going to have your schedule so that he can move ahead with his
cost update?
Mr. Hantman. As Mr. Walker indicated, we had given a GAO
top-level schedule overview, what we need to do is have his
staff sit down with our staff, review in detail what we have in
a lot more detail than what we showed you today, and see what
level of comfort they have and what kind of questions they
would want to raise. I would think that certainly by the next
hearing we will have met and discussed that and GAO can develop
their own thoughts.
Senator Allard. Can you give us some date at that point in
time when it would be practical to go ahead with a cost-to-
complete update?
Mr. Hantman. Yes.
Senator Allard. Okay. Mr. Chairman, do you have any more
questions?
SECURITY CONCERNS
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, I just have one other
question and it's mainly to clarify one of the real purposes of
this entire project.
There's been some considerable pressure from the House side
in particular, most recently during our conference on the
supplemental appropriations and we were meeting to discuss
differences in the House and Senate-passed supplemental bills,
for there to be more included in this project than has been
designed now for working spaces for Members of Congress,
committee meeting rooms, other offices, accommodating the needs
for more space for congressional activities. And it occurred to
me that there may be some who are not appreciating the fact
that much of the space that's being occupied by this visitor
center is for the purpose of moving the perimeter and the
distance between the actual working spaces of the Capitol and
the Congress out to a point where it's less likely that someone
who intends to do harm to the Capitol or to the Congress could
get close access to the Congress and during its working days,
moving the perimeter out beyond where it is now so that a truck
making a delivery, or visitors coming to see the Capitol are
actually screened or inspected, as the case may be with a
truck, at a far distant location, rather as now, or as
previously in the past, right up against the Capitol. Or as
someone is entering the Capitol, we have the screening devices
inside the Capitol, as a matter of fact, for visitors.
And so if we filled up all the space between what is now
the Capitol and what the perimeter is going to be with meeting
rooms and activities and have the Congress working in a larger
area, one of the purposes of having the new perimeter extended
would be defeated. Is that something that is a factor in the
decision to extend to far distant locations the opportunity to
screen and to inspect those who are coming in or making
delivers to the Capitol? Mr. Hantman and then I'll ask Mr.
Walker to respond as well.
Mr. Hantman. Mr. Chairman, you certainly have hit upon and
reiterated one of the primary rationales for doing the visitor
center in the first place. I think everybody recalls that the
first increment of dollars, $100 million was appropriated
directly after the two police officers were murdered in July
1998. Within 4 months, we had essentially the start-up money to
begin the re-design and to move ahead with the project. As for
the rest of the money, the first increments of it came after 9/
11, so security clearly is the driver on this project.
The perimeter security program that we're putting in place,
that is in place right now, on Capitol Square, for instance, is
really a vehicle interdiction type of program. We're out
basically at streets, on First Street on the west side as well,
and along the drives on the House and the Senate side as well,
giving us hundreds of feet of stand-off from the building
itself for any vehicle that would in fact want to come here.
The idea of off-site inspection is making sure that vehicles
are checked a greater distance away. That they have x amount of
time to come to the building, and see that their tags are
intact so nothing could have been added to it before they would
even go into what is our new truck dock, three stories below
the visitors center. This is certainly part and parcel of that
whole philosophy of making sure vehicular traffic is
controlled.
As far as pedestrian traffic is concerned, the more people
that come through the visitor center--several hundred feet away
from the Capitol Building itself, as opposed to coming through
the dozen entrances that we have on the north, the south, on
the east front of the Capitol, the safer the building will be.
And I think the police are certainly very sensitive to that. On
an administrative philosophy, it's really going to be up to the
House and Senate to determine who can still come through the
north doors, the south doors. Clearly Members, senior staff,
pre-screened visitors will be doing that. But the more people
who come through the visitor center itself, 300 feet away from
the Capitol building, before they enter the building, the safer
the facility will be.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Walker?
Mr. Walker. Senator Cochran you are correct to say that
security is one of the primary reasons for creating the Capitol
Visitor Center. I will also note there is another reason that I
think we have to lock down what the requirements are because
failure to lock down the requirements means that we have
increased risk of scheduled delays and cost increases, so
security is a primary factor, but there's also a need to lock
this down to increase the likelihood that we could come in on
time and within budget.
Senator Cochran. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
CONTRACTOR PENALTIES AND INCENTIVES
Senator Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In the last hearing I mentioned the importance of trying to
implement incentives as best we could. The sequence 1
contractor was 10 months late. Did he receive any late charges
or any fines or assessments for his tardiness in that regard?
Mr. Hixon. The sequence 1 contractor submitted a request
for a time extension, and documented that time extension for
delays due to added scope and different site conditions. Those
items were all reviewed for the contractor against the schedule
and no, he did not get assessed any liquidated damages. The
time was determined to be excusable and a major portion of it
was compensable because it was under the contract, he was
entitled to compensation for the delay.
Senator Allard. Now, let's go the other direction, did the
sequence 1 contractor receive any incentives or award fees from
the Architect of the Capitol?
Mr. Hixon. Yes, he did. He received award fees up until the
end--there is a portion of the budget that he had--that still
remains, he did not receive the full incentive fee that he
could have. I think there's an amount, $250,000 or something
that was not given to him because of his performance.
Senator Allard. Okay, and maybe you could go on to some
explanation of why he received those in greater detail?
Mr. Hixon. I can't at this time, I wasn't here for the
first few award fees that were handed out. The last one that he
did, we changed it to milestone dates. He received three out of
five--he achieved three out of five milestones--two of those
related to the plaza, having his work done on the plaza so the
sequence 2 contractor could be completed. He achieved those,
and received his incentive for meeting his milestone dates. The
other one was the service level, he achieved completion on that
area on schedule, too.
This was done differently than the way the incentive fee
was set up originally and differently from the way we are doing
Manhattan's incentive fee. We actually set milestone dates and
said if you achieve that milestone date, you will receive your
compensation, if you don't, you will not.
CONTRACTOR VARIANCES
Senator Allard. So we are handling the sequence 2 contract
differently than the sequence 1?
Mr. Hixon. We are doing sequence 2 the way the first part
of sequence 1 was done, which has to do with quality
management, time management, a whole lot of issues. And since I
wasn't here during that period of time, I'm not sure what the
conversation was. I can tell you that for sequence 2 schedule
management, all of those things were evaluated. There are
monitors in the construction manager's office that monitor
every month, it's a very rigorous process. We have graded them
in their first evaluation period which was from the beginning
that they were awarded the contract, up at the end of February
and determined that their performance is excellent but at the
low end, so they received approximately 91 percent of the
$150,000 that was available in their first award fee. We feel
they are doing a very good job.
Senator Allard. Mr. Walker.
Mr. Walker. Mr. Chairman, it's my understanding that the
sequence 1 contractor who was Centex did not incur any
penalties and was paid incentive award fees of about $820,000.
There are clearly lessons to be learned here with regard to the
future design of contracts to be able to provide more
incentives in appropriate circumstances, but penalties as well.
I might note that the safety issue was an issue that, in my
view, was not given adequate consideration with regard to this
factor. You have heard about some misreporting of safety
factors. We need to move in Government to more performance-
based contracts. We need to move in Government to provide more
incentives to people that are doing the right thing, and
penalties if they don't. I do think there are some lessons to
be learned here but I do think things are going better with the
sequence 2 contractor, as I've noted before.
CONSTRUCTION MANAGER
Senator Allard. Is it true that the longer the project
lasts, the more money the contractor makes?
Mr. Hixon. Are you referring to the construction contractor
or the construction managers?
Senator Allard. The latter.
Mr. Hixon. The construction manager?
Senator Allard. Yes.
Mr. Hixon. The construction manager if--he is paid for
having a staff on site and he is paid for a given duration, and
so that's correct. If, in fact, his staff would stay on site
for an extended period, the way the contract is developed if we
wanted him here, we'd have to pay him to continue to stay on
site during that period. We have included that in the budget
request for fiscal year 2006.
Senator Allard. And are there incentives, then, for the
managing contractor to move the project along?
Mr. Hixon. There are no incentive fees associated with the
construction manager contract, that contract--it's a typical
construction manager contract, a professional services
contract, and it does not have incentive fees in it, nor does
the Architect's.
Senator Allard. And typically a construction management
contract doesn't have incentives fees?
Mr. Hixon. Typically they have not, to date. That's
something that I think for the future would be a good idea. I
think they ought to have incentive contracts in construction
manager contracts. I think they ought to have them in A&E
contracts as well, so that if they do perform and they
collaborate well together, that they will derive a benefit,
there is an incentive for them to do so.
MAJOR MILESTONES
Senator Allard. Thank you. Now, finally, to get us ready
for the next hearing, what major milestones do you expect to
complete in the next 4 weeks? Mr. Hantman or Mr. Hixon?
Mr. Hixon. The major milestones that we have going on
schedulewise as far as work itself are, we should be seeing
that the stone work is really going well in the Great Hall,
that that work should be going on. But more importantly, from a
project perspective, as we had the opportunity now because of
the expansion space awards and the exhibit construction, to
finalize those elements and refine even further the schedule
and these other activities that need to be done in conjunction
with the move in to the building. We have kind of turned the
corner now, and we're kind of focused less on just trying to
get the work underway, but more on looking at how we need to
complete the work in order to be successful with such issues as
the Capitol Police and their security requirements, things of
that nature. Those are the kinds of issues that in the next 4
weeks we ought to have some closure on.
Mr. Hantman. But one of the things that Bob alluded to, Mr.
Chairman, certainly is the stone work. The stone work is
basically complete in the kitchen area at this point in time.
They are starting to move out to the Great Hall. And that's
really the critical path of the job with the volume of stone
that we have, so monitoring that, making sure that those starts
occur when those starts need to occur, and the number of crews
that are important to keep that flowing is, in fact, coming in,
so that's again the critical path of the project.
Senator Allard. I was hoping we could get a little more
specific response to that question. Could you get a response to
that question within the next 10 days, if that gives you enough
time?
Mr. Hantman. Yes.
CLOSING REMARKS
Senator Allard. I don't have any other questions to follow
up on, Mr. Chairman, do you have anything?
Senator Cochran. No, I don't.
Senator Allard. I want to thank you both for taking the
time to keep us informed on how the project is going. I
appreciate both of you. I think you're professional and we
appreciate your hard work and dedication to the effort and
taking time to come and share with us your views on how the
project is going. And I would like to thank the chairman of the
full committee, Senator Cochran, for his special interest with
everything that's going on.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
We will see you next month like I indicated. We want to
make this a monthly event and help keep ourselves informed as
to what is happening. I would like to meet again on June 14 and
we'll have it scheduled the same time, same place if that works
for you, Mr. Hantman.
Mr. Hantman. Yes, sir.
Senator Allard. Okay. And with that, the subcommittee
stands in recess until that time.
[Whereupon at 11:45 a.m., Tuesday, May 17, the subcommittee
was recessed to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]
PROGRESS OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 14, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch,
Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:36 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Wayne Allard (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Allard and Durbin.
STATEMENT OF ALAN M. HANTMAN, FAIA, ARCHITECT OF THE
CAPITOL
ACCOMPANIED BY BOB HIXON, PROJECT MANAGER, CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER,
ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD
Senator Allard. The subcommittee will come to order. We
meet today to take testimony on the progress of the Capitol
Visitor Center (CVC). We will hear from the Architect of the
Capitol Alan Hantman, CVC Project Manager Bob Hixon, and
Bernard Ungar and Terrell Dorn of the Government Accountability
Office (GAO).
This is our second hearing on the progress of the CVC and I
intend to continue holding monthly hearings. Our third hearing
will be the same time and place, 1 month from today, July 14.
In the last hearing the Architect reported that it had just
received a fully integrated schedule from its construction
management contractor. Mr. Hantman, you indicated you stood
firmly behind the September 15, 2006, completion date for
construction. Specifically, you said: ``We believe the whole
visitor experience with all the areas that are under contract
as of now will be ready for them in September.''
In the last month, the contract for the exhibition
galleries has been awarded and progress has been made in a
number of areas. But there have been problems, too, including
work in the utility tunnel, which is 5 months behind. Moreover,
there continues to be a need for schedule management to be
given top, ongoing priority attention, and AOC needs to develop
a risk mitigation plan.
We look forward to a robust discussion today, and
particularly look forward to recommendations from our witnesses
on the fiscal year 2006 budget as we will take up the 2006
legislative branch bill in committee next week.
I am heartened by the response that we have had since our
last hearing to many of the areas and I appreciate the
diligence and effort in that regard. So I do not want the fact
that we are making headway to be overshadowed by some of the
questions that we may focus on today. But we are trying to make
sure that we can keep things moving forward according to
schedule and holding down our costs as much as possible.
So why do we not go ahead now and I will recognize you, Mr.
Hantman, to proceed.
OPENING STATEMENT OF THE ARCHITECT
Mr. Hantman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. I am
pleased to be here to discuss the progress we have made on the
CVC since our last May 17 hearing.
Since I last testified, we have accomplished a number of
tasks. Before I get into the details, though, I'd like to
update you on the safety issues that were discussed at our last
meeting. Recently the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, OSHA, made an unannounced comprehensive
inspection of our work site. That was on May 24. They were
satisfied with the work Manhattan was doing, its emphasis on
worker safety, and they identified no significant issues to
address. No citations were issued.
Mr. Chairman, my office is dedicated to providing a safe,
healthy, and secure environment for all who work in the Capitol
complex and millions of visitors who come there every year, and
the CVC work site is no exception. Additional steps have been
made to assure that this is in fact the case.
INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS
Mr. Chairman, with the recent implementation of the fully
integrated schedule that you mentioned we have been closely
monitoring the activities of our contractors. Since our last
meeting, much progress has been made inside the visitor center.
Contractors continue to install mechanical, electrical, and
plumbing systems, erect masonry block work, place concrete, and
install finished stone work. In fact, stone installation in the
food service area has been completed ahead of schedule.
This is a recent photograph, Mr. Chairman, that shows all
of the stone work that we have in. This is one of the areas on
the House side where secure dining could be had. There will be
doors in this opening. You can see that in areas where the
block work is we have the base in, and all of this base will
have plaster going on in top of that.
Block work in the congressional auditorium is almost
complete and soon stone installation will begin in this area.
You can see that there's a lot of block work, Mr. Chairman.
When we walked through it last time there was nothing up over
here. These are the emergency egress corridors, up above the
areas that will allow people to come safely from the front of
the auditorium out to the side ramp area. You can see that the
block work is proceeding apace over here.
In addition, crews have completed all concrete placements
in the exhibit gallery. The stone installation on the walls and
columns inside the great hall is progressing very well. The
schedule for some wall stone installation activities are being
slightly revised to accommodate design or construction issues
as they're encountered so that the contractor can complete the
wall stone installation in the great hall in August as planned.
This is the rendering that we had showed you last time, Mr.
Chairman, and this was the photograph looking through one of
the skylights at the dome. The next two boards show you the
actual progress that we have been making since then.
This is down on the House side. You can see the stone work
being installed over here and on the orientation side of the
wall as well.
The next rendering, the next photograph, shows the area
down on the Senate side. Again, all the block work is basically
in. This is the area, Mr. Chairman, where the information booth
will be on the Senate side, right under the skylight.
What happens with some of this work, Mr. Chairman, is if
there is a field condition that is found that is difficult to
work on, sometimes the workers will have to work that out and
at the same time they will go to another section of the great
hall or other areas to continue laying stone. That is the
policy that we have been following and Manhattan certainly has
the flexibility to do that.
EXTERIOR CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS
Above ground, exterior stone work is nearing completion
along the pedestrian ramp located on the north side of the CVC
entrance zone. If we see over here, this is what we showed you
last time, Mr. Chairman. Here is the rendering of what the
entrance area and the screening area will look like, with that
wall along the right. You can see this worker was installing
the stone on that rampway over here, and the photograph beneath
this shows that we have very good progress. Most of the stone
work is installed on the Senate side ramp coming on down. You
can see a lot of the stone in the foreground over here.
We are trying to select the stone so that we can make sure
that it blends as much as possible. There is a whole range of
stone that is allowable in the contract and we want to make
sure that there are no jarring contrasts over there. So that is
proceeding very well.
On the eastern half of the front plaza, workers are
continuing to install granite pavers. All air-handling units
are now on site and installation will continue throughout the
month at the basement level.
With regard to the East Capitol Street utility tunnel that
you mentioned in your opening comments, we have experienced
delays due to unforeseen site conditions while relocating water
lines on First and Second Street to permit the utility tunnel
installation. At this time the First Street work is completed.
The D.C. Water and Sewer Authority, WASA, has shut down the
water in one of the Second Street water lines so that the
contractor can cut and cap an existing 30-inch water line. The
contractor will then install a large concrete thrust block and
that concrete must cure and harden so that work at Second
Street can continue.
This, Mr. Chairman, is a major milestone that is necessary
to complete work in this area. The impact of this added work is
a delay in utility tunnel construction of a number of weeks and
the requirement for temporary dehumidification in the CVC so
finish work can continue as scheduled. This is something that
we now have to do.
This photograph shows the work in East Capitol Street. This
entire area pretty much will be covered up very shortly, where
we have the precast concrete elements. The biggest holdup is in
Second Street right now with that 30-inch water line.
COMPLETION SCHEDULE
Mr. Chairman, we also spoke last month about award of the
contract to construct the exhibition gallery space, a key
component of the visitor experience in the CVC. I am pleased to
report that we have incorporated the exhibition gallery
construction schedule into the master schedule and are working
to ensure completion of the space in September 2006 to coincide
with the completion of the visitor facilities.
Here we see the rendering of what the Senate virtual
theater will look like when it is completed, and here you can
see the block work is up, ready to receive finishes now in that
very area. So as we go through the whole visitor center, Mr.
Chairman, you can see that the block work is really defining
spaces, allowing us to begin the finished stone work and the
plaster work in many areas.
We also discussed the award of the House and Senate
expansion space. That work has also been incorporated into the
master schedule, which reflects a completion date of spring
2007 for that separate part of the work.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity to again
report to the subcommittee on the status of the project and I
think that these monthly meetings are very helpful and look
forward to continuing them, and I am happy to answer any
questions you might have at this time.
Senator Allard. Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Alan M. Hantman, FAIA
Mr. Chairman, Senator Durbin, members of the Committee, I am
pleased to be here today to discuss the progress made on the Capitol
Visitor Center project since our May 17 hearing.
Since I last testified, we have accomplished a number of important
tasks. Before I get into the details, I would like to update you on the
safety issues that were discussed at our last meeting. Recently the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) made an
unannounced inspection of our worksite. They were satisfied with the
work Manhattan was doing, its emphasis on workers' safety, and they
identified no significant issues to address.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, my office is dedicated to providing a
safe, healthy, and secure environment for all who work in the Capitol
complex and millions of people who visit every year--the CVC worksite
is no exception.
With the recent implementation of the fully-integrated schedule, we
have been closely monitoring the activities of our contractors. Since
our last meeting, much progress has been made inside the Visitor
Center. Contractors continue to install mechanical, electrical, and
plumbing systems, erect masonry block work, place concrete, and install
finish stone. Stone installation in the food service area has been
completed ahead of schedule. Block work in the Congressional Auditorium
is almost complete and soon stone installation will begin in this area.
In addition, crews have completed all concrete placements in the
Exhibit Gallery.
The stone installation on the walls and columns inside the Great
Hall is progressing well. The schedule for some wall stone installation
activities are being slightly revised to accommodate design or
construction issues as they are encountered so that the contractor can
complete the wall stone installation in the Great Hall in August as
planned.
Above ground, exterior wall stonework is nearing completion along
the pedestrian ramp located on the north side of the CVC entrance zone.
On the eastern half of the East Front Plaza, workers continue to
install granite pavers. All air handling units are now on-site and
installation will continue throughout the month at the basement level.
With regard to the East Capitol Street Utility Tunnel, we have
experienced delays due to unforeseen site conditions while relocating
waterlines on First and Second Streets to permit the utility tunnel
installation. At this time, the First Street work is complete. The D.C.
Water and Sewer Authority (WASA) has shut down the water in one of the
Second Street waterlines so that the contractor can cut and cap an
existing 30-inch waterline. The contractor will then install a large
concrete thrust block and that concrete must cure and harden so that
work at Second Street can continue. This is a major milestone that is
necessary to complete work in this area. The impact of this added work
is a delay in utility tunnel construction of a number of weeks, and the
requirement for temporary dehumidification in the CVC so finish work
can continue as scheduled (i.e. plaster, millwork, drywall).
We also spoke last month, Mr. Chairman, about award of the contract
to construct the Exhibition Gallery space, a key component of the
visitor experience in the CVC. I am pleased to report that we have
incorporated the Exhibition Gallery construction schedule in the Master
Schedule and are working to ensure completion of this space in
September 2006 to coincide with the completion of the visitor
facilities.
We also discussed the award of the House and Senate expansion
space. That work has also been incorporated into the Master Schedule
which reflects a completion date of Spring 2007 for that separate part
of the work.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to again report to
you and the Committee on the status of the CVC project. I am happy to
answer any questions you may have at this time.
STATEMENT OF BERNARD L. UNGAR, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY
OFFICE
ACCOMPANIED BY TERRELL DORN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Senator Allard. First of all, we would like to hear from
Mr. Ungar with the Government Accountability Office. We look
forward to your testimony, Mr. Ungar.
Mr. Ungar. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Dorn and I appreciate the
opportunity to be here this morning to assist the subcommittee
in its oversight activities of the Capitol Visitor Center. Mr.
Dorn and I are accompanied this morning by several of our team
members: Shirley Abel, Brad James, Maria Edelstein, John Craig,
and Kris Trueblood, who will hopefully help bail us out when
the tough questions come, and we know they will come.
Our written statement addresses two issues, schedule and
cost. We would like to focus our summary this morning on
schedule, talk just a short bit about cost. We think schedule
is the most significant issue facing the project, and there are
four areas that deal with the schedule that we think require
priority attention now and will require priority attention for
the remainder of the project.
SCHEDULE MANAGEMENT
The first is the need to have a good realistic schedule
that conforms to good scheduling practice. This has been a
longstanding problem with the project. It has not had a good
schedule for a period of time. Last week, as we had
recommended, AOC and its contractors had provided an updated
schedule that they believe addresses many of the concerns that
we had previously raised. The schedule has over 4,000
activities, so we have not had a chance to review it and
evaluate it in depth.
Our superficial look, though, does indicate that it does
have a number of improvements. There are a number of concerns
that we have. We intend to more fully evaluate this schedule in
time for the subcommittee's next oversight hearing in July.
Also, during the summer we plan to update the risk assessment
of the schedule that we had completed last year.
In terms of the schedule and how realistic it is, we
continue to believe at this point that the project is more
likely to be substantially completed in the December 2006 to
March 2007 timeframe as opposed to the September 2006 schedule
that currently exists. One of the indicators of that is the
extent to which AOC and its contractors meet project milestones
and, as we reported in our written statement, for the
milestones that were set between these two hearings AOC and its
contractors met 3 of the 11 milestones for that period of time.
On the one hand, AOC rightfully says that there's plenty of
time between now and next year for it to make up the time. On
the other hand, it's not a good indicator at this point. If we
were responsible for the project, we would not necessarily be
able to sleep well at night given that indicator. Time will
tell how well time is recovered and it certainly is possible,
but it's certainly something to be watched in the future.
Second and perhaps the single most important issue with
respect to the schedule is the need to have an aggressive,
effective schedule management program. This too has been a
longstanding problem from our perspective. We don't believe AOC
or its construction management contractor has effectively and
aggressively managed the project for the previous period.
However, last week AOC and its major contractors unveiled a new
approach to schedule management and schedule monitoring that
they believe addresses many of the concerns that we have raised
in the past. It does appear as though this new process, if it
is effectively implemented on a sustained basis, will indeed
address many of the concerns that we had.
We still have some question about the extent to which this
new process will sufficiently address the issue of the handling
of delays, but we intend to monitor that very closely during
the upcoming months.
Another very important factor with respect to schedule
management is the commitment of skilled resources to that
effort, and we were very heartened to learn that effective
yesterday Gilbane, the construction management contractor,
assigned an individual--who had been temporarily assigned to
the project--on a full-time basis to be responsible for helping
to manage and oversee the schedule. We think that is a very
positive development.
The third problem area that we identified with respect to
schedule has to do with risk management, risk planning and
mitigation. About 2 years ago, recognizing a number of risks
that existed with the project, we had recommended AOC begin to
develop a risk mitigation plan. AOC agreed with the
recommendation. However, it has not yet implemented that
recommendation.
The project executive has agreed to promptly begin to
tackle this area and we think that is very important because of
the types of risks and the severity of the problems that have
occurred in the past and that could occur in the future.
Finally, with respect to schedule, an item that the
subcommittee raised in the April hearing on AOC's fiscal year
2006 budget is an important item. That has to do with the need
for a schedule that integrates both construction work and
operation activities that need to be carried out to open the
CVC to the public. To date there is not such a schedule.
AOC has not been able to work on that, largely because up
until last week it did not have the funding necessary to
reengage a contractor that had been supporting AOC in the
operational planning. Now that AOC has that money, which it
received last week, the Architect has agreed to reengage the
contractor and to work toward putting together a plan that
would integrate both operations and construction. So we're very
pleased about that.
PROJECT COST
Concerning the cost to complete the project, we continue to
believe that it will cost more to complete the project than AOC
has received to date and that it has requested. At this point
in time we believe the additional cost could be as much as $37
million. Exactly how much of that would be needed at what point
in time it is not clear.
Senator Allard. That is $37 million additional to what we
talked about as of the last hearing?
Mr. Ungar. That is correct, sir. AOC has asked for $36.9
million for 2006 and the $37 million is over on top of that.
We do believe AOC may need some additional funds in 2005
because of the pace at which it is receiving sequence 2 change
orders and some of the problems that are coming up. That
remains to be seen. AOC does have available to it part of $10.6
million that was made available last year from the Capitol
operations and maintenance budget. We have urged AOC to
consider asking for some of that money sooner rather than later
to make sure that it has sufficient funds between now and the
end of fiscal year 2005 and given that it's not exactly clear
when the 2006 funds will be available to it.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes our summary. We would be happy
to answer questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bernard L. Ungar
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: We are pleased to be
here today to discuss GAO's ongoing work on the progress of the Capitol
Visitor Center (CVC) project. As requested, we will focus our remarks
today on the Architect of the Capitol's (AOC) progress in achieving
selected project milestones and in managing the project's schedule
since the Subcommittee's May 17 hearing on the project.\1\ We will also
discuss the project's costs and funding, including the potential impact
of schedule-related issues on the project's costs. Our observations
today are based on our review of schedules and financial reports for
the CVC project and related records maintained by AOC and its
construction management contractor, Gilbane Building Company; our
observations on the progress of work at the CVC construction site; and
our discussions with CVC project staff, including AOC, its construction
management contractor, and representatives of an AOC schedule
consultant, McDonough Bolyard Peck (MBP). We did not perform an audit;
rather we performed our work to assist Congress in conducting its
oversight activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ GAO, Capitol Visitor Center, Priority Attention Needed to
Manage Schedules and Contracts, GAO-05-714T (Washington, D.C.: May 17,
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, AOC's sequence 2 contractor, Manhattan Construction
Company, has met 3 of 11 significant milestones scheduled for
completion by today's hearing. The sequence 2 contractor missed the
other 8 milestones for several reasons, such as unforeseen site
conditions and a design problem. AOC does not expect these delays to
affect the CVC project's scheduled September 2006 completion date
because AOC believes that the contractor can recover the lost time.
Furthermore, certain utility tunnel work is scheduled for completion
about 5 months later than previously reported, but AOC does not expect
this delay to postpone the project's completion date because AOC plans
to use temporary equipment that will allow the project to move forward
but will also increase its costs. However, largely because of past
problems and risks and uncertainties that face the project, we continue
to believe that the project is more likely to be completed in the
December 2006 to March 2007 time frame than in September 2006, as shown
in AOC's schedule. AOC and its construction management contractor have
continued their efforts to address two of the areas we identified
during the Subcommittee's May 17 CVC hearing as requiring priority
attention--having a realistic, acceptable schedule and aggressively
monitoring and managing adherence to the schedule. But AOC has not yet
developed risk mitigation plans or, as the Subcommittee requested,
prepared a master schedule that integrates the major steps needed to
complete construction with the steps needed to prepare for operations.
Until recently, AOC did not have funding to continue contractual
support it had been receiving to help plan and prepare for CVC
operations. We continue to believe that these areas require AOC's
priority attention and that the project's estimated cost at completion
will be between $522 million and $559 million, and that, as we
indicated during the May 17 hearing, AOC will likely need as much as
$37 million more than it has requested to cover risks and uncertainties
to complete the project. We believe that most of these additional funds
will be needed in fiscal years 2006 and 2007, although exactly how much
will be needed at any one time is not clear. We are recommending that
this fall AOC update its estimate of the cost to complete the project.
Schedule Milestones and Management
AOC and its major construction contractors have made progress since
the Subcommittee's May 17 hearing. As of May 31, the construction
management contractor reported that the CVC project's construction was
about 65 percent complete. The sequence 1 contractor, Centex
Construction Company, which was responsible for the project's
excavation and structural work, has continued to address punch-list
items, such as stopping water leaks that continue to appear in
perimeter walls. According to the construction management contractor,
as of May 31, the sequence 1 contractor had completed almost all of the
items on the punch list. AOC expects the sequence 1 contractor to be
completely done with this list and off site by June 30, although the
contractor may have to return later to address some issues.
Furthermore, the sequence 2 contractor, which is responsible for the
mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and finishing work, continued to make
progress in these areas, including erecting masonry block, placing
concrete, and installing finish stone, sheetrock and plaster, and
granite pavers. The sequence 2 contractor also continued work on the
utility tunnel.
As the Subcommittee requested, we worked with AOC on the selection
of several sequence 2 milestones that the Subcommittee can use to help
track the project's progress from the Subcommittee's May 17 hearing to
July 31. These milestones are shown in appendix I and include
activities on the project's critical path, as well as other activities
that we and AOC believe are important for the project's timely
completion.\2\ AOC's sequence 2 contractor completed 3 of the 11
activities listed in appendix 1 as scheduled for completion by today.
The 11 activities include certain stone work in the Great Hall, a
portion of the masonry wall in the auditorium, and certain utility
tunnel work. According to AOC, the delays in 8 of these activities were
caused by a number of factors, such as unforeseen site conditions, a
design problem, and delays in completing certain masonry work that had
to be completed before other work could be done. AOC does not expect
these delays to postpone the project's scheduled September 2006
completion date because it believes that the sequence 2 contractor can
recover the lost time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ A critical path is a sequence of activities in a schedule that
has the longest duration. There is no scheduling flexibility or slack
time associated with the activities. This means that a delay in a
critical path activity will delay the entire project unless a way is
found to reduce the time required for other activities along the
critical path. A schedule may have multiple critical paths
simultaneously, and the critical path through a project can change as
the project is updated and the time estimated to complete the tasks
changes. Currently, AOC's schedule shows CVC's critical path running
through wall stone and East Front stonework, and also shows other work
elements, such as utility tunnel and millwork, as near critical (i.e.
having little slack time).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the May 17 hearing, AOC learned that the utility tunnel,
which was expected to be operational in October 2005, is not now likely
to be operational until March 2006. According to AOC, this date slipped
because of unforeseen site conditions and the need to do certain work
earlier than originally anticipated. The sequence 2 contractor has
indicated that the impact of this delay on the project's scheduled
September 2006 completion date will be mitigated by the use of
temporary dehumidification equipment. However, this mitigation approach
will result in additional costs, as explained later in this statement.
Also since the May 17 hearing, AOC's contractors have updated the
project's master schedule, and the new schedule shows seven paths that
are critical or are within 15 days of being critical. For example, the
updated schedule shows millwork and finishing the auditorium to be
within 10 days and 15 days, respectively, of being critical. Having so
many critical or near-critical paths complicates schedule management
and increases the risk of problems that could lead AOC to miss its
scheduled completion date.
In our May 17 statement, we provided several observations on AOC's
management of the project's schedules, including our view that problems
in this area contributed to slippage in the project's scheduled
completion date and additional project costs associated with delays. We
also discussed recommendations we had already made to AOC to enhance
its schedule management. AOC had agreed with these recommendations and
had generally begun to implement them, but, it still needed, in our
view, to give priority attention to them to keep the project on track
and as close to budget as possible. A brief discussion follows of the
issues that need AOC's priority attention and the current status of
AOC's actions to address these issues.
Having realistic time frames for completing work and obtaining
fully acceptable schedules from contractors.--Over the course of the
project, AOC's schedules have shown dates for completing tasks that
project personnel themselves considered unlikely to be met. In
addition, the master project schedule (prepared by AOC's construction
management contractor) that AOC was using in May 2005 did not tie all
interrelated activities together and did not identify the resources to
be applied for all the activities, as AOC's contract requires. On June
10, the construction management contractor told us that it had
reassessed the reasonableness of the activity durations and found that
they reasonably reflected the time required to perform the activities.
Last week, AOC provided us with a revised master schedule that the
construction management contractor said (1) reflected significant
improvement in the linkage of interrelated tasks and (2) provided
sufficient information to manage the project's resources. AOC said that
it planned to approve and accept this schedule subject to several
conditions. Although our initial review of this revised schedule
indicates that a number of improvements have been made, we have not yet
had time to fully evaluate it. We will have a more complete assessment
for the Subcommittee by its next CVC oversight hearing. Furthermore, as
we said during the May 17 hearing, we continue to believe that AOC's
scheduled September 2006 completion date is optimistic and that the
project is more likely to be done in the December 2006 to March 2007
time frame, largely because of past problems, the risks to the schedule
identified during our assessment of it in early 2004, and future risks
and uncertainties facing the project. We plan to update our risk
assessment for AOC's revised schedule and have our update completed in
September 2005. Our update will include a review of activity durations.
Aggressive monitoring and managing contractors' adherence to the
schedule, including documenting and addressing the causes of delays,
and reporting accurately to Congress on the status of the project's
schedule.--We noted in our May 17 testimony that neither AOC nor its
construction management contractor had previously (1) adhered to
contract provisions calling for monthly progress review meetings and
schedule updates and revisions, (2) systematically tracked and
documented delays and their causes as they occurred or apportioned
their time and costs to the appropriate parties on an ongoing basis,
and (3) always accurately reported on the status of the project's
schedule. AOC and the construction management contractor have been
working with the schedule consultant to develop a new, systematic
process for tracking, analyzing, and documenting schedule progress and
delays, addressing schedule issues, approving proposed schedule
changes, and reporting on the schedule's status. On June 7, AOC, the
construction management contractor, the sequence 2 contractor, and the
schedule consultant conducted the first monthly schedule status review
session using the newly developed approach. If effectively implemented
and sustained, we believe that this new approach should generally
resolve the schedule management concerns we previously raised, although
it is not yet clear how delays will be handled on an ongoing basis. We
believe that the successful implementation of this new approach,
including the effective handling of delays, depends heavily on the CVC
project team's continuous commitment of sufficient skilled resources to
schedule management. On June 9, the construction management contractor
told us that a project control engineer who had been assigned
temporarily to help manage the project's schedule would be working full
time on the project starting June 13. We plan to closely monitor the
implementation of this new approach, including the resources devoted to
it, the handling of delays, and the accuracy of the information
provided to Congress.
Developing and implementing risk mitigation plans.--In the course
of monitoring the CVC project, we have identified a number of risks and
uncertainties that could have significant adverse effects on the
project's schedule and costs. Some of these risks, such as underground
obstructions and unforeseen conditions, have already materialized and
have had the anticipated adverse effects. We believe the project
continues to face risks and uncertainties, such as unforeseen
conditions associated with the project's remaining tunnels and other
work, scope gaps or other problems associated with the segmentation of
the project between two major contractors, and shortages in the supply
of stone and skilled stone workers. Although we have recommended that
AOC develop and implement risk mitigation plans for these types of
risks and uncertainties, AOC has not yet done so. AOC has agreed,
however, to begin to do this shortly, and, according to AOC's CVC
project executive, is exploring possible approaches.
Preparing a master schedule that integrates the major steps needed
to complete CVC construction and the steps necessary to prepare for
operations.--A number of activities, such as hiring and training staff,
procuring supplies and services, and developing policies and
procedures, need to be planned and carried out on a timely basis for
CVC to open to the public when construction is complete. Although AOC
has started to plan and prepare for CVC operations, as we indicated in
our May 17 testimony, it has not yet developed a schedule that
integrates the construction activities with those activities necessary
to prepare for operations. The Subcommittee requested such a schedule
during its April 13, 2005, hearing on AOC's fiscal year 2006 budget
request. Because of a lack of funds, AOC had not been able to extend
the work of a contractor that had been helping it plan and prepare for
operations. Last week, AOC received the funding needed to re-engage
this contractor, and AOC said that it would be working with the
contractor to continue planning and preparing for CVC operations.
Project Costs and Funding
As we said during the Subcommittee's May 17 hearing, we estimate
that the cost to complete the construction of the CVC project,
including proposed revisions to its scope, will range from about $522
million without provision for risks and uncertainties to about $559
million with provision for risks and uncertainties. As of June 10,
2005, about $483.7 million had been provided for CVC construction. In
its fiscal year 2006 budget request, AOC asked Congress for an
additional $36.9 million for CVC construction. AOC believes this amount
will be sufficient to complete construction and, if approved, will
bring the total funding provided for the project's construction to
$520.6 million. Adding $1.7 million to this amount for additional work
related to the air filtration system that we believe will likely be
necessary brings the total funding needed to slightly more than the
previously cited $522 million. AOC believes that it could obtain this
$1.7 million, if needed, from the Department of Defense. AOC's $36.9
million budget request includes $4.2 million for potential additions to
the project's scope (e.g. congressional seals, an orientation film, and
storage space for backpacks) that Congress will have to consider when
deciding on AOC's fiscal year 2006 CVC budget request.
AOC has not asked Congress for the additional $37 million ($559
million minus $522 million) that we believe will likely be needed to
address the risks and uncertainties that continue to face the project.
These include, but are not limited to, shortages in the supply of stone
and skilled stone workers, unforeseen conditions, scope gaps, further
delays, possible additional requirements or time for life safety or
security changes and commissioning, unknown operator requirements, and
contractor coordination issues. These types of problems have been
occurring, and as of June 1, 2005, AOC had received proposed sequence 2
change orders with costs estimated to exceed the funding available in
fiscal year 2005 for sequence 2 changes by about $400,000.\3\ AOC plans
to help cover this potential shortfall by requesting approval from the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations to reprogram funds from
other project elements that it does not believe will be needed for
those elements. AOC can also request approval from these Committees to
use part of $10.6 million that Congress approved for transfer to the
CVC project from funds appropriated for Capitol Buildings operations
and maintenance.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In our May 17 testimony, we reported that AOC had about
$700,000 remaining in its fiscal year 2005 funding for sequence 2
changes after deducting estimated costs for proposed changes it had
received.
\4\ Public Law 108-447, enacted in December 2004, provided that up
to $10.6 million could be so transferred upon the approval of the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations. In March 2005, AOC requested
that about $4 million of these funds be transferred to CVC, including
some funds for construction-related work, such as design of the gift
shop space. As of June 10, AOC had received approval to use about $2.8
million of this $10.6 million. None of the $10.6 million was included
in the $483.7 million above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For several reasons, we believe that AOC may need additional funds
for CVC construction in the next several months. These reasons include
the pace at which AOC is receiving proposed change orders for sequence
2, the problems it is encountering and likely to encounter in finishing
the project, and the uncertainties associated with how much AOC may
have to pay for sequence 2 delays as well as when AOC will have fiscal
year 2006 funds available to it. For example, AOC is likely to incur
additional costs for dehumidification if the expected delay in the
utility tunnel cannot be mitigated or AOC has to obtain temporary
equipment to provide steam and chilled water to CVC. AOC may be able to
meet this need as well as the other already identified needs by
additional reprogramming of funds and by obtaining approval to use some
of the previously discussed $10.6 million.\5\ However, these funds may
not be sufficient to address the risks and uncertainties that may
materialize from later this fiscal year through fiscal year 2007. Thus,
while AOC may not need all of the remaining $37 million we have
suggested be allowed for risks and uncertainties, we believe AOC is
likely to need more funds in fiscal years 2006 and 2007 than it has
already received and has requested to complete the construction of
CVC's currently approved scope, although the exact amount and timing
are not clear at this time. Effective implementation of our
recommendations, including risk mitigation, could reduce AOC's funding
needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ AOC plans to fund anticipated additional costs for the House
connector tunnel, the Jefferson Building connection to the Library of
Congress tunnel, and certain security-related work by requesting
approval to reprogram about $1.6 million from sequence 1 construction
and the East Front Interface to these project elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendation for Executive Action
Given the development of a new project schedule, the pace at which
sequence 2 change orders are being proposed, and the risks and
uncertainties that continue to face the project, we recommend that, in
the September to November 2005 time frame, the Architect of the Capitol
update the estimated cost to complete the project. We believe that such
information will be useful to Congress as it considers AOC's budget
request for fiscal year 2007 as well as any other requests AOC may make
for CVC funding. We expect to have our risk assessment of AOC's new
project schedule done in September and believe that the information
developed during this assessment will be important in estimating future
costs. In addition, we believe that AOC will have more information on
the possible costs of sequence 2 delays by that time. AOC has agreed to
do this update.
Mr. Chairman, this completes our prepared statement. We would be
happy to answer questions that you or other Subcommittee Members may
have.
APPENDIX I.--CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER CRITICAL CONSTRUCTION MILESTONES, MAY 2005-JULY 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scheduled Actual
Activity Location completion completion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wall Stone Area 1............................. Great Hall \1\ \2\.................... 5/11/05 6/06/05
Scheduled for completion between 5/17/05 and 6/
14/05:
Wall Stone Area 3 Base Support............ Great Hall \1\........................ 5/20/05 5/20/05
Wall Stone Layout Area 4.................. Great Hall............................ 5/20/05 6/06/05
Saw Cut Road at 2nd Street................ Utility Tunnel \1\.................... 5/24/05 ...........
Wall Stone Area 4 Base Support............ Great Hall \1\........................ 5/27/05 ...........
Wall Stone Layout Area 5.................. Great Hall............................ 5/27/05 5/27/05
Masonry Wall Lower Level East............. Cong. Auditorium...................... 6/03/05 5/25/05
Wall Stone Area 5 Base Support............ Great Hall \1\........................ 6/06/05 6/09/05
Wall Stone Layout Area 6.................. Great Hall............................ 6/06/05 ...........
Drill/Set Soldier Piles at 2nd Street..... Utility Tunnel \1\.................... 6/08/05 ...........
Wall Stone Area 6 Base Support............ Great Hall \1\........................ 6/13/05 ...........
Scheduled for completion between 6/15/05 and 7/
31/05:
Wall Stone Layout Area 8.................. Great Hall............................ 6/20/05 ...........
Masonry Wall.............................. Orientation Theater................... 6/24/05 ...........
Wall Stone Layout Area 9.................. Great Hall............................ 6/24/05 ...........
Wall Stone Area 9 Base Support............ Great Hall \1\........................ 7/05/05 ...........
Wall Stone Installation Area 2............ Great Hall............................ 7/06/05 ...........
Wall Stone Installation Area 3............ Great Hall............................ 7/06/05 ...........
Wall Stone Installation Area 4............ Great Hall............................ 7/15/05 ...........
Wall Stone Area 9 Base.................... Great Hall \1\........................ 7/15/05 ...........
Excavate/shore Station 0-1................ Utility Tunnel \1\.................... 7/21/05 ...........
Concrete Working Slab 2nd Street.......... Utility Tunnel \1\.................... 7/26/05 ...........
Waterproof Working Slab Station 0-1....... Utility Tunnel \1\.................... 7/29/05 ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These activities are critical.
\2\ This activity was scheduled for completion by the Subcommittee's May 17 hearing but was not done as of that
date.
Source: AOC's April 2005 CVC sequence 2 construction schedule for the scheduled completion dates and AOC and its
construction management contractor for the actual completion dates.
Note: Actual completion information was obtained on June 9, and AOC did not expect that the wall stone area 6
base-support work in the Great Hall would be done by June 13; it is now expected to be done after June 14.
MILESTONE COMPLETION
Senator Allard. I want to thank both of you for your
testimony.
We have two other individuals at the table. Mr. Dorn is
here with the GAO, and Mr. Hixon is the CVC Project Executive
with the Architect of the Capitol.
First question I will direct to Mr. Hantman. GAO's
testimony indicates only 3 of 11 significant milestones
scheduled for completion at this time by the sequence 2
contractor have actually been completed. Did this occur because
of more diligence on the part of the contractor or because the
schedule was just entirely too optimistic?
Mr. Hantman. Bob.
Mr. Hixon. Sir, I will be happy to answer that question. We
have been working with the Government Accountability Office to
identify items on the critical path. The critical path has
changed somewhat between the April and the May date, which
created some difficulty in trying to make sure we had items we
could compare both in April and May.
You do note that some items have been delayed. The ones
related to the utility tunnel, we have a real issue there that
we have been trying to work through that has delayed us for a
number of weeks. For the wall stone issues in the great hall,
the dates have slipped 2 to 3 weeks on some of those
activities, and those are items that we are working on. We
continue to look for ways to recover that. We expect that we
will recover all of those and that will not be a problem.
Of note, in the food service area there was concern that we
were running behind in the food service area with stone
installation, and in fact we were able to complete that area
ahead of schedule. So the expectation is, provided we receive
the stone in the quantities we need it, the installation will
be able to move forward and will be able to be done in August,
which is our date to be done for stone installation in the
great hall.
Senator Allard. So this has to do more with just a
diligence issue and forcing things to move along as opposed to
scheduling miscalculations?
Mr. Hixon. The schedule is the contractor's. When he lays
out his schedule that is his plan and his plan is changing
periodically. We will find design issues that need to be
resolved, which will cause them to stop installing stone in one
area and move to another area. So they have some work that has
progressed ahead of schedule in other areas, but in these areas
here they are in fact 2 to 3 weeks behind in completing that.
But we expect to be able to complete all of the work in the
area on schedule.
SCHEDULE DELAYS
Senator Allard. The overall schedule, though, has slipped;
is that correct?
Mr. Hixon. The overall schedule, the September 15
completion date, if you look at the pure schedule, we had a 1-
day slippage and we are looking to recover that 1 day.
Senator Allard. Okay. What I understand is that we have had
some dates that have been on the critical path that have been
missed and the critical path as I understand it is that path
where there is no leeway for error. In other words, you are
down to the last minute practically on your schedule. You do
not have any flexibility. If something unexpected happens, you
begin to fall behind.
Mr. Hixon. That is correct, sir.
Senator Allard. My understanding is that you have missed
some of the dates on that critical path. Despite that, though,
you are still confident that we will finish on time, which
would be September 15, 2006?
Mr. Hixon. Yes, sir. The critical path indicates those
items that must be done on time. If you miss a date we have to
do something in the schedule, I mean with the work that is
accomplished in that schedule, either complete work within a
shorter duration than is reflected or resequence activities.
That is part of the issue between the April and the May date.
There is some resequencing of work so that the contractor is
making the necessary adjustments in order to be able to
complete the project on time.
COMPLETION DATE
Senator Allard. It seems to me that the difference that we
are getting in testimony for the date of completion between the
GAO and the Architect's Office is how you look at this critical
path and the margin that you may have there and the likelihood
of whether something will happen that will get you off your
critical path. Am I correct in that?
Mr. Hantman. I think that is a part of the story, Mr.
Chairman. I think clearly what GAO is also recognizing over
here is there are still potential unknowns on the project.
Things that just happened with the thrust block for instance on
East Capitol Street is something we certainly had not
projected. There will be a time and a cost implication of
something that WASA is now telling us to work on, that we had
never projected before.
I think in that sense--and please, Bernie, correct me if
necessary--I think they are looking forward and saying there is
going to be more of those things coming forward, which we
cannot count in our schedule at this point in time.
But I think it is important to note, Mr. Chairman, that the
September date that we are talking about was not artificially
created and that we are not trying to cram everything in to
meet that. Ninety-five percent of the schedules for the
subcontractors were created by the subcontractors, taken by
Manhattan and incorporated into this schedule showing that we
can meet that.
Now, clearly there are a lot of constraints, a lot of risks
still going on, things that we are not aware of right now. The
weather may impact us, other things. But right now, the way
those pieces of the schedule are coming together, it still
indicates that that September date is still possible.
Senator Allard. Very good. I thank you for that
clarification.
SCHEDULE RISKS ASSESSMENT
Mr. Ungar, did you want to comment on that question?
Mr. Ungar. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we would. One of the other
issues aside from the risks and uncertainties that we have
raised in the past is how realistic the schedule is in itself.
We have through our previous work found that a number of the
durations for some of the key tasks were optimistic based on
the information provided by the project personnel themselves.
We identified about 12 to 15 tasks that were particularly
at risk, such as the stone work and the fire system inspection
and so forth, that were likely to take longer than the schedule
had shown. We had recommended a while back that AOC reassess
these activities to determine whether or not the durations were
realistic.
Last week Gilbane informed us that its superintendents had
done a general evaluation of that and found the durations to
generally be reasonable, but it had not yet done a detailed
evaluation of key activities. That is the latter, the detailed
evaluation, is the type of evaluation that we believe is really
necessary to make a good judgment and a good determination on
that. We are looking forward to that.
As I mentioned, we also plan to update our risk assessment
of the schedule during the summer.
SCHEDULE DURATION REASSESSMENT
Senator Allard. The question, back to you, Mr. Hantman
then, can you commit to providing a complete reassessment of
the schedule durations by the next hearing, following up on Mr.
Ungar's comments?
Mr. Hixon. We are doing a reassessment as we go along. But
certainly we should be completed with that activity before the
next hearing, yes, sir.
TUNNEL UTILITIES
Senator Allard. Good, okay. Well then, we will make that
part of our next hearing schedule.
There have been problems with the utility tunnel, as was
pointed out in your testimony, Mr. Hantman.
Your view is that this is going to have little if any
impact on our schedule?
Mr. Hantman. One of the things that we are discussing in
fact, Mr. Chairman, at last night's Preservation Commission
review was the need, as I mentioned earlier here as well, for
dehumidification systems to be brought in. What we are going to
need to do is, in order to do the plaster work, to begin to
bring in millwork, things that need humidity type of control,
we are going to have to bring in a temporary system while the
East Capitol work is completed, the utilities are hooked up,
and then air-handling units we are installing in the basement
can be made operable.
Senator Allard. So it looks like you may be able to catch
up on your schedule, but it is going to cost some extra dollars
because bringing the dehumidification equipment in is going to
add to the cost.
Mr. Hantman. That is correct.
COORDINATION WITH WASA
Senator Allard. Okay. Do you believe that the problems you
are seeing now with the utility work could have been foreseen?
Mr. Hantman. Mr. Chairman, in the past when we had major
utilities, a major water line down Constitution Avenue with
WASA also, it appears as if when we get into the system and we
are trying to move lines and work with them, that WASA has
taken this opportunity to upgrade their system. So in terms of
the major thrust block and the ability for us to essentially
upgrade their system in that area, this is what they are
requesting of us.
Senator Allard. So their attitude is, while you have that
area open, so we do not have to come back and reopen it, let us
get some other work done?
Mr. Hantman. And they are trying to mitigate their risk as
well. So in order to proceed we are working with them in trying
to move ahead with as much alacrity as possible while still not
degrading their service to the surrounding area.
Senator Allard. It would have been nice if they had let us
know ahead of time about what they were thinking of.
Mr. Hantman. Basically when we get it opened up is when the
decisions come down.
UTILITY COSTS
Senator Allard. Now, what is that going to do to the cost?
You do not have a figure on how much this is going to add to
the cost of the project?
Mr. Hixon. The cost of the entire utility tunnel? We have a
modification in place for the utility tunnel that does not
include the added cost for the thrust block. This was work that
became apparent after we had the area excavated so that WASA
could review where we were and what our plan was. So that is an
added cost to us. We do not have it defined yet as far as the
actual numbers.
Senator Allard. So by doing this extra work tasked by WASA,
in effect we have saved them money, but added a little bit to
our cost.
Mr. Hixon. Well, I think there is work here that is a
different site condition, that as a consequence of the
installation as it exists, WASA drawings--we were working with
WASA's drawings. The installations, especially the part on
First Street, was not installed quite like the drawings
reflected, and when it was opened up there were corrections
that needed to be made for a proper installation.
So we are fixing some deficiencies in WASA's system, that's
true. But it is also things that we could not identify until we
had actually opened the lines up and could see we had a leaded
joint or something like that.
ADDITIONAL UTILITY WORK
Senator Allard. Mr. Ungar, maybe you would like to comment
about whether you believe the utility work could have been
foreseen and how you see this affecting the costs.
Mr. Ungar. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Dorn would like to address
that issue.
Mr. Dorn. We do believe there could have been better
coordination between AOC and WASA, for example. As Mr. Hantman
just testified, there is a long history of problems dealing
with WASA and making additional requirements on the Government
to get work done in that area. So we could have probably done a
better job in coordinating that, once again, and that would
have reduced some of the costs we are seeing now.
The problem now is you have a contractor on site that we
are paying every day, so it makes it much harder to get that
work done with the pressure of having the construction
contractor waiting when you make these things happen.
The other coordination issue relating to the utility tunnel
that has not been addressed is the book tunnel which runs
between the Supreme Court and the Library of Congress. It has
always been known that there is a book tunnel there, but
someone assumed that we could blow through that tunnel without
affecting the security at the Supreme Court, which it turned
out to have not been a good assumption. So again, better
coordination could have reduced those costs going forward.
As far as the cost, it is probably not appropriate because
of the ongoing negotiations for us to get much into additional
costs.
UTILITY CONNECTIONS
Senator Allard. Now, when you agreed to work with the
District and their government on this issue, was any discussion
made of, well, look, we are doing this for you, do you want to
pay in a share of costs on this project? Was there any of that
discussion?
Mr. Hixon. No, sir. Essentially, we are working on their
line. This is not work they need to have done at this time. And
if you are going to disturb the line, then you need to install
it to the current standards.
We are really at a point where if we want them to cooperate
with us and shut the water down so we can move on to the next
step, we are doing what we need to do to accommodate them.
Senator Allard. I have known instances like this where the
city has come in and said: Look, the contractor is doing some
extra work on our line. While you have it open, we would like
to take advantage to upgrade that line. We will pay a portion
of that cost to do that. But you have never had that discussion
or they were not willing to enter into those kind of
discussions?
Mr. Hixon. We do not feel the work we are doing would be
characterized as upgrading their line as much as working on it.
We are cutting out pieces of it. There are elements of the
installation that are not done quite the way they want. It is
different from what was reflected on the drawings, so we are
just correcting the installation.
Yes, we are spending a little money upgrading their lines,
but in the sense of getting their cooperation, we are just
trying to get through this so that we can move on to the more
difficult part, which is on Second Street.
Senator Allard. I understand the situation. Thank you for
your comments on that.
MASTER SCHEDULE
The Architect now has a fully integrated master schedule,
but it seems to change regularly. How can we keep track of
progress if the baseline is changing on us?
Mr. Hixon. The schedule that we have, the baseline that we
have established for April, should be reasonably firm. But the
contractor does have the opportunity, since it is his schedule,
to resequence work. We have the opportunity to review that and
make sure it makes sense. But it is ultimately his schedule for
how he is going to perform the work and he could change the way
he wants to do it as long as it makes sense and he is not doing
something inappropriate.
So we expect the plan to not change much, but we have to
recognize he does have the opportunity to revise his schedule,
subject to our approval.
Senator Allard. That is fine. But for our accounting
purposes, can we keep a baseline that does not change so that
we have a real feel of what actually is happening? Because a
change in baseline can distort it.
Mr. Hixon. That is correct, and that is why we have
established April as the baseline that we are managing against.
If you look at the chart, we have got the April date on there.
We will be comparing. Next month we will compare against the
April baseline. It will be the activities that we have on a
second chart that shows what is going to be occurring during
the next month.
Senator Allard. So as we move along you can provide us, as
the schedule changes occur, with this information and then the
reason for the change?
Mr. Hixon. Yes, sir.
Senator Allard. It would be real helpful.
Mr. Hixon. Yes, sir. So what we are looking at right now is
in the next month these are a selection of activities, and you
can see it has got the May dates against the April, and then we
will go to June dates against the April. So we will be tracking
against the April plan.
SAFETY ISSUES
Senator Allard. Let me call on Senator Durbin for,
hopefully, comments and any questions he may have.
Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for
the hearing.
I would like to go directly to ask questions. I would like
to ask first of the GAO. Centex responded to the safety issues
you raised in last month's testimony by writing a letter to our
subcommittee. Their letter said that GAO's comparison of their
data to national averages was inaccurate and that your
statement about recurring safety problems was not correct. I
would like to give you an opportunity to respond to that
letter.
Mr. Ungar. Yes, sir, I would be pleased to do that, Mr.
Durbin. We believe that the information that we reported in our
last testimony was correct. Centex, as you indicated, did point
out that in its view, we should have used a different benchmark
rate to compare its safety record to.
On the one hand, we would say that reasonable people can
disagree on the issue of what benchmark should be picked.
However, in this particular instance we did not independently
select the benchmark. The comparison that we did was based on
the agreement that OSHA entered into with Centex. So we used
the rate, the benchmark rate that Centex itself agreed to meet
with OSHA.
With respect to the rate that we used, which is the rate
for nonresidential construction, and that Centex agreed to use,
unfortunately the Centex or site rates were higher or the site
rates were higher than that rate, and also the rates got worse
from 2003 to 2004. The agreement called for OSHA--excuse me--
Centex to have an incident rate that was lower than the
comparable BLS rate and to improve the rate by 3 percent each
year.
So in effect, using that rate, what we reported was
correct. Second, if one were to use the rate that Centex
proposes, it would have been below the BLS rate for overall
incidents in 2003, but it would not have been below that rate
for lost time incidents. Also, Centex's safety rates got worse
between 2003 and 2004. So Centex did not even meet that rate's
goal for the time period.
Second, Centex did take issue with our report in the
context that it did not agree that safety issues were
recurring. The evidence and the facts basically say yes, they
were. Gilbane did monthly audits. We analyzed the information
that was identified in those monthly audits. It clearly showed
that there were a number of problems that recurred. The same
type of problem recurred month after month.
For example, fall protection was identified as a problem in
each of the 10 monthly reports that we reviewed from Gilbane.
So was temporary power setup. So while Centex may have
corrected an individual problem, the same type of problem in
many cases kept recurring over and over again, and that is the
point that we were focusing on in our statement.
SAFETY STANDARDS
Senator Durbin. So what you are saying is, despite Centex's
letter, you feel that the standard that was used to judge their
performance on worker safety was the standard they agreed to?
Mr. Ungar. That is correct, sir.
Senator Durbin. If I understand your testimony, what you
are saying is that, even by their own standard, what they
agreed to, they failed to meet their own standards of worker
safety on the job.
Mr. Ungar. Centex did meet one part of that standard in
2003--the recordable incident rate it proposed in its letter.
Centex's rate was less than the BLS rate for that particular
measure. However, it was above the BLS rate for lost time
incidents, and both those rates, the recordable incident rate
and the lost time rate, increased from 2003 to 2004.
Senator Durbin. There was some testimony at the last
hearing about either misinformation, bad information, no
information, coming from Centex to Gilbane, which was in charge
of managing this construction, which may have led to
overlooking this, the danger at the work site to Centex
employees. Is that a fact?
Mr. Ungar. Sir, we really did not identify that particular
issue in our statement. What we said was that the information
on safety that Gilbane was reporting to AOC was incorrect, and
there were a number of reasons for that. One of the major
reasons was that Gilbane did not report to AOC lost time
incidents that involved restricted duty or transfers.
When we asked Gilbane about that, it had the following
explanation. Number one, it said that it did not receive some
individual accident reports on lost time incidents from Centex.
Now, we do not know whether Gilbane did or not. On the other
hand, Gilbane did receive a log from Centex that did identify
each and every incident. So it was unclear to us if, given that
Gilbane had the log and it had on the other hand a smaller
number of incident reports, why Gilbane did not pursue that
with Centex to ask, why do we have a different number here.
Senator Durbin. Was that not why Gilbane was hired?
Mr. Ungar. Yes, sir.
Senator Durbin. To go through this information and to be
paid to manage, which means as I understand it collating
information and data so that you meet targets and people are
living under the terms of their contract?
Mr. Ungar. Yes, sir. Gilbane did have a very active safety
program. On this particular issue, however, with respect to
accurate reporting, there were a number of problems that did
exist, and Gilbane has agreed to redouble its efforts to
address those, and its reports for April and May were correct.
Senator Durbin. For the sake of the workers and for the
taxpayers, I am glad to hear that. But I want to tell you, Mr.
Chairman, I am glad you are having these hearings and I think
you are paying closer attention to this than many have in the
past.
I also want to tell you that if you get in a car and drive
around Capitol Hill you see Centex's name on everything. They
are still around. This is not a company that has come and gone.
The fact that they would not live up to their own worker safety
standards and the fact that Gilbane may have been somewhat
derelict in their own responsibilities does not give me a great
amount of confidence.
But I want to ask you, do you have any idea what the status
of worker safety is now at the Capitol Visitor Center?
Mr. Ungar. Yes, sir. Mr. Dorn would like to address that.
SAFETY RECORDS
Mr. Dorn. We have worked with AOC and Gilbane to address
the factors leading into the inaccuracies. They are doing a
much better job of reporting now. Over the first 5 months of
the year, the year to date injury and illness rate is below the
industry average. Gilbane does still continue to rely upon a
narrower definition of lost time than what GAO is using and the
BLS standard is, but I understand that they are going to make
that correction in the next month.
There was a lost time accident in the past month that was
reported by Gilbane, which did raise the rate back up a little
bit. But generally things are better.
Senator Durbin. Was there a recent OSHA assessment? Is that
what you are referring to?
Mr. Dorn. Yes, there was a recent OSHA assessment and they
did not--as Mr. Hantman said in his testimony, did not have any
citations that came out of that assessment.
MANHATTAN'S PROGRESS
Senator Durbin. Does GAO have any comment on the Manhattan
Construction Company experience at the work site? It is my
understanding they have met only 3 of the 11 milestones
scheduled for completion.
Mr. Ungar. Are you talking about worker safety, sir, or
construction work?
Senator Durbin. Construction work.
Mr. Ungar. Overall, Manhattan is making a great deal of
progress, sir. However, it has not met a number of the
milestones that were set in the April schedule for the period
between the last hearing and this hearing, for a variety of
reasons. One of the things that it has done is resequenced the
schedule to change some of those milestones.
On the one hand, as Mr. Hixon said, Manhattan certainly has
the wherewithal to do that. It is their schedule and as long as
it is approved by AOC that is fine. On the other hand, some of
those dates have slipped continuously, for example, some of the
wall stone work, since the February schedule.
But our concern is that if this continues to happen what is
going to end up happening is that there will be a stacking of
activities toward the end and they will not possibly be able to
finish all those on time. So on the one hand, progress is being
made. Unfortunately, the schedule milestones were not met. The
schedule has been revised. It yet remains to be seen as to how
much progress will be made from this point forward, but we are
going to be tracking that.
Senator Durbin. I know Senator Allard has asked questions
on this, so I will not dwell on it any more. We will keep a
close eye on it. I would like to just suggest to the
subcommittee we ought to find out where Centex is also working
for the Government, if there are other construction projects,
and see if there has been a similar situation in terms of
worker safety. Has the GAO looked into that?
Mr. Ungar. No, sir, we have not. We have focused on this
particular site.
I would point out, as Centex has said, that, on the one
hand, fortunately, there have been no fatalities, and most of
the injuries have not been serious. However, there have been
some serious injuries and there have been a large number of
injuries. So it is certainly something that needs to be
attended to.
In addition, there are a number of these safety issues and
concerns that Gilbane identifies monthly that are potentially
hazardous situations and they continue to be identified. In our
view, AOC and Gilbane need to continue to focus attention in a
more proactive sense on safety at the CVC site.
Senator Durbin. I will just close by saying that my
experience with worker safety is unless you are on this issue
and stay on this issue it slips away, and people think it is
just one of the costs of doing business that people have to
walk off the work site injured, at great expense to themselves,
their family, and the taxpayers.
I hope that does not happen. If I could ask the GAO to do a
formal letter of response to this Centex letter that would
spell out your testimony, I would appreciate that.
Mr. Ungar. Yes, sir.
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Allard. Thank you.
CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS
Mr. Ungar, I want to follow up a little bit. Before I
called on my esteemed colleague from Illinois, I was pursuing
with the Architect and Mr. Hixon the idea that when you have
the schedule change that you keep this subcommittee provided
with the information. My question to you is what should the
Architect's Office be doing to track the construction
contractor's daily progress against the schedule?
Then just a follow-up on this: How is this comparing with
the process that we used during sequence 1?
Mr. Ungar. Mr. Dorn will answer that, sir.
Mr. Dorn. What they are starting to do is print out a daily
list of activities for the superintendents and then the
superintendents go out on the job site to see what is being
done and what was supposed to be done, is it being done or not.
That is a great step, to do this daily and weekly monitoring of
actual activities to what is going on out there on the job
site. That is real progress. And if it was not done, you would
document the reasons why it was not done, and what is going to
be done in the future to get those tasks on track.
It is like Mr. Ungar said a little while ago, if things
keep moving off to the right eventually you get so many
activities stacked up that you cannot get them all done at
once.
One of the indicators we are seeing of that is 1 month ago
we had one critical path and now we have got a number of
critical or near-critical paths simultaneously. That is not
completely uncommon. It does happen, but it is an indicator
that things are starting to become more critical.
SYSTEM COMMISSIONING
Senator Allard. On the commissioning of systems, my
understanding is that will not be done until about March 2007.
Is that your understanding?
Mr. Hantman. We are in the process, Mr. Chairman, as was
indicated earlier. We have just gotten some funds approved. We
are in the process of hiring three or four people to check into
the commissioning of systems and start involving essentially
the AOC and ultimate operations in that.
Bob.
Mr. Hixon. There are two elements of commissioning that are
going to occur: the commissioning of the CVC proper and the
commissioning of the expansion space. The expansion space
commissioning efforts will in fact occur in early 2007, January
through March. The commissioning for the CVC portion will be
occurring in late April and early--did I say late April? It
will be the late spring, summer period. Those will be the
activities that will be taking place in order for us to open
the facility in September.
Senator Allard. In 2006?
Mr. Hixon. In 2006.
Senator Allard. And then the two expansion areas will be--
--
Mr. Hixon. In 2007, that is correct. The planning for that
is underway now.
OCCUPANCY PERMITS
Senator Allard. A certificate of occupancy is the final
step. I would assume that they are not going to issue that
certificate of occupancy until everything is in place and that
is part of the process. Will they write you a certificate of
occupancy for the entire new complex on the site or do they
issue two separate certificates of occupancy, one for the
expansion space and then one for the Capitol Visitor Center?
Mr. Hixon. Yes, sir.
Senator Allard. I think that could resolve some of our
issues that we might have with the actual date when we can go
ahead and occupy that portion of the new Capitol complex.
Mr. Hixon. We are working with the fire marshal and going
through that. We have to get his concurrence and acceptance of
the fire alarm systems and the smoke evacuation systems. That
work is going to be occurring in the late spring and during the
summer for the CVC portion, so that we can in fact occupy the
CVC on schedule.
Then we will be going through the same effort to take care
of the expansion space, and then we will have to integrate
those systems in the expansion space into the base CVC program.
So all those smoke detector systems that are in the expansion
space have to be integrated into the main building system. So
that is what will be occurring in the early part of 2007.
OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATION
Senator Allard. So we have got one certificate of occupancy
that will not be issued until all the fire alarms are in place?
Mr. Hixon. Yes, sir. We will be able to occupy. We will get
the certificate to occupy the CVC for September, but not the
expansion space. And then we will have another certificate to
occupy the expansion space, which will probably incorporate all
the expansion space into the CVC area.
Senator Allard. Then the last thing to go in would be in
March. It looks like we've got around the end of March here,
and that would be the fire alarm commissioning.
Mr. Hixon. That is bringing the expansion space fire alarm
system into the base building. So we will be attaching all of
those elements into it and retesting the entire building system
with the expansion space included with the CVC. So they will be
doing retesting to make sure when we add those components
everything all functions properly.
Senator Allard. That will not have any effect on the main
visitor center?
Mr. Hixon. No, sir. It will be done evenings and weekends.
Senator Allard. Mr. Ungar?
FIRE ALARM SYSTEM
Mr. Ungar. Sir, I just wanted to point out that the system
that Mr. Hixon is referring to, the fire alarm system and the
smoke evacuation system, are among those activities that our
last review of the schedule found to be optimistic. In other
words, the project participants believed that the time allotted
for those activities in the last schedule was not doable in
their view. So this is an activity that we have asked AOC and
Gilbane to go back and reassess in detail to get a better
handle on that.
Senator Allard. Yes, it seems to me we have to have some
cooperation from the fire marshal.
Mr. Hixon. Absolutely.
Senator Allard. I mean, if he does not cooperate we are in
trouble on your dates.
Mr. Hixon. Yes, sir. We are meeting with the fire marshal
every other week as we work through the planning on how to do
the commissioning of these systems and ensure that all the
components are acceptable. So we are in the throes of the
process right now of planning exactly how we will test these
systems and in what order and what components. So that process
is very much underway.
Senator Allard. I would hope that he would have his ducks
in order. I serve on the D.C. subcommittee too, so maybe I will
ask a few questions about whether they are getting their ducks
in order for that.
Mr. Hixon. This is the AOC's fire marshal that we are
working with.
Senator Allard. Oh, it is our fire marshal.
Mr. Hixon. Yes, sir, although he does coordinate with the
District emergency response and organizations of that nature.
So he is our contact to any District support.
Senator Allard. We still need to make sure that they are
coordinating with us, so that we do not have unnecessary
delays, to make sure that they have money in their budget, to
make sure that they have whatever it takes to get a smooth
transition. Even though we have the opening date on the visitor
center, we still could have some issues.
Mr. Hantman. The Fire Department of D.C. is the fire
department that serves Capitol Hill as well. So clearly,
whatever they need in terms of hydrants and accessibility is
something that they would be concerned with and we are
concerned with working with them on.
Senator Allard. And they would provide the fire hydrants?
Mr. Hantman. We provide the fire hydrants, basically where
they agree to it. That is why our fire marshal is interfacing
with them and making sure that wherever the trucks come on
campus that we have the taps for them.
Senator Allard. And you are reaching some agreements with
those local agencies?
Mr. Hixon. I am adding some fire hydrants right now.
Senator Allard. Do you want to comment, Mr. Dorn?
LIFE SAFETY EGRESS
Mr. Dorn. Yes, sir. It adds to what Bernie was saying just
a second ago. On the schedule, when the CVC and the expansion
spaces were going to be finished at the same time there was not
an issue about the egress. But if the expansion space is not
going to be finished until months later than the CVC, the
Architect has determined that there are egress pathways that
need to be built to get through the expansion space so that
everyone can get out of the CVC in case there is an incident of
some sort. And finishing those separately will probably end up
costing more money.
Senator Allard. Do you want to respond, Mr. Hantman?
Mr. Hantman. No question about that. In terms of planning,
the horizontal means of visitor egress from the center into the
stairways that are part of the expansion space are part and
parcel of all of the planning and our discussions with the fire
marshal to make sure that we have that level of safety
incorporated.
EXPANSION SPACE WORK
Senator Allard. Mr. Hantman, I understand now that the
expansion space contract has been awarded to Manhattan
Construction, but the award to Manhattan's subcontractor has
not been made. Why and will this impact the schedule, and when
will the award be made?
Mr. Hantman. This should not impact the schedule. This is
part of Manhattan's internal contracting process, to reach
agreement with their subcontractor. So it typically is taking
them 2 to 3 weeks to have a ratified contract with their
subcontractor. They are in the process of doing that. That is
not something we are normally aware of. As far as the
Government is concerned, we have a contract with Manhattan and
this is internal to them.
It becomes of interest to us to make sure it does not
impact anything. But at this point we are not anticipating any
impact.
RISK MITIGATION PLAN
Senator Allard. Now, the GAO recommended several times over
the past 2 years that the Architect of the Capitol develop a
risk mitigation plan. Mr. Ungar, what is a risk mitigation plan
and what do you see as the top five risks to the project's
schedule and budget? Then, Mr. Hantman, can you give us a
commitment to produce a risk mitigation plan for the top five
risks by the time we meet next month?
So let us go ahead with GAO and then we will have Mr.
Hantman follow up.
Mr. Ungar. Mr. Dorn will address that, sir.
Mr. Dorn. A risk mitigation plan would first identify the
major risks that are facing the project, and would then look at
the ones that are most likely to occur and that have the
greatest adverse impact on the project. You are not going to
look at every risk. You are going to look at the ones that have
a high probability of occurring and the ones that are going to
have a cost or schedule impact on the project.
Some of the top risks would be the supply of stone and
skilled stone masons. There is an issue right now that has been
brought to our attention about how much stone we can get.
Unforeseen conditions with the----
Senator Allard. Yes, I have noted, reading some testimony
here, that not only is there a shortage in the stone, but also
a shortage in craftsmen who know how to work with the stone. Is
that correct, or is it just a shortage of the stone?
Mr. Dorn. It has been an ongoing risk that has been
identified by the Architect and by us, I believe, that the
supply of stone masons is limited, of skilled stone masons. I
know Manhattan has been scouring the country looking for stone
masons, from what they have told me. But it is a risk.
The unforeseen conditions with the two remaining tunnels.
The utility tunnel, it is still not complete yet; and the House
connector tunnel, which is up closer to the building and
because of that has a lot of risks to it.
Additional requirements from the fire marshal or from
security for life safety, security, filtration systems, and
commissioning. Contractor coordination issues as we get down,
get down to the wire and we have additional contractors on
site. Unknown operator requirements. This gets back to the idea
that Zell is just now being brought back on board again and
until we get the operator requirements and get those integrated
into the master schedule that AOC and Gilbane are working on,
to know what you need to do to get the operational piece of it
done, you have got the risk of your schedule going off to the
right for you.
There are additional risks for scope gaps. Between sequence
1 and sequence 2, work that was never in any of the contracts
just slipped through the cracks, when you break these jobs up
into smaller projects; or between sequence 2 and the expansion
spaces. An example would be the utility tunnel. The utility
tunnel is under contract. There is a plan for the modifications
to the Jefferson Building.
There is the intersection--knocking a hole in the wall of
the Jefferson Building. I believe there is a separate plan now
for that, but that was not included in some of the original
estimates. There is an example of where you can lose track of
all the pieces.
RISK MITIGATION FACTORS
Senator Allard. Let me make sure I understand your five,
then. It would be the stone, the tunnel, the safety issues, a
coordination issue between the contractor and the construction
issues, as well as the operator, and the fifth would be the
sequence 1 to sequence 2 issues. Would that be your five?
Mr. Dorn. Yes, sir. I may have misspoken on that. It was
the Library of Congress tunnel.
Senator Allard. Okay, Mr. Hantman or Mr. Hixon?
Mr. Hixon. Yes, sir. We are pursuing doing a risk
assessment with McDonough Bolyard Peck, who's been a consultant
to us doing research. Risk assessment on construction is a
relatively new issue. There is a process that is evolving on
how to do that, software in order to process that. So now we
have been researching how to do that.
I expect to do it. We will not have it done by the next
hearing. We have to bring them under contract. We have to
actually go through this evaluation. It is going to take us a
few months in order to be able to complete that activity. We do
agree that it is a good idea. We probably have slightly
different areas that we are concerned about, but many of them
are the same. The House connector tunnel is certainly an area
of risk for us; the Jefferson Building work where we are going
into the building and building a stairwell. Those are the kinds
of things that we agree this would probably be a useful process
for. We have never done it before, so we are looking for
consultants who have done this effectively so that we can do
it. But it is going to take us a few months in order to
accomplish that.
Senator Allard. So for us to expect you to have a risk
mitigation plan by the next month would be unrealistic?
Mr. Hixon. That is correct. sir.
Senator Allard. Do you think that is something we ought to
set up for September?
Mr. Hixon. Yes, sir.
Senator Allard. Would that be more appropriate?
Mr. Hixon. Yes, sir.
Senator Allard. Do you think you could have it done by
then?
Mr. Hixon. We believe we can. We will certainly be able to
tell you next month if there is an issue with that.
ADDITIONAL FISCAL YEAR 2005 FUNDING
Senator Allard. Okay, very good.
Now, we did give the Architect of the Capitol some extra
money here to finish off the year. Do you have some money left
over for a contingency if something unexpected should come up
between now and the end of the fiscal year?
Mr. Hantman. We have just asked for some reprogramming
dollars, dollars that we did not need for sequence 1, for some
other activities on the East Front to enable us to do just
that, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Allard. So you do not see any need for additional
dollars right now, from now until the end of the year?
Mr. Hantman. At this time we do not. However, there is the
settlement of delays to the sequence 2 contractor that we have
received some proposals from the contractor for those delays.
The compensation, the money funding for those activities, is in
the fiscal year 2006 budget request.
We also are looking at the quantity of change orders and so
our expectation is that we are going to be close but okay. But
we are continuing to monitor that as we go along. Some of the
reprogramming that we have talked about was to take some funds
available that will not be used in sequence 1 and 1C, the East
Front, and utilize that for contingencies, for the Jefferson
Building work, the stairwell there, and for contingency for the
House connector tunnel, because when we award that tunnel there
will be no contingency funding available on that line item.
With that done, we expect to be very close on the quantity
of change orders that have been identified. So I think GAO's
point is they recognize how close we are and they say, if you
get a big surprise then you are going to have a problem. We
have the funding available under the CVC operations budget.
There are a few million dollars there that would be available
if we need it. We were waiting to ask for that until we can
document that we do in fact need that money.
If I do not process change orders as quickly as we want to,
there would still be change order contingency money available.
So I think it is a little bit premature for me to ask for
funding right now because I can't document the need is really
there. But it is a bit tight.
FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET REQUEST
Senator Allard. The last question then is, for your fiscal
year 2006 budget request, which includes $36.9 million for the
CVC, since we are marking up now, just next week, can you give
me your best estimate of what you need for fiscal year 2006 and
when the Architect of the Capitol will need those funds?
Mr. Hixon. My best guess is that we will need, at this
point we will need all $36.9 million. I think it would not be
prudent to go for less than that. There are items of work that
were identified when this was put together, when we did our
cost to complete last year, that we may not do. But there are
other things that have come up that would require the use of
those funds.
I have asked McDonough Bolyard Peck to update their
proposal for the cost to complete. We have had some discussions
with the CPC about doing that perhaps a little sooner so that
we can get the answers in here and give GAO the opportunity to
review those, so we have that information in September. But at
this point in time I don't think it would be prudent to reduce
that at all.
I do not think we need to increase it at all, but I do not
think, with the number of issues that are going on, and
especially until we get the new cost to complete updated, that
we would need all of that with the issues that have been coming
up.
Senator Allard. Mr. Ungar?
Mr. Ungar. Mr. Chairman, we believe that, as we indicate in
our statement, that AOC is likely to need more than the $36.9
million in fiscal year 2006. Exactly how much we are not sure.
But our best guess at this point would be roughly somewhere
between $5 million and $15 million more in fiscal year 2006,
depending upon how the risks and uncertainties play out and
AOC's experience with the delay costs that may arise from
sequence 1.
I also want to point out that I may have misunderstood your
question that you raised during my oral summary about the $37
million.
Senator Allard. Yes.
Mr. Ungar. We did identify that in our last statement as
being needed. So it was not something that just came up between
hearings. I may not have understood exactly what you were
asking when you asked it, since last year, we have identified
that amount of money, plus some additional funds that we
thought would be needed in addition to the amount that AOC has
asked for.
CLOSING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD
Senator Allard. I appreciate your clarifying that and I am
sure Mr. Hantman does, too.
I want to thank you for taking the time to appear before
our panel today and giving us an update on how things are going
on the Capitol Visitor Center. I am pleased with the progress
that we are making. Obviously there are some things that we
have to watch very closely as we move forward. I think we are
beginning to get those identified and hopefully begin to get
the schedule in place with better cost estimates.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
So I want to thank you, and we will plan on holding another
hearing next month, July 14. There were a few questions we put
in place today. We had some commitments for follow-up, so you
can expect those.
Thank you very much, gentlemen.
[Whereupon, at 11:42 a.m., Tuesday, June 14, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
PROGRESS OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 14, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch,
Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:49 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Wayne Allard (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senator Allard.
STATEMENT OF BERNARD L. UNGAR, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY
OFFICE
ACCOMPANIED BY TERRELL DORN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD
Senator Allard. We will go ahead and call the Legislative
Branch Appropriations Subcommittee to order. This is the
situation this morning: we have just finished one vote on the
floor of the Senate. We are anticipating a total of four votes
altogether and so we are going to try and work this through as
best we can this morning.
Mr. Ungar, you are going to testify on behalf of the
Government Accountability Office (GAO), correct?
Mr. Ungar. Along with Mr. Dorn, yes, sir.
Senator Allard. Okay. Then the plan is that I will go ahead
and make an opening statement and get things started, and then
if Mr. Hantman is not here we will let you go ahead and present
your testimony, and then we will go to Mr. Hantman. I
appreciate the panel joining us this morning. We will struggle
through this morning with all the votes.
We meet today to take testimony on the progress of the
Capitol Visitor Center (CVC). We will hear from the Architect
of the Capitol, Alan Hantman; the CVC Project Manager Bob
Hixon; and Bernard Ungar and Terrell Dorn of the Government
Accountability Office. Thank you all for being here this
morning for our third hearing on the progress of the Capitol
Visitor Center.
At our hearing last month, the Architect and GAO reported
that progress had been made in many areas, but milestones were
not being met in several areas on the critical path. This month
more milestones have not been met on schedule. In fact, only 3
of 17 milestones in the last 2 months have been met by the date
that they were scheduled to be completed.
Currently it seems the biggest concern is an inadequate
delivery of stone to the job site, resulting in insufficient
progress on stone work. Stone work in the Great Hall is months
behind, as I understand it.
In addition, coordination issues with the fire marshal
continue to be a key concern. Finally, I understand the
contractor's schedule is showing a completion date of October
19, 2006, not September 15, 2006, as we were informed last
month.
So we have plenty to discuss today and we look forward to
understanding these issues better. Before we get started, let
me note that one of our GAO witnesses, Terry Dorn, left his
family at the beach, where they were vacationing this week, to
be here today. We do appreciate, Mr. Dorn, your commitment to
public service.
So let me go ahead and call on GAO to give their testimony.
Mr. Ungar. Mr. Chairman, we are pleased to be here today to
assist the subcommittee in its oversight of the Capitol Visitor
Center. I would like to summarize the key points that we have
in our statement, particularly with respect to the project
schedule and cost.
SCHEDULE PROGRESS AND PROBLEMS
First, on the schedule, progress has been made during the
month in a number of areas, particularly electrical,
mechanical, masonry block, and plaster walls. Another area
where we saw significant progress was in the actual management
of the project schedule by the construction manager and the
AOC. We noted this month a much more rigorous analysis and
monitoring of the schedule, a very good use of the information
that that monitoring and analysis produced. We are very
encouraged by the quality of the work that has been done by the
project control engineer that Gilbane has recently assigned
full time to the project and by the project executive, Bob
Hixon, as well as the rest of the team to focus on schedule
management. It really has made a difference.
Having said that, however, we do still have a number of
concerns with respect to the schedule which we would just like
to briefly summarize. First, we continue to be concerned about
the realism associated with the September 15, 2006, opening for
a number of reasons. There are a number of remaining risks to
the project which have actually materialized.
For instance, you indicated a problem on the stone supply;
that has been a real problem. In fact, a stone problem
associated with the east front work has resulted in, as you
indicated, a pushing on the schedule of the opening date from
September 15 to October 19. AOC and the construction contractor
and the construction manager are aware of this problem and they
are working to resolve that. They do believe that they can
mitigate that particular situation and bring the schedule back,
but that has yet to be worked out.
They also have a stone supply problem that they are working
on and that has other issues associated with it that they are
not directly controlling, and that has to do with some
litigation.
They are also having problems on the utility tunnel. That
is scheduled right now to be operational 5 months later than
AOC anticipated the team is working to bring that back.
However, they still may need to use temporary dehumidification.
That is not clear yet and we may know more by your next hearing
on that.
As you indicated, there are a number of milestones that are
slipping because of some of these problems that have come up,
such as the stone work and utility tunnel. Also, this month we
were tracking along with AOC for the subcommittee six
milestones. The sequence 2 contractor has finished work on one
of those six, but was not on time, so, in effect, none of those
milestones were met.
Again, AOC believes that time can be made up. It has plenty
of time to do that. On the other hand, as these milestones keep
slipping there may be so many of them stacked up at one point
that they may not be able to get to them all, and time will
tell that story.
There are several activities, seven to be exact, that have
been identified on the schedule for the last 2 months that are
either critical or near-critical. Having so many activities in
that status makes it much more difficult to manage the project
and it will make it more complicated for the team to meet the
date. But at least they are aware of them and they are working
on them.
We continue to believe that the schedule durations are
optimistic. The construction manager and contractor did do an
assessment this month of 11 of the 14 that they were going to
assess. They delayed the assessment on three of those. They
believed--using their judgment, that the durations were
reasonable. On the other hand, we were looking toward perhaps a
more detailed data-based assessment. They said they will do
that in the future.
When we looked at some of the specific activities, we had
some concerns. For example, the stone work in the food service
area, which is the furthest along, is actually taking
significantly longer than the duration that was originally
anticipated, which indicates to us that the durations that are
in the schedule may still be optimistic.
Another problem with the schedule that we noted this month
has to do with coordination with the fire marshal, between the
team and the fire marshal. That has been a problem. We have
brought that to AOC's attention and AOC has been taking steps
with the AOC fire marshal, to address that. So I think that
appropriate steps have been put in place to address that issue.
Finally, as we indicated on the schedule last month, AOC
does not yet have an integrated schedule with respect to both
construction and operations. We believe that is very important
and getting more important as the months go by; it is something
that really does need to be done.
PROJECT COSTS CONTINUE TO INCREASE
On the cost side, costs continue to increase, as we had
indicated in our statement. For example, the estimated cost for
the proposed or potential change orders have increased about
$900,000 since the last testimony that we did. Most of that
estimated cost increase was related to the fire protection
system. Overall that system is increasing in cost; it increased
over $4 million overall. We do think that there are some issues
associated with exactly what is required. There had been some
disagreement within the CVC project team on that. AOC is aware
of that, and we had suggested that AOC try to nail that down
and AOC is in the process of doing that.
We also believe that there is an important need to balance
the funding available for both construction and operations so
that there is an optimal use of those funds between now and the
time that the fiscal year 2006 appropriation is available.
There is about $7.8 million available for either construction
or operations right now, and both construction and operations
in our view need funds. So AOC will have to work an approach
out to make sure there is an appropriate decision made there as
to what to ask for.
Also on the cost side, we do believe it would be important
for Congress and the subcommittee to know how much additional
it may cost for AOC to meet the September 15, 2006, date. We
see two areas where AOC may incur additional costs. One is
having to take temporary measures to open the facility to the
public because the expansion spaces may not be done or other
aspects of the facility may not be done; or AOC may have to
accelerate some work in order to meet that timeframe. The
question in our mind is are those costs going to be acceptable
to the Congress.
ACTIONS NEEDED
In terms of actions that we think need to be taken, first
we think that AOC needs to designate an official, a responsible
official to oversee the integration of the construction and
operations planning, scheduling, and budgeting. Right now there
is a team on construction and AOC has individuals who are going
to be working on operations, but there is nobody who is
overseeing the integration or the linkage of the two. That is
very important, to make sure both the scheduling and the budget
are worked out for that activity.
Second, we think that AOC needs to inform the Congress on
what its estimated additional costs are for opening the
facility on September 15, to the extent that there may be those
kinds of costs.
Third, we think that AOC needs to focus continuously on
schedule management and monitoring and aggressively dealing
with the issues that come up, particularly looking at the
durations. Our thinking is that for your next hearing if AOC
were to relook at stone in depth and the utility tunnel, and
perhaps the occupancy inspection activity, that that would be a
good start to getting a real rigorous analysis of the realism
of the schedule.
Finally, if AOC were to have a clear definitive picture of
the fire safety and life safety requirements for the facility
by the next hearing, we believe that would be a very positive
step in the right direction.
That concludes our summary. We would be happy to answer
questions.
Senator Allard. Well, thank you, Mr. Ungar, for your
testimony.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bernard L. Ungar
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: We are pleased to be
here today to assist the Subcommittee in monitoring progress on the
Capitol Visitor Center (CVC) project. As requested, we will focus our
remarks today on the Architect of the Capitol's (AOC) progress in
achieving selected project milestones and in managing the project's
schedule since the Subcommittee's June 14 hearing on the project.\1\ We
will also discuss the project's costs and funding, including the
potential cost impact of schedule-related issues. Our observations
today are based on our review of schedules and financial reports for
the CVC project and related records maintained by AOC and its
construction management contractor, Gilbane Building Company; our
observations on the progress of work at the CVC construction site; and
our discussions with AOC's Chief Fire Marshal and CVC project staff,
including AOC, its major CVC contractors, and representatives of an AOC
schedule consultant, McDonough Bolyard Peck (MBP). We did not perform
an audit; rather, we performed our work to assist Congress in
conducting its oversight activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ GAO, Capitol Visitor Center: Effective Schedule Management and
Updated Cost Information Are Needed, GAO-05-811T (Washington, D.C.:
June 14, 2005). See also GAO, Capitol Visitor Center: Priority
Attention Needed to Manage Schedules and Contracts, GAO-05-714T
(Washington, D.C.: May 17, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, AOC and its major construction contractors have made
progress on the project since the Subcommittee's June 14 hearing, but
work on some of the selected milestones scheduled for completion by
today's hearing is incomplete; some work has been postponed; and some
new issues have arisen that could affect the project's progress.
Specifically, as of July 12, AOC's sequence 2 contractor, Manhattan
Construction Company, had completed work on 11 of the 17 selected
milestones scheduled for completion before today's hearing; however, it
completed only 3 of the 17 milestones on time. The sequence 2
contractor missed the 14 remaining milestones for such reasons as
unforeseen site conditions, design problems, and more time being taken
to complete some other work than expected. In addition, the date
scheduled for the initial operation of the utility tunnel is now about
5 months later than AOC had anticipated, and unforeseen conditions
could delay the installation of stone in the East Front. Although the
June project schedule shows that the delay on the East Front stonework
would move the scheduled opening date for the CVC project to October
19, 2006, AOC does not expect the delays in completing the remaining
milestones, including the utility tunnel and East Front stonework, to
postpone the project's scheduled September 2006 completion date. In
AOC's view, the contractor can recover the time lost in completing
these milestones, as well as make up for delays in completing interior
stonework, by such means as using temporary equipment, adding workers,
or resequencing work, although using temporary equipment or adding
workers will also increase the project's costs. Largely because of past
problems, remaining risks and uncertainties, and the number of
activities that are not being completed on time, we continue to believe
that the project is more likely to be completed in the December 2006 to
March 2007 timeframe than in September 2006. AOC and its construction
management contractor have continued their efforts to respond to two
recommendations we made to improve the project's management--having a
realistic, acceptable schedule and aggressively monitoring and managing
adherence to that schedule. However, we still have some concerns about
the amount of time scheduled for some activities, the extent to which
resources can be applied to meet dates in the schedule, the linkage of
related activities in the schedule, and the integration of planning for
completing construction and starting operations. Since the
Subcommittee's last CVC hearing, AOC has engaged contractors to help it
respond to two other recommendations we made--developing risk
mitigation plans and preparing a master schedule that integrates the
major steps needed to complete construction with the steps needed to
prepare for operations. AOC has also been taking a number of actions to
improve coordination between the CVC project team and AOC's Fire
Marshal Division. Insufficient coordination in this area has already
affected the project's schedule and cost, and could do so again if
further improvements are not made.
We continue to believe that the project's estimated cost at
completion will be between $522 million and $559 million, and that, as
we have previously indicated, AOC will likely need as much as $37
million more than it has requested to cover risks and uncertainties to
complete the project. At this time, we believe that roughly $5 million
to $15 million of this $37 million is likely to be needed in fiscal
year 2006, and the remainder in fiscal year 2007. In the next 2 to 3
months, AOC plans to update its estimate of the project's remaining
costs. We will review this estimate and provide Congress with our
estimate together with information on when any additional funding is
likely to be needed. During the next several months, AOC is likely to
face competing demands for funds that can be used for either CVC
construction or operations, and it will be important for AOC to ensure
that the available funds are optimally used. Finally, we are concerned
that AOC may incur costs to open the facility to the public in
September 2006 that it would not incur if it postponed the opening
until after the remaining construction work is more or fully complete--
that is, in March 2007, according to AOC's estimates.
We are recommending that AOC designate who will be responsible for
integrating the planning and budgeting for CVC construction and
operations and notify Congress in advance of any estimated costs it
believes it will incur to open CVC to the public in September 2006
rather than when the facility is more complete. AOC agreed with these
recommendations.
Schedule Milestones and Management
AOC and its major construction contractors have moved the CVC
project forward since the Subcommittee's June 14 hearing, although the
majority of the selected milestones scheduled for completion by today's
hearing have not been completed on time. According to the construction
management contractor, the base project's construction was about 70
percent complete as of June 30, compared with about 65 percent as of
May 31. The sequence 1 contractor, Centex Construction Company, which
was responsible for the project's excavation and structural work, has
continued to address punch-list items, such as stopping water leaks.
Although AOC had expected the sequence 1 contractor to complete the
punch-list work and be off-site by June 30, some of this work remains
to be done. The sequence 1 contractor has closed its on-site project
office and plans to send workers back to the site to complete the
remaining work. AOC has retained funds from the sequence 1 contractor
that it believes will be sufficient to cover the cost of the remaining
work. Furthermore, the sequence 2 contractor, which is responsible for
the mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and finishing work, has continued
to make progress in these areas, including erecting masonry block,
placing concrete, and installing finish stone, drywall framing,
plaster, and granite pavers. Many of the granite pavers that were
installed on the plaza deck for the inauguration have to be replaced
because of problems with quality or damage after installation. The
sequence 2 contractor plans to replace these pavers when the plaza deck
will no longer be needed for deliveries of construction materials. The
sequence 2 contractor has also continued work on the utility tunnel,
and in June, AOC executed a sequence 2 contract modification to
construct the House connector tunnel. AOC expects this work to begin
soon.
As the Subcommittee requested, we worked with AOC to select
sequence 2 milestones that the Subcommittee can use to help track the
project's progress from the Subcommittee's May 17 hearing to July 31.
We and AOC selected 22 milestones, of which 11 were scheduled for
completion before June 14, 6 others before July 14, and 5 others before
July 31. These milestones are shown in appendix 1 and include
activities on the project's critical path, as well as other activities
that we and AOC believe are important for the project's timely
completion.\2\ As we reported during the Subcommittee's June 14
hearing, AOC's sequence 2 contractor completed 6 of the 11 selected
activities scheduled for completion before that date--3 were completed
on time and 3 were late. The remaining 5 activities had not been
completed as of June 14. Of these 5, 4 have now been completed and as
of July 12, 1 remained incomplete. In addition, as of July 12, the
contractor was late in completing 1 of the 6 selected activities
scheduled for completion between June 14 and July 14 and had not yet
completed the remaining 5. AOC does not expect these delays to extend
the project's scheduled September 2006 completion date because it
believes that the sequence 2 contractor can recover the lost time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ A critical path is a sequence of activities in a schedule that
has the longest duration. There is no scheduling flexibility or slack
time associated with the activities. This means that a delay in a
critical path activity will delay the entire project unless a way is
found to reduce the time required for other activities along the
critical path. A schedule may have multiple critical paths
simultaneously, and the critical path through a project can change as
the project is updated and as the time estimated to complete the tasks
changes. Currently, AOC's schedule shows CVC's critical path running
through some interior wall stone and East Front stonework. The schedule
also shows other work elements, such as the utility tunnel and
millwork, as near critical (i.e., having little slack time).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A few months ago, AOC expected the utility tunnel to be operational
in October 2005, but it extended that date to March 20, 2006, before
the June hearing. The June schedule shows the tunnel being operational
on March 7. The sequence 2 contractor has indicated that the impact of
the October-to-March delay on CVC construction could be mitigated by
using temporary dehumidification equipment, adding more workers to
certain utility tunnel activities, or both. However, this mitigation
approach would increase the government's costs. We previously
identified the utility tunnel as a project schedule and cost risk
because of possible unforeseen conditions associated with underground
work, and AOC and the sequence 2 contractor believe that such risk
still exists with respect to the remaining tunnel work. Given this risk
and the importance to the rest of the project of having the utility
tunnel operational as soon as possible, AOC has asked the project team
to explore options for accelerating the completion of the work
necessary to begin the tunnel's operations. We agree with AOC that
delays in making this tunnel operational could have significant adverse
effects on other project elements and that priority attention should be
given to this area. Accelerating work may be cost-beneficial in this
case.
Since the June 14 hearing, the sequence 2 contractor has also
encountered unforeseen conditions that, according to AOC's construction
management contractor, could delay the installation of stone on the
Capitol's East Front. Unless mitigated, this delay, in turn, could
delay AOC's estimated September 15, 2006, opening date. In fact, the
June schedule shows a 24-day delay for this work, which is on the
project's critical path, and therefore pushes AOC's scheduled date for
opening CVC to the public to October 19, 2006. AOC and its construction
management contractor are assessing the situation and expect to have
more information on this problem within the next month. However, they
believe that they will be able to recover the lost time by resequencing
work, although they acknowledge that their mitigation approach would
require sufficient stone to be available. The project has not been
receiving stone in the quantities set forth in the delivery schedule--a
risk that we previously identified--and AOC and its contractors have
been taking action to address this problem, but have not yet resolved
it. Mitigating this potential delay in East Front stone installation
could increase the government's costs if the mitigation involves, among
other actions, expediting the installation to recover lost time.
Our May 17 and June 14 statements contained several observations on
AOC's management of the project's schedules, including our view that
problems in this area contributed to slippage in the project's
scheduled completion date and additional project costs associated with
delays. The statements also discussed recommendations we had already
made to AOC to enhance its schedule management. AOC had agreed with
these recommendations and had generally begun to implement them, but we
believed that it still needed to give priority attention to them to
keep the project on track and as close to budget as possible. An
updated discussion follows of the issues that need AOC's priority
attention, along with current information on the status of AOC's
actions to address these issues.
--Having realistic timeframes for completing work and obtaining fully
acceptable schedules from contractors. Over the course of the
project, AOC's schedules have shown dates for completing tasks
that project personnel themselves considered optimistic or
unlikely to be met. In addition, the master project schedule
(prepared by AOC's construction management contractor) that AOC
was using in May 2005 (the April schedule that AOC said it
would use as a baseline for measuring progress on the project)
did not tie all interrelated activities together and did not
identify the resources to be applied for all the activities, as
AOC's contract requires. During the Subcommittee's June 14
hearing, AOC said that it would reassess the time scheduled for
tasks by today's hearing. Since the Subcommittee's June 14
hearing, AOC's construction management and sequence 2
contractors reviewed the reasonableness of the time scheduled
for 14 critical or near-critical activities and determined
that, in general, the time shown in the May 2005 schedule
reasonably reflected the time required to perform 11 of these
activities. In addition, the sequence 2 contractor agreed to
provide more detail about the 3 remaining activities so that
the reasonableness of the time scheduled for them could be
reviewed later.
Although the contractors' review did not involve a detailed,
data-based analysis of the time scheduled for activities using
such information as crew size and worker productivity, AOC's
construction management contractor said that it would do such
analyses in the future, as appropriate. The construction
management contractor said it has not yet done such an analysis
for stonework because, to date, less stone has been delivered
to the site than was expected and more stone workers have been
available than could be used, given the shortage of stone. In
AOC's view, this stone shortage has begun to delay important
activities, and as we previously indicated, AOC is working with
its contractors to resolve the problem.
According to AOC's construction management contractor, both the
project's May and June 2005 master schedules (1) reflect
significant improvement in the linkage of interrelated tasks,
although the contractor recognizes that more work needs to be
done in this area and (2) generally provide sufficient
information to manage the project's resources. However, the
contractor also recognizes the need for the sequence 2 and
other contractors to continue adding more detail to the
activities scheduled for some project elements, such as the
exhibit and expansion spaces, so that more of the interrelated
activities will be linked in the schedule. The contractor also
said that it will be continuously reassessing the extent to
which construction contractors identify the resources they plan
to apply to meet scheduled completion dates, as contractually
required. Both adding detail to activities and identifying the
resources to be applied are helpful in assessing the
reasonableness of the time scheduled and in managing
contractors' performance. The sequence 2 contractor has
provided a separate schedule showing its target dates for
adding more detail to 30 project tasks. On July 8, AOC's
construction management contractor accepted the April project
schedule, subject to several conditions.
Because the May 2005 master schedule for the CVC project contains
additional detail on activities and information on resources to
be applied, we agree with AOC's construction management
contractor that this schedule represents an improvement over
earlier schedules. However, we still have concerns about the
extent to which the schedule links related activities, which
the construction management contractor has agreed to address,
and about whether AOC's September 15, 2006, target date for
opening the facility to the public is realistic. For the
following reasons, we continue to believe that the project is
more likely to be substantially completed in the December 2006
to March 2007 time frame than by September 2006:
--Because of unforeseen site conditions and other problems, AOC's
construction contractors have had difficulty meeting a
number of milestones. The project still faces risks and
uncertainties that could adversely affect its schedule. As
we noted in our June 14 testimony, the number of critical
and near-critical paths the construction management
contractor has identified complicates schedule management
and increases the risk of problems that could lead AOC to
miss the scheduled completion date. Like the project's May
2005 schedule, the June schedule shows seven paths that are
critical or near critical. Among the critical paths are
East Front stonework and some interior stonework, which
slipped by 24 days and 3 days in June, respectively. In
addition, some other interior stonework that is not
generally on a critical path, such as the installation of
wall stone in the Great Hall, has slipped by about 4 months
since April because of stone shortages according to AOC.
Continued slippages in interior stonework could make it
difficult for the sequence 2 contractor to meet the
September 15, 2006, completion date. Although the CVC
project team believes that it can recover this time, its
ability to do so is not yet clear, given the stone supply
problem facing the project. Furthermore, although work on
the utility tunnel progressed during June, the tunnel work
continues to face risks and uncertainties that could delay
the project, and the May and June schedules show that the
start and finish dates for a number of activities have
continued to slip. Although it is possible for AOC to
recover this time, continued slippage could push so many
activities to later dates that the contractors may not be
able to complete all the work in the remaining available
time.
--In our opinion, AOC lacks reasonable assurance that its
contractors have accurately estimated the time necessary to
complete work for a number of activities in the schedule.
Although the construction management contractor's recent
review of how much time is needed to complete schedule
activities was helpful, we are still concerned about the
reasonableness of the time allowed for a number of the
activities. For example, one of the activities reviewed in
June whose scheduled duration was found to be generally
reasonable was final occupancy inspections. Although AOC's
Fire Marshal Division is to do critical work associated
with this activity, the duration review that took place
since the June 14 hearing occurred without any input from
that division, which is to conduct fire safety and
occupancy inspections for the project and approve its
opening to the public. The Chief Fire Marshal told us that
although coordination has improved between his office and
the CVC project team, he has not always had an opportunity
to review project documentation early in the process and
has not yet received the project schedule. As a result, he
was uncertain whether the schedule provided enough time for
his office to do its work. For example, as of July 8, he
had not yet received documentation for the fire protection
systems, which his office needs to examine before it can
observe tests of these systems as the CVC team has already
requested. The Fire Marshal Division will also be involved
in fire alarm testing; the construction management
contractor plans to assess the duration of this activity
later after more detail is added to the schedule. In
addition, at the time the construction management
contractor performed its duration reassessment of East
Front stonework, the project was experiencing difficulty
getting stone deliveries on time. It is unclear to us how
the duration of the stonework could have been determined to
be reasonable given this problem and the lack of a clear
resolution at the time.
--The May 2005 schedule includes a number of base project
activities that could be completed after September 15,
2006, even though their completion would seem to be
important for CVC to be open to the public. Such activities
include installing security systems, kitchen equipment, and
theater seating. According to the schedule, the late finish
dates for these activities are after September 15. The late
finish date is the latest date that an activity can be
completed without delaying the scheduled completion date
for the entire project. According to the construction
management contractor, a number of activities in the
schedule that are important to CVC's opening were not
linked to the September 15 opening date in the schedule.
The contractor agreed to address this issue.
--Last week, we began to update our risk assessment of the
project's schedule and plan to have this update completed
in September. AOC has also engaged a consultant to perform
a risk assessment of the project's schedule and expects the
assessment to be done by mid-September. We believe that
better information on the likelihood of AOC's meeting its
September 15, 2006, opening date will be available after
our update and AOC's schedule risk assessment are done.
--Aggressively monitoring and managing contractors' adherence to the
schedule, including documenting and addressing the causes of
delays, and reporting accurately to Congress on the status of
the project's schedule. We noted in our May 17 testimony that
neither AOC nor its construction management contractor had
previously (1) adhered to contract provisions calling for
monthly progress review meetings and schedule updates and
revisions, (2) systematically tracked and documented delays and
their causes as they occurred or apportioned their time and
costs to the appropriate parties on an ongoing basis, and (3)
always accurately reported on the status of the project's
schedule. On June 7 and July 8, AOC, its construction
management contractor, the sequence 2 contractor, and AOC's
schedule consultant conducted the first and second monthly
reviews of the schedule's status using a newly developed
approach that we discussed during the Subcommittee's June 14
hearing. Additionally, on June 28, we met with AOC and its
construction management contractor to discuss how delays are to
be analyzed and documented in conjunction with the new approach
to schedule management. During that meeting, AOC's construction
management contractor agreed to have its field supervisors
document delays and their causes on an ongoing basis and its
project control engineer summarize this information for
discussion at the monthly schedule reviews. After assessing the
new approach and observing the first two review sessions, we
believe that, if effectively implemented and sustained, this
approach should generally resolve the schedule management
concerns we previously raised, including how delays will
regularly be handled and how better information on the status
of the project will be provided to Congress. As we indicated on
June 14, we are encouraged by the construction management
contractor's addition of a full-time project control engineer
to the project and have seen noteworthy improvements in
schedule management since his arrival. Nevertheless, we plan to
closely monitor the implementation of this new approach,
including the resources devoted to it, the handling of delays,
and the accuracy of the information provided to Congress.
--Developing and implementing risk mitigation plans. While monitoring
the CVC project, we have identified a number of risks and
uncertainties that could have significant adverse effects on
the project's schedule and costs. Some of these risks, such as
underground obstructions and unforeseen conditions, have
already materialized and have had the anticipated adverse
effects. We believe the project continues to face risks and
uncertainties, such as unforeseen conditions associated with
the project's remaining tunnels, the East Front, and other
work; scope gaps or other problems associated with the
segmentation of the project between two major contractors; and
shortages in the supply of stone and skilled stone workers. As
discussed during the Subcommittee's June 14 hearing, AOC has
not yet implemented our recommendations that it develop risk
mitigation plans for these types of risks and uncertainties,
but it has agreed to do so by mid-September. On July 1, AOC
added assistance in risk mitigation to the scope of its
contract with its schedule consultant.
--Preparing a master schedule that integrates the major steps needed
to complete CVC construction and the steps necessary to prepare
for operations. A number of activities, such as obtaining
operators' input into the final layouts of retail and food
service areas, hiring and training staff, procuring supplies
and services, and developing policies and procedures, need to
be planned and carried out on time for CVC to open to the
public when construction is complete. Although AOC has started
to plan and prepare for CVC operations, as we indicated in our
May 17 and June 14 testimonies, it has not yet developed a
schedule that integrates the construction activities with the
activities that are necessary to prepare for operations. The
Subcommittee requested such a schedule during its April 13,
2005, hearing on AOC's fiscal year 2006 budget request. Because
it lacked funds, AOC had not been able to extend the work of a
contractor that had been helping it plan and prepare for
operations. During the week of June 6, AOC received authority
to spend the funds needed to re-engage this contractor, and on
June 30, AOC awarded a contract for the continued planning and
preparation for CVC operations. Now that AOC has re-engaged its
operations planning contractor, we believe that close
coordination between AOC staff working with this contractor and
the CVC project's construction team will be especially
important for at least two reasons. First, the operations
planning contractor's scope of work includes both the design of
certain space within the CVC project and the wayfinding signs
that are to be used within the project, and the timing and
content of this work needs to be coordinated with CVC
construction work. Second, about $7.8 million \3\ is available
for either CVC construction or operations, and it will be
important for AOC to balance the need for both types of funding
to ensure optimal use of the funds. Moreover, it is not clear
to us who in AOC will be specifically responsible for
integrating the construction and operations schedules and for
overseeing the use of the funds that are available for either
construction or operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See footnote 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Costs and Funding
As we said during the Subcommittee's May 17 and June 14 hearings,
we estimate that the cost to complete the construction of the CVC
project, including proposed revisions to its scope, will range from
about $522 million without provision for risks and uncertainties to
about $559 million with provision for risks and uncertainties. As of
July 11, 2005, about $483.7 million had been provided for CVC
construction.\4\ In its fiscal year 2006 budget request, AOC asked
Congress for an additional $36.9 million for CVC construction. AOC
believes this amount will be sufficient to complete construction and,
if approved, will bring the total funding provided for the project's
construction to $520.6 million. Adding $1.7 million to this amount for
additional work related to the air filtration system that we believe
will likely be necessary brings the total funding needed to slightly
more than the previously cited $522 million. AOC believes that it could
obtain this $1.7 million, if needed, from the Department of Defense,
which provided the other funding for the air filtration system. AOC's
$36.9 million budget request includes $4.2 million for potential
additions to the project's scope (e.g., congressional seals, an
orientation film, and storage space for backpacks) that Congress will
have to consider when deciding on AOC's fiscal year 2006 CVC budget
request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ This amount does not include $700,000 made available by the
Capitol Preservation Commission from the Capitol Preservation Fund for
the design of the Library of Congress tunnel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AOC has not asked Congress for an additional $37 million (the
difference between $559 million and $522 million) that we believe will
likely be needed to address the risks and uncertainties that continue
to face the project. These include, but are not limited to, shortages
in the supply of stone, unforeseen conditions, scope gaps, further
delays, possible additional requirements or time needed because of life
safety or security changes or commissioning, unknown operator
requirements, and contractor coordination issues. These types of
problems have been occurring, and as of June 30, 2005, AOC had received
proposed sequence 2 change orders whose costs AOC now estimates exceed
the funding available in fiscal year 2005 for sequence 2 changes by
about $1.3 million. AOC's estimate of these change order costs has
grown by about $900,000 during the past 4 weeks.\5\ AOC plans to cover
part of this potential shortfall by requesting approval from the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations to reprogram funds that AOC
does not believe will be needed for other project elements. At this
time, AOC does not believe that it will need additional funds in fiscal
year 2005, assuming it receives reprogramming authority for sequence 2
changes, unless it reaches agreement with the sequence 2 contractor on
the costs associated with 10 months' worth of delays that have already
occurred. If AOC needs funds for this purpose or for other reasons, it
can request approval from the Appropriations Committees to use part of
the $10.6 million that Congress approved for transfer to the CVC
project from funds appropriated for Capitol Buildings operations and
maintenance.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ In our May 17 testimony, we reported that AOC had about
$700,000 remaining in its fiscal year 2005 funding for sequence 2
changes after deducting the estimated costs for proposed changes it had
received. As of June 1, the estimated costs for sequence 2 changes
exceeded the amount available for such changes by about $400,000. Since
then, another $900,000 in estimated costs for potential change orders
has been identified. About two-thirds of the $900,000 increase in
estimated costs for sequence 2 changes during June was for additional
fire safety work.
\6\ Public Law 108-447, enacted in December 2004, provided that up
to $10.6 million could be so transferred upon the approval of the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations for the use of the CVC project.
In March 2005, AOC requested that about $4 million of these funds be
transferred to CVC, including some funds for such work as the design of
the gift shop space and consultant services to transition the project
from construction to operations. As of June 10, AOC had received
approval to use about $2.8 million of this $10.6 million, leaving a
balance of about $7.8 million that can be used in the future. None of
the $10.6 million is included in the previously cited $483.7 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For several reasons, we believe that AOC may need additional funds
for CVC construction in the next several months. These reasons include
the pace at which AOC is receiving change order proposals for sequence
2 work, the problems AOC has encountered and is likely to encounter in
finishing the project, the uncertainties associated with how much AOC
may have to pay for sequence 2 delays, and uncertainty as to when AOC
will have fiscal year 2006 funds available to it. For example, AOC is
likely to incur additional costs for dehumidification or for additional
workers to mitigate the expected delay in the utility tunnel. AOC may
also incur more costs than it expects for certain activities, such as
those necessary to support security during the remainder of the
project's construction. AOC may be able to meet these needs as well as
the other already identified needs by obtaining approval to use some of
the previously discussed $10.6 million and by additional reprogramming
of funds.\7\ However, these funds may not be sufficient to address the
risks and uncertainties that may materialize from later this fiscal
year through fiscal year 2007. Thus, while AOC may not need all of the
$37 million we have suggested be allowed for risks and uncertainties,
we believe that, to complete the construction of CVC's currently
approved scope, AOC is likely to need more funds in fiscal years 2006
and 2007 than it has already received and has requested. Although the
exact amount and timing of AOC's needs are not clear, we believe that
between $5 million and $15 million of this $37 million may be required
in fiscal year 2006. Effective implementation of our recommendations,
including risk mitigation, could reduce AOC's funding needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ AOC has requested approval to reprogram about $1.6 million from
sequence 1 construction and the East Front Interface to fund
anticipated additional costs for the House connector tunnel, the
Jefferson Building connection to the Library of Congress tunnel, and
certain security-related work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the Subcommittee's June 14 hearing, three issues related to
the project's costs have emerged that we believe should be brought to
your attention. Discussion of these issues follows.
--First, coordination within the CVC project team and between the
team and AOC's Fire Marshal Division has been an issue,
especially with respect to the project's fire protection
systems. Although the CVC project team established biweekly
meetings with Fire Marshal Division staff in March 2005 to
enhance coordination, gaps in coordination have, as discussed,
already led to uncertainty about whether enough time has been
scheduled for fire alarm testing and for building occupancy
inspections. Such gaps have also increased the costs associated
with the fire protection system. For example, AOC recently took
contractual action costing over $90,000 to redesign the
mechanical system for the Jefferson Building connection to the
Library of Congress tunnel to meet the Fire Marshal Division's
fire safety requirements. According to the Chief Fire Marshal,
he was not given the opportunity to participate in the planning
process before the design of the Jefferson Building connection
was substantially completed. In addition, several fire-safety-
related contract modifications and proposed change orders for
additional work now total over $3.5 million. With better
coordination between the CVC project team and the Fire Marshal
Division, the need for some of this work might have been
avoided or identified sooner, and had this work been identified
during the original competition, the price would have been
subject to competitive pressures that might have resulted in
lower costs. Because of the fire protection system's increasing
costs, disagreements within the CVC team and between the team
and the Fire Marshal Division over fire safety requirements,
problems in scheduling fire safety activities, and other
related issues, we suggested that AOC take appropriate steps to
address the coordination of fire protection activities related
to the CVC project. AOC agreed and has taken action. For
example, starting this week, AOC's Fire Marshal Division agreed
to have a staff member work at the CVC site 2 days a week, and
AOC CVC staff recently agreed to provide the necessary
documentation to the Fire Marshal Division before its
inspections or observations were needed.
--Second, as we indicated earlier in our testimony, we are concerned
about the integration of planning, scheduling, and budgeting
for CVC construction and operations. While the CVC project team
has been overseeing CVC construction, other AOC staff have been
assisting the operations planning contractor in planning and
budgeting for CVC operations. Close coordination between the
two groups will be especially important in the next few months,
when decisions will likely have to be made on how to use the
$7.8 million remaining from the $10.6 million that Congress
made available to the CVC project for either operations or
construction. The Architect of the Capitol agreed to give this
issue priority attention.
--Finally, we are concerned that AOC may incur additional costs for
interim measures, such as temporary walls that it may have to
construct to open CVC to the public in September 2006. Such
interim measures may be needed to make the project safe for
visitors if some other construction work has not been
completed. For example, AOC may have to do additional work to
ensure adequate fire protection for CVC, since the House and
Senate expansion spaces are not scheduled to be done until
March 2007. In addition, AOC may have to accelerate some work
to have it completed by September 15, 2006. While it is not
necessarily unusual to use a facility for its intended purpose
before all construction work is complete, we believe that it
will be important for Congress to know what additional costs
AOC expects to incur to open CVC by September 15, 2006, so that
Congress can weigh the costs and benefits of opening the
facility then rather than at a later date, such as March 2007,
when AOC plans to complete the House and Senate expansion
spaces.
Recommendations for Executive Action
To ensure that (1) Congress has sufficient information for deciding
when to open CVC to the public and (2) planning and budgeting for CVC
construction and operations are appropriately integrated, we recommend
that the Architect of the Capitol take the following two actions:
--In consultation with other appropriate congressional organizations,
provide Congress with an estimate of the additional costs that
it expects will be incurred to open CVC to the public by
September 15, 2006, rather than later, such as after the
completion of the House and Senate expansion spaces.
--Promptly designate who is responsible for integrating planning and
budgeting for CVC construction and operations and give this
activity priority attention.
Agency Comments
AOC agreed to take the actions we are recommending. According to
AOC, information on the estimated costs of the additional work
necessary to open CVC to the public in September 2006 may not be
available until this fall. In addition, AOC said that the recent re-
engagement of the contractor assisting AOC in planning for CVC
operations and the hiring of an executive director for CVC, which AOC
plans to do in the next few months, are critical steps for integrating
CVC construction and operations.
Mr. Chairman, this completes our prepared statement. We would be
happy to answer any questions that you or other Subcommittee Members
may have.
APPENDIX I.--CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER CRITICAL CONSTRUCTION MILESTONES, MAY 2005-JULY 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scheduled Actual
Activity Location completion completion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wall Stone Area 1............................. Great Hall \1\ \2\.................... 5/11/05 6/06/05
Scheduled for completion between 5/17/05 and 6/
14/05:
Wall Stone Area 3 Base Support............ Great Hall \1\........................ 5/20/05 5/20/05
Wall Stone Layout Area 4.................. Great Hall............................ 5/20/05 6/06/05
Saw Cut Road at 1st Street................ Utility Tunnel \1\.................... 5/24/05 6/27/05
Wall Stone Area 4 Base Support............ Great Hall \1\........................ 5/27/05 6/15/05
Wall Stone Layout Area 5.................. Great Hall............................ 5/27/05 5/27/05
Masonry Wall Lower Level East............. Cong. Auditorium...................... 6/03/05 5/25/05
Wall Stone Area 5 Base Support............ Great Hall \1\........................ 6/06/05 6/09/05
Wall Stone Layout Area 6.................. Great Hall............................ 6/06/05 6/15/05
Drill/Set Soldier Piles at 1st Street..... Utility Tunnel \1\.................... 6/08/05 ...........
Wall Stone Area 6 Base Support............ Great Hall \1\........................ 6/13/05 6/17/05
Scheduled for completion between 6/15/05 and 7/
31/05:
Wall Stone Layout Area 8.................. Great Hall............................ 6/20/05 ...........
Masonry Wall.............................. Orientation Theater................... 6/24/05 6/28/05
Wall Stone Layout Area 9.................. Great Hall............................ 6/24/05 ...........
Wall Stone Area 9 Base Support............ Great Hall \1\........................ 7/05/05 ...........
Wall Stone Installation Area 2............ Great Hall............................ 7/06/05 ...........
Wall Stone Installation Area 3............ Great Hall............................ 7/06/05 ...........
Wall Stone Installation Area 4............ Great Hall............................ 7/15/05 ...........
Wall Stone Area 9 Base.................... Great Hall \1\........................ 7/15/05 ...........
Excavate/shore Station 0-1................ Utility Tunnel \1\.................... 7/21/05 ...........
Concrete Working Slab 1st Street.......... Utility Tunnel \1\.................... 7/26/05 ...........
Waterproof Working Slab Station 0-1....... Utility Tunnel \1\.................... 7/29/05 ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These activities are critical.
\2\ This activity was scheduled for completion by the Subcommittee's May 17 hearing but was not done as of that
date.
Source: AOC's April 2005 CVC sequence 2 construction schedule for the scheduled completion dates and AOC and its
construction management contractor for the actual completion dates.
Note: Actual completion information was obtained on July 12.
Senator Allard. Now, Mr. Hantman. We are proceeding. I
apologize for how our morning is getting to be fractionated,
but we have a number of votes on the floor of the Senate and
you know how that works around here. I know you are very busy.
All of you have very busy schedules, and I know we are
disrupting them and I apologize for that.
But go ahead and proceed with your testimony if you would,
Mr. Hantman.
STATEMENT OF ALAN M. HANTMAN, FAIA, ARCHITECT OF THE
CAPITOL
ACCOMPANIED BY BOB HIXON, PROJECT MANAGER, CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER,
ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
Mr. Hantman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I apologize again
for not being here for your opening statements. We will just
proceed from here. I am pleased in fact to be here to discuss
the progress that we have made since our hearing on June 14.
Last month we discussed several important issues, including
development of an overall project risk mitigation plan, our
coordination with the fire marshal that Mr. Ungar just talked
about, our continuing work on the East Capitol Street utility
tunnel, the integration of our construction sequence with an
operations plan, and finally some concerns related to stone
deliveries. All those things I can give you an overview on.
Regarding the last issue, though, we noted in our previous
discussion that the delivery of stone to the project site in
the quantities specified by the contract continues below
expected levels. However, we have taken some important steps
that we hope will facilitate and expedite both the fabrication
and delivery of stone, most importantly to the Great Hall where
some critical pieces are needed for other work to progress. I
will be happy to discuss this with you in greater detail and I
look forward to answering your questions regarding all of these
issues.
INTERIOR CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS
But first, with the help of a few photo boards, I would
like to show the subcommittee some of the progress that has
continued during the past few weeks. As has been the case since
the Inaugural, all the work continues inside the CVC, with the
sequence 2 contractor, Manhattan, continuing installation of
ductwork and piping, all the heating, cooling, supply, waste,
fire protection, and electrical systems. All 20 air-handling
units have been installed, clearing the way for completion of
adjacent piping and support steel that had been left out to
provide open pathways to move the air-handling units into
place.
In the photo on the easel to my right, Mr. Chairman, you
can see the crews are busy installing cable trays in all the
ceiling spaces to carry fire alarm, security, and communication
wire through all areas in the CVC.
In the bottom photo, you can see the installation of
restaurant plumbing that is also proceeding well.
In the next photo board, you can see that the food service
area is receiving metal stud framing in the top picture and
wall framing to the front, individual rooms and equipment areas
at the bottom.
The concrete topping slab has been completed throughout the
zone. Stone wall installation is substantially complete and
plaster work now has become the primary finishing activity in
this area and is also proceeding well.
In the next board, this photo was taken last Friday in the
Great Hall. You can see that stone work continues to be the
dominant activity. Sandstone now reaches the ceiling both on
the south wall and on the southwest wall, which encloses the
south orientation theater. Stone installation has now begun on
the north walls as well.
Much of the stone for the Great Hall previously stored in
the House expansion space has been moved to the Great Hall and
is awaiting installation. Moving stone out of the House
expansion space has cleared the way for Manhattan's
subcontractor, Grunley, to begin laying conduit in the
expansion space floor slabs. Grunley is the subcontractor who
will complete the fit-out work, Mr. Chairman, for both the
House and the Senate expansion space.
As I mentioned earlier, some critical stone pieces have not
yet been delivered, so the contractor has resequenced some of
the work. This is a pretty common practice and it will help
explain, in some cases, why some of our stone work is not
tracking precisely as scheduled.
Now, in the orientation theaters, only minor masonry block
work remains along the west walls of the theater at the
locations of the door openings. At the bottom is a recent shot
of the south orientation theater, with some of the interior
railing walls being erected. Last, Mr. Chairman, in the east
front, the east front extension spray fireproofing has been
completed on all three levels.
EXTERIOR CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS
Now, outside on the CVC roof deck, granite paver
installation has resumed. Meanwhile, in this photo you can see
that masons are installing the original stone base for the
historic lanterns and the fountains in the center of the east
front plaza. This clears the way for paver installation around
these elements. This base work was completed last week and this
rendering shows a view looking east at one of those lanterns
and how it will look upon completion.
Stone crews have also nearly completed the installation of
granite blocks along the north pedestrian ramp and work is now
progressing well along the south wall. In the top photo, Mr.
Chairman, you can see a worker applying grout between the
granite blocks on the north wall.
At the bottom of the next board, a mason is installing
dowels that will be used to align and anchor the granite steps
for the monumental stairs that we walked down on our last tour.
In the top photo we see a new granite bench that is being
installed on the plaza near First Street. So a lot of exterior
finish stone work is proceeding as well.
UTILITY TUNNEL PROGRESS
Along East Capitol Street, work on the primary utility
tunnel for the CVC continues to progress and critical work
centers around the utility tie-ins at Second Street and First
Street installations. Despite some setbacks on Second Street
related to the D.C. Water and Sewer Authority's inability to
operate some existing, antiquated water line valves, we were
able to complete some utility work in that area and restore
two-way traffic on Second Street earlier this week.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS
I am also pleased to report that the sequence 1 contractor,
Centex Corporation, has demobilized its on-site project trailer
office and will complete the remaining punch list items with
personnel who will be sent to the site for specific activities.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to note one more important
development on the administrative side of the project. I am
pleased to announce that we have renewed our contract with J.M.
Zell Partners, Ltd, our operations consultant. We met with them
this week and they have begun an intensive effort to update and
refine their earlier recommendations regarding personnel and
procedures, as well as identifying the most critical and urgent
actions necessary to ensure that all operations elements will
be in place for a smooth opening of the Capitol Visitor Center.
Given the fact, Mr. Chairman, that governance has not yet
been decided between the House and the Senate, at our Capitol
Preservation Commission meeting this Monday, it was determined
that one of the best ways of proceeding, specifically to begin
to get an executive director on board, is to refine that job
description. We would then send it to our oversight committees
with a request, basically a proposal that would allow me to
advertise for this position using AOC general funds in advance
of the 2006 budget coming in, so that we can start moving
along, pending the availability of funds, to hire somebody to
do this important job, and the other people as well.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am certainly more than happy
to answer your questions as we go along.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Alan M. Hantman, FAIA
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Durbin, members of the
committee. I am pleased to be here to discuss the progress we have made
since our last hearing on June 14.
Last month, we discussed several important issues including the
development of an overall project risk mitigation plan, our
coordination with our Fire Marshal, our continuing work on the East
Capitol Street Utility tunnel, the integration of our construction
sequence with an operations plan, and finally, some concerns related to
our stone deliveries. Regarding this last issue, we noted in our
previous discussion that the delivery of stone to the project site in
the quantities specified by the contract continues below expected
levels. However, we have taken some important steps that we hope will
facilitate and expedite both the fabrication and delivery of stone,
most importantly to the Great Hall, where some critical pieces are
needed for other work to progress. I will be happy to discuss this with
you in greater detail and I look forward to answering your questions
regarding all of these issues, but first, with the help of a few photo
boards, I would like to show the committee some of the progress that
has occurred during the last few weeks.
As has been the case since the Inaugural, the bulk of work
continues inside the CVC with the Sequence 2 contractor, Manhattan,
continuing installation of ductwork and piping for all of the heating,
cooling, supply, waste water, fire protection, and electrical systems.
All 20 air handling units have been installed, clearing the way for
completion of adjacent piping and support steel that had been left out
to provide open pathways to move the air handling units into place. In
this photo here, crews are busy installing cable trays in all of the
ceiling spaces to carry fire alarm, security and communications wiring
to all areas of the CVC.
As you can see in this photo, the Food Service Area is receiving
metal stud ceiling framing and wall framing to define individual rooms
and equipment areas. The concrete topping slab has been completed
throughout this zone and stone wall installation is substantially
complete. Plaster work now has become the primary finish activity in
this area and is proceeding well.
In this photo taken last Friday in the Great Hall, you can see that
stone work continues to be the dominant activity. Sandstone now reaches
the ceiling on both the south wall and on the southwest wall, which
encloses the south orientation theater. Stone installation has now
begun on the north walls. Much of the stone for the Great Hall,
previously stored in the House expansion space, has been moved to the
Great Hall and is awaiting installation. Moving stone out of the House
expansion space has cleared the way for Manhattan's sub-contractor,
Grunley, to begin laying conduit in the expansion space floor slabs.
Grunley is the subcontractor who will complete the fit-out work for
both House and Senate expansion spaces. As I mentioned earlier, Mr.
Chairman, some critical stone pieces for the Great Hall have not yet
been delivered, so the contractor has re-sequenced some of the work.
This is a common practice and it will help explain, in some cases, why
some of our stone work isn't tracking precisely as scheduled.
In the Orientation Theaters, only minor masonry block work remains
along the west walls of the theater at the locations of the doorway
openings. Here is a recent shot of the south orientation theater with
some of the interior walls being erected. Finally, in the East Front
Extension, spray fireproofing is complete on all three levels.
Outside on the CVC roof deck, granite paver installation has
resumed. Meanwhile, in this photo, you can see masons installing the
original base stone for the historic lanterns and fountains in the
center of the East Front Plaza, clearing the way for paver installation
around these elements. This base work was competed last week and this
rendering shows a view looking east at one of those lanterns.
Stone crews have also nearly completed the installation of granite
blocks along the north pedestrian ramp and work is now progressing well
along the south wall. In the top photo, you see a worker applying grout
between the granite blocks on the north wall. At the bottom, a mason is
installing dowels that will be used to align and anchor the granite
steps for the monumental stair that flanks the north side of the CVC
entrance.
Along East Capitol Street, work on the primary utility tunnel for
the CVC continues to progress and critical work centers around the
utility tie-ins at the Second Street and First Street intersections.
Despite some setbacks on Second Street related to the D.C. Water and
Sewer Authority's inability to operate some antiquated waterline
valves, we were able to complete some utility work in that zone and
restore two-way traffic on Second Street earlier this week.
One last note on the construction side: I am pleased to report that
the Sequence 1 contractor, Centex Construction, has demobilized its on-
site project trailer office and it will complete the remaining
punchlist items with personnel who will be sent to the site for
specific activities.
Before I take your questions, Mr. Chairman, I would like to note
one important development on the administrative side of the project. I
am pleased to announce that we have renewed our contract with the Zell
Corporation, our operations consultant. They have begun an intensive
effort to update and refine their earlier recommendations regarding
personnel and procedures, as well as identify the most critical and
urgent actions needed to ensure that all operations elements are in
place for a smooth opening of the Capitol Visitor Center.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to report to you and
the Committee on the status of the CVC project. I am happy to answer
any questions you may have at this time.
COST TO COMPLETE
Senator Allard. Well, thank you, very much, both of you,
for your testimony. We are in a 10-minute vote and I will ask
one question to you, Mr. Hantman, and then I will go vote.
Mr. Hantman, I am going to give you a last shot here at our
budget for fiscal year 2006. This will be your last opportunity
to make some remarks in that regard. As you are aware, the
House position is at $36.9 million. Are you comfortable with
the House position or do you believe the higher Senate level of
$42 million for the CVC will be necessary?
Mr. Hantman. We have reviewed the budget. We continue to
review the budget. Based on everything that we know at this
time, the amount of money that we have requested for fiscal
year 2006 would be adequate. What we are discovering, recently,
is we have got some issues that have come up. We have not
received all of the proposals yet for the delay costs, so we
cannot be certain that there might not be some added costs in
the future.
But at this point, based on everything that we are aware
of, the $36.9 million is adequate. Again, our friends at GAO
are certainly pointing out risks going down the road and we can
only identify things that we see at this point in time.
Certainly when they talk about Monte Carlo and risk analysis,
the concern with unforeseen circumstances is still real and we
respect where they are coming from.
Senator Allard. Can you give me your commitment that by the
time of our next hearing you and GAO will be able to provide us
with an updated assessment of the cost to complete the CVC
project?
Mr. Hixon. Sir, we have contracted with McDonough Bolyard
Peck to do the update of the cost to complete. The draft will
be done the first part of September. We are working through the
congressional work period for a number of these people. But we
will have the draft in in the first part of September. The
final report will not be done until October. But we will
certainly be sharing all the data we get with the GAO so that
they know what we know about what those expectations are and if
there are any surprises.
Senator Allard. Well, thank you both.
POTENTIAL COST INCREASES
Next question, and this again is to you, Mr. Hantman. This
is in relation to the increase in costs over the last month.
According to the GAO, the cost estimate for potential changes
worsened quite a bit over the past month. Why did this happen
and are you still comfortable that you will not need any
additional funds?
Mr. Hantman. Bob.
Mr. Hixon. Sir, if I can respond to that, we have had two
large change orders that, or potential change orders (PCO),
that were generated in the last month. One of them deals with
the control system for smoke control, fire alarm areas. We are
trying to sort out what the value of that is. The number that
is in the PCO log that is so large is a surprise to all of us.
We did not expect it to be anywhere near that big and we are
trying to determine if there are misunderstandings of scope, if
the number really should be anything near as big as that.
The other relates to a plug number that was put into the
record in anticipation of what the cost might be for building
temporary partitions and doing things associated with the
occupancy of the CVC earlier than the completion of the
expansion space. It is simply a plug number. There is no basis
for the number. It was just a number put in there.
Those are two very large numbers that have accounted for
the big increase that we have had over what we have had before.
We are still continuing to receive change orders, change order
requests, from the contractor. We will be continuing to receive
those for a long time. But these two large ones push the number
up much higher than you would normally expect and they need to
be reviewed.
Senator Allard. Mr. Hantman.
Mr. Hantman. Mr. Chairman, just a little more clarification
on that. One of the things that Mr. Ungar indicated in his
opening statement was the idea that if, in fact, additional
funds are going to be spent on opening the visitor center prior
to the completion of the expansion spaces, which we know are
going to be several months behind since we just awarded that
contract a number of weeks ago, and we testified to this at the
last hearing.
So when Mr. Ungar talked about letting Congress know about
possible dollars that might be spent to, as he called it--
whether it is accelerating the opening of the CVC, I really do
not think of it that way. What I think of it as is, because we
will still be under construction for the House and Senate
expansion spaces after the CVC is completed, do we need from an
emergency egress perspective to essentially put in some
additional sheet rock, some additional lighting, so in fact if
there is an emergency evacuation of the CVC that they will be
able to get to the stairways in the House and Senate expansion
space.
So that is the plug number that has been referred to right
now, and clearly we would not be spending those dollars unless,
as Mr. Ungar indicates, we inform the Preservation Commission
of that and we get approval to do so.
FIRE MARSHAL
Senator Allard. We have pushed you to work with the fire
marshal on what his requirements might be. We want to feel
confident about exactly what his requirements might be, and I
assume that you are continuing to push this dialogue with the
fire marshal.
Do you feel confident at this point in time that you are
there? And then I will ask Mr. Ungar if he is comfortable with
where everything is?
Mr. Hantman. Mr. Chairman, we have initiated a situation
where the fire marshal now has a representative sitting in
Bob's trailer 2 days a week and we have dedicated times when
the fire marshal's people will be available to do checkoffs and
things of that nature. If we are ready for it and they are not
available, that would not happen; so that we have dedicated
times and hopefully we can work more closely together and give
them the drawings in advance, so they can in fact know what is
coming down the road.
Senator Allard. Good.
Mr. Hantman. Bob, do you have any more to add?
Mr. Hixon. We have also been meeting with the fire marshal
every other week. So the goal is to ensure that we do have all
the activities coordinated. As sophisticated as the smoke
evacuation system is for the building, together with the
regular fire alarm system, it is a very complicated system. So
there is a great deal of coordination that is underway. We are
working very well with the fire marshal to accommodate all of
those requirements.
The control system that we talk about is not something
generated by the fire marshal as a requirement, but rather the
design is accommodating some elements that make the system work
better. So we think we are doing a good job of coordinating
with them and we expect to be able to get through all of this
planning here in the next 5 months. We will start checking out
the systems in the springtime, but there is a great deal of
planning that has been done to date and there is a great deal
more to be accomplished.
Mr. Hantman. Just one last point on that, Mr. Chairman.
Some of the dollars and the coordination issues that GAO
referred to relative to the fire marshal is really a result of
the fact that we are on the cutting edge of trying to balance
some of the fire safety issues with security issues. Security
issues have never been imposed to the extent that they are now
with this new visitor center, and sometimes they are in
conflict with fire marshal criteria, which is why it is even
more important for us to sit down and make sure that we have
this ongoing communication.
Senator Allard. I know you are serving food down in the
lower level. If food is cooked down there and you have a lot of
smoke or it could be a problem.
Mr. Ungar. Yes, Mr. Chairman. We think that the steps that
AOC has put into place should hopefully help resolve the
problems that have existed. There is one other step that Bob
and Alan did not mention that they are taking that we think is
also important and necessary, and that is that they have asked
the team to go back and relook at this whole issue, because
there were some disagreements within the team.
So we think in addition to coordination with the fire
marshal and having the fire marshal's representative there,
this is an important step.
ACCELERATION OF WORK
There is one other issue I just wanted to clarify. When
Alan was talking about the additional costs that might be
associated with opening the facility in September, the example
he gave was correct. Because of the House and Senate expansion
spaces not being done, there may have to be some temporary
work. But the other issue that we are concerned about equally
as well is acceleration of work between now and then, for
example acceleration of work solely for the purpose of meeting
the September 15 deadline--excuse me, target date.
AOC is experiencing a problem with the stone work on the
east front that had to do with some unforeseen conditions and
AOC is anticipating that it will be able to bring the schedule
back to regain the 24 days that have been lost. Now, if that is
going to cost more money, though, to do that, the question is
should AOC really do that if the only purpose is to meet the
September 15 date.
I would contrast that with the problems that AOC is
experiencing on the utility tunnel with some delay there. If
AOC has to expend additional money to recover time, there are
many benefits to doing that, to getting that operational
sooner, aside from the September 15 opening date. So we would
distinguish between acceleration that really has a lot of
benefits to acceleration that would solely benefit or help AOC
achieve the September 15 date, which to our knowledge is not a
congressionally mandated date.
LEGAL ISSUES INVOLVING STONE CONTRACTOR
Senator Allard. You have brought up the issue of the stone
quarry. My understanding is that we are having some supply
problems with the stone. I believe you may have had to lay off
one or two of your masons because of not enough supply coming
in. I remember in a previous hearing we were wondering whether
we were going to have enough masons there to be able to install
the stone.
So apparently there are some legal problems, and we only
have a single source for stone and do not have an option of
going to another source. We are locked in. Can you explain how
it is that we got to that position and is there a remedy? I do
not know how you control the length of time of the lawsuit.
Do we have a remedy in case this gets dragged out?
Mr. Hantman. Mr. Chairman, there was a hearing in
Pittsburgh on Friday. The situation is that Manhattan
Corporation has an injunction that has been issued against
them, mandating that they use the fabricator that they are
currently using and the quarry that they are currently using.
Now, those folks have not been delivering enough stone, as we
see on our schedule, for the installation to proceed in
accordance with the schedule that we have.
So the injunction--there was a hearing on Friday, to which
I sent Bob Hixon and our attorney, and I also sent a letter to
Manhattan expressing concern, as we discussed at our last
hearing, about the quantity of stone being delivered and
installed in a timely way. Since Bob was there, I will let him
talk directly to what was heard and what the next step is
relative to this injunction.
Senator Allard. Bob.
Mr. Hixon. At the Friday meeting, we had representatives
from Annandale, who is the supplier of the stone and quarry as
well as the fabricator, as well as the contractors involved,
Boatman Magnani, who is the stone subcontractor, and Manhattan.
We were only an interested party present there to observe and
let the judge know that we are very concerned about the
delivery of the stone because it is not coming in in accordance
with the schedule that Manhattan has.
We are really supporting Manhattan in trying to ensure that
they can get the stone required and have it installed. What
came out of that were two items. One is the judge has said that
we were not a party to the injunction, so that our contractual
opportunities that we would normally have are still retained.
But more importantly, what she required is a certification by
the parties in the injunction that they could in fact provide
stone in accordance with the schedule required for timely
completion of the project, in accordance with the current
contract completion date of September 15. So they have required
that certification. It is to be submitted to her by this
Friday, and if someone for some reason cannot sign the
certification she said she wanted to hear about that
immediately so that she could schedule a meeting next week to
talk about it.
So she seems very supportive in ensuring that the actions
that she has imposed by the injunction do not adversely affect
our ability to get stone from the parties. If in fact they
cannot certify and deliver on time, then there are other
options that will have to be evaluated. So at this point we are
looking to see if they will certify and we are also monitoring
the delivery of stone that is coming to the job site to see if
it meets the new schedule that the fabricator has provided.
Senator Allard. Well, your comments are somewhat
heartening. So I appreciate your work on that.
MILESTONE COMPLETION
According to GAO, only 3 of the 17 critical milestones last
month were accomplished on schedule.
Two questions. Why have these milestones not been met; and
how do you expect to meet your September 15 deadline as we
continue to miss so many milestones?
Mr. Hixon. Yes, sir. We are concerned with the milestones
that we have missed. What we have had is since the April
schedule was developed the critical path has moved around a
little bit as the schedule became further defined. We have
missed some milestones associated with the utility tunnel and
we all understand the reason for those, and they are working to
try and--we should be installing the sheeting piles on First
Street here in the next couple of days and begin to start doing
that work, which will be helpful. That is one of the items left
over from the first chart that we had. You can see it marked in
yellow there.
When you look at the second chart, which talks about the
activities that have been done lately, later after that--well,
yes. Mr. Hantman has pointed out that all of those items on
that first chart were in fact completed except the one in
yellow. It is now done. So all those activities are in fact
complete. Some of them were a few weeks late being completed.
When you go to the second chart, we have two issues there.
Again, you have the utility tunnel with some issues with the
issues associated with the completion of that work, with the
water lines and all. The rest of those items have to do with
the wall stone installation in the Great Hall area, and they
have two items on the top associated with layout of areas 8 and
9. Those are supposed to be done in the next couple of days and
they will be completed and off the chart.
The other has to do with the wall stone in areas 3 and 4.
You saw the picture that Mr. Hantman showed earlier of area 3,
which is almost finished. Area 4 is hardly started. That work
will not be done for some time. That is on the north
orientation theater. That is going to take a number of weeks.
So that one will be weeks late being completed. It is no longer
on the critical path, but it is going to be much later than was
reflected in the April schedule.
Senator Allard. Now, on the--my question is, do you agree
with their assessment, Mr. Ungar?
Mr. Ungar. Let me start, Mr. Chairman, and turn it over to
Mr. Dorn.
I would just like to say one thing first and that is that
one of the issues that we have talked to AOC about during this
month with respect to these milestones has to do with the stone
installation. What we have noted in this process is that for
the most part the installation of the wall stone is not on the
project's critical path, and AOC has certainly said that this
is one of the most important activities in the whole project.
So we have asked AOC to go back and reassess this whole
issue, because it was not logical that it not be on the
critical path, at least in our perception. So that is one issue
that we think needs to be addressed.
STONE INSTALLATION DELAYS
I think Mr. Dorn has some further comments on the effects
of not meeting these milestones.
Senator Allard. Mr. Dorn.
Mr. Dorn. I guess first a comment about the stone. Alan did
a great job of sending a letter out to Manhattan about their
suppliers and getting the stone here on time. In that letter he
attached a couple charts that he received from the contractor
that showed that by next week, on July 22, we should have over
85 percent of the stone here on site. And we are nowhere near
that quantity, nowhere near it.
The dates continue to slip. There are a number of dates on
that chart now that show 8 to 10 weeks later than what the
April baseline showed. We cannot say it is impossible for them
to meet this September 15 target that they have got, but at
what cost? That is what concerns me. Stone supply is still a
risk.
The stone work that they have done, while they did the food
service area ahead of schedule, they still took longer to do it
than they said they were going to do. So the duration was
longer. You just moved it further ahead, and it was not
critical to begin with.
The suppliers again have not met their production for
months. There is talk of adding a second supplier possibly at
this later date, but at what cost is that going to be? Someone
cannot start up immediately and produce the stone that you
need. Second, it would be a noncompetitive procurement, so you
have got an additional cost risk there.
ACCELERATION COSTS
Also, you have got the utility tunnel delay. Bernie
mentioned that you could accelerate the construction of that
tunnel to minimize temporary services and that was, I think,
Bob Hixon's idea, which we think is a good one, if you analyze
your schedule and determine that it is going to help. It could,
though, be an arbitrary decision and I do not think Bob will
make that sort of thing. But you need to look at the schedule
and make sure that there are not other concurrent delays that
would overtake this thing anyway. Why pay to accelerate here if
other delays are going to stop you from getting to where you
need to be on a certain date.
Your other choice is to add temporary dehumidification or
temporary services. Again, we pay for that. All of these things
are to get us to that September 15 date, which is arbitrary.
There is talk about trying to, on the stone issue,
particularly the east front that Bernie mentioned, that one of
the ways to speed up the stone is to get the tickets to the
contractor faster. Instead of getting all of your shop drawings
together and sending one order in to the stone supplier, break
it up into smaller orders and send it. I am not quite sure how
that really helps a lot.
It is like my Burger King analogy. If I took my three kids
to Burger King at the beach and I saw they were slow making
hamburgers, does it help me if I send the three of them to
different registers to place their orders separately from me?
If the hamburgers are slow, I am not going to get there any
faster.
There is a $1 million, roughly, placeholder for tasks that
are required to get the CVC open before the expansion space. It
is a placeholder. There is nothing really behind that yet that
we are aware of, but we are concerned about that.
All this rolls up into saying that we are concerned about
their assessment of the schedule. It is similar to the
optimistic statements that we heard 2 years ago with Centex.
The people over there at the other table are sincere. They
really want to make this happen for you. They are aggressively
trying to make it happen. But we are concerned.
ASSESSMENT OF TASK DURATIONS
Senator Allard. This has to do with the assessment of the
task durations. At our last meeting the Architect of the
Capitol agreed to reassess schedule task durations by the time
of this hearing. Has a detailed evaluation of key activities
been conducted and what were the steps you followed in
conducting this reassessment?
Mr. Hantman. Bob.
Mr. Hixon. Yes, sir. The assessment was done. All but three
of the items have been reviewed, and that is the testing and
balancing--and these are complicated ones that require
additional refinement of the schedule and additional
evaluation--but the commissioning of the systems, the test and
balancing of the HVAC system, and the fire alarm system are the
three that remain.
All other durations have been evaluated by Gilbane's
project managers, their superintendents, and they have done
that in conjunction with Manhattan to determine that the
durations are in fact reasonable. But this is also an activity
that will continue as the contract, the schedule, will develop
further details to ensure that they are reasonable. There are
some activities that will come up periodically and require
reassessment.
But we have gone through that first exercise to see if the
schedule looks reasonable. The schedule from April has been
accepted by the Government, done by Gilbane on behalf of us. So
we have those three remaining. All others are fine at this
time.
GAO'S OPINION ON ASSESSMENT
Senator Allard. Mr. Ungar, do you agree that the assessment
has been done in a comprehensive manner?
Mr. Ungar. Mr. Chairman, we think what was done was
certainly helpful. We still have concerns, though. What we
really had in mind in making that recommendation was a more
rigorous data-based objective assessment using such information
as productivity, crew size, actual experience on the site, or
industry guides. I do not know that the construction manager
really had enough time to do that between hearings, but that is
the sort of an assessment that we really had in mind.
One of the results that we still do not feel comfortable
with, for example, is the life safety, or occupancy inspection,
activity that was deemed to be reasonable. Unfortunately the
contractors expressed their judgment, but they did not involve
the fire marshal at all in that assessment, and the fire
marshal is critically involved in that activity. So we are not
comfortable that without input from the fire marshal, that
activity could be judged to be reasonable. It may be, but we do
not have that assurance.
Second, as another example, a number of the stone work
activities in the center itself have been underway and there is
some data available on the durations that have actually been
experienced versus the durations that were initially estimated.
In the two cases that we looked at where stone work is fairly
far along in the interior of the center, the food service area
and the Great Hall, the actual durations were exceeding the
durations that were estimated.
So to us that is not a good indicator. With the auditorium
having a duration of 65 days, it seems unlikely to us that they
are going to be able to meet that, given their experience. So
we are concerned about the need to go back and do more rigorous
assessments in the future.
TRANSITION TO OPERATIONS
Senator Allard. I thank you. We have a vote now that has
come up.
The question I wanted to ask before we conclude has to do
with the master schedule and the transition to operations
phase. Now that you have your operations consultant on board,
when will the operations tasks be incorporated into the master
schedule so we will know when funding for operations is needed?
Mr. Hantman. Mr. Chairman, as I indicated in my opening
remarks, governance has not yet been determined between the
House and the Senate for the overall project. In fact, one of
the things that I also mentioned was, because there is no
formal clearance that says the Architect of the Capitol will in
fact be running the visitor center--I know the Senate has
passed some legislation indicating that, but it has not been
agreed to yet between the House and the Senate in a formal way.
I do want to, as quickly as possible, have Zell refine the job
description, the position description, for an executive
director. He or she essentially is going to be able to work
with all of Zell's recommendations and refine the type of
organization and policies and procedures that he or she would
like to have in the visitor center.
Senator Allard. If they do not make a decision, then does
that not default to you?
Mr. Hantman. I am not sure if it defaults to me. We had a
meeting on Monday afternoon with the Capitol Preservation
Commission and, quite frankly, there was nobody who knew how a
decision could be made on this.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
What I want to do, though, Mr. Chairman, is I do want to be
able to initiate this search now, even before 2006 dollars come
in. Whether or not--I want to prepare this position
description. I want to send a letter out indicating that what I
propose to do is expend dollars, and perhaps the dollars need
to be from this $2.8 million that we already have allocated, as
opposed to future dollars in 2006, or from the AOC general
account. That way we can retain an executive search firm to
start the process but not hire anybody pending the availability
of funds when they come in the 2006 budget.
So I want to jump-start this process, Mr. Chairman, start
that search now, begin to get out there. And I just want to
make sure that everybody is comfortable with my expending funds
since I have not formally been told that I am in charge of the
process.
Senator Allard. Well, sometimes you just go ahead and do it
and see what happens.
Now, what position now is going to integrate all of this?
Mr. Hantman. This would be the executive director,
essentially.
But again, the key point here, Mr. Chairman----
CONSTRUCTION TO OPERATIONS INTEGRATION
Senator Allard. What about the operations contractor? Would
they have any responsibility for some of this integration?
Mr. Hantman. Well, in terms of Zell Partners, Ltd., they
have put out a blueprint essentially and they are going to be
refining that blueprint. One of the first tasks, in addition to
the job position description for the executive director, is for
them to take a look at quarterly needs in terms of staffing up
the project. Based on this analysis, they could tell us when we
open in September, 3 months before that we should have x number
of people in positions on board, 3 months before that, the
quarter before that, we should have these kind of people.
Therefore we are informing each other in terms of what we
really need on board, so that when the construction is finished
and the doors are ready to open that we have a staff there to
support that.
All of that needs to be done and that needs to be
integrated with the construction side on Bob's side, who
maintains the master schedule.
Senator Allard. So you have taken some steps in trying to
plan for this transition. Can you give us some more detail in
the next hearing?
Mr. Hantman. Within the next several weeks we would
expect--we will be meeting with Zell and talking about this
whole profile of staffing and what they see as being necessary.
While we, in parallel, hopefully are able to get out on the
street and start soliciting proposals or resumes so that we can
consider hiring an executive director.
Senator Allard. Very good. If you can get us some more
information in the next hearing, that will be one of the
questions we will want to bring up.
Mr. Hantman. Absolutely.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Allard. That is the last question I have, and I
want to thank all of you for participating. We plan on now
having the next hearing on September 15 of next month.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:58 a.m., Thursday, July 14, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
PROGRESS OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch,
Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:28 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Wayne Allard (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senator Allard.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD
Senator Allard. I'm going to go ahead and call the
subcommittee to order. We will, perhaps, have other members
show up later on. We do have some votes that we're looking at
this morning that could interrupt our testimony, at which point
in time we'll put the subcommittee in recess and then cast our
votes and be back to finish testimony and questions.
We meet today for our fourth hearing this year on the
progress of the Capitol Visitor Center. We welcome back to the
witness table after a month's break, Architect of the Capitol
Alan Hantman, CVC Project Director Bob Hixon, and GAO's
representatives Bernard Ungar and Terrell Dorn.
Today marks 1 year from the anticipated completion of the
Capitol Visitor Center, September 15, 2006. While all of us
look forward with great anticipation to the opening, the
project is only 64 percent complete, according to the Architect
of the Capitol's last monthly report. Progress is slower than
expected, illustrated by the fact that only 7 of the 16
selected milestones scheduled for completion by today have
actually been completed, and none were on time.
While AOC remains confident in their September 2006
projected completion date, GAO has become even more pessimistic
in its projections, based on their observations to date. GAO
has found that there continue to be problems with the schedule,
such as optimistic durations of certain activities and various
requirements have not been fully reflected in the schedule.
According to GAO, the construction contractor would need to
work more than 7 days a week for the next year to make up for
lost time and meet the September 15 deadline, and that assumes
no additional problems, going forward. In addition, despite a
commitment by AOC to have completed a risk-mitigation plan by
today's hearing, such a plan is not finished. While we
recognize progress has been made since our last hearing,
significant concerns, most of which we've discovered over the
past several months, have not been resolved.
In addition to discussing the CVC project, I have asked GAO
to brief us on progress with the construction project at the
Capitol Power Plant, referred to as the west refrigeration
plant expansion. The $100 million project is critical to ensure
adequate cooling capacity for the Capitol campus, including the
Capitol Visitor Center. The expansion project must be completed
in a timely way and without disruption to service. We want to
be sure this project is under control.
Before turning to my ranking member, I'd like to make sure
our witnesses know of our plans for the next CVC hearing, which
is scheduled now for October 18, same place and same time. At
that time, we will look forward to getting an update on the
latest estimate of the cost to complete the project currently
in draft and being reviewed by GAO.
I will now turn to you, Mr. Hantman, for your testimony, to
be followed by GAO's Bernard Ungar.
Proceed, Mr. Hantman.
STATEMENT OF ALAN M. HANTMAN, FAIA, ARCHITECT OF THE
CAPITOL
ACCOMPANIED BY BOB HIXON, PROJECT DIRECTOR, CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER,
ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
Mr. Hantman. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you.
Thank you for this opportunity to update you on the progress of
the Capitol Visitor Center project and the key issues we
discussed at our last meeting, on July 14, including the status
of our overall project schedule and the risk-mitigation plan.
But, first, with the help of some recent photos from the
project site, let me bring you up to date on the status of some
specific areas of the construction. These photos, however, Mr.
Chairman, can't truly depict the real progress made, the
quality of the work, its true complexity, or the wonderful
feeling of the spaces in this historic addition to our Capitol.
Since, Mr. Chairman, so much good work has occurred since
you last visited the project, I'd welcome the opportunity to
take you and members of the subcommittee on an inspection tour
to see this progress firsthand.
On this first board, you see the Great Hall. Stone has been
installed up to the ceiling on the north and the south walls
and the west walls. You can glimpse the completed stonework
behind the scaffolding. Those scaffolds will remain in place to
facilitate the installation of the two large skylights, and
that work is going to be beginning in November.
Stone is also going up on three walls and around the
columns, as shown on this photo, in the Orientation Theaters.
With nearly 20 stonemason teams now on site, we have stonework
occurring concurrently in the Great Hall, both Orientation
Theaters, and the Congressional Auditorium. Additional
stonework is occurring on the roof deck of the CVC.
On this board, you can see historic preservation
contractors busy reinstalling the original historic stone for
the fountains and lanterns, which were designed by Frederick
Law Olmsted in the 1870s.
Meanwhile, Mr. Chairman, throughout the facility, as you
see on this board, workers continue to install mechanical,
electrical, and plumbing systems, apply plaster, place
concrete, and pull telecommunications wiring in the
Congressional Auditorium and other areas.
Finally, I am pleased to report that fit-out work in both
the House and Senate expansion spaces is proceeding well and
the contractor is moving aggressively in both those areas. On
this board, you can see some of the activities occurring as
crews install underslab conduit over here, ductwork and place
concrete for the floor topping in those spaces.
Mr. Chairman, in addition to the physical work being done
on the CVC, we've also been providing Members and their staffs
and other professionals with a firsthand look at the work being
done on the project. As you may have read in last week's Roll
Call article entitled, ``Off Hill, CVC is `Truly Impressive,'
'' other elected officials, foreign dignitaries, and
construction professionals have been impressed by the
significance of this project. County Executive Chris Coons from
New Castle County, Delaware, was quoted as saying he was
``blown away'' during his visit to the CVC, and that they were,
quote, ``truly impressed with the complexity of the building
site, with the way it was being integrated into the worksite of
the Capitol, and how it fits into a major historic property.''
We're pleased to be able to share our lessons learned with
others who are undertaking similar, although perhaps less
complex, projects.
As you can see, Mr. Chairman, there's a tremendous amount
of activity occurring throughout the facility. We expect the
pace of work to increase further as more contractors involved
in the installation of finishing materials come onboard in the
months ahead.
OPENING STATEMENT OF ALAN HANTMAN
While we were working aggressively to meet the contract
completion date, as we've discussed at prior hearings there are
three critical areas currently impacting the sequence to
contractors' work and schedule.
First, stone installation in the east front has been
delayed in the development of shop drawings due to differing
site conditions and the necessary design revisions. And there
are other causes, as well. In an effort to minimize or
eliminate the current delay, the contractor has divided his
stone-shop drawing submittal into two parts. He submitted his
lower-level shop drawings. The design architect has expedited
the review, trying to mitigate the delay there, as well. And
the contractor is also considering alternatives in stone
fabrication and installation to further mitigate delay.
Second, stone delivery and installation. The project
schedule also has been impacted by the reduced number of masons
installing wall stone in the Great Hall and the surrounding
corridors. The number of stonemasons had dropped off in past
months due to slow stone deliveries and missing key pieces of
wall stone. The contractor has worked with his stone
subcontractor to double the number of stonemasons in the past
month to install the stone.
Now, while the court injunction we discussed in July is
still in place, deliveries of wall stone are approximately 80
percent of the scheduled amounts. Although key pieces are
sometimes still missing to complete a wall elevation, we've
experienced a significant improvement in stone installation in
recent weeks. The contractor continues to actively work to
resolve this issue and recover time.
Third, utility tunnel. Differing site conditions, the
resulting design revisions, and other issues have delayed
completion of construction of the utility tunnel by 1 month,
from the end of October 2005 to the end of November 2005. That
delay in completion of the tunnel may, in turn, delay the
installation of piping for delivery of steam and chilled water
until March 2006. If this is the case, the required temperature
and humidity controls necessary to install building finishes
such as millwork, acoustical ceiling panels, and acoustical
tile could be impacted.
The excavation contractor is working additional hours each
day and Saturdays to make up as much time as possible. We
continue to evaluate other alternatives to avoid or minimize
delays, including providing temporary temperature control and
dehumidification for the Orientation Theaters, and food-service
areas, so millwork can proceed on schedule.
Of future concern, Mr. Chairman, also reflected in the
current schedule, is the very complicated process of
commissioning the building, and especially the fire safety
system, which is scheduled for next summer. We're coordinating
the process with the contractor, the commissioning agent, and
the fire marshal. The latest draft of the project schedule
includes a large number of additional commissioning detail
activities. The addition of those activities to the schedule
moves the project completion date beyond the contract term.
This process is being evaluated with all parties to ensure all
activities have reasonable logic and durations and we can
identify potential delay issues and resolve them well in
advance of commissioning beginning. While the current overall
construction schedule reflects a completion date after
September 2006, the project team continues to work to try to
recover time in all pertinent project activities to stay within
the contract period.
Mr. Chairman, clearly there are many areas of risk that
need to be mitigated to achieve the contract completion date. A
risk assessment of the CVC was conducted last month, and a list
of risk items was developed. Risk-handling plans for each of
these items are currently being developed, and each plan will
be managed by having the items reviewed in an ongoing basis.
Items resolved will be moved from the list each month, any new
risk items that are identified will be added.
Taking these factors into account, we have asked the
contractor to submit his recovery plan to reflect the necessary
revised schedule logic and durations so that the schedule will,
again, help facilitate the timely completion, per the contract.
That effort, Mr. Chairman, will take a number of weeks to
complete. And in addition to our own risk assessment, as you
know, GAO also continues to point out similar risks to the
project schedule.
While the construction team is creatively and responsibly
trying to recover lost time and meet the September 2006
contract completion date, there may well be items, Mr.
Chairman, related to commissioning, the fine-tuning of
mechanical systems, and punchlist items that current
evaluations indicate could extend beyond then. Therefore, in
recognizing these risks, for planning purposes, it would be
prudent to aim for December 2006 to have full building
operations tested and ready. In parallel with that work, the
visitor services operations would be under development and
preparation, including staffing activities. The completion date
for the House and Senate expansion space remains unchanged at
March 2007.
With respect to visitor services operations, we've been
working with our CVC operations consultant to refine the
staffing plan they developed. We're coordinating the plan with
the construction schedule to facilitate the hiring and training
of personnel who are needed to manage visitor center services
within the CVC. Concurrently, we have already presented a draft
of the staffing plan, required in legislation by December of
this year, to the Capitol Preservation Commission. We look
forward to working with the Appropriations Committee to
continue refining it and finalizing it, in coordination with
the construction schedule, to assure that people are hired when
needed, but not too early.
Additionally, we're working with the Capitol Preservation
Commission on a draft position description for the CVC
executive director. Together, we hope to move the process
forward so we can advertise the position and have that person
onboard by January 2006. The executive director would then hire
the required visitor services staff and work to put policies
and procedures in place to allow for the opening of the CVC.
The hiring of building operations staff has already begun.
Regarding the project budget, the CVC cost-to-complete is
being updated, as you mentioned, by the independent firm of
McDonough Bolyard Peck. The preliminary data has been submitted
and is being reviewed and refined, and we'll be able to discuss
them in detail at our next hearing.
One last note, Mr. Chairman, to let you know that Bob Hixon
has just received a wonderful honor. He has been made a Fellow
of the Construction Managers Association of America. If I may
quote from their brochure here, ``The Fellows designation is
one of CMAA's highest honors conferred upon industry leaders
who have made significant contributions to their organizations,
the industry, and their profession. The following leaders of
the construction management community are being named to the
2005 Class of Fellows, bringing the number of individuals
who've received this designation to 27 since CMAA's inception
in 1982.'' So, that's--out of some 3,000 or so members, Bob is
1 of 27 Fellows, and we're very proud of him. It's well
deserved. It's nice to know that his recognized expertise is
being brought to our project.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening remarks.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Alan M. Hantman, FAIA
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to update you on the
progress of the Capitol Visitor Center project and the key issues that
were discussed at the last meeting on July 14, including the status of
the CVC overall project schedule and risk mitigation plan. But first,
let me bring you up to date on the status of some specific areas of the
construction.
In the Great Hall, we have stone installed up to the ceiling on the
north, south, and west walls. Scaffolds will remain in place inside the
Great Hall to facilitate the installation of the two large skylights,
and that work will occur in November.
Also in the Great Hall, work is progressing on the east wall and
the areas adjacent to the water features at the base of the two grand
staircases. Currently, workers are assembling the plumbing
infrastructure for those water features.
Stone is also going up on three walls and around the columns in the
south orientation theater. With nearly 20 stone mason teams now on
site, stone work is occurring concurrently in the Great Hall, both
orientation theaters and the Congressional auditorium.
Additional stone work is occurring on the roof deck of the CVC. The
historic preservation contractor is busy re-installing the original
historic stone for the fountains and lanterns which were designed by
Fredrick Law Olmsted in the 1870s.
Meanwhile, throughout the facility, workers continue to install
mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems; apply plaster; place
concrete, and pull telecommunications wiring in the Congressional
auditorium and other areas.
Finally, I am pleased to report that fit-out work in both the House
and Senate expansion spaces is proceeding well and the contractor is
moving aggressively in both those areas. Crews are at work in both the
House and Senate spaces installing underslab conduit and ductwork and
placing concrete for the floor topping slabs.
In addition to the physical work being done on the CVC, the CVC
project office has also been providing Members, their staffs, and other
professionals with a first-hand look at the work being done on the
project. As you may have read in last week's Roll Call article
entitled, ``Off Hill, CVC is `Truly Impressive,' '' other elected
officials, foreign dignitaries, and construction professionals have
been impressed by the significance of this project.
County Executive Chris Coons from New Castle County, Delaware, was
quoted as saying he was ``blown away'' during his visit to the CVC, and
that they were ``truly impressed with the complexity of the building
site, with the ways it was being integrated into the work site of the
Capitol and how it fits into a major historic property.''
We are pleased to be able to share our lessons learned with others
who are undertaking similar, although less complex, projects.
There is a tremendous amount of activity occurring throughout the
facility and we expect the pace of work to increase further as more
contractors involved in the installation of finishing materials come on
board in the months ahead. Out on East Capitol Street, where the
primary utility tunnel is being constructed, the contractor is working
extra hours each day and on Saturdays in an effort to recover some time
that was lost during the execution of the work in this area. As has
been mentioned at previous hearings, the timely completion of the
utility tunnel is one of the factors critical to the contractor's
ability to meet their contract completion date for September 15, 2006.
While we are working aggressively to meet the contract completion
date, as we have discussed at prior hearings, there are three critical
areas currently impacting the Sequence 2 contractor's work and
schedule. They are:
--Stone installation in the East Front has been delayed in the
development of shop drawings from the end of June to mid-August
due to differing site conditions and the consequential design
revisions. In an effort to minimize or eliminate the current
delay, the contractor has broken his stone shop drawing
submittal into two parts. He has submitted his lower level shop
drawings, and the design architect has expedited the review to
mitigate delay. The contractor is considering alternatives in
stone fabrication and installation to further mitigate delay.
--The project schedule also has been impacted by the reduced number
of masons installing wall stone in the Great Hall and the
surrounding corridors. The number of stone masons had dropped
off in the past months due to slow stone deliveries and missing
key pieces of wall stone. The contractor has worked with his
stone subcontractor to double the number of stone masons in the
past month to install the stone currently available. While the
court injunction we discussed in July is still in place,
deliveries of wall stone are approximately 80 percent of the
scheduled amounts. Although key pieces are sometimes still
missing to complete a wall elevation, we have experienced
significant improvement in stone installation in recent weeks.
--Differing site conditions and the resulting design revisions, along
with other issues, have delayed completion of construction of
the utility tunnel by one month from the end of October 2005 to
the end of November 2005. That delay in completion of the
tunnel may delay the installation of piping for delivery of
steam and chilled water until March 2006. If this is the case,
the required temperature and humidity controls necessary to
install building finishes such as millwork, acoustical ceiling
panels, and acoustical wall panels, would be delayed. The
excavation contractor is working additional hours each day and
Saturdays to make up as much time as possible. We are also
evaluating other alternatives to avoid or minimize delays in
completion of the utility tunnel and piping installation, and
providing temporary temperature control and dehumidification
for the orientation theaters and food service areas so millwork
can proceed on schedule.
A future concern also reflected in the current schedule is the very
complicated process of commissioning the building, and especially the
fire safety system. We are continuing to coordinate the process with
the contractor, the commissioning agent, and the Fire Marshal. The
latest draft of the project schedule includes a large number of
additional commissioning detail activities. The addition of these
activities to the schedule moves the project completion date beyond the
contract term. This process is being evaluated with all parties to
ensure all activities have reasonable logic and durations. While the
current construction schedule reflects a completion date after
September 15, 2006, the project team continues to work to try to
recover time in all pertinent project activities to stay within the
contract period.
There are, clearly, many areas of risk that need to be mitigated to
achieve the contract completion date. A risk assessment of the CVC was
conducted last month and a list of risk items was developed and will be
evaluated. Risk handling plans for each of these items are being
developed currently. Each risk mitigation plan will be managed by
having the items reviewed monthly by the team with one-fourth of the
items addressed in depth each week. Items resolved will be removed from
the list each month and any new risk items that are identified will be
added.
Taking these factors into account, we have asked the contractor to
submit his recovery plan to reflect the necessary revised schedule
logic and durations so that the schedule will again help facilitate the
timely completion per the contract. That effort will take a number of
weeks to complete. In addition to our own risk assessment, as you know,
GAO also continues to point out similar risks to the project schedule.
While the construction team is striving to recover lost time and meet
the September 15, 2006, contract completion date, there may well be
items related to commissioning, fine tuning of mechanical systems and
punch list items that could extend beyond the CVC contract completion
date. Therefore, for planning purposes, a December 2006 date would be
prudent to aim for to have full building operations tested and ready.
The completion date for the House and Senate Expansion Space remains
unchanged at March 2007.
Regarding the project budget, the CVC Cost-to-Complete is being
updated by the independent firm of McDonough, Bolyard, Peck. The
preliminary data has been submitted and is being reviewed and refined.
We also have been working with our CVC visitor services operations
consultant to refine the staffing plan they have developed. We are
coordinating the plan with the construction schedule to facilitate the
hiring and training of personnel who are needed to manage visitor
services within the CVC. Concurrently, we have presented a draft of the
staffing plan, required in legislation by December of this year, to the
Capitol Preservation Commission and we will be working with the
Appropriations Committees to finalize it as soon as possible.
Additionally, a draft position description for the executive
director has been submitted to the Capitol Preservation Commission. It
is important to move the process along so we can advertise the position
and have that person on board by January 2006. The executive director
would then hire the required staff and work to put policies and
procedures in place to allow for the opening of the CVC.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my opening remarks. I would be happy
to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Allard. Thank you for your testimony. And I would
also like to join in congratulating you, Mr. Hixon, for the
award that you received.
Mr. Ungar.
STATEMENT OF BERNARD L. UNGAR, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY
OFFICE
ACCOMPANIED BY TERRELL DORN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Mr. Ungar. Mr. Chairman, we're pleased to be here again to
assist the subcommittee in its oversight. We're again
accompanied by our team members, who are identified in our
statement. We really appreciate their help and assistance. And,
hopefully, again they'll help us--bail us out if we get some
tough questions.
What I'd like to do is give you a brief overview of where
we think we are on the project, how we got there, and what
needs to be done from our perspective, and ask Mr. Dorn to hone
in on a very few specific points that he'd like to focus on to
give you a greater appreciation for some of the issues here
that we're dealing with.
As Mr. Hantman indicated, progress is certainly continuing
to be made on the project--there is no question about that--in
a number of areas. At the same time, problems are continuing to
occur with stonework and the utility tunnel, where actual
delays have been occurring.
What's really been happening over the last couple of months
since your last hearing is this. The delays have continued. As
a result of one of the recommendations that we previously made
to AOC, the project team has been looking at the schedule,
particularly some activities with respect to the heating, air-
conditioning, and ventilation system, and the fire protection
system. We had previously noted that these activities appeared
to have unrealistically short durations in the schedule. During
the process of the team's assessment, the team identified a
number of activities, detailed activities, that were not in the
schedule that would require a substantial amount of time on
their initial assessment to undertake. Then they came up with
their August schedule, which identified a slippage in the
expected completion date from November 2006, which was the
completion date shown in the schedule discussed at the last
hearing, until the end of February 2. They recognized, however,
that the activities they added had not yet been evaluated in-
depth; that is, it was the first go-around. And that basically
had to do with the added activities and some of the slippages
to date.
At the same time that AOC was going through its evaluation,
we were doing our risk assessment of the schedule. We were
identifying the same types of things that AOC was identifying,
meaning that there were significant problems with the schedule
with respect to the heating, air-conditioning, and ventilation
system and the fire protection system which would add time to
the schedule. In addition to that, we also found a number of
problems that we had identified previously with optimistic
durations, and that included the stonework, the utility tunnel,
and some of the finishing work. We had identified all of these
issues, back in early 2004, as areas that really needed to be
assessed. And, unfortunately, there wasn't a real aggressive
assessment of those until after the hearing process started.
But we are certainly pleased that that's now underway.
So, all these things were happening at the same time, and
now we're at a situation where, because of all the uncertainty
associated with the schedule because of the added activities
and the concerns and problems that were occurring, a definitive
completion date is not possible to predict at this point. We do
have a general sense of when we think the basic project is
going to be completed, pending a reevaluation. And our sense
right now, given all the information that we see, is: a
completion date of sometime in the spring/summer of 2007 is
more likely at this point than the September date that AOC is
currently focusing on.
We got here because, at least in our view, initially the
sequence 2 schedule did not have sufficient detail to determine
whether or not it could be achieved. We raised this concern
when the sequence 2 schedule was first proposed. We had a great
deal of concern about that, about the degree of detail and the
level of resource loading that was there. We raised these
concerns to AOC and to Gilbane. At that point in time, there
was a different management team there, and, basically, they
just didn't move forward with our suggestion at that time that
they reevaluate those activities.
At this time, AOC believes that it can recover a
significant amount of time that's been added to the schedule.
And we don't disagree that some time is likely to be able to be
recovered, because they could do some resequencing. At the same
time, we have a number of concerns about some adverse
consequences that could result from various steps that might be
taken to recover time or accelerate the project or perhaps take
some shortcuts, which we have identified in our statement.
And that leads me to some very specific actions that we
think are critical and need to be taken from this point
forward:
First, we believe that AOC and the rest of the team need to
do a very rigorous evaluation of the schedule--not only the
areas that they've added, but the other areas in the schedule,
too. And we've given AOC a list of activities that we continue
to believe have optimistic durations, and they're the same
activities that we've identified over a period of time: the
stonework, the utility tunnel, and some of the finishing work.
And there are a number of other areas.
Second, we believe that AOC needs to have strong management
controls in place to really look at the quality of the project
when more time is being spent--if they're going to work nights
and weekends, add shifts, or take some shortcuts that hopefully
will not be taken, but could be taken, to meet some of the
timeframes. Such steps could impact the safety of the facility,
from a fire and life safety standpoint, the efficiency of the
work, the functionality of the equipment, or worker safety. So,
we think it's very important that, from this point forward, AOC
and Gilbane really focus on these types of potential problems.
Third, we think that it's very important to have a
reasonable amount of time between the end of construction and
the beginning of operations, the opening of the facility, to
allow for some unexpected delays or problems or operations
preparation.
Fourth, we think that it's very important that AOC and its
construction manager document and determine the causes of
delays and take appropriate action and that they notify
Congress of any planned acceleration steps or scope changes
that might be made to meet the schedule.
And, finally, that AOC expedite efforts to replace the
director of the Capitol Power Plant, who left several months
ago, I believe in May. It's a very important position. It's not
only important to the CVC that the west refrigeration plant
that you referred to is up and running, but that the other
issues that exist at the plant be addressed and that there be a
proven, talented leader in place there as soon as possible.
And, with that, I'd like to ask Mr. Dorn to focus in on a
few specific points.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bernard L. Ungar
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: We are pleased to be
here today to assist the Subcommittee in monitoring progress on the
Capitol Visitor Center (CVC) project. Our remarks will focus on (1) the
Architect of the Capitol's (AOC) progress in managing the project's
schedule since the Subcommittee's July 14 hearing on the project; (2)
our estimate of a general time frame for completing the base project's
construction and the preliminary results of our assessment of the risks
associated with AOC's July 2005 schedule for the base project; and (3)
the project's costs and funding, including the potential impact of
scheduling issues on cost.\1\ However, we will not, as originally
planned, provide specific estimated completion dates because AOC's
contractors revised the schedule in August to reflect recent delays,
but AOC has not yet evaluated the revised schedule. AOC believes that
the time added to the schedule by its contractors is unreasonable.
Until AOC completes its evaluation and we assess it, any estimates of
specific completion dates are, in our view, tentative and preliminary.
Similarly, we will wait until the schedule is stabilized to update our
November 2004 estimate of the cost to complete the project. Currently,
AOC and its consultant, McDonough Bolyard Peck (MBP), are still
developing their cost-to-complete estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See GAO, Capitol Visitor Center: Update on Status of Project's
Schedule and Costs, GAO-05-910T (Washington, D.C.: July 14, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our remarks today are based on our review of schedules and
financial reports for the CVC project and related records maintained by
AOC and its construction management contractor, Gilbane Building
Company; our observations on the progress of work at the CVC
construction site; and our discussions with CVC project staff
(including AOC, its major CVC contractors, and representatives of MBP),
AOC's Chief Fire Marshal, and officials responsible for managing the
Capitol Power Plant. We also reviewed applicable appropriations
legislation. Appendix I provides more detailed information on our
assessment of the project's schedule. We did not perform an audit;
rather, we performed our work to assist Congress in conducting its
oversight activities.
In summary, although AOC and its construction contractors have
continued to make progress since the Subcommittee's July 14 CVC
hearing, several delays have occurred and more are expected. These
delays could postpone the base project's completion significantly
beyond September 15, 2006, the date targeted in AOC's July 2005
schedule.\2\ Although not yet fully reviewed and accepted by AOC, the
schedule that AOC's contractors revised in August 2005 shows February
26, 2007, as the base project's completion date. The contractors
reported this revised date largely because some key activities
associated with the heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC)
and fire protection systems had not been included in previous schedules
and because delays were occurring, both in constructing the utility
tunnel and in completing interior stonework.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ AOC set September 15, 2006, as the contractual date for
completing the base project's construction and for opening the CVC
facility to the public. The House and Senate expansion spaces were
scheduled to be completed after that date. AOC set the September
contract completion date in November 2004, when it reached agreement
with the contractor on a new date for starting sequence 2 that
reflected the delays experienced on sequence 1. On September 6, 2005,
AOC informed Capitol Preservation Commission representatives that it
still expected the base project's construction to be substantially
complete on September 15, 2006, but was postponing the date for opening
the facility to the public to December 15, 2006, so that it could
complete system tests, minor punch-list work, and preparations for
operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to our preliminary analysis of the project's July 2005
schedule, the base project is more likely to be completed sometime in
the spring or summer of 2007 than by September 15, 2006. Unless the
project's scope is changed or extraordinary actions are taken, the base
project is likely to be completed later than September 15, 2006, for
the reasons cited by the contractors and for other reasons, such as the
optimistic durations estimated for a number of activities and the risks
and uncertainties facing the project. AOC believes that the contractors
added too much time to the schedule in August for activities not
included in the schedule and that it can expedite the project by
working concurrently rather than sequentially and by taking other
actions. While AOC may not need all of the time added for the missing
activities, CVC project personnel believe that more time will be needed
than is currently scheduled for other activities, such as the utility
tunnel, interior finishes and stonework, and the East Front. Because of
the uncertainty surrounding the base project's construction schedule,
we cannot estimate a specific completion date at this time.
Additionally, we are concerned about actions that have been, or could
be, proposed to accelerate work to meet the September 15, 2006, target
date. While such actions could expedite the project and save some
costs, they could also increase other costs or adversely affect the CVC
facility's quality, functionality, or life safety provisions. The
project's schedule also raises a number of management concerns,
including the potential for delays caused by not allowing enough time
to address potential problems or to complete critical activities. Since
the Subcommittee's July 14 hearing, we have discussed several actions
with AOC that we believe are needed to address the CVC project's
schedule problems and our concerns. These actions include
--evaluating the project's revised schedule, including the activity
durations, to ensure that adequate time is provided;
--analyzing the impact of various factors on the schedule and the
adequacy of the resources scheduled to be applied to meet
completion dates;
--carefully considering the costs, benefits, and risks associated
with proposals to accelerate work or reduce its scope and
ensuring that appropriate management controls are in place to
prevent or minimize the possible adverse consequences of such
actions, if taken;
--proposing a CVC opening date that allows reasonable time between
the completion of construction and the facility's opening to
address problems that may arise;
--ensuring that delays and their causes are adequately determined and
documented on an ongoing basis; and
--advising Congress of any plans for accelerating work or reducing
its scope so that Congress can be involved in such decisions.
AOC agreed with our suggestions.
Fiscal year 2006 appropriations have provided sufficient funds to
cover AOC's request for CVC construction funding as well as additional
funds for some risks and uncertainties that may arise, such as costs
associated with additional sequence 2 delays or unexpected conditions.
Although sequence 2 delays have been occurring, the extent to which the
government is responsible for their related costs is not clear at this
time. Additional funding may be necessary if the government is
responsible for significant delay-related costs or if significant
changes are made to the project's design or scope or to address
unexpected conditions. In addition, we and AOC identified some CVC
construction activities that received duplicate funding. AOC has
discussed this issue with the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees.
Work on the Project Is Progressing, but Delays Continue
AOC and its contractors have continued to make progress on the
project since the Subcommittee's July 14 hearing. However, mostly
because some key activities associated with the HVAC and fire
protection systems were not included in earlier schedules and because
delays occurred in installing stonework and excavating the utility
tunnel, the sequence 2 contractor's August schedule shows the expected
completion date for the base project as February 26, 2007. As discussed
at the Subcommittee's July 14 hearing, AOC recognized some delays in
its June 2005 schedule, which showed the base project's expected
completion date as October 19, 2006. Although AOC has not evaluated the
contractor's August schedule, it does not believe that so much
additional time will be needed. Furthermore, as discussed in the next
section, AOC maintains that work could be accelerated to meet the
September 15, 2006, target date.
Project's Schedule, Including Possible Actions to Accelerate Work,
Raises Management Concerns
According to our analysis of the CVC project's schedule, the base
project is unlikely to be completed by the September 15, 2006, target
date for several reasons. AOC believes that it could take actions to
complete the project by then, but these actions could have negative as
well as positive consequences. These and other schedule-related issues
raise a number of management concerns. We have discussed actions with
AOC officials that we believe are necessary to address problems with
the schedule and our concerns. AOC generally agreed with our
suggestions.
Base Project's Construction Is Likely to Be Completed Later
Than Scheduled for Several Reasons
For several reasons, we believe that the base project is more
likely to be completed sometime in the spring or summer of 2007 than by
September 15, 2006:
--As we have previously testified, AOC's sequence 2 contractor,
Manhattan Construction Company, has continued to miss its
planned dates for completing activities that we and AOC are
tracking to assist the Subcommittee in measuring the project's
progress. For example, as of September 8, the contractor had
completed 7 of the 16 selected activities scheduled for
completion before today's hearing (see app. II); however, none
of the 7 activities was completed on time. Unforeseen site
conditions, an equipment breakdown, delays in stone deliveries,
and a shortage of stone masons for the interior stonework were
among the reasons given for why the work was not completed on
time.\3\ Our analysis of the sequence 2 contractor's production
pace between November 2004 and July 2005 indicates that the
base project's construction is unlikely to be finished by
September 15, 2006, if the contractor continues at the same
pace or even accelerates the work somewhat. In fact, at the
current or even a slightly accelerated pace, the base project
would be completed several months after September 15, 2006. To
finish the base project's construction by that date, our
analysis shows that the sequence 2 contractor would have to
recover 1 day for every 8 remaining days between July 2005 and
September 2006 and could incur no further delays.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Also see, for example, GAO, Capitol Visitor Center: Effective
Schedule Management and Updated Cost Information Needed, GAO-05-811T
(Washington, D.C.: June 14, 2005).
\4\ This analysis assumes the 60-day delay shown in the project's
July schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--We continue to believe that the durations scheduled for a number of
sequence 2 activities are unrealistic. According to CVC project
team managers and staff, several activities, such as
constructing the utility tunnel; testing the fire protection
system; testing, balancing, and commissioning the HVAC system;
installing interior stonework; and finishing work in some areas
are not likely to be completed as indicated in the July 2005
schedule. Some of these are among the activities whose
durations we identified as optimistic in early 2004 and that we
and AOC's construction management contractor identified as
contributing most to the project's schedule slippage in August
2005; these activities also served as the basis for our March
2004 recommendation to AOC that it reassess its activity
durations to see that they are realistic and achievable at the
budgeted cost. Because AOC had not yet implemented this
recommendation and these activities were important to the
project's completion, we suggested in our May 17 testimony
before the Subcommittee that AOC give priority attention to
this recommendation.\5\ AOC's construction management
contractor initiated such a review after the May 17 hearing.
Including more time in the schedule to complete these
activities could add many more weeks to the project's schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ GAO, Capitol Visitor Center: Priority Attention Needed to
Manage Schedules and Contracts, GAO-05-714T (Washington, D.C.: May 17,
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--AOC's more aggressive schedule management is identifying
significant omissions of activities and time from the sequence
2 schedule. AOC's approach, though very positive, is coming
relatively late in the project. For example, several detailed
activities associated with testing, balancing, and
commissioning the CVC project's HVAC and fire protection system
were added to the schedule in July and August, extending the
schedule by several months. AOC believes, and we agree, that
some of this work may be done concurrently, rather than
sequentially as shown in the August schedule, thereby saving
some of the added time. However, until more work is done to
further develop this part of the schedule, it is unclear how
much time could be saved. Furthermore, the July schedule does
not appear to include time to address significant problems with
the HVAC or fire alarm systems should they occur during
testing.
--In August 2005, CVC project personnel identified several risks and
uncertainties facing the project that they believed could
adversely affect its schedule. Examples include additional
unforeseen conditions in constructing the utility and House
Connector tunnels; additional delays in stonework due to
slippages in stone deliveries, shortages of stone masons, or
stop-work orders responding to complaints about noise from work
in the East Front; and problems in getting the HVAC and fire
protection systems to function properly, including a
sophisticated air filtration system that has not been used
before on such a large scale. Providing for these risks and
uncertainties in the schedule could add another 60 to 90 days
to the completion date, on top of the additional time needed to
perform activities that were not included in the schedule or
whose durations were overly optimistic.
--Over the last 2 months, AOC's construction management contractor
has identified 8 critical activity paths that will extend the
base project's completion date beyond September 15, 2006, if
lost time cannot be recovered or further delays cannot be
prevented. These 8 activity paths are in addition to 3 that
were previously identified by AOC's construction management
contractor. In addition, the amount of time that has to be
recovered to meet the September 15 target has increased
significantly. The activity paths include work on the utility
tunnel and testing and balancing the HVAC system; procuring and
installing the control wiring for the air handling units;
testing the fire alarm system; millwork and casework in the
orientation theaters and atrium; and stonework in the East
Front, orientation theaters, and exhibit gallery. Having so
many critical activity paths complicates project management and
makes on-time completion more difficult.
Possible Actions to Accelerate Work Raise Concerns
AOC believes it can recover much of the lost time and mitigate
remaining risks and uncertainties through such actions as using
temporary equipment, adding workers, working longer hours, resequencing
work, or performing some work after the CVC facility opens. AOC said
that it is also developing a risk mitigation plan that should contain
additional steps it can take to address the risks and uncertainties
facing the project. Various AOC actions could expedite the project and
save costs, but they could also have less positive effects. For
example, accelerating work on the utility tunnel could save costs by
preventing or reducing delays in several other important activities
whose progress depends on the tunnel's completion. Conversely, using
temporary equipment or adding workers to overcome delays could increase
the project's costs if the government is responsible for the delays.
Furthermore, (1) actions to accelerate the project may not save time;
(2) the time savings may be offset by other problems; or (3) working
additional hours, days, or shifts may adversely affect the quality of
the work or worker safety. In our opinion, decisions to accelerate work
must be carefully made, and if the work is accelerated, it must be
tightly managed.
Possible proposals from contractors to accelerate the project by
changing the scope of work or its quality could compromise the CVC
facility's life safety system, the effective functioning of the
facility's HVAC system, the functionality of the facility to meet its
intended purposes, or the life-cycle costs of materials. In August,
project personnel raised such possibilities as lessening the rigor of
systems' planned testing, opening the facility before all planned
testing is done, or opening the facility before completing all the work
identified by Capitol Preservation Commission representatives as having
to be completed for the facility to open. While such measures could
save time, we believe that the risks associated with these types of
actions need to be carefully considered before adoption and that
management controls need to be in place to preclude or minimize any
adverse consequences of such actions, if taken.
Project's Schedule Presents Other Management Concerns
AOC's schedule presents other management issues, including some
that we have discussed in earlier testimonies.
--AOC tied the date for opening the CVC facility to the public to
September 15, 2006, the date in the sequence 2 contract for
completing the base project's construction. Joining these two
milestones does not allow any time for addressing unexpected
problems in completing the construction work or in preparing
for operations. AOC has since proposed opening the facility to
the public on December 15, 2006, but the schedule does not yet
reflect this proposed revision. Specifically, on September 6,
2005, AOC told Capitol Preservation Commission representatives
that it was still expecting the CVC base project to be
substantially completed by September 15, 2006, but it proposed
to postpone the facility's opening for 3 months to provide time
to finish testing CVC systems, complete punch-list work, and
prepare for operating the facility. In our view, allowing some
time to address unexpected problems is prudent.
--AOC's and its contractors' reassessment of activity durations in
the August schedule may not be sufficiently rigorous to
identify all those that are unrealistic. In reassessing the
project's schedule, the construction management contractor
found some durations to be reasonable that we considered likely
to be too optimistic. Recently, AOC's sequence 2 and
construction management contractors reported that, according to
their reassessment, the durations for interior stonework were
reasonable. We previously found that these durations were
optimistic, and CVC project staff we interviewed in August
likewise believed they were unrealistic.
--We have previously expressed concerns about a lack of sufficient or
timely analysis and documentation of delays and their causes
and determination of responsibility for the delays, and we
recommended that AOC perform these functions more rigorously.
We have not reassessed this area recently. However, given the
project's uncertain schedule, we believe that timely and
rigorous analysis and documentation of delays and their causes
and determination of responsibility for them are critical. We
plan to reexamine this area again in the next few weeks.
--The uncertainty associated with the project's construction schedule
increases the importance of having a summary schedule that
integrates the completion of construction with preparations for
opening the facility to the public, as the Subcommittee has
requested and we have recommended.\6\ Without such a schedule,
it is difficult to determine whether all necessary activities
have been identified and linked to provide for a smooth opening
or whether CVC operations staff will be hired at an appropriate
time. In early September, AOC gave a draft operations schedule
to its construction management contractor to integrate into the
construction schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See, for example, GAO-05-714T.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--As we noted in our July 14 testimony, AOC could incur additional
costs for temporary work if it opens the CVC facility to the
public before the construction of the House and Senate
expansion spaces is substantially complete. As of last week,
AOC's contractors were still evaluating the construction
schedule for the expansion spaces, and it was not clear what
needs AOC would have for temporary work. The schedule, which we
received in early September, shows December 2006 as the date
for completing the construction of the expansion spaces. We
have not yet assessed the likelihood of the contractor's
meeting this date.
--Finally, we are concerned about the capacity of the Capitol Power
Plant (CPP) to provide adequately for cooling, dehumidifying,
and heating the CVC facility during construction and when it
opens to the public. Delays in completing CPP's ongoing West
Refrigeration Plant Expansion Project, the removal from service
of two chillers because of refrigerant gas leaks, fire damage
to a steam boiler, management issues, and the absence of a CPP
director could potentially affect CPP's ability to provide
sufficient chilled water and steam for the CVC facility and
other congressional buildings. These issues are discussed in
greater detail in appendix III.
Actions Are Needed and Being Taken to Move the Project
Forward and Address Concerns
Since the Subcommittee's July 14 CVC hearing, we have discussed a
number of actions with AOC officials that we believe are necessary to
address problems with the project's schedule and our concerns. AOC
generally agreed with our suggestions, and a discussion of them and
AOC's responses follows.
--By October 31, 2005, work with all relevant stakeholders to
reassess the entire project's construction schedule, including
the schedule for the House and Senate expansion spaces, to
ensure that all key activities are included, their durations
are realistic, their sequence and interrelationships are
appropriate, and sufficient resources are shown to accomplish
the work as scheduled. Specific activities that should be
reassessed include testing, balancing, and commissioning the
HVAC and filtration systems; testing the fire protection
system; constructing the utility tunnel; installing the East
Front mechanical (HVAC) system; installing interior stonework
and completing finishing work (especially plaster work);
fabricating and delivering interior bronze doors; and fitting
out the gift shops. AOC agreed and has already asked its
construction management and sequence 2 contractors to reassess
the August schedule. AOC has also asked the sequence 2
contractor to show how it will recover time lost through
delays.
--Carefully consider the costs, benefits, and risks associated with
proposals to change the project's scope, modify the quality of
materials, or accelerate work, and ensure that appropriate
management controls are in place to prevent or minimize any
adverse effects of such actions. AOC agreed. It noted that the
sequence 2 contractor had already begun to work additional
hours to recover lost time on the utility tunnel. AOC also
noted that its construction management contractor has an
inspection process in place to identify problems with quality
and has recently enhanced its efforts to oversee worker safety.
--Propose a CVC opening date to Congress that allows a reasonable
amount of time between the completion of the base project's
construction and the CVC facility's opening to address any
likely problems that are not provided for in the construction
schedule. The December 15, 2006, opening date that AOC proposed
earlier this month would provide about 90 days between these
milestones if AOC meets its September 15, 2006, target for
substantial completion. However, we continue to believe that
AOC will have difficulty meeting the September 15 target, and
although the 90-day period is a significant step in the right
direction, an even longer period is likely to be needed.
--Give priority attention to effectively implementing our previous
recommendations that AOC (1) analyze and document delays and
the reasons and responsibility for them on an ongoing basis and
analyze the impact of scope changes and delays on the project's
schedule at least monthly and (2) advise Congress of any
additional costs it expects to incur to accelerate work or
perform temporary work to advance the CVC facility's opening so
Congress can weigh the advantages and disadvantages of such
actions. AOC agreed.
Project Costs and Funding Provided as of September 2005
AOC is still updating its estimate of the cost to complete the CVC
project, including the base project and the House and Senate expansion
spaces. As a result, we have not yet had an opportunity to
comprehensively update our November 2004 estimate that the project's
estimated cost at completion will likely be between $515.3 million
without provision for risks and uncertainties and $559 million with
provision for risks and uncertainties. Since November 2004, we have
added about $10.3 million to our $515.3 million estimate to account for
additional CVC design and construction work. (App. IV provides
information on the project's cost estimates since the original 1999
estimate.) However, our current $525.6 million estimate does not
include costs that AOC may incur for delays beyond those delay costs
included in our November 2004 estimate. Estimating the government's
costs for delays that occurred after November 2004 is difficult because
it is unclear who ultimately will bear responsibility for various
delays. Furthermore, AOC's new estimates may cause us to make further
revisions to our cost estimates.
To date, about $528 million has been provided for CVC construction.
(See app. V.) This amount does not include about $7.8 million that was
made available for either CVC construction or operations.\7\ In late
August, we and AOC found that duplicate funding had been provided for
certain CVC construction work. Specifically, about $800,000 was
provided in two separate funding sources for the same work. The House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations were notified of this situation
and AOC's plan to address it. The funding that has been provided and
that is potentially available for CVC construction covers the current
estimated cost of the facility at completion and provides some funds
for risks and uncertainties. However, if AOC encounters significant
additional costs for delays or other changes, more funding may be
needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Public Law 108-447, enacted in December 2004, provided that up
to $10.6 million could be so transferred upon the approval of the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations for the use of the CVC project.
In June 2005, AOC received approval to use about $2.8 million of this
$10.6 million, leaving a balance of about $7.8 million that can be used
in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of the potential for coordination problems with a project
as large and complex as CVC, we had recommended in July that AOC
promptly designate responsibility for integrating the planning and
budgeting for CVC construction and operations. In late August, AOC
designated a CVC staff member to oversee both CVC construction and
operations funding. AOC had also arranged for its operations planning
consultant to develop an operations preparation schedule and for its
CVC project executive and CVC construction management contractor to
prepare an integrated construction and operations schedule. AOC has
received a draft operations schedule and has given it to its
construction management contractor to integrate into the construction
schedule. Pending the hiring of an executive director for CVC, which
AOC would like to occur by the end of January 2006, the Architect of
the Capitol said he expects his Chief Administrative Officer, who is
currently overseeing CVC operations planning, to work closely with the
CVC project executive to integrate CVC construction and operations
preparations.
Work and costs could also be duplicated in areas where the
responsibilities of AOC's contractors overlap. For example, the
contracts or planned modification for both AOC's CVC construction
design contractor and CVC operations contractor include work related to
the gift shop's design and wayfinding signage. We discussed the
potential for duplication with AOC, and it agreed to work with its
operations planning contractor to clarify the contractor's scope of
work, eliminate any duplication, and adjust the operations contract's
funding accordingly.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes our statement. We would be pleased to
answer any questions that you or Members of the Subcommittee may have.
Appendix I.--Risk Assessment Methodology
With the assistance of a contractor, Hulett & Associates, we
assessed the risks associated with the Architect of the Capitol's (AOC)
July 2005 schedule for the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC) project and
used the results of our assessment to estimate a time frame for
completing the base CVC project with and without identified risks and
uncertainties.\8\ In August 2005, we and the contractor interviewed
project managers and team members from AOC and its major CVC
contractors, a representative from the Army Corps of Engineers, and
AOC's Chief Fire Marshal to determine the risks they saw in completing
the remaining work and the time they considered necessary to finish the
CVC project and open it to the public. Using the project's July 2005
summary schedule (the most recent schedule available when we did our
work), we asked the team members to estimate how many workdays would be
needed to complete the remaining work. More specifically, for each
summary-level activity that the members had a role or expertise in, we
asked them to develop three estimates of the activity's duration--the
least, most likely, and longest time needed to complete the activity.
We planned to estimate the base project's most likely completion date
without factoring in risks and uncertainties using the most likely
activity durations estimated by the team members. In addition, using
these three-point estimates and a simulation analysis to calculate
different combinations of the team's estimates that factored in
identified risks and uncertainties, we planned to estimate completion
dates for the base project at various confidence levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ We did not include the schedule for work on the House and
Senate expansion spaces in our assessment because the schedule was not
completed in time for analysis before the Subcommittee's September
hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In August 2005, AOC's construction management and sequence 2
contractors were updating the July project schedule to integrate the
construction schedule for the House and Senate expansion spaces,
reflect recent progress and problems, and incorporate the results to
date of their reassessment of the time needed for testing, balancing,
and commissioning the heating, ventilation and air-conditioning, (HVAC)
system and for fire alarm testing.\9\ This reassessment was being done
partly to implement a recommendation we had made to AOC after assessing
the project's schedule in early 2004 and finding that the scheduled
durations for these and other activities were optimistic. AOC's
construction management and sequence 2 contractors found that key
detailed activities associated with the HVAC system had not been
included in the schedule and that the durations for a number of
activities were not realistic. Taking all of these factors into
account, AOC's contractors revised the project's schedule in August.
AOC believes that the revised schedule, which shows the base project's
completion date slipping by several months, allows too much time for
the identified problems. As a result of this problem and others we
brought to AOC's attention, AOC has asked its contractors to reassess
the schedule. AOC's construction management contractor believes that
such a reassessment could take up to 2 months. In our opinion, there
are too many uncertainties associated with the base project's schedule
to develop reliable estimates of specific completion dates, with or
without provisions for risks and uncertainties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ AOC's sequence 2 contractor was unable to integrate the
detailed schedule for the expansion spaces into the overall project
schedule because of a number of problems, but plans to do so in the
September schedule.
APPENDIX II.--CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER CRITICAL CONSTRUCTION MILESTONES, JULY-SEPTEMBER 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scheduled Actual
Activity Location completion completion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wall Stone Area 8 Layout...................... Great Hall............................ 6/20/05 7/25/05
Wall Stone Area 9 Layout...................... Great Hall............................ 6/24/05 7/28/05
Wall Stone Area 3 \1\......................... Great Hall............................ 7/06/05 7/22/05
Wall Stone Area 2 \1\......................... Great Hall............................ 7/06/05 7/25/05
Drill/Set Soldier Piles Sta. 0:00-1:00........ Utility Tunnel........................ 6/08/05 ...........
Wall Stone Area 9 Pedestals................... Great Hall............................ 7/05/05 ...........
Wall Stone Area 1............................. Cong. Auditorium...................... 8/08/05 ...........
Wall Stone Area 2............................. Cong. Auditorium...................... 8/22/05 ...........
Bridge Over First Street...................... Utility Tunnel........................ 8/02/05 8/12/05
Wall Stone Area 3............................. Cong. Auditorium...................... 9/06/05 ...........
Excavate and Lag Stations 1:00-2:00........... Utility Tunnel........................ 8/02/05 8/24/05
Wall Stone Area 4 \1\......................... Great Hall............................ 7/15/05 8/30/05
Excavate and Shore Sta. 0:00-1:00............. Utility Tunnel........................ 7/21/05 ...........
Concrete Working Slab First Street............ Utility Tunnel........................ 7/26/05 ...........
Waterproof Working Slab Sta. 0:00-1:00........ Utility Tunnel........................ 7/29/05 ...........
Wall Stone Area 9 Base........................ Great Hall............................ 7/15/05 ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These activities are not critical. All other activities were critical in the April schedule or became
critical in subsequent schedules.
Source: AOC's April 2005 CVC sequence 2 construction schedule for the scheduled completion dates and AOC and its
construction management contractor for the actual completion dates.
Note: Actual completion information was obtained on September 8, 2005.
Appendix III.--Issues Affecting the Capacity of the Capitol Power Plant
to Provide for Cooling and Heating the Capitol Visitor Center
Several issues could affect the capacity of the Capitol Power Plant
(CPP) to provide sufficient chilled water and steam for the CVC
facility and other congressional buildings. CPP produces chilled water
for cooling and dehumidification and steam for heating Capitol Hill
buildings.\10\ To accommodate the CVC facility and meet other needs,
CPP has been increasing its production capacity through the West
Refrigeration Plant Expansion Project. This project, which was
scheduled for completion in time to provide chilled water for the CVC
facility during construction and when it opened, has been delayed. In
addition, problems with aging equipment, fire damage, management
weaknesses, and a leadership vacancy could affect CPP's ability to
provide chilled water and steam. More specifically:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The Capitol Power Plant is no longer used to generate electric
power, but it does generate steam and chilled water to serve the
heating and cooling needs of the U.S. Capitol and 23 surrounding
facilities. These facilities include about 16 million square feet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--In July, two chillers in CPP's East Refrigeration Plant were taken
out of service because of a significant refrigerant gas leak.
The refrigerant, whose use is being phased out nationally,
escaped into the surrounding environment. Because of the
chillers' age and use of an outdated refrigerant, AOC has
determined that it would not be cost-effective to repair the
chillers. CPP's chilled water production capacity will be
further reduced between December 1, 2005, and March 15, 2006,
when the West Refrigeration Plant is to be shut down to enable
newly installed equipment to be connected to the existing
chilled water system. However, the remainder of CPP's East
Refrigeration Plant is to remain operational during this time,
and AOC expects that the East Refrigeration Plant will have
sufficient capacity to meet the lower wintertime cooling
demands. Additionally, CPP representatives indicated that they
could bring the West Refrigeration Plant back online to provide
additional cooling capacity in an emergency. CPP is developing
a cost estimate for this option.
--In June, one of two CPP boilers that burn coal to generate steam
was damaged by fire. According to a CPP incident report, CPP
operator errors contributed to the incident and subsequent
damage. Both boilers were taken off-line for scheduled
maintenance between July 1 and September 15, and CPP expects
both boilers to be back online by September 30, thereby
enabling CPP to provide steam to CVC when it is needed.
--Several management issues at CPP could further affect the expansion
plant's and CPP's operational readiness:
--CPP has not yet developed a plan for staffing and operating the
entire plant after the West Refrigeration Plant becomes
operational or contracted for its current staff to receive
adequate training to operate the West Refrigeration Plant's
new, much more modern equipment.
--CPP has not yet received a comprehensive commissioning plan from
its contractor.
--A number of procurement issues associated with the plant
expansion project have arisen. We are reviewing these
issues.
--CPP has been without a director since May 2005, when the former
director resigned. CPP is important to the functioning of
Congress, and strong leadership is needed to oversee the
completion of the expansion project and the integration,
commissioning, and operation of the new equipment, as well as
address the operational and management problems at the plant.
Filling the director position with an experienced manager who
is also an expert in the production of steam and chilled water
is essential. AOC recently initiated the recruitment process.
APPENDIX IV.--COST GROWTH FOR THE CVC PROJECT
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost
Factors increase Subtotal Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project budget, original (1999). 265.0
Factors beyond or largely
beyond AOC's control:
5 additional scope items 29.7
\1\....................
House and Senate 70.0
expansion spaces.......
Air filtration system 33.3
funded by Dep't. of
Defense (DOD)..........
Enhanced fire safety and 13.7
security...............
---------------------------------------
146.7
Bid prices exceeding 46.0
estimates,
preconstruction costs
exceeding budgeted
costs, unforeseen field
conditions, and design
changes................
---------------------------------------
46.0
Other factors (costs 57.6 250.3
associated with delays and
design-to-budget overruns).
---------------------------------------
Project budget after 515.3
increases (as of
November 2004).........
=======================================
GAO-projected costs to complete 7.2 522.5
after proposed scope changes
(as of June 2005, excluding
risks and uncertainties) \2\...
=======================================
Additional cost-to-complete
items (as of August 2005):
Design of the Library of 0.7
Congress tunnel (Funds
from Capitol
Preservation Fund).....
Wayfinding fabrication 1.0
and installation.......
Gift shop design........ 0.1
Gift shop construction 1.3
and fit-out............
---------------------------------------
GAO-projected costs to 3.1 525.6
complete (as of August
2005, excluding risks and
uncertainties) \3\.......
=======================================
Potential additional costs 43.5
associated with risks and
uncertainties (as of
November 2004) \4\.........
Less: Risks and uncertainties (7.2)
GAO believes the project faced
in November 2004 [Congressional
seals, orientation film, and
backpack storage space ($4.2) +
US Capitol Police security
monitoring ($3.0)].............
Less: Additional cost-to- (3.1)
complete items (as of August
2005)..........................
Potential remaining costs 33.2
related to risks and
uncertainties..............
---------------------------------------
GAO estimate of total cost to 558.8
complete.......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The five additional scope items are the House connector tunnel, the
East Front elevator extension, the Library of Congress tunnel,
temporary operations, and enhanced perimeter security.
\2\ The proposed scope changes totaling $7.2 million include $4.2
million for congressional seals, an orientation film, and backpack
storage space and $3 million for U.S. Capitol Police security
monitoring.
\3\ Because of rounding dollars in tenths of millions, this estimate
excludes $2,892.00 for CVC ceremonial groundbreaking activities.
\4\ Risks and uncertainties can include shortages in skilled stone
masons and stone, security and life safety changes, unknown operator
requirements, unforeseen conditions, and contractor coordination
issues.
Sources: AOC and its contractors.
APPENDIX V.--CURRENT FUNDING PROVIDED TO THE CVC PROJECT
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Funding Subtotal Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding as of June 2005:
Base project (as of November 351.1
2004).......................
Expansion spaces:
House.................... 35.0
Senate................... 35.0
--------------------------------------
70.0
Filtration system............ 33.3
U.S. Capitol Police security 3.0
monitoring..................
--------------------------------------
36.3
Transfer of emergency response 26.3
funds...........................
--------------------------------------
Current funding provided (as of 483.7
June 2005) \1\..................
======================================
Funding provided for fiscal year 41.9
2006 \2\ \3\....................
Design of Library of Congress 0.7
tunnel (funds from the
Capitol Preservation Fund)
\2\.........................
Construction-related funding
provided in operations
obligation plan:
Gift shop \2\............ 0.7
Wayfinding \2\ \3\....... 0.3
Commissioning systems \2\ 0.2
\3\.....................
Miscellaneous design and 0.4
construction \2\ \3\....
--------------------------------------
Construction-related funding 1.6
provided in operations......
Other funding provided........... 2.3
Additional funding............... 44.2
--------------------------------------
Current funding provided (as of 527.9
August 2005) \4\................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Because of rounding dollars in tenths of millions, the $483.7
million does not include $2,892 made available by the Capitol
Preservation Commission from the Capitol Preservation Fund in October
2000 for the groundbreaking ceremony.
\2\ Fiscal year 2006 CVC construction funding does not include some
construction-related items funded from other sources. Funds for these
items include $700,000 for the Library of Congress tunnel provided by
the Capitol Preservation Fund and $1.6 million provided in CVC's June
2005 operations obligation plan. The $1.6 million is part of the $10.6
million made available in December 2004 by Public Law 108-447 for both
CVC construction and operations.
\3\ Funds were provided for certain items that duplicated funding
already provided in fiscal year 2006 CVC construction funding. The
$41.9 million represents fiscal year 2006 funding made available for
CVC construction-related activity. Included in this $41.9 million
fiscal year 2006 funding are some construction-related items (i.e.,
$150,000 for wayfinding design, $232,000 for commissioning systems,
and $423,000 for miscellaneous design and construction) totaling
$805,000 for which AOC received the duplicative funding. These items
had also been included in the $2.8 million operations obligation plan
approved in June 2005. AOC has stated that it will not use fiscal year
2006 funding for these items. Thus, $805,000 of the $41.9 million
fiscal year 2006 funding will be available for other uses.
\4\ Two construction-related items have not yet been fully funded. These
are the gift shop construction (approximately $771,000) and wayfinding
fabrication and installation (approximately $800,000).
Sources: Legislation, Conference Reports, and AOC.
Senator Allard. Mr. Dorn.
Mr. Dorn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And before I get into more detailed observations about the
CVC, I'd also like to join Bernie in pointing out that the work
is continuing to move along. There are stonemasons onsite,
electricians are installing conduit. And, because of Bob Hixon
and 10 years of hard work from Alan Hantman, in the end we're
going to have a sausage that we can all be proud of. We're
going to be happy with this building when it's done.
The big question today, though, is: When will the
construction be complete and ready to open to the public?
I was in a meeting recently and heard a contractor very
succinctly describe GAO as just an observer whose job was to be
somewhat pessimistic while his company was the doers, and their
job was to get the project finished, and that's what they were
going to do by September 15.
Well, part of GAO's role certainly is to be an observer,
but what we also do is analyze those observations, based on our
experience, and apply foresight to the situation so that the
doers can make needed adjustments.
So, as predicted by the contractor, here are some somewhat
pessimistic observations on whether or not they're getting it
done.
To bring us up to date from the last hearing, in June the
contractor's schedule said they'd finish on October 15, but AOC
was confident that they would--could make up that month and the
project would finish on September 15. In July, the contractor's
schedule said they'd finish on November 17, but the AOC was
still confident that they could make up 2 months and the
project would finish on time, September 15. Now, on September
15, 2005, 1 year before the scheduled opening, the contractor's
schedule says that they won't finish the CVC until February 26,
2007. And, still, the contractor and AOC say that the project
will be substantially complete by September 15, 2006.
My observations on those facts follow, but first I'd like
to point out that, while, for various reasons, there have been
some delays to the actual work, the vast majority of the
apparent schedule slippage, like Bernie said, this summer, has
been due to work that's always been in the construction
contractor's contract; he just didn't reflect it in the
schedule. This omitted work includes items such as stone
installation, fire-alarm testing, and commissioning--that GAO
observed and pointed out to the CVC team in early 2004.
At the subcommittee's request, AOC and GAO agreed on a
number of critical milestones to be observed in helping to keep
the CVC project on schedule. Mr. Chairman, as you pointed out,
out of 16 milestones reached to date, only 7 have been
completed, and none of those were completed on time.
Back in July, when the contractor was only 60 days behind
schedule, he also had only 480 days to finish. That meant that
for every 8 days he worked, he'd have to make up another day.
Put another way, even working 8 days a week, those herculean
efforts would not be enough, because it doesn't allow time for
weekends, holidays, risk and uncertainties or anything else
that may come up. Since then, the schedule reflects an
additional 3 months of work to get done in that same time
period.
Again back in July the contractor had worked on the CVC for
about 250 days, but his schedule was already reflecting that
same 60-day delay. Or, put another way, 75 percent efficiency
up to date. If you extrapolated forward 2 months to where we
are today, the same efficiency would forecast that the contract
would be 75 days late at this point, while the contractor's
schedule says they're over 150 days late. But, ignoring that,
extrapolating the same 75 percent over the remaining contract
duration would say that they're not going to finish until May
2007.
As part of our schedule risk assessment since the last
hearing, we conducted a number of interviews of individual
members of the CVC project team representing the contractors,
construction-management firm, and AOC employees. In those
interviews, we heard a number of the schedule durations are
still considered by the CVC team members themselves to be
optimistic, something we have been cautioning about for a
number of months. Replacing the optimistic durations in the
schedule with most-likely durations, as reported, again, by the
CVC team members, would extend the completion date by 14 weeks,
which, again, gets you to May 2007.
Unfortunately, because of all the turmoil in the contractor
schedule to date, which, on a positive note, is due to the
concerted efforts of AOC and Gilbane and Manhattan to
resequence activities and rein in the completion date, we can't
accurately forecast a completion date as accurately as we would
like to do. But, as Bernie has pointed out, all the data points
to a completion date in the spring/summer of 2007, unless AOC
is able to meet their goal of resequencing and consolidating
activities.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Allard. Thank you for your testimony.
In June, the Architect of the Capitol committed to
completing a risk-mitigation plan by this hearing. This is
needed to ensure plans are in place to make up for the lost
time, in the event certain risks become realities. As you've
experienced with the utility tunnel, for example, Mr. Hantman
why is the plan not complete?
Mr. Hixon. Well, Mr. Chairman, I can answer that question.
I do have the plan. We have the draft here. A copy of that
plan was forwarded to the Government Accountability Office last
week. We have identified the risk, the project team has, over a
number of sessions. We used the head of Project Management
Institute's SIG for risk assessment, working with McDonough
Bolyard Peck. So, the items have been identified. We'll be
working on developing handling plans on September 20. We have a
meeting set up for that right now. And then we'll begin, in
October, evaluating those things on a weekly basis to make sure
we're staying current with them, identify any issues. As Mr.
Hantman said, we would drop items as they are resolved, and add
new items as they become apparent. So, we do have a plan in
place. It's--this is the draft plan, but it's the beginning of
this process.
Senator Allard. Why was the contract not awarded until
August 11, when this issue's been raised by GAO for some time?
Mr. Hixon. It's not my recollection that we waited until
August 11. We may have actually awarded it--I think we may have
started the work then. The impression I have is that we awarded
that work back in July.
Senator Allard. In July? Okay.
Mr. Hixon. I--you know, I could verify that.
Senator Allard. Would you verify that----
Mr. Hixon. Sure.
Senator Allard [continuing]. For the subcommittee?
Appreciate that. And then, if you would get something after the
hearing to us, within a week's time, we would appreciate that.
Make sure we have that straight on the record.
[The information follows:]
Verification of CVC Risk Assessment Award Date
The contract modification for the CVC risk assessment was
awarded on July 11, 2005.
Senator Allard. We heard from GAO in 2004 about areas of
potential risk, and Mr. Dorn testified somebody had said,
``Well, our job is constructing and building, yours is to be
pessimistic.'' And I do think that sometimes AOC's attitude was
that GAO was just a minor irritant out there, and you have to
deal with them. But the significant thing is that we've got a
number of concerns that they raised at that particular time
that are happening today. And my question is: Why weren't those
treated more seriously by the contractor? And why wasn't
something being done to treat the GAO recommendations more
seriously? Because time and time again GAO has been showing up
before our subcommittee making these assessments, indicating
there's potentially problems. Everybody tends to ignore it. And
then we get around to that time, sure enough, we've got a
problem in front of us of dealing with those. And I've got some
13 examples here before me.
And, Mr. Hantman, while you continue to believe the
September 2006 construction deadline can be met, you have moved
the opening to December 2006 to allow for commissioning of
systems and other requirements to have completed. And aren't
the reasons your schedule slipped the same ones identified by
GAO in 2004?
Mr. Hantman. Mr. Chairman, in my opening statement I
certainly addressed the fact that there are several key areas
which have been plaguing us from the beginning of the project,
pretty much--the stone issue, as we came about with the East
Capitol Street issue--and the idea of getting enough detailed
information together so that the commissioning plan could be
fully integrated into the schedule. In fact, there was a
meeting, just earlier this week, with our contractors and their
subcontractors, with Gilbane sitting in on it, taking a look at
one of those key issues: commissioning, also East Capitol
Street. And while GAO rightly says that the current schedule we
have out there has added additional time to it, that's
basically because the commissioning schedule didn't have an
opportunity to be integrated. It was not at the level of detail
that it is right now. Everybody I've talked to who basically
worked through that meeting, an--almost an all-day session,
said that our next schedule should reflect a couple of months
coming off because of the way that things could be worked out.
CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER OPENING SCHEDULE
Now, Mr. Ungar clearly indicated that he recognizes that
some things can be done in parallel and that, in fact, we are
working to do that and make sure that we integrate them clearly
with the fire marshal and anticipate them in advance of things
happening.
We've had an evolution, Mr. Chairman, in terms of our
staff, both on the Gilbane side, as well as our construction
management side. Because of some of the turmoil on the staff,
we haven't had the strength up there to be able to address some
of the issues that we've all been aware of, going back. We have
that staff in place now, and we feel very secure about the
schedule, the level of detail we're looking at, on the
schedule. And, hopefully, that will be a tool for us to
continue addressing those issues while still maintaining the
quality and the progress and the life-safety issues on the
project, going forward.
Senator Allard. And why did it take Gilbane and yourself so
long to reevaluate these issues?
Mr. Hixon. I'm not sure I understand what you're----
Senator Allard. Well, it seems----
Mr. Hixon [continuing]. Referring to.
Senator Allard [continuing]. Like these issues have been--
they were mentioned in 2004, and now we're back dealing with
these issues now, even though they were brought to our
attention way back in 2004. Why is it that we're just
addressing them now?
Mr. Hixon. Well, first let me say that we're working very
closely with GAO. They have made recommendations, they have
made a lot of very good recommendations that we have moved out
on. We have had schedule evaluation issues in the past. When we
brought in a new scheduler, Mr. Dooley, from Gilbane, we've had
a dramatic increase in the quality of the schedule management
being done by Gilbane. It's being done in an excellent manner
right now. And, frankly, that's the reason a lot of these
issues have come to bear. They are now readily apparent, when,
before, they were buried within the schedule. So, I don't
believe that we've over-ignored them, but I think a lot of
issues that have come--that we're dealing with, particularly
the commissioning activities--so many of those activities were
a year out from the project. This is the point in time when you
would be identifying all those items to make sure you've got it
well planned. The activities, when they were added to the
schedule in this last month, added 11 weeks to the schedule. We
knew that was an unreasonable amount of time, but it also had a
great deal of detail, in coordination with the subcontractors,
on how these activities need to be performed. So that, now, is
being reevaluated to see what the real duration should be, when
it should start, based on the completion of the air-handling
units and the provision of chilled water and steam from the
utility tunnel.
So, I think it's a very good process that's underway to get
us to a real date.
Senator Allard. Seems to me that the later on you wait to
address these issues, the less time you have for correction on
the back end. And the sooner you can get to them, the more time
you have to make those corrections.
Mr. Hixon. That's absolutely true, sir.
Senator Allard. I'm perplexed and somewhat frustrated that
we don't deal with these earlier, because it would give us more
flexibility, and I think it would lend more confidence to the
subcommittee, and probably GAO, too, if we saw those happening
a little bit earlier. Once they get pointed out, that something
begins to happen with those issues that get brought up early
that are potentially a problem.
Mr. Hixon. That's true. And the schedule activities, as of
April, when we--we began with the new scheduling process in
January. And between January and April of this year is when we
really brought--got the quality of scheduling to a point where
we were able to identify all these things. And we had real
solid schedule activities to deal with. This process has
evolved very well since then. But, I agree, it's, ideally,
something that would have happened much earlier.
Senator Allard. GAO is projecting a completion date of as
late as summer of 2007--about 6 to 9 months later than AOC's
projection. How do you account for that?
Mr. Hixon. I believe that the schedule data that the GAO
consultant was working off of added the 11 weeks to our data.
And they've done it--they've done their analysis several other
ways, and I--I'm not about to take the consultant on, and his
capabilities. But when we look at the activities ourselves in
the schedule, and what the plan is, we--it doesn't seem at all
reasonable to project that things will go out until 2007, based
on the amount of work we have available to complete
construction. The concern we have, primarily, is the amount of
time it'll take in commissioning, especially the life-safety
systems, to make sure those activities are all done. The base
construction, itself, when you--while we've missed milestones,
we have not missed them by that much. We've missed them by
weeks and maybe 1 month or 1\1/2\ months when you look through
the whole schedule. That would not account for that kind of a
deviation in the end date.
So, we just disagree that it's going to be as dire as GAO
projects. We think that the scheduling activities--and the
construction contractor certainly does--thinks that, at this
point, we would be on or about September for the completion of
the construction.
Now, this is clearly a stretch goal. This is not something
easy to achieve. I don't think the original contract duration
of 22 months was an easy duration. And, while everybody can
commit, the real question is: How realistic are those
opportunities to deliver on time? And that's something we
continue to refine.
The contract completion date remains September 15, as of
this date. We have not been asked by the contractor to provide
a time extension, to date; so, contractually, they still have
the obligation to deliver by September 15. There are some
issues associated with the utility tunnel that have impacted
them. They are looking to overcome that. They would have
otherwise had a 16-week delay in the utility tunnel. We've got
a 4-week delay right now in the utility tunnel. So, their
activities, in order to try and resolve issues, have improved
the utility tunnel completion by what it would have been
otherwise.
So, I think we will know--we will have a lot more
information next month, because we will have digested a lot of
this schedule activity. And--but, at this point, we're still
anticipating a fall completion of construction.
Senator Allard. Okay, so the contractor hasn't asked for an
extension beyond September 15. And his contract says it will be
completed by September 15 of next year, 1 year from now. If
they don't meet those contract requirements, then what happens?
Mr. Hixon. If, in fact, they do not complete the
construction by the completion date in their contract, they're
liable for liquidated damages. If, on the other hand, we have--
they have differing site conditions, they're entitled to a time
extension. If there are concurrent delays, which means both of
us are delaying, we have delays or the differing site
conditions, which are excusable, and the contractor also has
delays on his end, then the--on his side--then you'd have time,
but not compensation.
Senator Allard. Do you see any potential delays that would
be attributed to those exceptions in the contract on completing
that date? Do you understand what I'm saying?
Mr. Hixon. Yes. I--the opportunity exists, with the delays
that have occurred in the utility tunnel for differing site
conditions, that the contractor has entitlement on those
issues. If--but the evaluation of that is, you can also--shall
I wait? The issue is that once you get into that evaluation, we
will be looking at anything that occurred contractually that we
had an obligation on, versus anything that they had an
obligation on. And that will be sorted out in time. But, at
this point, we're working very collaboratively together, and
the focus is not on trying to sort out contractually who gets
to do what to whom, but, rather, to see if we can't
successfully deliver the project on time. But I'm----
Senator Allard. I guess the key point to this is that
Manhattan feels they can get things done by September 15, and
they don't see any reason, at this point in time--at least they
haven't approached us for any reason----
Mr. Hixon. That's correct.
Senator Allard [continuing]. Why that date wouldn't be met.
Mr. Hixon. And they reiterated that as recently as 1 week
ago. Now, that doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of
challenges for us to face between now and then, but, at this
point in time, it does not seem impossible to achieve, and it's
certainly the commitment of the team to try and meet that date.
The team will be meeting in a partnering session tomorrow--this
is with all our subcontractors--to make sure we've got
everybody in line, focused on this goal. If there is something
that comes up that renders this an impossible date, then we
will want to include that. And that's part of our scheduling
effort, to try and be realistic on what we're going to deliver.
Senator Allard. GAO is testifying that the contractor would
have to come up with 1 recovery day for every 8 remaining days
between July 2005 and September 2006. And that's assuming
there's no further delays. It's hard to imagine that that would
happen. And that's to complete the project by 2006. Is that
completion date really realistic?
Mr. Hixon. Well, I believe that's the reason we have
changed our target for doing a public opening. We have looked
at what's going on, the risks that have been presented to us,
the impacts that we have incurred, and we said it would be
imprudent to expect that all of these things have not had some
impact on the process that would preclude us being able to have
the grand opening in September. So, you know, the date of the
grand opening will be whenever it is, whenever it's selected.
But there are activities that have been taking place that could
impact our ability to deliver the completed facility on
September 15.
FIRE SYSTEMS COMMISSIONING
Senator Allard. Okay. I'd like to move on to the
commissioning of our fire-safety systems. In our June hearing,
Mr. Ungar voiced concern that the time allotted for
commissioning of the fire alarm and smoke evacuation systems
was optimistic and should be reassessed.
And, Mr. Ungar, has this reassessment been completed? And
are you now satisfied that the time required for commissioning
of these systems is appropriately reflected in the schedule?
Mr. Ungar. Mr. Chairman, first, the assessment has been
taking place. That's one of the reasons why so much time has
been added to the schedule. We and AOC, concurrently, found
since your last hearing, that the time for the fire protection
system work was understated in the schedule. Now the question
is: Exactly how much will be required? I don't think we'll know
that until AOC finishes this current evaluation, because that's
one of the items that's included in its study----
Senator Allard. Yes.
Mr. Ungar. So, exactly how much time will eventually be
required, we don't know. We feel very strongly it's going to be
very likely to be more than the July schedule shows. Now,
exactly how much more remains to be seen, but at least 3 to 4
weeks, probably more, depending on what they can do
sequentially versus concurrently.
Senator Allard. So, we do not have a clear understanding of
the fire- and life-safety requirements, basically because there
is some disagreement between you and the Architect of the
Capitol about what can be done sequentially and what can be
done concurrently. Is that correct?
Mr. Ungar. Right, sir. There are two different issues.
One is: What are the requirements for the system--what
components, what elements, what characteristics, what's the
design of the system? That issue, we understand. The team has
come up with a design that they believe is acceptable. I don't
believe the fire marshal has had an opportunity yet, though, to
thoroughly review that. So, that's a bit of a question. But I
think, at least now that a team is together--whereas, last time
we met, the team was disagreeing among itself--so, that's an
accomplishment. How much time it will take for the system
testing of the fire protection system and the inspection
process is what's up in the air right now. It definitely does
seem like it's going to take more time than is allowed in the
current schedule. The question is: How much is it going to
eventually take? And that, we need to resolve in the next 4 to
6 weeks.
Senator Allard. Mr. Hantman, what comments do you have
about finalizing the fire- and life-safety requirements?
Mr. Hantman. This goes, Mr. Chairman, to the comment I made
earlier, when I mentioned, just on Tuesday, we had Manhattan
meeting with their subcontractors, the electrical and the
mechanical subcontractors. We also had Gilbane in that meeting,
as well. Everybody I've talked to who attended that detailed
meeting, basically for the day on Tuesday, indicated that the
people who are actually going to be doing the work, the
mechanical and electrical subcontractors, are feeling very
positive about their schedules on this, that they can make it
within the contract date.
The issue is that Manhattan needs to put all of this
information and the creative thinking--and, quite frankly, as
GAO has indicated, there are many different ways to achieve an
end product over here. They're talking about, creatively, what
can be done in parallel, as opposed to in sequence, which is
what this latest schedule indicates, that 11 weeks added was
purely sequential, without putting it all together. So, this
major step of having the installers, the vendors who are
basically contractually responsible for these systems, come up
with their ideas of how they propose to install it, have
Manhattan put that in a schedule and sit for significant work
sessions with the fire marshal to see if the fire marshal has
any problem with that; and when and if that inspection can be
done in an orderly path.
The concept that we have, basically, is that you really
have a 3-month inspection period for all of these life-safety
systems. And the contractors surely want to do them in
parallel. And the fire marshal has indicated that doing things
in parallel also is something that they would be comfortable
with. The question is what the contractors are now thinking of,
in terms of normal practice, would be acceptable to the fire
marshal.
So, our first major step has been taken in bringing this to
the point where we can sit down with the fire marshal and say,
``This is what the vendors, the contractors, in fact,
specifically intend to do. Let's talk about your issues and see
if we can resolve this way in advance of starting that activity
next summer,'' so that when we get to that point in time,
everything's smooth and nobody has surprises coming forward.
Senator Allard. And when we are dealing with all this
creative thinking that you mentioned, what is the price tag
that's coming along with that creative thinking? Do we have any
idea what the total price tag associated with the new
requirements might be?
Mr. Hantman. I don't know, Mr. Chairman, if I'd
characterize them as new requirements. It's a question of a
different way of achieving the same end.
Senator Allard. I see.
Mr. Hantman. And the creativity that we're looking for, in
terms of our contractors, is--means and methods of getting the
job done--is basically the responsibility of the individual
contractors. They need to get from point A to point C. How they
get there, basically, is their decision. We just have to make
sure that the pathway is in sync with good practices and that
our fire marshals agree with. And I've not heard anything, at
this point, implying that there are any additional dollars
involved in that.
Senator Allard. I gather from your response that there
really hasn't been any discussion about cost at this particular
point.
Mr. Ungar.
Mr. Hantman. Mr. Chairman, I would respond to the----
Mr. Ungar. Mr. Chairman, I think there's a separate issue
on the cost question, and it has to do with what the current
system would look like, versus what the fire protection system
was when they originally awarded sequence 2. And there, there
is a significant additional cost. Based on what we've seen
right now, it looks like the additional cost for the fire
protection system, because of changes that have been made over
the last many months, is well over $3 million, at least the way
we interpret the information.
Senator Allard. Wow.
Mr. Ungar. Maybe Mr. Hixon would have a more elaborate
discussion of that.
Senator Allard. You wanted to respond to that, Mr. Hantman?
Mr. Hantman. One of the issues we're looking at over here--
and I certainly don't dispute, necessarily, what GAO is
saying--but one of the issues that we are dealing with over
here is taking a base building system, a series of systems, and
trying to work them out with a very complex security system,
something which is state of the art. We're basically a beta
test site for some of the things in security, for chem/bio
concerns, that have never been done before. So, some of the
changes that GAO is referring to is, basically, as we evolve
and that people understand what the requirements are, we're
trying to deal with those issues and make sure that we don't
compromise either of those, the security or the life-safety
issues.
Bob, did you have anything to add to that?
Mr. Hixon. I believe the only thing we need to add is that
the fire marshal is working very closely with us in
coordinating all these activities.
We have given them copies of the planned schedule, the
original schedule before we started revising it. We're seeking
their input on the new schedule. So, there's a--we've got the
fire marshal much more involved with the team now than they
were previously in order to ensure that we've got all their
requirements accurately folded into the schedule activities
that need to take place.
We do have revisions to the control system for the building
that also affects the fire-alarm system, and those are the
numbers that Mr. Ungar is talking about. But we have that data.
The contractor's been authorized to proceed with it. So, it's
now a matter of just making sure we get the programming and the
requirements for all of these very complicated systems that
must interact together if there is an event that requires use
of those systems.
Senator Allard. And is that within the budget that we've
originally laid out for it?
Mr. Hixon. Certainly, I've already authorized the funding
for these activities, or at least the part--the amounts that we
think are reasonable. Yes, it's within the budget. It does
create added impact to the budget for us.
Senator Allard. And you think it might be $3 million? Would
you agree with what he's suggesting?
Mr. Hixon. It--there are a number of changes that have
taken place, and--incorporating all of these things. If you
look at the estimated prices, those numbers are in that
vicinity. We are expecting--we still have to reconcile some
issues with the control system. There's a big swing difference
between what the designer feels that the control system should
cost and what the contractor tells him it costs. We're trying
to reconcile that and make sure we're all talking the same
thing. We're--that we don't have a scope difference of opinion.
INTERIOR STONE CONSTRUCTION
Senator Allard. I'll go to the stonemasons. I think we've
recognized that, for some time, there might be a problem with
an inadequate number of stonemasons. Then we had an inadequate
supply of stone. Now we have the stone coming in, but we're
back to the shortage of stonemasons again. Currently, we have
about 16 stonemasons, while 24 are needed to keep pace. Would
you agree with that?
Mr. Hixon. No, Mr. Chairman, we've--currently are carrying
20 stonemasons but not all of them are here every day, so we've
been averaging about 18 actually present on the site. This is
up from about eight in the first part of August, so we've had a
dramatic improvement, thankfully. GAO did predict, last year,
that we would have a stonemason problem. When we started the
stone installation, we had a lot of masons, and we didn't have
enough stone. Now we've got a lot of stone delivered and we're
ramping up the number of masons. They're looking to get up to a
number of approximately 28 teams. They are hiring them as they
find them. And we are expecting the situation will improve as
the weather gets cooler.
Senator Allard. So, your view is that the contractor is
doing everything they can to bring in the critical workers that
we need.
Mr. Hixon. They are pushing very hard to get more masons
on. And the quantity of stone--we have no change in the
quality, that's--you know, we're--that's our first priority, is
to make sure it's done right--but the quantity of stone, with
these additional teams, has improved dramatically in the last
2\1/2\ weeks. And you can see that--the Orientation Theater
work has actually all been done since the middle of August.
Senator Allard. Mr. Hantman, you say in your testimony that
the contractor is considering alternatives in stone fabrication
and installation to further mitigate delays. What are those
alternatives? And will they affect quality or the life-cycle
cost?
Mr. Hantman. Well, with the injunction still in place,
perhaps it's safer, Mr. Chairman, for the contractor to speak,
himself, as to what he can actually say. So, if I could, Mr.
John Barron, who is the president of the eastern region for
Manhattan, can talk about what they are attempting to do on the
stone.
Senator Allard. Well, maybe what we can do is have a
response to that question in the next month, when we get
together, and let's have that clearly laid out for us, if we
can, in the next month. We'll bring it back up.
Mr. Hantman. We have been driving them, essentially, to
finalize those additional preparations that they are
considering right now.
Senator Allard. Okay. And, again, the bottom part of that
is your alternatives and then how they may affect quality or
life-cycle costs.
[The information follows:]
During the September 15, 2005 hearing with the Legislative
Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations, Senator Allard
requested a written statement regarding the effect of an
injunction imposed upon Manhattan Construction Company
(``Manhattan''), the contractor, relative to stone supply for
the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC) project and actions being
taken by Manhattan to ensure timely stone deliveries to the
project in light of the injunction.
This statement can only provide brief explanation and basic
understanding of the injunction, the effects it is having on
our subcontractor's and our ability to perform and our actions
to complete the construction as required by the project
schedule. In order to understand, one must review the
allegations (yet unproven) that gave rise to the injunction.
The injunction has been imposed on Manhattan, and its
subcontractor, Boatman & Magnani, Inc. by the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, requiring that
Quarra Stone Company be used as the fabricator to supply the
sandstone to be used on the CVC Sequence 2 project. This
injunction stems from a lawsuit by Quarra Stone Company against
Annandale Sandstone Quarries, Boatman & Magnani, Inc. and
Manhattan regarding an alleged breach of an alleged exclusivity
agreement between Quarra Stone Company and Annandale Stone
Quarries. We begin by looking at the responsibilities of the
parties involved.
Boatman & Magnani, Inc. (``Boatman'') is the interior stone
installer with responsibility for ordering, engineering,
receiving and installing the interior stonework for the
project. It should be noted that sandstone is only one of the
stone types to be installed by Boatman for the project but
represents the primary stone material used on interior wall
surfaces. To perform the installation of the stone, Boatman is
required to provide the necessary manpower, in form of skilled
stonemasons, to ensure the stone is installed in accordance
with the performance period allocated for stonework by the
project schedule. They are a first tier subcontractor to
Manhattan.
Annandale Sandstone Quarries (``Annandale'') is the
sandstone quarry with responsibility to provide sufficient raw
material from the quarry, in the form of stone slabs to the
fabricator, to allow for the timely fabrication and delivery of
sandstone for the project. Annandale is a direct vendor to
Boatman. It should be noted that normal industry practice is
for the quarry to be a direct vendor to the fabricator, versus
a vendor to the stone installer, to allow for effective
control, by primacy of contract, of the fabricator over the
quarry. This unusual contractual relationship stems from the
central issue of the lawsuit and resultant injunction.
The current levels of fabrication find us behind by nine
truck loads of material and losing ground at the approximate
rate of three quarters of a truck load a week. This analysis is
based on Quarra's court certified fabrication schedule
commitments of three months ago. We have asked the vendors,
through Boatman, that the time lost on deliveries be recovered.
This urging has lead to a recent commitment from Quarra,
details unknown, to provide an additional resource to assist
them in fabrication. We are unable to determine if this action
will satisfy Boatman's needs for deliveries. We should see the
results of this action in the coming weeks. We continue to
understand the status of fabrication through daily
communication with all parties involved with fabrication and
continue to push the effort through our subcontractor. In
addition, we have required Boatman to provide a plan to
overcome the late deliveries with a shorter installation
period. This program will have a cost impact but we expect it
will overcome some of the impact of the late deliveries.
At Manhattan's request, Boatman has notified its vendors
several times and the court at least twice of these problems.
The Court does not appear to be convinced that the delay and
the timing problems are significant. Despite Manhattan's and
AOC's efforts, the Court seems convinced that the schedule for
completion is illusory and insignificant, and more important is
protecting Quarra's alleged exclusivity agreement wherein
Quarra alleges it is the only fabricator allowed to touch any
Annandale stone. In each instance of discussion with the Court,
we have been directed to resolve the issues among the parties.
We continue to attempt to obtain the relief we need through the
Court.
Manhattan entered into this contract intent on providing
the United States government and United States taxpayer with
the best value, and an on time, on budget delivery. Manhattan's
record of work speaks for itself, as does the AOC's track
record on projects of this type. However, in none of those
projects has the federal court system, on behalf of a third or
fourth tier subcontractors, involved itself in the construction
process. Presently, the hands of the people who could mitigate
this delay with decisive action (action that is typical of any
other construction project either public or private) are tied.
Mr. Hantman. Well, certainly, in terms of quality, as Bob
indicated, that nothing that we're doing is decreasing quality
on anything. We're trying to make sure that, again, this is a
building built for the ages and we're doing it the right way,
in terms of those costs, yes.
CAPITOL POWER PLANT
Senator Allard. Let me go to the Capitol Power Plant. As
mentioned in my opening testimony, we've become aware of
problems at the Capitol Power Plant, where a major expansion
project is underway. And I understand that the director of the
plant resigned in April, yet no solicitation has gone out, as
of last week, to hire a new director. I'm getting reports of
problems at the power plant, as leading to some serious
problems there. And it seems to me like nobody's in charge. And
I'm wondering why there hasn't been a request to have somebody
in charge there.
Mr. Hantman. Mr. Chairman, we are actively soliciting now
for a replacement for our director, who left. The issue of not
having started earlier, perhaps that is my fault. The issue
there was, I was looking at a project that was going well,
that, in fact, was approaching completion fairly soon, and--did
we need a person in that staff level for that point in time? I
put in my Assistant Architect to take a look at that, and now I
have the head of our engineering department, Scott Birkhead,
coming in. And until we can find that individual, a new person,
for that position, we have Mr. Birkhead, who had responsibility
for the plant before, working directly with the team that's in
place.
So--and while there were several issues that have occurred,
one of the reasons, in fact, for our building the power plant
in the first place, or doing the expansion for the
refrigeration, was because the equipment in the east plant was
old. We had R-12 refrigerant, all of those issues. So, in past
weeks, some of that refrigerant has leaked out, and the seals
were no good, so those two units will not be put back into
service. We do have two temporary units in place in the east
refrigeration plant. I spoke, in fact, to Scott this morning,
and we can give you a background, in terms of the capacity that
we have in place currently, and what's being put into place,
and the timeframes, in terms of our expected load requirements
as it impacts the CVC, and, in fact, the Hill, as a totality,
and give you a sense of where we are on that.
Senator Allard. So, when do you think the Capitol Visitor
Center is going to need the steam and chilled water from the
power plant? And when that comes online, are you confident that
the power plant will be able to provide the needed heat or
cooling at that particular point in time?
Mr. Hantman. Our current schedule, Mr. Chairman, calls for
March 2006 being the timeframe in which we would want to hook
in the work that we're doing in East Capitol Street to the
chilled water piping. The steam is not an issue. We have that
capacity, we've had that capacity for a long time. The issue
was the adequacy of the chilled water, which is why we're doing
the refrigeration equipment now on East. That--the schedule on
the power plant, right now, calls for those pieces of equipment
to be ready to be manually operated, come December of this
year, and that, by March, also of 2006, the control should be
up and running, as well. So, if we needed to produce the kind
of chilled water capacity that we need, even if we had a 75
degree day in January, we should be able to do that. And we can
give you some backup information on that, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Allard. So, you're confident that we don't have a
problem there, where our requirements at the Capitol Visitor
Center can't be met because of problems at the power plant.
Mr. Hantman. Everything I've heard to date, Mr. Chairman,
indicates that we should be able to have that capacity
available when it's necessary.
Senator Allard. Okay. Let me ask you this, Mr. Ungar. If
another one of the 50-year-old chiller fails prior to
completion of the expansion project, what are the implications
of such a failure, and how likely is that to happen?
Mr. Ungar. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Dorn would like to answer that
question.
Senator Allard. Okay. Mr. Dorn.
Mr. Dorn. Our analysis out there at the Capitol Power Plant
would show, at this point, that if something happened today,
there would still be sufficient chilled water for the buildings
that are online today. The biggest risk would be when they make
the transition to put the new west plant online. At that point,
they would take the existing west plant offline so they could
drain the pipes and then attach the new pipes, and you'd be in
danger, if you had to try to start up one of the new chillers
sooner than you want to, and you'd have to get York, the
manufacturer of the chillers, in there to help you.
Now, I understand that AOC is working with York now and
setting up those contingency plans so that if it happens, they
can respond to it. There would probably be some cost associated
with it, but it's doable.
On the completion date, my understanding is, first, that I
think Bob would prefer to have chilled water in January/
February 2006, and not March. So, if we don't get chilled water
down there--because of the utility tunnel, not because of the
Capitol Power Plant--until March, it may affect his ability to
hit September or December, because it affects dehumidification,
like we talked about last month.
Also, you were talking about the commissioning and
schedules. What you heard a few minutes ago was that the
commissioning still hasn't been fully integrated into the
schedule. And you've heard us harping, several months now,
about a fully integrated schedule.
Senator Allard. Yes.
Mr. Dorn. That's one of the risks there.
INTEGRATED SCHEDULE
The other two things that AOC has been working on
developing since our last hearing, but that are still not
integrated into this master schedule, would be the House and
Senate shell space and operations. They do have good
independent schedules now, but they haven't been integrated,
and that integration could further affect the master schedule.
Senator Allard. What about his comments on integrating
those schedules?
Mr. Hixon.
Mr. Hixon. Mr. Chairman, the schedule for the House and
Senate space was going to be integrated into the August
schedule. There are about 1,000 activities. But, as they tried
to integrate it, it was not working well, so they generated the
August schedule without the expansion space. They are, over the
next couple of weeks, integrating that in, so, when we run the
schedule at the end of September, we should have all that
included.
In addition to that, we're integrating the operations
schedule activities. There are about 450 items there, so all of
those are being included. So, we should have all of those parts
included in the schedule here in the next--next time we run it.
Senator Allard. All right. I want to talk a little bit
about the upcoming milestones. What major milestones are we
going to have when we come up to our next hearing, on October
18? The integrated schedule would be one.
Mr. Hixon. The--other than those activities that we're
currently reflecting on the schedules, we've got the wall stone
for the upper level assembly rooms 1 and 2, and we're also
looking at roof for the area in the utility tunnel. What's--
other than those activities as things we can point out, what's
of particular interest to us is being able to get the
mechanical piping started in the utility tunnel. They're
looking at alternatives to that, to manufacture the pipe in
longer lengths than they were originally planning to, which
would leave the roof open a little longer in the utility
tunnel, but that would expedite the installation by reducing
the number of field welds, which would permit installation to
be started earlier. So, we're looking to do some rework of the
scheduled activities for the mechanical portion of the utility
tunnel to see if we can use that to improve the overall
schedule for that particular activity.
Senator Allard. Okay.
Then, you expect to have these complete by the time----
Mr. Hixon. Well, the----
Senator Allard [continuing]. Our next meeting happens, on
October 18?
Mr. Hixon. We won't have those--either of those completed.
We were just going to add those to the list of items that we're
currently tracking. So, most of the list that we had,
currently, that GAO is reporting on, as well, we've got a
number of activities that are not finished. They're started,
but they're not finished yet. And a couple that have not
started. Primarily, those activities all relate to the
completion of the installation of stone in the Orientation
Theater and the installation of stone in the Auditorium. The
Auditorium stone was delayed because of some elevation issues,
where we were off by five-eighths to an inch, and those have
been chipped out, and the installation can now commence. But
we've lost some time in commencing that work.
So, those are some of the activities that we had tracked
earlier as starting and finishing that we'd be reporting on
their completion.
Senator Allard. Okay.
We have gotten through this hearing without having to be
interrupted by a vote. I'm pleased about that. Do any of you
have any other comments before we wrap up the hearing?
Yes, Mr. Ungar?
Mr. Ungar. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think it's very important
for AOC and the CVC team to take a real hard, rigorous look at
the entire schedule before your next hearing, or around that
time, to not only look at the areas that were added by the HVAC
system and the fire protection system, but the other
activities, as well--as I mentioned, the stone and the
finishing--to make sure that you have a good, solid, realistic
schedule, that's complete, that we can all look at and rely on
now for the rest of the project, subject to natural changes
that would take place.
Senator Allard. I think that's a wonderful suggestion. Do
we have any concerns, Mr. Hixon, on that suggestion?
Mr. Hixon. No, sir. We're certainly doing that right now.
The focus has been on these commissioning activities that we've
folded in, frankly, surprised us with the impact that they had.
But, no, we'll--we will work through those and look at the
balance of the schedule. I'll ask McDonough Bolyard Peck to
look at that, as well, so that----
NOVEMBER HEARING PREPARATION
Senator Allard. That's a question you might expect at the
next hearing: What's going to be happening in our November
meeting? If you'd keep that in mind while you're thinking in
those terms, and be prepared for that answer when it comes up
in the next meeting.
Mr. Hixon. Yes, sir.
Senator Allard. Yes, Mr. Hantman?
CONSTRUCTION QUALITY
Mr. Hantman. One more thing, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
thank GAO, and specifically the comment that Terry Dorn made
earlier, that we all recognize this is an important and a
historic project, and it's a fine project, something, I think,
that the Congress and the American people are going to be proud
of when we get it finished. The issue of the scheduling and
meeting those bumps in the road, and working together to make
sure that we get over those bumps in a good way, is important,
and I think that's largely what we're talking about. And if you
do have the time, I would welcome, again, your inspection tour
of the visitor center. Look at the quality of work we're
building here. This is going to be something that's going to
last for many generations.
Senator Allard. I've been assured by your testimony here
that the quality of the work's going to remain there. I remain
concerned that things get put off, when, if we'd been dealing
with them earlier, perhaps we wouldn't have as many problems.
So, I just hope that we do everything we can to try and get a
jump on it. I understand your testimony, where you think that
things can be done concurrently. Perhaps those have not been
taken into account. I hope you're right. We're looking forward
to seeing how this comes out. So far, what GAO has suggested to
this subcommittee, has developed. So we get concerned at this
point in time, about assurances that things are going to
happen. And when there's been a difference between the
Architect of the Capitol and the GAO, GAO's concerns have come
to fruition. So, I do hope that we can get some realistic
expectations here as we move toward closure on September 15.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
I appreciate your taking the time with this subcommittee to
testify, both of you. I think that this is a very important
project, and I think it's important that we do everything we
possibly can to get it done on time, and avoid cost overruns.
Thank you very much for your participation in this hearing.
[Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., Thursday, September 15, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
PROGRESS OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER
----------
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch,
Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:28 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Wayne Allard (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senator Allard.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD
Senator Allard. The subcommittee will come to order.
We meet today for our fifth hearing this year on the
progress of the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC). We welcome once
again Architect of the Capitol Alan Hantman, CVC Project
Director Bob Hixon, and GAO's representatives, Bernard Ungar
and Terrell Dorn.
Since our last hearing, progress has been made in some
areas, such as completing an integrated schedule, but work
continues to fall behind in such activities as the utility
tunnel and stone installation. Only 3 of the 11 milestones have
been completed in the last month and none were on time.
In our September hearing, GAO made a number of
recommendations, including the need for the Architect to
undertake a rigorous evaluation of the schedule, the need for
the Architect of the Capitol, along with its project manager
Gilbane, to determine the causes of delays and take appropriate
action, and the need for AOC to notify Congress of scope
changes or plans to accelerate work. We look forward to hearing
about how the Architect of the Capitol is meeting these
recommendations.
While we had anticipated having a discussion on the updated
estimate of the cost to complete the Capitol Visitor Center
project, we understand that GAO has not been able to undertake
their review because the schedule is still in flux.
Let me mention that we have tentatively set the next
hearing date for November 15 and we will be working with
Senator Durbin to finalize this shortly.
Now I would like to turn to you, Mr. Hantman, for your
testimony, to be followed by GAO's testimony.
STATEMENT OF ALAN M. HANTMAN, FAIA, ARCHITECT OF THE
CAPITOL
ACCOMPANIED BY BOB HIXON, PROJECT DIRECTOR, CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER,
ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
Mr. Hantman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning. I
welcome this opportunity to update you on the status of the
Capitol Visitor Center project, the key issues that were
discussed in our last hearing, and the comments that you
addressed in your opening statement as well. In line with those
comments, there is clearly a concern regarding the time gap
between our projection of having the CVC operational next
December and GAO's expectation of an opening in mid-2007.
While we continue to acknowledge and work to resolve the
challenges and potential risks that are still ahead, 2 weeks
ago our general contractor, Manhattan, submitted a revised
schedule in line with our past discussions, and this schedule
now incorporates, as you indicated, the expansion spaces for
the House and the Senate. It incorporates the operations
spaces.
Now, what this does is it takes us from about 4,500 issues
that need to be correlated on the schedule to well over 6,500
activities. But it is important to note, Mr. Chairman, that
Manhattan, in developing this new schedule, has incorporated
the input from all of their subcontractors. So this is not a
pie in the sky thing; it is a very detailed schedule. It
significantly improves upon their August schedule.
The issue of sequencing is something that we have talked
about, the commissioning of all the life safety and fire safety
systems. Those are the issues that primarily were moved back.
In fact, in their August schedule they talked about a February
2007 completion. They are now talking about, including
commissioning, of a December 2006 completion.
But this schedule is currently being evaluated by our fire
marshal and by Gilbane, our construction manager, to assure
adequate durations and appropriate system commissioning. Now,
while this review is going to take another 6 to 8 weeks or so,
and of course GAO will be looking at that as well, we will
update you at the next hearing on the progress of taking a look
at this fully integrated and expanded schedule.
In light of these schedule adjustments and the refinements
and the risks identified--and clearly the risks you talked
about are still there: the commissioning process, East Capitol
Street tunnel, the stone issues--we continue to acknowledge
that December 2006 remains a more prudent date for public
opening than the September 2006 date that we talked about
originally.
KEY MANAGEMENT ISSUES
I would like to briefly discuss the two key management
initiatives that you referred to. First of all, as we reported
last month, a risk assessment by McDonough Bolyard Peck (MBP)
had identified current and potential future risk items. To
date, we have conducted two follow-up working sessions as part
of the review process to develop a comprehensive risk
management and mitigation plan for each risk item. This is an
ongoing, very positive process; keeping us focused on actual
and potential problems.
Second, the cost-to-complete assessment that you referred
to was completed last week and it has been circulated for
review. No additional funds are contemplated in the report,
although GAO, as you indicated, and my staff have not yet
conducted a full evaluation. We will certainly review that in
November.
In terms of cost, Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to
note that we are on the cutting edge of trying to reconcile
often conflicting code criteria related to fire and life safety
with new and evolving security criteria so critical, and in
some respects, Mr. Chairman, unique to this project. Life
safety codes that were written in the 1990s never anticipated
such in-depth security criteria in places of public assembly,
such as the CVC. Additional costs, as GAO has pointed out,
certainly have accrued to the project as we have resolved and
worked through these issues, and we believe we are there at
this time.
CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
In terms of operations, Mr. Chairman, let me update you on
two key initiatives. First of all, we have obtained the
necessary leadership approvals on the language for the position
description for the CVC executive director. We expect to
advertise the position shortly, with the goal of hiring in
January 2006. What we have done, Mr. Chairman, is we have
broken out this individual position, and we will be talking
with you shortly about another half dozen associated positions
that we believe are key to get on board as soon as possible.
The rest of the positions, as we have been talking with both
Appropriations Committees about, will be brought on as we are
more sure that we have a coordinated schedule and the
construction actually can support this. That way we will not
have people waiting around for the visitor center to open and
they are not brought on inappropriately early.
FOOD SERVICE CONTRACT
The second operations initiative, Mr. Chairman, relates to
the CVC food service contract. Based on the congressional
mandate that internal functions be reviewed for possibly more
efficient external contracting, it is prudent for us to
consider whether Senate restaurant services should be provided
through a private contractor. The House of Representatives has
also reviewed their food services operations and as a result
this initiative includes options for inclusion of both House
and Senate food services under a single CVC food services
contractor.
After having briefed all Senate restaurant staff on this
initiative, we issued a request for proposal, an RFP, on
September 26 to solicit interest from food services
contractors. The RFP process will take several months to
complete and, once potential contractors submit their
proposals, they will be evaluated to determine which options
may provide the best value to the Government. We will have
follow-up meetings with Senate restaurant staff as this process
moves forward and as decisions are made to answer any questions
they may have.
Mr. Chairman, before I close I would like to show you
several photos of the status of construction in critical areas
of the project.
CONSTRUCTION STATUS
First of all, Mr. Chairman, the stonework in the Great Hall
is truly beautiful. As more stone goes in and the quality and
the shape of the spaces become more and more evident, this is
something that will resonate through the duration of the
project. Now, as we complete the stone on the columns, as you
see in this shot, we will be assembling scaffolds in the
adjacent areas to allow work to begin on the Great Hall
ceiling, and we expect that ceiling work to begin next month.
We now have some 24 mason teams on site, compared to the 20
who were working at the time of our last hearing, and the stone
contractor is still continuing an aggressive pursuit of
additional masons.
On the service level, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to report
that all of the major equipment is now installed and crews, as
shown here, are making the final duct connections to the air-
handling units and fans, piping connections to equipment, final
electrical connections to equipment and electrical panels.
Permanent power has now been brought in and temporary power
is not being used any more. As a consequence, we are going to
begin turning on the air-handling unit fans this week, which
will ultimately provide fresh air throughout the facility. Mr.
Chairman, this is a major accomplishment. These are critical
areas that could have seriously impacted the project if not
properly thought through and executed. It is truly impressive
and I look forward to showing it to you when we have our tour.
On the next board, inside the expansion space the
contractor continues to make good progress on both the House
and the Senate sides, and work continues on schedule. We are
pleased so far with the aggressive pace of construction in
these areas. Crews here are busy installing metal stud walls,
drywall, ductwork, and electrical rough-in.
Overall, Mr. Chairman, inside the CVC, despite some of the
delays that have occurred and the need for resequencing of
work, the contractor has consistently provided an excellent
quality of work, not only in mechanical and electrical work,
but also in the installation and application of stone wall,
stone, masonry, and plaster.
On the next board, Mr. Chairman, outside the facility we
see that our historic preservation contractor continues to
install the stone for the historic lanterns and the fountains,
while workers continue placing the granite pavers in adjacent
areas. In addition, on the major part of that photograph you
can see that we have begun to set stone on the monumental steps
on the north side of the CVC entrance. On the Senate plaza,
crews are busy placing concrete to prepare the plaza for
granite stone pavers. Mr. Chairman, this work is transforming
the plaza into a high-quality pedestrian zone worthy of being
called the front door to our Capitol.
Last, on East Capitol Street, with respect to our tunnel,
work has continued there with excavation and piling work
nearing completion. An additional subcontractor has been
brought on board to expedite concrete work at First Street.
While, as you know, we did encounter additional unforeseen
conditions in September, the contractor has made significant
progress. Crews, as you can see here, began in September
installing large 40-foot long sections of steam and chilled
water pipes inside the tunnel, and that is clear and that work
is continuing appropriately.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, the project is moving forward
on many fronts. When it is completed, the visitor center will
provide all visitors to the Capitol with a state of the art,
accessible facility that will welcome them respectfully and
securely while also providing them with films, exhibits, and
computers, to help them learn about Congress and its role in
our democracy.
I welcome the opportunity to review and discuss this
historic project and am happy to answer any questions you might
have.
Senator Allard. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Hantman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Alan M. Hantman, FAIA
This statement provides an update on the progress of the Capitol
Visitor Center project and the key issues that were discussed at the
previous Senate hearing on September 15. A brief update on the status
of construction follows.
CONSTRUCTION UPDATE
In the Great Hall, stone has been installed up to the ceiling on
the north, south, and west walls and masons are now setting stone on
the Great Hall columns. As crews complete the stone on the columns,
they will begin to assemble scaffolds in the adjacent areas to allow
work to begin on the Great Hall ceiling, and that work is expected to
begin next month. As more stone goes in, the quality and shape of the
spaces becomes more and more evident.
Overall, the stone contractor continues to increase the number of
mason teams working on the project. There are now 24 mason teams on
site compared to the 20 that were working at the time of the previous
hearing. The stone contractor is continuing an aggressive pursuit of
additional masons to keep pace with the amount of stone still to arrive
or awaiting installation. Attached to this written statement is
Manhattan's October 7th statement concerning the stone injunction that
remains in place.
On the Service Level, all of the major equipment is now installed
and crews are making the final duct connections to the air handling
units and fans, piping connections to equipment, and final electrical
connections to equipment and electrical panels. The contractors also
continue their transition from temporary to permanent power now that
permanent power has been installed in both the House and Senate
electrical vaults. As a consequence, crews will begin turning on the
air handling unit fans this week, which will ultimately provide for
fresh air throughout the facility. These are critical areas that could
have seriously impacted the project if not properly executed.
Inside the expansion space, the contractor continues to make good
progress on both the House and Senate sides and work continues to track
on schedule. The AOC is pleased thus far with the aggressive pace of
construction in these areas. Crews are busy installing metal stud walls
and drywall, ductwork and the electrical rough-in.
Overall, inside the CVC, the Sequence 2 construction is proceeding
well as mechanical, electrical, plumbing and fire protection piping and
associated elements continue to populate ceiling spaces throughout the
facility. Despite some of the delays that have occurred and the need
for resequencing of work, the contractor has consistently provided an
excellent quality of work not only in mechanical and electrical, but
also in the installation and application of wall stone, masonry and
plaster.
Outside the facility, work on the Plaza continues and an historic
preservation contractor continues to install the stone for the historic
lanterns and fountains while workers continue placing the granite
pavers in adjacent areas. In addition, masons have begun to set stone
on the monumental steps at the north side of the CVC entrance. On the
Senate Plaza, crews are busy placing concrete to prepare the plaza for
granite paving stones. This work is transforming the plaza into a high
quality pedestrian zone worthy of being the front door to our Capitol.
On East Capitol Street, work has continued on the utility tunnel
with excavation and piling work nearing completion at the intersection
of First and East Capitol Street and complete at Second Street. The
installation of formwork and reinforcing steel has started at Second
Street and an additional sub-contractor has been brought on board to
expedite concrete work at First Street. While crews did encounter some
unforeseen conditions in September, the contractor has made significant
progress installing the balance of the pre-cast tunnel and pipe
supports, and crews began in September to install the large 40-foot-
long sections of steam and chilled water pipes inside the tunnel.
SCHEDULE UPDATE
The AOC recognizes that there is clearly concern regarding the time
gap between the AOC's projection of having the CVC operational next
December and the GAO's expectation for an opening three to six months
later in 2007. While the AOC continues to acknowledge the challenges
and potential risks still ahead, two weeks ago Manhattan submitted a
revised schedule that now includes the House and Senate expansion space
as well as operational activities. This revised schedule now reflects
an increase from 4,500 activities to some 6,500 activities and includes
full input from their sub-contractors. This schedule significantly
improves upon Manhattan's August schedule, primarily in the sequencing
of commissioning activities, and brings the total completion date,
including commissioning, back to December 2006. This schedule is
currently being evaluated by the Fire Marshal and the CVC construction
manager, Gilbane, to assure adequate durations and system commissioning
sequencing. While this review will require six to eight weeks to
complete, the AOC will update the Committee on progress at the November
hearing.
In light of the schedule adjustments and refinements discussed, and
the risks identified, including the possibility of delays occurring
during the commissioning process, the AOC continues to believe that
December 2006 remains a more prudent date for a public opening than
does September 2006. Further, a December opening would also provide
additional time to staff operations personnel and establish operational
policies and procedures. The recommended staffing would proceed in line
with the fully coordinated schedule and actual construction progress so
that portions of the staff were not hired too far in advance of the
public opening.
MANAGEMENT INITIATIVES
Following is a brief discussion of the status of two key management
initiatives. First, as reported last month, a Risk Assessment by
McDonough Bolyard Peck had identified potential future risk items. To
date, the project team has conducted two follow-up working sessions as
part of the review process to develop a comprehensive risk management
and mitigation plan for each risk item. This is an ongoing process.
Second, a Cost-to-Complete assessment was completed by McDonough,
Bolyard Peck on October 11, 2005, and has been circulated for review.
No additional funds are contemplated in the report, although GAO and
AOC staff have not yet conducted a full evaluation, which will be
provided at the November hearing. In terms of cost, it is important to
note that the CVC project is on the cutting edge of trying to reconcile
often conflicting code criteria related to fire and life safety with
new and evolving security criteria so critical, and in some respects,
unique to this project. Life safety codes written in the 1990's never
anticipated in-depth security criteria in places of public assembly,
such as the CVC. Additional costs to the project have been incurred as
the project team has worked through and resolved these issues.
OPERATIONS INITIATIVES
Following is an update on two key initiatives related to CVC
operations. First, the AOC has obtained the necessary leadership
approvals on the language for the Executive Director position
description and expects to advertise the position shortly with the goal
of hiring the Executive Director by January 2006. This time frame would
allow for the approximate 12-month period that the AOC operations
consultant feels is necessary to meet operations staffing requirements
and establish procedural policies necessary for a public opening at the
end of next year.
A second operations initiative relates to the CVC food service
contract. Based on the Congressional mandate that internal functions be
reviewed for possibly more efficient external contracting, it is
prudent for all parties to consider whether Senate Restaurant services
should be provided through a private contractor. The House of
Representatives has also reviewed their food service operations, and as
a result, options for inclusion of both House and Senate Restaurant
food services under a single CVC food services contractor are included
in this initiative.
Therefore, after having briefed all Senate Restaurant staff on this
initiative, the AOC procurement division issued a Request For Proposals
(RFP) on September 26th to solicit interest from food service
contractors. Potential firms interested in performing this work will
submit proposals on how they would do the work and financial
implications.
The RFP process will take several months to complete. Once
potential contractors submit their proposals, they will be evaluated to
determine which options may provide the best value to the government.
The AOC will have follow-up meetings with Senate Restaurant staff as
this process moves forward, and as decisions are made, to answer any
questions they may have over the next year.
In conclusion, the project is moving forward on many fronts and
when it is completed, the Visitor Center will provide all visitors to
the Capitol with a state-of-the-art and accessible facility that will
welcome them respectfully and securely, while also providing them with
the tools to learn about the Congress and its role in our democracy.
Senator Allard. Now we will call on Mr. Ungar.
STATEMENT OF BERNARD L. UNGAR, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY
OFFICE
ACCOMPANIED BY TERRELL DORN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Mr. Ungar. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Dorn will do our summary for
us at this hearing and we will both be available for questions.
Senator Allard. Okay, very good.
Mr. Dorn.
Mr. Dorn. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the
opportunity to be here today to discuss our continued
assistance to the subcommittee in its oversight of the Capitol
Visitor Center.
What I would like to do is briefly summarize our written
statement, focusing on two issues, cost and schedule, and what
needs to be done in those areas from our perspective; and then
Mr. Ungar and I would be glad to answer any questions you may
have for us about our written statement.
Beginning with schedule, as Mr. Hantman has already
indicated, progress is continuing to be made on the project in
a number of areas and the building is going to be beautiful.
Overall, however, that progress is not occurring at the pace
necessary to complete the CVC construction in September 2006,
which would lead to the opening in December 2006 as AOC hopes
for.
You have already pointed out, Mr. Chairman, that out of the
11 milestones this month only 3 were complete and none of those
on time, according to the April baseline schedule, and only 1
was completed on time compared to the revised June schedule.
This continues a 3-month trend of not hitting the milestones,
milestones from the contractor's own schedule, from his list of
critical activities that by definition must be completed on
time for the project to remain on schedule. Progress is not
being made at the pace necessary to complete construction in
September.
Coincidentally to having 11 milestones this month, we also
have 11 critical paths identified by Gilbane in the sequence 2
(S-2) contractor's schedule. Four of the critical paths showed
improvement this month, at least on paper, due to significant
schedule resequencing and revisions by the sequence 2
contractor in his attempt to find a faster way to complete the
commissioning, testing and balancing, and fire marshal-related
tasks. On the remaining critical paths, related to the utility
tunnel and the stonework, the schedule actually slipped another
couple weeks, in spite of the additional masons that were on
site. Again, progress is not being made at the pace necessary
to complete the construction in September.
The significant revisions to the sequence 2 contractor
schedule, that I mentioned a moment ago are in the areas that
we discussed last month as needing revision and the contractor
is giving it his best shot, even proposing to do work out of
its normal sequence. We applaud the contractor's willingness to
find creative ways to move the project along and do not
disagree with what he is doing, and we also agree that some of
the time can be recovered. However, compressing the schedule
and possibly doing some activities out of sequence certainly
raises the risk level and the need for improved coordination.
As we recommended again last month, it is very important
for AOC and Gilbane to rigorously examine the schedule,
particularly the optimistic durations and the resource loading,
including not only HVAC and fire protection systems, but also
the stone and finishing activities. This has still not been
done. Until the CVC team completes the analysis of the
schedule, the schedule settles down and a realistic completion
date is set, the team is almost flying blind, not able to see
more than a few weeks down the road, and surprises will
continue. Again, we strongly urge that AOC and Gilbane devote
sufficient resources to this scheduling effort so that a
credible schedule is available to the team. We have not seen
anything in the last month to change our prediction of a CVC
completion in the spring or summer of 2007.
Last, on the cost, as Alan noted, the McDonough Bolyard
Peck final cost-to-complete estimate was received by us last
week and our evaluation has begun. However, the cost to
complete will not be accurate until a completion date is known.
So, again, it gets back to the fact that we need to get a
completion date and the schedule set.
This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman, and I would like
to thank you for the chance to come here and discuss our work
with you, and we are available to answer any other questions
you may have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bernard L. Ungar
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: We are pleased to be
here today to assist the Subcommittee in monitoring progress on the
Capitol Visitor Center (CVC) project. Our remarks will focus on (1) the
Architect of the Capitol's (AOC) progress in managing the project's
schedule since the Subcommittee's September 15 hearing on the project,
(2) issues associated with the CVC's fire protection system, and (3)
the project's costs and funding.\1\ Our ability to fully address these
issues is limited by two important factors. First, AOC's sequence 2
construction contractor's--Manhattan Construction Company--September
2005 schedule reflects a number of significant changes, and AOC has not
yet had the opportunity to fully evaluate these changes. Second,
neither AOC nor its construction management contractor--Gilbane
Building Company--has completed the evaluation of elements of the
project schedule that we recommended during the Subcommittee's
September 15 hearing. Thus, while we will discuss the schedule's status
today, we will not be able to provide specific estimated completion
dates until AOC and its construction management contractor complete
their assessments and we have the opportunity to evaluate them.
Similarly, while we will discuss the status of the project's costs and
funding today, we will wait until the project schedule is fully
reviewed and stabilized and we have had an opportunity to evaluate
AOC's consultant's, McDonough Bolyard Peck (MBP), cost-estimation work
before we comprehensively update our November 2004 estimate of the cost
to complete the project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See GAO, Capitol Visitor Center: Schedule Delays Continue;
Reassessment Underway, GAO-05-1037T (Washington, D.C.: September 15,
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our remarks today are based on our review of schedules and
financial reports for the CVC project and related records maintained by
AOC and its construction management contractor; our observations on the
progress of work at the CVC construction site; and our discussions with
CVC project staff (including AOC, its major CVC contractors, and
representatives of MBP), AOC's Chief Fire Marshal, United States
Capitol Police (USCP) representatives, and officials responsible for
managing the Capitol Power Plant (CPP). We did not perform an audit;
rather, we performed our work to assist Congress in conducting its
oversight activities.
In summary, AOC and its construction contractors have made progress
in managing the schedule and accomplishing work since the
Subcommittee's September 15 CVC hearing, but additional delays have
been encountered. Work on all interior levels of the CVC, various
sections of the House and Senate expansion spaces, the plaza, and the
utility tunnel has continued. However, additional delays have occurred
in a number of areas. For example, despite an increase in the number of
stone masons working on the project in September, the project lost
about 2 weeks on interior stone work installation and a similar amount
of time on the utility tunnel.
Moreover, some revisions have been made to project activities and
schedules, but these revisions have not been fully evaluated. The
sequence 2 contractor revised the manner in which the HVAC and fire
protection systems' commissioning work and acceptance testing would be
done, which changed this contractor's scheduled completion date for the
base project to December 11, 2006, from a completion date of February
26, 2007, in the contractor's August schedule. However, neither AOC nor
its construction management contractor has had time to fully evaluate
these revisions. In addition, AOC's construction management contractor
has now integrated into the project's September 2005 schedule a number
of recently prepared component schedules, including schedules for
preparing for CVC operations and House and Senate expansion space
construction. This integrated project schedule shows the base project
as being ready for opening to the public by mid December 2006 and a
completion date of February 26, 2007, for the House and Senate
expansion spaces.\2\ However, neither AOC nor its construction
management contractor has fully evaluated the activity durations or
adequacy of resource levels shown in the base project's schedule as we
recommended in our September 15 statement. Also, the September 2005
schedule does not yet fully reflect input from AOC's Chief Fire Marshal
on commissioning or testing and inspection activities. Thus, we are not
now in a position to estimate a specific completion date, and our views
should be regarded as preliminary at this time. With this qualification
in mind, we have not seen recent evidence that would change our
preliminary view that a base project completion date in 2006 will be
difficult to achieve and that construction completion in early to mid
2007 is more likely unless AOC and its contractors take extraordinary
action or change the project's scope, which could result in additional
costs to the Government. Our view is based on the schedule slippages
that have already occurred, the views of project personnel that several
activities (such as interior wall stone installation and interior
finish work) are likely to take longer than shown in the schedule, the
large number of activities that the current project schedule shows as
being at risk of causing the project's completion date to slip, and the
risks and uncertainties that continue to face the project. While we
view the increased number of stone masons as quite positive, it is not
clear whether the contractor will be able to maintain a sufficiently
high number of masons on the site or whether sufficient stone supplies
will be available on time given the problems that have been experienced
in this regard. AOC and its construction manager expect to have their
evaluations of the sequence 2 contractor's schedule changes, scheduled
activity durations, and proposed resource levels done by the end of
this year. We will re-evaluate the project schedule and inform the
Subcommittee of our results after AOC and its construction management
contractor have what they consider to be a reasonably stable integrated
schedule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ AOC set September 15, 2006, as the contractual date for
completing the base project's construction and for opening the CVC
facility to the public. The House and Senate expansion spaces were
scheduled to be completed after that date. AOC set the September
contract completion date in November 2004, when it reached agreement
with the contractor on a new date for starting sequence 2 that
reflected the delays experienced on sequence 1. On September 6, 2005,
AOC informed Capitol Preservation Commission representatives that it
still expected the base project's construction to be substantially
complete on September 15, 2006, but was postponing the date for opening
the facility to the public to December 15, 2006, so that it could
complete system tests, minor punch-list work, and preparations for
operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The design of the CVC's fire protection system has undergone a
number of changes--largely to reconcile conflicts between security and
life and fire safety requirements--and in a number of instances has
been the focus of considerable debate among stakeholders (e.g. CVC
project team members, AOC's Chief Fire Marshal and AOC fire protection
engineers, and USCP representatives). Changes to the system's design
and scope have resulted in about $900,000 in cost increases so far and
could result in additional increased costs of about $4.4 million based
on anticipated changes as of September 30, 2005. The bulk of the
potential $5.3 million cost increase stems from two factors--a change
in the manner smoke will be kept from egress stairwells that was
requested by AOC's Chief Fire Marshal and agreed to by the stakeholders
and which resolves a conflict between security and life and fire safety
requirements, and a disagreement between AOC and a contractor over
contract requirements for certain detection devices. The increased cost
figure could change significantly, however, because some CVC project
team members believe that the estimated costs for these changes are too
high, costs for all proposed or anticipated changes have not yet been
fully evaluated, and negotiations relative to the estimated $4.4
million in anticipated changes have not been completed. We have
discussed the costs associated with the stairwell change with AOC, and
it has agreed to fully evaluate the situation before it executes any
additional contract modifications for this change. Based on our
discussions with the CVC project team, AOC's Chief Fire Marshal, and
USCP representatives, it appears that the fire protection system design
is now essentially complete and agreed to by all the stakeholders.
Finally, coordination problems have existed between the CVC project
team and AOC's Chief Fire Marshall in arranging for inspections of
completed work, but steps are being taken to resolve the problems.
We have not updated our interim estimate of a cost of between
$525.6 million and about $559 million to complete the project, which we
reported at the Subcommittee's September 15 CVC hearing, because AOC's
consultant just completed its updated cost estimate and we have not yet
had the opportunity to evaluate it, and because the project schedule
has not yet stabilized. As soon as we evaluate MBP's report and the
project schedule stabilizes, we will begin our work to reassess the
reasonableness of project completion dates and comprehensively update
our cost-to-complete estimate. No additional funding beyond the $527.9
million for CVC construction and the $7.8 million that remained
available for CVC operations or construction that we reported at the
Subcommittee's last CVC hearing has been provided for the CVC.
Project Schedules Have Been Revised but Not Fully Evaluated
While work in several areas has moved forward since the
Subcommittee's September 15 CVC hearing, additional delays have been
encountered, and project schedules have been revised but not fully
reviewed or evaluated. Construction work has continued on the CVC, the
East Front, the plaza, the House and Senate expansion spaces, and the
utility tunnel since the Subcommittee's September 15 hearing. For
example, wall stone installation work has continued in the great hall,
the orientation theaters, and the auditorium, and the number of stone
masons working in the interior of the CVC has increased since mid
August. Some stone masons worked on weekends between mid August and mid
September. In addition, excavation, concrete, and piping work in the
utility tunnel has been proceeding, as has mechanical, electrical, and
plumbing work in the CVC.
On the other hand, between the Subcommittee's September 15 hearing
and October 12, the sequence 2 contractor completed work on only 3 of
the 11 activities we and AOC have been tracking for the Subcommittee.
None of these activities had been completed by the target dates shown
in the contractor's April 2005 baseline schedule, although one was
completed by the date shown in the contractor's June 2005 schedule.
(See app. I.) Furthermore, additional delays have occurred on interior
and exterior stonework installation, the East Front, the utility
tunnel, and the House connector tunnel. For example, according to AOC's
construction management contractor, during September, the sequence 2
contractor gained only 12 workdays on critical interior stonework and
10 workdays on the utility tunnel out of a possible 21 days of work.
According to the construction management contractor, stonework has been
delayed due to a shortage of stone masons, a lack of critical pieces of
stone, the need to do remedial concrete work in the orientation
theaters and along the exterior concrete walls and interior concrete
floors of the auditorium, and delays in getting shop drawings for
stonework on the East Front. According to AOC's construction management
contractor, excavation work on First Street for the utility tunnel has
been delayed due to unforeseen conditions and the need to stop work for
the former Chief Justice's funeral at the Supreme Court, and unforeseen
conditions have also delayed work on the House connector tunnel.
During September, the sequence 2 contractor changed the manner in
which the HVAC and Fire Protection system's commissioning work and
acceptance testing would be done, with the potential result of a time
savings. The changes largely involved re-sequencing work and doing work
concurrently that the August schedule showed would be done
sequentially. According to the contractor's revised schedule, these
changes will result in an improvement of over 60 workdays and bring the
scheduled completion date for this work to December 11, 2006, compared
to the February 26, 2007, date shown in the August schedule. However,
these changes have not yet been fully evaluated. AOC and its
construction management contractor are reviewing the changes, as is
AOC's Chief Fire Marshal. AOC and its construction management
contractor believe it will take about 30 to 60 days to complete their
assessments, and AOC's Chief Fire Marshal believes that he may have his
evaluation done before the end of October.
Altogether, the construction management contractor has identified a
total of 11 critical activity paths in the September schedule that will
extend the base project's completion date beyond AOC's September 15,
2006, target date if expected lost time cannot be recovered or further
delays cannot be prevented. In addition to the critical paths related
to the HVAC system and the fire alarm system that are discussed above,
examples of other base project critical path activities included in the
contractor's September schedule are utility tunnel and piping,
stonework in the East Front, interior wall stone in such areas as the
orientation theaters and atria, stonework in the auditorium and exhibit
gallery, millwork and casework installation in the orientation theaters
and atria, fabrication and installation of bronze doors, and penthouse
mechanical work. Of the 11 critical activity paths in the September
schedule, completion dates for 4 paths improved compared to the August
schedule, but completion dates for the other 7 paths, including all of
the stonework paths, slipped. For example, according to the
construction management contractor, the September schedule shows all of
the work associated with the fire alarm testing critical path being
completed by November 22, 2006, an improvement over the August
schedule's date of February 26, 2007; the September schedule also shows
all of the work associated with the interior auditorium wall stone
critical path being completed by December 12, 2005, more than a month
later than the August schedule's date of November 2, 2005. The sequence
2 contractor's September 2005 schedule indicates that construction work
on the base CVC will be essentially complete by September 15, 2006, and
that remaining work between that date and December 11, 2006, will
largely consist of testing, balancing, and commissioning the HVAC
system; testing and inspecting the fire protection system; punch-list
work; and preparing for operations.
Most of the activities discussed above are among the activities we
previously identified as likely having optimistic durations, suggesting
that it could take even longer to complete them than shown in the
project schedule. These activities served as the basis for the
recommendation we made to AOC during the Subcommittee's September 15
hearing that AOC rigorously evaluate the durations for the activities
shown in the project schedule. According to AOC, it has not yet
completed this evaluation. Moreover, we continue to believe that having
such a large number of critical activity paths complicates project
management and makes on-time completion more difficult.
AOC's construction management contractor has continued to integrate
various component schedules into the CVC construction and summary
schedules as they have been completed, and the integrated schedule
contains about 6,500 activities. Consequently, AOC now has a summary
schedule that integrates the completion of CVC and House and Senate
expansion space construction with preparations necessary for opening
the CVC to the public. This integrated summary schedule shows CVC
construction as well as the activities necessary for opening the CVC to
the public being completed by mid December 2006, the time AOC proposed
last month for opening the CVC to the public. That is, AOC expects
construction work on the base CVC project to be substantially completed
by September 15, 2006, but expects such work as HVAC commissioning,
fire protection system testing and inspection, punch-list work, and
operations preparations work to be ongoing until December 15, 2006.
According to AOC's sequence 2 and construction management contractors,
it is not yet clear whether expansion space construction will have
progressed to the point where temporary work for fire safety once
believed to be necessary to open the CVC to the public will no longer
have to be done. They said that they are still analyzing the work
associated with those areas where the base project interfaces with the
expansion spaces and whether and how the need for temporary work for
fire safety can be minimized or eliminated.
Although the sequence 2 contractor has taken, plans to take, and is
considering various actions \3\ to recover lost time and prevent or
mitigate further delays, we continue to believe that the contractor
will have difficulty completing construction before early to mid 2007.
Our reasons for concern include the uncertainty associated with the
September changes in the HVAC commissioning and fire protection system
schedules that have not yet been fully reviewed, the schedule slippages
to date, optimistic durations for a number of activities based on the
views of CVC team members, the large number of activity paths that are
critical, and risks and uncertainties that continue to face the
project. AOC's construction management contractor also points out that
further delays could result from congressional requests to stop work
due to high noise levels in the East Front and delays in completing CVC
ceiling work necessary for the HVAC and fire protection systems,
although the CVC team is considering ways to mitigate these risks. We
also note that the Chief Fire Marshal has not yet approved the
construction drawings for the fire protection system or the schedule
for the system's commissioning and testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In September, the sequence 2 contractor increased the number of
stone masons working on the project. For example, AOC's construction
management contractor reported that an average of 22 stone masons
worked on the project each work day for the work week ending October
14, compared to an average of 14 each work day for the work week ending
August 26. Stone masons also worked on several weekends, and the
contractor plans to further increase the number of stonemasons during
October and to re-sequence stonework to help mitigate a delay in the
exhibit gallery. The contractor has hired an additional subcontractor
to help construct the utility tunnel and is considering working longer
hours or additional weekends to recover time. The contractor also plans
to continue to evaluate the schedule to see what changes can be made to
save time in a variety of areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to our views on the project's September schedule
changes and progress, we would also like to briefly discuss several
schedule-related issues about which we have previously raised questions
or issues or made recommendations to AOC.
--We have been recommending for some time that AOC improve schedule
management and analyze and document delays and the reasons and
responsibilities for them on an ongoing basis--at least
monthly. We have noted considerable improvements in the CVC
team's schedule analysis and management since the arrival of
the construction management contractor's project control
engineer several months ago. Shortly after his arrival, the
scope and depth of schedule analysis and management improved
significantly, and AOC's construction management contractor
modified its monitoring process to capture information on
delays. However, we continue to be concerned about AOC's not
having adequate information systematically compiled and
analyzed to fully evaluate the causes and potential
responsibilities for delays on an ongoing basis. In our view,
not having this type of information on an ongoing basis is
likely to create problems later on should disputes arise and
knowledgeable staff leave. Also, in this regard, we have
previously expressed concerns about the need for the project
schedule to show resources to be applied to meet schedule
dates. While the sequence 2 contractor has shown proposed
resource levels for many activities, proposed resource levels
have not been included for many of the new activities added to
the project schedule. The lack of such information can
complicate the analysis of delays, including their causes and
costs. AOC agreed that these issues are important and said it
would discuss them with its construction management contractor.
--We have previously recommended that AOC develop risk mitigation
plans to address risks and uncertainties facing the project. In
July, AOC asked one of its consultants--MBP--to assist it in
identifying risks and developing plans to address those risks.
AOC has identified over 50 risks facing the project and
established a process for addressing them. AOC has begun to
develop and implement plans for managing these risks. As of
October 11, AOC had developed plans for addressing 12 risks,
such as unforeseen conditions associated with constructing the
House connector tunnel, and fabrication and installation of
custom bronze doors and windows. AOC said that it will continue
to develop plans for the remaining risks. It also plans to
discuss the risks at a weekly meeting and add new risks to its
list and develop mitigation plans for them as they are
identified.
--The September schedule shows utility tunnel construction being
completed in February 2006 and CVC's air handlers beginning to
operate at that time, assuming that they can get steam and
chilled water from the Capitol Power Plant. During our
September 15 testimony, we noted several problems associated
with CPP that could adversely affect the CVC as well as other
congressional buildings if not corrected or addressed. These
problems included, for example, potential delays in completing
the West Refrigeration Plant Expansion Project, which is
necessary to provide chilled water to the CVC; the removal from
service of two chillers in the East Refrigeration Plant because
of refrigerant gas leaks; fire damage to a steam boiler; and
staffing and training issues associated with operating the new
plant and the absence of a CPP director. Since the
Subcommittee's September 15 CVC hearing, the fire damage to the
boiler has been repaired, and the two coal-burning boilers that
were taken off line for maintenance had been put back on line;
however, another maintenance problem occurred with one of the
boilers and it had to be turned off for repairs, which AOC
expects to have completed by the end of this week. Also, over
the Columbus Day weekend, heavy rains caused damage to
electrical equipment that resulted in a power outage affecting
the entire plant. Power was restored within a few hours;
however, because of damage to the electrical equipment, power
is not available at certain locations within the plant. In
particular, one of the chillers in the East Plant is inoperable
because power cannot be provided to it. This incident prompted
AOC to make a change that affects the West Refrigeration Plant
Expansion Project. Specifically, AOC has decided to reconfigure
the chilled water piping system to allow the West Plant to
operate in isolation of West Plant Expansion. This change,
which could result in an increase to the contract cost, will
decrease CPP's reliance on the older East Plant and will
enhance its capacity to reliably provide chilled water to the
CVC and other congressional buildings. Finally, AOC recently
advertised the vacant director's position. At this time, GAO
has an active engagement to assess certain CPP issues, such as
staffing and training for, and the estimated cost to complete,
the West Refrigeration Plant Expansion Project. This engagement
is being conducted as part of a separate review for the
Subcommittee.
--Although AOC determined that the sequence 1 work was substantially
complete in November 2004, the sequence 1 contractor has
continued to work on punch-list items. Since the Subcommittee's
September 15 CVC hearing, AOC's construction management
contractor added about 15 additional work items to this list,
such as chipping concrete interfering with wall stone
installation and repairing drains. According to AOC's
construction management contractor, the sequence 1 contractor
has been making satisfactory progress in completing the punch-
list work.
Fire Protection System Issues Are in the Process of Being Resolved
The CVC's fire protection system is complicated, interfaces with
security and other building systems, and encompasses a variety of
subsystems and components, such as smoke and heat detectors, an alarm
system, a sprinkler system, a smoke evacuation system, door locks that
will open in the event of a fire, monitoring and control systems,
emergency signage, lighting, communication, and a system for preventing
smoke from entering stairwells--referred to as stair pressurization--to
allow occupants to get out of the building. We have identified three
issues related to the fire protection system, each of which we would
like to briefly discuss.
1. Evolving design.--The CVC's fire protection system has undergone
a number of design changes and has been the subject of debate among
relevant stakeholders for a number of reasons, largely due to conflicts
between security and life and fire safety requirements. According to
AOC, the building codes governing the design of the CVC often conflict
with security requirements, do not recognize the unique security needs
of the Capitol, and are particularly silent when it comes to the
integration of new air filtration technologies. In addition, AOC said
that security requirements and the decision to add state-of-the art air
filtration technology to the project when the construction documents
were almost complete forced the project team to redesign all of the air
handling systems in a compressed timeframe in order to maintain the
overall schedule. It also forced the project team to devise a complex
design solution with AOC's Chief Fire Marshal and USCP while sequence 2
was out for bid as well as after the contract had been awarded. On
October 5, we attended meetings of representatives from the CVC project
team, AOC's Fire Marshal Division, and USCP where issues surrounding
the CVC's fire protection system were discussed. Based on those
discussions and information subsequently provided by AOC and USCP, it
appears to us that the design of the CVC's fire protection system is
now essentially complete and agreed to by all of the relevant
stakeholders. The CVC project team and the Chief Fire Marshal note,
however, that not all of the shop drawings related to the fire
protection system have been submitted or approved, and some issues
could arise during the review process.
2. Increased cost.--As of September 30, executed contract
modifications and anticipated changes related to CVC's fire protection
system totaled about $5.3 million, with most of this amount, about $4.4
million, being estimated costs for anticipated changes that have not
been fully evaluated or approved. Changes to the system's design and
scope already made have resulted in about $900,000 in cost increases.
Costs for changes that have been made or that are anticipated have
increased or are expected to increase for several reasons, but the bulk
of the increases stems largely from two factors--changes requested by
AOC's Chief Fire Marshal aimed at ensuring that the system meets fire
safety standards based on his interpretation of code requirements (an
area where conflict existed between fire safety and security
requirements) and a disagreement between AOC and a contractor on
contract requirements regarding certain detection devices. The most
costly change involving the security/fire safety conflict that the CVC
team has agreed to relates to the manner in which fresh air will be
brought into the building to pressurize stairwells to prevent smoke
infiltration in the event of a fire. The estimated costs for this
change (including the expansion space) amount to about $2.2 million, or
over 40 percent of the estimated increased costs for the fire
protection system. Differences of opinion among CVC team members exist
on the magnitude of the estimated costs for this change. We have
discussed this issue with AOC, and it has agreed to fully evaluate the
cost before it executes additional contract modifications relating to
stair pressurization. The final costs for the stair pressurization and
detection devices in question as well as the other anticipated changes
could change significantly from the estimated amounts once any open
issues regarding costs are resolved. It is also possible that some of
the proposed change orders include work items that are not related to
the CVC's fire protection system, and to the extent this situation
exists, costs for such work items would not be attributable to the fire
protection system.
3. Coordination problems.--The CVC project team and AOC's Fire
Marshal Division have been experiencing difficulties arranging for
timely inspections of completed work due to coordination problems
involving the amount of notice and documentation needed before
inspections can occur. To improve coordination, the CVC project team
has been working with its construction management contractor and the
Chief Fire Marshal to develop a systematic process for arranging for
and documenting fire safety inspections and is considering hiring a
consultant to help facilitate the coordination process. The Chief Fire
Marshal has increased staffing devoted to the CVC and is planning to
obtain contract support to help perform CVC inspections. The Chief Fire
Marshal is also reviewing the sequence 2 contractor's September 2005
schedule to determine whether the sequencing of work and the time
allotted for fire safety and occupancy inspections are acceptable.
Our Project Cost Estimate Update Awaits Assessment of Consultant
Estimate and Schedule Stabilization; Funding Provided Has Not
Changed Since September 2005
AOC's consultant--MBP--finished its work last week to update the
estimated cost to complete the project. We have not yet had time to
evaluate MBP's report. Also, as we said during the Subcommittee's
September 15 CVC hearing, we are waiting for the project schedule to
stabilize before we begin our work to comprehensively update our
November 2004 estimate of the cost to complete the project. Thus, we
are not revising our interim updated estimated cost to complete the
project of between $525.6 million and about $559 million that we
discussed at the Subcommittee's September 15 CVC hearing. As soon as we
evaluate MBP's report and the project schedule stabilizes, we will
begin our work to assess the reasonableness of the scheduled completion
dates for the CVC and the House and Senate expansion spaces and
comprehensively update our estimate of the cost to complete the
project.
No additional funding beyond the $527.9 million for construction
and the $7.8 million that was available for CVC construction or
operations has been provided for the project since the Subcommittee's
September 15 hearing.\4\ As you may recall, Mr. Chairman, at your last
CVC hearing, we expressed concern about possible duplication of work
and costs in areas where the responsibilities of AOC's CVC construction
and operations contractors overlap, such as in designing wayfinding
signage and the gift shops. AOC agreed to work with its operations
planning contractor to clarify the contractor's scope of work,
eliminate any duplication, and adjust the operations contract's funding
accordingly. AOC told us that it has discussed these issues with its
contractor and concluded that while no duplication of work or funding
exists, it needs to clarify the contract's scope of work on wayfinding
signage because it included more work than the contractor would
actually do.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ AOC had planned to use $100,000 of its fiscal year 2006
appropriation for CVC construction to move a fire alarm control panel
in the Capitol building related to CVC construction but outside the CVC
work area. AOC has decided to pay for this move with other funds, thus
making the $100,000 available for other CVC construction purposes
subject to approval of the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations. As we reported in September, AOC had also used about
$805,000 in CVC operations funds for certain construction work that had
been funded by the fiscal year 2006 construction appropriation. These
funds also could be used for other CVC work subject to the Committees'
approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, this concludes our statement. We would be pleased to
answer any questions that you or Members of the Subcommittee may have.
APPENDIX I.--CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER CRITICAL CONSTRUCTION TARGET DATES SEPTEMBER 16-OCTOBER 18, 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 2005 June 2005
Activity Location Scheduled Scheduled Actual
Finish Date Finish Date Finish Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drill/Set Soldier Piles Sta. 0:00-1:00.. Utility Tunnel................. 6/08/05 8/23/05 9/21/05
Wall Stone Area 9 Base.................. Great Hall..................... 7/15/05 11/03/05 9/14/05
10 Inch South Fire Line................. Site........................... 7/19/05 1/09/06 ...........
Excavate and Shore Sta. 0:00-1:00....... Utility Tunnel................. 7/21/05 10/05/05 ...........
Concrete Working Slab Sta. 0:00-1:00.... Utility Tunnel................. 7/26/05 10/10/05 ...........
Waterproof Working Slab Sta. 0:00-1:00.. Utility Tunnel................. 7/29/05 10/13/05 ...........
Wall Stone Area 1....................... Congressional Auditorium....... 8/08/05 7/22/05 ...........
Wall Stone Area 2....................... Congressional Auditorium....... 8/22/05 8/05/05 ...........
Wall Stone Area 3....................... Congressional Auditorium....... 9/06/05 8/19/05 ...........
Wall Stone Area 5 \1\ Base.............. Orientation Theater............ 9/13/05 9/28/05 ...........
Perimeter CMU Walls..................... Orientation Lobby.............. 9/20/05 9/16/05 ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This activity was not noted listed in the April schedule. All other activities were critical in the April
schedule or became critical in subsequent schedules.
Source: AOC's April and June 2005 CVC sequence 2 construction schedules for the scheduled completion dates and
AOC and its construction management contractor for the actual completion dates.
Note: Actual completion information was obtained on October 12, 2005.
Senator Allard. Thank you very much. I appreciate the panel
being here with us this morning. I think it is important that
this subcommittee continue to review carefully progress on the
construction project, and hopefully we do this in a
constructive manner, and I think your comments have been
constructive.
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
I know, Mr. Hantman, Mr. Hixon, it is frustrating at times
when you have these unexpected problems. But I do think that
the subcommittee has to have a thorough understanding of how we
are progressing. I would like to urge you to get that schedule
in place, because I see that as critical.
In your testimony, Mr. Hantman, you indicated another 6 to
8 weeks is required to thoroughly evaluate that schedule. We do
want it precise as you can possibly get it, but I am curious to
know why it is taking so long to get this finalized.
Mr. Hantman. Mr. Chairman, we have been talking about an
integrated schedule with all components coming into it for a
while now. As you know, the expansion space contractor has come
on board fairly recently and their input into the completion of
the expansion spaces both for the House and the Senate has been
a critical component that needed to be fed into it. So as a
contractor determines their means and methods and their own
sequencing of how they are going to get the job done, that gets
done as the work is progressing.
So they have now fed their information into the full
schedule and that work, as you know, just happened fairly
recently, or just started fairly recently.
OPERATIONS CRITERIA
The other end of it, Mr. Chairman, relates to the
operations. Clearly, we have brought Zell Corporation back on
board to talk about all of the operations criteria. The concern
that you have mentioned in past hearings, talking about making
sure that the operations issues are factored in; we now have
some 500 or so items on operations that are factored into this
fully integrated schedule. So while Mr. Dorn characterized us
as flying blind a little while ago, the issue here really is
that we have got a very thorough schedule that the contractor
has committed to and that we need to evaluate from both the
fire marshal's perspective and from our construction manager's
perspective, to take a look at the reality, make sure the
durations are reasonable.
But this schedule I think, in most people's experience, is
more detailed and more coordinated than any they have seen
pretty much in their professional careers. So we have really
tried to dot those ``i's'', cross those ``t's'', and make sure
that we are integrating, so that we can avoid problems down the
road.
BASE SCHEDULE
Senator Allard. Now, true, we have just brought on the
expansion spaces for the House and the Senate and that is a new
factor to bring in. But as far as base scheduling, it has been
1 year, has it not, when Manhattan came on board? I see Mr.
Ungar is nodding his head. Perhaps maybe you can clarify this
for the record, but I think it has been 1 year where we have
had Manhattan on with sequence 2; actually we had the
contractor start in November 2004. Am I correct in that, Mr.
Ungar?
Mr. Ungar. Yes, Mr. Chairman, you are.
Senator Allard. So again, we do not have a final base
schedule.
Mr. Hantman. Absolutely.
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE ASSESSMENT
Senator Allard. By the way, who is doing the schedule
assessment and what is its scope and methodology?
Mr. Hantman. Bob?
Mr. Hixon. The schedule review, we have had McDonough
Bolyard Peck working on it. They are going to be completing
their review. They have started it and they generated some
initial comments.
McDonough Bolyard Peck is doing it as a consultant for us.
In addition to that, Gilbane will be doing the review
themselves. We have talked about if we have a separate group of
people within Gilbane, not the current field staff but other
staff, come in and do that evaluation as far as the durations
and the logic within the schedule.
The team themselves have been doing this review. The
schedule itself, you are correct, it did come in in January, we
received the new baseline schedule. That schedule has continued
to evolve. What has occurred in the last month was primarily
the integration of all of the commissioning activities, a
number of activities, and that was all added in August.
We were expecting to have the review of the durations and
logic completed by this hearing. However, when we got the
report in, there was an inadequate amount of time to do it.
There have been such significant changes to the commissioning
activities that we need to have the fire marshal participate in
that review. So that is why that has been put off.
The integration of the schedule for the expansion space, as
well as the operations, adds more detail. It will be reflected
in some of the activities in construction, but more to ensure
that they are well coordinated, not really changing the
schedule itself.
Senator Allard. I am curious about your methodology. Would
you agree with me that if we could have at least a basic plan
then as things change we can always incorporate those changes
into the basic plan?
Mr. Hixon. Absolutely, sir. That is exactly what we are
doing. We had the base schedule in January. We have done some
reviews of that and it has been improved. The original base
schedule had broad periods of time. It would say, for example,
install wall stone in the Great Hall. The detailed schedule now
reflects 10 different areas of wall stone, so that it is broken
down into durations that are small enough you can actually
measure.
So the original baseline schedule did not have as much
detail as we felt was necessary to adequately monitor the
project. As we develop more of these details, the schedule has
grown. Then with the inclusion of all the commissioning
activities, when those details were added in August, the
schedule completion date became unacceptable and the contractor
went back to look at that to see what was wrong with the logic
that we were using. Now the contractor is satisfied that the
schedule is perfect, but the fire marshal, the construction
manager, and we have not had an opportunity to review that in
detail. It only came in 1\1/2\ weeks ago. So what we need is
some time to get the fire marshal--the critical part of this is
not the construction part. The construction should be done in
September. The critical part is making sure we all thoroughly
understand what the commissioning activities are that need to
take place, so that the fire marshal's input works well with
the contractor's plan for completion of facility. That is the
piece that we are really working to try and pull together.
Senator Allard. Mr. Ungar, do you believe that the
Architect of the Capitol and Gilbane are doing all they should
to reevaluate and finalize the schedule in a timely manner?
Mr. Ungar. Mr. Chairman, that is a question that we have
right now. What we are looking for when we use the term
``rigorous, aggressive assessment'' is a real fact-based, data-
based, expert review of the schedule. For example, on the
stonework, what we had in mind would be having somebody
knowledgeable about stonework looking at the actual experience
of the project to date with the number of masons, the
productivity, looking at what the durations are in the
schedule, and making an assessment. Is this realistic, based on
the experience of this project and the professional experience
that the stonemasons might have?
We have not seen that kind of assessment at this point.
That is the type of assessment that we would be looking for.
OPENING DATE
Senator Allard. Mr. Hixon, Mr. Hantman, do you both believe
that the December 2006 opening date is realistic, in light of
this slippage in the area of the masonry work, and continued
slippage on the utility tunnel?
Mr. Hantman. As Bob Hixon just indicated, the contractor's
schedule does call for construction completion in September
2006. As I talked about in our last hearing and I reiterated a
bit in my opening statement today, we believe that clearly the
whole issue of the possibility of overlapping of commissioning
activities and finishing work is the key to the opening date.
With the construction completion basically still planned
for September, the issue of operational staff coming on board
and at that point in time, with construction basically complete
but commissioning ongoing. The issue is to analyze, whether
they can appropriately and safely come into the space and do
their work in the shakedown and the practicing and setting
things up while the commissioning goes on. We think that will
be the case, and that is the kind of examination we are doing
with the fire marshal and the construction manager.
So the issue there again is heavy construction, including
the stone, that we are looking at, as the schedule currently
talks about, being completed basically in September. The issue
there is again systems and making sure that the systems are
shaken down and appropriately managed so that we can spend the
next couple months making sure that it is ready for opening.
STONEMASONS
Senator Allard. I can understand why we might be having
problems with the stonemasons. There was a supply problem at
the start, although I think maybe they could have planned a
little better in knowing the amount of stone that they needed.
Now we are having a hard time running down stonemasons. I
guess we just do not have enough skilled stonemasons in the
area that are available for the project.
Mr. Hantman. That is true, Mr. Chairman.
UTILITY TUNNEL
Senator Allard. That is not hard to understand and
visualize. The problem I have understanding and visualizing is
the utility tunnel. We had 21 days of work here and we only got
10 days out of that to actually work in there, so we lost 10
days of labor and construction in that utility tunnel.
Maybe you would like to respond to that. When we have our
tour, I would like to spend some time on the utility tunnel.
Mr. Hixon. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to respond to
that. The utility tunnel has been impacted by different site
conditions on a number of occasions, the last of which was
another--not the last, but the previous one was a PEPCO vault.
The latest thing is we encountered a concrete foundation and
steel in the base of the excavation near the auditorium there
at First Street. So we have had that.
We had the rainfall last week. The rainfall put us back 1
week for the area where we have got the excavation taking
place. We need to be able to get the mud mat down so that the
water does not affect us adversely.
The good news is that two-thirds of the piping, the chilled
water and steam pipe, is literally in the tunnel. It is to be
welded there, but it has already been set in the tunnel so that
the welding can take place, and that is very positive, what the
mechanical contractor has been able to achieve.
Also they have brought on an additional contractor to do
the construction at First Street because their own force is,
Manhattan's force is, doing the concrete work at Second Street
and at the bridge, the book tunnel. They do not have enough
forces to be able to do both at the same time, and so we
brought in--they brought in an additional contractor in order
to make up for that lost time.
Currently the projection is, the sum total from the
original schedule is, that we would finish the construction
December 7, if I have the date exactly right. It is about 1
week late. For all of these issues that we have encountered
with differing site conditions, the contractor's efforts in
hours per day and weekends have been good enough to make up for
most of these, so that the slippage, instead of being a number
of weeks, is really now down to 1 week.
What we are endeavoring to do as soon as we get the tunnel,
so that the mechanical piping can go through, is see if they
cannot expedite the installation of the piping. But of course,
they cannot do that until they have a tunnel to construct it
in.
But the issues have been predominantly differing site
conditions that have caused some redesigns and that is what the
impact has been to the utility tunnel.
UNFORESEEN CONDITIONS
Senator Allard. There must have been some things in the
ground that were not properly documented and that is why they
were a surprise to you when you came across them?
Mr. Hixon. What was in the ground was neither documented--
we for example ran into a fiber optic cable that was not
reflected on the drawings, and you cannot detect that with a
metal detector. We have run into duct banks that we should have
been able to support that fell apart. There have been a number
of issues. And when you run into the utilities, the utility
companies then have to come, and you cannot touch their work
until they finish doing their part of it.
So those have been the things that have caused delays, plus
this deep foundation that we encountered that no one knew was
down there. So there have been a number of issues,
unfortunately.
SCHEDULE MAKEUP
Senator Allard. GAO told us last month that AOC would have
to make up 1 day for every 8 remaining days between July 2005
and September 2006. What is the current estimate of time to be
made up? Let us go to GAO for that question.
Mr. Dorn. Mr. Chairman, I did not do that same metric this
time.
Senator Allard. Okay. Well, maybe we can have that ready
for the next hearing.
Mr. Dorn. Yes.
Senator Allard. I thought that was an interesting metric
and I think it was helpful to understand how we were
progressing.
Mr. Dorn. Yes, sir.
Mr. Ungar. Mr. Chairman, if I might just add, the issue
that you were last asking about I think is at the heart of the
reason why we have a difference between GAO and AOC on when the
project will be complete. As Mr. Hantman and Mr. Hixon said,
the schedule shows that construction will be complete in
September 2006. Our question is, is that a realistic and a
credible schedule, given the slippages that have occurred so
far and durations and the logic that exists in the schedule,
for the work that is expected to be done in the next several
months, such as the stonework, the millwork, and the casework?
That is why we are so concerned about having a really good
assessment of the schedule, because if that work is not
scheduled to be done in a realistic period of time they cannot
meet the September 15 date.
Senator Allard. Maybe we can have a little more discussion
at our next hearing on that, when we look at these makeup days.
COST TO COMPLETE
Now, I would like to pursue this cost-to-complete issue. In
last month's hearing we were told that the cost to complete
would be ready by this month's hearing. Mr. Ungar, can you tell
us why GAO has not been able to complete its review of the
independent assessment of the cost to complete, and will you
have it by next month's hearing?
Mr. Ungar. Mr. Chairman, there are two reasons why we have
not been able to complete our review. One is that AOC just last
week received the final report from its consultant, McDonough
Bolyard Peck, on the results of its review, and of course we
needed to have that before we could start our review. So we
will begin immediately to look at that report.
But the other reason is that we do not feel it would be
prudent to complete our work until we have a stable schedule,
because a large part of the cost to complete is going to be
dependent upon what a good solid estimate of the completion
date is going to be and because a number of costs are driven by
how long the project will continue, including expected delay
costs and so forth.
So we will basically start right away, as soon as we get,
hopefully in December, a stable schedule that hopefully has
been evaluated. We should then be able to finish the cost to
complete, I would guess by your February hearing if you have
one in February, at the latest.
Senator Allard. We will have one in February. Count on it.
Mr. Ungar. Maybe before.
Senator Allard. Do you have any preliminary information
that you would like to share with us on that? Stick your neck
out a little bit.
Mr. Ungar. Well, we have not updated our estimate since
your last hearing, and I think we were around $526 million in
terms of cost to complete without risks, to around $559 million
with risks and uncertainties. We have made a quick review of
the MBP report and it is basically indicating MBP expects there
to be an increase in the cost of sequence 2, basically for the
reasons of the higher than expected pace of change orders that
have taken place, some delay costs, and some additional costs
that MBP is, as we are, identifying with respect to the CVC's
fire protection system.
So it sees basically about an $8 million increase in the
cost of sequence 2. But by the same token, MBP is estimating
the expansion space would not cost as much as expected by about
the same amount. So there would be an increase on the one hand
and maybe a lesser expense on the other, according to the MBP
report.
We have not, as I said, thoroughly reviewed that. We do
have some questions about that that we need to address and we
will address.
The other side of the coin is that, even with the
increases, MBP's report would indicate that there are
sufficient funds made available right now to cover the costs
that are estimated.
BRONZE DOORS
Senator Allard. Mr. Hantman, he mentioned it is hard to put
some of it together because of unforeseen problems that may
occur. So this brings up the issue of the risk management plan.
Can you give us any examples of the worst risks and actions
taken to address those risks at this point in time, Mr. Hixon?
Mr. Hixon. The example that probably comes to mind first is
the bronze doors, which was brought up during our risk
assessment by the Architect as an issue he was concerned about.
We reviewed the status of the bronze doors, the status of the
work and where they were in the production of those, found out
that we did, in fact, have an issue that could be a problem if
we did not jump on it right away.
That issue has been reviewed. We have developed detailed
schedules for the bronze doors. The issue there was UL testing
of a door that had never been made before and going into
production. So going through that risk assessment, identifying
that particular item and pursuing that has been very beneficial
for the project. So that is one example.
Most of the rest of the examples we have are things that
could be problems in the future and so we continue to monitor
them to ensure that they do not become problems.
Mr. Hantman. Many of the issues, Mr. Chairman, also deal
with the commissioning and the testing of the systems, and this
is what both we and GAO have been talking about and trying to
work through. The major issue now with Manhattan's new schedule
is for us to make sure that those times are appropriate, the
durations are appropriate. Again, that commissioning and
testing will not begin until next summer, so we are trying to
jump on it before it becomes a problem and make sure that we
can resolve that and integrate that schedule appropriately.
Senator Allard. Now, Mr. Hixon, on the bronze doors, those
have to be approved by the Underwriters Laboratory, is that
correct?
Mr. Hixon. Yes, sir.
Senator Allard. Have they given you the approval yet? When
do you expect that?
Mr. Hixon. We have run the first test. They failed the
test. They identified exactly what caused the failure. They
will be running the test again on the 21st, in 3 days, and we
fully expect to pass the test. It was an inner core issue,
inner core of the door. So we feel very good that we will go on
to production.
About half the doors are fire-rated doors requiring UL
approval. The other half do not.
Senator Allard. I see, and so the tests are essential to
have these fire-rated for the marshal?
Mr. Hixon. For the portion that are fire-rated, they must
pass the test. Since we have had one test and we have
identified the problem with the core, they have made that
change, and so we expect it to perform satisfactorily.
CONSTRUCTION DELAY DOCUMENTATION
Senator Allard. Now, none of the 11 milestones, as both I
point out in my testimony and we got from GAO, for the last
month have been completed on time. Mr. Hixon, what progress has
the Architect of the Capitol and Gilbane made in implementing
GAO's longstanding recommendation that it more systematically
document delays to the project on an ongoing basis?
Mr. Hixon. The documentation of delays has been a
discussion with Gilbane. They are keeping those records on
daily reports. What we have talked about is do we need to have
something that summarizes the data monthly, so that we would
have that information available to factually document delays
either caused by differing site conditions or something that
someone else caused.
So we have got the base data. We have just not summarized
that data into some kind of a monthly format. We have been
having conversations on how best that should be done.
Senator Allard. Now, I am under the impression that we do
have a representative here from Gilbane Building Company.
Mr. Hixon. That is correct.
Senator Allard. Mr. Marvin Shenkler.
Mr. Hixon. Yes, sir.
Senator Allard. I would like to call him to the witness
table just for a couple questions, if I might.
STATEMENT OF MARVIN SHENKLER, GILBANE BUILDING COMPANY
Senator Allard. Mr. Shenkler, the first question I have for
you, do you believe the September 2006 date for planned
completion date is realistic and achievable?
Mr. Shenkler. I think it is overly optimistic and I have
indicated that prior. It is a very aggressive schedule. It is
one which, given adequate resources, which so far we have been
unable to obtain, in the way of stonemasons, for example, leads
me to conclude that it is not likely to be accomplished by
then.
Senator Allard. Is there any hope that we will be getting
more skilled masons into the area here that can help us get
through the delays on the stonemason project?
Mr. Shenkler. There is a possibility. We have been advised
by Manhattan that they are exploring ways of getting additional
resources in the way of stonemasons here. And we have had
increases from when we first started. We are up to around 23,
24 stonemasons on a daily basis. We think we need to get to
somewhere around 30 in order to recover the time that we have
lost in order to complete on schedule.
Senator Allard. Now, GAO has testified that it is critical
to have a reasonable amount of time between the end of
construction and the beginning of operations to allow for some
unexpected delays or problems. Does the current schedule allow
for this so far as you are aware?
Mr. Shenkler. Well, we are looking at a substantial
completion some time, in my mind, around December 2006. That
means a fully functional facility, ready for its intended use.
That would incorporate not only construction completion, but
also resolution of any punch list items that might still be on
the--required to be corrected.
Senator Allard. Is Gilbane doing all it can to ensure
timely completion of the project within available funds?
Mr. Shenkler. We are monitoring the schedule on a daily
basis. We are taking a proactive approach to looking at
durations for all critical and near-critical activities.
Starting tomorrow, we are going to have two additional senior
superintendents coming in to take a look at activity durations
to make sure that the staff who is on site right now is
realistic in the way we are looking at durations based on
quantity of work to be done per activity, crew sizes, and
productivity per crew.
Senator Allard. So you feel that right now you have the
right people on board to complete the remaining tasks?
Mr. Shenkler. I think we do.
ASSESSMENT OF GILBANE'S PERFORMANCE
Senator Allard. How would you assess Gilbane's performance
thus far and what is Gilbane doing to ensure that it has its A
team on the job?
Mr. Shenkler. As with any job of a complexity and size of
this magnitude, this is a very difficult job to accomplish. I
think we have done a satisfactory project so far. We obviously
need to do better. We have done--taken action to do that by
taking, by bringing additional staff on board. We have got a
full-time project control engineer who is rigorously looking at
the schedule, as suggested by GAO.
We are looking at costs. We are negotiating change orders.
We are envisioning a timeframe that we think is realistic to
complete the project.
Senator Allard. You think you have the best people there to
do that?
Mr. Shenkler. I think for the most part we have got
superior people, the A team from Gilbane, on this job.
Senator Allard. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Shenkler. I
do not think there is any need for you to remain at the table
now. Thank you.
Mr. Shenkler. Thank you.
CAPITOL POWER PLANT DIRECTOR
Senator Allard. I would like to move to the Capitol Power
Plant (CPP), an unexpected problem that came up this last week.
We have discussed the power plant in our hearing last month.
The first thing I wanted to start off with is, what is the
status now of hiring the CPP director?
Mr. Hantman. Mr. Chairman, the job description is out on
the street. It is being advertised right now.
Senator Allard. Okay. What has been the initial response?
Mr. Hantman. I will have to get back to you on that. I am
not sure how many applications----
WEST REFRIGERATION PLANT COST TO COMPLETE
Senator Allard. Do you expect additional funds will be
needed to complete the $100 million west refrigeration plant
project, and if so when will funds be needed?
Mr. Hantman. We are looking at a cost to complete right
now, Mr. Chairman--I was talking to our project manager just
yesterday about that--to make sure that we cover not only the
cost to complete of the plant itself, but the issue of
increasing utility costs, with gas prices going up and how that
might be impacting our overall power plant budget itself.
We do expect that there will be additional dollars
necessary to do that and we are looking at the magnitude of
that, and also looking internally to see what other sources of
funds that we already have at the power plant to help defer
that magnitude of dollars.
Senator Allard. What is the current estimated completion
date? The original schedule called for March 2006.
Mr. Hantman. There are basically two dates, Mr. Chairman.
The first date essentially is for manual operation on December
1 of this year for the new chillers, and our contractor informs
us that that schedule is on board and they have no concern
about that.
In terms of the controls, there have been some difficulties
in terms of the control systems and making sure that those
occur. We met with our contractor last week to discuss those
issues. They are looking for time extensions on their contract
and we are trying to work out with them what that might mean.
The bottom line in terms of chilled water capacity is that,
with the existing capacity in the west refrigeration plant, the
four machines we have there now, and the capacity in the
existing east refrigeration plant--and as you are probably
aware, Mr. Chairman, we lost a couple of units on that in the
last several weeks, which is one of the reasons we wanted to do
the expanded west refrigeration plant, because those units are
outdated. In fact, we had a fire in one of the breaker panels
over there, which is equipment that was meant to be
decommissioned once the new west refrigeration plant was
online.
We believe that the capacity that we have in the existing
units in the west refrigeration plant and the east
refrigeration plant should be adequate for our needs coming on
board for a potential February-March need from the visitor
center itself. We are looking at other opportunities to look at
new piping arrangements to make sure that we have the
flexibility between the west refrigeration plant and the east
refrigeration plant as we turn over the new units to be able to
flexibly use them as we need to and not have a down time on
that.
CAPITOL POWER PLANT FIRE
Senator Allard. On Columbus Day weekend, there was a fire
at the power plant, fortunately it occurred on the weekend,
when we did not have much demand, and it was during a time when
we had relatively mild weather. Can you bring us up to date as
to what was the cause of the fire? Were we slacking off on
maintenance because of the new equipment that was coming on?
Mr. Hantman. Mr. Chairman, this equipment has outlived its
life already, which is again why we are appreciative that the
Appropriations Committees have funded this new west
refrigeration plant. This electric circuit breaker
malfunctioned on October 8 and it started an electrical fire.
The breaker serviced a chilled water pump in the east
refrigeration plant which was not in operation at the time.
We are investigating the cause of the breaker failure, but
predominantly it is aging equipment and, quite frankly, I think
the plant has done a good job in terms of putting bandaids and
keeping them running as long as they have.
There were no injuries. Damage was limited to equipment
scheduled to be taken out of service as part of the west
refrigeration plant expansion project, and it will not be
replaced.
Our staff responded quickly to isolate the power to the
substation. D.C. Fire extinguished the fire with foam. During
the incident, chilled water service air-conditioning to the
complex was not disrupted since the west refrigeration plant
was not impacted, because of the newer machines. But the steam
service, the heat and humidity, was reduced temporarily as a
result of the reduction in power, which had a slight impact on
room temperatures. But by Saturday evening the service was
returned to normal.
MITIGATION PLAN
Senator Allard. You had mentioned getting the ducts
completed in the new Capitol Visitor Center was a key milestone
in getting things moving. I assume that is because you can
sustain a proper working environment there for your internal
job.
If we have another incident like this at the power plant,
during the cold winter months we have a shutdown, that could be
one of our high risk factors, could it not? Do you think that
is likely to happen? Do we have of a mitigation plan for that?
Mr. Hantman. The mitigation plan again refers to the piping
bypass that I talked about just a moment or so ago. The
flexibility to be able to operate the existing east plant
chillers and the west plant chillers as we bring on the new
ones and hook them up is what this piping scene is all about.
We expect that is a $500,000 to $600,000 element that really
relates back to the fact that we have lost existing equipment
on line, and we want to make sure that we have the redundancy
necessary.
Senator Allard. Is there anything to be done at the power
plant to make it less likely we would have these kind of fire
incidents?
Mr. Hantman. Well, part of the solution, sir, is to get rid
of the old equipment and bring in new, which is exactly what we
are doing. The fire was in fact in the old equipment, which is
slated for removal and replacement. It has outlived its life
and certainly proper observation, testing and maintenance is
critical and has been critical to getting us where we are at
this point.
UPCOMING MILESTONES
Senator Allard. Mr. Hixon, on the milestones, what are the
major milestones we should expect you to meet the next month
toward completion of the Capitol Visitor Center?
Mr. Hixon. The milestones for next month should be the
continuation of the utility tunnel items that have not been
reported as completed yet, and then we will be talking about
the upper level assembly rooms, the exhibit gallery, the east
front sub-basement masonry, continuation of additional utility
tunnel activities. So those are the things that we should be
reporting on, and I have a sheet of paper with a list of those
that we can convey with our statement.
Senator Allard. We would appreciate you putting that in the
record if you would, please.
[The information follows:]
CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
[Schedule Activities between October 18, and November 15, 2005]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 2005 Start September 2005 June 2005 September 2005 Actual
Item # Location Description Date Start Date Actual Start Finish Date Finish Date Finish Notes
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4520 Orientation Lobby Perimeter CMU walls..................................... 9/2/05......... 9/30/05........ 9/12/2005 \1\.. 9/16/05........ 10/13/05....... ....... ........
2016 Upper Level Assembly Topping slab............................................ 9/1/05......... 9/15/05........ 9/15/05 \1\.... 9/29/05........ 10/20/05....... ....... ........
Room
80160 East Front Interior CMU walls...................................... 8/12/05........ 9/30/05........ ............... 9/9/05......... 10/27/05....... ....... ........
Subbasement
SD5861 Exhibit Gallery Wall stone Area 2 base.................................. 9/22/05........ 10/24/05....... ............... 9/29/05........ 10/31/05....... ....... 3
6081 Congressional Wall Stone Area 1....................................... 7/1/05......... 9/30/05........ 8/15/05 \1\.... 7/22/05........ 11/3/05........ ....... 1
Auditorium
SD5951 Upper Level Assembly Wall stone area 1 layout................................ 9/30/05........ 11/7/05........ ............... 10/4/05........ 11/9/05........ ....... ........
Room
SD5891 Exhibit Gallery Wall stone Area 3 base.................................. 9/22/05........ 11/3/05........ ............... 9/29/05........ 11/10/05....... ....... 3
4540 Orientation Lobby Interior CMU walls...................................... 9/19/05........ 10/12/05....... ............... 10/21/05....... 11/15/05....... ....... ........
SD5831 Exhibit Gallery Wall stone Area 1....................................... 10/7/05........ 10/31/05....... ............... 10/25/05....... 11/16/05....... ....... ........
6082 Congressional Wall Stone Area 2....................................... 7/25/05........ 11/4/05........ ............... 8/5/05......... 11/17/05....... ....... 1
Auditorium
84280 Utility Tunnel Excavate/shore Station Sta 0.00-1.00.................... 8/24/05........ 8/12/05........ 8/12/05 \1\.... 10/5/05........ 10/6/05........ ....... 2
84340 Utility Tunnel Concrete Working Slab Sta. 0.00-1.00.................... 10/6/05........ 10/7/05........ ............... 10/10/05....... 10/11/05....... ....... 2
84350 Utility Tunnel Waterproof Working Slab Sta. 000-1.00................... 10/11/05....... 10/12/05....... ............... 10/13/05....... 10/14/05....... ....... 2
84360 Utility Tunnel Install Mat Slab Sta. 0.00-1.00......................... 10/14/05....... 10/17/05....... ............... 10/19/05....... 10/20/05....... ....... 2
84560 Utility Tunnel Install Mat Slab Sta. 1.00-2.00......................... 10/12/05....... 10/17/05....... ............... 10/19/05....... 10/24/05....... ....... 2
84570 Utility Tunnel Install Walls Sta. 1.00-2.00............................ 10/24/05....... 10/25/05....... ............... 11/11/05....... 11/4/05........ ....... 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Notes activities identified as critical.
Notes:
1. Wall stone manpower.
2. Utility tunnel work delayed by unforeseen site conditions and resultant design revisions. Dates based on current Early Start.
3. Special bite for exhibit wall stone base.
Senator Allard. Mr. Ungar, on critical activities, what do
you think is the most important action the Architect of the
Capitol needs to take with respect to the Capitol Visitor
Center project to ensure its timely completion?
Mr. Ungar. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think the most critical
action would be to have a realistic, credible schedule that is
complete as soon as possible.
Senator Allard. Do we have any comments from the panel that
they would like to make for the record?
Mr. Hantman. Just, Mr. Chairman, that I do welcome the
opportunity to have these hearings and to bring these issues
forward and try to resolve them in an appropriate way. I also
welcome the opportunity to show you first-hand all of the
issues that we have been talking about and the quality of the
work. I truly still do believe, sir, that we are going to have
a wonderful, historic project over here that will serve the
Congress and the American people who come to visit their
Congress as well.
Senator Allard. Well, I appreciate the opportunity to have
a tour.
Mr. Hantman. Yes. Again, a lot of the discussion we have
been having, Mr. Chairman, is about things you can see on the
visitor level. I think being able to look at the utility
tunnel, look at the mechanical and electrical spaces down below
on the third level, perhaps the truck dock area, whatever your
time will allow us to see, we would welcome the opportunity to
show you.
Senator Allard. Well, we will have our staffs work together
and see if we can set up a timely tour hitting the main issues
that we have been talking about here on the subcommittee.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Thank you very much for your time and I look forward to
visiting with you 30 days from now.
[Whereupon, at 11:21 a.m., Tuesday, October 18, the subcom-
mittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the
Chair.]
PROGRESS OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER
----------
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch,
Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 11:01 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Wayne Allard (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senator Allard.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD
Senator Allard. I am going to call to order the
subcommittee. We meet today for our sixth hearing this year on
the progress of the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC). We welcome
once again Architect of the Capitol Alan Hantman, the CVC
Project Executive Bob Hixon, and GAO's representatives Bernard
Ungar and Terrell Dorn.
Today we look forward to discussing the latest estimate of
the cost to complete the CVC project, the Architect's efforts
to keep the project on schedule, as well as the status of
critical activities such as stone installation and the utility
tunnel construction.
It appears that the Architect believes sufficient funds
remain to complete the project, while the Government
Accountability Office estimates the need for a minimum of $14
million in additional appropriations. Once again, we have a
wide discrepancy between the projections of AOC and that of the
GAO. In addition, we understand GAO's estimate is very
preliminary since the schedule is still in flux. GAO cannot
with any degree of precision estimate the cost.
As to progress in the past month, GAO reports that 8 of 16
activities to have been completed in the last month have
actually been completed. Only three of these milestones were
completed on time. About 10 days of work on the utility tunnel
and the interior stone work were lost out of 21 work days in
the last month. Despite AOC's projection that it would be able
to make up the lost time, the trend of losing time against the
schedule continues.
I would just note that I frequently will walk by the
Capitol Street utility tunnel on the east side and I've seen
much more activity in the last couple of days, which has been
heartening.
So now let me turn to you, Mr. Hantman, for your testimony,
to be followed by GAO.
STATEMENT OF ALAN M. HANTMAN, FAIA, ARCHITECT OF THE
CAPITOL
ACCOMPANIED BY BOB HIXON, PROJECT DIRECTOR, CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER,
ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
Mr. Hantman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning.
Once again I welcome this opportunity to update you on the
status of the Capitol Visitor Center project and to discuss the
key issues that you mentioned, the schedule, the budget, and
project progress. First, I would like to thank you for taking
the time to scale the ladders with us a few weeks ago and visit
the project, including the utility tunnel on East Capitol
Street that you just referred to. As you know, this is a
critical activity that has provided us with many challenges and
physical obstacles over the past months.
STONE DELIVERY STATUS
The most significant challenge, Mr. Chairman, since last
month's hearing, however, is the continued lack of adequate
wall stone delivery. In October we received only 2 truckloads
of stone, not the 11 truckloads that were scheduled for
delivery. This severely impacted our installation schedule and
forced the contractor to move stonemasons to areas of the
project that were not as high a priority in the work flow. This
allowed the contractor to keep the 25 teams of masons working
productively, but this is a very troubling situation that we
have been pursuing with our contractors.
On November 2, we met with representatives of Manhattan and
the stone installer, Boatman and Magnani, and their attorneys
to obtain a briefing on the status of stone delivery and what
actions they proposed to take. We made it clear to them that
late delivery of stone is significantly jeopardizing the timely
completion and opening of the CVC and that we expected that
necessary steps be taken to ensure that the contract completion
date would be met. At the same time, we recognize that the
injunction has inhibited their ability to resolve this issue on
their own.
Therefore, on November 5, attorneys for Boatman and Magnani
filed a motion in Federal District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania seeking relief from the existing
injunction and an expedited hearing on the matter. In its
motion, Boatman and Magnani asserts that stone is not being
delivered to the project in sufficient quantities to meet the
contract completion date nor in accordance with the schedule
the parties had certified to the court earlier. Therefore,
Boatman and Magnani requested permission from the court to
supplement the work of either the current stone fabricator and/
or the quarry by contracting with others to assist with or
supplement that work. Also, before the court are other motions
from both the quarry and the fabricator.
While we are not a party to this litigation, our interests
are critically affected by it, and we are being represented by
the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of
Pennsylvania, who has appeared on our behalf to ensure our
interests are made known to the court. Yesterday, the U.S.
attorney filed a statement of interest on our behalf as a
friend of the court, reiterating the need for an expedited
hearing and ruling on the matter, given the impact that stone
delivery is having on the CVC project.
The judge has now scheduled a hearing for December 1, for
presentation of all pending motions. The U.S. Attorney's Office
will be there to represent us and so will Mr. Hixon and my
general counsel. While we take no position on any of these
motions, we do believe the issues presented represent the need
for the court to take immediate appropriate action to ensure
that stone is delivered to the project in sufficient quantities
to allow timely completion of the project.
Mr. Chairman, until we know what relief, if any, will be
granted to Boatman and Magnani by the court, we cannot predict
what impacts to the schedule may result. In the meantime, our
contractors are working around the problem areas and initiating
other productive work.
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT STATUS
In general, with regard to the overall project schedule, at
last month's hearing we committed to include the testing and
balancing commissioning activities for the heating,
ventilating, and air-conditioning system into the fully
integrated schedule. We have completed that effort and we are
in the process of developing the detailed schedule activities
for life safety acceptance testing. The fire marshal will
perform these activities during the second half of next year.
At a meeting last week with the fire marshal, we reviewed
the requirements for acceptance testing so we can develop the
detailed schedule over the next few weeks. In accordance, Mr.
Chairman, with our commitment at the last hearing, we should
complete that effort in December. This will in turn help us
determine with greater accuracy when specific areas of the
visitor center will become available for occupancy by the staff
and by the public. This information also will be necessary for
an executive director to determine when to hire the appropriate
operations personnel as areas are completed in the months
ahead.
COST TO COMPLETE
Another key issue relates to the cost-to-complete analysis
completed and submitted last month by our independent cost
consultant, McDonough Bolyard Peck. We said in October, as you
mentioned, Mr. Chairman, that we believed that no additional
funds would be required. We continue to believe that, based on
this report, all currently known issues, and a completion date
of December 2006, we can still work within existing
appropriated funds for the construction of the project,
although the funding is tight.
Nevertheless, we concur with GAO that potential risks
clearly do still exist and that additional funds may be
necessary to complete the project should these risks turn into
reality; if completion therefore occurs after December 2006, or
if significant additional change orders are required. In light
of the unforeseen conditions we have encountered thus far, in
addition to the challenges we face with the utility tunnel, the
stone fabrication and installation, and the finish work still
remaining in the east front, we acknowledge that funds for
additional contingency might be necessary as we move forward.
We will be reviewing this issue with GAO in conjunction with
their analysis and with the development of the fiscal year 2007
budget request.
PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS
Mr. Chairman, I would now like to briefly discuss a few
project highlights. Stonemason teams continue to set stone on
the columns in the Great Hall and throughout the congressional
auditorium and we are completing stone installation in both
orientation theaters. To offset the delay in the exhibit
gallery that we discussed at the last hearing, as shown on this
board, the contractor moved crews to the upper level lobby just
outside the orientation theaters and they set base stone and
wall stone in that area, as well as in the congressional
auditorium. So while the stone was not available earlier for
the exhibition gallery, masons completed base stone in the
lobby area 3 months earlier than scheduled.
It is critical to keep the mason teams working productively
or risk losing them to another project. Therefore, to adjust to
the inconsistencies in stone deliveries that I discussed
earlier, we have deviated from our schedule at times and moved
the masons to other areas. That in turn has impacted milestones
we have talked about in previous hearings, but if we have to
move the crews around to keep them productive it is important
to do so.
In the last weeks, as shown on this board, the base stone
for the exhibition gallery has been received. Much of that has
been installed, allowing masons to move forward with the wall
stone installation and the conduits for the interactive
computer stations.
Mr. Chairman, inside the House and Senate expansion space
the contractor continues to make good progress. Crews are busy
installing the ductwork for the air handling systems, conduit
and wiring for all of the mechanical and electrical plumbing
systems. On the Senate side, masonry block work and ductwork
has been completed in many areas and crews are now erecting the
metal stud walls and installing drywall throughout the space.
On the Senate plaza, with all the elevation issues now
resolved, that work is progressing well. Crews have placed
concrete slabs and resumed installation of curb stones and
granite pavers.
Work on the utility tunnel along East Capitol Street has
continued, as you mentioned, with concrete placements occurring
at the intersections of First and Second Streets. Below First
Street, as you saw during your inspection, Mr. Chairman, an
existing gas line was found to be 6 feet lower than expected
based on available drawings and is in the path of the utility
tunnel. We have installed a new temporary bridge and shifted
traffic to the west side of First Street to clear the way for
Washington Gas crews to perform the gas line revisions.
Meanwhile, the contractor personnel continue to install the
chilled water, the steam lines, the welding connections, and
place concrete.
Mr. Chairman, construction challenges continue to pop up
and we continue to address and resolve them, making progress as
we go.
STATUS OF OPERATIONS
With respect to exhibits and operations, the project
continues to move forward on many fronts. Principal filming for
the orientation film has been completed. A separate contractor
involved in producing all of the interactive programs for the
24 computer stations in the exhibit gallery has been
photographing in the Capitol. These images will be used to
create a virtual tour through the building. Meanwhile, a model
fabricator is busy creating the 10-foot touchable model of the
Capitol Dome, while another modelmaker is beginning to
construct six models showing the evolution of the Capitol
campus over the past 212 years.
In addition, we continue to make progress on our operations
initiatives. We reported last month that the request for
proposal for food service contract had been issued and the
search for the executive director is underway. We are looking
forward to the candidates being reviewed for that position in
December and having a selection made in January. In the
meantime, we are working with your staff to examine a handful
of other positions that need to be filled in the near future
based on the recommendation of our operations consultant, Zell
Partners.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, several weeks ago I had the
opportunity to escort the national board of directors of the
American Institute of Architects to the project site. In their
newsletter published a few days later and distributed to 76,000
professional members across the country, AIA President Douglas
Steidl said that, quote: ``All great projects require the
collaboration of many individuals to achieve success. The
Congress and the congressional leadership provided an
exceptional focused vision for the project. The architect,
RTKL, creatively integrated the complex functions with a clear
vision and contractors appear to be executing the design
details with superb craftsmanship.''
Mr. Steidl added that the project team, quote, ``is well on
its way to achieving the significant architectural distinction
that is worthy of this historic and celebrated site,'' and that
``the excellence of the project is consistent with the
significance of the place and will serve citizens of this
country extremely well long into the future.''
Mr. Chairman, this helps us maintain our perspective as we
work through and resolve issues that continue to arise. I would
like to include this full article as part of the official
record, to talk about how recognized experts in the design and
construction community perceive our project.
Senator Allard. Without objection, we will include the full
article.
[The information follows:]
[From AIArchitect, November 2005]
Architect of the Capitol, RTKL ``Doing it Right'' at the U.S. Capitol
Visitor Center
While convening in Washington, D.C, members of the AIA Executive
Committee toured the construction site of the new U.S. Capitol Visitor
Center on October 19 with the best of all possible tour guides:
Architect of the Capitol Alan Hantman, FAIA. Construction of the
visitor center began in July 2002 for the purpose of making the Capitol
``more accessible, comfortable, secure, and informative for all
visitors.'' Architecture firm RTKL Associates Inc. placed the facility
underground below the East Capitol grounds, so as not to detract from
the venerable appearance of the Capitol and its historic Frederick Law
Olmsted landscape.
Encompassing 580,000 square feet on three levels, the new visitor
center is nearly three-quarters the size of the Capitol itself and
includes space for two orientation theaters, an auditorium, exhibits,
gift shops, food service, security and other ancillary spaces, as well
much needed space for the House and Senate. Working in the days
following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, RTKL designed
the visitor center to enhance security while preserving an atmosphere
of free and open access, using such processional elements as gently
sloping ramps. Six skylights in the center's roof deck welcome sunlight
to flood interior spaces while offering visitors dramatic views of the
Capitol dome.
Exceptional, focused vision
``All great projects require the collaboration of many individuals
to achieve success. The Congress and congressional leadership provided
an exceptional, focused vision for the project; the architect (RTKL)
creatively integrated the complex functions with a clear vision; and
the contractors appear to be executing the design details with superb
craftsmanship,'' noted AIA President Douglas L Steidl, FAIA, in a
letter of appreciation to Hantman. ``As the Architect of the Capitol,
you have obviously excelled in unifying the team effort, ensuring that
the visionary ideals were adroitly integrated with functional demands.
Further, your team is well on its way to achieving the significant
architectural distinction that is worthy of this historic and
celebrated site.''
Construction, resolutely on track for a fall 2006 completion, is
entering its final phase. Board members saw interior crews busily
installing MEP systems, erecting interior walls, and hooking up fire
and life-safety systems. Stone masons currently are installing some of
the $35 million worth of finish stone, including in the Great Hall and
the center's two theaters. Outside, on the roof deck, historic
preservation contractors are re-installing the original Olmsted-
designed lanterns, fountains, and seat walls that had been temporarily
stored during excavation and construction.
Steidl, on behalf of the AIA's 76,000 members, expressed gratitude
to the Architect of the Capitol ``for shepherding this most vital
public project in such a manner that it is being exceptionally well
constructed, despite the most difficult of technical, environmental,
schedule, and iconic demands.'' He further wrote to Hantman, ``We
believe you deserve the gratitude of every American for `doing it
right.' The excellence of this project is consistent with the
significance of the `place' and will serve the citizens of this country
extremely well, long into the future.''
Building bridges on the Hill
In the same week, in the nearby Hart Senate Office Building, Duane
A. Kell, FAIA, Ankeny Kell Architects, PA, St. Paul, and AIA Executive
Vice President/CEO Norman L. Koonce, FAIA, paid a visit to Senator
Norman Coleman (R.-Minn.). Kell, who first came to know the senator
during Coleman's term as mayor of St. Paul, brought regards from the
Minnesota components of the AIA and thanked the senator for his help in
protecting Community Development Block Grants.
Kell and Koonce discussed public advocacy for public buildings with
Sen. Coleman, and explained to him the Institute's legislative
initiatives that, if enacted, would offer appropriate and cost-
effective assistance to those affected by the devastation of hurricanes
Katrina and Rita. ``Both Duane and I came away from our meeting
convinced that Senator Coleman has the keen insights and experience to
take a leadership role in the Senate as a spirited advocate for design
excellence in the public sector,'' Koonce said. Koonce and Kell both
thanked AIA Minnesota Executive Director Beverly Hauschild-Baron, Hon.
AIA, for her valuable assistance in arranging the visit.
In a follow-up visit, the senator's staff and members of the AIA's
Government Advocacy staff agreed to explore development of Senate
legislation on federal tax credits for historic preservation that is
like the English-Jefferson bill in the House. It would be introduced
during the second session of the 109th Congress.
Mr. Hantman. Thank you, sir.
That concludes my opening remarks, Mr. Chairman, and I
welcome the opportunity to answer any questions you may have.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Alan M. Hantman, FAIA
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning. Once again, I welcome
this opportunity to update you on the status of the Capitol Visitor
Center project and to discuss the key issues related to schedule,
budget, and project progress.
First, I would like to thank you for taking the time to scale the
ladders with us a few weeks ago and visit the project, including the
utility tunnel on East Capitol Street, which is a critical activity
that has provided us with many challenges and physical obstacles over
the past weeks.
The most significant issue since last month's hearing is the
continued lack of adequate wall stone delivery. In October we received
only two truck loads of stone; not the 11 truck loads that were
scheduled for delivery. We have met with the contractor to discuss this
issue and the stone contractor's attorney has filed paperwork with the
Federal Court involved in the dispute with the stone supplier. We are
hoping for a prompt hearing on this issue and relief from the
injunction.
PROJECT SCHEDULE
With regard to the project schedule, as we reported last month, our
contractor, Manhattan, submitted a revised schedule that fully
integrates the project's nearly 6,600 scheduled activities, including
testing and balancing of the HVAC system. The only element not resolved
in the schedule is the level of detail for the life-safety acceptance
testing to be performed by the Fire Marshal during the second half of
next year. At a meeting last week with the Fire Marshal, we reviewed
the requirements for acceptance testing so we can develop the detailed
schedule over the next few weeks. In accordance with our commitment at
the last hearing, we should complete that effort in December.
Our project master schedule still shows completion of the Visitor
Center, including commissioning activities, in December 2006; with the
House and Senate Expansion space on track for completion in March 2007.
Our efforts with the Fire Marshal will produce, in late December, a
schedule with all required construction activities which will, in turn,
help us determine with greater accuracy when specific areas of the
Visitor Center will become available for occupancy. This information
will be necessary for an Executive Director to determine when to hire
the appropriate operations personnel as areas are completed in the
months ahead.
COST TO COMPLETE
Another key issue relates to the Cost-to-Complete analysis
completed and submitted last month by our independent cost consultant,
McDonough Bolyard Peck. We said in October that we believed that no
additional funds would be required. We continue to believe that, based
on all currently known issues and a completion date of December 2006,
we can still work within existing appropriated funds for the
construction of the project, although the funding is tight. I want to
note that there is an increase of $5 million in the Cost-to-Complete
estimate compared to last year. The reasons for that increase include
extension of the AOC and A/E construction management staff for three
months, additional time for temporary power and construction materials
testing, and, most significantly, new and projected change orders.
However, funding to cover this increase in the estimated Cost-to-
Complete is available within currently appropriated funding.
Nevertheless, we concur with GAO that potential risks do still
exist and that additional funds may be necessary to complete the
project should these risks turn into reality, if completion occurs
after December 2006, or if significant additional change orders are
required. In light of the design changes and unforeseen conditions we
have encountered thus far, in addition to the challenges we face with
the utility tunnel, stone fabrication and installation, and the finish
work still remaining in the East Front, we acknowledge that funds for
additional contingency might be necessary as we move forward.
PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS
Mr. Chairman, for the record, I would like to discuss a few project
highlights. Stone mason teams continue to set stone on the columns in
the Great Hall and throughout the Congressional Auditorium, and we are
completing stone installation in both orientation theaters. To offset
the delay in the Exhibit Gallery stone work, the contractor moved crews
to the upper level lobby just outside the orientation theaters and they
set base stone and wall stone in that area, as well as in the
Congressional Auditorium. So, while stone was not available for the
Exhibition Gallery, masons completed base stone in the lobby area three
months earlier than scheduled. It is critical to keep the mason teams
working productively or risk losing them to another project. Therefore,
to adjust to the inconsistencies in stone deliveries, we have deviated
from our schedule at times and moved the masons to other areas. That,
in turn, has impacted milestones we've talked about in previous
hearings, but if we have to move crews around to keep them working, it
is important to do so.
Inside the House and Senate Expansion Space, the contractor
continues to make good progress. Crews are busy installing the ductwork
for the air handling systems and conduit and wiring for all of the
mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems. On the Senate side,
masonry blockwork and ductwork has been completed in many areas and
crews are now erecting the metal stud walls and installing drywall
throughout the space. On the Senate Plaza, with all of the elevation
issues now resolved, that work is progressing well. Crews have placed
concrete slabs and resumed installation of curb stones and granite
pavers.
Work on the utility tunnel along East Capitol Street has continued
with concrete placements occurring at the intersections at First and
Second Streets. Below First Street, as you saw during your inspection,
Mr. Chairman, an existing gas line was found to be six feet lower than
expected based on available drawings and is in the path of the utility
tunnel. We have installed a new temporary bridge and shifted traffic to
the west side of First Street to clear the way for Washington Gas crews
to perform the gas line revision. Meanwhile, contractor personnel
continue to install the chilled water and steam pipes, weld
connections, and place concrete in other areas of the tunnel.
Also regarding utilities, I am pleased to report that the chillers
in the West Refrigeration Plant Expansion are scheduled to be
operational on December 1, 2005, and the contractor has confirmed that
they will be ready on that date. This does not include the installation
of the entire digital control system to automatically operate the
chillers, but the chillers will be operated in a manual mode and will
be fully capable of producing chilled water well in advance of the
completion of the CVC utility tunnel. While it is planned that the East
Refrigeration Plant and the existing West Refrigeration Plant would
provide all required chilled water this winter, the chillers added as
part of the West Refrigeration Plant Expansion project could be used if
necessary. With the completion of the utility tunnel serving the CVC,
we are confident that adequate capacity exists to service the CVC
during the upcoming winter period and beyond.
EXHIBITS AND OPERATIONS
Mr. Chairman, with respect to exhibits and operations, the project
continues to move forward on many fronts. Principal filming for the
orientation film has been completed, and a separate contractor involved
in producing all of the interactive programs for the 24 computer
stations in the Exhibit Gallery has begun photographing the Capitol.
These images will be used to create a virtual tour through the
building. Meanwhile, a model fabricator is busy creating the 10-foot
touchable model of the Capitol Dome while another model maker is
beginning to construct six models showing the evolution of the Capitol
campus over the past 212 years. In addition, we continue to make
progress on our operations initiatives. We reported last month that the
Request for Proposal for the food service contract was issued, and the
search for the Executive Director is underway. We are looking forward
to the candidates being reviewed for that position in December and
having a selection made in January. In the meantime, we are working
with your staff to examine a handful of other positions that need to be
filled in the near future based on the recommendation of our operations
consultant, Zell Partners.
Mr. Chairman, several weeks ago I had the opportunity to escort the
National Board of Directors of the American Institute of Architects to
the project site. In their newsletter published a few days later and
distributed to 76,000 members across the country, AIA president Douglas
Steidl said that, ``All great projects require the collaboration of
many individuals to achieve success. The Congress and the congressional
leadership provided an exceptional, focused vision for the project; the
architect (RTKL) creatively integrated the complex functions with a
clear vision; and the contractors appear to be executing the design
details with superb craftsmanship.'' Mr. Steidl added that the project
team ``is well on its way to achieving the significant architectural
distinction that is worthy of this historic and celebrated site'' and
that the ``excellence of this project is consistent with the
significance of the `place' and will serve citizens of this country
extremely well, long into the future.'' Mr. Chairman, I would like to
include the full article as part of the official record of today's
hearing as an indication of how segments of the design and construction
community perceive the Visitor Center project.
That concludes my opening remarks, Mr. Chairman, and I welcome the
opportunity to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Allard. Very good. GAO, go ahead if you would,
please, with your testimony.
STATEMENT OF BERNARD L. UNGAR, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY
OFFICE
ACCOMPANIED BY TERRELL DORN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Mr. Ungar. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Dorn will provide our summary
and we will both be available for questions.
Mr. Dorn. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank
you for the opportunity for Mr. Ungar and I to come and discuss
our continuing assistance to the subcommittee in its oversight
of the Capitol Visitor Center construction. Our summary this
morning is going to center on two areas, schedule and cost.
However, as you mentioned before, we still cannot come to an
exact number on the cost or the completion date until the
schedule is finalized by AOC next month.
While we may disagree with AOC's monthly report that the
project is proceeding according to the master schedule, we do
agree that work is continuing in many areas and that it is
exciting to see the spaces take shape as walls and mechanical
equipment are installed, particularly in the House and Senate
expansion spaces.
CONSTRUCTION ISSUES
Unfortunately, as we reported last month, work is still not
proceeding at the pace necessary to meet the contract
completion date of September 2006, 10 months from now, which in
turn affects the opening. Three examples of the slower than
expected pace are the continuing trend of missing milestones,
two critical project drivers losing 2 weeks in the last month,
and the amount of time that needs to be made up between now and
September 2006.
First, as you mentioned, only 8 out of the 16 milestones
were completed and out of those 8 only 3 were on time. This is
after moving the goalpost forward from the April baseline
schedule to the September schedule.
Second, the two critical drivers are interior stone and the
utility tunnel, as the Architect has already mentioned. Like
last month, both of these critical paths lost about 2 weeks in
the last month.
Third, a couple months back we reported that as of the end
of July the project was about 60 calendar days behind and the
team would have to work the equivalent of 8 days a week to make
up the lost time. Three months later, the project is now over
80 calendar days behind and the team would have to work the
equivalent of 9 days a week for the next 10 months straight to
complete the contract on time.
As I mentioned a moment ago, the two critical drivers
currently are utility tunnel and interior stone. The CVC team
is working to pick up the pace in the utility tunnel and
another concrete sub is on site and helping. Most of the
excavation is now complete and along with that most of the
opportunities for differing site conditions are gone. However,
we still have the excavation for the movement of a 24-inch gas
line to do, and that is going to extend out 15 feet or so on
both sides of the utility tunnel, which means you are going to
cut through quite a bit of East Capitol Street, where you are
going to have more opportunities to run into more utilities. So
there is a high risk there, even though it is a limited amount
of excavation.
The other risk on the utility tunnel is, as the Architect
mentioned, the gas pipe is actually going to be replaced by
Washington Gas, not the CVC, so we are at the gas company's
mercy as far as when that pipe actually gets replaced.
On interior stone, while Manhattan has been successful in
its effort to get more masons on the job, they have been much
less successful in getting stone for the masons to install. The
project has repeatedly only received half the stone deliveries
that Manhattan says it needs to stay on schedule, and since the
last hearing the situation has worsened to only 2 truckloads
out of 11 required. Manhattan has kept the masons busy by doing
work out of sequence, but doing work in that way is not helping
the critical path.
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
AOC has made significant effort over the past month to
resolve the scheduling issues surrounding the heating and air-
conditioning equipment, testing and balancing, and the fire
protection equipment. However, they have not yet reached a
conclusion with the fire marshal on the testing of the fire
protection equipment and until this is done there is a risk of
a slip to the project schedule of an additional 2 to 4 months.
In addition on the project schedule, Mr. Chairman, we have
talked before about the need to have a fully integrated
schedule, including operations, and I just want to point out
that the operations piece, while it is added to the end of the
schedule, is still not linked in logically and that could
create problems as the construction schedule slips. So we need
to again reinforce the need to fully integrate the operations
schedule and the construction schedule.
A few months ago we recommended that AOC and Gilbane
reexamine the schedule, particularly the project durations.
Gilbane has completed that work and has made a number of
recommendations to correct schedule inaccuracies and
unrealistic durations in some areas, particularly the stone. We
recommend that AOC implement the Gilbane recommendations, which
are consistent with our previous recommendations on improving
schedule management, and that AOC also re-assess its proposed
December 2006 date for opening the CVC to the public.
Gilbane's recommendations reinforce GAO's view that the CVC
is much more likely to be completed in the spring to summer of
2007.
COST TO COMPLETE
Mr. Chairman, in November 2004 we estimated that, given the
risks and uncertainties that the project was likely to face,
that the cost was likely to be between $515 and $559 million. A
year later, our preliminary work indicates that the CVC project
is likely, at a minimum, to cost $542.9 million. This number
does not provide any more funds for the remaining risks and
uncertainties that may materialize or cover the costs of
certain delays that may occur. It also could change again if
the schedule changes next month with AOC.
Our estimate of $542.9 million is significantly more than
the McDonough Bolyard Peck cost-to-complete estimate that we
received last month through the AOC, largely because McDonough
Bolyard Peck's estimate does not include a number of project
components or in our view include sufficient contingency to
complete the project. Our estimate of $542.9 exceeds the funds
specifically provided to date for construction by a total of
$14.5 million.
WORKER SAFETY STATISTICS
Last, Mr. Chairman, I have some good news to report about
worker safety. According to our analysis of CVC data, worker
safety rates have substantially improved this year. The injury
and illness rate for the first 10 months of 2005 declined 52
percent from the 2004 rate, putting the site 3 percent below
the national average. The lost time rate declined 62 percent
during the same period, but it is still 29 percent higher than
the average rate for comparable construction sites, and the AOC
and Gilbane and Manhattan should be congratulated for their
effort to improve the safety records.
OVERALL STATUS
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, while significant effort has
been made in schedule management, much remains to be done. Work
is continuing to slip. Increasingly, stone deliveries are
critical and Manhattan needs to meet its schedule on delivering
stone. We recommend that AOC implement the Gilbane
recommendations on the schedule and reassess the project's
opening date. In addition, we believe that at a minimum an
additional $14.5 million will be needed to complete the
project.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity and Mr. Ungar
and I are prepared to answer any questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bernard L. Ungar
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: We are pleased to be
here today to assist the Subcommittee in monitoring progress on the
Capitol Visitor Center (CVC) project. Our remarks will focus on (1) the
status of the project schedule since the Subcommittee's October 18,
2005, hearing \1\ on the project, (2) the project's costs and funding,
and (3) worker safety issues. We will discuss the progress made and
problems encountered in completing scheduled construction work and in
continuing to develop the project schedule, as we indicated during the
Subcommittee's October 18 hearing; however, we will not be able to
estimate specific completion dates until the project schedule is stable
and AOC and its construction management contractor--Gilbane Building
Company--have completed their assessments of the schedule and we have
had an opportunity to evaluate them. Also, we will update the
information we previously provided on the project's costs and funding,
using readily available data, but we will wait until the project
schedule is stable and has been fully reviewed before we
comprehensively update our November 2004 estimate of the cost to
complete the project and update the provision in our estimate for risks
and uncertainties facing the project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See GAO, Capitol Visitor Center: Status of Schedule, Fire
Protection, Cost, and Related Issues, GAO-06-180T (Washington, D.C.:
Oct. 18, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our remarks today are based on our review of schedules, financial
reports, and worker safety information for the CVC project and related
records and reports developed or maintained by AOC and its construction
management contractor; our review of AOC's consultant's--McDonough
Bolyard Peck (MBP)November 1, 2005, report updating its October 2004
estimate of the cost to complete the project; our observations on the
progress of work at the CVC construction site; and our discussions with
CVC project staff (including AOC and its major CVC contractors), AOC's
Chief Fire Marshal, U.S. Capitol Police representatives, and officials
responsible for managing the Capitol Power Plant (CPP). We did not
perform an audit; rather, we performed our work to assist Congress in
conducting its oversight activities.
In summary, construction work in several areas has moved forward
since the Subcommittee's October 18 CVC hearing, but additional delays
have occurred, and AOC's construction management contractor has
identified several concerns with the schedule that raise questions
about its proposed mid-December 2006 opening of the base CVC project to
the public.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ AOC set September 15, 2006, as the contractual date for
completing the base project's construction and for opening the CVC
facility to the public. The House and Senate expansion spaces were
scheduled to be completed after that date. AOC set the September
contract completion date in November 2004, when it reached agreement
with the contractor on a new date for starting sequence 2 that
reflected the delays experienced on sequence 1. On September 6, 2005,
AOC informed Capitol Preservation Commission representatives that it
still expected the base project's construction to be substantially
complete on September 15, 2006, but was postponing the date for opening
the facility to the public to December 15, 2006, so that it could
complete system tests, minor punch-list work, and preparations for
operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
--Construction work has continued on all interior CVC levels, various
sections of the House and Senate expansion spaces, the plaza,
and the House connector and utility tunnels. Overall, however,
the work, especially stonework, has taken longer than
scheduled. For example, the installation of interior wall stone
fell behind about 2 weeks because of delays in receiving needed
stone. Work on the utility tunnel was delayed by a similar
amount of time for a variety of reasons.
--Efforts by the sequence 2 contractor to resequence activities
involved in testing, balancing, and commissioning the heating,
ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) system had the net
effect of moving the base project's completion date forward 3
days. AOC's construction management contractor has accepted
this resequencing. However, other scheduling issues could delay
completion. For example, AOC's Fire Marshal Division has raised
several concerns about the schedule for testing and inspecting
the CVC's fire protection system, and the construction
management contractor has identified a number of critical
activities whose completion dates slipped from the September to
the October schedule. Delays in completing these critical
activities affect the progress of the project because other
work cannot continue until they are completed. Critical
stonework activities pose particular concerns, given the
problems with labor and supplies that the project has
experienced. For example, in October, the sequence 2 contractor
received less than 20 percent of the stone expected.
--AOC's construction management contractor's evaluation of the
duration of selected activities, completed last week, points to
a later completion date than is currently scheduled unless
additional actions are taken. This evaluation identified
unrealistic durations for the selected activities (especially
stonework), concerns about the schedule's logic, and
inaccuracies in reflecting the impact of delays and sequence 2
contract changes to date. The construction management
contractor made a number of recommendations based on its
findings. The contractor's evaluation has reinforced our view
that the base project would be difficult to complete in 2006
and is more likely to be completed in early to mid-2007 unless
AOC and its contractors take extraordinary action or change the
project's scope, which could increase the government's costs.
Our belief is based on the project's history of delays; the
views of project personnel that several activities (such as the
installation of interior wall stone) are likely to take longer
than scheduled; the large number of critical activities in the
current project schedule; and the risks and uncertainties that
continue to face the project.
AOC and its construction management contractor expect to resolve
outstanding scheduling concerns and issues by the end of this year.
When AOC and its construction management contractor have prepared what
they consider to be a reasonably stable project schedule, we will
reevaluate the schedule and inform the Subcommittee of our results. In
the interim, to help ensure that Congress has better information for
making CVC-related decisions, we are recommending that AOC (1)
implement the recommendations for obtaining a more reliable project
schedule contained in its construction management contractor's November
2005 report, which are consistent with our previous recommendations on
schedule management, and (2) reassess its proposed December 2006 date
for opening the CVC to the public when it has a more reliable
construction schedule.
Our preliminary work indicates that the entire CVC project is
likely, at a minimum, to cost $542.9 million. This preliminary estimate
falls about midway between our September 15, 2005, interim estimate of
$525.6 million, which did not provide for risks and uncertainties, and
our November 2004 estimate of about $559 million, which did provide for
risks and uncertainties. Specifically, this current $542.9 preliminary
estimate is about $17.3 million more than the September 15 interim
estimate and about $16.1 million less than the November 2004 estimate.
The current $542.9 million preliminary estimate does not provide for
risks and uncertainties or for additional payments to contractors to
cover the costs of certain delays and other contingencies. Even without
providing for risks and uncertainties, though, we have increased our
cost estimate since September 15 because additional and more expensive
changes to the project have been identified; we have increased our
allowance for contingencies; and we have added funding for AOC and
contractor staff that we believe are likely to be working on the
project through the spring of 2007. Our preliminary estimate
substantially exceeds MBP's November 2005 updated estimate of $481.9
million, largely because MBP's estimate does not cover a number of
project components and does not, in our view, provide adequately for
contingencies. In total, the funds specifically provided for project
construction to date--about $528.4 million--are $14.5 million less than
our preliminary $542.9 million cost estimate. In addition, another $7.7
million has been provided to cover either CVC construction or
operations, although at this time AOC does not plan to use any of these
funds for construction. Congress has limited the amount of federal
funds that can be used for the construction of the tunnel connecting
the CVC with the Library of Congress to $10 million.\3\ As of October
31, 2005, AOC estimated that the tunnel would cost about $8.8 million
to construct; however, AOC had not yet awarded the contract for certain
modifications to the tunnel project. Nevertheless, AOC believes that it
will be able to keep the tunnel's construction cost below the
congressional limitation, and both we and AOC plan to monitor the
tunnel's construction cost closely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Public Law 108-83, 117 Stat. 1007, 1026 (Sept. 30, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to our analysis of CVC data, worker safety rates have
improved substantially this year, although the lost-time rate remains
above industry norms. The injury and illness rate for the first 10
months of 2005 declined 52 percent from the rate for 2004, putting the
CVC site's rate 3 percent below the average for comparable construction
sites. The lost-time rate decreased 62 percent during the same period,
but the CVC site's rate is still 29 percent higher than the average
rate for comparable construction sites. AOC and its contractors have
taken a number of actions during 2005 to improve safety performance on
the project, such as conducting training to elevate safety awareness
and placing safety posters around the worksite. In addition, senior
managers are meeting periodically to develop strategies to improve
safety. Poor housekeeping, however, has been an ongoing issue at the
site, and the sequence 2 contractor has recently taken actions to
address this issue.
WORK AND REVISIONS TO THE PROJECT SCHEDULE CONTINUE, BUT DELAYS HAMPER
PROGRESS
Work in several areas has moved forward since the Subcommittee's
October 18 CVC hearing, but additional delays have occurred, and AOC's
construction management contractor has identified several concerns
about the project schedule. AOC has been addressing previously
identified schedule-related problems.
AOC Continues to Project a Mid-December 2006 Opening for the Base CVC
Project
According to the October 2005 schedule prepared by AOC's sequence 2
construction management contractor, the base CVC project can open to
the public in December 2006, and the House and Senate expansion spaces
will be finished by the end of February 2007. The contractor's October
schedule indicates that, with some exceptions, construction work on the
base CVC project will be essentially complete by September 15, 2006,
and the remaining work will be completed by December 8, 2006. This
remaining work includes testing, balancing, and commissioning the HVAC
system; testing and inspecting the fire protection system; completing
punch-list items; and preparing for operations. For the East Front, the
October schedule shows construction work, such as the roof restoration,
finish work, and elevator/escalator installation, completed after
September 15, 2006. The October schedule also shows other construction
work, such as the installation of ceiling panels in the orientation
lobby and painting in the atria, extending after September 15, 2006.
AOC expects all this construction work to be done and the base CVC
project to be ready for operations between September 15, 2006, and mid-
December 2006, enabling the facility to open to the public in mid-
December. Additionally, under the October project schedule, the House
and Senate expansion spaces will be completed in December 2006, and the
testing, balancing, and commissioning of the HVAC system and the
testing of the fire protection system will be finished by February 26,
2007. According to AOC's sequence 2 and construction management
contractors, it is not yet clear whether the expansion space
construction work will have progressed far enough to omit the temporary
fire safety measures once considered necessary to open the CVC to the
public. They said they are still analyzing the work associated with the
areas where the base project and the expansion spaces come together to
determine whether and how the need for temporary fire safety measures
can be minimized or eliminated.
Construction Work Continued, but Problems with Stonework and Other
Issues Caused Delays
Since the Subcommittee's October 18 CVC hearing, construction work
has continued on the CVC, the East Front, the plaza, the House and
Senate expansion spaces, and the House connector and utility tunnels.
For example, the installation of wall stone has continued in the
auditorium, the orientation theaters, and the upper west lobby.
Mechanical, electrical, and plumbing work has also been proceeding in
the CVC.
Overall, however, construction work, especially stonework, has
taken longer than scheduled. Between the Subcommittee's October 18
hearing and November 10, the sequence 2 contractor completed 8 of the
16 activities that we and AOC have been tracking for the Subcommittee,
but only 3 of these activities were completed by the target dates shown
in the contractor's September 2005 schedule. (See app. I.) Delays have
also occurred in interior stonework and in work on the East Front, the
utility tunnel, and the penthouse's mechanical systems. For example,
according to AOC's construction management contractor, similar to what
happened in September, the sequence 2 contractor lost about 10 out of
21 possible workdays, both on critical interior stonework and on the
utility tunnel. According to the construction management contractor,
the stonework was delayed by the slow and late delivery of stone, a
lack of critical pieces of stone, the need to address problems arising
from sequence 1 work, and a shortage of stone masons. During October,
the installation of wall stone in the great hall and exhibit gallery
was especially impeded because the stone supplier failed to meet
scheduled delivery dates and the sequence 2 contractor received less
than 20 percent of the stone the supplier had agreed to provide.
Moreover, according to the sequence 2 contractor, during several
preceding months, deliveries of stone were only about half as large as
expected. Additionally, the contractor said, the delivered stone was
not in the appropriate sequence and did not cover complete areas. To
help mitigate these problems, during October, the sequence 2 contractor
transferred stone masons from areas such as the exhibit gallery, for
which no wall stone was available, to the auditorium, for which wall
stone was available.
AOC's construction management contractor cited other delays in
October, especially in the utility tunnel and in the exhibit gallery.
For instance, work on First Street for the utility tunnel was delayed
by unforeseen site conditions, rain, and the need to do unanticipated
work. However, the construction management contractor said that steps
have been taken to mitigate the impact of the delays, including the
sequence 2 contractor's hiring of another subcontractor and the
installation of piping in the tunnel. In the view of the construction
management contractor and the sequence 2 contractor, these steps will
enable the CVC's air-handling units to start up in February 2006 rather
than in March 2006, as indicated in the October schedule. In the
exhibit gallery, besides the delay in wall stone installation, the
construction management contractor identified several problems,
including delays in drawings for marble and finishes and concerns about
the acceptability of the gallery's fire suppression system that could
further delay work in the exhibit gallery.
Schedule Revisions Saved Some Time, but Many Activities Are Highly
Vulnerable to Delay
The sequence 2 contractor resequenced activities involved in
testing, balancing, and commissioning the HVAC system and made other
schedule changes that had the net effect of moving the base project's
completion date forward 3 days. While the resequencing will result in a
loss of 10 workdays for the HVAC activities, according to the
contractor's revised schedule, the other changes have advanced the base
project's scheduled completion date to December 8, 2006, rather than
December 11, 2006, as indicated in the September schedule. AOC's
construction management contractor reports that it, the sequence 2
contractor, and AOC's commissioning contractor have generally agreed on
the revised schedule for testing, balancing, and commissioning the HVAC
system. However, AOC's Fire Marshal Division has not yet agreed on the
schedule for those activities that relate to the CVC's fire protection
system, such as testing and inspecting the smoke control system, the
fire alarm system, and stair pressurization. On October 31, the
division provided its comments on the revised schedule for the fire
protection system. The division's Deputy Fire Marshal expressed several
significant concerns about the schedule. AOC and its construction
management contractor expect to complete their reviews of this part of
the schedule and resolve the Fire Marshal Division's concerns by
December 31, 2005.
The construction management contractor has identified 14 critical
activity paths in the October schedule that will extend the base
project's completion date beyond AOC's September 15, 2006, target date
if expected lost time cannot be recovered or further delays cannot be
prevented. Eleven of the 14 critical activity paths in the October
schedule were also identified in the September schedule. For 4 of these
11 paths, such as the auditorium wall stone installation and the
orientation theater millwork, the completion dates showed improvement
compared with the September schedule, but for the other 7 paths, such
as the utility tunnel and the exhibit gallery stonework, the completion
dates slipped. The 3 paths newly identified in October are elevator
installation, exhibit gallery steel framing, and 10- and 12-inch water
line installation,\4\ each of which could delay the project if expected
lost time cannot be recovered. In addition, our analysis of
productivity data for interior wall stone installation, coupled with
the sequence 2 contractor's analysis of stone deliveries, indicates
that AOC is not likely to meet its September 15, 2006, target date for
completing the base project's construction without significant
increases in the pace of wall stone deliveries and installation. That
is, without more stone masons and/or more work hours, more stone
delivered more quickly, and faster stone installation, AOC is unlikely
to meet its target schedule. The sequence 2 contractor believes that
stone masons will be able to install more wall stone per day in some
areas, such as the exhibit gallery, because the work is not as
difficult as in the great hall or orientation theaters. However, the
pace of this installation remains uncertain, in our view. Furthermore,
given the project's experiences to date with the number of stone
masons, the quantity of stone deliveries, and the pace of installation,
AOC's construction management contractor notes that the completion of
wall stone installation could extend up to several months beyond the
July 2006 date shown in the project schedule without more work hours,
higher productivity, and sufficient stone. The pace of wall stone
installation is especially important because it affects the timing of
other critical work necessary for the project's completion, such as the
ceiling's installation and the HVAC system's testing, balancing, and
commissioning. The stone supply problem is the subject of litigation
between the sequence 2 contractor and its subcontractors, and the
sequence 2 contractor has been working to resolve the problem. However,
at this time, it is not clear how or when this issue will be resolved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The construction management contractor identified the water
lines as an issue in September but did not list them as critical until
October.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction Management Contractor's Evaluation and Our Analysis Point
to a Later Completion Date
Most of the activities we have been discussing, such as the wall
stone installation, fire safety inspections, and House connector tunnel
construction, are among the activities that we previously identified as
likely having optimistic durations, suggesting that those activities
could take longer to complete than shown in the project schedule. These
activities served as the basis for our September 15 recommendation that
AOC rigorously evaluate the durations for the activities shown in the
project schedule. Last week, AOC's construction management contractor
finished evaluating these durations and the logic for what it
considered the most critical activities, such as wall stone
installation, and discussed the impact of delays and sequence 2
contract changes on the project schedule. In its November 9 report to
AOC, the construction management contractor said that (1) it was
generally difficult to identify any activities that were completed
within the planned duration; (2) none of the activities underway,
primarily stonework, can be projected to be completed within the
planned duration unless additional resources are applied; (3) the
durations for a number of activities exceed 40 days compared with the
contractual limit of 20 days; and (4) the sequence 2 contractor's
resequencing of work to mitigate the impact of delays will result in a
``stacking of trades,'' \5\ which will require more manpower. Moreover,
although the sequence 2 contractor has said that the project schedule
reflects the impact of contract modifications executed to date and
delays, the construction management contractor noted that the schedule
does not accurately reflect the impact of contract changes and of
delays due to the schedule's logic and raised concern about whether the
schedule fully reflected the impact of changes and delays given their
magnitude.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ This situation can occur when workers from different trades,
such as stone masons, electricians, plumbers, or plasterers, have to
work in the same area at the same time to meet a schedule, sometimes
making it difficult to ensure sufficient space and resources for
concurrent work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The construction management contractor made several recommendations
to AOC based on its findings. For example, the construction management
contractor recommended the development of a revised schedule that
reflects (1) enhanced logic and sequencing of work, (2) activity
durations more in line with the contract's 20-day maximum requirement,
and (3) the impact of all delays and contract changes encountered to
date and the use of available resources. The construction management
contractor also recommended the development of a recovery schedule for
each recognized delay, an analysis of the impact of the recovery
activities on required resources, and an examination of the amount of
time required to prepare for operations between completing construction
and opening to the public. The construction management contractor's
findings and recommendations concerning the project schedule are
generally consistent with ours.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ On November 14, 2005, AOC provided us with MBP's draft report
on MBP's assessment of the schedule durations for 19 activities. We did
not, however, have sufficient time to evaluate the report for
discussion in this statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the sequence 2 contractor has taken, plans to take, and is
considering various actions to recover lost time and prevent or
mitigate further delays, we continue to believe that the contractor
will have difficulty completing construction before early to mid-2007.
Among our reasons for concern are the uncertainty associated with the
fire protection system schedule, including the concerns expressed by
AOC's Fire Marshal Division and our earlier work that raised questions
about the amount of time being provided for system testing and
inspections; the schedule slippages to date; the optimistic durations
for a number of activities based on the views of CVC team members and
the results of the construction management contractor's recently
completed review; the large number of activity paths that are critical;
and the risks and uncertainties that continue to face the project. In
addition, the continued schedule slippages indicate that more and more
work will have to be done in a diminishing amount of time, and we are
concerned--as is the construction management contractor--that the
project schedule may not reflect the impact of changes to sequence 2
work resulting from contract modifications. Many changes, some
substantial, have been made to the sequence 2 contract since it was
initially awarded in April 2003. Yet, according to the construction
management contractor, none of the modifications that have added work
to the sequence 2 contract or changed the facility's design have been
reflected in the project schedule. Moreover, as AOC's construction
management contractor has noted, several problems have developed with
activities associated with the exhibit gallery, and delays in
completing CVC ceiling work necessary for the HVAC and fire protection
systems could be problematic, although the CVC team is considering ways
to mitigate these risks. We also note that the Chief Fire Marshal has
not yet approved the construction drawings for the fire protection
system or the schedule for the system's commissioning and testing.
AOC Has Been Addressing Previously Identified Schedule-Related Issues
AOC and its construction management contractor have been working to
implement recommendations we have made to improve AOC's schedule
management and to address other schedule-related issues we have
identified.
--We have recommended for some time that AOC improve its schedule
management and analyze and document delays and the reasons and
responsibilities for them on an ongoing basis--at least
monthly. In an October 20, 2005, letter, AOC asked its
construction management contractor to implement this
recommendation. The construction management contractor has
begun to establish a process for doing so and plans to have it
operational by December 31.
--We have also recommended that the project schedule show the
resources to be applied to meet the schedule dates. While the
sequence 2 contractor has shown proposed resource levels for
many activities, it has not done so for many of the new
activities added to the project schedule. The lack of such
information can complicate the analysis of delays, including
their causes and costs. AOC's construction management
contractor has expressed particular concern about the resources
for the stone and finishing work and has requested additional
resource information from the sequence 2 contractor for these
activities.
--We have further recommended that AOC develop plans to mitigate
risks and uncertainties facing the project. In July 2005, AOC
asked one of its consultants--MBP--to assist it in identifying
risks and developing plans to address those risks. As of
November 1, AOC had identified 55 risks facing the project and
had begun to develop and implement plans for managing these
risks. As of November 1, AOC said that it had developed
mitigation plans in varying levels of detail for about 30 risks
and has been discussing or plans to discuss the remaining risks
at a weekly meeting. AOC also said that it plans to add new
risks to its list and develop mitigation plans for other risks
as appropriate.
--In our October 18 testimony, we noted several problems associated
with the CPP that could adversely affect the CVC, as well as
other congressional buildings, if they are not corrected or
addressed. For example, potential delays in completing the West
Refrigeration Plant Expansion project and storm damage to
electrical equipment that has precluded the use of an East
Refrigeration Plant chiller could limit the ability of the CPP
to provide enough steam and chilled water for the CVC's air
handlers to begin operating in March 2006, as shown in the
October 2005 schedule. Staffing and training issues associated
with operating the new equipment and a vacant CPP director
position also pose management concerns. Work on the West
Refrigeration Plant Expansion project could be delayed because
AOC has directed the contractor to proceed with two significant
contract modifications since the Subcommittee's October 18 CVC
hearing. Specifically, the contractor is authorized to (1)
reconfigure piping so that the existing West Refrigeration
Plant can be operated independently of the West Refrigeration
Plant Expansion to enhance the CPP's chilled water production
capability and (2) change the design of the control system that
will serve both the West Refrigeration Plant and new West
Refrigeration Plant Expansion. These changes could affect the
March 2006 completion date for the expansion project; however,
AOC believes it will have sufficient chilled water capacity for
the CVC even if the expansion project's completion is delayed.
Furthermore, AOC plans to restore power to the chiller in the
East Plant by realigning existing equipment and is still
determining why the electrical equipment (e.g., aging
equipment, inadequate maintenance) was vulnerable to storm
damage. Finally, the period for applying for the plant's vacant
director's position closed on November 4. According to AOC, it
received 26 applications and expects to fill the position in
December. As part of a separate review for this Subcommittee,
we are continuing to assess certain CPP issues, such as the
staffing and training for, and the estimated cost to complete,
the West Refrigeration Plant Expansion project.
--In our October testimony, we identified problems with coordination
between the CVC project team and AOC's Fire Marshal Division.
To address these problems, AOC and its construction management
contractor have established a process for the team and the
division to arrange for and document CVC inspections.
Recommendations for Executive Action
To help ensure that Congress receives a more reliable estimate of
the project's completion date in order to plan for the CVC's opening to
the public and make more informed decisions about AOC's funding needs
for CVC construction and operations, we recommend that the Architect of
the Capitol (1) implement the recommendations (which are consistent
with our prior recommendations on schedule management) made by its
construction management contractor in its November 9 report on its
schedule evaluation; and (2) reassess its proposal to open the CVC in
mid-December 2006 when it is confident that it has a project schedule
that reflects realistic durations, enhanced logic, the resolution of
concerns expressed by the Fire Marshal Division, and the impact of
delays and contract changes.
PROJECT'S ESTIMATED COST TO COMPLETE EXPECTED TO INCREASE, BUT OUR
COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT AWAITS SCHEDULE STABILIZATION
Mr. Chairman, our preliminary work shows the cost to complete the
entire CVC project at around $542.9 million without provision for risks
and uncertainties. This preliminary estimate falls between our
September 15, 2005, interim estimate of $525.6 million without
provision for risks and uncertainties, and our November 2004 estimate
of about $559 million with provision for risks and uncertainties. Our
current estimate is substantially higher than MBP's updated estimate,
and it exceeds the funding provided for the project to date. As we said
at the Subcommittee's October 18 hearing, we are waiting for the
project schedule to stabilize before we comprehensively update our
November 2004 estimate of the cost to complete the project, including
any costs to the government for delays. We plan to provide this updated
estimate with and without allowances for risks and uncertainties and
with adjustments for specific expected project completion dates.
We would now like to discuss the basis for our estimate and why we
expect the project's costs to increase, why our estimate differs from
MBP's, how much funding is currently available for CVC construction and
how much more may be needed, and how much the Library of Congress
tunnel's construction is likely to cost.
Estimate Is Preliminary
Our preliminary estimate of the cost to complete the entire CVC
project, which we will discuss today,\7\ is based on information
provided by AOC and its construction management contractor. It reflects
our review of MBP's November 1, 2005, final report, which updates MBP's
October 2004 estimate and includes supporting data; our review of CVC
contract modifications and changes proposed between August 1, 2005, and
October 31, 2005; \8\ the knowledge and experience we have gained from
monitoring this and other major construction projects; and our view
that the base CVC project in not likely to be completed before the
spring of 2007. We have discussed our preliminary estimate with AOC;
however, we have not completed other work needed for a comprehensive
update of our cost-to-complete estimate. For example, we have not
updated our previous discussions of the project's expected costs,
risks, and uncertainties with other CVC project team members and fully
assessed the schedule's impact on costs, because the schedule has not
been stabilized. Furthermore, we have not incorporated any costs for
delays over and above the amount included in our November 2004
estimate. Delays have occurred since then, but as of October 31, 2005,
CVC construction contractors had not filed any requests for adjustments
or claims with AOC for delays occurring after November 2004. AOC
nevertheless expects to receive additional requests for adjustments,
and AOC's construction management contractor believes that AOC may
incur more costs than budgeted for delays. At this time, it is unclear
who will bear responsibility for the various delays that have occurred
at the CVC site, and it is therefore difficult to estimate their
possible costs to the government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ We previously updated our November 2004 estimate ($515.3
million) of the cost to complete the project without provision for
risks and uncertainties for the Subcommittee's September 15, 2005, CVC
hearing. See Capitol Visitor Center: Schedule Delays Continue;
Reassessment Underway, GAO-05-1037T (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 15, 2005).
\8\ MBP's estimate was based on contract modifications and proposed
changes as of July 31, 2005, except that for sequence 2, MBP included
updated information from AOC on contract modifications executed through
October 14, 2005. Also, MBP initially issued its report on October 11,
but issued a revision on November 1, 2005, based on comments it had
received from AOC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CVC Costs Are Likely to Increase, Largely Because of Actual and
Anticipated Changes and Delays
Assuming that the base project and the House and Senate expansion
spaces are completed in the spring of 2007 and considering the
qualifications just discussed, our preliminary estimate of the cost to
complete the entire project is about $542.9 million without provision
for risks and uncertainties. This estimate is about $17.3 million
greater than our September updated estimate of $525.6 million without
provision for risks and uncertainties and about $16.1 million less than
our November 2004 estimate of about $559 million with provision for
risks and uncertainties. The $17.3 million increase is due largely to
the following:
1. Actual and anticipated changes in the project's work scope.--
Most of these changes were associated with sequence 2 work, but some
also occurred or are expected in other project components, such as
preconstruction. Significant sequence 2 changes include the
modifications to the CVC fire protection system that we discussed at
the Subcommittee's October 18 CVC hearing, changes to the building's
automated control system, and additional work to address gaps in the
scopes of sequence 1 and sequence 2 work, such as additional
waterproofing. Changes in the preconstruction component include moving
security screening trailers and doing additional materials testing.
2. Additional contingency funds.--We believe that AOC will need
significantly more contingency funds for the remainder of the project
for three major reasons: First, the actual or estimated costs for
changes in sequence 2, the East Front interface, and the
preconstruction project components either exceed or account for the
majority of the funds budgeted for unanticipated work, and available
information indicates that additional changes in these areas are likely
as the project progresses. For example, the actual and proposed
sequence 2 changes to date are more numerous and more costly (without
any provision for risks and uncertainties) than we, AOC, and MBP
anticipated in late 2004, and the actual and estimated value of the
already identified changes greatly exceeds the budgeted contingency
funding. Moreover, according to AOC's construction management
contractor, only about half the value of sequence 2 work is complete.
Given that about half the work remains and changes to the project have
been frequent thus far, we believe that more changes are likely to
require funding in the future. Second, a number of issues that were not
included in MBP's analysis, such as the need for temporary
dehumidification, have arisen. Proposed change orders for work to
address these issues were not completed in time for the work to be
included in MBP's report. Third, as MBP pointed out, the costs of many
pending (proposed, but not yet approved) changes that were included in
its report may be understated because they are based on AOC's and its
construction management contractor's estimates rather than on the
contractor's price. According to MBP, historically, AOC's construction
management contractor has significantly understated the costs of
pending changes. Thus, additional funds are likely to be needed to
cover the difference between the estimated and actual costs of the
approved changes.
3. Delay-related project management costs.--The schedule analysis
underlying our November 2004 cost-to-complete estimate suggested that
the CVC base project would most likely be completed in December 2006,
and our November 2004 and September 2005 cost estimates therefore
included funding for AOC's CVC staff and architectural and construction
management contractors through that time. Although the specific
expected completion date for the base project is still uncertain
because AOC and its contractors have not yet finished their schedule
reassessment, our work indicates that the base project is unlikely to
be done before early 2007. Thus, our preliminary estimated cost to
complete includes the estimated costs for extending AOC's CVC staff and
architectural and construction management contractors for the base
project to March 2007.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ This time extension estimate is largely based on information
provided by AOC and MBP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our Estimate Differs from MBP's Estimate Largely Because We Included
More Items in the Project Scope and More Funds for
Contingencies
Our preliminary $542.9 million estimate of the cost to complete the
CVC project is significantly higher than MBP's November 1, 2005, $481.9
million estimate for several reasons.
--Our estimate includes the costs for the CVC's air filtration
system; MBP's does not.
--MBP assumed the base project would be completed in December 2006;
we considered the spring of 2007 more likely.
--MBP did not include the costs of all CVC construction-related work,
such as the fabrication and installation of wayfinding signs or
the fit-out of the gift shops. Our estimate includes these
costs.
--MBP provided less contingency funding than we did for a number of
project components (sequence 2, the House connector tunnel, the
East Front interface with the CVC, and the House and Senate
expansion spaces). We believe that our larger allowance is
warranted, given the complexity of the work, the CVC project's
experience with changes, and our experience in monitoring other
Capitol Hill construction projects.
Available Funding Is Unlikely to Be Sufficient
About $528.4 million has been provided for CVC construction, and an
additional $7.7 million has been provided for CVC construction or
operations.\10\ The $528.4 million consists of the 527.9 million we
discussed during the Subcommittee's October 18 CVC hearing; and
$500,000 that the Department of Defense (DOD) originally provided to
AOC for security enhancements for the East Front of the Capitol and
that AOC now intends, with DOD's approval, to use for security
enhancements related to the CVC's air filtration system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ AOC had planned to use $100,000 of its fiscal year 2006
appropriation for CVC construction to move a fire alarm control panel
in the Capitol building to the CVC. If the control panel is to be
moved, AOC will then decide what appropriation account will be used to
pay for this move. If other than CVC funds are used, the $100,000 would
be available for other CVC construction purposes subject to the
approval of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. As we
reported in September, AOC had also used about $805,000 in CVC
operations funds for certain construction work that had been funded by
the fiscal year 2006 construction appropriation. These funds also could
be used for other CVC work subject to the Committees' approval. AOC
previously had about $7.8 million remaining available for CVC
operations or construction, but about $100,000 has been rescinded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to AOC, it does not currently plan to use any of the $7.7
million for CVC construction. Thus, our preliminary $542.9 million
cost-to-complete-estimate indicates that AOC would need about $14.5
million more to complete the project, assuming it is completed in March
2007. As noted, this estimate is preliminary and does not provide for
contractor delay costs beyond the amount included in our November 2004
cost estimate.
AOC does not believe that future changes will require as much
funding as we do. We recognize that the total amount of funds that will
be needed for contingencies, as well as for adjustments to contracts to
offset the costs of delays, is unclear at this time and is subject to
differing views. Nevertheless, the costs for these items will be a
major factor in determining whether AOC will need additional
appropriated funds. We plan to address both issues when we do our
comprehensive cost-to-complete update early next year.
Estimated Construction Costs for Library of Congress Tunnel under
Limit, but Could Increase
Public Law 108-83 limits to $10 million the amount of federal funds
that can be obligated or expended for the construction of the tunnel
connecting the CVC with the Library of Congress. As of October 31,
2005, AOC estimated that the tunnel's construction would cost about
$8.8 million, and AOC had obligated about $4.7 million for it. The
remaining estimated costs are for modifications to the Jefferson
building to accommodate the tunnel and for contingencies. AOC expects
to receive the bids for the Jefferson building work by November 22.
Given that the work associated with the Jefferson building has not
started and involves risks and uncertainties (since it will create an
opening in the building's foundation and change an existing structure),
we believe that AOC could receive higher-than-expected bids and is
likely to encounter unforeseen conditions that could increase costs
significantly. Both we and AOC plan to monitor the tunnel's
construction closely to ensure that the statutory limit is not
exceeded.
WORKER SAFETY HAS IMPROVED
Worker safety will remain an important issue at the CVC site as new
hazards arise with changes in the site's physical structure and
increases in the number of employees and subcontractors in the months
ahead. Since we testified in May 2005 on worker safety, AOC and its
contractors have achieved improvements in key worker safety measures
and actions. For example, the CVC injury and illness rate declined,
from 9.1 in 2003 and 12.2 in 2004, to 5.9 for the first 10 months of
2005--below the 2003 industry average of 6.1. Furthermore, the CVC
lost-time rate declined, from 8.1 in 2003 and 10.4 in 2004, to 4.0 for
the same 10-month period--approaching the 2003 industry average of 3.1.
The quality of the construction management contractor's monthly CVC
progress reports has also improved. Whereas the reports for 2003 and
2004 contained inaccurate data for key worker safety measures, as we
testified in May 2005, the reports since June 2005 have contained
accurate worker safety data. (In one instance, however, the draft
report we received from the construction management contractor
contained inaccurate worker safety data, which were corrected after we
pointed them out to the construction management contractor.) Finally,
AOC's reporting of lost-time rates is now consistent with an updated
definition issued by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 2003.
AOC and its contractors have taken a number of actions during 2005
to improve worker safety at the CVC site. For example, they have
--held periodic safety meetings with senior managers to elevate
safety issues (and will schedule additional meetings as
needed);
--held a project safety day to increase CVC project employees' safety
awareness;
--provided and scheduled training on fall protection and electrical
safety, for example, to elevate safety awareness and avoid
accidents;
--posted safety-related signs and banners around the CVC site to
reinforce safety messages; and
--added a second safety professional at the CVC project.
In addition, since this past summer, AOC's Central Safety Office
has been involved in CVC worker safety. Specifically, the responsible
official has (1) clarified his role on the project with the CVC Project
Executive, (2) visited the CVC project site to obtain an understanding
of general site conditions, (3) attended periodic CVC safety meetings
and (4) reviewed safety-related data, reports, and meeting minutes.
Drawing upon these efforts, the official has made suggestions to CVC
management on ways to improve worker safety.
Poor housekeeping has been an ongoing issue at the site, and the
sequence 2 contractor has recently taken actions to address this issue.
Piles of construction debris and trash, improperly stored equipment and
materials, and poorly maintained employee break areas have been
identified in the construction management contractor's past safety
audits. Although no injuries have been attributed to housekeeping
issues, the construction management contractor and the sequence 2
contractor have recognized that these issues present an ongoing
problem. To address these issues, the sequence 2 contractor is daily
(1) cleaning up construction material debris and other items, (2)
cleaning up the site's three assigned eating areas, and (3) removing
five to seven truckloads of trash. In addition, the sequence 2
contractor has placed more bait traps around the site to control
rodents.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes our statement. We would be pleased to
answer any questions that you or Members of the Subcommittee may have.
APPENDIX I.--CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER CRITICAL CONSTRUCTION MILESTONES--OCTOBER 19-NOVEMBER 17, 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
September
2005 Actual
Activity Location scheduled finish date
finish date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Orientation Lobby................... Perimeter CMU walls............................. 10/13/05 ...........
Upper Level Assembly Room........... Topping slab.................................... 10/20/05 10/20/05
East Front Subbasement.............. Interior CMU walls.............................. 10/27/05 ...........
Exhibit Gallery..................... Wall stone Area 2 base.......................... 10/31/05 ...........
Congressional Auditorium............ Wall Stone Area 1............................... 11/3/05 10/26/05
Upper Level Assembly Room........... Wall stone area 1 layout........................ 11/9/05 10/24/05
Exhibit Gallery..................... Wall stone Area 3 base.......................... 11/10/05 ...........
Orientation Lobby................... Interior CMU walls.............................. 11/15/05 ...........
Exhibit Gallery..................... Wall stone Area 1............................... 11/16/05 ...........
Congressional Auditorium............ Wall Stone Area 2............................... 11/17/05 ...........
Utility Tunnel...................... Excavate/shore Station Sta 0.00-1.00............ 10/6/05 10/24/05
Utility Tunnel...................... Concrete Working Slab Sta. 0.00-1.00............ 10/11/05 10/26/05
Utility Tunnel...................... Waterproof Working Slab Sta. 0.00-1.00.......... 10/14/05 10/31/05
Utility Tunnel...................... Install Mat Slab Sta. 0.00-1.00................. 10/20/05 11/10/05
Utility Tunnel...................... Install Mat Slab Sta. 1.00-2.00................. 10/24/05 11/07/05
Utility Tunnel...................... Install Walls Sta. 1.00-2.00.................... 11/4/05 ...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: AOC's September 2005 CVC sequence 2 construction schedule for the scheduled completion dates and AOC and
its construction management contractor for the actual completion dates.
Note: Actual completion information was obtained on November 10, 2005.
COST TO COMPLETE
Senator Allard. Thank you both for your testimony this
morning. I want to follow up first with a question concerning
the cost to complete. I want to direct this to GAO and, Mr.
Dorn, I believe you are the one to answer this. The estimate
that you had last year was between $522 million and $559
million. Is that upper range going to change?
Mr. Dorn. It may change, Mr. Chairman. A number of the
risks and uncertainties are past us at this point. But when we
get the schedule update from AOC at the end of December and we
are confident that we have a good workable schedule, we will do
another analysis of the schedule and then we will get a
completion date, and then we will do another analysis of the
cost.
So we will re-estimate that number. I would love to say it
is going to stay at $559 million, but I do not know. My
suspicion is it is going to creep higher.
Senator Allard. Now I would like to have Mr. Shenkler from
Gilbane to come up if you would, please.
I have a few questions. One is in regard to the issue that
I just asked the GAO and then I will have one or two questions
later on. So I ask that you stay at the table if you would,
please.
Mr. Shenkler, do you agree with the Architect of the
Capitol's estimate of the cost to complete?
STATEMENT OF MARVIN SHENKLER, GILBANE BUILDING COMPANY
Mr. Shenkler. My review of the report that was done by MBP
indicates that it did not reflect a number of contingencies
that we need to consider. When I looked at the numbers, I
thought we would probably need somewhere in the neighborhood of
$15 million to complete.
Senator Allard. In addition?
Mr. Shenkler. In addition.
Senator Allard. Now, why were those not incorporated into
the final MBP estimate? Mr. Hixon?
Mr. Hixon. Yes, sir. When we looked, we went through the
cost to complete and evaluated the draft report and we had the
comments from Marvin, from Gilbane, there were a number of
issues in his list that we did not feel needed to be adjusted.
There is also the issue of the risk on Marvin's evaluation
including future risk that we are not aware of yet. Mr. Hantman
testified in his statement that we will be reevaluating those
items, including the costs that were not reflected by MBP that
are included by Gilbane, in evaluation for the fiscal year 2007
budget.
Those things relate to such issues as future delays that
could occur not as a consequence of the delay in starting
sequence number 2, but as a consequence of delays during the
sequence 2 performance of the work, as well as the value of the
claims or the delay costs that have been submitted by sequence
2 from the delay in commencement of their work. So there are
some items that the numbers are bigger than we thought they
would be and we will be evaluating both Gilbane's comments
together with GAO's here in the next few weeks.
CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
Senator Allard. Okay. Now, it seems like over the period of
time we have had these hearings there has been quite a bit of
slippage on the schedule. How do you plan on making up lost
time and at what cost? Do we have anything on that?
Mr. Hixon. Is that addressed to me, sir?
Senator Allard. Yes, if you would.
Mr. Hixon. The schedule, when we originally had the
schedule in November of last year, we were contemplating
construction being completed on June 21. We currently are
expecting construction to be done on September 15, except for a
few minor items after that, some of which are in the east
front. That essentially reflects a 3-month slippage on the
construction schedule.
The schedule that we currently have right now accommodates
all of the delays that we have had to date. What we are going
to end up with is the commissioning activities that also have
to be included within the schedule will be pushing the date out
from September to a future date, which could be the current
schedule completion date of December 8 or some other date.
I am expecting that the contractor at some point will
submit a request for a time extension on a future change order
to contractually add that time to his contract. At this point,
he has not requested any time extensions and all change orders
issued to date have been issued without a time extension
request. So these would be for future, some major changes we
have that have not yet been settled.
SCHEDULE SLIPPAGES
Senator Allard. Now, this last month we had a slippage of
10 days out of a 20-day work month.
Mr. Hixon. That is correct.
Senator Allard. Last month that was attributable to the
weather. That was understandable. Would you explain to me why
we slipped 10 days this month?
Mr. Hixon. Yes, sir. The interior stone work slippage is as
a consequence of the stone deliveries that did not occur. This
is a serious issue that we need to get resolved in order to not
have an adverse impact on the project overall. For the utility
tunnel, we had some rain days at the beginning of the month. We
have the work that has got to take place with regard to
Washington Gas in preparation for that work. Aside from that,
the utility work is going very well.
If you look at the schedule of activities, of the 16, 4 of
those activities are related to the utility tunnel. Three of
those are complete, one is not yet complete. Typically these
are falling 1 week or so after the original, after the
completion date that was reflected in the September schedule.
So we are not on schedule, but we are very close to having this
work done.
Senator Allard. I understand this last week that Gilbane
completed its review of the schedule durations for most
critical activities, such as the utility tunnel. Mr. Shenkler,
can you brief us on that review and Gilbane's recommendations?
Mr. Shenkler. Our review of the schedule has been the same
as it was last month in terms of stone. We are losing time
because we cannot get adequate stone to install. You have got a
comparable issue. If we get stone, we do not have the masons;
if we have the masons, we do not have the stone. Until we can
resolve this issue on stone deliveries, we cannot tell you when
we are going to land with completion of this job.
STONE INJUNCTION
Right now, the injunction is prohibiting Manhattan from
exercising their normal contractor rights to go and seek other
sources to supplement their forces, and until that injunction
is removed and they are released to do what they would normally
do we are looking at day for day delay. Even when, if they are
released, there is no assurances that we have got or they have
another fabricator on hand because they have not been able to
talk to anybody else until that injunction is released to see
whether there is capacity out there in the marketplace to
fabricate the stone required.
Senator Allard. If I understand where we are with the
court, if we can make a strong case that stone delivery is
affecting our completion date then there is a possibility the
court would give us some relief in that regard. My
understanding now is that you are moving forward with the
court, saying that our completion date will be affected. Do you
want to speculate on where we might be with the court?
Mr. Shenkler. Speculating on what the judiciary does is
questionable at best. But even if they were to give us relief
on December 1, I think it is going to take at least 2 months
for Manhattan to locate a fabricator and get stone back on the
job from a new fabricator. We are probably looking at maybe 3
months before we actually see some positive impact as a result
of a second fabricator.
That, in conjunction with what the impact will be from
Quarra, who may very well decide to slow down their slow
production already, just may exacerbate the problem even more.
While we may be getting more stone or some stone from a second
fabricator, we may wind up getting less stone from Quarra
because they are unwilling to produce like they were supposed
to.
Senator Allard. Do they not have some contract obligations
there?
Mr. Shenkler. Yes. They have not lived up to them yet.
Senator Allard. What is our recourse?
Mr. Shenkler. There is none because until we can get relief
we cannot go look for a second fabricator, and the only thing
we have available to us is to wait and get the stone and then
find out what the cost to the Government is as a result of
these delays and seek relief from the contractor.
Senator Allard. Now, Mr. Hantman, do you see this affecting
our December opening date?
Mr. Hantman. Well, Mr. Chairman, in the sequence of
construction certainly the stone work needs to be finished
before other activities can take place. In some instances, we
will be able to start ceiling work without some of the stone
work being done. In some instances we may be able to start some
floor work areas. But the critical issue of installing and
finishing off the other finishes really is contingent upon the
stone deliveries and installation.
So our reality is if we do not get the relief and find the
capacity that can really increase the volume of stone that has
been delivered and installed, the December date certainly could
be in jeopardy.
SECOND STONE SUPPLIER
Senator Allard. Is there any reason for us to start looking
now for a second masonry supply? What would keep us from
starting to look now, because it looks to me like there is a
potential problem here and we are going to have to deal with
it. If we have recognized it, if we could get a jump ahead
instead of waiting for the final court decision, maybe we could
at least get our ducks lined up, and if the court decision goes
against us then there is not much we can do about it. But if
they say okay, you can go ahead and get a second contractor, at
least we can have somebody lined up.
Mr. Hantman. Mr. Chairman, we would love to do exactly what
you are talking about. The issue is that Boatman and Magnani is
the one who has the contracts with both the quarry and the
fabricator and they are the ones that have the injunction that
says basically you have to use this quarry and this fabricator,
and that is what we are seeking relief from so that we can find
alternatives.
So in reality, Manhattan and Boatman are not able to go out
and look for alternative sources, as per the court injunction
at this point in time.
Senator Allard. I see.
Mr. Ungar. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Allard. Yes, Mr. Ungar.
Mr. Ungar. We might want to add a thought here. It is our
understanding that the Government is not itself bound by the
court's order, and there is another option, although it may not
be very attractive to the Government for a number of reasons.
That is, the Government itself could take action to acquire the
stone. But there are some financial and contractual issues
associated with that. We are not recommending that. We are just
bringing it to your attention.
Senator Allard. Mr. Hantman.
Mr. Hantman. There are also legal aspects to that. We may
be brought into the case and have the original quarry and
fabricator sue us for interfering with the contracts that they
have with Boatman and Magnani. I am not an attorney. I----
Senator Allard. There is a liability with that approach----
Mr. Hantman. Yes, and there may be additional costs, which
if we direct the contractors to do something we would be
accruing as our responsibility. We do not have any concept of
what those costs or schedule implications would be.
Senator Allard. It is really frustrating for me to have a
nonperformer on the contract and we are tied up legally here.
That is a frustrating situation we find ourselves in.
Mr. Hantman. Terribly frustrating. And that is exactly why
we have taken the action. Now, with the December 1 court date,
hopefully we will get, or actually Boatman and Magnani and
Manhattan will get some relief and they will be able to go out
and start solving the problems. Then, as Marvin has indicated,
we need to take a look at the schedule if in fact a second
contractor is found.
There are contractors who are doing work on other aspects
of the building separate and distinct from this that might be
involved in this, but we cannot commit or explore that because
of the injunction at this point.
Senator Allard. I see.
Mr. Ungar.
Mr. Ungar. Mr. Chairman, just one more point, I think,
along the lines that Mr. Shenkler was speaking about. I think
as AOC proceeds and hopefully the stone issue does get resolved
one way or the other, we still strongly believe that the
durations in the schedule for the stone work and certain other
work need to be reevaluated, given the previous findings that
we have had there.
That is why, as Mr. Dorn mentioned, we are recommending
that AOC implement the Gilbane recommendations, because some of
those are aimed at getting a better handle on the durations in
the schedule. Even if you had the stone, how long is it really
going to take to get it up based on the productivity rates and
the experience of the project to date?
Senator Allard. Sure.
STONEMASONS
I was going to direct this next question to Mr. Dorn. Mr.
Hantman said that to keep our stonemasons employed we have gone
to some tasks of a lesser priority. I assume that is the
theater area. Do you see us having enough work to keep the
stonemasons going in light of some of the possible
complications we have here from the court?
Mr. Dorn. I have asked for some detailed numbers from
Gilbane and they were able to provide them as I was riding in
the van on the way here, so I have not been able to do more
detailed calculations. But the back of the envelope numbers
would indicate that if the stone deliveries do not increase,
that somewhere in the February to April timeframe we may be
almost out of stone.
You literally will not run completely out because each
piece of stone is not the same. Some pieces are critical, which
hold up other pieces. But particularly since Manhattan has
talked about increasing the productivity from 6 pieces per
mason per day up to 11 or 12 pieces per day, you are just going
to run out of--you are barely getting by now. If they increase
their productivity, it is going to be even worse.
Senator Allard. It seems to me like we are at a very
critical point here.
Mr. Dorn. We are, and I agree with Mr. Hantman that the
stone deliveries are a critical step going forward.
FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM
Senator Allard. Let me move over to the fire protection
system. Does the master schedule now fully reflect the fire
marshal's requirements for testing, balancing, and
commissioning the fire protection system?
Mr. Hixon. No, sir, they do not reflect all those yet. We
had committed to get the testing and balancing done before this
hearing and to have the fire marshal's, the life safety
acceptance testing, done by the December period, and we are
well on the way to start that process. We have already had a
meeting with the fire marshal to review that. They have gone
through the fire alarm shop drawings. So we expect that we
would have those elements, those activities, included in the
schedule here in the next month.
SECURITY EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION
Senator Allard. On security equipment installation, we
understand that a delay has occurred in arranging for the
installation of security cabling and equipment in the CVC.
Could you explain what the problem is there and whether it is
being resolved or not and who is responsible for resolving the
problem and how much additional cost we may be looking at
there?
Mr. Hixon. Mr. Chairman, we have been endeavoring to secure
funds that we have previously transferred from the project to
the Capitol Police, to use those to fund the purchase of cable
and equipment. The arrangement that we originally had was the
Capitol Police would do that themselves. Then since we have the
conduit installed, we thought it would help facilitate things
if we had our contractor perform that work.
There have been discussions recently about the transfer of
funding from the Capitol Police back to the AOC in order for us
to use those funds to perform that work as part of our
contract. We had some issues with the memorandum of
understanding. Those have essentially been resolved, but we
have a new issue that the General Accounting--the Government
Accountability Office has brought up, concerning using direct
cites versus the transfer of funds. So we have been in
discussions about that over the past few days and as recently
as this morning, we understand that the Capitol Police may
elect to go ahead and contract for this work directly
themselves.
So the issue is being worked. It just has not reached a
conclusion. As far as the impact to the costs associated with
that, we are uncertain at this time what that would be. The
cabling takes about 6 weeks to get here from when it is ordered
and 6 weeks from now we should have some ceiling work going in.
Depending on where that work occurs and when the cabling shows
up, there may be some impacts to the price that was previously
submitted for this work in order to install it around the
existing construction at that time.
Senator Allard. So the Capitol Police then want to do it
themselves? Did they give us a reason?
Mr. Hixon. The issue relates to control of the funds,
control of the work. That was how our MOU became difficult
between us, is who was actually controlling the contracts. We
have resolved the wording on that. We would be happy to do the
work for them if we could work out the funding. So we were
prepared to pursue having the funds transferred back, which
requires committee approval.
Senator Allard. I see.
Mr. Hixon. But if not, if they choose not to do that, they
could contract directly with the contractor's personnel, the
electrical subcontractor who is performing that work. We would
be happy to facilitate that if that is what they choose to do.
Senator Allard. So now who is responsible for the final
resolution of this?
Mr. Hixon. At this moment we need to complete a
conversation with the Capitol Police to determine if they want
to use our contractor to do this work, which I would expect
them to do, or if they want to pursue a transfer of funds,
which they would need to initiate.
Senator Allard. I see, okay. Do you think there is a chance
we could get this resolved by the end of the week?
Mr. Hixon. We expect to resolve it, yes, sir, very quickly.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Senator Allard. Can you give us an update, Mr. Hantman, on
the process of hiring the executive director for the CVC?
Mr. Hantman. As you know, Mr. Chairman, Korn Ferry has been
retained by Zell Partners, who are our consultants on this.
Working through Zell Partners, they have identified a number of
strong potential candidates. They want to make sure that they
have a listing of enough candidates to come forward, perhaps
five to six candidates. They already have several strong people
that they have in mind.
I think part of the issue also is the decision on who does
the interviewing and when those people can get together to do
the interviewing. There have been discussions about doing it by
the end of the month. I am not sure that those dates are going
to hold, so it is really kind of out of our hands in terms of
when interviews would be held. But I think Korn Ferry has
progressed to the point where they have a list of candidates to
be interviewed.
Senator Allard. Thank you.
FISCAL YEAR 2007 BUDGET SUBMISSION
Now, when we start off our next session we will be getting
right into the budget time, and I assume that you are working
on your 2007 budget. We have got some unknown factors here. How
are you factoring those into your 2007 budget?
Mr. Hantman. As Mr. Hixon indicated a while ago, there are
some strong concerns certainly voiced by Mr. Shenkler and
Gilbane, and that is what we hired them for, to look at those
concerns and advise us on what they think is appropriate. There
are certainly many issues that GAO has developed and questions
they have about the McDonough Bolyard Peck cost to complete.
So what we would want to do is sit down and find out in
detail the concerns and the source of the concerns that GAO has
and what the recommendations are from the Gilbane side, and if
we need to address those in the fiscal year 2007 budget we will
certainly do so.
Senator Allard. Do you think you will be ready with your
2007 budget?
Mr. Hantman. I guess the timing is the issue on that. We
need to get together very soon and take a look at just what
those concerns are on both sides. There is no doubt that our
submission for the 2007 budget needs to include any potential
funds for this.
Senator Allard. Well, I hope we can get started because my
intention is to get started fairly early next year on the
budget. I do not know what our Appropriations chairman is
thinking of, but my thought is that we get going as quickly as
possible next year.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
I think we have covered everything, and I want to thank you
all for testifying again here today. We are out of session now
December and January. I do not anticipate a need for a hearing.
We will have another hearing in February.
Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., Wednesday, November 16, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Pagey
Allard, Senator Wayne, U.S. Senator From Colorado, Opening
Statements of.................................1, 35, 63, 89, 123, 151
Dorn, Terrell, Assistant Director, Physical Infrastructure,
Government Accountability Office..............9, 39, 63, 96, 129, 159
Hantman, Alan M., FAIA, Architect of the Capitol1, 35, 75, 90, 124, 152
Opening Statements of.....................................2, 36, 91
Prepared Statements of......................4, 38, 78, 93, 127, 157
Hixon, Bob, Project Director, Capitol Visitor Center, Architect
of the Capitol................................1, 35, 75, 90, 124, 152
Shenkler, Marvin, Gilbane Building Company.....................144, 171
Ungar, Bernard L., Director, Physical Infrastructure, Government
Accountability Office............................39, 63, 96, 129, 159
Prepared Statements of.........................41, 66, 98, 130, 161
Walker, David M., Comptroller General of the United States,
Government Accountability Office............................... 9
Prepared Statement of........................................ 10
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
Page
Acceleration:
Costs........................................................ 85
Work......................................................... 81
Actions Needed................................................... 66
Additional:
Fiscal Year 2005 Funding..................................... 60
Utility Work................................................. 50
Administrative Items............................................. 77
Architect of the Capitol, RTKL ``Doing it Right'' at the U.S.
Capitol Visitor Center......................................... 155
Assessment of:
Gilbane's Performance........................................ 145
Task Durations............................................... 85
Base Schedule.................................................... 138
Bronze Doors..................................................... 143
Capitol Power Plant.............................................. 118
Director..................................................... 146
Fire......................................................... 147
Capitol Visitor Center:
Executive Director........................................... 125
Opening Schedule............................................. 110
Completion:
And Occupancy................................................ 21
Date.........................................................15, 47
Schedule..................................................... 38
Construction:
Contract Management.......................................... 17
Delay Documentation.......................................... 144
Issues....................................................... 159
Manager..................................................... 32
Progress..................................................... 55
Project Status............................................... 153
Quality...................................................... 122
Schedule..............................................137, 160, 172
Assessment............................................... 138
Status....................................................... 126
To Operations Integration.................................... 87
Update....................................................... 127
Contractor:
Change Orders................................................ 17
Penalties and Incentives..................................... 31
Safety Records............................................... 26
Variances.................................................... 32
Coordination With WASA........................................... 49
Cost:
Implications................................................. 22
Overruns..................................................... 27
To Complete.........................29, 79, 142, 153, 157, 160, 171
Executive Director..............................................87, 177
Exhibits and Operations.......................................... 158
Expansion Space.................................................. 20
Work......................................................... 58
Exterior Construction Progress...................................37, 76
Fire:
Alarm System................................................. 57
Marshal..................................................... 80
Protection System............................................ 176
Systems Commissioning........................................ 113
Fiscal Year:
2006 Budget Request..........................................23, 61
2007 Budget Submission....................................... 177
Food Service Contract............................................ 125
GAO's Opinion on Assessment...................................... 86
Increased Insurance Costs........................................ 26
Integrated Schedule.............................................18, 120
Interior:
Construction Progress........................................36, 76
Stone Construction........................................... 116
Key Management Issues............................................ 124
Legal Issues Involving Stone Contractor.......................... 82
Life Safety Egress............................................... 58
Major Milestones................................................. 33
Management Initiatives........................................... 128
Manhattan's Progress............................................. 54
Master Schedule.................................................. 51
Milestone Completion.............................................46, 83
Mitigation Plan.................................................. 147
November Hearing Preparation..................................... 122
Occupancy:
Certification................................................ 56
Permits...................................................... 56
Opening Date..................................................... 140
Operations:
Criteria..................................................... 138
Initiatives.................................................. 128
Overall Status................................................... 161
Potential:
Cost Increases............................................... 79
Risk......................................................... 19
Project:
Cost......................................................... 41
Costs Continue to Increase................................... 65
Highlights.................................................154, 157
Schedule..................................................... 157
Scope Changes................................................ 28
Project's Estimated Cost to Complete Expected to Increase, but
Our Comprehensive Assessment Awaits Schedule Stabilization..... 167
Risk Mitigation:
Factors...................................................... 60
Plan......................................................... 58
Safety:
Issues....................................................... 51
Records......................................................25, 54
Standards.................................................... 52
Schedule:
Delays....................................................... 47
Duration Reassessment........................................ 48
Makeup....................................................... 141
Management................................................... 39
Progress and Problems........................................ 64
Risks Assessment............................................. 48
Slippages.................................................... 172
Update...................................................... 128
Second Stone Supplier............................................ 174
Security:
Concerns..................................................... 30
Equipment Installation....................................... 176
Sequence 2 Change Orders......................................... 16
Status of Operations............................................. 155
Stone:
Delivery Status.............................................. 152
Injunction................................................... 173
Installation Delays.......................................... 84
Stonemasons....................................................140, 175
System Commissioning............................................. 56
Transition to Operations......................................... 86
Tunnel Utilities................................................. 48
Unforeseen Conditions............................................ 141
Upcoming Milestones.............................................. 148
Utility:
Connections.................................................. 50
Costs....................................................... 49
Tunnel....................................................... 140
Progress................................................. 77
Verification of CVC Risk Assessment Award Date................... 109
West Refrigeration Plant Cost to Complete........................ 146
Work and Revisions to the Project Schedule Continue, but Delays
Hamper Progress................................................ 163
Worker:
Safety....................................................... 24
Has Improved............................................. 170
Statistics............................................... 161
-