THE FEDERAL CLIENT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP86-00244R000200530052-0
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 7
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 15, 2002
• Sequence Number: 52
• Publication Date: January 1, 1960
• Content Type: MAGAZINE

L.st year, the, nation's largest single Post Office, build their own facilities
building client, the Gel a1,. ,T(t1R&ase 2002/02/06 CIA-RDP86002448 ~O 53'~1~52c-flntact , ;th the GSA
minisu ctc n (GSA), sp ntral out v, mil- except t tat. many of the architects and
lion in design fees, for which it received
indifferent. buildings and a reputation
for playing political football with design
commissions. The much criticized state of
Federal architect ore results chiefly from
the manner in which architectural firms
are picked, although there are numerous
other faults in the GSA program. If a re-
cent crop of improved designs would
seem to indicate a. newly found ability
to distinguish between professional capa-
1rlity and political friendship, they are
largely the result of one specially ap-
pointed architect's efforts. Recent indica-
tions are that even this man has been
tranquilized by the bureaucracy ghat runs
the show.
Any architect or engineer competing
for GSA commissions realizes, unless lie
is straight out of school, that selections
too. often are made not by his peers but
by a Government officer ignorant of ar-
chitecture and bent only on showing his
boss how well he improves the standing of
the party, and on providing himself with
business contacts for his retirement.
Party improvement results from new
or renewed loyalty at local, state, or Fed-
eral levels of citizens who also happen to
be architects, engineers, or contractors.
Loyalty, of course, is measured in a cam-
paign chest, for without campaign funds
and patronage opportunities a political
machine cannot regenerate itself every
four years, and if the machine fails, so
will the prospects for work of architects
with an inside track to Government offi-
cials.
The Big Barrel
The Government of the United States is
the biggest architectural client in the
world; it spends more than $3 billion an-
nually for new buildings and additions
or improvements to old buildings. For
this, the Federal client spends about $71
million a year for design fees. flow
Washington exercises its dispensation of
contracts to architects and construction
firms is a matter of great importance to
the architectural profession. If the Gov-
ernment should suddenly opt for origi-
rtality and innovation in its choice of ar-
chitects, it could do more to improve and
advance the art of building than all the
schools and professional journals put to-
gether. But those now feasting at the
trough with political and social connec-
tions in Washington would be in trouble.
Entire firms now rely solely on Gov-
ernment work to keep them solvent; for
others, Government contracts form only
a small but necessary part of. their work;
the vast majority of architects, however.
are frozen out of the game. It is mainly
to the last two categories that P/A di-
rects this article. detailing how one major
ltnildic agency, the GSA, has for the past
10 years run its $2 billion construction
program.
A critical look at the
procedures involved in
selecting architects for
Government buildings.
contractors working for the latter agen-
cy also worked for the ethers.
A Bubbling Bounty
The fount of political loyalty and pa-
tronage, Washington, D.C., bubbles on.
ceasingly, keeping an undistinguished
group of architects afloat with Govern-
ment work, as well as several, contractors
who apparently are specially qualified to
receive repeated Government contracts.
The AIA and other professional organiza-
tions provide their officers with good so-
cial and political connections that can
.... lead to government work.
With this money. GSA provides space
for Government business. mostly through
the construction of courthouses, customs
houses and Federal office buildings. It
also builds for several smaller agencies,
the Smithsonian Institution and lloward
University in Washington, D.C.
Not all Government structures are built
by the GSA. The Department of Defense
is probably the biggest contractor of all,
with $1.2 billion for "support facilities"
in Vietnam alone (all, incidentally, built.
by a single contractor), and a $1 billion
annual domestic building program.
One of the prime sites in Washington,
D.C., the 35-acres surrounding the Capi-
tol, is outside GSA's jurisdiction. This
area is reserved as the sanctuary for the
Architect of the Capitol to exercise his
contracting prerogatives, subject to the
approval of a special Congressional com-
mittee. This makes-- the Capitol Architect's
office the most blatantly political building
agency of them all - a condition the Ar-
vititeef apparently enjoys.
Multimillion-dollar Federal office
buildings affront the public, which not
only pays, but also has to look at then t,
and the system that leads to the selection
of "political" designers is never discussed
above a whisper. Nevertheless, it is quiet-
ly discussed among architects who either
sit tight waiting for their turn at. the
trough, or shrug resignedly because they
cannot afford the going prices or just do
not need the work enough to dirty their
hands to get it.
Although the GSA is the ultimate cli-
ent: for architects working on most Fed-
cral buildings, the agency handles con-
struction projects thtou h a division
called the Public Buildings Service
(PBS). PBS thus takes the credit and
the blame for GSA's $2 billion con-
struction program.
Annual Appropriation
During the past 10 years. PBS commis-
sioned a total of 275 major projects,
worth $1,970,801,000. (The actual 10-
year total of taxpayers' money spent by
the PBS is much larger. but P/A is dis-
cussing only the projects worth more
than $1 million..) To run its several ser-
vices, PBS employs 22,000 persons on a
$196-million payroll, and spends another
$262 million for operating expenses. The
services include building management,
space management, and the design and
construction program.
To finance the office buildings that
GSA constructs, it has to request money
from Congress. These requests are made
in two steps. spaced one year apart. One
is for funds to enable PBS to buy a site
and pay for the design of a building, and
the second request covers the construction
cost.
At the beginning of the authorization
process for building' funds. GSA writes a
prospectus for each proposed building.
It gathers several of these prospectuses
together and submits then to the Com-
mittees of Public Works in the Senate
and the House of Representatives. These
commit ti-es average six weeks to process
the prospectuses; if they approve them.
GSA is authorized to make its two-step
Other agencies and departments, in- financial appropriation.
Approved For Relee> iaQd(i;2 92 O6s:,M4ROP96-f bk1244R0OD200530052-Otnnual requests for
 ,one year's design arid another year's con- its ranks before obtaining his current al, his brother. Robert Kennedy, and his
struction before Oi0`~It~aSep~6~c'Ytephcn Smith. That even
of the Budget for i union in t to r engineer is in ~hm-gc n a mammot n ar- t use po Circa ly potent forces could not
dent's January budget.
This annual budget is sent to Congress
for acceptance in the fiscal year that
starts the following July 1. All GSA ap-
propriations are reviewed for Congress
by the House Independent Offices Appro-
priations Committee, which also controls
budgets for the VA, IIUD, NASA and
about 20 independent agencies.
The 10-man committee generally ap-
proves all the proposed buildings, but it
does occasionally reduce a building's
budget. It also is empowered (but sel-
dom uses this privilege) to appropriate
re Loney for constructing a building even
though the Bureau of the Budget had
not recommended it. Following the com-
mittee's approval and Congressional rati-
fication, the GSA receives the funds for
its buildings.
The Hierarchy
Since PBS is only one arm of the GSA,
its ultimate ruler is the Administrator of
General Services. At the time of writing,
the Administrator is Lawrence B. Knott,
Jr., a career government officer appointed
to his current job by President Lyndon
Johnson in 1965; as the new President,
Richard Nixon will appoint a new Ad-
ministrator in place of the retiring Knott.
When the President appoints an Ad-
ministrator, he gets fealty from seven
more top-ranking men, who, in turn, are
appointed by the Administrator. One of
these appointees, with the title of Com-
missioner, runs PBS. He is William A.
Schmidt, a 56-year-old civil engineer who
made a career of PBS and rose through
VEPUTY
AVMINiCaTRATOR
AGTwa
COMMISCVIOAlER
PEPU1Y
COMMt'tctoNEP.
A4,T. COMM. FOR
txE5I04 f4 CONgT.
inhibit for longer than a space of two or
three years lire; system that doles out
many of the largest -commissions indi-
cates how entrenched and well organized
that system is. Within a week of Ken-
nedy's assassination, nine projects were
commissioned over the objections of Yas-
ko and other professionals on the GSA
staff. Within one-and-a-half years, Yas-
ko's job was split, and less than another
15 months later, he was given his present
title of "Special Assistant to the Com-
missioner," a position that does.not even
appear on the latest PBS organization
chart.
Federal Guidelines
Kennedy's efforts to improve the dismal
state of Government architecture were
begun at a cabinet meeting in August
1961, when he directed one of his Special
Assistants, Frederick G. Dutton, to orga-
nise an "Ad floe Committee on Federal
Office Space" composed of the heads of
several Government agencies, including
the GSA. The brief, excellent report the
committee produced. titled "Guiding
Principles for Federal Architecture," rec-
ommended a three-point architectural
policy for the Government. Kennedy en-
dorsed the policy and ordered the agen-
cies to put it into action. Karel Yasko
was the President's secret weapon for
enforcement of the "guidelines" in GSA.
One of the three points called for the
avoidance of an "official style" and stated
"Design must flow from the architectural
profession to the Government,. and not
vice versa." A second point was that "the
choice and development of the building
site should be considered the first step of
the design process." But it is the third
point that is most significant: "The poli-
cy shall be to provide requisite and ade-
quate facilities in an architectural style
and form which is distinguished and
vigor, and stability of the American Na-
tional Government, Major emphasis
should be placed on the choice of designs
that embody the finest contemporary
American architectural thought." Signed
c~?.s A1111-,>NY rANets sponsible for rusnntg the nine commrs-
rF.ONA0.D
nI 1JNTcrl 1 KAZ6t ~A,~p ~i..~ sions through after John Kennedy died.
7147 NUNIPK
the "guidelines" cite Pericles' evocation
/155T, COMM. ;%t to the Athenians as the proper role of the
: zas 1.~4f.C+ u't:u N'e0.
:c n ~~Gt~.~ ?~+~~~M---%~ ~-~i Federal Government in architecture: We
uu not nmutrc, for we are a mower to orn-
A r. COMM. x.1,5 AIT,ioNY Z1ert_.Ki ?rc- ers." Yasko. is still fond of this sentiment,
FOR. CoNST. and uses it often in his pleas to Congress
PFFUTY AssT. 60MM. -: o, ziev.vicKi for architectural excellence in Federal
FOP, Pr6I6w f,40,14-7T.
SPECIAL buildings. He is the only man in Wash-
ington who seems to remember it, as the
ASST. -rr cc e~
new buildings around. the Capitol testi-
To COMM.
_t___.. fy, notably the Rayburn House Office
64 65 v , t ion ~`t Building
_ __.
Ti., chart shows job changes in senior ranks of PBS daring the past eight -rears. Karel Yasko When Yasko first appeared in Wash-
was first demoted in March 1965, when. his job was split, mid again in October 1966, urlren a new ington, six months after the "guidelines"
ante was created for i pprove 1 or 1 elesse `~~'bt'l~ fd'~st. CIA-RDP86-00244ROO f~3'ffd5 1e0had to dig them out of
chitectural program should cone as no
surprise. since none of the Government's
other building programs are headed by
architects, and even the Capitol Architect
-is a civil engineer. The previous PBS Com-
missioner, who enjoyed only a short reign
of nine months and was recommended by
the AIA, was the first architect in that
office.
Next in the hierarchy is Leonard Hunt-
er, the Assistant Commissioner for De-
sign and Construction, appointed by the
Administrator in July 1967. Before that
date, Hunter worked in John Carl War-
necke's office for four years, and before
that he held the same post in PBS lie
holds today. He is the man who has tine
most immediate effect on the building
program, running it from day to clay and,
with the help of Schmidt and Adminis-
trator Knott, wielding most influence
over selection of architects and contrac-
tors.
During two of the four years Hunter was
in Warnecke's office, the Assistant Com-
missioner for Design and Construction was
Karel Yasko, formerly State Architect of
Wisconsin. In his short term of office in
Washington, he was the man most re-
sponsible for commissioning several na-
tionally recognized firms to design major
structures for the GSA. Yasko was
brought into government service by Presi-
dent Kennedy in January 1963 to insure
that at least some Federally sponsored
building would be architecture the coun-
try could be proud of.
To help him, Yasko not only had the
support of the President but also that of
 ci HE FEDERAL CLIENT AP") CIVIL RIGHTS
Approved For Rase 2002/02/06 : CIA-RDP86-00244E 0200530052-0
rot
ntractors
b
t
t
a
orbue to the Federal building program's enormous volume, and the
,utttotorious discrimination in hiring practices in the construction
_li-Industry, the Federal Government stands marked as one of the
edcountry's worst offenders of civil rights legislation now on the
rrjooks. The construction industry employs more men than any
retother industry in the U.S., and Federal agencies generate about
025 per cent of this country's annual construction; in urban areas,
Ajthe Federal percentage rises to about 50. Thus, if any client is
s- in an economic position to force compliance with equal oppor-
-r tunity provisions of the law, it is the U.S. Government.
at When the black urban poor, with unemployment rates double
a- or triple those of whites, vent their frustration through rioting,
oil they are also expressing their anger against the Government.
n' Although the President's Commission on Equal Employment Op-
portunity (which no longer exists) blacklisted five contractors
performing GSA work in Cleveland in 1965, the Government has
never used contract cancellation - the penalty specified for vio-
lation of the equal opportunity provisions of a succession of
Presidential Executive Orders issued since 1961. The five black-
listed firms did not noticeably increase minority representation on
that GSA job any more than other GSA contractors have in the
past quarter century of Government inaction on equal employ-
ment in Federal contracting.
Besides the enormous amounts of money spent by the con-
struction industry and its allied unions on filling the coffers of the
Democratic Party treasury, the Labor Department's chief obsta-
cle in forcing unions and contractors to hire blacks is the lack
of teeth in civil rights legislation. Moreover, the civil rights laws
did not specifically cover Federal construction agencies. This was
remedied by President Kennedy in 1961 and later reinforced by
President Johnson in 1965 when they issued Executive Orders
that are much stronger than the civil rights laws banning dis-
crimination in employment and apprenticeship on Federal and
Federally assisted construction projects.
The best Federal directive for equal employment opportunities
in construction work financed by the Government was signed
by President Johnson in September 1965. The directive, Execu-
tive Order 11246, differed from previous orders by adding the
important provision that contractors must take affirmative action
to hire minority groups. It still retained the previous warnings
about what would happen if contractors did not hire these groups.
e
the GSA files where they had been buried
and forgotten. "Business as usual" was
the order of the day, and not even the
AT A had taken tip the battle by publi-
cizing the report. That was undertaken
by Yasko, who, in his brief spell of pow-
er, gave commissions to Mies van der
Rohe for an 580-million protect in Chi-
cago, Marcel Breuer for the HUD building
in Washington, Hellmuth, Obata & Kassa-
baum for the Air and Space Museum,
Roche Dinkeloo Associates for the Na-
tional Aquarium (after it had first been
given by Boutin to Welton Becket), Curtis
& Davis for Federal Office Building '5,
and Vincent C. Kling for a post office in
Philadelphia.
who do not
co
ors or su
rac
rnings to con
These w
comply range from a threat to publish their names to a threat to
cancel, terminate, or suspend their contracts.
Molding such a big stick is easier than wielding it, and even
when armed with the Executive Orders, the Department of Labor
has been loathe to use them. Moreover, the Orders leave it to
each Federal contracting agency to obtain compliance with the
rules and regulations, a job that GSA, like other agencies, has
not seen fit to perform on its own.
Finally, in 1967, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance
(OFCC) in the Labor Department received a mandate from
Secretary Wirtz to put pressure on contractors and unions to com-
ply with equal employment practices. In Cleveland, the OFCC
enlisted all the agencies (including the GSA) involved in the
area's $123-million Government construction program to require
that all low bidders give written programs outlining how minority
groups would be represented on work forces. The programs had
to be submitted before contracts were signed.
For the black community, which comprises 35 per cent of Cleve-
land's population, the result of the combined Government action
was mildly encouraging. Before the OFCC action in Cleveland,
there were 12 unskilled blacks in the mechanical trades. Then
the contractors agreed to hire 300 men in these trades, and so
far 123 have started work.
Cleveland is only one city out of 22 where OFCC is working.
The results vary, and because the office is still young it has not
had time to start its programs in every city.
The effect of insisting that contractors hire more blacks for
Federally financed projects is short term. For a long-term im-
provement, more minority groups have to be trained in the con-
struction crafts. To do this, someone, probably the Government,
has to change the discriminatory attitude of construction unions.
One move in this direction faded at a time when it should have
been promoted hard. The Labor Department proposed Federal
regulations on apprenticeship schemes, but when Labor Secre-
tary Wirtz was confronted with the opposition of the AFL-CIO at
its biennial convention in December 1967, he said the regula-
tions might not be issued. Off the podium, he said that the Ad-
ministration would concentrate on a "voluntary" approach with
the craft unions, which really means that the OFCC would have
to lay off unions, contractors, GSA, and other agencies.
signs submitted for approval by the
agency were competently executed. Pre-
dictably, the GSA resisted this modest in-
novation, but in 1965 the panels were
formed, with membership chosen by Yas-
ko, Schmidt, and Hunter. subject to the
approval of the Administrator who ac-
tually appoints each member.
Originally, the national panel had 17
members, but the number- has dwindled
to 13, all but two of whom are Fellows
of the AIA. The regional panels have
three members, originally appointed for
two years, but that is now being changed
to three-year terms with a carry-over for
continuity and expanded to four mem-
bers. Most of the regional panel members
are also Fellows of the AIA, and several
Review Panels Instituted of them have been awarded sizable jobs
Another reformation wrought by Yasko by the GSA--some before and some af-
were panels of architect'-one panel at ter their apuointment to the panels. Be-
the national level and others in GSA's sides being Fellows, many panel members
10 regional offices--to review designs of are former or present officeholders in the
Federal buildings, a device set up with AIA. Since few are known for their abili-
tlre idea that professionals could judge ty as creative architects, their position in
selection as panel members -- a criterion
whose relationship to Pericles' exhorta-
tion is difficult to pinpoint.
Selecting Architects
Selection procedures for architects and
contractors for GSA design commissions
are also difficult to pinpoint. According
to a recent PBS information booklet,
"Professional competence and capability
are the prime factors by which architects
and engineers are selected. . . . Making
the selections is a task assigned to Public
Buildings Service as part of the construc-
tion program. The central office in Wash-
ington, D.C., and GSA's. 10 regional of-
fices share the task, with the size of proj-
ect determining whether Washington or
the field is responsible."
In attempting to find out exactly who
makes the selections for major projects,
P/A reporters were told several conflict-
ing stories. The first was that Yasko,
Schmidt, and Hunter make a list of rec-
ommended firms and the Administrator
better than GSA bureaucratAg9b1t% FFor *121~Ld ~1627U t'~i~ai46k4-00 4PV0a00 0fv6 -~' Later it was
The Federal Client 165
 claimed this is the procedure for choos-
ing panel rnetnbers, not designers.
Next, it was 1AptwtiWcFpIC, Ase 2002/02/06 : CIA-RDP86-00244
S
h
c
midt chooses the firms; legally, the
responsibility is the Administrator's but
he delegates it to Schmidt. For projects
in Washington. D.C.. the regional office
covering the District recommends up to
five firms and, again. Schmidt makes the
final choice. When the D.C. regional of-
fice was contacted for further informa-
tion. the director refused to discuss the
subject and referred us hack to the pub-
lic relations director in the central. office.
Apparently, Schmidt selects firms from
lists supplied by Yasko and Hunter, but
Administrator Knott can step in and ex-
ercise his legal responsibility and add
names of his own to the lists. His criteria
for selecting names have never been
spelled out, and Administrators have of-
ten indulged this prerogative of office over
the objections of the GSA professionals.
The most widely known example of
this procedure occurred during Bernard
Iloutin's administration when several
commissions were allegedly awarded
through political conteetions with lead.
ing officials of the Democratic party. One
of these, Richard Maguire, is believed by
some Washington observers to be the
nexus of political dispensation of pro-
fe,~sional contracts for many Government
agencies. During Boutin's term of office ,
Maguire was the Treasurer of the Demo-
cratic Party; more recently, he was Hu-
bert Humphrey's campaign treasurer.
For the GSA contracts, Maguire appar-
ently received help from Clifford Carter,
President Johnson's man on the National
Committee, and John Bailey, the chair-
man of the National Committee.
As Charles Bartlett, a prominent po-
litical correspondent for the Chicago-
Sun-Times wrote in 1965 (soon after
Yasko was demoted) : "The age-old
struggle is waged between the profes-
sional. architects within the Government, 3
who want design contracts to go into the
most competent hands available, and the
politicians, who want them to fall to the
architects who do the most for the party.
The bureaucracy has tended, even in the
Kennedy days, to ])end with the politi.
cians because they exert the most relent-
less pressures."
Divide and Conquer
One key feature of selection procedures
is the awarding of commissions jointly
to two firms instead of one; usually. one
firm is noted for its design work and the
other for its political and social connec-
tions, One architect familiar with Yasko's
problems during his stint as Commission-
er told P/A about his GSA joint-venture:
"As you may suspect. we did not seek
out the other firm as partners, nor did
they seek us. and this kind of throwing
together of two totally dissimilar firm..
ing the work. From what I hear of the
de al
cmnmen PPP&,Ve ' F F release 2002102/06 :' CIA - 0 6530052J0
ierE? A
gg.. l v ??Y ~ T _4 e
`~5~ Mi&i#dlb
i~~tSiter
tI1kis
lax
d?~''A*
E ,vim
Aa
Xq ii A Ai i{
{ i.
r
~ 'r
'
aa.vw~:t+ldt+d
.c;Aefaa~4kIla(`;
a~~kt1~7:
T
t I I
, IITTr
71
6~ii7 Tl~ 1 - "Tr
TTT'f'f}T1~11TfjTI flTl 1TI t
3< ` ,. l fi a i A r C' TflTrn'i"'s-i-rrrv-ram- __-._
^p-m
7TlT1TTi TTfTi tTffTITITTfiiT TT t`rn
-rTT
 1111111131111111 11111111 11111111
111111111111111111)11111 11111111
11111111 llllllll 1111111111111111
llllllll llllllll 1111111111111111
111111111111111111111111 1111111)
A)III
1~1111 its
Ila
E4 i s tea; n -. k rv pj +a
Al,
T(I
~IA AAA
u. f ~ - ~ Rik
Al pk.
a I M MMEI
[AWC 11111
LAI
IfLi ;`~' r~ G. . . a } C..-1h;?q.". ' I,S" Y "Yt.,.,' f ~'7A'?' U4'~ -:~ i
.~?~elr ,. 11111nili~iF~ ilillMffiw uftir'
-p a o+ed For Re a 2MRM06 : - , 6HOOMAR
S~~iiEl1
-ea... fit'
12111 r"!
{ ni
T111
ro i
tf ITITT t
"The development of an official style must be avoided. Design
must flow from the architectural profession to the Government, and not
vice versa." - Federal Guidelines
(1) Post Of i e and Court Ilousc Juneau, Alaska; Olsen cQ Sands, Linn .4. Forrest, and
John Graham & Co. (2) Federal Building, Indianapolis, Ind.; Erans Ir`oollen fi Assoc.
(3) Federal Building, AJlbrm) N.Y.: lirnnrond & Piada and Theodore J. Katrf}cla. (4) Federal
Building, Newark, V.1.; Lehman & Co. and Bicrnacki-Porav. (5) Federal Building, Detroit,
Mich.; Smith, Hinchnrrrn S Grills Assoc. (6) Forrestal Building, IIashington D.C.; Curtis cC'
Davis, Fordyce & Hamby Assoc. and Frank Grad & Sans. (7) Federal Building, Boston, Afass.;
ed FO /Rle1itsldis@t26d 10 f~6 !rl#IAuRdlx$'6 002+'4KMOW05 i006240and Court House,
a'or rester, : Z .; Sanrtri? l'utrl t a ;,naur Jrrrurul and Michael J. DeAngelis. (9) U.S. Afint,
Philadelphia, Pa.; Parson-Darden Corp. (10) Dept. of Labor Building, 11-ashington, D.C.;
Brooks, Barr, Graeber & II'hite and Pitts, Aleban' Phelps & It-bite.
 PROFESSIONAL CONTRACTS WITH GSA
Nearly two year r 9 , , V e # e Q l cc i ng28f ice/ (GAO) m deA-RDP86-00244R0?t 200530052-0
mate of the fee for a
a
ro
roj
t
If G
p
posal that threatened to destroy the traditional concept of
design professionals being gentlemen who do not compete
among themselves for fees. GAO proposed that Government
agencies should buy professional architectural and engineering
services from the lowest bidder in the same way they buy mate-
rials
d
, pro
ucts, or contracting services. The suggestion is based
on GAO's interpretation of existing laws, and the opposition based
its rebuttal on another interpretation of these same laws.
One reason for GAO's promotion of competitively negotiated
professional contracts is that the agency also proposes to elimi-
nate the present 6 per cent limit on fees based on the estimated
construction contract of a project. But on this the professional
societies agree with the Federal Government.
Not Open Bidding
The terminology leading to discontent over contracts is sometimes
misunderstood. GAO takes pains to explain that it does not pro-
pose that any architect or engineer be permitted to bid on a
Government agency's proposed building project. This would be
akin to an open bid for a construction contract. Instead, GAO
wants to call for design bids from a short list of invited architec-
tural or engineering firms, and since they are all presumed to be
equally qualified, the contract would be awarded to the lowest
bidder.
This system is called competitive negotiation by GAO, but peo-
ple opposed to it claim that the term is a euphemism for competi-
tive bidding. Competitive negotiations take the current negotiated
contract system practiced by GSA one step further. At present,
GSA selects an architect and asks him to prepare a detailed esti-
lection of architects out of Yasko's hands
and put it under nonarchitectura] con-
trol, this difficulty will be compounded in
the future. It seems obvious to me that,
even in my case, Yasko did not have full
say in architectural selection."
Other examples of the lack of profes-
sional criteria in selection of architects
are easy to cone by. For instance, in New
Hampshire, all GSA work for the past 10
years has gone to the same firm - more
than $13 million in contracts. (Bernard
Boutin was a prominent New. Hampshire
Democrat.)
In New Jersey, the eighth largest state
in the nation and one of the fastest grow-
ing, only one major GSA building has
been constructed in the past 10 years.
The commission for that one, a $13-nriI-
lion Federal office building in Newark,
went to the New Jersey AIA chapter
president, who was also a member of the
Newark Planning Commission.
In Alaska, one firm has been awarded
all GSA work. The firm's president is a
former member of the Alaska State Plan-
ning Commission, and a former vice-pres-
ident of Engineering and Architectural
Examiners in that state.
In New York, all but one or two jobs
went to Fellows or chapter presidents of
the AIA.
In October 1968. a prominent GSA of-
ficial retired and was appointed as As-
sistant to the Vice-President of the
Washington, D.C., office of Sverdrup &
Parcel, an architectural-engineering firm
168 The Federal CliennttpprOVed
p
ec
.
SA believes the fee is too high,
it invites the architect to revise., the estimate downward to an
agreeable figure. If this is not possible, `GSA concludes the ne-
gotiation and invites another firm to take the job and submit a
fee estimate.
Congressional Watchdog
The General Accounting Office serves as the Federal Govern-
ment's financial and management auditor, and in this role it was
asked to review how Federal agencies determine and negotiate
architect-engineer fees. The request for review emanated from
two Congressional committees on space and aeronautics that
were concerned about NASA paying more than the statutory 6
per cent fee limit for complex architectural and engineering
design.
In its review published in April 1967, GAO found that most
Government agencies paid more than the 6 per cent limit, and
recommended that Congress repeal the limitation and pay fees
based on a reasonable value for professional services.
While reviewing the five statutes governing fee limitations, the
GAO also ran a survey on actual fees paid by several Govern-
ment agencies for architect-engineer services. The survey
showed that the GSA exceeded the 6 per cent fee in more than
half of the 393 contracts sampled.
However, GSA and other agencies feel justified, since they
maintain that the 6 per cent fee limit applies only to design ser-
vices, specifications, and the production of drawings. The justi-
fication for this is that three of the five statutes for Government
procurement of professional services specify the work (and hence
limit the fees) to be for the production of designs, drawings, and
that has obtained two GSA commissions projects. It's too bad. For if we must
worth $20 million. One of them, a Fed- have a fish house it might as well be an
eral office building budgeted at $14.954,- architectural asset."
000, was terminated in the preliminary Senator Clinton Anderson (Democrat,
design stage and later given to another New Al.) is believed to be responsible
firm, a procedure usually followed in for getting Obata for the Air Museum,
GSA when the design is unacceptable. and Representative Henry Reuss (Deano-
And when it went to the second firm, for crat, Wise.) created a panel to guide the
some reason the building was only bud- new post office design for Milwaukee.
geted at $8.578.000. (In the past 10 Further insight into GSA selection
years. out of 275 contracts, only 4 have procedures can be glimpsed from exani-
been cancelled.) ining the role of the AIA in supplying
The Fish House Job the agency, as well as other Government
contractors, with architects. Presidents
Even some of the excellent designs that of the AIA have- done especially well:
GSA has commissioned recently owe their seven of the most recent holders of that
origins to sustained efforts by Congress- office have received seven major commis-
men. Representative Alike Kirwan (Dem- lions, valued at nearly $100 million.
ocrat, Ohio) exerted great pressure to get The Capitol Architect's office, although
the commission for the National Aquari- it was recently scored in the press for
tun for Roche, Dinkeloo & Associates af- the Rayburn building, has nonetheless
ter it had first been given to Welton escaped critical coverage in the architec-
Becket, apparently as a result of that tural press for its habit of giving nearly
firm's inside track to GSA. Becket has all the commissions for major buildings
obtained two other GSA jobs, valued at in J. George Stewart's time in office to
$28,464,000, but the Aquarium is Roche's the saute group of architects. The New
first. Wolf von Eckhardt, architectural York Tinges, as well as Philip Ilutchin-
critic for The II aslunglon. Post, "corn- son, director of Government Affairs for
mented on the Aquarium commission be- the AIA, described the practice as a mo-
fore it had been given to Roche: nopoly on Capitol Hill work by seven
"GSA's stuffy, secretive business seems firms, traceable directly to Stewart's as-
to go on as usual. Washington's new sistant, Mario Campioli, a former eni-
Aquarium. for instance. an item low on ployce of two of the firms invoked. The
the list of the city's needs but high on firms, as listed by the Tinges, are: Roscoe
that of certain Congressmen, will be built DeWitt and Fred Hardison of Dallas,
by a California firm mainly distinguished Alfred Easton Poor and Albert Swanke
for the
i
f i
s
ze o
ts staff and col, Borate f
For Release 2002/02/06: CIA-RDP86-0244R0~026 5Y3665 -i1IJ''ti" Al. Shelton, rbe
 Approved For Release 2002/02/06 : CIA-RDP86-00244R090200530052-0
specifications. The other two statutes specify that the fee limita-
tion applies to all professional services. This could include soil in-
vestigation, master planning, field inspection, and many other
costly services.
So, GSA'adds fees for these other services to the 6 per cent
for design and specifications; then, when GAO figures this total
fee as a percentage of the estimated construction cost, if natu-
rally arrives at a different figure from the 6 per cent design fee.
it remains to be seen how competition will lower fees, or even
if competitive negotiations will ever be introduced. Meanwhile,
under the present GSA system of inviting one firm to bid on a
project, the fee tends to follow the old 6 per cent formula. This
is the result of GSA establishing the budget for a project in ad-
vance, and an architectural firm simply has to assign 6 per cent
to cover the design and specifications of the project, and adjust
the man-hours and expenses to fit that figure. All the other costs,
such as field supervision, can be added.
Stopped in Committee
A copy of the 1967 GAO report was sent to the Government Sub-
committee of the Comrnitte of Government Operations. The sub-
committee, under the chairmanship of Congressman Jack Brooks
(Democrat, Tex.), took strong exception to the proposed com-
petitive negotiations, and wrote these views in a long letter to the
Comptroller General of the United States, who heads GAO.
Brooks said that the GAO and the subcommittee read different
interpretations of the statutes affecting procurement of profes-
sional services, and that he would not support competitive ne-
gotiations. Furthermore, the subcommittee does not agree that
the 6 per cent limit should be dropped because it sees no suit-
late Alan G. Stanford and A.P. Almond
of Atlanta. DeWitt, Poor. Swanke, Shel-
ton, and Almond now have the design
commission for another new building on
Capitol Hill, the $75-million Madison
Memorial Hall.
With this in mind, P/A reporters asked
GSA officials if there was any connection
between the Architect's office and the
PBS building program. Schmidt's and
Hunter's answer was that there was no
connection at all between the two. But
J. George Stewart himself flatly contra-
dicted them in his testimony to a Senate
Appropriations Subcommittee in April
1968 where he appeared to urge Congress
to appropriate money for the Madison job
for DeWitt and company. Stewart glibly
stated: "When we were moving along
with the work, we went to Lawson Knott,
GSA Administrator, ... His architects al-
so went over these plans and program,
and they said they thought we had a
very fine building laid out.... We have
a thorough approval from Lawson
Knott's office on this, and the architects,
because they have done a lot of work
for him also."
In a 10-year list of GSA projects, two
commissions for $51.5 million are attrib-
uted to members of the DeWitt consor-
tium, but there may be more since one of
these jobs is listed under a different firm
name.
Cooperative Contractors
A final aspect of GSA's handling of sciec-
able substitute for "protecting the public, against ill-advised ac-
tion on the part of executive officials."
Nearly one year after Brooks sent his letter to the GAO, his
office had still not received a reply. During this time, however,
two House Committees made known their interpretation of the
difference between buying M-16 rifles and architect-engineer
services. Of "Section 406-Negotiated Procurement," they wrote,
"The conferees wish to make it entirely clear that their agree-
ment on this language to prevent buying rifles without consider-
ing all qualified bidders] in the bill is not intended to modify in
any way the traditional method of procuring architect engineer
services."
Congress approved this Conference Report and the President
signed it in October 1968. The purpose of a Conference Report
is to explain the intent of Congress with regard to a new law or
a change to an existing law: It records for history why Congress
did what it did. But in this case, GAO believes the report is not
the final historical word, and that the amendment leaves the way
open to another amendment.
To make this second amendment, GAO would have to take its
changes through the two House committees, and, to quote one
committeeman, "both these paths are clearly blocked." So, tem-
porarily, the competitive negotiation is in abeyance because
the GAO cannot enforce it unless Congress directs it to.
Although the issue seems cut and dried, GAO and professional
society representatives seem cautious about saying so. They
seem to be defensive about the other side's capability of chang-
ing the situation, and since these men are in the strongest position
to know, we may conclude that the political word games are
riot over.
tion procedures concerns the agency's
choice of contractors. The construction in-
dustry's interest in politics is well known,
so it should not be surprising that 60 per
cent of the contractors selected by GSA.
supposedly by submitting low bids to PBS
in an open bidding procedure, are repeat-
ers, and many of them have had more
than three of the large contracts. And of
the jobs valued at over $6 million, 75 per
cent have been awarded to the same small
circle of contractors with a special apti-
tude for submitting low bids.
Perhaps some light can he shed on this
process through one of the. few reported
instances where it received some publicity.
Madrew McCloskey, owner of the contract-
ing firm noted for building the Rayburn
Building at record cost, also built the U.S.
Embassy in Ireland and then prodded
President Kennedy into allowing him to
move into it as ambassador. Since then.
McCloskey has obtained one commission
from GSA, hilt that one-tic Mint
building in Philadelphia - was obtained
through. what appears to have been a pri-
vate arrangement with GSA officials. Even
though another of the "insiders" had sub-
mitted a low bid, McCloskey turned up
five days later with a lower hid and got
the job. This was reported by Senator
John J. Williams (Republican. Dei.) who
also reported: "One prominent builder has
stated that his company slid not even waste:
its time and money in preparing a bid for
this i roiect since it was well known in
construction circles that McCloskey= & Co.
was to get the contract regardless."
In spite of McCloskey's reputation for
politics and a.seemingly insatiable appe-
tite for getting into trouble with clients.
GSA officials Schmidt and Hunter reas-
suringly informed PIA that McCloskey's
was a "responsible" firm well-qualified for
government work.
Apathetic AiA
Most architects have already heard that
the entire Government program of com-
missioning private firms for its work,
whether that work is architectural or sup-
plying the Army with rifles or construct-
ing "vertical assembly buildings" for
NASA, is open to political deals of all
types and descriptions. Also, architects
are as aware as other private businessmen
that it pays to know somebody in Wash-
ington, but the vast majority are either
unwilling or unable to capitalize on that
fact. It is a shame that so many do, but
more of a shame that the AIA does not use
its position to exert some pressure on Fed-
eral agencies to change- for the -ood
of the public as well as the art of building.
Instead, many present and past officers are
among the indifferent designers of major
public buildings. In short, the architec-
tural profession, as represented by tire
AIA, is evidently content that publicly fi-
nanced architecture lives up to the policy
stated in the "Federal Guidelines" and
that it reflects the "dignity, enterprise.
vigor, and stability of the American Na-
tional. Government." -- lute, PG
Approved For Release 2002/02/06 : CIA-RDP86-OO244ROOO2OO53OO52 0 Federal Client 169