SAFE COMPUTER CENTER RENOVATION CHANGE ORDER COSTS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP86-01019R000200050024-3
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: July 28, 2005
• Sequence Number: 24
• Publication Date: May 18, 1981
• Content Type: MF

Approved or Release 2005/08/03 : CIA-RDP86-01419R000200050024-3
MEMORANDUM 'FOR: Director, Consolidated SAFE Project Office, ODP
FROM:
e , Kea s a e & Construction Division, OL
SUBJECT: SAFE Computer Center Renovation Change Order.
Costs
REFERENCES: A. Memo for C/CSPO/ODP fm C/RECD, dtd 18 Mar
81, Subj: Status of SAFE Site Construction
Costs
B. Memo for C/RECD/OL fm D/CSPO/ODP, dtd
20 Apr 81, Subj: SAFE Computer Center
Renovation Change Order. Costs
1. It is with concern that I read your memorandum, dated
20 April. 1981 (Reference B), in which you stated that, "
inadequate planning and analysis . . ." led to an 11 . . . inordi-
nate number of change orders and additional costs. . " during
the construction of the SAFE Phase I computer facility. In
order to respond to this point, let me briefly review the process
through which this facility design was accomplished. The General
Services Administration e architect-engineer
(.A-E) firm of who subcontracted the
mechanical an e ectrical design work to the firm of STAT
I The A-E was paid the standard design tee Out
requested additional. funds to conduct more intensive survey work.
GSA refused this request as a matter of policy and directed the
A-E to utilize the existing site drawings and survey only as
necessary to complete the project.
2. Real Estate and Construction Division (RECD) engineers
reviewed the conceptual aspects and general layout of the A-E's
work; however, RECD is not staffed to accomplish a physical vali-
dation of all details of the A-E's design. Indeed, if RECD were
staffed for this degree of effort, the design work could be
accomplished in-house. RECD and GSA must therefore rely on the
A-E to perform his work within professionally acceptable standards
consistent with contractual tasking and review. In cases where
some professional quality is lacking in the A-E's work, and is
not evident in the review process, more change orders are to be
expected during the construction phase. I mention these facts
not as an apology, but merely to describe to you the present system
for facility construction.
01, 1 1.804
Approved For Release 2005/08/03 : CIA-RDP86-01019R000200050024-3
 Approved-For Release 2005/08/03 : CIA-RDP86 O19R000200050024-3
SUBJECT: SAFE Computer Center Renovation Change Order Costs
3. Your memorandum specifically referred. to eleven chans;e
orders for which a final price determination had been made. In
addition to these, Reference A also lists ten additional change
orders for which a final price determination has not been made.
Of these 21 change orders:
a. Twelve may be attributed to inadequate survey
work (Paragraph 1, c.o.'s 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11; Paragraph
2 (b) , (c) , (e) , (f) , (i) , and (j ) at a total cost
of $1.54,249 - the major item, the installation of
electrical bus duct in lieu of conduits for $100,000,
is sufficient to handle part of the Phase II power
requirement and thus eliminate this part of the work
from Phase II construction. Additionally, this latter
item must be done now in order to provide power to
Phase I. It cannot be enlarged later due to space
limitations in the utility tunnel;
b. Two are credits (Paragraph 1, c.o. 7, Paragraph
2 (a) at a reduction of $3,694;
c. Five are the result of design error (Paragraph 1,
c.o.'s 1, 5, 10; Paragraph 2 (d), (g) at a cost of
$25,629;
d. One (Paragraph 1, c.o. 6), at a
cost
of
$14,116,
was required due to a conflict with
the
"C"
Vault
expansion project which supports SAFE;
e. A pending change order listed in Paragraph 2 (h)
at $5,000 is to allow the SAFE contractor rather than
the Uninterruptible Power System (UPS) vendor to
install the UPS units in this area to expedite
installation;
f. The transfer of $3,900 under Paragraph 1 (h) was
to allow the Headquarters Building GSA forces to
efficiently complete those minor tasks inevitably
required in projects such as these, instead of
having to write a work request for each task. It
should be pointed out that elimination of all of
the above items would not have returned all of these
funds back to the project. The majority of this
work is a basic requirement to complete the project
and if it had been included. in the original design,
the original contract price would have been appro-
priately higher. Of course, accomplishing this work
via the change order route is certainly less efficient
than properly incorporating it into the design initially.
Approved For Release 2005/08/03 : CIA-RDP86-01019R000200050024-3
 Approvedor Release 2005/08/03 : CIA-RDP86-0" tO19R000200050024-3
SUBJECT: SAFE Computer Center Renovation Change Order Costs
4. As you. recall, $400,000 of the total funds originally
provided to GSA for construction was withdrawn at your request
in August 1980. In my response to this request, dated 28 August
1980 (attached), you were advised: "I, therefore, caution. you
that while the short-range effect of recovery of the excess funds
for other uses is believed possible, the long-range spectre of
unexpected costs beyond remaining available funds and resultant
delays is also a possibility of which you must be aware." When
modifying an existing building, the element of unknown is always
greater because some items on existing drawings seem never to be
quite where they are shown. Since you insisted on the funding
reduction and withdrawal contrary to my advice, I cannot now
support your contention that RECD and/or GSA should be obligated
to fund for the required changes subsequently identified.
5. In any event, RECD has no funds for this purpose and
even if GSA should be successful in legal redress against the
A-E for his errors and omissions, the most optimistic outcome
would be punitive rather than of any practical help in achieving
our construction objective. As things presently stand, it appears
that funds already provided for Phase I may be sufficient to
sustain the project through the events described in Reference A.
Assuming that your final sentence in Paragraph 5 of Reference B
alludes to future changes, we will henceforth operate within
presently available funds. If they should become exhausted, we
will simply notify you of the anticipated impact on timely delivery
of a complete and usable facility.
6. I certainly agree to your request for a quarterly reporting
of construction funding as requested in Reference A. If you would
like to discuss these issues further, please give me a call.
Attachments
cc: l D/ODP
1 - C/PP?;ES/PMES/NFAC
Distribution:
Original - Addressee
OL,/RECD Official
1 - 0I,/RECD Chrono
1 - C/HEB/RECD/OL
I - OL Reader
Approved For Release 2005/08/03 CIA-RDP86-01019R000200050024-3