No PDF currently available.
Summary: GAO reported on its examination of construction and related costs of the Rayburn House Office Building.
GAO noted that: (1) the significant results of GAO's examination relate to contract changes, architect-engineering fees, and conformance with plans and specifications; (2) contract changes to June 30, 1965, totalled approximately $8 million, representing those changes of a total of about 1,450 changes which had been formalized into change orders; according to the Architect of the Capitol's records, proposals by contractors for changes not formalized at that date totalled about $668,000; (3) contracts for architect and engineering services were negotiated with selected firms and, except for one contract, the fees were payable at stipulated percentages of the actual costs of the segments covered by the contracts; (4) it appears from GAO's review that the fee payable for architectural services relating to certain segments of the construction was significantly more than the General Services Administration probably would have authorized under its criteria at the time that the contract for these services was negotiated by the Architect; (5) the pertinent records of the Architect indicate that certain construction work did not meet the standards specified in the superstructure contract; (6) this work involved the compressive strength of a reinforced concrete wall, thicknesses of concrete slabs in the garage levels, uniform coloring of concrete in the garage levels, compaction of backfill, and condition of gypsum block walls in the subbasement; (7) reporting of these instances is not intended to imply that they were representative of the overall quality of the construction work; (8) however, these instances related to ordinary and regular construction work for which clear and precise standards have been established on the basis of considered engineering judgment; (9) according to the Architect's office, these instances were not structurally significant, and because of their technical nature, GAO is not in a position to evaluate this judgment; (10) GAO believes that the extensive effort required to dispose of these cases and the manner in which the Architect dealt with them are appropriate for reporting by GAO's Office to Congress; and (11) the Architect stated that the provisions of the plans and specifications were complied with, except as to a few minor items, and that, in any large project of the nature of the Rayburn Building, there were bound to be disputes involving compliance with the advertised plans and specifications.
