appreciate the opportunity to appear before you, Senator Danforth. If there is additional information that can be provided, I'd be very happy to work with you further. Thank you.

Senator DANFORTH. Gentlemen, thank you very much. Let me just put one general question to you. Unfortunately, we haven't allowed enough time for the hearing this morning so we can't be as comprehensive as I'd like to be. Clearly the Government has a variety of interests other than just building buildings when it does business with you-for example, encouraging minority employment; minority business opportunities; the prevailing wage; avoiding either the fact or the appearance of favoritism in awarding Government_contracts; avoiding being ripped off. And for that reason, the Government sets up a lot of things for you to do that somebody who is in the private sector doing business wouldn't have you do: a lot of records, and lot of requirements. Let's suppose that each of those objectives is going to remain an objective of government, I mean let's suppose that is the underlying policy and it is take it as a given. Do you believe that the expense, the aggravation, the redtape, the lack of standardization is a necessary product of these additional governmental policies, or do you believe that it's possible to streamline them to make it more attractive for people to do business with the Federal Government-to make it more rewarding for people to do business with the Federal Government without impinging upon these various policies?

Mr. GARNEY. That's a point, Senator, that I was trying to address. I believe that it is. I think the answer is incentives rather than mandatory control. Mandatory control has the problem of having to be enforced. Enforcement and surveillance is the redtape. Maybe it would be difficult to work out the percentage of economic incentive that would be given for the use of minority contractors, but once that number was arrived at, it would be pretty simple to administer, yet it still gives a leg up to the minority and women business enterprises. I'm afraid the 8(a) set-aside program_and some of those others are not going to be a long-term benefit to either side.

Senator DANFORTH. Mr. Patty, do you have a view on that? Mr. PATTY. I was reviewing in my mind the various attributes that you set down in regard to that. Whatever needs to be done to not have the people pay 10 to 25 percent more for Federal projects and receive 10 to 15 percent less, which may be a gap of 30 percent in cost in construction to Government in Federal projects, needs to be done. There's no reason why Federal projects have to cost more. I personally do not believe that the wage scale, which you cited, causes additional costs. Those scales are generally within the union scales that we pay on other projects. I think minorities have to be and can be involved in the construction process without an additional premium, but it is mostly the delays and the processings that all three of us have referred to today that I believe cost money. All of us get involved in projects as large as the Federal Government builds all the time in private industry, and we build those projects from start to scratch in 8 months to 3 years. So, Senator, I believe that it can be done, I think it's the

Senator DANFORTH. I should've added environmental requirements in that, too, because that's part of the delay that you and

Mr. Dunn are speaking of: the need to produce environmental impact statements; also the delays caused by the whole process for authorization of appropriations.

Mr. PATTY. It's the consistency, also, of reports—not knowing how to approach it with one agency. The same report or format that you approach with another agency may have to be all done entirely differently. That's unnecessary.

Senator DANFORTH. You don't see any reason for that? Did it just happen, just grow up like Topsy?

Mr. PATTY. Well, I think it's different people who are administrating that look at it in a different format. It's not a big idea, but that 254/255 form in our industry was a standardization across-theboard that most of those agencies used. Now we can pick up one; we know exactly what to do. It's just a good example. Senator DANFORTH. Mr. Dunn?

Mr. DUNN. Senator, I agree with your observation that the Government must do what is needed to conduct its business in a prudent manner that will safeguard the taxpayers. There are certain documents they must have on every project and the processes. I feel that there's a problem in that each one of the agencies seems to be a kingdom within itself and there is no attempt to coordinate the procedures. I think the taxpayers and the Government both would benefit by an attempt to standardize all of the procedures and streamline the activities.

You mentioned the publishing of the wage rates. I feel that in certain situations the interpretation of these can cause the Federal Government to pay more money. Where we work in this area, certainly the wage scales are established by contracts that are drawn up between management and labor. If, for example, wage rates for an outlying area are interpreted that they should be the same as this area when the area practice is something substantially different, then the Federal Government is going to be paying more money for its goods and services, and I think this is something that has to be safeguarded. I don't feel that there's anything to be gained either by management or the Government if there is no ceiling or no wage scale set at all because this takes me back to the days when people were getting paid 30 and 40 cents an hour, and maybe their dollars bought more, but I don't think anyone wants to go back to that set of circumstances.

I think the minority problem is something that the various agencies are not assessing properly. I think the people working on jobs-those barriers have been pretty well eliminated. There are many people that are working in trades and are foremen that never had the opportunity before, and I think that problem is working well. I think the idea of set-asides or setting percentages is abhorrent because I think it is more important that a good-faith effort be made and that is what our council, our minority business advisory council, has addressed. If there's a project out in the middle of nowhere that no minority enterprise is interested in even going near, and there's no way possible to get someone involved, and a good-faith effort has been exhibited, then the groups, the minority groups, that I have been working with feel that that is leaving well enough alone at that particular point. On the other

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY MR. PATTY

Purpose:

The policy of the Federal Government, in procuring architectural, engineering,
and related professional services, is to encourage firms lawfully engaged in the
practice of those professions to submit annually a statement of qualifications
and performance data. Standard Form 254, "Architect-Engineer and Related
Services Questionnaire" is provided for that purpose. Interested A-E firms
(including new, small, and/or minority firms) should complete and file SF
254's with each Federal agency and with appropriate regional or district offices
for which the A-E is qualified to perform services. The agency head for each
proposed project shall evaluate these qualification resumes, together with any
other performance data on file or requested by the agency, in relation to the
proposed project. The SF 254 may be used as a basis for selecting firms for
discussions, or for screening firms preliminary to inviting submission of addi-
tional information.

Definitions:

"Architect-engineer and related services" are those professional services
associated with research, development, design and construction, alteration, or
repair of real property, as well as incidental services that members of these
professions and those in their employ may logically or justifiably perform,
including studies, investigations, surveys, evaluations, consultations, planning,
programming, conceptual designs, plans and specifications, cost estimates,
inspections, shop drawing reviews, sample recommendations, preparation of
operating and maintenance manuals, and other related services.

"Parent Company" is that firm, company, corporation, association or con-
glomerate which is the major stockholder or highest tier owner of the firm
completing this questionnaire; i.e. Firm A is owned by Firm B which is, in
turn, a subsidiary of Corporation C. The "parent company" of Firm A is
Corporation C.

"Principals" are those individuals in a firm who possess legal responsibility
for its management. They may be owners, partners, corporate officers,
associates, administrators, etc.

"Discipline", as used in this questionnaire, refers to the primary technological
capability of individuals in the responding firm. Possession of an academic
degree, professional registration, certification, or extensive experience in a
particular field of practice normally reflects an individual's primary technical
discipline.

"Joint Venture" is a collaborative undertaking by two or more firms or
individuals for which the participants are both jointly and individually
responsible.

"Consultant", as used in this questionnaire, is a highly specialized individual
or firm having significant input and responsibility for certain aspects of a
project and possessing unusual or unique capabilities for assuring success of
the finished work.

"Prime" refers to that firm which may be coordinating the concerted and

complementary inputs of several firms, individuals or related services to
produce a completed study or facility. The "prime" would normally be
regarded as having full responsibility and liability for quality of performance by
itself as well as by subcontractor professionals under its jurisdiction.
"Branch Office" is a satellite, or subsidiary extension, of a headquarters
office of a company, regardless of any differences in name or legal structure of
such a branch due to local or state laws. "Branch offices" are normally sub-
ject to the management decisions, bookkeeping, and policies of the main
office.

Instructions for Filing (Numbers below correspond to
numbers contained in form):

1. Type accurate and complete name or submitting firm, its address, and zip
code.

la. Indicate whether form is being submitted in behalf of a parent firm or a
branch office. (Branch office submissions should list only personnel in, and
experience of, that office.)

2. Provide date the firm was established under the name shown in question 1.
3. Show date upon which all submitted information is current and accurate.
4. Enter type of ownership, or legal structure, of firm (sole proprietor, partner-
ship, corporation, joint venture, etc.)

4a. Check appropriate box indicating if firm is minority-owned. (See 41
CFR 1-1.13 or ASPR 1-332.3(a) for definitions of minority ownership.)

5. Branches or subsidiaries of larger or parent companies, or conglomerates,
should insert name and address of highest-tier owner.

5a. If present firm is the successor to, or outgrowth of, one or more
predecessor firms, show name(s) of former entity(ies) and the year(s) of
their original establishment.

6. List not more than two principals from submitting firm who may be con-
tacted by the agency receiving this form. (Different principals may be listed on
forms going to another agency.) Listed principals must be empowered to speak
for the firm on policy and contractual matters.

7. Beginning with the submitting office, list name, location, total number of
personnel and telephone numbers for all associated or branch offices, (including
any headquarters or foreign offices) which provide A-E and related services.
7a. Show total personnel in all offices. (Should be sum of all personnel,
all branches.)

8. Show total number of employees, by discipline, in submitting office. (If form
is being submitted by main or headquarters office, firm should list total employ-
ees, by discipline, in all offices.) While some personnel may be qualified in
several disciplines, each person should be counted only once in accord with
his or her primary function. Include clerical personnel as "administrative."

254-101

Standard Form 254 July 1975

Prescribed By GSA Fed. Proc. Reg. (41 CFR) 1-16.803