Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
143605645
label
West Front of Capitol Extension: General, 1965-1973 (4)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
143605645
contentType
document
title
West Front of Capitol Extension: General, 1965-1973 (4)
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Special Files
subjects
United States Capitol (Washington, D.C.)
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
143605645
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1973-02-28
month
2
year
1973
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1965-05-01
month
5
year
1965
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
c2e2d4ac2585e12f
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box J30, folder "West Front Extension: General,
1965-1973 (4)" of the Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers, 1948-1973 at the Gerald R.
Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box J30 of the Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers, 1948-1973 at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
The Speaker's Rooms
H.S. House of Representatives
Mashington, D.C.
July 6, 1970
Honorable Gerald R. Ford
Minority Leader
House of Representatives
Washington, D. C.
Dear Jerry:
I am forwarding to you, herewith, in your capacity
as a Member of the Commission for Extension of the United
States Capitol, copy of contract executed July 1, 1970,
with Praeger-Kavanagh-Waterbury, engineers-architects of
New York City, for furnishing professional engineering and
other services required for studying and reporting on the
feasibility and cost of restoring the west central front
of the United States Capitol.
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
With kind regards, I am
incerely yours,
John W. McCormack
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Chairman, Commission for Extension of
the United States Capitol
July 1, 1970
Contract No. ACbr-589
Contract with
PRAEGER-KAVANAGH-WATERBURY
(a division of Madigan-Praeger, Inc.)
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
For professional engineering and other necessary services
required for studying and reporting on the feasibility and
cost of restoring the west central front of the United States
Capitol for the sum of
$175,000.00
WHEREAS, in the Legislative Appropriation Act, 1956, Public Law 242, 84th
Congress, approved August 5, 1955 (69 Stat. 515, 516), as amended by the Urgent
Deficiency Appropriation Act, 1956, Public Law 406, 84th Congress, approved
February 14, 1956 (70 Stat. 14), and by the Legislative Branch Appropriation
Act, 1964, Public Law 88-248, 88th Congress, approved December 30, 1963 (77
Stat. 812), and by Public Law 91-77, 91st Congress, approved September 29,
1969 (83 Stat. 124), the following provision is contained therein:
Extension of the Capitol: The Architect of the Capitol is
hereby authorized, under the direction of a Commission for
Extension of the United States Capitol, to be composed of the
President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Represen-
tatives, the majority leader of the Senate, the majority leader
of the House of Representatives, the minority leader of the
Senate, the minority leader of the House of Representatives,
and the Architect of the Capitol, to provide for the extension,
reconstruction, and replacement of the central portion of the
United States Capitol in substantial accordance with scheme B
of the architectural plan submitted by a joint commission of
Congress and reported to Congress on March 3, 1905 (House
Document numbered 385, Fifty-eighth Congress), but with such
modifications and additions, including provisions for restaurant
facilities, and such other facilities in the Capitol Grounds,
together with utilities, equipment, approaches, and other
appurtenant or necessary items, as may be approved by said
Commission, and for such purposes there is hereby appropriated
$5,000,000, to remain available until expended, and there are
hereby authorized to be appropriated such additional sums as
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
may be determined by said Commission to be required for the
purposes hereof: Provided, That the Architect of the Capitol
under the direction of said Commission and without regard to
the provisions of section 3709 of the Revised Statutes, as
amended, is authorized to enter into contracts and to make such
other expenditures, including expenditures for personal and
other services, as may be necessary to carry out the purposes
of this Act and, prior to any appropriations being provided for
extension, reconstruction, and replacement of the west central
portion of the United States Capitol, to obligate such sums as
may be necessary for the employment of nongovernmental engineer-
ing and other necessary services and for test borings and other
necessary incidental items required to make a survey, study and
examination of the structural condition of such west central
portion, to make reports of findings, and to make recommendations
with respect to such remedial measures as may be deemed necessary,
including the feasibility of corrective measures in conjunction
with extension of such west central portion.
- 1 -
WHEREAS, in addition to amounts heretofore appropriated under the afore-
cited authority, an appropriation of $2,275,000 is provided for the project
"Extension of the Capitol" in the Legislative Branch Appropriation Act, 1970,
Public Law 91-145, approved December 12, 1969, as follows:
Extension of the Capitol
For an additional amount for "Extension of the Capitol",
$2,275,000, to be expended under the direction of the
Commission for Extension of the United States Capitol as
authorized by law: Provided, That such portion of the
foregoing appropriation as may be necessary shall be used
for emergency shoring and repairs of, and related work on
the west central front of the Capitol: Provided further,
That not to exceed $250,000 of the foregoing appropriation
shall be used for the employment of independent nongovern-
mental engineering and other necessary services for
studying and reporting (within six months after the date of
the employment contract) on the feasibility and cost of
restoring such west central front under such terms and
conditions as the Commission may determine: Provided,
however, That pending the completion and consideration of
such study and report, no further work toward extension
of such west central front shall be carried on: Provided
further, That after submission of such study and report
and consideration thereof by the Commission, the Commission
shall direct the preparation of final plans for extending
such west central front in accord with Plan 2 (which said
Commission has approved), unless such restoration study
report establishes to the satisfaction of the Commission:
(1) That through restoration, such west central front
can, without undue hazard to safety of the structure
and persons, be made safe, sound, durable, and
beautiful for the foreseeable future;
(2) That restoration can be accomplished with no more
vacation of west central front space in the building
proper (excluding the terrace structure) than would be
required by the proposed extension Plan 2;
(3) That the method or methods of accomplishing
restoration can be so described or specified as to
form the basis for performance of the restoration
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
work by competitive, lumpsum, fixed price construction
bid or bids;
(4) That the cost of restoration would not exceed
$15,000,000; and
(5) That the time schedule for accomplishing the
restoration work will not exceed that heretofore pro-
jected for accomplishing the Plan 2 extension work:
Provided further, That after consideration of the
restoration study report, if the Commission concludes
that all five of the conditions hereinbefore specified
are met, the Commission shall then make recommendations
to the Congress on the question of whether to extend or
restore the west central front of the Capitol.
- 2 -
WHEREAS, the Commission for Extension of the United States Capitol, at
meeting May 25, 1970, authorized and directed the Architect of the Capitol,
subject to approval of the Chairman of such Commission, to negotiate and
enter into a contract with the firm of Praeger-Kavanagh-Waterbury, a
division of Madigan-Praeger, Inc., Engineers-Architects of New York City,
to render the services, required by Public Law 91-145 to be rendered, for
studying and reporting on the feasibility and cost of restoring the west
central front of the United States Capitol under such terms and
conditions as determined by such Commission.
WHEREAS, it is desired to obtain from Praeger-Kavanagh-Waterbury, a
division of Madigan-Praeger, Inc., Engineers-Architects of New York City,
the services hereinafter described.
NOW, THEREFORE, this contract made and entered into this first day of
July, one thousand nine hundred and seventy, by the United States of
America, party of the first part, represented by Mario E. Campioli,
Acting Architect of the Capitol, and Praeger-Kavanagh-Waterbury, a
division of Madigan-Praeger, Inc., Engineers-Architects of New York City,
party of the second part.
WITNESSETH, that the parties hereto have mutually covenanted and
agreed and by these presents do covenant and agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1 (a) The party of the second part agrees to furnish the
professional engineering and other necessary services required for
studying and reporting on the feasibility and cost of restoring the west
central front of the United States Capitol, said front being the portion
of the building between the House and Senate Connections.
FORD LIBRAR i GERALD Y
- 3 -
(b) Such services shall include, but not be limited to, the following
services considered and agreed to by the Commission for Extension of the
United States Capitol, at its meeting of May 25, 1970:
PREPARATORY WORK:
The party of the second part shall --
(1) review the "Report on the Foundation Investigation
of the Extension of the Capitol" by Moran,
Proctor, Mueser and Rutledge, Consulting
Engineers, dated May 1957;
(2) review the "Report on the Structural Condition of
the West Central Portion of the United States
Capitol, Extension of the Capitol Project",
dated November 1964, by The Thompson and Lichtner
Company, Consulting Engineers;
(3) review the "Preliminary Plans and estimates of cost
for the Extension of the West Central Front of
the Capitol" published in 1967;
(4) review the study and records of the settlement,
movement, and cracking of the West Central Front
made during the period August 1968 to April 1970;
(5) review the legislative history of the project;
(6) review other pertinent data, information, plans,
and material in the Office of the Architect
of the Capitol;
(7) examine the exterior and interior of the west
central section of the Capitol;
(8) if previous borings and test pits are not
considered adequate by the party of the second
part for the study required to be made under this
contract, provide for such additional borings
and test pits as mutually agreed to by the parties
of the first and second parts, subject to the
provisions of subsection (c) of this Article.
(9) provide for necessary testing of old material,
subject to the provisions of subsection (c) of
this Article.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
- 4 -
(10) provide for removal of all coats of paint from the
old sandstone to the extent considered necessary
by the party of the second part to permit such
party to make a proper evaluation of the
condition of the west central front walls.
subject to the provisions of subsection (c) of
this Article.
(11) take such measurements of existing exterior stone-
work as are necessary to permit sound decision
on restoration; and
(12) make such further exploratory work as required,
with the provision that no stones may be
removed or the structure be otherwise disturbed,
if removal or disturbance would, in the judgment
of the Architect of the Capitol, jeopardize the
safety of the structure, subject to the
provisions of subsection (c) of this Article.
SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE INCLUDED IN STUDY:
The party of the second part, in making a study to determine the
feasibility of restoring this old section of the building, shall deal
specifically with the following items:
(1) make recommendations for properly restoring all
deteriorated, patched, spalled and cracked stones,
including slipped keystones and sagged stones in
the central portico;
(2) if stones mentioned in (1) are to be removed and
replaced, indicate how this would be accomplished
and if the stones above would have to be
removed;
(3) take all necessary measures to plan to maintain the
original stereotomy and, insofar as feasible,
avoid the use of "dutchmen";
(4) determine whether, in order to eliminate recurrence
of cracks and open joints, provision should be
made for expansion and contraction and indicate
how this would be accomplished;
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
(5) determine the type and source of stone to be used
in replacement work;
(6) determine whether the restored front should be
painted or otherwise treated;
- 5 -
(7) indicate how walls would be improved structurally,
including the keying of present outer and inner
faces of exterior walls;
(8) determine whether underpinning of the existing
walls is necessary and the extent of such under-
pinning;
(9) provide for relocating the underground utilities
necessary, for both temporary and permanent use,
if underpinning is necessary;
(10) provide for all necessary temporary exterior and
interior shoring or buttressing, during the
restoration period;
(11) indicate rooms which would be vacated and shored
during the restoration and provide a schedule
showing the periods such rooms would be vacated;
(12) indicate the method proposed for avoiding damage to
original art work on interior surfaces of walls
and ceilings if shoring or treatment of the walls
to improve structural quality are recommended;
(13) include provision for temporary accommodations for
those persons whose quarters must be vacated as
a result of interior shoring during restoration
period;
(14) include provision for fenced-in construction site
and necessary buildings thereon and access roads;
(15) provide for storage site for any new stone located
within 25 miles of the Capitol;
(16) establish a schedule of the restoration work--if
more than one stage is recommended, indicate the
number of stages, describe the work to be under-
taken in each stage, and the time required for
each;
(17) provide for replacement of defective door and
window frames and sash;
(18) provide for new flashing at juncture of old and
FORD & LIBRARY CERALD
new work at roof and other necessary junctures;
(19) include provision for scaffolding of exterior for
purpose of obtaining additional measurements,
making models, and executing work of
restoration;
- 6 -
(20) include provision for making of models of all carved
work requiring replacement and the taking of
profiles of all moldings requiring replacement;
(21) determine and recommend the type of stone pointing
to be used in new work;
(22) determine and recommend the method of setting new
stones;
(23) develop fully and make recommendations on the risks
and hazards involved in restoration work and
indicate safety methods to be employed;
(24) make provision for birdproofing all restored sections
of building;
(25) provide for protection, weather and dust proofing
during restoration period;
(26) make monthly reports to the Architect of the
Capitol showing progress of the work;
(27) furnish detailed description and breakdown of costs
of each plan of restoration considered and reported
upon, making allowance, in estimating such costs,
for (a) escalating costs over the restoration
period and (b) a lumpsum amount for professional
consulting services, administrative costs of the
Architect of the Capitol and contingencies;
(28) furnish all necessary drawings to complement the
written report and to clearly delineate the scope
of the work; and
(29) submit to the Architect of the Capitol, within six
months after date of this contract, a detailed
written report (in 50 copies), containing the
findings and recommendations of the party of the
second part, and the estimates of cost required
under item (27) hereof. Such report shall contain
such data, estimates, schedules, findings,
evaluations, and other information as may be
necessary to enable the Commission for Extension
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
of the United States Capitol to make a determina-
tion with respect to the five vital conditions set
forth in Public Law 91-145, cited on page 2 hereof.
(c) With respect to items (8), (9), (10), and (12) under the caption
"Preparatory Work", the party of the second part shall prepare and furnish
any drawings and specifications required for the work of making of borings,
test pits, testing of old material, removal of paint from old sandstone,
- 7 -
and removal and replacement of stones, and it is agreed that such work shall
be performed under separate contract or contracts to be entered into by the
party of the first part with others and without expense to the party of the
second part, on the basis of the drawings and specifications prepared by the
party of the second part. It is further agreed that the services to be
performed by the party of the second part in connection with these items of
work shall include supervision and direction of performance of the work and
analysis and evaluation of findings resulting from such work. It is also
agreed that any survey work or other exploratory work required to be per-
formed by others under separate contracts shall be subject to the same
conditions as prescribed hereunder for other such work.
(d) Any scaffolding which the parties of the first and second parts
deem necessary for performance of work under this contract shall be pro-
vided by the party of the first part at its expense.
(e) The party of the second part agrees that Emil H. Praeger shall be
in charge, for the party of the second part, of all work under this contract.
(f) The party of the second part agrees, as a part of the services
required to be furnished under the lumpsum compensation established in
Article 2 hereof, to perform all necessary travel, to attend conferences
and meetings, by competent representatives, in connection with the project
when directed by the Architect of the Capitol; also to appear and give
testimony with respect to their report before the Commission for Extension
of the United States Capitol, and the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations, if requested to do so either by the Architect of the Capitol
or the Chairmen of such Commission or Committees.
(g) The party of the second part agrees that any question as to the
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
extent of the services to be performed shall be decided by the Architect
of the Capitol, whose decision shall be final.
- 8 -
ARTICLE 2. In consideration of the furnishing by the party of the
second part of the services described in Article 1 hereof, the party of the
first part shall pay the party of the second part as compensation the sum
of One Hundred Seventy-five Thousand Dollars ($175,000.00).
ARTICLE 3. Partial payments, if requested by the party of the second
part, may be made with the approval of the Architect of the Capitol, in
such amounts as the Architect of the Capitol may deem proper: Provided,
That from each partial payment there shall be retained ten percent (10%)
of the estimated amount due, and any amounts so retained shall be paid by
the party of the first part to the party of the second part upon completion
and acceptance of all services required to be rendered under this contract:
Provided further, that reductions in the amount of the ten percent (10%)
retention may be made by the party of the first part, prior to such
completion, with the approval of the Chairman of the Commission for
Extension of the United States Capitol, after work under this contract is
fifty percent (50%) or more completed.
ARTICLE 4. The party of the first part shall have the right to
terminate this contract at any time deemed necessary by the Architect of
the Capitol, with the approval of the Chairman of the Commission for
Extension of the United States Capitol, by giving notice thereof in
writing, in which case all drawings, specifications, tests, reports, and
other data and information prepared and compiled by the party of the
second part, whether complete or incomplete, shall become the property of
the party of the first part, and the party of the first part shall pay
the party of the second part an equitable amount for all services
satisfactorily performed up to the date of termination.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
- 9 -
ARTICLE 5. The party of the second part warrants that he has not
employed any person to solicit or secure this contract upon any agreement
for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee. Breach of
this warranty shall give the Government the right to terminate the
contract, or in its discretion, to deduct from the contract price or
consideration the amount of such commission, percentage, brokerage, or
contingent fee.
ARTICLE 6. No Member of or Delegate to Congress, or Resident
Commissioner, or officer or employee of the Congress, shall be admitted
to any share or part of this contract or to any benefit that may arise
therefrom.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have hereunto subscribed their
names and affixed their seals.
Two witnesses:
Charles AHenlock
Drins Mario E. Causpick E. Campioli
Acting Architect of the Capitol
For and on behalf of the United
States of America, Party of the
First Part.
Charles aHenlock
Praeger-Kavanagh-Waterbury
(a division of Madigan-Praeger, Inc.)
By: Party Emil H. of Praeger the Second Part
Chairman, Board of Directors
APPROVED:
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
John W. McCormack
Chairman, Commission for Extension of
the United States Capitol
- 10 -
&
GERALD
FORD LIBRARY
PRESS RELEASE
July 1, 1970
For immediate
Release
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Speaker John W. McCormack, Chairman of the Commission for Extension
of the United States Capitol, announced today that a contract had been
signed with Praeger-Kavanagh-Waterbury, Engineers-Architects of New York
City, for making a study of the feasibility of restoring the old,
deteriorated west central front of the United States Capitol.
The Commission solicited recommendations on firms to do the study
from the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Deans of Engineering
of 19 leading universities in various sections of the Country.
The Praeger firm was selected from among the group of firms
recommended by the American Society of Civil Engineers and/or the Deans
because of their impressive experience and background in structures
somewhat similar to the Capitol in construction. Mr. Praeger directed
engineering work for the White House restoration and reconstruction and
has served as chief engineer on such monumental structures as the Nebraska
State House, Los Angeles Public Library, University of Chicago Chapel, and
Church of Heavenly Rest in New York City. The firm has provided services
for significant restorations and corrections of deterioration of
monumental cathedrals, including the Cathedral of St. John the Divine and
St. Thomas Church in New York. Mr. Waterbury, architect and member of
the firm, was associated with William A. Delano during the time
Mr. Delano was consulting architect for the White House project.
more
The Congress in Public Law 91-145, approved December 12, 1969,
provided as follows for this study:
"That not to exceed $250,000 of the foregoing appropri-
ation shall be used for the employment of independent
nongovernmental engineering and other necessary services
for studying and reporting (within six months after the
date of the employment contract) on the feasibility and
cost of restoring such west central front under such
"
terms and conditions as the Commission may determine
Of this total, $175,000 has been allocated as the fee of the
Engineers-Architects and $75,000 for subcontract work at the site and
miscellaneous expenses.
The report of the Engineers-Architects is due for completion
and submission on or before December 31, 1970.
The section of the building affected by the study is the old
sandstone portion on the west side between the Senate and House
connecting corridors. This old section was constructed 1793-1829.
FORD i LIBRARY GERAID
--end--
[GRF[
"West Front Commission"
(MCCORMACK, John W.)
re: contract to restore W Frt/ feasibility of
June 26, 1970
Honorable John W. McCormack
Speaker, U. S. House of Representatives
Chairman, Commission for Extension of the
United States Capitol
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. Speaker,
Many thanks for your letter of June 22 to which was attached the
draft of the proposed contract with the firm of Praeger-Kavanagh-
Waterbury, a division of Madigan-Praeger, Inc., of New York City,
for providing engineering and other services required for studying
and reporting on the feasibility and cost of restoring the West
Central Front of the United States Capitol.
I want you to know that I am completely satisfied with the provisions
of the contract and have no objection whatsoever to your signing it
on behalf of the Commission for Extension of the United States Capitol.
Sincerely,
Gerald R. Ford, M.C.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
GRF:mr
X.B. Mamiel caughty U.S.
The Speaker's Rooms
House of Representatives
Mashington, D. 4.
June 22, 1970
Honorable Gerald R. Ford
Minority Leader
House of Representatives
Washington, D. C.
FORD is LIBRARY 9ERALD
Dear Jerry:
Pursuant to directive of the Commission for Extension
of the United States Capitol at meeting of May 25, 1970, the
staff of the Architect of the Capitol has negotiated with the
firm of Praeger-Kavanagh-Waterbury, a division of Madigan-
Praeger, Inc., of New York City, for providing engineering
and other services required for studying and reporting on the
feasibility and cost of restoring the West Central Front of
the United States Capitol, and has concluded that a mutually
satisfactory contract can be negotiated with the firm.
A draft of the proposed contract is attached. I would
appreciate your reviewing the draft and advising me, on or
before Thursday, June 26th, if you have any suggestions for
changing the contract draft.
Although I realize that under the motion agreed to at
meeting of May 25th, approval of the contract was left to my
judgment as Chairman of the Commission, I feel that all Members
of the Commission should see the draft and have the opportunity
to comment before late this week when I expect the contract
will be ready for my signature.
With kind regards, I am
Sincerely yours
John W. McCormack
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Chairman, Commission for Extension of
the United States Capitol
June 22, 1970
Honorable Gerald R. Ford
Minority Leader
House of Representatives
Washington, D. C.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Dear Jerry:
Pursuant to directive of the Commission for Extension
of the United States Capitol at meeting of May 25, 1970, the
staff of the Architect of the Capitol has negotiated with the
firm of Praeger-Kavanagh-Waterbury, a division of Madigan-
Praeger, Inc., of New York City, for providing engineering
and other services required for studying and reporting on the
feasibility and cost of restoring the West Central Front of
the United States Capitol, and has concluded that a mutually
satisfactory contract can be negotiated with the firm.
A draft of the proposed contract is attached. I would
appreciate your reviewing the draft and advising me, on or
before Thursday, June 26th, if you have any suggestions for
changing the contract draft.
Although I realize that under the motion agreed to at
meeting of May 25th, approval of the contract was left to my
judgment as Chairman of the Commission, I feel that all Members
of the Commission should see the draft and have the opportunity
to comment before late this week when I expect the contract
will be ready for my signature.
With kind regards, I am
Sincerely yours,
John W. McCormack
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Chairman, Commission for Extension of
the United States Capitol
WHEREAS, in the Legislative Appropriation Act, 1956, Public Law 242, 84th
Congress, approved August 5, 1955 (69 Stat. 515, 516), as amended by the Urgent
Deficiency Appropriation Act, 1956, Public Law 406, 84th Congress, approved
February 14, 1956 (70 Stat. 14), and by the Legislative Branch Appropriation
Act, 1964, Public Law 88-248, 88th Congress, approved December 30, 1963 (77
Stat. 812), and by Public Law 91-77, 91st Congress, approved September 29,
1969 (83 Stat. 124), the following provision is contained therein:
Extension of the Capitol: The Architect of the Capitol is,
hereby authorized, under the direction of a Commission for
Extension of the United States Capitol, to be composed of the
President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Represen-
tatives, the majority leader of the Senate, the majority leader
of the House of Representatives, the minority leader of the
Senate, the minority leader of the House of Representatives,
and the Architect of the Capitol, to provide for the extension,
reconstruction, and replacement of the central portion of the
United States Capitol in substantial accordance with scheme B
of the architectural plan submitted by a joint commission of
Congress and reported to Congress on March 3, 1905 (House
GERALD FORD LIBRAR
Document numbered 385, Fifty-eighth Congress), but with such
modifications and additions, including provisions for restaurant
facilities, and such other facilities in the Capitol Grounds,
together with utilities, equipment, approaches, and other
appurtenant or necessary items, as may be approved by said
Commission, and for such purposes there is hereby appropriated
$5,000,000, to remain available until expended, and there are
hereby authorized to be appropriated such additional sums as
may be determined by said Commission to be required for the
purposes hereof: Provided, That the Architect of the Capitol
under the direction of said Commission and without regard to
the provisions of section 3709 of the Revised Statutes, as
amended, is authorized to enter into contracts and to make such
other expenditures, including expenditures for personal and
other services, as may be necessary to carry out the purposes
of this Act and, prior to any appropriations being provided for
extension, reconstruction, and replacement of the west central
portion of the United States Capitol, to obligate such sums as
may be necessary for the employment of nongovernmental engineer-
ing and other necessary services and for test borings and other
necessary incidental items required to make a survey, study and
examination of the structural condition of such west central
portion, to make reports of findings, and to make recommendations
with respect to such remedial measures as may be deemed necessary,
including the feasibility of corrective measures in conjunction
with extension of such west central portion.
- 1 -
WHEREAS, in addition to amounts heretofore appropriated under the afore-
cited authority, an appropriation of $2,275,000 is provided for the project
"Extension of the Capitol" in the Legislative Branch Appropriation Act, 1970,
Public Law 91-145, approved December 12, 1969, as follows:
Extension of the Capitol
For an additional amount for "Extension of the Capitol",
$2,275,000, to be expended under the direction of the
Commission for Extension of the United States Capitol as
authorized by law: Provided, That such portion of the
foregoing appropriation as may be necessary shall be used
for emergency shoring and repairs of, and related work on
the west central front of the Capitol: Provided further,
That not to exceed $250,000 of the foregoing appropriation
shall be used for the employment of independent nongovern-
mental engineering and other necessary services for
studying and reporting (within six months after the date of
the employment contract) on the feasibility and cost of
restoring such west central front under such terms and
conditions as the Commission may determine: Provided,
however, That pending the completion and consideration of
such study and report, no further work toward extension
of such west central front shall be carried on: Provided
further, That after submission of such study and report
and consideration thereof by the Commission, the Commission
shall direct the preparation of final plans for extending
such west central front in accord with Plan 2 (which said
Commission has approved), unless such restoration study
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
report establishes to the satisfaction of the Commission:
(1) That through restoration, such west central front
can, without undue hazard to safety of the structure
and persons, be made safe, sound, durable, and
beautiful for the foreseeable future;
(2) That restoration can be accomplished with no more
vacation of west central front space in the building
proper (excluding the terrace structure) than would be
required by the proposed extension Plan 2;
(3) That the method or methods of accomplishing
restoration can be so described or specified as to
form the basis for performance of the restoration
work by competitive, lumpsum, fixed price construction
bid or bids;
(4) That the cost of restoration would not exceed
$15,000,000; and
(5) That the time schedule for accomplishing the
restoration work will not exceed that heretofore pro-
jected for accomplishing the Plan 2 extension work:
Provided further, That after consideration of the
restoration study report, if the Commission concludes
that all five of the conditions hereinbefore specified
are met, the Commission shall then make recommendations
to the Congress on the question of whether to extend or
restore the west central front of the Capitol.
- 2 -
WHEREAS, the Commission for Extension of the United States Capitol, at
meeting May 25, 1970, authorized and directed the Architect of the Capitol,
subject to approval of the Chairman of such Commission, to negotiate and
enter into a contract with the firm of Praeger-Kavanagh-Waterbury, a
division of Madigan-Praeger, Inc., Engineers-Architects of New York City,
to render the services, required by Public Law 91-145 to be rendered, for
studying and reporting on the feasibility and cost of restoring the west
central front of the United States Capitol under such terms and
conditions as determined by such Commission.
WHEREAS, it is desired to obtain from Praeger-Kavanagh-Waterbury, a
division of Madigan-Praeger, Inc., Engineers-Architects of New York City,
the services hereinafter described.
NOW, THEREFORE, this contract made and entered into this 24th day of
June, one thousand nine hundred and seventy, by the United States of
America, party of the first part, represented by Mario E. Campioli,
GERALD FORD LIBRAR
Acting Architect of the Capitol, and Praeger-Kavanagh-Waterbury, a
division of Madigan-Praeger, Inc., Engineers-Architects of New York City,
party of the second part.
WITNESSETH, that the parties hereto have mutually covenanted and
agreed and by these presents do covenant and agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1 (a) The party of the second part agrees to furnish the
professional engineering and other necessary services required for
studying and reporting on the feasibility and cost of restoring the west
central front of the United States Capitol, said front being the portion
of the building between the House and Senate Connections.
- 3 -
(b) Such services shall include, but not be limited to, the following
services considered and agreed to by the Commission for Extension of the
United States Capitol, at its meeting of May 25, 1970:
PREPARATORY WORK:
The party of the second part shall --
(1) review the "Report on the Foundation Investigation
of the Extension of the Capitol" by Moran,
Proctor, Mueser and Rutledge, Consulting
Engineers, dated May 1957;
(2) review the "Report on the Structural Condition of
the West Central Portion of the United States
Capitol, Extension of the Capitol Project",
dated November 1964, by The Thompson and Lichtner
Company, Consulting Engineers;
(3) review the "Preliminary Plans and estimates of cost
for the Extension of the West Central Front of
the Capitol" published in 1967;
(4) review the study and records of the settlement,
movement, and cracking of the West Central Front
made during the period August 1968 to April 1970;
(5) review the legislative history of the project;
FORD & LIBRAR. 9FRA70
(6) review other pertinent data, information, plans,
and material in the Office of the Architect
of the Capitol;
(7) examine the exterior and interior of the west
central section of the Capitol;
(8) if previous borings and test pits are not
considered adequate by the party of the second
part for the study required to be made under this
contract, provide for such additional borings
and test pits as mutually agreed to by the parties
of the first and second parts, subject to the
provisions of subsection (c) of this Article.
(9) provide for necessary testing of old material,
subject to the provisions of subsection (c) of
this Article.
- 4 -
(10) provide for removal of all coats of paint from the
old sandstone to the extent considered necessary
by the party of the second part to permit such
party to make a proper evaluation of the
condition of the west central front walls,
subject to the provisions of subsection (c) of
this Article.
(11) take such measurements of existing exterior stone-
work as are necessary to permit sound decision
on restoration; and
(12) make such further exploratory work as required,
with the provision that no stones may be
removed or the structure be otherwise disturbed,
if removal or disturbance would, in the judgment
of the Architect of the Capitol, jeopardize the
safety of the structure, subject to the
provisions of subsection (c) of this Article.
SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE INCLUDED IN STUDY:
The party of the second part, in making a study to determine the
feasibility of restoring this old section of the building, shall deal
specifically with the following items:
(1) make recommendations for properly restoring all
deteriorated, patched, spalled and cracked stones,
FORD & LIBRAR GERALD
including slipped keystones and sagged stones in
the central portico;
(2) if stones mentioned in (1) are to be removed and
replaced, indicate how this would be accomplished
and if the stones above would have to be
removed;
(3) take all necessary measures to plan to maintain the
original stereotomy and, insofar as feasible,
avoid the use of "dutchman";
(4) determine whether, in order to eliminate recurrence
of cracks and open joints, provision should be
made for expansion and contraction and indicate
how this would be accomplished;
(5) determine the type and source of stone to be used
in replacement work;
(6) determine whether the restored front should be
painted or otherwise treated;
- 5 -
(7) indicate how walls would be improved structurally,
including the keying of present outer and inner
faces of exterior walls;
(8) determine whether underpinning of the existing
walls is necessary and the extent of such under-
pinning;
(9) provide for relocating the underground utilities
necessary, for both temporary and permanent use,
if underpinning is necessary;
(10) provide for all necessary temporary exterior and
interior shoring or buttressing, during the
restoration period;
(11) indicate rooms which would be vacated and shored
during the restoration and provide a schedule
showing the periods such rooms would be vacated;
(12) indicate the method proposed for avoiding damage to
original art work on interior surfaces of walls
and ceilings if shoring or treatment of the walls
to improve structural quality are recommended;
(13) include provision for temporary accommodations for
those persons whose quarters must be vacated as
a result of interior shoring during restoration
period;
(14) include provision for fenced-in construction site
FORD is LIBRARY 9ERALD
and necessary buildings thereon and access roads;
(15) provide for storage site for any new stone located
within 25 miles of the Capitol;
(16) establish a schedule of the restoration work--if
more than one stage is recommended, indicate the
number of stages, describe the work to be under-
taken in each stage, and the time required for
each;
(17) provide for replacement of defective door and
window frames and sash;
(18) provide for new flashing at juncture of old and
new work at roof and other necessary junctures;
(19) include provision for scaffolding of exterior for
purpose of obtaining additional measurements,
making models, and executing work of
restoration;
- 6 -
(20) include provision for making of models of all carved
work requiring replacement and the taking of
profiles of all moldings requiring replacement;
(21) determine and recommend the type of stone pointing
to be used in new work;
(22) determine and recommend the method of setting new
stones;
(23) develop fully and make recommendations on the risks
and hazards involved in restoration work and
indicate safety methods to be employed;
(24) make provision for birdproofing all restored sections
of building;
(25) provide for protection, weather and dust proofing
during restoration period;
(26) make monthly reports to the Architect of the
Capitol showing progress of the work;
(27) furnish detailed description and breakdown of costs
of each plan of restoration considered and reported
upon, making allowance, in estimating such costs,
for (a) escalating costs over the restoration
period and (b) a lumpsum amount for professional
consulting services, administrative costs of the
GERALD FORD LIBRAB,
Architect of the Capitol and contingencies;
(28) furnish all necessary drawings to complement the
written report and to clearly delineate the scope
of the work; and
(29) submit to the Architect of the Capitol, within six
months after date of this contract, a detailed
written report (in 50 copies), containing the
findings and recommendations of the party of the
second part, and the estimates of cost required
under item (27) hereof. Such report shall contain
such data, estimates, schedules, findings,
evaluations, and other information as may be
necessary to enable the Commission for Extension
of the United States Capitol to make a determina-
tion with respect to the five vital conditions set
forth in Public Law 91-145, cited on page 2 hereof.
(c) With respect to items (8), (9), (10), and (12) under the caption
"Preparatory Work", the party of the second part shall prepare and furnish
any drawings and specifications required for the work of making of borings,
test pits, testing of old material, removal of paint from old sandstone,
- 7 -
and removal and replacement of stones, and it is agreed that such work shall
be performed under separate contract or contracts to be entered into by the
party of the first part with others and without expense to the party of the
second part, on the basis of the drawings and specifications prepared by the
party of the second part. It is further agreed that the services to be
performed by the party of the second part in connection with these items of
work shall include supervision and direction of performance of the work and
analysis and evaluation of findings resulting from such work. It is also
agreed that any survey work or other exploratory work required to be per-
formed by others under separate contracts shall be subject to the same
conditions as prescribed hereunder for other such work.
(d) Any scaffolding which the parties of the first and second parts
deem necessary for performance of work under this contract shall be pro-
vided by the party of the first part at its expense.
GERALD FORD LIBRAN
(e) The party of the second part agrees that Emil H. Praeger shall be
in charge, for the party of the second part, of all work under this contract.
(f) The party of the second part agrees, as a part of the services
required to be furnished under the lumpsum compensation established in
Article 2 hereof, to perform all necessary travel, to attend conferences
and meetings, by competent representatives, in connection with the project
when directed by the Architect of the Capitol; also to appear and give
testimony with respect to their report before the Commission for Extension
of the United States Capitol, and the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations, if requested to do so either by the Architect of the Capitol
or the Chairmen of such Commission or Committees.
(g) The party of the second part agrees that any question as to the
extent of the services to be performed shall be decided by the Architect
of the Capitol, whose decision shall be final.
- 8 -
ARTICLE 2. In consideration of the furnishing by the party of the
second part of the services described in Article 1 hereof, the party of the
first part shall pay the party of the second part as compensation the sum
of One Hundred Seventy-five Thousand Dollars ($175,000.00).
ARTICLE 3. Partial payments, if requested by the party of the second
part, may be made with the approval of the Architect of the Capitol, in
such amounts as the Architect of the Capitol may deem proper: Provided,
That from each partial payment there shall be retained ten percent (10%) *
of the estimated amount due, and any amounts so retained shall be paid by
the party of the first part to the party of the second part upon completion
and acceptance of all services required to be rendered under this contract:
Provided further, that reductions in the amount of the ten percent (10%)
retention may be made by the party of the first part, prior to such
completion, with the approval of the Chairman of the Commission for
Extension of the United States Capitol, after work under this contract is
fifty percent (50%) or more completed.
ARTICLE 4. The party of the first part shall have the right to
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
terminate this contract at any time deemed necessary by the Architect of
the Capitol, with the approval of the Chairman of the Commission for
Extension of the United States Capitol, by giving notice thereof in
writing, in which case all drawings, specifications, tests, reports, and
other data and information prepared and compiled by the party of the
second part, whether complete or incomplete, shall become the property of
the party of the first part, and the party of the first part shall pay
the party of the second part an equitable amount for all services
satisfactorily performed up to the date of termination.
- 9 -
ARTICLE 5. The party of the second part warrants that he has not
employed any person to solicit or secure this contract upon any agreement
for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee. Breach of
this warranty shall give the Government the right to terminate the
contract, or in its discretion, to deduct from the contract price or
consideration the amount of such commission, percentage, brokerage, or
contingent fee.
ARTICLE 6. No Member of or Delegate to Congress, or Resident
Commissioner, shall be admitted to any share or part of this contract
or to any benefit that may arise therefrom.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have hereunto subscribed their
names and affixed their seals.
Two witnesses:
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Mario E. Campioli
Acting Architect of the Capitol
For and on behalf of the United
States of America, Party of the
First Part.
Praeger-Kavanagh-Waterbury
(a division of Madigan-Praeger,Inc.)
Party of the Second Part
By:
Emil H. Praeger
Chairman, Board of Directors
APPROVED:
John W. McCormack
Chairman, Commission for Extension of
the United States Capitol
The Speaker's Rooms
H.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D. 4.
June 22, 1970
Honorable Gerald R. Ford
Minority Leader
House of Representatives
Washington, D. C.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Dear Jerry:
I am transmitting, herewith, a copy of the minutes of
the meeting of the Commission for Extension of the United States
Capitol which was held in Room H-201 in the Capitol on May 25,
1970.
With kind regards, I am
Speaker Representatives
Chairman, Commission for Extension of
the United States Capitol
MINUTES OF MEETING OF COMMISSION FOR EXTENSION OF THE UNITED STATES CAPITOL
May 25, 1970
The Commission for Extension of the United States Capitol met in Room
H-201 in the Capitol at 2:00 p.m. on May 25, 1970.
The following Members of the Commission were present:
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
Speaker John W. McCormack, Chairman
Vice President Spiro T. Agnew, President of the Senate
Honorable Hugh Scott, Minority Leader of the Senate
Honorable Carl Albert, Majority Leader of the House
Mr. Mario E. Campioli, Acting Architect of the Capitol
The following Members of the Commission were absent:
Honorable Mike Mansfield, Majority Leader of the Senate
Honorable Gerald R. Ford, Minority Leader of the House
The following were also present:
Honorable Edward M. Kennedy, Assistant Majority Leader
of the Senate
Mr. Walter Mote, Administrative Assistant to the Vice President
Mr. W. Carey Parker, Legislative Assistant to Senator Kennedy
Mr. John L. Monahan, Legislative Assistant to the Speaker
Mr. Frank Meyer, Administrative Assistant to the Minority Leader
of the House
Mr. Charles A. Henlock, Administrative Officer, Office of the
Architect of the Capitol
Mr. Philip L. Roof, Executive Assistant to the Architect of
the Capitol
Mr. William F. Raines, Jr. Assistant to the Executive Assistant
to the Architect of the Capitol
Before calling the meeting to order, the Speaker explained that the
House Minority Leader, the Honorable Gerald R. Ford, would not be able to
attend the meeting but had sent his Administrative Assistant, Mr. Meyer,
to represent him. The Speaker stated that Representative Ford had been
informed of the Architect's suggestion for the procedure to be followed
- 2 -
in the selection of an engineering firm to make the study on the feasibility
of restoring the West Central Front of the Capitol and had sent his proxy
in favor of the Architect's recommendation.
The Speaker also stated that the Senate Majority Leader would not be
able to attend but was sending Senator Edward M. Kennedy to represent him.
Senator Kennedy, he said, would participate in the discussions but would
not be a voting member of the meeting.
1. SELECTION OF ENGINEERING FIRM TO MAKE FEASIBILITY STUDY OF WEST CENTRAL
FRONT OF THE CAPITOL
The Speaker presented to the other Commission Members the following
statement:
In the Legislative Branch Appropriation Act, 1970, provision is made
by the Congress for "the employment of independent nongovernmental
engineering and other necessary services for studying and reporting
on the feasibility and cost of restoring" the west central front of the
Capitol under such terms and conditions as this Commission may determine.
The conference report contains the agreement
"***that the nongovernmental engineering and other
necessary services engaged by direction of the
Commission to study and report on the feasibility
and cost of restoration should be, in the
Commission's opinion, completely independent,
GERALO, FORD LIBRARY
with no previous connection with proposals to
either extend or to restore the west central front,
including any expressed predisposition for or
against the extension or the restoration of the
west central front."
As you will recall, the Commission agreed to seek the advice of the
American Society of Civil Engineers, who had taken no position either for
or against extension or restoration, and the Deans of Engineering of some
19 of the leading engineering schools.
This procedure was followed and the result is the report of April 17,
1970 which I forwarded to you with my letter of April 20, 1970.
FORD
- 3 -
GERALD
LIBRARY
You will note in the report the digests of information for each of the
firms or others recommended by the ASCE and/or the Deans. There are also
provided such digests of unsolicited proposals received from several groups.
The digests of information relating to unsolicited firms are on blue pages.
It is the responsibility of our Commission to select a firm to make
the study. The Appropriation Act provided an amount not to exceed $250,000
for the study, report, etc.
I have discussed this matter with the staff of the Architect of the
Capitol as to procedure. They suggest that it might be well for the
Commission to select 2 or 3 firms, in order of their preference, and that
the Architect's staff be directed to attempt to negotiate a sutisfactory
contract with the Commission's first choice. If successful, the Architect
would proceed with the award of the contract, subject to such further
coordination or approval as the Commission desires. If negotiation with
the first choice firm is not productive, the Architect would then proceed
to the second choice, etc.
If the Commission agrees with this procedure, I would welcome your
review of the firms, beginning on page 6 of the report. The Architect's
staff also has the brochures and other data here if anyone would wish to
see the submissions of the various firms.
I hope we can make a decision on this today. The legislation allows up
to 6 months for the firm to make the study, so we should proceed as
quickly as possible with action directing the Architect to negotiate an
engineering contract and have the study proceed.
The Speaker also presented the following form of resolution suggested
by the Architect's staff for approval of the Commission:
That the Commission, having reviewed the information submitted by
interested firms and the report of April 17, 1970, directs the Architect of
the Capitol to enter into negotiations with
Firm No. 1
for undertaking the feasibility study ordered by the Congress. If a
mutually satisfactory contract can be negotiated, the Architect is directed,
subject to the approval of the Chairman of the Commission, to enter into a
contract with the above firm for the services required.
If a mutually satisfactory contract cannot be negotiated with Firm No.
1, then the Architect is directed to negotiate with
Firm No. 2
under the same procedure of negotiation and award of contract applicable to
Firm No. 1.
- 4 -
If a mutually satisfactory contract cannot be negotiated with Firm No.
2, then the Architect is directed to negotiate with
Firm No. 3
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
under the same procedure of negotiation and award of contract applicable
to Firm No. 1.
If a mutually satisfactory contract cannot be negotiated with Firm No.
1, Firm No. 2, or Firm No. 3, the Architect shall report back to the
Commission for further instructions.
The aforementioned letter of April 20, 1970, from the Speaker to the
other Commission Members, and the report of April 17, 1970, are appended
hereto and made a part of these minutes.
A. Approval of Procedure
After reading the Speaker's statement, Vice President Agnew,
Senator Scott, and Representative Albert stated that they agreed with the
procedure suggested by the Architect's staff. Representative Albert then
moved that the suggested procedure be approved and that three firms be
selected and that the Architect be instructed to negotiate a contract in
the order outlined in the Speaker's statement. The motion was unanimously
agreed to.
B. Selection of No. 1 Firm
Mr. Campioli stated that the firm of Praeger-Kavanagh-Waterbury
appeared most eminently qualified and that they had been recommended by
the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Dean of Engineering of Rice
University and the Dean of Engineering of the University of Michigan.
Mr. E. H. Praeger had been the consulting engineer for the restoration
of the White House and Mr. John W. Waterbury, architect and member of the
firm, was a partner to William A. Delano while he was consulting architect
- 5 -
on the White House project. Mr. Campioli said that the Architect's office
thought this firm should be given serious consideration if the services
FORD is LIBRARY
of E. H. Praeger, himself, could be assured for the West Front study and
that this assurance had been given by letter from the firm to the Speaker.
Mr. Roof added that he had also recently called Praeger-Kavanagh-Waterbury
and had been assured that if the firm were selected, Mr. Praeger would be
personally in charge of the project and would see it through. Praeger-
Kavanagh-Waterbury, he said, was the first firm listed in the recommendation
of the American Society of Civil Engineers.
Vice President Agnew then moved that the firm of Praeger-Kavanagh-
Waterbury be agreed upon as the selection of the Commission for the No. 1
firm with which the Architect of the Capitol should attempt to negotiate
a contract. The motion was unanimously agreed to.
C. Selection of No. 2 Firm
Mr. Campioli stated that the No. 2 firm recommended by the
Architect's staff was Sverdrup & Parcel of St. Louis, Missouri. This firm
also had been recommended by the American Society of Civil Engineers and
by the Dean of Engineering of Duke University. Mr. Campioli said that the
firm had experience in masonry construction and had extensive research
facilities.
On motion of Vice President Agnew, the Commission unanimously
agreed on the selection of Sverdrup & Parcel as the No. 2 firm with which
the Architect should negotiate in the event that a satisfactory agreement
cannot be reached with the No. 1 firm selected.
- 6 -
D. Selection of No. 3 Firm
Mr. Campioli stated that the No. 3 firm recommended by the
FORD & LIBRARY CERALD
Architect's staff was John A. Blume & Associates, Engineers. He said that
although this is a small firm, John Blume has been recognized by the
National Academy of Engineering for his pioneering work in structural analysis
and design and the firm has had experience in earthquake engineering and
research on masonry.
Vice President Agnew asked why the Architect's staff would suggest
the Blume company instead of one of the more prominent and larger firms that
had been recommended. He was concerned with such a small firm being
considered for such a prominent project.
Mr. Campioli replied that the firm would assign its key people to
the project and, in such instances, it often develops that the best brains
of the company are devoted to the work.
E. Request of Senator Kennedy for AIA Participation in Selection
of Engineering Firm
At this point, 2:30 p.m., Senator Kennedy joined the meeting. He
was briefed by Speaker McCormack on the purpose of the meeting and the
action taken by the Commission so far.
Senator Kennedy stated that his only interest in the meeting was
in seeing that the Commission selected an extremely competent and well-
qualified firm to make the feasibility study and that the firm be
completely open minded on the subject of restoration versus extension.
He asked if the American Institute of Architects had been given an
opportunity to review the names of the firms recommended by the American
Society of Civil Engineers and the deans of engineering of the 19
universities.
- 7 -
FORD & LIBRARY 938670
Mr. Campioli replied that the AIA has already indicated its
preference for a restoration rather than an extension and that, accordingly,
there had been no attempt made to include the Institute in any part of the
consideration of the engineering firm to be selected.
Senator Kennedy stated that even though the AIA had taken a strong
position in the matter, he felt that they should be assured that all of
the engineering firms being considered had taken no position for or against
the restoration or the extension and that the Institute should have an
opportunity to review their qualifications and submit its viewpoint to the
Commission.
Mr. Campioli said that he was not sure that the AIA would consider
it ethical to pass judgment on the recommendations of another professional
organization such as the American Society of Civil Engineers. As a matter
of fact, he said, a firm recommended for the feasibility study by the Dean
of Engineering of the University of Michigan - - Smith, Hinchman & Gryllis
Associates had withdrawn its name from consideration to avoid a possible
conflict of interest charge which might be occasioned by the fact that the
President of the firm is President-elect of the AIA.
Senator Kennedy stated that he felt it would be to the Commission's
advantage to have an expression from the AIA. He considered it entirely
possible that the Institute would agree with the American Society of Civil
Engineers' recommendations but he felt that a list of engineering firms
should be obtained from the AIA.
Vice President Agnew said that he understood Senator Kennedy's
position. He pointed out, however, that what the Commission was trying to
do was to determine which engineering firms had the necessary engineering
- 8 -
capabilities and qualifications. He was not sure that the AIA could
contribute to the suggestions which had already been made by the American
Society of Civil Engineers and the Deans of Engineering, especially in
view of the fact that the Commission had already gone for advice to
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
experts in the engineering field.
Senator Scott stated that the Speaker, in his opening statement,
had recommended that a decision on procedure and the selection of three
engineering firms be made today in order that the Architect might be
directed to negotiate an engineering contract and have the study proceed.
He said that the Commission should not delay in its action in view of
rising costs and the increasing difficulty of meeting requirement No. 4
of the conference report that the cost of restoration would not exceed
$15,000,000. He suggested that the Commission proceed with the
selection of the 3rd firm and then consider the feasibility of requesting
a review of its selections by the AIA.
Senator Kennedy asked what would happen as a result of the
feasibility study.
Speaker McCormack replied that after submission of the feasibility
study and report and consideration thereof by the Commission, the
Commission, under the terms of the statute, shall direct the preparation
of final plans for extending such west central front in accord with Plan 2
(which said Commission has approved), unless such restoration study report
establishes to the satisfaction of the Commission:
(1) That through restoration, such west central front can,
without undue hazard to safety of the structure and
persons, be made safe, sound, durable, and beautiful
for the foreseeable future;
- 9 -
(2) That restoration can be accomplished with no
more vacation of west central front space in
the building proper (excluding the terrace
structure) than would be required by the
proposed extension Plan 2;
(3) That the method or methods of accomplishing
FORD is LIBRARY 97V839
restoration can be so described or specified
as to form the basis for performance of the
restoration work by competitive, lumpsum,
fixed price construction bid or bids;
(4) That the cost of restoration would not exceed
$15,000,000; and
(5) That the time schedule for accomplishing the
restoration work will not exceed that hereto-
fore projected for accomplishing the Plan 2
extension work; Provided further, That after
consideration of the restoration study report,
if the Commission concludes that all five of
the conditions hereinbefore specified are met,
the Commission shall then make recommendations
to the Congress on the question of whether to
extend or restore the west central front of the
Capitol.
Senator Kennedy stated that he agreed with Senator Scott's request
that the Commission select the 3rd firm to be considered and then request
- 10 -
the AIA to express an opinion of their qualifications and capabilities. He
felt that an immediate expression could be obtained from the Institute.
Vice President Agnew suggested to Senator Kennedy that the AIA
might decide that the three firms selected by the Commission and recommended
by engineering experts were not acceptable.
Senator Kennedy replied that he did not believe this would be
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
possible in view of the staff work already done in securing professional
advice on the firms to be considered.
Vice President Agnew stated that since the Commission faced a
situation where the AIA has already become partisan, he felt, because of
that, that the Commission should not involve them in the selection process.
He stated that he would oppose the idea of AIA involvement.
Senator Kennedy stated that he felt the AIA, upon discovering that
the selections had been made at a closed meeting, might be critical of the
Commission's action if they were not afforded an opportunity to review the
qualifications of the firms selected. He felt that the AIA should be
advised of the selections and requested to comment on the firms'
reputations, standings, and capabilities of making the kind of judgment
necessary for the feasibility study.
Mr. Campioli said that he was a member of the AIA and felt that
if the matter were referred to the Institute, they might reply that they
had architect members who might be better qualified to make the study.
He stated that the feasibility study is considered an engineering
problem, No. 1, and an architectural problem, No. 2, in view of the
structural nature of the problem.
- 11 -
Senator Kennedy disagreed. He felt that the study was closely
related to architecture; that engineering and architecture are inter-
related and inter-dependent. He said that while he had no objection to
any of the engineering firms, he considered that the Commission would
not be ending dispute and debate about the west front by using only the
opinions of the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Deans of
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
Engineering as a basis for selecting the three firms to be considered.
He stated that the AIA would be satisfied if they were asked to comment
on the qualifications of the three firms and that the letter of inquiry
could be phrased in such a way that the Commission would get in reply
a balanced, responsible, and thorough evaluation.
Senator Scott stated that participation in the selection process
would seem to be in conflict with the provision in the Legislative
Branch Appropriation Act, 1970, that the engineers engaged by the
Commission to study and report on the feasibility of the restoration
should be completely independent, with no previous connection with
proposals to either extend or to restore the west central front, including
any expressed predisposition for or against the extension or the
restoration of the west central front.
Mr. Roof stated that, because of this provision, the Speaker
would not agree to write to the American Society of Civil Engineers for
advice until there was an investigation of whether or not the Society
had taken any position on restoration versus extension. The investigation
was made and it was found that the Society had taken no position in the
matter. He said it was well known that the AIA was against extension
and that the American Society of Registered Architects was in favor of it.
- 12 -
Senator Kennedy stated that he would be glad to have an expression
from the American Society of Registered Architects as well as from the AIA.
Speaker McCormack stated that requesting the advice of the AIA
would put the Institute in the position of having a veto power over
action of the Commission.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Senator Kennedy replied that if the AIA is not consulted and if
they have serious reservations about the three firms selected, their
views will certainly be aired publicly. On the other hand, if the
Commission had AIA support of its selections, the Commission's position
would be greatly strengthened. He said that he was not prepared to give
the AIA veto power but that the law provided for the employment of
independent, nongovernmental engineering and other necessary services
for the feasibility report and the words "other necessary services"
might well mean services outside of the engineering field.
It was Senator Scott's opinion that if the Commission got a
negative report from the AIA, and if the Commission over-rode that
negative report, the matter would be thrown into public controversy.
Senator Kennedy stated that if the AIA and the American Society
of Registered Architects, after considering the three firms selected by
the Commission, should report that the firms were not qualified to make
the feasibility study, the Commission would certainly wish to take another
look at the problem. If both organizations agreed with the selections,
the Commission's position would be strengthened.
Representative Albert said he doubted that architectural organiza-
tions would wish to pass on the qualifications and capabilities of engineering
firms recommended by the American Society of Civil Engineers and the 19 Deans
of Engineering of leading universities.
- 13 -
Senator Kennedy replied that the basis of his request to get a
reaction from the AIA was the fact that the condition of the west front
of the Capitol was an architectural as well as an engineering problem.
He said he had been involved with the construction of the Kennedy Library
and had found that the architects had broad knowledge, outside of their
particular field, in all phases of the construction business.
GEBRLOF FORD LIBRARY
Mr. Campioli said that the feasibility study would involve no
new architectural design so the need for architectural services would
be limited. He felt that the AIA and the American Society of Registered
Architects would find it too difficult to divorce themselves from their
strong stands on extension versus restoration to consider the matter
impartially. He pointed out that involvement of the AIA and the
American Society of Registered Architects would present another problem --
the possibility that other professional organizations such as the
National Society of Professional Engineers and the American Society of
Landscape Architects might also request an equal voice in this
deliberation.
Mr. Roof then reminded the Commission members that Congressman
Yates was interested in the west front project and had been most helpful
in getting an appropriation for the project through the House last year.
At that time Congressman Yates had called the AIA and asked what firm
they would choose if it were possible for them to make the selection of
a firm to do a feasibility study. They expressed their preference for
the firm of Severud, Perrone, Sturm, Conlin and Bandel, the firm already
- 14 -
employed as the Structural Engineers for the Extension of the West Front.
He said that this firm had been recommended to the Commission by the
American Society of Civil Engineers but that the firm had been disqualified
by the Architect's staff because of previous work on the extension of the
Capitol project. He said that the AIA realized that the feasibility study
should be made by an engineering firm.
Senator Kennedy stated that the Commission members were obviously
not in agreement with his proposal concerning the AIA and that he would
pursue the matter no further.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
F. Selection of 3rd Firm
Senator Scott informed Senator Kennedy that before the matter of
AIA participation had been brought up, the Commission had already agreed
on the selection of the No. 1 firm - Praeger-Kavanagh-Waterbury - and the
No. 2 firm - Sverdrup & Parcel. John A. Blume & Associates, Engineers,
had been recommended by the Architect's staff as the 3rd firm. A question
had been raised about the company's small staff and the Acting Architect
had expressed his belief that the small firm would assign its key people
to the study and that a better job might result.
Mr. Roof said that if the Commission were not in favor of such a
small firm, the Architect's staff would recommend the firm of Parsons,
Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas. The firm had been recommended by the
American Society of Civil Engineers and the Deans of Engineering at Duke
University and the University of Michigan and had experience in foundations,
underpinning, and strengthening of buildings.
- 15 -
Vice President Agnew said that this firm had done a great deal
of work for the State of Maryland, although he had never awarded them a
contract while serving as Governor, and that he knew they were well-
qualified. He felt that for a job as important as the west front study,
the Commission would be wise to select a larger and more well-known
engineering firm.
GERALOR FORD VIBRARY
Senator Scott then moved that the 3rd firm be Parsons,
Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas. The move was seconded by Vice President
Agnew and was unanimously agreed to.
G. Adoption of Resolution
Senator Scott then moved adoption of the following resolution:
That the Commission, having reviewed the information
submitted by interested firms and the report of April 17,
1970, directs the Architect of the Capitol to enter into
negotiations with Praeger-Kavanagh-Waterbury for under-
taking the feasibility study ordered by the Congress. If
a mutually satisfactory contract can be negotiated, the
Architect is directed, subject to the approval of the
Chairman of the Commission, to enter into a contract with
the above firm for the services required.
If a mutually satisfactory contract cannot be
negotiated with Praeger-Kavanagh-Waterbury, then the
Architect is directed to negotiate with Sverdrup & Parcel
under the same procedure of negotiation and award of
contract applicable to Praeger-Kavanagh-Waterbury.
If a mutually satisfactory contract cannot be
negotiated with Sverdrup & Parcel, then the Architect
is directed to negotiate with Parsons, Brinckerhoff,
Quade & Douglas under the same procedure of negotiation
and award of contract applicable to Praeger-Kavanagh-
Waterbury.
If a mutually satisfactory contract cannot be
negotiated with Praeger-Kavanagh-Waterbury, Sverdrup &
Parcel, or Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas, the
Architect shall report back to the Commission for
further instructions.
The resolution was unanimously agreed to.
- 16 -
H. Statement of Senator Kennedy concerning AIA review of engineering
firms
Senator Kennedy stated that although he had no reason to question
or doubt the qualifications of any of the three firms approved by the
Commission, he had hoped that, before taking final action on negotiating
a contract for the study, the Commission would request the AIA and the
American Society of Registered Architects to express a view as to the
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
competency of the firms selected by the Commission.
Speaker McCormack then asked Mr. Campioli if he had any doubt
about the qualifications of the three firms. Mr. Campioli responded
that he had no doubts about their qualifications or capabilities,
although the Architect of the Capitol has never dealt with any of the
three firms in the past, and that he had never been involved with any
of them in a professional way.
I. Key Requirements in engineering contract
Mr. Roof then presented for the Commission's consideration
the following statement concerning key requirements for the engineering
contract:
- 17 -
WEST FRONT OF THE CAPITOL
KEY REQUIREMENTS IN ENGINEERING CONTRACT
May, 1970
Public Law 91-145 and the basic legislation involved authorizes
the Architect of the Capitol, under the direction of the Commission for
Extension of the United States Capitol, to negotiate a personal service
contract for employment of independent nongovernmental engineering
services, in an amount not to exceed $250,000, for studying and
reporting (within six months after the date of the employment contract)
on the feasibility and cost of restoring the west central sandstone
front of the Capitol under such terms and conditions as the Commission
may determine.
Public Law 91-145, in authorizing this feasibility study of
restoration, provides, in pertinent part, as follows with respect to
such study:
"***That after submission of such study and report
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
and consideration thereof by the Commission, the
Commission shall direct the preparation of final
plans for extending such west central front in accord
with Plan 2 (which said Commission has approved),
unless such restoration study report establishes to
the satisfaction of the Commission:
"(1) That through restoration, such west central front can,
without undue hazard to safety of the structure and
persons, be made safe, sound, durable, and beautiful
for the foreseeable future;
"(2) That restoration can be accomplished with no
more vacation of west central front space in the
building proper (excluding the terrace structure)
than would be required by the proposed extension
Plan 2;
- 18 -
"(3) That the method or methods of accomplishing
restoration can be so described or specified as to
form the basis for performance of the restoration
work by competitive, lumpsum, fixed price construc-
tion bids or bids;
"(4) That the cost of restoration would not
exceed $15,000,000; and
"(5) That the time schedule for accomplishing the
restoration work will not exceed that heretofore
projected for accomplishing the Plan 2 extension
work: Provided further, That after consideration
of the restoration study report, if the Commission
concludes that all five of the conditions herein-
before specified are met, the Commission shall then
make recommendations to the Congress on the
question of whether to extend or restore the west
central front of the Capitol.'
It is essential that the Architect of the Capitol, in negotiating
such contract, incorporate therein clearly-spelled out requirements that
will result in the production of a report containing all data, estimates,
schedules, findings, evaluations, and other information necessary to
enable the Commission to make a sound determination with respect to the
aforecited five vital conditions set forth in Public Law 91-145. In
addition, the contract should make provision for the following:
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
PREPARATORY WORK:
The engineering firm shall --
(1) review the "Report on the Foundation Investigation of
the Extension of the Capitol" by Moran, Proctor,
Mueser and Rutledge, Consulting Engineers, dated May
1957;
(2) review the "Report on the Structural Condition of the
West Central Portion of the United States Capitol,
Extension of the Capitol Project", dated November
1964, by The Thompson and Lichtner Company,
Consulting Engineers;
- 19 -
(3) review the "Preliminary Plans and estimates of cost
for the Extension of the West Central Front of
the Capitol" published in 1967;
(4) review the study and records of the settlement,
movement, and cracking of the West Central
Front made during the period August 1968 to April
1970;
(5) review the legislative history of the project;
(6) review other pertinent data, information, plans, etc.,
in the Office of the Architect of the Capitol;
(7) examine the exterior and interior of this section of
the building;
(8) if previous borings and test pits are not considered
adequate for their study, make such additional
borings and test pits as mutually agreed to by
engineer and Architect of the Capitol;
(9) provide necessary testing of old material;
(10) remove all coats of paint from the old sandstone to
the extent considered necessary by the engineer
to permit him to make a proper evaluation of the
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
condition of the wall;
(11) take such measurements of existing exterior stonework
as are necessary to permit sound decision on
restoration; and
(12) make such further exploratory work as required, with
the provision that no stones may be removed or the
structure be otherwise disturbed, if removal or
disturbance would, in the judgment of the Architect
of the Capitol, jeopardize the safety of the
structure.
- 20 - -
SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE INCLUDED IN STUDY:
The engineering firm in making a study to determine the
feasibility of restoring this old section of the building, shall deal
specifically with the following items:
(1) make recommendations for properly restoring all
deteriorated, patched, spalled and cracked
stones, including slipped keystones and sagged
stones in the central portico;
(2) if stones mentioned above are to be removed and
replaced, indicate how this would be accomplished
and if the stones above would have to be removed;
(3) take all necessary measures to plan to maintain the
original stereotomy and avoid the use of "dutchman";
(4) determine whether in order to eliminate recurrence
of cracks and open joints, provision should be made
for expansion and contraction and indicate how this
would be accomplished;
(5) determine the type and source of stone to be used in
replacement work;
(6) determine whether the restored front should be painted
or otherwise treated;
FORD if LIBRARY GERALD
(7) indicate how walls would be improved structurally
including the keying of present outer and inner faces
of exterior walls;
(8) determine whether underpinning of the existing walls
is necessary and the extent of such underpinning;
(9) provide for relocating the underground utilities
necessary, for both temporary and permanent use, if
underpinning is necessary.
(10) provide for all necessary temporary exterior and
interior shoring or buttressing, during the restora-
tion period;
(11) indicate rooms which would be vacated and shored during
the restoration and provide a schedule showing the
periods such rooms would be vacated;
- 21 -
(12) indicate the method proposed for avoiding damage to
original art work on interior surfaces of walls
and ceilings if shoring or treatment of the walls
to improve structural quality are recommended.
(13) include provision for temporary accommodations for
those whose quarters must be vacated as a result
of interior shoring during restoration period;
(14) include provision for fenced-in construction site
and necessary buildings thereon and access roads;
(15) provide for storage site for any new stone located
within 25 miles of the Capitol;
(16) establish a schedule of the restoration work-if
more than one stage is recommended, indicate the
number of stages, describe the work to be under-
taken in each stage, and the time required for
each;
(17) provide for replacement of defective door and
window frames and sash;
(18) provide for new flashing at juncture of old and
new work at roof and other necessary junctures;
(19) include provision for scaffolding of exterior for
purpose of obtaining additional measurements,
making models, and executing work of restoration;
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
(20) include provision for making of models of all carved
work requiring replacement and the taking of
profiles of all moldings requiring replacement;
(21) determine and recommend the type of stone pointing
to be used in new work;
(22) determine and recommend the method of setting new
stones;
(23) develop fully and make recommendations on the risks
and hazards involved in restoration work and
indicate safety methods to be employed;
(24) make provision for birdproofing all restored sections
of building;
- 22 -
(25) provide for protection, weather and dust proofing
during restoration period;
(26) furnish detailed breakdown of costs, making
allowance, in estimating such costs, for (a)
escalating costs over the restoration period
and (b) a lumpsum amount for professional
consulting services, administrative costs of
the Architect of the Capitol and contingencies;
(27) furnish all necessary drawings to complement the
written report and to clearly delineate the
scope of the work; and
(28) submit, within six months after date of contract,
a detailed written report (in 50 copies)
containing their findings and recommendations,
and estimates of cost, with particular attention
to the five conditions stated in Public Law 91-
145.
These lists are not intended to be absolutely firm or complete.
The Architect's staff proposes, after consultation with the selected
firm, to modify, amplify, and make additions to the same, to the extent
necessary to accomplish, fully, the objectives of Public Law 91-145.
No disagreement with the requirements for the engineering
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
contract were expressed by the Commission.
The meeting adjourned at 3:20 p.m.
Recorded by: Mildred H. Hall
Administrative Assistant to the Architect
April 20, 1970
Honorable Spiro T. Agnew
President of the Senate
United States Senate
Washington, D. C.
Subject: Feasibility Study of Restoration of
West Front of Capitol
Dear Mr. President:
This letter is directed to you in your capacity as a
Member of the Commission for Extension of the United States Capitol.
In accord with approval of the Commission, I invited the
American Society of Civil Engineers and the Deans of Engineering of
19 universities throughout the country to consider the nature and
scope of the restoration study of the west central front of the
Capitol, as ordered by the Congress, and to recommend to the Commis-
sion the names of several engineers or engineering firms which they
considered particularly well qualified to undertake the study.
I am sending you herewith two copies of a report contain-
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
ing the information that has been developed, together with a digest
of data relating to each of the recommended firms which responded.
The report is being forwarded to you now with the hope
that you will have an opportunity to review it and be in a position
to attend a meeting of the Commission to be scheduled promptly for
the purpose of making a decision on the firm to undertake the study.
With kind regards, I am
Sincerely yours,
John W. McCormack
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Chairman, Commission for Extension of
the United States Capitol
(Letter sent to all Members of the Commission for Extension of the
United States Capitol - April 20, 1970)
April 17, 1970
STUDY OF WEST FRONT OF CAPITOL
Summary to Date
Pursuant to agreement of the Commission for Extension of the
United States Capitol:
The Speaker invited (1) the American Society of Civil
Engineers and (2) the Deans of 19 leading Engineering Schools to
recommend firms or individuals they considered capable of undertaking
the feasibility study ordered by the Congress.
The American Society of Civil Engineers and 16 of the 19
Deans responded. A total of 33 firms or individuals was recommended.
Of the 33 firms, 5 were eliminated from consideration because
they or members of their firm had previously worked on the Extension
of the Capitol Project. Those eliminated from consideration were:
1. Seeley, Stevenson, Value and Knecht
New York, New York
2. Severud, Perrone, Sturm, Conlin and Bandel
New York, New York
3. The Thompson & Lichtner Co., Inc.
FORD LIBRARY is GERALD
Brookline, Massachusetts
4. Meuser, Rutledge, Wentworth & Johnson
New York, New York
5. Robert & Company
Atlanta, Georgia
The Speaker then sent requests for information to the remaining
28 firms. Of the 28, 23 responded, as follows:
19 - interested
4 - declined
23 - Total
- 2 -
Those declining and their reasons therefor are:
1.J.E.SirrineCo.
Greenville, South Carolina
Did not consider they had experience
and qualification.
2. Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill
Chicago, Illinois
Not in position to request consideration.
3. J. N. Pease Associates
Charlotte, North Carolina
Their experienced personnel fully committed
at this time.
4. Smith, Hinchman & Grylls Associates
Detroit, Michigan
To avoid any possible conflict of interest.
President of firm is President-elect of
American Institute of Architects. A.I.A.
has taken a definite position on West
Front Project.
The 19 firms expressing an interest in being considered are
(listed in order of their response):
1. Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade, and Douglas
New York, New York
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
2. Albert C. Martin & Associates
Los Angeles, California
3. Dr. O. Zaldastani
Nichols, Norton & Zaldastani
Boston, Massachusetts
4. Richardson, Gordon and Associates
Pittsburgh and Philadalphia, Pennsylvania
5. The Ken R. White Company
Denver, Colorado
- 3 -
6. Ketchum, Konkel, Barrett, Nickel, Austin
Denver, Colorado
7. Sverdrup & Parcel
St. Louis, Missouri
8. Praeger-Kavanagh-Waterbury
New York, New York
9. Ammann and Whitney
New York, New York
10. John A. Blume & Associates
San Francisco, California
11. Howard, Needles, Tammen & Bergendoff
New York, New York and
Kansas City, Missouri
12. Tippetts-Abbett-McCarthy-Stratton
New York, New York
13. Phillips-Carter-Reister and Associates, Inc.
Denver, Colorado
14. H. J. Degenkolb & Associates
San Francisco, California
15. The Perkins & Will Partnership
Chicago, Illinois
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
16. Brandow & Johnston Associates
Los Angeles, California
17. ABAM Engineers, Inc.
Tacoma, Washington
18. Whitman, Requardt and Associates
Baltimore, Maryland
19. Daniel, Mann, Johnson & Mendenhall
Los Angeles, California
- 4 -
All of the 19 firms have stated, in effect, that they have had
no previous connections with proposals to either extend or restore the
west central front of the Capitol, including any expressed predisposi-
tion for or against the extension or the restoration.
OTHERPROPOSALS
One dean (Illinois), while providing names of firms to be
considered, suggested the National Academy of Engineering be requested
to form a panel of experts to advise the Commission (as a "buffer").
One dean (MIT) recommended that the National Academy of
Engineering be requested to form a panel, which would act in an
advisory capacity to the Commission. Site investigation, analysis, and
calculations would be accomplished by "some engineering company" under
direct contract with Commission. Such engineering company would
perform such investigations etc., as considered necessary, under guidance
of the National Academy of Engineering panel.
One dean (Purdue) thought it would be well to have "a well
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
balanced group of consultants from numerous sources." He proposed a
panel of 9 men (which included a U.S. Government materials consultant).
UNSOLICITED PROPOSALS
The Speaker and/or the Architect of the Capitol have received
requests to be considered from the following unsolicited firms:
Tartar and Kelly, Inc. (et al)
Baltimore, Maryland
(Proposes advisory panel of American Institute of
Architects, Fine Arts Commission, and others
already against extension)
- 5 -
Ferry and Henderson, Architects, Inc.
Springfield, Illinois
(Architects who demolished and reconstructed
the Old Illinois State Capitol)
DCI-Design Consultants
(Submitted by Congressman Bob Wilson)
Vosbeck, Vosbeck, Kendrick & Redinger
Alexandria, Virginia
Architects-Engineers-Planners
DIGEST
A digest of certain information furnished by each of the 19
firms desiring consideration is attached.
FORD LIBRARY & GERALD
LIBRARY
FORD
&
- 6 -
GERALD
DIGEST OF INFORMATION
Firm Recommended for West Front Feasibility Study
RECOMMENDED BY
University of Washington
NAME OF FIRM
ABAM Engineers Incorporated
HOME OFFICE
Tacoma, Washington
YEARS FIRM IN EXISTENCE
19 years
SIZE OF FIRM
30 persons (14 with advanced degrees)
KIND OF FIRM
Consulting Engineering
PRINCIPAL LINE OF WORK: Closely associated with constructors; bridges, stadiums, modern housing, ship
piers, warehouses, and modern buildings.
ANY WORK COMPARABLE TO OR REQUIRING SAME CAPABILITIES AS CAPITOL WORK: --
MEMBERS OF FIRM WITH EXPERIENCE COMPARABLE TO THAT REQUIRED FOR THE CAPITOL PROJECT: --
COMMENT: Specialize in prestressed concrete work.
- 7 -
DIGEST OF INFORMATION
Firm Recommended for West Front Feasibility Study
RECOMMENDED BY
American Society of Civil Engineers
University of Washington
Duke University
University of Michigan
University of Illinois
FORD LIBRARY & GERALD
NAME OF FIRM
Ammann & Whitney
HOME OFFICE
New York, New York
YEARS FIRM IN EXISTENCE
24 years
SIZE OF FIRM
Over 600 employees
KIND OF FIRM
Consulting Engineers
PRINCIPAL LINE OF WORK: Bridges and highways, large modern buildings, airports and airfields, military
construction, blast resistant structures, communications, and dams.
ANY WORK COMPARABLE TO OR REQUIRING SAME CAPABILITIES AS CAPITOL WORK: --
MEMBERS OF FIRM WITH EXPERIENCE COMPARABLE TO THAT REQUIRED FOR THE CAPITOL PROJECT: --
COMMENT: Firm is strong in engineering talent. Of 129 principals and key personnel, 116 are engineers.
Of a total force of about 600 individuals, 342 are engineers.
- 8 -
DIGEST OF INFORMATION
Firm Recommended for West Front Feasibility Study
RECOMMENDED BY
Stanford University
University of California
LIBRARY
NAME OF FIRM
John A. Blume & Associates Engineers
FORD
HOME OFFICE
San Francisco, California
GERALD
YEARS FIRM IN EXISTENCE
25 years
SIZE OF FIRM
100 plus or minus
KIND OF FIRM
Civil and Structural Engineering
PRINCIPAL LINE OF WORK:
Site feasibility, planning & site development; harbor and port
structures; research facilities and buildings; industrial
plants & structures; offshore platforms and islands, terminals,
railroads, highways, airports, military installations & under-
ground facilities.
ANY WORK COMPARABLE TO OR REQUIRING
Their Earthquake Engineering,
SAME CAPABILITIES AS CAPITOL WORK:
Earth Science Studies,
Research on Masonry, and
Laboratory and Field Testing might be of use.
MEMBERS OF FIRM WITH EXPERIENCE
COMPARABLE TO THAT REQUIRED FOR
THE CAPITOL PROJECT:
-
COMMENT:
Blume elected to National Academy of Engineering in recognition
of pioneering work in structural analysis and design. Note:
Blume was recommended by Dean of Engineering at Stanford
University and Dean of Engineering--University of California.
Professor of Architecture and Chairman of Department of
Architecture, University of California is Architect for Blume
firm.
- 9 -
DIGEST OF INFORMATION
Firm Recommended for West Front Feasibility Study
RECOMMENDED BY
California Institute of Technology
NAME OF FIRM
Brandow & Johnston Associates
HOME OFFICE
Los Angeles, California
FORD LIBRARY GERALD
YEARS FIRM IN EXISTENCE
25 years
SIZE OF FIRM
40 persons
KIND OF FIRM
Consulting Structural Engineers
PRINCIPAL LINE OF WORK: Consulting structural engineers associated with Los Angeles architects.
ANY WORK COMPARABLE TO OR REQUIRING
SAME CAPABILITIES AS CAPITOL WORK: Their work with earthquake corrections and standards might be
helpful, they say.
MEMBERS OF FIRM WITH EXPERIENCE COMPARABLE TO THAT REQUIRED FOR THE CAPITOL PROJECT: --
COMMENT: --
- 10 -
DIGEST OF INFORMATION
Firm Recommended for West Front Feasibility Study
LIBRARY
RECOMMENDED BY
California Institute of Technology
NAME OF FIRM
Daniel, Mann, Johnson & Mendenhall
FORD
y
GERALD
HOME OFFICE
Los Angeles, California
YEARS FIRM IN EXISTENCE
24 years
SIZE OF FIRM
600 - home & branch offices
KIND OF FIRM
Planning, architecture, engineering, systems and economics.
PRINCIPAL LINE OF WORK:
Housing, educational facilities, public works, transportation,
defense, aerospace, industrial, commercial, systems, planning
and Land development, economics, manufacturing, process,
public facilities, aerial surveys.
ANY WORK COMPARABLE TO OR REQUIRING
SAME CAPABILITIES AS CAPITOL WORK:
-
MEMBERS OF FIRM WITH EXPERIENCE
COMPARABLE TO THAT REQUIRED FOR
THE CAPITOL PROJECT:
-
COMMENT:
Engineers for small job -- fluorescent lighting in old
Senate Garage -- for Architect of the Capitol several years
ago.
- 11 -
DIGEST OF INFORMATION
Firm Recommended for West Front Feasibility Study
LIBRARY
RECOMMENDED BY
University of California
FORD
NAME OF FIRM
H. J. Degenkolb & Associates
is
GERALD
HOME OFFICE
San Francisco, California
YEARS FIRM IN EXISTENCE
30 years
SIZE OF FIRM
28 engineers and draftsmen and 3 secretaries
KIND OF FIRM
Consulting Engineers
PRINCIPAL LINE OF WORK: Reconstruction and alterations, design of modern office buildings, military facili-
ties, churches, hospitals, foundation structures, garages, and airports, structural feasibility
studies, earthquake studies, reports and consultation.
ANY WORK COMPARABLE TO OR REQUIRING
SAME CAPABILITIES AS CAPITOL WORK: Earthquake studies might be somewhat related.
MEMBERS OF FIRM WITH EXPERIENCE COMPARABLE TO THAT REQUIRED FOR THE CAPITOL PROJECT: --
COMMENT: --
- 12 -
DIGEST OF INFORMATION
Firm Recommended for West Front Feasibility Study
LIBRARY
RECOMMENDED BY
American Society of Civil Engineers
FORD
NAME OF FIRM
Howard, Needles, Tammen & Bergendoff
GERALD
HOME OFFICE
New York, N. Y. and Kansas City, Mo.
YEARS FIRM IN EXISTENCE
55 years
SIZE OF FIRM
Over 1,200 employees in all locations
KIND OF FIRM
Consulting Engineers
PRINCIPAL LINE OF WORK: Engineering for dams, tunnels, bridges, highways, airports, underground utilities,
and buildings.
ANY WORK COMPARABLE TO OR REQUIRING
SAME CAPABILITIES AS CAPITOL WORK: (see next item)
MEMBERS OF FIRM WITH EXPERIENCE
COMPARABLE TO THAT REQUIRED FOR
THE CAPITOL PROJECT: Deceased senior partner served as consulting engineer to Commission on Renovation
of the Executive Mansion. Advised on matters relating to structural features of the recommenda-
tions for construction.
COMMENT: --
- 13 -
DIGEST OF INFORMATION
Firm Recommended for West Front Feasibility Study
LIBRARY
RECOMMENDED BY
University of Colorado
FORD
NAME OF FIRM
Ketchum-Konkel-Barrett-Nickel-Austin
GERALD
HOME OFFICE
Denver, Colorado
YEARS FIRM IN EXISTENCE
Founded in "early 1940's"
SIZE OF FIRM
50, including draftsmen and supporting personnel
KIND OF FIRM
Consulting Engineers
PRINCIPAL LINE OF WORK: Modern office buildings, apartments and hotels, hospitals and clinics, commercial
and industrial facilities, airfields and appurtenances, bridges and heavy structures, research
and testing.
ANY WORK COMPARABLE TO OR REQUIRING SAME CAPABILITIES AS CAPITOL WORK: --
MEMBERS OF FIRM WITH EXPERIENCE COMPARABLE TO THAT REQUIRED FOR THE CAPITOL PROJECT: --
COMMENT: Mr. Ketchum would supervise study.
- 14 -
DIGEST OF INFORMATION
Firm Recommended for West Front Feasibility Study
LIBRARY
RECOMMENDED BY
California Institute of Technology
FORD
NAME OF FIRM
Albert C. Martin and Associates
GERALD
HOME OFFICE
Los Angeles, California
YEARS FIRM IN EXISTENCE
65 years
SIZE OF FIRM
Over 350 persons
KIND OF FIRM
Planning - Architecture - Engineering
PRINCIPAL LINE OF WORK:
Planning, modern buildings, industrial plants and facilities.
ANY WORK COMPARABLE TO OR REQUIRING
SAME CAPABILITIES AS CAPITOL WORK:
Association with some old churches, halls, estates, etc.,
but do not indicate extent of their services or whether any
projects were of comparable construction to Capitol.
MEMBERS OF FIRM WITH EXPERIENCE
COMPARABLE TO THAT REQUIRED FOR
THE CAPITOL PROJECT:
-
COMMENT:
An Architect-engineer firm. Detail investigation would be
under direction of structural engineer.
- 15 -
LIBRARY
DIGEST OF INFORMATION
FORD
Firm Recommended for West Front Feasibility Study
is
GERALD
RECOMMENDED BY
Harvard University
NAME OF FIRM
Nichols, Norton and Zaldastani, Inc., and 2 other Firms.
HOME OFFICE
Boston, Massachusetts
YEARS FIRM IN EXISTENCE
Joint venture for this project
SIZE OF FIRM
Not Known
KIND OF FIRM
(1) Consulting structural engineers; (2) Material testing;
(3) Construction procedures and costs.
PRINCIPAL LINE OF WORK:
Nichols et al - Consulting Engineers
Perini
- Large construction firm
H. G. Protze - Materials Technologist
ANY WORK COMPARABLE TO OR REQUIRING
SAME CAPABILITIES AS CAPITOL WORK:
Perini is the contractor (not Engineers or Architects) for
for rebuilding interior of Parliament Building in Ottawa,
Canada. This project provides for restoring exterior but
rebuilding the interior of the building. This building
was constructed 1859-1867.
MEMBERS OF FIRM WITH EXPERIENCE
Nichols -- Mr. Norton of this firm (now deceased) was structural
COMPARABLE TO THAT REQUIRED FOR
engineer of substructure of the National Shrine.
THE CAPITOL PROJECT:
Protze -- Material Technologist. National Shrine of
Immaculate Conception, Washington, D. C.
COMMENT:
-
- 16 -
LIBRARY
DIGEST OF INFORMATION
FORD
Firm Recommended for West Front Feasibility Study
is
GERALD
RECOMMENDED BY
American Society of Civil Engineers
Duke University
University of Michigan
NAME OF FIRM
Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas
HOME OFFICE
New York, N. Y.
YEARS FIRM IN EXISTENCE
85 years
SIZE OF FIRM
650 persons (2/3 professional)
KIND OF FIRM
Engineers, Architects, Planners
PRINCIPAL LINE OF WORK: Highways, bridges, tunnels, airports, rapid transit, traffic and parking, ports-
harbors-terminals, canals, water and sewer, security facilities against nuclear blast, buildings
and industrial facilities.
ANY WORK COMPARABLE TO OR REQUIRING
SAME CAPABILITIES AS CAPITOL WORK: Some experience in foundations, underpinning and strengthening of
buildings.
MEMBERS OF FIRM WITH EXPERIENCE COMPARABLE TO THAT REQUIRED FOR THE CAPITOL PROJECT: --
COMMENT: Would supplement in-house capabilities with experts in stone restoration and other matters as
desirable.
- 17 -
DIGEST OF INFORMATION
Firm Recommended for West Front Feasibility Study
RECOMMENDED BY
University of Illinois
NAME OF FIRM
The Perkins & Will Partnership
HOME OFFICE
Chicago, Illinois
YEARS FIRM IN EXISTENCE
Joint Venture for this project
SIZE OF FIRM
Joint venture for this project
KIND OF FIRM
Joint venture includes: engineers, construction firm, university
professor as structural consultant, and soil mechanics and
foundation consultant.
PRINCIPAL LINE OF WORK:
Varied
ANY WORK COMPARABLE TO OR REQUIRING
SAME CAPABILITIES AS CAPITOL WORK:
-
MEMBERS OF FIRM WITH EXPERIENCE
COMPARABLE TO THAT REQUIRED FOR
THE CAPITOL PROJECT:
-
COMMENT:
Submission seems to be built around specialistsin their fields
or teachers, rather than practicing engineers.
- 18 -
FORD LIBRARY is GERALD
DIGEST OF INFORMATION
Firm Recommended for West Front Feasibility Study
RECOMMENDED BY
University of Colorado
NAME OF FIRM
Phillips-Carter-Reister and Associates, Inc.
HOME OFFICE
Denver, Colorado
YEARS FIRM IN EXISTENCE
21 years
SIZE OF FIRM
40 - 50
KIND OF FIRM
Engineers, architects, planners, consultants
PRINCIPAL LINE OF WORK: Bridges, industrial buildings, viaducts, dams, tunnels, water and sewer plants,
military installations, hospitals, schools, commercial buildings and high-rise office
buildings, structural steel and reinforced concrete frame buildings.
ANY WORK COMPARABLE TO OR REQUIRING
SAME CAPABILITIES AS CAPITOL WORK: Some experience in investigating older buildings, dating back,
they say, "in the 1800's.' In 1953, made investigation, study, report and design to correct
structural deficiencies in the State Capitol Building at Santa Fe, New Mexico.
MEMBERS OF FIRM WITH EXPERIENCE COMPARABLE TO THAT REQUIRED FOR THE CAPITOL PROJECT: --
COMMENT: Much experience in water plants, dams, tunnels, and high-rise buildings.
- 19 -
DIGEST OF INFORMATION
Firm Recommended for West Front Feasibility Study
FORD LIBRARY & CERALD
RECOMMENDED BY
American Society of Civil Engineers
Rice University
University of Michigan
NAME OF FIRM
Praeger-Kavanagh-Waterbury (A Division of Madigan-Praeger, Inc.)
HOME OFFICE
New York, N. Y.
YEARS FIRM IN EXISTENCE
20 years (42 including predecessor firm name)
SIZE OF FIRM
Over 300 engineers, architects and planners
KIND OF FIRM
Engineers, Architects, Planners
PRINCIPAL LINE OF WORK: Professional services, primarily engineering, in connection with public,
institutional, industrial, scientific and defense building facilities.
ANY WORK COMPARABLE TO OR REQUIRING
SAME CAPABILITIES AS CAPITOL WORK: Two members of firm performed engineering and architectural work in
remodeling of White House. Firm has provided services of significant restorations and
corrections of deterioration of monumental cathedrals, including Cathedral of St. John the
Divine and St. Thomas Church, both in New York.
MEMBERS OF FIRM WITH EXPERIENCE
COMPARABLE TO THAT REQUIRED FOR
THE CAPITOL PROJECT: E. H. Praeger, Engineer and Chairman of Board, directed engineering work for White
House restoration. John W. Waterbury, architect and member of firm, was partner to William A.
Delano during the time the latter was consulting architect for the White House Project.
E. H. Praeger was chief engineer on such monumental structures as the Nebraska State House, Los
Angeles Public Library, University of Chicago Chapel, and Church of Heavenly Rest in New York
City.
COMMENT: If the services of E. H. Praeger could be assured for the Capitol study, this firm should
receive serious consideration.
- 20 -
DIGEST OF INFORMATION
Firm Recommended for West Front Feasibility Study
RECOMMENDED BY
American Society of Civil Engineers
NAME OF FIRM
Richardson, Gordon and Associates (and others)
HOME OFFICE
Pittsburgh & Philadelphia, Pa.
YEARS FIRM IN EXISTENCE
Joint Venture (Richardson et al about 21 years)
SIZE OF FIRM
Richardson - 125 (41 professional)
KIND OF FIRM
Consulting Engineers
PRINCIPAL LINE OF WORK:
Highways, bridges, transportation, industrial structures
and commercial buildings
ANY WORK COMPARABLE TO OR REQUIRING
LIBRARY
SAME CAPABILITIES AS CAPITOL WORK:
-
FORD
MEMBERS OF FIRM WITH EXPERIENCE
&
COMPARABLE TO THAT REQUIRED FOR
GERALD
THE CAPITOL PROJECT:
-
COMMENT:
Claim their work in major bridges and heavy construction
relates to wall bearing construction of 1793-1829.
- 21 -
DIGEST OF INFORMATION
Firm Recommended for West Front Feasibility Study
RECOMMENDED BY
American Society of Civil Engineers
Duke University
NAME OF FIRM
Sverdrup & Parcel
LIBRARY
HOME OFFICE
St. Louis, Missouri
FORD
YEARS FIRM IN EXISTENCE
42 years
&
GERALD
SIZE OF FIRM
1000 persons
KIND OF FIRM
Consulting Engineers
PRINCIPAL LINE OF WORK:
Bridges, tunnels, railroads, buildings, industrial plants,
research and development, electric power facilities,
urban and regional planning and construction management.
ANY WORK COMPARABLE TO OR REQUIRING
SAME CAPABILITIES AS CAPITOL WORK:
Some experience in investigation of older buildings
of brick and stone construction (nothing, however,
comparable to Capitol).
MEMBERS OF FIRM WITH EXPERIENCE
COMPARABLE TO THAT REQUIRED FOR
THE CAPITOL PROJECT:
-
COMMENT:
Would use its best talent -- its top executives.
Office in District of Columbia and several projects there
now. Familiar with local area and its requirements.
- 22 -
DIGEST OF INFORMATION
Firm Recommended for West Front Feasibility Study
RECOMMENDED BY
Duke University
NAME OF FIRM
Tippetts-Abbett-McCarthy-Stratton
HOME OFFICE
New York, N. Y.
YEARS FIRM IN EXISTENCE
25 years
FORD LIBRARY
is
SIZE OF FIRM
450 professionals
GERALD
KIND OF FIRM
Engineers and Architects
PRINCIPAL LINE OF WORK: Airports, bridges and viaducts, tunnels, railroads, subways, modern buildings,
city and regional planning, sanitary engineering, dams, soil and foundation engineering,
transportation, parking.
ANY WORK COMPARABLE TO OR REQUIRING SAME CAPABILITIES AS CAPITOL WORK: --
MEMBERS OF FIRM WITH EXPERIENCE COMPARABLE TO THAT REQUIRED FOR THE CAPITOL PROJECT: --
COMMENT: --
- 23 -
DIGEST OF INFORMATION
Firm Recommended for West Front Feasibility Study
RECOMMENDED BY
University of Colorado
NAME OF FIRM
The Ken R. White Company
FORD LIBRARY
HOME OFFICE
Denver, Colorado
GERALD
YEARS FIRM IN EXISTENCE
17 years
SIZE OF FIRM
150 persons/130 proféssionals
KIND OF FIRM
Consulting Engineers, planners and architects.
PRINCIPAL LINE OF WORK:
Buildings, highways, bridges, industrial plants
ANY WORK COMPARABLE TO OR REQUIRING
SAME CAPABILITIES AS CAPITOL WORK: Some reports & recommendations on failures in structures and other
facilities -- nothing apparently comparable to Capitol.
MEMBERS OF FIRM WITH EXPERIENCE
COMPARABLE TO THAT REQUIRED FOR
THE CAPITOL PROJECT:
-
COMMENT:
Modern building and heavy industrial.
- 24 -
DIGEST OF INFORMATION
Firm Recommended for West Front Feasibility Study
RECOMMENDED BY
University of Michigan
NAME OF FIRM
Whitman, Requardt and Associates
HOME OFFICE
Baltimore, Maryland
YEARS FIRM IN EXISTENCE
55 years (present firm, 26 years)
FORD LIBRARY & CERALD
SIZE OF FIRM
300 persons
KIND OF FIRM
Engineers - Consultants
PRINCIPAL LINE OF WORK: Water supply and sanitation, land planning and development, highways and bridges,
industrial and commercial, mechanical and electrical installations, architectural, airports,
valuation of utilities and industrial plants.
ANY WORK COMPARABLE TO OR REQUIRING
SAME CAPABILITIES AS CAPITOL WORK: Mentions in letter some work involving old structures with wall
bearing masonry and brick arches, but this was a minor project (construction cost $120,000) in
their overall work.
MEMBERS OF FIRM WITH EXPERIENCE COMPARABLE TO THAT REQUIRED FOR THE CAPITOL PROJECT: --
COMMENT: Firm is strong in civil engineering personnel.
UNSOLICITED PROPOSAL
West Front Feasibility Study
NAME OF FIRM
Ferry and Henderson, Architects, Inc.
HOME OFFICE
Springfield, Illinois
YEARS FIRM IN EXISTENCE
Not stated
LIBRARY
SIZE OF FIRM
Not stated
FORD
KIND OF FIRM
Architects
074870
PRINCIPAL LINE OF WORK: Only information submitted indicates that this firm did the research and architectural
work leading to the dismantling and reconstruction of the former Illinois State
Capitol Building in Springfield, Illinois. It now houses the State Historical
Society office and part of the historical library.
ANY WORK COMPARABLE TO OR REQUIRING SAME CAPABILITIES AS CAPITOL WORK: --
MEMBERS OF FIRM WITH EXPERIENCE COMPARABLE TO THAT REQUIRED FOR THE CAPITOL PROJECT: --
COMMENT: --
UNSOLICITED PROPOSAL
West Front Feasibility Study
NAME OF FIRM
Tatar & Kelly, Inc. and others
HOME OFFICE
Baltimore, Maryland
FORD LIBRARY 'if GERALD
KIND OF FIRM
Joint Venture
NATURE OF FIRM: A joint venture proposed by Tatar & Kelly, Inc. consisting of
Architects -- Community planning and implementation, restoration of various structures,
participated in design of large post office. In business since 1959.
Structural Engineer Structural design of high-rise steel office structures,
structural precast concrete, pre-stressed and post-tension concrete,
cast-in-place concrete and special structures in wood and aluminum.
(Note: This engineering firm was recommended by one of the deans of
engineering to be considered for doing the study, but did not respond to
the Speaker's invitation to submit brochure and other information.)
Historic Preservation Architect -- Experience in consultation and studies of various
restorations, lecturer, and publisher of restoration manual. Worked at
Colonial Williamsburg under direction of present Assistant Architect of
the Capitol.
Contractor Performed work and made studies for restoration of art gallery, monuments,
The Pentagon, and other structures.
COMMENTS: This proposal was submitted to the Commission in January, 1970, before the Speaker's letter of
March 9, 1970 to invited and recommended firms.
UNSOLICITED PROPOSAL
West Front Feasibility Study
NAME OF FIRM
Vosbeck Vosbeck Kendrick Redinger
HOME OFFICE
Alexandria, Virginia
YEARS FIRM IN EXISTENCE
Since 1967
FORD is LIBRARY 07VU39
SIZE OF FIRM
68 persons
KIND OF FIRM
Architecture, engineering, planning
PRINCIPAL LINE OF WORK: Contemporary architecture and engineering, including research and development planning,
buildings for various private and public purposes, residences, and engineering design.
Have architectural historian on staff.
ANY WORK COMPARABLE TO OR REQUIRING SAME CAPABILITIES AS CAPITOL WORK: --
MEMBERS OF FIRM WITH EXPERIENCE COMPARABLE TO THAT REQUIRED FOR THE CAPITOL PROJECT: --
COMMENT: --
THE SPEAKER'S NOTES
Washfund
Meeting of the
Commission for Extension of the United States Capitol
In the Legislative Branch Appropriation Act, 1970, provision is made by
the Congress for "the employment of independent nongovernmental engineering
and other necessary services for studying and reporting
on the feasibility
and cost of restoring" the west central front of the Capitol under such terms
and conditions as this Commission may determine.
The conference report contains the agreement
"***that the nongovernmental engineering and other
necessary services engaged by direction of the
Commission to study and report on the feasibility
and cost of restoration should be, in the
Commission's opinion, completely independent,
with no previous connection with proposals to
either extend or to restore the west central
front, including any expressed predisposition for
or against the extension or the restoration of
the west central front."
As you will recall, the Commission agreed to seek the advice of the
American Society of Civil Engineers, who had taken no position either for
or against extension or restoration, and the Deans of Engineering of some
19 of the leading engineering schools.
- 2 -
This procedure was followed and the result is the report of April 17,
1970 which I forwarded to you with my letter of April 20, 1970.
You will note in the report the digests of information for each of the
firms or others recommended by the ASCE and/or the Deans. There are also
provided such digests of unsolicited proposals received from several groups.
The digests of information relating to unsolicited firms are on blue pages.
It is the responsibility of our Commission to select a firm to make
the study. The Appropriation Act provided an amount not to exceed $250,000
for the study, report, etc.
I have discussed this matter with the staff of the Architect of the
Capitol as to procedure. They suggest that it might be well for the Com-
mission to select 2 or 3 firms, in order of their preference, and that the
Architect's staff be directed to attempt to negotiate a satisfactory contract
with the Commission's first choice. If successful, the Architect would
proceed with the award of the contract, subject to such further coordination
or approval as the Commission desires. If negotiation with the first choice
firm is not productive, the Architect would then proceed to the second
choice, etc.
If the Commission agrees with this procedure, I would welcome your re-
view of the firms, beginning on page 6 of the report. The Architect's staff
also has the brochures and other data here if anyone would wish to see the
submissions of the various firms.
I hope we can make a decision on this today. The legislation allows up
to 6 months for the firm to make the study, so we should proceed as quickly
as possible with action directing the Architect to negotiate an engineering
contract and have the study proceed.
Suggested Resolution of Commission
That the Commission, having reviewed the information submitted by
interested firms and the report of April 17, 1970, directs the Architect of
the Capitol to enter into negotiations with
Firm No. 1
for undertaking the feasibility study ordered by the Congress. If a
mutually satisfactory contract can be negotiated, the Architect is directed,
subject to the approval of the Chairman of the Commission, to enter into a
contract with the above firm for the services required.
If a mutually satisfactory contract cannot be negotiated with Firm
No. 1, then the Architect is directed to negotiate with
Firm No. 2
under the same procedure of negotiation and award of contract applicable to
Firm No. 1.
If a mutually satisfactory contract cannot be negotiated with Firm
No. 2, then the Architect is directed to negotiate with
Firm No. 3
under the same procedure of negotiation and award of contract applicable to
Firm No. 1.
If a mutually satisfactory contract cannot be negotiated with Firm
No. 1, Firm No. 2, or Firm No. 3, the Architect shall report back to the
Commission for further instructions.
UNSOLICITED PROPOSAL
West Front Feasibility Study
NAME OF FIRM
Ferry and Henderson, Architects, Inc.
HOME OFFICE
Springfield, Illinois
YEARS FIRM IN EXISTENCE
Not stated
SIZE OF FIRM
Not stated
KIND OF FIRM
Architects
PRINCIPAL LINE OF WORK: Only information submitted indicates that this firm did the research and architectural
work leading to the dismantling and reconstruction of the former Illinois State
Capitol Building in Springfield, Illinois. It now houses the State Historical
Society office and part of the historical library.
ANY WORK COMPARABLE TO OR REQUIRING SAME CAPABILITIES AS CAPITOL WORK: --
MEMBERS OF FIRM WITH EXPERIENCE COMPARABLE TO THAT REQUIRED FOR THE CAPITOL PROJECT: --
COMMENT: --
UNSOLICITED PROPOSAL
West Front Feasibility Study
NAME OF FIRM
Tatar & Kelly, Inc. and others
HOME OFFICE
Baltimore, Maryland
KIND OF FIRM
Joint Venture
NATURE OF FIRM: A joint venture proposed by Tatar & Kelly, Inc. consisting of
Architects -- Community planning and implementation, restoration of various structures,
participated in design of large post office. In business since 1959.
Structural Engineer -- Structural design of high-rise steel office structures,
structural precast concrete, pre-stressed and post-tension concrete,
cast-in-place concrete and special structures in wood and aluminum.
(Note: This engineering firm was recommended by one of the deans of
engineering to be considered for doing the study, but did not respond to
the Speaker's invitation to submit brochure and other information.)
Historic Preservation Architect -- Experience in consultation and studies of various
restorations, lecturer, and publisher of restoration manual. Worked at
Colonial Williamsburg under direction of present Assistant Architect of
the Capitol.
Contractor -- Performed work and made studies for restoration of art gallery, monuments,
The Pentagon, and other structures.
COMMENTS: This proposal was submitted to the Commission in January, 1970, before the Speaker's letter of
March 9, 1970 to invited and recommended firms.
UNSOLICITED PROPOSAL
West Front Feasibility Study
NAME OF FIRM
Vosbeck Vosbeck Kendrick Redinger
HOME OFFICE
Alexandria, Virginia
YEARS FIRM IN EXISTENCE
Since 1967
SIZE OF FIRM
68 persons
KIND OF FIRM
Architecture, engineering, planning
PRINCIPAL LINE OF WORK: Contemporary architecture and engineering, including research and development planning,
buildings for various private and public purposes, residences, and engineering design.
Have architectural historian on staff.
ANY WORK COMPARABLE TO OR REQUIRING SAME CAPABILITIES AS CAPITOL WORK: --
MEMBERS OF FIRM WITH EXPERIENCE COMPARABLE TO THAT REQUIRED FOR THE CAPITOL PROJECT: --
COMMENT: --