oversight

Measures Needed To Ensure Compliance With Contract Specifications In Construction Of Military Facilities

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1971-04-16.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

                        - . r.. , ,.- . . _




epartment of the Army
epartment   Of   the
            COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
                       WASHINGTON. D.C. 20548




B-171496




To the President of the Senate and the
Speaker of the House of Representatives

     This is our report on measures needed in the De-
partments of the Army and the Navy to ensure compliance
with contract specifications in construction o f mili-
tary facilities.

     Our review was made pursuant to the Budget and Ac-
counting Act, 1921 (31 U.S.C. 5 3 ) , and the Accounting
and Auditing Act of 1950 (31 U.S.C. 67).

      Copies of this report are being sent t o the Di-
rector, Office of Management and Budget; the Secretary
of Defense; and the Secretaries of the Army and the
Navy.




                                 Comptroller General
                                 of the United States




                50TH ANNIVERSARY 1921 - 1971
I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    I
    1
    I
    I
        COMPTROLLER GENERAL ' S                   MEASURES NEEDED TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH
    I
    I
        REPORT TO THE CONGRESS                    CONTRACT SPEC1FICATIONS IN CONSTRUCTION
    I
    I
                                                  OF MILITARY FACILITIES
                                                  Department of the Army
    I
    I
                                                  Department of the Navy B-171496

    I




        WHY THE REVIEW W A S MADE
    I
    I
               Because of the size of appropri a t i ons for mi l i tary cons t r u c t i on--
               $4.8 b i l l i o n f o r f i s c a l years 1967 through 1969--the General Accounting
               Office (GAO) has reviewed the inspection procedures of the Army Corps
               o f Engineers and the Naval Faci l i t i e s Engineering Command intended t o
               ensure t h a t cons tructi on i s in accordance w i t h contract speci f i cati ons .
               The Corps and the Engineering Command are agents for the Department o f
               Defense (DOD) i n construction o f military projects.
    I
    I


        F I N D I N G S A N D CONCLUSIONS
    I          The Army Corps of Engi,neers and the Naval F a c i l i t i e s Engineering Com-
               mand need t o t i g h t e n t h e i r procedures and practices f o r inspecting con-
    I          struction s o that military projects will be constructed as contracts
               speci fy .
    I
    I



I
I
I
               A number of military f a c i l i t i e s accepted by the Government as completed
I
I
               were n o t b u i l t i n comp.liance with contract requirements. As a r e s u l t ,
I
I
               the f a c i l i t i e s were not f u l l y satisfactory f o r t h e i r intended use and/
I
I
               or the Government had t o spend additional time and e f f o r t having defi-
I
               ciencies corrected. (See pp. 5 t o 9 . ) For example, neither the con-
I
I
               tractor nor t h e Government prior t o acceptance .by the Government de-
               tected t h a t the roof an a $2.4 million 'hangar had.not been inst,alled i n
I
I
I
                                                       .
               accordance w i t h specifications After completi on and acceptance of
I              the hangar, portions of i t s roof were blown o f f on three occasions.
I
               The cost t o repair the roof on the f i r s t two occasions was borne by
               the contractor, and responsibility f o r repair on the t h i r d occasion had
               not been resolved a t the time of-completion o f GAO's fieldwork. (See
I

I
               P. 6.)
I
I
I              The two construction agencies need t o improve (1) enforcement of con-
I
               t r a c t o r quality controls (see p. s ) , ( 2 ) reports from and training o f
I
I
               Government inspectors (se,e pp. 12 and i 7 ) , ( 3 ) evaluations by head-
I
               quarters of f i e l d a c t i v i t i e s (see p. 23), and (4) coordination of ac-
I
I
               t i v i ties of the two construction agencies i n solving problems common
               t o b o t h (see p. 25).

        Tear Sheet

                                                                        APRIL 1 6 , 1 9 7 f
                                                   1
                                                                                                          I
                                                                                                          I
                                                                                                          I
                                                                                                          I
                                                                                                      I
                                                                                                      I
                                                                                                      I
                                                                                                      I
RECOMMENDATIONS OR SUGGESTIONS                                                                        I
                                                                                                      I
                                                                                                      I
                                                                                                      I
     The Secretaries of the Army and the Navy should have the two construc-                           I
                                                                                                      1
     t i on agencies                                                                                  I
                                                                                                      I
                                                                                                      I
                                                                                                      I
       --systematically monitor f i e l d offices I enforcement of contractor                         I
                                                                                                      1
         quality control programs (see p , 10);                                                       I
                                                                                                      I
                                                                                                      I
                                                                                                      I
       --review inspection reporting practices of f i e l d offices, correct                          I

         those not complying w i t h agency regulations, and implement a system                   1
                                                                                                  I

         f o r prompt communication o f inspection findings t o d i s t r i c t (Army)            I
                                                                                                  I

         or division (Navy) construction management (see p . 16}; and                             I
                                                                                                  I
                                                                                                  I
                                                                                                  I
       --improve Army training programs f o r inspectors and establish such                       1
         programs i n the Navy (see p. 2 2 ) .                                                    I
                                                                                                  I
                                                                                                  I
                                                                                                  I
     Both construction agencies should perform more comprehensive reviews of                      I
                                                                                                  I
     f i e l d offices' implementation of agency procedures f o r inspection and                  I
                                                                                                  I
     supervision of military construction. (See p . 24.)                                          I
                                                                                                  I
                                                                                                 I
                                                                                                 I
     The Secretary of Defense should take action t o ensure that the two con-                    I
                                                                                                 I
     struction agencies exchange information and coordinate a c t i v i t i e s i n              I
                                                                                                 I
     areas of mutual interest. (See p. 26.)                                                   I
                                                                                                 I

                                                                                              I
                                                                                              I
                                                                                              I
                                                                                              I
AGENCY ACTIONS A N D UNRESOLVED ISSUES                                                        I
                                                                                              I
                                                                                              I
                                                                                              I
     DOD agreed w i t h GAO's f i n d i n g s and recommendations and reported t h a t        I

     both construction agencies were making improvements t o correct cited                    I
                                                                                              I
     deficiencies. (See p. 10.)                                                               I
                                                                                              I
                                                                                              I
                                                                                              I
                                                                                              I
                                                                                              I
MAirl'ER5 FOR COflSIDERATION BY THE CONGRESS                                                  I
                                                                                             1
                                                                                             1


     This report is issued t o inform the Congress of DOD actions t o better                 I
                                                                                             I

     ensure that the mi l i tary services receive the quality of construction                 I


     planned and paid for.                                                                   I
                                                                                             I
                                                                                             I
                                                                                             I
                                                                                             I

                                                                                             I
                                                                                             I
                                                                                             I
                                                                                             1
                                                                                             I

                                                                                              I
                                                                                             I
                                                                                             I
                                                                                             I
                                                                                             I

                                                                                             I
                                                                                             I
                                                                                             I

                                                                                         I
                                                                                         I


                                                                                         I
                                                                                         I
                                                                                         I
                                                                                         I
                                                                                         I
                                                                                         I
                                                                                         I
                                                                                         I
                                                                                         I
                                                                                         I
                                        2                                                I
                                                                                         I
                                                                                         I
                                                                                         I
                                                                                         I
                                                                                         I
                         C o n t e n t s
                                                          -
                                                          Page

DIGEST                                                     1

CHAPTER
   1      INTRODUCTION                                     3

   2      NEED TO ENSURE EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF
          CONTRACTOR QUALITY CONTROL SYSTEMS               5
              The Corps program                            5
                  Actions to improve implementation        a
              The Engineering Command program              8
                  Actions to improve implementation       10
              Conclusions                                 10
              Recommendation                              10
              Agency comments                             10

   3      NEED FOR BETTER INSPECTION REPORTING            12
              Procedures for advising management of
                inspection results                        15
              Conclusions                                 16
              Recommendations                             16
              Agency comments                             16
   4      NEED FOR IMPROVED TRAINING PROGRAMS FOR
          INSPECT1ON PERSONNEL                            17
              Corps training programs for inspection
                personnel                                  18
              Engineering Command training programs for
                inspection personnel                       20
                  Development of agencywide training
                    programs                               21
              Conclusions                                  21
              Recommendations                              22
              Agency comments                              22
   5      NEED FOR MORE COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF FIELD
          OPERATIONS                                       23
              Construction review program of the Corps     23
              Construction review program of the En-
                gineering Command                          23
              Recommendations                              24
              Aeencv comments                              24
                                                             Page
CHAPTER
   6        NEED FOR BETTER INTERAGENCY COORDINATION          25
                Conclusions                                   26
                Recommendation                                26
                Agency comments                               26

      7     SCOPE OF REVIEW                                   27

APPEND1 X
      I     Letter dated October 19, 1970, from the
              Deputy Assistant Secretary o f Defense
              (Installations and Logistics) to the
              General Accounting Office                       31

  I1        Principal    officials of the Department of
              Defense    and t h e Departments of the Army
              and the    Navy responsible for administra-
              tion o f   activities discussed in this
              report                                          33


                             ABBREVIATIONS

ASPR        Armed Services Procurement Regulation

DOD         Department of Defense
GAO         General Accounting Office
COMPTROLLER GEflERAL ' S                MEASURES NEEDED TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH
REPORT TO TflE CONGRESS                 CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS IN CONSTRUCTION
                                        OF MILITARY FACILITIES
                                        Department of the Army
                                        Department of the Navy B-171496

D-
- IG
   --E-
      ST-

WHY TEE REVIEW WAS MADE

     Because of the si ze of appropri a t i ons f o r mi 1i tary cons tructi on--
     $4.8 billion f o r f i s c a l years 1967 through 1969--the General Accounting
     Office (GAO) has reviewed the inspection procedures of the Army Corps
     of Engineers and the Naval Facilities Engineering Comand intended t o
     ensure that cons tructi on i s i n accordance w i t h contract speci f i cati ons .
     The Corps and the Engineering Command are agents for the Department o f
     Defense (DOD) in construction of military projects.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

     The Army Corps of Engi,neers and the Naval Facilities Engineering Com-
     mand need t o tighten t h e i r procedures and practices f o r inspecting con-
     struction so t h a t military projects will be constructed as contracts
     speci fy .
     A number of military f a c i l i t i e s accepted by the Government as completed
     were n o t b u i l t in compliance w i t h contract requirements. As a r e s u l t ,
     the f a c i l i t i e s were not f u l l y satisfactory for t h e i r intended use and/
     or the Government had t o spend additional time and e f f o r t having defi-
     ciencies corrected. (See pp. 5 t o 9 .) For example, nejther the con-
     tractor nor the Government prior t o acceptance by the Government de-
     tected t h a t the roof on a $2.4 million hangar had not been installed i n
     accordance w i t h specifications . After completi on and acceptance of
     the hangar, portions of i t s roof were blown off on three occasions.
     The cost t o repair the roof on the f i r s t two occasions was borne by
     the contractor, and responsibility for repair on the t h i r d occasion h a d
     n o t been resolved a t the time of completion of GAO's fieldwork. (See
     P. 6 . )
     The two construction agencies need t o improve ( 1 ) enforcement of con-
     t r a c t o r quality controls (see p. 5) ( 2 ) reports from and training of
                                                  y

     Government inspectors (see pp. 12 and 1 7 ) , ( 3 ) evaluations by head-
     quarters of f i e l d a c t i v i t i e s (see p . 23) ' a n d ( 4 ) coordination o f ac-
                                                        y

     t i v i t i e s of the two construction agencies i n solving problems conimon
     t o both (see p. 25).




                                          1
RECOMMENDATIONS OR S U G G E S T I O N S

      The Secretaries of the Army and the Navy should have the two construc-
      ti on agencies
         --systematically monitor f i e l d offices' enforcement of contractor
           quality control programs (see p , 10);
         --review inspection reporting practices of f i e l d offices, correct
           those n o t complying w i t h agency regulations, and implement a system
           f o r prompt communication of inspection findings t o d i s t r i c t (Army)
           or division (Navy) construction management (see p. 16); and
         --improve Army t r a i n i n g programs f o r inspectors and establish such
           programs i n the Navy (see p . 2 2 ) .
       Both construction agencies should perform more comprehensive reviews of
       f i e l d offices' implementation o f agency procedures f o r inspecti on and
       supervision of military construction. (See p. 24.)
       The Secretary of Defense should take action t o ensure that the two con-
       struction agencies exchange information and coordinate a c t i v i t i e s i n
       areas of mutual i n t e r e s t . (See p. 26.)

AGENCY A C T I O N S AND UNRESOLVED ISSUES

      DOD agreed w i t h GAO's findings and recommendations and reported t h a t
      both construction agencies were making improvements t o correct cited
      deficiencies. (See p. 10.)

MATTERS FOR C O N S I D E B I T I O N BY T H E CONGRESS

      This report i s issued t o inform the Congress of DOD actions t o better
      ensure that the m i 1i tary services receive the qual i ty of cons tructi on
      planned and paid for.




                                              2
                          CHAPTER 1


                        IKTRODUCTION

     The General Accounting Office examined the procedures
and practices of the Army Corps of Engineers and the Naval
Facilities Engineering Command for inspecting projects being
constructed for the military services. Projects include fa-
cilities such as aircraft runways and hangars, housing, bar-
racks, and administrative offices. The purpose of our re-
view was to evaluate the need f o r improvement of the inspec-
tion procedures and practices to better ensure that military
projects are completed in accordance with contract spe-cXi-
cations. Our examination, which was -conducted during the
_cc

period June 1969 through May 1970, did not include an over-
all evaluation of the agencies' administration of the mili-
tary construction program. Details on the scope of our ex-
amination are given on page 27.

      The Corps and the Engineering Command are the desig-
 nated construction agencies o f the Department of Defense.
 As such, these agencies are responsible for the award and
 administration of construction contracts for the Army, the
 Navy, and other DOD organizations. Their----
                                        -.  responsibilities_-
 include ensuring that construction is-completed according
-- -
 to contract specifications.
  -

     The Armed Services Procurement Regulation (ASPR) pro-
visions 7-602.9, 7-602.10, and 7-602.11, set forth DOD
guidelines for inspecting projects. The Corps and the En-
gineering Command have issued implementing instructions and
regulations. The agencies have two primary controls avail-
able to ensure that contract specifications are met. These
are (1) the contractor quality control systems, whereby the
contractors take specific actions to ensure compliance with
all contract terms and conditions and maintain records con-
cerning the results of the quality control efforts, and
(2) onsite inspection by Government inspectors during con-
struction. These controls are required for each project
with a price in excess of $10,000.

     The Congress appropriated about $4.8 billion for the
military construction program for fiscal years 1967 through
1969. The Corps and the Engineering Command have indicated

                               3
a significant interest in construction quality for the pro-
grams they administer. Both agencies had representatives
from their top management officials participating on the
Federal Construction Council of the Building Research Ad-
visory Board, which in 1968 published the results o f its
study in a report entitled "Supervision and Inspection of
Federal Construction." Many areas affecting construction
quality were covered by the Federal Construction Council
study, and a number of recommendations were made for im-
proving the inspection and supervision of Government con-
struction.

     The Corps and the Engineering Command have each con-
ducted several internal studies and have also arranged for
independent research groups to perform studies of areas in
which construction administration could be improved.

     Each agency has also established review groups at the
headquarters level that have the responsibility for evalu-
ating the success of construction activities of their re-
spective field offices.

     The principal officials responsible for administration
of activities discussed in this report are listed in appen-
dix 11.




                             4
                          CHAPTER 2


          NEED TO ENSURE EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION

            OF CONTRACTOR OUALITY CONTROL SYSTEMS

     We found that the Army Corps of Engineers and the Na-
val Facilities Engineering Command needed to improve their
procedures to ensure that contractors effectively imple-
mented required quality control systems.

     Pursuant to ASPR provision 7-602.10, dated November
1961, a clause is included in construction contracts in ex-
cess of $10,000 directing contractors to implement and
maintain an adequate inspection system to ensure that the
work performed conforms to all contract requirements. The
contractor must also maintain and make available to the
Government adequate records of the inspections made.

THE CORPS PROGRAM

     In December 1966 the Corps issued a regulation to its
field offices providing guidance on the proper implementa-
tion of contractor quality control systems and the effect
of the systems on the requirements for Government inspec-
tion. The regulation stated that each contractor would be
required to develop a specific quality control plan t o meet
the inspection needs of each construction contract. The
plan was to be reviewed and approved by the Corps prior to
the start of any major construction. The regulation empha-
sized that the contractor quality control plans were not
intended to reduce the inspection efforts of the Government
but were intended to promote better quality construction.

     At the Los Angeles District, we identified a number of
projects in which the contractor quality control systems
were not functioning properly. Following are some o f the
projects and problems noted.

     A high-altitude test runway built by the Corps at Coy-
ote Flats near Bishop, California, at a cost of $422,000
had not been utilized for its intended purpose since its
completion in October 1968 because of poor surface condi-
tions.

                              5
     In October 1969 the Air Force advised the Corps that,
because of large rocks in the surface of the runway and the
erosive effect of one winter season, the runway could not
be used to test the vertical takeoff and landing and short
takeoff and landing aircraft for which it was designed.
Our review in May 1970 indicated that the runway was still
not being used as intended and that the Air Force did not
have sufficient funds for repairs.

     We found that the contractor for this project did not
have a specific quality control program in effect. The
contractor's reports to the Government provided no infor-
mation as to what actions, if any, the contractor had taken
to ensure that construction met contract specifications.
Further, as discussed on page 13 of this report, we were
unable to locate the Government inspector's reports for
this project.

     An aircraft hangar built by the Corps at Edwards Air
Force Base, California, at a cost of $2.4 million had por-
tions of its roof blown off on three occasions after the
roof installation had been completed, supposedly in confor-
mance with contractual requirements. The cost to repair
the roof on the first two occasions was borne by the con-
tractor, and responsibility for repair of the roof damage
on the third occasion had not been resolved at the time of
completion of our fieldwork.

     We found that the roofing subcontractor had not com-
plied with contract specifications in installing the hangar
roof. The hangar roof, as installed, contained various
construction deficiencies, such as insufficient fastening
of insulation to the deck, insufficient nailing of the
roofing to the insulation, and incorrect lapping of the
roofing sheets. The prime contractor on the project did
not have a n effective quality control program and, there-
fore, did n o t advise the Government of the subcontractor's
poor roofing installation. The contractor's quality con-
trol reports for the hangar provided a partial description
of the construction activity on a daily basis; however,
the reports did not disclose what inspections were being
performed by the contractor to ensure that construction met
contract specifications.



                             6
     A $1.8 million runway constructed by the Corps at
Williams Air Force Base, Arizona, although currently in op-
eration, was described as being only a marginal facility by
the Construction Evaluation Branch at Corps headquarters.
The Corps contemplates no corrective action at this time as
the extent of the deficiency will not be known until some
time in the future.
     The runway project was described as a marginal facil-
ity because tests conducted after the placement of certain
runway materials disclosed that the materials did not con-
form to contractual requirements. The tests which dis-
closed the nonconforming materials should have been con-
ducted prior to placing the materials in the runway. The
tests were not conducted at the time required, and the con-
tractor's quality control reports did not indicate the rea-
sons for omitting the tests.

     Although the quality control reporting for the runway
did provide some information on construction progress, the
extent of inspection and testing reported by the contractor
for the project was not in sufficient detail to enable the
Corps to determine whether an effective quality control
program existed.

     The Los Angeles District had delegated authority for
the review and approval of contractor quality control plans
to its supervisory engineers at field sites. During our
review we noted some projects for which contractor quality
control plans had not been submitted and other projects
where contractors had submitted quality control plans but
had received no formal notice of approval or disapproval by
the supervisory engineers at the field sites.

     We presented to district officials our views of the
need for greater emphasis on the review and approval of
contractor quality control plans. The district promptly
issued a directive which stated that all future contractor
quality control plans would be reviewed by the district of-
fice as well as supervisory engineers in the field.

     In the Baltimore District we found a significant vari-
ance in quality control reports concerning construction
progress, contractors' inspection o f construction, and the
results o f the contractors' inspections. Contractor quality

                             7
control reporting for some of the projects seemed to be
complete, while reporting for other projects was minimal.

     We also examined the Baltimore District's procedure
for review and approval of contractor quality control plans
prior to construction. As in the Los Angeles District, the
review and approval authority had been delegated to super-
visory engineers in the field.

Actions to improve implementation

     During July and August 1969, the Office, Chief of En-
gineers, conducted seminars on construction quality con-
trol. The seminars were conducted because of evidence that
the contractor quality control programs were not fully ef-
fective. A summary of the findings of the quality control
seminars noted that improved construction quality, as well
as other benefits, could be derived by both the contractor
and the Government with effective quality control programs.

     Subsequent to the quality control seminars, Corps of-
ficials were revising regulations to provide the field of-
fices with additional guidance on proper implementation and
enforcement o f contractor quality control systems. Corps
officials advised us that the revised quality control di-
rective was being completed and should be issued during
fiscal year 1971.

THE ENGINEERING COMMAND PROGRAM

     At the Western Division and Southwest Division of the
Command, we found that, although the required clause for
contractor quality control was being inserted in construc-
tion contracts in excess o f $10,00Q, the contractor quality
control systems were not functioning properly in a number
of projects. Following are some of the projects and prob-
lems noted.

      Bachelor officers' quarters constructed by the Engi-
neering Command at the Naval Training Center, San Diego,
California, at a cost of $2.4 million received both inte-
rior and exterior water damage after acceptance by the Gov-
ernment. Responsibility for performing needed repairs on
this project had not been resolved at the time of our re-
view.

                             8
     The interior and exterior water damage resulted from
(1) the omission of gutters and downspouts for proper
drainage from the roof, ( 2 ) the omission of caulking where
the walls met the ceilings and floors, and ( 3 ) failure of
the contractor to properly apply a liquid sealer to the ex-
terior of the porous masonry block walls. Application of
the liquid sealer was required in the contract specifica-
tions but installation of the gutters and downspouts and
the application of the caulking were not.

     In an aircraft maintenance facility built by the Engi-
neering Command at the Naval Auxiliary Air Station, Impe-
rial Beach, California, at a cost of $1.3 million, the han-
gar doors would not function and a noticeable sag had de-
veloped in the roof.

     On this project, there was a disagreement between the
Government and the contractor as to whether the problems
resulted from poor construction or inadequate design. The
contractor did-not have a specific quality control- program
for effective supervision of his subcontractors and did not
provide the Government with quality control reports dis-
closing job progress and the contractor's quality control
efforts, if any.

     The Engineering Command concluded that it did not have
sufficient evidence to demonstrate poor construction and
that, therefore, design errors had caused the problems. As
a result, a contract change order was issued for about
$13,000 for repair o f the hangar doors. The roof sag was
not corrected.

     Officials at both the divisions cited advised us that
they had not enforced the requirement for contractor qual-
ity control and that they did not require their contractors
to provide reports on the results of any inspections con-
ducted. The officials also stated that they had not re-
ceived any direction from Engineering Command headquarters
on the proper implementation of contractor quality control.
Since the two divisions did not require specific quality
control systems, there were no contractor-prepared reports
available for the projects concerning job progress, inspec-
tions performed, or results of inspections.



                              9
Actions to improve implementation
        In October 1969 Engineering Command officials advised
us th at a regulation was being drafted which, when issued,
wo u l d provide specific guidance to field divisions on the
proper implementation of contractor quality control sys-
tems. The instruction was issued on April 10, 1970, and
shortly thereafter headquarters officials visited field di-
visions to assist them in implementing the procedure. This
instruction provides guidance for implementation of con-
tractor quality control systems on construction contracts
of $1,000,000 or more, awarded after July I, 1970. The in-
struction contains the statement that it is the policy of
the Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, to im-
plement the ASPR requirement on a progressive basis. The
base, presently $1,000,000, is to be progressively lowered,
depending on the rate of assimilation capability of Engi-
neering Command field divisions.

CONCLUSIONS
     The Corps and the Engineering Command have recognized
the need for procedures which will ensure that contractors
implement effective quality control systems, and the two
agencies are currently attempting to achieve that goal, Af-
ter implementation of quality control systems, the head-
quarters level of each agency should systematically review
the implementation to ensure that it is consistent and ef-
fective at all field sites and is meeting agency goals.
RECOMMENDATION
     We recommend that the Secretary of the Army have the
Chief of Engineers establish and the Secretary of the Navy
have the Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering Command,
establish procedures for systematically monitoring field of-
fices' enforcement of contractor quality control programs.

AGENCY COMMENTS

     In a letter dated October 19, 1970 (see app. I), the
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Installations and
Logistics) advised us that DOD concurred in our findings
and recommendations and stated that, as indicated in our
draft report, both construction agencies had been develop-
ing and were continuing to develop improvements in the

                             10
areas cited. We were further advised that our draft report
had been helpful in noting areas for further improvements
and would be of assistance to both agencies in their devel-
opment of improved procedures and policies for construction
quality assurance.




                             11
                         CHAPTER 3


           NEED FOR BETTER INSPECTION REPORTING

     We found that inspection reporting needed to be im-
proved to provide the management at Corps districts and En-
gineering Command divisions with better information on con-
struction progress, inspection activities, and potential
problems. Information of the type described was not being
prepared for all military construction projects, although
it was required by each agency's inspection reporting regu-
lations.

     The Government inspector is responsible, under
ASPR 7-602.11, for conducting onsite inspections of military
projects, His observations and testing of the work being
performed by the contractor are the primary assurance to the
Government that the contractor is performing the construc-
tion in accordance with the drawings and specifications and
is meeting all contractual requirements.

     The Government inspector communicates the results of
his observations and testing through his daily reports.
Well-prepared reports should tell management whether job
progress is satisfactory and should also indicate to manage-
ment how well the inspector is fulfilling his responsibility.
The inspector's report may be used as a legal document in
the event of a dispute between the Government and the con-
tractor.

     The Corps and the Engineering Command have various
other reports for assisting management in administering the
military construction program, but the inspector's daily re-
port is the only report prepared by the Government based on
continuous onsite inspection which is intended to present in
detail the construction progress.

     The Federal Construction Council, in its 1968 report
(see p. 4), recommended that Government agencies issue in-
structions for the preparation and maintenance of complete
and accurate records for each construction project. The
recommendation further stated that reports should contain
all facts pertinent to the project and should be transmitted
to higher echelon supervision in a manner that will ensure

                             12
timely and effective communication. The Council concluded
that effective central or regional office control of the
quality of construction projects was dependent, to a large
extent, upon preparing and maintaining complete and accurate
records and reporting information to management in a system-
atic manner.

     The Corps and the Engineering Command have issued regu-
lations to their field offices on the proper preparation of
inspector's reports. The regulations state that inspector's
reports are to be prepared on a daily basis for each con-
struction project inspected. The reports are to be an ac-
curate detailed history of job progress with the purpose of
keeping management advised of construction activity.

     Our tests revealed, however, that the reporting did not
always provide sufficient information to keep management ad-
vised of conditions at the construction site. Examples of
inadequate inspection reporting are discussed below.

       During our review of the high-altitude test runway (see
p. 5 ) , we were not able to locate the inspector's reports.
Corps officials in the Los Angeles District also were unable
to locate the reports. After the incident of the lost rec-
ords, the district issued a directive to its field offices
on the procedures for maintenance, handling, and storage of
construction project records to reemphasize their importance.
The district also issued instructions requiring periodic as-
sessments by representatives of its construction division to
determine whether field inspection reporting was being prop-
erly completed and maintained.

     The available project files did not provide sufficient
information to determine construction progress. It was not
possible to determine if the project was constructed in ac-
cordance with the contract specifications or what actions
were taken by the Government inspector to ensure compliance
with the construction contract.

      Regarding the $2.4 million hangar project which had
various deficiencies in the construction of the roof (see
p. 6 ) , we were advised that the Government inspector had
not examined the roof. However, the failure to examine the
roof was not disclosed in the inspector's reports. Also,
there was no information in the inspector's reports as to

                             13
what alternative action, if any, was taken by the inspector
to ensure that the roof was properly installed. Incomplete
reporting, as described above, undermines construction man-
agement's awareness of potential problems such as the bad
roof.

     Concerning the $1.8 million runway (see p. 7 ) con-
structed by the Corps' Los Angeles District for the Air
Force, the inspector's reports, in conjunction with other
available information, provided a fair description of the
day-by-day construction activity. The reporting was not in
sufficient detail, however, to advise management of the ac-
tions taken by the Government inspector to ensure that con-
struction met contract specifications. There was no expla-
nation as to why certain tests were omitted, although the
tests were necessary to determine whether the base-course
materials used in the project met the requirements in the
specifications. Tests conducted after placement of the
materials indicated that the materials did not meet specifi-
cations.

     We found that inspection reporting on the bachelor o f -
ficers' quarters project (see p. 8), which was constructed
for the Navy by the Southwest Division of the Engineering
Command, was not in sufficient detail to determine construc-
tion progress. Nor was it possible to determine from the
reports what efforts were made by the inspector on a day-
by-day basis to ensure that construction met contract spec-
ifications.

     We found that inspection reporting on the $1.3 million
maintenance facility (see p. 9 ) , which was built by the
Southwest Division, provided very little information on the
progress of construction or the adequacy of the contractor's
construction practices. The reports covering the 60-day
period just prior to the discovery that the hangar doors
would not operate indicated that the inspector made only
three tests during that time to provide assurance that
construction was in accordance with specifications. It was
not possible to determine from the reports what other ac-
tions were being taken by the inspector during the 60-day
period to ensure that construction met specifications.

     On the basis of' our review of the inspection reporting
practices followed for the five projects described and our

                            14
overall review o f inspection reporting practices at the lo-
cations visited, we believe that difficulties experienced in
obtaining properly constructed military facilities are at-
tributable, in part, t o failure of inspection reporting to
meet the established requirements of the Corps and the Engi-
neering Command.
PROCEDURES FOR ADVISING MANAGEMENT
OF INSPECTION RESULTS

     The results of inspections, to be effective as a man-
agement tool, must be made known t o management on a timely
basis in order that prompt action can be taken on problems
noted.
     In reviewing the procedures and practices of the Corps
and the Engineering Command regarding the communication of
inspection results from the field to management levels, we
found that standardized procedures for advising management
of inspection results had not been developed.

     We found, at the Corps' Los Angeles District, that the
inspector's reports were retained in the field until proj-
ect completion and only the inspector's immediate supervisor
was responsible for reviewing the reports. The only opportu-
nity for district office officials t o review the reported
results of inspections was during the periodic field visits
by representatives of the district's construction division.
     We found, at the Baltimore District, that reports were
also retained at field sites. However, the inspector's su-
pervisor prepared a daily report on each project which was
forwarded to the district office on a daily basis. This
report, when properly completed, provided the district with
an accurate detailed history of job progress.
     At the Western Division and Southwest Division of the
Engineering Command, the inspectors' reports were generally
forwarded t o the inspectors' supervisors in the field on a
daily basis.
     The Western Division had directed its field supervi-
sors to forward the reports to the division weekly. South-
west Division had not provided guidance t o its field
supervisors as t o the frequency for submitting the reports,
and the supervisors' practices varied considerably.

CONCLUSIONS
     We believe that construction inspection reports, which
are accurate and complete and which identify the actions be-
ing taken by the Government inspector, can provide the Corps
and the Engineering Command with the type of information
needed to more effectively manage the progress of construc-
tion in the military construction program. To be useful,
the results of inspections must be made known to management
on a timely basis in order that prompt action can be taken
on noted problem areas.
RECOMMENDATIONS
     We recommend that the Secretary o f the Army and the
Secretary of the Navy have the Chief of Engineers and the
Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, respectively,
review the current inspection reporting practices o f their
field offices, correct those not complying with agency regu-
lations, and implement a system for prompt systematic commu-
nication of inspection findings from the field offices to
the construction management levels.

AGENCY COMMENTS
     DOD concurred in our findings and recommendations.   Its
comments are discussed on page 10 of this report.




                            16
                           CHAPTER 4


             NEED FOR IMPROVED TRAINING PROGRAMS

                  FOR INSPECTION PERSONNEL

     Our review has revealed that the Army Corps of Engi-
neers and Naval Facilities Engineering Command need to im-
prove the training programs for inspection personnel in or-
der that inspectors will be better qualified to protect the
Government's interest in the military construction program.
The Government construction inspector performs the onsite
evaluation of military construction as required by the ASPR
and in so doing is the primary means by which the Govern-
ment ensures that construction conforms to contract speci-
fications.

       The Government Employees Training Act of July 7, 1958
( 7 2 Stat. 3 2 7 ) , directed Government agencies on the need
for training of civilian personnel. The act stated that,
to promote efficiency and economy in Government operations
and to develop maximum proficiency in Government employees,
Government-sponsored training programs should be provided
to employees to develop the skills, knowledge, and abili-
ties which will best qualify them €or their position.

     Federal regulations require training programs to be
continuous in nature. The head of each agency is respon-
sible for determining the training needs of his agency and
establishing and operating training programs to meet those
needs. The agency head is also responsible for extending
agency training programs to employees of other agencies,
establishing criteria for the selection o f employees for
training, evaluating the results of training, and conduct-
ing research to improve his agency's training programs.
The Army and Navy implemented the Federal training require-
ments through their respective civilian personnel regula-
tions.

     The Federal Construction Council reported in 1968 that
Government inspectors should possess training and experi-
ence sufficient to ensure recognition of improper construc-
tion and should be assigned to inspect only that construc-
tion in which they have had adequate training and experience.

                              17
     An inspector may be assigned to any one of many diver-
sified projects such as runways, housing, barracks, water-
ways, dams, and hangars. Rather than being assigned to one
major facility, he may be required to inspect several
smaller projects concurrently. The inspector also has re-
sponsibilities in the areas of quality of materials,
safety, and administrative matters related t o the job.

     The Civil Service Commission has established the re-
quirements for attaining the position of construction in-
spector. An individual's starting position is based on his
experience and education. As an inspector gains experience
and demonstrates ability, he may be advanced to positions
of higher authority which might entail administrative and
supervisory responsibility in addition to inspection activ-
ities.

     The inspection personnel of the Corps and the Engi-
neering Command generally are individuals who have had work
experience in one aspect of construction. In conducting
inspections of military projects, an inspector frequently
encounters aspects o f construction outside his area of work
experience; and, therefore, for an inspector to be effec-
tive, his work experience must be supplemented by agency-
sponsored training programs in other areas o f construction.
CORPS T R A I N I N G PROGRAMS
FOR I N S P E C T I O N P E R S O N N E L

     We found that the Corps had an agencywide training pro-
gram for inspection personnel. There were 2 3 different
courses available for inspection personnel, although the
number and content o f the courses given could vary from
year to year.
     The headquarters of the Corps administered the agency
training program for inspection personnel but did not main-
tain centralized records of training given. Corps head-
quarters had no formal means for determining training needs
of inspectors. The headquarters had assigned to its field
offices the responsibility for selecting inspection person-
nel to attend the various agency training courses. From
the recommendations by field offices on inspection courses
to be given and personnel to attend, headquarters developed
an annual. training program for inspection personnel.

                                            18
     We found at the Corps' Los Angeles District that there
was no formal means for determining the training needs of
inspection personnel. The district's supervisory engineers
in the field had been assigned the responsibility for se-
lecting inspection personnel to attend the headquarters'
training courses, but the engineers did not have informa-
tion available by which to compare inspectors' training
with the future inspection needs of the agency. Also, the
engineers had to rely on their observations of inspectors'
performances in selecting personnel to attend training, be-
cause inspectors were not tested to determine areas of in-
spection weakness and information was not available con-
cerning the types of construction deficiencies which had
not been detected by inspectors.

     The headquarters training was supplemented by periodic
seminars given in the district, but the district did not
maintain information on the frequency and content of the
local seminars. The district did not have centralized rec-
ords, other than individual personnel files, of agency
training received by inspection personnel, and no record
was maintained of local training given inspectors.

     The inspectors' personnel files showed that 2 3 inspec-
tors had received no training after being employed by the
Corps, 17 had taken one of the agency's courses, 15 had
taken two courses, 10 had taken three courses, six had
taken four courses, and 17 inspectors had taken five o r
more of the agency 'courses.

     We found that the Baltimore District had no formal
means for determining the training needs of its inspection
personnel. The supervisory engineers in the field were re-
sponsible for recommending specific inspectors for the
agencywide training program but were subject to the same
limitations as the supervisory engineers in Los Angeles in
selecting inspection personnel to attend training. The
supervisory engineers developed seminars for the inspectors
under their supervision to supplement the training provided
by headquarters.

     The Baltimore District recorded all training received
by inspectors on centrally maintained training files.
Training information for individual inspectors, or the


                             19
inspection force as a whole, was readily available in the
central file.

     A district official advised us that their training
plans called for each inspector to take at least one of the
agency courses each year. Our review of training records
indicated that inspection personnel in the Baltimore
District had received a substantial amount of training at
both the agency and district levels,

     In April 1970 Corps officials in Washington, D . C . , ad-
vised us that a procedure was being implemented whereby
personnel of the Corps' Construction Evaluation Branch at
headquarters would be reviewing the adequacy of inspection
during the branch's periodic evaluations of Corps' field
activities. The observations of the branch concerning
adequacy of inspection by individuals, as well as the in-
spection forces as a whole, would be reported to the ap-
propriate district and division levels in order that needed
improvements in the area of inspection could be accom-
plished. This action by the Corps, when fully implemented,
should provide better information as to needed improvements
to individual inspectors and to the inspection forces as a
whole, and should assist the Corps in developing training
programs for inspectors.

ENGINEERING COMMAND TRAINING PROGRAMS
FOR INSPECTION PERSONNEL

     We found that the Engineering Command did not have an
agencywide training program for inspection personnel. The
training of inspection personnel was determined and estab-
lished by each division. The Engineering Command head-
quarters had not monitored the training activities o f its
divisions to determine whether the programs for inspectors
were in accordance with Federal criteria.

     At the Western Division of the Naval Facilities Engi-
neering Command, there was no formal training program for
inspectors. Training provided was in the form of seminars,
but these were not systematically scheduled. At the time
of our review, all training for inspectors had been discon-
tinued. The division had no formal technique for determin-
ing training needs of inspection personnel. The division
did not maintain centralized records of training received,

                              20
and inspectors' personnel files disclosed that training had
not been consistently recorded since 1965.

     We found also that the Southwest Division had no for-
mal program for training of inspectors. Periodic seminars
on construction, human relations, and safety were conducted
for inspectors; but the seminars were not given to all in-
spectors and were not systematically scheduled. The topics
presented were determined on the basis of seminars avail-
able, not on the basis of areas identified as inspection
weaknesses. The division did not have a systematic means
for determining training needs of inspectors and did not
maintain centralized records of training provided.

     During 1962 and 1963, the division tested its inspec-
tion personnel to determine their knowledge of construction
practices. Test results demonstrated that inspection per-
sonnel did not have sufficient knowledge in the areas of
cement, concrete, plumbing, electricity, painting, and in
many other aspects of construction which they would fre-
quently encounter in their inspection duties, The division
had not developed a training program o r taken any other ac-
tion to improve the inspectors' capabilities in the areas
of demonstrated weakness.
DeveloDment of anencvwide trainine Droerams

     In October 1969 Engineering Command officials advised
us that agencywide training programs were being developed
for all civilian career personnel, including construction
inspectors. Our review showed that a training program for
inspectors was being planned but had not been definitized.
In April 1970 we found that the program was still in the
planning stage and had not been implemented.

CONCLUSIONS

     We believe that the Corps and the Engineering Command
should improve their training of inspectors and help them
attain greater proficiency in the examination of military
construction. Improvements in training given by the two
agencies should provide added assurance that the Govern-
ment's interests are protected in the military construction
program.


                             21
RE COMMENDATIONS

     We recommend that the Secretary o f the Army and the
Secretary of the Navy have the Chief o f Engineers--in im-
proving the Corps of Engineers' current prograa--and the
Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering Command--in devel-
oping a program for the Navy--respectively:

     1. Establish a better means for determining training
        needs of inspectors and matching training to the
        inspection needs of the agency.

     2 . Develop a continuous systematic training program to
        meet the determined needs.

     3 . Maintain centralized training records t o facilitate
         planning and evaluation of training for groups and
        individuals.

AGENCY COMMENTS
       DOD concurred in our findings and recommendations.
I t s comments are discussed on page 10 o f this report.




                             22
                         CHAPTER 5


            NEED FOR MORE COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW
                    OF FIELD OPERATIONS

     We found that the Army Corps of Engineers and Naval
Facilities Engineering Command needed to perform more com-
prehensive reviews of the construction practices and pro-
cedures at field locations to ensure that the field activi-
ties of the two agencies were complying with all agency
policies relating to construction inspection and contract.or
quality control and were effectively carrying out their re-
sponsibilities in these areas.

CONSTRUCTION REVIEW PROGRAM OF THE CORPS

      The Corps headquarters had delegated the authority for
 review o f its divisions' and districts' construction prac-
 tices relative to inspection and contractor quality control
 to its Construction Evaluation Branch. Officials of the
 branch have advised us that their review plans call for an
 examination of such practices at each distri'ct and division
'at 6-month intervals.. Due to shortage 0.f staff, however,
 the reviews have been about 10 months apart. We found that
 the reports prepared by the branch identified deficient con-
 struction practices on a project-by-project basis. However,
 the reports generally did not indicate what problems, if any,
 existed within the division's or district's systems o f imple-
 mentation of Corps' policies and procedures. Also, the re-
 ports did not advise the division o r the district as to
 what actions should have been taken to correct system weak-
 nesses. We also found indications that the branch did not
 always make a timely follow-up t o ensure that corrective
 action had.been taken by field sites on deficiencies noted.

CONSTRUCTION REVIEW PROGRAM OF
THE ENGINEERING COMMAND
     During our reviews at the Western Division and South-
west Division, we found no evidence that the headquarters
had reviewed the implementation of agency policies and pro-
cedures relating to construction inspection and contractor
quality control. We were advised by headquarters officials

                              23
that prior t o 1969 there had not been an organization within
the Command which had responsibility for monitoring the
adequacy of the field divisions' construction activities.

     In May 1969 the Engineering Command announced the es-
tablishment of the Construction Engineering Division, and in
January 1970 the division became operational. The new divi-
sion was assigned responsibility for reviewing the construc-
tion activity of the field divisions t o ensure that agency
policies and procedures were being followed and that proper
coordination was maintained between field divisions and be-
tween the divisions and headquarters. The review group has
been assigned responsibility for formulating and administer-
ing construction plans, policies, and procedures. The re-
view group is to identify weaknesses in the construction
program and recommend corrective action. The group is a l s o
responsible for ensuring the training of inspectors and
effective implementation of contractor quality control pro-
grams.
RECOMMENDATIONS

     We recommend that the Secretary of the Army have the
Chief of Engineers take appropriate action to ensure that
the Corps' Construction Evaluation Branch performs more com-
prehensive reviews of field offices' implementation of
agency procedures f o r inspection and supervision of military
construction.

     We recommend also that the Secretary of the Navy have
the Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, take
appropriate action to ensure that the Command's Construction
Engineering Division develops an adequate system to monitor
implementation by field offices of agency procedures for in-
spection and supervision of military construction.

AGENCY COMMENTS

     DOD concurred in our findings and recommendations.    Its
comments are discussed on page 1 0 of this report.




                              24
                         CHAPTER 6


        NEED FOR BETTER INTERAGENCY COOREINATION

     Our review revealed a need for the Army Corps of Engi-
neers and the Naval Facilities Engineering Command to co-
ordinate their efforts directed toward improving the onsite
inspection of construction proje cts. Each of the agencies
is responsible for identifying and e 1iminating repetitiv.e
construction prob lems, training construction inspection
staff, ensuring implementation of effective contractor
quality control programs, and ensuring that construction
conforms to specifications.

     We found that each of the agencies had taken various
actions to improve its administration of the military con-
struction program. The results of such efforts by one
agency should be useful to the other. Following are some
of the actions which we believe would have been useful to
both agencies.

     The Corps contracted with the Texas A. 6 M. Research
Foundation for a s t u d y of areas affecting construction
quality. The study, on which a report was submitted in May
1968, covered many areas of concern to both the Engineering
Command and the Corps, but we found no evidence that the
study results had been conveyed to the Navy.

     The Construction Division at Corps headquarters pre-
pared and transmitted t o Corps field offices lists of re-
petitive construction deficiencies which the division had
noted in its field inspections. Information of this type
could be used by Corps field officials for preparation of
check lists of items for inspection personnel to consider.
The Engineering Command could utilize such information in
the same way if the Engineering Command were provided with
the data.

     The Corps had an agencywide training program f o r in-
spection personnel. It would be useful to the Engineering
Command in establishing a training program for inspectors
to know the type and content of the courses given by the
Corps and the effect such training had on the quality o f
Corps inspections.

                             25
     We pointed out to the Southwest Division of the Engi-
neering Command that the Corps had developed a program re-
quiring contractors to implement quality control systems.
We forwarded to the division the quality control regula-
tions and directives used by the Corps in order that those
items might assist the division in developing a program for
contractor quality control. The progress by the Corps in
developing contractor quaiity control programs should be of
significant benefit to the Engineering Command in its en-
forcement of contractor quality control.

     In 1967 the Engineering Command performed an agency-
wide study of change orders attributable to design problems
and the type of design errors most frequently encountered.
The Corps is often involved in change orders resulting from
design problems and might have found the Engineering Com-
mand's study very useful in reducing or eliminating some of
the causes of design errors.

     The Command has conducted internal reviews of areas
which affect quality in its construction programs and also
has requested an independent research group to evaluate
areas affecting construction quality, The results of such
studies should be useful to the Corps as well as the Navy.

CONCLUSIONS

     Because there are many areas of mutual interest to
both the Corps and the Engineering Command, some of which
we have described, we believe that closer coordination be-
tween the two agencies in areas o f mutual interest can
serve to better ensure that military facilities are con-
structed as specified.

RECOMMENDATION

     We recommend that the Secretary o f Defense take ap-
propriate action to ensure that the two construction agen-
cies coordinate activities in areas of mutual interest re-
garding construction quality assurance.

AGENCY COMMENTS

     DOD concurred in our findings and recommendation.   Its
comments are discussed on page 10 of this report.

                             26
                          CHAPTER 7


                       SCOPE OF REVIEW

     Our review was directed primarily t o an examination of
the practices and procedures of the Army Corps of Engineers
and the Naval Facilities Engineering Command for onsite in-
spection of military construction projects. Our review was
conducted at:

    Headquarters, Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C.
    Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, Los
      Angeles, California
    Army Corps o f Engineers, Baltimore District, Baltimore,
      Maryland
    Headquarters, Naval Facilities Engineering Command,
      Washington, D.C.
    Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest Divi-
      sion, San Diego, California
    Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Western Division,
      San Bruno, California
     We also made visits to various military bases and mili-
tary construction projects in progress.

     For fiscal years 1967 through 1969, t h e Congress ap-
propriated about- $4.8 billion for military construction:
The cost of military construction at each o f the four field
sites at which GAO conducted its review was as follows:

                                 Fiscal year
     Audit site          1967       1968        1969       Total

                                       (000 omitted)
Engineering Command,
  Southwest Division   $21,076    $ 71,966     $ 62,469   $155,511
Engineering Command,
  Western Division      21,467        48,896     12,901     83 ,264
Corps, Los Angeles
  District              29,655        33,344     39,773   102,772
Corps, Baltimore
  District              11,604        20,281     19,850     51 ,735

    Total              $83,802    $174.487     $134,993   $393.282

                                 27
     From discussions with agency officials and scanning of
project files, we identified a number of significant proj-
ects in which problems during construction were known to
have occurred. At each of the above offices, we reviewed
in more detail selected projects to confirm the occurrence
of construction deficiencies involving a lack of compliance
with contract requirements. Illustrative of our findings
are the projects discussed in this report. Our purpose in
selecting projects in which problems had occurred was to
identify possible contributing causes and to determine if
the two agencies could improve their inspection procedures
and practices to reduce the possibility of recurrences of
such problems.

     In performing our review, we examined pertinent poli-
cies, procedures, regulations, correspondence, and documen-
tation relating to individual construction projects, con-
tractor quality control systems, inspection reporting, in-
spector training, and other aspects o f the military con-
struction program. We also interviewed military and civil-
ian personnel responsible for administering the program.

     In the course of our review at each military installa-
tion, we also contacted the cognizant military audit or in-
ternal review organizations to ascertain whether they had
recently completed any reviews regarding the inspection of
military construction projects. We were advised by these
organizations that no such reviews had been performed.




                             28
APPENDIXES




 29
                                                APPENDIX I
                                                    Page 1


              ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
                   WASHINGTON, B.C. 20301




                                               19 OCT 1970



Mr. C. M. Bailey
Director, Defense Division
U.S. General Accounting Office
Washington, D. C. 2 0 5 4 8
Dear Mr. Bailey:
We have completed our review of the draft report by the
General Accounting Office on "Improved Inspections
Needed to Assure Compliance with Contract Specifications
in the Construction of Military Facilities" (OSD Case
#3160) provided by your letter of 12 August 1970.
The draft report noted no significant discrepancies in
the procedures of the Army Corps of Engineers (OCE) and
the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) field
offices and divisions which were inspected during the
period May 1969 to June 1970. However, the draft report
did note that some improvements in the procedures and
practices of the two agencies were required to provide
better assurance that military construction projects
were constructed in accordance with contract specifications.
Specific areas i n which the need for improvement was
noted in the draft report are: (1) more effective
implementation of contractor quality control systems;
( 2 ) more comprehensive inspection reporting by Government
inspectors; ( 3 ) increased emphasis on training of Govern-
ment inspectors; (4) more intensive evaluation of field
activities by the two construction agencies' headquarters;
and (5) increased coordination between the two construction
agencies in resolving mutual inspection problems.
We concur with the GAO findings and recommendations and
note that the findings are in accordance with current
Department of Defense policies. As indicated in the
draft report both OCE and NAVFAC have been and are con-
tinuing to develop improvements to their procedures in
the areas cited.


                              31
 APPENDIX I
     Page 2




                           [See GAO note]




     The draft report has been most helpful in noting areas
     for further improvements to OCE and NAVFAC and will
     be of assistance t o b o t h agencies in their development
     o f improved procedures and policies for construction
     quality assurance.

                                       Sincerely,




GAO n o t e :   These comments make reference t o statements con-
                tained in the draft report which have been omitted
                in the final report.




                                  32
                                                    APPENDIX I1
                                                         Page 1

                  PRINCIPAL OFFICIALS OF

                 THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

       AND THE DEPARTENTS OF THE ARMY AND THE NAVY

       RESPONSIBLE FOR ADMINISTRATION OF ACTIVITIES

                 DISCUSSED IN THIS REPORT


                                        Tenure of office
                                        From          To
                                                      -
                   DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE:
    Melvin R. Laird                  Jan.    1969    Present
    Clark M. Clifford                Mar.    1968    Jan. 1969
    Robert S. McNamara               Jan.    1961    Mar. 1968

DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE :
    David M. Packard                 Jan.    1969    Present
    Paul H. Nitze                    July    1967    Jan. 1969
    Cyrus R. Vance                   Jan.    1964    June 1967

ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
  (INSTALLATIONS AND LOGISTICS):
    Barry J. Shillito                Jan. 1969       Present
    Thomas D. Morris                 Sept. 1967      Jan. 1969
    Paul R. Ignatius                 Dec. 1964       Aug. 1967


                  DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

SECRETARY OF THE ARMY:
    Stanley R. Resor                 July    1965    Present

ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY                          a

  (INSTALLATIONS AND LOGISTICS):
    J. Ronald Fox                    June    1969    Present
    Vincent P. Huggard (acting)      Mar.    1969    June 1969
    Dr. Robert A. Brooks             Oct.    1965    Feb. 1969



                                33
APPENDIX I1
     Page 2
                                       Tenure of office
                                       From          To
                                                     -
                  DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY (continued)

CHIEF OF ENGINEERS:
    Lt. Gen. Frederick J . Clark   Aug.    1969   Present
    Lt. Gen. William F. Cassidy    July    1965   Aug. 1 9 6 9


                  DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

SECRETARY OF THE NAVY:
    John H. Chafee                  Jan.   1969   Present
    Paul R. Ignatius                Aug.   1967   Jan. 1 9 6 9
    John T. McNaughton              July   1967   July       1967
    Paul H. Nitze                   Nov.   1963   June       1967

ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY
  (INSTALLATIONS AND LOGISTICS):
    Frank Sanders                   Feb.   1969   Present
    Barry J. Shillito               Apr.   1968   Jan. 1 9 6 9
    Graeme C. Bannerman             Feb.   1965   Feb. 1 9 6 8

COMMANDER, NAVAL FACILITIES
  ENGINEERING COMMAND:
    Rear Adm. Walter M. Enger       Aug.   1969   Present
    Rear Adm. A. C. Husband         Nov.   1965   Aug. 1 9 6 9




                                                  US. GAO Waah.. D.C.

                             34