outside costs, that the increase of the total estimated cost of projects now before you, has been less than the 16 percent I mentioned above. For the construction projects (river and harbor and flood control, general) last year, and the same projects presented this year, the comparison is:

Total cost

Mr. ENGEL. What type of projects?

$3, 509, 944, 250 3, 233, 288, 160 276, 656, 090

8. 56

General WHEELER. River and harbor and flood control, General. Mr. ENGEL. That covers the entire program? General WHEELER. That covers the entire program for those appropriation items, sir.

I must point out, however, that some projects individually have increased in cost considerably more than 16 percent, whereas others have increased in lesser amounts, and in some instances have not increased at all. That is the total cost of all the projects we have presented to you this year. The total cost of the same projects we presented to you last year is the second figure. And since our presentation to you a year ago the increase in total cost of those projects has been $276,000,000.

Mr. ENGEL. You mean now at present costs under construction-
General WHEELER. And in this budget, sir.

Mr. ENGEL. That the cost of the projects in this budget will be, when completed, upon this year's cost figures, $3,500,000,000 plus? Colonel FERINGA. That is less "Flood control, Mississippi River and tributaries," because that has been excluded from these figures, and less the new projects, which are included for the first time this year; else the comparison would not be true.

General WHEELER. The estimates of costs are as accurate as it is possible for me to make them. I cannot conjecture whether these projects will show further increase next year. It is significant to point out that the index of construction costs is still rising.

The projects were adopted on the basis of being justified. Therefore, I have again made it my duty to have each item reviewed. All projects have been considered carefully to determine their justification and none has been found wanting.

I am pleased that the chairman of this subcommittee and some of its members, and the chairman and some of the members of the Public Works Committee of the House, have during the summer visited many of our projects. I am pleased to report that the Director of the Bureau of the Budget has caused many of his personnel to inspect our projects critically. I have personally visited as many of our projects as possible. My staff has checked them not only from the standpoint. of engineering sufficiency, but also from the standpoint of economical construction. I am pleased with what I have seen, and what has been reported to me. It has been my happy experience to note that as the Members of the Congress, with their able discernement, visit our work

they frequently comment favorably thereon, and I as a result of their comments feel that the Corps of Engineers is true to its trust as consulting engineer for Congress.

PROGRESS OF CURRENT PROGRAM

This year we have under construction the largest river and harbor and flood-control program that Congress has ever directed the Corps of Engineers to undertake. We have continued our tried and true methods of advertising the work and awarding it subsequent to competition to the lowest bidder. We have carefully prepared our estimates in order that we know when award is made that the United States is not paying more for the work than it should. By writing our specifications carefully, by insuring an adequate number of bidders, by holding conferences with contractors prior to opening proposals for major projects, we have been able to award contracts to the advantage of the United States. We have endeavored to expedite earth moving work, and to postpone building construction which might compete with the housing program. We have designed structures having the minimum of steel. I am satisfied with the results attained and I am pleased to report that of $309,977,525 appropriated for construction, plus unobligated funds in hand as of June 30, 1947, of $73,472,030, or a total of $383,449,555, $199,245,167 is obligated as of December 31, 1947, and based upon reports now in hand it is my expectation that $355,944,508 or 93 percent of the total will be obligated by the end of this fiscal year.

As in past years, I will present to the committee brief remarks having specific reference to rivers and harbors, flood control-general and flood control-Mississippi River and tributaries, as the hearings progress.

Mr. ENGEL. That completes your statement?

General WHEELER. That completes my statement, sir.

SUMMARY OF ESTIMATES FOR 1949

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, General Wheeler. You gave us the figures on construction. On pages 307 to 310 you have a summary of the civil works appropriation estimates for fiscal 1949, Corps of Engineers, totaling $663,219,000; is that right?

General WHEELER. That is right, sir. And we have shown it on that chart on the wall, for convenient reference.

Mr. ENGEL. Does that amount cover all the estimates for new construction and maintenance-in fact, all of the estimates of the engineers and is that the total amount required to carry out your program during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1949?

General WHEELER. Yes, sir; that is correct.

Mr. ENGEL. That is everything?

General WHEELER. Yes, sir.

Mr. ENGEL. I suggest that you put a copy of that chart in the record.

(The matter above referred to is as follows:)

Summary of appropriation estimate, civil works of the Corps of Engineers, fiscal

Item

year 1949

Mr. ENGEL. This is the amount recommended by the Bureau of the Budget; is that right?

General WHEELER. Yes, sir.

DISCUSSION OF INCREASED COSTS

Mr. ENGEL. In breaking down your increased costs, what has been the percentage of increased cost, say, on dirt removal, such as levee work?

Colonel FERINGA. The percentage on dirt removal has been very slight. On dredging, which is part of dirt removal, the increase has come to a head only recently, and is due mainly to the increased cost of fuel oil which is used in the dredges. I suppose that dredging costs have gone up in the last year something like 5 percent.

Mr. ENGEL. That is the oil?

Colonel FERINGA. That is due to the increase in the cost of oil. The dredging has gone up about 4 or 5 percent, and the main reason for it is the increased cost of oil and also the increased cost of labor. In the second part, in dirt removal for large dams, the cost has not gone up so much. Whereas we used to get a cost of around

32 cents a cubic yard back in 1943, the cost now runs around 45 to 50 cents a yard, compacted in place; whereas, back in 1932, we used to get a cost of about 26 cents a yard compared with present

costs.

The reasons for the comparitively small increase are the improvements in dirt-moving machinery. As you know, Mr. Chairman, the type of machinery you saw on your trip to the Missouri Valley is largely the elevating grader, which moves dirt and discharges it right into the Euclid wagons. Those Euclid wagons carry an average of 14 to 15 yards at a time. With the elevating graders, the loading time on those wagons is 38 to 42 seconds, an average of 40 seconds. That is very efficient, of course.

The other pictures before you show an electric shovel, which is an efficient piece of equipment, and it takes about a minute and a half to load one of those wagons, whereas the elevating grader loads it in 40 seconds.

Mr. ENGEL. As against a minute and a half with those shovels?
Colonel FERINGA. Yes, sir.

Mr. ENGEL. How many cubic yards does the shovel hold?

Colonel FERINGA. That is a 5-yard shovel and makes three dips to fill the wagon. Of course, some dumps over.

Mr. ENGEL. Of course, that increases the amount of cubic yards of material you can remove in a day.

Colonel FERINGA. Yes, sir.

Mr. ENGEL. With a resulting decrease in cost.

Colonel FERINGA. That is right, sir.

Mr. ENGEL. That is on dirt removal?

Colonel FERINGA. Yes, sir.

Mr. ENGEL. What about concrete work?

Colonel FERINGA. Concrete costs have gone up and gone up high. The main reason for that is the form work and the labor used for the forms, because the cost of labor has gone up.

Mr. ENGEL. What is the percentage of increase in cost of labor, if you know?

Colonel FERINGA. I do not know, but we can break it down.
Mr. ENGEL. But labor has gone up?

COLONEL. Labor has gone up, and, even more, one man does less now than he used to; therefore, the cost of labor has gone up, and you need more men to do the same amount of work than you did before.

Mr. ENGEL. Why does one man do less work than he used to? Do you mean he works less, gives less service, or is it because of shorter hours?

Colonel FERINGA. No, sir; I only know from the results that we get less output per man than we used to, which means you have to put more men on the job.

Mr. ENGEL. Can you give us, in terms of percentages, the increase in the cost of concrete over a period of time?

Colonel FERINGA. We will have to look it up and give you the cost of concrete per yard back in 1940 compared with what it has gone to now. We can put that in the record.

The matter referred to is as follows:

Mass concrete: Average price per cubic yard for 1,000,000 cubic yards:

1940. 1947.

$4.50

9.80

Mr. ENGEL. With regard to your estimates, how do the bids you have received on dirt contracts compare with your estimates? Are they higher, lower, or the same?

Colonel FERINGA. They have been very close. As you know, when we advertise a job, we make up our Government estimate just as if we were a contractor. For dirt work, I would say that most of the bids come very close to the Government estimates, and we have some instances where they have been below the Government estimates. We ascribe that to the fact that contractors are generally ready and eager to undertake dirt work. Very few dirt bids have been so high that we have had to throw them out.

Mr. ENGEL. You let a contract up on Garrison Dam just before I was up there?

Colonel FERINGA. Yes, sir.

Mr. ENGEL. How did that contract for dirt removal, which was the first contract you let, compare with your estimates?

Colonel FERINGA. My memory is that the low bid was about a million and a half below the Government estimate.

BID FOR DIRT REMOVAL ON GARRISON DAM

Mr. ENGEL. That is, the bid for dirt removal that you received on Garrison Dam was about 11⁄2 million dollars below the Government's estimate?

Colonel FERINGA. Yes, sir.

Mr. MAHON. Well, that would all depend on the size of the contract you might make.

Colonel FERINGA. Yes, sir. That was about a six and a quarter million dollar contract, but I would like to insert the exact figures in the record.

(The following was submitted later:)

The quantity of material involved amounted to 9,906,000 yards. The low bid of about $6,258,000 was about $1,469,000 bleow the Government estimate of about $7,727,000.

Mr. ENGEL. I wish you would. How do you account for the decrease, or can you account for it?

Colonel FERINGA. I account for the decrease in that there was heavy competition on the part of the contractors to get into that type of work and, of course, the first contractor on the job always has an advantage over the other contractors. When a contractor sees a tremendous job like that open for competition, he likes to get on the job as soon as possible, so that he will be in sort of a driver's seat for the next bid we open.

General WHEELER. You realize that for the Garrison Dam we invited many contractors and heavy-machinery people to attend a 3-day presentation and explanation of the project to the industry and made a point of requesting and answering all questions. They came to Bismarck, were taken to the site, and we invited their suggestions. This procedure gave them detailed knowledge. An item we read later in the Engineering News-Record indicated that contractors thought that the procedure would save the Government several millions of dollars by giving them a detailed acquaintance in advance of bid opening. By inviting such a large number of prospective bidders out there we increased the competition.