Chapter X
Bureau of Yards and Docks
See also Building the Navy's Bases in World War II: History of the Bureau of Yards and Docks and the Civil Engineer Corps, 1940-1946 --HyperWar
THE BUREAU OF NAVY YARDS AND DOCKS (the word "Navy" was dropped in 1862) was one of the five original bureaus established by Congress in 1942 to take the place of the Navy Commissioners as the mechanism for administering the Navy Department. The Secretary of the Navy, in a Regulation dated November 26, 1842, assigned to the Bureau the responsibility for "the Navy Yards proper, the docks and wharves thereof; all buildings therein or appertaining thereto, including the magazine and hospital buildings; all machinery attached to the yard or ordinarily used in its operations; all vessels in ordinary; all boats, water tanks, hoys, etc., used for the purposes of the yard; all carts or other vehicles; all horses, oxen, used in the yard, and all other labour therein, and belonging to the yard or ordinary; all contracts and all accounts, returns, etc., embracing these objects or such as shall be from time to time assigned to this Bureau." Background
The Bureau of Yards and Docks was at the time the most important and powerful of the five bureaus, as its Chief had cognizance over the operation of the Navy Yards. Officers assigned to duty at Navy Yards, including the Commandant, reported to him. The first Chief of the Bureau was Captain Lewis Warrington, who had been the senior Navy Commissioner. He was succeeded in 1846 by Commodore Joseph Smith, later Rear Admiral, who held the position for more than 25 years. He was in addition from time to time a member of various boards dealing with all kinds of naval subjects, for example, the Board that recommended the adoption of John Ericsson's plans for the Monitor.1 A line officer continued to fill the position until 1898, when Civil Engineer Mordecai T. Endicott, USN
was appointed Chief of the Bureau, with the rank of Commodore, later Rear Admiral. In 1906 Congress passed a law restricting the position to officers of the Civil Engineer Corps of the Navy.One civil engineer with civilian status was attached to the Bureau, when it was created.2 During the early years the emphasis was apparently placed on the military and administrative aspects of the Bureau's work, but by 1852 it had become clear that the technical aspects of the Bureau's responsibilities, especially for the Navy Yards themselves, merited more attention than they were receiving. On the recommendation of the Chief of the Bureau, the Secretary of the Navy in 1852 authorized the employment at the Navy Yards of civil engineers with civilian status.
The Naval Appropriation Act, passed on March 2, 1867,3 provided that "the civil engineer . . . when required at any of the Navy Yards shall be appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate." This gave military status to the seven civil engineers appointed under the Act and improved their prestige and morale. Under the As of March 3, 1871, they were given relative rank with officers of the line. Another ten years were to elapse before civil engineers were authorized to wear the same uniform as line officers, with a Corps device substituted for the star. By authority of the President in accordance with Section 1478 of the Revised Statutes, Navy General Order of February 24, 1881, frixed the number of civil engineers at ten, with the following relative rank: 1 Captain, 2 Commanders, 3 Lieutenant Commanders, and 4 Lieutenants. This remained the number of officers in the Civil Engineer Corps until 1894.
The expansion of the Navy just before and following the Spanish-American War in 1898 included improvements and additions to the naval shore establishments. This necessitated a gradual increase in the Civil Engineer Corps. In 1918, in order to meet the demands of World War I expansion, a peak strength of 209 officers was reached. After that war, the number of civil engineers authorized by Congress was greatly reduced, as were all branches of the Navy. In June 1939, the number stood at 159, of whom 33 were Reserve Officers. Rapid expansion of the Corps then got under way, which reached a peak strength on July 31, 1945, during World War II, of 7,415 Civil Engineer Corps officers actually on duty.4
Some changes in the kind of duties assigned to the Bureau of Yards and Docks took place over the years. The Bureau lost its management control of Navy Yards, but made progress in technical matters. It began to gain ground technically, when civil engineers serving as civilians in the Bureau and in the field were given military status as a Corps. This was further emphasized when the Chief of the Bureau, as mentioned above, was selected on the basis of his qualifications as a specialist in the branches of engineering assigned to the Bureau. The requirement of professional and technical competence of Bureau Chiefs has been found by experience to be fundamental to the effective functioning of the Bureau system. Whenever there have been departures from this role, the administration of the Navy Department has suffered.It is unnecessary to recite in detail the changes in the duties and responsibilities assigned to the Bureau from the time of its establishment in 1842. A good summary is provided by comparing the duties, assigned to it by the Navy Department regulation of November 26, 1842, quoted above, with the concept of its duties and responsibilities expressed in the statement of the Chief of the Bureau at the Hearings before the House Naval Affairs Committee on February 2, 1939, as follows:
"Primarily the function of the Bureau of Yards and Docks in the Naval Organization is to design and construct all public works and public utilities of the shore establishment, and to maintain and repair the larger part of such works. There are a number of corollaries to such duties, such, for example, as surveys for new stations, investigations for foundation conditions; development of new types of structures peculiarly adapted to the naval service; researches on materials; and, most important, analysis of the capacities of existing naval establishments, and the requirements for additions to those establishments.
"I would like to emphasize that the officers of the Civil Engineer Corps, who administer the work of the Bureau of Yards and DOcks and its field activities, are not strategists; we are engineers, planners, estimators, constructors, and analysts of shore facilities."5
It will be noted from Admiral Moreell's statement that the principal activities of the Bureau of Yards and Docks just before the outbreak of World War II revolved around the creation and maintenance of the Navy's shore establishments. An entire chapter is devoted in this work to the general subject of the shore establishment of the Navy. It is, however, appropriate to review briefly in this place the salient features of the administration Shore Station Development
of this large sector of Navy Department activities so far as the Bureau of Yards and Docks was concerned.Until World War I, each bureau looked after its own requirements in obtaining appropriations from Congress for any new shops and facilities ashore needed to carry on its work. Larger programs involving new navy yards, shore stations, operating bases and the like were studied by specially appointed boards, which included in their membership officers of the Civil Engineer Corps. IOn peacetime there was, however, not much point in long-range detailed planning of such needs, because the carrying out of any plan was always seriously restricted by budgetary limitations. Political considerations often played an important part in the decisions of Congress with respect to appropriations for such purposes.
A large backlog of projects had to be carried over from year to year, which adversely affected any coordinated planning. To improve this situation, a Shore Station Development Board was established in the Office of the Secretary of the Navy in May 1916 as part of the Navy Department's preparedness planning to meet possible involvement in World War I. The mission of the Board was to coordinate the public works needs of the various bureaus and to make long-range plans to be used as a guide for the orderly expansion of the Navy's shore facilities.
Public Words projects originated in two ways; they were either initiated in the field by the activity in need of the facilities, or in the Bureau of the Navy Department having cognizance of the work handled by the activity. Rough estimates of cost were included in the initial recommendations. In either case the project was channeled to the Navy Department through the Commandant of the Naval District in which the facility was to be located. On its way to the Commandant it passed through a local Shore Station Development Board. Local Boards consisted of the Commandant, the District Public Works Officer, and representatives of other naval activities in the Districts. The local Boards correlated the various items requested and submitted comments and recommendations, giving their views as to relative importance of the items under consideration.
The bureaus were then given an opportunity to submit their comments and recommendations on the various items of special interest to them. The papers and sketch plans that had been prepared by the originating activity next went to the Bureau of Yards and Docks, which prepared more detailed cost estimates and analyzed the technical aspects of the projects as to feasibility, adequacy, and relationship with other similar projects. The next step consisted of consideration of all recommended projects by the Shore Station Development Board. The Board set up a master priority list, assigning to each project the relative position to which the Board considered the project entitled. A large number of projects had
to be carried over from year to year, and new ones had to be added constantly to meet changing needs. This became true, especially after the passage of the Vinson-Trammell Act in 1934, which authorized building the Fleet up to the limits allowed by the Washington and London Treaties, and therefore required additions to the shore establishment.The West Coast, Canal Zone, the Hawaiian Islands, the Philippine Islands, and Guam were given an "A" classification; New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and the Chesapeake areas were given "B" rating; under "C" came Key West, Guantanamo, Pensacola, and Charleston; "D" was applied to Great Lakes, Alaska, and Samoa. These classifications were never strictly followed, but they furnished a guide and pattern for the deliberations of the Board.
Projects were selected according to their classification and priority for hearings before the Navy Department Budget Officer. Then, if approved by the Secretary of the Navy, they went to Bureau of the Budget and from there to the Naval Affairs Committees of both branches of Congress. If authorized by these committees the projects went to the Appropriations Committees for the appropriation of the money needed to carry them out. It took at least eighteen months to carry a project by this process from inception to the appropriation of funds by Congress.
The Chief of the Bureau of Yards and Docks not only had the responsibility for serving as the technical and cost adviser in such matters to the Shore Station Development Board and to the Bureaus, but also for preparing the justifications for projects and presenting them to the cognizant congressional committees both for authorization and for appropriation.
Admiral Moreell on his appointment as Chief of Bureau on December 1, 1973, immediately began a comprehensive study of the docking and shop facilities on the West Coast and in hawaii which would be needed to support the Fleet in time of war. The survey brought out that expansion was too slow and that the existing system of basing expansion programs on a master priority list was faulty because it compared as to importance projects that were not comparable. To illustrate his point he said, "How can one compare the value to the Navy of improving the lighting facilities for study purposes at the Naval Academy with a project for a pipe and copper shop at the Navy Yard, Pearl Harbor? That is what is being done under present procedure.6
He proposed that in place of the master priority list there be prepared a series of development programs for the various types of activities needing expansion, with each program standing on its own merits and representing the best thought as to the desirable future developments of that
Rear Admiral Ben Moreell (later Admiral) (CEC)
Chief of Bureau of Yards and Docks, Dec. 1937-No. 1945.particular type of activity. The individual programs were not be blended into a single master priority list, but there would be a master shore station development program under continuous revision, from which the most important projects would be selected. As a result of the survey the construction of a battleship dock and a cruiser dock was started at Pearl Harbor and the ground work was laid for other project on the West Coast.
In December 1939 the Shore Station Development Board was reorganized and its functions redefined to carry out the proposed policy. The reorganization provided for a Board of four permanent members; two from OpNav; one, the head of the Shore Establishments Division of the
Assistant Secretary of the Navy's Office; one from the Bureau of Yards and Docks, and an officer of the Civil Engineer Corps as permanent secretary. When a porogram for any particular class of development was under consideration, representatives of the interested bureaus or officers participated in the deliberations of the Board.The purpose of the Board was defined thus: ". . . to plan for maintaining our shore stations in number, location, and equipment, adequate to support the fleet in a constant state of readiness fo war, and for the service of the fleet should war come." The Board was also charged with observing a proper balance in shore station developments.7
The new procedure divided the responsibility for planning and deciding on the public works programs between the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, the Chief of Naval Operations, and the Bureau of Yards and Docks; the last mentioned had also the responsibility for the actual design and construction of the public works involved. Final decision on projects rested with the Secretary of the Navy, as in all such matters. Through their temporary membership on the Shore Station Development Boatrd, when projects of interest to them were under discussion, the various bureaus had a voice in making the decisions that were reChed.
The Bureaus as the users of the facilities initiated most of the projects either tghrough their field activities or directly. Many projects and programs were also initiated by specially appointed Boards in conneciton with carrying out the War Plans of CNO. The various bureaus exercised continuous sponsorship for the betterment and expansion of the shore facilities needed by the to carry on their work. The Bureau of Aeronautics, for example, had this responsibility for air stations, the Bureau of Naval Personnel for training stations, the Bureau of Ships for navy yards, etc. From the inception to the completion of most projects, the Bureau of Yards and Docks and its field activities had to devote a tremendous amount of detailed work to these projects, requiring a high order of engineering competence. Onde the new organization and procedures of the Shore Station Development Board began to funciton smoothly, that protion of BuDocks work was handled rapidly and with a minimum of criticism from the beneficiaries of the Board's activities.
Improving and expanding the Navy's shore establishment was, however, only one of the tasks of the Bureau of Yards and Docks in preparing for possible involvement in the war that had broken out in Europe. Early studies were begun to deelop mobile and standardized equpient that could be prespared ahead of time and moved rapidly to create advanced bases. Much of the equipment contemplated by these plans was
not currently available in the commercial market, making it necessary for the Bureau to work out basic designs and specifications. Examples of such equipment were pontoons, portable housing, floating drydocks, portable power plants, stills for producing fresh water from sea water, and other similar equipment. In cooperation with the other bureaus, BuDocks had also to develop plans for standardized portable structures such as barracks, mobile hospitals, warehouses, aircraft hangers, ammunition magazines and other items.The organization of the Bureau at that time is shown on Figure 22, dated 19 December 1940. The organization had changed only slightly during the preceding twenty years. It consisted of eighteen divisions, each handling a sector of the Bureau's activities. In addition the usual divisions dealing with such matters, as personnel, war plans, contracts, et ., there were divisions handling the work of the individual bureaus. Other divisions had cognizance of specific subjects, such as poser plants, housing, etc. The organization was based on the principles of project management. Under this system a division had the authority and responsibility for handling a project from its inception to its completion. The head of the Division had direct access to the Chief of the Bureau, who made practically all the decisions and delegated very little final authority to his subordinates. Bureau Organization
It was an excellent arrangement from the point of view of the other bureaus and branches of the Navy Department. Their relations with BuDocks were those of a client or a customer to a constructing engineer. It provided all of the advantages of a single point of contact in BuDocks for the other bureaus in working out and following up their programs. From BuDocks' point of view it also had advantages, as it provided a convenient way for the Chief of the Bureau to keep in touch with the current work of the Bureau. Direct contact with the heads of eighteen divisions was no too burdensome in time of peace, but with the increase in the tempo of planning and actual construction during the two years after war broke out in Europe, modifications in the organization became imperative. A measure of this increase in BuDocks' activities is provided by the appropriations made by Congress in June 1940 for public words of the Navy. Such appropriations totaled more than $300 million,8 and by the end of May 1941 the Bureau had been authorized by Congress to spend $1,140 million for defense purposes, as against some $55 million appropriated in June 1939 for similar purposes.9
Fig. 22--Organization of Bureau of Yards and Docks (19 Dec. 1940)
Management Survey. In the fall of 1940, the Secretary of the Navy requested the firm of Booz, Fry, Allen and Hamilton, Management Engineers, to examine and report on the organization and management methods of the Secretary's office. The report was so useful in effecting improvements that Admiral Moreell made arrangements for a similar survey of the Bureau's organization. The report submitted on June 10, 1941 invited attention particularly to the large number of executives reporting directly to the Chief, thereby creating a situation that slowed down the Bureau's work. The management engineers found also that duties were frequently assigned "according to the individual abilities of certain persons rather than along organizational lines." This practice is characteristic of the project management type of organization.Unrelated duties were found combined in some sections and closely related functions were in some instances scattered among different sections. The management of personnel illustrated wide scattering of this kind. Officer personnel came under the Maintenance and Operations Division; Reserve Officer Personnel in the Shipbuilding and Industrial Facilities Section; Civil Personnel for the Bureau in the Clerical Division; and Civil Personnel for the field in the Shore Establishment Division.10
Criticism was also leveled at the Bureau for not providing for the development of "an adequate number of understudies." The Chief personally made most of the decisions and there were too many men at the same level of authority with relation to the Chief. The Booz Report noted that "of some other individual were required to take over the duties of Chief of Bureau, the new Chief would have a difficult time picking up the threads of so many diverse activities as now report directly to the present chief. . . . On the other hand, if there were fewer key men, and each with a greater share of the work, training of replacements for major jobs would proceed faster."
The Report concluded with a list of over 50 recommendations intended to correct the shortcomings of the organization and to promote speed and efficiency in handling the Bureau's work. In essence the Report proposed a simplified structure of five main divisions, with the head of each given broad authority to act for the Chief of Bureau.
It was however the experience of the Bureau, confirmed by the experience of other organizational components of the Navy Department, that the recommendations of the management engineers could not be taken without critical examination, and that modifications in their recommendations were always necessary to adapt them to Navy realities.
Fig. 23--Organization of Bureau of Yards and Docks (9 Feb. 1942)
After careful study of the Booz Report,the Bureau was reorganized under date of December, 1941. As shown on Figure 23, dated 9 Feb. 1942, the Bureau was divided into five major "departments": Administration and Personnel; Progress Control and Statistical; Finance and Operating; Planning and Design; and Construction.11 This was the first comprehensive change in the structure of the Bureau since 1917. In principle, it remained unchanged throughout World War II except for the addition, in January 1944, of a sixth department, The Advance Base Department. That department took the place of the Advance Base Division of the Construction Department. Divisions were from time to time added to the various departments as the need for proliferation arose. Reorganization of December 1941
Each of the six departments was headed by a director who was an officer of the Civil Engineer Corps. The department directors and the Assistant Chief formed an advisory council to the Chief. The various divisions and sections reported to the head of the department in which located. The project-management system was retained in a measure but at a lower level than before. Project managers to longer reported directly to the Chief, nor had direct access to him, as a matter of routine.
Administration and Personnel Department. Under the new organization, the Administrative and Personnel Department had the responsibility for the administration of personnel within the Bureau, and, to a certain extent of the personnel in the field. The titles of the divisions of this department are largely self-explanatory. The Administrative and Civil Personnel Division handled the Bureau's central files, mail, and messenger service; it also recruited civilian personnel, maintained a pool of typists, and supervised the Bureau's printing.
Records of all Civil Engineer Corps officers, of other officers, and of enlisted personnel, on duty under the Bureau were maintained by the Naval Personnel and Records Division. This division also handled enlisted discipline for the Bureau.
As most of the actual construction of naval public works was done by private contract, labor relations between the Navy (in this case, BuDocks)
and these contractors were highly important. Such matters were the province of the Labor Relations Division. The division represented the Bureau on labor, wage, and manpower committees, and maintained liaison on labor matters with other bureaus and government departments.Data on firms (architects, engineers, contractors, etc.) seeking to do business with BuDocks were collected, classified, analyzed, and filed by the Contract and Liaison Division. The division also initiated and supervised security measures for the Bureau, and handled Bureau publications.
The Legislative and Information Division kept the Bureau posted on legislation affecting its operations, and acted as the Bureau's public relations office. The Departmental Buildings Maintenance and Repair Division was added shortly and was responsible for alterations, structural changes, and maintenance of Navy Department buildings in the District of Columbia area, and for the design and construction of new buildings in that area.
With the establishment of the Seabees in January 1942, new divisions became necessary in the Administration and Personnel Department. The Construction Battalion Recruiting Division established standards for CB ratings, and conducted a recruiting campaign for Seabees.12 The Construction Battalion Operating and Personnel Division established complements for the construction battalions, handled their formation and movements, maintained schedules of training and readiness dates, and handled enlisted promotions. The Construction Battalion Training and Inspection Division established training policies, inspected and supervised Seabee training activities, formulated policies for the inspection of Seabee units in the field, and promulgated directives designed to correct inspection deficiencies.
In 1944 both the Construction Battalion Operation and Personnel Division and Construction Battalion Training and Inspection Division were transferred to the Bureau of Naval Personnel. In BuPers, these Divisions continued to be manned by CEC officers who maintained close liaison with BuDocks. The Construction Battalion Material Division had the responsibility of administering the equipping, outfitting, and refitting of construction battalions for overseas duty; these functions remained in BuDocks after the actual personnel administration of the CB program was turned over to BuPers.
Progress Control and Statistical Department. This department was responsible for the auditing and accounting, procedures involved in negotiated contracts for progress reports on Bureau operation, for handling priorities and allocations for critical material and equipment, the use of equipment
on construction contracts, the handling of surplus materials and equipment, and liaison on contract terminations.Procurement of materials and products was the job of the Priorities and Allocations Division. This group established priority ratings and allocations for materials and equipment, for private contractors as well as for public works departments of the Bureau in the field. The division also procured shipping space, both rail and water, for Yards and Docks material.
Negotiated contracts had become a necessity in carrying on BuDocks work just as it had for building ships and aircraft, the cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) type being the one best suited to the Bureau's needs. The reasons for going to the negotiated type of contract in place of contracts based on competitive bids have been covered in the chapter on "Material Procurement" and need not be repeated here.
Establishment of policies and procedures for financial control of these CPFF contracts was a function of the Accounting and Auditing Division This division issued and kept up to date the Bureau's accounting manual for CPFF contracts. The division also assisted contractors and officers-in-charge of construction, to organize, audit and administer the contracts. It handled exceptions taken by the General Accounting Office on Bureau contracts.
The Material Requirements Division of the Progress Control and Statistical Department was characterized by a unique feature; which technically an integral part of BuDocks, it was physically separated from the main Bureau by being located in New York City. This division had the responsibility for predicting the Bureau's needs for those materials covered by the Controlled Materials Plan (CMP) of the War Production Board. It also prepared allotments of controlled materials to navy yards and stations, contractors, and privately financed projects of interest to BuDocks.
As its name implies, the Scheduling Division scheduled Bureau requirements for critical common components allocated by the War Production Board. The Equipment Division reviewed rental schedules for the use of contractor-owned or controlled equipment and rented equipment on CPFF contracts. The Surplus Materials and Equipment Division redistributed government-owned materials and equipment within the naval establishment, the Army, and other goverenment agencies. It also declared equipment and material surplus, and made recommendations for its disposal.
Finance and Operating Department. Allocation and accounting for Bureau funds, operaration of the annual budget, negotiation of contracts, and acquisition of real estate for naval purposes were the principal responsibilities of this department. The Maintenance, Operating and Budget Division allotted funds for specific purposes, accounted for funds expended for other
bureaus or agencies, prepared financial reports, assembled data for the annual budget, and kept progress records. It was responsible for shifting material from places when it was surplus to places where needed.Prior to 1910, BuDocks had handled all Navy real estate matters. Although these functions had in that year been transferred to the Navy Solicitor (later the Judge Advocate General), the Bureau had maintained complete records of the real estate owned or leased by the Navy Department. In July 1942, full responsibility for real estate was reassigned to BuDocks.13 Advice on selection of sites, the making of surveys, preparation of legal descriptions, and negotiations for leases or purchases were among the functions of the Real Estate Division. The division also determined the need for and carried out condemnation proceedings, and disposed of surplus real property.
The Contract Division handled all matters relating to contracts, but contractors were actually selected by a Board for Contract Awards. It was the policy of the Chief of Bureau never to question the recommendations of the Board unless he received information about a prospective contractor that had not before been available to the Board. In such cases he sent the information to the Board with a request for further consideration. This procedure eased the great political pressure that was constantly being exerted on the Chief to favor certain individuals and companies in making awards.
The Conservation Division kept the Bureau's operations under scrutiny in order to recommend cost- and material-saving methods and procedures.
The Finance and Operating Department included the Civil Works Division. Civil works were industrial plant facilities built with Navy Department funds and used by private industry for war production as distinguished from public works which were facilities of all types built by or for the Navy and owned by the Navy Department. The inspection, maintenance, and repair of civil works and related government-owned property under Bureau cognizance, were the functions of the Civil Works Division.
Planning and Design Department. This was the department which analyzed the Navy's needs for shore facilities and prepared the plans and specifications for filling them. It employed more civilian personnel than any other department in the Bureau. Its functions were distributed among three technical divisions: Design, Planning and Research. The duties of the Planning Division especially were broad and varied. At first its work was confined largely to the development of Continental shore stations. In that capacity it did much work for the Shore Station Development Board, thus broadening
the scope of its planning activities. As the war progressed, additional duties were assigned to it, including the study of occupied and enemy territory as to resources and physical characteristics that might have a bearing on construction work in such areas.The Design Division was the largest in the Bureau. It evolved the engineering standards applying to Bureau design and construction and prepared plans and specifications for specific projects which became the basis for construction contracts and guides for the inspection of the work. The Division also reviewed and passed on the plans and specifications prepared by public works officers in the field and by architect engineers.
The Research and Records Division supervised the Bureau's research work and provided liaison with other government and private research activities. It had charge of the Bureau's library, photographic records, and photographic laboratory. An Historical Division was added to this department in 1944, charged with collecting, organizing, and preparing for publication the story of the Bureau's part in the war.
Construction Department. The Construction Department had the responsibility for carrying construction projects through from start to finish. It played an important part in the employment of design agencies, architects, and engineers. It observed the principles of project management in doing its work. The organization of this department consisted eventually of ten divisions, each dealing with a specific sector of the Bureau's construction activities. The division heads conferred with other bureaus and offices in the Navy Department, to determine requirements, and made use of the services of other departments within the Bureau to supplement their information.
The work of the respective divisions need not be described in detail, as the names given on Figure 23 will serve to identify their principal duties. A number of changes from the original arrangement shown on that chart were made during the war.14 The Advance Base Division was, for example, taken out of this Department in 1944 and promoted to a separate department, as shown on Figure 24, dated 1 June 1944. Several divisions were also added. A few comments on the functioning of this Department are in order.
It should be mentioned before leaving the subject of Bureau organization that the closest cooperation and coordination existed between the various departments of the Bureau. The employment of design agencies, outside engineers and architects, for example, was subject to the approval of several departments. The employment of such help indicated no lack of competence on the part of the officers and civilian personnel of the
Fig. 24--Organization of Bureau of Yards and Docks (1 June 1944)
Bureau and its field services, but only inability to handle expeditiously the great volume of work that had to be done. All departments concerned had to concur in any proposal to employ outside help of that kind.The strategic purpose of Advance Bases and the origin of the major bases of this character that were built for World War II have been covered in the chapter on "Naval Logistics." The solution of the administrative problems that they created for the Navy Department became largely the responsibility of the Bureau of Yards and Docks. The work was handled at first by an Advance Base Division of the Construction Department, but soon reached such proportions and importance that in January 1944 a separate Department was created to handle such matters. As a measure of the task involved, it may be mentioned that through 1943, more than $3 billion was spent on advance bases. Of this amount, close to $900 million was spent on contract work for such purposes either during the short-of-war period or after United States entry into the war in areas not within the immediate war zone.15 Advance Base Department
Advance Base work was distributed among divisions as in the other departments of BuDocks. The department had to maintain close liaison with the CNO, the bureaus, and with other offices in the navy Department in connection with filling the needs for which the bases were established. This included processing the CNO directives relating to the establishment and maintenance of advance bases. Some of the more detailed responsibilities of the department consisted of schematic studies of advance base layouts, the development of new types of advance base equipment; supervision of the procurement, testing and shipping of advance bade material of all kinds; supervision of the advance base depot; and preparation and distribution fo technical information on advance base construction and maintenance.
The Bureau decentralized the administration of much of this work to points outside of Washington, but it correlated and standardized the procedures of the field activities that were 9involved. At first, practically all of the advance base construction work was done by contract on a cost-plus-fixed-fee basis. After Pearl Harbor the seabees did the field work in the war zones. The programs were so large and involved so many unknown factors influencing cost, that associations of contracting firms were brought together to handle the work not done by the Seabees. The Bureau acquired much experience and data for fixed fee procedures from the early contracts made to build bases recommended by the Hepburn Board in Midway, Canton island,
Alaska, and other places in the Pacific. Much experience was gained also from the work at Quonset Point, which was done on a fixed fee basis by private contract from plans developed in the Bureau's Planning and Design Department. Such experience was invaluable in building the bases in the British Isles.As the scope of the overseas projects increased, with resulting increase in the amounts of material and equipment needed, space for storage had to be enlarged. Depots were eventually established at Davisville, Rhode Island; Port Hueneme, California; Gulfport, Mississippi; and Tacoma, Washington. Overall administration of these activities, and liaison with the Bureau of Supplies and Accounts for the shipment to and from these depots became important functions of the Advance Base Department.
Broadly speaking, after the completion of a facility by BuDocks, it was turned over to some other activity of the Navy for operation and sometimes also for maintenance. This arrangement often became quite complicated. Floating drydocks are a good example. Through a vagary in cognizance, the design and construction in the United States of a floating drydock for the Naval Station Olongapo was assigned to the Bureau of Yards and Docks after the Spanish-American War. On completion, it was delivered to the Operating Forces for towing to the Philippines, where it was turned over to the Construction and Repair Department of the Naval Station for maintenance and operation. This procedure was thereafter followed for floating drydocks attached to shore stations. During World War II the policy was adopted of commissioning, with a Commanding Officer and a full crew, the floating drydocks attached to the Service Forces or located in the forward areas. The drydock was organized into departments with all technical personnel needed for operation and maintenance. An officer of the Civil Engineer Corps was head of the Maintenance Department. Included were Seabees, but the Bureau of Yards and Docks had no direct responsibliity for their work once they were assigned to a floating drydock.
Some other items of floating equipment, such as cranes, remained an operating and maintenance responsibility of the Bureau after they had been delivered to a navy yard or other shore station.
The Power Division of the Construction Department had cognizance of power plants of the naval shore establishments, including construction and operation. It computed requirements and made arrangements for the inter-connection of Navy Power Systems with outside utility systems. This became an important activity of the Bureau during the war and resulted in power cost savings.
In November 1944 the office of Chief Planning Officer was established in the Bureau of Yards and Docks. The duties of the Chief Planning Officer Chief Planning Officer
were to direct and coordinate all planning of the Bureau of Yards and Docks, including all planning in connection with continental public works and advance base development, postwar plans, war plans, logistics, and personnel plans. He maintained liaison and consulted with high-level planners of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Chief of Naval Operations, and other bureaus and offices; he inspected the shore establishment in connection with the formulation of plans; and he consulted with the Superintending Civil Engineers, the Area Directors, and the directors of the Bureau's departments, on matters under their respective cognizance.The Chief Inspector maintained continuous scrutiny of all organizations under the cognizance of the Bureau of Yards and Docks, for the purpose of determining the adequacy of public works organizations to insure the proper functioning of such organizations, and to make sure that changes of organization were made as needed to meet changing requirements. He maintained contact between the Bureau of Yards and Docks and the Superintending Civil Engineers and the Area Directors, and he made special inspections as directed by the Chief of the Bureau of Yards and Docks. Pursuant to a General Order, he was assigned duties as General Inspector for the Bureau with additional duties, as required, under the Naval Inspector General. Chief Inspector
Both the Chief Inspector and the Chief Planning Officer were Rear Admirals in the Civil Engineer Corps.
The wheel horse of the Bureau's organization was the Assistant Chief of Bureau. He held the rank of Rear Admiral. In addition to delegated authority in many matters passed on to him by the Chief, he relieved the Chief of much of the visitor load. His jost important function was to be at all times in close enough touch with the work and policies of the Bureau as to take over during the absence of the Chief. He was also the senior member of the Chief's Advisory Council, the other members being the heads of the Departments.16 Assistant Chief of Bureau
On the field organizations fell the responsibility for doing the work under the cognizance of BuDocks. They were in effect extensions of the Bureau's design and planning activities and participated in the awarding of contracts. To accelerate construction work BuDocks decentralized much authority to the field, especially in routine matters that could be handled on the spot. To carry out this policy the Bureau adopted a system of "Officers-in-Charge of Construction," "Superintending Civil Engineers," and "Area Directors." The Field Organizations
Officers-in-Charge of Construction were officers of the Civil Engineer Corps assigned to construction contracts in the field, and designated as the direct representatives of the Chief of the Bureau. Frequently they doubled as Public Works Officers of naval activities. The Officer-in-Charge of Construction of any project was fully responsible for all matters connected with carrying out the project. This responsibility frequently included preparation of plans and specifications, and the negotiation and award of contracts.
Superintending Civil Engineers were senior CEC officers who acted as direct representatives of the Chief of BuDocks. A Superintending Civil Engineer differed from an Officer-in-Charge of Construction ni that the latter was assigned a specific construction project, while the Superintending Civil Engineer was responsible for all construction in a given area.17 Superintending Civil Engineers reported directly to the Chief of the Bureau. In their function of expediting construction, they had ". . . .full authority to act on behalf of the Chief of the Bureau in exactly the same manner as though they had left the Bureau and gone to a station or activity directly to confer or consult with the Officer-in-Charge or other representative on any or all official matters."18 Superintending Civil Engineers were expected to provide "consultation, advice and as much assistance" to the field forces in their areas, as they would be able to render. Included in this assistance was help in the local adjustment of labor controversies. The Bureau directed that routine matters be handled by the field forces themselves; it was the emergency situations for which the Superintending Civil Engineers were appointed.
With the intensification of the war effort, the actual tasks performed by the Superintending Civil Engineers were broadened. Among these were such jobs as preparation of plans and specifications for construction projects,
disposal of surplus material, inspection of civil works, preparation of engineering studies (as assigned by the Chief of the Bureau), and maintenance of liaison with other governmental agencies as appropriate.To direct its overseas operations in combat areas, BuDocks set up three (later increased to four) special divisions, headed by CEC officers called Area Directors.19 These officers were assigned additional duties on the staffs of the fleet commanders operating in their areas; thus, they were able to maintain close liaison to ensure that fleet activities received maximum support from BuDocks.
The procurement and delivery of material when and where needed in a logistics necessity of major importance in warfare. Chapter XX is devoted to "Industrial Mobilization and Material Procurement" but the way in which one phase of material procurement was handled by the Bureau of Yards and Docks may well be mentioned in this place. The importance of scheduling purchases in terms of coming strategic demands and to follow up the material to assure delivery when needed made itself felt with increasing urgency during 1942. To meet this need a central procurement agency was set up in Chicago on January 1, 1943, with a storage depot in Joliet, Illinois.
The office was operated jointly by the East Coast contractors and the Pacific group of contractors under supplemental agreements to their respective contracts. An officer of the Civil Engineer Corps supervised the general administration of the activity. A top ranking Vice President of one of the leading mail order houses in the United States was an important member of the staff. The office was particularly effective in procuring supplies and equipment needed by the Seabees. The purchasing agency was in position to take advantage of trade discounts and could move rapidly when warranted by market conditions. The overall advantage of the arrangement was that it circumvented the delays that are an unavoidable part of regular Navy procurement through the Bureau of Supplies and Accounts.
All bureaus had similar problems and met them in various ways leaving the Bureau of Supplies and Accounts the procurement of the vast number of standard stock items used by the Navy.
The Navy's construction battalions, popularly known as the Seabees, were brought into being to meet the need for men in uniform to perform construction work on shore in combat areas. The idea of enlisting artificers for construction work originated in World War I, but the concept of the scope of their employment differed in the two wars. The Public Works Regiment recruited at the Great Lakes Training Station in World War I did merely the routine construction and maintenance work of the Training Station, but did not go overseas,20 whereas the basic reason for the Seabees in World War II was to provide competent construction personnel for overseas duty in the combat areas. In order to obtain the cooperation of the Building Trades Unions in recruiting Seabees, the Navy Department agreed not to use them on continental construction work except for work of a classified nature or in case of extreme urgency when civilian workers were not obtainable in adequate numbers to handle the work. The Seabees
The Seabees actually had their beginning in the organizations known as "headquarters Construction Companies." Men for these companies were at the request of Admiral Moreell recruited in Class V6 of the Naval Reserve to meet an urgent need in the organization of the officers in charge of overseas construction projects such as those undertaken in 1940 and 1941 in the British Isles, Iceland, and the Lend-Lease Naval Bases in the western Atlantic. The construction work was done by private contract but supervised and inspected by officers of the Civil Engineer Corps. Great difficulty was experienced in staffing these field offices with competent draftsmen, inspectors, surveyors, accountants, clerks, etc. The Bureau of Navigation authorized the enlistment of personnel for the first of the Headquarters Construction Companies in October 1941, followed shortly thereafter by authority to recruit four additional companies.
With the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, continuing the services of contractors and their civilian employees on construction work in combat areas became impossible. Under military law civilians could not offer resistance when the bases on which they were working were attacked. A civilian bearing arms would have been considered a guerrilla, and as such would have been liable to summary execution if captured. Furthermore, it became all too clear that civilian workers lacked the training and discipline necessary to defend themselves. This was part of the lesson learned at Wake, Cavite, and Guam. Admiral Moreell, in a letter to the
Bureau of Naval Personnel, dated December 18, 1941, stated that construction work on advance bases in combat areas could be carried on satisfactorily only by the utilization of military personnel under direct military command. He recommended that "early steps should be taken toward the organization of such military construction forces if they are to be trained and available at the times their services will be required."21 He recommended also that not less than twelve construction companies of 226 men each be available for assignment to duty at locations outside the continental limits as soon as possible, in order to speed up the advance base construction program. He recommended that these twelve companies be grouped into three battalions, with an additional headquarters unit of 168 cooks, bakers, pharmacist's mates, and all other ratings necessary to make the battalions complete operating units if thrown into the field on their own.The Bureau of Naval Personnel authorized the construction companies and enlistment therein.
One of the early problems encountered by those responsible for the planning and organization of the Seabees was that of command. By Navy Regulations, military command of naval personnel was limited to line officers. Yet it was deemed essential that the construction forces be commanded by officers of the Civil Engineer Corps who were trained in the skills required for the performance of construction work. The question was placed before the Secretary of the Navy, who gave authority for officers of the Civil Engineer Corps to exercise military authority over construction battalions. The Secretary stated that when an officer of the Civil Engineer Corps was ordered to take charge of a construction unit his authority would extend to all officers and enlisted men assigned to his unit, including officers of the line and other staff corps. He stated further that appropriate orders would be issued "to all officers attached to a construction unit, so that there would be no doubt on their part that they are to be under the authority of the officer assigned to duty as commander thereof."22
Recruitment of battalion and assignment of Civil Engineer Corps officers to the began as soon as the organization of units was authorized. Men already skilled in the various trades of construction work were enlisted. Recruits representing about sixty different trades were offered petty officer classification on the basis of their civilian construction experience and their
age. In the early days the average Seabee was enlisted with a rate of petty officer, second class, equivalent to the staff sergeant in the Army. Average pay and allowances totalling $140 a month made the Seabees one of the highest paid groups in the military service.Direct voluntary enlistment in the Seabees came to an end on December 15, 1942, in conformity with the President's order requiring that the services procure their military personnel through Selective Service. By that time, about sixty battalions had been recruited. From that date until October 1943, it was possible for men to join the Seabees through induction channels. Under this system men between the ages of 18 and 38 were enlisted in the Navy and assigned to the Seabees if they so requested, provided they could satisfy the recruiting officer that they were qualified to perform the work of the trade in which they claimed to be competent. In October 1943, when most enlistments were placed under Selective Service control, the voluntary induction system had to be dropped. It was resumed in December 1944, and continued in force until the surrender of Japan in August 1945.
Seabee Specials. Among the Seabees there were units whose work was not primarily that of construction, such for example as the stevedoring units employed in the war zones. The need for enlisted stevedores arose because of the congestion of loaded cargo vessels in the forward areas of the Pacific. With no experienced personnel available to unload them, the job of providing a solution to the problem was taken on by the Bureau of Yards and Docks. A full-sized cargo ship with freight-handling equipment was built on dry land at Quonset Point and another at Hueneme. Experienced stevedores were employed to train recruits in loading and unloading the dummy ships The arrangement proved highly successful as these units were proud to be known as Seabees. Another special type was the Construction Battalion Maintenance Unit, about one-fourth the size of the regular battalions which took over the maintenance of certain activities built by the Seabees, making it possible for the construction men to move on to new work. Seabees also filled some of the operating and maintenance billets on floating drydocks. Toward the end of the war the CBMU's were employed in dismantling installations no longer needed. Other special groups were pontoon assembly detachments, truck operating battalions, and spare parts units.
Seabee Organization. The battalion, consisting of four companies [plus a headquarters company, was the basic unit of the Seabee organization. The complement of a construction battalion was set originally at 32 officers, 1,073 men. The battalion was so constituted as to trades and specialties as to be self-sufficient for carrying out any construction task assigned to it.
The original officer complement for a battalion was one lieutenant
commander as officer-in-charge, one lieutenant as executive officer, one lieutenant as company commander of each company, four lieutenants (jg), six ensigns, and ten warrant officers (carpenters). All were Civil Engineer Corps officers. In addition, each battalion was to have two officers of the Medical Corps, one officer of the Dental Corps, two officers of the Supply Corps, and one Chaplain.In the beginning, the construction battalion operated overseas as an independent unit with the battalion officer-in-charge solely responsible for making all decisions of an engineering and military character. As the number of battalions of a given area increased, and as larger construction projects were undertaken, a high-command echelon was needed to coordinate the work of several battalions in an area, to assign work to individual battalions and to make overall plans. This need resulted in the establishment of the first naval construction regiment in Alaska in December 1942.
With a still further increase in Seabee activities a naval construction brigade was organized in Alaska in April 1943. A similar brigade was formed at Perl Harbor in September 1943. By August 1945 a total of twelve brigades had been established.
In April 1945 the 2nd and 7th Brigades were transferred from Pearl Harbor to Samar for construction of a Naval Operating Base Leyte-Samar. The officer-in-charge of the consolidated construction forces had the responsibility for supervising all construction in that area. In this capacity, he was under the administrative control of the Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Ocean Area. He was, however, responsible to the Commander-in-Chief, Southwest Pacific Area for operations.
In the organization for the Okinawa operation early in 1945, the commander of the construction forces was also designated Commander Task Unit 99.3.5, with direct charge of all construction troops, including the 8th, 19thy, and 11th Construction Brigades, together with all Army Engineer troops, which would have numbered 50,000 if hostilities had not ceased on August 14, 1945.23
The formation of higher-command echelons did not destroy the character of a battalion as an operating unit or as a unit for maintaining discipline and exercising authority in matters relating to general personnel administration.
The Civil Engineer Corps is an officer corps, recruited during its early days from various sources: practicing civil engineers, teachers in engineering colleges, engineers employed in other government departments, etc. Civil Engineer Corps
The candidates were given comprehensive written examinations in a great variety of engineering subjects, including the design ad building of public works in general, power plant design and operation, structural engineering, railroad and highway construction, etc. Naval Academy graduates, after postgraduate instruction at the Rensselaer Polytyechnic Institute, were also a source of supply during certain periods. From about 1911 to 1917 and from about 1925 to 1938, most of the appointments were made in that manner. The availability of Naval Academy graduates for such duty were then needed as the nucleus for the great expansion in line officers that became necessary.The qualifications required of Civil Engineer Corps officers also underwent a change, particularly on the approach of World War II. During the inter-war peace period, there was little need for a large organization of Civil Engineer Corps officers, as the construction of new facilities was practically at a standstill, and appropriations for maintenance and betterments were kept to a minimum. The Bureau itself, was staffed largely by civilian engineers. The only field positions, up to the beginning of the period of limited national emergency requiring Civil Engineer Corps officers, were those of public works officers and certain members of their staffs. Even by the end of the fiscal year 1939, the Civil Engineer Corps consisted of only 126 regular officers, plus 33 Reserve Officers who had been called to active duty.24 The nature of the work performed by the Corps required general engineering education rather than specialization, as duty assignments ranged from design and broad planning in the Bureau to administration, inspection, and maintenance in the field.
World War II brought about a great change in the duties of the Civil Engineer Corps, as has already been outlined in the preceding pages. The principal reason for the change was the great increase in construction work that had to be performed by officers of the Corps at advance bases where non-military technical personnel could not be used. The emphasis on the qualifications of officers became one of experience on construction work, although engineering education and experience in other fields were also considered important. Men were selected from contractor organizations, oil and steel companies, public utilities, state highway departments and other similar activities. For the most part, they were engineers experienced in modern construction practices. An attempt was made to assign to the construction battalions men with actual field construction experience rather than those whose experience was limited to design and related work performed in offices.
Officer Training. Because of urgency, the first Reserve Officers were ordered to their duty stations without formal Navy training and indoctrination. A Civil Engineering Corps Officer Training Program was, however, quickly undertaken; first at Camp Allen, Norfolk, Virginia, later at Camp Bradford, Little Creek, Virginia. This practice continued until early in 1943, when the Officers Training Program was transferred to Camp Peary, Williamsburg, Virginia.The principal functions of the Officers Training School at Camp Peary were: (a) To indoctrinate officers who were reporting for active duty; (b) to orient these new officers in Seabee or public works duty, depending on the type of duty to which they were to be assigned; (c) to re-orient and familiarize officers between changes of stations with the rapidly developing new methods, procedures, equipment and techniques of advance base and other wartime duties.
In March 1944 a Midshipmen School was formed at Camp Peary. The mission of this school was to supplement the supply of C.E.C. officers obtained by direct commissioning for the construction battalion and public work billets. the first class was given a two-months course. The trainees were engineers from the naval V-12 and ROTC schools. During the first month of the course, the trainees were enrolled as apprentice seamen; during the second month as midshipmen; and at the end of the two months course were commissioned Ensigns in the Civil Engineer Reserve.
It has been found helpful to an understanding of the administrative problems and procedures of the Navy Department in World War II to mention some of the more important technical achievements of the respective bureaus that contributed to the solution of the problems. The Bureau of Yards and Docks made many such contributions. Of great immediate value in checking the advance of the Japanese after Pearl Harbor was the air base on Midway, which the Bureau had built and completed well ahead of schedule, making it possible for land-based naval aircraft to take part in the Battle of Midway, resulting in the defeat of the Japanese Fleet. Summary
Another was the completion of a battleship drydock at Pearl Harbor some ten months ahead of schedule, making it available for actual operation about ten days before the Japanese struck. The dock was invaluable in repairing damaged ships after the attack. Novel underwater methods which saved much time were used in the construction of the dock, and provided trained personnel for raising the ships that were sunk during the attack.
These were accomplishments springing from the energetic and far-sighted prosecution of construction work by the Bureau. There were others
of an imaginative technical naturre, such as the unique design of the huge mobile floating drydocks capable of lifting up to 90,000 tons, for use at advance bases and in the forward areas of the Pacific. The Bureau originally planned one-piece floating docks even for docking the largest ships. A stainless steel model of such a dock had actually been built and tested Admiral Moreell, however, after consultation with the Bureau of Ships and others having the responsibility for the operation and use of the docks, decided on a sectional design of a type never attempted before. The docks consisted of a number of sections, up to ten for the largest lifting capacity, which were put together after arrival at an advance base. Each section was fully equipped for independent operation. Even if some of the sections were lost enroute, the rest could be used. A single section could in fact be used to dock small craft.A number of different designs and sizes of floating drydocks were built just before and during the war to meet specific service needs. A total of 150 floating drydocks of various types and sizes having an aggregate lifting capacity of 1,065,000 tons were built during the war period through June 1945.
Then there were the ubiquitous and indispensable pontoons; the building blocks for all manner of port and landing facilities, especially in areas having no harbors. The assemblies made from pontoons consisted of causeways, piers, bridges, lighters, seaplane ramps, and even floating drydocks. The invention and development of pontoons for such purposes began in 1935, and had reached a high degree of perfection before Pearl Harbor. Many problems of strength, interchangeability, size of plates and shapes to became available that was satisfactory to the design personnel in the Bureau became available that was satisfactory to the design personnel in the Bureau and to the users. Some 520,000 pontoons were built during the war. As many as 45,000 were used in a single landing operation.25
Total expenditures of the Bureau for all purposes from July 1, 1940 to July 1, 1945 amounted to $8.1 billion. It is indicative of the Bureau's foresight and forehandedness that the peak of its expenditures occurred during the first year of the war, after which there was a gradual downward trend to the end of the war. However, advance base expenditures rose steadily but were more than offset by decreases in continental expenditures.26
Aeronautical shore facilities ranked first in continental construction expenditures, followed by shipbuilding and ship repair facilities, ordnance facilities, and structures for naval personnel. The value of the aeronautical naval shore establishment increased from one-quarter billion dollars at the
outbreak of the war to one and one-third billion dollars at the end of the war.27The expansion of the Civil Engineer Corps, as compared to the size reached in World War I, was also notable. The Corps consisted of 209 officers at the end of that war in 1918, as compared to 10,186 at the end of World War II in 1945. The Corps had to be built up to the latter figure from a strength of 159 at the end of the fiscal year 1939, 33 of whom were Reserve Officers.28
The recruiting, organizing, training, and employment of the Seabees was perhaps the greatest of the Bureau's achievements in the employment of personnel during the war. Within a year after the first battalions were recruited the strength of the Seabees stood at 210,000 officers and men. At its peak, as of June 30, 1945, the Seabees numbered 258,872 officers and men, of whom about 83% were serving outside of the continental United States.29
In a letter to the Chief of the Bureau of Yards and Docks, dated July 3, 1946, Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal had this to say:
"The record of the Bureau of Yards and Docks and of the Civil Engineer COrps during the war years in the expansion of the naval shore establishment in the United States and the building of advance bases overseas which enabled our armed forces to carry the war to the enemy's home waters, by sea and air, and to conquer him on his own soil, is one of which your organization can well be proud.
"When the Navy needed men who not only could build but also could take up arms and defend themselves and their installations, the Bureau organized the famous Seabees--construction workers officered by construction experts and trained in combat methods--whose motto "Can do" was brilliantly proven in action.
". . . .the Fleet received support in degree and kind unprecedented in the history of naval warfare. . . ."30
Table of Contents
Previous Chapter (9) * Next Chapter (11)
Footnotes
1. Gideon Welles in his diary under date of January 3, 1863 had this to say in summing up the part that Smith played in the adoption of Ericsson's design for the Monitor: "Admiral Smith beyond any other person is deserving of credit, if credit be due anyone connected with the Navy Department for this vessel."
2. William P.S. Sanger was employed as the first Civil Engineer in the Bureau. He was transferred from the Board of Navy Commissioners, where he had been employed since 1836.
3. 14 Stat. p. 490.
4. Secretary of the Navy Annual Report, fiscal year 1945, p. A-16. Building the Navy's Bases in World War II: History of the Bureau of Yards and Docks and the Civil Engineer Corps, 1940-1946 Vol. I, Washington: GPO, 1947. Hereafter referred to as "Bases," Vol. I, p. 71, gives 10,186 as the maximum number of officers, including warrant officers, of the Civil Engineer Corps in WWII. It is difficult to reconcile the two figures, as the number of warrant officers is not known accurately.
5. Statement of RADM Ben Moreell (CEC) USN, Chief of the Bureau of Yards and Docks at Hearing before the House of Representatives Committee on Naval Affairs, 76th Congress, First Session--2 Feb. 1939, pp. 290-91.
9. 53-Stat., p. 772.
10. Booz, pp. 11-12.
11. Reinhold, R.W., The Organization of the Bureau of Yards and Docks (Unpublished manuscript, 1954, two volumes). (Hereafter cited as Reinhold). This is a detailed, fully documented study of the Bureau's organization throughout its history.
Under the term "departments" instead of "divisions" for the major organizational components is an interesting departure from the practice of other bureaus. According to Reinhold, Vol. II, VII, p. 20, the change grew out of objections from the heads of the existing divisions to the designation of the subdivisions as "sections". In Navy parlance the word "department" to label any part of the naval organization in Washington has usually been restricted to the designation of the Navy Department itself.
13. Reinhold, II, p. VII.-34.
16. Admiral Moreell, the Chief of the Bureau, and Rear Admiral Lewis B. Combs (CEC), USN, the Assistant Chief of the Bureau, hit upon a very effective method of apportioning their office hours to as to provide at the highest level practically round-the-clock management of the Bureau's activities. Normally, Moreell arrived at the office at about seven in the morning and remained until early in th evening. Combs arrived at about ten in the morning and remained until nine and later in the evening.
17. The continental United States was divided into seven geographic areas; boundaries of these areas were established on the basis of the number of naval installations to be assigned to a Superintending Civil Engineer. Headquarters of seven areas were located as follows: (1) Boston), (2) New York, (3) Norfolk, (4) New Orleans, (5) Chicago, (6) San Francisco, (7) Seattle.
18. BuDocks Circular Letter 157-42, quoted in "Bases," Vol. I. p. 69.
19. The original three divisions were as follows:
Atlantic (headquarters in Washington and London) included the Atlantic, Caribbean, African, and Mediterranean areas, and the British Isles.
Alaskan (headquarters in Seattle) included Alaska and the Aleutian Islands.
Pacific (headquarters in San Francisco and Honolulu) included the Pacific Ocean areas. When divided into Eastern Pacific (headquarters in San Francisco and Honolulu) and Western Pacific (headquarters in Guam), the line of demarcation was set at 165° West Longitude.
"Bases," I, p. 70.
20. For a discussion of this organization see the article by Commander Walter H. Allen, (CEC), USN, "The Twelfth Regiment (Public Works) at Great Lakes" in Proceedings, U.S. Naval Institute, vol. 47 (1921) p. 367.
21. BuDocks letter OB(9)/A1-1 of December 28, 1941. The first Headquarters Construction Company actually became the nucleus of the first Construction Battalion that left the United States for Bora Bora on January 27, 1942. This operation is described in the chapter on "Naval Logistics".
22. SecNav ltr to BuNav, BuDocks, BuSandA, BuMed, ComUSMC, OE/P17-1(420312)/Ca-1b, dated March 19, 1942.
25. SecNav Annual Report, 1945, p. A-95.
26. Ibid., p. A-95.
27. Ibid., p. A-43.
29. SecNav Annual Report, 1945, p. A-105.
