Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. SAMPSON. No; we do nothing that is personal.

Mr. ADDABBO. These fellows were supposed to volunteer their services?

Mr. SAMPSON. Those were not GSA people. Secondly, it was done in their off hours and they were paid. Moonlighting.

ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGES

Mr. STEED. Could you give us for the record an outline of reorganization changes that have taken place in GSA since the last year! Mr. SAMPSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. STEED. Include the additional workload that has been assigned

to you.

Mr. SAMPSON. Yes, sir. We can do that.

Mr. STEED. You might add a statement, if there is such a situation, if any functions have been transferred out of GSA. [The information follows:]

ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGES IN GSA DURING THE LAST YEAR

Previously, the Transportation and Communications Service was responsible for GSA's telecommunications, public utilities, motor equipment, and transportation functions. The responsibility for GSA's Government-wide and internal automatic data processing and related activities was in the Federal Supply Service. During the year, the Transportation and Communications Service was abolished and a new Automated Data and Telecommunications Service was established. To enable GSA to better perform both its Government-wide and internal ADPrelated activities, the Government-wide ADP and telecommunications responsibilities were merged into the new Automated Data and Telecommunications Service. Responsibility for GSA internal ADP activities was assigned to the Office of Administration. The motor equipment, transportation, and public utilities functions of the former Transportation and Communications Service were reassigned to the Federal Supply Service.

Changes in the Office of the Administrator included: (1) the transfer of the Fine Arts and Historic Preservation Staff from the Public Buildings Service to the Office of the Administrator, (2) transfer of the Office of Environmental Affairs from the Office of the Administrator to the Public Buildings Service, and (3) transfer of the business service centers staff, the Federal information centers staff, and the Consumer Product Information Coordinating Center from the Office of the Assistant Administrator to the Office of the Administrator. The Office of Administration was placed under the Office of the Assistant Administrator.

During the last year a number of additional functions were assigned to GSA, including the following:

(a) Public Law 92-265 of March 30, 1972, extended the life of the Indian Claims Commission until April 10, 1977. GSA has been called upon to provide accounting and records management support for the adjudication of Indian tribal claims pending before the Indian Claims Commission. An Indian Claims Division was established in the Office of Administration to carry out these responsibilities.

(b) The Office of Management and Budget, in OMB Circular No. A-40, revised, of May 3, 1973, assigned to GSA responsibilities in connection with the management of Federal reporting requirements in the executive branch. These respon sibilities have been assigned to the National Archives and Records Service.

(c) Executive Order 11717 transferred to GSA from the Office of Management and Budget responsibility for Government-wide policy development in the areas of financial management, systems development, procurement, contracting, property management, and automatic data processing management. The Office of Federal Management Policy, reporting to the Administrator, has been established to perform these functions. A number of other GSA elements performing similar functions were merged into the new office.

(d) Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1973 which takes effect on July 1, 1973, transfers to the President all functions vested by statute in the Office of Emer

gency Preparedness or its Director. Many of the functions of that agency are being delegated by the President to GSA, including the areas of continuity of government, emergency resources planning, industry resources allocation, resource crisis management, and stockpile materials policy.

Mr. STEED. Mr. Robison, do you have any general questions?

NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT RESERVE

Mr. ROBISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Sampson, on June 1 Congressman John Anderson, of Illinois, inserted in the Congressional Record under an extension of remarks some correspondence he had with OMB relative to the future of the NIER program, which stands for National Industrial Equipment Reserve. Included in the material that he put in the record was a reply by Frederick W. Malek, Deputy Director of OMB, under date of May 24, 1974. Let me quote in part therefrom:

"Most of the concern," says Mr. Malek, "expressed in Congress over the NIER relates to the training aspects of the program. We feel that the educational objectives of the NIER can best be served by donating the tools to educational institutions under GSA/HEW existing donation programs. Such action would not place a significant additional burden on the donation program and would not require additional Federal funds. This would not be a one-time action, but would allow a continual flow of machine tools no longer needed for defense contracts to be donated rather than loaned to the many schools which can use such tools for vocational training."

Is Mr. Malek correct, in your judgment, in suggesting here to Congressman Anderson that the existing GSA/HEW donation program could handle the disposition of this equipment?

Mr. GARDNER. Yes, I think so. It is my understanding that OMB has directed the Defense Department to take such steps as are necessary to declare quite a bit of this equipment excess, which then makes it available to HEW for the school program.

Mr. SAMPSON. We think this is an ideal solution.

Mr. ROBISON. This would be a solution which would be fairly accessible; that is, it could be resorted to in the near future? Mr. SAMPSON. Easily.

NIER FUNDS

Mr. GARDNER. You will recall Congress appropriated $1.8 million last month to continue this program or do something with it. OMB has apportioned to GSA approximately $900,000 which was the cost we had incurred for the program. It is my understanding that OMB intends to utilize the remaining $900,000 to implement the program Mr. Malek outlined.

NIER. INVENTORY

Mr. ROBISON. Mr. Malek goes on to suggest further, with regard to whatever concern there is about the tools in the NIER inventory be available for defense production requirements if and when needed, that a "national security clause," on the tools channeled through the GSA disposal program could be put on their donation, which is, I guess, a way to retrieve them in the event national defense requirements indicate that need.

Mr. GARDNER. Recapture clause.

Mr. STEED. If the gentleman would yield-is there a precedent for that recapture clause?

Mr. GARDNER. Yes, sir. Air bases are a good example.

Mr. ROBISON. Bring us up to date on whether or not this equipment is being looked after as best you can. I know you don't have any funds for that, and have not had any, but is it deteriorating or is it still in fairly good shape?

Mr. GARDNER. To our knowledge today, and we talked about it here a couple weeks ago, there is no serious deterioration yet. It is subject to limited inspection by our people. We do not have funds to continue it.

Mr. ROBISON. Finally, if you were to be given funds to continue to provide this equipment with at least minimum safekeeping and maintenance, how much would you need?

Mr. GARDNER. Again it would depend on how much Defense required in the reserve. They call the shots on what is necessary. When the equipment is disposed of or loaned to the school, the school pays the transportation costs both in and out. Other than the maintenance and protection of the equipment, that is basically the larger GSA cost involved.

Mr. BUTTS. About a million and a half to $1.8 million a year. Mr. ROBISON. If some of those tools were declared excess, that amount could be reduced?

Mr. GARDNER. The storage costs would be all.

Mr. STEED. Mr. Addabbo.

Mr. ADDABBO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

BOMB SCARES IN FEDERAL BUILDINGS

Mr. Administrator, last year many of the Federal buildings experienced quite a few bomb scares. Has that decreased or leveled off? Mr. SAMPSON. We have had a sizable decrease in all acts against buildings over the past 3 years. In fact, over a 2-year period they have been reduced by more than 50 percent. We had 773 bomb threats in 1970. In 1972 there were less than 375.

VACATING BUILDINGS

Mr. ADDABBO. Do you set the regulation as to when Federal buildings are to be vacated?

Mr. SAMPSON. Yes.

Mr. ADDABBO. Do the departments look to you for reimbursement when they have to vacate, as far as costs are concerned?

Mr. SAMPSON. They can look, but they won't get anything.

PAINTING PENTAGON OFFICES

Mr. ADDABBO. I sit on the Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations and one of the questions raised there recently was what appeared to us as extraordinarily high costs for painting Pentagon offices. We were advised this is on a reimbursable basis and what they quoted was the exact figure being charged by GSA. Is that correct?

Mr. SAMPSON. Yes.

Mr. ADDABBO. Is that contract work or is that GSA personnel? Mr. SAMPSON. It is a combination of both. We have some in-house painters that we use and we also contract for some work. I would challenge them on their statement it is expensive. Unless they were asking

Mr. ADDABBO. We think it is expensive. We said it was expensive because when it came to one of the offices, it was supposed to be a 2or 3-room suite, we computed it similar to a House suite, which cost. an average of $280, $300, and their figure was something like $3,000 which seemed abnormally high.

Mr. SAMPSON. It doesn't sound right.

Mr. ADDABBO. I agree with you. Could you supply for the record information on that? This was painting for the Secretary of Defense Office and many offices had not been painted in 3, 4, or 5 years, they said. The computation seemed way out of line in comparison with Architect of the Capitol figures on what the average cost of painting

here would be.

Mr. SAMPSON. We will supply something for the record.

(The information follows:)

The painting of offices in the Pentagon for the Secretary of Defense as referred to in the testimony before the Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations includes: 18 rooms, 29 doors, 17 windows, and extensive trim and wainscoting. The estimated costs are as follows:

[blocks in formation]

This estimate was given to the Department of Defense on May 24, 1973. As of this date, DOD has not approved the job order and the painting of the offices has not commenced.

MINOR REPAIRS

Mr. ADDABBO. I noticed in an SBA renovation several years ago some abnormal charges as far as minor repairs are concerned. You change a door for $100 and that seems expensive. What sets the value for that? What rate of pay do you have? Is that on a GS level or WS level? Mr. SAMPSON. Most of these are hourly employees and we have standard rates we charge everybody for most jobs. We do run into extraordinary costs when they want things done overnight or weekends. If you are doing a new Secretary's office for the Department, usually they want it done right away and they have to do it overnight with a lot of extra overtime. This is where some of the large costs are.

If you take an everyday paint job or repair job, we can do it very economically.

ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS

Mr. ADDABBO. Do you tack on administrative costs or are you charging hourly?

Mr. SAMPSON. We have administrative costs.

Mr. ADDABBO. Aren't we funding administrative costs?

Mr. SAMPSON. Yes, sir, the portion related to direct appropriations.

94-174 - 73 pt. 4 -- 52

Mr. ADDABBO. Then you get administrative costs twice?

Mr. SAMPSON. No, sir, you don't appropriate to us for reimbursable work.

Mr. ADDABBO. We are not funding the reimbursable part, but funding administrative costs.

Mr. GARDNER. We bill for the cost of material, labor, and overhead. The financing, billing, and payroll workload related to that reimbursible work would be provided for the reimbursable account. These administrative costs are dependent upon the size or volume of the workload.

Mr. ADDABBO. Do you mean to tell me that when you ask us for funding, if you have a man-year valued at $8,000, you only ask for $6,000 because you are going to be reimbursed for the additional $2,000; is that how you compute the payroll?

Mr. GARDNER. I am not sure I understand.

Mr. ADDABBO. This is what you are telling me.

Mr. GARDNER. It is impossible in my opinion to try to come up with a cost accounting system that would be economical to identify the administrative costs applicable to each job order. We attempt to break even in the buildings management fund where this type of reimbursable work is done.

Mr. ADDABBO. I don't know whether that is a fact. It would be simpler if we budget and paid you all administrative costs and all you ask for in reimbursement is actual costs of the men and material furnished. If the cost of a man is $5 an hour and he starts at 8 o'clock in the morning and leaves at 10 o'clock, he has put in two hours, and you are reimbursed $10.

Mr. GARDNER. For direct payroll costs, that is all right. However, we cannot sit down here 18 months ahead of the fiscal year and tell you what the reimbursable cost will be. We can estimate it, but it depends on the appropriation of the other agencies, their size, volume, their turnover. If you were to do that, you might give us some administrative money we didn't need. If you appropriated the administrative costs and said only bill out your direct time and if the reimbursable workload did not in fact occur, you funded us for a cost we didn't have.

PAINTING

Mr. ADDABBO. When I see the Defense Department asking for $3,000 and they said we are just asking you for what the GSA is asking us for

Mr. GARDNER. I will have to look into that.

Mr. ADDABBO. This was strictly a painting job. That is why we raised the question. Check the request in the 1974 budget for painting. They claim the Secretary's office, Under Secretary's office had not been painted in the last 3 or 5 years. It was close to

Mr. GARDNER. OSD, when they came up?

Mr. ADDABBO. It was before the Defense Subcommittee the week before last.

Mr. GARDNER. Secretary of Defense operation account?

Mr. ADDABBO. Yes.

I have no further questions.

Mr. STEED. Mr. Myers.

« PreviousContinue »