the development of study plans for future personnel consolidations in procurement and supply management overhead staffs.

(a) Question: What was the effect of the reorganization on military personnel in the Washington area?

Answer. The strength of the Army Departmental Staff has steadily decreased since June 30, 1962, from an authorized strength of 2,936 to a March 31, 1963, strength of 2,724. The projected strength for December 31, 1963, is 2,599. While there has been a steady decrease in the Army Departmental Staff, the formation of the U.S. Army Materiel Command and U.S. Army Combat Development Command has increased the total military strength in the Washington Metropolitan area which includes Fort Belvoir, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, etc. The actual military strength in the metropolitan area on June 30, 1962, was 16,933 and was 17,581 on February 30, 1963. The formation of these two commands plus the reorganization of the functions of the Army Staff has necessitated much rotation of military personnel within office locations in the Washington area, some movement out and some movement into the area. But as Secretary Vance stated before a House Subcommittee on Appropriations, the principal objective of the reorganization was not to effect a savings in personnel. It is expected by end of fiscal year 1964 that this realinement of functions and increased productivity of the work force will result in a decrease in military as well as civilian spaces within the commands and agencies affected. 5. How many civilians will actually lose their jobs as a result of this reorganization, assuming many of the people cannot or will not move?

Employees identified for transfer to locations outside the Washington, D.C., area who were unable or unwilling to move (1) were assigned or placed in other continuing employment; (2) left their positions voluntarily in advance of specific job offers at the new locations; or (3) are still awaiting assignment. The latter category presently consists of fewer than 40 employees who declined to follow their function. Efforts are continuing to locate employment for them in the Washington area or other geographical areas to which they are willing to transfer.

In addition, there are 480 employees who have assignment rights within the Washington area who have not yet been placed at their present grades in permanent assignments. Nearly one-half of those employees will be placed in newly established positions required under the organization. For the remainder, placement efforts are continuing. Some will leave voluntarily by retirement or resignation; some may be offered lower grade positions. To the fullest extent possible, these employees will be considered for retraining to meet other skill requirements of the Army.

6. Question: Would you indicate for the subcommittee the number of civilian employees who were sent to colleges for formal training classes in 1962, of 2 weeks or longer duration, as compared to the number of military personnel? Answer. Headquarters, Department of the Army, does not maintain centrally the information requested; however, data are available on the total numbers of military and civilian personnel who received training in non-Government facilities. Those facilities are utilized generally to meet three types of training needs as follows:

(a) Specialized armywide training for which a contract is negotiated at Headquarters, Department of the Army, level for all Army Activities. The Army comptrollership course conducted by Syracuse University is an example of this type of training.

(b) Regular graduate and undergraduate courses which have a direct relationship to job assignments.

(c) Training in private and industrial concerns such as training operation and maintenance of particular types of equipment.

During 1962, 9,993 civilian employees received training in non-Government facilities. The training included 341,100 man-hours of instruction in courses which exceeded 40 hours in duration. The number of military personnel receiving training in such facilities during that period was 1,930. Of that figure, some 927 members (officer and enlisted) attended courses of over 20 weeks' duration, and 1,003 attended courses of less than 20 weeks' duration.

Question No. 7-Part (a): What are specific examples of contracts let by category of reason?

Answer: 1. Contracts let by reason of directive or policy of higher authority

are

(a) Service contracts for maintenance, storage, refuse collection, etc., not meeting exception criteria specified in BOB and DOD directives or instructions.

(b) Depot maintenance of commercial-type vehicles.

(c) Contracting for at least 60 percent of tire recapping work required by the Army.

2. An example of contracts let by reason of internal improvement or change of mission is the contracting for maintenance and/or security of installations or activities charged from an active to inactive status.

3. Examples of contracts let because of lack of inhouse capability or required skills include contract technicians and maintenance of Government owned or rented punchcard or ADP equipment.

For

Ex

Question No. 7-Part (b): To what extent does cost play a part in deciding whether to do the job by contract or with your own people and facilities? Answer. Cost, while an important factor in determining whether to do a job inhouse or by contract, is not the only factor. As previously stated, in the case of contract technicians the availability of skills is the basic factor. commercial and industrial activities the rule is to contract for services. ceptions are made only when it can be clearly demonstrated that private enterprise cannot perform the service or provide the products to meet current and mobilization needs. Cost must be considered with other factors such as security, lack of inhouse capability, training requirements, and mobilization readiness. In summary, "cost" per se is a consideration but not "the" consideration when deciding whether or not to contract or perform work inhouse. DA policy in accordance with BOB Circular 60-2 as implemented by DOD directive is that continuation of Army operation on the ground that procurement through commercial sources would involve higher costs may be justified only if costs are analyzed on a comparable basis and the differences are found to be substantial and disproportionately large.

Mr. HENDERSON. We will now adjourn, to meet tomorrow at 10 a.m., at which time we will hear from the Deputy Director of the Bureau of the Budget and the Chairman of the Civil Service Commission. This subcommittee will stand adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 11:58 a.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Tuesday, May 21, 1963.)

98-338-63-pt. 2-8

APPENDIX

PART II-MANPOWER UTILIZATION SUBCOMMITTEE HEARINGS

(a) Materials relating to use of military personnel in civilian jobs at Warner Robins Air Force Base, Ga.

(b) Letter by Assistant Secretary of Defense for Logistics, Hon. Thomas D. Morris, to Hon. David N. Henderson, dated June 10, 1963, relating to Department of Army monitoring salaries of contractors.

(c) Letter from national president of the National Federation of Federal Employees, Mr. Vaux Owen, to Hon. David N. Henderson dated July 1, 1963, regarding the effects of reduced ceilings in the Department of Defense.

(a)

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFGE LODGE 987, Warner Robins, Ga., April 9, 1963.

Congressman E. L. FORRESTER,

House Office Building,

Washington, D.C.

DEAR SIR: The enclosed copy of a letter with attachments is furnished in accordance with your letter dated April 2, 1963.

Your untiring efforts to assist us in solving the problem concerning the replacement of civilian supervisors with military personnel is deeply appreciated. We will continue to keep you informed of new developments.

Sincerely,

ALTON O. ANDERSON, President.

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFGE LODGE 987, Warner Robins, Ga., April 9, 1963.

Mr. JOHN F. GRINER,

National President, American Federation of Government Employees, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. GRINER: Reference your letter of March 1, 1963, with copy of letter from Congressman Tom Murray, and our letter dated January 28, 1963, relative to civilian-military problem and AFLC TDY travel policy.

Although you have a file of Lodge 987 correspondence concerning the militarycivilian problem, I will briefly summarize :

1. During period December 1960 to September 1962, 183 civilian positions were abolished in Base and Transient Branch and 195 military personnel placed in these positions.

2. Three civilian branch chiefs positions in Directorate of Maintenance, Production Control Division (MP), were scheduled for militarization in June 1962. This move was stopped by Congressman E. L. Forrester through the Department of Defense.

3. The technical associate position occupied by Mr. George J. Lotti, under the military Chief of Production Control Division (MP), was abolished November 18, 1962. Capt. R. V. Gowans was assigned as special assistant to military Chief, Lt. Col. R. W. Hamilton, Production Control Division (MP), on January 14, 1963, and is occupying this position as of this date.

4. The Civil Engineering Division has 22 military enlisted personnel occupying positions previously and normally occupied by civilians. Their duties include plumbing, carpentry, refrigeration, and heating shopwork. Also, mainte

294

nance and repair of real property, office, hangar, warehouse, and shop buildings, etc.

5. The Directorate of Supply and Transportation (S) has been advised that 31 military enlisted personnel will be placed in their Special Accounting Branch (SBE) on July 1, 1963. These military slots will replace civilian positions that have been abolished over last 2-year period.

6. Mr. W. B. Harrison, GS-13, Branch Chief, position canceled in June 1962 when incumbent transferred from SM Division. Position reestablished as military position in August 1962 and Maj. R. B. McCanlus being placed in position May 1, 1963.

7. One GS-12 position occupied by Mr. W. T. Horton in Directorate of Materiel Management in NS Division (NSP) abolished August 11, 1962, and reestablished in November 1962, as a military position with rank of major. Selection of assignee in progress.

8. In November 1958, the Directorate of Materiel Management established an Operations Branch in 6 of its 10 divisions with a civilian chief in charge. During period April 1961 through November 1962 these civilian positions have been abolished and reestablished as military officer positions with Maj. L. E. Malone, Chief, Operations Branch, NTO; Maj. W. H. Rabun, Jr., Chief, Operations Branch, NLO; Maj. R. R. Swim, Chief, Operations Branch, NUO; Maj. C. F. Wenzel, Chief, Operations Branch, NQO; Capt. J. K. Robinson, Chief, Operations Branch, NNO; Capt. J. C. Hammond, Chief, Bomber-Missile Branch, PBM; and Capt. J. M. Hoagland, Chief, Machine Tool Branch, PAC. All of these positions except those in NLO and PAC were converted from civilian to military positions. The NLO and PAC Branch positions are similar to the other five. The records containing the names of the civilian branch chiefs are not available to us; however, they would be made available to congressional inquiry. The WRAMA commander has stated that officers are required in these positions for disciplinary reasons, and that his actions are consistent with the provisions of DOD 1100.4 and AFR 40-3. However, actual records concerning operation of these branches fail to reveal or indicate that any disciplinary action was required against any single civilian supervisor for failure to carry out the assigned mission responsibility in a satisfactory manner. The change to military chiefs has resulted in a lesser degree of responsibility being exercised due to special assignments outside the branch, schools, PT, and requirements to attend routine military calls. This condition has caused the civilian technicians to assume the chief's responsibility. The end result of converting to military chiefs is a loss of incentive for branch personnel to seek promotion to higher positions and deterioration of morale (exhibit and A and B).

The overall job security of WRAMA civilian supervisors is in jeopardy when the Air Force either authorizes or condones these conversions without proper and true justification as required by DOD 1100.4 and AFR 40-3 (exhibit C). Another letter will follow concerning the AFLC-WRAMA travel policies. Sincerely,

Chairman, Manpower Utilization Committee,

American Federation of Government Employees, Lodge 987,

Robins Air Force Base, Ga.

DEAR MR. CASEY: 1. Reference is made to the meeting held December 20, 1962, concerning the matter of converting certain supervisory manpower spaces to military supervisory spaces.

2. As you recall at the conclusion of this meeting it was agreed that this office would find the reasons for the establishment of six branch level supervisory positions which were staffed with military officer personnel. These positions

are:

(a) Chief, Operations Branch, Airframe Inventory Management Division, NTO.

(b) Chief, Operations Branch, Aerospace Communications Equipment Inventory Management Division, NLO.

(c) Chief, Operations Branch, Bomber Armament Inventory Management Division, NUO.

(d) Chief, Operations Branch, Missiles and Accessories Inventory Management Division, Materiel Management, NQO.

(e) Chief, Bomber-Missile Branch, Air Vehicle Component Division, Procurement and Production, PBM.

(f) Chief, Communications and Machine Tool Branch, Armament and Machine Tool Division, Procurement and Production, PAC.

3. The Operations Branches mentioned above serve as focal points for all planning, programing, phasing, and requirements data used in inventory management. Their importance in the inventory system requires there be rapid reaction to management concepts and directives. The assignment of military personnel to these positions provides disciplinary controls which assure quick reaction by timely and proper disciplinary action for failure to respond. Under the civil service system rapid reaction through disciplinary measures is inherently less responsive.

4. The civilians affected and the positions they are presently assigned are as follows:

(a) Mr. Lonnie A. Walker, Jr., supervisory logistic support officer, GS-13, Chief, Operations Branch, Hi-Value Section, Airframe Inventory Management Division. He was formerly Chief, Operations Branch, Airframe Inventory Management Division.

(b) Mr. Frank Jones was not Chief, Operations Branch, Aerospace Communications Division. He functionally transferred to WRAMA from Dayton Air Force Depot as technical associate. His position was not abolished until November 1, 1962, with the reorganization of NLO. Maj. William H. Rabun, Jr., was assigned as chief of the branch on August 29, 1962. Mr. Jones was reassigned to the position of Chief, Military Support Branch, Industrial Production Equipment.

(c) Mr. Howard E. Johnson, supervisory logistics support officer, GS-13, Chief, Programs and Procurement Management Section, Operations Branch, NUOP. He was formerly Chief, Operations Branch, Armament Inventory Management Division.

(d) Mr. Edward M. Wheeler, supervisory supply requirements and distribution officer, GS-13, Chief, C-130 and C-140 Materiel Control Section, Materiel Control Branch, Aerospace Systems Support Management Division. This assignment was made at Mr. Wheeler's request on January 1, 1961.

5. The positions in Procurement and Production were new positions. There were no civilians affected in the assignment of military branch chiefs to the Bomber-Missile Branch (PBM) and Communications and Machine Tool Branch (PAC). These positions were also established to provide responsive disciplinary controls. The rapid reaction provided by timely and proper disciplinary action insures prompt response to command direction for mission accomplishment. In establishing these positions, chief contract negotiator positions were also established at the GS-13 level and filled through the merit promotion program. Mr. Kenneth Logan was selected for the position of chief contract negotiator in the Bomber-Missile Branch. Mr. William N. Bennett was selected for a similar position in Communications and Machine Tool Branch. The Communications and Machine Tool Branch was established as a result of the functional transfer of the communications functions from Dayton Air Force Depot.

6. In each of the above instances, the positions were established and filled with career military officers for the specific purpose of providing adequate disciplinary control of the branches concerned.

Sincerely,

KARL MCPHERSON,

Chief, Civilian Personnel Division.