Mr. BERUBE. No. That was a reduction in rank.

Ms. CLARK. No, sir.

Senator CHILES. You went down two notches, and Ms. Clark you are managing the petty cash fund now?

Ms. CLARK. Right.

Senator CHILES. Did you go two notches at once?

Mr. BERUBE. No. I went down a notch when they abolished the office, and just recently the Office of Project Management, which I went to, is being reorganized and actually it happened the day after the investigator came and talked to me, I got another reduction in rank.

Senator CHILES. The day after our investigator called on you, you went down another notch?

Mr. BERUBE. Yes.

Senator CHILES. Well, we found the memorandum-I want to thank you for your testimony here today.

Have him look at them; I want him to tell us if those are the memorandums.

I'd like to remind your colleagues that we called you; that you had to fulfill your obligation to give us straightforward answers to questions.

I'd like to also remind anyone that interferring with a congressional witness is prohibited by section 1505 of Title XVIII of the U.S. Code. That prohibition carries a penalty of up to $5,000 and 5 years in prison, or both.

I'd like to also remind people that in the Civil Service Reform Bill that our committee is presently marking up there are specific provisions for a special council so that a whistleblower will be protected, so that if someone tries to come to the Congress, or go elsewhere to talk about waste or inefficiency or failure to carry out proper actions, that person is not going to be treated the way we have seen so many Government people treated in the past. They are exiled to Siberia; they are demoted, and in some instances they are fired. We see so many instances in this investigation where many times the answer is there, and most of our questions have come right out of the audit reports.

We didn't have to do any great investigative work to go find the problems, especially those that we are talking about today of waste and inefficiency. They are all right in the GSA files. They are right there where the auditor was talking about it, and then someone like you attempts to blow the whistle, or to get someone to listen. I think you were trying to inform your superiors of the cause here, and we see this action taking place.

I thank you for your appearance here today, both of you.

Mr. BERUBE. Thank you.

Ms. CLARK. Thank you.

Senator CHILES. Our next witness will be Mr. Peter Mollica, the special assistant to the Deputy Administrator for Management. Mr. Mollica, would you raise your right hand?

[Whereupon, Peter Mollica, having been first duly sworn, was called as a witness.]

Senator CHILES. You are the principal officer who handles the

TESTIMONY OF PETER MOLLICA, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR

Mr. MOLLICA. At the time that is being discussed I was. Actually, I was involved in it operationally. The Deputy Administrator is the acquisition executive.

Since the time of these events, I have not been primarily concerned with it. Mr. Griffin has another assistant who handles that. But during the relevant period, I was involved.

Senator CHILES. Mr. Mollica, I'll put your statement in full in the record at the conclusion of your testimony. If there are specific parts of it that you would like to relate to me, I'll be delighted to hear that. I don't want to

Mr. MOLLICA. No, I think, sir, it would be just as well for it to just go in the record.

Senator CHILES. Fine. Well, in full it will go in the record. And I'll ask you questions. If there is any time that you have anything to say, please feel free to do that. I don't want to put you on and in any way muzzle you or keep you from from having your opportunity to make any statement that you have to say.

Mr. MOLLICA. I appreciate that.

Senator CHILES. What was your principal assignment during the time just described by Mr. Berube and Ms. Clark?

Mr. MOLLICA. One of my assignments was the implementation of A-109.

Senator CHILES. Do you have a recollection of the conversations that were just related by Mr. Berube and Ms. Clark?

Mr. MOLLICA. In part, yes, but I must say I vigorously deny those quotations and I vigorously deny that they were ever a proper expression of my attitude towards the implementation of A-109, absolutely not. The quotations are incorrect, and do not properly express my attitude.

Indeed, quite the contrary, Mr. Chairman. When I came to this position, some 9 months, as I remember it, had elapsed since the issuance of A-109.

Senator CHILES. I'm having difficulty hearing you.

Mr. MOLLICA. I'm very sorry.

Some 9 months had elapsed since the issuance of Circular A-109 and absolutely no implementation had been issued by GSA. Not even an interim implementation had been issued, and I was just absolutely at my wits end to get an implementation out. We were terribly long delayed, and I think that there are any number of witnesses who will testify to just how vigorously I pursued this with the GSA services.

I found what I considered to be the problem areas, and, again, there are witnesses who will corroborate this. The principal problem was that the Office of Systems Acquisition and the services, the operating services, had readied an absolute impasse. In part, not simply because of interpretations of A-109, but from a desire by the Office of Systems Acquisition to get very deeply involved in operational

matters.

A-109 specifically enjoins the agencies not to create management layering and nonessential paperwork. The Office of Systems Acqui

services were resisting it. We were at an absolute impasse. I have very little doubt that if it hadn't been broken loose, there still would be no implementation at all of A-109.

Senator CHILES. Well, I find that a little bit hard to reconcile when the General Accounting Office said that the procedures and policies that were being followed by the Systems Office were in compliance, and that they were training personnel and all, when what happened afterward is not in compliance.

Mr. MOLLICA. There was no implementation. The plan was there, but there was no implementation, and Mr. Eckerd-the then Administrator-would not sign an implementation in that state because the services could not work with it. And there are memoranda in our files indicating Mr. Chambers, the then Deputy Administrator's concern with this. Mr. Eckerd took no action because there was a complete breakdown of communications between the Office of Systems Acquisition and the services.

Senator CHILES. Well, there is still no implementation according to the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, and according to the General Accounting Office, and this is another year later; 15 months later.

Mr. MOLLICA. Well, Mr. Chairman, I disagree with the categorical statement that there is no implementation. In fact, there is an implementation. It can be said, you can take the position, that it is just a paper implementation, but that is not true. And it is not true that we haven't made changes in our procurement process. One of the major changes which is required by the circular, and GSA's order that was put out, was that all of these matters now are key decisions which must be made directly by the Administrator.

These key decisions are being made by the Administrator at the present time, and it is not quite fair to categorize this as no implementation. We do have some disagreements with OFPP with respect to the adequacy of that implementation, and, as you know, we are discussing that with them.

Senator CHILES. Well, I would say there are disagreements when you hear the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Director say that the only thing he knows to do now is cut off the funds.

Mr. MOLLICA. Well, I can say that I disagree with his opinion. Senator CHILES. Well, it is obvious, Mr. Mollica, you disagree with what the witnesses said before; you disagree with GAO; you disagree with the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, but you say that you think A-109 is a good document?

Mr. MOLLICA. Absolutely. I mean, I have no difficulty whatsoever with A-109 in principle. I think it is a standard and a good management technique.

Senator CHILES. Well, I think that's the toughest thing that I find in trying to change anything that has been going in a direction that it is going before when you get the kind of answer that you have just given me.

If someone says, no, that is not a good document, then you come up against that.

Mr. MOLLICA. Yes.

Senator CHILES. And you can either knock them down or they knock you down. But when someone comes up and says, oh, that's a good document. I think that is great. But then we look at the actions and the

actions are that OFPP says you are not complying; GAO says you are not complying, and then we get witnesses today. It makes me think that that is the toughest thing to ever try to move in the bureaucracy because you must kind of suck us in. It is kind of like a year or so from now, he will get tired and he will go off on something else. He will have another number that he will want to do, or he will have something else on his mind.

Are you getting competitive alternatives?

Mr. MOLLICA. In connection with

Senator CHILES. Or do you believe in competitive alternatives? Mr. MOLLICA. I do not at the stage and in the manner as they are construed by Mr. Berube; no. And I don't think that Mr. BerubeSenator CHILES. Do you think that A-109 calls for competitive alternatives?

Mr. MOLLICA. Yes.

Senator CHILES. I think it does, too, very, very clearly.

Mr. MOLLICA. Yes; there is no question about that. And with respect to the question of competitive alternatives, with respect to the automated data processing field, there is no particular problem with that. I understand that the detailed implementation has been discussed with OFPP and they are reasonably satisfied with the proposed implementation by the Automated Data and Telecommunications Service.

The problem arises in the Public Buildings Service area. And while I am not saying that the prospectus procedure precludes us from complying with A-109, I do say that as the prospectus procedure is now set up, it precludes us from complying with OFPP's interpretation because of the difficulty in getting competitive bids in connection with with leasing, for example. We cannot expect the bidder to hold a lease offer open for as much as a year and a half. As a practical matter, that is a very difficult thing. Our prospectus requirements run roughly a year to a year and a half before we get approval and if you are talking about construction, it is even longer. So, they present a practical difficulty.

It is not something that can't be overcome by legislation. As a matter of fact, our last discussions with OFPP indicated that—and I was not privy to those discussions because I'm a little bit out of the field now, but a member of Mr. Griffin's staff was there and his report to me indicated that OFPP agreed with a two-pronged approach to resolving our constraints. That is, we would do the best we could now and seek to have changes made.

Senator CHILES. I have difficulty again, Mr. Mollica, we are 2 years down the road now. You say it was 9 months down when you came on board. We are talking about 15 months from that time, and we still don't have competitive alternatives of some kind.

Now, it seems to me if you can say that you can't comply with 1year leases or ones that would be held open a year on competitive, that doesn't mean that you can't go out and get some alternatives, competitive alternatives even if they don't last for a year to allow you to make a decision on whether leasing is more equitable and what kind of leasing, whether leasing against building a new building, or whether renovating would be better. All that really says is you don't do it in

Mr. MOLLICA. That has been done for many years in GSA, however not by a formal solicitation, a live procurement document with a firm bid. The Public Buildings Service, to meet the prospectus requirement, keeps tabs on the real estate market. They are constantly running commercial market surveys. They do get input from industry. It is not a question of them sitting there thinking up these things by themselves.

Senator CHILES. And that is what we are seeing all through this where people informally supposedly had done something. They can call their friends; they can say, well, it wasn't really possible to lease, but I made a few phone calls. That is a little different from having somebody sign a piece of paper of what he would do. What he would be prepared to do.

Mr. MOLLICA. Well, as I said, I think that would undoubtedly be something desirable, but it is impossible with the prospectus procedure as it stands now. All we could do is implement to the largest extent we could. The PBS order called for significant improvements in their market survey system so that they are keeping a day-to-day tab on the real estate market. So, it is the best we could do until such time. as we have a change in prospectus procedure.

Senator CHILES. Well, again, if all that was being done, then A-109 wasn't necessary in the first place so, I can't see why, again, you would say you support A-109, because obviously none of that was needed.

Mr. MOLLICA. I am not saying that what we were doing before. complied with A-109 in toto. We have made changes. We do have a procedure for mission needs statement; a procedure for the analysis of all the alternatives. Those procedures are in place. So, we are not operating as business-as-usual.

Senator CHILES. My understanding of the first of your testimony is that you have told me that you are not in charge of A-109 implementation now?

Mr. MOLLICA. No; Mr. Griffin still is. I am a special assistant. We have another member of our staff whose job currently provides for that implementation.

Senator CHILES. Why would you abolish the office?

Mr. MOLLICA. We didn't feel that there was a need for the office. It was a matter of resources. And also, as it was a matter of effectiveness of the office. The office's effectiveness

Senator CHILES. Well, the matter of resources, let's take that. You have a man now

Mr. MOLLICA. Yes.

Senator CHILES [continuing]. And that's his role.

Mr. MOLLICA. Yes.

Senator CHILES. Well, you had a man before.

Mr. MOLLICA. Well, we had two men plus a secretary, and they were higher grades. Also, I did want to add though, I don't want to say it was only a matter of resources. The situation with the services was such that they could not deal with Mr. Berube, and I do hope that if you wish corroboration, you will ultimately obtain statements. from some of the people who were involved at that time, particularly,