Senator CHILES. Mr. Mollica has stated that there would be no competition or formal solicitation of alternatives and that Public Buildings Service would continue to identify and evaluate alternatives in-house. He further stated that to competitively solicit alternatives would mean the end to new Federal construction in the Public Buildings Service; is that correct, Ms. Clark?

Ms. CLARK. Yes; it is.

Senator CHILES. You mean the end of new Federal contracting in PBS?

Ms. CLARK. Yes, sir.

Senator CHILES. As I understand it, what that is saying is there shouldn't be any competitive testing of whether you can alternatively lease instead of build, or build in a situation instead of lease. We could even, perhaps, use an existing building. All of that, you shouldn't go out and solicit proposals to see whether it would be cheaper to lease or to build, or to renovate, or remodel?

Mr. BERUBE. That's right. All of that would be done in-house with possible just talking information with the outside world, but not on a formalized basis of getting proposals from private industry and having their innovative approaches, which might result therefrom.

Senator CHILES. In going further in the quoting:

He also felt that the competitive solicitation of alternatives would be politically inexpedient. For example, if the Congress tells us we are going to build a building in Savannah, Georgia; we will build a building in Savannah, Georgia whether or not it is the most economical alternative.

Mr. BERUBE. That is true.

Senator CHILES. Quoting again:

There are other realities and factors which have to be considered.

He said:

That we are very naive and asked if we had heard of the pork barrel.

He gave us Atlanta as the case in point. That we were building a new Federal building there where empty office buildings could be leased or purchased; is that correct?

Mr. BERUBE. That is correct.

MS. CLARK. Yes, sir.

Senator CHILES. Now, at the May 25 meeting, Mr. Mollica said:

He wasn't interested in whether anyone actually carried out A-109,

that, and quote,

As long as the order would be published, our implementation would be complete and with the Order A-109 would die a happy death, disappearing down some rat hule in its own bureaucratic way. That A-109 was a pile of bureaucratic

-there's a little deletion there-[Laughter.]

and that in a year or so no one would remember that number.

Mr. BERUBE. That's true.

Senator CHILES. Sounds like he was going to do a number on the number.

Mr. BERUBE. That's true.

Senator CHILES. Then it says, May 26, Mr. Mollica replied that he did not want either of us to ask him that question again, about A-109, and that he had explained previously the changes in GSA's position.

I take it that the change you refer to was the decision not to actually implement the order in the services?

Mr. BERUBE. That is true.

Senator CHILES. And I see another quote that:

We can go confess our sins to the Office of Federal Procurement Policy.

Mr. BERUBE. Yes. Well, we were quite concerned that the fact that we had reached all of these agreements with the people that we were trying to get A-109 implemented with and all of a sudden we were taking a route that was diametrically opposed to what previous agreements we had made, and that made at least Fran and I look awful bad with these people because here we were saying one thing one day, and the next day taking a position without explaining it in any form or manner.

Senator CHILES. Better yet. I understand your memorandum said that if his direction changed GSA policy, gave us any problems, we could forget the previous conversation ever took place. And I quote further, he replied, that if it did not, "Friends" would rescind his order, but if it made us feel better, he would deny he had ever directed the change in GSA policy. He said he did not know what we were worried about, that the order GSA would issue on A-109 would satisfy the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, that they could read into it their own interpretation and it would be a year or more before they would realize that our interpretation was different from

theirs.

Mr. BERUBE. That is true.

Senator CHILES. What happened after that, Ms. Clark?

Ms. CLARK. Well-I'm trying to get my dates straight. We were told we could go to OFPP and talk to them. And then we had another conversation on how ADP was to be interpreted and related with A-109. And then after we wrote a memo on that, we were told we could not talk to OFPP at all and the office was abolished.

Senator CHILES. You were told not to talk to OFPP anymore and that the office was abolished?

Ms. CLARK. Yes, sir.

Senator CHILES. What happened to you two after the office was abolished?

Mr. BERUBE. Well, actually what happened then is Jay Solomon had just come on board at that time and I guess he met with Mr. Fettig and a number of people in OMB, and his interest, I believe, at the time was to implement A-109, and to do it properly. However, he was brand new to the cause and did not understand at that time how the bureaucracy can operate when it chooses to do one thing contrary to what the wishes of OMB and the Congress are.

Senator CHILES. When it is going to say one thing and do another. Mr. BERUBE. That's right. And I am sure that his intentions were good, but everyone was coming upon him at that time. He had only been in office a few weeks, if I remember well, or not very long, and the result was that the office was abolished; we were both reduced in rank, and sent to the different services. Fran to the ADP area and myself to the Public Buildings area where I had come from. Senator CHILES. That didn't involve a promotion?

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 operational details for major system acquisition in GSA?

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 Acquisition was attempting to take over the operation activities and the

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