(Sanitized) WAREHOUSE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78-04718A001000030012-6
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 5
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 7, 2001
• Sequence Number: 12
• Publication Date: March 24, 1953
• Content Type: MF

No Change In glass.
7-1 r_1
Document No^ OIL Security rformatiort
------ ----- ----
UeClcassefted
a.:d. ng;d To; TS S r 'Anh
Auth.: Hfl 70-2 I:
Date-- ----------- ". By, !A --
MEMORANDU4 FOR: Assistant Deputy Director
24 March 1953
(Administration)
1. Pursuant to your request, I have conducted an investigation of
the utilization and construction planning of the Warehouse. 25X1A6a
The investigation has not been exhaustive, in that all records were not
searched nor was everyone concerned interviewed. I did review some of
the correspondence and several of the various sketches, blueprints, floor
layouts, etc. which have been involved from time to time. I made a brief
inspection of the site and talked with Messrs.
of General Services Office and Colonels and Messrs 25X1A9a
of the Procurement and
Supply Office.
2. Certain fundamental problems have been contributory to the
present state of confusion and last-minute change. They are not neces-
sarily in order of importance:
a. The fact that the builder experienced considerable unantici-
pated delay arising primarily from zoning problems;
b. the builder's architects, for what appeared to be good and
sufficient reasons, found it necessary late in the planning stage
to reverse and reorient the blueprints;
c. the fact that the real estate and construction function of
the Agency was transferred from General Services to the Procurement
and Supply Office with, in the opinion of some now, a failure to
establish a single point of responsibility for carrying forward the
warehouse planning;
d. a continuing problem of determining cover and security require-
ments for the warehouse, which was not resolved until 2 March by the
Deputy Director (Administration);
In my opinion the last item is the key and allowed all of the other
factors to impede progress unnecessarily. Throughout the investigation
all questions which may have been directed to the general area of staff
weakness were clouded in their answers by these other issues.
Approved For Release 2001/0 -RDP78-04718A001000030012-6
Security Information
 Approved For Release 2001/08/1 6 ' 78-04718A001000030012-6
Security Infl n:_ 25X1A6a
3. It appears that the fundamental determination that the
Warehouse was to be an Agency warehouse and was not to be solely for the
use of the Procurement and Supply Office either was not made by the Office
of the Deputy Director (Administration) or was not clearly communicated to
or accepted by the Procurement and Supply Office. The Deputy Chief, Procure-
ment and Supply Office, very clearly established the position of that office
that insofar as they are concerned there shall be nothing in the warehouse
which is not immediately, directly, and necessarily involved and connected
with their warehousing and supply function.
4. On 14 March 1952 the Administrative Services Office included in
its Weekly Activity Report a note that Public Buildings Service had advised
that construction would start 1 April 1952 and would be completed about
1 September 1952 and that Administrative Services was awaiting the results
of a staff study being made by the Procurement and Supply Office "which will
indicate the total warehouse requirements of that office." At this point
we must assume that Procurement would plan its own requirements and only
its own, for it is established later that other functions of Communications
25X1A6a and TSS being conducted were never considered in
the warehouse planning. Although it may have properly been argued that
these functions were not supply functions, the fact that the old warehouses
would eventually be given up was reason enough for raising and settling
the question of providing for these other functions.
5. The Weekly Activity Report of 22 March 1952 from Administrative
Services noted that they were working with Procurement and Supply on lay-
out and utilization for the warehouse. No comment was made about working
with Communications or TSS. It does appear, however, that Procurement
recognized that the prepacking equipment-testing function of Communications
would continue in the warehouse activities, in that this function was
25X1A6a provided for in the - planning.
6. In August the Real Estate and Construction Division was trans-
ferred to the Procurement and Supply Office. At that time, according to
the Chief of General Services, he lost the responsibility for the ware-
house until, "I got it back early in February." However, his Weekly
Report of 17 October indicated that General Services was still involved,
in that there was reported a communication from Public Buildings Service
25X1A6a regarding the operation of a telephone switchboard at the - Ware-
house. Apparently this item was taken up with Procurement.
7. The Weekly Activity Report for 24 October carried this paragraph,
"Last word from Public Buildings Service on this project is that clearing
has been started and excavation for foundation will begin shortly. It is
now expected that the buildings will be completed in May or June 1953.
However, this information is not sufficiently firm in view of past exper-
ience on this project to lay any definite plans on this basis." The files
of General Services do not reveal that this information was passed to the
Procurement and Supply Office in writing. However, the Chief of General
Services is sure that Procurement was notified. It would appear that
Fps
Approved For Release 2001/0'-RDP78-04718A001000030012-6
 Approved For Release 2001/A-RDP78-04718A001000030012-6
Security lnformm~:_-.l
Public Buildings Service still considered General Services to be the
25X1A9a responsible office for this Agency. Mr. , Chief, Real
Estate and Construction, stated that the Procurement and Supply Office
never had the new warehouse responsibility and that this had been under-
25X1A9a stood with Mr.- last August. Regardless of the differences of
opinion now expressed as to the responsibility for this function between
August and February, it certainly should be noted that the question could
have been addressed by either office to the Deputy Director (Administration)
and very quickly answered.
25X1A9a 8. Mr- Procurement and Supply, told me that he knew (probably
in August) that the architects' planning for the warehouse had been changed,
but that he could not make any revision of his plans because the final
architects' plans were not available. Apparently little effort was made
to get copies of the plans from Public Buildings Service until early
February, when, through some informal arrangements, some plans were
25X1A9a borrowed long enough to make photostats. Mr.- further advised, how-
ever, that it was known by late summer that the plans originally submitted
to Public Buildings Service for interior partitioning would have to be
changed. Three kinds of changes were necessary: (a) those occasioned
by the architects' reversal of the plan; (b) those caused by re-examination
of Procurement and Supply functions and a better analysis of proper space
arrangement; (c) the inclusion of functions which had originally been
omitted. It would appear that the excuse that revised plans could not be
made because the architects final rendering was not available is a flimsy
one. If this Agency knew in late summer or early fall that our original
plans were obsolete, we should have submitted our new requirements at that
time regardless of what the builder's architects had included in their
planning. This point is particularly important in that on 3 November
25X1A9a Mr. Real Estate and Construction, informed Mr. _ in Publia5X1A9a
Buildings Service that no substantial changes were contemplated. This, I
25X1A9a believe, was to the best of Mr. knowledge true, in that those
who did know that other changes were going to be necessary had taken no
action or at least had not so advised him. Procurement and Supply's own
failure to advise Real Estate and Construction or utilize their technical
competence is exemplified by the fact that as late as 23 March certain
sketches for the outside areas were shown to the architects and builder's
representatives at the site which had been prepared by the warehouse people
and not by Real Estate and Construction.
9. On 19 December, Public Buildings Service, having heard nothing
from this Agency after the telephone call of 3 November, gave the builder
the go ahead on the plans dated 14 August. On about 10 February, having
been advised that completion was expected by the end of March, Procurement-
and Supply, as noted above, informally copied the plans, and, on 13
25X1A9a February, Mr. telephoned the Chief of General Services to advise
25X1A6a him that the Warehouses would be given up at the end
of the month and that space should be found for the Communications, TSS,
25X1A6a and General Services functions presently at Supposedly, the non-
25X1A6a Procurement and Supply functions at - had been taken care of. On
Approved For Release 2001/08/ .- D 18-04718A001000030012-6
c=~curity fnformatiori
 Approved For Release 2001/-RDP78-04718AO01000030012-6
Security Information
25X1A9a 18 February, Mr. - addressed a memorandum to the Chief, Procurement
and Supply Office, to the effect that he had so notified Mr. - and 25X1A9a
that the Agency was about ready to change warehouses. On 13 February, 25X1A9a
25X1A9a when Mr.- received this information, he called Colonel _ of TSS,
25X1A9a Mr. - of Communications, and Mr. Garrison and suggested that they
get together to take care of the omitted items. On 25 February,
25X1A9a Messrs, met with Mr. to review the plans, which 25X1A9a
by that time they photostated. A s time Mr. of General 25X1A9a
Services was brought into the picture and noted with the o ers present
that the then-existent plans were very unsatisfactory. A case in point,
by way of illustration, was that the reversal of the plans by the builder's
architects resulted in what had originally been a personnel entrance for
one restricted area of the warehouse necessarily becoming the main entrance
but leading directly into a Communications-shop area. On tF March everyone
involved met at Procurement and Supply and worked on revisions. On 12
March the last revision was made, the plans were approved by all concerned.,
and on 13 March they were delivered to Public Buildings Service and the
contractor at the site. This was with one exception, the wiring require-
25X1A9a ments for some TSS space which, according to Mr. _ arrived on 17 March.
10. There was no intention on my part to overlook the fact that
there undoubtedly were changing and developing functions which would
necessitate changes in plans, nor is there any intent to obsolve
Communications or TSS of all responsibility for the changes. I believe
it is a fact, however, that at least in the case of Communications
had the building plans not been flipped no change would have needed
to be made. Leaving Communications and TSS out of it entirely, however,
the basic issues are still the same. The primary user was to be Procure-
ment and Supply and the major planning responsibility was in a state of
confusion.
11. This somewhat detailed and lengthy recounting of evidence does
not clearly establish a single point of responsibility for the failures
nor does it explain how such bad planning could be done. One is neces-
sarily forced to draw the conclusion which I first stated (paragraph 2e)
that there has been a lack of competent staff work, a devision of
responsibility and authority, a seeming attitude of noncooperation,
and a failure to use such expertise as the Agency afforded. Funda-
mentally, the responsibility rests with the Chief of General Services
and the Chief of Procurement and Supply, in that they singly and jointly
failed to insure proper planning by their subordinates and also failed
to request the Deputy Director (Administration) to settle the question
of responsibility. It may ultimately be argued, of course, that the
responsibility is that of the Deputy Director (Administration) in that
he failed originally to clearly fix the responsibility.
12. Conclusions. Three general conclusions can be drawn. (a) At
the time of the transfer of Real Estate and Construction from General
Services to Procurement and Supply, the Office of the Deputy Director
(Administration) failed to recognize that there was any need to
Approved For Release 200'1%0
 ? Approved For Release 2001/0RDP78-04718A001000030012-6
Sr.ru ty information
specifically define the responsibility for carrying forward the planning
for the warehouse; (b) the planning that was done prior to the time that
Real Estate and Construction was transferred was inadequate--it was largely
left to Procurement who gave their primary attention, understandably, to
their own needs; (c) regardless of the confusion regarding responsibility
for planning, Procurement and Supply failed either for themselves or for
General Services to properly plan their utilization and, therefore, their
construction needs for the warehouse. An additional conclusion probably
should be drawn that the Chiefs of Procurement and Supply and General
Services, knowing that there was a confusion of responsibility, were guilty
of poor staff responsibility to their Chief, in that neither of them
brought the question to the attention of the Office of the Deputy Director
(Administration).
13. Recommendations. It is recommended that the staff weaknesses
revealed by this investigation be brought to the attention of the two
offices concerned in order that they may assure the Deputy Director
(Administration) that such potentially expensive and inexcusable staff
failure not recur.
cc: C/P&SO
CGS
C0XFTT"F,T'q -I
Approved For Release 2001/08
410 -5 A-RDP78-04718A001000030012-6
Security fnformati,n