AGENCY GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION RELATIONSHIPS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 226
• Document Creation Date: December 14, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 28, 2003
• Sequence Number: 42
• Publication Date: February 20, 1981
• Content Type: MF

Director of LoiZistics:,
MM6bdAFW
' '~AND RECORD SHEET
SUBJECT:
(Optional)
AlTency-General Services Administration Relationships
FROM.
EXTENSION
NO.
6 4
O L 1
0 6
q
p~
4
DATE
FE B
F
N
N
TO: (Officer designation, room number, and
building)
DATE
OFFICER'S
COMMENTS (Number each comment to show from whom
RECEIVED
FORWARDED
INITIALS
to whom. Draw a line across column after each comment.)
DDA
7D18 Headquarters
:7,-~
l'
DPI 4
2.
~
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
FORM 61 0 USE PREVIOUS
I-79 EDITIONS
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100O -8
ill -~ Cox r~,
2 0 FE'B 1981
MEMORANDUM FOR: Deputy Director for Administration
FROM: James H. McDonald
Director of Logistics
SUBJECT: Agency-General Services Administration
Relationships
1. The Agency's relationship with the General Services
Administration (GSA), as well as most of its problems with
GSA, stem from that agency's role as the Government's Landlord.
Under current public law and regulation, the Agency, in common
with most other federal agencies, must look to GSA for the
acquisition, renovation, and maintenance of the space it occupies.
The problems involve GSA's inability to respond in a timely,
competent, and professional manner in each of these three areas
of responsibility.
2. In Fiscal Year 1981, the Agency will pay GSA approxi-
mately $24 million to reimburse GSA for the provision of a
standard level of service to Agency-occupied space. These ser-
vices include varied levels of cleaning, operational and preven-
tive maintenance, certain alterations, repairs, and provision of
utilities as well as a level of guard service. Another portion
of this money is set aside to fund the Federal Buildings Fund
and to fund capital or major maintenance projects. Because of
funding restrictions, the level of these services varies from
building to building and from time to time. A complete listing
of these services is attached (Attachment A). This amount calcu-
lated by GSA to approximate commercial rates is identified as a
Standard Level User Charge (SLUG) and is dictated by Public Law
92-313, an amendment to the Property Act of 1949. In addition,
the Agency directly reimburses GSA for Federal Protective Officers
($5 million) and heating, lighting, air conditioning, and renova-
tions, as well as other services ($4+ million) which are above the
level included in the SLUC rate.
3. For a variety of reasons, GSA has been unable to ade-
quately provide those services covered by the SLUG rate. Some of
these reasons are external to GSA and result from OMB-directed
budget cuts, federal hiring freezes, as well as Agency-imposed
security criteria for GSA personnel, and the Headquarters' dis-
tance from Washington; all of which adversely impact GSA's ability
to hire and retain adequate, competent personnel. However, many
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
SUBJECT: Agency-General Services Administration
Relationships
of the problems are internal to GSA and it was these latter
problems that were addressed recently in a highly critical
study undertaken by the National Association of Public Adminis-
trators (NAPA). A copy of this study is attached for your
review (Attachment B).
4. The NAPA study, to which the Agency contributed, con-
cluded that GSA was doing a reasonably poor job, and, despite
its best efforts, would undoubtedly do worse in the future.
The study made several recommendations, including a recommenda-
tion that GSA delegate more authority to individual agencies to
perform many of the services that GSA is presently providing.
This NAPA recommendation was welcomed, as it was supportive of
initiatives the Agency had undertaken with limited success for
some time.
5. In March of this past year, in response to an Agency
request, the Administrator, GSA, delegated to the Agency author-
ity to lease space up to 5,000 square feet. This request was
made as a result of GSA's repeatedly demonstrated innhility to
resDond Agency's requests for office space STAT
In our response to the NAPA inquiry, we nave
recommen e at the square foot limitation be removed and that
the delegation only be subject to the requirements of the Federal
Property Management Regulations.
6. In other responses to NAPA, we have recommended that the
Agency be allowed to contract directly, or otherwise accomplish
reimbursable work, when it is determined that GSA is unresponsive.
In a similar manner, we have also recommended that the Agency be
given flexibility under SLUC to contract for services where GSA
has demonstrated an inability to do so. In each of these areas,
it has been the Agency's objective to develop a framework within
which we might work with GSA. The Agency has no desire to assume
total responsibility in these areas.
7. The one exception is the National Photographic Interpre-
tation Center. In this instance, the unique nature of the build-
ing, its vital function, and GSA's demonstrated inability to
provide critical services has forced the Agency to conclude that
total responsibility for this building must be placed with the
Agency.
8. A copy of the Agency's submission to the NAPA study group
is attached (Attachment Q. This document discusses in greater
depth the Agency's specific concerns regarding GSA support as well
as our proposed solutions.
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
SUBJECT: Agency-General Services Administration
Relationships
9. Recently, a draft memorandum was prepared for the DCI's
signature and forwarded to your Office requesting that GSA act
upon the recommendations of the NAPA study and delegate the
authorities outlined above to the Agency. A draft of the study
was provided to GSA in early December and the final study was
presented in early January. We are not aware of GSA's reaction
to the study or of their intentions regarding implementation of
the recommendations. However, in accordance with our discussion
on 19 February 1981, in anticipation of the forthcoming appoint-
ment of the new GSA Administrator, we are preparing a letter
from Mr. Casey to the Administrator, GSA, requesting that these
authorities be delegated to the Agency at this time.
c ona
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
 STAT Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
Compendium of
Federal Buildings Fund
Real Property
Related Services
4'1 General Services Administration
Public Buildings Service
L Washington, DC 20405
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
MARCH 1978
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
COMPENDIUM OF FEDERAL BUILDINGS FUND
REAL PROPERTY RELATED SERVICES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1. CLASSIFYING SPACE
CHAPTER 2. CLEANING
CHAPTER 3. MECHANICAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
CHAPTER 4. ALTERATIONS, IMPROVEMENTS, AND REPAIRS
CHAPTER 5. PROTECTION
CHAPTER 6. REIMBURSABLE SERVICES
CHAPTER 7. LEASING AND CONSTRUCTION
Approved For Release 2003/09/2$ .dCIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
Paragraph Paragraph
Titles Numbers
Scope ................................................. 1
Background ............................................ 2
Classification of occupiable area by type ............. 3
Description of classifications of occupiable areas.... 4
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
1. Scope. This chapter explains the classification of all space by
type and by category within each type.
2. Background. The determination of the Standard Level User Charge
(SLUG) and the services provided to departments and agencies is based in
part upon the types of space to which they are assigned. Therefore, the
equitability of these rates and services will be partially dependent
upon the accuracy of the classification system. All office type space
is included in one category. However, the storage and special type
categories encompass such broad areas that subcategories have been
established for these classifications in order to differentiate between
them. Different rental (SLUC) rates have been developed for each subset
within the storage and special type categories.
3. Classification of occupiable area by type. It should be noted that
only occupiable space is classified and documented by type of space in
building and assignment files. The classification of occupiable area
is outlined as follows:
a.
b.
Office type space - no subsets.
Storage type space - consisting of three subsets:
(1)
(2)
(3)
ST-1,
ST-2,
ST-3,
General storage area,
Inside parking area, and
Warehouse area.
c.
Special type space - consisting of seven subsets:
(1)
SP-1,
Laboratory and clinic area,
(2)
SP-2,
Food service area,
(3)
SP-3,
Structurally changed area,
(4)
SP-4,
Automated data processing area,
(5)
SP-5,
Conference training area,
(6)
SP-6,
Light industrial area, and
(7)
SP-7,
Quarters and residential housing area.
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
4. Description of classifications of occupiable areas. The classification
categories are further defined as follows:
a. Office type.
(1) This space provides an acceptable environment suitable in
its present state for an office operation. The requirement includes,
but is not limited to:
(a) Adequate lighting;
(b) Heating and ventilation;
(c) Floor covering;
(d) Finished walls; and
(e) Accessibility.
(2) The space may consist of a large open area or may be
partitioned into rooms. Private corridors, closets, etc., which have
been created within office type space through erection of partitions
are coded as office type space. Office type space has no subsets.
Office space includes:
(a) Corridors which have restricted public access and
which could be eliminated, making that space suitable for office use;
and
(b) Corridors which have restricted public access,
whether or not they can be removed, which solely serve the security and
convenience of the tenant.
(3) In a single tenancy block of space, a ceiling-high corridor
is classified as horizontal circulation or occupiable space depending
upon whether the corridor can or cannot be removed.
(a) If the corridor must be maintained, it is horizontal
circulation; and
(b) If the ceiling-high corridor can be eliminated, it is
occupiable.
(4) Examples of office type space are:
(a) Conference rooms (without special equipment and/or
supplementary heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC)),
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
(b) Training rooms (without special equipment and/or
supplementary HVAC),
(c) Libraries (without extensive built-in stacks and
special floor loading),
(d) Dry laboratories (without plumbing, special power, or
other special space features),
(e) Supply rooms,
(f) Closets, and
(g) Credits unions, lounges (other than toilet area),
reception areas, hearing rooms (without special equipment and/or
supplementary HVAC), telephone switchboard rooms (attended), mail rooms
(finished to office standards), health rooms (without special equipment),
and other areas used for storage purposes in space constructed to office
standards.
b. Storage type. Storage type space generally has concrete, wood-
block, or unfinished floors and unfinished block or brick interior, walls.
This type includes attics, basements, warehouses, sheds, unimproved
areas of loft buildings, and unimproved buildings cores. This space is
suitable for storage of supplies, equipment, records, materials, etc.,
and does not in its present state provide an environment suitable for
assignment as office type. The interior treatment is such that it
cannot be classified as office type space without extensive alterations.
All storage type space will be classified in one of the following subsets:
(1) ST-1, General storage areas. These are areas in space
contiguous or adjacent to office or special type space which was, for
the most part, developed incidental to the prime use of the space. The
space may have the characteristics of concrete floors, unfinished walls
and ceilings, and minimal lighting; but it is found primarily in buildings
designed for office or special type use. Most commonly, it is unfinished
basement or attic space, but may include closets, storerooms, and other
miscellaneous unfinished areas of buildings. Examples are (a) basement
storage, attic storage, and closets (not finished to office standards);
(b) supply rooms (not finished to office standards); (c) file rooms (not
finished to office standards); and (d) warehouse areas of multi-use
buildings (See definitions for warehouse areas in (3), below, in
evaluating this classification).
(2) ST-2, Inside parking areas. This is garage space located
in either a federally owned or leased building which is used for the
parking of motor vehicles. Therefore, inside parking would, of necessity,
include all other parking areas such as rooftop parking, parking structures,
parking decks, etc. The rationale for this interpretation is based on
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
the concept that the Federal Buildings Fund must recoup the cost of a
facility during its useful life in order for sufficient funds to be
available for its replacement. Since parking decks, etc., require large
outlays of capital as compared with ground level parking, this additional
cost is reflected in the SLUC rate charged.
(a) Wherever the entire garage floor is under the assignment
control of GSA, inside parking consists of the area delineated from the
inside of the garage wall to the inside of the opposite wall, less
mechanical, toilet, custodial, vertical circulation, and space utilized
for other than parking purposes.
(b) In buildings where GSA controls only part of a garage
floor, inside parking consists of the actual parking area occupiable by
vehicles.
(c) In leased buildings where a specific number of parking
spaces are under lease or service contract, the inside parking area is
determined by multiplying the number of spaces by 300 square feet.
(d) Outside parking space means that parking space not
included in the inside parking space category, such as uncovered ground
level parking areas or parking lots either paved or unpaved. The parking
area is determined by multiplying the number of spaces occupied by 300
square feet.
(3) ST-3, Warehouse areas. This is space specifically designed
for material handling operations. The interior will probably have con-
crete or woodblock floors and an unfinished ceiling. This space will
include some or all of the following features: heavy live floor load
capacity (over 200 pounds per square foot), high ceiling (over 14 feet),
industrial lighting, large open floor areas, sprinkler system for fire
protection, and loading dock (truck and/or rail). For warehouse space
the size (length, width, live floor load capacity, etc.) is established
primarily to permit efficient handling of materials in and out of the
premises. In warehouse space the loading dock is a functional require-
ment and is not incidental to the use of the space as it might for
office space or for some special type occupancies.
C. Special type. This is space which necessitates the expenditure
of additional or varying sums to construct, maintain, and/or operate as
compared with the amount spent for office and storage space. Special
type space will be further defined according to one of the following
subsets:
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
(1) SP-1, Laboratory and clinic areas. This classification
includes those areas containing built-in equipment and utilities re-
quired for the qualitative and quantitative analysis of matter, the
welfare of employees, or the welfare of the public. Examples include
wet laboratories, clean laboratories, photographic laboratories, clinics,
health units and rooms (with special equipment), and private toilets.
It may include the installation of special building equipment to meet
the environmental requirements of the laboratory and/or clinic as shown
below:
(a) Floor. Special floors such as quarry tile, grating,
etc., may be installed.
(b) Plumbing and sewerage. Special building equipment
such as special piping and associated water treatment equipment, special
sewage disposal systems, water, gas, compressed air, and vacuum systems
may be installed.
(c) Heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning. This is
special building equipment to treat and exhaust toxic gases produced by
agency program equipment. In addition, this equipment provides fresh
air suitable to meet the special requirements, up to 100 percent fresh
air, temperature control plus-minus 2 degrees within the design range,
and humidity control plus-minus 5 percent within the design range.
(d) Toilet facilities. By way of clarification and to
ensure uniformity in the classification of toilet facilities, the
following criteria apply
(i) Private toilets. Toilets designed and constructed
for the exclusive use of department or agency officials shall be
considered private toilets. Examples are : Toilets in suites assigned
to judges, U.S. marshals, postmasters, and similar officials. Toilets
prepared for use of small selected groups are considered private toilets.
Examples are: Toilets attached to health units, medical units, or
detention cells; those of USPS inspectors which adjoin the entrance to
lookouts; those for the exclusive use of agency employees; those for
jurors' assembly and jury rooms; and those for similar installations.
This type of space is classified as Occupiable Area - Special Type SP-1.
(ii) General use toilets. Toilets designed and
constructed for the use of the majority of the building tenants and/or the
general public are considered general use toilets. Toilets prepared and
located within, adjacent to, or in proximity to occupiable areas and
which are used primarily by the majority of the occupants and/or visitors
of that area are considered general use toilets. Examples are: Toilets
within Armed Forces Entrance and Examining Stations, those in proximity
to USPS work and swing rooms, and similar installations. This type of
space is classified as Building Support Area-Toilet Areas.
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
(2) SP-2, Food service areas. The space in the building that,
is devoted to the preparation and dispensing of foodstuffs. Examples
are: Cafeterias (kitchens, related storage, and service areas), snack
bars, mechanical vending areas (where drain is provided), and private
kitchens.
(3) SP-3, structurally changed areas. Those areas that have
architectural features differing from normal office and storage areas
such as sloped floors, high ceilings, increased floor loadings, etc.
Examples are: Auditoriums, gymnasiums, libraries (with special stacks
and floor loading), detention cells, target ranges, security vaults,
and courtrooms.
(4) SP-4, Automated data processing areas. These are areas that
are used for housing automated data processing equipment and that have
special features such as humidity and temperature control, raised flooring,
special wiring, etc. This subset includes: Computer rooms, support
area (with special flooring and wiring), and tape vaults.
(5) SP-5, Conference and training areas. Areas that are used
for conferences, training, hearings, etc., with special equipment and/or
supplementary HVAC. Conference and training areas will be finished to
the level required for office space with the following additions or
exceptions:
(a) Floors. Generally floors in areas such as conference
rooms, hearing rooms, and small courtrooms will be carpeted.
(b) Ceilings. As determined by GSA, ceilings will be
accoustically treated to provide a minimum sound transmission class of 40
(STC 40).
(c) Partitions and walls. As determined by GSA, perimeter
walls will be sound conditioned to provide a minimum sound transmission
class of 40 (STC 40).
(d) Heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning. Supplemental
HVAC will be provided in conformance with GSA standards.
(e) Special features. These include such features as
electrical service and normal hookup to agency equipment, blackout curtains,
blackboards, projection screens, lighting controls, telephone outlets,
and projection booths that are provided. In the case of small courtrooms,
guidelines adopted by the Judicial Conference of the United States will
be the accepted reference. Examples are:
HVAC):
and/or HVAC):
(i)
(ii)
Conference rooms (with special equipment and/or
Training rooms (with special equipment
6
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
(iii) Exhibit areas (with special equipment and/or
HVAC):
HVAC); and
(iv) Hearing rooms (with special equipment and/or
(v) Small courtrooms (no structural changes but
with special equipment).
(6) SP-6, Light industrial areas. This is space which may
have some or all of the characteristics of warehouse space but, in
addition, may be provided with one or more of the following features:
Air-conditioning, humidity control, special power, and a light level
equal to or slightly less than that provided for office space. Examples
are: Records storage (with humidity control); storage type space (with
air-conditioning); printing plants; product classifying laboratories;
motor pool service areas; postal swing rooms, locker rooms, workrooms,
lockbox and screenlined lobbies, and unsuspended lookout areas; shops
(other than PBS); telephone frame rooms and unattended switchboards (for
specific agency use); covered canopy areas (if included in occupiable
area); loading docks and shipping platforms.
NOTE: The light industrial category will reflect a rental rate exceeding
the storage rate. If any of the examples are housed in another type of
space, such as office type, it will, of course, be classified according
to the type of space actually occupied.
(7) SP-7, Quarters and residential housing areas. Areas used
for housing and quarters that do not logically fall in other categories.
7
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 2. CLEANING
Paragraph Paragraph
Titles Numbers
Scope.. .. .................................... 1
Standard levels of service ............................ 2
Standard services - general ........................... 3
Standard services for cleaning ........................ 4
Carpet care ........................................... 5
Carpet repair ......................................... 6
Draperies ............................................. 7
Snow removal .......................................... 8
i and i i
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
CHAPTER 2. CLEANING
1. Sco e: This chapter delineates the standard cleaning.services
provided in agency occupied space that is subject to Standard Level
User Charge (SLUC).
2. Standard levels of service.
a. The standard levels of service included in the standard level
user charge provide the occupant agency with building services on a
standard one-shift, 5-day week operation excluding weekends and legal
holidays.
b. GSA may provide additional services at appropriate levels and
times that the Administrator of General Services determines to be
necessary for efficient operations and proper servicing of space under
the assignment responsibility of GSA.
c. The Administrator of General Services may exempt from the
standard levels of services space for which, because of its limited
square footage or functional use, application of the standard levels
of service would be infeasible or impractical.
3. Standard services - general. In providing services, GSA will
furnish the necessary labor, material, supplies, and supervision to
ensure the efficient operation and cleanliness of the building, the
building equipment, and the related systems. Material consideration
will be given to the efficient performance of the missions, programs,
and facilities involved with due regard for the convenience of the
public served and the maintenance and improvement of safe and healthful
working conditions for employees.
4. Standard services for cleaning. This paragraph describes the type
of cleaning provided to agencies for each space category occupied. The
frequency of the listed cleaning services will be that normally provided
by the private sector and may vary from building to building or within a
facility depending on building construction and age, building use, and
type of operation.
a. Office space.
(1) Rooms.
(a) Empty and clean ashtrays;
(b) Empty trash receptacles;
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA 2DP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
(c) Sweep floor areas;
(d) Vacuum carpeted areas;
(e) Clean washbasins and mirrors;
(f) Supply paper towels;
(g) Dust horizontal surfaces of all furniture;
(h) Clean glass desk tops;
(i) Spot-clean wall surfaces as necessary;
(j) Clean glass other than in windows;
(k) Spray-buff resilient floors;
(1) Dust venetian blinds;
(m) Wash windows; and
(n) Wash venetian blinds.
2. Toilets.
(a) Sweep and wet-mop floors;
(b) Clean fixtures;
(c) Clean vertical surfaces;
(d) Dust horizontal surfaces;
(e) Empty trash receptacles;
(f) Service dispensers;
(g) Damp-wipe trash receptacles; and
(h) Spray-buff resilient floors.
3. Office storage areas.
(a) Sweep floors;
(b) Empty trash receptacles; and
(c) Clean the full area of walls, stall partitions,
doors, window frames, and sills in bathrooms.
2
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
b. Storage space (warehouse).
(1) Empty trash receptacles;
(2) Sweep floors in bin and packing areas;
(3) Sweep floors, dust horizontal surfaces, and empty and clean
ashtrays in swing rooms;
(4) Clean washbasins and drinking fountains;
(5) Supply paper towels;
(6) Pick up debris;
(7) Clean up spills;
(8) Sweep active storage areas outside bin and packing areas;
(9) Sweep and dust all generally used stairways;
(10) Dust the tops of bins;
(11) Wash windows; and,
(12) Clean toilets with storage space in accordance with the
schedule for office space.
c. Inside parking space.
(1) Police loading dock areas and platforms; and
(2) Sweep garages, ramps, sidewalks, loading platforms, and
driveways within a building.
d. Outside parking space. Police and sweep the parking area.
e. Joint use space. Clean facilities jointly used by building
occupants at service levels and intervals determined by GSA to be
consistent with the standard of cleaning services provided elsewhere
in the building.
f. Special space.
(1) General.
(a) Vacuum carpeted areas and sweep other floor areas;
(b) Empty trash receptacles;
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
(c) Empty and clean ashtrays;
(d) Dust horizontal surfaces of all furniture;
(e) Clean glass tops;
(f) Clean washbasins and mirrors;
(g) Supply paper towels;
(h) Dust vertical surfaces and under surfaces;
(i) Clean glass other than in windows;
(j) Spot-clean wall surfaces;
(k) Spray-buff resilient floors;
(1) Wash windows;
(m) Wash venetian blinds; and
(n) Clean toilets in accordance with schedule for office
(2) Additional services. The following additional services will
be provided for medical and dental examination and treatment rooms,
pharmacies, laboratories, and similar special space: Clean all standard
plumbing fixtures, spot-clean walls, and dispose of any contaminated
material.
(3) Food service areas. Cafeterias and other food service and
vending facility areas will be cleaned by the concession operator.
Court space.
(1) Dust horizontal surfaces of all furniture;
(2) Clean glass tops;
(3) Empty and clean ashtrays;
(4) Vacuum carpeted areas;
(5) Sweep other floor areas;
(6) Dust vertical surfaces and under surfaces;
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
(7) Clean glass other than in windows;
(8) Spot-clean wall surfaces;
(9) Wash windows; and
(10) Wash venetian blinds.
NOTE: The above cleaning schedule is for courtrooms, judges' chambers,
and jury rooms only. Other space supportive of judicial functions will
be cleaned in accordance with the schedule for office space. Toilets
within court space will be cleaned in accordance with the schedule for
office space.
5. Carpet care.
a. Normal care. GSA will be responsible for the normal care of all
carpets installed in GSA-operated and leased buildings whether they were
installed by the occupant agency or by the operating agency.
b. Carpet shampooing.
(1) Corridors and lobbies. Carpets will be shampooed on a
regularly scheduled basis. If the carpets require shampooing more
frequently, it will be the operating agency's responsibility to fund
for the extra cleaning.
(2) Office space, conference rooms, libraries, judges' chambers,
courtrooms, and similar type space. The schedule for shampooing
carpets should be maintained only on a building-by-building basis. There-
fore, all carpets in a building should normally be shampooed on the
same schedule. However, as determined by the GSA buildings manager,
carpets which have recently been installed in the building, especially
new carpets, or other carpets which do not require shampooing, should be
omitted. These carpets would then be picked up on the next regularly
scheduled shampooing.
(3) Concession space. Carpet care in concession space will
normally be the responsibility of the concessionaire.
6. Carpet repair.
a. GSA responsibility. The repair or replacement of damaged carpet
resulting from normal wear will be the responsibility of GSA. In those
cases in which carpet damage is not the result of normal wear and the
source of damage can be identified, GSA will make the necessary repairs
on a reimbursable basis from the agency.
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
b. Occupant agency responsibility. The repair or replacement of
carpets damaged as the result of an occupant agency-requested space
adjustment, such as removing partitions or floor outlets, or as the
result of an occupant agency-initiated move will be reimbursable from
the requesting occupant agency.
7. Draperies.
a. Drapery care. GSA will be responsible for the cleaning of drapes
installed by the occupant agency.
(1) Periodic maintenance. Drapes will be vacuumed in place as
part of the high cleaning (above the standard 70 inch door height)
program.
(2) Periodic cleaning. Drapes which have been installed as the
primary window covering or in conjunction with the office excellence
program, etc., will be cleaned during the repainting cycle. GSA will
also fund for the cleaning of drapes which have been installed by the
occupying agencies. However, before cleaning these drapes, the GSA
buildings managers will obtain the approval of the agency involved
and indicate to the agency official that GSA will not be responsible
for replacement if the drapes are damaged in the cleaning process.
The schedule for cleaning drapes should be maintained only on a building-
by-building basis. Therefore, all drapes in a building will normally
be cleaned on the same schedule. However, as determined by the GSA
buildings manager, drapes which have recently been installed in the
building, or any other drapes which do not require cleaning, will be
omitted. These drapes would then be picked up in the next regularly
scheduled cleaning.
b. Drapery replacement. Drapes that have been funded and installed
by the operating agency will be replaced with new drapes or other
suitable window coverings by the operating agency if it is determined that,
as a result of normal wear, it is not longer economically feasible
to have the drapes cleaned.
8. Snow removal. Cleaning snow from areas is to be provided at a level
equivalent to the cleaning furnished commercially for similar types of
space. Outside parking areas will be included in the category of cleaning
where snow is to be removed; the terms "clean and clear" in the context
of snow removal operations mean furrowing the perimeter of the parking
areas space and accumulating the snow around the light poles. When
furrowing within the lot results in excessive loss of parking space, the
excess snow will be hauled away. The GSA field office manager will be
responsibile for establishing a snow removal plan if the snow is of sufficient
depth to require plowing of parking lots to enable cars to get on and
off the lot.
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
Paragraph Paragraph
Titles Numbers
Scope .......................................................... 1
Provisions ..................................................... 2
Standard levels of service .................. ... .............. 3
Heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC) equipment to
conserve energy and maximize management efficiency.......... 4
Standard level of operation - space adjustments ................ 5
Structure maintenance .......................................... 6
Equipment classification ....................................... 7
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
CHAPTER 3. MECHANICAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
1. Scope. This chapter delineates the standard mechanical operation,
maintenance, and repair of equipment and systems provided in space
under the assignment responsibility of GSA.
2. Provisions. GSA will provide all necessary labor, materials, and
supplies for the operation, maintenance, and repair of all building
mechanical and electrical equipment and related systems in space under
its control and operation to ensure the efficient operation of the
building's equipment and systems. The standards, services, and utilities
will comply with all applicable GSA standards and procedures, appropriate
inspection certificates, and GSA safety regulations which equal or
exceed those required by the Occupational Safety Health Act (OSHA) of
1970; and, as far as possible, will be scheduled to offer minimum
inconvenience to tenants.
3. Standard levels of service. GSA will supply on a standard one-
shift, 5-day week operation:
a. Illumination levels that are adequate for the task being
performed and in accordance with recognized GSA standards;
b. Temperatures maintained at 65 to 68 degrees Fahrenheit in office,
court, postal, special, and similar space during the heating season and
during working hours and no higher than 55 degrees after working hours.
In storage, parking, and similar space, temperatures will be maintained at
a level suitable for the type of use;
c. Temperatures maintained at 78-80 degrees Fahrenheit in office,
court, postal, special, and similar space during the air-conditioning
season and during working hours. Storage, parking, and similar
space will not normally be furnished air-conditioning but will be
provided with adequate mechanically supplied ventilation;
d.. Utility costs and all costs for maintenance and repair and
replacement of the building operating equipment, as well as utilities
cost for program equipment, for the type of space serviced;
e. Use of space, automatic elevator systems, lights, and small
office and business machines 24 hours a day, 7 days a week on an
intermittent basis without additional cost to the agency provided access
to the building or space is available without additional expense to GSA;
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
f. Periodic cleaning, servicing, and inspection of heating, air-
conditioning, and ventilating equipment in order to provide operation
without uncomfortable drafts, excessive air velocities, objectionable
noises, and undesirable emissions of dirt into the air, and to keep the
equipment presentable in appearance; and
g. Facilities to raise and lower the U.S. and departmental flags
at appropriate times in Government-owned facilities and in leased
facilities where the Federal Government is the sole tenant.
4. Heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC) equipment to
conserve energy and maximize management efficiency. Where the operation
of a considerable portion of the central HVAC system may be required to
provide service for a small portion of the building after hours, on
weekends, and/or on legal holidays, so-called packaged air-conditioning
units and 24-hour heating lines should be installed. Since the
modifications are in concert with the GSA energy conservation programs
and with efficient and economical building operations, GSA will pay for
the installation, maintenance, repair, and replacement of this building
operating equipment.
5. Standard level of operation - space adjustments. When a space
adjustment requires new or modified building operating equipment, the
occupant agency shall reimburse GSA for the cost to install new or
to modify existing building operation equipment. After installation,
the operation, utilities consumption, maintenance, repair and replace-
ment of new or modified building operating equipment will be provided
at no additional cost to the occupant agency.
6. Structure maintenance. GSA will provide the labor, material, and
supervision to adequately maintain the structure; the roof; and the
exterior walls, windows, doors, and appurtenances to provide watertight
integrity, structural soundness, and acceptable appearance. GSA will
provide repairs and replacements in a prompt and orderly fashion with
installation of materials or components of quality equal to those used
in the original construction.
7. Equipment classification. Equipment is classified either as agency
program equipment or building operating equipment. Whether the
equipment is permanently affixed to the building or is easily removable
is immaterial in determining what is program equipment or what is
building operating equipment.
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
a. Office and special space.
(1) Occupant agency program equipment. Occupant agency
program equipment is that equipment which is installed in the building,
regardless of who funded for it, for use by the agency in the
accomplishment of its programs. Examples of agency program equipment
are computers, office furniture and machines, mail handling equipment,
pneumatic tubes, towveyors, paper pulpers, laboratory equipment,
printing plant equipment, special purpose incinerators, special burglar
alarm equipment and systems, agency required emergency generators
associated with its program equipment, etc.
(2) Building operating equipment. Building operating equipment
is that equipment, regardless of who funded for it, necessary to provide
adequate environmental conditions and/or services in the building or
space serviced. Building operating equipment also includes special
supporting equipment required for the proper operation and functioning
of an occupant agency's program equipment. Special supporting equipment
includes any electrical, ventilation (exhaust system), water supply
(special piping and associated water treatment supplies and equipment).
sewerage (including special disposal), gas, compressed air, and vacuum
systems whether they are a part of or separate from the building system.
For example, initial alterations for laboratory space include the
installation of building operating equipment necessary to meet the
environmental requirements of the laboratory. This means that if the
agency program equipment in the laboratory produces toxic gases, GSA
is responsible for providing and installing an adequate ventilation
system to the equipment producing the toxic gases, as well as maintaining,
repairing, and replacing this system at no additional cost to the agency.
b. Warehouse and storage areas.
(1) Program equipment. Agency program equipment in warehouse
and storage areas will be as is defined for office and special space.
Consequently, material handling equipment such as towveyors, railroad
switching engines, paper pulpers, packaging equipment, fork lifts,
power and gravity conveyors, portable or built-in weighing scales,
etc., are considered to be program equipment.
(2) Building operating equipment. The definition of building
operating equipment as stated for office and special space also applies
to warehouse and storage areas. Consequently, building operating
equipment in warehouse and storage areas consists of, but is not limited
to, the following: Heating, ventilation, utilities, elevators and
levelators, power or manually operated doors, railroad sidings and
trackage associated with the sidings, sprinkler systems and associated
equipment, general purpose lighting, roads and grounds equipment, and
normal security lighting.
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
CHAPTER 4. ALTERATIONS, IMPROVEMENTS AND REPAIRS
Paragraph Paragraph
Titles Numbers
Scope ..................................................... 1
Standards and criteria .................................... 2
Standard initial space alterations by classification...... 3
Alterations, improvements, and repairs in leased premises. 4
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
CHAPTER 4. ALTERATIONS, IMPROVEMENTS, AND REPAIRS
1. Scope. This chapter provides information relating to alterations,
improvements, and repairs in Government-owned buildings and premises
leased for Government use and under the control of GSA. It is GSA's intent
to eventually provide first-class space for all agencies. However, because
of the cost and scope of a program to upgrade all GSA-controlled space
to first-class quality, improvements must be scheduled within funds
available on a project-by-project basis.
2. Standards and criteria.
a. General.
(1) The purpose of alterations, improvements, and repairs to
space is to adapt it to the agency needs upon initial assignment or to
meet changing agency requirements in existing space.
(2) Alterations, improvements, and repairs to an agency's
assigned space will be made as necessary to provide for efficient
and economical performance of governmental activities, with regard to the
convenience of the public. Alterations, improvements, and repairs also
will be made to maintain and improve a safe, healthful, and well-designed
working environment for employees.
(3) Space alterations, improvements, and repairs include stand-
ard levels of alterations comparable to those normally provided by the
commercial sector for new occupants. Above-standard-level alterations
are funded by the requesting agency.
(4) Within the limits of available funding, space in Government-
owned buildings will be finished to the same standards as leased space.
b. Standard initial space alterations.
(1) Initial space alterations will be provided and funded by
(a) Space assigned to new occupants of a building;
(b) Additional space assigned to any agency currently
assigned space in a building; and
(c) Existing space if alterations will upgrade the classi-
fication of that space.
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
(2) Standard initial space alterations are funded by the
requesting agency when the term of occupancy will be less than 1 year
or when the request is made in support of an emergency or contingency
situation. Temporary space will be offered to the agency on an "as is"
basis.
c. Standard initial space alterations (open planning). In making.
alterations to space, and where recommended by GSA's Space Management
Division, the concept of open planning should be used within the limits
of available funding. Open planning will be provided at GSA expense
only when the use of ceiling-high partitioned work stations is prohibited
for personnel below the GS-14 supervisory level. This requirement is
superseded only if increased ceiling-high requirements are specified in an
agency's space allocation standard. Agency offers to reimburse GSA for
ceiling-high partitions for personnel below the GS-14 supervisory level
to qualify for open planning are not acceptable.
d. Above-standard initial space alterations. Above-standard-level
space alterations may be provided with agency funds only where GSA
determines that the work is justified and is in keeping with long-range
building plans.
e. Reimbursable space adjustments. A space adjustment means a
realignment of space or relocation of equipment which does not increase
the amount of space assigned to an agency. A space adjustment is usually
made to accomodate a specific agency operation or to permit more effi-
cient use of space facilities. All requests received from agencies for
changes in a space plan or for rearrangement of partitions, outlets, or
telephones in'existing space assigned to the agency are reimbursable and
considered reimbursable space adjustments.
f. Displaced agency. When an agency is moved (displaced) because
of another agency's expansion, GSA will fund the cost of only the standard
initial space alterations. The expanding agency should, in the space
being provided for the displaced agency, fund for moving and telephone
relocation costs for all above-standard initial space alterations
required to make the displaced agency's new space comparable to the
previous assignment. In instances in which GSA cannot provide an agency
justifiable contiguous expansion, and the agency is relocated, GSA has forced
the move. GSA, therefore, will assume the cost normally funded by the
expanding agency in the replacement space. GSA funds only standard
initial space alterations in the agency's expansion space.
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
3. Standard initial space alterations by classification. The following
guidelines define the standard levels of alterations by classification
to be funded by GSA. These standards are not to be used as guidelines
within which agencies must remain. If a justified agency need exceeds
these standards, the resulting increased cost is reimbursable.
a. General. The following will be provided in all classifications
of space:
(1) Installation, removal, or relocation of partitions, doors,
lights, air-conditioning, and electrical and telephone outlets as
outlined below;
(2) Room and agency identification, door keys, and lock changes
(other than security);
(3) Thoroughly cleaned and painted space; and
(4) Standard accident and fire protection features.
b. Office space (conventional). Office space will be provided
initial alterations in accordance with the following;
(1) Composition floor covering such as vinyl asbestos tile or
equivalent, (see note below);
(2) Ceilings structurally sound and finished;
(3) New and/or existing ceiling-high interior partitions to a
maximum of one linear foot for each 10 square feet of occupiable office
type space;
(4) Venetian blind window covering (see note below);
(5) Heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC) capable of
maintaining an acceptable operating environment;
(6) Adequate lighting to maintain acceptable levels of illumination;
(7) One duplex electrical outlet and one telephone outlet to a
maximum of one to each 100 square feet of occupiable office type space.
NOTE: The exception to subparagraphs b(l) and (4) will be in new buildings
or in conjunction with overall building modernization projects which
have specifically planned carpets and draperies as the building standard.
In these cases, these items will be provided in conventional offices.
However, in instances in which carpets and draperies are the building
standard, it is presumed open planning also is standard. Therefore,
3
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
because ceiling-high partitions constitute increased initial cost to
GSA, limit agency flexibility, and compound the cost of future backfill,
ceiling-high partitioning in excess of 1 linear foor for each 40 square
feet of occupiable office space may be provided to an agency on a
reimbursable basis. In these cases no free-standing privacy screens
will be provided.
c. Office space (open planning). To meet open planning criteria
ceiling-high partitions should be minimized. Agency space allocation
standards will prescribe those personnel and areas which will warrant
ceiling-high areas. If space allocation standards have not been written
or are outdated, at a maximum, ceiling-high areas will be provided only
for GS-14 supervisors and above. Ceiling-high support areas will be
considered on a case-by-case basis. Generally, only blocks of space
exceeding 2,000 square feet will be eligible for increased standards under
open planning.
(1) Floors. Acceptable grades of commercial carpeting will
be provided.
(2) Ceilings. Ceiling systems will be determined on a case-
by-case basis depending on architectural features, acoustical requirements,
electrical distribution, and HVAC systems in the space.
(3) Walls. Ceiling-high interior partitions will be provided
to a maximum of 1 linear foot for each 40 square feet of occupiable
office type space.
(4) Privacy screens. Free-standing privacy screens will be
provided to a maximum of 1 linear foot for each 30 square feet of
total occupiable office space to be assigned.
(5) Window treatment. Window treatment will be either venetian
blinds and casement draperies or sheer draperies.
(6) Sound systems. A centrally powered uniforn sound system
capable of supplying a white sound background and a power override to
maintain sound levels above the speech-privacy range will be provided.
Generally, sound systems will be considered only in assignments of
10,000 square feet or more.
(7) Electrical and telephone distribution. Conventional
standards apply; however, any part of the floor area must be accessible
to electrical and telephone power.
(8) HVAC and lighting. Conventional standards for HVAC conditions
and illumination levels apply.
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
3. Standard initial space alterations by classification. The following
guidelines define the standard levels of alterations by classification
to be funded by GSA. These standards are not to be used as guidelines
within which agencies must remain. If a justified agency need exceeds
these standards, the resulting increased cost is reimbursable.
a. General. The following will be provided in all classifications
of space:
(1) Installation, removal, or relocation of partitions, doors,
lights, air-conditioning, and electrical and telephone outlets as
outlined below;
(2) Room and agency identification, door keys, and lock changes
(other than security);
(3) Thoroughly cleaned and painted space; and
(4) Standard accident and fire protection features.
b. Office space (conventional). Office space will be provided
initial alterations in accordance with the following;
(1) Composition floor covering such as vinyl asbestos tile or
equivalent, (see note below);
(2) Ceilings structurally sound and finished;
(3) New and/or existing ceiling-high interior partitions to a
maximum of one linear foot for each 10 square feet of occupiable office
type space;
(4) Venetian blind window covering (see note below);
(5) Heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC) capable of
maintaining an acceptable operating environment;
(6) Adequate lighting to maintain acceptable levels of illumination;
(7) One duplex electrical outlet and one telephone outlet to a
maximum of one to each 100 square feet of occupiable office type space.
NOTE: The exception to subparagraphs b(l) and (4) will be in new buildings
or in conjunction with overall building modernization projects which
have specifically planned carpets and draperies as the building standard.
In these cases, these items will be provided in conventional offices.
However, in instances in which carpets and draperies are the building
standard, it is presumed open planning also is standard. Therefore,
3
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
because ceiling-high partitions constitute increased initial cost to
GSA, limit agency flexibility, and compound the cost of future backfill,
ceiling-high partitioning in excess of 1 linear foor for each 40 square
feet of occupiable office space may be provided to an agency on a
reimbursable basis. In these cases no free-standing privacy screens
will be provided.
c. Office space (open planning). To meet open planning criteria
ceiling-high partitions should be minimized. Agency space allocation
standards will prescribe those personnel and areas which will warrant
ceiling-high areas. If space allocation standards have not been written
or are outdated, at a maximum, ceiling-high areas will be provided only
for GS-14 supervisors and above. Ceiling-high support areas will be
considered on a case-by-case basis. Generally, only blocks of space
exceeding 2,000 square feet will be eligible for increased standards under
open planning.
(1) Floors. Acceptable grades of commercial carpeting will
be provided.
(2) Ceilings. Ceiling systems will be determined on a case-
by-case basis depending on architectural features, acoustical requirements,
electrical distribution, and HVAC systems in the space.
(3) Walls. Ceiling-high interior partitions will be provided
to a maximum of 1 linear foot for each 40 square feet of occupiable
office type space.
(4) Privacy screens. Free-standing privacy screens will be
provided to a maximum of 1 linear foot for each 30 square feet of
total occupiable office space to be assigned.
(5) Window treatment. Window treatment will be either venetian
blinds and casement draperies or sheer draperies.
(6) Sound systems. A centrally powered uniforn sound system
capable of supplying a white sound background and a power override to
maintain sound levels above the speech-privacy range will be provided.
Generally, sound systems will be considered only in assignments of
10,000 square feet or more.
(7) Electrical and telephone distribution. Conventional
standards apply; however, any part of the floor area must be accessible
to electrical and telephone power.
(8) HVAC and lighting. Conventional standards for HVAC conditions
and illumination levels apply.
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
d. Storage space.
(1) General storage areas. General storage areas will be
provided the following:
(a) Floors of concrete, wood block, or other material
adequate for general storage;
(b) Ceilings that are unfinished;
(c) No additional partitioning or wall finish except for
required firewalls and agency separating partitions;
(d) Heating and ventilation that is capable only of
maintaining an operating environment; and
(e) Lighting to maintain a minimum of 10 foot-candles.
(2) Inside parking areas. Adequate identification of parking
areas will be provided.
(3) Warehouse areas. Warehouse areas will be provided initial
alterations in accordance with the following:
(a) Floors of concrete, wood block, or other material
adequate for warehousing service;
(b) Ceilings that are unfinished;
(c) No additional partitioning or wall finish except
required firewalls and agency separation partitions;
(d) Heating and ventilation that is capable only of
maintaining an operating environment;
(e) Lighting to maintain a minimum of 10 foot-candles;
(f) As required, electrical service, including normal
hookup, to agency warehousing equipment. No telephone outlets will be
provided; and
(g) Existing building features, such as covered loading
docks, power operated doors, elevators, and railroad sidings available
for use without charge. Where these features do not exist, they may be
provided on a reimbursable basis and classified as open land or building
support areas.
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
e. Special space.
(1) Laboratory and clinic areas. Initial alterations will be
provided in accordance with the levels specified for office space. In
addition, they may include the installation of special building equipment
to meet the environmental requirements of the laboratory and/or clinic
as shown below:
(a) Floors. Special floors such as quarry tile, grating,
etc., will be provided as determined by GSA.
(b) Plumbing and sewerage. As required, special building
equipment such as special piping and associated water treatment equip-
ment; special sewerage disposal systems; and water, gas, compressed air, and
vacuum systems will be provided by GSA. Normal hookup will be provided
to the space perimeter consistent with architectural, mechanical, electrical,
and structural limitations.
(c) Electrical distribution. Electrical service, including
normal hookup, will be provided consistent with architectural, mechanical,
electrical, and structural limitations.
(d) Heating, ventlation, and air-conditioning. As
required, special building equipment to treat and exhaust to the atmos-
phere toxic gases produced by agency program equipment will be provided.
In addition, fresh air suitable to meet the special requirements, up to
100 percent fresh air, temperature control plus-minus 2 degrees within
the design range, and humidity control plus-minus 5 percent within the
design range will be provided.
(e) Laboratory casework. Case work is not provided by
GSA. GSA will prepare the floors, ceilings, and/or walls as necessary
to permit the installation of casework.
(2) Food service areas. Food service areas will be provided
initial alterations in accordance with the levels specified for office
space, with additions exceptions as follows:
(a) Floors with nonslip tile or quarry tile with coved
base molding in large commercial type kitchen areas;
(b) Smooth surface, washable ceilings, partitions, and
walls in food preparation areas;
(c) Heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning capable of
maintaining an acceptable operating environment in food preparation
areas, vending machine rooms, and other concessions areas having heat
generating equipment;
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
(d) Electrical service and telephone distribution,
including normal hookup, consistent with architectural, mechanical,
electrical, and structural limitations. Telephone connections in food
service and other concessions space will normally not be supplied, with
the exception of cafeteria offices and vending stands operated by the
blind;
(e) Plumbing as required, water, gas, and waste systems,
including normal hookup, consistent with architectural, mechanical,
electrical, and structural limitations; and
by-case basis.
(f) Special equipment as determined by GSA on a case-
(3) Structurally changed areas. Structurally changed areas
will be provided initial alterations at levels required to provide
standard features normally associated with the type of space being
provided. Determination of the normal level will be made by GSA on a
case-by-case basis using both industry and GSA-recognized standards.
Courtrooms and other court related space will be prepared in accordance
with current design criteria.
(4) Automatic data processing areas. Automatic data processing
areas will be provided initial alterations in accordance with levels
specified for office space, with additions or exceptions as follows:
(a) Raised floors, if required, installed to provide
space for electrical and/or HVAC service for ADP equipment;
(b) As determined by GSA, ceilings acoustically treated
and sound conditioned to provide a minimum sound transmission class of
40 (STC 40);
(c) As determined by GSA, partitions and walls acoustically
treated to provide a minimum sound transmission class of 40 (STC 40)
and a tape storage room;
(d) Heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning capable
of maintaining an operating environment for the ADP equipment compatible
with the manufacturer's recommendation; and
(e) Electrical distribution and electrical service,
including normal hookup to a power panel within the ADP room.
(5) Conference and training areas. Conference and training
areas will be provided initial alterations in accordance with levels
specified for office space, with additions or exceptions as follows:
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
(a) Carpeted floors, generally, in areas such as conference
rooms, hearing rooms, and small courtrooms;
(b) As determined by GSA, ceilings accoustically treated
to provide a minimum sound transmission class of 40 (STC 40);
(c) As determined by GSA, perimeter walls sound conditioned
to provide a minimum sound transmission class of 40 (STC 40);
(d) Supplemental heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning
in conformance with GSA standards; and
(e) Special features normally associated with the sub-
categories of space under this classification as determined by GSA on a
case-by-case basis. These include such features as electrical service
and normal hookup to agency equipment, blackout curtains, blackboards,
projection screens, lighting controls, telephone outlets, and projection
booths. In the case of small courtrooms, guidelines adopted by the
Judicial Conference of the United States will be the accepted reference.
(6) Light industrial areas. Light industrial areas will be
provided initial alterations at levels required to provide standard
architectural, mechanical, electrical, and structural features normally
associated with the type of space being provided. Determination of the
normal level will be made by GSA on a case-by-case basis using recognized
standards.
(7) Quarters and residential housing areas. Initial alterations
will place quarters and residential housing in an occupiable and satis-
factory condition.
4. Alterations, improvements, and repairs in leased premises.
a. Requests for additional space.
(1) When a supplemental lease agreement is made to an existing
lease to provide additional space required by an agency without modifying
the lease term, the initial space alterations in the additional space
will be funded by GSA. Any changes required by the agency in its
existing space will be considered as a space adjustment and will be
accomplished by lump sum reimbursement from the agency.
(2) When the negotiations for a supplemental lease agreement
indicate that the lessor requires modification of the original
lease term to cover both the existing space and the additional increment,
the transaction is treated as a new lease and requires formal advertising.
In this case, GSA will fund for initial standard space alterations in
the additional space.
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
(3) Where the decision is made to conclude a succeeding lease
with the present lessor to cover the existing and additional space, and
~..- formal advertising is not required because the cost of acquiring alternate
space plus moving costs and disruption of the agency justify rentention
of the existing location, GSA will fund the initial space alterations
in the additional space but not alterations required in the existing space,
which will be considered a reimbursable space adjustment. If formal
advertising is used and the present lessor becomes the successful
offeror, the succeeding lease will be treated as a new assignment and
GSA will fund for initial standard space alterations in both the existing
and additional space.
b. Agency realignment. When an agency in leased space requests
realignment of its existing space, it will be provided on a lump sum
reimbursable basis without formal advertising and competition.
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
Paragraph Paragraph
Titles Numbers
Scope ................................................. 1
General ............................................... 2
Agency participation .................................. 3
Physical protection criteria .......................... 4
Accident and fire protection objective ................ 5
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
1. Scope. This chapter contains information on the accident, fire,
and physical protection of buildings and grounds under the assignment
responsibility of GSA.
2. General.
a. For buildings and grounds for which GSA has space assignment
responsibility, GSA will furnish as normal protection not less than the
degree of protection provided by commercial building operators of
similar space for normal risk occupants, as determined by GSA. Special
protection required due to the nature of business conducted within the
space or unusual public reaction to an agency's programs and missions,
whether or not of a continuing nature, will be determined jointly by GSA
and the occupant agency or agencies and will be provided on a reimbursable
basis.
b. GSA will to the maximum extent feasible provide safe space that
meets or exceeds the accident and fire protection performance levels
that are consistent with the objective of the Occupational Safety Health
Act (OSHA) of 1970 (Public Law 91-596) to the degree that such is
controlled by the basic conditions of the facility, the actions of GSA,
or other areas under the direct control of GSA or controlled by GSA
space assignment and utilization, acquisition, construction, alteration,
and building operation and maintenance.
3. Agency participation.
a. The physical protection of buildings and grounds under the
assignment responsibility of GSA requires the active participation
of occupant agencies in accomplishing certain aspects of physical protection,
the reporting of thefts and other unlawful incidents to appropriate
GSA officials, and the establishment of self-protection plans and
organizations to meet all emergencies except enemy attack.
b. The agency's responsibility also extends to the development and
maintenance of sound fire protection programs to ensure that (1) facilities
are kept in the safest condition practical, (2) employees are trained to
make optimum use of the building safety features, and (3) other necessary
actions are taken to ensure the maximum safety and well-being of the
occupants in case of a fire or similar emergency.
4. Physical protection criteria.
a. Determination of the level of normal protective service will
be made by GSA on a case-by-case basis and will consider the facility's
location, size and configuation, history of criminal or disruptive
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
incidents in the surrounding neighborhood not primarily directed toward
the occupant agency's mission, extent of exterior lighting, presence of
physical barriers, and other factors as may be deemed pertinent.
b. GSA provides normal and special protection through mobile perimeter
patrol, interior patrol, or fixed posts manned by Government or contract
uniformed personnel; by security systems and devices; by control of
building entry and inspection of packages when GSA determines such
control is warranted for general Government occupancy and not necessi-
tated by special activities of specific agencies, or by locking building
entrances and gates other than during normal hours of occupancy; through
the cooperation of local law enforcement agencies; or by any combination
thereof depending upon the facility and the degree of risk involved.
5. Accident and fire protection objective. GSA provides work space
that is intended to achieve the following:
a. Accident and fire protection performance levels that equal or
exceed the objective of the Occupational Safety Health Act and the
resultant Executive Order 11612 dated July 26, 1971, (Occupational
Safety and Health Programs for Federal Employees);
b. All reasonable precautions to avoid the incidence of accidental
injuries, fires, or exposure to potential occupation diseases;
c. Safety of occupants and visitors from exposure to intolerable
conditions in case of fire or other accidental incidents by provision of
total building environmental safety quality levels that equal or exceed
the objectives of the OSHA and those of nationally accepted model health,
safety, fire, and building codes;
d. Sufficient safeguards to allow emergency forces to accomplish
their missions without undue danger of entrapment;
e. Sufficient fire-limiting and other safety features to limit
danger to the surrounding community to a degree that equals or exceeds
the safety objectives of nationally accepted model building codes and
the local building code of the community involved; and
f. Additional safety against damage or destruction of property or
disruption or impairment of the mission appropriate to the value and
importance of the type of Federal activities involved.
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
CHAPTER 6. REIMBURSABLE SERVICES
1. Scope. This chapter provides information on those services that
are provided by GSA on a reimbursable basis.
2. Services. GSA will furnish additional services to those included in
the Standard Level User Charge on a reimbursable basis. Rates charged
for reimbursable services will be fixed to recover the approximate cost
incurred by GSA in providing such services. Agencies occupying space
under the assignment responsibility of GSA that perform or contract for
services normally provided for in the Standard Level User Charge levied
by GSA will be reimbursed by GSA for the cost of services performed. The
amount of reimbursement will be limited to the cost of the services to
GSA if GSA had provided them. Approval to perform or contract for such
services must be obtained from the GSA regional offices.
3. Types of reimbursable services. The following basic types of work
are performed by GSA on a fixed-price reimbursable basis:
a. Recurring services. These are services above the standard
levels, such as cleaning in excess of the standard level.
b. Nonrecurring services. These are services performed above
standard level of service, such as out-of-cycle painting.
c. Repairs and alterations. This service is performed on a reimburs-
able basis when it is performed in buildings not controlled by GSA.
d. Special space alterations. These are services and adjustments
that are requested and financed by other agencies and performed by
GSA in GSA-operated buildings.
e. Services financed by other agencies. This type is performed by
GSA personnel on construction and alteration projects when financed by
other agencies.
f. Maintenance and services. This service is provided on occupant
agency program equipment.
4. Examples of reimbursable services. Reimbursable services are
specifically requested by and performed for the convenience of the
occupant agency. These services include those that are above standard
level of repairs and initial space alterations, building operations and
maintenance, and physical protection and building security prescribed by
GSA. Also included as reimbursable are standard services performed
out of schedule due to tenant time requirements. Examples of reimbursable
services are:
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
a. Physical protection. This is the security guarding and pro-
tection of classified records and property when specifically provided
for in an agency's appropriation.
b. Space adjustment. This is requested by an agency for its
convenience in rearranging, expanding, relocating, or consolidating
activities, subject to approval of the changes by GSA. (Approval is
based on engineering and structural limitations of the building and
limitations due to lease provisions or law. All such work should be
performed under the supervision of GSA.)
c. Automatic protection systems. These consist of installation,
operation, and maintenance of burglar alarms and other automatic protective
devices and systems for security protection due to the special nature of
an agency's activities.
d. Special equipment. This consists of construction, installation,
operation, maintenance, and repair of agency program equipment, and
space adjustments required in buildings as a result of such installations.
e. Exhibits. These consist of construction, installation, and
maintenance of exhibits.
f. Special cleaning. This consists of washing and polishing
furniture and cleaning the inside of file cabinets, bookcases, desks, and
other personal property.
g. Services of technicians. These are services of motion picture
operators and other technicians required in the use of auditoriums,
conference rooms, and special agency projects.
h. Utilities. The use of utilities beyond normal hours of operation
and related labor to operate HVAC equipment. Requests for utilities on
an intermittent basis are excluded from this example.
2
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
Paragraph Paragraph
Titles
Numbers
services............ ......... .............,.
Types of reimbur. sa? e, .......... .
Examples of r.eimbur..ab..e services......... ..1y
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
Paragraph Paragraph
Titles Numbers
Scope ................................................. 1
General ............................................... 2
Agency restrictions in leased premises ................ 3
Services provided in leased premises .................. 4
i and ii
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
1. Scope. This chapter contains excerpts from the leasing and construc-
tion procedures established by GSA. Only those portions of the procedures
that directly relate to the standard levels of service provided by GSA
are presented. Agency restrictions and the services provided in leased
premises are also included in this chapter. The Federal Property
Management Regulations (41 CFR Parts 101-18 and 101-19) present addi-
tional information on GSA leasing and construction policies and procedures.
2. General.
a. Leasing.
(1) To the maximum extent practical, GSA will lease space in
privately owned buildings and land when needs cannot be satisfactorily
met in Government-controlled space, when leasing proves to be more
efficient than the construction or alteration of a Federal building, or
when construction or alteration is not warranted because requirements
in the community are insufficient or are indefinite in scope or duration,
or completion of a new building within a reasonable time cannot be
ensured.
(2) When considering acquisition or when acquiring space by
lease, material consideration will be given to the efficient performance
of the missions and programs of the executive agencies and the nature
and function of the facilities involved with due regard for the con-
venience of the public served and the maintenance and improvement of
safe and healthful working conditions for employees.
b. Construction. In the process of developing building projects,
the following procedures will be observed:
(1) Material consideration will be given to the efficient
performance of the missions and programs of the executive agencies and
the nature and function of the facilities involved with due regard for
the convenience of the public served and the maintenance and improvement
of safe and healthful working conditions for employees.
(2) Parking for Government-owned, vistors', and employees'
vehicles will be provided in the planning of public buildings with due
regard to the needs of the Federal agencies to be housed in each building,
local zoning and parking regulations, availability of public transportation
and availability of planned and existing public and privately owned
parking facilities in the locality.
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
3. Agency restrictions in leased premises. GSA will perform for Federal
agencies all functions of leasing building space and land incidental
thereto.'", Agencies are not authorized to negotiate with lessors for
alterations or building services without prior approval of GSA.
4. Services provided in leased premises. Space and services in leased
building will be based on the same standards and levels of services
provided in Government-owned space. However, the scope of the operation
and maintenance performed by GSA will be predicated on the extent of
the lessor's liability under the terms of the lease.
2
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
TAB
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
EVALUATION OF
THE GENERAL SERVCES. ADM]NISTRATE
REPORT T "TH'E ADMINISTRATOR
8O
By a Par ,31 of
AVIftevk ` gtkge ~ / : iQI; P 439 R 100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
REPORT TO THE ADMINISTRATOR
EVALUATION OF THE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
December 31, 1980
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
1225 Connecticut Avenue N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
FOREWORD
After completing his first year as General Services Administrator, Admiral
Rowland G. Freeman III concluded that it was appropriate to make a careful appraisal of
the future for the Agency. In the thirty years of its existence, GSA has been studied by
numerous groups-both from within the organization and from without. Most of these
studies have dealt with specific problems relating to organization and procedure. The
Administrator, however, desired a more generic approach which dealt with some
fundamental questions regarding the proper role of GSA within the total framework of
the Federal government.
In pursuit of this objective, the Administrator (with the explicit support of the
Office of Management and Budget) requested the National Academy of Public
Administration to undertake such an analysis. The political timetable necessitated that
the study be completed by January 1, 1981 in order that-regardless of the outcome of
the 1980 election-a new or re-elected President could have the report as guidance in his
decision-making. The Academy appointed a Panel of distinguished practitioners and
students of governmental affairs and a small staff to serve the Panel. Members of the
Panel and staff are listed in the following pages. The full Panel held four meetings
during the period, reviewed the products prepared by the staff, directed further studies
and analysis, and reached conclusions which have been set forth in the report.
Since the study did not get underway until mid-September, the new research And
analysis had to- focus ow the- most. significant issues. As a result many provocative but
not ultimately important problems had to be eliminated. They merit further study.
Much use was rondo, of previous studies which were augmented by some eighty interviews
with knowledgeable Washington and field people, both in and out of GSA. The Panel does
not believe that additional fact-gathering would have affected its basic judgments.
An initial draft of the report was delivered to the Administrator on December 1,
1980. His comments were received and minor revisions were made in the draft. On
December 5, at the Administrator's request, a copy of the draft report was made
available to the GSA Transition Team for their use in making their recommendations to
President-Elect Reagan.
The final draft was agreed upon by the Panel at its last meeting on December 19,
1980 and delivered to the Administrator on December 31, 1980.
The Academy wishes to thank all who served on the Panel and its staff, as well as
Admiral Freeman and the GSA officials who cooperated so fully in this endeavor. We
also owe a considerable debt to those within and without the Federal community who
shared with us their views on GSA, its problems and how to make it a more viable
organization in the 1980s.
In accordance with Academy custom, the report is presented as the product of the
Panel and its members who assume primary responsibility for the contents.
George H. Esser
President
National Academy of
Public Administration
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For. Release 2003/05/27 CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
-iii-
FOREWORD BY ACADEMY PRESIDENT
MEMBERS OF THE PANEL
PROJECT STAFF
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PARTI-THE BACKGROUND
Internal Issues
External Issues
The Hoover Commission Report (1949)
The Federal Property and Administrative Services Act
of 1949
4
Early Organization of the GSA (1949-56)
6
The Second Hoover Commission (1955)
8
The Cresap, McCormick and Paget (CMP) Report (1956)
9
Changing Currents of Thought on the Role of GSA
12
The Joint Management Survey (1966)
13
GSA and OMB
14
The Administrative Services Reorganization Project
18
PART TWO - GSA IN 1980
THE INTERNAL PERSPECTIVE
23
Centralization Vs. Decentralization
23
Decentralization in GSA
24
Tenure in Top Management
26
Mid-Level Management
29
Personnel Staffing and Training
31
THE EXTERNAL PERSPECTIVE
33
Personal Property Procurement
33
Motor Pool Management .
34
Space Acquisition and Management
34
Delays in the Leasing Process
37
Standard Level User Charges
38
Cutbacks on Services
39
Delegation of Authority
40
GSA'S FUNDING STRUCTURES AND EXPENDITURE LIMITATIONS
42
CONGRESSIONAL RELATIONS
44
Public Buildings Service
45
Federal Supply Service
48
Automated Data and Telecommunications Service
50
Other Functional Areas
51
A Congressional-GSA Partnership
53
REGULATION VS. OPERATIONS
54
Procurement and Supply Management Operations
56
Real Property Acquisition and Management
57
Property Disposal Management
58
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
A SPECIAL LOOK AT ADP
58
Background
59
Performance
60
Recent Changes
64
Future Trends
66
CHANGES IN GSA PERFORMANCE IN THE PAST YEAR'
66
PART THREE - FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS IMPORTANT TO
FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
69
-Societal Trends
69
Government Trends
72
Implications for GSA
74
PART FOUR - THE ALTERNATIVES, RECOMMENDED ACTION AND
IMPLEMENTATION
75
PROBLEMS
75
THE CRITERIA
77
WHAT SHOULD NOT BE DONE
79
Steady As She Goes
79
Departmental Status
79
The Vertical Cut
80
GSA as a Regulatory Agency
81
OMB as a Regulatory Agency
82
In Sum
83
WHAT SHOULD BE DONE.
83
Program A - GSA
85
Program B - EOP
86
Program C - Legislation
87
Comparison and Choice
89
IMPLEMENTATION
90
Actions within Current Executive Branch Authority
90
Actions Requiring Congressional Concurrence or
Approval
91
I Summary of Findings and Recommendations, ASRP
93
II GSA Top Management Tenure
97
III GSA Leased Space Acquisition Steps
99
IV The Role of Congress
103
V Proposal for a Uniform Procurement System
117
VI Future Developments Important to Federal
Administrative Services
119
VII Comparison of the Structural Options
131
VIII Comparison of Alternative Lines of Action
137
IX Test of the Preferred Line of Action
141
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
_V_
Members of the Panel
William D. Carey, Chairman of the Panel, is the Executive Director and Publisher of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science. He has served as chief of the
labor and welfare division and as non-career assistant director of the Bureau of the
Budget. He has also been vice president of Arthur D. Little, Inc.
Murray Comarow, professor at The American University and Special Counsel to a
Washington law firm, is a former senior assistant postmaster general of the U.S. Postal
Service, executive director of the President's Advisory Commission on Executive
Organization, a vice president of Booz, Allen and Hamilton, and executive director of of
the President's Commission on Postal Organization.
Alan L. Dean is chairman of the board of trustees of the National Academy of Public
Administration. He has been associate administrator of the Federal Aviation Agency,
assistant secretary of the Department of Transportation, deputy assistant director of the
Office of Management and Budget and vice president of the United States Railway
Association.
Frederick O'R. Hayes is a productivity consultant and former director of the budget for
the City of New York. He has also been deputy director of the Community Action
Program of the OEO and assistant commissioner of Urban Planning and Community
Development for the Urban Renewal Administration.
Robert C. Moot is treasurer of the National Academy of Public Administration, former
assistant secretary of the Department of Defense and administrator of the Small
Business Administration. Previously he had been comptroller of the Defense Supply
Agency.
John A. Perkins, vice president and professor emeritus of the University of California at
Berkeley, is a former president of Dun and Bradstreet and the University of Delaware.
He was also budget director of the State of Michigan.
Leonard R. Sayles is a professor of business administration at Columbia. University. He
has taught as well at Cornell, the University of Michigan, Strathclyde University in
Scotland and McGill University in (' anada. He has served as consultant to NASA, AIl)
and the Institute for Court Management.
Thomas F. Wands is a former senior vice president for operations and a director of Sears
Roebuck and Company. His responsibilities included physical distribution, customer
services, data processing and communications, materials handlinc , industrial engineering
and Sears Tower operations.
John D. Young is a professor at American University and former deputy undersecretary
of the Department of Energy. He has been assistant secretary and comptroller of HEX.
He served in the Office of Management and Budget and NASA and as a principal of
McKinsey and Company.
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
Project Staff
Alan Abramson
DeWitt C. Armstrong, III
Scott Ellsworth
Edwin C. Foster
Ruth France
Bertrand M. Harding
Erasmus H. Kloman
Michael McGeary
John L. McGruder
A. Elizabeth Powell
Research Assistant*
Senior Research Associate*
Research Associate
Senior Research Associate*
Administrative Coordinator
Project Director**
Senior Research Associate
Research Assistant*
Senior Research Associate*
Senior Research Associate
* These members of the staff were employed for the life of the project, on the basis of
particular experience and knowledge. Most of them have had prior experience with
Academy projects.
** Mr. Harding, now retired from a varied experience with Federal agencies, is a long-
time member of the National Academy of Public Administration, and has been the
project director for three other important Academy assignments.
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
Perhaps more than any other single entity of the Federal government, the General
Services Administration (GSA) is seen to embody all the worst aspects of bureaucracy in
its negative connotation-inefficiency, waste and corruption. This view is held both by
members of the general public and by many government workers as well.
The charge, of this Panel, was, to identify the root causes of G'SA's troubles,
whether organizational or managerial, and to propose measures to assure an effective
performance. Accordingly, it was necessary for the Panel-to investigate the history of
GSA, and particularly the various study commissions which have also investigated the
agency and issued recommendations as to how it might function better. Part I of this
report, "The Rackground," is a review of this material.
The second of the report's four parts, "GSA in 19,80," is a holistic review of the
agency and its various divisions and functions as they operate today, its relations with
user agencies, the Executive Office of the President, and the Congress. It is, therefore,
a study of the broad environment in which GSA operates.
As it is the implied object of this report to affect GSA in the future, it was
necessary for the panel to investigate the most likely future trends and developments
which will condition GSA's operating capacity. This is the concern of Part III of the
report, "Future Developments Important to Federal Administrative Services."
Part IV of the report, "The Alternatives, Recommended Action and
Implementation," contains the Panel's proposals for the reform of GSA, including
recommendations for how such reforms might hest he implemented. This material is
prefaced by a listing of the major problems of the Agency, the Panel's criteria, and an
examination of the organizational alternatives which the Panel considered.
The following is a more detailed look at each of the report's four parts.
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
- viii-
Many of the problems confronting GSA have deep roots which run throughout the
history of the agency. This is most evident in the conflict of views between those who
saw the organization as the regulator of Federal procurement and those who saw the
mission to be that of a centralized purchasing and distributing agent.' This situation is
still unresolved, and has had a pervasive impact upon the GSA's functional abilities during
the past three decades. The recommendations of the first Hoover Commission (1949),
appear to lean strongly in the direction of the regulatory role: "The office of General
Services should-prescribe regulations governing . . . these activities . . . (and) to the
greatest extent possible, delegate responsibility for exercising ... these functions to the
departments and agencies."
The enabling legislation, however, left to the Administrator the decision on the
extent to which it is "advantageous to the government" for GSA to directly perform
centralized services and procurement. The legislative history implies considerable
Congressional interest in the economies of scale which were being sought.
This part of the report briefly. reviews the history of the major study groups which
have investigated-and in many cases, significantly affected-GSA during the past thirty
years.
o The second Commission on the Organization of jbe Executive Branch
afthe Government (the Second Hoover Commission), 1955.
o The Cresap,. McCormick and Paget Study, 1956.
The Joint Management Survey, 1966.
o The Administrative Services Reorganization Project, 1978.
Accompanying this material is a history of key trends in administrative management
philosophy held by the leadership of GSA, the agency's often difficult relationship with
OMB, and the significant legislation and executive orders which have directed, and in
some cases redirected, GSA's development.
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
ring
149),
rty
In the course of its deliberations, the Panel reached the conclusion that the much
advertised and deplored deficiencies in GSA were not the result of any simple set of
causes, nor all of the agency's own making. Rather, the problems besetting GSA and its
mission are part of an intricate web of closely related problems in the environment in
which the agency operates. This part -of the report is a detailed look at the component
parts of this environment, with a concentration on GSA's internal problems, the dominant
external perceptions of its operations, its funding structure, and the agency's relations
with Congress.
The key issues which the report probes in its review of the internal situation in
GSA today include:
o Centralization vs. Decentralization: There has been a long standing
dilemma involving alternating efforts to centralize and decentralize
authority and operations within GSA. The current Administrator is
engaged in decentralizing operational authority from GSA
headquarters to the regional offices.
o Tenure in Top-Level Management: The instability of the top
leadership of GSA has had devastating effects on the agency. GSA.
has had seven different Administrators over the past ten years-an
average duration of service of nineteen months. Other top positions
have changed hands even more frequently. This "revolving door"
syndrome in key GSA positions has seriously affected the morale,
stability and operating style of the entire agency.
o Mid-Level Management: This study reveals that mid-level managers
in GSA compare favorably with the rest of the Federal government as
to education and experience. They have, however, a reputation for
not being overly receptive to change, which in no small way can be
attributed to the frequent changes in GSA leadership and policies.
o Personnel Staffing and Training: While GSA has gained the reputation
of being a highly politicized agency, the Panel has found that such
political interference has been substantially reduced, if not
eliminated, at present. The staffing of the agency, however, has been
negatively affected by the low status given to its administrative
positions, a dearth of training programs and executive development,
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
and a lack of planned or institutionalized interchange between GSA
headquarters and field offices, between GSA services, or between
GSA and either other Federal agencies and/or private sector elements
which may have experience to contribute.
The section on the "external perception" of. GSA concentrates on the current
status of GSA's services as viewed by user agency personnel, based primarily on material
collected by the Panel in the course of its interviews. The primary areas which are
examined include: personal property procurement; ADP; space acquisition and
management; the leasing process; and Standard Level User Charges. Some material is
also devoted to recent cutbacks in services (e.g., the furniture freeze), and the issue of
user agency desires for-or opposition to-more delegations of authority from GSA. This
section is followed by a review of GSA's funding structure and expenditure limitations,
and the problems caused by the current financial restrictions.
Of utmost importance to GSA operational abilities is its relationship with
Congress, particularly certain Congressional committees and sub-committees. In Part II
the Panel reviews the current relationship between Congress and GSA and its constituent
divisions and later recommends how this relationship can be improved, leading to a
"Congressional-GSA Partnership," through which the proper role of each may be
assumed.
The Panel also considered that the balance, or imbalance, between the regulatory
and operational components to GSA's overall mission constituted such a central feature
in the overall environment in which the agency operates that a separate section dealing
with this issue, and particularly OMB's role, has been included. Likewise, it determined
that the automated data processing responsibilities of GSA warranted special attention.
This part of the report ends with an assessment of the ongoing efforts of the
current Administrator to correct many of the deficiencies in GSA previously highlighted.
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
-xi-
FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS
Part Ili assesses the most significant of the projected societal and governmental
trends which may affect GSA in the foreseeable future. These developments include:
o a moderate growth of the national economy
o shifting patterns in both the national and federal workforces
particularly the growth in the percentage of women
o aclaptations to energy problems, including. the impact on building
construction, the need to make more' intensive use of the work-place
and the impact on transportation costs
o changes in data processing, communications and record keeping and
the emerging interrelationship of these technologies
o declining growth rates for many federal programs, plus growth in
others
Each of these projected conditions will. have important potential consequences for GSA,
in its operations, structure, management and the definition of its mission. The Panel
assesses the potential impact of these trends during the next decade, and stresses the
importance for GSA to develop internally the institutional capacity for forward planning
and for estimating the effect of these conditions on the needs of government for
administrative services.
TNF ALTERNA'T'IVES, RECOMMENDED ACTION AND IMPLEMENTATION
In Part IV, the Panel asserts its consideration of how the Federal government, and
specifically GSA, can hest provide for satisfactory administrative service to its many and
.varied program agencies. These specific recommendations are preceded by a detailed
account of the route by which the Panel reached its decisions, namely through problem
identification, the establishment of criteria, the demarcation of alternatives and the
application of the criteria to the various alternatives.
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
In its deliberations, the Panel identified some twenty-five major problems and
problem areas besetting GSA. The Panel notes that while many of the items identified
are being vigorously attacked by the current Administrator, they continue to thwart
adequate performance. The most important of these problems include:
o apparent non-responsiveness on the part of GSA to agency needs and
hidden costs imposed on agencies in efforts to meet these needs
o poor GSA relations with Congress and OMB resulting in excessive
controls and limitations placed upon the agency
impact of the high turnover rate of senior GSA executives
o insufficient emphasis on management training and executive
development both in GSA and in the administrative services area
generally
o overemphasis by GSA on crisis handling and operating functions, with
a consequent underemphasis on its authority to delegate operations to
agencies and control such delegations through regulations
o incomplete decentralization of operational authority to GSA regions
o GSA lag on ADP and other technologies and failure to exploit external
sources of technical assistance
The next step in the Panel's decision malting process was to establish criteria
against which to judge any possible course of action. With abbreviated annotation, the
six major criteria established by the Panel are as follows:
o Quality of su port provided to programs. How promptly and fully will
the needs customer agencies be met? Will the program execution
by these agencies be impeded and delayed less? Will the system adapt
flexibly to new or changing service needs? Will customer agencies
participate sufficiently in policy determinations?
Cost. Will the overall manpower engaged in administrative support
throughout the Federal government be the minimum needed for
effective functioning? Will the fullest advantage be taken of the real
economies of scale and of competition?
o Minimization of Corruption. While responding fully to Administration
policy and to legislation by the Congress, will the service
organization(s) be free to manage personnel, procure, contract, and
otherwise conduct business on the merits? Will the structure tend to
reduc he ikkelih dd cff o r uu~~ gg~
Approvecp~oreease o~Q037C~! lA 089UR~~00100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
-xiii-
o Personnel quality. Will the people who make policy and provide
administrative services he competent? Will they be motivated
primarily toward improved service? Will the conduct of career
development programs he stimulated? Will stable continuity of high-
level management he encouraged?
o Public confidence. Will the public perceive the Federal government
as operating more efficiently? Will the public perceive fewer
corrupt, extravagant or unreasonable actions within government?_
o Attainability.. Now complex,.. difficult and protracted will be the
support.--b ldi n ,w a lmiini9tr .tive- aaaid legislative steps needed to bring
this alternative about? Would any groups oppose it strongly?
The Panel suggested a number of alternatives, and then judged them against the
criteria which it established. The proposals which the Panel considered and rejected
were as follows:
o Steady As She Goes. Limiting corrective action to a continuation of
the efforts now underway was not considered by the Panel as
sufficient to solve. all of the agency's deficiencies.
o Departmental Status. Although the Panel felt that departmental rank
might enhance the status of GSA, no other benefits were seen from
such an action, and it would seem to run counter to the cardinal rule
which reserves departmental. status for government organizations
responsible for the delivery of primary governmental programs.
o The Vertical rut. Although the vertical division of GSA's functional
divisions might, for example, result in some needed visibility for the
public buildings function, the Panel rejected this option on the basis
of the further discontinuity it would create between the components
of what should he an integrated administrative support system.
o GSA as a ulator~7 Agency. This alternative would transform GSA
from a largely operating entity to one 1.+.~hich issued regulations on
space, supply, etc., and would entail an almost complete delegation of
the operating responsibilities to the various user agencies. This
alternative was rejected by the Panel for a number of reasons,
including the belief that a central operating entity is necessary for
some of the public buildings and telecommunications functions and for
the administrative support of many small and/or newly activated
agencies.
o OMB as the Regulatory
Agency. This alternative would transfer all of
the policy and regulatory functions to OMB, leaving GSA with a
purely operational role. The reasons for the Panel rejection of this
alternative included the fact that OR?B is not close enough to the
operational realities to prepare workable regulations and that such a
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
-xiv-
change could create a turbulence within GSA which would lead to
further declines in the agency's services.
The remaining alternatives considered by the Panel were what it has termed a
"revita]ized GSA," and the transformation of the agency into a government corporation.
In its deliberations over these two alternatives, the Panel concluder] that there are
certain actions which should he taken, regardless of whether the ultimate end product is
"a revitalized GSA with unchanged responsibility," or "a revitalized GSA as a government
corporation." It has grouped one set of these recommended actions into what is termed
"Program A." These are actions which the Panel recommends that the Administrator
undertake. They include:
o installation of sound, up-to-date management information, control,
and training systems
o conduct of sustained executive development and management training
programs
o extensive delegation to program agencies of authority to perform
their own administrative services in conformance with OMB policy
and according to GSA rules and standards
o full decentralization of operating control to GSA Regions
o development of a research capability to take full advantage for the
government of R & D results achieved elsewhere
o improvement of GSA's relations with Congress through both
demonstrated performance and positive outreach
A second set of actions recommended by the Panel, termed "Program B," are
those }vhich the President and the various components of the EOP should undertake.
They include:
the public announcement of a commitment to revitalize the
government's administrative services, in order to increase efficiency
and reduce hidden costs
the appointment and retention of a managerially and professionally
Qualified head for GSA until, hopefully, the position is made tenured
$p pved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
?m ed .a
ration.
re are
duct is
,rim ent
ermed
;trator
o the carrying out of actions which will ensure that key GSA executive
posts are filled by able managers chosen for professional and not
political qualifications
o the carrying out of actions which will ensure that OMB will
wholeheartedly support revitalizing GSA through necessary funding
and personnel ceiling allowances
o the definite clarification of the respective roles of OMB and GSA in
policy making and the issuance of regulations
o the creation of an influential customer's advisory council for GSA
In the opinion of the Panel, all of the elements in Program A and B are absolutely
essential measures toward revitalizing GSA. The Panel concluded, however, that the
measures in Programs A and B were not enough, for some obstacles remained which could
be overcome only through legislation. The Panel's recommendations for legislation it has
termed collectively "Program C," and it has divided them into two alternative sections:
one which would complete the revitalization of GSA with its current functions; the other
which would transform GSA into a government corporation. Under the former, the Panel
urges certain specific legislation, such as:
o setting a fixed term for the GSA Administrator, as the sole
Presidentially-appointed official in GSA
o authorizing GSA to use true revolving fund arrangements with full
costing for goods and services provided to customers
o substituting for the present lease-prospectus process some process
more responsive to Congress' and GSA's needs, such as the plan-
submission proposed in the Moynihan Bill
o allowing GSA needed additional flexibility through appropriations that
provide multi-year financing and reduce other constraints associated
with the current operations structure
o Renaming GSA, as a symbol of new challenge and opportunity
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
-xvi-
Under the set of measures in Program C which would lead to the transformation
of GSA into a government corporation (under the policy direction of OMB), the Panel
recommends that the characteristics of such a corporation include:
Board of Directors appointed by the President
CEO appointed by the Board with salary not in excess of Executive
Level I
o employees to be civil service
o responsibility to determine the propriety and necessity of its
expenditures
o no personnel ceilings externally imposed
o business-type budgeting, use of true revolving funds, authority to
borrow from Treasury
It is the Panel's belief that one or the other of the two reform routes under Program C is
necessary to correct the deficiencies in GSA.
The Panel concluded that both of the legislative reform packages under Program
C fit the political calendar in that a new Administration is in a strong position to make
reforms; however, the Panel believes that the wiser course of action is to seek the first
legislative solutions at once and defer decision on the corporation solution for a period of
three or f our years.
Finally, the Panel recommends that the Administrator submit to the President an
action program which delineates: reforms underway and to be undertaken by the
Administrator; those actions which are within the authority of the EOP and which should
be immediately pursued; and a legislative package to be presented to the Congress. The
Administrator's submission should also include an outline of the public relations program
through which the reforms will receive the widest possible exposure and acceptance.
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
PART ONE - THE BACKGROUND
Since its inception in 1949, the General Services Administration (GSA) has been
entrusted with vital government functions. Over the years, as the responsibilities of
government have grown, the mix of GSA functions has expanded and volume of activity
has increased. As an independent agency responsible for regulatory and service
functions, GSA formulates and prescribes government-wide regulations relating to
procurement and contracting, real and personal property management, transportation
management, automated data processing management, and the national archives, to
mention only the most important of GSA's tasks.
Despite the importance of the tasks and the fact that they are widely perceived as
the mechanics of the process of government which should be readily amenable to modern
management techniques, GSA has come to be one of the least respected and most widely
criticized of all federal agencies.
Having recognized this from the outset of his service with GSA, the current
Administrator has undertaken a number of programs and measures to improve GSA
performance. Shortly after the completion of his first year as Administrator he
requested the National Academy of Public Administration to convene a Panel to examine
the situation and make recommendations. This report. is the result.
The Foreword to this report speaks to the general nature, timing, and mode of
panel operation. In a very compressed period, the Panel drew upon previous studies,
conducted many interviews in and out of Washington, and brought its breadth and depth
of individual experience to bear during its deliberations.
The Panel addressed how the Federal government could best manage the delivery
of ridmi nistrative services. One area of GSA activity, the National Archives and Records
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
Service, was specifically excluded by the Administrator from Panel consideration. The
inquiry therefore focused almost entirely on the three major areas of public buildings,
federal supply and automated data and telecommunications. The concentration of Panel
effort was, as requested, not upon interior workings but rather upon how these crucial
aspects of the government's work should be structured and managed. In order to evaluate
and make recommendations, the Panel needed to examine the root causes of GSA's
troubles.
As background for its investigation, the panel has surveyed the record of events
leading up to the present. In particular, it has examined the extensive documentation
compiled by the groups which have studied GSA in the past. Even if the extremely short
time for this study had not underscored the need to build on what has been learned from
prior inquiries, it would have been necessary to review this record. The following
discussion illuminates the trends in GSA's development using past studies as spotlights on
this history.
The discussion is presented with particular emphasis on seven sets of issues
identified by the panel as critical in the evolution of GSA. These issues are:
Internal Issues
1. Preoccupation with operations at expense of policy management and
regulatory functions.
2. Centralization vs. decentralization, GSA central-field relations, inadequate
management controls, fraud prevention procedures, unclear lines of accountability.
3. Personnel, especially mid-level competence, resistance, inertia, lack of
professionalization, lack of career development programs.
4. Tenure of top level management, and the need for stability of leadership,
adequacy of pay scale.
5. Technology lag as demonstrated particularly in information and
telecommunications systems.
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
-3-
FxternRl Issues
The framework of GSA relations with other Executive Branch agencies as
customers of GSA, Executive Office of the President (EOP) and especially OmB
relations, DOD relations, and ? relations with Congress, budgetary limitations,
inability of GSA to control its own destiny. -
7. Delegation to customer agencies, capacities and responsiveness of GSA in
executing its responsibilities in relation to varying customer agency capacities.
This Account begins with an analysis of the Report of the Commission on the
Orcanizati'on of the Executive Branch of the Government (1949), the first Hoover
Commission. Preceding that study were a number of other studies and administrative
developments which helped to shape the Hoover Commission's findings. For space
reasons this earlier history is not recounted here)
The Hoover Commission Report (1949)
The President and Congress had wrestled with a number of problems that had
',eeome increasingly serious during and after the mobilization for World War IT. These
problems included procurement, utilization, and disposal of federal supplies, materials,
eouipment and real property. A review of the hearings before the Hoover Commission
and the legislative hearings before enactment of the legislation establishing GSAreveals
:' i{+e differences of opinion and considerable confusion about whether and how the
' eral service-type functions could he grouped together in a. single agency, how such an
" encv might best he structured and where it should be located.
The Hoover Corr mission report's discussion of an Office of General Services began
ith the following statement:
l? An account of pre-hoover Commission events is presented in "Study Commissions and
A 'T'hematic ilistory" re are h S t~ F
Approved For Fiel'else 2003/09/27 : ~&i- P84fib 6 9340 hV 0M Mfl1-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
Three major internal activities of the Federal Government now
suffer from a lack of central direction. These are Supply,
Records Management and the Operation and Maintenance of
Public Buildings. These activities are carried on in several
places within the executive branch with varying degrees of
adequacy. . . . To the general public, the "housekeeping"
activities listed above are little-known, but unless they are
properly administered the executive branch cannot be
effectively managed. Moreover, huge sums are spent on these
activities.
The report went on to say that there were two important questions with regard to
these housekeeping services:
First, who shall decide what part of any service shall be
centralized and what part shall be left to individual operating
agencies?
Second, who shall supervise the centralized services to make
pertain that they perform their work satisfactorily?
The Commission recommended that both responsibilities be placed in an Office of
General Services under a director appointed by the President. Its report stated:
The Office of General Services shoul'1 be given authority,
subject to the direction of the President, to prescribe
regulations governing the conduct of these three activities by
departments and agencies of the executive branch. However,
the Office of General Services should, to the greatest extent
possible, delegate responsibility for exercisin these three
functions to the departments and agencies. Emphasis added.
In sum, therefore, the Hoover Commission envisioned what ultimately became
GSA primarily, but not exclusively, as a policy-making body-the exact parameters of
which it did not specify.
The Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949
After issuing the Commission report, the staff of the Commission prepared draft
legislation which Congress considered along with an Administration bill first proposed by
the more detailed
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
-5-
and specific than the Commission bill and became the principal basis for the final 1949
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act. However, the provision in the Hoover
Commission version of the bill designating the. GSA as an independent agency was
Incorporated in the final Act. _
The committee hearings show that while Administration spokesmen insisted that
~? new agency was not intended to centralize detailed operations, many Members of
t.on(Tress were impressed with the idea A hat the largest savings would come through
:lose GSA control and direct operations in the areas of common item procurement, space
control,.and surplus property transfers. The Hoover Commission task "force reports on
federal supply activities and records management reinforced the economy emphasis in
the GSA idea.
The Act largely retained the detailed substantive provisions of the Administration
')ill as it developed over two years of - congressional hearings, while it accepted the
,.ructural features of the Hoover Commission bill which called for an independent
:eneral services agency. Section 2 set out GSA's tasks:
to provide for the Government an economical and
efficient system for (a) the procurement and supply of personal
property and nonpersonal services, including related
functions ... (b) the utilization of available property; (c) the
disposal of surplus property; and (d) records management."
The new act gave the Administrator of General Services wide discretion in
'?"?'rmining the extent to which GSA should engage directly in operating, procurement,
;':irzation, and disposal activities and the extent to which it should delegate these
ivities to the departments and agencies under GSA supervision or even except
-~riries altogether. Section 201 (a), the key section describing the Administrator's
"''`'r~. gave the Administrator authority to (1) prescribe
policies and methods; (2)
or delegate operation of supply facilities to any executive agency; (3) procure
stJPply personal property and nonpersonal services for the departments and agencies.
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
The Act is silent on the key question of what criteria should guide. the
Administrator in deciding what functions should be performed directly by GSA and what
should he performed by the executive departments or agencies, except that he shall only
engage in activities "to the extent that he determines that so doing is advantageous to
the government in terms of economy, efficiency, or service, and with due regard to the
program activities of the agencies concerned."
Early Organization of the GSA (1949-50
The GSA was established on July 1, 1949, the day after President Truman signed
the bill. He appointed the head of the Federal Works Agency (abolished by the Act) to be
the first Administrator.
The agency consisted of a number of constituent bureaus which were transferred
to it, the largest being the Public Puildings Administration from Federal Works, the
Bureau of Federal Supply from Treasury, and the National Archives. These agencies
were primarily engaged in service operations.
The new agency had no resources other than those appropriated from its
constituent bureaus, and therefore it could not fund the new and expanded activities
called for in the legislation during its first year. The top management, which came with
the new Administrator from Federal Works, concertrated on organizational. planning
during that first year.
A new central office organization was established in December 1949, based on
GSA's inherited constituent bureaus, renamed the Federal Supply Service, the Public
1'tFildit 's Service, and the National Archives and Records Service. A regional office
structure was set up in April 1950, but it was not formally activated and the regional
directors were not appointed until October 1950.
Top management worked to transcend the narrow and operational focus of the
functional services from the beginning. Separate units were set up within each service to
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
-7-
perform the hronder policy anal coordinating roles, such as the Buildings Management
Division, the Supply P-Tanagement Division, and the Records Management Division. These
continued to he starved for funds and tended to remain overshadowed by the more
operational divisions. The Administrator established strong regional directors who had
supervision over all functional activities in their geographic areas and reported directly
to the Administrator. This was done in part to decentralize operations and in part to
break organizational loyalties to the old bureaus. The intent of this decentralization was
to place all operating authority in the regional offices while retaining only policymaking
and coordinating functions in the central office.
A management survey of federal field offices, done for the Bureau of the Budget
by George Fry and Associates in 1950, endorsed the GSA's effort to create an integrated
field organization in line with Hoover Commission recommendations, but it recommended
that the regional directors report to an assistant administrator for field operations rather
than directly to the Administrator. It feared the Administrator would not have enough
time to supervise the regions adequately, and therefore the functional services in
Washington would end up taking over. However, the Cresap, Paget, and McCormick
survey of 1950, discussed below, found that it was the staff offices-general counsel,
comptroller, and management-which filled the vacuum, and began-,to exercise line,
authority.
During the 1950s, operations continued to dominate. The GSA, through internal
and external pressures, was subjected to strict economies during its early years, v:hich
restricted.the development of new functions contemplated in the original act. The
agency's employment remained stable while its volume of operations increased greatly.
The GSA's major goal, as stated in its annual reports, was to accumulate and claim direct
economies, which led it to emphasize GSA's own operations in procurement, supply,
buildings maintenance, and so forth over indirect economies that might be accomplished
by improving department policies and procedures. The net effect of GSA's activities on
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
-8-
overfll federal program effectiveness was not considered. During this period there was a
ctihstpntial increase of agency dissatisfaction with the services of GSA and suspicion of
.its claims of economy.
In the meantime, GSA was subjected to other pressures with a lasting effect. It
began to accumulate additional operational responsibilities in 1950, extending its
jurisdiction over real property management and strategic material stockpiles and
authorizing the establishment of the federal records centers. In 1953, Congress
authorized a revolving,- capital fund for reimbursable operations in building management.
In 1954, PL. 766 permitted GSA to begin to operate the interagency motor pools.
GSA's practice of listing the amount of savings it effected, begun in its 1952
annual report, continued until 1956. These savings, most of them attributed to
operations concentrated within GSA such as centralized procurement, were itemized
annually, some $105 million in 1952, increasing to $200 million in 1955. In addition,
during fiscal 1954, GSA undertook an intensive self-survey which resulted in eliminating
nearly ?,900 positions out of 29,000.
The Second Hoover ram mission (1955)
The second Commission on the Organization of the Executive Branch of the
Government, headed by Herbert Hoover, focused much more on issues of federal spending
and justifications for federal. programs than on the effectiveness of governmental
structure. It did not report on the general management of the Executive Branch, and it
girl not evaluate the effectiveness of the GSA as an organization. However, it studied
many functions related to GSA--e.g., supply depot operations, property management,
atp1 1v-and its reports and those of its task forces, were uniformly critical of GSA's
aerformanee. The Commission made many detailed recommendations for improving
property and related management activities, but it did not question the basic GSA
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
-9-
organi7atioral concept. The net effect of the second Hoover Commission on GSA was to
reinforce its tendency to engage in detailed operations for reasons of economy.
's'he exception to the Commission's general approach and findings relating to GSA
was the work of the task force on paperwork management. This task force and the
Commission were critical of MARS' concentration on the disposal of federal records and
operation of the federal records centers. The Commission outlined a broader role for
GSA in what it termed "paperwork management," presaging subsequent concern about
managing information in the federal government. The Commission recommended
elevating the status and the scope of activities of the Records Management Division in
NAPS, so that it could supply staff guidance for a government-wide paperwork
management program.
In May 19.55, GSA submitted a draft executive order to BOB to establish a
government-wide paperwork management program and to define GSA's authority and
role. President Eisenhower instead wrote department heads and asked them to cooperate
with the GSA in improving paperwork. BOB directed GSA to undertake a number of
specific Hoover Commission proposals to effect savings and it moved to assist agencies
with improving paperwork processes, such as correspondence manuals and use of business
machines. The broader prohlem of federal information management was not to come up
again until some years later.
The Cresap, Me(-ormick and Paget (('MP) Report (1956)
The first comprehensive study of GSA by an' independent group after GSA's
formation was the "Survey of Organization and Administration" performed by the
consultitg firm of Cresap, McCormick and Paget in 1955-1956.2 This study group
`'. There were, of course, other studies made of specific functions of GSA, particularly
during its organizational period. Two such studies were: the "Report to the
Administrator Concerning the Test Study of the Proposed Plan of Regional Organization
of the GSA," prepared by the Office of Management, March 8, 1950; and, the "Federal
Field Sorvices Project: Vol. I'll-GSA c c~ ed hv~1
CiA-RD*W,90&660 0dbWM66fl2j2fgr BOI
Approved For Release BOB,
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
interviewed over 1,400 GSA and agency employees throughout the nation over a ten
month period, and investigated the. operations of all of GSA's major functions and
programs as well-as its overall administration and organization.
The CMP Report emphasized two central features concerning the structure and
tasks of GSA:
GSA is essentially a long-established organization transplanted
to a. new setting- with broadened program responsibilities. The
transition has been difficult since predecessor organizations
were predominantly operating in character, while GSA has, in
addition, government-wide standards and counseling
responsibilities.
By law, the Administrator has wide latitude in organizing GSA
and choosing its methods of operation. However, this authority
has been little used, and the same top management structure is
applied to all GSA activities, regardless of their nature, size
and scope.3
Furthermore, the CHOP Report highlighted the serious problems arising out of the
ill-defined nature of GSA's primary mission. Whereas the first Hoover Commission had
envisioned GSA to be in large part a policy-making body, GSA's-enabling legislation had
also emphasized its role in the actual operation of its assigned functions. Accordingly,
the CMP Report revealed that: "GSA Administrators have been faced with a continuing
struggle to define the Agency's proper role and objectives. This struggle has been
accentuated by the widespread and freely expressed dissatisfaction of customer agencies,
and by sharply differing viewpoints among GSA's line and staff executives."4
To correct this situation, the CMP Report enumerated three basic principles to
guide the future of GSA organization and programs:
1. GSA should establish a harmonious and effective internal
organization before seeking to assume additional
3. "GSA, Survey of Organization; Vol. I-Summary Report" (CMP Report, p. 1-15).
4. CMP Re ~o p kdr ik 1 ase 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
-11-
responsibilities recommended by the Hoover Commission and
by the findings of this report.
2. The Administrator of GSA should enunciate a set of basic
policies to guide the actions and attitudes of GSA executives.
3. GSA should be relieved, to a maximum extent, of regulatory
determinations and compliance responsibilities.5
On the internal organization and administrative management of GSA, two
recommendations were of particular importance. First, in the area of real property
management, the report recommended that strong Central Office-Regional Office
relationships be effected by the establishment of a counterpart organization in each
region to conduct operating functions under strong national direction.
Secondly, it recommended comprehensive revisions in.the organization of GSA's
services through the establishment of five internal organizations directed by
commissioners who would report to the' Administrator: Personal Property Management
Service, Real Property Management Service; National Archives and Records Service;
Transportation and Public Utilities Service; and the Material and Industrial Reserve
Service. The five service organizations comprised the backbone of what the Cit9P Report
termed its "Commissioner-Regional Commissioner Pattern" of internal organization.
Under this approach, the Commissioners were.the principal advisers to, and agents of,
the Administrator, and had national authority for program planning and standards,
budgetary planning and control, key personnel appointments and program results.
The CMP study marked an important turning point in the evolution of GSA.
Before the report, GSA's organization followed essentially a weak commissioner pattern
with central office staff exercising relatively little control over their programs at the
region Pl office level. After 1956, when the CMP recommendations were implemented,
program authority flawed from the Administrator to Central Office program officials
5. CMP Report, pp. 1-15
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : C 2RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
and from them to the Regional Administrators. In practice this resulted in the Heads of
Services delegating directly to their regional program officials through the Regional
Administrators.
Changing Currents of Thought on the Role of GSA
During the ten years following the CMP Report, considerable evolution was
evident, both, inside- and outside- GSA, in what was felt to be the proper functioning role
of the agency. A central component in this line of thinking was voiced in May 1956-one
month before the CMP Report was submitted-when House Majority Leader John IV.
McCormack introduced what ultimately 'proved to be an unsuccessful resolution in
Congress to constitute GSA as the "Department of General Services." In his arguments
in support of cabinet status for GSA-which were primarily based on the concept that
this was warranted by the impar~tance of the functions under its purview-Representative
McCormack characterized GSA as the "service agency" of the Executive Branch. He
further argued that, cabinet status for GSA would 'smoke out' any lone agency holdouts
against the desires of the Congress and the Hoover Commission to eliminate duplication
of common services.
Regardless of his rather questionable interpretation of the desires of the Hoover
Commission, McCormack's statements reflected the view of GSA as a service providing
agency, rather than primarily a policy-making body that would delegate "to the greatest
extent possible" the actual exercise of its functions to the departments and agencies.
Service and centralization-rather than policy making and decentralization-became the
new bywords for the overall role of GSA.
This vision of GSA gained increased support over the next few years. Late in
l q62, the Systems and Procedures Division of GSA's Office of Finance and
Administration. completed a report on the "Feasibility of Obtaining Departmental Status
for GSA." Like the McCormack resolution, the report highlighted the overall importance
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
-13-
of
w.
hat
ling
j,f the ngency as warranting its elevation to cabinet status, as well as asserting that such
, cl~,inge would aid the President in managing the Executive Branch. However, in the
course of its arguments for cabinet status for GSA, this report went beyond McCormack's
statements in its characterization of the. proper role of GSA as a centralized business
management and service arm of the government. By the time the Joint Management
Survey Report was issued some four years later, it appears that this line of thought
regarding GSA's primary role had gained wide acceptance.
The Joint Management Survey (1966)
The Joint Management Survey of GSA was .conducted over a five and one-half
month perirxl in 1985-1966 as part of President Johnson's program for "improved
management and manpower."6 A combined effort of representatives from GSA, BOB and
CSC, the survey was unique in that, for the first time in that particular program, the
agency being surveyed provided the team chairman. The study was "problem oriented,"
hence the study team concentrated on those problem areas accepted by the
Administrator as realistically representing aspects of GSA missions which would profit by
such an examination.
The survey team praised the commitment and dedication of GSA's top leadership,
and supported the agency's attempts to function as a truly integrated, single entity,
rather than as a loose federation of distantly related programs. The team's call,
however, for "the introduction of more sophisticated philosophies arid techniques of
management" was indicative of the many "problem areas'' in G.SA-something further
evidenced by the fact that its draft report was 486 pages in length and contained some 85
recom m ende t i ons for change.
r'. Joint .Varagement Survey 'T'eam (GSA, BOB, C'S('), "Report of Joint. Management
Survey of the G=eneral Services Administration," April 196(i Draft, Introduction (no
pagination). Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
-14-
In step with President Johnson's philosophy of "creative federalism," a major
theme of the report and its recommendations was the call for "maximum
decentralization and delegation of authority"--not, however, from GSA to.the various
departments and agencies, but within the internal structure of GSA itself.
Through this concept the study team hoped to eliminate the shortcomings of a
lack of flexibility, excessive fragmentation, an admixture of- responsibility, an
intermingling of authority, and a multiplication of costs which it found to be present in
GSA. The team hoped that such a management concept would especially aid the plight of
the GSA field management officer, an individual whom they felt to be central to an
efficient operation of the agency, but devoid of any significant authority.
To assist in the adoption of this management concept, the survey team also called
for a basic reorganization of GSA:
That the GSA program and organization structure be merged
into four broad areas of Materiel Management, Real Property
Management, Archival and Records Management, and Support
Services, with program policy direction and evaluation
responsibility for each area assigned to an Assistant
Administrator, and operational responsibility assigned to the
Regional Administrators.
The vast majority of the report's recommendations were concerned with the
details of this proposed reorganization.
The characteristics of the present-day GSA have been significantly influenced by
intricate and often ambiguous relationships with ONIB. While OMB operates in what is
perceived as a lofty level of management and budgetary policy-making and oversight,
GSA is perceived to occupy a place at the other end of the spectrum as a lowly
housekeeping agency. Yet OMB must depend heavily on GSA as a critical. factor in
7. Joint 1\lanagement Survey, p. 23.
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
-15-
jor
an
by
;ht,
wly
making the government work. Thus OMB- has always retained special oversight
responsibilities and policy-setting authorities vis a vis GSA. A major concern of this
panel is the extent to which the policy-setting authority in OMB conflicts with the
concept in the initial legislation that GSA should be primarily a regulatory 'body
delegating operational functions to the departments and agencies.
In the areas of procurement policy and property management, for example, the
1949 Act and subsequent amendments have assigned to GSA the responsibility to develop
regulations and to assure government-wide compliance.8 OMB, however, is responsible
for developing "government-wide policies and standards for improving the management"
of procurement and. property management. Another type of. distinction is made in the
area of ADP. In this instance'GSA is responsible for the management of ADP acquisition
and the encouragement of sharing and joint utilization among user agencies. OMB is
charged to provide policy guidance to promote "effective and economic application and
utilization of ADP-equipment" and to evaluate agency ADP management performance.9
These assignments of responsibility are open to varying interpretations which have often
led to confusion and conflict. Nevertheless, the relationship between OMB and GSA in
these three important functional areas has been governed by these statutory assignments
of responsibility except for a brief interval in the early '70s. During that period an
expansion of GSA responsibility was followed rapidly by contraction, with considerable
disruptive effects on both GSA and OMB.
In 1973 a presidential Executive Order (EO 11717) was issued transferring a range
of government-wide administrative and financial management responsibilities from OMB
to GSA. This transfer moved responsibility from the OMB to GSA for significant. policy
and program oversight both in areas of existing GSA concern (e.g., procurem en t, property
management and ADP) and for government-wide management improvement and the
8. In 1965 Congress exempted DoD, the Coast Guard and NASA from compliance with
GSA procurement regulations.
9. PI, 89-306 (Brooks Act)
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
-16-
strenggtheriing of financial management in the executive agencies. Related OMB Circular
responsibilities and staff units were similarly reassigned The Executive Order stated
that GSA was to assume these tasks under the broad oversight of the OMB, drawing upon
the assistance of the latter in resolving major policy issues. It further identified the
purpose of the President "to equip the GSA to act as a strong partner of the OMB and the
CSC in carrying forward a coordinated effort to improve Federal management."10
In making these reassignments, the President indicated his desire for GSA to
ass.ume a broader management role by becoming his principal instrument for developing
better systems to provide administrative support to all executive branch activities. An
accompanying press release at the time further indicated that the intent of the Order
was to assign GSA overall .leadership responsibility for developing government-wide
policy in the indicated areas.
During the short period that GSA had an expanded management role, it established
an Office of Federal Management Policy (OFMP) as a focal point for the functions
transferred from 0MB. An Associate Administrator was designated to head this
organization which consisted of five subordinate offices focusing on improvement of
management in the functional areas of procurement, property, ADP, financial and
management systems.
Unfortunately for GSA the apparent desire of the 01413 to strengthen GSA's role in
Executive Branch management was influenced by factors other than the merits of the
transfer. OMR was chiefly interested in freeing positions to permit the appointment of a
number of "management associates" in its program divisions. The result was that GSA
received no positions from the OMB and was required to absorb the new functions out of
its existing ceiling. Moreover, there was no real support provided the GSA, and within
10. It may he noted that these transfers to GSA occurred at a time when concern existed
regarding the size of the Executive Office. Critics of the transfer suggested that one of
its purposes was to permit selective reductions in the staff of the OMB.
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
-17-
he
zed
)f a
.ted
e of
three years the functions involved were returned to OMB by another Executive Orderll.
GSA was then forced to give up 23 positions which it had never received from OMB in the
first place.
In the Fall of 1973, after GSA had been assigned responsibility for the policy and
managerial functions described, the GSA Administrator commissioned an independent
management study; by the firm of Knight, Gladieux and Smith, to develop
recommendations on how the agency should organize to undertake the added
responsibilities. The study report described GSA-OMB policy interrelationships and
recommended courses of action via which the two agencies might best work together. It
also described some continuing confusion in DoD-GSA procurement responsibilities.
The Knight, Gladieux and Smith. report, like 'many of its predecessors and those
that followed, had limited impact. It dealt with a reorganization that was more of a
paper proposal than a reality. Since- GSA did not receive the additional resources that
were necessary to carry out additional responsibilities, there was no way that it could put
into effect the recommendations advanced in the report.
Another instance of unsettling shifts in GSA responsibility occurred in 1975. In
June of that year, the GSA Administrator was delegated authority to issue joint funding
regulations and to otherwise execute functions vested in the President by the Joint Fund
Simplification Act of 1974. Only six months elapsed before this authority was. withdrawn
and reassigned to the OMB.
In 1975 the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) was established within
OMB. This office, discussed further in the following section, was given a mandate to
provide overall direction of procurement policy. Again, for reasons discussed below, a
key function originally assigned to GSA was reassigned elsewhere.
11. Executive Order 11893 -December 31 1975
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
inefficient and wasteful. A summary of the main findings and recommendations of the
ASRP study is attached as Appendix I.
Despite the enormous effort devoted to this ambitious study effort, relatively
little was accomplished in the wait of a systematic implementation of the numerous
recommendations. The project's draft reports came out at an inauspicious time when the
scandals and corruption at GSA were being widely publicized. Concern both within GSA
and in the Executive Office of the President focused on putting out immediate fires. A
number of the less controversial recommendations stemming from the project were
transmitted to GSA, and some were subsequently adopted. The findings of the project
with respect to the overall organization and structure of GSA did not surface.
A review of this history reveals all too clearly that the problems besetting GSA
today are for the most part modern counterparts of issues confronting the agency almost
since its creation. Many of these problems are, in a sense, self-perpetuating. The lack
of agreement on what the proper role of the agency should be, especially the confusion
over the policy vs. operations emphasis, has undermined agency effectiveness since the
beginning. The ambiguity of the GSA/OMB relationship has been particularly
troublesome. On one hand, GSA is criticized for not concentrating sufficiently on policy
and becoming too embroiled in operational functions. On the other hand, however, 0MB
has always retained the policy oversight role while continuing to add new operational
assignments to GSA. Furthermore, the Congress has also added numerous new functions
to the GSA mandate while often failing to provide commensurate additional funds in the
GSA appropriation.
On the internal organizational front, the pendulum has swung back and forth on
the issue of centralization vs. decentralization. Numerous variations have been
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
attempted in seeking the right flow of authority from the central office to regional
offices with differing roles and responsibilities assigned along the chain of command
from the Administrator, through the headquarters commissioners to regional
administrators and regional program - officials. Similarly, there have been swings back
and forth on the basic question of how far to delegate operational service functions to
customer agencies- while focusing GSA responsibility on standard setting and regulation.
The much advertised and deplored deficiencies in GSA are not all of its own
making but part of an intricate web of closely interrelated problems in the environment
in which GSA operates. The extent of political intervention in the direction and
operation of GSA, whether from Congress or the Administration, is a major factor in
determining how the agency performs. Everything affects everything else in this
complex network and no single fix of one problem here or there can make a significant
change in the prospects for improved performance. For example, the many personnel
problems including lower levels of professional competence than certain GSA
assignments require and rapid turnover of top leadership are directly related to the
agency's perceived inferior status in the bureaucracy, especially its relationship with
OIYMB. Thus, in its investigation of the seven issues identified as the principal points of
emphasis for this study, the Panel has kept its main focus on the environment in which
GSA operates, and the overall mission it is intended to perform for the Federal
government.
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
-21-
PART TWO - GSA IN 1980
A review of the history of GSA and an appraisal of the agency today based largely
on some 70-odd. interviews with people in GSA, customer agencies, and elsewhere,
indicate that one of the most serious barriers to more successful agency performance has
been a continuing identity crisis. The question of what constitutes GSA's basic mission
has never been resolved to the satisfaction of all or even most of those having a stake in
that mission. Possessing no constituency of its own and lacking in -the substantive
content most likely to appeal to administrators and managers, the agency has subsisted
as a lower order in the government bureaucracy. Few if any agencies have suffered as
much from a confusion of expectations about the essential mission to be achieved-much
less the manner in which the mission should be conducted.
Without a reliable rudder to steady it on a set course, GSA has drifted in different
directions and with time has been encumbered with increasing burdens which threaten its
ability to stay afloat. Over the years an extraordinary array of diverse functions has
been assigned to the agency at the same time that the Federal government has been
expanding its areas of program activity and the housekeeping demands to service those
activities. While the diversity and complexity of the overall task has increased, the total
number of employees has remained nearly constant at approximately 38,000 from 1969
until 198D. Congress has legislated increasingly complex requirements which govern the
delivery of the services GSA is expected to deliver. Statutes and regulations pertaining
to equal opportunity, small business, health and safety, rights of the handicapped, and
other deserving social goals have greatly complicated the performance of the tasks
assigned to GSA.
Furthermore, until only recently, GSA has been peculiarly vulnerable to political
pressures in the appointment to senior positions of individuals often lacking in the
necessary professional qualifications. In addition, Congress has contributed greatly to
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
-22-
the politicizing of the federal buildings construction program,. one of the most important.
areas of GSA activity.
There is no intent here to relieve GSA of responsibility for the low condition into
which it has fallen. The agency has become what it is at least partly on the basis of
internal managerial weakness and the attributes of its personnel. Our point in stressing
the unfavorable environment in. which GSA operates is to demonstrate that, in many
respects, the agency does not control its own destiny. In undertaking a study such as
this, therefore, it will not suffice to look only at the many symptoms of administrative
weakness which show up in Door performance, but it is also necessary to examine the
basic environment in which the causes of such weaknesses are likely to be found.
The continuing confusion concerning mission stems from the differing
interpretations of the intent of the Hoover Commission report which have been reflected
in the enabling legislation and the many subsequent amendments to that Act. The
Hoover Commission envisioned GSA as primarily a regulating agency largely removed
from the clay to day operations of supply, procurement and building management, but the
law creating GSA permitted the agency to move into operations without specifying what
the balance between regulation and operations should be. The assumption behind
consolidating the several housekeeping functions was, of course, that the large scale of
activity would lead to economies of scale and greater efficiency. This hypothesis was
advanced in P. time when government operations were much smaller in dollars and in the
range of program activity. A -basic cuestion that must now be asked is whether
government has become so large that some. centralized service functions are less
economical and less efficient. Perhaps no single overriding truth will be found to govern
the structure for the delivery of all types of services to all types of agencies in all types
of situations, but an examination of original assumptions underlying the formation of
GSA must be the starting point of any resolution of the agency's identity crisis.
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003I.D I Z : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
:t
}y
The following analysis focuses on the salient features of today's GSA,
concentrating on the three particular service functions which the Panel was -asked to
review, and assessing the administrative and managerial aspects of GSA performance of
these functions in the light of assumptions concerning the proper role of the agency. The
review is based on four perspectives: a view of the agency from within; an external
perspective; a discussion. of.the.issuaof regulation-vs. operations which has implications
of both an internal and external nature; and finally, a case study approach looking in
came detail at one service, ADTS, as a means of illuminating the types of problems
identified in the preceding discussion.
THE INTERNAL PERSPECTIVE
Centralization Vs. Decentralization
A basic institutional question begging urgently for a clear answer is the classic
public administration issue of centralization vs. decentralization. Confusion on this issue
has hung over the agency since the early years. The Hoover Commission envisioned an
internally decentralized organization, while the enabling legislation left it to top agency
management to determine how to organize. However, GSA moved to centralize
JAS Puthority and even certain operational functions in the Washington headquarters headed
; he ''v the Administrator and powerful service commissioners.
-ier Most large organizations, public and private, must deal with the problems of
^eadquarters and field relations and the sometimes sharply divided loyalties of personnel
ess
lssigned to one or another location. Serious attitudinal problems, including lack of
?rn
confidence or trust, are evident in GSA. Headquarters officials often are surprised and
PCs -
of "isappointed by the unresponsiveness of their field counterparts in implementing changes
ordered by the central office. In the field there is a sense of being swamped by the
Volume and detail of procedural requirements handed down from the central office, often
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : Q4-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
seemingly without understanding the impact at the point of delivery. Resentment of the
numerous shifts in policy direction and organizational alignment is endemic. The rapid
turnover in administrators, service commissioners and their top staffs leads to constantly.
changing signals and confusion at the field office level. Field office personnel often tune
out the signals knowing that what they hear today may soon be different. A basic
problem in GSA, as in many large bureaucracies, is the limited extent of career
movement between headquarters and field positions. Incentives for such'movement are
rarely sufficient to overcome the attitudinal and economic barriers.
The poor public image which GSA suffers, and especially its reputation for
corruption and incompetence, are associated far more with the National Capital Region
than with other field offices. Our field interviews indicate that, while many user
agencies may be dissatisfied with the service being provided by GSA, there is a respect
for GSA regional officials, particularly at the higher levels, and some recognition of the
constraints limiting their ability to be more responsive. There . is, however, great
variation in the quality of performance from one regional office to another and in the
standards of different service functions within a single region.
One of the present Administrator's major moves has been to decentralize
authority to the regions. When he came to office there was a direct but confusing line
relationship between the service commissioners and their counterparts in the regions.
This line of command was ordered eliminated in favor of a single clear line of authority
from the Administrator to regional administrators and through them to the assistant
administrators for the. several service functions.
Decentralization in GSA.
A September 26, 1980, change to the GSA Organizational Manual assigns
operational responsibilities to regional and field activities and establishes the Central
Office as responsible for developing national program guidance and for monitoring
program performance. Heads of services and SStt ffff o~ffffO6Ocb fined staff
Approved For Release 2003/05/27: CIA-RDP84B$0$901~eg00~6bo
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
-25-
responsibilities insofar as program operation is concerned. Regional offices (established
in 11 cities throughout the United States on a geographic jurisdiction basis) are
responsible within their respective areas of jurisdiction, for executing GSA programs. In
addition the Administrator may assign to a regional office nationwide or. interregional
jurisdiction for a specific program. Regional Administrators are responsible directly to
the Administrator for overall direction and administration of their regional offices and
for the total performance of GSA program and activities within their regions.
Regional offices' organization generally parallels that of the Central Office;
regional services are headed by Assistant Regional Administrators who receive direction
and control from the Regional Administrator and who, in turn, direct and supervise the
programs and activities assigned to each. Technical and budgetary guidance, and
program review, remain the province of Service Commissioners.
A comparison of the old (1979) delegations manual with the new manual indicates
significantly greater delegations to Regional Administrators and substantial deletions of
the previous limitations on such delegations (e.g., prior approvals by service
commissioners, etc.).
The manual specifies that "this delegation of management authority shall not
modify responsibility for the control over polity, the review of operations, or the
standardization of procedures and methods." Any change of major responsibilities,
functions or sources of funding must be approved by the Administrator.
The impression which the Panel repeatedly received in interviews was that
operational decentralization was, in actuality, far from complete. The reasons often
given were two, and not unrelated: most fiscal control remains with service
commissioners in Washington, and some GSA mid-level people, especially among service
commissioners' staffs, are dragging their feet. Their regional counterparts, not wholly
confident that decentralization policy may not one day be reversed, are reluctant to
make too great an issue of this incompleteness of decentralization.
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
This approach to decentralized management has been successful in a number of
agencies. Some reservations concerning this change as effected over recent months in
GSA were encountered in our field visits. There is concern that the single line between
the Administrator and regional administrators can become overloaded and there is also
anxiety on the part of assistant regional administrators about being too remote from
their main functional offices and the budget processes which those offices control. As
with some other decentralization plans, this one works imperfectly at best. Customer
agencies dissatisfied. with the services provided at regional levels still make end runs to
the "GSA central office where they may succeed in overturning regional decisions.
There is no one right way to organize a bureaucracy. A decentralized approach
has much to be said for it under the present circumstances at GSA, but what field offices
most desperately want is stability and continuity. Much of the time spent in the many
past reorganizations has taken away from time available to do thejob at hand. Some
signs of improvement are evident as the result of recent changes but such an antiquated
and handicapped organization as GSA cannot he converted into an effective and efficient
apparatus overnight.
Tenure in Top Management
A major problem identified by many of those interviewed during the current study,
as well as in the course of previous studies, is the relatively short tenure of those in top
positions in GSA. Appendix II illustrates this problem.
o Seven different officials have occupied the post of GSA
Administrator in the past ten years. The longest teerm
was 43 months, the next longest 30 months and the
shortest (on an acting basis) for two months; the
average duration of service of these seven
Administrators was nineteen months. Three of the
appointed Administrators (as distinguished from Acting)
served less than two years (including the current
incumbent).
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
-27-
The Deputy Administrator position has - had nine
occupants in the bast ten years. The longest service
was thirty onemonths, the next longest twenty four, and
the next longest fourteen months; two "Acting"
Deputies served for three and four months respectively.
o The Federal Supply Service has had fifteen changes of
leadership since 1970 with only one Commissioner
serving more than two years and all the others serving
less than eighteen months. The average length of these
fifteen different service periods was eight months;
appointees, excluding "Actings," averaged less than
fifteen months.
Public Buildings Service Leadership has changed hands
nine times in the past ten years. Five occupants served
only in an Acting capacity for from one to eleven
months duration; four appointees serveda total of
eighty-eight months of the last 130, an average of
twenty two months each.
o The Automated Data and Telecommunications Service,
since 1 a77, has had three Acting heads for a total of 26
months, and three full-fledged Commissioners for
fourteen, twenty and thrity nine months respectively.
These statistics present a picture. of constant movement in and out of top jobs in
the agency. It should be no surprise that a plea for stability in leadership positions has
teen heard in virtually every interview. The "revolving door" is understandably criticized
as having created confusion, waste,- low morale, and poor productivity. When it is
recognized that the changes in personalities often have brought with them differeing
management concepts, policies, and operational procedures, which have substantially
altered the direction and prioritics of the organization, it is easy to see why GSA has
hoer. subjected to criticism for its management inconsistencies. The frequent changes in
'ffnagement direction have fostered an attitude of "this too shall pass away" which is
relfeeted in the substantial lag in staff responsiveness to new leadership changes that has
51, frustrated incoming top managers.
The general perception of GSA's leadership is thzt it is highly politicized and, too
often, a "dumping ground for incompetents." This is a demoralizing and self-fulfilling often 'T 09e. GSA 1 Approved For Releas 2003/05/27 tAi CIA-WDP8496-6A (0&50i~T48604z-8f ocr's on
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
-28-
short term goals and response to immediate pressures rather than developing a long range
capability to meet the government's administrative service needs. Even with the best of
intent, it is difficult, if not impossible, to come in from the outside, learn enough to
develop and establish practicable' longer range plans and priorities and oversee the initial
efforts to put such plans into effect, in an average time span of less than iwo years.
The continuing turnover in top management is seen as the principal reason for the
failure to develop a strong- and effective staff both in GSA and in the associated
administrative services areas of the other Federal agencies. These, administrative
services staffs are perceived to be generally weak and in need of substantial training.
Responsibility for leadership in this training effort. is held to rest with GSA. As noted
elsewhere the current Administrator is strongly emphasizing training and development of
GSA staff, but the effort will require five to seven years to achieve what is needed and
there must be a reasonable continuity of training purpose during this period. Also more
effective measures must be devised to retain in GSA a substantially higher precentage of
those trained. In recent years the agency has suffered an astoundingly high loss ratio
among management interns and other career development programs. From 1974 to 1980
GSA entered 355 people in its Career Intern program; in the same period 321 who
underwent such training were separated from the agency-a separation rate of 90%. In
the same time period 57 entered the Management Intern program and 48 were
separated-an 84% loss. Similarly high loss ratios were suffered in two other smaller
GSA training programs. The abnormally high turnover of top GSA officials and the
resulting disruption are held accountable for this shockingly excessive loss rate of some
of the most desirable management trainees who were looked to as GSA's future leaders
- but who left for more stable environments. Competent long term leadership is vital to
attracting and retaining a strong capable professional staff.
Consideration has been given on numerous occasions to establishing a fixed tenure
for top GSA positions. Some argue that a set term weakens the ability of a President to
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
-29-
assure that his management policies will be carried out. Others insist that only by fixing
the term of the Administrator can there be achieved the stability and continuity
considered vital to developing policies, programs and staff requisite to an effective
general services agency. While the fixed term Administrator concept must be examined
carefully in terms of the organization for administrative services in the Federal
government, it seems clear that the rapid executive turnover of recent years must be
reversed if GSA is to be well managed.
Mid Level Management
Of GSA's almost 38,000 employees, 6,500 are in Headquarters and more than
31,000 in the field. Below-the top level of leadership discussed in the preceding section
is the mid-level management cadre whose competence and motivation are of vital
significance in determining the effectiveness of the agency. The following discussion
reflects perceptions of the GSA workforce gained through more than seventy interviews
with officials of GSA and customer agencies both in Washington and the field, and a
sample survey of GSA middle management characteristics.
While. there are widely differing views regarding the competence of GSA
personnel, and although a fevv of those interviewed described the staff as "totally
inadequate", others say that GSA people are for the most part intelligent, competent,
concerned and dedicated. Field personnel were particularly singled out as being
capable. At the same time it was rather generally observed that GSA people have been
immobilized and demoralized by recent scandals and the attendant publicity; have been
confused and frustrated by frequent changes in direction resulting from changes in top
level officials; and have often been slow to respond to new directions because of the
expectation-based on experience-that these would shortly he changed again. It appears
that, as in other agencies, many higher level careerists have risen to managerial positions
on the basis of technical skills that do not always carry with them the needed managerial
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
competence. A frequent criticism is that GSA people lack motivation and. are not
appropriately responsive.
The same disparity of views regarding the competence of GSA personnel over-all
is present in evaluation of the Agency middle-management cadre. Since this group (GS
13-15) is such a vital part of any bureaucratic structure, the Panel considered it
necessary to take a closer look at their performance and capacities than at other
segments of the organization. Furthermore, the Panel was exposed to some very firmly
held views that the middle-management group represented a hard-core contingent that
successfully resisted changes by the Agency leadership.
Unable to quantitatively measure such highly subjective judgments, the Panel
elected to review the paper qualifications of the GS 13-15 population. A purely random
10% sample (147 employees) was selected for study of such characteristics as age, length
of service, education, etc. The highlights of this study show:
An average age of 46.9 years within a range from 28 to 71.
An average Federal service length of 18.5 years with 12.3 years in GSA.
74% (108 individuals) with Bachelor degrees or better. (Forty of the 108
imlividuals had degrees in engineering.)
An average of four in-service training programs for each employee over
the past 5 years.
It is the opinion of the Panel that these data compare favorably with similar.
groups elsewhere in the Federal service. This analysis neither confirms nor disputes any
contention that the group, as a whole, is lacking in motivation and willingness to accept
leadership or change.' Nor does it lead to conclusive findings on other personal attributes
that one would desire in a middle-management corps. However, the analysis does support
the view that GSA's middle-managem ent is of a reasonable age, has adequate-but not
excessive-experience on the job; and has been exposed to a normal amount of education
and training.- Beyond these conclusions, the Panel cannot go.
We are impressed with the qualitative judgment of some that the middle-
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/0?l7 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
not
,GS
my
;th
apt
on
management group leaves much to be desired and is resistant to change. On the latter
point, we suggest, however, that the frequency of procedural and policy change over the
history of GSA may very well have induced resistance in what would have otherwise been
a responsive group.
Personnel Staffing and Training
A fundamental problem frequently identified by both GSA and customer agency
officials has to do with government wide classification of positions in the administrative
services field. Current classifications of such positions are generally lower than those in
other management fields such as budget, personnel, etc. This discourages many
administratively trained people from seeking employment in administrative services
work, choosing instead those avenues which lead more clearly to career advancement. A
further consequence is that administrative services jobs often are filled by people who
lack the management qualities that are found in other administrative staff.
Political placements and Congressional influence in GSA personnel processes have
blocked some careerist promotional opportunities, weakened morale and occasioned the
departure from GSA of some good people. Such political interference appears to he very
substantially reduced, if not eliminated, at present.
While it is argued by some that there is (or should be) strong interrelationship
between the several GSA' functional areas-building management, procurernent and
supply, ADP and telecommunications, archives and records, etc., in fact GSA has
integrated neither the flunctions nor the career ladders of the staff involved. There has
tended to be a provincialism on the part of each service that has made more difficult the
task of providing effective and comprehensive general administrative support to Federal
agencies.
There are very few professional associations for administrative service people as
there are for competent professionals in other fields such as budget, personnel,
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
-32-
accountants, etc., This has inhibited free exchange of views among professionals with
common interests. Even the individual functions of buildings management, procurement,
etc., do not offer many professional associations. An OMB effort to stimulate formation
of a group of top services personnel from the major agencies was unsuccessful.
Communications within GSA are almost universally seen as extremely weak.
There appears to be inadequate two-way communication between headquarters and field
(despite extensive reporting to central office staff offices), between (;SA and customer
agencies, and between functional officers in GSA (e.a., supply officers, buildings officers,
etc.), and their counterparts in other government agencies and/or the private sector.
The art of imitation appears to have been little developed.
There has been little planned or institutionalized interchange of personnel
between GSA headquarters and field, between GSA services, or between GSA and either
other Federal agencies and/or private sector elements which may have experience to
contribute. Additional communication of this type would increase staff breadth and
understanding.
Training and executive development have received relatively little attention over
the years in GSA (although the present Administrator is strongly emphasizing such a
program). No real career development program exists for administrative service people
in the Federal government either in GSA or in the agencies. Current career ladders are
confined to narrow technical fields and lead to the dilemma in which GSA now finds
itself-a lack of managers at the higher levels. Training resources in GSA have been very
limited and no priority has been given to the training of user agency administrative
services personnel. This latter point -is particularly critical to any consideration of
delegating GSA authorities to user agencies that have qualified personnel.
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
-33-
with
rnent,
]ation Interviews with customer agencies 'revealed a generally low regard for ' GSA
services although those enjoy a more favorable reputation in less urbanized areas than in
weak.
I field
tom er
'icers,
ector.
,onnel
either
ice to
h and
centers such as Washington and Chicago. There was a modest level of customer
satisfaction with FSS procurement, less so with ADTS and motor pool operations, and
very little with PBS space acquisition And management. Many GSA line managers were
characterized as bureaucratic and lacking in service orientation or apparent desire to
assist agencies in facilitating their missions.
GSA's relations with its customer agencies and the indicated levels of customer
satisfaction are shaped both by the manner in which GSA functions and by the nature of
its several missions. As noted above, GSA is both a regulatory agency and a service
provider. Moreover it is mandated to provide service on the basis of an assessment of
agency needs and in an economic manner. It must also carry out a number of
Presidential and Congressional mandates such as small business set asides, Economy Act
i over provisions, OSHA, Davis-Bacon, and other restrictive provisions.
uch a
)eople Personal Property Procurement
rs are There appears to be somewhat more customer satisfaction with GSA's
finds management of the FSS procurement function than with other services. Sporadic
i very complaints involve: periodic unavailability of items that seem to be easily available in
rative the private sector, prices in excess of local retail prices; the low quality of some items;
on of recent cut-backs in GSA store operations; long waits on non-stocked items; lack of
guidelines on the meaning of the words "significant- differences" in alternative
procurement judgments; and, in some agencies, the furniture freeze.
Customer agency officials would like additional flexibility in purchasing, and GSA
officials appear to agree generally that it does not make economic sense for FSS to
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
-34-
control small purchases. They wonder whether modifications in the procurement
regulation process as proposed in the "Uniform Procurement System" legislation by the
OFPP will simplify and improve matters, or add more complications and confusions.
Motor Pool Management
GSA motor pool services received mixed reviews. The orimarv problem identified
was inability to meet additional agency vehicle requirements because of pool budget and
size limitations. The mandated switch to small vehicles in response to the energy crisis
has caused problems in some agencies whose staff work in more remote areas.
Space Acquisition and Managernent
The most constant and vociferous complaints about GSA's services involve space
acquisition, management and costs. Agency officials, both in Washington and throughout
regional locations, complain of GSA's inability to satisfy agency space needs. Acquisition
delays are inordinate and acquired space is frequently inconvenient and deficienX in Une
or more respects.
Cleaning and maintenance in government owned space and in leased space are
often characterized as deficient and difficult to improve or correct. While GSA buildings
managers were seen to range from good to had, tenant agency officials see them as being
spread too thin, with inadequate staff and resources. Their handling of the required
temperature adjustments in response to the energy crisis was the subject of particular
complaints.
Space renovation oc adjustment, to meet changing agency requirements, also
received much criticism. GSA internal procedures on clearance and on bidding
requirements for all but the most minor changes make any prompt response an
impossibility.
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
-35-
are
ngs
,ing
red
filar
ling
Another frequently heard complaint regarding leased space was that GSA did not
monitor contractor space management services. Tenant agency officials were required
to contact GSA themselves to get deficiencies corrected. On top of all of the above., the
agencies think that they are being charged premium amounts through the Standard Level
User Charge (SLUC) process.
Rental costs and problems encountered by.agencies expressing willingness to pay
more for better cleaning, more protection, more frequent painting, etc., are the subjects
of both complaint and confusion. In this regard, the way in which the SLUC system
functions is one of the most misunderstood aspects of GSA's space management
program. SLUC provides a formula through which agencies are charged commercial rent
.equivalents for space occupancy, maintenance and renovation. Its functioning, however,
appears confusing even to many GSA officials. A more detailed discussion of SLUC is
presented in a subsequent section.
Some officials of user agencies emphasized that not all indicated problems should
be attributed to GSA management. Directives and policies which GSA is required to
implement and increasing limitations in operating staff and budget were recognized as
deterrents to the delivery of improved service. Tight office space markets in many
urban areas also are seen as a controlling factor.
The frequently suggested customer agency corrective to all of the above space
acquisition and management problems is expanded delegation of agency authority to
contract for its own requirements whenever government-owned space is not available. In
.advancing this proposal, officials anticipate that such delegations would be monitored by
(SA.
In response to this suggestion, GSA ? officials have acknowledged that customer
agencies could frequently find and rent many types of space faster, in preferred locations
and with more desirable features. They caution, however, that space procurement is
supposed to be based on the economic provision of minimal requirements, not individual
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
-36-
desires, and that procurement contracts should observe all mandated Federal
restrictions.
Under present practice it is GSA, not a customer agency, that interprets agency-
space needs and requirements. An agency may feel that its program needs dictate
special requirements or the speeding up of the leasing process, but GSA can specify that
standard requirements arc adequate and that the acquisition must proceed in an orderly
manner. If the customer agency does its own leasing under delegation from GSA, it
rather than GSA, can make the above determinations. The agency must of course justify
its actions after the fact, but it is then an agency decision and an agency responsibility.
GSA's role would be confined to preparation of ground-rule regulations and of monitoring
customer agency actions.
Agency officials who were. interviewed referred to the delays experienced in
implementing new or expanded programs because of the inability to obtain space on a
timely basis. Such delays can result in delaying Congressional or Presidential program
initiatives and in related hidden program costs of undetermined size.
A major problem that could be anticipated if space acquisition were delegated to
user agencies is further upward pressure on the rising prices of space in tight real estate
markets. Two other questions that arise with respect to increased delegations of leasing
responsibility to user agencies are staff competence and the added costs in personnel and
overhead. Some agencies such as Defense, HUD and the Veterans Administration already
have large and presumably qualified staffs which could undertake the added responsibility
with little difficulty; -other departments and agencies have indicated that they would
have to add and train staff, but that they would welcome the opportunity. Many small
agencies would presumably prefer to rely on GSA services.
To enhance the competence of user agency leasing and space management staff,
GSA would have to conduct training programs. The added user agency personnel, the
training requirements and the need for GSA monitoring would represent some additional
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
-37-
personnel costs, but these might be offset by savings from greater overall efficiency and
reduction of hidden administrative costs. Relative benefits as against these costs might
most appropriately be weighed by the senior officials of the concerned agencies, by WI B
and by the Congressional appropriations committees.
Delays in the Leasing Process
Public Buildings Service reports indicate that the average time required to
complete action on agency lease space requests during the past year was 213 working
days. This varied among GSA regions from a minimum of 126 average working days in'
Region 10 (Seattle) to a high of 354 working days in Region 1 (Boston). National Capital
Region reports identify special problem situations. In May, 1980, 1-80 requests for space
were pending, with those from agencies in the District of Columbia averaging 624 days in
the process.
"Average" time statistics actually are not too meaningful because of the different
types of space requests and requirements involved. More significant is the complicated
process for planning and acquiring leased space. Documents supplied by PBS officials
identify 80 steps, many involving pre-acquisition verification of agency needs. Once the
actual lease acquisition process starts, 40 distinct steps are carried out. These steps, as
noted in Appendix III, are conservatively estimated to involve a mean time requirement
of 238 working days.
A PBS task force is currently studying work simplification possibilities and will
formulate recommendations to simplify the leasing process. No internal PBS or GSA
action, however, can reduce the considerable time involved in satisfying the legal
requirements of a range of Public Laws and Executive Orders that must be observed in
the leasing process. These include:
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CI 8 RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
Central Business Area Analysis (E.O. 12072)
Cooperative Use Act (notification of the Advisory Council of
Historic Properties)
Randolph-Sheppard Act (determination of vending requirements)
OSHA (safety survey)
Economy Act determination
Architectural Barriers Act (analysis of handicapped requirements)
Equal Employment Opportunity Act compliance
Small Business subcontracting requirements
These external requirements alone take an estimated average mean time of 71
working days. They will have to be observed whether GSA continues to lease space
directly or delegates such authority to user agencies.
A primary additional delay factor in the instance of large leases is the
Congressional prospectus requirement for approval of any space acquisition involving
total expenditures in excess of $500,000.
Standard Level User Charge (SLUG)
The SLUC formula was designed to provide that user agencies pay an amount
consistent with the costs of renting space in equivalent commercial buildings. Since
commercial rents include amounts for depreciation, taxes and profit, none of which GSA
has to absorb in the instance of government owned space, it was provided that a
proportionate amount of SLUC income would be placed in a designated reserve to assist
in paying the costs of constructing new Federal office buildings. SLUC charges-for space
and services are based on commercial rent equivalency, not on GSA's costs for providing
services, nor on services actually provided.
In FY 2978, a method of establishing SLUC rates was instituted by which every
building is appraised against rental charges for comparable local commercial-space once
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
-39-
)lving
nount
Since
GSA
,,at a
ssist
ace
iding
each three years. Some escalation is built into the SLUC rate for the building, but user
agencies are guaranteed fixed rates for the three year period. Congress and OMMB agreed
to accept rates determined in this. manner without review or approval. Since this revised
rate system. was introduced, income losses to the Fund in relation to commercial rates
and costs have grown because of the inflation in the real estate market.
A major reason for the losses is that in 1978, PBS also adopted a practice common
in the industry of writing leases permitting lessors to pass price increases for utilities,
taxes, services and insurance through to GSA in the form of higher lease rates. At this
same time, GSA was guaranteeing its user agencies fixed space charges for three years.
PBS has now recognized the impossibility of this situation and has formulated a
revision in the SLUC rate formula to apply annual rate adjustment factors in lieu of a
predetermined escalation percentage. It is felt that this modification will bring income
into line with commercially equivalent rates and rising costs. Under this plan, SLUC
rates will in effect be- a onEr-year rate subject to annual escalation rather than a three
year fixed rate.
This new procedure will be established as of December 1, 1980. It will, however,
be very slow in taking effect. The law establishing the Federal Buildings Fund requires
GSA to give the agencies per square foot leasing amounts for inclusion in agency annual
budget submissions and forbids change once such figures are given. Since GSA has
already given agencies amounts for FY 1982, no new rates may be effected until FY
1983.
^utbaeks on Services
The Pentagon offers an example of the problem caused by Fund and SLUC
restrictions. The amount charged the Department of Defense for occupancy and services
m the Penta,dn'is based on the rental cost of equivalent space in a commercial office
`'uildin in Rosslyn, Virginia at the time that the three year SLUG agreement was made.
Since that time?pp~8v~6Epia'e*lke e46A3 2Gb: IlA- ZDP84EI0O8O P&OWOt 0 jStain. th:e
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
-40-
Pentagon have increased dramatically while the basic SLUC rates paid by DOT) have
remained constant. Because the Federal Buildings Fund has a budgetary limitation on the
overall amount that. GSA can pay for, buildings operations for the year, it has had to cut
back on cleaning and maintenance services in the Pentagon and other buildings to pay
utility bills.
There is a. limited corrective for the above situations. The Federal Buildings Fund
includes an income` account for "special services and improvements." The theory of the
income account was that agencies that needed or wanted cleaning, protection and other
services over those provided under the standard SLUC formula could pay an extra amount
and receive the desired increased service. Now some agencies are in the position of
finding it necessary to pay GSA such an extra amount just to receive the cleaning and
other services that they formerly received within the basic SLUC formula.
Given all of the confusions and restrictions outlined above, it is not surprising that
user agencies cannot understand and that they criticize GSA and PBS performance.
Delegation of Authority
A persistent theme in discussions with user agencies has been the concept of GSA
delegation to agencies of authorities permitting them to provide services of leasing,
procuring, ADT, etc. rather than looking to GSA for such services. While agency
representatives differ on the extent to which they would like to provide for their own
needs, most would prefer greater flexibility from centralized GSA operations than that
agency has permitted.
Both the initial Truman proposals to Congress in 1948, and the Hoover Commission
Report of 1949, envisioned a central agency which would develop uniform policies,
regulations, and systems for administrative support activities to be carried out generally
by the agencies themselves. The clear intent of these proposals was that, to the greatest
extent practicable, authority would be delegated to agencies to conduct their service
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
41-
operations while the central agency would formulate policies and regulations to govern
agency operations and audit such operations to determine their compliance with. central
agency directives.
In the deliberations leading to passage of GSA's organic law-The Federal Property
and Administrative Services Act of 1949-many congressmen evidenced great interest in
potential economies of large scale operations by the new central agency. The Act
assigned to GSA as a primary function the designing of a system for the economical and
efficient provision of a series of services and left to the Administrator broad discretion
as to what functions to delegate and what operations should be carried on by GSA. Both
the intent of GSA's original designers, and the authority of its organic law,' aimed at
broad delegation of operating authority under uniform policies and regulations and
subject to audit for adherence to guidelines. In practice, over its 30 year existence GSA
has failed to develop a broad policy/regulation base, to delegate substantial authorities
to agencies or to monitor agency operations foi adherence to policies: rather it has
focused on expanding its operating base.
A number of those who criticized GSA for failing to delegate greater authority to
agencies pointed with approval to the extensive delegations in the past year and a half by
the Office of Personnel Management which has reversed the old Civil Service
Commission practice of retention of authority by the central agency.
In February 1979, within a few months after the Office was established, the
Director of OPM delegated to heads of Federal agencies a broad range of 26 personnel
4:uthorities which could be taken prior to obtaining OPM approval. In April of 1979 the
()PM Director delegated an additional 5 blanket authorities to all agencies. These
''elegations were made with the understanding that the agency heads and their personnel
Officials would ensure that OP1M1 regulations, guidelines and instructions would be adhered
t(? in all actions taken under delegated authorities. OPM assistance was made available
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CI 4 2DP84B00890R000500100042-8
to agencies to help establish their systems for 'assuring-proper use of the authorities.
OPM also established a monitoring system to assure itself of agency compliance.
In April 1979, OPNI also listed brief descriptions of 24 additional personnel
authorities that might be delegated to an agency on the basis of specific delegation
agreements between the agency and OPM for an initial.period of two years with renewals.
for indefinite periods based on experience. In July of 1979 OPM published extensive
further explanatory material regarding such delegation agreements.
The pattern of OP IM delegation of authority has gained wide and favorable
acceptance by Federal agencies and provides a useful experience for consideration and
possible emulation by GSA.
GSA'S FUNDING STRUCTURE AND EXPENDITURE LIMITATIONS
GSA is funded through seven primary appropriations and a number of
intergovernmental and other reimbursable working funds. The seven appropriations
correspond with GSA's six services plus its management operations group. The six major
special funds are the Federal Building Fund, the ADP Fund, the General Supply Fund, the
Federal Telecommunications Fund, the National Archives Trust Fund, and the Working
Capital Fund for printing and duplicating services. The first two funds discussed below
operate. under the tightest Congressional restrictions. Direct GSA appropriations, as
requested in the FY 1981 budget, approximate $620 million while non-appropriated funds
approximate $4,500 million.
When GSA was first established in 1950, there was only one omnibus agency
appropriation. The Administrator thus had considerable latitude in moving funds to meet
operating requirements. Subsequently, the present multiple appropriations structure was
implemented and a 2% transfer authority was first given and then withdrawn. The FY
1981 Appropriations Bill reported out by the Senate Appropriations Committee
authorizes the GSA Administrator to transfer up to 1% between appropriations but only
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
-43-
after receiving specific approval by both the House and Senate Committees. This
approval must be obtained regardless of the amounts .involved. A request for 5% transfer
authority was rejected in both houses.
The FY 1981 Bill includes further special restrictions on reprogramming within
appropriations and within the Federal Building Fund. Advance approval is required by
both the House- and Senate Appropriations Committees for individual or cumulative
actions moving funds in excess of $500,000, or 1096 (whichever is greater) among object
classes, budget activities, program lines, or program activities. This is- an unusually
restrictive provision.
There is no direct annual appropriation for real property activities. All program
and operating expenses of PBS are supported through payments by'user agencies into the
Federal Buildings Fund. This Fund was established in FY 1975, to improve program
costing and space management. It requires Federal agencies to include housing costs
within their own budgets and then to pay GSA for the provision of 'space and related
services.
When first proposed by GSA, the Federal Buildings Fund concept provided for
Congress to approve a single overall annual expense authorization to be defrayed by user
agency payments. In reviewing and approving the Fund proposal, however, the
Congressional Appropriations committees subdivided it into six program accounts:
- Facility construction and acquisition
- Repairs and alterations
Purchase contract pavm-ents
- Space rental
- Real property operations
- Program direction (overhead)
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CI4A--R DP84B0089OR000500100042-8
Expenditures against the Fund's construction and repair accounts can only be made
for new construction projects listed by amount in appropriations language. Construction
and repair projects are specifically approved via PBS prospectus submissions.
Expenditures against the other four accounts must not exceed the approved dollar
limitations for each account. These limitations apply regardless of increases in costs to
GSA for providing user agency space and services during the budget year.
CONGRESSIONAL RELATIONS12
Fundamental to consideration of the relationship of the Congress to GSA is a clear
understanding of the duties of each. GSA is responsible for serving the administrative
needs of the Executive Branch 'efficiently, effectively, and at the lowest cost to the
taxpayer. The Congress has its basic legislative, appropriations and oversight
responsibilities for the broad Federal administrative services area.
Primary congressional control is exercised by the House Government Operations
and Senate Governmental Affairs Committees, the Senate Environment and Public Works
and the House Public Works and Transportation Committees, through their legislative and
oversight responsibilities; the Armed Services Committees, with jurisdiction over the
stockpile of strategic and critical materials; and the Appropriations Subcommittees on
Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government, which handle principal GSA fundin,?.
However, every congressional committee impacts on GSA's performance. In authorizing
a new or expanded program and personnel, a congressional committee commits pavmcnts
to GSA for administrative support-furniture, telephone service, equipment, etc. When a
congressional committee determines that an agency's property is no longer required, GSA
-has responsibility for its alternate utilization or disposal.
12. This section is a condensed and modified version of a paper prepared for the Panel by
Kenneth Duberstein. The paper is presented in full in Appendix IV. ?
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
-45-
Congressional guidance, offered judiciously through oversight and legislation; is
certainly legitimate and proper whereas constant congressional committee involvement
in day-to-day management decisions is an improper overstepping of congressional
authority. As GSA is hindered from carrying out its statutory mission by action or
inaction of the Congress, the recruitment of highly qualified managers becomes more
difficult. As shifts in policy direction become more frequent, the ability of GSA to
perform its responsibilities is reduced. As Congress becomes increasingly dissatisfied,
the pressure grows for Congress to "take charge." In this vicious cycle, GSA, the
Congress, other Executive Branch agencies and the public all suffer.
A review of major GSA functions and incidences of congressional intervention best
demonstrates the impacts Congress has on the manner in which GSA carries out its
responsibilities.
Public Buildings Service
PBS is responsible for the design, construction, leasing, renovation, cleaning,
guarding and operation of most federally controlled non-military space in the nation. It
receives much of its broad authority from the Public Buildings Act of 1959, which
requires that any federal public building construction, alteration, purchase, or acquisition
which involves a total expenditure in excess of $500,000 must be approved "by resolutions
adopted by the Committee on Public Works of the Senate and House of Representatives
respectively....
In fulfilling this responsibility, GSA submits prospectuses to the Congress, which
are referred to the relevant committees for consideration. This fundamentally sound
-procedure is subject to certain deficiencies in the congressional decision-making
Process. The Public Buildings and Grounds Subcommittees with primarv jurisdiction
have traditionally been filled by junior members of the Congress who often are not well
versed on the overall. prograx needs and...goals of the Public Buildings Service.
(Recently, the
bye ~~i~ ei#seS tc l~- ~4f3Q~ OB. 6ia{X@~@E 2r$cmbers
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA_RWP84B0089OR000500100042-8
to serve as a reviewing panel for .prospectuses.) As a consequence,- what continuity and
expertise there. are in the Committee are supplied predominantly by the staff, with a
loose rein of authority from the members.
The staff, in turn, spend an inordinate amount of time requesting detailed
justifications for renewal of leases; delays in congressional approval often result in cost
escalations due to inflation and other causes. If continuing delays result in an increase of
more than 10% over the original total project cost estimate, PBS must submit a revised
prospectus and the congressional decision-making process begins anew.
Another complication is the role of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Treasury,
Postal Service, and General Government, which handles GSA's funding. It holds the
ultimate authority over which buildings are built and how, much is al## case of a $1.2
million pedestrian tunnel in the district of the chairman of GSA's House Appropriations
Subcommittee. Recognizing the primacy of the purse strings, the Senate Public Works
Committee (altl~m gh not th -}louse Committee) has recently decided that "action by this
Committee need not precede the negotiation and execution of any lease by the General
Services Administration, so long as the GSA has obtained an appropriation sufficient to
meet the government's obligations under the lease."
Another complication arises when, not infrequently, an agency in need of space
which GSA has failed to provide may successfully request authority and funding from its
own congressional' committees to build or lease its own facilities. Such congressional
authority to other agencies frag merits GSA's responsibility as the government's landlord.
The Public Works and Appropriations Committees then fault GSA for its inability to
perform its real property management role.
To remedy some deficiencies and to clean up a backlog of authorized-but
unfunded-Federal buildings, the Public Buildings Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92-313)
established the Federal Buildings Fund, discussed above, as a modern management system
to meet Federal space needs. The act eliminated some of the previous Appropriations
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
-47-
Committees authorities over the construction of facilities, and its members vigorously
opposed the legislation on the floors of both houses. At OMB's direction, GSA decided
against the use of -appropriated funds for new construction in favor of the purchase
contract authority. As a consequence the Committees criticized and severely rebuked
GSA. Certain requested reprogramming authorities were disallowed thereby reducing
funds available for operation of the Public Buildings Service. Congress instituted an
increasingly close scrutiny of the way PBS handled its new Federal Buildings Fund, and
its financing through the SLUC formula. -
During the first year of SLUC operation the Appropriations Committees, as a
budget-cutting step reduced each Federal agency's SLUC figure to 90% of - the
determined amount, thus effectively reducing the entire PBS budget by 10%. For several
years the Appropriations Committees further restricted PBS by directing that any excess
of anticipated receipts over expenses not remain in the Federal Buildings Fund for future
construction, as had-originally been envisioned in the legislation, but be returned to the
miscellaneous receipts of the Treasury. In-addition, the customary 2% transfer authority
between line items in the PBS budget (for management flexibility) was removed. In fact
the 2% transfer authority ban has been extended to all of GSA. These restrictions,
coupled with the overall budgetary environment, have left GSA with little in new
construction or renovation funds but with substantial backlogs of needs.
To solve these deficiencies and to permit a new construction program, the Public
Works Committees have increasingly requested GSA to survey the Federal space needs in
e specific community and recommend how agencies. should be housed. Although in
several instances, such surveys have determined that there are no new or additional
space needs the Committees have, on occasion, approved a space project. -
In addition, it is likely the Congress will approve a "time-financing" (i.e., purchase
contract) program for new construction in the foreseeable future. Both S. 2080, which
has passed the Senate, and H.R. 8075, approved by the House, include time-financing
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
-48-
provisions, but the Senate bill also includes reform of the authorization process for PBS
projects, as well as some sorties into what can be termed day-to-day GSA management
decisions. For example, the bill prohibits lease construction and requires submission to
the Committees of the names of, and biographical data on, the principal owners for every
proposed lease and lease renewal.
Among the provisions are valuable reforms that will allow Congress to better
fulfill its oversight responsibilities but others, such as the prohibition of lease
construction, smother GSA's management options for accomplishing its mission of
efficiently providing agency space. _
Federal Supply Service . '
FSS has the mission of economically and efficiently providing the Executive
Branch with- approximately $3 billion worth of goods and services needed for day-to-day
operations each year. Although many of its programs have shown marked improvement
in recent years, the FSS has been the focal point for broad criticisms of abuse, scandal,
inefficiency, waste and corruption. These allegations by the media, the Congress and
others snowballed in early 1978 with charges of the "biggest scandal in government since
Teapot Dome" with billions of dollars of fraud and corruption.
Understandably, the Congress launched an immediate investigation and an ongoing
series of hearings. The Subcommittee's investigations have produced a tale of low level
corruption and incompetence. However, the nearly two and a half years of intensive
investigation have seemed to create more turmoil. than significant reform.
GSA management'must continue to be alert to the fraud potential in a $5 billion
program administered by 38,000 employees dispersed throughout the country. The
Inspector-General's internal audit and investigation functions obviously must be
continued and even strengthened. Systems, such as inventory and purchase order
controls, must be subject to improvement as breakdowns therein are discovered. In the
Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B0089OR000500100042-8
 Approved For Release 2003/05/27 : CIA-RDP84B00890R000500100042-8
-49-
PBS
cent
,n to
very
-dAv
idal,
ping
eve]
isive
The
light of GSA's recent history, all of these measures are givens in any program to reform
the agency.
The Panel's main concern in the area of corruption, however, centers not on the
fact that a relatively few employees violated their trust. Rather, we are disturbed that.
management systems to prevent such malfeasance either were not in place or did not
function. Further, we are concerned that the supervisory/executive structures were not
adequate to fill the gaps that will always be present in any system designed to prevent
fraud. Here again, a program to develop higher quality supervisors, managers and
executives is the long-range solution to the problem, not the recruitment of 'an ever-
increasing police force. - -
The multiple awards system poses another problem within FSS. Utilized in
government procurement for many years, it is a contracting method whereby vendors of
commercial products subject to constant technological change offer the Federal Supply
Service their product at a discount from their commercial prices. This system precludes
the need for detailed government specifications, requires relatively few contracting
officers to contract for the commercial product needs of most of the government
agencies, and seeks to assure that the government receives the lowest possible price for
the quantities that are purchased at a given time.
The Senate Subcommittee has correctly pointed to a number of items that should
never have been in the multiple award system and whose procurement was not cost
effective. During Senate Subcommittee hearings this year the GSA Administrator
pledged to abolish 50% of the multiple award contracts and replace them with single
~~'