COMMENTS ON ISSUE S-9, PUBLIC UTILITY MANAGEMENT, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP85-00759R000100150006-4
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 18
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: November 5, 2001
• Sequence Number: 6
• Publication Date: July 3, 1978
• Content Type: MF

Approved For Re'ase 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00759ROGO100150006-4
3 JUL 1978
MEMORANDUM FOR: Chief, Plans and Programs Staff, OL
STATINTL FROM:
Deputy Chief, Real Estate and Construction
Division, OL
SUBJECT: Comments on Issue S-9, Public Utility
Management, Administrative Services
REFERENCE: Draft Report of the Administrative Services
Reorganization Project dtd 15 Jun 78,
Supply # Support Services Task Force,
Findings & Alternatives (OL 8 2855)
1. Most domestic utility services are provided to the
Agency as part of the General Services Administration (GSA)
Standard Level User Charge (SLUC) system wherein we pay a
unit rate for space, including utilities. There are excep-
tions, however, and utilities for Agency space located on
military compounds or not otherwise subject to the SLUC
system are paid for under the interagency support agreements
or directly by the Agency. These latter instances are, few,
so, for the most part, the Agency is already subject to GSA
utility policies and procedures through the SLUC system.
Notwithstanding this, we have several observations concern-
ing the GSA recommendations contained on pages 77 and 78 of
the report:
a. Regarding the recommendation that GSA's
role be. expanded and enhanced with a new charter
to develop Government-wide public utilitiy policies,
procedures, and management systems; I assume that the
intent is to include the military services, as well,
under GSA's control even though this is not specif-
ically stated. This is a little bit like the tail
wagging the dog since, per the report, GSA accounts
for only 25 percent of Government purchased utility
services while the remaining 75 percent represents
usage by the military and other civilian agencies.
On page 78 the report estimates that related savings
through improved management would amount to $10 mil-
lion to $14 million annually. Since no further
()~ 8 30(2
Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00759R000100150006-4
 Approved For Releal 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00759R0000150006-4
SUBJECT: Comments on Issue S-9, Public Utility
Management, Administrative Services
explanation is provided as to how these figures
were derived they are certainly suspect. Be this
as it may, I personally believe that the present
decentralized system, in which the military and
many civilian agencies have independent authorities
to arrange for utility services based on their own
unique needs, is far better than the proposed
centralized system under which GSA, having 25
percent or less of the total requirement, would
establish policies and procedures for all Federal
agencies. Rather the Supply and Services Task
Force should be more concerned as to whether or
not Federal agencies under the SLUC system admin-
istered by GSA are receiving full value for the
money they pay GSA for utility and other services.
I suspect that if the truth were known, the por-
tion of the SLUC bill attributable to utilities
and GSA administrative costs associated with
those utilities exceeds what it would cost agen-
cies to procure those utility services directly.
b. Regarding the other recommendations con-
tained in the report for prompt payment of bills,
better rates to reduce total cost of utilities,
systems to reduce peak loads, and the development
of recommendations to improve the method of
Government utility contracting should all be
supported by this Agency. We do have some con-
cern, however, as to whether the total annual
savings associated with these recommendations as
stated on page 78 would, in fact, be anything
like those estimated. Our concern is based
simply on the fact that there is no description
of the approach used in the development of the
savings sited.
2. Please incorporate our views into any consolidated
paper sent to the President's Reorganizaion Project. I am
particularly concerned that the Agency is not receiving the
full value for utility charges included in the present SLUC
rates and would strongly recommend that the Supply and
Support Services Task Force be tasked to examine exactly how
2
Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00759R000100150006-4
 Approved For Rele a 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00759ROOGA00150006-4
SUBJECT: Comments on Issue S-9, Public Utility
Management, Administrative Services
much GSA administration costs add to the cost of utility
services received under the SLUC system. I strongly suspect
that the additional GSA costs result in a utility charge
higher than that which we would otherwise have to pay if ATINTL
were free to contract for utility services directly.
Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00759R000100150006-4
 STATINTL Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00759R000100150006-4
Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00759R000100150006-4
 Approved ForRelease 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00799R000100150006-4
IS SIJE NO. S-9_ PUBLIC UTILITY MANAGEMENT
INTRODUCTION
This is an assessment of the Public'Utility Services aspects
of Contracting, Management, and Rate Intervention, provided
by GSA to other Federal user agencies. '
The study included interviews of selected Federal user agen-
cies, utility company suppliers, State Regulatory Commissions,
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, State Governments,
private sector users, and GSA personnel.
The Federal Government spends an estimated $2.4 billion for
purchased public utility services and for operations costs
for Federally-owned heating and generating plants (exclusive
of utility services supplied under total building leases).
II. BACKGROUND AND CURRENT SITUATION
Section 201 of the Federal Property and Administrative Ser-
vices Act (FPASA) of 1949, as amended (40 USC 481), provides
that the Administrator of GSA shall procure and supply non--
personal services for the use of the executive agencies and
perform functions related to procurement and supply and that he shall represent other agencies in negotiations with public
utilities and in proceedings before Federal and State regula-
tory bodies. The Secretary of Defense may exempt DoD when-
ever he determines it in the best interest of national secur-
ity.
The procedures by which public utility services are acquired
for Federal agency users is quite varied. Approximately
25% of Purchased utility se_vices are pa.i.dGSA for build
is operated by GSA These utility,-charc,{g _.in(l.uded
in the GSA Standard Level User Charge (SLUC) system wherein
tenant agencies pay a total ujllJ rate ,_or space The rema n`-
ing 75 represen s_usa by, military and civilian agencies
with large self contained installations.
The military services arrange for public utility services,
usually by negotiating a contract with a utility supplier
under provision of Supplement 5 to the Armed Services Pro-
curement Regulations (ASRP), or by a contract based upon
an Area-wide Agreement (negotiated by GSA) which may be in
existence for the service area of interest. A delegation
of authority signed between the Administrator of GSA and.
the Secretary of DefensG_ot October 11_., 1954 allows DoD to
and is own utility 11 rc ents.
Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00759R000100150006-4
 Approved Forleelease 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00759 QO0100150006-4
Several agencies have authorities for procuring utility
services (and other services as well) under their original
agency authorizations, or under Section 602 of the FPASA
(40 USC 473). Examples include the Federal Aviation Admini-
stration (now a part of the Department of Transportation),
Veteran's Administration, Federal Reserve Board, U.S. Depart-
ment: of Agriculture, DHUD, TVA, CIA, the Bonneville Power
Administration, the U.S. Postal Service, and NASA. In some
instances a contract may be negotiated with a public util-
ity company using much of an existing GSA Area-Wide Agree-
ment; in others the commercial utility company commercial
service forms may be used. In some instances, the GSA con-
tra
in
ct
g process causes extended delays to agency programs.
The GSA Area-Wide Agreement is a comprehensive contract
negotiated with utility companies for their entire service
area, usually for a ten-year term (or for one-year renewable
terms), and provides for the inclusion of various Federal
users by the completion of a contract-appendix form, which
resembles a utility company commercial agreement.
The outstanding feature of the GSA Area-Wide Agreements
(and of the military service contracts) is the inclusion
of some 17 mandatory clauses and seven optional clauses
(FPR 1-4,410--4,5; GSA Form 1685) . These clauses cover a
variety of socio-economic subjects which have been man-
dated by Federal law and by Executive Order for inclusion
in Federal purchase or supply contracts. These clauses
are now being interpreted to also apply to various levels
of sub-contractors and suppliers and that a utility company
or contractor must enforce compliance upon its suppliers.
This requirement for contractor enforcement of mandatory
clauses upon sub-contractors is causing problems and incurs
added costs, which State commissions are concerned about.
These added costs are discriminatory to other customers of
the utility company. There are also serious questions of
contract law and performance thereunder which must be re-
solved.
As a result of recent enforcement actions against utility
companies, many utilities are refusing to sign or to renew
the GSA Area-wide Agreements or to accept GSA contracts for
services. This makes it necessary for GSA to sign the com--
merci-al form to receive service. In these instances, the
Public Buildings Service/GSA makes up monthly purchase
orders (as obligating documentation) which the utility com-
panies would prefer not to receive.
Officials of the Federal Procurement Regulation staff cite
existing legislation (31 USC 200 (a)(1)) as requiring a
written agreement between Federal agencies and suppliers.
74
Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00759R000100150006-4
 CIA-RDP85-00759RQQ0100150006-4,
,r he teAppr?pec figrRrgjjkeu 2pea s
"(a) After August 26, 1954, no amount
shall be recorded as an obligation of
the United states unless it is supported
by documentary evidence of --
(1) a binding agreement in writing
between the parties thereto,.. ? or"
(Followed by 7 alternatives or exceptions).
The Federal Procurement Regulation staff has not accepted
subsection 7 of this same statute which cites as an excep-
tion
"(7)??. services performed by public
utilities...".
This appears to provide that the approved tariffs of State
public service commissions and the service agreements of
public utility companies are acceptable as "documentary
evidence" of an obligation by the United States Government.
There are additional cases now pending in the Supreme Court
(U.S. vs. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., and U.S. versus
Mississippi Power & Light CO? that
) may further complicate
t e controcturui. S~, t nation between the Federal Government
and public utility companies (both energy and transportation
companies). Since it has been well established that utility
companies are covered by the Federal law, simplifying the
contracting process by legislation that affirms the intent
of 31 USC 200 (a)(7) would make it possible to use commer;-
cial utility contract forms in many cases.
Inquiries disclosed that the only documentation relating to
utility service arrangements used in private industry and by
State government institutions were copies of approved rate
and service tariffs and the utility company service agree-
ment form. Auditors will accept this documentation as suf-
ficient support for checks drawn in payment of utility
bills.
The Commission on Government Procurement in its Recommenda-
tion 18 stated that Federal procurement should --
"Encourage procuring activities, when it is
deemed in the best interest of the Government,
to purchase supplies or services from public
utilities by accepting the commercial forms
and provisions that. are used in the utilities'
sales to industry and the general public,
provided that the service contract provisions
are not in violation of public law."
75
Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00759R000100150006-4
 Approved For Reuse 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00759R0100150006-4
There is a periodic requirement to review tariff schedules
to assure that the most advantageous rate or rate combin-
ation is being used. A consulting service for agency users
would be helpful in this review.
The payment of utility bills involves a phenomenon endemic
to public utilities -- the need for bill-payment cash flow
to finance continuing operations. Utility companies are
financed by their customer payments to furnish working
capital.
This need for cash flow has resulted in short payment times
for utility bills -- l0, 15, 20, or 25 days are common. More
recently, Sta.,te. commissions have approved late-payment charges
for customers who are tardy in making payments. These are in
the order of 3% or 3-1/2% for a first month and additional
amounts up to 5% per month, or 1-1/2% per month with no limi-
tation on the iriteresr, amounts on unpaid balances. Also, State
commissions permit the cessation of service for chronic late-
payment or nonpayment of bills (This has happened to Federal
user agencies).
Some Federal user agencies incur late charges on their util-
ity bills. Late-payment charges are paid largely as a result
of not really understanding the nature of utility bills and
not having a system to accomodate them. The Department of
Agriculture handles utility bills from over 4,000 points
across the United States at their National Finance Center
in New Orleans. They have averaged less than four days from
receipt to final action. U.S. Postal Service bills are paid
on time.
Precise data on Federal late-payment charges are not avail-
able, but from various sources including sample studies under
way in several agencies it appears likely that obligations
of $7 to $10 million per year are now being accrued by Fed-
eral agencies. Much of this can be avoided, as demonstrated
by those agencies who have developed systems to cope with it.
Load-management systems are being used in many areas of the
United States for both residential and commercial-building
energy load control. Home air-condtitioners and hot-water
heaters are equipped with remote activated switches in
Georgia, Michigan and Ohio. The Georgia Building Authority
is installing a computer controlled load-management system
for the Georgia State Capital Building complex. GSA has
several test installations in various parts of the United
States.
Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00759R000100150006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00759R000100150006-4
Wag _1MW
,this concept of peak-demand reduction through load-manage-
ment - "peak shaving" - is a very significant technique
that merits strong emphasis. The savings aree, attractive
and can be widely achieved.
public utility service rates are established after hearings
and presentations before State and Federal Regulatory Com-
missions. Utility companies and utility users present cost,-
of-service or rate-of-return information with economic, en-
gineering, accounting, or financial data relating to the
utiJ i.ty services provided. '
Many States have a People's Utility Counsel to represent r.e?-
si.dential and non-commercial users. Representatives of the
Federal Government sometimes appear at such rate hearings
and proceedings, either as observers, or as intervenors re-
presenting the Federal Government as a large user. As a
general rule, any one with an interest may be an intervenor
is such hearings.
The effectiveness of GSA and other Federal Government parti-
cipants in regulatory intervention cases appears to be mixed.
Performance ranges from the GSA appearance in the Arkansas
hearings on automatic indexing for utility costs (the pro-
posal was denied, but whether it was achieved by reason of
the GSA intervention is not certain) to recent hearings be--
tore the Florida commission in which two sets of Federal
Government witnesses presented diametrically opposite views.
For the most part, it appears that participation is limited
to observing or questioning expert witnesses. GSA has made
full-scale rate-of-return presentations at past hearings.
o Improved Federal management practices to reduce
costs of utility services.
To enhance the public utility management function GSA should
expand the existing public utilities management activity
with a new charter to develop policies, procedures, and man-
agement systems. There is a need for the Administrator to
work closely with industry/Government experts to identify
various aspects of public utility management, organize a
program of work, and provide an ongoing reference for for-
ward progress.
Agencies should assure that public utility bills are paid
within stated payment periods on a schedule which is most
Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00759R000100150006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00759R006100150006-4
advantageous to the Government. There may be need to revise
existing systems or establish new ones to provide for pay-
ianq utility bills prior to making adjustments.
Agencies should make post-payment audits of utility bills.
This is a new function that would parallel the present post-
audit function for transportation bills. Review would cover
the tariff schedule used, special rates, and the like.
GSA should seek better rates to reduce total cost of utili-
ties. The Federal Government as a large user requires a con-
tinuing block of energy from many utilities that could war-
rant a base block rate lower than other rates by virtue of
economies of size.
Agencies should use systems that reduce peak-loads. The
peak-demand for any given instant that is greater than at
any other period in the year will establish the demand rate
for the next annual period. There are several techniques for
managing (controlling) and reducing this peak demand. These
controls also may reduce the total annual load and cost.
GSA should develop recommendations to Congress to improve
the method for Government utility contracting. The Commis-
si?n on Federal Procurement recommended Federal contracting
for public utility servir s shonlrl hr, reserved for rare, ex-
ceptional cases, and commercial forms and procedures should
be used to the greatest extent possible.
Expected Benefits:
Reduced peak-demand costs
through load-management and other conser-
vation programs
Reduced'total costs through
management -- improvements such as rates
or tariffs (cost-of-service cases)
$15 - 16 million
Paying utility bills on a
scheduled basis r 7 - 10 million
Total Annual Savings
$32 - 40 million
Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00759R000100150006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/08: CIA-RDP85-00759 ROW 00150006-4
I~;SUE NO. S--10: COOPERATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES
1. INTRODUCTION
This is an assessment of the potential for delivering cer-
tain administrative services more efficiently and at reduced
cost. These services will be called "cooperative support
services". It replaces the former title "common services" as
it more accurately describes the intent and nature of the
concept.
11wo cooperative support service concepts are discussed in
this study: (1) central administrative support services and
facilities provided to agencies in a common building/complex
in lieu of each agency providing the same services or facil-
ities for its own use; and, (2) centralized services provided
on a nation-wide basis to smaller agencies with inadequate
resources to provide the same services individually.
The study included examination of applicable laws, regula-
tions, previous studies and correspondence; questionnaires
to 17 Federal cabinet and major independent agencies; visits/
interviews with small Federal aqencies and State government
organizations; and evaluation of the solicited views of
trade associations, professional groups, other state and
local government organizations and private citizens.
II. BACKGROUND/CURRENT SITUATION
The Bureau of the Budget, now OMB, on August 28?, 1964 pub-
lished Circular No. A-68, "Establishment of central sup-
porting service facilities in headquarters and field office
locations". The Federal Property Management Regulations
(FPMR), Part 101-5, "Centralized Services in Federal Build-.
ings", implemented Circular A-68.
Although Circular No. A-68 was the initial movement by the
Federal government towards centralized service centers, the
real push did not come until 1971 when GSA's Office of Man-
agement Services established a pilot project at the Arcade
Plaza Building in Seattle, Washington.
The
Seattle Federal Regional Council was utilized to
provide
the
needed framework. Seattle seemed an ideal site to
estab-
lish
the pilot "cooperative support services" project
because
the
Arcade Plaza Building housed the five FRC charter
agen-
cies; the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (DHEW);
the Department of Housing and Urban Development (DHUD), the
Department of Labor (DOL), the Department of Transportation
(DOT), and the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO). Follow-
ing two years of planning the project became operational in
Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00759R000100150006-4
 Approved For Rele` %e 2002/01/08: CIA-RDP85-00759R00QA0150006-4
7.971 with six initial services (mail and messenger; procure-
ment; receiving and shipping; laboring services; self-service
supply room; and library) being provided to a population of
975. It was estimated that the centralization of these serv-.
ices would result in a 25% reduction in costs.
An evaluation of the pilot project was conducted in 1972 by
GSA in cooperation with OMB. This evaluation concluded that
the pilot project was efficient, economical, and provided
a high level of customer satisfaction. The evaluation team
recommended that the Arcade Plaza arrangement be'made per-
manent and the concept be extended to all locations where
f.ea-sible.
In early 1973, OMB Circular No. A-68 was cancelled when cen-
tralized support services and other government-wide functions
were transferred to GSA. Subsequently, GSA issued Federal
Management Circular (FMC) 73-4, Central Support Services,
Within FSS the responsibility was levied on the Office of
Customer Service and Support, which intended to establish a
Common Services Branch, but never pursued it when applica-
tion of the program was not supported outside of the Seattle
project.
In 1975, only three of the original. five participants re-
mained in the Seattle pilot project, i.e., DHEW, DHUD, and
CSA (formerly OEO). A new review of the project was requested
by the Working Group on Administration, composed of repre-
sentatives of the three remaining agencies, in May.1975.
The National Archives and Records Service (NARS) of GSA con-
ducted the study and recommended common services should con-?-
tinue in its present form, at least in the short run. Ulti-
mately, the transfer of DOL and DOT out of the Arcade Plaza
did lead to the discontinuance of common services except
for library services Which may also be terminated due to
funding cutbacks in FY 79.
The current thinking of those who participated in the Seattle
experiment is that cooperative support services would work
effectively and economically on a localized basis provided
that understanding and support of ciooperative support serv-
ices in philosophy and resources exist at all levels in
headquarters and the field.
GSA tried to initiate agreements at new Federal installa-
tions in Honolulu, San Diego, and Fort Worth. However, the
resistance encountered in trying to work out a means of
obtaining manpower ceilings for the consolidated services
was never overcome and all new initiatives were dropped.
Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00759R000100150006-4
 Approved For Releat 2002/01/08: CIA-RDP85-00759R0001,a9150006-4
Also reviewed was the Kluczynski Building in Chicago, a
large Federal building occupied by several Federal agencies.
The intent of this review of the delivery of administrative
services was to determine if duplication existed in 23 se-
lected types of services. It was concluded that duplication
did exist and a feasibility study would be warranted.
The potential for a national approach to the delivery of
certain kinds of administrative services to smaller agencies
was examined. The model chosen for study was the ?JSDA,s con-
solidated payment center in New Orleans. In 1.970, the USDA
estimated that by consolidating the processing of payment
vouchers a reduction of 473 man-years of effort and $3,845,000
in total costs could be realized. The National Finance Center
was fully implemented in 1977 with the addition of nine more
systems. Projected savings for 1977 with the total system
operational is $4,345,630.
Using the USDA voucher processing feasibility study format
from 1970, statistics were collected for the same activity
in ACTION, FCC, ICC, NSF, and TVA. The results show that
approximately 236 man-years are being devoted to voucher
processing. Although no firm conclusions about efficiency
of operations can be derived from this limited statistical
sampling, the figures do indicate that duplicative voucher
processing systems exist and that there is considerable
volume in smaller Federal organizations. This could be ana-?
logous to what existed in the USDA prior to establishment
of the National Payment Center.
Agency responses to the ASFtP inquiries indicate that they
generally agree with the theory of economy that cooperative
support services projects, but there is great disparity in
their views about what services should be included/excluded
and the advantages/disadvantages involved.
A recent example of centralization of administrative services
is the establishment of a Office of Administration in the Ex-
ecutive Office of the President (FOP). The Office of. Admini-
stration consolidated services previously being supplied
from many different sources with a wide variation in the qua1--
ity and completeness of services. Services included were:
personnel, accounting, mail, library facilities, computer
operations, messengers, payroll, etc. Previous fragmentation
of these services produced: numerous service duplications;
inconsistent distribution of services; excess capacity in
some units and deficiencies in others; missed opportunities
for economics of scale; and lack of cost control.
Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00759R000100150006-4
 Approved For I tease 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-0075911900100150006-4
Three of the advantages expected from the establishment of
the Office of Administration were: estimated savings of
approximately Sl.1 million and 40 positions; an administra-
tive base on which to develop service; a management focus
for accountability, responsibility and monitoring of admini-
strative services in EOP.
Accounting, the first service fully centralized in the Off ice
of Administration, is meeting with great success in terms of
increased customer satisfaction, improved management inform-
ation and more expeditious service.
III. CRITERIA FOR IMPROVEMENT
o Eliminate duplicative costs for the delivery of
support services.
o Improve the delivery of support services.
o Identify actual costs of support services.
o Upgrade the efficiency and quality of support
services required by non-departmental agencies.
o Reduce excess capacity and fill deficiencies where
they exist.
A. Have GSA, with the firm support of 0MB and Heads
of Departments and Agencies vigorously pursue the applica-
tion of cooperative support services on a local basis in
buildings or complexes where large multi-agency populations
exist. This effort should be accomplished through full and
complete coordination and cooperation with the Federal Ex-
ecutive Boards and Federal Regional Councils.
B. Have GSA, with the firm support of OMB, and the
necessary resources from appropriate agencies, investigate
the feasibility of establishing cooperative support service
agreements on a National basis for non-departmental agencies.
This alternative wouTlcientil an fin-depth feasibility study
for selected services such as payroll, voucher processing,
property accounting, etc.
C. Revise the FPMR, Part 101-5 to reflect the local
and national basis concept of cooperative support services,
and specify in detail the accomplishment of feasibility
studies, the roles of the Federal Executive Boards (FEB's),
the Federal Regional Councils (FRC's), 0MB and the Depart-
ments and Agencies.
92
Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00759R000100150006-4
 Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00759F0100150006-4
D Establish flexible cooperative support service
,,gceements, which permit addition of new services, and
,li.mination of services which cease to be cost-efficient.
E. Provide for annual. reviews of all cooperative
.support service agreements.
Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00759R000100150006-4
 Approved For Please 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-007598 0100150006-4
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES REORGANIZATION PROJECT
SUPPLY ANT SUPPORT SERVICES TASK FORCE
REGULATORY AND ADVISORY TASK TEAM
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
{le Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949
sumed that the General Services Administration (GSA) would
=}xercise a Government-wide leadership role in the delivery of
sr;linistrative services. To carry out its mission, GSA has
sued guidance to agencies in the form of Federal Property
v^anagement Regulations (FPMR), Federal Travel Regulations
s"Pi3) , and Federal Procurement Regulations (FPR). In a more
ar?vice-o r.i.ented view, GSA provides assistance to agencies
,y offering training programs and conducting consultant-type
dvisory studies.
study involved extensive interviews with GSA and customer
"4ency personnel., interviews with officials of large corp--
,rations and state governments, analysis of questionnaires,
s:rd review of existing statutes, GSA and agency regulations.
:te adequacy of three principal activities were addressed
:)y the Task Team:
o GSA regulatory activities
o Interagency training
o Advisory services to agencies
vINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES
GSA REGULATORY ACTIVITIES
ith respect to the FPMR and the FTR, there is no consistent
f)stitutionalized system for obtaining customer participa-
`ion in the development of regulatory material. There is
~idence of overemphasis on intra-$SA coverage versus inter.-
`:']ency guidance. In varying degrees, required changes to
Tc?gulations are not timely, language is overly complex,
="Plementation of changes by the Federal establishment is
and there is no adequate system for either agency
dback or determining the level of agency compliance.
'?anizational Alternatives. The structure of GSA has inhib-
Q( its ability to pr writ a strong, coherent and service-
Viented regulatory image to the Federal. agencies it was
OLated to serve. Three alternatives were considered:
97
Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00759R000100150006-4
 Approved For R I ase 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-007598 60100150006-4
o Centralize development and control of regulations
the staff of the GSA Administrator.
o Centralize coordination and monitoring of regula-
iils on the staff of the GSA Administrator.
o Strengthen staff of each GSA service to develop and
-=ntrol regulations.
rocess Improvements. GSA should make the following
rovements r
n Increase agency participation in regulatory develop-
t and feedback.
o Establish an improved compliance system.
o Simplify regulatory language.
o Write regulations which minimize the need for dupli-
: Live agency implementation.
INTERAGENCY TRAINING
raining and motivation of personnel are an integral element
adift'nIsLraLive services. The quality and quantity OF
',raining provided to administrative services personnel varies
r GSA Service. Moreover,. some duplication of training
"f-fort between the Civil Service Commission and GSA requires
r,.~solution. Department of Defense training courses and the
eeederal Acquisition Institute are excellent models to emulate
:i establishing training and career development programs for
-dministrat.i.ve services personnel at all grade levels.
`:1ternatives. The fragmented approach to training within
;A lends itself to the following options to improve service
el ivory:
o Consolidate administrative services training effort
:rI GSA on the staff of the Administrator.
o Consolidate administrative services training effort
n the Civil Service Commission.
o Continue current fragmented approach and work on
%roduct improvement.
0 Contract-out training.
Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00759R000100150006-4
 Approved For Rease 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00759Ftiy0'0100150006-4
process Improvements. Initiate action within GSA and work-
rig with other agencies to:
o Initiate a Government-wide career development program
for administrative services personnel.
o Establish a system to receive customer agency input.
o Insure strong ties between training and program
operations.
o Improve training evaluation.
ADVISORY SERVICES TO AGENCIES
Based on customer agency response, there is a place in the
GSA for an institutional group of high---quality consultants.
The current approach to providing this type of service
varies considerably among the GSA Services.
Organizational Alternatives.
o Establish an organization on the Administrator's
staff to plan, control and monitor advisory services.
o Establish an organization within each GSA Service
to plan, control, and monitor advisory services.
Process Improvements. Initiate action within GSA and working
with other agencies to:
o Conduct market surveys to pinpoint customer demand.
o Establish a customer feed-back system.
o Make program fully reimbursable and emphasize
quality performance.
o Avoid the audit image in providing advisory services.
99.
Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP85-00759R000100150006-4