OL'S 8TH FY 1974 OBJECTIVE (REPORT ON AGENCY DISPERSION PROBLEMS AND INEFFICIENCIES)

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP86-01019R000200130005-5
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 5
• Document Creation Date: November 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 28, 2000
• Sequence Number: 5
• Publication Date: April 2, 1974
• Content Type: MFR

Approved For Release Z *W/06/09 : CIA-RDP86-01019R00020013M05-5
2 April 1974
M IORANDUM FOR THE RECORD
SUBJECT: OL's 8th FY 1974 Objective (Report on Agency Dispersion
Problems and Inefficiencies)
Evaluation of the reported information
1. I have no comment on Scope_, Background and Facts.....
2. My comments are directed toward the elements making up the Discussion
portion of the report. In an earlier Note for the File dated 5 February 19974,
I pointed out a major flaw in the dollars and man years associated with the
Factors discussed by OL:
a. SLUC -- What happens to SLUC charges as dispersal changes?
If a new uilding is built on the Headquarters compound, and the
15 dispersed facilities are phased out, there will be a SLUC charge
for the new Headquarters building. There would be fewer dollars in
the Agency budget for SLUC if and only if the buildings on the Head-
quarters compound (including a new building) were granted an exemp-
tion to SLUC charges. So far this has not occurred for present
buildings for which exemptions have been requested. Therefore,
centralizing at Langley will probably still require the SLUC
resource requirement.
OL concludes that elimination of one or more of the dispersed
locations will result in a substantial reduction in resource
requirements (primarily in SLUC and guard costs). OL probably
meant elimination of dispersed facility and not replacing the
facility. We know one of the dispersed facilities will be
eliminated soon STATINTL
But it is being replaced by the new Headquarters garage. no
SLUC charges for the new garage have not yet been established by
GSA. Will the SLUC charge be higher or lower There
are other economies involved in having the garage facility at 25X1A
Headquarters not discussed by OL. Another
Approved For Release 2000/06/09: CIA-RDP86-01019R0002001300094r---
 Approved For Release 2000/06/09 : CIA-RDP86-01019R000200130005-5
-2-
dispersed location (Magazine Bldg) is scheduled for elimination,
but OL is looking for replacement space. (Talk has been that
OL is looking in the area.) The Magazine
Building has a SLUC c arge o: p us a contingent of GSA
guards. Since Magazine space is being replaced -- not eliminated
as a requirement -- there will be a SLUC charge for the replace-
ment building and a contingent of GSA guards at the relocation
site. Assumin a relocation site in the
area of the people now at Magazine added to people already
Basically, then, SLUC will follow us whether we are dispersed
or not, unless we get an exemption for Agency unique space. The
question is open as to changes in SLUC charges once we are not
dispersed.
 Approved For Release 20W06/09: CIA-RDP86-01019R000200139005-5
-3-
d. Shuttle Bus Service -- As the study points out, the costs
of people's lost work time shuttling between Headquarters and the
dispersed locations 6930K and 51.4 man years) is the greater cost.
The shuttle bus service is quite a bit smaller. With consolidation
at Langley we should save approximately $100'K in constant FY 1974
dollars. Some form of shuttle service would remain to service the
State Department and the Pentagon. Possibly we could use 9-11
passenger vans instead of the larger Blue Bird buses. Rather than
direct runs to State and Pentagon, our future shuttle could run to
Rosslyn where our employees could transfer to State or DoD shuttles.
If our dispersal comes to an end, by that time Metro subways should
be in from Rosslyn to State and Rosslyn to the Pentagon -- our
shuttle could run people to Rosslyn and they would have at least
two ways to reach State and the Pentagon. It may be easier to just
run the Agency shuttle to State and Pentagon. There will be some
costs ($60K+ in constant FY 74 dollars) for shuttle -~ service after a
Langley consolidation. Without consolidation (i.e., if Rosslyn 25X1A
buildings are replaced with building in area)
our shuttle costs could go up from presen eve's.
e. Motor Pool Service -- I buy OL's conclusion (c) on page 9
of the report regarding the chauffeured motor pool service. With
consolidation at Langley there would be about $93K in constant
FY 74 dollars in savings from a trimmed chauffeured motor pool
service. OL's data showing that 78% today's chauffeured motor
pool service involves passengers transported to buildings served
by the shuttle bus stands out as a wasteful duplicative service.
It's hard to argue with a cost difference of $0.91 for shuttle bus/ 25X9
passenger versus $22.90 for chauffeured service per passenger. As
OL points out, transporting in the chauf-
feured service to buildings serve y the s u t e buses costs $161.3K
versus the $159K it takes to shuttle - people on buses. What 25X1A
needs of a higher priority than chauffeured service to buildings
serviced by the shuttle buses could be satisfied in the DD/MFRS with
the $161.3K that could be saved'by trimming the chauffeured motor
pool service? Beyond the economic question looms the moral and
ethical question of - is this the best use of the public's resources
(taxpayer dollars)?
f. U-Drive Agency Vehicle Service -- No comment, except that
this service would offer an alternative to shuttle bus service
should chauffeured motor pool service be curtailed. The costs of
U-Drive vehicle trips are substantially less than chauffeured trips.
g. POV's and Taxis -- I can accept OL's conclusion (b) on page 9
regarding t e use o POV's between Headquarters and the Metro dis-
persed locations. Tied to this should be strong management pressure
to get people to use the shuttle buses in lieu of POW's. The new
parking regulations at Headquarters may aid this effort. I think
Approved For Release 2000/06/09 : CIA-RDP86-01019R000200 005-5-
 Approved For Release 2000/06/09 : CIA-RDP86-01019R000200130005-5
-4-
too many petty cash reimbursements are made to people for use of
POV's just because the individual/ amounts are so small. With the
continuing energy crisis, management has a duty to see that people
use more communal forms of transportation when possible (i.e, shuttle
buses between Headquarters and dispersed locations vs. reimbursable
POV's). With consolidation the figure of $120K (in constant FY 74
dollars) for reimbursable POV mileage between Headquarters and Metro
dispersed bcations should be saved.
h. Courier Service and Supply Deliveries -- Accept the estimated
$70K savings in constant FY~19 s with a Langley consolidation.
i. Loss of Time -- The most important cost savings identified
should tie people at the dispersed locations be centralized at
Langley ($930K).
j. Employee Parking -- OL centers on costs to employees of
parking i pprivate lots at dispersed locations. If we are considering
centralizing at Langley, t ere will be added costs re parking for
the Government. If we add employees to the Langley complex we
will need more parking space t an now exists. This is complicated by
the possibility (with associated high probability) that present
parking spaces may have to be used during construction at Langley.
The new building itself may eat up some present parking spaces.
During construction workmen will also need parking spaces. Should we
centralize we will have to consider building new parking lots in
present green or wooded space, or as part of the construction build
a several story parking garage (i.e., park vertically vs. spreading
lots horizontally), and consider having employees pay for parking at
the Langley complex to deter bringing automobiles and to offset costs
of new parking facilities. Automobiles and parking automobiles cer-
tainly weighs heavy among the political, economic and environmental
impacts to be studied in any Langley consolidation plan.
k. Office Moves and New Headquarters Garage -- No comment.
1. Energy Loss Due to Dispersion -- Assume these dollar costs are
included in previous paragraph he social costs associated with the
118,350 gallons of fuel per year used in dispersed location travel are
part of the favorable argument for Langley consolidation.
3. OL's Conclusions -- I've commented on OL's conclusions in paragraphs
2.a, 2.e., an 2.g.
4. OL's Recommendations -- We have a proposed (accepted) DCI objective
for the DD ME,S to conduct a Langley consolidation study. This will involve
representatives of the other Directorates. The present FY 1975 personnel
ceiling reduction exercise (ADD'ers Group) should address the chauffeured
motor pool service issue. This leaves the establishment of management ob-
jectives on achieving related efficiency improvements re dispersed locations
(e.,g., on lessened use of POV when.-shuttles are available, etc.).
--Approved For Release 2000/06/09 : CIA-RDP86-01019R000200130005-5
Now
 Approved For Release /06/09: CIA-RDP86-91019R000200 05-5
S. Summary of potential dollars savings by consolidating at Langley
and eliminating the dispersed locations (to apply to amortizing cost of new
construction).
SLUG Unknown
Guard E Receptionist Unknown
Communications Services $200K
Shuttle Bus Service $100K
Chauffeured Motor Pool $93K
U-Drive Service Unknown
POV's and Taxis $120K
Courier Service $53K
Supply Delivery $l3K
Loss of Time $930K*
Total $1.509 million/year in
constant FY 74 dollars.
*The return on investment of the 51.4 man years associated with Loss of Time
in travel to dispersed locations may well be greater than the doll ars spent
on salary costs for these man years.
DD/MF1S Plans Staff
Approved For Release 2000/06/09 : CIA-RDP86-01019R000200130005-5