Subject: Whether GSA had recently approved the purchase of systems furniture at a Federal facility in North Carolina. Assumption: Senator Chiles' inquiry at the October 2, 1980, hearings was directed toward any approvals during the furniture moratorium. Summary: Federal agencies have been under a moratorium prohibiting the purchase of furniture virtually continuously since the fall of 1979, although the formal "freeze" was imposed by OMB in February of 1980. Systems furniture for the facility in question had been approved in June of 1979, prior to any form of moratorium on the purchase of any type of furniture. An exception to the "freeze" was granted to the facility in question in June of 1980, covering only nonsystems furniture. Associated drawings in both bid packages reflected total furniture requirements, although only the first bid (in 1979) covered planned systems furniture purchases. Facts: O The Federal facility in question is the new National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences building at the Research Triangle Park in North Carolina. The overall design of this new facility calls for the use of both systems and nonsystems furniture. In June of 1979, prior to any special restrictions on the purchase of furniture, the systems furniture requirements within the overall design were approved, fully within the guidelines then in effect. The planned procurement, as advertised in the Commerce Business Daily, was identified as Bid No. 80. The supporting documentation within the associated bid package contained detailed space layouts and furniture designs that projected the total furniture requirements for the facility, not just the systems furniture then under procurement. On June 20, 1980, the Federal Supply Service was handcarried a request for an exception to the furniture freeze, dated June 20, 1980, and signed by Murray N. Weinsten, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grants and Procurement, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Supporting documentation made available to the Federal Supply Service indicated the request was for approximately $1,250,000 of furniture and furnishings. The Federal Supply Service, working closely with HHS personnel, identified $300,708 which was clearly excluded from the prevailing definition of office furniture, i.e., paragraph 4 of the Commissioner's memorandum of May 2, 1980, "Non-household and non-office furniture items are not intended to be covered by the freeze," and could therefore be procured at that time without an exception approval. The remaining balance of $949,292 received further review. O The supporting backup to the HHS request indicated the need for systems furniture. 3 o A careful item-by-item review of the furniture, both by the Public Buildings Service and the Federal Supply Service, failed to identify any of the $949,292 as systems furniture. о о о After determining that systems furniture was not involved, a review of the justification accompanying the exception request was started. The analysis of the request revealed: --The planned move from an existing (rented) building into the new facility was scheduled for August 1980. --The architectural design of the building was unique. Only a limited number of items were being moved from the rented quarters to the new facilities. --The furniture being left behind was to be used by a new National --To delay the procurement would create a potential for additional costs to be incurred since construction costs were already approaching the guaranteed maximum price. --The position of the Federal Supply Service at the time was to look closely at any exception request that could impair agency program mission while at the same time create substantial additional cost to the Federal Government because of nonapproval. On June 23, 1980, Herbert W. McCarthy, then Deputy Commissioner for o The planned procurement, as subsequently advertised in the Commerce Business Daily, was identified as Bid No. 81. The supporting documentation within the associated package contained the same detailed space layouts and overall furniture designs as provided within earlier systems procurement Bid Package No. 80, leading to a possible misinterpretation that Bid No. 81 also called for the procurement of systems furniture. Prior to the inquiry from Senator Chiles, Federal Supply Service had not been aware that either of the bid packages contained drawings that depict both systems and nonsystems furniture. We have since acquired complete sets of the two bid packages and can fully understand the misunderstanding that might arise in any review of these drawings. o Moreover, we have since conducted an extensive review of the proposal package that was approved in June of 1980 and have reaffirmed that no systems furniture was involved in that particular exception; a GSA regional official has visited the facility and is satisfied that no systems furniture has been procured under the exception. Officials of the Department of Health and Human Services, including on-site officials at the new facility, have reaffirmed that no procurement of systems furniture was planned under the exception and that no systems furniture has been procured under that exception. 75-533 0-81-6 Senator CHILES. You state in your statement that there has been some unwarranted critical generalization concerning the adminis tration of discipline in GSA. Have you discussed that problem with the Inspector General's Office? Mr. FREEMAN. I have read his report. We have had several cases which I think were ineptly handled. However, the handling of those cases was used to damn the whole system, and I think that is not responsible. I don't think the system is bad. I think we have had some problems with it. I wasn't comfortable with the types of disciplinary actions that we proposed to take in some area, and we have since revised those. We have a new directive now which sets higher levels of punishment for various offenses. There have been several instances, as I mentioned, where I was not satisfied. But I am sure you are aware that in this day and age, with the Civil Service Reform Act, the Merit Systems Protection Board, I have little authority to step down at the first line supervisory level and direct discipline actions. Senator CHILES. Absolutely, but you set the policy for the overall shift. Mr. FREEMAN. I have set it, and I do set it. Senator CHILES. Well, when I read your statement, according to that statement, you are jumping upon anybody that is criticized that there hasn't been adequate discipline. Mr. FREEMAN. You haven't read the statement, Senator. That is in error. Senator CHILES. I did read it. Mr. FREEMAN. That isn't what I said. I reported on the disciplinary actions taken. You took the two things out of context. Senator CHILES. You know, on the one hand, you are very critical of someone that says that GSA is not handling its disciplinary actions correctly. Mr. FREEMAN. I said there were several instances where they had not been handled properly. Senator CHILES. There have been unwarranted critical generalizations concerning the administration of discipline in General Services Administration. Mr. FREEMAN. Yes, there have. Senator CHILES. If you make that statement and then make the statement that you don't step in the shoes of the supervisor, who is supposed to administer the discipline, if I am a supervisor, I am going to get the example, well everything is all right. The boss has said that he is critical of anybody that is fussing at us and so, he is not going to take my job; and then you say there are a couple of instances; I am looking at pages. Mr. FREEMAN. I don't understand what you are saying, Senator, at all. You are not even making sense. There have been several instances-— Senator CHILES. Just a minute. If I am not making senseMr. FREEMAN. I don't understand what you are saying. Senator CHILES. I want to clear that up for you. Mr. FREEMAN. Please do. Senator CHILES. Yes, sir. What I am saying is I think you have got a debacle in discipline at GSA. |