Datasets:

gtfintechlab
/

CoCoHD_transcripts

	<html>
	<title> - SERVICE ORIENTED STREAMLINING: RETHINKING THE WAY GSA DOES BUSINESS</title>
	<body><pre>
	[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
	[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]





	SERVICE ORIENTED STREAMLINING: RETHINKING THE WAY GSA DOES BUSINESS

	=======================================================================

	HEARING

	before the

	COMMITTEE ON
	GOVERNMENT REFORM

	HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

	ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

	FIRST SESSION

	__________

	MARCH 16, 2005

	__________

	Serial No. 109-11

	__________

	Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform


	Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
	http://www.house.gov/reform

	______

	U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
	20-379 WASHINGTON : 2005
	_____________________________________________________________________________
	For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
	Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
	Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001

	COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

	TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
	CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
	DAN BURTON, Indiana TOM LANTOS, California
	ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
	JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
	JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
	GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
	MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
	STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
	TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
	CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
	JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DIANE E. WATSON, California
	CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
	MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
	DARRELL E. ISSA, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
	GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
	JON C. PORTER, Nevada BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
	KENNY MARCHANT, Texas ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
	LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia Columbia
	PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina ------
	CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
	VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina (Independent)
	------ ------

	Melissa Wojciak, Staff Director
	David Marin, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director
	Rob Borden, Parliamentarian
	Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk
	Phil Barnett, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel


	C O N T E N T S

	----------
	Page
	Hearing held on March 16, 2005................................... 1
	Statement of:
	Hewitt, Thomas, CEO, Global Government, on behalf of the
	Information Technology Association of America; Vic
	Avetissian, Corporate Director, Northrop Grumman Corp., on
	behalf of the Contract Services Association; Mike Davison,
	director & general manager, Canon Government Marketing
	Division, Coalition for Government Procurement; Elaine
	Dauphin, vice president, GSA programs, Computer Sciences
	Corp., on behalf of the Professional Service Council; and
	Richard Brown, president, National Federation of Federal
	Employees.................................................. 51
	Avetissian, Vic.......................................... 60
	Brown, Richard........................................... 90
	Dauphin, Elaine.......................................... 84
	Davison, Mike............................................ 68
	Hewitt, Thomas........................................... 51
	Perry, Stephen, Administrator, U.S. General Services
	Administration, accompanied by Donna Bennett, Commissioner,
	Federal Supply Service; and Barbara Shelton, Acting
	Commissioner, Federal Technology Service; Deidre Lee,
	Director of Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy,
	U.S. Department of Defense; and Eugene Waszily, Assistant
	Inspector General for Auditing, U.S. General Services
	Administration............................................. 12
	Lee, Deidre.............................................. 31
	Perry, Stephen........................................... 12
	Waszily, Eugene.......................................... 31
	Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
	Avetissian, Vic, Corporate Director, Northrop Grumman Corp.,
	on behalf of the Contract Services Association, prepared
	statement of............................................... 62
	Brown, Richard, president, National Federation of Federal
	Employees, prepared statement of........................... 93
	Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., a Representative in Congress from
	the State of Maryland, prepared statement of............... 108
	Dauphin, Elaine, vice president, GSA programs, Computer
	Sciences Corp., on behalf of the Professional Service
	Council, prepared statement of............................. 86
	Davis, Chairman Tom, a Representative in Congress from the
	State of Virginia, prepared statement of................... 3
	Davison, Mike, director & general manager, Canon Government
	Marketing Division, Coalition for Government Procurement,
	prepared statement of...................................... 71
	Hewitt, Thomas, CEO, Global Government, on behalf of the
	Information Technology Association of America, prepared
	statement of............................................... 53
	Perry, Stephen, Administrator, U.S. General Services
	Administration, prepared statement of...................... 14
	Waszily, Eugene, Assistant Inspector General for Auditing,
	U.S. General Services Administration, prepared statement of 33
	Waxman, Hon. Henry A., a Representative in Congress from the
	State of California, prepared statement of................. 7


	SERVICE ORIENTED STREAMLINING: RETHINKING THE WAY GSA DOES BUSINESS

	----------


	WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16, 2005

	House of Representatives,
	Committee on Government Reform,
	Washington, DC.
	The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:21 a.m., in
	room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tom Davis
	(chairman of the committee) presiding.
	Present: Representatives Davis of Virginia, Shays,
	Gutknecht, Souder, Platts, Westmoreland, Foxx, Waxman,
	Cummings, Kucinich, Davis of Illinois, Watson, Lynch,
	Ruppersberger, Higgins, and Norton.
	Staff present: Ellen Brown, legislative director and senior
	policy counsel; Rob White, press secretary; Drew Crockett,
	deputy director of communications; Edward Kidd, professional
	staff member; John Brosnan, GAO detailee; Teresa Austin, chief
	clerk; Sarah D'Orsie, deputy clerk; Mark Stephenson, minority
	professional staff member; Earley Green, minority chief clerk;
	and Jean Gosa, minority assistant clerk.
	Chairman Tom Davis. The committee will come to order. Good
	morning, and welcome to the Government Reform Committee's
	oversight hearing on restructuring the General Services
	Administration's operations, particularly its Federal Supply
	Service [FSS], and the Federal Technology Service [FTS], in
	order to meet the demands of the modern government market and
	to address GSA's management challenges.
	GSA each year buys products and services from the private
	sector worth well over $30 billion and resells them to Federal
	agencies using the FTS and the FSS revolving funds. Under FSS,
	Federal agencies, and in some cases State and local
	governments, can deal directly with private sector vendors who
	make their products available on the FSS Schedule, which is
	managed by GSA. Under FTS, GSA plays a more active role by
	acting as a third party advisor for the Federal agency in
	acquiring telecommunications and information technology goods
	and services. Fees collected from customer agencies are the
	main source of funds for both programs.
	While the bifurcated system may have made sense two decades
	ago when IT investments were a relatively new phenomena,
	technologies such as laptop computers, cell phones, and e-mails
	are now as ubiquitous with office supplies as are desks and
	phones. Two separate buying organizations operating out of
	different funds has become a barrier to coordinate acquisition
	of services and the technology needed to support the total
	solutions agency customers demand. As a result, GSA's
	leadership, the Office of Management and Budget, and I have
	been looking into legislative and administrative options to
	consolidate FSS and FTS into a single entity operating out of a
	unified fund, providing Federal agencies with a one-stop shop
	to acquire all of their goods and services.
	Today's hearing will build on evidence developed in prior
	hearings held by the committee on structural and management
	changes facing GSA operations in today's market. Also key are
	recent revelations of contract management challenges in FTS
	exposed by GSA's Inspector General reports. Those reports
	reveal weaknesses in the GSA's management control over its far-
	flung regional offices.
	As the Government entity charged with providing best value
	solutions for customer agencies and taxpayers, I expect GSA to
	be compliant with applicable law, fiscally responsible, and
	responsive to concerns from both the private and public
	sectors. We expect GSA to lead the Government in the
	acquisition of solutions that capture the most current
	technology available in today's market. Along those lines, I
	want to commend GSA's recent efforts to generate in-house
	discussion about the most effective way to streamline its
	operations. I also want to commend GSA for proactively getting
	in front of some of the challenges facing the agencies that are
	identified in IG reports.
	I hope that through this hearing we will be able to get a
	clearer picture of how GSA is addressing its management
	challenges in the evolving technology marketplace. I intend to
	use the information we gather today along with some ideas of my
	own to craft a bill that will ensure that the structural
	reforms that we create are memorialized in GSA's organic
	legislation. I envision legislation that will amend title 40 of
	the U.S. Code to: meld the current General Supply and
	Information Technology Funds into a single Acquisition Services
	Fund that will combine the positive attributes of both of the
	current funds; create within GSA a single Federal Acquisition
	Service; provide for appointment and direct control by the
	Administrator of Regional Administrators; and establish
	Government-wide policies aimed at recruiting and retaining
	experienced acquisition staff in all Federal agencies whose
	mission will be to ensure that Federal acquisitions are as
	cost-effective as possible.
	In addition to our GSA witnesses, we will be hearing from
	Ms. Deidre Lee, representing the Department of Defense, GSA's
	largest agency customer. GSA's IG is also with us today to
	provide an update on their work in the regions. We will hear
	from a union representative. Finally, we will hear from private
	sector witnesses who work with GSA's FTS and FSS on a regular
	basis. We also invited Professor Steve Kelman of Harvard's
	Kennedy School of Government to appear, but he is unable to
	attend because of teaching obligations, but we have his
	statement available at the table.
	[The prepared statement of Chairman Tom Davis follows:]

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.001

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.002

	Chairman Tom Davis. I would now recognize the distinguished
	ranking member, Mr. Waxman, for his opening statement.
	Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Today's hearing on the Federal Technology Service and the
	Federal Supply Service will examine the proposed merger of
	these two components of the General Services Administration.
	One of the principal functions of the Government Reform
	Committee is to ensure that the Federal Government operates as
	effectively and efficiently as possible. The members of our
	committee take that responsibility very seriously, and this
	hearing will hopefully help us further that goal.
	I also want to thank the chairman for agreeing to include a
	number of witnesses suggested by the minority.
	The Federal Supply Service was created in 1949 to provide
	an economic and efficient system for the procurement and supply
	of goods and services to Federal agencies. One way it does this
	is through the Schedules Program which set up long-term
	Government-wide contracts with commercial firms for commercial
	goods and services that can be ordered directly from the
	contractor or through FSS. The Schedules Program provides
	customer agencies with benefits of volume discount pricing,
	lower administrative costs, and reduced inventories. It is a
	largely Washington-based self-service type of operation for
	Federal agencies.
	The Federal Telecommunications Service offers agencies a
	range of information technology and telecommunications products
	and services on a number of contract vehicles, including the
	Schedules run by FSS. Its focus is more oriented toward
	providing full-service solutions for IT telecommunication and
	professional services. FTS is also more regionally based, with
	offices dispersed throughout the country.
	Given the differing structure and goals of these two
	services, they don't necessarily seem like a natural fit to me.
	Other observers have cautioned that merging the two services
	could hurt the procurement of information technology because
	without a service exclusively dedicated to technology, there
	will be less emphasis on it.
	While I have kept an open mind on the question of
	restructuring GSA, I am somewhat troubled by the process by
	which it has been proposed. The President's budget includes
	language to merge the two services and the revolving funds
	under which they operate. Yet, I am unaware of any considered
	analysis having been done to demonstrate whether these two
	units should be merged in the first place. All of the
	discussion and now considerable effort going on at GSA is
	currently focused on how to merge the two services, and not
	whether they should be joined.
	Three years ago, GSA commissioned a study by an outside
	expert to look at duplication and overlap between FSS and FTS.
	The recommendations of that study led to a realignment of
	certain functions and duties between the two services. GSA has
	maintained that all of the recommendations of that study have
	in fact been addressed, so it is not even clear that
	duplication continues to exist.
	As I said, I will keep an open mind on the proposed merger,
	but I expect more detail and a much clearer explanation of the
	benefits of this proposed merger before I can wholeheartedly
	support it.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to hearing from our
	witnesses.
	[The prepared statement of Hon. Henry A. Waxman follows:]

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.003

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.004

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.005

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.006

	Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
	Members can have 7 days to submit opening statements for
	the record.
	Anyone else feel they need to make a statement now? Ms.
	Norton.
	Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I
	applaud you for looking closely at this proposed merger.
	I will be interested in looking at this merger in the way I
	think all moving blocks around ought to be viewed: first, in
	light of function and then whether structure fits function. I
	am interested in whether or not the merger follows a business
	model that plainly improves the functioning of both FTS and FSS
	as we now know it. I certainly buy the notion that purchasing
	personal technologies like laptops and cell phones has become
	more and more like purchasing personal services and products.
	But there is a big difference between purchasing technology and
	purchasing paper, and no consolidation will erase that. Indeed,
	if anything, purchasing various kinds of technologies become
	more and more highly specialized. Each year I know less about
	how to deal with new offerings.
	GSA, therefore, has to be understood for what it does, not
	only as a kind of third party that helps agencies to purchase.
	It has an important role in enabling agencies, particularly
	smaller agencies, to take advantage of somebody's advice before
	they go out into the market. I will be very interested to know
	how that function is going to continue. And, frankly, I could
	see a situation where we blog these things together, maybe for
	budget reasons--I am not sure that function has driven this--we
	blog them together and then after they were together, they
	essentially just aggregated anyway, based on the need for more
	and more expertise, especially in the technology sector.
	As always, if somebody is going to move parts of an agency
	around, the question for me is will the taxpayer benefit? Is
	there a functional benefit for the agency; will they do it
	better and will they do it cheaper?
	Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
	Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
	We will now recognize our first panel. We have the
	Honorable Steve Perry, the Administrator of the U.S. General
	Services Administration, accompanied by Ms. Donna Bennett, the
	Commissioner from the Federal Supply Service, and Barbara
	Shelton, the Acting Commissioner of the Federal Technology
	Service. Welcome.
	We have Ms. Deidre Lee, the Director of Defense Procurement
	and Acquisition Policy at the U.S. Department of Defense.
	Welcome back Dee.
	And Mr. Eugene Waszily, the Assistant Inspector General for
	Auditing, U.S. General Services Administration.
	It is our policy, as you know, that we swear you in before
	you testify, so if you would rise and raise your right hands.
	[Witnesses sworn.]
	Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Perry, we will start with you, and
	then move to Ms. Lee and Mr. Waszily. And if Ms. Bennett or
	Shelton, if you want to make a statement, fine, but I think you
	are here as much for questions as anything else. But feel free.
	Steve, we will start with you. Thanks for being here.
	Thanks for your leadership at GSA, as well.

	STATEMENTS OF STEPHEN PERRY, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. GENERAL
	SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, ACCOMPANIED BY DONNA BENNETT,
	COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL SUPPLY SERVICE; AND BARBARA SHELTON,
	ACTING COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL TECHNOLOGY SERVICE; DEIDRE LEE,
	DIRECTOR OF DEFENSE PROCUREMENT AND ACQUISITION POLICY, U.S.
	DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; AND EUGENE WASZILY, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR
	GENERAL FOR AUDITING, U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

	STATEMENT OF STEPHEN PERRY

	Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, members
	of the committee, we appreciate this invitation to discuss with
	you the subject of improving performance at GSA by reorganizing
	and consolidating our Federal Technology Service and our
	Federal Supply Service.
	We agree with the view that organizations like GSA, who
	desire to achieve high performance and continuous improvement
	should periodically review their operations and review their
	operational or organizational structures in order to identify
	and implement improvements where possible. We believe that
	there are in fact operations in FTS and FSS that can be
	accomplished more effectively, and that the current structures
	of those two organizations can be streamlined to improve our
	performance in meeting the needs of our customer agencies in
	terms of their requirements for excellent acquisition services
	and best value for the American taxpayer.
	Consequently, GSA is in the process, as you know, of
	developing a detailed action plan to accomplish the operational
	and structural changes necessary to reorganize and consolidate
	FTS and FSS. This action I think is in line with GSA's mission
	to provide best value services to Federal agencies; it is in
	line with principles outlined in the President's budget or
	management agenda to improve performance of all Federal
	agencies; and it is in line with this committee's commitment
	for efficiency and effectiveness in Federal Government
	operations.
	I would like to emphasize just a few points about our work.
	First, this initiative to reorganize and consolidate FSS and
	FTS is designed to strengthen GSA's capability to meet
	increasing Federal agency requirements for excellence in
	acquisition of information technology, telecommunications, and
	other products and services. As we all know, Federal agency
	procurements are increasing every year. Agencies must be able
	to continue to rely upon GSA to meet their increasing
	requirements for acquisition services in order to avoid the
	need for each of them to place more and more of their budgets
	into resources that duplicate the acquisition activities at
	each Federal agency throughout the Federal Government.
	Second, this initiative will make it easier for Federal
	agencies and for industry contracts to use GSA's acquisition
	processes. Our work will include extensive outreach efforts to
	obtain the input and collaboration of customer agencies and
	industry contractors.
	Third, we will enhance the efficiency of GSA's
	administrative support functions by consolidating certain
	accounting and operational systems activities that are now
	performed separately in both FSS and FTS. Reorganizing and
	consolidating these two services into one will break down
	artificial barriers to economies of scale.
	Another point is that the reorganization and consolidation
	work that we are discussing here today is now underway. A
	steering team and several task force teams of GSA managers and
	subject matter experts have begun their fact-based analysis to
	identify areas of opportunity and to develop specific proposed
	changes and solutions. These teams are scheduled to complete
	the first draft of their detailed reorganization/consolidation/
	implementation plan by May 31, and complete the final plan by
	July. This will enable the implementation to begin in the very
	near future.
	As you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, there will be one
	legislative change needed to enable GSA to significantly
	streamline the administrative and financial management aspects
	of FTS and FSS operations by combining what is now two separate
	funds, one the General Supply Fund and two the Information
	Technology Fund into a single fund. A separate Information
	Technology Fund which was established about 20 years ago for
	the acquisition of technology, telecommunications, and related
	products and services, which is separate from the General
	Supply Fund, which is used for the acquisition of other
	products and services. The technology IT fund is no longer
	useful, and having two funds are administratively burdensome.
	Separate funds are no longer useful primarily because the
	acquisition and the use of information technology and
	telecommunication products and services have evolved into the
	acquisition of a total solution, that is, a mix of information
	technology hardware and software combined with telecom and
	other professional services that may be outside of IT. To
	enable our recordkeeping systems to be consistent with this
	evolution and the marketplace, the President's budget for
	fiscal year 2006 calls on Congress to provide GSA with the
	authority necessary to combine the two funds into a single
	revolving fund.
	Last, it is important that while GSA associates implement
	the changes necessary to accomplish the reorganization and
	consolidation of FSS and FTS, we must not lose momentum in
	other important initiatives, including Networx, which, as you
	know, is the Government-wide telecommunications procurement;
	and our ``Get It Right'' plan, where GSA and DOD and other
	agencies are working together to achieve excellence in Federal
	acquisition while achieving full compliance with Federal
	acquisition regulations and best practices.
	Again, I would like to thank the committee for its support
	of GSA's performance improvement initiatives, and all of us
	look forward to working with you.
	[The prepared statement of Mr. Perry follows:]

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.007

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.008

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.009

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.010

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.011

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.012

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.013

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.014

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.015

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.016

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.017

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.018

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.019

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.020

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.021

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.022

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.023

	Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
	Dee, thanks for being with us.

	STATEMENT OF DEIDRE LEE

	Ms. Lee. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank
	you very much for having me here today as GSA's largest
	customer, I believe.
	As you know, the Department of Defense is the largest user
	of GSA Schedules and contracting service within both the
	Federal Supply Services and the Federal Technology Services. In
	fiscal year 2004 alone, FTS awarded over $6 billion on behalf
	of the Department of Defense for telecommunications,
	professional services, and information technology. DOD's use of
	FSS, Federal Supply Schedules, is even greater, with DOD
	spending approximately $7 billion on the Federal Supply
	Schedules last year.
	DOD receives quality support from GSA, and we expect that
	we will continue to receive that quality support however the
	reorganization is accomplished. And we will continue our mutual
	efforts toward improving acquisition.
	I would like to reaffirm DOD's commitment to working
	closely with Administrator Perry and the GSA team to improve
	our use of the Schedule contracts and to ensure that contracts
	awarded by GSA on behalf of DOD are proper and represent the
	best interest of the Government.
	And I would be happy to answer any questions.
	Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
	Mr. Waszily.

	STATEMENT OF EUGENE WASZILY

	Mr. Waszily. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the
	committee. I just have a few brief remarks to begin.
	We are firm supporters of merging the Federal Technology
	Fund with the General Supply Fund from a financial aspect. As
	Mr. Davis pointed out in his opening comments, there are far
	too many discussions about whether something is IT or non-IT,
	and it is ubiquitous throughout all of our operations, so we
	would like to eliminate that legislative barrier to the
	procurement activities. At the same time, we also see the
	possibility in the merger of the two services to provide some
	economies in the support activities underneath, although we are
	not strongly in favor of or opposed to the merger of the two
	organizations.
	But we are very strong in our belief that there are certain
	kinds of service and varying service offerings that are
	provided to the GSA customers to meet their specific needs, and
	that is what we would like to preserve. We do not particularly
	see that the service offerings of the Federal Technology
	Service are in direct competition with the Federal Supply
	Service. For the most part, we see the Federal Supply Service
	available for those clients who can define their requirement,
	it is well known and the contract is readily available to meet
	their procurement need. Those who need acquisition assistance
	or technical support, particularly in the technology area, we
	see that as the role of the Federal Technology Service.
	That said, there are really two points that I would like to
	make. One is that, as Mr. Davis raised, we have raised in our
	prior audit reports over the past few years some difficulties
	and some procurements that were not executed the way that we
	would like to see them occur. When I look at the program, I see
	three elements to it: customer service, helping the customer
	meet its mission, and then compliance with the rules,
	regulations, and economies in doing a sound procurement. It is
	only that last leg that we need to improve, and I particularly
	commend Administrator Perry and Ms. Lee for the ``Get It
	Right'' initiative. Our audits on a continuing basis have shown
	marked improvement over the last 2 years. We are heading in the
	right direction.
	That concludes my opening comments. Thank you.
	[The prepared statement of Mr. Waszily follows:]

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.024

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.025

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.026

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.027

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.028

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.029

	Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
	Let me start the questioning.
	Ms. Lee, let me just ask. I know that there is growing
	pressure, not from DOD, but particularly from the Senate, that
	DOD avoid using GSA contract vehicles in favor of internally
	awarded managed contracts. That policy not only I think could
	be harmful to GSA, but also to the Department, in that the
	contracts would have fewer vehicles on hand to meet their best
	needs. A, does that pressure also apply to like NASA SOUP, NIH,
	Interior, or is it aimed at just GSA? How much does the
	Department currently rely on GSA contract vehicles? And B,
	could the Department handle its critical mission without GSA's
	help?
	I don't want to put you on the spot, but----
	Ms. Lee. Mr. Davis, as you know, we are the largest
	customer and GSA does provide us good support. I do not think
	we could execute the Department's mission sharply without them.
	Now, it is not that we haven't had our issues. One of the
	things we are doing at the ``Get It Right'' campaign is making
	sure that our people, as DOD people--and that is technical
	folks as well as our contracting people, because some of the
	money goes directly to GSA--that we make sure they understand
	the proper use of these vehicles; and GSA has been a wonderful
	partner in making sure that they help us reinforce those
	requirements.
	At the same time, it is not only GSA that DOD spends
	money--we call them assisting agencies. So I do have a program
	in place where DOD representatives will be going around and
	visiting the other assisting agencies. That does include NASA
	SOUP, it includes the Department of Interior and some other
	agencies that provide assistance to Department of Defense. And
	we will be asking for the same staunch support that we have
	gotten from GSA in making sure we use these vehicles properly.
	But we will continue to use them.
	Chairman Tom Davis. And as you take a look at all of these
	different Schedules that are out there, is there any concern
	there may be a proliferation of Schedules and that maybe some
	of the agencies involved don't have the kind of background and
	oversight that GSA does in administering them? Have you run
	into that?
	Ms. Lee. There are a good number of Schedules. My biggest
	concern is that our people know what is out there, what is
	available, and how to use them properly. And I do think that in
	many cases obviously the best structured business arrangements
	or the ones that people are aware of are the ones that are
	getting a lot of use. So we are going to go around and visit
	with these assisting agencies and try to make sure we
	rationalize those and have a good understanding of what is
	available.
	Chairman Tom Davis. OK.
	Mr. Perry, your statement I think sets forth in some detail
	GSA's plans to accomplish the operational and structural
	changes needed to transform GSA's FTS and FSS, but I didn't
	hear anything about the regional structure. Now, as I
	understand it, GSA has 11 regional offices today. The
	acquisition management exercise by the various regional offices
	was what was really called into question in the IG reports. Are
	you considering any changes in the number of regional offices
	or their functions or their control exercised by the
	headquarters at this point? Is that part of your thinking?
	Mr. Perry. Well, obviously in a comprehensive study of this
	type everything is on the table. At the same time, I think it
	is important to remember that one of the functions that GSA
	carries out, separate from its technology and supply
	acquisition, is the management of facilities, some 8,300
	facilities around the country, either Government-owned
	buildings or leased facilities. The physical facilities in the
	field really require GSA to have a presence at those locations
	where our customers are, and I would say primarily to provide
	them with physical workspace and lease those spaces, as well as
	maintain them. As an adjunct to that, in some instances it
	makes it convenient, if you will, to be able to place FTS or
	FSS people at those same locations.
	I would also point out that while we have 11 regional
	offices, and we do have 11 client support centers that service
	technology acquisitions, in some of our FSS areas we provide
	those customer services in a zone, and that is we don't have an
	FSS operation in every single region. So as we look at this, we
	will view that with a particular eye toward how we can best
	deliver the services that customers need.
	Chairman Tom Davis. As you know, you have almost 4,000 GSA
	associates working both FTS and FSS. Are you involving them in
	your thoughts and in the process?
	Mr. Perry. Yes. At this stage, we are at an early stage,
	but we have established a steering team of GSA managers and
	subject matter experts. We are in the process of establishing a
	number of special task forces which will involve many, many
	more GSA associates; and we will continue to involve GSA
	associates. Our outreach will also extend outside of GSA to
	customer agencies and industry contractors. But all of those
	entities will be involved in the discussions.
	Chairman Tom Davis. I have additional questions, but my 5
	minutes are up. I am going to recognize Mr. Waxman.
	Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Mr. Perry, approximately 18 months ago this committee held
	a hearing on the realignment of certain duties between FTS and
	FSS. That hearing focused in part on a report done by Accenture
	for GSA on overlap and duplication between the two services,
	and recommendations for addressing that overlap. At that
	hearing you testified that you were pleased to announce that
	``each of those changes had been implemented and are fully
	operational.''
	Now, 18 months later, OMB and GSA have announced yet
	another major restructuring of FTS and FSS, so I am trying to
	gain an understanding of what prompted this push for a merger,
	Mr. Perry. Is there a senior level management review, a new
	business case scenario or other analysis or report that has not
	yet been made public that is driving this move toward a merger?
	Mr. Perry. Mr. Waxman, let me first comment on the report
	that was done some time ago. You are quite correct that what we
	looked at in that case was to see whether there were areas of
	what we called non-value-adding duplication that was occurring
	between the two that we could somehow eliminate by
	consolidating. And you are correct to point out that there were
	several areas that we found non-value-adding duplication that
	we have now combined, and I think quite successfully.
	The review that we have done more recently really looks at
	what are the various things that we might do to in fact expand
	our capability to meet the needs of our customer agencies.
	Mr. Waxman. So there has been another review?
	Mr. Perry. This was an internal management review, yes,
	just looking at the fact that many times we are not able to
	meet the needs of our customer agencies on a cycle time that
	they would require. I would even submit that some of our
	difficulties with respect to complying with Federal acquisition
	regulations was a result of workload and a result of not being
	able to focus to the extent we needed to on processing customer
	requests.
	Mr. Waxman. Let me ask you this. The senior level
	management review that you are referring to, may we have a copy
	of that?
	Mr. Perry. It is not a document, it is a series of
	discussions, starting with brainstorming, managerial
	discussions about what we might do, what options we might take
	into account. We are continuing that now under the auspices of
	a more formalized steering team and task force.
	Mr. Waxman. Thank you. The proposed merger was announced in
	the President's proposed budget for fiscal year 2006. Mr.
	Perry, who made the decision to press for a merger? Chairman
	Davis seems to be a proponent of the idea, but did this idea
	develop internally at GSA from FTS and FSS, or is it being
	driven from above?
	Mr. Perry. Mr. Waxman, I think I would have to answer the
	question all of the above. Certainly, we have heard from this
	committee and its chairman that this would be an area of
	interest, and there was a review that was done by the people at
	OMB, taking a close look at our budget, looking at some of our
	offices that appeared to them to be duplicative, and they
	brought that to our attention at the same time that we were
	looking at it to see whether we would drive toward a
	resolution.
	Mr. Waxman. I want to ask Ms. Lee and Mr. Waszily do either
	of you have any additional insight or information regarding
	what is driving the merger proposal?
	Ms. Lee. I am aware that there was some language in GSA's
	bill, but I don't know the origin of that.
	Mr. Waxman. Thank you.
	Mr. Waszily.
	Mr. Waszily. No, sir, I am not.
	Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much for your testimony.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Gutknecht.
	Mr. Gutknecht. Mr. Chairman, I would just say, if it is a
	good idea, I would be happy to take credit for it. You can
	share it with the administration. If it is a good idea, it is a
	good idea.
	I don't have any other questions, Mr. Chairman, though, so
	I would yield my 5 minutes back to you.
	Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you.
	Mr. Perry, the trend in government acquisition is toward
	more complex services and fewer products. How will the new
	combined Acquisition Services Fund help GSA better manage this
	trend?
	Mr. Perry. Well, let me just emphasize that this
	consolidation, reorganization, merger, whatever term we apply
	to it, is not a homogenization; it is not taking all of the
	acquisition activities we do today and spreading them paper
	thin in a homogenization sort of way so that we are not
	specialized to any extent. We will continue to have our
	business lines; we will continue to have areas of
	specialization. There will be part of the GSA organization with
	people who have the skills and competencies to particularly
	address very complex information technology or telecom
	acquisitions. Other areas will address the less complicated
	areas such as the acquisition of general supplies.
	But while those business lines would be separate so that
	there would be a proper focus on the customers and on the
	products and services involved, the overall management of it
	could be the same. That is the difference that we are making
	here.
	The other area of difference is that the support services
	that are provided to these business lines--today, for example,
	we have accounting happening in each of the services
	separately. We have the administration of the computer systems
	happening separately in two different organizations.
	Oftentimes, they come up with similar proposals. For example,
	some years ago both FSS and FTS had invested in developing a
	customer relationship management software. They were actually
	purchased from the same company, but they were two separate
	systems that did not work together.
	Now, one would argue that shouldn't happen, whether you are
	a separate organization or a combined organization. But in this
	case of having a combined management, we will be able to do a
	much better job of taking those kinds of opportunities and
	addressing them GSA-wide, as opposed to each service having to
	do its own. With the consolidation of the two funds, there will
	be even more opportunities for the financial operations and the
	systems operations to be combined or operated in a more
	efficient way.
	Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you.
	Let me just ask Mr. Waszily do you think that the
	reorganization efforts will impact ongoing GSA operations like
	Networx?
	Mr. Waszily. Networx I really don't know that much about,
	sir, so I can't comment on that.
	Chairman Tom Davis. OK.
	Mr. Waszily. As I was talking earlier, our particular
	concern going forward, as Mr. Perry was highlighting, our
	concern is the key functions and the key capabilities of GSA be
	retained. The structure, our sense of it the structure should
	be driven by the customer requirements. Certain activities need
	to be very close to the customer and there is constant contact;
	there are other activities that I think, once they are looked
	at, could probably be consolidated and perhaps be operated out
	of one specific point to cover worldwide. I think that customer
	requirements formulate the strategy and then the structure
	should fall from those two elements.
	Chairman Tom Davis. You note that you strongly favor the
	merger of the technology and supply funds.
	Mr. Waszily. Certainly the funds itself. We ran into, when
	we were conducting our audits, a lot of these issues; was this
	an IT purchase or wasn't it, and we started calling it the
	hanging chad issue. And we don't think that is really a good
	debate. The debate is whether or not we are making a sound
	procurement and it is getting to satisfy the mission in the
	most cost-effective and timely manner.
	Chairman Tom Davis. Now, you also indicate that it is
	important for the GSA to have a regional structure because you
	need to be close to the customers, the same thing that Mr.
	Perry said. Audit reports from your office showed acquisition
	mismanagement in most of these regions. What do you attribute
	that to and how do we solve that?
	Mr. Waszily. Yes, sir. That is a very good point. I think
	the one thing we are talking about here as far as structure and
	design of the agency, we are really talking the strategic. Most
	of the issues that we were reporting on regarding the
	deficiencies in procurement I would label as the tactical. To
	use sort of the football coach's vernacular, we need to go back
	to the basics, and we really need to do solid procurements.
	There were some lapses. A lot of the buildup, particularly in
	the FTS service programs, began in the 1998-1999 period. I
	think a little bit of that fever of the ``new economy'' sort of
	spilled into the program, and in many ways the program was so
	successful that it got ahead of itself. And I think it grew so
	large that it just didn't have the chance to catch up with the
	controls.
	As I mentioned, we have been doing a review of the program
	about every 6 months, and each successive review is showing
	continuing improvement.
	Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
	Mr. Lynch, did you want to say anything? I think Ms. Watson
	was next.
	Mr. Lynch. Oh, all right.
	Chairman Tom Davis. And what I was going to do, we are
	going to have a series of votes that is going to take about a
	half hour.
	Ms. Watson. This comment and question goes to----
	Chairman Tom Davis. Just a minute. Just a minute, Ms.
	Watson.
	What I was going to suggest is I will let Ms. Watson move
	ahead with her questions. If we have time for Mr. Lynch to get
	a question or two in, then I will turn it over to Ms. Norton,
	who can ask her questions. And at the end of that you can
	dismiss this group.
	Rarely do I turn this chair over to Ms. Norton. I hope she
	won't abuse it, but we have a pretty good relationship. But I
	think that way we will try to dismiss you and not keep you
	around.
	Go ahead.
	Ms. Watson. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And I will
	take my answer in writing.
	Chairman Tom Davis. OK.
	Ms. Watson. And then we can move ahead quicker.
	But this Committee on Government Reform examines the
	financial and performance management practice at Federal
	departments and Defense, and we plan to review the financial
	management at the Department of Defense, Homeland Security, and
	it goes on.
	This question is directed toward Ms. Lee. I would like to
	know, in seeking services and seeking contracts, do you always
	go out to bid, or do you make these decisions within the
	Department of Defense, and do you make them transparent? What I
	am seeking, do you always go out to bid or do you make a
	decision; and, if so, what is it based on? The bidding process
	gives a chance for several different businesses to have their
	services compared.
	And then I wanted to ask what is the relationship, then, to
	GSA, since you seem to operate independently at times. I just
	want to know what the practices are.
	You can put that in writing to me, since we have a call to
	the floor. And then you might want to consult with Mr. Perry
	and combine the response.
	Thank you so very much.
	Chairman Tom Davis. That will be fine. Thank you very much.
	Mr. Lynch.
	Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	I want to thank the panel as well for helping the committee
	with its work.
	Just from a customer standpoint, I am a firm believer that
	GSA needs to reform, so I might be out of step with some of my
	Democratic colleagues in that respect. But I definitely believe
	GSA is in need of reform. And that is just from me as a
	customer of GSA.
	What I would like to just ask of any of the panelists, and
	especially of Mr. Waszily, the statement here in your testimony
	regarding the organizational structure of GSA with respect to
	the proposed merger, it says what we would caution against is a
	structure popular among some conglomerate corporations in the
	1970's and shown over time to be ineffective. By this we mean a
	unified structure centrally controlled, rigidly imposing the
	same structure upon each of its business units and measuring
	them by the same set of metrics. That is what we want to
	caution against.
	But isn't that what we have right now? Isn't that what we
	have with GSA, a bureaucracy that largely reflects organization
	of times past and not necessarily reflective of modern
	technology and the needs of the customer?
	Mr. Waszily. Well, sir, I think we can certainly streamline
	what we have right now. What we were suggesting to guard
	against, we look at three major supply and acquisition
	structures that we have within GSA right now. We have the
	Multiple Award Schedules, one of our largest programs that is
	pretty much the customers can come in, tap into the program,
	and place their own orders. FSS is willing to help them and has
	come up with some innovative solutions, but they can also use
	it as a self-service vehicle. We also have the Global Supply
	system, which is a ready supply to move anywhere in the world
	on critical items. That type of system is different, it has a
	different set of metrics than does the Schedules program. And
	then we have the FTS programs, which are sort of, if you will,
	cradle-to-grave type of acquisition services, particularly in
	the technology area.
	And what we were suggesting was that we believe that we
	need to preserve those three types of programs, and they should
	be evaluated as standalone programs, because one set of metrics
	for all three of them would probably lead to misleading
	results. For example, the supply operation, dollar for dollar,
	costs more to maintain than say the General Supply Schedule and
	the Multiple Awards.
	Mr. Lynch. I know we are short on time here. Again in your
	testimony, sir, you reflect the fact that the dollar amount of
	sales has increased dramatically over the last few years, and
	that is some sign of success. I am not sure I buy into that
	rather simple reasoning.
	More to my point, has there been any diagnostic conducted
	by GSA to see what the attitudes and what the perceptions of
	your customers are regarding the services that they receive
	from GSA? Is there something really that goes out to your
	customer that says how do you think we are doing?
	Mr. Perry. Yes. If I may answer that question, sir.
	Mr. Lynch. Sure.
	Mr. Perry. We definitely do that. We do that on an annual
	basis in all of our service areas. We do a number of things.
	First of all----
	Mr. Lynch. I have never received one, and I would love to
	give my opinion of what I think GSA is doing for their
	customers, and I am just completely unaware of that.
	Mr. Perry. Then we will definitely do that.
	We ask very specific questions of people who are in GSA
	facilities or people who order GSA supplies or services what is
	the level of satisfaction they have with our service levels and
	suggestions that they have for our improvement, and we followup
	with each of those customers to make sure that is happening.
	Our customer satisfaction levels are not where we want them to
	be, but they are increasing annually. We do that.
	In addition, we have a number of structured reports--we
	just completed one recently--where we use a third-party. We use
	various third parties, but a different entity did this review
	for us, having more interviews. Instead of a paper survey, we
	used an interview situation with customers to understand where
	we are meeting their expectations and where we are not.
	Aside from those kinds of assessments, we also conduct what
	we call customer service visits, where either people from our
	national office or people from our regional offices meet with
	customers, their management teams, and we go through the
	spectrum of services we are providing for them today, have them
	identify for us where, again, we are meeting their
	expectations, where we are not. Most importantly, in those kind
	of discussions we talk about items that are on the horizon,
	strategic directions in which they are moving where they will
	need our assistance to acquire technology, what have you.
	And based on those customer service visits, we develop
	individual customer account management plans or actions plans
	that talk about what services we are going to deliver and who
	is responsible to do what by when. So that gives us a much
	better opportunity to focus in on individual customer needs and
	have customers hold us accountable for meeting them.
	Mr. Lynch. Well, I appreciate that. I just wish that the
	Members of Congress were part of that survey group that you
	reach out to, because we are actually elected by the taxpayers.
	We have a special status and a different perspective in
	representing taxpayers, so we might have some useful input into
	how you are doing your job, how efficient and how responsive
	GSA is operating, not only with respect to us, but also to your
	customer base as well, your other customer base.
	I am going to yield back to Ms. Norton, if that is all
	right. Thank you.
	Thank you, I appreciate it.
	Ms. Norton [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Lynch.
	The chairman has generously allowed as how I might want to
	sit in his chair, but I decided not to do it, because if I got
	used to it, I might do a sit-in.
	This hearing is able to go forward for a reason that none
	of us should be proud of: we are not just saving time; I get to
	vote in this committee, I don't get to vote on the House floor,
	so I get to save the committee some time. Anyway, I am glad
	that I am useful at least in that respect.
	Before I ask a few questions to you, Mr. Perry, I would
	like to get on the record the Southeast Federal Center Plan. As
	you know, one of the most important things that another
	committee on which I serve where you report has been the
	breakthrough that the Southeast Federal Center Plan offers as a
	way to use Government profit to the greater benefit of the
	Government and return to the Federal Government. For months now
	we have been waiting for that plan, and it has been like
	waiting for Goudeau. It is coming, it is coming. Then we were
	told it is on the Administrator's desk. Yesterday we were told
	it was actually in the mail. So I said, well, fine, ask the
	Administrator to bring me a copy, and he can hand-deliver it.
	Since the plan has to be sent back to Congress before it is
	signed and finalized, could you tell me exactly where the
	Southeast Federal Center Plan is now as we speak, and could you
	give me a date? I won't ask you for a time, but I do want a
	date when it will be to the committee.
	Mr. Perry. Let me first say, madam, that the work that you
	did in sponsoring that legislation is notable, and we support
	it wholeheartedly. I saw the work that our National Capital
	Region folks and our outside developers did with respect to
	that plan some weeks ago, to be quite candid. I would have
	guessed that it had been delivered to you by now. I know that I
	signed off on it because I felt that it was very quality work.
	I have to admit to you I don't know what final checking had to
	be done----
	Ms. Norton. Who is above you, Mr. Perry? I thought you
	were--the legislation says after the Administrator has signed
	it, it shall be delivered to the Congress of the United States.
	Mr. Perry. Right. And we should be doing just that. I don't
	know. I can't sit here and tell you that I have the answer as
	to why it didn't happen as expected in that case, but I already
	talked to my chief of staff after you brought it to my
	attention this morning, and we are working on getting it to you
	as quickly as that can be done.
	Ms. Norton. Well, will you remind your chief of staff, or
	the OMB, or whoever has a hold of it, that the legislation says
	that after you sign off on the plan, and you now have, that it
	shall be delivered to the Congress, and not to anybody else?
	Mr. Perry. I certainly will.
	Ms. Norton. Thank you very much.
	As I noted, because of my own experiences in the Federal
	Government, I approach with some skepticism structure driving
	change. I think change ought to drive structure. And I say that
	because it was my burden to run an agency that had to be
	completely overhauled, the Equal Employment Opportunity
	Commission under President Carter. It was completely collapsed.
	And the first thing to think about, of course, is since
	obviously a new structure was needed, let us build this
	structure. We were very much afraid to do it that way because
	it had a backlog. So we wanted to do things like look at what
	is the cause of the backlog; what kind of system will keep a
	new backlog from forming.
	Out of that did come some structural changes. For example,
	the lawyers and the investigators were not in the same office.
	But only after we did that kind of analysis. This is going to
	be the import of my questions.
	Mr. Waszily talked about some duplication, duplication of
	administrative services. One wonders why, after so many years,
	that continued. Certainly the duplication, all kinds of
	duplication that you begin with in trying to bring change,
	whether or not through wholesale consolidation.
	I must conclude that the Getting it Right project didn't
	get it right enough. But I would have thought that is exactly
	what it did, it would take things that were duplicative--and
	administrative services is the most service--put them together,
	and then see whether or not the underlying services needed also
	to be changed. Is that what Getting it Right did, or what in
	the world did ``Get It Right'' that wasn't right enough do?
	Mr. Perry. Well, I think your description of how this
	should happen is a good description of how it is happening or
	has happened, that is, that structure isn't driving change,
	change is driving the structure. As we have done some of our
	work, even prior to what is called the ``Get It Right''
	initiative, we could see that we were not, as I said earlier,
	meeting the requirements of our customer agencies. While our
	customer satisfaction rates are relatively high and increasing,
	they will tell you, including DOD will tell you, that we don't
	meet their expectations with respect to cycle time; we
	certainly did not meet their expectations with respect to
	compliance with acquisition regulations and documenting our
	files. Much of what we did----
	Ms. Norton. And that had to do with the fact that FSS and
	FTS were separate?
	Mr. Perry. It had to do with the fact that we had a method
	of operation which was not ultimately efficient. So what we are
	trying to do now is to say if you step back from that and say
	we are not meeting our expectations of our customers or our own
	expectations that we have for ourselves, what are some of the
	things that we might do in order to build our organizational
	capability to do a bigger, better job, to meet this oncoming
	need of increasing acquisition requirements? Among those
	things, one is to ask ourselves why do we have these two
	separate operations? What is the value that they are deriving?
	If we exploit the synergies that exist in those two separate
	operations and operate them as one, will we be able to
	accomplish more?
	So the reason I hesitate to use the term merger, which the
	chairman and others have used, is that typically the
	connotation in a merger situation is one where you have two
	organizations and the demand for services of those two
	organizations exceed their total capability, so you merge them
	and shed your excess capacity to match up capacity with demand.
	Our situation is different. We actually have more demand than
	we can handle at GSA as a whole. As a result, some agencies
	have to go elsewhere or do it themselves in terms of
	acquisition activities. We think that is wasteful from a total
	Government point of view.
	Our effort is to try to bring things together so that we
	actually increase our capacity or our capability to do more,
	and the reason for doing this is primarily driven by that
	reason.
	Ms. Norton. Well, increasing your capacity means that
	somehow the agency will have greater capacity simply by
	structure?
	Mr. Perry. Well, by the assignment of people, as opposed to
	having, as we do today, certain people in the global supply
	business calling on customers with respect to providing them
	with certain products and services, certain other people in
	commercial acquisition, to some extent, doing the same thing.
	We are saying aren't there ways in which we can exploit those
	synergies and find a way to do things on time and do it better,
	without any diminution of services, in fact, with an
	improvement in services?
	Ms. Norton. You have made something of a business case,
	which is of course what I was looking for. And perhaps you
	could provide this for the record, examples of improvements
	from agencies' point of view would be just very useful for me
	to have. I don't know if Ms. Lee has examples of how going
	somehow to a consolidated GSA, FSS, FTS would help or not, but
	that is what I am lacking now.
	Do you have examples?
	Ms. Lee. No, ma'am. Specific examples. One of the things
	that we hear, and it is very anecdotal, is that people get good
	service from FTS, so in some cases where they could have gone
	directly to the Federal Supply Schedule, which is a different
	rate of cost to the agency to use, they go to FTS because that
	is the people they know. So perhaps if Administrator Perry
	finds that is a good solution, then you could still go to the
	same service and they could direct the customer a little bit
	more clearly as to where they should attain their acquisition
	support. That is the kind of example that I have heard.
	Ms. Norton. Ms. Shelton, did you have an example you wanted
	to give?
	Ms. Shelton. I was just thinking that a couple of years ago
	I was a customer. Although I was a regional administrator in
	Philadelphia, I was a customer for both FTS and FSS. I was
	having a conference room redone; I needed furniture and I
	needed video teleconferencing equipment. I had to have a number
	of what I thought were extraneous meetings because the
	furniture is handled by FSS and the video conference equipment
	is handled by FTS. Because of the two different funding
	streams, I had to have accounting people who understood the FSS
	accounting and people who understood the FTS accounting. So
	just for me----
	Ms. Norton. And there is going to be one accounting stream
	now.
	Ms. Shelton. There will be only one accounting stream once
	we get done. And I think that will help our customers, because
	they won't have to spend as much of their time trying to
	understand how GSA operates.
	Ms. Norton. What would be the impact on small businesses
	who are perhaps more reliant on GSA's advice and counsel?
	Mr. Perry. I don't think the reorganization would have any
	adverse impact or any direct impact. We will still have to meet
	our obligations in those areas, and we will continue to do that
	no matter how we are organized.
	Ms. Norton. How does consolidation advance the Government's
	interest in having many choices? Won't there be fewer choices
	of products, of services if there is consolidation?
	Mr. Perry. No, I would suggest there won't be any change in
	the number of sources. For example, the type of thing comes up,
	as you are very familiar with, the Networx contract. Agencies
	could buy certain IT products through Networx if they chose to,
	because those companies could provide that, although Networx is
	primarily a telecommunications contract. We have another
	contract that is called Alliant, where agencies could buy and
	should buy their IT through that one.
	So we will still have those multiple contracts. We will
	obviously try to rationalize them so they are not overly
	duplicative and wasteful and provide a degree of choice that is
	not even what customers want. But this change does not impact
	the breath of offerings that we would provide to our customer
	agencies.
	Ms. Norton. We have had a hearing on the Networx contract,
	and you face a great challenge with respect to that contract
	alone. Does consolidation enhance or at this time complicate
	what you have to do with Networx alone? And now Networx is part
	of a merged or consolidated organization.
	Mr. Perry. Well, that is a very fair point, and one of the
	points I refer to in my remarks is those kinds of initiatives
	that we have underway, like Networx, we just absolutely have to
	make sure that we continue to devote the management time and
	other resources to that so that we don't have any missteps. And
	we believe that we can do that, we can in fact accomplish this
	initiative while at the same time continuing a successful
	Networx procurement.
	Ms. Norton. One final question. I am trying to figure out
	what ``Get It Right'' tried to do and failed to do that led to
	your testimony today that consolidation should take place.
	Mr. Perry. Well, not surprisingly, I wouldn't characterize
	it as ``Get It Right'' failed to do. I would say this is a
	``Get It Right'' initiative. This is an outgrowth of the ``Get
	It Right'' direction. The ``Get It Right'' direction was----
	Ms. Norton. Well, wasn't the ``Get It Right'' direction
	supposed to, in fact, get it right so that nothing more was
	needed, or did you always contemplate that there would be
	consolidation?
	Mr. Perry. Well, the ``Get It Right'' was a drive to make
	sure that we were complying with Federal acquisition
	regulations, primarily. That was the first thing. The second
	part of it was that we were also using best practices with
	respect to any acquisition. But at the same time, or another
	element of ``Get It Right'' is to make sure that we were
	providing customer agencies with the products and services they
	need on a cycle time that they found to be acceptable. So this
	is an effort to improve in that area.
	I think as the audit reports are showing, that in terms of
	documenting our price evaluations and documenting sole source
	or have documenting competition, all of those steps with
	respect to our ``Get It Right'' efforts, those are happening,
	and they are happening better and better each time they are
	assessed.
	On the issue of are we improving our cycle times, are we
	putting agencies in lease space within X number of days of
	their requests, are we completing an information technology
	acquisition within X number of days of the customer's request,
	those kinds of things are a part of what we are addressing by
	improving our organizational capability. So, in my mind, it is
	really an extension or another step in the overall ``Get It
	Right'' process.
	Ms. Norton. Mr. Perry and the other witnesses, I am
	certainly not opposed to consolidation. In fact, efficiencies
	of scale I find very appealing. I do think that they are
	difficult, and that there is a burden in a consolidation to be
	driven by not only cost, but by improved customer service and
	greater efficiency. When all is said and done, that is what you
	have to look at. You have to look to see if all of these things
	got improved. You may find that you saved a lot of money and
	the customers aren't faring as well, or you may find it costs
	you more money now that you have a consolidated operation, even
	though you have less duplication.
	The efficiency, or shall I say the inefficiency of running
	a larger organization is often underestimated, and I hope that
	as you look through these task forces at what should occur
	next, you bear all of that in mind.
	I very much appreciate what was very helpful testimony, and
	we are recessed until the full committee returns. Thank you
	very much.
	[Recess.]
	Chairman Tom Davis [presiding]. Thank you for everybody's
	forbearance here.
	We have our second panel. We have Mr. Tom Hewitt--welcome,
	Tom--the CEO of Global Government, on behalf of the Information
	Technology Association of America; Vic Avetissian, the
	Corporate Director of Northrop Grumman, on behalf of the
	Contract Services Association; Mr. Mike Davison, Director and
	General Manager, Canon Government Marketing Division, on behalf
	of the Coalition for Government Procurement; we have Elaine
	Dauphin, who is the vice president of GSA Programs, Computer
	Science Corp., on behalf of the Professional Service Council;
	and we have Richard Brown, the National Federation of Federal
	Employees [NFFE] accompanied by Jack Hanly, who is the council
	president of NFFE.
	And we very much appreciate everybody being here.
	As you know, it is our policy we swear everybody in before
	you testify, so if you would raise your right hands and rise
	with me.
	[Witnesses sworn.]
	Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Hewitt, we will start with you.
	Thank you.

	STATEMENTS OF THOMAS HEWITT, CEO, GLOBAL GOVERNMENT, ON BEHALF
	OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA; VIC
	AVETISSIAN, CORPORATE DIRECTOR, NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORP., ON
	BEHALF OF THE CONTRACT SERVICES ASSOCIATION; MIKE DAVISON,
	DIRECTOR & GENERAL MANAGER, CANON GOVERNMENT MARKETING
	DIVISION, COALITION FOR GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT; ELAINE DAUPHIN,
	VICE PRESIDENT, GSA PROGRAMS, COMPUTER SCIENCES CORP., ON
	BEHALF OF THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICE COUNCIL; AND RICHARD BROWN,
	PRESIDENT, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

	STATEMENT OF THOMAS HEWITT

	Mr. Hewitt. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am
	pleased to be here today to testify regarding the potential
	reorganization of GSA.
	Mr. Hewitt. I am here today representing members of ITAA,
	the Information Technology Association, as Chairman of its
	newly created Government Advisory Board. ITAA is particularly
	interested in the restructuring of GSA since the ITAA member
	companies are heavily involved in FTS and FSS programs.
	My comments today are based on my 40 years of experience in
	the Federal procurement business. In addition, I am
	representing the members of the ITAA Government Advisory Board,
	which is composed of retired ITAA executives who had senior
	level responsibilities in major IT firms or the Government.
	This Board was created to serve as an industry advisory group
	to both industry and government.
	Earlier this year, in an interview with Federal Computer
	Week, Chairman Davis was quoted as saying, ``GSA is not that
	badly run when you compare it with other agencies. But GSA
	needs to be setting the example and leading the way.'' ITAA
	could not agree more. In fact, ITAA commends GSA on the role it
	has played in modernizing the Federal Government's procurement
	vehicles, the techniques, and the leadership it has provided
	Government-wide in the management of IT contracts,
	telecommunications, and many products and services used by the
	Federal agencies. ITAA encourages the GSA and the committee to
	adopt three principles as it embarks on this important effort
	of restructuring GSA.
	First, although ITAA recognizes that GSA is a Government
	organization operating in a political environment, ITAA
	recommends that GSA take a step back and revalidate its
	customer-focused business model. This effort should be
	undertaken by a representative body comprised of customers,
	industry, and the experienced GSA staff who represent the
	totality of the current and the to-be-defined organization.
	Second, GSA's reorganization approach should establish
	business metrics or goals for measuring accomplishments
	appropriate to the business model and the customers, consistent
	with best practices outcomes.
	Third, finally, ITAA believes that the restructuring should
	focus on establishing direct lines of authority and
	responsibility, complementing the business model that assigns
	accountability for the execution and the success of the
	business model.
	GSA consists of numerous organizations that together act as
	a catalyst for nearly $66 billion in Federal spending, an
	annual budget of over $16 billion, 13,000 employees.
	Organizations of this size and scope must approach any
	reorganization carefully and with an open mind. Private sector
	companies of similar size would generally approach a
	reorganization effort as a performance-based exercise. That is,
	the company would first examine its business model, ensure that
	it is accurately defining its customers' needs, and then design
	processes and reporting channels to fit around that model.
	ITAA recommends the restructuring of GSA be based on a
	similar performance-based approach, beginning with a thorough
	review of its customers' needs. This approach would allow GSA
	to examine the way in which the procurement world has changed
	and develop a business model to better fit the Federal
	Government's needs.
	ITAA therefore believes that the committee should ensure
	that GSA is devoting the right type and amount of resources to
	that effort. For instance, Administrator Perry recently
	announced the members of a steering committee that will oversee
	three task forces to develop recommendations for merging two of
	GSA's three service units. At this point in time, there is no
	indication that those task forces will be broadened to include
	any representatives from outside of GSA.
	While ITAA applauds the creation of the steering committee
	and the accompanying task forces, it is concerned that these
	bodies will not provide diverse points of view that are
	imperative for a successful reorganization effort. Thus, ITAA
	recommends that the steering committee and accompanying task
	forces be expanded to include members of other Government
	agencies, the GSA customer base, members of the private sector,
	and GSA's vendor base. These additional participants should be
	invited to contribute to the steering committee's deliberations
	from the beginning, rather than simply comment post hoc on the
	recommendations developed by an internal steering committee.
	ITAA believes that the important functions performed by FTS
	should be well represented in the organization discussions. If
	this is not possible, ITAA alternatively recommends that GSA
	establish a customer and industry advisory group to assist
	Administrator Perry and the steering committee as they develop
	approaches to the reorganization of GSA.
	In conclusion, ITAA supports the committee's desire to
	restructure the management and operations functions of GSA.
	ITAA would be pleased to provide resources and industry
	expertise to this important undertaking.
	I would be pleased to respond to any questions.
	[The prepared statement of Mr. Hewitt follows:]

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.030

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.031

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.032

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.033

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.034

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.035

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.036

	Ms. Norton [presiding]. Thank you very much, Mr. Hewitt.
	Yes, Mr. Avetissian.

	STATEMENT OF VIC AVETISSIAN

	Mr. Avetissian. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
	thank you for this opportunity to testify on the ways to
	improve GSA's operation. My name is Vic Avetissian of Northrop
	Grumman Corp., and I am here today on behalf of Contract
	Services Association of America, but I serve as Chair of the
	Association's Public Policy Council.
	Now in its 40th year, CSA is the Nation's oldest and
	largest association of Federal services contractors,
	representing a wide diversity of more than 200 firms that do
	over $40 billion annually in Government contracts and employ
	nearly 500,000 workers with nearly two-thirds of them being
	private sector union labor.
	Let me start by stressing, Mr. Chairman and members of the
	committee, that what we must first and foremost ask ourselves
	today is what is good for America and for U.S. taxpayers. In my
	view, what is good for America is the opportunity to capitalize
	on the agility and innovation that the private sector offers to
	the Government. The private sector brings the best value to the
	table, which in some cases may be more expensive initially, but
	always is less costly in the long run.
	What we should be focused on is allying industry and
	Government to work as a partner, bringing continued improvement
	to the procurement process to support our warfighters and the
	U.S. taxpayers. A few missteps along the way should not cause
	us to dismantle the gains we have made to date. We should not
	throw out the baby with the bath water.
	With that said, let me suggest that any review of GSA
	operation should not be about simply moving organizational
	boxes or chairs. Instead, GSA should need to consider the
	following steps, in my opinion.
	First, GSA should determine what is the customer services
	needs and the business model that will be needed to support it?
	To achieve this, GSA should ask for and rely upon the input and
	insight from their customers and private industry. Such a
	performance-based review would facilitate GSA's acting more as
	a commercial business rather than typical Government entity.
	Second, GSA should establish the business processes,
	business systems, policies and procedures, internal control and
	oversight that must be put in place to make the agreed upon
	business model work.
	These steps are critical to success of GSA becoming the
	preferred provider for commercial services to all Federal
	agencies.
	Now I would like to speak to the use of Schedules. I have
	detailed several specific areas of concern in my written
	statement, let me just speak to a few of those.
	We should consider whether the services on the Schedules
	are truly commercial in nature, as they are supposed to be. If
	they are not, then perhaps those services should be subject to
	separate contract vehicles involving specific capabilities and
	technical requirements.
	This leads me to suggest that we should consider the
	feasibility of consolidating all individual agency Schedules
	under the jurisdiction of GSA. This could provide uniform
	internal control and oversight of Schedule use. Perhaps the
	recent problems could have been avoided if there were uniform
	internal management control and oversight.
	The only stumbling block I see to such a consolidation is
	that, even with the GSA, some of the regional offices appear
	not to be in sync with the overall GSA policy and guidance,
	especially as it relates to common practices in awarding and
	managing Schedule contracts.
	I would recommend that it would be more effective if all
	the regional offices were coordinated under the auspices of a
	headquarter office, which currently it is not. This would
	ensure that the regional offices operate under the consistent
	rule and guidance, and not as a lone ranger.
	However, let me stress that I do not advocate abolishing
	the regional offices. These offices are truly the face of
	Federal Government into the regions of the country, and as such
	provide needed access for those outside of the Beltway.
	Another area of consideration is a cultural diversity among
	GSA offices, customer community, and should be taken into
	account when reviewing any proposal for consolidation or
	merging Schedules. Within industry, this often has been the
	most difficult and time-consuming aspect of the process for any
	mergers and acquisitions. As they go through this process, GSA
	should consider using the best practices from multiple offices,
	agencies, and locations to adopt a GSA standard. That would
	provide buy-in by various offices. This has proven to be very
	helpful with industry mergers and consolidations.
	Finally, let me just throw out a few key points to consider
	for improving GSA Schedules, which are more fully outlined in
	my written statement. No. 1: training on proper use of
	Schedules for all parties involved, that includes GSA
	contracting community, GSA customers, and industry;
	establishing or identifying best practices; improving
	transparency in placement of GSA task orders; establishing
	Schedule ombudsman to receive and correct complaints; and,
	finally, conducting a cost-benefit analysis on Schedule use
	versus normal FAR contract process to determine which benefits
	agency mission and to the U.S. taxpayers.
	In closing, let me stress that we are all partners in this
	endeavor. Sometimes we might disagree, as often happens in
	partnership. But that does not mean the partnership should be
	dissolved; rather, that we must try harder to find common
	ground. In the end, our main objective in this undertaking
	should be based on what will allow Federal agencies to get best
	value for the taxpayers and in support of our warfighters.
	Thank you very much for your time, and I would be happy to
	answer any questions.
	[The prepared statement of Mr. Avetissian follows:]

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.037

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.038

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.039

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.040

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.041

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.042

	Mr. Souder [presiding]. Thank you very much for your
	testimony.
	We will now go to Mr. Mike Davison, director and general
	manager of the Canon Government Marketing Division.
	Thank you for coming.

	STATEMENT OF MIKE DAVISON

	Mr. Davison. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and
	members of the committee. I am Mike Davison of the Canon
	Government Marketing Division. Canon is the leading GSA
	Schedule contractor, with more than $76 million in Schedule
	sales in fiscal year 2004.
	Today I represent the Coalition of Government Procurement.
	The Coalition is particularly well suited to testify today on
	the reorganization of GSA's Federal Supply Service and Federal
	Technology Service. No outside organization has the depth and
	breadth of experience in working with FSS and FTS as does the
	Coalition.
	The Coalition supports GSA's mission. The agency's current
	contracts and services play a vital role in supporting our
	troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in meeting critical
	domestic needs. We believe the agency must take the most of
	this opportunity to reorganize and move forward so that it can
	continue its important work.
	GSA is in a critical position today. The actions of a few
	have allowed to set a chilling tenor for the entire agency.
	Routine business has dramatically slowed. Continued reliance on
	``Get It Right'' now means that some parts of GSA simply
	``won't get it.'' The climate must be moderated to allow the
	business of government to proceed.
	The Coalition believes that the GSA reorganization process
	can be an opportunity to create a positive and stimulating
	model acquisition environment. It can be the catalyst to put
	last year's problems behind us and focus on empowering
	associates. What was lost in last year's headlines was that GSA
	overall does a fantastic job of meeting customer needs
	efficiently and properly.
	Approximately $40 billion flowed through GSA Schedules and
	GWAC's in the fiscal year 2004. This is testimony to the fact
	that the agency has built a solid, popular program and gets
	customers what they need, when they need it, at great values.
	The Coalition urges, however, that the mere process of
	reorganization not become an end to itself. We are concerned
	that there has been too much emphasis on the process, at the
	expense of customer service. As one of the members put it, not
	even the best flower grows if you pull it up every 10 minutes
	to see how it is doing.
	The Coalition again calls on GSA to work with its committee
	and other interested parties to realign its organization. As we
	have voted in previous testimony, there is inherent
	inefficiency in maintaining both a central office and regional
	reporting system. The Coalition strongly supports a realignment
	that changes the managerial organization so that all GSA
	acquisition professionals in FSS and FTS report up through
	their central office organizations for policy and operational
	guidelines. Today, this means that GSA acquisition associates
	would be overseen by the commissioners of their respective
	services for all aspects of job performance. The Coalition
	believes that centralization is mandatory if associates are to
	receive clear guidance and be held in consistent standard.
	We continue to believe that creating an office to oversee
	the integrated operations of a combined service is important.
	Our previous testimony called for the creation of an associate
	administrator of acquisition. This position would be and have
	full authority to make the best use of resources for each
	service and provide oversight for all associates involved. The
	Coalition again recommends creating such a position, and would
	be pleased to work with Administrator Perry and this committee
	to make it happen.
	The Coalition supports recommendations to consolidate GSA's
	Informational Technology and General Funds. Today's complex
	Federal projects cannot easily be classified as all IT or all
	not IT. GSA and its customer agencies today must jump through
	Government-only hoops to ensure that these projects are
	conducted properly. This slows the business of Government.
	Merging IT and General Funds will allow GSA to better continue
	its tradition of helping agencies.
	Another issue that must be addressed is the financial
	soundness of each service. Any integrated service must ensure
	that all of the rooms of its financial house are in order if it
	is to function properly. No one operation should consistently
	be relied upon to support the others. The Coalition believes
	that the existing Schedule Industrial Funding Fee should not be
	lowered. We strongly recommend that the agency use IFF funds to
	hire and maintain and train needed contracting officers, and
	educate customers so that we get the most out of the Multiple
	Award Schedule program.
	The Coalition believes that the Government saves time,
	reduces overall overhead, and gets great solutions when it
	makes maximum use of Schedule contracts. These benefits are
	enhanced when Schedules are negotiated in as timely a manner as
	possible. We recommend that GSA use existing funds to provide
	training, internally and externally, on these issues. The
	Coalition believes that steps already taken by GSA to
	consolidate all Schedule and GWAC contracts inside the Federal
	Supply Service has begun to achieve its desired results. The
	Coalition now recommends that GSA give serious consideration to
	moving the project management services conducted by the
	Schedule focused FSS acquisition centers to FTS, as FSS
	specializes in contract implementation and management. A large
	part of FTS specializes in project management. We believe this
	move is consistent with steps already taken to have each
	service focus on the core mission.
	We are ready to work with the committee and GSA to examine
	how consolidation could be in the best interest for all
	involved. The Coalition believes that while GSA faces
	substantial challenges as it reorganizes, it also has
	tremendous opportunity. By moving now to integrate FSS and FTS,
	the agency still controls most of its own destiny. GSA must
	move assertively to develop organizations and programs that
	continue to meet the needs of an evolving Federal Government.
	We want to be an important partner in this process. We
	believe the agency has a lot to offer its customers and we
	stand ready to
	work with Administrator Perry and this committee and others to
	see that GSA retains and enhances its important work.
	We appreciate again the opportunity to testify, and look
	forward to answering any questions.
	[The prepared statement of Mr. Davison follows:]

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.043

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.044

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.045

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.046

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.047

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.048

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.049

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.050

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.051

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.052

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.053

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.054

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.055

	Mr. Souder. Thank you very much.
	Our next witness is Ms. Elaine Dauphin, vice president of
	GSA Programs Computer Sciences Division, on behalf of the
	Professional Service Council. Thank you for coming.

	STATEMENT OF ELAINE DAUPHIN

	Ms. Dauphin. Thank you, Mr. Souder.
	Members of the committee, thank you for inviting the
	Professional Services Council to be represented here today. PSC
	is the principal national trade association of companies large,
	medium, and small that provide services to virtually every
	Government agency. Like my company, Computer Sciences Corp.,
	member companies hold various GSA Schedule contracts, as well
	as Government-wide acquisition contracts [GWACs], and other GSA
	contracts through which these services are many times
	delivered. Therefore, the future structure of GSA, and in
	particular its role in Government acquisition, is vitally
	important to PSC and its members.
	While PSC takes no formal position on any specific
	organizational structure, PSC applauds your interest in the GSA
	reorganization and the actions Administrator Perry and his team
	are taking to merge FTS and FSS. However, as others have
	mentioned here today, PSC believes that the necessary precursor
	steps to reorganization, that of assuring that the business
	models through which the agency operates are in place, is that
	it is far more important to the continued success of GSA. A
	review to ensure that the agency is properly aligned with
	today's needs of its clients and can continue to deliver the
	value-added services that we have all come to expect; and that
	its work force can uniformly execute performance-based
	acquisitions and other innovative acquisition strategies, such
	as share and savings, that drive value and enhance contract
	performance for its clients.
	We believe that this review and analysis must occur early
	in the planning process and be open to and involve all
	stakeholders to include external Federal agency users and
	industry. PSC strongly encourages GSA to implement the
	stakeholder involvement soon, as their draft is apparently
	coming out in May and, to our knowledge, these stakeholders are
	not currently involved. As we are rethinking the organization
	of GSA, it is imperative that we keep in mind that through the
	FSS and FTS contract vehicles and the client support centers,
	GSA has provided and continues to provide vital acquisition
	support and assistance to agencies across Government.
	In the past decade, their buying roles have increased
	significantly, driven largely by the quality of support the
	services provide and a significantly streamlined procurement
	environment. In an effort to satisfy clients' requirements
	quickly, we have seen in IG reports that some administrative
	shortcuts have taken place. GSA's response has been
	appropriate. Yet, there is a growing pressure within the DOD,
	as the chairman mentioned, to avoid using GSA contracts in
	favor of internal contracts. Part of this pressure stems from a
	concern over the fees being transferred from DOD to GSA.
	However, to our knowledge, no DOD component has looked at or
	evaluated the cost or timeline of replicating inside DOD the
	infrastructure that is currently in place in GSA, and whether
	these costs are less, equal to, or greater than the fees being
	paid to GSA.
	We are certainly not against DOD contracts. We strongly
	believe that the Government benefits greatly from a competitive
	marketplace of contracts. It is advantageous, for example, for
	program and contract offices to choose the vehicle that best
	suits their needs from a wide array of vehicles. But current
	DOD efforts to arbitrarily limit access to non-DOD contract
	vehicles could have a deleterious effect both on GSA, and more
	importantly, DOD meeting its mission needs. These are critical
	issues that drive to the heart of DOD's mission efficiency, as
	well as the role and mission of GSA. We cannot ignore these
	facts as we focus attention on GSA's organizational structure.
	Chairman Davis, in summary, GSA plays a singular role in
	Government as its legislatively designated buyer of goods and
	services. It is important, as this reorganization moves
	forward, that the resulting organization reflect the needs and
	realities not only of GSA, but also of its customers and its
	vendor partners. We believe it is necessary to engage all three
	components fully in the discussions. The billions of dollars
	that flow through the GSA Schedules and GWACs representing a
	significant portion of PSA's member companies' revenue and,
	therefore, the economic health of our industry.
	Thank you for this opportunity to provide the Professional
	Services Council's views on this important matter. I look
	forward to questions.
	[The prepared statement of Ms. Dauphin follows:]

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.056

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.057

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.058

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.059

	Chairman Tom Davis [presiding]. Thank you very much.
	Mr. Brown, last but not least. We are happy to have NFFE
	here.

	STATEMENT OF RICHARD BROWN

	Mr. Brown. I was going to say considering what is going to
	go on here tomorrow, I guess it is only befitting that the
	union should back cleanup.
	Chairman Tom Davis. Well, we hope you will touch all the
	bases in your comment, OK?
	Mr. Brown. I knew this was going to start something.
	Mr. Chairman, distinguished members, I am here today
	certainly representing the thousands of members that the
	National Federation of Federal Employees represents throughout
	the GSA.
	I would like to address a regretful situation that exists
	at GSA, a series of actions that the agency has recently taken
	which have been either ill advised or highly inappropriate,
	have left the agency a haven of wasteful spending. The actions
	have also disenfranchised and demoralized department employees
	to a great extent, making it increasingly more difficult for
	GSA workers to provide the high quality services they are
	capable of and that the taxpayers of this country deserve.
	The most significant egregious action taken by the agency
	that I would like to address is the railroading of the proposed
	merger between Federal Technical Service [FTS] and the Federal
	Supply Service [FSS]. This merger, which stands to affect
	approximately 7,000 employees, is scheduled for implementation
	in July, and to this point there has been absolutely no direct
	communication with the employees through their exclusive
	representative on this issue.
	Under the current schedule for implementation, the
	employees at the agency should have been consulted at least a
	year ago. This dismissive approach on the part of management
	toward the elected employee representatives is unacceptable. It
	is a shame that the employees at GSA should have to make use of
	this venue, at this late date, to communicate their position on
	the major overhaul of the department. Yet, I will take this
	opportunity to publicly state the position of the employees on
	this merger.
	The rank and file employees at GSA vehemently oppose the
	merger between FTS and FSS. Although we have little information
	about the specifics of the proposed merger, we can speculate
	that the fusion of agencies with such vastly different missions
	would be problematic for the agency as the Government as a
	whole. Assuming the merger would result in whole or partial
	elimination of FTS, we envision that there will be widespread
	erosion of essential in-house expertise necessary to ensure
	cost-effective contracting for information technology products
	and services.
	Alert reports from the GSA Inspector General's Office
	indicate numerous problems in contracting practices. Our
	conclusion is that those problems encountered in procurement
	resulted primarily from a lack of autonomy between the
	procurement office and the program office. This knee-jerk
	merger does nothing to address those problems. A plan to simply
	move the problem around is conceptually flawed. In the end, we
	believe that the merger will make the problem worse and will be
	more costly to the American taxpayer. A more appropriate
	solution would be to restore FTS office of acquisition as an
	autonomous organization free from the influence of FTS program
	offices.
	The next issue I would like to address is the relocation of
	employees at two major headquarters buildings, the central
	office headquarters building in Washington, DC, and the Federal
	Supply Services building in Crystal City, VA. We believe that
	this unnecessary move will needlessly be disruptive to the
	department employees. Equally as important, this location has
	the potential to be extremely wasteful.
	Uncertainty about staffing levels indicated in the fiscal
	year 2006 budget and the possibility of the FTS-FSS merger make
	brick and mortar facility needs impossible to predict at this
	time, and any relocation would be imprudent. A major move such
	as this should be delayed until staffing levels can be
	accurately forecasted. Any deviation could result in millions
	of dollars in wasteful spending.
	The last major issue I want to address is the downsizing of
	the GSA Office of Government-wide Policy [OGP]. NFFE is the
	exclusive representative of all bargaining units in this
	organization, a total of about 130 people. GSA has announced it
	is currently implementing plans to eliminate 22 percent of the
	employees in the department by April of this year. They plan to
	reassign another 21 percent to the department in addition to
	that, for a 44 percent overall reduction. GSA has cited
	constraints in the 2006 budget as grounds for pursuing these
	reductions.
	Given the fact that Congress has not yet approved the 2006
	budget, we believe it is premature and inappropriate to act on
	a speculation of what the budget might be. We ask this body to
	intervene and insist the administration follow due course on
	this issue. Any action to the contrary would circumvent the
	authority of Congress. If, and only if, Congress approves the
	cutbacks in the President's budget proposal, a proposal that we
	do not endorse, the agency would then follow the appropriate
	reduction in force [RIF] rules.
	The agency is currently pursuing a career management
	profile [CMP] assessment, an unfair alternative to RIF
	procedures that allow managers to cherry-pick retention of
	personal favorites, to the detriment of others who would get
	preference based on legitimate discriminatory such as veteran's
	preference, seniority, and career status.
	Finally, management is implementing the CMP without
	spending 1 minute with employee representatives at the
	bargaining table to date, in our opinion a clear violation of
	the Federal Service Labor Management Relation Statute.
	Taken as a whole, agency actions on these three issues
	indicate that GSA leadership is not committed to a cohesive
	business plan based on execution of agency mission. Dismissive
	approach toward employee representatives and mandates of
	Congress is unacceptable. The simultaneous attempts to adjust
	staffing and relocate to new facilities leave the agency open
	to millions in wasteful spending. The apparent plan to
	eliminate hundreds of full-time employees leave the work force
	terrorized with uncertainty.
	The GSA would stand to benefit from taking their
	initiatives one logical step at a time, while showing regard to
	due process and the needs for the department employees.
	Anything less should not be tolerated by this committee.
	Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I appreciate the
	opportunity, distinguished members, and I would be happy to
	answer questions.
	[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:]

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.060

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.061

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.062

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.063

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.064

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.065

	Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you all very much.
	Let me start, Mr. Hewitt, with you.
	I am sorry I wasn't here for everybody's testimony--I had
	to go back for a couple minutes--but I have read it prior to
	being here.
	Do you think that the proposed merger of FTS and FSS is
	going to make it easier for you to do business? Will that be
	easier for you to do business if they merge these two?
	Mr. Hewitt. The question is do you think it will be easier
	to do business? Yes, sir. I think there is some uncertainty
	today, some duplication which is confusing, and ITAA does
	support the merger.
	Chairman Tom Davis. Has GSA solicited any comments from
	your organization in terms of what a merger might entail?
	Mr. Hewitt. No, Mr. Chairman, they haven't, and we would
	love to be involved at ITAA.
	Chairman Tom Davis. How would you recommend GSA include
	industry and customer representatives as part of the process?
	It wouldn't have to be formal, just informally?
	Mr. Hewitt. Any way they want to do it is fine with us. We
	would prefer to be involved earlier rather than later, and we
	do have that Government Advisory Board now that is retired
	executives around town--Dan Young, Ken Johnson, Mel Cooper,
	Bill Deronchec and others--that are prepared to help, and they
	are not working with any particular company right now, so they
	should be able to provide experience in an unbiased fashion.
	Chairman Tom Davis. Do you have any thoughts on the
	regional offices?
	Mr. Hewitt. Have I talked to the regional?
	Chairman Tom Davis. Have you thought through that? Does
	your organization have any thoughts on consolidation of
	regional offices, or a different role at this point? Do you
	find it helpful to keep them or----
	Mr. Hewitt. I haven't discussed that.
	Chairman Tom Davis. You don't want to go off script on
	that.
	Mr. Hewitt. I don't know the answer to that.
	Chairman Tom Davis. OK. Thanks.
	Vic, let me ask you. I think in your testimony you note
	that before GSA goes forward with plans to reorganize, it
	should get input and insight from both its customer agencies
	and industry partners. Do you think that reorganization plans
	provide for that as you see it right now?
	Mr. Avetissian. I didn't hear that.
	Chairman Tom Davis. Do you think that the GSA is providing
	for input from its customer agencies and its industry partners
	right now?
	Mr. Avetissian. It has been done informally. We have been
	in a couple of meetings that this issue was discussed, most
	recently with them last week. But I think it should be more
	formal, because there are other people that should be involved
	in providing guidance, that have experience in different areas.
	We provided some guidance. We think that they are on the right
	track, but more information will be helpful.
	Chairman Tom Davis. You state that the current management
	of the GSA regional office is broken. Do you favor the
	elimination of any of the regional offices? You said you don't
	favor the elimination of them, but you suggest that the
	management and reporting relationships between the GSA
	headquarters and the regions should probably be changed. Do you
	think it would be helpful to have GSA's management authority
	over the regional offices in the statute? Have you thought
	about how that should be done?
	Mr. Avetissian. No, I don't think it should be statute. I
	think that the management headquarters, working with the
	regional offices, could develop appropriate reporting
	requirements that will make sure that they follow the same
	guidance and same policies in performing the contracts and
	awarding contracts and managing the contracts. I think that is
	where the differences are. There will be some areas, because
	the culture will be different, and they should follow that
	culture. But again, major policies should be the same.
	Chairman Tom Davis. Are you concerned that the
	reorganization efforts at GSA will adversely impact GSA's
	ongoing operations?
	Mr. Avetissian. No, I don't believe so. I think that the
	people in GSA are very well familiar with what they are doing.
	I think this reorganization will enhance their capability to
	provide their services to all the agencies. And I think that
	with this reorganization the committee should consider merging
	other civilian agencies schedule under GSA so there won't be
	schedules that are used by DOD through Interior schedule, that
	it will be managed in a formal manner under the same authority
	as GSA.
	Chairman Tom Davis. Now, you advised that GSA should
	consider cultural diversity among its various offices and its
	customers and its plans to merge the services. Could you
	elaborate on that a little bit?
	Mr. Avetissian. As an experienced industry, and I had that
	opportunity during our numerous mergers and acquisitions that
	Northrop Grumman had done, and the most difficult part was
	trying to get the cultures to merge. You can always get the
	offices to merge and things like that, and benefits merge and
	all that, but the culture----
	Chairman Tom Davis. But agencies have their own cultures is
	what you are trying to say.
	Mr. Avetissian. Yes, they sure do. And what I would
	suggest, and what we have done, and other companies have done,
	you don't impose--whoever the parent is going to be--their
	processes as the best; you go around and take a look at and
	pick the best processes and best policies. And by incorporating
	all that in one single policy, I think then the buy-in will be
	much easier from other agencies, and also regional offices,
	that they do have some good practices that can be adopted by
	the headquarters.
	Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you.
	Mr. Davison, you state that GSA needs to change its
	regional managerial organization so that control of acquisition
	associates in the regions come from GSA headquarters. Are you
	concerned that the regional management issues don't appear to
	be addressed in GSA's reorganization plan? Is that a concern of
	yours?
	Mr. Davison. Am I concerned that the reorganization would
	have an adverse effect?
	Chairman Tom Davis. No. Right now, in GSA's reorganization
	plans, they don't appear to be addressing the regional
	management issues.
	Mr. Davison. Our representation of that is that there seems
	to be a different--you spoke about cultures. There is a
	different standard associated with each of the regions, and it
	seems like it would be improved to have a central
	responsibility for all policies and standards.
	Chairman Tom Davis. Now, you recommend that creating the
	position of an associate administrator for acquisition to
	oversee the integrated operations of a combined FSS-FTS. Do you
	think that position ought to be in statute? Do you have any
	strong feelings about that?
	Mr. Davison. I don't. I am not familiar enough about what
	the difference in the statutory regulation would be.
	Chairman Tom Davis. Statute means that this is bound on the
	next GSA and the next and the next. If you do it from
	regulatory scheme, the next group can come in and decide to do
	it differently. It gives them more flexibility, but it also
	lets them slip back if you think that this should be a
	permanent position.
	You don't have to address that, I am just trying to give
	you----
	Mr. Davison. Thank you.
	Chairman Tom Davis. I liked your suggestion that GSA
	consider using a portion of its Multiple Award Schedule
	Industrial Funding Fee to hire and train badly needed schedule
	contracting officers. It is a little similar to the training
	fund that we put into the Services Acquisition Reform Act. Have
	you suggested this to GSA?
	Mr. Davison. Yes, we have.
	Chairman Tom Davis. Have they had any response to it at
	this point?
	Mr. Davison. Their response is not clear to me, it is clear
	to the Association. There has been some hesitation. At the last
	decrease we had suggested that they don't decrease it, but use
	those funds to improve the agency's response.
	Chairman Tom Davis. OK, thanks.
	Ms. Dauphin, do you think GSA has been forthcoming with
	industry stakeholders on the direction of its reorganization?
	Ms. Dauphin. No, I think that there has been limited
	interaction. The PSC has had some meetings with Mr. Perry's
	office. We are meeting with the IG next week, where we will
	have additional discussions, but not to the level that we are
	recommending. We really believe that industry should be more
	engaged right now, prior to their even coming out with their
	draft reorganization, as well as other Government agencies end
	users.
	Chairman Tom Davis. And I gather, Mr. Brown, that you don't
	think the GSA has been very forthcoming in dealing with the
	employees and the unions in this as well, sir?
	Mr. Brown. That would be correct, Mr. Chairman. And I think
	you would have to agree when you don't have information before
	you, when you have no business plan, when you have no ``who is
	it going to affect,'' you are forced to speculate; and
	certainly speculation is not something that the union wants to
	do. We are getting questioned by various employees in different
	office buildings, etc., how is that going to affect them, what
	are their collective bargaining rights. You know, we are not
	here to manage GSA; that is not our position. But as you are
	elected by your constituency, so are we.
	Chairman Tom Davis. Well, it is not your position to
	manage, but, on the other hand, a lot of the knowledge in any
	organization is at the guy who is right there at the window.
	Mr. Brown. Who knows better what is going on than the man
	and woman doing the job?
	Chairman Tom Davis. Even if you may not know the big
	picture in every case, they have a story to tell that is
	important.
	To go back to you, Ms. Dauphin, you note that the DOD has
	considered bypassing GSA contract vehicles for internally
	awarded managed contracts. How would that action affect
	businesses that routinely use these vehicles to sell to the
	Government? Do you have to change your marketing plans? Would
	they be less efficient?
	Ms. Dauphin. It has already been impacting us in that we
	have had existing task orders that were in the middle of a
	period of performance under GSA vehicles that have been
	terminated and then re-competed on a DOD vehicle. It happens
	that we are on the DOD vehicle, but we are still spending money
	to re-compete. The Government is spending money to reacquire
	these same services and, as a taxpayer, that is offensive.
	Chairman Tom Davis. It is just a waste, right?
	Ms. Dauphin. It is.
	Chairman Tom Davis. You also note that the fees that are
	charged by GSA for the different Government-wide contracting
	vehicles--and I will ask you and I will ask anybody else. Do
	you think the melding of the Technology and Supply Funds and
	the increased accountability will result in lower and more
	targeted fees from GSA? Is there that expectation?
	Ms. Dauphin. Yes, I really do.
	Chairman Tom Davis. Do you all agree with that?
	Mr. Avetissian. Yes, I agree with that.
	Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Hewitt? That is certainly the hope,
	isn't it? OK.
	Mr. Brown, I have a couple more questions.
	Mr. Brown. Sure.
	Chairman Tom Davis. You are nervous that the melding of the
	FSS and the FTS will result in widespread erosion of essential
	in-house expertise at FTS.
	Mr. Brown. Yes.
	Chairman Tom Davis. But the Administrator and the GSA IG,
	and most of the witnesses here, seem to think the merger would
	be beneficial in terms of overall productivity. Why do you
	think that?
	Mr. Brown. Let me just state--and part of it goes back,
	again, to information that has been handed out. And I would
	even go back to some of the comments that Mr. Perry had made.
	It didn't seem--where this was really driven from. I didn't
	really hear today very specific problems that would cause this
	or drive this merger. Whether there is or not I do not know, as
	an employee representative. And what impact that will have is
	going to have various impacts.
	What I was saying, getting back to just to paraphrase what
	I just said, it is going to have different impacts on different
	employees. And what that impact is going to be we are duty
	bound and certainly legally bound to advise the folks that we
	represent. How that is all going to shake out, we have been
	unable to either reassure or say, OK, you are going to get
	affected this way, this is going to affect more people in FTS
	than FSS, like I said in part of my testimony.
	Again, I will give the fact that some of it is speculation,
	but also been advised through my council president and our
	other employees, which many of them are here today sitting in
	these chambers from the Greater D.C. area and Virginia and so
	forth, that these are going to affect. And I would have to say
	that I have yet to hear and I did not see that there was any
	documentation to that effect. Mr. Perry said there has been
	some discussion amongst managers and a few key individuals, but
	that was primarily it.
	And would this merger be better? I don't really see, based
	on the testimony here. There are some people that say that it
	would, and everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I am not
	being disrespectful, but at least from the elected
	representatives side of the House, that the people in the
	trenches are going to be affected, I can't see where this would
	be good or bad. I would believe at this juncture it would be
	more bad because there is not enough information, there is no
	business plan, there is no long-range goal, there has been
	nothing documented.
	Chairman Tom Davis. Right. Well, look, at the end of the
	day, everybody here plays a different role. I mean, your role
	is to protect your employees, make sure they are treated
	fairly; and the efficiency of the department, although it is
	not unimportant to you, at the end of the day that doesn't
	drive you if you are losing employees and those kind of issues.
	From the people that are selling to the Government, they have
	their own bent; they can give suggestions into what works most
	efficiently for them in being able to sell to the Government. I
	know there is a great frustration on the part of contractors
	sometimes of doing work and the Government not telling exactly
	what they want, not being able to articulate; a lot of waste
	goes in some of these areas. And I think all of you need to be
	a part of the reorganization process so that everybody is
	heard.
	But at the end of the day, GSA's job, from my perspective,
	is to make sure that when they go off and buy something, they
	are getting the best deal for the American taxpayer. That may
	not be exactly what the contractors want or the employees want,
	but I think that is what the taxpayers expect. But they can't
	do it without talking to you and without consulting with you.
	I think each of you have an important role to play in that,
	so we want to do everything we can to make sure that, as this
	moves forward you are at the table and that all of your views
	are considered in this. And for that, I appreciate everybody
	being here, sharing those concerns. We want to continue to work
	with GSA to make sure that even though it may be a contracted
	period that these decisions are made, that you are made full
	partners in terms of your input into this thing; and we want to
	hear from you if that is not the case.
	Ms. Norton.
	Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I came back
	because I have a couple of questions.
	I just want to indicate how much I agree with your last
	comments. Nothing is more threatening to employees than a
	change in structure in an organization, whether it is
	consolidation, whether it is dealing only with one part of the
	organization. And when they hear about merger, even before you
	know exactly what you are going to do, you have to begin to
	talk with people. So I am very concerned. I was very concerned
	in reading, Mr. Brown, your testimony about how there has not
	been any consultation whatsoever. Again, these people are
	management; they have to do what they have to do. But the
	notion of not trying to reduce anxiety is very troubling to me.
	You indicate that, for example, assuming that merger would
	result in whole or partial elimination of the FTS. See, you
	don't know that and I don't know that, and when he talked about
	how they, by bringing everybody together, because they have so
	much demand, they will be able to meet this demand. They left
	the impression that maybe they need all the folks they have but
	maybe they don't. Perhaps, for example, in consolidating the
	administrative part, parts of FTS and FSS there would be a
	redundancy, and there is no case to be made for redundancy. I
	am very concerned, though, that nothing is known.
	You indicate, Mr. Brown, that you are against the
	consolidation. You offer a number of reasons. Obviously one of
	them has to be the anxiety that employees have about what is
	going to happen to them. But as I said in the beginning, if the
	consolidation is to occur, I believe the committee has to
	insist that, in fact, business reasons fitting the normal
	business model must be in fact used to justify such a
	consolidation and that the burden is on who wants to bring
	people together to move around the chairs on the Titanic to
	show that when the chairs are at a different place, something
	different is going to happen.
	Would you oppose, for example, if there are duplicative
	operations at the administrative level, the consolidation of
	those operations so that at least at that level you don't have
	customers, agencies, contractors dealing with duplicating
	parties doing the same thing essentially?
	Mr. Brown. First, let me state definitely the record the
	union, the National Federation of Federal Employees stands
	behind what is going to be most efficient for the American
	taxpayer. Don't misconstrue our message.
	But if you also notice in some of my testimony, that if
	there are--and let me say for the record myself I was laid off
	from the Federal Government. I worked for the Department of
	Defense for 14 years. I know what it is like to lose my job in
	the Federal Government, and there are RIF rules and procedures
	that were followed. And if there are duplicative jobs or jobs
	that are no longer needed, I would go back to my testimony that
	those rules and regulations that are in place now be used. It
	affords everyone their proper rights and entitlements as an
	employee that may lose their job due to various circumstances
	within the Federal Government.
	Again, I hate to beat a dead horse, but at least from a
	national level and/or local level--and like I said, there are
	many constituents not only from this area, but employees that
	are on the ground working at GSA here today--that don't know
	what is going on. And they are all professional people, and
	should something happen where they do lose their job, they
	should be treated with dignity and respect and afforded their
	rights and entitlements. That is our position on that.
	Ms. Norton. Well, I appreciate that position, because
	obviously the committee can't make its decisions based only on
	employee concerns. But normally those concerns are not that far
	off from one another.
	I believe that the notion of letting something as bold and
	big and unprecedented as a consolidation of two major parts of
	the GSA occur or be in the works without talking with employees
	is a major flaw in the process itself. I intend to write to
	Administrator Perry, whom I know and whose work I admire, to
	indicate that, and I will try to see if I can convince the
	chairman to join me in such a letter; not because we think
	bargaining should take place. There are different points in the
	procedure where employees have a right of course to be
	involved. Quite apart from that, given the magnitude of what is
	being undertaken here, the total absence of community starts
	the process off in the wrong way. And if I may say so, I served
	on the boards of three Fortune 500 companies. None of them
	would have ever attempted to begin a consolidation of major
	parts of their operation without beginning to talk to employees
	at some level. Talking about elementary communication now, not
	necessarily the kind of communication that you will have and be
	entitled to at some point in the process anyway.
	I have one question for Mr. Hewitt, because, Mr. Hewitt,
	your testimony rang very true to me from my own experience in
	dealing in the private sector as a director of companies, when
	you talked about a performance-based approach that first you
	look to a business model, then you go on and do what you have
	to do. In your testimony on page 5, I was troubled that somehow
	the GSA, at least at this point, has not seen the value of what
	you recommend. You say that these first task forces essentially
	have all insiders on them. In other words, people who know the
	operation from the inside, who are indispensable to the
	operation are talking to one another.
	At this hearing, over and over again the notion of what is
	first and foremost in our minds, serving the customer, making
	sure that the taxpayer benefits, doesn't seem to be a part of
	such task forces, particularly customer service, since that is
	essentially what the GSA does. And you recommend expanding the
	task force in ways that seem to me to be almost self-evident,
	because you talk about GSA's vendor base. You recommend
	expanding to include members of other Government agencies and
	the vendor base, and you indicate some concerns about the
	representations of FTS on the steering committee.
	I just want to know if anybody thinks that--let me preface
	this question by saying such a task force is only that, it is a
	task force; it doesn't get to decide the issue. By definition,
	it is advisory. I just have to ask you if anybody knows of a
	situation where a major consolidation within a company would be
	attempted without going to some advice from those who use the
	customer services. If you think it is wise to proceed only with
	insiders. And perhaps to get Mr. Hewitt to elaborate on how a
	company, a private company would in fact would deal with this
	situation. You say by expanding the task force base, but I
	would just like you to give some rationale for why you think
	others should be brought into the process besides those inside
	GSA who, of course, know GSA and FTS and FSS best.
	Mr. Hewitt. Well, first, we have a great deal of respect
	for the success of FSS and FTS, and we think over the last 20
	years they have done some tremendous things. And at this point
	what we are looking for is to simply re-evaluate to consider,
	can we improve the efficiencies of productivity, the
	responsiveness of the two organizations? And the success we
	think is based on the partnership that has existed between
	industry, which really relies on FTS and FSS, and the
	Government clients. And that is why the other agencies, we
	think, are vital to have them involved. And I can understand
	Administrator Perry's point of view and getting it started with
	internal people, but I would hope that he would soon buy into
	bringing some others in. We think that the other Government
	agencies, the people that are actually getting the services,
	and the vendors providing the products and services, have
	something to offer, and it will bring a better result.
	Ms. Norton. Do the rest of you agree with that? Do you?
	Mr. Hewitt. Pardon me?
	Ms. Norton. I am asking if the other witnesses agree with
	the view that those who use the service would be helpful as
	part of the task force.
	Ms. Dauphin. Absolutely. The industry and the Government
	end clients are all stakeholders in this process and should be
	included.
	Mr. Avetissian. I agree. The more advice you get, it is
	better than none at all.
	Mr. Davison. I agree as well, but I think there has been a
	great deal of cooperation and communication over the past
	years. The big changes in GSA structure from a Government-
	funded to an industrial-funded organization has brought a
	partnership between the Federal Government and GSA and the
	contractors that we haven't had before, both with a similar
	motive, to do what is best for the Government customer, open up
	a channel of dialog that we have enjoyed over the last several
	years. But certainly it shouldn't be minimized, we ought to
	continue to be a part.
	Ms. Norton. Here, of course, we are not talking about
	anything that would be definitive; GSA can take the advice or
	not take the advice. But the notion of moving ahead without
	talking to the people who are going to use the service does
	seem to me to be elementary. Same way with employees. All we
	are talking about here is communication: hey, tell me what you
	know and let me see if what you know will help me do what I
	have to do. I think they have to do that with employees; I
	think they have to do that with the customer base, the vendors,
	the contractors, the Government agencies themselves. So I have
	been very much assisted by your testimony and very much
	appreciate it.
	Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
	Chairman Tom Davis. Anybody want to add anything?
	[No response.]
	Chairman Tom Davis. It has been very helpful to us. The
	committee appreciates it. Thank you very much.
	I want to again thank our witnesses for appearing before us
	today.
	[Whereupon, at 1 p.m., the committee was adjourned to
	reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
	[The prepared statement of Hon. Elijah E. Cummings and
	additional information submitted for the hearing record
	follow:]

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.066

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.067

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.068

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.069

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.070

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.071

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.072

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.073

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.074

	[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0379.075

	<all>

	</pre></body></html>