U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

75–419 PDF 2012

GSA: A REVIEW OF AGENCY MISMANAGEMENT 

AND WASTEFUL SPENDING—PART 2 

(112–96) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

AUGUST 1, 2012 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

JEFFREY M. LANDRY, Louisiana 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

VACANCY 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

(III) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... iv 

TESTIMONY 

Hon. Brian D. Miller, Inspector General, General Services Administration ...... 11 

Cynthia Metzler, Chief Administrative Services Officer, General Services Administration .......................................................................................................... 11 

PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MEMBER OF CONGRESS 

Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, of Texas ................................................................... 31 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Hon. Brian D. Miller ............................................................................................... 33 

Cynthia Metzler ....................................................................................................... 37 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD 

General Services Administration, responses to questions for the record ............ 40 

iv 


Insert offset folio 1 here 75419.001

July 27, 2012 

mUEIflNG MEMORANDUM 

TO: Members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructurc 

J;'ROM: Committee on and [niras!mcture StafT 

SUBJECT: Hearing on "GSA: A Review om<1"""'''m""j and 

Wasteful Spending -- Part 2" 

The Commiltee on Transportation and Infrastructure Ivill meet on WF'nnp~CI"V 

1,2012, at 9 a.m. to receive from the General Services Administration 

InQ'nl'l"j' .... General and GSA. The will focus on the 

"'lS'C1llClll and wasteful of GSA. the will examine 

new information on GSA conferences, travel and 

decision to entcr into a lease without Committee authorization. 

General Services Administration 

The Committee has jurisdiction over all of GSA's real property 

the Act of 1949, the Public Buildings Act of I and the 

of 1976. Thcse three Acts arc now codified as title 40 of the United States Code. GSA's 

Public Buildings Service (PBS) is responsible for the construction, maintenance, 

altcration, aud operation of United States courthouses and public of the Fedcral 

Government. PBS leases owned spaee tor Fcderal use. GSA 

owns or leases 9,600 assets and maintains an inventory of more than 362 million 

teet ofwol'kspace. GSA acts as the "landlord" tor the Federal govemment, "''''''IIlIll<' 
v 


Insert offset folio 2 here 75419.002

(0 meet the space needs of other Federal GSA, however, is just 

Federal agencics that, in total, own or manage 93% of Fcdeml real property. 

GSA cUlTently operates with 11 PBS 

which are 

Im'r7P"""m Issues 

Given the vast real estate of the Federal Government, poor asset 

management and missed market opportunities cost taxpayers sums of money. 

For this reason, in 2003, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) real 

management on its list risk" government activities where it remains 

executive orders and memoranda issued two 

intended to the management of Federal real 

The risk of Federal real property are 

(lssels can translate into 

costs associated with their maintenanee, and For ''''''''''J.'''-, 

in fiseal year 2009, the Federal Govemmenl spent $1.7 billion in annual costs 

fbr under-utilized and $134 for excess "U"'-"'Ui5~' 

Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public 

M~magel.l1ent Chairman Denham introduced H.R. 1734, the Civilian 

"~"UIS"'"'O''' Acl last year. That the House and would 

"~t'lUI"'" a civilian BRAC-like commissiolllo 

n ... .,nl',.t;p~ through selling unneeded properties, 

minimizing the Federal space This 

in vacant to at the Annex of 

Post Ollice, the Cotton Annex, and the in 

D.C. Additionall1eld are in the next month to 

the wasteful of federal properties by GSA. 

Administrative Costs 

On top of incfficieneies in how GSA has its the Committee is 

also investigating Public Buildings Scrvicc's administnltive costs. lnlbrmation received 

the Committee indicates that the PBS administrative costs have increased 

over the years. since tlsca! year 2007, the PBS administrative costs have 

'The other land-holding and agencies include the Department of Defense, IJcl"rtme,nt 

of Veterans Department of Homcland Security. Department orlile 

DC1)artment or State, National AciminislHltioll, and the US. Postal Service. 

Executive Order 13327, Federal Real President 

February 4, 2004; Presidential Memonmdum, Real 

President Damek Obama, June 10, 2010; Public Use Act of 1976; 

Division H, Tille IV, Section 4]2, December 8, enhanced flexibility 

management). 

Property Report. Federal Relli Property Council, September 2010. p. 5. 

2 
vi 


Insert offset folio 3 here 75419.003

increased by $260 million. The PBS Commissioner's Omce expenditures havc increased 

by more than triple during the same period. (See ehm1 below), 

$2,492 $2,707 $5,101 $5,296 

PBS Commissioner $1,310 $1,202 $545 $1,837 $3,861 

* Total $2,975 $3,694 $3,2512 $6,938 $9,157 

Personnel $38,557 $41,418 $42,004 $44,277 $49,432 

other $200,381 $236,018 $263,189 $272,948 $306,429 

PBS Headquarters Total $238,938 $277,436 $305,193 $317,225 $355,861 

Personnel $310,158 $328,050 $352,087 $378,645 $412,776 

Other $156,645 $164,643 $168,628 $184,046 $190,605 

Regional Total $466,803 $492,693 $520,715 $562,691 $603,381 

Total $708,716 $773,823 $829,159 $886,854 $968,399 

The Committee began investigating the PBS administrative costs in 2011 alter 

I1mmcial information included in GSA's State oflhe Portfolio Reports and Agcney 

Financial Repofts suggested an increase in costs and reduction of income 1i'0111 ils owned 

inventory and an increase in losses for its leased inventory, Specifically, GSA's 2011 

Agency Financial Report indicated that the Federal Buildings Fund llet revellues fi'Olll 

GSA-owned buildings dropped by $274 million between 2010 and 20 II and lost $133 

million in 2011 on its leased facilities. 

Olher Waste 

On April 2, 2012, the GSA Genera! (IG) issued a i1JlsmnUPlnf'1:1! 

Det1eiency Report all the GSA Public Buildings Service and its 2() 1 () Western Regions 

Conference The 2() 10 conference had approximately 300 attendees and occurred 

at the M Resort Spa Casino just outside Las Vegas, Nevada. The IG found that the total 

cost of the conference was $822,751 including $136,504 spent on 8 

scouting trips alone, On April 17, 2012, the Subcommittee on Economic Development, 

Public Buildings and Emergency Management held a hearing on this conference and 

other wasteful spending on travel. 

It was clear from the hearing and the Committee investigation lhat the 

conference was I1O! an anomaly or limited to Region 9 of GSA. Indeed, 

,,",""'''''' the rclease or the IG report, then,GSA Administrator Martha Johnson 

along with the !hen,Public Buildings Service Commissioner, Robert Peck was Ilred, 

3 
vii 


Insert offset folio 4 here 75419.004

Disciplinary action was also taken Former 9 Commissioner, JeffNecly, as 

well as other GSA oftieials and employees. 

On July 19, 2012, the GSA TG informed the Committee that his office was 

""""""'15 an into a conferenee held on November 17,2010 by the Federal 

O"'!UI""",V,, Service (FAS) of tile GSA infol1l1alion indicates thai this oneconference cos! 8270,000. This conference reportedly included such expenses as: 

II for the ceremony venue at the Gateway Marriott "".lU\.IW1',. 

o $20,738.78 in 

o 8l3,334.60 in A V and room rental 

.. for a "Commissioner's Reeeption" at the Key Bridge Marriott 

o Hors d'oeuvres, and miniature for 200 attendees 

o A violinist and a guitarist 

.. $140,464.06 for "coordination and logistical management" & 

Inc. 

o $104,484.17 for and malla~:em 

o $20,578.24 for 4,000 drumsticks 

o $5,390 lor tlve buses, two mini-buses, and a van 

o $10,010.65 for "Mission Possible X" management 

.. $28,364.45 for 4,000 "time temperature 

Wonders. 

frames" provided by Small 

for by JDG Communications, Inc, 

.. $41,734.93 for travel for 49 attendees. 

It became clear l1'om the Committee WRC that GSA held 

manyeonterences, and sessions that cost the taxpayer millions of 

dollars. Indeed, the April hearing revealed conferences in Palm us 

wel! as unnecessary field travel by senior management to Hawaii and the South 

Pacific. Thc GSA IG is currently into other conferences and 

"''"''''"''5'' that took since the Fall And the Committee continues its own 

investigation into GSA's administration costs, including exorbitant conferences and 

questions about bonus awards. 

4 
viii 


Insert offset folio 5 here 75419.005

Bonuses and Performance Awards 

During the course ofthc Committee's investigation of the WRC Confercnce and 

administrative costs, the Committee identified exorbitant bonuses. For example, the 

Committee uncarthcd that GSA's then-Region 9 Commissioner, Jeff Neely, received a 

$9,000 bonus. After concluding that there are "clear deficiencies in the area of 

periormance awards," on July 17,2012, Acting GSA Administrator Tangherlini 

announced that GSA will be CUlling Senior Executive performance awards this year by 

85 percent, suspending all performance awards given oUI in (he Administrator's Office 

for the rest of the fiscal year, and eliminate the A wards Stores program, through \vhich 

"!llU""V\;C;~ had access to prizes like iPods and digital cameraS. 

World Trade Center Lease 

Approval of GSA projects costing the taxpayer more than $2.79 million 4 is 

accomplished through a process established in the Public Buildings Act. Specifically, 

section 3307 ol'title 40 of the United States Code requires GSA to submit to thc 

Committee Oil Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on 

Environment and Public Works a prospectus providing specif1c details of the proposed 

project (construction, alteration, or lease), including details rclated to housing the 

agency or agencies to be located in the proposed spacc. 

The Public Building Service pays for the costs of these projects through the 

Federal Buildings Fund (FBF). The FBF is primarily llmded through rental payments 

made by tenant agencics to GSA for use oft11c spacc, although funds in thc FBF must be 

appropriated each year. In addition, the aHnual appropriations bills contain language that 

explicitly limits the use ofthe funds in the FBF to projects with prospectuses that arc 

approvcd by the committees in cases in which a prospectus is required under 40 U.S.C. 

3307. For decades, GSA has interpreted these requirements to mean that it does not have 

the authority to obligatc funds from the FBI' for prospectus-level without explicit 

authorization. 

On June 6, 2012, GSA sent the CommiHcc a prospectus to lease space in One 

World Trade Center (WTC) in New York, after the notification deadline to be included in 

thc Committec markup, schedulcd for the following day . .In addition, the prospcctus 

provided to the Committee was incomplete. It tailed to contain the intormation, required 

pursuant to 40 U.S.C. 3307, indicating the hOllsing plan and details on thc proposed 

tcnant agencies to occupy the space, Notwithstanding requests for such information, 

GSA failed to provide any additional infonnation prior to the June 7, 2012, markup. 

Committee stafr attemptcd to obtain the missing information following the markup. 

While GSA eventually provided "potential" uses for the proposed leased spacc, GSA 

relllsed to submit to the Committee a specific plan for housing agencies in the spacc. 

On July 17,2012, it was reported that GSA signed the WTC lease, despite a lack 

of authorization from the Committcc and contravening a long established precedent of 

4 The Fiscal Yem 20)3 prospect liS threshold is 2.791l1illioll. This figure is adjusted annually. 

5 
ix 


Insert offset folio 6 here 75419.006

Committee approval being necessary to prospectus level leases. No advance notice 

was provided to the Committee that GSA ,vas planning 10 sign the lease. On July! 8, 

2012, the Committee staff received an email informing the Committee that GSA had 

the lease. The estimated cost of the lease over the initial term will be 

million. Subsequently, on July 25, the Committee GSA 

a written explanation and briefing describing on what basis GSA believed it had the 

to sign the lease. As of the date ofthis memo, the Committee has not received a 

response. 

The Honorable Daniel Tangherlini (or his u .. ,,,,,,,,,, .. 

Acting Administrator 

U.S. General Services Administration 

The Honorable Brian Miller 

Inspector General 

U.S. General Services Administration 

6 
(1) 

GSA: A REVIEW OF AGENCY 

MISMANAGEMENT AND 

WASTEFUL SPENDING—PART 2 

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 1, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, WASHINGTON, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:13 a.m., in Room 2167, 

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John L. Mica (Chairman of 

the committee) presiding. 

Mr. MICA. Good morning. I would like to call the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to order. This morning’s 

hearing is entitled, ‘‘General Services Administration: A Review of 

Agency Mismanagement and Wasteful Spending—Part 2.’’ 

I am pleased to have Members join us and I apologize for a slight 

delay in the start. I told Ms. Norton someone should do something 

about traffic in Washington. 

We are pleased to have you here today and also to be holding 

this important oversight hearing and investigative hearing regarding the latest round of GSA spending abuses, which has seriously 

called into question GSA’s ability to safeguard taxpayers’ money. 

And the order of business will be I will start with my opening 

statement, and then I will recognize other Members. Then we will 

get to our panel of two witnesses. We will proceed with questions 

after we hear from those witnesses. 

Again, we are focusing on some of the problems that we have had 

in waste and abuse of taxpayer funds. The General Services Administration—it is particularly alarming because the General Services Administration is a chief procurement agency for the Federal 

Government, also responsible for maintaining many of the public 

assets—trustees of public assets—and when you have abuse as an 

agency with that mission, you have some serious problems. And we 

will address them today. 

First of all, I think everyone was appalled—and we appreciate 

the work of the inspector general, who is with us today—but they 

were appalled when we saw an $800 million Las Vegas conference 

that, unfortunately, featured clowns and mind readers and the infamous image that all of us recall of one of the administers in a 

hot tub thumbing his nose at both Congress and the American taxpayer. We are hopeful that this was a limited occurrence and that 

that was not indicative of the behavior, the actions, or the management of the agency. 

From the very beginning, I asked Mr. Denham to chair the Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management 

2 

Subcommittee that oversees GSA. But from our very first hearings, 

we requested information on soaring administrative costs that had 

ballooned some 300 percent. So we knew something was wrong. 

And I think Mr. Denham and I at almost every hearing and in 

communications with the agency have tried to ascertain why these 

expenses were so high and what was going on. 

Our focus also from this committee isn’t just something related 

to what we found with these conferences. One of our intents, both 

in the minority, when we published the report entitled, ‘‘Sitting on 

Our Assets: The Federal Government’s Misuse of Taxpayer-Owned 

Assets,’’ and that was in October of 2010, the same month that this 

first conference that was so abusive was held, but that highlighted 

the multibillion-dollar loss of taxpayer revenues and potential utilization of assets. We found that GSA and the Federal Government 

have 14,000 properties or buildings across the Nation that are either vacant or underutilized. 

Mr. Denham and I went down—and other Members—Ms. Norton 

was there—at the Old Post Office in the annex. The annex had 

been vacant for 15 years. And it is 2 blocks from the White House. 

I just came from the White House a few minutes ago, and just 

within steps of the White House is this property, costing taxpayers 

a loss of $8 million a year. It was 32 degrees outside, and we held 

a hearing in the annex, which had been vacant. It was 38 degrees 

inside. 

Most of the people who testified before us or worked with us, 

then-GSA administrators, unfortunately, were also involved in 

some of the abuses and almost all of them have been removed or 

replaced or resigned. 

In the meantime, with Ms. Norton’s help and in a bipartisan 

fashion, we have turned that first property from a money-losing 

asset to where a thousand people will be employed and potential 

significant revenue for the taxpayers. But that took us over a year. 

Since that, we have done two subsequent hearings in vacant 

buildings in our Nation’s Capital, one in the annex, Cotton Annex, 

a huge swath of land. That building was vacant for 5 years. And 

then several weeks ago, we conducted another hearing in the 

empty power facility behind the Ritz Carlton Georgetown on 2.08 

acres vacant for 11 years. 

Just examples of some of the huge waste. These conferences are 

significant abuses in waste, but there are even more dramatic problems with GSA. Next week, we will be doing a hearing in Miami, 

and there is Federal courthouse that has been vacant there for a 

number of years. We will continue during the August recess. I 

think we are going to be in Los Angeles with Mr. Denham to look 

at the situation there with underutilized or excess property sitting 

idle. 

So that sort of sets the stage for today’s hearing. We have been 

working diligently with the inspector general. We have a very limited investigative staff on the committee. The inspector general is 

doing as good a job as he can. Unfortunately, ladies and gentlemen, 

I am told by some folks that we have now received information that 

there may be as many as 77 conferences and award ceremonies 

that are now under review by the inspector general and the investigative committee of our staff. That is quite disturbing. We, of 

3 

course, were told, in addition to the October conference, which was 

$800,000, that now there is a 1-day, in excess of a quarter of a million dollar Virginia conference, and people have already seen the 

videos of $20,000 worth of drumsticks that were purchased; 

$35,000 in picture frames; and $104,000 for consulting on a 1-day 

conference that was paid. All of that is disturbing. Now we are 

finding there may be as many as 77. 

Mr. Denham I think I will address one particular that we have 

heard of in the last—actually, this continues even in the last 24 

hours. Not all of them are in the dollar amounts, but I must report 

that we are now examining the cost per attendee, and some of that 

is over the top. And it does raise new concerns. But it is going to 

take a while to sort through the good, bad, and the ugly of what 

has taken place. Not a pretty picture for taxpayers. 

Then I have to raise next before the committee a question of the 

bonuses. We were informed by GSA after inquiries about bonuses, 

the administration, the President had asked not to issue bonuses 

or they be limited. And in our questioning, we discovered about $10 

million in what was reported from GSA in bonuses. Now it appears—and I have to thank the media, particularly Fox News and 

I guess CBS and others who have also pursued this matter for 

some time. It is funny. A congressional panel, when you do an inquiry and you can ask an agency a question and you get back an 

answer and they give us back $10 million as the answer as to these 

bonuses. The media discovered—what is it—$34 million on top. So 

we have $44 million in bonuses. Absolutely stunning amount. 

Now to put this in context—and again, I thank the media for also 

working this. I see also the Washington Times had a FOIA request. 

All of these combined, we have now uncovered about $44 million 

in bonuses. 

Do we have a spreadsheet on that? 

This is an absolutely incredible amount of money. To put it in 

context, the entire Federal Government paid $439 million in bonuses to 1.3 million Federal employees last year. Now, GSA has 1 

percent of the employees of the Federal Government. One percent. 

And they received 10 percent of the bonuses, to show you how dramatically out of kilter this is. That is absolutely outrageous. 

Then, furthermore, we went through some of the expenditures on 

bonuses and payments to some of the GSA employees and who got 

them. A $50,000 bonus went to the regional commissioner, who is 

under investigation for the Las Vegas conference. So not only were 

they giving out an incredible and inordinate amount of bonuses, 

but those who got them, for example, were some of the abusers. So 

the regional commissioner under investigation who got the $50,000 

bonus ended up with almost a quarter of a million dollars in his 

pocket, $240,000. 

An employee with a base salary of $84,000—now listen to this— 

got $115,000 in overtime pay. We saw a quarter of a million dollar 

distributions to a number of employees that were also investigated. 

A $79,000 bonus for one employee with a total compensation that 

went as high as $260,000. There is something wrong in GSA when 

you have to pay an employee $115,000 in overtime. And then we 

found multiple $50,000 bonuses in this agency. 

4 

Conferences are one thing. Multimillion-dollar losses—bonuses, 

absolutely outrageous. Despite a specific guidance by the administration in 2011, and let me read it, that bonuses—or this extra 

compensation would be awarded in a manner that is cost-effective 

for agencies and successfully motivates strong employee performance. 

So this is a little bit long but, again, I want to highlight some 

of what we found to date. Unfortunately, this is only the preliminary results of our investigation. We are getting this in dribbles 

and drabs. 

I thank, again, the media who was involved in asking for these 

FOIA requests. This wasn’t a coordinated effort, I might say. These 

were independent. But all this has sort of come together and uncovered an incredible array of waste, abuse, possible fraudulent activity. 

We have to also be a little bit careful today. I respect the work 

of the inspector general, and he will besomewhat limited in some 

commentary. His responsibility and our responsibility will be after 

this investigation to possibly make criminal referrals or referrals to 

the Department of Justice for their review. So we want to make 

certain that our investigations comply with, again, proper protocol, 

and we respect him. And at any point, with any question, we respect your position in an ongoing investigation. 

We will continue to work hand-in-hand with the inspector general and our investigative staff to, one, uncover the balance of this 

waste, fraud, and abuse; two, to find out who was responsible, hold 

them accountable; and then, three, we are determined to make certain that this is cleaned up. It does not happen again. If we need 

to change administrative procedures or the law, we will do that. 

And you have my commitment that we will continue to pursue this 

until this mess is cleaned up. 

Finally, let me just say this. I do not have witnesses in any of 

those other chairs today because what we wanted to do was hear 

from the inspector general, from GSA. I had asked other GSA officials to come here. Most of the first tier has either been removed, 

resigned, or left. Now the second tier is not as cooperative as I had 

hoped. We had one I guess take a medical leave last week who possibly was involved. And others are not coming forward today. 

Additionally, in addition to not having GSA here today, I do not 

have witnesses which I would like to have from the private sector 

because there are people who are professionals who have management skills and can handle in an expeditious fashion the management, sale, the better utilization of these incredible assets. We 

have thousands of Federal properties, buildings vacant or underutilized, and I believe we need to start looking at turning this over 

to the private sector to better manage and to get GSA out of some 

of its current business. 

But what has happened here today because these seats are vacant is all of those potential participants are so intimidated by GSA 

that they have stayed away and are not with us. Each one we have 

requested has backed out of participating in this hearing. And that 

is unfortunate. 

And I am told, again, because GSA has such power; they control 

the largest rental market, property market in the world, that this 

5 

is taking place. But I intend to find another way and other witnesses to come in and guide our committee in trying to reform this 

whole process. 

I know this is a very long opening statement, and I appreciate 

your indulgence, Ranking Member Norton and ranking—Chair Mr. 

Denham. 

With those comments, I would like to yield to Ms. Norton. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for today’s hearing. 

This committee is addressing yet another General Services Administration conference that has gone, shall we say, off the rails. 

Much like the October 2010 Western Regions Conference, a conference that ran amok near Las Vegas, Nevada, we now have another conference closer to home that occurred just a month later. 

This time in Crystal City, Virginia, where there are serious allegations of excessive spending and activities of dubious merit. 

The President’s appointment of GSA Acting Administrator Dan 

Tangherlini, the official who referred this matter to the GSA inspector general, is already bearing fruit. Administrator Tangherlini 

told the subcommittee he would conduct a top-to-bottom review of 

the agency when he appeared before us. We will need a careful inspector general report like the one received concerning the Western 

Regions Conference. But Administrator Tangherlini’s actions thus 

far indicate that he is trying to get to the root of the issues at GSA. 

The acting administrator quickly implemented some commonsense 

reforms in the wake of the prior embarrassing GSA scandal, particularly consolidating conference oversight in the new Office of Administrative Services, which is now responsible for oversight of contracting for conferences, related activities and amenities and for review and approval of proposed conferences for their relation to 

GSA’s mission. 

I am also particularly pleased that GSA has brought all Public 

Buildings Service regional budgets under the direct authority of 

GSA’s chief financial officer, centralizing authority over these accounts to ensure there are checks and balances in how GSA 

prioritizes spending. This structural change alone might have had 

the effect of putting a stop to the overspending on the GSA conferences in Las Vegas and Crystal City. 

I look forward to hearing the testimony this morning about how 

we can continue to make improvements at GSA going forward. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentlelady. 

I am pleased to recognize the chair of our subcommittee overseeing this matter, Mr. Denham. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Certainly it is frustrating to have yet one more hearing on some 

of the fraud and the waste that is happening in GSA, the agency 

that is supposed to be tasked with setting an example, setting the 

standard for every other agency. 

After the Las Vegas celebration that they had, you would have 

thought that things would have changed. But yet we see conference 

after conference—and not just conferences. We found out now that 

rather than categorizing them as conferences, they categorize them 

6 

as celebrations so they can get around the Executive order of calling it a conference. 

We see the outrageous bonuses that aren’t just performance bonuses, which are bad enough, which under an Executive order were 

supposed to be stopped. But now we find out there is not only performance bonuses, but there are tier bonuses. There are special act 

bonuses. There are huge overtime payments, employees, department heads, receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional pay. 

This was supposed to be a hearing focused on yet one more conference dealing with the celebration at the Key Bridge Awards 

Ceremony, where awards were once again passed out—$3.7 million 

just in one awards ceremony alone. Yet after the President issued 

his Executive order, we found out there were 77 more conferences 

around the Nation. 

I think the question the taxpayer wants answered is: Why? Why 

are these agencies ignoring the President of the United States? 

And now what is most outrageous is the Administration feels 

that they can bypass Congress, breaking three different laws written in statute. I think there are many members of this committee 

and of Congress as a whole that are going to have a lot of questions 

about that. If you can get around the prospectus hear in this committee in this body of Government that does control the purse 

strings for the World Trade Center, then you can do it is in Ms. 

Norton’s district. You can do it in Ms. Edwards’ district. There is 

a $2 billion lease on the FBI building coming up. Billions of dollars 

of taxpayer dollars. If you can’t manage conferences and bonuses, 

how do you expect that Congress is going to allow you to handle 

billions of dollars worth of leases? 

Mr. MICA. Mr. Denham, would you yield for just a second? I just 

want to explain to the Members the issue that he is raising right 

now because we have leadership of the committee here—this is a 

very important issue—and Ms. Norton. 

Our committee is responsible basically, under law and historically for years, any lease that GSA signs over $2.7 million needs 

to come back for our approval, and then they are brought before 

this committee and we approve them. We had pending a $350 million lease of the World Trade Center. And the Administration— 

well, the Administration, GSA, signed that lease without approval. 

How long was the term? 

Twenty years, signed a 20-year—I mean, on top of everything 

else you have heard today, with the conferences, the bonuses, the 

waste and abuse, now they have just stuck their finger in the eye 

of the committee. 

I want to make sure everybody hears what Mr. Denham is saying: $350 million lease, subverting this committee. We have a 

major crisis. We have talked to the appropriators also. But they 

went ahead and signed that without approval of this committee. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

If you can sense my frustration and outrage, it is not partisan. 

This is about an agency that is ignoring the Commander in Chief. 

Whether it is Republican or Democrat, this body has a responsibility to make sure that the law is being upheld. 

7 

I want to just conclude: ‘‘At a time when so many American families are struggling to make ends meet, I am committed to making 

sure the Federal Government is spending the taxpayers’ money 

wisely and carefully and cutting costs wherever possible. I am committed to ending programs that do not work, streamlining those 

that do, and bringing a new responsibility for stewardship of tax 

dollars. Like households and businesses across the country, the 

Federal Government is tightening its belt. The effort began during 

my first days in office when I froze the salaries of the senior members of my White House staff. As a next step in this effort, I direct 

you to suspend cash awards, quality step increases, bonuses, similar discretionary payments or salary adjustments to any politically 

appointed Federal employee, commencing immediately and continuing through the end of the fiscal year 2011. I also direct the 

Office of Personnel Management to issue guidance in consultation 

with the Office of Management and Budget to assist departments 

and agencies in implementing this policy.’’ 

That is a Presidential memorandum, August 3, 2010. Yet 77 

more conferences went on after that. 

Executive Order 13576—Delivering an Efficient, Effective and 

Accountable Government: Government operations will be ‘‘curbing 

uncontrolled growth in contract spending, terminating poorly performing information technology projects, deploying state-of-the-art 

fraud detection tools to crack down on waste, focusing agency leaders on achieving ambitious improvements in high priority areas, 

and opening Government up...’’ Transparency. That was June 13, 

2011, Executive Order 13576. 

September 21, 2011, the Vice President was then tasked with 

getting every agency head together to deliver an efficient, effective, 

and accountable Government, which launched the campaign to cut 

waste. The Vice President convened the heads of executive departments and agencies to discuss the campaign to cut waste. At the 

meeting, the Vice President asked department agency heads to undertake thorough review of wasteful and inefficient spending and 

report back on the measures: ‘‘Therefore, the President has directed 

me to instruct all agencies and departments to conduct a thorough 

review of the policies and controls associated with conference-related activities and expenses. Until such time as the deputy secretary or equivalent can certify that the appropriate policies and 

controls are in place to mitigate the risk of inappropriate spending 

practices with regard to conferences, approval of conference-related 

activities and expenses shall be cleared through the deputy secretary or equivalent.’’ 

Executive Order 13589 on November 9, 2011. I will save you the 

suspense and go to section 7 of that: ‘‘Extraneous Promotional 

Items.’’ ‘‘Agencies should limit the purchase of promotional items, 

e.g., plaques, clothing, commemorative items, in particular where 

they are not cost-effective.’’ 

Conference after conference, celebration after celebration, several 

layer of bonuses and overtime, and now GSA wants to have authority over leases in the hundreds of millions of dollars. It stops here 

in this committee. I yield back. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Denham. Do others seek recognition? 

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker. 

8 

Mr. MICA. I love that title, but I will just settle for chairman. As 

nice as you were, Mr. Shuster, I am going to recognize Mr. Duncan 

first. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your 

calling this hearing. 

All the publicity that has been given to these conferences and 

these terrible abuses of the taxpayers have shown once again that 

the easiest thing in the world is to spend other people’s money, and 

that it is far too easy. In fact, Governor Ed Rendell, when he was 

Mayor of Philadelphia and was having a problem with some of the 

city unions, testified in front of one of our congressional committees 

many years ago, and he said, the problem with Government is 

there is no incentive for people to work hard, so many do not. 

There is no incentive for people to save money, so much of it is 

squandered. 

And certainly those words were true many years ago, and they 

are true today, maybe even more so as all of the abuses of the taxpayers that we are talking about here today show. So I appreciate 

you having this hearing and looking into these matters, and I yield 

back. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. Mr. Coble, I tried to do it in seniority, but 

I didn’t see you first. I apologize, sir. 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing. I 

have two other hearings, Mr. Chairman, so I will be in and out for 

most of the morning. I appreciate the witnesses being here. It does 

appear that sound fiscal management has been cast aside and replaced by wasteful mismanagement and recklessness. And perhaps 

we will hear more about that today. Again, I thank you for having 

called the hearing, Mr. Chairman, and yield back. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Coble. 

Mr. Shuster. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I am not 

going to be able to stay for the testimony, but I have a question— 

actually a couple of questions I would like to submit for the record. 

But it has been brought to my attention by some of my colleagues 

that there is a situation in San Antonio, Texas, involving the GSA 

that has recently made headlines. From what I have been told, the 

local Social Security office was asked to move to a new office, and 

while a new location will provide additional space, I understand 

also double the cost of the lease. From the information I have received, the cost of the lease will be more than $1 million per year 

in addition. I understand that the Social Security Administration 

has spent $1.7 million in reservations, a commission for the new 

lease totaling $482,000, and additional security costs will total 

$78,000. This does not take into account the cost of the actual 

move. 

I recognize this is just one lease in one part of the country, but 

I am interested in understanding why this situation has occurred, 

in light of all the other things that has been happening to GSA. 

But I have a series of questions I would like to submit to you, 

Mr. Miller, and get back in writing to me, if you would, some of 

the answers to my questions. 

With that, I yield back. 

Mr. MICA. Do others seek recognition? 

9 

Mr. Barletta? 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, I want to thank you for providing the therapy for the 

Members here to get this off our chest. 

You know, before I came to Congress I was a mayor of a small 

town in Pennsylvania, and the city was broke. We actually didn’t 

have money to hire the police that we needed. Now I come to Congress and the country is broke. I am beginning to believe that it 

is me. 

I have to ask the simple question. When we deal with so many 

issues like we don’t have money to fix our roads and bridges, but 

yet we are giving out hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses, 

it is hard for me to conceive who the real—where the real problem 

lies. And I have come to this conclusion that yes, there is horrible 

abuses of GSA. But you are not the only agency. This is not the 

only agency I have seen waste and abuse. We can go agency by 

agency and find it over and over again. And I have come to the conclusion that we are the problem. We in Congress have failed. 

Yes, it is great to get this off our chest and point out to the 

American people how you have wasted their tax dollars, but who 

are the enablers? It is Congress that is the enablers. We have allowed these agencies to do this. 

If anybody understands zero-based budgeting, you would understand that if we implemented a fundamental practice that most 

businesses use rather than allowing agencies to simply budget by 

what they spent last year and this is what we are requesting this 

year, zero-based budgeting would eliminate all this. We wouldn’t be 

having this hearing today. Because you see, every agency would 

start out with the same amount, zero. Zero. And you would have 

to justify every line item, why you need what you need. And they 

would never be able to budget millions of dollars for bonuses. This 

would never happen. 

This Congress can’t even pass a budget. The Senate hasn’t voted 

for a budget in 3 years. This is like parents who are going away 

on vacation, and they load their house up, and they are going to 

leave their teenage children at home. But before they leave, they 

load their house up with booze, and they leave the credit card on 

the table. And they go away, and when they come home, they act 

surprised that there are beer bottles all over the house and the 

house is a wreck, and they ask, what the heck happened? 

We have allowed this to happen. We have allowed this to happen. So I am going to ask the American people who are watching 

these hearings to take this matter into their hands. Before this 

next election, ask everyone who is running for this office if they 

support zero-based budgeting and ask everyone who is running for 

the United States Senate if they promise the American people that 

they will pass a budget. And if the answer to those questions are, 

no, then I would suggest that they hire new babysitters. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MICA. Do others seek recognition? 

Ms. Johnson. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to ask unanimous consent to place my entire statement in 

the record. 

10 

Mr. MICA. Without objection, so ordered. 

Ms. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. What I would like to say very quickly 

is we are in dire straits for dollars and we have some excellent 

Federal employees. And I know that in this very partisan environment, it seems like you are all bad, but that is not the case. But 

it appears to me that there was no attention given to clearing the 

problems when they were called to your attention. And I think that 

for that reason it is very difficult to try to justify the ill decisions 

that were made. This makes it very hard for law enforcement officials, air traffic controllers, educators that are all Federal employees that work very hard and make a lot less money and get tainted 

with this kind of behavior with this agency. I think it is unfortunate. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back and put my entire statement in the record. 

Mr. MICA. I thank the gentlelady. Ms. Napolitano, you are recognized. 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

In listening to my colleagues, I can’t agree with them more. I, 

too, come as a past mayor of a small city. And the budget is something that we look over very carefully. But that is at a smaller 

level. 

I know you have tremendous responsibilities, and the oversight 

is probably a little harder. However, every single agency is expected to do their best and act prudently. And I am hoping that 

the American people that are listening will understand that they 

have a right to be antiGovernment when they hear these stories 

and they are borne out by facts that are brought out to the general 

public’s view. I think it is important for us to support that and continue to go after any agency that is mismanaging, that is not following the intent of the law, and that the people, the supervisors, 

their leadership, is understanding that they have a right to be able 

to carry out the intent of the charge that they are given and understand that we will be able to follow through. 

I hope there will be lots of inquiries and discipline to those that 

have thought that they could just move ahead without any punitive 

action or any repercussions. We are all facing the same budgets in 

our cities. They are going bankrupt. Even in our staff, we don’t give 

bonuses. We can’t. We don’t have the funds. And to have the American public see these outrageous expenses—the taxpayer dollar. It 

is their money. 

So I am totally looking forward to listening and hopefully finding 

some solutions that are going to be effective in dealing with the future of our employees, that is the American public’s employees. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back. 

Mr. MICA. Do other Members seek recognition? 

If no other Members seek recognition, we do have our panel that 

we will turn to. Today we have two witnesses. The first is the Honorable Brian Miller, who is the inspector general of the General 

Services Administration; and then we have Ms. Cynthia Metzler. 

She is chief administrative services officer of the General Services 

Administration. We will, of course, welcome your testimony. We 

will start with 5 minutes or so. There are only two of you, so we 

won’t hold you to that. If you have additional information, docuVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:29 Dec 14, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\FULL\8-1-12~1\75419.TXT JEAN
11 

mentation that you would like to be made part of the record, we 

will be glad to do that, or testimony. 

I particularly want to thank Mr. Miller for his willingness to 

work with us. This, as I said in my opening statement, is a delicate 

situation. We have what started out as a small scandal now turning into a massive scandal with a number of people who have been 

involved. In fact, it is getting hard to find someone who isn’t involved who we can even get to testify without having them put into 

some jeopardy because of the judicial process that probably will unfold here. 

With that, again, I just thank Mr. Miller for his working so diligently with our investigative staff to uncover what is going on and 

also bring it to light. 

So, Mr. Miller, you are recognized. Welcome. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE BRIAN D. MILLER, INSPECTOR GENERAL, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; AND 

CYNTHIA METZLER, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES OFFICER, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Mica, Chairman Denham, Ranking Member Norton, 

members of the committee, thank you for inviting me here to testify this morning. I appreciate this committee’s support of inspectors general and of my office’s mission to weed out instances of 

fraud, waste, and abuse at the General Services Administration. 

It was with that mission in mind and pursuant to our congressional reporting requirements that I wrote my July 19 letter to our 

committees of jurisdiction, some of which had requested that IGs 

bring matters to their attention earlier in an investigation. In my 

letter, I informed Congress about an incident that had been 

brought to my attention by Acting Administrator Dan Tangherlini, 

who advised me that GSA planned to release similar information 

in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. 

On November 17, 2010, the Federal Acquisition Service, FAS, 

held a 1-day performance award ceremony in the Washington, DC, 

metropolitan area. The ceremony featured a team-building drum 

band exercise conducted by a third-party vendor and speeches by 

current and former GSA officials. Our findings, though subject to 

further investigation and change, show costs of over $200,000 for 

the 1-day ceremony, including over $34,000 for the venue, $28,000 

for picture frames, and $140,000 for coordination and logistical 

management to a third-party vendor. The vendor costs included 

over $20,000 for drumsticks and $10,000 for management of a presentation called, ‘‘Mission Possible, Agent X.’’ 

As I stated in my letter, we have begun a preliminary analysis 

of the information we received from GSA and have opened an administrative investigation. Since our investigation has begun just a 

few weeks ago, we have already uncovered some changes in cost 

figures and new facts. 

This may be a good opportunity to explain how an OIG investigation is conducted. OIG investigations originate through any number 

of sources. Our hotline affords GSA employees, GSA senior management, other Government employees, contractors and concerned 

citizens a mechanism to report instances of fraud, waste and abuse 

12 

throughout GSA. My Office of Investigation receives between 2,000 

and 3,000 hotline tips annually and will assess each complaint or 

tip for credibility and open up an investigation if appropriate. 

Additionally, some matters warranting an investigation are 

brought to our attention by GSA senior management, as was the 

case with the FAS ceremony. In other scenarios, our auditors may 

bring a matter discovered during an audit to our Office of Investigations or special agents may be tipped off by an informant. No 

matter what the source, our special agents conduct their investigations with professionalism, objectivity, and diligence. They interview witnesses and collect available evidence and documents. Our 

agents compile the evidence in a written report of investigation, 

commonly known as an ROI, Report of Investigation, with relevant 

evidence attached. 

In the last semiannual reporting period, our Office of Investigations made 486 referrals for criminal prosecution, civil litigation, 

and administrative action. Civil settlements and court-ordered and 

investigative recoveries for the same 6-month period totaled $218, 

496,507. Because of the impact an IG investigation can have, accuracy is of the utmost importance. Inaccurate reports can threaten 

the integrity of an OIG investigation and damage the OIG’s reputation as a mechanism for dependable oversight. 

Because our investigation into the FAS ceremony is ongoing, the 

preliminary figures in the confines of my letter to congressional 

committees are the extent to which I can discuss this incident. 

Those numbers were based on information provided by the agency; 

information that I understood was going to be released publicly. My 

office will continue to look into this ceremony and will update the 

committee when our investigation concludes. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony. I would be 

happy to answer any questions. Thank you. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Miller. 

Mr. MICA. We will now turn to Cynthia Metzler, chief administrative officer of the GSA. You are recognized. 

Ms. METZLER. Good morning, Chairman Mica and Ranking Member Norton. 

My name is Cynthia Metzler. I am the chief administrative services officer of the General Services Administration. In that capacity, I coordinate internal management and support services to promote efficiency within the agency, covering a wide variety of issues, 

including travel and conferences. 

As you are aware, Acting Administrator Dan Tangherlini was not 

able to appear today due to a longstanding family commitment. Mr. 

Tangherlini reached out to the committee to request that this hearing be rescheduled at a mutually convenient date so that he could 

personally appear but was informed that the committee was electing to proceed with today’s hearing with the awareness that he was 

unavailable. 

Mr. Tangherlini looks forward to continuing to work with the 

committee to improve the efficiency of GSA and to refocus the 

agency on its core mission of streamlining the administrative work 

of the Government to save money for the American taxpayer. 

Given that the genesis of this hearing was the acting administrator’s recent referral to the inspector general of a 2010 award cereVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:29 Dec 14, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\FULL\8-1-12~1\75419.TXT JEAN
13 

mony for the Federal Acquisition Service, I have come here today 

to outline the steps that we have taken to reform our conference 

and travel policies to prevent waste from happening again. As of 

April 2012, all travel for events, including internal GSA meetings, 

training, conferences, seminars, and leadership or management 

events, among others, was suspended. We have consolidated oversight of travel and conference expenses into the Office of Administrative Services, which I lead. My office now reviews each and 

every planned future conference to make sure that these events 

and any related travel are justified. 

For example, a conference requires a business justification, the 

submission of a budget, and must be approved by the head of the 

office pursuing the conference, and myself. Conferences with anticipated costs over $100,000 require the approval of the deputy administrator. Any travel must be essential to the mission of the 

agency, such as conducting litigation or performing building inspections. Any travel for a routine internal meeting at GSA requires a 

waiver from the administrator or the deputy administrator. 

We have canceled 37 previously scheduled conferences. These are 

a few of the many reforms the acting administrator has taken to 

improve oversight, strengthen controls, and help refocus the agency 

on its core mission. His top-to-bottom review of all agency operations continues. And I know he looks forward to discussing these 

with you in the future. 

The 2010 FAS awards ceremony is another example of what the 

acting administrator has already recognized, a pattern of misjudgment which spans several years and administrations. It must stop. 

And that is why Acting Administrator Tangherlini has instituted 

several stringent new policies on spending to put an end to waste. 

The new leadership at GSA is committed to investing any misuse 

of taxpayer dollars. When we find questionable occurrences, we 

refer them to the Office of the inspector general, as we did in this 

case. 

GSA has already taken a number of important steps to reform 

conference and travel policy within the agency. As part of the acting administrator’s top-to-bottom review, more steps will be taken 

to improve efficiency and save the taxpayer dollars. 

I appreciate the opportunity to come before you today to discuss 

this aspect of reform at GSA, and I welcome any questions you may 

have. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you. 

I appreciate your coming. 

We had requested, of course, Mr. Tangherlini. He, as you said, 

had a family obligation. We requested the deputy administrator, 

and I guess she was involved in this conference that is under question and investigation. So she is not coming. We had invited the 

chief of staff. He is not coming. And then we invited—what is his 

last name—Kempf, Federal Acquisition Service. I guess he was 

pretty heavily involved in the Virginia conference, and I believe he 

took a leave of absence. 

Did he take a leave of absence last week, Ms. Metzler? 

Ms. METZLER. I believe he is on medical leave. 

Mr. MICA. OK. And then we got further down, the public buildings administrator, she couldn’t come. So we got down to you. We 

14 

appreciate your being here. It is getting difficult to find anyone 

who hasn’t been involved in these scandals to now come and testify. 

I know, Mr. Miller, you have got ongoing investigations. We have 

identified 77 conferences with at least 25 attendees and $10,000 

cost. Is that correct? Are you aware of this? 

Mr. MILLER. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MICA. Well, many of them are smaller amounts, but we have 

got some smaller amounts with very significant expenditures. I see 

some as high as almost $2,200 a person; some that raise some 

questions. 

I wish you would give particular attention to the National Congressional Support Conference in Henderson, Nevada. Were we 

able to find out if that was the same hotel Mr. Neely was in? But 

they had 44 congressional—ma’am, is that your legislative office, 

44 persons? 

Ms. METZLER. It is the Office of Congressional Affairs. 

Mr. MICA. Yes. I am not sure if they were at the same resort 

with the same hot tub that Mr. Neely was in, but they were there 

for 5 days for an intergovernmental relations conference. And that 

is September of 2011. I would like particular attention if you could 

get back with the committee. I think our initial inquiries were 

thwarted on that. But I have particular interest in that. 

Again, the committee and you have some work to do, Mr. Miller. 

I appreciate your work. I won’t get into specifics because I don’t 

want to tie it to individuals in yourongoing investigation. 

Is the agency cooperating with you now, Mr. Miller? 

Mr. MILLER. Yes, it is, Mr. Chairman. It is cooperating. We are 

getting a lot of information from the agency, and we work with 

them. We, obviously, get information in waves sometimes. We don’t 

get complete information all the time. And so we go back, and we 

get additional information. So I think the committee understands 

the process. 

Mr. MICA. OK. Further, I don’t think we have a referral yet on 

the bonuses. Were you doing anything on the bonuses? 

Mr. MILLER. We have an audit of the executive compensation—— 

Mr. MICA. On the way. 

Mr. MILLER. Well, on its way. 

Mr. MICA. We will turn over to you what we have been provided 

with. I think there are two or three FOIA requests that were instituted by the media. It is amazing. I am not an attorney, Mr. Miller, 

but the way you ask the question and the response you get from 

the agency is when they tell us and we ask a question, how much 

in bonuses, I guess you can skew or respond in a different fashion. 

We were told $10 million. Now the media, it appears this could be 

up to $44 million; another $34 million. 

Ms. Metzler, do you know anything about the total number of bonuses, dollars that were expended? 

Ms. METZLER. Chairman Mica, unfortunately, I do not. I am not 

in charge of the human capital part. 

Mr. MICA. Could you ask GSA to provide the committee with that 

information, the correct total information, bonuses? Again, it is 

just—when you have 1 percent of the employees, and they have 

15 

13,000 GSA employees and you get 10 percent of all the bonuses, 

it seems something is not right. 

Ms. Metzler, are you familiar with the issue that is brought up 

by Mr. Denham on signing the GSA contracts, in particular, the 

World Trade Center? It was a $350 million contract which was 

signed before it was authorized by the committee. 

Ms. METZLER. My responsibilities have to do with the internal 

operations of GSA and not with the public building services or leasing. 

Mr. MICA. Can you also request that the agency provide us that 

information? We are expecting some sort of reply. We have already 

requested it, and we do not have it, when the law states that anything over $2.7 million needs approval from this committee. 

I might say, too, you have 13,000 employees, and I chaired the 

Civil Service Subcommittee and there are thousands of Federal employees who go to work every day in this city and around the Nation who do an absolutely outstanding job. They help people, they 

are wonderful. And I have nothing against going to conferences. I 

come from central Florida. We welcome, we welcome people to central Florida. Unfortunately, several of the higher spending visits 

were to central Florida, and many of these may be legitimate expenses. But obviously some of them are over the top and they are 

expenditures. 

Ma’am, are you aware Mr. Denham cited that the agencies were 

not to give exorbitant gifts and recognition items in a Presidential 

or a standing order? Are you familiar with that requirement, or directive? 

Ms. METZLER. I am familiar with the Presidential directive. My 

office only took on responsibility for approving conferences and 

award ceremonies and related expenses in April of 2012. So we 

have been reviewing conferences from April of 2012. 

Mr. MICA. And we can’t get the people who were responsible before us, but now you would not approve $20,000 in drumsticks, 

$35,000 in picture frames. Would that, would those expenditures 

comply? 

Ms. METZLER. We would not approve those now. 

Mr. MICA. And then the inspector general cited $140,000 in cost 

for organizing the conference. I went back and looked at the figures, and I think that there was some transportation and other 

things included in that. I saw the consulting fee of $104,000 to organize a 1-day conference. I took the 140 and then subtracted what 

I thought were legitimate expenses. Is $104,000 the typical fee for 

a 1-day conference? 

Ms. METZLER. Chairman, we look at the organizing fee, the overall purpose of the conference. 

Mr. MICA. But come on, $104,000 for a 1-day conference. I mean, 

I am in the wrong—there are a lot of people in the wrong business 

out there. 

Ms. METZLER. We would not have approved that conference 

under today’s standards. 

Mr. MICA. OK. Well, just these things just pop out. You know I 

have got people in my district losing their homes, their jobs, they 

are struggling to make ends meet and we have got an agency that 

is spending money like there is no tomorrow, and it has got to be 

16 

brought to a halt. So you are telling me again you are new in this 

position and we couldn’t get the responsible parties in here. 

Would you convey also to Mr. Tangherlini that I have tried for 

three times to convene this hearing, and one of the reasons that 

we are not waiving further delay in holding this hearing is because 

of that. So we will have him back in when he returns from his family obligations, and I hope to also have some of the missing people 

who are involved in some of this before the committee, too. They 

will not be let off the hook. 

Ms. Norton. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Miller, you say in your testimony at page 3 that the administrator has begun a top to bottom review of the agency, and then 

you list or you name an example. Do you believe that the steps— 

are you satisfied, I should say, with the steps the Administration 

is taking to prevent abuses of the kind that came before us in Las 

Vegas that now we find were in Crystal City and other abuses in 

the agency? 

Mr. MILLER. Well, Representative Norton, it is encouraging that 

GSA is taking steps to correct abuses in putting controls in. They 

strengthened the financial accountability, which was a recommendation of ours originally. In terms of whether these are effective or whether or not it is enough, I think it is too early to tell. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you. Now, could I ask a question about the 

Crystal City matter that the chairman just raised? Because as I 

look at that, even if the $140,000 plus, Ms. Metzler, does not—can 

be, you take out some of it, transportation and the rest, you are 

still left with $104,000, and it is by far the largest expenditure. 

Could I ask you if there are agency personnel that could perform 

the function that is called coordination and logistical management, 

or must such a matter be contracted out because I see that almost 

all of these conferences are contracted out to some private event 

planner, and they have their profit margin and all that goes with 

it. So is there anybody in the agency that can do conferences? 

Ms. METZLER. Congresswoman, yes, there are people in the agency and under the new standards of the acting administrator, we 

have a new requirement that before one of these new party event 

planners can be used in the future, that the head of the service has 

to approve it and then it has to come through my office and other 

appropriations. 

Ms. NORTON. You do have event planners and people who do 

event planning in the agency? 

Ms. METZLER. It is not the mission of GSA, but there are people 

who do have—— 

Ms. NORTON. Well, you know, conferences aren’t the mission either. 

Ms. METZLER. Yes. 

Ms. NORTON. If everything that isn’t the mission has to be contracted out, then work in the profit margin. And the real question, 

and I would ask Mr. Miller this. Wouldn’t it be less expensive to 

have a few people knowledgeable about conference planning in the 

agency rather than to contract out to some private event planner 

every time you want to do a conference? 

17 

Mr. MILLER. Yes. I would add that the GSA has event planners 

on staff. 

Ms. NORTON. Ms. Metzler, I would strongly recommend against 

contracting out to an event planner. Event planners do their work. 

They are very good. My hat is off to them. I don’t think, I think 

they try to do the fanciest job they can. I think somebody who 

works for the Federal Government would have a better understanding of what the agency wants and I very much recommend it 

there, that these matters not be contracted out but the Federal employees be given the task of designing and developing conferences 

for Federal employees. 

Mr. Miller, I have got to ask you about this, it sounds strange, 

and I would want to look behind it, but this figure about 10 percent 

of the bonuses in the Federal Government come from GSA which 

has 1 percent of the employees. That will catch anybody’s eye. Do 

you think that that figure is a figure, and I don’t know what the 

word ‘‘bonus’’ means, that fairly represents the proportion of bonuses at GSA relative to other Federal employees or agencies? 

Mr. MILLER. Representative Norton, I heard that figure this 

morning from the chairman. I have not had a chance to evaluate 

it. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Miller, I would ask that among your priorities 

you look at that matter because it, I don’t know how this, what the 

characterization is. Frankly, I find it a little difficult to believe. It 

is very difficult for me to believe that agencies which have hundreds of thousands of employees don’t have a larger percentage. So 

I don’t accept that at face value, and I won’t accept anything at 

face value until you have had the opportunity to look into it. 

During this recession the President has essentially asked that 

certainly his appointees lead by example. I would not begrudge 

Federal employees bonuses, but I must say on a rationed basis 

when you consider that for most Americans a salary would be considered a bonus. So I don’t, without knowing more about bonuses 

I certainly don’t want to decry bonuses, but during a recession and 

a recovery, it seems to me they ought to be given and I can only 

say it on a rationed basis which would mean some people who 

might otherwise deserve them wouldn’t get them, but what I ask 

you to do is to look at bonuses now so that we can see what that 

was about and what it and what can be done with it. 

I am very curious about page 2 of your testimony. Because you 

say in the last semi-annual, that would mean in the last 6 months, 

reporting period your office of investigation made 486 referrals for 

criminal prosecution, civil litigation, and administrative action. 

Would you break that down? That sounds like a large number. 

Would you compare that to what might have happened in the past? 

Mr. DENHAM. [presiding.] And I would ask you to break that 

down quickly. 

Mr. MILLER. OK. Well, it is, we make referrals obviously for 

criminal prosecution for civil action. 

Ms. NORTON. Yeah, but what proportion are of each. I know you 

may not have all of the figures before you. 

Mr. MILLER. Well, I can get the figures and send them up to you. 

I would be happy to do that. They should be in our semi-annual 

report as well broken down. 

18 

Ms. NORTON. And would you characterize them so when you say 

civil litigation or administrative action it would be helpful to know 

what that means as well. 

Mr. MILLER. Well, that is usually a civil fraud case under the 

False Claims Act. So when a vendor or contractor has inflated billings to the GSA. 

Ms. NORTON. So it may not be Federal employees. 

Mr. MILLER. Correct. And again if a contractor is giving a bribe 

or a contractor, it may be a criminal referral against the contractor 

depending on the circumstances and not against the Government 

employees. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Miller, if you could provide a full detail to this 

committee, we would appreciate it. 

Mr. MILLER. Sure. I would be happy to. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Miller, are you familiar with the August 3, 

2010, memo from the President, the Presidential memorandum to 

freeze discretionary awards, bonuses, and similar payments? 

Mr. MILLER. Only in a general way. 

Mr. DENHAM. Well, let me just ask you since 2010 and in August 

have all discretionary awards been frozen? 

Mr. MILLER. I understand the President has capped awards. 

Mr. DENHAM. Are there awards that you know of to date between 

August of 2010 to today, discretionary awards or bonuses or similar 

payments? 

Mr. MILLER. I believe that they are either capped or frozen, or 

actually Ms. Metzler may be in a better position to answer that. 

Mr. DENHAM. There have been a number—you sent a report to 

this committee that there have been a number of bonuses that 

have gone out in the last 2 years? 

Mr. MILLER. Yes. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. Are you familiar with the memorandum to the heads of the executive departments and agencies 

that says that approval of conference-related activities and expenses shall be cleared through deputy secretary or equivalent? 

Mr. MILLER. Yes, in a general way. 

Mr. DENHAM. Have they all been—all of the conferences, the 77 

that you have seen in the last year and a half, have those 77 conferences been cleared by deputy secretaries or equivalent? 

Mr. MILLER. I do not believe that they have. 

Mr. DENHAM. You do not believe they have? 

Mr. MILLER. Correct. 

Mr. DENHAM. Are you familiar with the Presidential document, 

the Executive Order 13589 promoting efficient spending, where in 

section 7 it says ‘‘Extraneous Promotional Items.’’ ‘‘Agencies should 

limit the purchase of promotional items, e.g., plaques, clothing, 

commemorative items.’’ Are you familiar with that? 

Mr. MILLER. Yes, in a general way. 

Mr. DENHAM. Have there been any commemorative items, 

plaques, or clothing that has been given out in the last 2 years? 

Mr. MILLER. Well, Mr. Chairman, we are conducting an ongoing 

investigation. 

Mr. DENHAM. Were there drumsticks at the Crystal Palace that 

were given out? 

19 

Mr. MILLER. They were given out in connection with the celebration. 

Mr. DENHAM. Were there commemorative frames? 

Mr. MILLER. They were given out in connection with the celebration. 

Mr. DENHAM. Would you consider those commemorative items 

that should have been covered under Executive Order 13589? 

Mr. MILLER. I think we are getting very close to our ongoing investigation with that matter. So I would decline to answer that. 

Mr. DENHAM. In your report, I will read from your report, $28,364.45 for 4,000 time temperature picture frames. I would consider those picture frames commemorative items. $7,810 for 68 

shadowbox frames provided by award crafters. I would consider 

that commemorative items. $20,578 for 4,000 drumsticks given to 

attendees. I would also consider that in that same category. 

So my question to you is if you have a memorandum from the 

President, if you have a memorandum to department heads saying 

that deputy secretaries or equivalent will approve all conferences 

and if you have two Executive orders by the President, how could 

this go on for the last 2 years? 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, we are looking into that. Our investigation is ongoing. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Miller, you have been doing these investigations for quite some time now. Have you ever seen a period of time 

where Executive orders are just flat out ignored? 

Mr. MILLER. It is—— 

Mr. DENHAM. When the Commander in Chief issues an Executive 

order, do you ever find that agencies just ignore it? As a CEO of 

a company if I had a department head ignore my order, they would 

be fired. 

Mr. MILLER. Right. 

Mr. DENHAM. So the question is why aren’t these people being 

fired if they are ignoring the Commander in Chief? 

Mr. MILLER. I understand that and we have an ongoing investigation. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Ms. Metzler, I understand that Mr. Tangherlini couldn’t be here 

today. I appreciate that. This committee had a responsibility to 

continue on its investigation and make sure that the law is actually being upheld, but we would like to continue to offer an invitation to Mr. Tangherlini and give him plenty of heads up. I assume 

he doesn’t have a vacation planned on August 6, when we have our 

hearing in Miami. I would hope that he also does not have a family 

vacation planned August 17. I understand, I have got a family too. 

I understand how important family vacations are. We are going to 

give him two more opportunities in the next few weeks to testify 

before this committee. We hope that he doesn’t have previous engagements. 

But let me ask you, in your testimony you say as of April 2012, 

all events for—all travel for events, including internal GSA meetings, trainings, conferences, seminars and leadership or management events, among others, were suspended. Were they suspended? 

Ms. METZLER. They were suspended and any event subsequent to 

April had to go through the new approval process. 

20 

Mr. DENHAM. Conferences and celebrations? 

Ms. METZLER. Yes. 

Mr. DENHAM. Award ceremonies? 

Ms. METZLER. Yes. Award ceremonies with food, yes. 

Mr. DENHAM. So all GSA travel went through you on these types 

of conferences, celebrations, or award ceremonies? 

Ms. METZLER. After April. 

Mr. DENHAM. You consolidated oversight of conference and travel 

expenses in the Office of Administrative Services which you lead? 

Ms. METZLER. That is correct. 

Mr. DENHAM. Why is there is a conference going on today in 

Nashville? 

Ms. METZLER. That conference was subject, it is called the 

SmartPay Conference. It was previously scheduled, long scheduled 

before the acting administrator. Those responsible came in with 

their proposal for the conference, why it was being held, who was 

going to be attending it, what the purpose was. 

Mr. DENHAM. Let me just ask. My time is brief here. Over 6,000 

rooms at the Gaylord in Nashville, I understand the Presidential 

suite is occupied today. Is there a GSA employee in the Presidential suite? 

Ms. METZLER. I do not know. 

Mr. DENHAM. It is over $3,000 a night. You don’t know? 

Ms. METZLER. I don’t know. I would hope not. 

Mr. DENHAM. I would hope not, too. How about the junior suites? 

Those are all booked up today, too. 

Ms. METZLER. Under our policies those rooms are not to be occupied by GSA employees. 

Mr. DENHAM. And since you oversee the oversight and the travel 

expense of these, what is the travel necessity of the General Jackson steamboat that is taking a party out tonight? Is there a travel, 

are they going to a destination, is that the reason for travel expense of the General Jackson steamboat? 

Ms. METZLER. There is no such travel associated with anything 

that the General Services Administration is involved in. That may 

be some other third party. 

Mr. DENHAM. So there is no expense to the Federal Government 

for the General Jackson steamboat that is having a party tonight? 

Ms. METZLER. That is correct, to the best of my knowledge. 

Mr. DENHAM. Great. We look forward to looking into that further. 

Mr. Coble. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for my delay. 

I had a Judiciary hearing. Good to have you all with us, by the 

way. 

Mr. Miller, who brought your—strike that. Mr. Miller, who 

brought the FAS, the Federal Acquisition Service, conference to 

your attention? 

Mr. MILLER. Acting Administrator Dan Tangherlini brought it to 

my personal attention. There was a, we did receive a hotline complaint in May of this year. It was an anonymous complaint of about 

five single-spaced pages with about four lines of general information about this conference. 

Mr. COBLE. That was after you had heard about it initially? 

21 

Mr. MILLER. I’m sorry, sir? I didn’t hear you. 

Mr. COBLE. Were you familiar with it prior to having received 

that notice or—— 

Mr. MILLER. No, I was not. 

Mr. COBLE. OK. It appears that—I hope that I am not being duplicative of what questions may have been put to you in my absence but it seems that the conference took place in two locations, 

the Marriott in Crystal City and then a reception that I am told 

costing over $7,000 at the Key Bridge Marriott. The reception I am 

furthermore told was complete with a violinist and guitarist, apparently music provided, and it appears that a bus was hired at more 

than $5,000 presumably to shuttle attendees between the two different hotels. I guess my question is why were two locations needed 

for a 1-day conference, A, and who was invited to the reception? 

Mr. MILLER. Well, those are questions that we are looking for the 

answer to as well. We have an ongoing investigation into this matter. 

Mr. COBLE. You want to weigh in on that, Ms. Metzler? 

Ms. METZLER. When the acting administrator found out about 

this conference, we referred the matter to the inspector general for 

inquiry and so we are waiting for the results of his survey, of his 

investigation. 

Mr. COBLE. Well, as I said in my opening statement it does appear that sound fiscal practices have been cast aside, if not abandoned, for mismanagement and waste and recklessness, and I am 

hoping that this hearing will at least expose the wrongdoing, and 

I think it has been wrongdoing, and again, thank you all for being 

here. Anything either of you want to add before I yield back? 

Mr. MILLER. No, thank you. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Coble. 

Ms. Napolitano. 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a couple of questions. How many conferences a year do you normally have scheduled roughly? I don’t need an exact number. 

Ms. METZLER. The numbers that were scheduled prior to April 

11, 2012, we have been trying to uncover for the last several 

months. Right now for this year in 2012, we have only five conferences scheduled. 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. But those conferences were, pre-April you are 

continuing to have the conference. Is there any call to have any of 

the people who scheduled conference go to whoever is in charge to 

find out whether they are meeting the requirement to hold the 

budget to be able to be transparent, to be able to have information? 

Ms. METZLER. Congresswoman, yes, there is. We have very strict 

policies now. 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Now but before that. 

Ms. METZLER. Before that we did not have central controls of 

conferences, how many there were or who went or the nature of 

them. 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. But apparently you still have conferences that 

were pre-approved prior to April? 

Ms. METZLER. Actually not. Any conference that was scheduled 

after April. 

22 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. No. I am talking pre-April. 

Ms. METZLER. Even if it was scheduled before April, it was 

deemed to be canceled, and they had to come back to—through my 

office to the deputy administrator, to the administrator to hold the 

conference. 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. So you do have oversight over anything regardless of whether it is pre or post? 

Ms. METZLER. Yes, that is correct. 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. OK. Then the concern that now raises its ugly 

head with me is the cost is going to be inherently on the taxpayer, 

if you will, for the investigation of those 77 conferences, am I correct, sir? 

Mr. MILLER. We are currently investigating those. Yes, it comes 

out of our appropriations. 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Right. But that is, again that is money that 

should not have been—had to be spent in other words. 

Mr. MILLER. Yes. 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. But you are having to go back and review and 

ensure that the law has been followed that compliance has been 

made? 

Mr. MILLER. Yes. 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. OK. Is there any way to quantify how much 

time you are going to spend on these? I am talking about in terms 

of dollars? 

Mr. MILLER. That would be difficult. We are trying to do this in 

the most efficient way possible. We use parameters. 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Understood. I am trying to get to the point that 

it is going to cost the taxpayer a lot of money because of the decades, if you will, of doing whatever it is that they did without having any oversight or any control over the conference of the event, 

the expenditures, the bonuses, et cetera. And you say you have cut 

all bonuses, ma’am? 

Ms. METZLER. Bonuses are not within my lane of responsibility. 

I am aware that the acting administrator has issued a serious curtailment on senior executive bonuses and other bonuses are being 

looked at as being part of the top to bottom review. 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. That is curtailment but not necessarily ending 

bonuses until clarification is made of whether they have been 

earned? 

Ms. METZLER. Are you asking me a question there? 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Well, yeah, certainly. I know senior management normally will get bonuses. The American public doesn’t get 

bonuses. We are trying to figure out how can we justify that when 

we have such a tight budget, when we are looking for money regardless of whether—you are paid to do a job, for goodness sakes. 

Ms. METZLER. I will be happy to get back to you with the information from the right officials at GSA regarding bonuses. 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. Would you? I don’t sit on the committee of jurisdiction, so I am kind of wondering about some of the questions 

that kind of fall through the cracks for me. 

You talk about misjudgment from several administrations. But 

why has it taken so long that it took maybe a whistleblower or 

somebody to raise the issue with the Office of Inspector General? 

23 

Ms. METZLER. The acting administrator came to GSA in April. 

On April 15 and 16, he issued a series of new policies regarding 

conferences and training. So it didn’t take him but a minute, or 

less than a week to issue the policies that we have now that provide oversight, central control, and put fiscal responsibility back 

into the spending. 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. And what brought that to a head? 

Ms. METZLER. Well, him coming to GSA, which was prompted by 

the resignation of the previous administrator. 

Ms. NAPOLITANO. I see. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like 

to submit some questions for the record. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Duncan. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Miller, I had intended to ask about these 486 referrals that Mrs. Norton got into, 

and I am still curious about those. That does seem like an awfully 

high number because that, over a 6-month period that comes to 

over 80 referrals a month. Is that much higher than has been done 

in the past, or has it always run about that, and I know you said 

many of these or most of these were not referrals about GSA employees but more fraud cases toward GSA contractors or something. 

Would you tell me a little bit more about that? 

Mr. MILLER. It is a mix of referrals. My point was that a referral 

can either be against someone doing business with GSA or it can 

be about a GSA official. So I wouldn’t want to quantify it off the 

top of my head as to which one is more, whether there are more 

referrals regarding contractors or more referrals regarding GSA 

employees. 

I would be happy to furnish the committee with the precise 

breakdown of the employees, of the referrals. We do a lot of referrals with credit cards that go with the leased vehicles, GSA leases 

vehicles, it is called the fleet, to other agencies and any time another agency uses one of these cards, a credit card goes along with 

it. And unfortunately, Federal employees misuse the credit card, 

and they will charge gas for friends and family, for example, and 

that is a crime which is referred. So it is not a large case, but it 

is a referral and we do have it prosecuted by U.S. attorneys when 

we can or by State prosecutors when we can. So we do have a number of those which may contribute to the higher number of referrals. I don’t know if that helps explain it but I am happy to give 

you a breakdown, precise breakdown of the referrals. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Do you know whether that was a much higher figure than in the preceding semi-annual period or—— 

Mr. MILLER. I think we have been increasing our referrals over 

the years, and I take that as an accomplishment of the office. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I would like to see a breakdown at some point of 

how many of those were GSA employees and also whether one of 

these GSA contractors was a repeat violator of some sort because 

if there is a small number of companies, for instance, that are just 

repeat violators, something needs to be done about that also. 

Mr. MILLER. Right. Well, I will give you an example. We recovered almost $200 million from Oracle recently under a settlement 

of a False Claims Act case, a civil fraud case. So that is an example 

of one of the cases. So it can range from $200 million to someone 

24 

misusing a credit card for a leased car for gas in the amount of a 

hundred to $500. So it is a large range of damages. 

Mr. DUNCAN. On another topic, I am told by staff that CBS had 

a report that said that over 13,000 GSA employees received bonuses or extra pay, incentive pay, whatever you want to call it, different types of bonuses or extra pay. Yet on the GSA Web site it 

says the number of GSA employees is 12,635. Have you looked into 

that? Was it just a common accepted practice that every GSA employee got a bonus or some type of extra pay? 

Mr. MILLER. We have an audit on its way of executive compensation. It is an audit that we started some time ago. It was prompted 

because we saw, we suspected multiple awards to GSA officials involved in the Western Regions Conference, multiple awards for the 

same work that they have done. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Ms. Metzler, on this conference where it says $10,000 was paid for a presentation by somebody called Mission 

Possible Agent X, do you know what that, what they got for that 

$10,000 or what that presentation was about? 

Ms. METZLER. Congressman, I do not. That conference was in 

2010. It predated our current review processes and, as I have indicated, we would not be approving that conference at this time. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, all right. I will just close by saying this. I will 

repeat what I said in my opening statement. Unfortunately it is 

just far too easy to spend other people’s money and when people— 

or the problem with the Government is when it is not coming out 

of your own pocket, we have got too many people at the Federal 

level who are just abusing the taxpayers. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. And I would remind the committee 

that we do have a hard deadline of 11:00 for a markup on committee bills so any questions that you feel comfortable with providing the chair that we can enter into the record and get answered for you would help to move the committee along better. 

With that, Mr. Walz. 

Mr. WALZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this committee, 

and Mr. Miller, thank you for being back again and for the work 

you have done. There are a couple of things my colleagues have 

said. The one thing, it is very hard not to feel the frustration here. 

I think Mr. Barletta was right though. At some point in time, expressing frustrations about getting anything out of it is simply not 

good enough. I am glad Mr. Mica commented on the great number 

of Federal employees who do their job and Mr. Duncan pointed out 

the issue. I would argue there is an incentive other than pay. It 

is called ethics. I would like to think as I taught school starting out 

for $17,000 a year, I worked just as hard as I did when I reached 

the stratospheric top at $47,000, that I was working just as hard 

as in that classroom in trying to save money for the taxpayers. But 

when we get a situation like this, it absolutely, as Ms. Johnson 

said too, it destroys all credibility amongst all Members. 

And Ms. Metzler, my friend, Mr. Denham, I know is very thorough. I think you and I both know there is not going to be good 

news out of this conference. Somebody is staying in that damn 

suite tonight, I would almost guarantee you, and that is—I understand that you don’t have that, but I think you know that, don’t 

25 

you. So my question is, next is what happens when you come back 

and the questions that are getting asked today I don’t have any answers for these, and I am as frustrated as anybody else. I am trying to get a grasp on what Mr. Barletta said, how do we make sure 

this stops? It appears to me there was clear cut directives put out, 

there were Executive orders put out. Mr. Miller has been to this 

committee and testified. Many of us sit here appalled at $45 breakfasts and everything else and here we are again. 

So are you confident that the changes that have been implemented or are in place are going to say for example to make sure 

none of the things that were forbidden are going to happen today 

in Nashville? Are you comfortable with that as an administrator? 

Ms. METZLER. I am comfortable that we reviewed all of the expenses for this proposed conference along with all the others that 

have been held, that the administrator has, we have looked at the 

expenses that were in the budget. We have made very clear the 

ethical responsibilities of every employee that is attending this conference and ethical responsibilities on the private sector companies 

that are also attending. So I am comfortable that we have conducted a thorough review of this conference. 

Mr. WALZ. For the American public then, and I am speculating, 

I want to be very clear, I am speculating what is happening there 

but everything, my spider spin tells me there is something very 

bad going to come out of that and if that does, can you give me a 

buck stops here assessment? If there is a GSA employee in a 

$3,000 a night suite in Nashville, what is going to happen? That 

is what Mr. Barletta is asking. Who is accountable? I think it is. 

I don’t want to put words in his mouth. Who is going to be accountable if that happens? We will find out. I mean, this is going to come 

out so in a week or so, there is going to be a story, no, there was 

not, and I will say goodness, they put some good checks in place 

or not, if it comes out someone is in there. What will happen then? 

Ms. METZLER. Well, as with all things with Acting administrator 

Tangherlini, once we discover that there is something that has violated our policy or the law or something or another, we have been 

referring those matters to the inspector general. If we find that 

there is anything about this conference that does not comport with 

what it was proposed to be to the acting administrator and to me, 

then we will be referring that matter to the inspector general. 

Mr. WALZ. When you leave this room is somebody going to be on 

a cell phone calling Nashville? 

Ms. METZLER. I think someone is probably on a cell phone already while we are in this hearing because we were very clear 

about the limitations on any preexisting conference that received 

approval that there were not to be questions of riverboats, there 

were not to be questions of Presidential suites. So that was the 

guidance that was given, the direction that was given, and the conditions under which this conference was approved, and I am hopeful that by the time I leave here we will have answers. 

Mr. WALZ. And I do appreciate that. And I want to be very clear. 

I know you are in an uncomfortable position. That is what comes 

with leadership, but I can’t stress the corrosive factor that happens 

to so many dedicated, hardworking, ethical employees across this 

country, and whatever you say about it’s unfair with gross genVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:29 Dec 14, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\FULL\8-1-12~1\75419.TXT JEAN
26 

eralizations, I certainly know it here that we are painted by our 

colleagues in this body, and we each get associated with one another and it is all of our responsibility, especially leadership, to fix 

that. And with that I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Walz. I would just remind committee members we have got about 10 minutes. I am going to ask 

each of you if you could keep it to 2 minutes so that we make sure 

we finish on time and get to everybody. 

But Ms. Metzler, I just want to clarify, Mr. Walz was very, very 

clear on his question. And you did say we consolidated oversight 

of conference and travel expenses in the Office of Administrative 

Services, which I lead, you lead, you sign off on, and as you said, 

there are probably people on cell phones right now just contacting 

the Gaylord Opryland who confirms that GSA has rented out the 

General Jackson for a private event this evening. Did you authorize 

GSA to rent out the General Jackson for a private evening tonight, 

the steamboat? 

Ms. METZLER. We did not. This conference, I just might add—— 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. I need to yield to the next Member, Mr. 

Barletta, for 2 minutes. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. Ms. Metzler, I had asked if I could 

see GSA’s budget. I was interested in how much they budgeted for 

these types of conferences and meetings, and the response I got is 

that the answer is complicated, that they budget a top line for 

building operations but they have not budgeted down to line item 

like conferences and meetings. Now I know you talked about some 

of the reforms that are in place. Could you tell me what they have 

budgeted right now for conferences, meetings, travel, bonuses? 

Ms. METZLER. Congressman, the budgeting of the agency is within the purview of the Chief Financial Officer, and the entire budgeting along with every other aspect of GSA is part of the acting administrator—— 

Mr. BARLETTA. But I am asking do they have line items specifically for conferences, for bonuses. Is it itemized like that that you 

could tell me or somebody—I couldn’t even get a budget, I couldn’t 

even get a copy of the budget. I am a Member of Congress. Is it 

down to line items? 

Ms. METZLER. The proposals for conferences that after April are 

very much line item by line item so that we saw, for example, for 

the SmartPay Conference—— 

Mr. BARLETTA. If I could because my time, I want to get to the 

point. Could you then send me a list of what, how much money is 

budgeted for conferences, bonuses, travel and also what GSA’s 

budget is. And the answer here is how do we fix this, how do we 

fix this problem? We could go on and on and on. This is not the 

only agency. So this is my take away from this meeting. There is 

number one. We need to force the Senate and Congress should pass 

and the President should sign a budget for the American people; 

two, Congress should require that every department utilize zero 

base budgeting. Every department require. Three, we should not 

ask to take more hardworking taxpayers’ money so that Washington could spend it. And four, we should not let this Government 

run our health care system. 

Thank you. 

27 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. Ms. Metzler, if you could provide that 

back to the committee, the entire committee would be anxious to 

see how many conferences you have approved as well as the expenses and the line items moving forward. 

I now recognize Mr. Sires for 2 minutes. I am sorry, Ms. Edwards for 2 minutes. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the 

witnesses. Just a couple of questions if we could just run down 

them because time is short. How many employees are at GSA? 

Ms. METZLER. Over 12,000. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And what is your estimate of the number of them 

that have participated in these conferences in the last year? 

Ms. METZLER. Congresswoman, I would have to get back to you 

about the numbers of people that have participated in these conferences. 

Ms. EDWARDS. But it would be fair to say that it is probably not 

80 percent of the agency that has participated in these conferences 

or 90 percent of the agency, right? 

Ms. METZLER. It would be fair to say it is less than half and 

much less than that I would estimate, but I would have to get that 

to you. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Now, over the last 3 years the regular general 

service workers at GSA haven’t received a pay raise at all, isn’t 

that right. 

Ms. METZLER. I have just rejoined the Government in August of 

2011, so I am not familiar with what pay situation was before that 

period. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Pretty much guaranteeing that Federal workers 

haven’t received a pay raise in 3 years. And what is the percentage 

of the employees at GSA who have received bonuses? 

Ms. METZLER. Congresswoman, I will have to have someone get 

back to you with that information. I don’t have it since it is not 

part of my responsibilities. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Would you also get back to me about the numbers 

of those employees in the GS–3 and 5 and 7 range who weren’t the 

recipients of those bonuses at the senior executive level, employees 

who haven’t received a pay raise over the last 3 years? 

Ms. METZLER. We will get that information to you. 

Ms. EDWARDS. And how many annual conferences have there 

been that aren’t related to boosting morale but are serving the core 

mission of the agency? 

Ms. METZLER. The vast majority of the conferences of GSA are 

serving the core mission of the agency. The conference that we are 

holding right now is called the SmartPay Conference. It is to provide credit card holders with required training so that they know 

how to manage their credit card. The last conference we had was 

to provide conferences on contracting and—— 

Ms. EDWARDS. We are out of time so I can’t—and I appreciate 

that but I can’t run through all of these. Let me just say in closing 

that I think in addition to strengthening the accountability in the 

conference arena that it is important for the IG to look deeply into 

questions that I have had longstanding about the transparency accountability, fairness and parity in every area of the General Services Administration. And this is not about the good employees of 

28 

GSA. A lot of them live in my congressional district. But when I 

walked up to a woman who works at GSA who works hard every 

day who hasn’t got a raise, who shows up and does her job and she 

is in tears because this agency is in the newspaper every single 

day, it is disgusting. It is not worthy of the taxpayers. It is not worthy of the citizens of this country, and GSA needs to get its house 

in order. And the director, Acting administrator Tangherlini, I am 

glad that he rooted out the problem, but he needs to be in front 

of this committee because there are a lot of questions that need to 

be answered and here you have somebody who is ostensibly a 

friend of the Administration totally disgusted with the Administration, totally disgusted with the GSA and with its operation at every 

single level, every single time that we have a hearing in front of 

this committee, and we just can’t take it any more. You know, let 

us defend the employees who are good and hard workers at the 

General Services Administration, but not to defend this kind of 

garbage that is a waste of taxpayer money and that makes all of 

us in the public not have any confidence at all that the good workers at GSA can do their job. 

And with that I yield. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Ms. Edwards. And Ms. Metzler, this 

committee would also request the analysis on the training per individual. As Ms. Edwards said, there is a lot of money going into 

this. We want to make sure the good training that they are receiving is a definite benefit to each of those that are getting trained. 

If they are spending a million dollars at a conference, we want to 

see the benefits that those that are getting trained are getting out 

of that and I would like to see the cost-benefit behind that. 

I now recognize Mr. Ribble, the final questioner, for 2 minutes. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Miller, were the current heads of FAS and PBS at the Virginia conference? 

Mr. MILLER. The current head of FAS was at the conference. I 

am not sure about PBS. We would have to look, I would have to 

look into that. 

Mr. RIBBLE. Ms. Metzler, do you know if the head of PBS was 

at the Virginia conference? 

Ms. METZLER. I do not. 

Mr. RIBBLE. OK. Could you get back to me with that information, 

please? 

Ms. Metzler, in your testimony on page 2, you said Mr. 

Tangherlini looks forward to continuing to work with the committee to refocus the agency on its core mission of streamlining the 

administrative work of the Federal Government to save money for 

the American taxpayer. What in the world were they doing before? 

Ms. METZLER. The acting administrator has committed to conducting a thorough top to bottom review of this agency so that 

every single aspect of the agency is being looked at right now so 

that we can ensure that it is carrying out its mission in the most 

cost effective way. 

Mr. RIBBLE. You say in your testimony also on page 2 that your 

office reviews each and every planned future conference to make 

sure that these events and any related travel are justified, and 

then you say, for example, conferences require a business justificaVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:29 Dec 14, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\112\FULL\8-1-12~1\75419.TXT JEAN
29 

tion and the submission of a budget. That wasn’t going on before? 

This is pretty basic? 

Ms. METZLER. Before April of 2012, there was no central oversight of conferences to require that the proposal for what the conference was about, how it was related to the agency’s mission, that 

may have happened, but it was not done in a centralized fashion. 

Mr. RIBBLE. This is just unbelievable. This is shocking. The 

American people watching this must just be stunned by this that 

they weren’t required to submit a budget to have a conference approved? 

Ms. METZLER. After April 11, April 2012, we have been requiring 

much more diligence in what the justification for the conference is, 

and I am sure there were budgets beforehand, but we have been 

looking at these in a different fashion to ensure that the American 

taxpayers’ dollars are well utilized. 

Mr. RIBBLE. I can tell you and I can say this, Mr. Chairman, as 

I yield back. My son is a professional drummer in Nashville, ironically sometimes plays on the General Jackson. However, he pays 

about $7 a pair for drumsticks. The GSA whose core mission is to 

save money for the American taxpayer bought 4,000 drumsticks 

and paid $10.28 a pair. And you can pay them retail, just search 

the Internet, you can buy them retail for under $7 a pair. So about 

35 to 40 percent more. I am wondering how in the world they can 

claim they are trying to save money for the American taxpayer, 

and I yield back. 

Mr. MICA. [presiding.] Thank you. Our last one will be Mr. Sires. 

Mr. SIRES. We thought you were talking about food over here 

when you were talking about drumsticks. 

You know, I would just like to associate myself with the comments of my colleague. And let us talk a little bit about leasing. 

Did you just, did the GSA just lease or sign a lease with the World 

Trade Center? 

Mr. MILLER. Yes. 

Mr. SIRES. Why would you go to the World Trade Center? Besides the fact that the lease was usually it is approved by this committee and it was never brought before this committee. That is the 

reason I am—— 

Mr. MILLER. I was not involved in that in any way. It is not the 

role of the inspector general. 

Mr. SIRES. It is a longstanding history that it comes before the 

committee and we approved it. 

Mr. MILLER. I was providing a fact for you. It was signed. 

Mr. SIRES. OK. But why the World Trade Center? I mean, I 

would think you would get something cheaper if we are looking to 

save money. Can anybody tell me why the World Trade Center? 

Ms. METZLER. My responsibilities at GSA include the internal operation of the agency, not leases like the World Trade Center. I am 

sure we will be happy to provide that information to the committee. 

Mr. SIRES. Why wasn’t it, Mr. Miller, brought before the committee? Usually it is the history that the leases are brought before 

the committee for approval. 

Mr. MILLER. I understand that. I cannot answer that question. 

Certainly that is something that Acting administrator Tangherlini 

30 

or someone at GSA who controls the functions of GSA can answer 

and should answer. 

Mr. SIRES. Well, you know, I don’t have much time but it is just 

outrageous. It really is. You know, here we are trying to defend the 

good workers and then we have the situation with the bonuses. 

Who sets the standards for these bonuses? How do they arrive at 

giving somebody a bonus? Is it a committee or is it just a person 

just says Mr. Miller, you are going to have this bonus? 

Mr. MILLER. No. I believe there are policies and performance criteria involved, but again that is a function within GSA. We have 

an audit ongoing of executive compensation, so we are looking at 

that and we are looking at how awards are being given out and 

how bonuses are given out. 

Mr. SIRES. All right. I yield back. Thank you very much. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you so much, and I thank Members. If other 

Members have questions or other additional inquiries that they 

would like to submit to our witnesses, I welcome them, and I ask 

unanimous consent that today’s record be kept open for a period of 

15 days for the witnesses to respond or for Members to provide additional commentary to the record. 

Without any further business, I want to thank the two witnesses 

for coming today, particularly Mr. Miller, for your cooperation as 

the inspector general. Ms. Metzler, we are expecting additional answers and commentary. I am sorry you got the short straw today 

and you are down the totem pole and fairly new and the others 

have ducked and either hidden for cover, but we will convene additional hearings here when we come back in September, and I invite 

Members to participate in the field hearings that are scheduled, 

Mr. Denham and I will be conducting in the interim. 

There being no further business on this particular hearing, I excuse and thank again the witnesses. And this will conclude the 

GSA portion of our proceedings today, and I will call that portion 

of our hearing adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:00 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

31 


Insert offset folio 7 here 75419.007

SENIOR DEMOCRATIC \VHlP 

COM~UTTEE ON SCn:NCE. SI'ACE 

AND TECHSOWGY 

RANKING MEMBER 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATIOS 

AND INfRASTRUCTURE 

SUBCOMMnTEE 0:-1 WATER 

RESOURCES & E:-;VIRONMENT 

SUBC'OMMfITEE ON AVIAT!O~ 

SUBCOMJ\onTIEE ON HIGHWAYS AND TR>-\~SlT 

CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAvers 

CHAIR, 107YU CO~GRESS 

8ddbYfiJ~$~ 

Oinngress nf iIIe l!fnitd'l !itntes 

lOll) l!Iisiritl, (i;cxas 

PLEASE RESPOND TO 

DALLAS OJCFlCE: 

3102 MAPLE A VENtrE 

SmTE 600 

D,I\.LL,l,s. TX 75201 

(214) 922-8885 

V;WW.HOCSE.GOv/EBJOHNSO;-;i 

REP E.BJOHSSON@MA1L.HOllSE.GOV 

Statement for the Record V 

Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson ' 

House Committee on Transportation & Infrastructur~ ~ ~~ Wednesday, August 1,2012 Jl}J 1; 

Hearing on: 

GSA: A Review of Agency Mismanagement and Wasteful Spending: Part 2 

Just three months after the General Services Administration was found to have 

spent $823,000 on a Las Vegas conference, the Washington Post recently reported 

that, in November 20 I 0, GSA spent nearly $270,000 on an award ceremony 

including spending $34,000 on catering and room rentals, and nearly $50,000 for 

token gifts for attendees of the ceremony. In addition to these excesses, recent 

news reports cited $660,000 in executive bonuses during Fiscal 2011. 

Since the 2008 recession, the U.S. economy has been in a troubling and uncertain 

state, and American families have been made to feel the efTeets of the recession in 

the loss of their jobs and the foreclosure of their homes. Yet, in this dismal fiscal 

climate, the American people need only to pick up a newspaper or tum on their 

television to see this immoral misuse of their tax dollars. While much of the 

country is sutTering, GSA has no shame in its brazen and unparalleled use of tax 

dollars to fund their lavish trips and recreation. 

Unfortunately, in this partisan climate, government employees have come under 

constant fire. We should be mindful that government employees include our law 

enforcement officers, air traffic controllers, and educators. But these sorts of antics 

sully the reputations of tens of thousands of upstanding and hard working 

government employees. 
32 


Insert offset folio 8 here 75419.008

I understand that the agency has initiated an internal review, and that Acting 

Administrator Dan Tangherlini brought the 2010 incident to the immediate 

attention of GSA Inspector General Miller. These are small steps in the right 

direction, but this agency has a long way to go to restore the trust of this Congress 

and our constituents. Mr. Chairman, we must get to the bottom of this wasteful 

spending at GSA. The American people deserve nothing less. 
33 


Insert offset folio 9 here 75419.009

Statement of Honorable Brian D. Miller 

Inspector General 

General Services Administration 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

United States House of Representatives 

August 1, 2012 
34 


Insert offset folio 10 here 75419.010

Testimony a/Inspector General Brian Miller August 1,2012 

Chairman Mica, Ranking Mcmber RahalL and members of the Commiltce, thank you for the 

invitation to testily today, I appreciate this Committee's stJPPOl1 of Inspectors General (IG) and my 

ot1ice's mission to weed out instances of fraud, waste, and abuse at the General Services Administration 

(GSA). 

It was with that mission in mind and pursuant to our Congressional reporting requirements that I 

wrote my July 19'h letter to our committees of jurisdiction, some of which had requested that IGs bring 

matters to their attention earlier in an investigation. In my letter, I informed Congress about an incident 

that had been brought to my attention by Acting Administrator Dan TanghcrlinL who advised me that 

GSA planned to release similar information in response to a Freedom oflnfonnation Act request. 

On Novcmber 17,2010, the Federal Acquisition Service (FAS) division of the GSA held a oneday performance award ceremony in the Washington, D.C, metropolitan area. The ceremony featured a 

team-building drum band exercise conducted by a third party vendor and speeches by current and former 

GSA oftlcials. Our initial findings, though subject to further investigation and change, show costs of over 

$200,000 for the one-day ceremony, including over $34J)00 for the venue, $28.000 for picture frames, 

and $140,464 for coordination and logistical management to a third pat1y vendor. The vendor cost 

included $20579 for drumsticks and $10,000 for management of a presentation called "Mission Possible 

Agent X." 

As I stated in my letter, we have begun a preliminary analysis of the infOimation we received 

from GSA and have opened an administrative investigation, Since our investigation began just a few 

weeks ago. we have already uncovered changes in the cost figures and new facts. 

This may be a good opportunity to explain how an OIG investigation is conducted. OIG 

investigations originate through any number of sources, Our Hotline affords GSA employees, GSA 

senior management, other government employees, contractors, and concerned citizens a mechanism to 

report instances of fraud, waste, or abuse throughout GSA. Such reports can be made anonymously if the 

individual wishes for no one to know his or her identity. My Office of Investigations receives between 

2,000 and 3,000 Hotline tips annually and will assess each complaint or tip for credibility and open up an 
35 


Insert offset folio 11 here 75419.011

Testimony o[lnspector General Brian Miller August 1, 2012 

investigation if appropriate. Additionally. some matters warranting an investigation are brought to our 

attention by GSA senior management, as was the case with the FAS ceremony. In other scenarios, our 

auditors may bring a matter discovered during an audit to our Office of Investigations, or our special 

agents may be tipped off by an int()rmant. No matter the source, our special agents conduct their 

investigations with professionalism, objectivity, and diligence. They interview witnesses and collect 

available evidence and documents. Our agents may compile the evidence in a written report of 

investigation, commonly known as an ROt. with relevant evidence attached, In the last semiannual 

reporting period, our Office of Investigation made 486 referrals for criminal prosecution, civil litigation, 

and administrative action. Civil settlements and court-ordered and investigative recoveries for that same 

period totaled $218,496,507. 

Because of the impact an IG investigation can have. accuracy is of the upmost importance. 

Inaccurate reports can threaten the integrity of an OIG and damage the ClIG's reputation as a mechanism 

for dependable oversight. Because our investigation into the FAS ceremony is ongoing, the preliminary 

fIgures in the confines of my letter to Congressional committees are the extent to which' can discuss this 

incident. Those numbers were based on information provided by the Agency, information that , 

understood was going to be released publicly. My ofllce will continue to look into this ceremony and lIill 

update the Committee when our investigation concludes. 

Since the release of our April 2012 Management Deficiency Report on the 2010 Western Regions 

Conference (WRCl, my otTice has been charged with examining other GSA conferences to determine 

whether the 2010 WRC was an outlier of excessive spending, or whether systemic or deep-seeded cultural 

problems exist within the Agency. We have begun to examine a cross-section of previous GSA 

conferences in addition to our ongoing audit and investigative work into Agency programs and high 

dollar contracts. Our Office of Audits is currently analyzing conferences 01'25 or more attendees that cost 

over $10,000 from Fiscal Year (FYJ 2011 to the present from all regions. Examining only those 

conferences subsequent to FY 20 I ° allows us to validate the financial data with more accuracy. 

Additionally our Office of Investigations and our OHlee of Forctbic Auditing continue to examine 

2 
36 


Insert offset folio 12 here 75419.012

Testimony of inspector General Brian Miller August 1, 2012 

conferences specific to GSA Region 9 or that have come in through the Hotline. If these initial 

examinations uncover regional or programmatic trends of excessive spending on conferences, we will 

devote additional audit and investigative resources to those areas. While our auditors and agents are 

working at a diligent pace, the heightened interest in conference spending of late cannot supplant the 

accuracy of their reviews. We also must keep in mind the other work we're always engaged in such as 

reviews of multi-million dollar contracts where there is a high risk of significant losses to the United 

States. 

In the meantime, the Acting Administrator has begun a Top to Bottom Review of the Agency and 

is instituting systemic changes such as the centralizing the Office of the Chief Financial Officer and 

strengthening the Office of Administrative Services. We expect that these and other changes should 

prevent future wasteful conferences. The Acting Administrator's efforts. coupled with this Committee·s 

vigilance and the OIG's continuing investigations and audits into the various management and 

programmatic challenges. advance the effectiveness of our collective mission to weed out instances of 

mismanagement and abuse at GSA. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony. I would be happy to answer questions the 

Committee may have. 

3 
37 


Insert offset folio 13 here 75419.013

u.s. General Services 

Administration 

Cynthia Metzler 

Chief Administrative Services Officer 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

"GSA Reform" 

August 1, 2012 

1 
38 


Insert offset folio 14 here 75419.014

Good morning Chairman Mica, Ranking Member Rahall, and Members of the 

Committee. My name is Cynthia Metzler, and I am the Chief Administrative Services 

Officer of the US. General Services Administration (GSA). In that capacity, I coordinate 

internal management and support services to promote efficiency within the agency 

covering a wide variety of issues, including travel and conferences. 

As you are aware, Acting Administrator Dan Tangherlini was not able to appear today 

due to a longstanding family commitment. Mr. Tangherlini reached out to the 

Committee to request that this hearing be rescheduled at a mutually convenient date so 

that he could personally appear, but was informed that the Committee was electing to 

proceed with today's hearing with the awareness that the Mr. Tangherlini was 

unavailable. Mr. Tangherlini looks forward to continuing to work with the Committee to 

improve the efficiency of GSA and refocus the agency on its core mission of 

streamlining the administrative work of the Federal government to save money for the 

American taxpayer. 

Given that the genesis of this hearing was the Acting Administrator's recent referral to 

the Inspector General of a 2010 awards ceremony for the Federal Acquisition Service, I 

have come here today to outline the steps we have taken to reform our conference and 

travel policies to prevent waste from happening again. 

As of April 2012, all travel for events, including internal GSA meetings, training, 

conferences, seminars, and leadership or management events, among others, was 

suspended. 

We have consolidated oversight of conference and travel expenses in the Office of 

Administrative Services, which I lead. 

My office reviews each and every planned future conference to make sure that these 

events, and any related travel, are justified. 

For example: 

• Conferences require a business justification and the submission of a budget, and 

must be approved by the head of the office pursuing the conference, and myself 

and for those conferences with anticipated costs over $100,000, the Deputy 

Administrator must also approve the conference. 

• We have cancelled 37 previously scheduled conferences 

• Any travel must be essential to the mission of the agency, such as conducting 

litigation or performing building inspections 

2 
39 


Insert offset folio 15 here 75419.015

• Any routine travel for meetings internal to GSA requires a waiver from the 

Administrator or Deputy Administrator 

These are only a few of the many reforms the Acting Administrator has taken to improve 

oversight, strengthen controls, and help to refocus the agency on its core mission. His 

top to bottom review of all agency operations continues, and I know he looks forward to 

discussing those further with you in the future. 

The 2010 FAS awards ceremony is another example of what the Acting Administrator 

has already recognized: a pattern of misjudgment which spans several years and 

administrations. It must stop, and that's why Acting Administrator Tangherlini has 

instituted several stringent new policies on spending to put an end to this waste. 

The new leadership at GSA is committed to investigating any misuse of taxpayer 

dollars. When we find questionable occurrences we refer them to the Office of Inspector 

General, as we did in this case. 

GSA has already taken a number of important steps to reform conference and travel 

policies within the agency. As part of the Acting Administrator's top to bottom review of 

the agency, more steps will be taken to improve efficiency and save taxpayer dollars. 

I appreciate the opportunity to come before you today to discuss this aspect of reform at 

GSA and I welcome any questions that you may have. 

3 
40 


Insert offset folio 16 here 75419.016

11 GSA Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs 

November 27,2012 

The Honorable John Mica 

Chairman, Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructu re 

House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

I am writing in response to your Questions for the Record from the 

August 1,2012, hearing titled, "GSA: A Review of Agency Mismanagement and 

Wasteful Spending - Part 2" Thank you for your interest in the U.S. General 

Services Administration (GSA). Enclosed with this letter are GSA's responses to 

your questions and a number of attachments that I hope are responsive to your 

inquiries. 

Should you need further information, please let us know. If you have any 

additional questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at 

(202) 501-0563. 

Sincerely, 

Rodney 

~OJ~ P. Ernery 

Associate Administrator 

Office of Congressional & Intergovernmental Affairs 

Enclosures (5) 

cc: The Honorable Nick Rahal! 

U.S. General Services Administration 

1275 Firsl Slreel NE 

Washington, DC 20417 

W\vw.gsa.gov 

(202) :ill-0563 
41 


Insert offset folio 17 here 75419.017

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

Questions for the Record 

Enclosure A 

Oversight Hearing on "GSA: A Review of Agency Mismanagement and Wasteful Spending 

~ .. ~ Part 2" 

August 1,2012 

I) Provide the fol/owing information on tbe Henderson, NV National Congressional 

Support Conference whicb began on September 12, 2011: 

a) Location/vcnue for Confercnce 

Ravella Hotel 

1610 take Las Vegas Parkway 

Henderson, NV 89011 

b) Location/venue for lodging including hotel name 

Ravella Hotel 

1610 Lake tas Vegas Parkway 

Henderson, NV 8901 I 

c) Tolal costs, including travel and a breakdown oftbose costs 

September 12,2011 Travel Day 

Sept. 13,2011 

Breakfast bufreL ......... "> •••••••• 

Morning/afternoon breaks 

Sept. 14,2011 

Continental breakfast... ......... . 

Morning afternoon breaks ..... . 

In house lunch ....................... . 

Sept. 15,2011 

Breakfast butTet ..................... . 

Morning/afternoon breaks .... . 

Food subtotal ........................ .. 

Sept. 13-15,2011 

$1,632.66 

$1,122.32 

81,361.02 

$ 705.57 

$3,529.12 

$1,587.82 

$1,170.25 

811,308.76 

A V, projector, screen, & internet access 

(3 days@ $974.47)................. $2.923.41 

September 16,2011 Travel Day 

Please see Enclosure B for travel costs. 

d) Total number orGSA personnel, including a listlbreakdown of each person present 
42 


Insert offset folio 18 here 75419.018

There were 22 GSA personnel in attendance. There were also 19 Legislative Branch 

attendees: ten from the Senate Sergeant at Arms and Nine from the House Chief 

Administrative Officer'S Office (First Call, Transition Team, Accountable Equipment & 

Assets, and Information System offices). 

Please see Enclosure B for spreadsheet for GSA attendee travel/Per Diem costs 

e) Room accommodations - were there any suites or room upgrades? Please provide 

details. 

All rooms were standard hotel rooms and there were no suites or upgrades provided by GSA. 

l) What was the agenda/schedule? Please provide details. 

Please sec Enclosure C, the altached agenda. 

g) Were there teambuilding events? Please provide details. 

No. 

h) Were there awards and/or bonuses? Please provide details. 

No. 

i) Were there any receptions and/or catering? Please provide details. 

There were no receptions and the food provided during the conlerence totaled 

$11,308.76. 

2) Provide information requested in letter sent July 25, 2012, from Chairmen Mica, 

Denham and Chairwoman Emerson requesting a briefing and legal analysis related to 

the World Trade Center lease 

GSA will follow-up with the committee at a later date regarding this issue. 

3) Provide/confirm the total amount of bonuses for GSA employees for 2011 

The tolal amount of bonuses for GSA employees for FY2011 was $43,739,932.34 

4) Provide budgeted amounts for eaeh of the following: conferences, bonuses, and travel 

For all of GSA, the total amount budgeted for travel in FY 2011 was $42.6 million. This 

amount represents the total budgeted to the Object Class for Travel. 

For all of GSA, the total amollnt budgeted for individual awards for FY 2011 was 2.5 

percent of GSA's aggregate salary base of approximately $1.1 billion. Note that in FY 

2012 this percentage was 1.7 and for FY 2013 this percentage is set at 1.0, consistent 

2 
43 


Insert offset folio 19 here 75419.019

with guidance from the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Personnel 

Management. Individual awards include annual performance awards, special act awards, 

and other types of awards to individuals, for both SES and non-SES. For all of GSA, the 

total amount budgeted for organizational awards for FY 20 II was $12.4 million. Note 

that for FY 2013, GSA has allocated no funds for organizational performance awards, 

based on a decision of the Acting Administrator reflecting current budget constraints. 

There was no specific budget across GSA for conferences in FY 2011. There is no 

specific Federal Object Class for "conferences." The amount ultimately spent on 

conferences, which includes both eonferencc attendance and conference administration, 

comes from amounts allocated to travel, training, contracts, meetings, 

conference/meeting support and a number of other sub-object classes that mayor may not 

be used in support of conferences as either a conference organizer or a conference 

attendee. Additionally, all conferences must meet GSA's core mission. The Acting 

Administrator has issued guidance to ensure that travel expenses meet legitimate business 

needs. Managers have been advised to first consider alternatives to travel such as video 

conferencing. Travel for conferences must meet a set of standard criteria. 

5) Provide the number of GSA employees who have participated in conferences 

Prior to April 2, 2012, GSA did not centrally track or aggregate conference data and 

therefore cannot provide the exact number of employees who participated in conferences 

from Fiscal Year 2011. 

6) Provide the percentage of GSA employees who have received bonuses and the number 

of GS-3, 5, and 7 employees who have and have not had bonuses. 

The percentage of GSA employees receiving bonuses was 90.3% and of the GS-3s, II 

employees received awards, 20 did nolo Among GS-5s, 79 employees received awards, 20 

did not, and of GS-7s, 301 employees received awards, 93 did not. 

7) Provide what percent of employees are hourly paid employees. 

2.7% of GSA employees are under hours wage grade pay plans. 

8) Provide what percent of employees receive overtime pay. 

The percentage of GSA employees receiving overtime pay was 15.2%. 

9) Provide what percent of employees receive bonuses. 

The percentage of GSA employees receiving awards was 90.3% .. 

10) Provide what are the criteria for bonuses. 

Please see Enclosure D, Awards Eligibility and Criteria. 

3 
44 


Insert offset folio 20 here 75419.020

11) Provide information on who can authorize bonuses. 

Please see Enclosure D, Awards Eligibility and Criteria. 

12) Provide list and number of conferences tbat have served GSA's core mission 

We have taken several actions to ensure that employees comply with training and ethics 

requirements and to improve accountability around conferences and travel, and spending 

in general. We established new policies around conferences and travel approval. These 

policies require that employees consider alternatives to conferences such as video 

conferencing. When alternatives are not suitable, all events must be mission-related, use 

government facilities if possible, and eliminate wasteful spending. To ensure 

accountability, all events must be approved by the Chief Administrative Services Officer 

and, depending on the cost of the conference, the Deputy Administrator or Administrator. 

Travel has been restricted to business travel and essential training, and requires the 

approval ofthe Heads of a Service or Staff Office (HSSO) or Regional Administrator 

(RA). 

Procurement for all conferences now is handled by one central organization. All events 

must also be approved centrally after considering detailed justifications and a budget of 

estimated expenses. After events take place, actual expenses are compared with those 

submitted for prior approval and adjustments must be justified. Procurement management 

reviews improve accountability of contracting activities. The consolidation of financial 

functions under GSA's CFO has improved accountability. In addition, proposed 

information technology (IT) spending is now reviewed and approved by the Chief 

Intormation Officer and the CFO. 

All employees have been empowered to be vigilant and help prevent misuse of taxpayer 

dollars. The Acting Administrator prepared a video message to all GSA employees 

encouraging them to report any instance of waste, fraud or abuse, and ensured them that 

they would be free from retaliation for doing so. 

GSA trained event coordinators within the Agency on how to prepare and submit for 

approval a request to host events such as conferences, award ceremonies, and internal 

management meetings. In addition, GSA developed a mandatory training course for all 

employees on attending conferences, including events not hosted by GSA. The course 

helps employees: understand what constitutes efficient spending; make a business 

decision on whether or not to attend a conference; obtain management permission for 

attending a conference; understand the best way to make arrangements at low cost; and 

understand what constitutes permissible meals and gifts. Employees must take the course 

by the November 9, 2012. The course is posted on GSA's training platform, GSA Online 

University, allowing us to track compliance and send reminders to employees to ensure 

everyone receives this valuable training. 

4 
45 


Insert offset folio 21 here 75419.021

Sincc April 2012, five GSA-hosted conferences have been approved. The approved 

con ferences are: 

• GSA Training Conference and Expo 2012: This two-day conference and vendor 

exposition benefits acquisition professionals, award schedule vendors (including 

hundreds of small businesses) and program managers from various levels of government 

service. These professionals are able to obtain required continuing-education 

requirements under the Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act and 

certification programs established under the Office of Federal procurement Policy Act. 

• fed Fleet 2012: This conference convenes manufacturers, consultants, vendors and 

partners for three-days to share best practices, hands-on training and innovation in the 

areas oftransportation and real property. 

• SmartPay 2012: This conference is a federally required training event for card program 

managers across all of the government's agencies. 

• North American Day: This is a two-day symposium to exchange information, ideas and 

lessons-learned among CIOs from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The 

conference works to find ways to improve services to citizens through transcontinental 

collaboration, as well as to follow up on and initiate stage two of a tri-Iateral informationsharing pilot projects with a focus on improving public health and public safety. 

• Moynihan Symposium: This one-day training conference is the cornerstone of GSA 's 

Design Excellence Program. [n honor of the 50th anniversary of the Guiding Principles 

for Federal Building Design, GSA convened a symposium on May 16,2012, in 

Washington, D.C. The symposium recognized Senator Patrick Moynihan's contributions 

and encouraged a candid discussion about the evolution, successes, shortcomings, and 

future of public design. 

13) Provide information on cost-benefit analysis completed on training conferences and 

costs per person 

Prior to April 2012, GSA did not centrally track conference data to the level of detail 

requested. Since April, the above mentioned training conferences had the following costs 

per person: 

GSA Expo: $109.57/person 

FedFleet: $O/person 

SmartPay: $10 1.17/person 

North American Day: $239.80/person 

Moynihan Symposium: $SO.27/person 

The above figures do not include travel costs. Travel costs for GSA employees are as 

follows: 

GSA Expo: 

FedFlect: 

SmartPay: 

$1,736/person 

$1,371/person 

$824.37/person 

5 
46 


Insert offset folio 22 here 75419.022

North American Day: $270/person 

Moynihan Symposium: SO/person 

14) Confirm whether or not the current Public Buildings Service Commissioner (formerly 

of F AS) was present at the F AS Conference in Arlington, V A 

Linda Chero was present at the FAS Conference in Crystal City, V A, in November 20 I 0 

but is no longer serving as PBS Commissioner. 

15) Please provide list of GSA employees who attended tbe Annual GSA SmartPay 

Training Conference in Nasbville, TN including tbe following: 

Room assignments, including room types; 

In regards to specific room assignments and types, GSA does not track specific room 

assignments for employees; however, no GSA employees stayed in non-standard rooms 

during the SmartPay training conference. 

a} A breakdown of all GSA costs related to the conference, including travel, lodging, 

meals, etc ... ; 

Plea<;e sec Enclosure E. 

b) Whether any GSA funds paid for usc or rental of the General Jackson Lee steamboat or 

similar- vehicle or paid for any GSA employee to travel on or participate in any event on 

snch vehicle and, if so, the associated costs. 

No GSA funds were used to pay for the use or rental of the General Jackson Lee 

steamboat or similar vehicle or for any GSA employee to travel on or participate in any 

event on such a vehicle. 

Rep_ Shuster -- Questions for the Record 

It has been brougbt to my attention by some of my colleagues that there is a situation in San 

Antonio, TX involving the GSA that was recently in the news. From what I have been told, the 

local Social Security office located on Woodcock Street askcd to move to a new facility. While 

tbe new location will provide additional space, I understand it will also double the cost of tbe 

lease. From the information I have received, tbe cost of tbe new lease will be more than $1 

million per year. In addition, I understand SSA has spent $1.7 million for renovations, a 

commission fOT the new lease totaled $482,000, and additional security costs will total $78,000. 

And tbis does not take into account the cost of the actual move. 

t) Please provide the justification and reasoning behind this decision. 

Please see the response to question two. 

2) Please explain why GSA did not choose to simply expand the space in SSA's current 

6 
47 


Insert offset folio 23 here 75419.023

facility. 

General Services Administration (GSA) currently leases 30,079 rentable square feet (rsf) 

of space located at 4204 Woodcock Drive in San Antonio, TX ITom Brass Centerview 

Holdings LLC under lease contract GS07-B J 3933. The space houses the Social Security 

Administration's Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (SSA ODAR). 

SSA ODAR provided GSA with requirements for the agency's continuing need for space 

in San Antonio, TX. In accordance with Federal regulations and GSA policy and 

procedures, a GSA lease contracting officer sought competition in the market, and 

subsequently negotiated a lease contract and rate that was deemed fair and reasonable 

within the market at the time of award. 

The SSA requirements for the new leased facility included an updated delineated area in 

which the office needed to be located. To serve their constituents better, ODAR selects its 

delineated area as centrally as possible within the service delivery area. When a new 

lease action is required, ODAR reviews the population shifts and growth within the 

service delivery area to determine whether their delineated area needs to be redrawn. 

Accordingly, in February 2010, ODAR informed GSA that the delineated area needed to 

be moved in order to be more centrally located to the public and highly visible to their 

constituents. 

In addition to the revised delineated area, SSA also required that the space be contiguous 

on one floor (with the exception ofa storage/mail room, training/multipurpose room, or 

both, which may be separated from the primary space by a public corridor). 

GSA determined that the current leased location was not in the required delineated area, 

nor was it capable of meeting the requirement for contiguous space. In addition, the 

current lease was based on a market from 20 years ago and was operating under old 

building condition standards. To meet today's building standards, including compliance 

with the Energy Independence and Security Act, the current facility would require 

extensive upgrades at the cost of the building owner. 

7 
48 


Insert offset folio 24 here 75419.024

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS iC & 0 

NOTE: Voucher costs reflect mandatory use of government contract airfare and Per Deim rates. 

r _ •• 

GSA, CONGRESSIONALSUPPORT CONFERENCE ATTENDEE LIST : Enclosure B 

ATTENDEES ATTENDEE VOUCHER COST 

GSA 

CENTRAL OFFICE 

CSR 1 $1,690.15 

NEW ENGLAND REGION 

CSR2 $1.584.62 

CSR3 $1,331.17 

CSR4 $1,250.80 

NORTHEAST & CARIBBEAN REGION 

CSR 5 $0.00 

MID·ATLANTIC REGION 

CSR6 $1,323.16 

CSR7 $1,673.70 

SOUTHEAST REGION 

CSR8 $1,235.30 

CSR 9 $1,245.22 

CSR 10 $1,225.23 

CSR 11 $1,308.39 

CSR 12 $1,344.51 

GREAT LAKES REGION 

CSR13 $1,566.28 

CSR14 $1,275.26 

CSR 15 $1.645.38 

THE HEARTLAND REGION 

CSR 16 $1,402.16 

GREATER SOUTHWEST REGION 

CSR 17 $1.219.27 

CSR 18 $1,215.01 

ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION 

CSR19 $1.211.06 

PACIFIC RIM REGION 

CSR 20 $1,111.62 

CSR21 $1,088.78 

NORTHWEST/ARCTIC REGION 

CSR 22 $1,296.97 

GSA Attendee Travel/Per Deim Voucher Total $28,244.04 I 

legislative Branch Attendees ·19 

10 - U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms 

9 - House CAO First Call, Transition Team,Accountable Equipment & Assets, House Information Systems 
49 


Insert offset folio 25 here 75419.025

Response to question 1f 

Comments: 

• Home Office Maintenance -1/2 hour period to check voice mail and email. 

** CIS - (Congressional Inventory System) - update on migration to new database operating system. 

"'*Wonderful World of Google - update on migration from Lotus Notes email to Google mail. 

**··Gender Differences - a presentation on how women and men handle the same s.ituation differently, 

i 2011 : I NATIONAL CONGRESSIONAL SUPPORT CONFERENCE AGENDA I H~~DERSON.NEVADA ' 

Tuesday Sept 13th - Salon" 

7:30 _ 9:00 AM 

Brea.kfast Buffet (Salon 4) 

9:00-9:16 AM. •••••••..•.••.••• We!come 

Marcia Her.rogfJeanne Tessien 

9;lO-I0:3&AM 

Senate Session 

10:30 - 10:45 AM •......•.......•. Rreak 

lO:4S-12PM 

SerurteSession 

U:OO-l:Of)PM ••• Lunch on Your Own 

" l,oo-l,)OPM 

HOOle Office Maintenance 

1:30-2~OPM 

ScnateS~ion 

** 2;30-2:45 PM CIS SucBrown(3) 

2:45 _ 3:00 PM ..•.••..•••.••••.•••• .Bre3k 

3.00-4:00PM 

Senate Session 

House Olrly - break out - Office 1 

#l< 4,OO-S,OOPM 

Wonderful World of Go ogle 

Presen~ by Miss Coogle (4) 

Wednesday. Sept 14th - Salon 4 

7:30-9:00 AM 

CootinenW Breakfast {Salon 4} 

9:00-9:05AM 

Administnilive lssues 

9:05-10:30 AM 

Senate Session 

10!30-10:4SA.~.. . ......... Hreak 

'*"'t-»lO,4S-'h15AM llCllder Differences ...... _ ..... .Nancy (9) 

1l:lS-lh30AM. 

Tactical to strategic Thinking. . .5unny (9) 

11:30-12:00 Noon 

DiscussionlSmate Session 

ll:OO-l:00PM 

In-House Lunch,. Salon 3 

SelUltelBonse/GSA 

1:00 - 1:.30 PM Home Office Maintenance 

1:30-1:40 PM .••.••••. Wclcome 

.Ma:rcia Her.7..og1Stachia Cuffcy 

1:40-.2:45 PM 

HouseSessiotl 

2:45 -3:00 PM .................. ..Break 

3:00-5:00P:.\-f 

House Session 

Tbur1da"V. Sept 15th Salt'''' 4 

7:3G-9:00A.."l\1 

Breakfast Buffet (Salon 4) 

9:00 -10:30 AM 

House Session 

10;30 -10:45 AM ..................... Break 

lO:45-11:00PM 

House Session 

12:00-t:OOPM 

L\lI1cboDYour<h\'ll 

I:OO-l:30PM 

Home Office Maintenarlce 

1:30 - 3:15 PM 

House Session 

3;15 - 3:30 PM ........................ Rreak 

3:30 - 5:00 PM 

GSA Only 

5:00PM.. ............. ., .............. .A.djourn 

Friday. Sept 16"" ...... Saii;, J{)n",~ HODle 

Insert offset folio 26 here 75419.026

Q GSA SES and Non-SES Awards, Eligibility Criteria and Authorization Process 

This chart depicts general award direction and types of awards as presented by OPM and as utilized by GSA for SES and No

associates, 

Criteria for award Authorization process for 

Type of Award General Services Administration 

Policy 

Non-SES Awards 

Time Off Awards Time off Awards are the granting of time Time off award is a payout option in lieu Managers and Supervisors ar

off without charge to leave or loss of of a cash award associated with Individual responsible for approving time 

pay to an associate in lieu of a Performance Awards (IPA), Special Act awards. a written Justification 

monetary award for a special act, (SA) awards or Organizational award and the amount and be 

individual performance linked to the Performance Awards (OPAS), appropriately documented. 

performance appraisal, or as a member 

of a group within an organizational The maximum number of hours aHowed 

performance award. for time off, in lieu of a comparable 

monetary award, IS 80 hours. If the total 

amount of a time off award IS not used 

within one year after it is issued, any 

unused time off is forfeited and is not 

eligible for restoration. 

Performance Individual Performance Awards The criteria for receiving IPAs are based Managers and Supervisors ar

Based Awards (IPAs) are linked directly to the on the annual rating of record responsible for evaluating ass

performance appraisal. They are cash documenting achievements against the performance and approving e

awards used to recognize levels of associate's performance plan. an IPA. 

performance that clearly exceeds normal requirements with a Associates who receive a Level 4 rating Organizational award budgets 

performance rating at Level 4 (meets are eligible for an IPA award up to 4 aliocated and adjusted agains

and often exceeds performance percent, and associates who receive a number of employees eligible 

expectations as described in Level 3) or LevelS raUng are eligible for an award up awards. 

levelS (meets and consistently exceeds to 6 percent of the associate's rate of 

pertormance expectations as described basic pay. 

in Level 3) and are based on an AlllPAs individual performanc

associate's rating of record issued at Effective FY2007, GSA extended require approval from second 

the end of an appraisal period. eligibility for IPAs to non-SES associates supervisor, HSSO spell it out 

who receive a Level 3 rating of record. time or RA has fmal authority 

Effective FY2007, GSA extended IPAs for associates who receive a Level 3 thelr organization. 

eligibility for IPAs 10 non-SES rating are "capped" at 1.5% of adjusted 

Insert offset folio 27 here 75419.027

GSA SES and Non-SES Awards, Eligibility Criteria and Authorization Process 

employees who receive a Level 3 basic pay; there is no specified minimum 

(meets performance expectations) amount. 

rating of record. 

Organizational Organizational Performance Awards Organizational performance goals and The Organization must establ

Performance (OPA) are cash awards granted to success thresholds are established by the organizational goals levels of 

Awards groups of associates to recognize organization in support of Agency and achievement required for pay

sustained levels of performance that organizational goals, the thresholds to maximize pa

clearly exceed normal requirements Managers and Supervisors ar

against a defined set of objective Employees with a level 3 or higher rating responslble for assessing the 

measures. are eligible to be recognized for an organizations success at mee

organizational award, goals, 

The maximum OPA is 4 percent of the Nominations must provide ad

associate's rate of basic pay, however the written justification for the awa

combination of OPA's, Special Acts, Peer the amount must be appropria

Awards cannot exceed this 4% limit The documented, 

employee must meet the organizational goal requirements and thresholds for pay Awards $5,000 and below are 

out approved by appropriate offic

documented In the awards sy

Single awards over $5,000 sh

submitted through the Heads 

Services and Staff Offices (HS

Regional Administrators (RA) 

appropriate, and forwarded to 

People Officer (CPO) for conc

prior to the Administrators ap

Special Act Special Act Awards (SA) is cash Special Act awards can be awarded for: Managers and Supervisors ar

Awards awards based on nonrecurring "suggestions, inventions, or special acts responsible for preparing the 

contributions either within or outside job or services in the public interest nomination, 

responsibilities that are not already connected with or related to official 

recognized under IPAs or OPAs, In lieu employment, which contribute to the The nomination must be appr

of a monetary award for a SAs, an efficiency, economy, or other the next higher level of superv

associate may be granted time off, improvement of Government operations. II 

Awards $5,000 and below are 

The performance rating is not used to by the HSSOIRA or designee

justify this award and SAs may be documented in the awards sy

awarded at the time the award is earned. SAs over $5,000, Awards mu

2 

Insert offset folio 28 here 75419.028

GSA SES and Non-SES Awards, Eligibility Criteria and Authorization Process 

submitted through the HSSO 

The maximum aggregate total for Special appropriate, and forwarded to 

Act is no more than 4 percent of the for concurrence, prior to the 

associate's basic rale of pay, however the Administrator's approval. 

combination of OPA's, Special Acts, Peer 

Awards cannot exceed this 4% limit 

Quality Step Quality Stap Increases (QSI) are Managemenl may authorize a aSI for Written justification is required 

Increases permanent increases to base pay that those associates who receive a Leve! 5 approval from the nexl higher 

may be granted to associates who raling. A aSI is awarded in lieu of the supervision and final approva

receive a rating of record at Level 5, monetary award, and where the HSSO or RA as appropriate. 

and is at Step 9 or below of the General exemplary performance can be expected 

Schedule. to continue, 

A QSI permanently increases an 

associate's rate of basic pay by one step. 

Non-Monetary Non-monetary awards are intended to Employee must meet the criteria for the Employee is nominated with j

Awards & Honor recognize contributions that might award type explained below. based on award type. ApprovAwards otherwise go unrecognized. by award type as outlined bel

Honor awards have a specia! prestige 

va!ue distinct from monetary awards 

recognizing aggregate achievements 

over a major part of an associate's 

career or an extraordinary event 

Length of Service certificates may be Length of Service 

provided to associates in recognition of Length of Service is not in GSA awards Supervisor identifies the emp

years of service in the government. policy but GSA uses this to recognize eligibility, CPO confirms and p

years of service. the certificate as appropriate. 

Administrator's Honor Awards: For Administrator's Honor A

(1-3) addressed below: 

. Distinguished Service Award . Administrator's Honor Awards: 

This is the highest performance The CPO will issue an invitati

_ award witl}lr:llhe authClrity of j:listinguished Service Award. It may nominations for the Administr

3 

Insert offset folio 29 here 75419.029

GSA SES and Non-SES Awards, Eligibility Criteria and Authorization Process 

Administrator. be given to recognize: Distinguished Service Award, 

(a) An extraordinary accomplishment, or Administrator's Meritorious Se

record of service that has demonstrated Award, and Administrator's Ex

the highest qualities of efficiency, in Petiormance Award at a tim

ingenuity, andlor integrity and has made a agreeable to the Administrato

major improvement in the effectiveness or 

Image of GSA in one or more program The invitation will specify the 

areas: or for receipt of nominations. 

(b) Heroic action related to offiCial 

employment taken to save persons or Nominations are accepted and 

property at great personal risk, forwarded through HSSOIRA 

(c) An associate would normally receive appropriate, forwarded to CPO 

the meritorious service award before review and concurrence befor

being nominated for the distinguished the Administrator for linal app

service award. 

· Meritorious Service Award, This is the second highest performance Meritorious Service Award. May be 

award within the authority of the given to recognize: 

Administrator. Services. The (aJ A highty superior accomplishment, or 

distinction between a Meritorious record of service that has demonstrated 

Service Award and the notable efficiency, ingenuity, diligence, 

Distinguished Service Award is the and/or integrity and has made a 

magnitude of the effect of the significant improvement in the 

individual's record of service and effectiveness or image of GSA in one or 

accomplishments in GSA and the more program areas; or 

Federal service. (bJ Action related to official employment 

and requiring outstanding competence to 

save personal life or property in an 

emergency, 

· Excellence in Performance Award. Recognizes contributions Exoellence in Perlonnance Award. 

to the agency's efforts to link GSA May be given to recognize contributions 

strategic goals and busmess goals. to the agency's efforts to link GSA 

strategiC goals and business goal, the 

budget, associate's performance 

expectatIons and measurable 

· Exceotional Service Award, Mav performance targets Exceptional Service Award. 

4 

Insert offset folio 30 here 75419.030

GSA SES and Non-SES Awards. Eligibility Criteria and Authorization Process 

be gtven to an associate at the Nominations for the Administr

time of departure in recognition of Exceptional Service Award. The Exceptiona! Service Award ar

a record of exceptional service to Administrator's Exceptional Service presented to the HSSOIRA fo

GSA at the Agency level wilh Award may be given to an associate at endorsement, before forwardi

unusual impact on one or more the time of departure from GSA in the CPO for review and concu

GSA programs, or for diligence, recognition of a record of service to GSA prior to Ihe Administralor's ap

steadfastness, or dedication. that is unusual for its impact on one or 

more GSA Agency leve! programs, or for 

diligence, steadfastness, or dedication. 

Honor Awards from the Head 01 Honor Awards from the Hea

Service or Staff Office or Regional Service or Staff Office or Re

Administrator. Honor Awards from the Head of Administrator. 

Service or Staff Office or Regional 

. Exceptional Service Award This Administrator. Exceptional Service Award. 

award may be given to an for Ihis award rests with the H

associate at the time of departure Exceptional Service Award. Service or Staff Office or Reg

from GSA due to retirement, Documented recognition of a record of Administrator, 

resignation, or transfer in service to GSA thai is unusual for its a- Nominations for this Exce

recognition of a record of service to impact on one or more GSA programs, or Service Award require the app

GSA that is unusual for its impact for diligence, steadfastness, or dedication the Head of Service or Staff O

on one or more GSA programs, or at the regional. service or staff office level. Regional Administrator. 

for diligence, steadfastness, Of b. Each Head of Service or 

dedication at the regional, service Office or Regional Administra

or staff office level. establish the process for the 

submission, creation, and iss

this GSA Exceptional Service 

within their organization. 

. Other Awards. There are other Other Awards. There are oth

forms of non-monetary recognition. of non-monetary recognition. 

off!cial or associate who is aw

Other Awards. Any official or associate relevant facts may recommen

may initiate this award type. individual for one of the award

recommended below. The su

The submission should describe the should describe the periorma

performance and include proposed include proposed wording for 

wording for the citation. Typical award citation. Recommendations s

types here include: in writing and forwarded throu

a, Public Service Award, channels to the Head of Servi

b. Commendable Service Award Office or Regional Adminislra

5 

Insert offset folio 31 here 75419.031

GSA SES and Non-SES Awards, Eligibility Criteria and Authorization Process 

c. Certificates of Performance approval and issuance. 

Achievement. 

d. Off!cial Letters of Commendation. 

Peer Awards Peer Awards are cash awards Peer Awards. Associates can recognize Peer Awards. Managers and 

authorized by Services, Staff Offices an accomplishment, contribution, and/or Supervisors are responsible f

and Regions which allow individual superior service. which they have noted reviewing the justification and 

associates to nominate another or received. An authorized official must proposed award amount. Maassociate for an award. approve the award. Peer awards are process the award through th

usually $50.00 or less and cannot exceed system 

$99.00 gross for each instance. 

----

6 

Insert offset folio 32 here 75419.032

GSA SES and Non-SES Awards, Eligibility Criteria and Authorization Process 

Criteria for award Authorization process fo

Type of Award General Services Administration 

Policv 

SES Awards 

Presidential Not applicable, Nominees must meet the following Agency heads nominate ca

Rank Awards eligibility criteria by the nomination senior executives in either 

under 5 CFR NOTE: OPM manages the deadline: Distinguished or Meritoriou

451 Subpart C Presidential Rank Award program category. OPM convenes 

on behalf of the President of the -Hold a career appointment in the nomination review boards 

There are two United States who approves these Senior Executive Service; comprised of private secto

categories of awards annually, -Be an employee of the nominating who evaluate the nominatio

Presidential agency on the nomination deadline; Finalists are reviewed and 

Rank Awards: and one last time by agency he

-Have at least three years of career or 

before OPM forwards the J

Distinguished finalists to the President fo

and career-type Federal civilian service at approval. 

Meritorious the SES level. 

Presidential Rank Awards recognize 

extraordinary long term achievements, 

The Distinguished Executive rank 

award s awarded for "sustained 

extraordinary accomplishment," and 

the rank of Meritorious Executive for 

"sustained accomplishment." 

Presidential Rank Awards are 

reserved for career senior executives 

who have a record of achievement 

that is recognized throughout the 

agency andlor is acknowledged on a 

national or internationalleve!. In 

reaching the pinnacle of achievement, rank award recipients will also have 

demonstrated strong leadership abilities inspired their employees and 

7 

Insert offset folio 33 here 75419.033

GSA SES and Non-SES Awards, Eligibility Criteria and Authorization Process 

earned the respect of those they 

serve< 

The nomination criteria are as follows: 

1. Program Results: The executive 

has an exceptional record of 

achieving major program goals and exceeding customer expectations by 

marshaling internal and external resources to attain high-quality 

outcomes that are technically sound and cost-effective, and that yield 

rewards commensurate with the level 

of risk< 

2. Executive Leadership: The 

executive possesses a sound 

strategic overview of the public sector 

environment and has shown creativity, 

adaptability, and resilience in aligning 

program efforts with the organization's 

vision, mission, and goals, and in 

partnering with stakeholders inside 

and outside the organization< The executive has also demonstrated the 

ability to lead people effectively by 

fostering employee development, 

cooperation and teamwork, and 

making optimal use of human, 

financial and information resources< 

An executive who has received either 

rank award (i.e<, Distinguished or 

Meritorious) may be nominated for the 

.... -

other awardAsucceeding 

8 

Insert offset folio 34 here 75419.034

GSA SES and Non-SES Awards, Eligibility Criteria and Authorization Process 

however, an executive may not receive the same rank award more 

than once in any five-year period. 

Only one percent of SES employees 

across the Federal government may 

earn the Distinguished rank award each year and only five percent of 

SES employees may receive the 

Meritorious rank award each year. Distinguished rank award recipients 

earn a cash payment of 35% of basic 

pay/salary (by law), a framed 

certificate signed by the President of 

the United States, and a lapel pin. 

Meritorious rank award recipients earn 

a cash payment of 20% of basic 

pay/salary (by law), a framed 

certificate signed by the President of 

the United States, and a lapel pin. 

SES To be recognized by an SES The criteria are based on the annual Executives' first line superv

Performance performance award, service must rating of record documenting responsible for making the 

Awards have been performed under an SES achievements against the annual appraisal of the executive's 

(aka SES career appointment and must have employee's perfonmance plan(s). performance. Depending o

bonuses) under been for no less than the agency's organizational hierarchy, a 

5 CFR 534.405 minimum appraisal period which in Only career SES appointees who level managers review of th

GSA is 120 days. If an individual receive an annual performance rating appraisal might also apply, 

has served less than a full year as of Level 3, 4 or 5 are eligible. at the Head of Service or S

an SES career appointee, GSA may Office Level. The SES Per

consider prorating the amount of the Review Board reviews the 

bonus. However. the amount of the appraisal and makes 

bonus may not be less than 5 recommendations to the 

percent of the individual's rate of Administrator for final appro

basic pay as of the end of the 

9 

Insert offset folio 35 here 75419.035

GSA SES and Non-SES Awards, Eligibility Criteria and Authorization Process 

performance appraisal period. By 

law and OPM regulation, an SES 

performance award may not be less 

than five percent or more than 20 

percent of basic pay as of the end of 

the performance period. 

Special Act Special Act Awards are cash awards Special Act awards can be awarded Managers and Supervisors 

Awards based on nonrecurring contributions for: "suggestions, inventions, or responsible for preparing th

either within or outside job special acts or services in the public nomination. 

responsibilities that are outside of interest connected with or related to 

the senior executive's annual official employment, which contribute The nomination must be ap

performance plan. to the efficiency, economy, or other by the Administrator. 

improvement of Government 

NOTE: A senior executive may not operations." Special Act Awards are Award authority may be rebe granted time off in lieu of a of a one-time, nonrecurring nature, delegated to appropriate 

monetary award for a special act connected with or related to official supervisory and managem

award. employment, that are not already officials. 

covered under the senior executive's 

annual performance plan. A The maximum single award 

performance rating is not used to be granted by the Administ

justify this award. without review and approva

the Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM) is $10

OPM can approve awards 

$10,000 up to $25,000; the 

President must approve an

over $25,000. 

___ __ 

. ______ 

10 

Insert offset folio 36 here 75419.036

EnclosureG_Smartpay costs and explanation - Tab 1- 2012 Conference 

Insert offset folio 37 here 75419.037

·See tab 2 for an explanation of costs; note 

that actual cost information is not yet 

, available. 

EnclosureG_Smartpay costs and explanation - Tab 1- 2012 Conference 

:"Increase isduelo15epartment of Defense' 

'attendees withdrawing less then a week 

before the conference. GSA contracts may 

reCiuire GSA to absorbadditional costs, 

Insert offset folio 38 here 75419.038

EnciosureG_Smartpay costs and explanation· Tab 2· Explanation of Costs 

Exp/aiiiItIOn or C<ieII. ThIa original COllI eellmabJ, a _ aatImaIellaeed 011 COllI redUCtIoni, .. 

and, 10 lhe.exIiInI.1MIIabIe. hl.1ICiUaI COfIIB. 

General Session for 5,000 6,000 at1endees 

8 GSA Training Rooms set for 150-500 with one 

room set for 1,000 attendees 

NavyiUSMC Oay 

Agency Meetings 

PSA provlde& conference planning and management services for the GSA 

SmartPay conference. Services !nclude pre-conference planning activities, 

contracting for conference facUlties and services, managing attendee housing 

and aa well as _OM:silefnanagement of the •. 

The general sessIon AV coot est/mate mcluded a stage In front, pOdium and one 

large sereenlback drop behind the stage. two large screens on each side to 

display what is happening on stage aa wei! as two aereens displayed in the 

middle of the general seslion room for attendees in the back of the room. An 

audio system. video projeclion & display system. stage lighting, gtaphica 

switching system, graphics presentation system, power & rigging, and video 

record system were also ne&ded for the general session. To reduced costa, tho 

$89,390 Qen!K3i canceled. 

AV 1$ needed for 8 GSA Tralning rooms ranging In sile from 150 theater $et to 1 

room set for t ,000 attendees. With rooms this large, AV is needed to conduct 

training so all attendee& can participate and be setJvely engaged in the training 

claSS. Standard AV package Including podlumfwired microphones. wired 

lavaliere. laptop computer wI dicker, and LCO projector/screen is needed for 

these classrooms. Two of the trair'!ing rooms also require an audience response 

system to conduct the training session! occuring in these rooms. (Note: the 

audience response system was subsequently deleted as a cost reduction 

measure.) 

NavylUSMC Dey was to be held the Monday before conference. Navy/USMC Day was it full day 01 tralnlng for US Navy and USMC peraonnel involved in the Purchase Card. Travel Card or Fleet Card Programs. Last year. 1.400 people 

attended Navy/uSMC Day. GSA already had the meeting apace, so GSA would 

on!y pay for the AV/technical support for the two large training fOOI'rit (set for 

1,400 and 800 attendees) used by Navy a$ well .. 1 smaller breakout rooms. 

AV included podiumlwlred microphones, wired levaHem, laptop computer wI 

clicker, LCD projector/screen, internet, audio and a telephone Interface. GSA also offered registration for NavyJUSMC Day through our online conference 

'registration process. (Note: At the Navy's request, Navy Day was subsequently 

,canceled !}Ot ,to attend .conference.) 

In addition to NavylUSMC Day, GSA supported an average of 30 agency 

meetings who met the MOrIday prior to conference and during the conference on 

their GSA SmartPay Program. AV for B agency meeti-ng rooms were to be set 

with II standard AV package including podiumlwired m!CfOphooes. wired 

lavaliere, laptop computer wI cliCker, and LCD projector/screen, {Note: Not all 

agency meetings were he!d as a number of agencies reduced their attendance. 

AV discounts am offered when holding a genera! session. When the general 

session was cancelled, costs Increased for the remaining AV. Also, we cancelled 

use of the ARS which further reduced costs by $8,660. This reduction is 

$41,059 reflected in the 

$0 $0 

$52,399 

Insert offset folio 39 here 75419.039

EnclosureG _ Smartpay costs and explanation • Tab 2· Explanation of Costs 

Two monitors were located near the conference cheek In area $0 a 

welcome/conference orientation video COUld be played in an effort to 

compensate for not having a general session. The monitors could also be used 

for conference announcements. Two other monitors were to be ditlpleyed by the 

cyber ca'. While att_. were waiting to u ... computer. GSA 8m_rlPey Contractor bank training video$ that showcase innovative products and services 

,offered under the program also be played from th ... monitors. (Note: The cyber 

cafe was deleted al a cost reduction measure; the video screen$ln the check-in 

area were unci to display the welcome video and contractor bank training 

4-40"iVMonUors . $4.768vidaos.) 

__ 

$4.768 

Servie!' 

remporary Steff 

RFID Provider for Attendee Class Tracking and 

Credit 

Singer for _ 

Website 

With over 5,000 attendees each year. more than one hotel was generally 

needed to accommodate the number of attendees, so shuttle service was needed to/from the conference Th!s year, the Gaylord Opryland provided 

complimentary shuttle &erVice tolfrom the 5 planned overflow hotels.(Note: The cost shown was budgeted for shuttle service to support an additional training 

$5,000: wf1ich eanceled_ a.S _8 

With 6 hotels (15.000 room nights) and 9 blocks (i .•. 8 steff blocks which include 

GSA. 000, PSA, 3 oonttacJor bonks, Vi •• end MasterCard In edditlon to the 

general attendee blOCk) to OVt)f'$ee, !Services were needed to manage these 

$29,797' blocks and provide reporting on.1l\e hotel room pickup __ 

With training senions occurring concurrentlv in 42 training rooms, 40 temp staff 

were naeded to monitor the training rooms and the RFID Tap N Go Statlons and 

assist attendees with the tracking equipment in addition to other conference 

S19,010support as ne.ded. 

In order to track class attendance and provide attendees with theIr training/eLF 

credits, RFID "Tap n Go" statiOfl$ were needed outside of the 42 cla&StooM18. In 

2011 alone. 42,344 training hours were provided to attendees. Soma rooms held 

up to 2,500 attendees, &0 mwtiple stations were needed outside these larger rooms to capture all attendees entering the classroom and ensure they receive 

$55,422 credit for_the,cle ... 

Singer for the beginning of the general session as the color guard enters the 

room. (Note: As the genera! session was canceled as s cost savings measure, 

$321 

The GSA SmartPay Conference website, www.gsasmartpayconferenoe.org.is 

the maln source for aU conference information as wen as conference registration 

and hotel reservations. Attendees could view aU training classes, agency 

meetings, information on the host city and can retrieve their training certifICates, 

_____ __ .,. _____ . _____ . 

A keynote speaker was to klck off the conference by giving a one hour 

presentation during the generat session. The keynote speaker planned for this 

year was a service disabled veteran, J.R. Martinez. (Note: As a cost savings 

measure, the general session was. canceled ancl there was no need for a 

$0 

____ $29,797 

$19,010 $55,422._ 

$0 

$5.856 

Keynote Speaker $23,831 speaker. ,there was. a cost. incurred for the apeaker.) $12,753 

$0' 

Insert offset folio 40 here 75419.040

EnclosureG_Smartpay costs and explanation' Tab 2- Explanation of Costs 

S56,882 

,$983 

tines or wirelas $17.280 SmartPav tlublicationa online. .. 

. __ . __ ._. .$2,5.69 request .. 

Food and Beverage.Minimum Requirement $64,213 estlmated $29,797 o(ltIe.J!lI.l!tmum.) $64,213 

Computer Equipment S31,907 savIng!\: meas!Jre. we de!eted the cyber cafe .which removed eight computers.) $28.331 

Ouring the conference, GSA SmartPay supports the 000 Purchase Card 

Program Office Purchase Card Online System System (peOlS) trainIng by 

providing computers at no expense to DoD. Is a DoD·wide suite of 

electronic. systems that purchase card officials U$e for program o\lert;ight. 2,218 

000 purchase card program managers attended the GSA SmartPay conference 

,in 2011 obtained peOlS training provided through this eompJJtor lab. (Note: 

A1lliough 000 made a corpotate d&cision not to attend this year's conference, it 

WI! too !ate to. cancel the tftt up o.f the lab, 10 the majority of the" costs were 

_ 

. 

___ ___ .. __ . ___ . __ 

Insert offset folio 41 here 75419.041

GSA SmariPay_ EXNb.it. Genera! Supplies 

Pdntrng 

S}9n IS,oguage Interpreter 

PSA Travel Feedback Systems Survey Contractor 

Conference concept design and print (Design 

and printing coordinated by CAR Region 5 and 

their contractors) 

EnclosureG_Smartpay costs and explanation - Tab 2- Explanation of Costs 

Travel expenses included airfare and per diem costs for 12 PSA staff who were 

on site mal'laging the conference. With a 3A75 peak room night holel block. the 

hotels provided complimentary holel rooms which were utHized by PSA staff and 

subcontractors sO GSA would not pay for lodging. Any remaining comphmentary 

rooms would be used by GSA. {3j 

GSA SmartPay utilized a GSA subcontractor, Feedback Systems, 10 develop an 

online training c:ass survey where attendees can log in and take the class 

survey for the specific classes they attended. These training surveys were 

required as part of the ClP certification process, so attendees could recel'ie 

CLP credit by attending these training classes. In addition, Feedback prOVided 

and managed 3 survey stations on site during the conference where attendees 

provided feedback on their o .... erarl conference experience. Feedback pro .... ided 

reporting on the class and conference survey results Ihat GSA used to improve 

upon training and the conference for future years. The overall customer 

satisfaction score that is generated from this survey is also tied to one of GSA 

SmartPay's performance measures. (Nole: As a cost savings measure, we 

deleted the Feedback Systems overall conference sUivey and reports. 

Included design of the nama badge that attendees wore in order to be scanned 

in and receive training cradit for tM classes atlended. These costs also included 

the design of the conference program which induded all the trai'ling classes 

offered so attendees could plan their persona! training schedule; sign age 

template which was needed for signage so attendees knew how to 

navigate the',r way through the convention center, email templale', and 

announcement card. Costs also included pnnting costs for program, sigoa96, 

and announcement cards. (Note: We cancelled the printing of the announcement 

card. FlOa! cost increased from estimate due 10 last mtnute bank course 

changes. Schedule changes create more proofing rounds, incurring more 

costs.) 

$0. 

$4,480 

$593 

532,440 

Insert offset folio 42 here 75419.042

EnclosureG Smartpay CDsts and explanation Tab 2- Explanation of Costs 

With over $,000 attendees at the conference, II was Importan! lor the GSA 

SmartPay slaff to be easily recognized during !he conference 10 provide 

customer service and answer aoy qUestions attendees may have had related to 

the conference or SmartPay program In generaL (Note: We re·used previous 

GSA SmartPay unifonns and did nol purchase new ones for this year's 

Uniforms for GSA SmartPay Staff 

Staff Travc{ 

The Initial estimate was based on 43 GSA employees who would staff tf1e 

conference, regardless of fundll'lg source. This Includes presenters. individuals 

work.ing at exhibit booths. conducting training evaluations, and managing the 

class training surveys. The revised "new cost estimate" renected a reduction of 7 

GSA employees traveling. While complete final cost Information IS not yet 

avai!able, this number Will reflect only OCCM·funded traveler, so that thiS data IS 

presented 111 a manner consistent wIth the FY 11 cost Information prOVIded 
Æ 


Insert offset folio 43 here 75419.043

EnclosureG_Smartpay costs an

1. Increase from revised estimate is due to attrition costs. 

2. To be invoiced as incurred. 

3. please state that these were not Presidential Suites