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

66–624 PDF 2011

S. Hrg. 112–49 

EXAMINATION OF PUBLIC RELATIONS 

CONTRACTS AT THE GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION’S HEARTLAND REGION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONTRACTING 

OVERSIGHT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 1, 2011 

Available via http://www.fdsys.gov 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs 

( 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

BRANDON L. MILHORN, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

JOYCE WARD, Publications Clerk and GPO Detailee 

AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONTRACTING OVERSIGHT 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Chairman 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

MARGARET DAUM, Staff Director 

BRIAN CALLANAN, Minority Staff Director 

KELSEY STROUD, Chief Clerk 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator McCaskill ............................................................................................ 1 

Senator Portman .............................................................................................. 4 

WITNESSES 

TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 2011 

Hon. Brian Miller, Inspector General, U.S. General Services Administration ... 6 

Hon. Martha Johnson, Administrator, U.S. General Services Administration .. 7 

Robert Peck, Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, U.S. General Services 

Administration ..................................................................................................... 9 

Mary Ruwwe, Regional Commissioner (Heartland Region), Public Buildings 

Service, U.S. General Services Administration ................................................. 11 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Johnson, Hon. Martha: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 43 

Miller, Hon. Brian: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 37 

Peck, Robert: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 46 

Ruwwe, Mary: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 50 

APPENDIX 

Memorandum referenced by Senator McCaskill ................................................... 57 

Questions and Responses for the Record from: 

Mr. Miller with attachment ............................................................................. 66 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

(1) 

EXAMINATION OF PUBLIC RELATIONS 

CONTRACTS AT THE GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION’S HEARTLAND REGION 

TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 2011 

U.S. SENATE,

AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONTRACTING OVERSIGHT,

OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in 

room SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Claire 

McCaskill, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators McCaskill and Portman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR MCCASKILL 

Senator MCCASKILL. This hearing will come to order and, first 

and most importantly, before we do anything else, I want to welcome the new Ranking Member of the Committee, Senator Rob 

Portman. It is an honor to have you. I think we do great oversight 

work here. 

It is not always the sexiest topic that we handle in the Senate, 

but it is really important because of the amount of money that is 

spent on contracting in this government has exploded and the oversight, at the same time, has not been as aggressive as it needs to 

be. 

So, I will look forward to working with you, and I am glad that 

you are somebody who has a great deal of experience in the Federal Government. I think you are going to be a tremendous asset 

to this effort and—not that I had any say as to who it was going 

to be, but I do not think the Republican Party could have picked 

a better person to be the Ranking Member of this particular Subcommittee, and I welcome you heartily. 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you, I appreciate it. 

Senator MCCASKILL. This hearing will now come to order. 

Today’s hearing focuses on public relations (PR) contracts awarded by the General Services Administration (GSA). There are probably many Americans who have never heard of GSA, but GSA is 

the government agency that manages Federal property, including 

Federal buildings and courthouses across the country. 

GSA also administers hundreds of billions of dollars of contracts 

known as the Federal Schedules, which are used by other Federal 

agencies to buy goods and services. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

2 

The contracts we are here to discuss today were awarded by GSA 

to help respond to concerns about the way GSA was managing the 

Bannister Federal Complex in Kansas City. 

For those who do not know Kansas City, the Bannister Complex 

covers over 300 acres and has over 2,000 Federal employees and 

2,300 contractors working on its grounds. 

Part of the complex, the Kansas City Plant, was originally built 

in 1942 to manufacture airplane engines for the Navy, and since 

1949, has produced non-nuclear components for nuclear weapons. 

Today, the Department of Energy (DOE) administers the Kansas 

City Plant and the GSA administers the rest of Bannister. 

Because of environmental contamination that happened at Bannister from the 1950s through the 1970s, the Federal Government 

has spent the last few decades working to clean up the pollution 

and testing to ensure that the facility is safe for the thousands of 

Federal employees who work there. 

In the past 2 years, a number of new reports have surfaced regarding environmental and health concerns at Bannister, and new 

investigations have been launched of the complex’s safety, including a review by the GSA Inspector General (IG). 

To respond to these investigations, in February 2010 GSA awarded a contract to a small public relations company in Kansas City 

called Jane Mobley Associates (JMA). 

Now, one of the Subcommittee’s most important responsibilities 

is to ensure that when an agency awards a contract, it is doing so 

with the best interest of the American taxpayer in mind. This contract, through which GSA ultimately gave JMA more than 

$234,000 for 3 months’ work does not appear to be in the best interest of the taxpayer. 

According to GSA, the agent had an ‘‘urgent and compelling’’ 

need to award this contract because they were in the midst of a 

‘‘crisis’’ caused by the news reports and Federal investigations. And 

despite having numerous public affairs officials in Kansas City and 

Washington, the agency said they did not have anyone capable of 

dealing with the media or communicating with the people at Bannister. 

At today’s hearing, we will explore why GSA thought it would 

serve the American people and the taxpayers to spend hundreds of 

thousands of dollars to hire a public relations firm to communicate 

with Federal employees when it already had people to do that job. 

We will also explore the many problems that GSA, the Federal 

Government’s main contracting agency, made in awarding and 

managing this contract. It was awarded in 1 day without nearly 

enough planning and with no competition. 

One of the main rationales for using JMA was that it had extensive experience doing this kind of work for EPA, but GSA failed to 

do the basic legwork that would have revealed that JMA had never 

received any contracts from EPA. 

It also looks like GSA essentially allowed the contractor to both 

decide what it was going to do and how much that was going to 

cost. 

For the Federal Government, which routinely awards contracts 

worth billions, this contract may seem like relatively small potatoes, but the award and the management of this contract is a case 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

3 

study, and it raises very serious questions about how GSA, which 

is responsible for both property and acquisitions for the government may have fallen short at both. 

In addition, information provided to the Subcommittee shows 

that the Federal Government has spent billions on contracts for 

public relations and related services over the past 5 years. 

While PR contracts like the one we will examine today may be 

legal, we need to be able to rely on our public officials to exercise 

sound judgment about when such a contract is actually necessary. 

The American people may not know much about GSA, but they 

know that their government should be working for them. They do 

not want their taxpayer dollars wasted, and they do not want their 

government officials to be more concerned about protecting their 

public image than protecting them. 

Today, we will have the opportunity to ask GSA officials whether 

they are meeting the standards expected of them. 

The Administrator of GSA, Martha Johnson, is here today, and 

I want to thank her for joining us today. 

She is joined by Robert Peck, who is the head of GSA’s public 

building services, and Mary Ruwwe, who is the head of Public 

Building Services (PBS) in Kansas City. 

Brian Miller, GSA’s Inspector General, will also testify today. 

I welcome all the witnesses and look forward to all their testimony. 

I want to say, before we begin, that this is, frankly, in some 

ways, as I said in my formal opening statement, small potatoes because of the size of the contract involved, but if we do not break 

down contracting to a level where the American people can understand how it happens, where it happens, and why it happens, and 

whether indeed it is the best use of their dollars, we have no 

chance at this gargantuan problem of government contracting and 

how well it is being done. 

So, in some ways, this may seem unfair. It may seem like we are 

picking on GSA, because I guarantee you there are contracts like 

this sprinkled throughout the Federal Government, contracts that 

are entered into in a hurry, without the appropriate oversight, 

without the appropriate scoping, without the appropriate planning, 

without enough concern about how much it costs, but I happen to 

know a lot about this one because it happened in Kansas City. 

So, this is one of those times that there is good news and bad 

news. The good news is I know a lot about this contract and the 

bad news for GSA is I happen to be from Missouri and Chair this 

Subcommittee; so, it is an easy one for us to do a case study of. 

But I want to say at the outset I perfectly well understand that 

this is not a problem that is just GSA’s, and I perfectly well understand that the problems we are going to talk about today in contracting apply to every Federal agency. And it just so happens that 

this is a perfect, manageable-sized contract, and we can do the 

timeline of exactly of what happened. And I think it will be illustrative to other Federal agencies that this is not the way you are 

supposed to contract; this is not the way it is supposed to be done, 

and hopefully we will learn from this and other Federal agencies 

will pay attention. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

4 

And I would now turn it over to the Ranking Member for his 

opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PORTMAN 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you very much, Senator McCaskill. It 

is an honor to be here today in my first Subcommittee hearing as 

your Ranking Member, and I am not quite sure how I ended up 

here, either, but I am glad I did. 

As Chairman McCaskill has already noted, the Subcommittee 

does really deal with issues that really strike at the heart of how 

our government operates, and I look forward to the important work 

ahead. 

We have an enormous fiscal crisis facing the country, and a lot 

more attention on that, even this week, as we will be talking about 

the spending for this year. But at a time when we have these fiscal 

challenges, more than ever, we need to be sure that our tax dollars 

are being spent wisely and responsibly, and really, that is what 

this Subcommittee is about. 

I want to commend the Subcommittee for its past work and 

Chairman McCaskill for her dedication to eliminating waste, fraud, 

abuse, and mismanagement in government contracting. 

I am told that the Committee, and this Subcommittee in particular, was pretty busy over the last few years and had some big 

accomplishments. The Subcommittee looked at Arlington National 

Cemetery and came up with some badly needed reforms there, and 

I look forward to working with the Chairman and her staff in the 

days ahead on many of these issues. 

I also want to note the contributions made by Senators Susan 

Collins and Scott Brown in the last Congress, both at the Subcommittee and full Committee level in this area of, again, ensuring 

that we are bringing Federal contracting issues up and dealing 

with them in a responsible way. 

As American families have tightened their belts and businesses 

have learned to do more with less the last couple of years, the Federal Government has grown and kind of gone in the opposite direction, and it is time for us to, again, ensure that money is being 

spent wisely and effectively and that effective oversight does occur. 

I served for just over a year as the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) Director, and there our goal was to put, as we said, 

the ‘‘M’’ back in OMB, and that meant getting at some of these 

very issues and we had some success in focusing on waste, and better management, and made that a top priority. We led initiatives 

to reduce improper payments, to enhance transparency over financial management, improved the management of the government’s 

information technology investments and to consolidate duplicative 

systems. 

And Chairman McCaskill said it is not necessarily the sexiest 

issue in government, but it is an incredibly important issue and I 

think effective oversight is crucial with government contracts. After 

all, if you look at it from a broad perspective, goods and services 

in government contracts now exceed $530 billion; that was the 

number from the last fiscal year. So this is a huge amount of 

money, and it is necessary that this Subcommittee and others provide better oversight, as we said earlier. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

5 

1The information referenced by Senator McCaskill appears in the appendix on page 57. 

Today’s hearing does raise very important questions about transparency in our government and the appropriate use of contractors. 

It is a case study, as the Chairman said. I am interested in learning more about it. 

I commend the Chairman for her investigations here, as well as 

the work she has done with Senator Roy Blunt and former Senator 

Kit Bond, and I look forward to hearing from the witnesses, and 

I thank them for being here today. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you, Senator. 

The Subcommittee staff has prepared a Memorandum regarding 

to the contract. 

I move that the memorandum and the underlying documents 

that support the Memorandum be included in the record.1

Senator PORTMAN. Second. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Without objection, those will be included in 

the record. 

Let me introduce the witnesses and we will begin testimony. 

Brian Miller has served as the Inspector General for the GSA 

since his confirmation by the Senate in July 2005. He is also Vice 

Chair of the National Procurement Fraud Taskforce and a member 

of the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Recovery Act Fraud Working 

Group. 

Mr. Miller received the Attorney General’s Distinguished Service 

Award in 2008. This is Mr. Miller’s third appearance before this 

Subcommittee and his second this year. 

Martha Johnson was confirmed as the Administrator of GSA on 

February 5, 2010. Prior to her appointment, Ms. Johnson worked 

in the private sector for Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) and 

the Society of Research Administrators International (SRA). She 

served as Assistant Deputy Secretary at the Department of Commerce and was Chief of Staff at GSA during the Clinton Administration. 

Robert Peck is the Commissioner of Public Buildings for GSA, a 

position he also held under the Clinton Administration. Mr. Peck 

previously served as Managing Director of Jones Lang LaSalle. He 

has also held positions at the Office of Management and Budget, 

the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). 

Mary Ruwwe—am I saying your name correctly, Ms. Ruwwe? 

Ms. RUWWE. Yes. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Mary Ruwwe is the Regional Commissioner 

for the Public Building Service in the Heartland Region, which includes Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, and Nebraska. Ms. Ruwwe has 

served GSA in the Heartland Region for more than 20 years. 

It is the custom of this Subcommittee to swear in all witnesses 

that appear before us. So, if you do not mind, I would ask you to 

stand. 

Do you swear that the testimony you will give before the Subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 

truth, so help you, God? 

Mr. MILLER. I do. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

6 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Miller appears in the appendix on page 37. 

Ms. JOHNSON. I do. 

Mr. PECK. I do. 

Ms. RUWWE. I do. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Let the record reflect that all the witnesses 

have answered in the affirmative. 

We will be using a timing system today. We would ask that your 

oral testimony be no more than 5 minutes. Your written testimony, 

of course, will be printed in the record in its entirety and if, for any 

reason, that you feel, as a matter of fairness, you need longer than 

5 minutes, of course the Subcommittee will be happy to allow you 

that time. 

And we will begin with you, Mr. Miller. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HON. BRIAN MILLER,1 INSPECTOR 

GENERAL, U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. MILLER. Madam Chairman, Ranking Member Portman, 

thank you for inviting me here to testify this morning. 

When President Truman created the GSA in 1949, he said that 

it would improve the government system of property management 

and procurement. Accordingly, GSA’s two core missions are property management and procurement, both are in play at the Bannister Federal Complex in Kansas City, Missouri. 

This morning, I will address my office’s audit of environmental 

conditions at Bannister, and GSA’s decision to contract with a public relations firm. My focus will be on my office’s findings and 

GSA’s response to those findings. 

Our audit on environmental issues at Bannister found, first, that 

GSA did not have a strong environmental program at Bannister. 

Second, that GSA did not take steps to protect workers when 

presented with evidence of potential hazards. 

And third, that GSA provided incorrect and misleading information to both my office and the public. 

Although GSA’s written response to our report seemed primarily 

focused on defending itself in quibbling over words, we are encouraged by GSA’s 2010 actions to enlist the assistance of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). 

GSA also contracted with Jane Mobley Associates, a public relations firm. Although our audit is ongoing, we issued an interim 

audit memorandum to make GSA aware of the problems with the 

contract and to help prevent similar mistakes in the future. 

The problems with the JMA contract include: GSA awarded a 

sole source contract without justifying why it did not consider other 

vendors. 

Second, the scope of work was not adequately defined or priced. 

JMA itself apparently wrote the Statement of Work (SOW). 

Third, the initial task order had no specific, measurable 

deliverables. GSA apparently did not know that it received what it 

wanted, so it relied on an EPA official to accept JMA’s work and 

help approve payment. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

7 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson appears in the appendix on page 43. 

And last, the contract extension simply was not justified. These 

problems produced a situation in which the government has no assurance that it paid a fair price for the services received. 

GSA’s response to our Audit Memorandum, like the response to 

our report on environmental issues, failed to fully acknowledge the 

extent of the problems. This gives little or no assurance that the 

same problems will not be repeated on future procurements. 

In order to correct a problem, you must admit the problem. GSA 

seems for whatever reason seems reluctant to take full responsibility for the errors in the JMA contract. 

In order to fulfill its responsibilities as the Federal Government’s 

property management and procurement expert, GSA must set a 

tone of taking immediate and decisive action to address any safety 

concerns of Federal workers without waiting for an Inspector General review or congressional action to spur it to act, and it must 

ensure that all proper contracting procedures are followed. This 

has not been the case at Bannister in either the property management or procurement areas. 

Thank you for inviting me here this morning and I welcome any 

questions from the Subcommittee. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you, Mr. Miller. Ms. Johnson. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HON. MARTHA JOHNSON,1

ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 

Ms. JOHNSON. Chairman McCaskill and Ranking Member 

Portman, I am Martha Johnson, Administrator of the General 

Services Administration. I took the oath of office on February 7, 

2010, and I am honored to serve in this capacity. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Senate Subcommittee on Contracting Oversight today. 

As requested, I am here today to speak to GSA’s award, management, and oversight of the Jane Mobley Associates contract. 

In November 2009, GSA’s Heartland Region began to receive 

media and public inquiries revolving around health and safety 

issues at the Bannister Federal Complex. 

And let me note, the Bannister Federal Complex consists of 5 

million square feet of mixed-use space with 42 buildings. GSA controls 12 buildings totaling 2 million square feet while the Department of Energy manages the balance of the facility. From the 

1940s through the mid 1970s, the ownership and control of the 

property was divided between the Department of Defense (DOD), 

the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), and, later, the Department 

of Energy and GSA. 

By late January 2010, these inquiries had increased dramatically, causing unprecedented tenant and employee concerns about 

the safety of the Bannister Federal Complex. The quantity and 

complexity of these media inquiries, as well as various government 

reports regarding Bannister indicated the need for a more advanced level of communications expertise than the Region could 

provide in-house. 

The Heartland Region consulted with the regional Environmental Protection Agency. Given EPA’s experience with environH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

8 

mental communications, the EPA Associate Regional Administrator 

recommended a local communications firm, JMA. 

In addition to their listed professional references, JMA had firsthand experience—firsthand environmental crisis management experience, experience with evaluating and translating technical 

data, and had previously worked with other government agencies. 

Relying on EPA’s superior experience with environmental crisis 

management and communications, GSA sought guidance on framing the Statement of Work from EPA. EPA appropriately provided 

the required assistance and GSA then negotiated a final Statement 

of Work with JMA. 

Upon finalizing the statement of work, the Heartland Region expedited the retention of JMA. The expedited timeline for selection 

was based on the existing urgent and compelling circumstances. 

GSA believed that these circumstances existed because of employee 

and tenant concerns that conditions impaired their ability to work. 

On February 5, 2010, the Region entered into a one-month contract for services with GSA. The Region and JMA developed a communications plan, discussed test results in reports commissioned 

by the EPA and NIOSH, and created a contingency plan for an alternate site for the childcare center. 

Significant progress on local communications had been made 

after 1 month; however, the Heartland Region was still not comfortable in its capacity to respond to multiple inquiries from the 

media, current and former employees, and the public. Moreover, it 

was apparent that extensive outreach and coordination were still 

needed to address the public concerns. 

On March 8, 2010, the Heartland Region issued a modification 

to the existing contract to extend the services under the original 

agreement. The scope of work and discussions with JMA made 

clear that the last 2 months were to serve as a transition period, 

during which GSA would assume and manage these responsibilities 

in-house. JMA assisted GSA in providing clarity on issues, performed extensive research, and facilitated meetings between GSA, 

EPA, and DOE. 

JMA also assisted in the further development of the skills and 

knowledge of in-house staff in preparation for assuming the communications role for this issue. 

In sum, GSA was faced with a series of complex issues at the 

Bannister Federal Complex, and since employee health and safety 

is our number one responsibility, the Heartland Region moved 

swiftly to address employee and community concerns and prevented continued harm to the agency. 

Pursuant to the Inspector General’s report which contained a list 

of recommendations, GSA has taken proactive steps, which I believe will further enhance the safety and management of Bannister. 

First, we have developed an environmental work plan and quality assurance project. 

Second, we have finalized a GSA regional environmental management system to manage and monitor the regional program in 

accordance with EPA guidance. 

Third, we have established a system where information released 

goes through a multistep review process to ensure accuracy. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

9 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Peck appears in the appendix on page 46. 

In view of the above, I believe these positive steps illustrate our 

true desire to achieve transparency, accountability, and better 

management of those challenging issues that have appeared at the 

Bannister Federal Complex. 

This concludes my remarks, and I look forward to our discussion 

today. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. Mr. Peck. 

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT PECK,1 COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC 

BUILDINGS SERVICE, U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. PECK. Madam Chairman, Ranking Member Portman, and 

members of the public, thank you for inviting me to speak to you 

today regarding the General Services Administration’s Public 

Building Service property management and public relations efforts 

in Kansas City. 

Nationally, GSA manages a portfolio of more than 1,500 Federally owned buildings, and we house 1,100,000 Federal employees 

from more than 100 Federal agencies. As the Federal Government’s 

landlord, it is our job to ensure that our buildings are safe, well 

functioning, and welcoming to our tenants and visitors. We strive 

at all times to be open and responsive in our communication with 

both tenants and the public. 

On a daily basis, we manage building and tenant issues, including fire and life safety and environmental issues. We conduct periodic surveys and assessments of our buildings to ensure that they 

are well functioning and safe for tenants. We even survey our tenants to make sure they think we are doing a good job and that the 

buildings are appropriate as work spaces. 

As specific concerns arise from tenants, GSA assess the nature 

and scope of the problem, usually via studies or tests, and then addresses the problem as those assessments indicate is necessary. 

We often contract with third parties to conduct these evaluations 

to ensure that we receive independent assessments, and we also 

often contract with third parties to carry out corrective measures. 

In fact, most routine mechanical maintenance and cleaning functions in Federal buildings are carried out by third party contractors, as well. 

If we determine that an environmental problem does exist within 

a facility, we immediately take corrective measures. Most of the 

issues that arise in our buildings never become a public concern because GSA’s experts are able to collaborate effectively with tenants 

to dispel their concerns. GSA relies on our in-house communication 

experts to share accurate information with our tenants. 

And as I said, we routinely manage communication issues and 

handle media inquiries with in-house staff; however, we can seek 

the assistance of outside communications resources when we identify either a lack of capacity or expertise on a specific subject matter, and that was the case in the Bannister Complex in Kansas 

City. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

10 

The situation there became particularly urgent due to voluminous information requests, media reports, and concerned tenants 

who had questions regarding the safety of their workplace. 

Before we retained JMA, Jane Mobley Associates, GSA was already working closely with tenants to understand and address 

their environmental concerns at the Bannister Complex. Over the 

years, GSA has frequently monitored and evaluated conditions in 

the building and communicated back to tenant leadership that 

these evaluations established and maintained that the building is 

safe for occupancy. 

We were concerned that, despite our best efforts in late 2009, 

tenant employee concerns seemed to indicate that our efforts were 

not satisfying tenants and not making them feel confident about 

their safety at the complex. At that time, in late 2009, we saw an 

increase in inquiries and requests for information, which we initially managed on our own. 

But eventually, giving the significant burdens on our public affairs staff in the Region, we did go out and seek assistance from 

JMA. They helped us develop a plan to handle a large number of 

communication inquiries and effectively communicate the complex 

and technical results of our many environmental studies assessing 

the safety of the building. This, our response, reflected the results 

of numerous assessments, and I would emphasize again that all 

testing to date at Bannister indicates that no health risk exists. 

JMA was hired off of a GSA multiple award schedule (MAS), as 

it is called, which offers—our multiple award schedules offer Federal agencies a streamlined means of acquiring services in numerous areas, including public relations. 

Prices for services on the schedules have already been determined to be fair and reasonable before a firm is put on the schedule, and that price review is done by reviewing prices offered to 

similarly situated commercial customers. 

We at GSA take our obligation seriously to provide safe Federal 

facilities for our employees, the employees of our tenant agencies, 

and the visiting public. 

We fully understand and are committed to effectively communicating with employees and the public about the steps we are taking to assure their safety. 

The urgency of this obligation in Kansas City necessitated that 

we seek additional resources. Our response in Kansas City was not 

propaganda in the legal sense and in—and it was a legal use of 

government contracting authority. 

Madam Chairman and Ranking Member Portman, I am happy to 

answer any questions you have. Thank you, again, for the opportunity to be here. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you, Mr. Peck, and thank you for 

your public service. Ms. Ruwwe. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

11 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Ruwwe appears in the appendix on page 50. 

TESTIMONY OF MARY RUWWE,1 REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, 

PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE, U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 

Ms. RUWWE. Good morning, Madam Chairman, Ranking Member 

Portman, and Members of the Subcommittee. 

My name is Mary Ruwwe, and I am the Regional Commissioner 

of GSA’s Public Building Service in the Heartland Region. 

Thank you for inviting me to join you today to discuss PBS’s use 

of public relation services with Jane Mobley and Associates at the 

Bannister Federal Complex in Kansas City. 

As a public official, my primary responsibility is to ensure the 

health and safety of people working in and visiting GSA facilities. 

When concerns are raised regarding environmental safety in our 

buildings, GSA works diligently to address those concerns. This is 

certainly true in the case of the Bannister Federal Complex. 

Over the years, GSA has continually monitored the complex. We 

have conducted hundreds of environmental tests. All of these tests 

have indicated that the facility has been and remains a healthy environment for our employees, the tenants, and the public. 

Until recently, GSA relied on in-house communications experts to 

relay information to the community. In early 2010, circumstances 

changed drastically. Tenant and public inquiries significantly increased and the situation became more complex due to amplified 

media concerns resulting in employees’ heightened fears of unsafe 

conditions. 

At GSA, we realized we needed additional resources and technical assistance to fully and accurately characterize the developing 

situation. As a result, GSA procured communication services from 

Jane Mobley and Associates, who I will refer to as JMA. 

With JMA’s assistance, GSA acted swiftly to address employee 

and community concerns. 

Madam Chairman, I take all matters of employee health and 

workplace safety seriously and always work to ensure that appropriate action is taken to provide safety—safe and healthy facilities. 

Along with this responsibility comes a parallel duty to communicate with the public honestly, promptly, and effectively. 

Until early 2010, there was an ebb and flow of environmental 

testing and occasional concerns at Bannister. With the release of 

certain media stories in late 2009, information began to increase to 

two or three inquiries per week. During this time, GSA’s single inhouse communications staffer handled this outreach. 

Then, in late January 2010, circumstances changed radically. 

Over the course of 7 days, multiple events pushed us beyond our 

in-house communication capabilities. We experienced a significant 

increase in inquiries and requests for additional testing. 

A protest was staged outside our childcare facility. We were also 

challenged with the need to coordinate among Federal, State, and 

local regulators. These new events, together with a surge in media 

attention stoked by rumors and misconceptions created an unpredictable and unprecedented pressure cooker environment. There 

was an urgent need to get the facts and the truth to the public. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

12 

In consultation with the EPA, GSA decided to procure a communications expert from GSA’s multiple award schedules. GSA selected JMA, a local small business with government experience, 

knowledgeable of crisis management, and experienced at digesting 

and translating technical data. 

With the firestorm of events in 2010 coupled with our limited 

staff’s lack of crisis management expertise, following the typical ordering procedures would have resulted in unacceptable delays. 

Before a vendor can be awarded a scheduled contract, its offered 

prices must be determined to be fair and reasonable. Although not 

required to do so, GSA conducted a price comparison from three 

vendors. JMA was a local small business and had the lowest cumulative rate and required skills set to accomplish the work successfully. 

GSA determined that JMA was the best vendor to meet our 

needs through a firm fixed-price contract. GSA and JMA worked 

closely together to develop and launch a communications and contingency plan. The whole time, GSA has—throughout this whole 

time, we have maintained our role as spokesperson and directly 

oversaw all messaging and outreach efforts. 

By the end of February, significant progress had been made; 

however, there was still a high volume of inquiries and concerns. 

For that, GSA extended JMA’s services for another 2 months. 

During a turbulent, unique period for GSA, JMA was able to assist us in a short timeframe in effectively and timely communicating the facts to the community to help calm fears and dispel 

misperceptions. 

At GSA’s request, the National Institute of Occupational Safety 

and Health conducted a health hazard evaluation at the GSA complex and did not find any cases of health concerns. Based on an extensive review and the current work plan, the National Institute 

for Occupational Safety and Health does not recommend any additional testing at this time. 

The Bannister Complex has been and continues to be a healthy 

place to work. Based on testing results from the past two decades, 

the GSA controlled space at the Bannister Federal Complex is believed to possess no health risks to workers, visitors, or children at 

the childcare center. 

GSA will continue to ensure the safety of those working and visiting the Bannister Federal Complex. As well, we will continue to 

partner with the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health to execute our 

environmental work plan and address health concerns. 

Madam Chairman, Ranking Member Portman, and Members of 

the Subcommittee, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased 

to answer any questions you may have. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you. 

Thank you all for being here. 

And if the staff would go ahead and set our timers up here so 

I can be aware of how much time I take so that I can make sure 

and go to Senator Portman at an appropriate interval and we will 

continue to go back-and-forth asking questions until we have had 

all the questions answered that we are curious about. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

13 

Let me start with this: Ms. Johnson, did you do anything wrong 

in this contract? Did GSA do anything wrong? 

Ms. JOHNSON. We did nothing wrong with this contract. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Mr. Peck, did GSA do anything wrong in 

the way they issued this PR contract? 

Mr. PECK. We did not do anything wrong with this contract. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. Bad start. 

Let us start with the Statement of Work. Would it be typical in 

contracting to allow the contractor to write the Statement of Work, 

Ms. Johnson? 

Ms. JOHNSON. The normal course is that a contracting officer 

does not write the Statement of Work; it is written by the recipients that are the best knowledgeable people for receiving the services on the contract. So, the recipients are the authors of the statements of work. 

Senator MCCASKILL. So, you think it would be typical and good 

contracting practice to allow the contractor to write the work that 

was going to be performed, as opposed to the government laying 

out the work that they needed performed? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Typically. That is not what happened in this case, 

but yes, I would say that is—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. But that is what happened in this case; is 

it not? Did not the contractor write the Statement of Work? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Let me just begin by saying I was not in office at 

this time. So, I want to be very careful because I am under oath 

to be sure that I am giving you the accurate statements, but I have 

been briefed on this and I believe I understand what happened. 

The Statement of Work was given to us by EPA at our request. 

We asked EPA to help us with this, because EPA is quite knowledgeable and experienced in communications work with the public 

around technical and scientific issues. They provided us with the 

Statement of Work. We did not understand until very recently that 

it was composed by JMA. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. Let me ask again; I am confused, now. 

Do you think it should have been composed by JMA or it should 

have been composed by the government? 

Ms. JOHNSON. It should have been composed by the government. 

Senator MCCASKILL. So, and in this sense, you are aware that it 

was not composed by the government? 

Ms. JOHNSON. We learned that it was not, very recently. 

Senator MCCASKILL. So, would that be something that was done 

wrong? 

Ms. JOHNSON. That would be—yes, that was incorrect procedure. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. So, let me read for the record: 

On February 4—and I should point out also, for the record, I believe that is the same date that Senator Bond requested an IG investigation; is that correct? 

Ms. JOHNSON. I do not know the date. 

Senator MCCASKILL. It was the day after. I believe it was the day 

after the IG investigation was requested by Senator Bond. 

Ms. JOHNSON. I will defer to—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. 

Ms. JOHNSON. I will defer to your—— 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

14 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. I believe if—let me do the chronology 

and then either you or Mr. Peck speak up if I am getting the chronology wrong. 

There had been a number of high-profile media reports beginning 

in November 2009 concerning the safety of Bannister, including a 

list that had been compiled of 95 people that had contracted cancer, 

including television reports that were very—I think I am being fair 

to say that they were inflammatory about the safety of Bannister. 

This began in the fall of 2009. 

And then, on February 3, there was a call for an Inspector General investigation of what had happened—what was ongoing at 

Bannister in terms of the safety at the complex. 

And it was the next day, I believe, that there was a decision 

made to try to hire a PR firm. 

Is that a correct chronology? Does anyone want to disagree with 

that chronology? 

Mr. PECK. No, ma’am. I am looking at my chronology and there 

was a report in the Kansas City Star on the 4th of February saying 

that the Senator had called for a new study on toxins. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. 

Mr. PECK. So, that may well be. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. So, and it was actually executed—this 

task order was actually done in a day; correct? Was it not one day, 

24 hours? 

Ms. RUWWE. We issued the Statement of Work to Jane Mobley 

and Associates on February 4 and it was awarded on February 5. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, I do not think you issued it. Let me 

read an email: 

Early on February 4, 2010, Jane Mobley asked one of her employees to prepare a Statement of Work. Quote—in an email— 

‘‘Rich needs a Statement of Work for what needs to be done, although they don’t really know. So, it needs to be general enough 

to fit everything in we could find under every rock we could turn 

over. He was hoping we had or would know where to find a 

boilerplate SOW’’—Statement of Work—‘‘so that they could write a 

contract right away.’’ 

‘‘Yeah, right.’’ 

Are you all aware of that email exchange between Rich Hood at 

the EPA and the contractor? 

Ms. JOHNSON. I am not. 

Senator MCCASKILL. So, you have not read any of the information concerning this, that is contained in the documentation we 

have in front of the Subcommittee. 

Ms. JOHNSON. No, I have read that but I—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. You are not aware of that? OK. 

Ms. JOHNSON. I do not recall that one. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Later that morning, Mr. Hood informed Ms. 

Mobley that he was trying to locate a scope or Statement of Work 

generic off-the-shelf, but it was very slow going. 

In response, Ms. Mobley stated, ‘‘Don’t look too hard, we can 

send one.’’ 

Now, do either you, Ms. Johnson or Mr. Peck—do you think that 

is the way that we should enter into contracts for a quarter of a 

million dollars—or for a hundred grand for a month? 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

15 

Mr. PECK. That is not the way we want to enter into any contract. 

Senator MCCASKILL. So, would that be a mistake? 

Mr. PECK. Well, let me just clarify. 

Our guidance, our rules, are that we write—that the government 

writes scopes of work. Again, I was not on the ground, either, but 

I believe that our people believed that the scope of work had been 

written by the government. I do not believe that the people who it 

is—as far as I know, the people at GSA who issued the scope of 

work did not know the scope of work had been written by the contractor. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And why was the EPA asking a contractor 

to write a scope of work for the GSA? Why would that occur? That 

would not be appropriate contracting either, would it? 

Mr. PECK. Well, it is not inappropriate for us to ask a Federal 

agency with some expertise to help us draft a scope of work for a 

contract that is, in part—at least partly in their area of expertise. 

That is a government—that would be a government work product. 

And in fact, in this case, what we were doing was asking an 

agency, the EPA, which had—just as we have asked National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health to come in and help us because this is their area of expertise. 

Senator MCCASKILL. So, you—— 

Mr. PECK. So, that is why I think—believe that we asked EPA 

for some help on this. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Mary, did you think Rich Hood wrote this 

scope of work? Rich Hood is the individual at EPA. Did you think 

he wrote this scope of work? 

Ms. RUWWE. Yes, I did. In fact, I received the scope of work directly from Rich. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And did you ask him if he had written the 

scope of work. 

Ms. RUWWE. No, I did not. 

Senator MCCASKILL. You just assumed he had written it? 

Ms. RUWWE. Yes. 

Senator MCCASKILL. All right. I have taken up 5 minutes. I am 

going to turn it over to Senator Portman and I will come back for 

more questioning. 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

And I think the point made earlier that this is a relatively small 

contract compared to the hundreds of billions of dollars every year 

that the Federal Government contracts for goods and services but 

that this does present some issues, and GSA should be the model 

contractor, of course, since you have such a fundamental responsibility in government contracting generally. And I think it is important that we understand what happened here and we are sure that 

the guidance that you are giving GSA and therefore the model you 

are providing for the rest of the government is clear. 

And I must say, I am a little concerned about some of the responses to the Chairman’s questions, because it seems that maybe 

there is some confusion, but it sounds like, Mr. Peck, if I could go 

back to your response, that your rules would provide that—you 

said the government writes the scope of work, but where the GSA 

has a contract, they can consult with other agencies, but GSA ultiH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

16 

mately is responsible for the scope of work, not the—as Administrator Johnson said—not the recipient or the contractor; is that correct? 

Mr. PECK. Yes, sir. 

Senator PORTMAN. So, that is good to have clarified. 

My question that I had, having looked over the file, is, why did 

you not use your in-house expertise? 

And just this morning, listening to your testimony, Mr. Peck, you 

talked about the fact that you thought your in-house communications folks were not up to the task because there was such a burden on the public affairs in the Region. I think that was your 

quote, and I look at what GSA has and, by my count, I think you 

have 49 communication staffers, 20 of those, looking at the list, 

have over 20 years of experience. So, you have some very experienced public affairs folks. And I understand that most of those 

communications resources are based in Washington, not based in 

Ms. Ruwwe’s region, but if the burden was on the regional public 

affairs officers (PAOs), would it not be natural for you to use your 

significant resources that you have in Washington and around the 

country to assist a region such as Ms. Ruwwe’s? 

And I guess I would ask Ms. Johnson and Mr. Peck on that. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Certainly, let me begin. 

The demands on the Region in this case were unusual. It was not 

just a burden in terms of scale, in terms of the number of requests. 

This was a situation in which there was technical information, and 

I mean, 124 tests over 20 years is a lot of material to share with 

the public and to help them understand that the Bannister Federal 

Complex is a safe and healthy workplace. 

It is the technical competence that we were after that we do not 

keep in-house. We do not have these kinds of requests on us that 

often for this kind of media and public affairs information training—understanding explanation. We are—to do that would be rather extravagant, it would be fairly specialized, and in this case we 

needed that kind of expertise, not just your typical press releases, 

Web pages, internal communications, but we needed people who 

were able to help us distill complex, long-running information and 

help teach and train and communicate that to the public. 

If we were to turn to the central office, we would not have found 

it there, either. Long experience in this demonstrates that we did 

not need to have it on staff. It would have been extravagance to 

have this kind of permanent staff because we just do not have a 

need for it. 

So, this is when we go out and contract. This is what outsourcing 

is all about at times. It is going and finding—finding the support 

and the resources that you need when you need them, rather than 

staffing up around it. 

Mr. PECK. And Senator, we did—you asked a good and fair question, which is did we look to some of our other communication specialists who are already on staff in the agency to see if we had the 

kind of expertise that the Administrator talked about, and we 

asked the question and we did not have on board at the time people who we thought could handle these particular communication 

issues. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

17 

One other thing I will just note is that we recognized the need, 

these things do crop up, and one of the things the Region did in 

the course of administering the contract was to make sure that inhouse staff were trained in how to handle these kinds of issues in 

the future in Kansas City. 

Senator PORTMAN. OK. I guess I had not seen it in the record 

anywhere that you had asked the question. 

So, you say there was an inquiry made of particularly the Washington, D.C. staff as to whether they were capable of handling this? 

Mr. PECK. Yes, sir. 

Senator PORTMAN. It was not just that it was a burden on the 

regional public affairs officials, and I assume you have a record of 

that, that you contacted the Washington, D.C. public affairs officials and asked them if they had the expertise. 

Mr. PECK. I have scanned my emails and I do not think I have 

found an email that says that, but I recall the conversations. 

Senator PORTMAN. OK. 

And in terms of having the technical information from the outside, to the extent that was the issue, the technical competence you 

were looking for to be able to distill complex technical issues, was 

the contractor you chose someone who had that specialized environmental background? Was that why—did they have technical expertise? 

Mr. PECK. You would have to ask—— 

Senator PORTMAN. Is that the reason you went outside? 

Mr. PECK. Can I defer to Ms. Ruwwe? 

Ms. RUWWE. Can you repeat the question? I was writing a note 

that I wanted to make sure I commented on. 

Senator PORTMAN. No, it was just—again, I am trying to generalize here, and when is it appropriate to use outside contractors, 

and the response was it necessary because it is not just that you 

are public affairs folks who are overwhelmed, but rather it was 

that there was technical information based on years of environmental studies and reports that was not something that was within 

your expertise. So, you felt you had to go outside to get technical 

expertise. So, I assume the firm that you contracted with had environmental technical expertise. 

Ms. RUWWE. Jane Mobley and Associates has expertise in conveying technical data—this sort of nature of technical data and 

conveying in layman’s terms. That is their expertise, and we 

partnered with the Environmental Protection Agency—actually, I 

consulted with, if I may expand upon the question that you were 

asking Commissioner Peck, I personally consulted with our central 

office. 

In fact, we had a senior leader that formerly worked for the Environmental Protection Agency, and she recommended that we seek 

assistance from the Environmental Protection Agency because of 

the fact that, one, we were already working with them to conduct 

some testing in the childcare center, and they have—their expertise 

in conveying environmental information in layman’s terms. 

And so, I also consulted with our chief of communications at that 

time, Sahar Wali, and I do have evidence in an email where I consulted with her on the Statement of Work. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

18 

Senator PORTMAN. On the statement—Ms. Ruwwe, can I interrupt you just for a second because my time is coming to an end. 

I think Mr. Peck’s comments earlier that it is appropriate to look 

in-house for other governmental expertise, as you all did with EPA, 

is part of the rules and guidance you talked about earlier. 

And Ms. Ruwwe has made that point in terms of why she looked 

to EPA, and my question would be—and then I will turn it back 

to the Chairman, EPA has a lot of public affairs specialists. I do 

not have the number in front of me, but it is more than your staff 

of 49—again, 20 of whom have 20 years of experience—so, it is not 

like you do not have experience. But to the extent you were looking 

for technical public affairs expertise, and to the extent that you 

were looking to the EPA, anyway, including being the go-between 

for a Statement of Work that ended up being written, I guess, by 

the contractor, would it not have made sense to go to the EPA? 

Should that not be part of your rules and guidance to the extent 

that you are looking to the EPA anyway in this case, particularly 

to see whether they had the public affairs expertise that you needed. 

Ms. RUWWE. I can take that as well. 

When I called the local Region 7 Environmental Protection Agency Office, and we had been working with them already on the testing, and I talked with their media relations expert, and I asked 

him, can your office provide us help in communications assistance, 

and to which he replied, personally, that they could not provide the 

help in-house. They, too, were stretched at that moment in time, 

and he recommended that we seek contracting expertise. 

Senator PORTMAN. And did you contact the higher levels at GSA 

regarding this to see whether the national office at EPA was going 

to be helpful? 

Ms. RUWWE. I had consulted with our national office on it, and 

I made the personal decision to go ahead and contract for that expertise, based on the fact that we did not have the resources at 

central office, nor did EPA have the resources in-house, and we did 

not have the resources regionally, as well. 

Senator PORTMAN. All right. Again, I think I will go back to the 

Chairman. I am sorry for taking so much time. 

Senator MCCASKILL. That is OK. Take all the time you need. 

Senator PORTMAN. But this relates to the general question that 

is being raised here: What should the rules be and the guidance 

be and, per Mr. Peck’s earlier comments about using EPA and why 

that was appropriate, it seems to me it would also have been appropriate to look for that public affairs expertise. Certainly, it exists and probably, actually, in terms of technical information, would 

be the better place to go rather than a small business in Kansas 

City. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator MCCASKILL. The contractor that was hired had really 

never had a contract with EPA; is that not correct? 

Ms. RUWWE. Looking back on the information I believe they had 

not had experience working directly with the Environmental Protection Agency. 

They had experience previously with the media relations person 

that I was working with, but they also had significant experience 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

19 

with other Federal agencies, a lot of work especially with the Department of Defense. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And that is probably a subject for another 

hearing, how many people do we have working in public affairs in 

the Federal Government, and when do they not adequately train or 

have people on staff ready to do this. Let me just follow up a little 

bit on the subject before I go to the next subject. 

Mr. Peck, you cited two examples in your opening statement of 

where your agency had done good work in terms of safety issues. 

I believe there was a metro station—refresh my memory of the two 

different examples. Silver Spring and—— 

Mr. PECK. There is Silver Spring Metro Center and the other was 

the former Department of Transportation (DOT) headquarters in a 

leased building in Washington. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Were there PR contracts issued in either 

one of those instances? 

Mr. PECK. Not that I can tell. It did not—we did not find—long 

before my time—well, I take that back, they lopped over into my 

first tenure at GSA. In neither case did we find it necessary to get 

outside contracting help for those instances. 

Senator MCCASKILL. So, you had, in those instances, you had 

people in-house that could handle communicating to the public 

about potential workplace environmental issues? 

Mr. PECK. Yes, ma’am. 

There are two distinctions. We did find significant—some significant problems in the Department of Transportation building and 

moved a portion of the agency out of the building while we made 

the landlord conduct cleanup. 

And in the Silver Spring Metro Center, if memory serves me 

right, we had not yet occupied the part of the building that had 

some problems. So, I do not—but in both cases, we actually had a 

significant environmental issue which we could deal with. It was 

a different communication issue, then. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And I believe the number is—you have 

three GS14s and one GS15 with a combined 90 years of Federal 

service and average salary of $128,000 a year. 

You had eight individuals, including the individual responsible 

who were at a GS13 level or higher. 

That is a serious payroll for your agency in terms of public affairs specialists. So, do you think, looking back on it, that crisis 

management should have been part of the core competency of—I 

mean, those are—most of those are senior and executive. They, I 

think, enjoy not only six-figure salaries but most of them get bonuses approximating 10 percent year-in and year-out. 

Should not all of our staffs that are hired to handle the public 

affairs of our agencies, be ready to handle crisis management, even 

explaining technical issues in layman’s terms? 

I mean, we have to explain technical issues in layman’s terms all 

the time. I mean, welcome to—the intricacies of public policy translated in a way that is easily digestible to the public. It seems to 

me that is a core competency of public affairs specialists. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Senator, I have to say that, from my tenure in the 

1990s to my current tenure, there is a great deal more media interest in what we are doing. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

20 

And I would agree that, going forward, it would be significantly 

useful to have people with those kinds of competencies. I honestly 

do not believe in the past we have needed that and it would have 

been one of those additional—as I said before, it would have been 

extra staff. It would have been people trained in things that we 

would just not have been using. 

But I do believe, in this current environment, there is a lot more 

interest in what we are doing, delightfully so, and that we have a 

good story to tell and a complex story to tell, and I would say, going 

forward, this would be a core competency that would make sense 

to consider, and staff, too. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Let us look at the contract extension. 

The first contract was for $100,000—under $100,000—just under, 

correct? 

Mr. PECK. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Is it a coincidence, Mr. Peck, that is just 

under the threshold of a number of other contract requirements 

that kick in at $100,000? 

Mr. PECK. Madam Chairman, I would not want to speculate on 

that. I did not write the contract and I do not know how the 

amount got decided upon. 

Senator MCCASKILL. But it is true that this contract came right 

in under what would have kicked in a lot of—more oversight of the 

contract; correct? 

Mr. PECK. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And then, the extension stays in that sandbox instead of being a different, new contract where there would 

in fact be more oversight; correct? 

Mr. PECK. The extension was—I am sorry. Say that again. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, because it was an extension of an existing contract that came under the 100,000, it stayed within the 

parameters of the original contract instead of kicking in that 

$100,000 threshold that causes more oversight; correct? 

Mr. PECK. I am not sure. 

You are beyond my contracting expertise on that. 

Ms. RUWWE. And I have slight knowledge. 

In this case, there was no reason to keep the contracting price under $100,000. If the price came in at above $100,000, there is 

nothing the contracting officer would have had to document—put 

more documentation in the acquisition plan, but there was no reason to keep it under 100,000, nor was there a reason to keep it at 

the $234,000 mark. The threshold actually kicks in at $550,000. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Let us talk about the extension. 

You modified the task order to extend it for 2 months at a cost 

of $134,000. Included in the work order on the extension was to introduce the new Regional Administrator to external audiences. 

I am curious where that came from, and did you do that with all 

the regional appointments? Did you hire contractors to introduce 

them to the leaders of the community? Did you hire—— 

Ms. JOHNSON. No, we did not. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, why was that done here? 

Ms. RUWWE. I can take that one. 

When Jason Klumb came on board, in his introduction—his initial introduction to the Region, he wanted to address the environH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

21 

mental situation at the Bannister Federal Complex, and we 

thought it was appropriate for Jane Mobley and Associates to help, 

again, convey that level of an enormous amount of complex information in a short amount of time. He did not want that to take 

away from his introduction speech, but— 

Senator MCCASKILL. So, you asked him. You asked him whether 

or not he thought this contract extension was a good idea, did you 

not, Ms. Ruwwe? 

Ms. RUWWE. We had a dialogue. In the first week of March when 

we were getting ready to extend the contract, he questioned the 

cost of the contract and he wanted to know whether or not we 

could bring that in-house, and he sought my advice on that, and 

my recommendation was that, yes, while we had made significant 

headway in that first month, we were still significantly underresourced in complexity and just the resource in order to handle 

the information that we needed to convey and the work that had 

to be done. And so, we did extend the two-month contract, and 

what I conveyed to Jason Klumb at that time is that our intent 

was to ultimately bring that back in-house, and the two-month extension, we anticipated that would be—result in a lower amount of 

cost over the timeframe. 

Senator MCCASKILL. In fact, on March 6, 2010, in an e-mail to 

you, Mr. Klumb stated, ‘‘The cost is very high.’’ He had not been 

in government very long at that point. 

‘‘At this point, I would recommend’’—I am quoting now, directly—‘‘At this point, I would recommend that the contract not be 

extended, and that we rely on the experience and expertise of GSA 

professionals. Please advise.’’ 

And on March 7, you responded, ‘‘The work they’ve done equates 

to approximately $125 an hour, which is low, considering we have 

the owner of the company putting in a lot of time.’’ I believe her 

hourly rate was $270 an hour; is that not correct, Ms. Ruwwe? 

Ms. RUWWE. It was 270 or 250. 

Senator MCCASKILL. I believe it is 270, if you check. 

Ms. RUWWE. OK. 

Senator MCCASKILL. ‘‘The new contract will be month-to-month, 

and should cost less unless we run into some unknowns.’’ 

On March 8, the GSA contracting official sent the very next 

day—and I am not aware there was any more give-and-take between the two of you on that in terms of emails. On March 8, the 

GSA contract officials sent the contract extension to Jane Mobley 

for signature. Ms. Mobley promptly forwarded the extension document to a JMA colleague and urged her to hurry to get the contract 

signed. 

Now, this is the important part of the email. At the time, Jason 

Klumb was serving in his Judge Advocate General (JAG) duties in 

the military and was in Korea; is that correct, Ms. Ruwwe? 

Ms. RUWWE. Yes. 

Senator MCCASKILL. So, Ms. Mobley forwarded the extension 

document to a JMA colleague and urged her to hurry up and get 

the contract signed saying, ‘‘Please get Jenny and execute ASAP 

before it’s wake-up time in Korea.’’ 

Does that concern you? 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

22 

Ms. RUWWE. That is the first I have heard of such an email like 

that. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And how would she know that there was an 

issue of Jason Klumb being in Korea? How would she have been 

aware of that? 

Ms. RUWWE. I do not know. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Did you tell her that Jason Klumb had concerns about the extension of this contract? 

Ms. RUWWE. I do not know. I do not recall. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Is there anyone else that knew that Jason 

Klumb was serving in Korea at the time and had indicated by 

email in a 12-hour time differential that he had concerns about extending the contract? 

Ms. RUWWE. Not that I am aware of. I do not know. 

Senator MCCASKILL. So, we would need to ask Ms. Mobley where 

she got the information about, let us hurry up and get this done 

before they wake up in Korea? 

Ms. RUWWE. Yes. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Senator Portman. 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I would like to go back to, again, this notion that rules and guidance matter, and particularly with this agency being a contracting 

leader. 

When I look at your testimony, Mr. Miller, and then I look at the 

responses to the Chairman’s questions as to whether anything was 

done inappropriately, there seems to be a disconnect. And I go back 

to the issues that you raise in your testimony, Mr. Miller, as the 

IG, and I just want to be sure that I understand them. 

One was that you believe the sole source contract was not appropriate because there was not adequate justification. 

Mr. MILLER. Correct. 

Senator PORTMAN. Second, the scope of work was not adequately 

defined or priced. We talked about that. 

Third, that the initial task order did not have specific 

deliverables. I think you said in your oral presentation that there 

were not measurable objectives. 

And then, you had concerns about the extension not being justified. 

Going back to the scope of work for a second, does the fact that, 

as we have learned today, the Statement of Work was written by 

the contractor concern you, also, or was that not something that 

concerns you because this was noted earlier by the Administrator 

and it is not atypical? 

Mr. MILLER. It does concern us very much, Senator. 

It creates a situation in which there are no controls and it is not 

an arms’ length arrangement with the contractor. It allows the contractor essentially to say what the contractor wants to do and to 

essentially to name the contractor’s own price. 

And the real problem was that GSA did not know what it wanted 

and what it needed. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Senator, allow me—I want to be sure that I heard 

you correctly. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

23 

I did not intend, if it was heard, that it is a common or typical 

practice for a contractor to write the Statement of Work. That 

was—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. I think that is what you said. It may not 

have been what you meant. 

Ms. JOHNSON. It is certainly not what I meant. 

Senator PORTMAN. I think it might be helpful—you used the 

word ‘‘recipient,’’ I think, and that is how I wrote it down. It might 

be helpful to look at the transcript and I do not know, Madam 

Chairman, that might be too time-consuming to go back now, but 

you might want to correct your statement. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Let me just say it explicitly, the recipient being 

the government people receiving the benefits of the contract, the 

services of the contract, that would be the recipient, not the contractor. 

Senator PORTMAN. OK. That is—— 

Ms. JOHNSON. So, the recipient should—it is the person—the 

manager who needs the services to—writing the Statement of Work 

would be the normal course of events. 

Senator PORTMAN. I am glad you had a chance to correct 

that—— 

Ms. JOHNSON. I am sorry. 

Senator PORTMAN [continuing]. Or at least correct my misunderstanding of what you said. 

Ms. JOHNSON. My misspeaking, perhaps. 

Senator PORTMAN. But we will look back at the transcript of that 

and be sure that is clarified. 

So, both of you had concerns about that, and yet you responded 

to the Chairman’s question earlier that you did not think anything 

was wrong in the way this was handled, and we have now been 

able to identify, I think, the contract extension I will leave out, because I am not sure we agree with that and for that matter, I 

guess, the justification for sole source, you might not agree with 

the IG on that, but do you agree that the Statement of Work 

should not have been written by the contractor? And again, this is 

not about this particular contract, this is about what are the rules 

and guidance going forward. You do agree with that? 

Ms. JOHNSON. I agree that it should not be written by the contractor, and we did not believe that was the case in this situation. 

We would not have acted in the way we had, I submit, if we had 

known that it had been written by the contractor. 

Senator PORTMAN. On the scope of work not being adequately defined or priced, I assume that you would agree with that in the 

sense that you all did not establish a scope of work at all; right? 

Ms. JOHNSON. Well, the prices—let me address the price piece. 

Because JMA is on the multiple award schedules, the prices 

are—— 

Senator PORTMAN. Excuse me for a second. What did you mean 

by ‘‘price.’’ Did you mean the multiple awards schedule or did you 

mean the overall price of the contract? I assume that you 

meant—— 

Mr. MILLER. Well, both, Senator. The problem is, if you do not 

know what you want, it is hard to get the right price. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

24 

If you are buying a vehicle, for example, and you do not know 

if you want a Volkswagen, or a truck, or a bus, it is hard to evaluate the prices. 

GSA did not know what it wanted from this contract. It was 

clear from the email that Senator McCaskill read earlier. They 

were willing to settle for boilerplate. 

GSA needed to think through what it really wanted from this 

contract, and then it can assess price. 

Senator PORTMAN. So, this is, again, a general rule of contracting, is to be sure that you think through what it is you are 

asking for, to be sure that the government and the taxpayers are 

getting the best, most efficient and effective outside work done to 

the extent outside work is appropriate. We have talked about that 

already whether it was appropriate or not. 

And then, the other one is that the task order had no specific 

deliverables; that is in your testimony. Again, you talked about 

measurable objectives, I think, in your testimony. 

I would guess I would again throw that out to the Administrator 

and to the Commissioner. Do you think that there were adequate, 

measureable objectives or, as the IG has said, specific deliverables 

in this request for an outside contractor? 

Mr. PECK. I would always prefer that there be very specific 

deliverables in a contract, as specific as we can make them. 

Without getting in the weeds, can I make a distinction? When we 

write a contract to a contractor to build a building, we know pretty 

much down to the last electrical outlet what we are asking them 

to deliver. We have a schedule and we have a budget. It is the case 

that when you hire consulting services of all kinds, you cannot get 

to that level of specificity because, in some cases, you are saying, 

I do not have this expertise. I may not know enough to write a deliverable down to the last jot. 

On the other hand, we certainly want something where, at the 

end of the day, we can say, did we get our value for the price? So, 

there is a little bit of a judgment call on how specific the 

deliverables should be. 

I think in the—— 

Senator PORTMAN. I appreciate that, Commissioner, and I think 

there is a spectrum, here. 

One end of the spectrum would be not having any measurable 

objectives at all, and that appears to be where we are here. 

Mr. PECK. Correct. I do not think we had no deliverables. In 

hindsight, I wish that deliverables probably could have been more 

specific. 

Senator PORTMAN. Mr. Miller, I am going to give you a chance 

to talk about the contract extension, because there may be a difference of opinion there, but what is your specific concern on the 

contract extension? 

Mr. MILLER. Again, Senator, GSA did not clearly know what it 

wanted in the first place. It was not sure that what it was getting 

was what was needed; it had EPA look at that. 

And the problem of extending the contract was, why extend it? 

The work seemed to be developed by the contractor and there was 

no need to extend this current situation. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

25 

Going back to why GSA mentioned that it needed the contractor, 

it mentioned technical expertise. When we looked at the product of 

JMA Associates, it looked as if—that EPA translated the technical 

data and JMA compiled. JMA also compiled information that is 

readily available on the Internet, and it also put out some inaccurate information in terms of work product. But as far as scientific and technical information goes, my office just did not see 

that JMA was adding value in translating technical and scientific 

information. 

So, if you have that situation, why extend the contract? You still 

do not know why you have them and what you need them for. So, 

why extend it? 

Senator PORTMAN. OK. I need to end my question because my 

time has come to the end. 

But again, I think we have learned some things here that hopefully can be helpful going forward. I do not think this, again, is 

about this specific contractor who, after all, was sought after by 

GSA on a sole source basis, but it is about how GSA, as a major 

contractor and as a Federal agency that has a key role in helping 

other Federal agencies to contract conducts itself. 

So, I think that after this hearing I would hope that the answer 

to the Chairman’s question would be, yes, we made some errors 

and we can do better, and we will be sure that what we learned 

from this situation is reflected in future guidance. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you, Senator Portman. 

Mr. Miller, in the original IG report you did—and I want to say 

that—I do want to underline what Ms. Ruwwe was so intent upon 

saying, because I think it is important to the people that work at 

Bannister, that there now have been dozens, and dozens, and dozens of tests that have been performed, none of which have indicated a health hazard to the employees and families that work at 

Bannister and their children cared for at Bannister. 

But the issue here is not whether or not it is safe today, but how 

GSA handled the challenges of dealing with the questions about 

the safety at Bannister, and whether or not they were timely and 

aggressive in terms of some of the testing that was performed, and 

most importantly, whether they looked within government for resources to communicate to the public instead of what appears to be 

in almost a knee-jerk fashion to citing it is time to get a big PR 

firm—well, a PR firm, they were not a big firm—but an expensive—I mean, for 3 months’ work, they made double the salary of 

any public relations person at GSA, for 3 months’ work. 

In fact, originally, Mobley said, let us do a 5-year ceiling with $5 

million. As it turns out, this contract for 3 months, if you extrapolated out over the life of a year would have been a million-dollar 

contract. 

This is exactly the kind of thing that allows the public to get 

deep-rooted cynicism about the way we spend money. This is exactly it, that we must have—this must be Monopoly money, if we 

are paying someone for 3 months’ work, double the salary of anyone that works in public affairs within GSA. That is an extraordinary amount of money to pay someone for 3 months’ work. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

26 

And I know they say 1,800 hours. Mr. Miller, could you comment 

about the work product—I mean, 1,800 hours in 3 months and this 

is the deliverables. This is a quarter of a million dollars, approximately, a little less. 

And a lot of the things they did, when I looked at the list— 

which, by the way, they prepared. Mobley prepared the list of 

deliverables that we have been referring to in terms of this investigation, and most of them were meetings with government officials, internal meetings. And now, I know they prepared some materials that were given to the public and some written materials. 

Let me back up about your audit that said—I mean, your investigation, Mr. Miller, that said that the GSA officials provided incorrect and misleading information. Would you specifically and briefly 

say what it was that you thought was incorrect that they provided 

you in the Inspector General investigation that was done concerning the testing and the environmental testing that was done at 

Bannister, and what was the misleading information? 

Mr. MILLER. Yes, Senator. 

The most notable misleading and inaccurate information was 

about documents being produced. There was a 2005 letter from the 

Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) from January 

2005 that raised concerns about the conditions at Bannister. 

There was a June email following up on that, it was not responded to by GSA. 

There was a June email by MDNR following up on that. 

And there were letters in October 2005. When we went to GSA 

initially, these were not produced. They were also not produced 

under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. So, that information was not produced. We went back after obtaining that information from the MDNR—we went back and asked GSA. 

Senator MCCASKILL. So, your source for the document that you 

found was in fact the Missouri Department of Natural Resources 

as opposed to GSA. 

Mr. MILLER. Yes. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And then, you went back and said, why did 

you not give us this information. 

Mr. MILLER. Yes. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And you were told? 

Mr. MILLER. I was told that they did not have that information, 

that they were not aware of it. 

We talked to the individuals involved in the correspondences, the 

environmental hygienists, and we asked if they drafted it—if they 

saw it and if they drafted a response or an email responding, and 

they could not remember. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Mr. Peck, would you like to—I know you 

have a difference of opinion about the way the Inspector General 

characterized ‘‘misleading and incorrect,’’ and would you—I want to 

give you an opportunity, in fairness—— 

Mr. PECK. Yes. 

Senator MCCASKILL [continuing]. To respond for the record your 

characterization of the fact that an important source document for 

an investigation like this they had to receive from a secondary 

source as opposed to the agency that they had the responsibility to 

provide watchdog services. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

27 

Mr. PECK. Well, thank you for the opportunity. 

First of all, needless to say, when we get a Freedom of Information Act request, I mean, our obligation is to produce everything 

that we can. I think in this case, we produced some 30 volumes of 

documents, including, I think—I do not know if the Inspector General would agree—including documents that if you were looking to 

make—if you were out to make yourself look good, you probably 

would not produce if you were trying to hide things. 

And so, I guess my concern—and I do not think it is a quibble, 

because we are talking about the integrity of Federal employees— 

is that I believe, as near as I can tell, that the failure to produce 

that letter was not deliberate, that nobody was trying to hide the 

fact that MDNR had written a letter. And that is my concern because, as we said, we have been—as near as I can tell, in the times 

I was not at GSA and in the times that I have been, we have tried 

to be as open and forthright as to what is going on at the Bannister 

Complex as we can, and to respond to requests. 

Senator MCCASKILL. I would assume, though, that you would acknowledge that a letter from the Missouri Department of Natural 

Resources criticizing the agency’s limited investigation of trichloroethylene (TCE) contamination would have been a serious issue, and 

that document should have been placed in a place—I would assume 

that you would have a filing system that would certainly prioritize 

another—this would be similar to the EPA coming to Bannister 

and saying, we do not think you have done enough on TCE site 

contamination. 

I am just curious, it is either—if it is inadvertent, it is incompetence; if it is not inadvertent, it is even more troubling. 

Would you acknowledge that this is a huge problem? 

Mr. PECK. It certainly is a problem. It is in the context of 40,000 

documents that were—something like that—that were produced. 

I do not to this day know why it was not—what happened to it 

and why it was not responded to at the time. But again, my concern, because we are talking about the confidence of the public in 

what we do, is that we can sure make mistakes, but we are not 

covering up and we are not intending to mislead people. 

Ms. RUWWE. And may I expand on that. 

Senator MCCASKILL. You need to turn your microphone on, Ms. 

Ruwwe. 

Ms. RUWWE. Sorry. 

If I can expand on that, that has been one of our lessons learned, 

and one of the IG’s recommendations, that we actually have a robust documentation filing system. And so, now, it is all electronic, 

it is easily accessible, and so, that mistake will not occur again. 

Mr. MILLER. Senator, if I could simply add quickly that we found 

it in the GSA database, after we were told it did not exist in the 

database. We used simple search terms, and our auditors put the 

search terms in the database and found it when the GSA officials 

could not. 

Senator MCCASKILL. That is hard to—they find it by going in 

your database with simple search terms, but you all are still maintaining you could not find it. 

Do you agree that is troubling? 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

28 

Mr. PECK. I would like to know what—who used what search 

terms to find it and how we did a search that did not find it. I 

would certainly want to know that. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Well, I think that would be something that 

I am sure that Mr. Miller would be glad to follow up with you 

about the technical nature of their database search within your 

database to find the document. 

And it would be interesting to see what kind of search was done 

by GSA to find the document after it was brought to your attention 

that it had not been produced. 

Ms. RUWWE. And if I can expand on that, as well, in developing 

our electronic documentation system, we have found more documents and we have provided that, I believe, to the IG afterwards. 

We acknowledge that we had a poor documentation system. Our 

staff of people—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. But they found it in your documentation 

system. They found it by a simple database search. Why could you 

not have found it by a simple database search? 

Ms. RUWWE. I cannot answer that question directly, but I can say 

that, if you have a document and you have it in your hand, it is 

probably easier to research then just doing a blanket search. 

Senator MCCASKILL. But they asked you about the presence of 

the letter and you said you still did not have it. 

Correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Miller: They get a letter from the 

Department of Natural Resources (DNR) they had not gotten from 

you about TCE testing. They say to you, why did you not produce 

this letter. You say, we do not have it. Then, and it is—we do not 

know what you are talking about. We do not have that letter. They 

then go in your database, OK, and with simple search terms, find 

the letter. 

Now, you understand that this is problematic. 

Ms. RUWWE. That is the case and that is what happened. 

The staff, when asked, why did you not have that letter, they 

simply did not recall. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Did they do a database search for the letter 

when they were asked by the Inspector General for the letter? 

Ms. RUWWE. I am not sure what kind of a search that they did 

to find that letter. 

Senator MCCASKILL. I would think that would be something you 

would want to know. 

Ms. RUWWE. They did find— 

Senator MCCASKILL. Because are these people not working for 

you? 

Ms. RUWWE. Yes, they did—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. And you are telling me that you are in the 

middle of an Inspector General investigation and a letter turns up 

that you have not presented to the Inspector General, they find 

this letter, they come to you and say, why is this letter not—and 

the other emails—part of what you produced? And you go to your 

people and say, why did we not produce this letter, and they say, 

we do not have it, we cannot find it. You then find out they find 

it using your database and simple search terms. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

29 

Did you go back to the personnel accountable for this and did you 

ask them why you could not find this? Did you do a database 

search? Who is the person that is responsible, Ms. Ruwwe? 

Ms. RUWWE. I have had personal dialogue with our safety and 

environmental program team, and in that dialogue, I wanted to 

find out the details of the letter which I have seen, and in the details of the letter—and actually, I have talked with the Missouri 

Department of Natural Resources about it, too, and the circumstances around that. 

That letter was written from one technician, from the Missouri 

Department of Natural Resources—— 

Senator MCCASKILL. No. You are not—I understand you did not 

find the letter initially. 

This is my question—this comes to accountability. This comes to 

Federal employees that have responsibilities and expertise, and 

they are paid accordingly. OK. 

Now, you now know there is a letter that you did not produce. 

This makes you look bad; right? So, you want to find out where 

this letter was and why you did not produce it. 

So, you go to the people that work for you and you say to them, 

why did we not produce the letter; correct? 

Ms. RUWWE. Yes. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And they said to you, we do not have the 

letter; correct? 

Ms. RUWWE. They could not find it immediately. They ultimately 

did. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Wait. Did they say you do not have it or 

they could not find it. 

Ms. RUWWE. They could not find it immediately. They ultimately 

did. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. So, now, what we know is that the Inspector General, once you told them they could not find it, the Inspector General does not go to MDNR, he goes in your database 

and does a simple search and finds the letter. 

Now, at this point in time, did you take disciplinary action 

against the people responsible for finding the letter in your agency 

which made you now—not only did you not give them the letter, 

you have now said you cannot find it and they find it with a simple 

data search. 

Ms. RUWWE. What we have done is improved our documentation 

and filing system, and so, that will not happen again. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Do you need the Inspector General to train 

your people on how to do a database search in your database? That 

is what it sounds like. 

Mr. MILLER. Senator, if I could add, we used the same search 

terms that the GSA person told us they used and could not find 

the document. 

Ms. RUWWE. Our legal staff—once provided the documentation, 

our legal staff went through that documentation and conducted the 

redaction process. And so, our people—there was nothing to hide, 

and as Commissioner Peck said, there were a lot of documents in 

there that, if we wanted to, we could have taken out. 

Senator MCCASKILL. No, I understand. I am more going to incompetence and accountability here, that clearly mistakes were 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

30 

made and clearly it does not appear to me that people who have 

made the mistakes are responsible for the mistakes, that there was 

any accountability. 

This is obviously embarrassing that you cannot find a letter and 

then, using the same search terms that you supposedly used, they 

find it immediately, and it is a pretty important letter. 

So, I guess that is the point I am trying to make, Ms. Ruwwe. 

I mean, I am not going to sit here—believe me, I know there are 

thousands and thousands of Federal employees that have incredible integrity and I am not here casting aspersions on your integrity. What I am saying is this was ugly. It was sloppy, ugly, messy, 

and bad. 

And the most frustrating thing about this hearing is that I have 

not heard enough acknowledgement from anybody from GSA that 

mistakes were made and that it should not have been done this 

way. 

Let me just go through the facts which I think will highlight another point, and then I will turn it back over to Senator Portman. 

The letter itself, despite the issue in the letter that was raised 

in TCE, the Public Building Services took no substantive investigation action for 18 months concerning that letter. When it finally 

initiated a site inspection after 18 months, that site inspection was 

not completed until 31⁄2 years after the Missouri Department of 

Natural Resources letter was sent about TCE contamination. 

The Public Building Services did not respond to Missouri Department of Natural Resources regarding its concerns and terminated 

their environmental oversight on October 24, 2005. 

One of Department of Natural Resources concerns related to the 

childcare facility was not addressed until a vapor intrusion system 

was installed 5 years after the Missouri Department of Natural Resources letter. 

But yet, when a Senator calls for an Inspector General investigation, we are able to get a PR contract in 24 hours. 

Ms. RUWWE. Can I respond to that? 

Senator MCCASKILL. Yes, you may. 

Ms. RUWWE. OK. From what I believe—and I want to consult 

with my—one of my project managers back behind me—from what 

I believe, the testing that we were doing in the childcare center 

and other parts of the complex was air sampling testing. And the 

testing that the Missouri Department of Natural Resources and the 

Environmental Protection Agency were recommending, it was 

somewhat—it was newer—a newer form of testing, and it was subslab testing. 

So, they were testing vapor intrusion from below the slab, and 

that was something that we had not conducted in the past. But we 

did do our due diligence, in our perception and our understanding, 

with the air sampling, but it was further recommended by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources to conduct this sub-slab 

testing. 

Senator MCCASKILL. I guess the point I am making is this is a 

letter you could not find and it recommended an action on a certain 

form of contamination and it took years to follow up on that letter, 

but the PR contract went quickly, and I think that is the point we 

are trying to make. Maybe if there had been better work done 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

31 

along the way maybe we would not have been to the point that you 

all considered bad press, a crisis. 

Ms. RUWWE. And can I respond to that? 

Senator MCCASKILL. Yes. 

Ms. RUWWE. We acknowledge—and I want you to hear loud and 

clear—we acknowledge that there is a lot of room for improvement. 

We value and have a very good working relationship with the Inspector General, and we value their feedback and recommendations. We have taken this as an opportunity to do a lot of improvement and thoroughly believe in continuous improvement and we 

are taking those lessons learned and we know we can do better, 

and we have already done a multitude of things that have been 

somewhat discussed here today, but from the additional testing, we 

value the recommendations of the Environmental Protection Agency. We are doing our due diligence in following up in those other 

areas that they would recommend that we follow up in. 

We have done the fix on our electronic filing system; we do not 

want that mistake to happen again. We want open, honest transparency in our communications, and the number one priority is the 

health and safety of our tenants and our associates, the parents 

dropping their kids off at the childcare center. We want them to 

feel safe, an assurance to have that. 

And so, throughout this process, over the last year, 2010 has 

been—it has been a rough year, and the biggest challenge has been 

in the communications piece and earning the trust back of the public. 

Senator MCCASKILL. And the press continues. 

Ms. RUWWE. Yes. 

Senator MCCASKILL. There have been major stories that have 

been negative about the complex long after Jane Mobley got her 

last dollar; correct? 

Ms. RUWWE. Yes. 

Senator MCCASKILL. OK. Senator Portman. 

Senator PORTMAN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

And just to review where we are, I hope, it sounds like we have 

a different response from the panel, and specifically from the GSA 

members of the panel on what went wrong in this process. And 

again, I hope we can learn from it. I think with $530 billion a 

year—more this year; that was last year’s number—going out in 

contracts, this is an area where GSA should take a leadership role. 

I think this notion of in-house expertise is something Commissioner Peck and Ms. Johnson will take a look at, including, by the 

way, not just regional expertise but Washington expertise—in this 

case, public affairs expertise—the use of other Federal Government 

expertise being something that I think is appropriate, and I know 

that is an issue where there may be some difference of opinion, but 

in this case the expertise at EPA to deal with some of the technical 

and more complex issues that were raised would be appropriate before going outside, perhaps, to a firm that does not have that expertise. 

The issue of sole source contracting, which is always an issue 

and justifications for it is something where you all ought to, again, 

not just have clear rules internally but be able to provide that guidance for other agencies and departments. 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

32 

And scope of work, I think Mr. Miller stated it pretty well earlier: You do not know what you are going to get if you do not take 

the time and sometimes, as Mr. Peck says, it is difficult with technical information to know what you want. Well, then, again, going 

to the expertise either in-house or in another governmental agency, 

there was a Statement of Work being written by government rather 

than written by the contractor, him or herself, a notion of measurable objectives. I mean, this is something that government struggles with and does not do well enough, and without the private sector incentives and motivations, sometimes it is hard, but you therefore have to redouble your efforts to have measurable objectives in 

specific deliverables, and then, of course, when it is appropriate to 

extend a contract or not, and I think in this case, for all the reasons that we have stated earlier, an extension should be dealt with 

like an initiation of a contract. 

So, I do not have any other questions, Madam Chairman, except 

to say that this has been, I hope, an illuminating hearing to raise 

some of these issues and to help ensure that GSA as the leader in 

the contracting community and learns from this experience, as 

well. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you, Senator Portman. 

I would ask, if any of you have anything you would like to add 

to the record, the record will remain open. 

If you want to add anything—if you want to say anything else 

right now, you are certainly welcome to. 

Mr. PECK. We do, at least I do. 

Madam Chairman, Senator, I appreciate all your comments. I appreciate also your concern. We do believe—and I am going to—the 

Administrator is in charge of—has a passion about making GSA a 

model for contracting and for the way the government can behave 

in a businesslike manner, and I am going to allow her to talk about 

that. 

I want to say on behalf of the Public Building Service, I want to 

be very clear about my answer to your first question, did we do 

anything wrong? In a sense of legal culpability, no. Did we make 

mistakes? Certainly, in hindsight, we made mistakes, and I want 

to assure you of a couple of things. 

One is that we are very aggressive. We run a lot of projects every 

year on behalf of the American people, most of them, the vast majority of them, come out great, but as I have seen in the private 

sector as well as the public sector, you learn something that you 

say, boy, I am not going to do that again, I learned a lesson. We 

are very aggressive in learning our lessons. We are very aggressive 

in training out contracting officers about issues like sole source, 

and we work hard to make sure that we abide by the government’s 

rules. 

There is an irony, as you well know that, if you are in the private 

sector working with the government, sometimes you say, well, 

there is a surfeit of rules that make it difficult for the government 

to work efficiently. So, we work very hard to make sure we obey 

all the rules and that we can get the people’s business done efficiently and productively. And I can assure you that this is an epiH605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

33 

sode from which we have learned a couple of lessons, and I think 

you have noted them. 

We understand that we need in-house expertise of a certain type 

in buildings that have environmental issues, and it has to do both 

with being able to understand the issues, explain them to people, 

and make sure that people are confident in what we are doing. 

So, I do not want you to believe that we just walk away saying, 

well, that was just a one-off. We do not want to have the issue that 

we have with public confidence in a place like the Bannister Complex. We want to be able to keep it safe and convince people that 

it is, in fact, safe for them to work in. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Allow me just to say a few things. 

First of all, I appreciate this hearing because, as you say, contracting is not necessarily sexy to the American public, but it is 

critical and important, and we are one of the biggest agents in the 

government for that expertise and to help the rest of the government function with great stewardship towards the taxpayer dollar. 

I want to also commend you for raising the issue of services contracts. I think that is an arena where I would like to continue to 

work very closely with our customer agencies and with you to be 

sure that we are supporting the government well. 

Services contracts are growing because of the last decade of 

outsourcing, and it is an important arena and a huge one. 

I also completely agree with the notion that we need to be more 

sophisticated about how to communicate technical information. In 

a 24/7 news cycle, there is a lot of information that is going out, 

but it is one that needs to be understood and clearly taught. So, 

we have, I think, a challenge, as does the private sector on that. 

I am delighted to be at GSA. I think we have a lot of potential 

for fixing some of these problems. I also commend to you the issue 

of contractors and their training and their support. It is a profession within the government that deserves our resourcing and 

our—— 

Mr. PECK. You mean contracting officers. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Contracting officers. What did I say? Contracting 

officers, I think they need our support and they need our investment, and that is the vehicle by which we can then stand tall that 

our contracting is done with integrity and with the—safeguarding 

the American taxpayer dollar. Thank you. 

Senator MCCASKILL. This Subcommittee has spent a lot of time 

on contracting—on contracting officer representatives (CORs), and 

this was another weird thing about this contract, was that the contracting representative was somebody at the EPA as opposed to 

somebody at GSA for the first month of the contract, and then, I 

think you guys figured out that was not the right way to do it, and 

you changed it. 

I know, Mr. Miller, you continue to audit, and we will look forward to your work. And I try to every hearing to send support and 

acknowledgement and respect for the work that the Inspector General community does. It is not easy. I do not care what they say, 

they are not glad to see you. 

And the bottom line here is we had a one-day, non-competitive, 

sole-sourced contract, with the work written by the contractor, with 

misinformation that was surrounding the contract, the assumption 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

34 

that EPA was writing the Statement of Work, the assumption that 

EPA had done business with this firm before. 

And then, it was renewed, even though the regional administrator had said, I think it is too expensive. It was rushed through 

anyway, the extension. That is a subject for another day, what has 

happened to the role of the regional administrator within GSA; 

clearly, it has been changed, and I think it was changed when nobody was watching. And I am not saying that it should not be 

changed, but the question is, if the regional administrators are not 

going to have any power, why do we have them? I am not sure that 

we need to have them if they are—clearly, his saying that he did 

not want to do the contract did not slow you down. You knew that 

you had authority over him; he did not have authority over you. 

And I understand that maybe there is a management reason to 

make that change, and I am open to hearing about it, but I do not 

think the members of the Senate understand what happened and 

when it happened, because it was clearly changed in the interim 

time when George Bush left office and the time that you, Ms. Johnson, took office, there was effort made in GSA to change what had 

been traditionally the role, and that is a subject for another day 

and does not impact what we are dealing with today. 

And finally, I would just say, accountability. If we now acknowledge at the end of the hearing that mistakes were made, then I 

have yet to see where anyone was held accountable for those mistakes. I know Ms. Ruwwe received a bonus last year, in one of the 

toughest economic years our country has ever seen. 

And I am not saying it was all her fault, the mistakes that were 

made, but it is interesting to me that I am not aware of anyone 

who suffered any kind of accountability because of the mistakes 

that were made surrounding this contract, and that is troubling to 

me. I do not think that would happen in the private sector, and I 

think it is important that we demonstrate to the public that when 

mistakes are made that someone is held accountable and I am not 

convinced that is the case in this particular contract. 

We will keep the record open for 7 days. If there is anything you 

want to add based on any comments that have been made today, 

as you look at the record, if there is anything you want to correct. 

Certainly, we do not want the record to stand that we heard you 

say something different than what you meant, so feel free, and we 

will continue to monitor—especially sole source service contracts in 

the Federal Government. As the old saying goes, there is money to 

be saved there, and serious money to be saved there, hundreds and 

hundreds of millions of dollars. I would never want a PR contract 

issued the way this one was issued in the Federal Government 

again. We have plenty of folks that—and the way I look at technical information, Ms. Johnson, is, first of all, I need to understand 

it and, once I understand it, I ought to be able to explain it. And 

if you have people working for you in public affairs that, once a 

complex subject matter is explained to them and they cannot explain it, then you need to find new people, because it is the translation of complicated information into simple terms that is the essence of making sure the public understands complex subject matter. And I do not think it takes a PR firm to do that. I think it 

just takes somebody being able to explain it to you and then you 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

35 

being able to characterize that explanation in a simple and 

straightforward way. 

I do not think that is the kind of technical expertise that is not 

found in the Federal Government. If it is not in the Federal Government, then we are in big trouble; we are in big trouble. 

So, I appreciate you, Senator Portman, and if you do not have 

any other comments, we will close the hearing, and I thank you all 

for your attendance today. 

Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:51 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER

(37) 

A P P E N D I X 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66624.001
38 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66624.002
39 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66624.003
40 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66624.004
41 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66624.005
42 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66624.006
43 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66624.007
44 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66624.008
45 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66624.009
46 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66624.010
47 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66624.011
48 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66624.012
49 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66624.013
50 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66624.014
51 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66624.015
52 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66624.016
53 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66624.017
54 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66624.018
55 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66624.019
56 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66624.020
57 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66624.021
58 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66624.022
59 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66624.023
60 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66624.024
61 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66624.025
62 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66624.026
63 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66624.027
64 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66624.028
65 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66624.029
66 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66624.030
67 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66624.031
68 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66624.032
69 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66624.033
70 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66624.034
71 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66624.035
72 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66624.036
73 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66624.037
74 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66624.038
75 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66624.039
76 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66624.040
77 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66624.041
78 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66624.042
79 

Æ 

H605-41331-79W7 with DISTILLER


66624.043