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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

94–485 PDF 2004

S. Hrg. 108–549

NOMINATION OF DAVID H. SAFAVIAN

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON THE

NOMINATION OF DAVID H. SAFAVIAN, TO BE ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE 

OF FEDERAL PROCUREMENT POLICY

APRIL 29, 2004

Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Deleware 

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota 

FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

MICHAEL D. BOPP, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

JOHANNA L. HARDY, Senior Counsel 

JOYCE A. RECHTSCHAFFEN, Minority Staff Director and Counsel 

JENNIFER E. HAMILTON, Minority Research Assistant 

AMY B. NEWHOUSE, Chief Clerk 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statements: Page 

Senator Collins ................................................................................................. 1

Senator Akaka .................................................................................................. 2

Senator Lautenberg .......................................................................................... 3

Senator Pryor .................................................................................................... 14

Senator Levin .................................................................................................... 16

WITNESSES 

THURSDAY, APRIL 29, 2004

Hon. Chris Cannon, a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah ....... 5

Hon. John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Michigan ............................................................................................................... 6

David H. Safavian, of Michigan, to be Administrator for Federal Procurement 

Policy, Office of Management and Budget ......................................................... 8

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Cannon, Hon. Chris: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5

Conyers, Hon. John, Jr.: 

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

Safavian, David H.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 8

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 19

Biographical and professional information requested of nominees .............. 21

Pre-hearing questionnaire and responses for the Record ............................. 38

Senator Lieberman’s additional questions and responses for the Record .... 123

Post-hearing questions and responses for the Record from: 

Senator Collins .............................................................................................. 147

Senator Collins on behalf of Senator Bond ................................................. 149

Senator Akaka ............................................................................................... 150

Senator Levin ................................................................................................ 153

Senator Lautenberg ...................................................................................... 154

Senator Lieberman ....................................................................................... 174

APPENDIX 

Roger F. Cocivera, President/CEO, Textile rental Services Association of 

America, prepared statement .............................................................................. 178

(1)

NOMINATION OF DAVID H. SAFAVIAN 

THURSDAY, APRIL 29, 2004

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:45 a.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Susan M. Collins, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Collins, Akaka, Levin, Pryor, and Lautenberg. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN COLLINS 

Chairman COLLINS. The Committee will come to order. 

Good morning. Today the Committee on Governmental Affairs is 

holding a hearing to consider the nomination of David Safavian to 

be the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy at the Office 

of Management and Budget. The Office of Federal Procurement 

Policy, known as OFPP, provides overall direction of governmentwide procurement which exceeded $300 billion last year. 

The new Administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy will inherit a full range of controversies that reflect the dynamic nature of the Federal acquisition process. As the Federal 

Government tries to acquire more goods and services with a smaller acquisition workforce than we have had in the past, many innovative solutions are being proposed and pursued. Although some of 

them may have been successful in the private sector, we need to 

look carefully at whether or not they are appropriate in the public 

sector, as well. In short, we need to continue to integrate new acquisition tools that will maximize efficiency without losing sight of 

other important values that the acquisition system serves. 

First, we must look at ways to make Federal contracting more 

accessible to small businesses. It is not merely for the sake of small 

businesses that I mention this. The continued growth of that sector 

is vital to our Nation’s future. It is also in the Federal Government’s best interest to ensure that a large pool of contractors exists 

for any given item or service in order to ensure robust competition. 

Greater competition leads to lower prices and higher quality for 

the American taxpayer. Simply choosing the same proven contractors over and over again may be a good short-term strategy for a 

beleaguered contract officer but failing to take into account the impact of such a practice on the pool of businesses willing and capable of doing business with the Federal Government can lead to a 

smaller contractor base undisciplined by market forces. 

I know that Mr. Safavian agrees with me that his office must 

also make it a priority to maintain a highly trained and motivated 

2

Federal acquisition workforce. Those who purchase goods and services for the Federal Government have considerable power and responsibility. They are on the front lines of guarding against waste, 

fraud, and abuse when it comes to using the taxpayers’ dollars. If 

we fail to take the necessary steps to ensure that this segment of 

the Federal workforce is properly trained and equipped, it will be 

the taxpayers who will pay the price. 

The new Administrator will also have to wrestle with the 

conflicts that surround competitive sourcing. One such issue is 

whether Federal employees should have the right to protest adverse A–76 decisions. I believe that they should and plan shortly 

to introduce bipartisan legislation to grant Federal employees bid 

protest rights. I am very eager to hear the nominee’s views on this 

important issue. 

Although competitive sourcing can, when properly implemented, 

lead to greater productivity and considerable savings, it can also 

inflict stress on agencies by creating doubts among Federal employees about their future job security. At the same time, however, according to a Rand Corporation study, a well run contest in which 

the agency devotes adequate resources to competition can be beneficial for both the government and its employees. 

Private sector experience indicates that competitions must be run 

in a manner that is clear, transparent, and fair. It is my hope that 

if the nominee is confirmed, he will work closely with all interested 

parties to ensure that agencies conduct future competitions in a 

manner that inspires trust among Federal employees. 

We are very pleased today to be joined by two of our House colleagues. I am going to turn to my colleagues first for some opening 

statements but then I will call on our colleagues from the House 

to introduce our nominee. 

Senator Akaka. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I also 

would like to add my welcome to our colleagues from the other 

body, one of whom I served with for many years, Congressman 

Conyers, and Congressman Cannon. Welcome. 

I would also like to thank our nominee for being with us this 

morning and also welcome your family and friends that are here. 

Mr. Safavian, if confirmed, you will have a difficult task before 

you—and you know this, I am sure. The Administrator for Federal 

Procurement Policy serves as a gatekeeper for the government’s 

contracts and is responsible for ensuring financial transparency 

and cost savings in procurement policies. 

The position also requires an understanding and appreciation for 

the Federal employees who make up the acquisition workforce and 

their colleagues who compete against the private sector to retain 

work within the government. 

As the Ranking Member of the Financial Management Subcommittee and the Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee, I 

know that without adequate management structures, management 

information, systems, and program review structures that government contracts will not realize savings for the American people. 

3

The key to achieving success requires strengthening the Federal 

Government’s acquisition of the contract management workforce. 

We must recognize that this corps of professionals make decisions 

every day affecting how hundreds of millions of Federal dollars are 

spent. 

For a number of years now the acquisition workforce has been 

drastically downsized and many of those remaining are eligible to 

retire. We cannot afford to lose many of our most experienced personnel. 

We must also ensure that when Federal jobs are subjected to 

competition that out-sourcing policies are fair to Federal employees 

who, without adequate training and resources, cannot compete effectively. Moreover, to be truly fair, Federal workers should be able 

to protest against agency out-sourcing decisions. It is a fundamental fairness issue. 

I was disappointed that a February 2004 report by the General 

Accounting Office on competitive sourcing found that agencies have 

focussed more on following OMB guidelines on the number of positions to compete at the expense of achieving savings and improving 

performance. I was hopeful that when the administration moved 

away from contracting-out quotas to agency-specific plans, agencies 

and their employees would have a fairer system. Unfortunately, 

that has not been the case. 

Mr. Safavian, if confirmed I hope you will undertake these challenges quickly and without prejudice. 

Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you, Senator. Senator Lautenberg. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAUTENBERG 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

I listened carefully and, as usual, you handled things, I think, with 

a fairness that is essential to any kind of bipartisan relationship 

and that is to talk about the ability to challenge whether or not an 

A–76 is commercially viable, and I appreciate that thought of 

yours. 

We have a very good nominee, I think, Madam Chairman, but we 

may have a challenge on a policy here or there. When the nominee 

comes in with a fortification like John Conyers, you know that this 

is serious business and we are going to pay a lot of attention. You, 

too, Mr. Cannon. You are very welcome, but I know John just a 

smidgen better. 

I am concerned about one thing and that is a blind adherence to 

the administration’s procurement policy called competitive sourcing. Now, since the President has taken office this ideology has 

moved along almost at a fevered pitch and I think without searching enough to find out the real costs and benefits of out-sourcing. 

The premise behind competitive sourcing is that work currently 

performed by the Federal Government employees could be done 

more efficiently and more cheaply by contractors and I think that 

misses the point. There is some work that is too important to contract out and it has to be done by the Federal Government. As people here know, I think, I came with a long bit of service in the corporate world, some 30 years, and I can appreciate the fact that the 

Federal Government should operate in a more business-like fashVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:27 Aug 06, 2004 Jkt 094485 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\94485.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
4

ion, when possible. There are ways to make this happen but simply 

giving the private contractor a blank check is not one of them. 

That is what I think is going on here. The zeal for competitive 

sourcing indicates to me a desire to ensure that contractors get the 

Federal fund opportunity. Whether the outcome is the best for the 

taxpayers or our country is not quite as clear. And that is not surprising, given the political support from and ties to government 

contractors. One of those that quickly comes to mind is Halliburton. They seem to have a special relationship with less surveillance of the diligence than we would expect when the work they 

do is so critical—saving lives—and they have paid an enormous 

price and we extend our sympathy to those who are working for 

KBR or Halliburton directly. They have paid a terrible price for 

their diligence to duty and we do not want to see anybody’s life cut 

short or any injuries, but Halliburton took those contracts. 

Perhaps we should have been better prepared to protect those 

people than we were but they did get a $50 million no-bid contract 

principally; it was signed, to extinguish the Iraqi oil fires at the beginning of the war. The contract was not publicly disclosed in the 

beginning and I was one of those who wanted to raise a question 

and I did. Despite congressional and public outcry, this no-bid contract grew in scope and size until it became something over $2 billion, involving all kinds of oilfield repair and support work. 

Then we found out that subsidiary, the Halliburton subsidiary, 

KBR, was overcharging taxpayers some $60 million to deliver fuel 

to Iraq. This is a charge made by the Pentagon. This is not something that Frank Lautenberg on his own made. KBR employees, 

the subcontractors who worked for a Kuwaiti firm, got kickbacks 

of several million dollars and then we learned that Halliburton was 

charging taxpayers for thousands of meals never served to our 

troops stationed in the Middle East. And again these are allegations made by others, including the Pentagon. 

Yesterday the Washington Post reported that the General Accounting Office, the auditors there reviewing contracts for reconstruction of Iraq have discovered a situation that ‘‘exposes the Government to cost risks and reduces the chances for savings.’’

And I hope that the nominee, Mr. Safavian, understands that 

job, if confirmed, is not simply to rubber-stamp anything and he 

should examine every request and if these are major size contracts, 

try to bring the Congress in, not to audit or review every contract 

that is coming up but those that are major in either policy or magnitude. 

So I hope that Mr. Safavian understands the serious responsibility that this position entails and I look forward to hearing from 

him and our friendly witnesses. 

Chairman COLLINS. It is now my great pleasure to call upon our 

two distinguished colleagues from the House side. It does speak 

very well for Mr. Safavian that two such distinguished Members of 

Congress have been willing to come over and vouch for him today. 

I know that Representative Conyers is the senior member so I 

am going to call on him first, although my staff keeps telling me 

that I am to call on Representative Cannon first, so I will leave it 

to you to sort it out. 

5

Mr. CONYERS. If it is all right, Madam Chairman, I would like 

my friend Chris Cannon to go first. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Representative Cannon. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHRIS CANNON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH 

Mr. CANNON. I appreciate that. I appreciate my friend John Conyers and if any distinction can rub off on me today, I would be very 

appreciative of that, as well. 

It is a pleasure to appear with Mr. Conyers, who is one of the 

great people in Congress. He is very clearly philosophical and what 

that means is that we can form right-left coalitions to get things 

done for the American people and that has been greatly enhanced 

by my former chief of staff, David Safavian, who I commend to you 

today for the position of Administrator of OMB’s Office of Federal 

Procurement Policy. 

In fact, Mr. Safavian was a remarkably helpful person in the 

process of bringing together my staff and that of Mr. Conyers and 

the minority staff on the Judiciary Committee to deal with issues 

of great importance to the American people, including telecom policy and helping to avoid the remonopolization of the Baby Bells. I 

think now with a couple of years of experience behind us and some 

of the really interesting things that are going on, including the debate today on the Internet Tax Freedom Act, or at least we call it 

that on our side—we hope you get a vote on that soon—I think in 

the context of that debate you see some of the dramatic changes 

that have been happening in telecom, in part because Mr. Safavian 

worked well not only with my staff but with Mr. Conyers’s staff, 

as well. 

We are hearing things today like from Qwest that the legacy systems are no longer the most important part of their future and the 

transformation that is happening among all of the former Baby 

Bells, the regional Bell operating companies, is dramatic and in 

large part, I think, a result of the work that Mr. Conyers and I did 

in the House to delay that process and David played a very important role in doing that. 

I might just say that the term transparency has come up several 

times here in opening statements. This is an issue that David and 

I have talked about many times over the course of his service with 

me. He served as my chief of staff from January 2001 to June 2002 

and we talked a lot about the philosophy of government and I can 

assure you that he believes fundamentally that a transparent governing policy is the best policy for the long term. It is not a matter 

of partisan gamesmanship but really a matter of how we can govern better in the short and the long term. 

Let me just add a couple of comments about his character and 

capabilities. He is a person of forthrightness and honesty. We have 

even disagreed among ourselves and had pretty hard discussions. 

We have been forthright and we have come to conclusions that 

were brought forward. 

Second, David is a person of great mental capacity. He understands the technology and the great issues of our time, is able to 

deal with those things in a fluid fashion. He is also a great advocate. When he takes a position I think he will do that transVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:27 Aug 06, 2004 Jkt 094485 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\94485.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
6

parently but he will be very clear about what that position is and 

then push for what he believes is right. 

He also understands Congress and our constitutional role and I 

think you will find that he is a person who will work in the administration in a way that your side and our side of the Capitol will 

appreciate long-term. 

I want to just tell you that I have the greatest confidence in 

David Safavian and that I think he will do a great job for the 

American people in this job and I urge your support for his nomination. Thank you. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you very much, Congressman. Congressman Conyers. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CONYERS, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS, FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you and good morning to this very distinguished Committee. To see you here, Madam Chairman, and my 

two good friends, Senator Akaka and, of course, Senator Lautenberg, is a real privilege. I was not sure which part of the Committee I would be meeting with today and I am happy that I am 

before all of you. 

I would like to make it clear that we think that the nomination 

of David Safavian for Administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy at the Office of Management and Budget would be 

an excellent one under any administration. We come to that conclusion because he has been on the Judiciary Committee staff and we 

had a chance to work together and I would like to second what 

Chris Cannon has said about the cooperation that not only exists 

between him and myself but between our staffs. 

I am very pleased that I was able to bring over my chief of staff, 

Perry Apelbaum, and two other lawyers, Ted Kalo and Kanya Bennett. We are joined with his wife and his mom, as well as his family and friends, to underscore how fine a decision has been made 

for this appointment. We hope that the Senate will agree and get 

him to work as quickly as possible. 

First of all, he has a lot of experience in the government. He 

worked on the same subject, Federal procurement policy, as a lawyer. He worked on this same subject with the Army Aviation Systems Command. And he is the person that I am willing to assure 

you will take into cognizance the understanding of how important 

small businesses are to the contracting system of the one place in 

America where there is more of it that goes on than anywhere else, 

our government. The Chairman lifted that subject up, and, to me 

it is very important. 

First of all, there is the issue of fairness. It is so easy—I speak 

now from my experience as Chairman of the Government Operations Committee in the House of Representatives, in which we 

oversaw the entire government and frequently got into procurement issues probably more than any thing else. They were not all 

small, either. There were plenty of large ones and Senator Lautenberg referred to one of the more recent problems we have had. We 

know in our States and districts a small business with a good service or product trying to get before the Federal Government is a 

very difficult undertaking. 

7

And I can say that I believe that David is going to bring a perspective to that position that will not let any of us down. We want 

to make contracts with the Federal Government more available. 

We want to make the procedure more simple. And no, we are not 

just giving away business contracts to every small businessman 

that can fill out a form. We want quality and service. We want 

something for the Federal tax dollar that will be spent. 

But the important thing, and I have been working on this for a 

few years now, is trying to make the system as fair and apolitical 

as it can be. We want people coming in to do business with the 

Federal Government to run into the people that work under Mr. 

Safavian, if this goes through, who will be open and welcoming to 

what is really the crux of our economic systems; namely, small 

businesses. Small businesses are the ones that create more jobs 

now than anybody else. Small businesses are the ones that our 

communities and towns and cities depend on for the economic sustenance that is required. 

And I see in this man, by the way that he has handled himself 

in the Judiciary Committee, a person that I would be happy to recommend here and any time that it is necessary. He has a lot of 

Michigan roots and we are proud of that. That does not hurt him 

a bit in our book. The Michigan delegation is strongly behind him 

in this regard. 

So it seems to me that this is probably a very great morning, a 

very great day for our country, for his family. I am aware that he 

is from a background that makes him a small number of people 

that will be going into government service at this high level and 

I am proud of that. We are happy that this has come to pass and 

that I was invited with Congressman Cannon to join in this testimony in support of this very fine nominee. 

I want to thank you very much for allowing me to be with you 

today. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Madam Chairman, if I might, I have to go 

but I do want to say that I think that David Safavian can be a good 

candidate in a tough job and hope that he will remember my admonition. 

Mr. SAFAVIAN. Absolutely, sir. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much. 

Chairman COLLINS. I do not think there is any chance he will 

forget it, Senator. 

I want to thank both of the Congressmen for being here. Congressman Cannon. 

Mr. CANNON. Would you allow me just to associate myself with 

the comments from Mr. Conyers? 

Chairman COLLINS. Certainly. 

Mr. CANNON. Especially the point he was making about the fact 

that small businesses create most of the jobs in America and that 

the role that Mr. Safavian will be taking will be critical in the government’s support of those small businesses and the creation of 

jobs that come from that. 

So while there are a lot of judgments that are going to have to 

go into how we do out-sourcing, the fact is this could be a great 

8

1The biographical information appears in the Appendix on page 21. 

2The prepared statement of Mr. Safavian appears in the Appendix on page 19. 

job engine for America, not just a loss of jobs in the Federal Government. Thank you. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. 

Senator LEVIN. Madam Chairman, can I just thank Congressman 

Conyers for his remarks? I regret I missed them. I just caught the 

end of them on the monitor as I was coming in but they mean a 

great deal to me personally and I am sure to Mr. Safavian, as well. 

Chairman COLLINS. I want to thank both of the Congressmen for 

taking the time to come over here today to introduce our nominee. 

It certainly speaks well of him to have such bipartisan support and 

I would be happy to excuse the two Congressmen now. I know they 

have very busy schedules. Thank you. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you so much. 

Chairman COLLINS. Mr. Safavian has filed the responses to a biographical and financial questionnaire, answered prehearing questions, and has had his financial statements reviewed by the Office 

of Government Ethics. Without objection, this information will be 

made part of the hearing record, with the exception of the financial 

data, which are on file and available for public inspection in the 

Committee offices.1

Our Committee rules require that all witnesses at nomination 

hearings give their testimony under oath, so Mr. Safavian, I would 

ask that you please stand and raise your right hand. 

[Oath administered.] 

Chairman COLLINS. Mr. Safavian, I understand that you do have 

some family members present and I would invite you to introduce 

them at this time. 

Mr. SAFAVIAN. Thank you, Chairman. I have my mother, Karen 

Safavian, and my wife, Jennifer Safavian, here with me. My 10-

month-old daughter—we decided we would spare the Committee 

the babble. I also have a lot of friends in the audience, too. Thank 

you. 

Chairman COLLINS. We are very pleased to welcome your family 

members. Public service involves sacrifices at times by the entire 

family and we are pleased that they could join us today. 

I would now call upon you to make any statement that you would 

like to present to the Committee. 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID SAFAVIAN,2 OF MICHIGAN, TO BE ADMINISTRATOR FOR FEDERAL PROCUREMENT POLICY, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 

Mr. SAFAVIAN. Thank you, Chairman Collins. Members of the 

Committee, good morning. I am honored to sit here this morning 

as President Bush’s nominee to head the Office of Federal Procurement Policy at OMB. I sit here before you this morning only because of the grace of God, the endless support of my family, the 

guidance of mentors and friends, such as Administrator Steve 

Perry, and without a doubt, the love of my wife, Jennifer, and my 

10-month-old daughter Kathleen. I am truly blessed to be here 

today, and thank you for being here. 

9

Madam Chairman, I would also like to express my gratitude to 

you and other Members of the Committee for the consideration you 

have shown me during the nomination process. In particular, I 

would like to thank the Committee staff for their help and patience 

and I look forward to working with them on policy matters if I am 

fortunate enough to be confirmed for the position I am nominated 

for. 

Finally, I would like to thank Congressmen Cannon and Conyers 

for their gracious introductions. I have greatly enjoyed working 

with both men and I hope to continue those relationships long into 

the future. 

Chairman Collins, I believe procurement issues go to the heart 

of government and to the citizens’ confidence in us to execute the 

laws. We all know that acquisition issues are not terribly sexy. 

When a contracting officer does her job well, government contracts 

that result are all but invisible to the general public. But when a 

contracting officer makes an error and orders a $1,200 hammer or 

a $900 toilet seat, the taxpayers lose confidence in our ability to 

deliver results. In short, ineffective contracting does long-term 

damage to the government’s credibility with the governed and thus 

to our collective ability to lead. 

Our acquisition workforce is actually very good at buying things 

from the private sector, and they should be. Every year we buy 

$230 billion worth of goods and services that are consumed by the 

Federal Government. However, there is always room for improvement and with it, better results for the country. We must not only 

buy the right goods and services but we must buy them well, and 

that means getting the best value possible for the taxpayers and 

the money they entrust us with. 

My hope is that if I am confirmed I can work with each of you 

and your staffs to develop policies that improve our acquisition system. By doing so, we can ensure that taxpayers continue to have 

confidence in the ways we spend their money. And it is in that 

light that I would like to very briefly outline the priorities that I 

would undertake if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed for your 

consideration. 

First and foremost, the strategic management of human capital 

that makes up our acquisition workforce has to be the No. 1 priority. With 40 percent of our procurement professionals eligible to 

retire in the next 5 years, the acquisition corps faces a potential 

human capital crisis. Unfortunately, these positions are scattered 

around the agencies and as a result, the scope and dangers of the 

situation are easily overlooked by Federal managers. Training 

must be enhanced, recruiting and retention must be addressed, and 

a career development path for acquisition professionals in the civilian workforce must be established. 

As you know, the Defense Acquisition University and the Federal 

Acquisition Institute are responsible for the respective training of 

DOD and civilian agency procurement personnel. If I am confirmed 

I intend to strengthen the alliance between these two organizations 

and to leverage the knowledge and lessons learned by DAU on behalf of the civilian agencies. 

Second, I hope to make competitive sourcing policy even more 

open and transparent and effective. If confirmed, I intend to put 

10

into place an operational database for competitive sourcing data so 

that we can get past anecdotes and understand the real impact of 

competitive sourcing on agencies, employees, Congress, and the 

taxpayers. I hope this database will be a useful tool for Federal 

managers and for you all to use, as well, to assess the performance 

of this initiative. 

My third area of emphasis if I am confirmed will be to continue 

the progress made under President Bush’s Small Business Agenda. 

Having worked for many a summer at my grandfather’s small auto 

parts manufacturing business, Trenton Forging, I can tell you I understand how important small business is and I can tell you that 

if I am confirmed, there will be no stronger advocate for small business interests than me. 

I intend to work hard to open Federal contracting for more disadvantaged businesses and I also intend to pay closer attention to 

opportunities for the service-disabled vets. Those who have made 

such a sacrifice deserve to have that, at the very least. 

And tied to this effort will be the full deployment of the Federal 

procurement data system so that we have timely and accurate information. We need to know what we buy and from whom we buy 

it. 

Finally, I believe we need to review the rules, regulations and 

policies, quite frankly, concerning suspension and debarment. I 

know that has been an issue of interest to you, Chairman Collins. 

We must ensure that the government only deals with presently responsible contractors and that agencies do so in a fair, open, transparent and consistent manner. 

I believe these improvements would result in enhanced public 

confidence in our ability to manage government. Again they are not 

the sexiest of issues but they are of significant consequence nonetheless. If I am fortunate enough to earn your trust and get confirmed, I intend to make progress and generate results from our 

focus on each of these areas, as well as in the overall operation of 

the Office of Federal Procurement Policy. 

With that broad overview, Madam Chairman, I would be happy 

to take the Committee’s questions. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you very much. 

I am going to start my questioning with the standard questions 

we ask of all nominees and then we will go into 6-minute rounds. 

Is there anything you are aware of in your background which 

might present a conflict of interest with the duties of the office to 

which you have been nominated? 

Mr. SAFAVIAN. No, ma’am. 

Chairman COLLINS. Second, do you know of anything personal or 

otherwise that would in any way prevent you from fulling and honorably discharging the responsibilities of the office to which you 

have been nominated? 

Mr. SAFAVIAN. No, ma’am. 

Chairman COLLINS. And third, do you agree without reservation 

to respond to any reasonable summons to appear and testify before 

any duly constituted committee of Congress if you are confirmed? 

Mr. SAFAVIAN. Absolutely. 

Chairman COLLINS. Mr. Safavian, I was very pleased to hear you 

in your opening statement emphasize the need for greater involveVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:27 Aug 06, 2004 Jkt 094485 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\94485.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PHOGAN
11

ment by small businesses in the contracting process. Right now 

many small companies just give up on the idea of doing business 

with the Federal Government, despite having quality goods and 

services to offer, because they find the procurement system too 

daunting and too complex for them. 

Another problem is, to simplify their workloads, agency procurement officers often bundle contract requirements into one large 

contract that is too big for a small business to bid on, yet if that 

contract were broken into separate contracts there would be opportunities for smaller companies. To address the problem of bundling, 

Senator Talent of Missouri and I last year authored legislation that 

was included in the Defense Department authorization bill to try 

to put some restrictions on bundling. 

The Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy has 

noted that the share of smaller contracts, those under $25,000, that 

small businesses are winning, has actually fallen from 51 percent 

in 1995 to around 42 percent in 2001 and the SBA speculated in 

its report that some of the changes to our Federal procurement 

laws in the 1990’s may have contributed to a decline in contracting 

for small businesses. 

I have touched on a lot of different issues in that first topic but 

I would like to know from you what steps you would take as the 

head of OFPP to expand access to Federal contracting opportunities 

by small businesses. 

Mr. SAFAVIAN. Sure. I think you raise an absolutely critical issue, 

Chairman. My experience, having worked at GSA and in my current job as Counsel to the Deputy Director of Management at 

OMB, I see small businesses throwing their hands up in the air 

going, ‘‘How do we get through this paperwork?’’ Procurement 

tends to be viewed as a black box where small business applications go in and sometimes they come out and sometimes they do 

not and our No. 1 task, after the training of acquisition workforce, 

needs to be to address those issues. 

Let me give you just a quick snapshot of what we did at GSA 

to help address some of those issues. Under the administrator’s 

leadership and following the President’s Small Business Initiative, 

GSA upgraded its website so that there was more information in 

a more readily understandable packet for small businesses to review. GSA then held monthly training seminars in Washington, 

DC, for small and disadvantaged businesses so that the actual companies could come in and learn how to do this, rather than hire 

what I would call a beltway bandit to charge abhorrent rates in 

order to do what should be done as a matter of process. 

We held seminars all over the country and invited small businesses and disadvantaged businesses to participate and learn how 

to do business with GSA and the Department of Homeland Security. We joined forces with local Chambers of Commerce to create 

somewhat of a national town hall. We had satellite uplinks with 

about 50 or so Chambers of Commerce all around the country 

where we held basically a Q&A seminar for folks to learn how to 

do business with us. 

These are great first steps but at the end of the day if the acquisition officer is not sensitive to small business targets and goals, 

12

we are not going to see the government meet those targets and 

goals. 

I thought it was interesting when I first moved to GSA that one 

of the things that Administrator Steve Perry did was mandate 

quarterly performance reviews. Part of the process actually had a 

performance metric for how the regional administrators were doing 

in small business purchasing. 

I know we are short on time. What I would say just as a broad 

response, Chairman, is that we must make sure that the contracting officers are sensitive to the small business needs and that 

the line managers are sensitive to how their contracting officers are 

functioning in making their source selections. 

Chairman COLLINS. A second important issue that I want to 

bring up with you this morning is the General Accounting Office’s 

recent interpretation of the Federal procurement law, the Competition in Contracting Act. The GAO has concluded that the law prohibits Federal employees from protesting adverse contracting-out 

decisions under OMB Circular A–76. I am concerned that that interpretation leads to an unfair situation where one side can protest 

the decision but the other side cannot. 

What is your position on allowing Federal employees or some entity representing Federal employees to protest an adverse A–76 decision? 

Mr. SAFAVIAN. I think we need to have parallel mechanisms for 

appeal. If the private sector has the ability to protest GAO, so 

should the affected employees. How we implement that is difficult. 

The devil is always in the details. We want to be careful to not encourage multiple appeals of the same issue. 

There was an issue, I believe, in last year’s Treasury appropriations language that was raised in terms of who gets to select the 

actual appellant. Is it the GAO selecting between the agency tender 

official or the employee representative or what is the prioritization? 

But I think broadly speaking, if I am confirmed I would be supportive of some sort of mechanism of appeal rights. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Akaka. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. Safavian, OMB Director Bolten said in response to a question I raised at his nomination hearing, ‘‘If confirmed, I will ask the 

administrator for Federal procurement policy to recommend ways 

to improve opportunities for Federal employees to compete for new 

work and for work currently performed by contractors.’’

I was delighted to hear in your statement that your No. 1 priority is strategic management of the human capital and the acquisition workforce. I want to bear down on the workforce part of this. 

Chairman Collins and our Committee really has been bearing down 

on human capital. 

What steps will you take to ensure that Federal employees have 

the training and resources necessary to compete with the private 

contractors? 

Mr. SAFAVIAN. Senator Akaka, I think it is critical that where 

the rubber meets the road, if we are going to match our rhetoric 

with reality in these competitions, that the Federal workers, the 

MEOs, have the necessary skill sets and access to experts in order 

to help them craft their positions in the competitions. 

13

I know that was strongly encouraged by my hopefully future past 

predecessor of the Office of Federal Procurement, Angela Stiles. It 

is absolutely incumbent upon good, strong managers that they empower their workers to be able to compete in that regard. It will 

take some dollars, quite frankly, but it is money that is also spent 

on the management side when they start their competitions, as 

well. Again going back to Senator Collins’s question, you have to 

have parallel rights and parallel responsibilities there. 

Senator AKAKA. Also I want to say that I was glad to see your 

emphasis on training, recruitment and retention. 

Over the past several years the Armed Services Committee has 

adopted a series of legislative provisions designed to address problems in DOD’s services contracting in several ways—by requiring 

the Department to design an improved management structure for 

service contracting, also to improve the collection and use of data 

on services contracts, also to increase its use of performance-based 

services contracting and ensure that its procurement officials comply with existing competition requirements. 

It is important to remember that the problems this legislation is 

designed to address are not unique to the Department of Defense 

and we here who also serve on the Armed Services Committee have 

been looking at this part of the Department. 

My question to you is do you think that it would be advisable to 

implement a new management structure and improve the internal 

controls for services contracting on a government-wide basis, rather 

than limiting these reforms to the Department of Defense? 

I would also appreciate your review of Sections 801 and 803 of 

the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2002 to determine whether they can and should be applied to governmentwide. 

Mr. SAFAVIAN. Sure. I think your first question, Senator, was 

should we apply some of these requirements on an enterprise-wide 

basis. While I have not dove deep into that issue as of yet and I 

promise I will if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed, my kneejerk, my gut reaction is that I do not think we can apply these 

standards on an enterprise-wide basis because I think many of our 

agencies have unique missions and have different sets of responsibilities. 

Now granted, we all have a fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayer to make sure that we are generating the best value in our 

acquisitions, but I am not so sure that we can craft a one-size-fitsall solution that does not sacrifice some of the efficiencies that have 

been put into place that while some will argue that the pendulum 

has gone a little bit too far in that regard, but I think we can more 

narrowly address some of the issues that we have seen to date, 

rather than apply an enterprise-wide solution. 

And as for applying Section 801 or 803, before I give you a bad 

response I would rather give you a good response and respond back 

to you a little bit later, if I may. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much for your responses. 

My time has expired, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Pryor. 

14

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PRYOR 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I wanted to ask, if I may, in your written questions you said one 

of your highest priorities will be to address the human capital 

needs to the government acquisition professionals. Could you elaborate on this further? 

Mr. SAFAVIAN. Senator, right now some of the internal numbers 

that I have read indicate that about 40 percent, if not more, of our 

senior-level acquisition workforce—not our senior managers but the 

contracting officers—are eligible to retire in the next 5 years. And 

it is a difficult area for recruiting. It is also a difficult area for retention, particularly with the demands from the private sector. 

Senator PRYOR. Why is it difficult? 

Mr. SAFAVIAN. On the recruiting or the retention? 

Senator PRYOR. Either one. 

Mr. SAFAVIAN. I will start with the recruiting. Imagine a job 

where you are reviewing a lot of fine print and a lot of very technical information, having to make a fundamental decision at the 

end of the day, and regardless of the decision you make, somebody 

is going to yell at you. One of the losing parties is going to file a 

protest. 

Senator PRYOR. That sounds like our job, does it not? 

Chairman COLLINS. It does. 

Mr. SAFAVIAN. It is a difficult task. It is one that requires technical expertise, as well as the patience of Job. And we have a good, 

solid, hard-core cadre of acquisition professionals. Unfortunately, 

those folks are approaching retirement and I am not sure we have 

a succession plan in place government-wide. 

That goes to the retention issue, as well. We seem to be losing 

more folks than we are bringing in right now and that is a grave 

concern. 

Senator PRYOR. In fact, the Comptroller General back in June of 

last year testified to the House. I am not going to read you his entire testimony on the subject but basically what he says is in his 

view, the agencies currently lack the capacity, the human capital, 

to perform some of this oversight that may be very important. Is 

that your thought? Do you agree with that? 

Mr. SAFAVIAN. Oversight over the acquisition workforce? 

Senator PRYOR. Yes. 

Mr. SAFAVIAN. I think that is going to vary on an agency-byagency basis. The General Accounting Office named a couple of 

agencies that they consider high risk with regard to——

Senator PRYOR. That is the context of his comment, right? 

Mr. SAFAVIAN. I am not sure that you can say that across the 

government. We have some very good senior procurement executives, outstanding professionals. 

Senator PRYOR. But here again, are they going to retire soon? 

Are there people in the pipeline that can step up and help them 

long-term? 

Mr. SAFAVIAN. I cannot say that I know that in every instance 

but what I can tell you is whether it is fair or not, replacement 

planning or succession planning tends to take place far more actively at the senior management level than it does at your GS–12 

or GS–13 level. So when there is a senior procurement individual 

15

ready to retire, people are already thinking in advance about who 

to replace that person with. I am not sure that takes place at the 

line level. 

Senator PRYOR. You know, one thing that we have discussed in 

this Committee and in the Senate generally is competitive sourcing 

criteria and obviously OMB is very involved in that. I would like 

to hear your thoughts on competitive sourcing. 

Mr. SAFAVIAN. Let me start with a very brief anecdote. I can remember growing up and working for my grandfather at Trenton 

Forging, as I mentioned earlier, and it was during the time that 

U.S. automakers were really taking a beating from the Japanese. 

If you guys can recall, people were saying if you have a foreign car, 

you cannot park here and all that. 

Senator PRYOR. Yes. 

Mr. SAFAVIAN. I can remember my grandfather talking about 

how this competition was tough on the business, but I can also remember him talking about how the competition ultimately will 

make the business stronger. And my grandfather’s prediction has 

panned out. They are stronger than ever. They employ 65 people 

right in downtown Trenton. 

I really do believe that competition improves the way operations 

are run in the government. I think the system we have in place is 

a good, solid foundational system. I think we will need to continue 

to make tweaks along the way, as Senator Collins pointed out, with 

appeal rights. I think that is an important issue. 

But I think at the end of the day, using competition as a tool to 

determine how the taxpayers can get the best quality services and 

the best value makes great sense. It is a Presidential initiative that 

if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed I will pursue with zeal. 

Senator PRYOR. I love the concept of it. But I just want to make 

sure that we set it up the right way and that it is done fairly and 

evenhandedly. 

A few moments ago, Senator Akaka mentioned the armed services. We have seen in that context, from time to time, where outsourcing or the competitive process seems to make a lot of sense 

on the front end but after you get into something a few years, it 

can be much more expensive and you start to create dynamics that 

actually, in the end, you did not anticipate creating and may not 

be healthy. 

So I guess I just want to add a word of caution there to think 

about long-term, not just the immediate consequences. I know, for 

example, some of the things that the government does, we may emphasize something like diversity. Just true dollars and cents, that 

may not make a lot of sense but for our society we have made the 

decision that that does make sense and it is a good thing. 

So I hope you will look at this from a broader perspective than 

just purely a philosophical agenda. 

Mr. SAFAVIAN. Absolutely, sir. 

Senator PRYOR. That is all I have. Thank you. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. Senator Levin. 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And let me add 

my welcome to you, Mr. Safavian. 

Mr. SAFAVIAN. Thank you. 

16

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEVIN 

Senator LEVIN. There is a pending bill called the Bioshield Bill 

which would exempt a wide range of contracts from the Competition in Contracting Act. One section of this bill would exempt from 

competition any procurement up to $25 million for performing, administering or supporting research and development activities that 

respond to what is called pressing needs. A second provision would 

exempt from competition without dollar limitation any procurement 

of a specific countermeasure for which there is a pressing need. 

We have a lot of pressing needs in the Federal Government and 

we have a lot of pressing needs in the Department of Defense. We 

have pressing needs for new fighter aircraft, body armor for our 

soldiers and a lot of other items and yet we require the Department of Defense to live within the requirements of the Competition 

in Contracting Act and they do so effectively. 

Now there are obviously exemptions, emergency exemptions. You 

can designate certain items that do not have to be purchased competitively if there is an emergency or an essential need for it, to 

somehow or other omit the competition delay, but basically my 

question of you is this—do you support the Competition in Contracting Act and the principles that lie beneath it? 

Mr. SAFAVIAN. As a broad measure, absolutely. 

Senator LEVIN. Do you believe that the bioshield requirement—

are you familiar at all with the bioshield requirements? 

Mr. SAFAVIAN. No, sir. 

Senator LEVIN. I would ask that you take a look at the requirements in that bill and give us an answer for the record and tell 

us whether or not you believe that the requirements for a bioshield 

against a biological attack are more pressing than the other Defense Department needs. 

Are you familiar with the urgent and compelling exemption to 

the Competition in Contracting Act? There is an exemption for——

Mr. SAFAVIAN. Emergencies. 

Senator LEVIN. Yes. Are you familiar with that exemption? Have 

you had any dealings with it? 

Mr. SAFAVIAN. I will not paint myself as an expert on it. 

Senator LEVIN. Have you had any dealings with it at all? 

Mr. SAFAVIAN. Some. 

Senator LEVIN. Has it worked, as far as you know, for the various Federal agencies? Has that provided enough flexibility where 

there is some real reason why you cannot compete something? 

Mr. SAFAVIAN. From my workings with it, and I will say it has 

been very superficial so far, that it has been fully and well used 

by many——

Senator LEVIN. Excessively used? 

Mr. SAFAVIAN. No. I think that sometimes that exception can be 

used for the sake of facility rather than exigency. I would rather 

see more checks and balances. 

Senator LEVIN. So you would be leery about expanding that definition or its use. You feel it ought to be used perhaps with greater 

caution? 

Mr. SAFAVIAN. From my framework and how I look at contracting, I would be leery. 

17

Senator LEVIN. OK. When we met in my office last month we discussed a number of issues and I want to just revisit a few of them 

with you very briefly now. 

I raised an issue with you about Federal Prison Industries. This 

is an issue which goes right to the heart of the question of both 

small businesses and competition, whether we are going to allow 

small businesses to compete for Federal contracts or whether we 

are going to allow the Federal Prison Industries to designate contracts as ones which can only be filled by the prison work and prohibiting competition from the private sector for those contracts. 

It sounds bizarre when I tell some of my colleagues that Prison 

Industries is able to designate contracts for which small businesses 

or other businesses cannot even compete. They are not allowed to 

bid, enough though they might be able to provide an item cheaper 

or a better item at the same price. 

We actually allow the Federal Prison Industries to put off-limits 

items so that they have the exclusive right to supply it to agencies 

and prohibit bids from the private sector. Some of my colleagues 

are absolutely—they feel that it cannot be. How can possibly a 

small business compete, given the differential in the cost of labor, 

with an item which is produced by Prison Industries? The answer 

is OK, then let competition sort that out but at least let small businesses bid if they want to. That has been my position. 

We were able to succeed after a very heated debate on the Senate floor to make that possible for the Department of Defense and 

the issue is now whether or not we are going to allow contracts 

that other agencies want to let for items be bid upon by businesses 

in this country or whether we are going to continue to allow that 

monopoly by Federal Prison Industries. 

Will you work with us to ensure that private companies have an 

opportunity to compete against Federal Prison Industries for Federal agency contracts? 

Mr. SAFAVIAN. Senator, my understanding of the administration’s 

position is that they are firmly neutral on the role of Federal Prison Industries. As we had discussed, my own personal view is that 

it is difficult to say competition works in one segment of Federal 

operations and not in another and I would be happy to work with 

you to try to address Federal Prison Industries. 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you. 

We also discussed the proliferation of Government-wide contracts 

and multi-agency contracts. You indicated that you share the concern about the need to rationalize those contracts and to ensure 

that they are not used as a method of avoiding competition requirements and performance-based contracting requirements. Do you 

have a comment on that issue? 

Mr. SAFAVIAN. I think as the executive designations come up for 

agencies with regard to their government-wide contracts, we should 

make sure that they have a game plan for how they intend to use 

those contracts. I think that there continue to be concerns about 

abuse of certain types of schedules, again merely for the sake of facility rather than for some strategic reason. 

Senator LEVIN. You have been asked this morning about the fact 

that Government now spends more money on contracts for services 

than we do on contracts for products, and yet when it comes to 

18

managing those contracts, we spend less on service contracts than 

we do on contracts for products. 

In your response to the Committee’s prehearing policy questions 

you said that spend analyses can be a useful tool for agencies to 

determine how to most effectively spend their procurement dollars. 

And your response to Senator Lieberman’s prehearing question, 

however, you said that you are ‘‘not convinced that the benefit of 

developing a comprehensive inventory of work performed by contractors would be worth the significant cost.’’

My question is this. Is not a spend analysis the same thing as 

a comprehensive inventory of the work performed by contractors? 

Mr. SAFAVIAN. I guess the way I view it, Senator Levin, is that 

you need to have the inventory in order to conduct the spend analysis. I see the point you are making. 

I guess I struggle with putting together the comprehensive inventory because I am not sure how you build it, or with what dollars you build it. And what I have seen, having worked in one of 

the agencies, is how many hoops the agency managers are jumping 

through for verifiable and right reasons. I am very sensitive to 

overloading some of the agency managers with those types of activities. 

Senator LEVIN. Well, should not the government, like private sector companies, look at all of the services that it acquires, whether 

they are performed in-house or contracted out, as the basis for decisions as to how to acquire them in the future? Do you not have to 

make that assessment? 

Mr. SAFAVIAN. Yes, but I question why we would not do that on 

an agency-by-agency basis, since agencies have individual and 

unique core missions. 

Senator LEVIN. So that each agency should be doing that instead 

of——

Mr. SAFAVIAN. Each agency should know where——

Senator LEVIN. But Government-wide you do not see a need to 

do that? 

Mr. SAFAVIAN. If we are starting from scratch I would have questions about it. If we could amalgamate the spending patterns of 

agencies on a component basis, sure. 

Senator LEVIN. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Chairman COLLINS. Thank you. 

Mr. Safavian, I have a few additional questions but in the interest of time I am going to submit them for the record. 

I would like to thank you for your appearance before the Committee today. Without objection, the record will be kept open until 

5 p.m. tomorrow for the submission of any additional written questions, the answers to the questions that you promised to Senator 

Levin, and any other statements for the record. 

Senator LEVIN. I wonder, also, if you would tell your daughter 

when she is old enough to know that we missed her being here this 

morning. 

Mr. SAFAVIAN. Thank you, sir. I will do so. 

Chairman COLLINS. With that, this hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:52 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(19)

A P P E N D I X 


94485.001
20


94485.002
21


94485.003
22


94485.004
23


94485.005
24


94485.006
25


94485.007
26


94485.008
27


94485.009
28


94485.010
29


94485.011
30


94485.012
31


94485.013
32


94485.014
33


94485.015
34


94485.016
35


94485.017
36


94485.018
37


94485.019
38


94485.020
39


94485.021
40


94485.022
41


94485.023
42


94485.024
43


94485.025
44


94485.026
45


94485.027
46


94485.028
47


94485.029
48


94485.030
49


94485.031
50


94485.032
51


94485.033
52


94485.034
53


94485.035
54


94485.036
55


94485.037
56


94485.038
57


94485.039
58


94485.040
59


94485.041
60


94485.042
61


94485.043
62


94485.044
63


94485.045
64


94485.046
65


94485.047
66


94485.048
67


94485.049
68


94485.050
69


94485.051
70


94485.052
71


94485.053
72


94485.054
73


94485.055
74


94485.056
75


94485.057
76


94485.058
77


94485.059
78


94485.060
79


94485.061
80


94485.062
81


94485.063
82


94485.064
83


94485.065
84


94485.066
85


94485.067
86


94485.068
87


94485.069
88


94485.070
89


94485.071
90


94485.072
91


94485.073
92


94485.074
93


94485.075
94


94485.076
95


94485.077
96


94485.078
97


94485.079
98


94485.080
99


94485.081
100


94485.082
101


94485.083
102


94485.084
103


94485.085
104


94485.086
105


94485.087
106


94485.088
107


94485.089
108


94485.090
109


94485.091
110


94485.092
111


94485.093
112


94485.094
113


94485.095
114


94485.096
115


94485.097
116


94485.098
117


94485.099
118


94485.100
119


94485.101
120


94485.102
121


94485.103
122


94485.104
123


94485.105
124


94485.106
125


94485.107
126


94485.108
127


94485.109
128


94485.110
129


94485.111
130


94485.112
131


94485.113
132


94485.114
133


94485.115
134


94485.116
135


94485.117
136


94485.118
137


94485.119
138


94485.120
139


94485.121
140


94485.122
141


94485.123
142


94485.124
143


94485.125
144


94485.126
145


94485.127
146


94485.128
147


94485.129
148


94485.130
149


94485.131
150


94485.132
151


94485.133
152


94485.134
153


94485.135
154


94485.136
155


94485.137
156


94485.138
157


94485.139
158


94485.140
159


94485.141
160


94485.142
161


94485.143
162


94485.144
163


94485.145
164


94485.146
165


94485.147
166


94485.148
167


94485.149
168


94485.150
169


94485.151
170


94485.152
171


94485.153
172


94485.154
173


94485.155
174


94485.156
175


94485.157
176


94485.158
177


94485.159
178


94485.160
179


94485.161
180

Æ


94485.162