oversight

Opportunities To Improve the Redistribution of the Federal Government's Excess Automatic Data Processing Equipment

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1971-06-15.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

REPORT TO THE CONGRESS




Opportunities To Improve
The Redistribution Of
The Federal Government’s
Excess Automatic Data
Processing Equipment 8-115369




BY THE COMPTROLLER   GENERAL
OF THE UNITED STATES           w
                 COMPTROLLES       GENERAL      OF’ THE       LiMITED    STATES
                                 WASHINGTON      DC       205&V




B-l   15369




To the      Presrdent         of the Senate      and the
Speaker       of the       House    of Representatives

          This IS our report    on the opportumtles                                 to improve       the
redrstrlbutron     of the Federal    Government*s                                 excess    automatic
data processing       equipment

           Our     revrew   was made    pursuant   to the Budget                            and Ac-
counting         Act,   1921 (31 U.S.C.   53), and the Accountmg                               and
Audltmg          Act of 1950 (31 U.S.C.      67)

         Coples     of this report              are berg     sent to the Drrector,
Office    of Management        and            Budget;    the Admmrstrator        of
General     Services;      and the            heads   of Federal    departments.                     and   ,
agencies




                                                Comptroller               General
                                                of the United             States




                         SOT#    ANNIVERSARY               1921-        1971
 COMPTROLLERGENERAL'S                      OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE THE REDISTRIBU-
 REPORTTO THE COl?GRESS                    TION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENl'S EXCESS
                                           AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT
                                           B-115369


  DIGEST
 ------

 WHYTHE REVIEW WASMADE
       Public Law 89-306 establlshed       a Government-wide     program for the effi-
       cient and economscal use of the automated data processing               (ADP) equip-
       ment under the General Services Adminlstratlon           (GSA), subJect to fiscal
       and policy control    by the Office of Management and Budget.             To assist
       GSA in carrying    out its responslbllltles,      the law provided for the es-
       tablishment   of an ADP revolving     fund.   In April 1967 a Government-wide
       ADP management information      system was establlshed       to provide    infoma-
       tlon needed in meeting the requirements         of Public Law 89-306.

       The General Accounting Office        (GAO) reviewed        the redlstnbutlon   of ex-
       cess ADP equipment because:

           --There   was continuing   congressional   interest.

           --At June 30, 1970, the Government owned ADP equipment which cost
              $1.9 billion to purchase and rented ADP equipment which would cost
              $1.2 billion to purchase.
           --Equipment     excess to the Government's  needs, which originally         cost
              $212 mllllon,    was reported to GSA during fiscal year 1970.

           --The amount of equipment     becoming excess had been increasing
              steadily.


 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
      No instance was found where there was a need within the Government for
      excess Government-owned   ADP equipment that had been donated or sold as
      surplus property.    For the most part the donated or sold equipment con-
      sisted of obsolete components and miscellaneous    accessories for which
      there was no need.    (See p. 9.)

      There were instances,    however, where excess Government-owned    equipment
      was not being used, although,     at the same time, similar  equipment was
      being rented.    In these instances unnecessary rental costs up to
      $920,000 had been incurred.      (See p. 10.)


j Tear Sheet


                                                                     -JUHE15,1971
The equipment     was idle   because:

  --Agencies   had not given     GSA sufficient      notice   as to when the equlp-
     ment would be released.

  --Agencies   had not released         the equipment to GSA for redlstnbutlon
     even though the equipment          had been taken out of service.

  --GSA had relied     on excess equipment bulletins          to identify opportuni-
     ties to redlstnbute     excess equipment rather          than the ADP management
     information   system.

It would be desirable      if GSA would attempt to arrange title         trade-offs
with suppliers --suppliers     would transfer    titles    to rented equipment to
the Government ln exchange for titles         to similar    excess Government-
owned equipment.    This practice    would avoid physically        moving the
rented equipment to suppliers,      would avord interruptions        in computer
operatlonsg   and would reduce transportation         costs for moving equipment
between agencies.     (See p. 13.)

While agencies were returning     rented components having purchase credits
of $760,000 to suppliers,    other agencies were entering          into rental
agreements for similar    components.     Redistributing      these    components to
agencies, rather than returning      them to suppliers,       would have retained
the purchase credits   for the Government.        These credits      then could have
been applied toward the purchase of the components if it was later de-
termined to be to the Government's       advantage to purchase the equipment.
The excess components were not redistributed           because the agencies re-
leasing the equipment had not reported        them to GSA on a timely basis
and because the agencies acqulnng        components did not require screen-
ings of the excess equipment bulletins       while their acqulsltions         were in
process i (See p. 14.)

GSA's excess equipment bulletins      did not Indicate  the purchase credits
on rented equipment available    for redistnbutlon.       This information
would be pertinent   to the agencies'    determlnatlons   of whether to use
excess rented equipment rather than to acquire equipment directly          from
suppliers,    (See p0 15.)
Reports    provided by the ADP management lnformatlon         system did not fully
meet the    needs of redistribution        program managers.   Reports on the ac-
tlvlties    of the Government's      redlstributlon   program did not adequately
reflect    program results.       (See p0 15,)

Agency and GSA redistribution  programs were providing    adequate safe-
guards to prevent the disposal of needed Government-owned       equipment.
Because GAO found questionable  practices ln the redistrlbutlon       of
Government owned and rented excess equipment, however9 lt concluded
that improvements should be made in the redistribution      programs operated
by GSA and the agencies.



                                    2
.


RECOHNDATIONS OR SUGGESTIONS
      GSA should:

         --Emphasize the use of the ADP management lnformatlon          system to
            ldentlfy   opportunities      to redistribute excess equipment rather than
            rely on agencies'       requests for equipment advertised   ln excess equip-
            ment bulletlns.

         --Attempt    to transfer   titles   to equipment       instead    of physically     trans-
            ferring   Government-owned     equipment.

         --Show ln excess equipment bulletins      the purchase            credits   on rented
            equipment available for redistnbutlon.

         --Improve    the management Inform&on           system reports.

         --Refine      the methods of measuring      the results     of the Government's         re-
            distribution     program.


AGENCYAC'!lWNS AND UNRESOLVEDISSUES
      The Administrator   of General Services agreed with the report's   findings
      and conclusions   and advised GAO of the specific  steps GSA was taking to
      implement the GAO recommendations.     (See p+ 19 and app. I.)

MAT&%' FOR CONSIDERATIONBY TEE CONGRESS
      This report contains no recommendations            requiring      leglslatlve     action by
      the Congress.      It does contain informatlon           on weaknesses ln the uti-
      lization   of the Government's      excess ADP equipment and suggestions                for
      correction    or improvement.     The information         should be of assistance           to
      committees and individual      members of the Congress in connection with
      their legislative     and overslgbt     responsiblllties        relating      to the uti-
      lization   of the Government's      excess ADP equipment.




Tear Sheet
                               Contents
                                                                  Page

DIGEST                                                              1

CHAPTER                                                   1

   1        INTRODUCTION                                            4
                Upward trend in ADP equipment      available
                   for redistribution                               4
                GSA responsibilities                                4
                Office    of Management and Budget Cir-
                   culars                                           7
                Agencies'     redistribution programs               7

   2        OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE PROGRAM FOR RE-
              DISTRIBUTION OF ADP EQUIPMENT                         9
                 Government-owned   equipment   donated or
                   sold                                             9
                 Redistribution   of Government-owned
                   equipment                                       10
                 Redistribution   of rented equipment              14
                 ADP management information      system            15
                 Reports of program results                        15

   3        CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS                        17
                Conclusions                                        17
                Recommendations  to the Administrator
                  of General Services                              18
                GSA comments                                       19

   4        SCOPE OF REVIEW                                        20

APPENDIX

        I   Letter     dated   March 17, 1971, from the Ad-
               ministrator      of General Services to the
               Comptroller      General                            23

   II       Description  of Air Force and Defense        Supply
              Agency programs for redistribution         of ADP
              equipment                                             26
APPENDIX                                                            Page

  III       Excess Government-owned ADP components out
              of service between December 31, 1969,
              and June 1, 1970, that could have re-
              placed rented components    .                          28

   IV       Excess Government-rented ADP components
              taken out of service between July 1,
              1967, and December 31, 1968, that could
              have been redistributed                                29

        V   Principal    officials     of the General Services
              Administration       responsible     for the admin-
               istration    of activities      discussed in this
               report                                               30

                             ABBREVIATIONS
ADP         automatic   data processing
GAO         General Accounting     Office
GSA         General Services     Administration
OMB         Office   of Management and Budget
COiUFTROLLER
           GENERAL'S                      OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE THE REDISTRIBU-
REPOhTTO THE CONGRESS                     TION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'SEXCESS
                                          AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT
                                          B-115369


 DIGEST
------

WHYTHE REVIEW WASMADE
     Public Law 89-306 establIshed       a Government-wide     program for the effi-
     clent and economical use of the automated data processing               (ADP) equlp-
     ment under the General Services Admlnlstratlon           (GSA), subject to fiscal
     and policy control    by the Office of Management and Budget.              To assist
     GSA ln carrying    out its responsibllltles,      the law provided       for the es-
     tablishment   of an ADP revolving     fund.   In April 1967 a Government-wide
     ADP management lnformatlon      system was established       to provide     lnforma-
     tlon needed in meeting the requirements         of Public Law 89-306.

     The General Accounting Office         (GAO) reviewed        the redlstnbution   of ex-
     cess ADP equipment because:

          --There   was continuing   congressional   interest.

          --At June 30, 1970, the Government owned ADP equipment which cost
             $1.9 billion to purchase and rented ADP equipment which would cost
             $1.2 billion to purchase.

          --Equipment     excess to the Government's  needs, which onglnally          cost
             $212 mllllon,    was reported to GSA during fiscal   year 1970.

          --The amount of equipment     becoming excess had been increasing
             steadily.


FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
     No instance was found where there was a need w-rthln the Government for
     excess Government-owned    ADP equipment that had been donated or sold as
     surplus property.    For the most part the donated or sold equipment con-
     sisted of obsolete components and miscellaneous    accessories for which
     there was no need.    (See p, 9.)

     There were instances,    however, where excess Government-owned    equipment
     was not being used, although,     at the same time, similar  equipment was
     being rented.    In these instances unnecessary rental costs up to
     $920,000 had been incurred.      (See p. 10.)
The equipment    was Idle   because:

  --Agencies   had not given GSA sufficient         notice   as to when the equip-
     ment would be released.

  --Agencies   had not released        the equipment to GSA for redlstributlon
     even though the equipment         had been taken out of service.

  --GSA had relied      on excess equipment bulletins        to identify opportuni-
     ties to redistribute     excess equipment rather        than the ADP management
     information   system.

It would be desirable         if GSA would attempt to arrange title          trade-offs
with suppllers--suppliers         would transfer    titles     to rented equipment to
the Government in exchange for titles            to similar     excess Government-
owned equipment.        This practice   would avoid physically         moving the
rented equipment to suppliers,         would avoid interruptions         in computer
operations,    and would reduce transportation            costs for moving equipment
between agencies.         (See p. 13.)

While agencies were returning       rented components having purchase credits
of $760,000 to suppliers,      other agencies were entering into rental
agreements for similar      components.     Redistributing      these components to
agencies, rather than returning        them to suppliers,       would have retained
the purchase credits     for the Government.        These credits then could have
been applied toward the purchase of the components if it was later de-
termned to be to the Government's advantage to purchase the equipment.
The excess components were not redistributed             because the agencies re-
leasing the equipment had not reported         them to GSA on a timely basis
and because the agencies acquiring         components did not require screen-
ings of the excess equipment bulletins         while their acqulsltlons       were In
process.    (See p. 14.)

GSA's excess equipment bulletins      did not indicate  the purchase credits
on rented equipment available    for redistribution.     This information
would be pertinent   to the agencies'    determinations   of whether to use
excess rented equipment rather than to acquire equipment directly         from
suppllers.    (See p. 15.)
Reports    provided by the ADP management information         system did not fully
meet the    needs of redistribution        program managers.   Reports on the ac-
tivities    of the Government's      redistnbutlon    program did not adequately
reflect    program results.       (See p. 15.)

Agency and GSA redlstrlbution  progra&ns were providing   adequate safe-
guards to prevent the disposal of needed Government-owned       equipment.
Because GAO found questionable  practices  in the redIstmbutlon       of
Government owned and rented excess equipment, however, It concluded
that Improvements should be made In the redistribution     programs operated
by GSA and the agencies.



                                       2
RECOMMENDATIONS
              OR SUGGESTIONS
    GSA should:
      --Emphaslte     the use of the ADP management lnformatlon      system to
         Identify   opportunities      to redlstrlbute excess equipment rather than
         rely on agencies'       requests for equipment advertised   in excess equlp-
         ment bulletins.

      --Attempt    to transfer   titles   to equipment        Instead    of physically      trans-
         ferring   Government-owned     equipment.
      --Show in excess equipment bulletins       the purchase            credits    on rented
         equipment available for redistribution.

      --Improve    the management lnformatlon          system reports.

      --Refine     the methods of measuring         the results     of the Government's         re-
         dlstnbutlon     program.


AGENCYACTIONS AND UNRESOLVEDISSUES
    The Administrator   of General Services agreed with the report's   findings
    and conclusions   and advised GAO of the specific  steps GSA was taking to
    implement the GAO recommendations.     (See p. 19 and app. I.)


MATTERSFOR CONSIDERATIONBY THE CONGIiESS
    This report contains no recommendations            requlmng       legislative      actlon by
    the Congress.      It does contain information           on weaknesses in the utl-
    llzatlon   of the Government's      excess ADP equipment and suggestions                 for
    correction    or improvement.     The information         should be of assistance            to
    committees and lndivldual      members of the Congress ln connection with
    their legislative     and oversight     responsibilities        relating      to the uti-
    lizatlon   of the Government's      excess ADP equipment.




                                            3
                                  CHAPTER 1

                                 INTRODUCTION

UPWARD TREND IN ADP EQUIPMENT
AVAILABLE FOR REDISTRIBUTION

     As of June 30, 1970, the Government owned ADP equipment
which had cost $1.9 billion      to purchase and rented ADP equip-
ment which would cost $1.2 billlon       to purchase.   During re-
cent years there has been an increase        in the amount of ex-
cess ADP equipment reported      by agencies to GSA and the
amount of surplus ADP equipment      disposed of by GSA,l as
shown in the following    table,
              Excess ADP equipment                    Excess BDP equipmat
                  reported to GSA                 released as surplus by GSA
         Government Government                  Government Government
Fiscal      owned     rented (cost                 owned     rented (cost
 year      (cost)
            __        to purchase) Total          (cost)     to purchase) Total
                                   (000,000 omitted)
 1967       $ 90           $74        $164          $ 26           $66          $ 92
 1968        105                       195
 1969        129           i"1         210           ::             :2               ii
 1970        212           89          301          130             46               176

       Surplus Government-owned        equipment  is donated to ap-
roved recipients,         such as State and local governments    and
educational     institutions,     or is sold.    Surplus Government-
rented   equipment    is   returned        to suppliers.

GSA RESPONSIBILITIES

       The Federal Property    and Administrative      Services    Act
of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 471) made GSA responsible           for providing
an efficient    and economical   system for utilization        and dis-
posal of Government property.        In April     1964 GSA issued


1Excess equipment   is equipment which                is under     the     control         of
 an agency and which is not required                  by the     agency.       Surplus
 equipment  is excess equipment which                 is not required          by any
 agency of the Government.


                                       4
instructions    requiring    agencies  to report   Government-owned
and Government-rented       excess ADP equipment.      These instruc-
tions were incorporated        into the Federal   Property  Manage-
ment Regulations       in December 1964.

       In October 1965 the Federal          Property    and Admlnlstratlve
Services   Act of 1949 was amended by Public Law 89-306 to
make GSA specifically       responsible      for the efficient       and eco-
nomical utilization       of the Government's        ADP equipment.        The
law stated that the authority           conferred    upon GSA should not
be construed      so as to interfere      with determinations        by agen-
cies of their      equipment requirements         and the use made of the
equipment.      Cases of disagreements         between GSA and agencies
are subject     to review and decision         by the Office   of Manage-
ment and Budget COMB).

      In May 1966 OMB issued policy      guidelines  to establish
the direction  of GSA's efforts     under Public Law 89-306.       GSA
was to extend and intensify     its program of distributing       ex-
cess equipment   and to

      --review        and improve the processes     of obtaining      and
          circularizing       information regarding    equipment      avail-
          ability,

      --seek and evaluate   reasons why excess            equipment    was
         not claimed by agencies,   and

      --assist    agencies    in arranging     for   the use of excess
         equipment.

       In May 1968 OMB authorized     GSA to acquire  excess
Government-owned     equipment  and rent the equipment    to agen-
cies through the ADP fund at rates which would ensure the
continued   solvency   of the fund but which would be lower than
the rates charged by suppliers.

Procedures    established

       The Federal Property     Management Regulations   require
agencies to report    excess ADP equipment      to GSA 120 days prior
to the anticipated    release    date and to indicate   whether the
equipment was purchased,      leased,   or leased with an option
to purchase.      If equrpment 1s leased with an option to pur-
chase, agencies are to report       the cost to purchase the
equipment    at the release   date.

        Upon receipt     of a report     of excess Government-owned
ADP equrpment having a fair market value of $2,500 or more,
GSA reviews     its files    to determine     whether any agency has
indicated    a need for the equipment.            Excess equipment for
which no use is found is advertised             in excess equipment
bulletins    which are printed       about once every 2 weeks and
distributed     throughout     the Government.       When a potential
user is found, GSA attempts          to rent the excess equipment to
the user through       the fund.     When excess Government-owned
equipment    having a farr market value of less than $2,500 is
reported,    a notice     is placed in the excess equipment           bulle-
tin and agencies may acquire           the equipment at no cost.

       Excess Government-rented        equipment   is advertised     in the
excess equipment bulletlns          and when agencies   request the
use of equipment,      consideration      is given to purchasing       the
equipment    and renting     it through     the ADP fund or redistri-
buting   it to retain    the purchase credits.

      When no user is found, excess Government-owned      equip-
ment is disposed  of as surplus    property and excess
Government-rented  equipment    is returned to the supplier.

        Prior to acquiring       (purchasing     or renting)      ADP equip-
ment, agencies       are to determine       whether their       needs can be
met either      by sharing    Installed     equipment    or by utilizing
excess equipment.         Agencies may acquire ADP equipment
through      Federal  Supply Schedule contracts          negotiated      by GSA
or, if authorized        by GSA, by contracting        directly      with sup-
pliers,

       To acquire  ADP equipment    through     Schedule contracts,
agencies place their     orders directly     with the suppliers.
All Schedule contracts      provide   for purchase options         on
rented equipment.     The Government may, under such options,
purchase equipment    at the suppliers'      prices     in effect     at
the time the equipment was initially          rented or at the prices
In effect   at the time of purchase,       whichever      is lower,    less
purchase credits    based on the amount of rentals           paid.     The
Government retains    the purchase credits         on equipment which

                                       6
is rented by one agency and transferred        to another    agency
if the equipment   is continuously      rented by the Government.
The Schedule contracts    provide    also that rented components
may be returned  to suppliers      on a 30-day written    notice.

       Agencies not acquiring         equipment    through      Schedule con-
tracts     are required     to submit to GSA Agency Procurement              Re-
quests with information          about the equipment        specifications
and performance       requirements.       GSA reviews     the requests       and
(1) delegates      to the agencies      the authority       to acquire     the
equipment,      or (2) delegates      to the agencies       the authority      to
acquire     the equipment with GSA participating              in the contract
negotiations,      or (3) acquires      the equipment       for the agen-
cies,

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET CIRCULARS

      OMB Circular    No. A-54, issued in October 1961, set
forth  broad policies     and guidelines    for selecting   ADP equip-
ment.   The circular     prescribes    the policies   for acquiring
ADP equipment     and for determining     whether the equipment will
be leased or purchased.

         OMB Circular     No. A-83, issued in April        1967, prescribed
the establishment          of a Government-wide      ADP management infor-
mation system to be administered              by GSA to facilitate     and
to improve the management of the Government's                 ADP resources.
The circular       prescribed     the data that agencies were to sub-
mit to GSA, including          (1) an annual inventory        report  of
equipment,      (2) a semiannual       report   of planned acquisitions
and releases       of equipment,      and (3) reports     showing actual
installations       and releases      of equipment,      One of the planned
uses of the information           system was to produce specific         data
for application        in the redistribution        of excess equipment.
AGENCIES'    REDISTRIBUTION       PROGRAMS

      The largest  intra-agency  ADP equipment   redistribution
programs in the Government are operated     in the Department        of
Defense by the Defense Supply Agency and by the Departments
of the Air Force, Army, and Navy,      The Air Force and Defense
Supply Agency redistribution    programs are described        in ap-
pendix II.


                                        7
       Generally     the ADP equipment  redistribution    programs
operated    by civilian     agencies are not as formalized      as those
of the Department        of Defense.
                                 CHAPTER 2

               OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE PROGRAM FOR

                   REDISTRIBUTION     OF ADP EQUIPMENT

GOVERNMENT-OWNEDEQUIPMENT DONATED OR SOLD

        To determine   whether the Government should have redis-
tributed    equipment    that it had donated or sold as surplus
property,    we reviewed     the equipment    acquisitions  for certain
agencies and the records          for (1) 53 computers and related
equipment,     which had cost $22 million,        that were taken out
of service     between July 1, 1967, and December 31, 1968, and
(2) ADP components, 1 which had cost $14 million,           that were
taken out of service        during    fiscal year 1969.

      Potential     for redistributing       37 of the 53 computers
was limited     because this equipment was special-purpose
equipment and/or was technologically            obsolete.     At least 21
of the 53 computers were built           before 1960.     Our  review did
not indicate     any instance       where there was a need for these
computers within       the Government,
       Of the 53 computers,     16 were general-purpose       computers.
To determine     whether there was a need for the equipment,            we
reviewed    records   of equipment   acquisitions     by the Air Force,
Army, Navy, and National       Aeronautics      and Space Administration.
These agencies      operate about 72 percent       of the Government's
ADP systems*       We did not find any instance       where these agen-
cies could have used the excess computers,

        To determine      whether the ADP components taken out of
service    during    fiscal      year 1969 could have been used by
agencies renting         similar     equipment, we reviewed    data from
the Government-wide          management information      system and other
records.      Our review did not indicate         any instance     where


1
    ADP components are equipment--such          as central     processing
    units,  storage and related     controls,     input-output      devices,
    and communications  terminals--which,         together,     make up an
    ADP system.

                                       9
there was need for         the excess        equipment   within   the Govern-
ment .

REDISTRIBUTION       OF GOVERNMENT-OWNEDEQUIPMENT

       Our review showed instances where, excess Government-
owned ADP equipment was not being used, although,     at the
same time, similar   equipment was being rented,   Between
August 1967 and June 1970, unnecessary    rental costs up to
$920,000 were incurred.

Equipment     available     for   redistribution

      As of June 1, 1970, GSA had under its control       45 excess
components,   which had cost $6.6 million,     that had been taken
out of service     and reported to GSA prior  to December 31,
1969.   Also on June 1, 1970, an agency had in storage an
excess ADP system comprising      eight components,  which had
cost $2.3 million,

       Our comparison      of these 53 components with rented com-
ponents shown in the Government-wide           management information
 system reports    indicated     that 38 of the components could
have been used to replace          rented equipment.   Our analysis
showed that,    if the rented components had been replaced            by
the 38 components,       rental    costs up to $770,000 would have
been avoided between March 1969 and June 1970.1             (See app,
 III.>

        The equipment was idle for excessive               periods     because
agencies      did not follow      regulations       and give GSA sufficient
notice     of equipment     release     dates--120     days prior     to the
release     dates-- and did not release           to GSA for redistribu-
tion equipment        that had been taken out of service.                Also
GSA relied       on the excess equipment bulletins             to identify
opportunities       to redistribute        excess equipment       rather    than
the ADP management information              system.


1
 In estimating      the unnecessary   costs, we allowed   a 30-day
 transfer     period after   the equipment was taken out of ser-
 vice,    because we were informed     by GSA that transfers    of
 components generally       can be made within   30 days after   the
 components are taken out of service.
                                        10
       For example, an agency did not notify           GSA until
March 26, 1969--115      days later     than required      by regula-
tions-- that it would take two Government-owned                components
out of service     on March 31, 1969.       We obtained        data from
the management information       system that showed that 24 com-
ponents similar     to the two excess components were being
rented by other agencies,         Instead    of using the excess com-
ponents to replace     rented components,       GSA advertised         the
excess components in its excess equipment             bulletin      on
May 2, 1969, and attempted       to rent them through the ADP
fund.

       As of June 1, 1970, the two excess components were
still   out of service.      GSA, however,    had arranged  to rent
them to an agency that had agreed to pay a rental           fee to
the ADP fund,       If the excess components had been trans-
ferred   to replace    rented components within      30 days after
they were taken out of service,        rental   costs of $95,000
would have been avoided.

      In another    instance    an agency reported        to GSA on
April   21, 1969--50     days later   than required       by regulations--
that an ADP system, which had cost $2.3 million,                would be
taken out of service       on June 30, 1969.      GSA advertised          the
excess equipment      in its excess equipment        bulletin    on
May 2, 1969, andinquirieswere           received   from 10 agencies.

       As of June 1, 1970, the equipment was still     out of
service,    Our review showed that the agency had not released
the system to GSA for redistribution,       because it was await-
ing the outcome of a feasibility      study regarding  the pos-
sible use of the system by one of its contractors.

      We obtained data from the management information           sys-
tem that showed that components similar         to each of those in
the excess system were being rented by agencies.            If these
components had been transferred     within    30 days after    they
were taken out of service    to replace    rented components,       the
Government would have avoided rental       costs up to $240,000,

Equipment    rented    through   ADP fund

       As of June 1, 1970, the ADP fund had six               leases   in efL
feet   for equipment it had acquired  as excess
 Gover-nment-owned      property.       This   equipment     cost     $5.2 mil-
 lion,

         For five of the leases,          from 4 to 19 months elapsed
 between the time the equipment was taken out of service                     and
 the time it was placed in use*               The delays in redistributing
 the equipment resulted         because agencies had not followed
 regulations      giving    GSA sufficrent      notice   of equipment    re-
 lease dates and because GSA had relied                on excess equipment
 bulletins     to identify     opportunities       to redistribute    excess
 equipment     rather    than the ADP management information            system.

      During the periods      that the equipment was not in use0
agencies were renting      similar   equipment.   Had the excess
equipment   been placed in service       within 30 days after  it
became available,     between August 1967 and May 1970, rental
costs up to $150,000 would have been avoided-, as indicated
in the following    table.


             Date               Date                Date             Months       Avoidable
           reported          taken out            placed             out of        rental
 Lease      to GSA          of service            in use            service         costs
   1      l&y 1969          May 1969           May 1970              12           $ 29,000
   2      Apr. and          Oct. and
            Aug. 1969         Dec. 1969        Apr. 1970             4 to 5         21,000
          Apr. 1968         Apr. 1968          Nov. 1969            19              28,000
   :      Aug. 1967         Aug. 1967          Mar, to
                                                 June 1968           6 to 9         64,000
   5     Apr. 1969          Apr. 1969          Nov. 1969             7               8.000
 TOTAL                                                                        $150,000




        For example, on April         26, 1968--116    days later   than
required    by regulations--        an agency notified     GSA that four
tape units,    which had cost $88,000,           had been taken out of
service    on April    30, 1968, GSA advertisedthe           tape units   in
its excess equipment         bulletin    on June 12, 1968.       The tape
units were placed back in service             on November 29, 1969,

     The management        information system showed that during
the period the tape        units were not in use at least80   similar

                                        12
tape units were being rented by agencies.  Had the excess
tape units been transferred within 30 days after they were
taken out of service and used to replace similar rented
units, the Government would have avoided rental costs up to
$28,000,
        In another instance GSA made plans in January 1967 to
release four components in August 1967 which had cost
$679,000.     On August 11, 1967--113 days later than required
by regulations--    GSA reported to its ADP equipment redistri-
bution office that the components would be taken out of ser-
vice on August 18, 1967. GSA informed us that the redis-
tribution    office had not been notified   previously  because
attempts were being made to redistribute      the equipment
within GSA. GSA advertised       the excess equipment on Au-
gust 23, 1967, and received seven inquiries,
      The excess components were placed in use 6 to 9 months
after they were taken out of service.   Had adequate notice
of the release of the components been made and had the trans-
fer been made within 30 days after the equipment was taken
out of service, rental costs up to $64,000 would have been
avoided.
Title   transfers
        During our review we noted two instances where Defense
agencies had arranged a trade-off         with suppliers whereby
titles    to rented equipment were transferred        to the Govern-
ment in exchange for transfers         to the suppliers    of titles
to similar excess Government-owned equipment.            This proce-
dure avoided physically       moving the rented equipment to sup-
pliers,    avoided interruptions     in computer operations that
would have resulted from equipment exchanges, and reduced
the transportation     costs for moving equipment between agen-
ties.
        We discussed the concept of such transfers with GSA of-
ficials    and were informed that GSA had not made, nor at-
tempted to make, such transfers,




                                  13
REDISTRIBUTION       OF RENTED EQUIPMENT

      We compared the records      of 87 rented systems that were
ta'ken out of service   between July 1, 1967, and December 31,
1968, and returned    to the suppliers     with the records of sys-
tems acquired   by the Air Force, Army, Navy, and National
Aeronautics   and Space Administration      to determine   whether
these agencies had acquired      similar   systems about the times
that the excess systems were taken out of service.

        Our comparison    revealed       that,    for seven of the rented
systems, the agencies had returned                to suppliers        41 rented
components having purchase credits                of $760,000 (see app. IV),
while other agencies had entered               into rental        agreements    for
similar    components.      Redistributing          the components to agen-
cies rather     than returning       the components to the suppliers
would have resulted       in the Government's             retaining     the pur-
chase credits,       The purchase credits             then could have been
applied    toward the purchase of the components if, at a later
date, it was determined         to be to the Government's               advantage
to purchase such equipment.

      We believe     that    the potential     for redistribution        of
components in four of          the systems was not maximized,          because
the agencies releasing           the equipment had not reported          them
to GSA 120 days prior          to the anticipated     release     date, con-
trary  to regulations.           Reports of the release        of the four
systems were made to         GSA from 30 to 55 days prior           to the re-
lease dates.

        Also potential       for redistribution    was not maximized,
because agencies acquiring            equipment did not screen the ex-
cess equipment       bulletins     throughout   the period that their
acquisitions     were in process.

      For example,  in May 1967 an agency approved the rental
of components to augment an ADP system.      The last review re-
quired by the agency to determine    whether excess equipment
could have been used was made at that time.      On August 9,
1967, an excess rented ADP system, that was to be available
on November 4, 1967, was reported    to GSA. The excess sys-
tem, which included    six of the same model components approved
for rental,  was advertised   in the excess equipment   bulletin
on October 4, 1967.

                                         14
        The newly rented components became operational        in De-
cember 1967.       Had the agency screened the excess equipment
bulletins    after   the equipment rental     was approved and had it
claimed the six excess components,         purchase credits  of
$290,000 would have been retained         by the Government.

Excess equipment         bulletins

        We noted during   our review that GSA's excess equipment
bulletins     did not show the amount of purchase credits               on ex-
cess rented equipment      available      for redistribution,          This
information      would be pertinent     to the agencies'      determina-
tions of the desirability         of using excess rented equipment
rather    than acquiring   equipment      directly     from suppliers.

ADP MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM

        We found the management information                 system to be of
value in making our review.             For example, we used the man-
agement information          system to determine           whether there was
rented equipment        similar    to Government-owned            equipment
available     for redistribution.           (See pp. 10 to 13.) The data
in the ADP management information                system reports         available
at the time of our review,           however, was over 8 months old,
and the reports       did not provide         sufficient       information        for
use by program managers in identifying                   the agencies        that
were renting      ADP equipment       similar      to Government-owned            equip-
ment available      for redistribution.

       Although information            concerning   the locations    of rented
equipment was included       in        the management information      system
data bank, such information               could be obtained     only by spe-
cial request.     It therefore            was necessary   for us to request
GSA to prepare a special             report    from the management infor-
mation system that showed              where rented components were lo-
cated.

REPORTS OF PROGRAMRESULTS

      To fulfill      their   respective      responsibilities,           the Con-
gress, OMB,      and  GSA   need  adequate      information       on   the   Govern-
ment's redistribution         program.      GSA reports         annually     to the
Congress and OMB the results             of the redistribution            program.
For example,      GSA reported      that Government-owned            ADP
equipment, which had cost $68 million,  was redistributed
during fiscal year 1969. We analyzed the data supporting
the reports and found that the reports had not provided an
adequate description of program results because they:
     --Had not included the purchase credits that had been
        retained by the Government through the redistribu-
        tion of rented equipment,
     --Had not included intra-agency  transfers   by agencies
        outside the Department of Defense.
     --Had not provided a breakdown between interagency    and
        intra-agency  transfers.
     --Had included equipment which agencies had reported to
        GSA as excess but which was subsequently withdrawn
        by the agencies.  Information was not available   show-
        ing the use that had been made of the withdrawn
        equipment.




                              16
                           CHAPTER3

               CONCLUSIONSAND RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCLUSIONS
       Programs for the redistribution    of ADP equipment are
operated at several levels within the Government, Redistri-
bution efforts begin in the agencies and, when no use for
excess equipment is found, notice is given to GSA so that
Government-wide screenings can be made. Thus the GSA re-
distribution   program provides the last opportunity     for the
Government to redistribute      its excess equipment before dis-
posal action is taken.
       Because we did not find any instance where there was a
need for excess Government-owned ADP equipment that had
been donated or sold as surplus property, we concluded that
the redistribution      programs operated by the agencies and
GSA were providing      adequate safeguards against the disposal
of Government-owned ADP equipment for which there was a
need. Because we found certain questionable        practices re-
lating to the redistribution      of excess equipment, however,
we believe that certain improvements should be made in the
redistribution     programs operated by GSA and the agencies.
      Our review revealed that GSA had made efforts to iden-
tify opportunities   to redistribute   excess Government-owned
equipment by advertising    the excess equipment in excess
equipment bulletins.     Comparatively little   effort had been
made to use the ADP management information      system to iden-
tify opportunities   to redistribute   the excess equipment.
      We believe that the excess equipment bulletins        should
be used in those instances where sufficient       notice of equip-
ment releases have been given to GSA. We believe also that,
when a user for excess equipment is not found within a rea-
sonable period prior to the equipment's being taken out of
service, or when sufficient    notice of equipment releases
have not been given to GSA, GSA should use the ADP manage-
ment information   system to identify  opportunities     for using
the excess equipment to replace rented equipment.


                               17
        The reports       provided     by the ADP management information
system were-not         f&ly      responsive     to the needs of redistri-
bution      program managers.          Although     information       concerning
the locations         of rented equipment          was included       in the man-
agement information            system data bank, such information                could
be obtained        only by special        request.       GSA could assist're-
distribution        program managers by preparing               reports    showing
the locations         of rented equipment.

      Also, because the reports        on the activities     of the
Government's    redistribution    program did not adequately        show
program results,       GSA should refine      the methods of measuring
the results   of the Government's        redistribution   program.

        We believe   that GSA should attempt to arrange              for
trade-offs      with suppliers     whereby titles       to rented equip-
ment are transferred        to the Government        in exchange for
transfers     to suppliers     of similar     excess Government-owned
equipment     and thereby     avoid physically       movingthe    rented
equipment     to suppliers,      avoid interruptions        in computer op-
erations,     and reduce transportation          costs.     We recognize
that the opportunities         for such trade-offs        are limited    to
those instances      where agreements       can be reached with sup-
pliers.

        GSA's excess equipment         bulletins     did not show the pur-
chase credits       on excess rented equipment          available      for re-
distribution      and therefore      did not provide       information       per-
tinent      to agencies'   determinations        of the desirability         of
using excess rented equipment             rather   than acquiring        equip-
ment directly       from suppliers,

RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ADMINISTRATOR OF
GENERAL SERVICES

      We recommend that          the Administrator         of General      Services:

      --Emphasize   the use of the ADP management information
         system to identify        opportunities    to redistribute        ex-
         cess equipment     rather    than rely on agencies'        requests
         for equipment    advertised       in excess equipment      bulle-
         tins.



                                         18
     --Attempt     to transfer     titles    to equipment         instead   of
        physically    transferring        Government-owned          equspment.

     --Show in excess equipment            bulletins      the purchase      cred-
        its on rented equipment           available     for redistribution.

     --Improve    the management         information     system     reports.

     --Refine   the methods of measuring     the          results      of the
        Government's  redistribution   program.

GSA COMMENTS

     The Administrator     of General   Services, in commenting
on a draft  of this report    by letter   dated March 17, 1971
(see app. I>, advised us that GSA:

     --Would place more emphasis on using the ADP management
        information  system to identify opportunities to re-
        distribute  excess equipment.

     --Would attempt      to transfer        titles    to equrpment      where
        possible,

     --Would study methods for showing in the excess                      equip-
        ment bulletins       the purchase credits     on excess           rented
        equipment    available    for redistribution.

     --Had developed    reports   from the ADP management infor-
        mation system for use in identifying     opportunities
        to redistribute    excess equipment.

     --Had proposed a Federal        Property Management Regulation
        regarding  the methods of measuring       the results of
        the Government's   redistribution     program.




                                    19
                                  CHAPTER 4

                              SCOPE OF REVIEW

        We reviewed        OME3circulars      and guidelines,     GSA regula-
tions and procedures,              and selected    agencies'  procedures      re-
lating      to the utilization         of excess ADP equipment.         We in-
terviewed      officials         of the Air Force, Army, Navy, Defense
Supply Agency, and GSA. We reviewed                  also records    in these
departments        and agencies relating         to the acquisition      and re-
distribution         of ADP equipment        and the results    of internal
redistribution          efforts.

         We also obtained      information      relating     to the acquisi-
tion and redistributron           of ADP equipment        from the Atomic
Energy Commission,        National      Aeronautics      and Space Adminis-
tration,     Veterans   Administratron,         and the Departments      of
Commerce and Transportation.               We did not review the use
made of excess ADP equipment             acquired      by agencies.

       Our review was made primarily  at the GSA Central Office,
and the headquarters   offices  of the Air Force, Army, Navy,
Defense Supply Agency, and National    Aeronautics and Space
Administration.




                                      20
APPENDIXES




    21
                                                                                                          APPENDIX         I


                                            UNITED     STATES OF AMERICA
                                  GENERAL           SERVICES        ADMINISTRATION
                                                WASHINGTON,         D C      i3405




   MAR 17 1971

. Honorable      Elmer      B. Staats
  Comptroller       General      of the               United       States
  General     Accounting       Office
  Washington,       D. C.      20548

  Dear       Mr.       Staats-

  We have            reviewed        the    draft     report       “Opportumtles                to Improve       the

  Program             for   the    Redistribution              of the     Federal          Government’s

  Automatic            Data       Processing          Equipment,            ” as requested            in your

  letter      of February             16,   1971.      We agree             with     the    draft   report      and

  attached           are    our    comments           pertaining          to the      recommendations                 of

  this     report.

  ;sibI


   RobertLKunzig
   gaministrator
  Enclosure




                              Keep Freedom tn Tour Future Wtth US Savmgs Bonds

                                                                   23
APPENDIX          I

                                   Comments          on Recommendations


 II
      --Place    more    emphasis       on using the ADP management                 lnformatron
          system   to Identify    opportumties      to redlstrrbute          excess    equipment
         rather  than relyrng      on agencies     requesting         use of equipment          that
         had been advertised        m excess     equipment        bulletins.     ”

 Comment               As indicated          in the draft       report,       the ADP management
                       lnformatlon          system      has been used to ldentlfy             opportunities
                       to redrstrlbute           excess      equipment.          We will place      more
                       emphasis          on using this system              when no user is found
                       within       a reasonable        period     prior      to the equipment       being
                       taken       out of service,        and when agencies           have not given
                        sufficient      notice     of equipment          releases.

 “--Attempt            to transfer     equipment           title    in lieu of physically          trans-
       ferring        excess    Government-owned                   equipment.   ”

 Comment               As indicated       by the draft      report,     timely    reporting          of
                        excess    by the agencres,        the slmllarlty        of equipment,
                        and agreement        of the supplier        are necessary           conditions
                        in order    to successfully       transfer      equipment       title.       How-
                       ever,     we will be contrnually          alert    to and attempt          to
                       transfer     title  rn those   sltuatlons       where    possible.

 “--Show       In excess      equipment            bulletins       the        purchase   credits    on rented
      equipment      available      for       redlstrlbutlon.            ‘I

 Comment               Present    regulation       (FPMR        101-43.313-5)         requires      agencies
                      to obtain    from      the supplier       the acquisition        cost of leased
                       equipment      at the time       it will be released         and to include         the
                       cost on reports         of excess.        This     cost,  however,        IS rarely
                       reported    to GSA.        We will      study this problem            and, where
                       Indicated,     develop     alternate       solutions     which    will accomplrsh
                      the ObJective        of this recommendation.




                                                           24
                                                                                             APPENDIX I


“--Improve          the     management         information          system     reports.       ”

Comment             Improved        reports      have been developed               and provided         from
                    the ADP management                 information         system       which    are proving
                    helpful     in ldentrfying        opportunities         to redistribute         excess
                    equipment.          These      reports       not only indicate          the specific
                    component         or perrpheral           equipment       but also the different
                     systems      they are used with,              the planned       release      dates,
                    and the location           of the equipment.             Since the Office         of
                    Management           and Budget         1s revising       the ADP        management
                    information         system,       we plan to accomplish                a complete
                    review      of the revised         system        in order     to provide      timely
                    and meaningful           reports       for use m our reutilization                efforts,,

“--Refine         the     methods       of measuring         the   results    of the      Government’s
     redlstrlbutlon            program.      ”

C omment            A proposed           FPMR     has been developed     which  will   refine
                    the methods           of measuring     the results  of the Government’s
                     redistrlbutlon         program.      This proposed    FPMR      1s currently
                    being       reviewed      by the agencies.




                                                         25
APPENDIX II

                 DESCRIPTION OF AIR FORCEAND
              DEFENSESUPPLYAGENCYPROGRAMSFOR
                REDISTRIBUTION OF ADP EQUIPMENT
        During fiscal year 1970, ADP equipment having an ac-
quisition     cost1 of $166 million    was declared excess within
the Air Force. Of this amount, ADP equipment having an ac-
quisition     cost of $13 million    was transferred for use within
the Air Force.       In addition,   the Air Force acquired from
other agencies excess ADP equipment having an acquisition
cost of $9 million,
       The Air Force maintains a Department-wide ADP manage-
ment information    system for managing its ADP redistribution
program and for other purposes.     Monthly reports are pre-
pared showing the equipment in inventory along with data re-
garding the installation    dates, rental rates, purchase
credits earned on rented equipment, locations,     utilization
data, and whether the equipment is owned or rented.
        Coordination    of the Air Force ADP redistribution    pro-
gram is centered at Air Force headquarters,           Units are re-
quired to report excess equipment 8 months prior to the an-
ticipated    release date. Upon receipt of reports of excess
Government-owned equipment, a search of the management in-
formation system data bank is made to determine whether
there is similar rented equipment.        If so, an analysis is
made to determine which rented components can be replaced
by the excess equipment at the greatest advantage to the
Air Force.       If the search discloses no similar rented equip-
ment, efforts are made to identify potential          users-by dis-
tributing     information   regarding the excess equipment
throughout the Air Force.
      The Air Force also attempts to redistribute  rented
equipment.    If no need is found, a search of the information
system data bank is made to determine whether similar


1The cost of Government-owned equipment and the cost to pur-
 chase Government-rented equipment.

                                26
equipment    is being rented,    and, if so, a comparison         is made
of the purchase credits       on the excess equipment       and rented
equipment.     If the rented equipment has less purchase cred-
its than the excess equipment,         consideration     is given to
transferring     the excess equipment      to replace    the rented
equipment.     The Government thereby        retains  the equipment
with the higher     amount of purchase credits        in case the equip-
ment is purchased     at a later    date.

      If  no use is found for the excess equipment                  in the Air
Force within       180 days of the anticipated            release   date, it
is reported      to the Defense Supply Agency for screening                by
other Defense organizations.                About once a week the Defense
Supply Agency publishes            a bulletin     showing the excess equip-
ment available       for transfer,          Defense organizations       are to
screen the bulletins         to determine        whether excess equipment
can be used instead         of purchasing        or renting     new equipment
and whether rented equipment              can be replaced       by excess
Government-owned        equipment,        Excess equipment which has not
been redistributed        within     120 days prior       to the planned re-
lease date is reported           to GSA.

     0 During fiscal   year 1970 equipment having an acquisition
cost of $308 million     was declared   excess by Defense agencies
and contractors.      Of this amount, ADP equipment     having an
acquisition     cost of $86 million   was redistributed   within  De-
fense organizations.




                                       27
APPENDIX III



                EXCESSGOVERNMENT-OWREDADP
                                        COMPCRERTSCUT OF
            SERVICE BETWEENDECEMBER31, 1969, ARD JUNE 1, 1970,
                  THATCODLDHAVEREPLACEDRENTEDCOMPCRERTS

                                                                  Ibmber of
                                                     Date           rented    Avoidable
                                                 taken out       components    rental
   Component description            Quantity     of service       (note a)      sosts
Processing unit                            1     Mar.     1969                $ 91,910
Console                                    1             do.          231        3,042
 Instruction    processing unit            1             do.           1        63,236
Core storage                               1             do.           2        67,940
Arithmetic     sequence unit               1             do.           3       107,536
Console control unit                                     do.           3        14,250
Multiplexor                                i             do.           2        41,470
Power converter                            1             do.           2         7,642
Data channel consoles                      2             do.           4         2,107
Power control                              1             do.           2         9,735
Tape control                               1     Apr.     1969        39         4,461
Communication module                       1     June        "         2        12,400
Storage modules                            2             do.           3       126,880
Computation module                                       do.                    77,840
Bi-directional      data channels          z             do.           5        22,400
Cn-line printer      control               1     July     1969        25         1,251
Hi-data tape group control                 1             do.          15         3,132
Card reader-punch control                  1             do.          36         4,824
Simultaneous mode            11                          do.                     4,932
Disk storage                               2'    Aug.     1969        2         50,512
Printers                                   2             do.         186         9,568
Input-output     synchronizers             2             do.          42        17,560
        II       synchronizer              1             do.            5        4,634
File control                               1             do.          20         6,456
Hi-data tape group control                 1     Sept.    1969        12         3,570
Simultaneous mode control                  1             do.          28         3,836
On-line printer      control               1             do.          25            973
Hi-data tape group control                 1             do.                     2,436
Card reader-punch       control            1             do.          ::         3,752
Paper tape reader                      1         Nov.     1969          4        2,220
    Total                              38                                     $772,505
"As of June 30, 1969.




                                            28
                                                            APPENDIX IV


               EXCESS WVERNMENT-RENTED ADP COMPONENTS

                            TAKEN OUT OF SERVICE

           BETWEEN JULY 1, 1967,      AND DECEMBER 31,   1968,

                  THAT COULD HAVE BEEN REDISTRIBUTED

                                                     Purchase credits
   Component      description       Quantity           not retained

 Central     processors                 4                  $247,389
 Memory modules                         6                    54,183
 Tape controls                          2                    14,339
 Magnetic      tape units               7                    70,907
 Printers      and controls             2                    17,400
‘Processing       units                 2                   159,995
 Disk storage        drive              1                     6,940
 Control     units                      2                    17,676
 Card read punches                      2                    16,567
 Printers                               3                    27,37_4
 Input-output        synchronizer       1                    22,294
 Console                                1                      5,050
 File control                           1                    14,778
 Disk storage                           1                    64,925
 Printer-keyboards                      2                      1,158
 Storage control                        1                      4,555
 Card readers        and control        2                      7,063
 On-line      adapter                  -1                      6,650

      Total                                                $759,243




                                      29
    APPENDIX V

                      PRINCIPAL OFFICIALS OF
                 THE GENERALSERVICES ADMINISTRATION
        RESPONSIBLEFOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF ACTIVITIES
                     DISCUSSEDIN THIS REPORT

                                               Tenure of office
                                               From            -To
    ADMINISTRATOROF GENERALSERVICES:
        Robert L. Kunzig             Mar.         1969     Present
r       Lawson B. Knott, Jr.         Nov.         1964     Feb. 1969
    COMMISSIONE_R,FEDERAL SUPPLY SER-
      VICE:
        H. A: Abersfeller               Mar.      1970     Present
        Lewis E. Spangler (acting)      Dec.      1969     Mar. 1970
        Arthur F. Sampson               June      1969     Dec. 1969
        Lewis E. Spangler (acting)      &Y        1969     June 1969
        H. A. Abersfeller               bY        1964     &Y     1969




                                                         U S GAO.   Wash.,   D C

                                30