Proposed Moves of Certain Agencies in the National Capital Region

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1977-06-27.

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

                         DOCUMENT RESCHE
01144 - [   07510603
Proposed moves of Certain Agencien in the national Capital
Region. B-164lZ1(2); LCD-77-309. June 27, 1977. Released March
7, 1977. 2 pp. * appendices (17 pp.).
Report to Gilbert Gude; J. Glenn Beall, Jr.; Rep. aenry A.
warzan; by Elmer B. Staats, Comptroller General.
Issue Area: Facilities and aaterial Management: New Versus
    Existing Federal Facilities (70Q).
Contact: Logistics and Communications Div.
Budget Function: General Goverament: General Property and
    Records Management (804).
Organization Concerned: Department or the Navy; Cepartsent cf
    Health, Education, and welfare; Health Resources
Congressional Relevance: Rep. Henry A. laxman.
         The proposed relocation of the Health Resources
Administration (1RA) oE the Department of Health, Education, and
welfare (HW9) and certain agencies in the Department of the Navy
was rewiewed. Offici3ls of both the wavy and HRA believe they
will increase program effectiveness and managerial efficiency by
consolidating presently separated components.
Findimgs/Conciuions: aRE did not make a cost-effectivenqss
study of the proposed move because their r£eg~lations do not
Lequiie such a study when the space is already under lease and
available. The BRA estimated that its ionorecurring cost to move
will be $2.965,000 and i's recurring cost will be $5,056,000, an
increase of $167,000 annually over the cost at the present three
locatcins. As of October 6, 1976, the funds needed for
renovation had not been identified. There were practically no
discrepancies on factual matters between the Department and the
employees' concerns; the differences were on matters of
judgment. It cannot be determined whether the benefits will
outweigh the cost and any inconvenience incurred by the move.
Recommendations: moves of this magnitude warrant a
cost-effectiveness study before decisions are made. (RRS)
               -RESTR!CTD __ lNot to bz released outs*b. tfo A1_ .I
               Account;i.g Wffire except on the baes;t ei
                                                          Il epmf
               by the Office of Cengremlenal Reletioa

                      OF THE
              OF THE UNITED S TA ITES
                                                                    R  jE\EV

                            L IqII I II .-

              Proposed Moves Of
              Certain Agencies In The
              National Capital Region
              Health Resources Administration
              Department of Health, Education, and Welfare

              Department of the Navy

              Agency officials believe the Health Resources
              Administration's move will increase program
              effectiveness and managerial efficiency by
              consolidating three locations with 1,700
              people into space being vacated by the Navy.
              The move will cost the Department of Health,
              Education, and Welfare about $2.9 million,
              and the expected benefits have not been

               LCD-77-309                                     JAAl1. 27, 1 977
                COMwrrOLLER    GENERAL OF THE UNLED      TAT
                              WA*ISAMM1O   . DC. UMNIS


The Honorable Henry A. Waxman
House of Representatives
The Honorable J. Glenn Beall, Jr.
The Honorable Gilbert Guute
     This is our report on proposed moves by certain agencies
in the Nationai Capital Region. In line with your requests
of Junz 25, June 22, and July 19, 1976, respectively, and
discussions with your offices, we concentrated on the reloca-
tion of the Health Resources Administration, Department of
Health, Education? and Welfare, We reviewed the requirements
for a cost-effectiveness study; the cost of the move and
source of its funding; and any factual differences between
the employees' concerns and the Department's replies. We
presented the results of our review in a briefing on Octo-
ber 27, 1976.
     Appendix I contains the detailed information we obtained
and cost estimates revised by the Health Resources Administra-
ticn as of October 29, 1976. We obtained the information from
agency regulations and records and from agency and employee
representatives. We have not verified the information and, as
requested by Senator Beall, have not obtained written comments.
     Officials of both the Navy and the Health Resources Ad-
ministration believe they will increase program effectiveness
and managerial efficiency by consolidating presently separated
components. An additional objective of the move is to make
space available to other Public Health Service components for
new or expanding programs.
     The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and the
General Services Administration did not make a cost-effective-
ness study of the proposed move because their regulations do
not require such a study when the space requested is already
under lease and available. The Health Resources Administration
estimated that at October 29, 1976, (1) its nonrecurring cost
to move will be $2,965,030, mainly for renovating the Prince
George's Center space the Navy is vacating, and (2) its re-
curring cost will be $5,056,000, an increase of $167,000
a year over the cost at its three present locations. The
estimates may be further revised as better data becomes

     Agency officials said that as of October 6, 1976, they
had not identified the funds needed for the renovation. On
January 10, 1977, an agency official said that other Public
Health Service components will pay about $852,000 of the
renovation cost because these components will benefit through
use of the space that the Health Resources Administration
will vacate. Our General Counsel will review this matter and
we will inform you of our findings.
     We found practically no discrepancies on factual matters
between the Department's replies and the employees' concerns.
Differences existed in matters of judgment. For example, the
employees were concerned that management decided to move with-
out sufficient study and without estimating overall costs.
The Department replied that the move was justifiable, the
decision was not made hastily, a cost-effectiveness study was
not required, and any estimate of savings could not be made
at that time.
     We agree with agency officials that consolidating agency
components having the same function is generally desirable
and theoretically beneficial. The agency believes that its
consolidation will increase program effectiveness and mon-
agerial efficiency. Because such predicted benefits are in-
tangible, we cannot determine whether they will outweigh t&.e
cost and any inconvenienci that may be incurred from the move.
     We believe that moves of the magnitude planned by the
Health Resources Administration and other Public Health
Service components warrant a preliminary cost-effectiveness
study. Such a study would have enabled the decisionmaker to
assess the alternatives and the costs he is willing to pay
for the benefits he expects. Since we cannot predict how much
time the Department would need to make a cost-effectiveness
study or what the results would show in terms of cost or ef-
fects on the agencies' programs, we do not know whether such
a study would be beneficial at       ime.

                             Comptroller General
                             of the United States

APPENDIX I                                        APPENDIX I



     The proposed moves of certain agencies of the Public
Health Service, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
(HEW), and the Department of the Navy affect approximately
4,600 employees in the National Capital Region, as follows:

     -- 1,800 Naval Ship Engineering Center employees will
        move from Hyattsville, Maryland (Prince George's
        Center), to Arlington, Virginia (Crystal City).
     -- i,700 Health Resources Administration, HEW, employees
        will move from Rockville, Maryland (Parklawn Building)
        (1,200), and two sites in Bethesda, Maryland (500), to
        Prince George's Center.

     --1, '0 other Public Health Service employees will move
       masnlv from other Rockville and Bethesda sites to the
       Parklawn Building space vacated by the Health Resources
       Administration.  (See app. II.)
     Both the Navy and the Health Resources Administration
expect to increase managerial efficiency and program effec-
tiveness by consolidating separated components. The Navy
move, approved by the Congress and the General Services Admin-
istration, will bring the Naval Ship Engineering Center to-
gether with the Naval Sea Systems Command, which is presently
at Crystal City. The Navy estimates that the move, which
began in October 1976 and will-be completed by March 1977,
will save $700,000 in the first year and $3.3 million each
year thereafter.

     Another objective of the Health Resources Administration
move is to make space available for other Public Health Scv-
ice agencies that are increasing their staffs due to new or
expanded programs.

     The Public Health Service moved to the Parklawn Building
from Washington, D.C., in 1970. On July 1, 1973, the Health
Resources Administration was established as a Service compo-
nent incorporating parts of the National Institutes of Health
and the Health Services and Mental Health Administration.
The Service needed more space in the Natic.al Capital Region,
where its eniployment increased from 23,500 in June 1974 to
26,500 in June 1976 (about 13 percent).

APPENDIX I                                        APPENDIX I

     In August 1975 the Administrator, Health Resources
Administration, notified his bureau and center directors
that he was renewing a recqest to the Office of the .issist-nt
Secretary for Health for space to enable the agency to con-
solidate. The Director, Office of Administrative Management,
Public Health Service, informed the agancy in November 1975
that it cculd consolidate only by a major move out of the
Rockville area; that the Navy would be vacating 300,000
square feet in Prince George's Center; and that the agency
should submit its comments on the possibility o0 movinr  to
the Center.
     The Administrator toured the building at Prince George's
Center and concluded that it met space needs, provided that a
similar building closer to Parklai7n was not available in the
foreseeable future. (General Services Administration offi-
cials told us that, bascd oR market surveys of and their fa-
miliarity with the Rockville area, they believed no suitable
space to accommodate the Health Resources Administration
would be available in Rockville in the near future.)
     HEW and the General Services Administration did not
make a cost-effectiveness study of the proposed move because
their regulations do not require such a study when the space
requested is already under lease and available.
     A cost-effectiveness study is an analytical approach
to solving problems of choice--in this instance, the Health
Resources Administration's choice between remaining in its
three present locations or consolidating its three components
at Prince George's Center. Such a study requires the deci-
sionmaker to define and quantify benefits as much as possible
and to measure all costs for each available choice. Analysis
of the information then enables the decisionmaker to assess
the alternatives and the costs he .s willing to pay for the
benefits he expects--in this instance, greater program effec-
tiveness and management sficiencv.
     General Services Administration officials said that
decisions to move are made by agencies based on needs and
that the General Services Administration tries to meet these
needs most cost-effectively for the Government as a whole.
The officials said they will approve a space request if an
agency can justify its need and explain what will happen to
the vacated space.

                                                         APPENDT': I

      General Services Administration regulations
 planning and assignment require consideration    on S        :e
      -- the objective of consolidating
                                        agencies and
         constituent parts in common or adjacent
         to improve management and admiristraticn,space
      -- the availability of adequate low-
                                           and moderate-
         income housing on a nondiscriminatory
         for 'mployees,                        basis

      -- nondiscrimination in the sale and
                                           rental of
      -- accessibility from other areas of
                                           the urban
         center, and
      -- adequacy of parking facilities.
      Accordino to General Services Administration
 adequate low- and moderate-income housing              officials,
 in the Prince George's Center area            is  more  available
                                      than the Parklawn area.
 Public buses service Prince George's
 and parking is available at the CenterPlaza next to the Center
 Parklawn employees could park free.       for $15 a month. At

      General Services Administration policy
                                                 in fulfilling
agency snace needs is to use Government-c~ntrolled
before leasing additional space. The                      space
Building No. 2 (Prince George's Center)  space   in  Federal  Center
Navy is under lease to the General          being vacated by the
                                     Services Administration.
The lease expires in 1979 and contains
tions. General Services Administration two 5-year renewal op-
expect tn renew the lease in 1979 becauseofficials said they
considerably less than the current            the cost will be
a square foot for office space in theasking   price of about
                                         Washington suburbs. $7
The formal request to the General Services
space calls for (1) a certification            Administration for
                                      of  availability
for rent and services and (2) a description                of funds
as terms of occupancy, type of space            of  such   items
space required.                        desired, and amount of

     On February 20, 1976, HEW submitted
for the 300,000 square feet of space      its formal request
and the Public Health Service housing at Prince George's Center
at the Center and for using the Parklawn    for its relocation
                                          and Bethesda sites.
     According to General Services Administration
they were satisfied that the net 61,000            officials,
                                         square feet being

APPENDIX I                                         APPENDIX I

released by HEW in buildings other than Parklawn will be used
by other Federal agencies. They said they study a move re-
quest more intensely if new space has to be acquired.

     To obtain space leased by the General Services Admin-
istration, HEW requires (1) a checklist for facility or site
location and evaluation and (2) a statement of program and
employee needs.  The checklist, to be prepared and certified
by the operating agency, serves as HEW's site evaluation re-
port for federally leased space.  In this instance the final
checklist, signed by the Associate Administrator for Opera-
tions and Management, Health Resources Administration, and
sent to the HEW Office of Facilities Engineering and Pro-
perty Management on April 20, 1976, indicated that

     -- adequate housing, transportation, community services,
        and shopping facilities were available on a nondis-
        criminatory basis;

     -- the location was compatible with the agency's pro-
        grammatic requirements; and

     -- the move was discussed with employees.  (Employee
        consultation meetings were held on March 8 and 11,

     The required statement of program and employee needs
is intended to present the agency requirements which affect
facility or site location and evaluation and documentation
of reasons for the requirements. HEW officials said that,
since HEW's formal request specified the Prince George's
space, a detailed statement of program needs for the General
Services Administration to consider in assigning space was
not necessary. They said that a Public Health Service letter
to HEW showing the Service's housing plan for the Health Re-
sources Administration's present and future space served as
the statement of program needs.  DeLailed analysis of the im-
pact of proposed relocation on employees is not required for
replacement space--that is, space acquired to substitute for
existing space in the same immediate geographic area. HEW
officials said the Health Resources Administration move was
a replacement and, therefore, the analysis of the impact on
employees was not required.

     The Health Resources Administration estimated at Octo-
ber 29, 1976, that the nonrecurring costs to move to Prince

APPENDIX I                                               APPENDIX I

George's Center would be $2,965,000 and that the annual re-
curring costs would be $5,056,000, or $167,000 more than the
annual costs at its present locations. TI;e estimated costs,
which we did not verify, are itemized in the nollowing tables,
and additional information obtained on certain costs is sum-
marized in the following sections. The agency was revising
its estimates during the time of our fieldwork and may revise
them further as better data becomes available.
               Estimated Costs of Health Resources
                  Administration Move to Prince
              George's Center as of October 29- 1976

                                               Estimated costs
                                              recurring      Annual
Costs at Prince George's Center:
    Renovation                                 $2,359        $ -
    Physical move                                    200       -
    General Services Administration
      occupancy charges                              -        2,208
    Support services to be initiated
      (see following schedule -for details)          406      1,062
    Continued support services by
      Public Health Service                          -        1,313
    Services formerly provided by:
        Public Health Service                        -             121
        National Institutes of Health           -'                 352
             Total costs at Prince
               George's Center                a/2,965         5,056
Less: Cost at present locations:
    General Services Administration
      occupancy charges                                       1,939
    Support services provided by:
        Public Health Service                     -           2,012
        National Institutes of Health             -             702
    Other                                         -                236
             Total costs at present
               locations                          -           4,889
Net relocation costs                          $2,65          $-167
a/Potential employee relocation cost is not included.

APPENDIX I                                              APPENDIX I

       Estimated Costs of Support Services for Health
         Resources Administration at Prince Georqe'r
               Center as of October 29, 1976

                                       Estimated costs
    Service and explanation         Nonrecurring    Annual
Employee health care                   $ 10              $      60
Employee services                        28                     -
Finance and accounting service            5                    114
Data processing equipment                10                     77
    Personnel                            -                      99
    Equipment (press, sorter, drill,
       L-amera, etc.)                    59                     -
    Supplies                             -                          3
    Personnel                            -                      71
    Startup                             170                     -
    Equipment, services, supplies,
      and books                          -                      45
Education and training                   18                     15
    Personnel                                                 255
    Shipping/receiving equipment         30                    -
    Security guards/equipment            -                    190
    Shuttle service                      -                     72
    Other                                    5                 17
Central conference rooms:
    Furniture                            46
    Equipment                            14                     -
Day care                                 11                     25
Telecommunications                                           .- 19
        Total                          $406             $1,062
Renovation costs--$2,359,000
     Because of a lack of manpower and pressing time con-
straints, the Health Resources Administration requested
the General Services Administration to contract with a cuali-
fied interior design firm to plan the space layout and esti-
mate the renovation cost for Prince George's Cenrer as quickly
as possible. The renovation costs include $88,C00 for the con-
tract awarded to Urban Pathfinders, 'nc., in August 1976 for

APPENDIX I                                        APPENDIX I

space planning and design.  The Health Resources Admin-
istrator informed the Assistant Secretary for Health that
the contract was awarded because the space was not in suit-
able condition to house his agency.  The agency and the con-
tractor agreed that the 'open space" concept--open areas
occupied by employees and supervisors--was really the only
way to adequately use the space available at the Center.
The concept will require removing interior walls and fixtures
and installing new walls, carpeting, and acoustical screens.

     Senior agency officials insisted that, if the agency
moved to the Center, an adequate open space concept renova-
tion was absolutely necessary. The emplnoyes now have sepa-
rate offices in the Parklawn building. The officials believed
that the lack of adequate space would have an adverse impact
on employee efficiency and morale. A senior official said
that although the agency was convinced that an open space ar-
rangement was the most efficient way to use the Prince George's
space, management also recognized that the open space conver-
sion must be carefully planned a.id executed to achieve its ad-

     A General Services Administration guide for space plan-
ning and layout says that large open areas permit flexibility
and effective use of space, enable better flow of work, sim-
plify supervision, and eliminate partition costs. Health Re-
sources Administration officials said open space arrangements
also reduce energy consumption. The contractor estimated
total renovation costs to be $2,359,000. According to Health
Resources Administration officials, actual renovation costs
could vary considerably from the contractor's estimate after
they review the design proposal with the General Services Ad-
ministration and determine the renovation funds available.

General Services Administration
charges--$2,20 ,O00

     The $2,208,000 is the charge estimated by the Health
Resources Administration for occupancy of the 300,000 square
feet of space in Prince George's Center at $7.36 a square
foot. This amount could change after the General Services
Administration reviews the Health Resources Administration's
use of the space because different uses (office, storage,
etc.) are priced at different rates. A charge of $2,208,000
would represent an increase of $269,000 over the $1,939,000
that the agency estimated as its share of General Services
Administration charges for space and services at Parklawn.
(The agency is not charged for its space in the two National
Institutes of Health sites in Bethesda.)

APPENDIX I                                         APPENDIX I

Support services
     The Health Resources Administration established 16
study groups of managers and employees to plan the move.
The groups estimated nonrecurring costs of $406,000 and
annual costs of $1,062,000 for support services at Prince
George's Center. Many services, such as printing, library,
logistics, conference rooms, and health care unit, are
handled centrally at Parklawn and the agency is billed for
its share of the services. When the agency moves, it will
have to assume responsibility for many of these services.
     The study groups determined that 45 more full-time per-
manent positions will be required to provide administrative
services. Agency officials believe that personnel ceilings
will not be increased and, consequently, that present person-
nel will have to perform the additional support functions.
As of September 1976, the officials have been able to iden-
tify 14 filled positions which could be reassigned to help
meet this need. Therefore, 31 additional people will have
to be reassigned to handle these administrative functions if
no spaces are reallocated from other Public Health Service
Continued support services by
Public Health Service--$,313,000
      The Health Resources Administration will continue to be
assessed $1,313,000 for services provided by the Public
Health Service at the Parklawn building. These services con-
sist of fiscal ($672,000), printing ($196,000), procurement
($136,000), computer ($130,000,, and other services ($179,000).
Among the services that will he discontinued by the Public
Health Service after the agency's move to Prince George's Cen-
ter are guard and other building services, communications, and
Potential employee relocation cost
     An employee whose commuting distance to a new work site
is increased by more than 10 miles is eligible, with agency
approval, for a change of residence allowance of up to $7,500.
The Health Resources Administration was accepting applications
from eligible ,mployees. Agency officials believed that the
potential relocatior cost would be small because they felt
that relatively few employees would move their residence
closer to Prince George's Center. However, the agency's total
moving cost will increase to the extent of the relocation al-
lowances that may be paid.

 APPENDIX I                                         APPENDIX I

      Health Resources Administration officials said that as
of October 6, 1976, funds needed to renovate Prince George's
Center had not been identified. The agency's review of its
fiscal year 1977 program management funds indicated that
only about $200,000 for the physical move will be avail-
able from that source. According to the officials, discus-
sions were going on within the Public Health Service and at
the Assistant Secretary for Health level to identify the
necessary renovation funds. The officials believed that the
move obviously benefited many Public Health Service components
(through the opportunity to occupy the vacated space)
therefore, the agency should look to those components and,
                                                       to help
it fund the Center's renovation.
     A senior official said the problem in funding the reno-
vation was caused Ly Office of Management and Budget reduc-
tions in the agency's program management funding request.
When the decision to relocate was made in December 1975,
agency management expected that sufficient funds would be
available ii4 the fi- .;i year 1977 program management appro-
priation to finance the move. However, budget reductions
made it impossible to take the required $2 million from that

     A comparison of the employees' concerns
tion contained in an April 15, 1976, letter toabout the reloca-
                                                the Secretary
of HEW and the HEW reply to Congressman Gude on May 6, 1976,
indicates practically no discrepancies on factual matters.
However, the employees and HEW management have fundamentally
different judgments about the need for the move and the ale-
auacy of related studies. Consequently, we could consider few
of the apparent conflicts in the limited time available.
     In essence, the employees complained
whether the move should take place was not that the issue of
                                            examined. HEW re-
plied that the proposed move was justifiable, that the
did study the ramifications of the relocation, and that agency
decision was not made hastily without due consideration of
employee concerns.
     The employees felt that making the decision without an
estimate of the overall relocation costs constituted a manage-
ment failure. HEW replied that (1) a cost-effectiveness analy-
sis was not required and (2) an estimate of any annual savings
                                                    APPENDIX I

resulting from the move and consolidation could
at that time.                                   not be made

     We agree with agency officials-that consolidating
components having the same function is generally         agency
and theoretically beneficial. The Health Resourcesdesirable
tration believes that its consolidation will increaseAdminis-
effectiveness and managerial efficiency. Because        program
dicted benefits are intangible, we cannot determinesuch pre-
they will outweigh the cost and any inconvenience    whether
incurred from the move.                            that  may be

     We believe that moves of the magnitude planned by
Health Resources Administration and other Public         the
ice components warrant a preliminary cost-effectiveness Serv-
Such a study would have enabled the decisionmaker         study.
the alternatives and the costs he is willing to payto assess
                                                      for the
benefits he expects. Since we cannot predict how
HEW would need to make a cost-effectiveness study  much  time
results would show in terms of cost or effects on  or  what  the
cies' programs, we do not know whether such a studythe  agen-
beneficial at this time.                              would be

                                                           APPENDIX II


                    AS OF OCTOBER 21, 1976_(note a)

                                      Crystal               of Health
                         Prince         City                  campus
                        George's      National    Parklawn and Federal
                         Center,       Center,    building, building,
                       Hyattsville    Arlington   Rockville  Bethesda
Naval Ship
  Center                  (1,800)       1,800
Public Health
     Health Resour-
       ces Adminis-
        tration          b/1,725                   (1,217)
    Alcohol, Drug                                                (508)
       Abuse, and
       Mentai Health
       Administration                                346
    Center for Disease
       Control, National
       Institute for
       Safety and Health                             227
    Food and Drug Ad-
       ministration                                  405
    Health Services
       Administration                                130
    National Institutes
       of Health

a/Figures in parentheses indicate occupancy before
b/The Health Resources Administration expects to
                                                 hire 84 em-
  ployees at Prince George's Center.

APPENDIX III                                                 APPENDIX III

                                22 June 1976

       The Honorable Elmer ~. Staats
       Comptroller General of the United States
       General Accounting Otffice Building
       4Jl a Street
       washington, D. C. 20548
       Dear Mr. Staats:
            The General Services Adtinistration is presenrly
       working with the Department of Health, Education   0iW l-
       fare, and the Department rof the Navy to initaite office
       relocations which will imptct approximuately    00 tederal
       employees in tne National Capital region.      is
       understanding that the primary relocations are as my
                  1. The Naval Ship Engineering Center (1500
                 people) would be moved from Prince  George's Plaza
                 and relocated in Crystal City, Virginia;
                 2. The vacated space at Prince George's Plaza would
                 then be tilled by some 1800 Health Fesources
                 Administration employees (300 from the
                 in Bethesda and 1500 from the Parklawn NIH  campus
                 in Rockville)'
                  3. Approximatel7 1000 HEW, Food and Drug
                 Administration employees would be moved from
                 Washington to the NIH campus.
            Although the various federal agencies
      responded in varying degrees to the concernsinvolved
      the advisability of these moves, serious questions as to
      remain with r.spect to the economies, the programmatic
      beneftits and the sufficiency of planning which went into
      the moves.
           Aooordingly, I hereby request that
      Accounting Offtie conduct a comprehensivethestudy
                                                        of these
      proposed moves to:
                1. determine the cost-effectiveness of the
                proposals - both individually and in relation to
                one another;
                2. negative and positive programmatic factors of
                the proposals - both individually and in relation
                to one another;

APPENDIX III                                                   APPENDIX III

                    3.  the adequacy of short and long-range agency
                    planning inciuded in the decision-making process
                    by each of the responsible agencies.
             Such a study 3hould,   of course, be completed at the
       earli*e,  possible date.
               Thanking you for your assistance an   with best wishes,
       I a
                                 Sincerely yours,



APPENDIX IV                                                                                APPENDIX IV

    -W- _'    DC- NO                                                                   I         vIo
                                                                                                 D _t-M
    wa6Jl. Iigc.v                                                                      MeudM5

       ;       -              C-trs of                'tbtnb                                ,
        ,              -wo                                                                       a sam
        em' ewI~ru~u                     ~lU of A
                                      WUU~~~lc       EtpDEulawba                             -mu
                                              mfktM LC20515
                                         HENRY A. WAXMAN
                                        241    DIsCMr. CGAUPOIIA

                                              JIne 25, 1975

     Mr. Elmer D. Stoata
     Coptroller Gen·ral of the United States
     Geneoral Accounting Office
     441 G Street
     Washington, D.C. 20548
     Dear Mr. Staats:
            It has come to my attention that the Health Resources Administration of
     the Public Health Service, DREW has received the approvals necessary to oove
     its operations and approxmately 1,800 employees from the Parklawn Building
     in Bockville, Maryland, and Building 31 on the National InstiLutes of Health
     crampus and two smeller facilities in Lathesda, Maryland to Federal Center
     Building No. 2, Prlince eorges Center, Hyatteville, Maryland. It is y under-
      tand1ng   that the large majority of all Washington-area ERA employees re
     curreutly quartered at the ?rklan facility. The remainder are now vithin
     easy reach of th headquarters facility. The apparent objective of the impending
     mowe is to locate all HRA progroms and personnel at a single site. There are,
     hmnwver, · umber of considerations which call into question the advisability
     and desirability of this uove.

             The relocation of the Public Health Service to the Parklawn Buildinz in
     the late 1960's was approved because it offered the opportunity to consolidate
     the activities o£ the Public Health Service which, at the time, were widely
     dispersed over the Washington metropolitan area. This objective and its
     attndat benefits, expressd in torms of improved performance and managerial
       f fer.iancy were accepted as justification for the disruption and dislocatiou
      ura large-scale ovs inevitably inflict upon organizations and their personnel.
     l; is my underesatding that at that time uasurances were given that no further
     larse-scale relocations would be necessary. Apparently these coamitaents are
     no loner considered binding.

            The move of the Health Resources Administration to a location other than
      that which houses the major components of the Public Health S rvice is a matter
      of particular coacern. Because )f the nature of the substantive program and
      responsibilities of ths Bureaus and Centers which comprise the Health Resources
      Administration, daily meetings nd consultations boetween the staffs of the
      affected Bureaus and Centers and other PHS agencies are routine occurrences,
      essential to the proper and coordinated performance of their duties. The
       ispending relocation will disrupt and complicate existing channels of comsunica-
       tion by requiring Bureau and Center personnel to allocate significant portions


                                                                             APPENDIX IV

  of the working day to commuting between facilities.
                                                        The material benefits
  accruing from centralization and attendant coordination
                                                            ascribed to the relo-
  cation of the late 1960's viii be severely diminished,
                                                          if not entirely lost.
         The intended relocation of the Health Resources
                                                            Administration will be a
   costly undertaking in other respects as well. At
   reJle heavily upon a variety of shared services      its  current location, HRA
                                                      adequately provided within
   tho Parklawn Building and the National Institutes
   require IRA to recreate these services and provide.of Health. Relocation will
                                                         them on an '.~dependant basis.
   Most notable aamoL these are data processeeing and
                                                      library serv ce.     In the
   case of the former, a new computer facility will be
   Georgee County facility. As you lwll know, developing, required ut the Prince
   taining such an installation will irvolve a significant equipping and main-
                                                               expenditure of funds.
        With respect to library services, it is
   and Centers which make up the Health ResourcesmyAdministration
                                                     understanding that the Bureaus
  upon the resources of the National Library of Medicine             depend heavily
  the Parkleawn Building. Neither collection can be           and the PHS Libiary in
  of the planned relocation, neither would be readilyduplicated and, as a reeult
  uumber of HRA personnel who rely heavily upon these accessible to the lrsge
  that th, attempted creation of a new library will       facilities. It is obvious
                                                       be costly and the product
  inevitably inadequate.
       In addition to the foregoing, other essential services
 security, and procurement, heretofore available                   such as transportation,
                                                  to   RRA  on  a
 current site, would have to be established and independently shared basis at its
 Agency's new base of operations. Here again, it                    supported at the
 location would result in increased costs and the   is  clear   that  the proposed re-
 services. These added costs become increasingly unnecessary duplication of
                                                   burdensome during a time of
 shrinking budgets, especially whenone considers
 assigned to the operating components of the Health critical responsibilities
                                                       Resources Administration.
      It seemse to me that the proposed move of the Health
 would deflect scarce resources from their omet productive Resources Administration
 not aware that the financial and personnel iaplications        application. I an
 this Agency were properly or adequately explored            of  the decision to relocate
                                                   prior to uski Sg the comitment
 to move. In view of the fact that the mov* is scheduled
 next two months, I feel it is imperetive that action         to cormence within the
 whether the concerns I have expressed in this letter be taken at once to ascertain
                                                         are justified.

                                    H uber of Congress

APPENDIX V                                                                              APPENDIX V

    ILiT Muce                                                                                  _Ps"

      l                                                     a                                   Y
     TmaL &MLmrm                                   rwdin4                              To
                             &o   rNra.                                                     MAN!2. INOW
                                      lmMoufot jtuprbutabes--
     "----'sa                             Wzd       M IM_       20515

       July 19, 1976
       Honorable Elmer B. Staats
       Comptroller general of the United States
       General Accounting Office
       441 G Street, N.P.
       '!ashington, D.C. 20548
       Dear ~'r. Stiats:
       Earlier this year, I was contacted by a large number of constituents who
       work for the Health Resources Administration of the Department of Health,
       Education, and Welfare concernina the proposed move of their agency from
      the Parklawn Butlding in Pockville to space being vacated by the Navy in
      Prince rsorie's Plaza. I contacted hEW at that time concerning the wisdom
      of such a massive uprooting of pec- e and programs and, as the enclosed
      response from HEy indicates, lear.. udthat no cost-benefit study was con-
      ducted prior to a decision to move was made. The entire rationale of the
      move is that HEW "feels" that the move would be beneficial.
      Such events have, over the years, caused me a great deal of concern for it
      has hecome apparent that many of these musical chairs moves in the Washington
      area are undertaken solely on the theory that "to consolidate is better" and
      little or no reqard is given to the true needs of programs and employees nor
      is there any analysis done relative to the long-term effects of these shuffles.
      As I stated in my letter to Secretary Mathews, I can understand that chances
      In oroorams often call for changes in space needs - but I firmly believe that
      each atency should have an affirmative duty to truly test the costs and benefits
      of each of their moves before committing themselves to such moves. If it can
      he shown that the effects are positive in relation to the costs, by all means
      let the move take place.
      In light of the fact that I:E' does not 'eel that any sort of costina out should
      he done in this case, I would like to join Senator !,eall in his recent request
      to you asking that rGA undertake such a study.
      It seems that, inaddition to the "base move" of fiavy from Prince George's
      Plaza to Crystal City, I think that the entire effect should be analyzed in
      one package, for the first move will be ie precursor for others and the effects
      will rinple throughout the entire metropolitan area. The enclosed chart, which
      I compiled based on information provided by HE£!and rSA several months ago,
      visually and Quite graphically demonstrates the true scope of this move.
       )nce Navy moves from Prince Georoe's Plaza, an additional 2800 employees
      Presently workino in 1' buildings in Montgomery County will be 'reorganized"
      and 'relocated" ostensibly to allows them to function more efficiently.

                   T 4m   WTA'TIONR       PRINTD ON PAPER MAD    WrTH RtCY.,ED FIRM1

APPENDIX V                                                              APPENDIX V

      Although the results of your audit may show all of these moves to be
      very appropriate and cost-beneficial, I hope that you as one of the
      prime watchdogs of the federal treasury, will agree that this sort a'
      analysis should be done far more often than it presently isbeing done
      to insure that money is not beinr wasted because of a general theory that
      "consolidation brings efficiency".
      Thank you for your attention to this matter. Ifyou have any questions.
      or would like to review some of the materials which my staff and I have
      gathered. please feel free to contact me or Keith Schiszit of Ny staff.
      I look Corward to receivin, your raort.

      En                                1sures