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 admainisration. 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 speef Il epmf by the Office of Cengremlenal Reletioa 7. ;: .: : "<o~. OF THE -REPORT COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED S TA ITES nRle:r 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 measured. LCD-77-309 JAAl1. 27, 1 977 COMwrrOLLER GENERAL OF THE UNLED TAT WA*ISAMM1O . DC. UMNIS B-164031(2) 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 available. B-164031(2) 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 2 APPENDIX I APPENDIX I PROPOSED MOVES OF CERTAIN AGENCIES IN THE NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION 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). 1 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.) REQUIREMENTS FOR A COST- EFFECTIVENESS STUDY 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. 2 APPENDIX I APPENDT': I General Services Administration regulations planning and assignment require consideration on S :e of -- 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 housing, -- 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 plan 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 3 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, 1976.) 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. COSTS OF HEALTH RESOURCES ADMINISTRATIO MOVE The Health Resources Administration estimated at Octo- ber 29, 1976, that the nonrecurring costs to move to Prince 4 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 (thousands) 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. 5 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 (thousands) Employee health care $ 10 $ 60 Employee services 28 - Finance and accounting service 5 114 Data processing equipment 10 77 Printing: Personnel - 99 Equipment (press, sorter, drill, L-amera, etc.) 59 - Supplies - 3 Library: Personnel - 71 Startup 170 - Equipment, services, supplies, and books - 45 Education and training 18 15 Logistics: 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 6 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- vantages. 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.) 7 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 $1,062,000 for support services at Prince George's Center. Many services, such as printing, library, logistics, conference rooms, and health care unit, are handled centrally at Parklawn and the agency is billed for its share of the services. When the agency moves, it will have to assume responsibility for many of these services. The study groups determined that 45 more full-time per- manent positions will be required to provide administrative services. Agency officials believe that personnel ceilings will not be increased and, consequently, that present person- nel will have to perform the additional support functions. As of September 1976, the officials have been able to iden- tify 14 filled positions which could be reassigned to help meet this need. Therefore, 31 additional people will have to be reassigned to handle these administrative functions if no spaces are reallocated from other Public Health Service components. Continued support services by Public Health Service--$,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 mail. 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. 8 APPENDIX I APPENDIX I SOURCE OF FUNDING 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 appropriation. COMPARISON OF EM"LOYEE CONCERNS WITH HEW REPLIES 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 the 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 APPENDIX I resulting from the move and consolidation could at that time. not be made GAO OPINIONS ON THE MOVE 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 Health 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 10 APPENDIX II APPENDIX II CHANGE IN OCCUPANCY BEFORE AND AFTER MOVES AS OF OCTOBER 21, 1976_(note a) National Institutes Crystal of Health Prince City campus George's National Parklawn and Federal Center, Center, building, building, Hyattsville Arlington Rockville Bethesda Naval Ship Engineering Center (1,800) 1,800 Public Health Service: 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 Occupational Safety and Health 227 Food and Drug Ad- ministration 405 Health Services Administration 130 National Institutes of Health 620 a/Figures in parentheses indicate occupancy before moves. b/The Health Resources Administration expects to hire 84 em- ployees at Prince George's Center. 11 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 , follows: 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 Building 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 raised have 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 General 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; 12 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, / JGB/dsr 13 APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV -W- _' DC- NO I vIo D _t-M Mmmucta wa6Jl. Iigc.v MeudM5 ; - C-trs of 'tbtnb , At inu.mm , -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 THIS STATIONERY PRINTED ON PArPR NADE WrIH ECYCL.EO FlBIS 14 APPENDIX IV 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 the 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. Sincerely, H uber of Congress HAWl:bk15 15 APPENDIX V APPENDIX V ILiT Muce _Ps" ma9LfHAWK. l a Y TmaL &MLmrm rwdin4 To &o rNra. MAN!2. INOW lmMoufot jtuprbutabes-- "----'sa Wzd M IM_ 20515 Z"-- 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 16 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 17
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)