276 



Substantial improvements have been made to improve our research planning and 

 organization. However, as noted in recent studies on environmental research and 

 development by the Carnegie Commission and the National Research Council, we do 

 not have a coordinated, national research program sufficient to meet the demands 

 for better data and solutions to environmental problems. To help set the stage for 

 these eff"orts, the President's fiscal year 1994 budget includes a request for 

 $50,000.00 to develop specific proposals for improving EPA laboratory operations 

 and organization. 



No. 7: Administrator Browner, this Committee last year held a hearing which 

 concluded that the EPA was essentially held captive by some of its contractors. 

 Agency officials testified that, at least when it came to its major computer oper- 

 ations, EPA could not perform the tasks itself and would have to immediately hire 

 another contractor if for any reason the initial contractor was barred or could no 

 longer provide the services. And while contractors may not be managing the 

 Agency, EPA has not done a good job of managing the contractors — this has been 

 going on since EPA was created 20 years ago. 



Q. 7: A) What are you going to do to ensure that a Department of the Environ- 

 ment is not held captive by its contractors? 



A. 7: A) As promised in my testimony, I will conduct a baseline review £uid an 

 independent assessment of the Agency's budget and staff resources. A primary pur- 

 pose of these reviews will be to ascertain the ability of the Agency to properly 

 manage its extramural resources, including contracts. If the Agency does not have 

 adequate resources to manage its contractors in a manner so that we are not held 

 captive, we will either need to obtain the resources required or limit the amount of 

 our contracted activity. 



Q. 7: B) Last year, in response to this hearing, EPA created a standing panel on 

 contract management to institute reforms. Have you reviewed these reforms and 

 do you support them? 



A. 7: B) I have reviewed the Standing Committee on Contracts Management 

 report, "Contracts Management at EPA: Managing our Mission", and support the 

 recommendations completely. The Agency has made significant progress toward im- 

 plementing many of the reforms. The impact of the reforms will take time, however, 

 to alleviate serious problems in contract management within the Agency which 

 have persisted over a number of years. 



Q. 8: It is my understanding that the EPA Inspector General is about to release 

 additional reports on contracting abuses and mismanagement by the Agency, 

 which would seem to indicate that these issues are far from resolved. What addi- 

 tional steps will you take, and report back to this Committee on, so that we can 

 get beyond contracting and back to cleaning up the environment? 



A. 8: As stated earlier, the impact of the reforms initiated last year will take time 

 to have an impact across the Agency. If any new findings by the Inspector General 

 indicate that our reform activities are or will be inadequate, I am committed to re- 

 examining the reforms and taking new directions if necessary. 



Q. 9: I should note that we will be holding hearings later this year on EPA con- 

 tracting. Will you testify before the Committee at these hearings? 



A. 9: I appreciate having had the opportunity to testify before the Committee on 

 the Agency's management of its contracts. We will continue to work together to ad- 

 dress this issue. 



Q. 10: The EPA Inspector General and others have concluded that in many cases 

 EPA has paid more for work done by contractors than if the work had been done 

 by Agency personnel. 



Q. 10: A) Do you agree that the Agency should know if the work done by con- 

 tractors will cost more than the work done by the Government before awarding 

 m^or contracts? 



A. 10: A) I agree that we should know if contract work is more expensive than 

 performance by Agency personnel before award of a major contract. Such informa- 

 tion is vital in reaching a decision to contract out. However, the Agency would still 

 need staff resources before consideration could be given to performing contracted 

 work by its own employees. 



Q. 10: B) As part of its efforts to constrain costs, would you support EPA under- 

 taking a cost/benefit analysis on major pending contracts to better understand 

 how to best spend its limited resources? 



A. 10: B) I believe such an analysis could be beneficial, but would be meaningful 

 only if the size of the Agency's staff were large enough so that serious consideration 

 could be given to performing work within the Agency that would otherwise be con- 

 tracted out. 



