In defense of the GSA

I am a Department of Defense retiree of 31 years of Federal Service or, if you will, Civil Service plus active military service to the country. First of all, let me say that I was not in an administrative position and that I served in truly service organizations (Army Depots and technical service activities) but that I still had some contact with GSA as regards contracts.

One of my duties at various times was writing contracts with civilian companies and many of them were organizations that had a history/tradition of doing work for the U.S. Government. Most of those contracts were for large purchases of radio-TV broadcasting equipment serving the American Forces Radio and Television Service (AFRTS), for installing such equipment and, in some cases, for updating previously-installed station equipment. This was for stations around the world mostly served via satellite. They were not meant only for stateside bases. These broadcasting stations, by the way, were to support the morale of our military personnel, keeping them in touch with American everyday ways of living, for the most part, but in cases of dire emergency, the stations allowed local base commanders to give warning and advice messages to military serving under them. For example, they could be used in cases of pending natural disasters and for general readiness for action. The Army Depot where I worked also supported Central Telephone Offices on bases around the world. Those Central Offices required continual updating with more modern equipment. While we won wars with much of the old equipment, new equipment is always coming out that vastly improves communication plus, in a military view, the equipment had to be constantly updated to make sure they were “secure” lest sensitive information/communication should be compromised. Contracts for the equipment and the installation work to be done had to be put together in formal contracts and I was somehow designated to be the one who wrote the contracts.

---

I also wrote contracts for installing English Language Laboratories around the world through American embassies. I ordered up the equipment and had it shipped to the installation site. I also went as one of the team leaders to install the equipment and verify that they were fully operational. This equipment had to be procured, delivered and on-site when the installation teams arrived for the installations. I also wrote follow-up contracts for operation and maintenance training on equipment previously installed. This was on both language lab equipment and on broadcast equipment. While I was a leader of only one team, there were others sent to do installations but I was still the one that wrote the contracts for purchasing the equipment for all the teams and for the subsequent training. The language labs, by the way, were to teach foreign military American English so our military leaders could communicate with them. As an aside, what I noticed was that many of those trained in American English were often made teachers themselves and came here for more-advanced training. Most significant, however, is that many of those teachers eventually became leaders in areas of the government of those countries and the benefit to America is that they were familiar with American thinking and traditions and were, therefore, key to better understanding and communication between our country and theirs. To return to the subject at hand, there is a connection with the foregoing and with the GSA. On several occasions, teams from the GSA went to the Army Depot where my work was performed. They usually consisted of teams of perhaps four to six people and they stayed for at least one week, sometimes two. The days were filled with information about how to write contracts properly complete with what should and should not be done. We were impressed with the importance of writing the contracts with no loose ends, no loopholes. There was a format, in most cases, that could be followed that made the work somewhat easier. The contracts came complete with clauses and sub-clauses but most of the time they were “boilerplate” in that they followed a traditional format. Still, though, every situation was unique in some way and required special provisions that had to be addressed. Without those training teams, I have no doubt that many mistakes could and would have been made. The teams were highly professional and were composed of Academic types, usually with a background in teaching, and they did not find any class falling asleep. Not because they were stern and strict but because they impressed on us that what we were doing by writing contracts was very important. We came to understand that the information was not only important, it was also necessary. I have no doubt that it saved me from simple mistakes that would have been made because of honest ignorance. Like the editor of a publishing house that corrects a writer’s book, the end product came out much better and made the writer look much better to the eventual reader. Therefore, because of the instruction of the GSA teams, my “product” came out much better than I could have contrived on my own. The last contracting class was performed over the Internet or, if you will, by satellite. It was an interactive class where the teacher was seen on monitors and students could ask questions. At the end of the course, we were always given a comprehensive exam that usually lasted the entire day and it was not a sweat-free day regardless of the air conditioning in the room. With this, I contend that the GSA should not be treated as one would by throwing out the baby with the dirty water. The Administration is not merely composed of leaders and a representative favored few. In Government, there are usually some that are almost on a magic travel list that seem to travel at almost every opportunity. What these few bring back from those jaunts is usually marginal or non-pertinent information, at best. This “favored few” travel list is, in my opinion, a practice that needs to be rooted out of Government at all locations and not just in the GSA. I remember that I went to the National Association of Broadcasters convention (NAB) in Las Vegas several times. This was necessary because broadcasting equipment and designs were being updated constantly and we had to know what was available. For example, Digital TV was at one of the conventions as a new thing yet to be fully developed. At the first convention where Digital TV was shown, most broadcast engineers and technical people thought it would never materialize since it meant replacing a lot of existing broadcast station equipment and this involved a vast amount of money. However, a decade or so later, we have seen Digital TV appear in most homes, especially those that are not on cable. The advantages we know now are huge. This was not generally realized by those at the NAB in those early days. People who had only one or two channels before, and even those stations came in poorly, are the ones who gain by Digital TV. Now they can get a dozen channels at double and triple the distance. And the picture, the most crucial element in TV, is typically as clear as a local station. I’m sure that those trips the GSA people took, the ones we see on the news channels, were an embarrassment to a high percentage of good government employees. For me, it would be like finding that one in my organization was a pedophile. It probably makes many people in government a self-conscience, to varying degree. They no doubt are aware of public opinion and scrutiny. Their obviously now must do their prescribed duty with honor and call no attention to themselves by inappropriate or mindless/unwise activity. An old axiom that came to me by my father should be what they need to follow: Never do anything that you cannot brag about. Let’s hope that the Government realizes that the need now is to correct the situation in the GSA and not merely hang a few out to dry for public show. The GSA needs to be addressed as a whole since if those on those videos are truly the leaders, what influence did they have on coworkers and did this low sense of honor migrate to them? The Inspector General’s office may be required to do an honest investigation and suggest required corrections and training so the GSA is not only good but better than before. The premise of GSA’s role in government is a good one and, in some specific cases, a necessary one. They not only teach contract writing but also scrutinize work done to make sure it conforms to the contract/s. Some of the same corrections sought for the GSA can be made with the Secret Service regarding the hallway discussions that took place in that hotel in Columbia. However, that’s another subject. What needs to be kept in mind, as with the GSA, is that the people involved in both organizations were a very small percentage compared to the numbers of people in the entire organizations. Again, we need to focus on those who need and deserve the attention and keep in mind that the vast majority is not in such a questionable category. Our government is huge in comparison with governments of most other countries. We have specialty offices and single-purpose functionaries while in most other governments, individual people more often serve a multitude of functions. There are even offices in government whose sole duty is to examine and eliminate redundant operations and they actually suggest combining functions. On occasion, these “work efficiency” offices are factors in reductions in force.