GSA, Energy Department Understaffed
While the General Services Administration announced stimulus projects last week, they have no time to rest. In fact, choosing the stimulus projects may have been the easiest part of the process.
The next step is contract procurement and administration. Due to staffing vacancies at the GSA, the administration process may prove difficult :
"Meanwhile, the ranks of contracting officers who make the day-to-day contracting decisions at the GSA have been shrinking since 2005, through attrition, outsourcing and a convoluted federal hiring process that many say discourages talented people from applying."
The GSA is not the only federal agency that is currently understaffed and tasked with administering billions in stimulus funds. The Department of Energy must figure out how to administer over $38 billion in stimulus funds and the DOE Office of the Inspector is being upfront about the difficulties the agency is facing:
"The infusion of these funds and the corresponding increase in effort required to ensure that they are properly controlled and disbursed in a timely manner will, without doubt, strain existing resources."
In reading the DOE Inspector General's Report, it seems almost inevitable that some fraud will occur: "As the Recovery Act implementation proceeds, all parties should recognize that the potential risk of fraud increases dramatically when large blocks of funds are quickly disbursed."
How can these understaffed agencies avoid fraud?
Understaffed and under funded agencies pose a big risk to the recovery of our economy and in preserving the hard work that individuals such as yourself have performed in promoting green building. When an agency is charged with important regulatory oversight we as taxpayers and voters need to make sure they have the resources to perform their jobs. While I will not advocate for an over expansion of the government it is important to make sure that Billions of dollars of taxpayer money is being put to good use.
I think there is an interesting correlation between the potential funding problems I mentioned with the Waxman-Markey legislation and the dangers it poses to an EPA which is stretched too thin. How do we ensure that money designated to GSA projects is being used for green projects, the government is notorious for cost overruns (look no further than the visitor center of the Capitol building).
I think you make a good point, Chris, and you too, Rich. Our regulatory mechanisms, too, need to be robust enough to be of lasting benefit (my definition of "sustainable"), and the GSA problems discussed above sound to me like symptoms that not all is well.
On the same subject, I am also concerned that, given the growth of LEED certification in general and the growth of incentives that are or will be linked to LEED certification, we could face the same problem with USGBC resources -- or perhaps we do already. This was brought to mind by something that Eric Corey Freed mentioned about LEED certification in Chris's recent post:
The creation and growth of the LEED certification process is a great story, having started with 10 folks who sat in a room in 1993 and began the USGBC. In order to ensure its lasting value, however, we need to bring our attention and energy to the task of getting USGBC the resources it needs to do the hard work of certification.
Chris,
My sense is that a lot of GSA's work will be procured through either what is known as the "GSA Schedule" or with "Job Order Contracts." In fact, I know that GSA is procuring using the schedule because they started announcing some of them on fedbizopps (Thank You Obama?). They typically don't announce when they make purchases that way.
Procurement is sometimes a long and cumbersome process. I think the procurement officers have a tough job (trying to get the best bang for the governments buck.) I've met and talked to a lot of government procurement people that seem to genuinely care and have their agencies best interest in mind. So its always a shame to see people like that lose their jobs.