Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

Mr. DIMARIO. I think we are asking for the difference between $17.5 million in sunk costs and the $25.6 million that we have in our Y2K program. That is our total Y2K effort.

The $19.6 million is money we have expended through fiscal year 1998.

Mr. MANSKER. Senator, approximately $25.6 million is the totality of our cost for Y2K. We estimate that about $6 million of that is in-house labor costs; $19 million of it would be the rest of it. Mr. DIMARIO. That's correct. I am misstating it.

Mr. MANSKER. Now, about $8 million of what we are asking for comes from that $19 million, for expenses that we would not otherwise have expended had it not been for the Y2K problem.

We would not have had to change a lot of the computers and were not planning to do all of that without the Y2K problem coming along.

So what we are asking for in this budget, in the appropriations process, the $8 million, is not only reimbursement for what we have spent in that regard that we would not be planning to spend without Y2K coming along, but also for what we have to do in that regard this year as well as completing the thing.

So $8 million is what-of the $25 million total-is what we would not be planning to spend had Y2K not come along. Senator BENNETT. OK. I understand that.

I won't beat this horse any further.

Mr. DIMARIO. I apologize. I was misreading my note with respect to the amount for sunk labor costs.

Senator BENNETT. That is no problem.

I would have a much higher comfort level if GAO's assessment of where you are and your assessment of where you are were closer. So can I ask you to sit down with GAO and show them the documentation?

Mr. MANSKER. Senator, we have been doing that on a regular basis. I, as Deputy Director of the Agency, have sat in on these meetings.

I have come away very comfortable with what our conversations with GAO have been. These figures represent what I have gotten from those meetings.

Now I would love to have GAO here, right now.

Senator BENNETT. We will contact GAO and see if we can't bring these things together.

I will leave you with one last comment. I do urge you to lay out some contingency plans.

Mr. MANSKER. We have those, sir.

Senator BENNETT. OK. Lay out some contingency plans so you know what to do in case the remediation that you are expecting in fact turns out to have some problems and difficulties.

Mr. MANSKER. Last year, sir, you were very concerned and I am sure you still are about the Congress getting its products.

Senator BENNETT. That's right.

Mr. MANSKER. We have tested from both ends, from the Senate over to GPO, and it works. We know it works. It is tested.

Mr. DIMARIO. The Senate contractor from the Sergeant at Arms Office, Mitreteck, came over to GPO. They validated. We have

transmitted back and forth. I believe that information was conveyed to staff.

Senator BENNETT. That is reassuring. Let's make sure.

Mr. DIMARIO. We are doing the same thing with the Federal Register.

Mr. MANSKER. Yes.

Mr. DIMARIO. We are completely compliant with the Federal Register and with the Executive Branch. We are attempting right now to do the same thing with the House. On the House side, I believe because of the GÃO briefings on the House side, again, I think a briefing at which your staff may have been in attendance, hearing what we were doing with the Senate, the House was asked by Appropriations staff to get together with GPO and to validate the interchange between the two of us.

Senator BENNETT. Thank you.

Senator Feinstein.

EMPLOYMENT LEVELS

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I wanted to ask you about the increase in your Full Time Equivalents, which run from about 3,383 to 3,550. Where are these FTEs going to be utilized?

Mr. DIMARIO. Throughout GPO we are in the same situation that GAO explained and the Library of Congress explained. Our employment base has gotten older and older. We have been on a hiring freeze for 10 years.

When I came to GPO in 1971, we had 8,500 employees. We currently have 3,383. That is the current ceiling.

We have gotten down to where in every area of GPO-every area-we are losing skill and talent. We have approximately a third or greater of our employees in our Production Department, in the main areas, eligible for retirement. We have not brought new blood in anywhere in the agency to speak of. We have a limited program of hiring distinguished college graduates, if we can get them, out in the marketplace.

We are hurting in the computer field, the I-T area. It is just very difficult to get these professionals.

We are hurting in every single area in the office. So to delineate where they are would mean to name each of these groups.

But we need people and we need to bring them in and train them in systems. We, this year, because of the Starr report and issues facing the Congress, faced some monumental delivery issues. We performed, we thought, extremely well in the circumstances.

We delivered to the Congress, both the House and the Senate, products that they needed to carry on their work in the impeachment process, in the important activities that were going on, and that workforce has been challenged. It has been overloaded.

I just cannot tell you-I have the highest respect for my people. You cannot find people who are more dedicated, more professional, more willing to do the work. And what we have done over and over and over is just to cut the activity and not replace people. I am telling you that, in my professional judgment, we have gone too far. We need to do something and put a brake on it.

All I am asking is to put us back to the level that we were at a year ago.

Senator FEINSTEIN. So these 100-plus people go where?

Mr. DIMARIO. Some will go into the Production Department. Some will go in our Data Systems area. Some will go in our Documents area. They will go in various places throughout the organization.

It is not 100 going to one area.

Mr. MANSKER. Senator Feinstein, we could begin with a list of where certain numbers would go from time to time. But right off the top of my head I can tell you that there are 3 needed in personnel. If you want me to outline some further, I could.

We have a backlog of job descriptions that, because of vacancies not filled, are really getting to be of concern.

In our Bindery, we have positions that need to be filled because we are not being able to get certain products out in a very timely manner. We could go on like that.

Production has asked for 10 people just recently.

Mr. DIMARIO. We have already contracted out about 75 percent to 80 percent of the work under a policy initiative. The policy initiative is to contract out as much as possible. We are doing that and we continue to look at that effort.

But there are some functions that we necessarily have to be prepared to do internally with direct hires.

We have contracted out parts of the police organization. We have contracted out portions of industrial cleaning functions. We are doing those kinds of things to cut the numbers and to try to keep just the professional staff that we need to run the place.

But it is very, very difficult. After 35-plus years of service, I will tell you that it is the most difficult time to manage when you are facing manpower shortages over and over again.

In my 6-plus years in this job, I have attempted to do everything that the Congress has asked us to do and to do it in a timely fashion. But it reaches a point when you really have to say that there is just a point where we need to have some brake on it. At least allow us to regroup.

We have been examined over and over. I cannot tell you how many GAO and other audit functions have happened, how many times people are sent into the office, over and over and over again. That consumes manpower.

We have people who are just dedicated to doing nothing but answering questions.

Senator FEINSTEIN. I gather there is a small conflict. Let's just see if we can clear it up.

What is your current on-board level?

Mr. DIMARIO. My understanding of the current on-board is, I believe, 3,316. For on-board I would have to ask my personnel director. We have people leave every day. We have people who come on board every day.

Senator FEINSTEIN. I think it would be useful if we got that straightened out because I am told it is 100 less than your FTE ceiling.

Mr. DIMARIO. I believe it is.

Mr. MANSKER. You're talking about actually on-board as opposed to the FTE level?

Senator FEINSTEIN. Right. So, in other words, you have 100 fewer people than you could have and yet you are asking for more, 100 more?

Mr. DIMARIO. On any given day, your FTE level, you may not reach that level because you are hiring people and some people may decide to retire, some people may get injured, they may go on a sick/injured list.

Senator FEINSTEIN. So you are saying you are never up to your full budgeted force?

Mr. DIMARIO. You may be and you may exceed the FTE at a given point. For the year, you cannot exceed the FTE number.

We asked for that kind of specific language a couple of years ago, that it was an FTE count at the end of the year. If it was an FTE count on a daily basis, we would never be able to exceed it.

Mr. MANSKER. The on-board number drops considerably after the first of the year because there are a lot of retirements.

When the list comes through of separations as well as hiring, the separations right after January were very large because of retirements. That drops the on-board. But you immediately turn around and try to start filling them.

Mr. DIMARIO. We've got vacancy announcements out. We are trying to hire people to fill those jobs.

Mr. MANSKER. So that is going to go back up and the average will be much higher than the number of current on boards.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Are you saying you always function at 100 below your on-board level?

Mr. DIMARIO. No, no.

Mr. MANSKER. NO.

Mr. DIMARIO. The number varies day by day. On-board strength-you are always hiring. People leave. It's true.

That number will change on a daily basis.

Senator FEINSTEIN. I don't doubt that. But maybe the best way to pursue this is to ask you to present it in writing to us.

Mr. DIMARIO. Sure.

Senator FEINSTEIN. In this way we would have the monthly onboard levels for the past year, in writing.

Mr. DIMARIO. Sure.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Then maybe we can take a look at that with some clarity. I would appreciate that very much.

[The information follows:]

GPO monthly on-board employment, March 1998-February 1999

[blocks in formation]

1999:

GPO monthly on-board employment, March 1998-February 1999—Continued

January

February

INTEGRATED PROCESSING SYSTEM

3,330 3,316

Senator FEINSTEIN. Let me ask you one quick thing about the IPS system.

Mr. DIMARIO. Yes. Mr. Buckley can answer that.

Senator FEINSTEIN. What has been the cause of the delays?

Mr. BUCKLEY. The Integrated Processing System is to replace our order management process, the whole order management process, from taking orders, the control of the inventory, financial reporting, producing picking tickets for shipping the materials, et cetera.

It is replacing 18 old legacy systems that were not integrated previously. So it is quite a complex process.

We have received delivery from our contractor of the basic system and modifications. But there are a number of bugs in the software that we are now testing and having remediated. So the delays have been, actually, in integration of the new software that we are getting and testing it for all of the very complex functions that we do, both in terms of orders for single publications and orders for subscriptions. We operate quite a complex order fulfillment process in the sales program because we are a governmental function, and because of the variety of publications and products that we offer. Senator FEINSTEIN. When will it be fully implemented? Mr. BUCKLEY. August 1 is my goal.

We will be able to test and should have it, the critical systems, tested and operational, within a month. But then we will go through a process of training the staff before we actually implement it on August 1.

Mr. DIMARIO. When I brought Mr. Buckley on board, the one program I asked him to pay personal attention to and told him that he was required to be responsible for was IPS, to bring that system in because I believe it to be so critical to the system.

It's exactly the same thing that I did when I hired Mr. Mansker. I asked him to pay attention to and manage the Y2K program.

So those two programs have had the two highest level people, subordinate to me, responsible for those programs-short of managing them myself.

Senator FEINSTEIN. I think I got the answer, which is that you expect it to be fully operational August 1. That will go down in the record.

DELINQUENT PAYMENTS

Let me ask you about your procured printing services.

It is my understanding that some of the agencies are delinquent in paying you and that has some impact on your operations. Which agencies account for most of the delinquencies?

Mr. DIMARIO. In the past, the Department of Defense has been the agency that has been most delinquent. They always run behind.

Bob may have some more definitive information on it. But we have attempted to work with the Department of Defense. I have

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »