We understand that. That doesn't mean that this Subcommittee doesn't have an obligation to review what the government has done.
We are trying to get out of this somehow because we are among those who complain when monitoring isn't done.
I really see us caught in a real bind here, that we have to monitor the contracts.
I am determined that the Federal Government is going to reap more from the fact that it plays such an increasingly important role in the lea...
Are you suggesting that that figure in your testimony is strictly due to the broker contract? What about market conditions?
Who needs the GSA? Why shouldn't the Agency go to these broker contracts and do their own thing?
In fact, it is about the same cost, according to the IG, nobody has been able to find any value added in terms of money, have they?
I mind someone throwing it in my face that we are saving some money and not showing me the bottom line where the savings are.
I am very sympathetic to the private sector when they complain about overbureaucratization. I hate it.
Frankly, in our case it is the taxpayer.
I am for anything that saves the government money in the state we are in.
Well, what is it that the brokers did not understand? Was this not written? Was it not written out clearly enough?
Who needs GSA? I raised that question in my opening statement.
This is what we are going to expect from the agency. It ought not be what do we do today, what do we do tomorrow?
Do you mean the brokerage didn't understand that once you contract with the Federal Government, you are in a different ball game?
Would you recommend a more precise contract so that everyone is on the same page and you don't have people complaining?
At least we know that after going through all of this hullabaloo, we haven't saved the government a dime.
The most disturbing thing is that GSA has lost so much personnel, and yet it has increased realty specialists.
