Citation
A Status Report

Material Information

Title:
A Status Report
Creator:
United States. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment.
Publisher:
U.S. Congress. Office of Technology Assessment
Publication Date:
Language:
English

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Reporters and reporting ( LIV )
Genre:
federal government publication ( marcgt )
Spatial Coverage:
Washington, D.C.

Notes

General Note:
Objectives for the OTA in the statutory mandate of the Technology Assessment Act and the policy directives.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of North Texas
Holding Location:
University of North Texas
Rights Management:
This item is a work of the U.S. federal government and not subject to copyright pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §105.

Aggregation Information

IUF:
University of Florida
OTA:
Office of Technology Assessment

Downloads

This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

STATUS REPORT JULY1976

PAGE 2

CHAIRMAN'S PREFACE Having seen the staff report on the organizational effectiveness of the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), which was prepared for the consideration of the House Commission on Information and Facilities, I have asked for a report on those aspects of OTA's operations which I, as Chairman of the Technology Assessment Board, consider essential to the successful performance of the Office's mission. The information, which has been assembled by the OTA, addresses the mission of the Office, as established in the Technology Assessment Act of 1972; the development of the OTA program of assessment activities; the organization of OTA staff and other resources; the procedures implemented by OTA in the areas of cost accounting, contract management, and personnel practices; and the uses to which OTA products and services have been put. Since receiving the information prepared at my request, I have taken the opportunity to review it with care andto consider it in the light of my personal observations and experiences, both as Chairman of the Technology Assessment Board during_the 94th Congress and as Chairman of the House Committ~e on Science and Technology, which developed and has oversight for the original legislation creating OTA and which has been the recipient of several completed OTA studies. As a new institution, undertaking a unique enterprise within a dynamic and unpredictable political environment, OTA after two and a -half years remains i~ a developmental and institution-building phase. Common sense and good reason would lead one to expect this to be the case. During the formative discussions leading to the Technology Assessment Act, it was understood that five years or more would be required to fully establish this new form of policy research. Since the start of OTA operations in early 1974, the Technology Assessment Board has authorized the initiation of 49 projects out of 156 that have been requested. Work has commenced on all of the authorized projects and 22 have been completed and approved by the Board for transmission to the Congress and broad public distribution. The 22 studies completed by OTA thus far represent about 4 times the number reflected in the House Information and Facilities Commission's staff report, which was based on operations as of June 30, 1975 --more than a year ago. As indicated in Section VII of the following report, all of these 22 reports have been utilized in the legislative deliberations of the Congress. Perhaps of even greater significance, is the group of comprehensive OTA assessment projects which were initiated just over two years ago and are now nearing completion. These include several in the critical area of materials resources problems which were requested by Congressman Charles A. Mosher and myself in response to the needs of the House Science Committee, and are expressly designed to deal with problems -i-

PAGE 3

which will require major attention during the remaining years of this decade and beyond. The first group of long-termOTA assessments> which soon are to be published, deals not orily ,;,ith th~ pto.s_pect of potential materials shortages, but with such subjects as so tar energy, ocean energy resources, and key questions in the area of domestic. and international agriculture, food, and nutrition policy. believe that the information amassed in these thorough and comprehensive assessments will be of great value to public policy makers for.manr years to coraa. It should be pointed out that a great deal of information developed during the course of these longer-term assessments has already been made available to --and put to use by --the Congress, in the form of interim or derivative reports, Committee briefings, and background support of Committee staffs. In my capacity as Chairman of the Technology Assessment Board, I have received assurances from Members of the Congress that this and other work performed to date by OTA has indeed been helpful, and I have every reason to believe that the assessment work now in progress will be similarly helpful. The management procedures developed and implemented by OTA, which have made possible the credit2ble performance record achieved thus far, are simple and readily understandable, and --as the published OTA products demonstrate -they have proved to be functional. Each OTA assessment project has been undertaken under the supervision of a Progt~,~ Manager, who has direct and unimpeded access to the Office of the OTA Director. This approach has ~chieved the dual objectives of keeping the Director continuously involved in --and informed of -key aspects of assessment projects in process, while simultaneously affording the staffs of the requesting Congressional Committees with direct access to a Program Manager with sufficient responsibility to respond quickly and authoritatively to shifts in the legislative situation or changes in a Committee's needs. OTA's organizational effectiveness, despite a fragmented space situation which has resulted in the scattering Qf the OTA staff among seven separate physical locations> has been demonstrated by the Office's ability to produce reports in conformance with fluctuating Congressional schedules, while maintaining the high level of staff morale which was noted in the report prepared for the consideration of the House Commission on Information and Facilities. As Chairman of the Technology Assessment Board, I have been kept informed and advised of the personnel and selection procedures ~hat have been utilized in the development of the OTA staff and acquisition of outside support resources. I have reviewed these procedures and I am satisfied with the manner in which they have been carried out, and I believe they have been shown to be both appropriate ii

PAGE 4

and effective in enabling OTA to apply the best possible resources to its missio1r-oriented goals. I am similarly satisfied with my review of OTA's accounting and contracting procedures. In surnmation, I have concluded that th~ simple, direct and unbureaucratic app.roaches taken in the development of OTA' s organizational structure, have been appropriate and effective for. the. current stage of OTA's evolution. When measured against the objectives that have been set.for the Office in the statutory mandate of the Technology Assessment Act and in the policy directives set forward by the Technology Assess~ent Board, these procedures seem entirely suitale. {:f __....__,__ OLIN E TFJ1.GUE Chairman Technology Assessment Board iii

PAGE 5

THE OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT A STATUS REPORT JULY 1976 Prepared for the use of the Technology Assessment Board at the direction of th~ Chairman. (With Preface by OTA Board Chairman Olirf E. Teague)

PAGE 7

TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION: I. The Mission of OTA II. Program Development III. OTA's Organization IV. Accounting V. Contract Administration VI. Personnel Practices VII. Utilization of OTA' s Work Appendices: I. Section 3 of the Technology Assessment Act of 1972 II. List of Committees Being Serviced by OTA III. Role of OTA Program Manager IV. Listing of Cost Centers/Cost Distribution Reports A. Cost Codes B. Report of Cost Allocation by Employee C. Report of Employee Salary by Cost Center D. Monthly Report of Expense and Reservations by Cost Center E. Monthly Report of Expense and Reservations by Program Area F. Monthly Report of Expense and' Reservations Office Wide G. Monthly Statement of Budget Execution H. OTA Project Cost Estimate V. Contract Procedures VI. Personnel Functions and Operations PAGE 1 3 10 13 15 16 18 I-1 II-1 III-1 IV-A-1 IV-B-1 IV-C-1 IV-D-1 IV-E-1 IV-F-1 IV-G-1 IV-H-1 V-1 VI-1

PAGE 9

I. THE MISSION OF OTA The Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) is engaged in an evolving form of policy research "to provide early indications of the probable beneficial and adverse impacts of the applications of technology and to develop other coordinate information which may assist the Congress" as mandated by the Technology Assessment Act of 1972. The goal of the OTA process is to generate comprehensive and objective information for Congressional policy and decision-makers concerned with issues related to the deployment of technology. The sole purpose of OTA is to inform the political process without attempting to otherwise influence that process. The Technology Assessment Act sets forth specific requirements for the Office, which include the identification of the impacts of technological programs, the identification of alternative technological methods of implementing specific prograrrs, identification of alternative programs for achieving requisite goals, and the development of estimates and comparisons of the impacts of alternative methods and programs (See Appendix I: Sec. 3 of Act.). The legislative record, the organic act, and experience gained from work thus far under way, all indicate the need for flexibility and innovation in devising approaches to these policy research objectives. Moreover, it is essential that the governing Board of OTA have sufficient discretion to interpret the needs of the Congress, and establish priorities, for more conplete information on technological matters. OTA's institutional capabilities will continue to evolve in order to ~eet changing Congressional information needs. It would be a mistake to attempt to derive OTA's institutional role from definitions of the term technology assessment. (See Science Policy, A 1{orking Glossary, Third Edition-1976,~ where three pages are devoted to the term, "technology assessment.'') While a number of definitions of the term have been published, none of them provide sufficient latitude for meeting the Congressional needs anticipated in the OTA organic act. In general, however, there is agreement that the concept of technology assessment encompasses a thorough and balanced analysis of all significant primary, secondary, indirect and delayed consequences or impacts, present and foreseen, on society, the environment, or the economy that may occur when applications of a technology are introduced, extended, or modified. 1. Pages 83-86, "Science Policy, A Working Glossary (Third Edition-1976), prepared for the Subcornmittee on Science, Research, and Technology of the Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, March 1976."

PAGE 10

-2 -Both the evolution of OTA's assessment techniques and its sense of overall mission will require continuous examination, evaluation, rene.val, and, as appropriate, change, in order to assure responsiveness to the needs and expectations of the Congress. The institutional role of the Office of Technology Assessment is defined by Congress through the Technology Assessment Board in resolving questions of policy in implementing the intent of the Technology Assessment Act. The Technology Assessment Board defines goals, determines procedures and selects studies to be performed. The developing OTA processes have involved the integration of information from contractors, consultants, _committees, other agencies, panels, workshops and diverse groups in the private sector. These processes have been used to organize comprehensive information to reeet ongoing legislative schedules on the one hand while simultaneously carrying forward longer-range assessments requiring one or r:;ore years to complete.

PAGE 11

-3-I I. PROGRA}1 DEVELOPMENT A. Diversity in Assessment Approaches Since OTA commenced act'ual technology assessment operation in early 1974, the Congressional Board has initiated 49 assessment projects out of the 156 that have been requested by the Congress. Twenty-two of these projects have been completed and approved. Each of them has required a different management approach in terms of marshalling personnel and other resources and a different schedule and intensity of execution to meet Congressional timetables. The first assessment to be completed, on Drug Bioequivalence, illustrates one approach. The most recent, on the ERDA Plan and Program, illustrates a quite different one. ,' And an example of large-scale assessments spanning periods of two years or more is one concerning uses of the Outer Continental Shelf, which is near completion. Drug Bioequivalence. This assessment was proposed by Senator Kennedy at the May 6, 1974 meeting of the OTA Board, which approved the project. The purpose of this assessment was to provide a basis for hearings before the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare scheduled for July 1974. Thus the project had to be completed within ttm months. A project leader was recruited and a panel of nine members assembled under the Chairmanship. of Robert W. Berliner, M.D., Dean of Medicine, Yale University, with guidance.and counsel provided by Frederick C. Robbins, H.D., a member of OTA's Advisory Council. A support contract was signed with Family Health Care, Inc. to support the project leader and the panel. Working meetings of the OTA staff, the panel and the contractor were held between April 12 and June 14, 1974, on the basis of which a report was fOmpleted in early July 1974, approved by the Board and released on July 15, 1974 in time for hearings that were held before the Subcommittee on Health of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare on July 22, 1974. ERDA Plan and Program. These analyses were conducted in two installments, the first in October 1975 and the second in May 1976. This project was requested in December 1974 by the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, the House Committee on Science and Technology, and the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. In anticipation of the issuance of ERDA's Plan and Program in July 1975, the OTA Board approved the project on June 17, 1~75. The project began on July 1, 1975 and was completed within three r,1onths on September 23, 1975. In order to deal with the broad and diverse range of ERDA's activities, this project was conducted

PAGE 12

-4-by the OTA staff with 47 experts organized into 5 panels corresponding to major ERDA program categories and an overview panel, complemented by 25 consultants, 9 outside reviewing organizations, and contract arrangements with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Oklahoma, and the University of Texas at Austin. This intensive three-month study was used by the requesting conmittees for the first Congressional review of ERDA's Plan and Program. Moreover, according to ERDA management, the OTA analysis was useful in preparation of ERDA's updated plan and program (See Section VII, below). The second installment in this OTA effort was the analysis of the revised ERDA Plan and Program ("ERDA 76"). This too, was about a threemonth effort. Requested by the House Committee on Science and Technology and the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs in Janu,c1ry 1976, this follow-on analysis was approved by the OTA Board on February 17, 1976. It.was undertaken by a task force of 14 members selected from the 1975 working panels, supported by the University of Texas, consultants, and OTA staff, under the direction of the OTA's Energy Program Manager. Tli.is effort was completed in Nay 1976, approved by the Board, and forwarded to the requesting Committees for their use in extensive authorization, appropriation and oversight activities. Coastal Effects of Offshore Energy Systems. The third illustrative case is a large scale assessment which is being completed and will be presented to the Board in September 1976. This assessment was requestc. by the Senate Committee on Commerce on behalf of the Senate National Ocean Policy Study in January 1974. Work was begun in late July 1974, when the request was approved by the OTA Board. The assessment has been performec: by the OTA Oceans Program, assisted by its Oceans Advisory Panel and consultants and has involved the management by OTA of a major contractor and two subcontractors. A distinctive feature of this assessment has been the development by OTA of innovative techniques to achieve active public participation by affected and interested citizens and organizations in the coastal States involved. The first interim result of the assessment, dealing with oil and gas systems, was completed in Harch 1976, approved by the OTA Board March 16, 1976, and used by the House Select Committee on Outer Continental Shelf during mark-up of amendments to the OCS Lands Act (H.R. 6218). It was also used in conferences for the Coastal Zone Management Act (H.R. 3981). The second and third parts, one on Floating Nuclear Power Plants and the other on Deepwater Ports, have been completed in draft form. The entire assessment report will be presented to the OTA Board in September 1976 for approval and release. B. Resource Development The development of OTA's resources has been achieved accordin~ to plan. At first OTA placed heavy reliance on outside organizations to

PAGE 13

-5-perform its assessments. As it has strengthened its internal staff capability, OTA' s initial emphasis. 'on outside resouces has declined. In order to conduct the assessments approved by the Board, OTA developed a core staff in each program"area. The Advisory Council has supported this trend. OTA's professional staff is currently distributed by discipline and program category as shown in the following table:

PAGE 14

(/) CJ Q.J .,.., Skills and Experience of OTA Professional Staff "CJ () {'j r-1 H .-I(/) by Program Area as of June 1976 H 0 (l) i:::: p.., .,.., 0 ...-1 .,.., {'j Q .,.., i:: c<'.I H :>, {'j 0 p:: 0 H C/) .,.., .,.., 0 ...-1 H .--! H co 0 {'j co p.. ('j :>, ..c:: .,.., (/) 0. i:: i:: H -1( ...-1 on H i:::: U) H 0 "O 0 H ('j 1-1 "O ...-1 (!) cu r:: OJ r-1 r:: .-I OJ OJ 0 C1j OJ (1j co 0. ..c:: 0 i::-: 0 Q.J co u H r:: C1j X H l:il t:r, ::c: ..... 0 E--1 H z .) 0 ,.,.,. Number of Professionals 97 15 10 11 13 9 10 1 9 15 Permanent Staff 65 7 7 8 5 5 8 4 7 14 Detailed Staff and Fellowships 32 8 3 3 8 4 2 1 2 1 Disciplines: Chemistry 3 1 1 1 Geology 1 1 Physics 10 5 1 1 2 1 Mathematics 3 1 1 1 Engineering 14 4 3 1 3 3 Chemical Engineering 2 2 Metallurgy 1 1 0\ Medicine 4 4 Biological Sciences 4 1 1 1 1 Agriculture and Agricultural 6 5 1 Economics Behavioral Sciences 3 1 1 1 Information Services 2 2 Social Sciences 11 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 Systems Sciences 4 1 1 1 1 Economics 3 1 1 1 Science Policy 5 1 2 1 1 Law 9 l 1 1 1 3 2 Administration 5 1 1 3 Other Liberal Arts 7 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 Average Years of Experience 14.65 Yenrs of Professional Experience 1, Lf21 *T~cludes Office of the Director, Office of Adminir-t'ation, Information Services, Public Affairs and Public rticipation and Advisory Council Staff.

PAGE 15

-7-OTA PROFESSIONAL STAFF LEVEL OF FOPlIAL EDUCATION Permanent OTHERS Staff Loans Consultants Fellows TOTALS Highest Degree: Doctorate or 31 3 8 6 48 Professional: Masters: 15 3 5 2 25 Bachelors: 16 2 3 21 Other: 3 3 TOTALS 65 8 16 8 97

PAGE 16

-8-OTA has developed a capabili.ty in its long term assessments through constant comE1unication with the interested committees and has utilized work in progress before completion. For example, the performance of OTA's Oceans Assessment on Coastal Effects of Offshore Energy Systems, which now has been in progress for two years, has enabled OTA to supply the following assessment products to meet interim legislative demands. Assessment 1. 2. 3. An Analysis of the Feasibility of Separating Exploration from Development of Oil and Gas on the Outer Continental Shelf. An Analysis of the Department of Interior's Proposed Acceleration of Development of Oil and Gas on the Outer Continental Shelf. Oil Transportation by Tankers-An Analysis of Marine Pollution and Safety Measures. Use Identified alternative :-Ystet:!s of exploring for and developing offshore oil and gas resources Examined how best to assure a proper return to Government from the leasing of resources on public land. -Identified options to promote tanker safety and reduce pollution. The flexibility to utilize this type of work in progress has been unique and most effective. Since 70 percent of OTA's resources have been applied to the performance of assessments which require one or more years to complete, an informational base has been established which has given OTA the capability to quickly respond to unexpected Congressional demands. C. Assessments Undertaken OTA has performed assessments having both long term and near term impacts in response to interest expressed by 35 Committees of the Congress. As indicated in the following listing, these projects have been organized within varying timefrnmes to best meet the needs of the Congress.

PAGE 17

-9 -Short Term (1 to 6 months) *ERDA Plan and Program (103) *Environmental Protection Agency Research and Development Plan Analysis (117) *ERDA Budget Analysis (102) *Gas Curtailment (105) *Drug Bioequivalence (301) Adverse Drug Effects (303.1) Medical Records/Health Information (306.1) *Research and Development of Medical Technologies (304.1) Minerals Accessibility on Non-Federal Lands (404.1) *OCS Oil & Gas -Separation of Exploration from Development (507) *OCS Oil & Gas -Proposed Accelerated Development (507) *Tanker (502) *Automated Guideway Transit (603) *Railroad National Issues (605.3) *The Financial Viability of ConRail (605.2) *The Feasibility and Value of Broadband Communications in Rural Areas -A Preliminary Evaluation (611) *Rail Rehabilitation Approaches (605.1) Medium Term (6-12 months) Residential/CoID.l~ercial Energy Conservation (108) Coal Utilization (112), Part I Nuclear Proliferation and Safeguards (107) Agriculture Research and Development (202) Food Grading (207) Rice Blending and Options (203) Ocean Energy Technologies (506) *Automobile Collision Data (604) Coal Slurry Pipelines (6070 *Energy, The Economy, and ffass Transit (602.1) *The Financial Viability of ConRail (605.2) Long Term (greater than 12 months) Enhanced Recovery of Oil and Gas (106) Solar/Electric Energy (101) Alternatives in U.S. Food Policy (210) *Food Information System (201) Transfer Food Processing Technology to Developing Countries (205) Nutrition Surveillance and Monitoring (206) Outpatient Service (305) *Materials Information System (401) *National Stockpile (402) tlinerals Accessibility on Federal Lands (404) Resource Recovery, Recycling and Reuse (403) Conservation Through Reduced Wastage (405) *Coastal Effects of Offshore Energy Systems (501) Siting of Energy Facilities (503) Fisheries Technology (505) *Automatic Train Control in Rail Rapid Transit (601) *Community Planning for Urban Mass Transit (602) Automobile Assessment (606) *Completed

PAGE 18

-10 -III. OTA' S ORGANIZATION OTA' s organizational development derives pri1:1arily fros the process of implementing the basic function of the Office, as defined in the Technology Assessment Act. OTA has, by design, evolved to a prograTIT1atic structure organized around explicitly defined informational ne2ds of Congress. Thus, programs have been organized to conduct assessments in each of the priority subject areas of energy, food, health, materials, oceans, transportation, national R&D policies and priorities and exploratory studies. This programmatic structure affords flexible and direct organizational effectiveness needed to support OTA's evolving policyanalysis process. OTA has found that simple, direct and flexible organizational arrangements accor..modate the dynamic informational needs of the legislative process. Since each program consists of 10 or so staff I!lembers lead by a Program 'Manager, the lines of com,,'Uunication with the Office of the Director are sj_mple and direct. The prograrunatic structure is well suited to the Congressional envir0nment and the emerge~ce of the role of the Program Manager has been a key milestone in OTA's organizational
PAGE 19

11 -Elements of OTA's Programmatic Structure Technology Assessment Act of 1972 g defines purpose and activities of the Office o creates officials of the Office: Director and Deputy Director c creates the Technology Assessment Board and the TechnologyAssessment Advisory Council 0 defines authority of the Office and Powers of the Board Technology Assessment Board e fonnulates and promulgates the policies and goals of the Office o authorizes and initiates assessnent projects e approves and releases work of OTA Office of the Director o executes policies set by Board o administers operations, approves contracts and appoints staff o integrates programs o fonnulates long range plans; develops staff, program and organizational capabilities ,;> reviews personnel performance and salaries e reviews and evaluates programs Program :Manager o supervises program staff and reviews their performance o develops staff and program capabilities o manages program with quality, cost, and scheduling objectives formulates contracts and supervises contract management o maintains liaison with Congressional Committee e maintains liaison with Program Advisory Panel Project Leader o supervises project staff and consultants o manages project with quality, cost, and scheduling objectives o manages contracts u formulates and plans assessments e, organizes and conducts panels and workshops o drafts assessment reports Senior Professional Staff G supervises task personnel o manages task with quality, cost, and scheduling objectives l!I coordinates and integrates contracts and consultant task results c drafts task reports Professional Staff ,t> assists in the formulation, planning, conduct and reporting of assessment tasks

PAGE 20

l ?ublic Participation Officer ?ublic Affairs Officer Proj cct Lender. c~.Lcndcr OJ cc \l.cadcr .;;;_ _________ Information Services Program Manager Congressional Board Office of the Director Director Dep_uty __ Direc tor Personnel Opcrntions Administrative Officer --i Advisory Panel Project Leader Senior Prof0ssionnls Profess ion~1lfl Support Stnff Advisory Counc.il I Exploratory Assessment Program Program Manager Prograr.: M~r.::1zer I j n I I LI):-_g_zr..m1L!fau::lf .. C._ r __ J\d Hoc l',:rncls Con~;u!.tnnt~; Cont:rac.tor::-i \ I I l

PAGE 21

13 IV. ACCOUNTING The Technology Assessment Act of 1972 provides in Section 9 that OTA will utilize the U. S. General Accounting Office for services relating to budgeting, accoLL.~ting and financial reporting, personnel, procurement and other such services as may be appropriate. Since the first year of 0TA's existence in 1974, the Office contracted the General Accounting Office to provide the services mentioned in Section 9, except cost-distribution services wl1ich were not available. During Fiscal Year 1975, OTA established cost information and provided a level-of-obligation report. Distributed directly to projects were salaries and benefits (33,~ of total obligations) and contracts (59%), or a total of about 92% of the cost. The remaining 8% was distributed on a uniform basis to all programs with direct charges to salaries and benefits. Beginning with Fiscal Year 1976, and pending implementation of a cost-distribution system which the General Accounting Office states will be functional in October, 1976, OTA has found it necessary to develop an internal cost-distribution system, with the following characteristics: (1) Direct cost charges to projects at the lowest level practicable. (2) Charges for program development made at the program level of activity. (3) Identification of general and administrative costs by cost centers. (4) Identifies costs cormnencing with Board aooroval and terminatinz with Board approval of the completed products, including residual costs such as printing or certain late charges. Beginning with Fiscal Year 1977, OTA will utilize the General Accounting Office cost-distribution system as it becomes operational. Examples of 0TA's cost distribution reports are illustrated in Appendix IV. For Fiscal Year 1976, the costing system will provide for the following: 1. Each assessment has been designated as a cost center \~ich is used to accumulate direct cost in all cases where such direct co3ts can be identified. Each program area has a program overhead cost

PAGE 22

14 center for collecting costs related with program development and other program costs not directly associated with a specific assess~ent. Administrative costs are identified in cost centers for the Director's office, TAAC, public affairs, publications, public participation, administration, and information services, each separately. A listing of cost centers is attached as Appendix IV-A. 2. Program Managers advise the administrative office bi-weekly of the assignment of employees to cost centers. The system provides computer terminal access to employee data files which show the assign ment information and cost allocation with respect to each employee (See Appendix IV-B). The system also provides a sorted listing, by cost center of assignments and cost (See Appendix IV-C). 3. Cost data, other t"han pay related cost, is collected from each voucher, bill or purchase order, and, except for inventorytype supplies, the cost center chargeable is entered on each document. This data is entered into the terminal system periodically. 4. At the close of e.ach month the system generates reports showing the cost by object for each cost center (See Appendix IV-D), and by each program area (See Appendix IV-E), as well as an overall OTA report (See Appendix IV~F). The costs system also generates a report comparing the current costs with budgeted estimate"s. (See Appendix IV-G). 5. In addition to costs, the system provides for reporting of "reservations", which are defined to include obligations as well as future expenditures which :would occur if an executive or management action is taken (i.e., fut~re salaries and benefits to the end of the assignment). Since OTA began, .GAO has been requested to provide a cost reporting system, similar to that described above, as soon as they could develop that capability in their own accounting activity. OTA has been assured that OTA will be included in a new cost system which GAO expects to be operational in October of this year when the GAO system will preclude further need for OTA's system described above. OTA has developed and is using in connection with estimates for the transition quarter and for projecting assessment costs in connection with requests for committees, the format illustrated in Appendix IV.

PAGE 23

15 V. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION OTA follows the applicable portions of the Federal Procurenent Regulations and Armed Services Procurement Regulations and has adopted a reasonable and simplified version of these regulations for its purposes. These procedures appear in Appendix V. Assessments are under the overall supervision of the responsible Program Manager. Each assessment employs a mixture of resources that may include various combinations of in-house staff, advisory panels, consultants, seminars, workshops and contractors. For asse_ssments which require the resources of a contractor, the OTA staff, working closely with its associated advisory panel and representatives of the Congressional Committees requesting the study, develops a detailed work statement for small contracts, or a request for proposals (RFP) which includes a "statement of work" defining the task or tasks covered by the contract for larger efforts. Qualified parties are invited to submit competitive proposals, which are reviewed and evaluated by a combination of OTA staff, panel members and other qualified reviewers, who make recommendations for contract award to the Director. As the contract activity progresses, regular reports are nade to the Director by the responsible Program Manager. The program managers and project leaders work directly with t;he contractors and their personnel and closely monitor the work on a continuing and detailed nasis. Members and staffs of the interested Congressional Committees also are kept informed on a regular basis of the progress and, as appropriate, the preliminary findings of the contract. Such preliminary information assists committees in their legislative analysis and preparations for public hearings. The resources of the associated advisory panel are utilized throughout the entire project.

PAGE 24

-16-VI. PERSONNEL PRACTICES OTA's personnel practices have been developed to provide for essential services, while avoiding formalities that would be either burdensome or unjustifiable for a small organization. These practices, which are described in detail in Appendix VI, cover the following activities: I. Recruitment and Selection of Personnel. Program ~.anagers are required to submit plans for the execution of technology assessment projects, inc'iuding personnel requirements. Upon approval of such plans by the Director, candidates for the staff and consultantships are identified and recruitment begun. Senior professional staff and consultants are recruited by Program Managers and the Director. In the recruitment of secretarial, administrative and junior professional staff, Program Managers are assisted by the Personnel Officer. 2. Determiniation of Starting Salaries and Consultants' Rates. Salary levels are determined primarily by the function to be performed, the experience of the candidate, his or her current salary, and salaries paid for equivalent positions within OTA and the federal government. Consultants are paid fees commensurate with going rates, but not in excess of the daily rate of compensation for federal classified personc?.el. Nembers of advisory panels are. all compensated at the same rate, ,.;-"nich is the ma:dmum allowable, although some panel members elect to serve without compensation. 3. Processing of Appointments. Consultants and full time personnel, whose appointments have been approved by the Director, are thereafter formally processed, via an appointment and oath form, submitted with a cover explanation tothe OTA Board Chairman for approval. Fully executed Standard Forms are included for permanent or full-time equivalent staff. These forms and appointment papers become the initial documents of each employee's personnel folder. 4. Orientation. Beginning employees are briefed on OTA's charter, organization, and policies; their performance and salary review process; government health, life insurance and retirement programs; leave and work policies. They are also given a representative sample of OTA publications. Secretarial employees are given special briefings on correspondence and other office procedures. 5. Performance and Salary Reviews. The performance of new employees is reviewed at six months and salary. reviews are mad2 after one year of employment with OTA. Salary increases are based on satisfactory performance and/or increased responsibilities. Exceptional performance, in a limited number of cases, has been recognized following the six-month review in accordance with OTA performance guidelines. A Salary Review Board~ consisting of the Personnel Officer, the Administrative Officer and the Operations Officer, reviews each proposed salary increase with the responsible Program Manager and makes its recommendation in each case to the Director.

PAGE 25

-17 6. Counseling. The Personnel Officer provides counseling assistance to employees on a wide range of employee problems> including underutilization of skills, inadequate instructions for assigned tasks, desire for reassignment, clarification as to future opportunities for advancement, discontent over salary, personal problems affecting work, and other difficulties perceived by the employee. 7. Training. Plans are underway to develop a formal training program, although a number of personnel have already had an opportunity to participate in various training programs and courses. The categories of training are: computer usage, information processing, personnel management, professional conferences and symposia, and various seminars and workshops on substantive topics related to OTA's work.

PAGE 26

-18 VII. UTILIZATION OF OTA' S WORK This chapter describes the utility of OTA products and services: Program Page Oceans 19 Transportation 22 Materials 28 Energy 32 Health 34 Food 36 Nuclear Effects 38 National R & D 39

PAGE 27

-19 -Oceans An Analysis of Accelerated Leasing of OCS Oil and Gas Requested by: National Ocean Policy Study of the Senate Committee on Commerce. Use: The report was issued in March 1975 and addressed the Department of Interior's plans for substantially exploring the leasing of offshore oil and gas resources and explored the issues of petroleum resource depletion, public returns from petroleum leasing, state concerns in offshore oil development and industry capacity. The Department of Interior has significantly modified their original approach to leasing since this report was released. OTA briefed the requesting committee and staffs at the conclusion of this study and the information developed was us.ed to prepare amendments to the OCS Lands Act (S. 521). The report was also incorporated into the following study. An Analysis of Separation of Oil and Gas Exploration from Development Requested by: Senate Corrm1ittee on Commerce and the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs on January 23, 1975. Use: A report was issued in April 1975. The study examined several alternative ways to separate offshore oil and gas exploration from actual development of these resources if successful discoveries were made. At the time this request was made, several proposals, including new legislation,were made to accomplish this goal. Proposals ranged from having the government do the job t;o continuing the present method. OTA staff briefed both conmlittees on the significant findings which were developed at the conclusion of this study and the report was used by the committees as background for joint hearings held on April 8 and 9, 1975,in consideration of OCS Lands Act amendments. Senate Ernest F. Hollings, in coTILmenting on the study, at the Legislative Appropriations Hearing in 1976 said: "I can state the best work that has been done on the entire problem was by {OTA); we have had days and weeks of hearings; It wasn't until they really got into a study about how it can be broken down into per centage increments and have a bid on that basis with the government pQ.rticipating were we finally able to get the industries' attention." In addition, this study, and the findings about costs and benefits of various leasing alternatives, were used during the floor debate on July 30, 1975, on the OCS Management Act of 1975.

PAGE 28

20 -Oil Transportation by Tanker Study Requested by: Senate Committee on Commerce as part of the Coastal Effects Assessment. Use: A report was issued in July 1975. The study addressed technology alternatives related to marine pollution and safety issues for tankers principally operating in U.S. waters. The findings included possible technical and regulatory improvements that could be made. Early information developed by OTA was used as background for oversight hearings on the Ports and Waterways Safety Act conducted by the COTI1171erce Committee in January 1975. The report and the find ings assisted in development of proposed legislation such as an oil pollution liability bill and amendments to the Ports and Waterways Safety Act. OTA then testified before the Commerce Committee at hearings in March 1976 presenting findings and describing the use of the report throughout many federal, state and private agencies. At these hearings, the Chairman of the Commerce Committee stated, "I wish to thank Mr. Daddario for his effort and indicate that this report has been extremely useful in preparation for these hearings Coastal Effects Study of Offshore Oil and Gas Requested by: The Senate Committee on Cow.merce on behalf of the Senate National Ocean Policy Study. Use. An interim report was issued in March 1976. This assessment addressed a wide range of institutional, economic, environmental and social issues related to development of offshore oil and gas. The States of New Jersey and D?laware were selected as the study region in order to specifically define local and regional effects and a pilot public participation project was included with the work conducted. Technical and economic analyses conducted as part of the study were used for a briefing of the House Ad Hoc Select Committee on the OCS in June and October 1975. Other information developed was used by the Committee while considering amendments to the Coastal Zone Management Act and the OCS Lands Act. The Coastal Zone Management Act Amendments of 1976 were passed by both House and Senate in June 1976 and reflect specific OTA analyses of state and local fiscal effects of offshore development. After the release of the OTA interim report on offshore oil and gas, a letter was sent to the Secretary of Interior by Senators Case and Hollings urging that the findings relating to federal management systems be carefully considered by Interior.

PAGE 29

-21 -Coastal Effects Study of Deepwater Ports and Floating Nuclear Plants Requested by: The Senate Committee on Commerce on behalf of the Senate National Ocean Policy Study. Use: This study is the last part of the overall assessnrent described above and the final report is now in preparation. The final report addresses the effects on New Jersey and Delaware of deploying all three technologies and includes the major issues identified by the OTA analysis as well as public impacts. Since this section is undergoing final review during July and August 1976, no specific congressional use has been made. This study is intended to have a more general long tenn use to the requesting committees in structuring hearings and overseeing the imple1r.entation of previous legislation. Fisheries Technology Assessment Requested by: The House Cormnittee on :Merchant Narine and Fisheries and Senate Committee on Commerce on behalf of its SubcoIT'.l.--nittee on Oceans and Atmosphere in April 1974. Use: An interim report was issued in January 1976 principally addressing opportunities available to the New England Fisheries under a 200-mile fishing zone bill. The final report will be completed in the Fall of 1976. This study is not yet completed but some of the specific analysis was used by OTA in briefing the Senate Appropriations Corru.~ittee in connection with funds requested by the U.S. Coast Guard for enforcement of the 200-mile fisheries zone. The fisheries study has also been used in connection with regular briefings of the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Coill.J.ll.ittee. The final report will be used as an information base for both Senate and House oversight of the implementation of the Fisheries Management Act of 1976. Renewable Ocean Energy Systems Requested by: The Senate National Ocean Polj_cy Study of the Connn.ittee on Commerce in February 1976. Use: The work plan and technology status has been completed. The study is scheduled for completion in January 1977. Preliminary information is developed on eight different systems that are in various stages of development. The study was used to brief th~ staff of the National Ocean Policy Study in July, 1976. It is anticipated that this study will provide an informational base for NOPS in both oversight and appropriations.

PAGE 30

22 Transportation Automated Cuidewo.y Transit An Assessment of PRT and Other );ew Systems Requested by: Senate Committee on Appropriations, on behalf of its Transportation Subcmmnittee, September 10, 1974. Use: Mr. Daddario, Dr. Kolsrud, panel chairmen and OTA consul tants testified before the requesting Subcommittee on the substance cf the report on June 9, 1975 (1-1421).1 The Urban Hass Transportation Administration (UMTA) asked for and was granted a Hearing to respond to the report before the requesting subcommittee on July 7, 1975 (l-216lff). Major issues raised for Congressional consideration by OTA included: m the need for a better balance between basic and applied research on new automated guideway transit systems; c:i the need for better mechanisms to couple the results of R&D with actual application in urban settings; and o the need for socioeconomic research to generate data on the potential value of, and market for, fully automated transit systems. The utility of the assessment to the Congress is best seen by comparing the L~ITA budget for New Systems Technology as it moved from House to Senate to Conference. This is summarized in the table below (based on references 2-33; 3-30; and 4-13 ): Budget House Senate Estimate Allowance Allowance Outcor.1e New Systems Morgantown PRT (Thousands) (Thousands) (Thousands) (Thousands) High Performance PRT Automated Guideway Transit Feasibility Analysis (Shuttle-loop transit) Socioeconomic Research in AGT 1,500 8,500 4,000 1,500 1,500 4,500 3,000 4,000 2,000 2,000 The OTA report was available to the Senate but was not complete at the time the House deliberated on the UMTA appropriations. The ispact of the report can be seen in the actions taken by the conference to redistribute funding allocations. Funds for the High 1 See references at end of Transportation section. 3,000 500 1,000 1,000

PAGE 31

-23 -Performance PRT program were partially restored. Two new projects were added to the UNTA program. First, a feasibility analysis to look at the potential for automated guideway transit technology in an urban setting was funded (thus meeting the need for more urb::m applications of R&D). Second, a program of socioeconomic research (to provide data on the value of automated systems in urban areas) was added. The OTA report was cited in the Senate report (3-31, 32) in justification of its changes to the UMTA budget and to the House allowance. In reporting to the Senate before conference, the committee referred to the OTA report in the Congressional Record (5-S13743) as it did after conference (5-Sl9804). The latter citation commended OTA for its analysis of both automated guideway transit and its study of energy, the economy and raass transit stating that: "Both of these assessments were extremely useful resources to the Congress and both were instrumental in the development of the position adopted by the Senate Appropriations Committee and ultimately accepted by tha conference." The new UMTA programs are being continued by the Congress. For example, for FY '77, both House and Senate have recommended funds for shuttle and loop transit ($5.250 million), for advanced GRT ($2.5 million) and for automated guidway transit. For socioeconomic research, the Senate has recommended $0.4 million (6-35). Automatic Train Control in Rail Rapid Transit Requested by: Senate Committee on Appropriations, on behalf of its Transportation Subcommittee, February 15, 1974. Use: This study has just been published (July 1976) and has not yet been used by Congress. However, OTA's staff has been in touch with the requesting Committee staff concerning the possibility of hearings on this study as well as on a series of not-yet-debated issues arising from the Community Planning; Automated Guideway Transit; and Energy, the Economy and Nass Transit assessments, which are discussed below. Automobile Collision Data Requested by: House Committee on Appropriations, on behalf of its Transportation Subcommittee, November 19, 1974. Use: This study arose because the House and Senate had disagreed for three years over whether there was a need for1one of the programs proposed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (m-ITSA). This program proposed to collect data on the physical forces in automobile collisions by means of recorders installed in cars which would be retrieved after collision (similar to crash recorders in airplanes). To resolve the controversy it was suggested in conference in 1974 that OTA undertake a study of this issue.

PAGE 32

24 A major finding of the OTA study was that there was a need for better data on the relationships between physical forces in collision and actual injury but that the NHTSA program as proposed would probably be inadequate. Even more important was a critical need for a national system for collecting accident data which could pe used to evaluate existing and proposed automobile standards. The study was cited by the House and Senate in aiming at and resolving their disparate positions with regard to a crash recorder program. The importance of a national accident sampling systems was noted (2-28; 3-24). The NHTSA has also implemented certain recommendations in the report. At1 Assessr:.,~nt of Community Planning for Mass Transit Requested by: Senate Committee on Appropriations, on behalf of its Transportation Subcom.--nittee, February 15, 197lf. Use: A major subpart of this assessment was summarized in a separate report entitled Major Issues in Transit Finance which was the subject of Congressional Hearings before the requesting Coffit~ittee on April 7, 1975 (7-906; 13). The report was also used to critique the Department of Transportation's Proposed Federal Policy for Major Urban Mass Transportation Investments. Future Hearings may also draw upon this assessment's findings (see discussion under Automatic Train Control assessment). Energy, the Economy and Mass Transit Requested by: Senate Committee on Appropriations, on behalf of its Transportation Subcommittee, September 27, 1974. Use: Dr. Kolsrud of OTA, and Lowell Bridwell, Walter Arensberg and Joseph Stowers, OTA contractors, testified before the requesting co!llt~ittee on the substance of this report on June 23, 1975 (1-1929). In addition, Nr. Bridwell testified before the Senate Public Works Committee, Transportation Subcommittee, on July 18, 1975; basing some of his testimony on material developed in this assessment and the assessment of Community Planning for Mass Transit described previously (8-915). As described above under Automated Guideway Transit, OTA was corr@ended in the Congressional Record for its assistance to the Senate Appropriations CoTIL~ittee through these reports (5-Sl9804). DOT Secretary Coleman, in a letter to Representative Bud Shuster, cited the OTA assessment of Energy, the Economy and Nass Transit as follows: "I fully subscribe to the conclusions of the recent re?ort prepared for the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment that both transit incentives and auto disincentives will be required to achieve significant diversion of commuters from automobiles to public transportation" (9).

PAGE 33

-25 -Railroad (ConRail) Related Assessment(s): A Review of Alternative Approaches to Feder.:il Funding of Rail Rehabilitation; The Financial Viability of ConRail; and A Review of National Railroad Issues Requested by: Senator Richard S. Schweiker and the Senate Committee on Commerce, on behalf of its Surface Transportation Subcommittee, :March 20, 1975. Use: These assessments were used by the Congress in its deliberations leading to the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976. Citations of the OTA studies ,vere made by the Senate Committee on Commerce (10-7) and the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Cow.merce (11-81) in their reports. In addition, references to the OTA studies were made by Senator Hartke during the Senate floor debate (5-S20944 and S21045). In a letter to Nr. Daddario, OTA Director, Vance Hartke, Chairmc1.n, Surface Transportation Subcommittee, Senate Committee on Commerce, stated: ... I want to take the opportunity of congratulating the Office of Technology Assessment for the fine work undertaken at the request of this Committee and the substantial contribution that OTA has made to developing what I consider to be the most significant piece of rail transportation legislation enacted in the last half century ..... OTA's work in this field has been of great assistance to the Congress in formulating and enacting more sound policies for improved rail transportation; the work of OTA in this instance provided a very good example of the value of OTA to the Congress" (12). Broadband Co~.munications a~d Rural Development Requested by: Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. Use: A preliminary evaluation entitled "The Feasibility and Value of Broadband Communications in Rural Areas" was transmitted to the Senate Co!llt~ittee in April 1976. This evaluation, which was in the main conducted in-house by OTA staff, was intended to provide a basis upon which the Board could decide what contribution OTA might make in assisting the Senate Committee on this broad subject. In the course of the evaluation, the subject was found to be relatively unexplored, and thus the OTA staff developed an approach to uncovering the possible relationships between rural development and communications as well as to testing hypotheses about this relationship. In }fay 1976, the Senate Committee asked OTA to convene a series of expert panels to further comment and expand upon the report's findings. The Board approved this additional request and preparations are now underway to convene these in panels in late fall. The Senate connnittee also circulated the OTA report for comment to the principal Federal agencies having responsibility in these areas. In the first of the agency responses received to date, Richard E. Wiley, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, expressed agreement with the approach taken by OTA and said that he felt "that the Office of Technology Assessment has performed a valuable service by encouraging a systematic and

PAGE 34

26 -comprehensive look at rural broadband communications integrating many uses and all broadband technologies available ...

PAGE 35

-27-Reference List 1. Senate Hearings before the CoI!'.rnittee on Appropriations, Department of Transportation and Related Agencies, FY 1976, 94th Congress, First Session, Part 2, E.R. 8365. 2. House Report No. 94-331, Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 1976, June 26, 1975. 3. Senate Report No. 94-291, Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 1976, July 22, 1975. 4. Conference-House Report No. 9~-636, Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1976, November 6, 1975. S. Congressional Record, 1975 6. Senate Report No. 94~1017, Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 1977, June 30, 1976. 7. Senate Hearings before the Committee on Appropriations, Second Supplemental Appropriations, 94th Congress, First Session, R.R. 5899. 8. Senate Hearings before the Co!!'.mittee on Public Works: Future of the Highway Program;. 94th Congress, First Session, Part 2. 9. Letter of Congressman Bud Shuster from Secretary Coleman. 10. Senate report No. 94-499, Rail Services Act of 1975, November 26, 1975. 11. House report No. 94-725, Rail Revitilization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1975, Dececber 12, 1975. 12. Letter from Vance Hartke to Emilio Q. Daddario, February 24, 1976. 13. Major Issues in Transit Finance, OTA-Skidmore, Ownings and Nerrill, Systems Design Concepts, Inc., March 21, 1975.

PAGE 36

-28 }1aterials An Assessr::ent of Materials Information Systems Requested by: House Committee on Science and Technology, December 13, 1974. Use: Copies of the Interim Report were distributed to staffs of the House Committee on Science and. Technology, t1v,: House Corc"c:ittee on Banking, Currency and Housing, the Senate Corrmit tee on Commerce, e.nd the Senate Comrnittee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Also, briefings were given to all the above mentioned corr:mittee staffs. On Decer:1ber 3, 1975, Dr. John \fachtman of the OTA Haterictls staff testified at hearings held by the Senate Cor~,n,.ittt:'e on Cor-,merce on the "Nationc>.l Resources and :Materials Infomation Act:" (S. lL,10). Testimony was later given by Dr. Albert Paladino of the OTA Nateri2J.s staff at hearings held by the Sene,te Cor;:,ililittee on Interior and Insular ,.'\fairs on March 9, 1976. These hearings concerned a bill which would establish, among other things, a "national Energy Information Sys tel!!" (S. 1864). Dr. Paladino .2.ddressed the nation's current need for such an information syster,:i and presented the focus and scope of the OTA assessment on Materials Information Systems. Briefings were also presented to the National Commission on Supplies and Shortages during a special week-long conference regarding institutional alternatives for materials policy decisionmaking. Au Assessment of Alternative Economic Stockpiling Policies Requested by: House Conm1ittee on Science and Technology~ December 13, 1974. Use: While the request for this assess!.!lent originated in the House Committee on Science and Technology, it has been extensively used by the National Commission on Supplies and Shortages and the Joint Committee on Defense Production, Subcommittee on Materials Avail2.bility. In separate briefings of both staff and the Cot'.'missioners, OTA project personnel have made concerted efforts to assist the Commission in evaluating the complex n2ture 2nd impact of economic stockpiling -including coordinating with the NCSS staff their pl.2.nned briefings and workshop presentations to the forthcoming Engineering Found~tion Conference in Henniker, New Hampshire in August 1976. The conference will revolve around the subject of a "National Haterials Policy". At the same time, OTA project personnel have assisted the staff of the Joint Committee on Defense Production, Subc.or.i.mittee on 1-:aterials Availability through several detailed briefings and discussions, as

PAGE 37

-29 -well as during the planning of their recently conducted briefings on June 8-9 on the subject of the "Purposes and Organization of Economic Stockpiling". And, in fact, written testimony from OTA was requested for the record. OTA Haterials personnel have also conducted briefings for appropriate staff professionals from the Senate Committee on Coiil!!!erce, the Departr:lent of Defense :Materials Shortages Steering Committe2, the Federal Preparedness Agency, and the Department of Commerce Materials Divisioti. A,., Assessment of Resource Recovery, Recycling and Reuse Requested by: House Committee on Science and Technology, December 13, 1976, and Senate Col'!ll~ittee on Commerce, January 24, 197S. Use: Congress is currently considering the need for legislation relating to solid waste management and resource recovery from solid waste management. On June 30, 1976, the Senate passed the Solid Waste Utilization Act of 1976 (S. 2150) by a vote of 88-3. The House bill "Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976" (H.R. 14496) is scheduled for mark-up on July 20; 1976. The House Committees involved (Interstate and Foreign Cotmnerce and Science and Technology, respectively) seem prepared to bring the bill to the House floor this Session; chances of passage would appear to be good. The differences in the bills are not vast. Hence, chances of Congressional approval of legislation relating to resources froc!l solid waste look quite good. The OTA Assessment on resource recovery, recycling and reuse of materials was initiated in January, 1976. There has been considerable interaction of OTA staff with staffs of various Committee and 'Members on both the Senate and House sides. As a result of this interaction, these staff members have been able to keep abreast of facts accumulated for the OTA Assessment relating to resources and solid waste. The proposed legislation which has been produced reflects a number of OTA findings. The interaction with the Committees h.e.s been both formal and inforraal. For example, staff of the Senate Corn:nittee on Public Works requested background information on several issues relating to solid waste utilization to use in briefing Senators. OTA provided background information on: (1) Loan Guarantees, (2) Impacts of National Beverage Container Legislation, (3) Impacts of Direct Federal Subsidies, (4) Disposal Charge Impacts of the Use of Virgin Materials, (5) Resource Recovery Assistance Teams. This background information was also provided to other Committees interested in solid waste legislation including: the Senate Committee on Finance, the Senate Committee on Commerce, the House Subcommittee on Transportation and Commerce> and the House Con.~ittee on Science and Technology.

PAGE 38

30 The Senate bill includes provisions for loan guarantees and for resource recovery assistance teams. The loan guarantee provisiors were considerably expanded from previous Senate Public Works Corn,-:!ittee drafts. The assistance teans were added after OTA staff pointed out the lack of aid and expertise to state and local planners. OTA findings were that direct Federal subsidies, beverage container legislation and disposal charges were unnecessary and probably counterproductive. The Senate did not include any such provisions in S. 2150. Senator Domenici stated during the floor debate, "I am as proud of this bill's restraint as for its content.". It is perhaps significant that the OTA findings were discussed with Senator Domenici and in detail with his staff. The assistance teams were acl.ded to the bill at the Senator's suggestion. (See Congressional Record, June 30, 1976, S. 11093). Thus, the OTA Assessment played an iM.portant role in both what S. 2150 does and does not provide. For the House, OTA staff presented a briefing for Members and staff of the House Science and Technology's Subcom,'!littee on the Environs~nt and the Atmosphere. In addition OTA staff participated as panel menbers at the Congressional Symposium on Resource Conservation and Recovery sponsored by the Subcommittee on Transportation and Coi:rrreerce held on April 6 and 7, 1976. The Rouse bill (H.R. 14496) includes resource recovery assistance teams, loan guarantee provisions and information exchange provisions. All of these provisions are supportable based on facts accu.~ulated by OTA. Furthermore, direct subsidies and strong Federal intervention are not included. Again, these omissions are.supporteaby OTA findings. The staff of the Subcommittee on Transportation and Commerce had many discussions with OTA staff .~uring the time R.R. 14496 was being drafted, and so were well aware of OTA findings. In addition, staff of the Subcommittee on the Environment and the Atmosphere were kept informed of OTA findings. As a result, a number of candidates for technological development were identified and included specifically in draft legislation. One example is a directive to the Administrator of EPA to undertake research and studies concerning the compatibility of source separation systems. The Committee staffs call upon OTA for relevent information on a continuing and frequent basis.

PAGE 39

31 An Assessment of Domestic Minerals Accessibility on Federal L~nd Reauested by: Senator Stevens, OTA Board l1e0ber, Novenber 6, 1974, joined by Senate Comr:,.itee on Interior and Insular Affairs, March 12, 1976. Use: The Interim Report of this assessment was distributed to the Senate and House Committees on Interior and Insular Affairs and many individual members of those corrffrrittees, as well as other i".1terested committees and members of Congress. The report was cited during the markup of H.R. 13777, the pending Bureau of Land Nanagement Organic Act, by the House Interior Cor:;r;iittee and was used extensively by cmrmittee staff and individual Cong-::-ess men in discussions of the bill. It is also being used by the committee staff, particularly the staff of the Subcommittee on Mines and ~-lining, as a source of data on many aspects of Federal mining and land policy. The report's discussion (Chapter 9) of state and local control over Federal mining and mineral leasing served as the basis for a list of questions directed to the Secretary of the Interior by the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. It should be noted that this Interim report is being used by the Department of the Interior's Task Force on Mineral Land Withdra-,;al as one of the principal references for its department-wide revie~ of withdrawal policy and procedures. The report is also cited on page 55 of the Annual Report of the Joint Federal-State Land Use Planning Commission for Alaska, "Alaska's Land -1975", as the basis for the Commission1s metalliferous and nonfuel minerals study, currently in progress. Data in the report is also being used by state governments and private groups. For example, Chapter 9 of the report on state authority over Federal land is being used by the State of Wyoming in its suit against the Department of Interior's coal stripmining regulations.

PAGE 40

32 Analysis of the ERDA Plan and Program Requested bx_: Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House Committee on Science and Technology, and the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. Use: This report was used to provide background to the Congress for its oversight of ERDA's first year of operations and for ERDA's presentation of its FY 1977 budget to Congress. A formal presentation was made to the House Committee on Science and Technology on September 23, 1975, and to the Energy Research and Development Subcommittee of that committee on January 20, 1976. These presentations preceded ERDA's presentation of its FY 1977 budset, and the OTA testinony and report was used extensively in the Com:~ittee's questioning of the ERDA presentation. The principal impact is on the direction ERDA has taken in developing its program over its first year. According to ERDA management, the OTA analysis highlighted basic policy underlying the plan and program for Congressional attention and was instr~~ental in the revised priorities and program emphasis in ERDA's updated plan and program. Comparative Analysis of the ERDA Plan and Program Requested by: House Committee on Science and Technology. Use: This assessment report has been and is continuing to be usedby the Congress in its actions on ERDA authorization, appropriation and oversight. OTA made a presentation to the staff of the Energy, Research and Development Subcommittee, of the House Committee on Science and Technology on March 2, 1976. This was prior to the markup of the ERDA authorization bill and the material provided by OTA was used for justification of subcommittee recommendations of the solar and conservation portions of the bill. In addition, a presentationwas made to the staff of the Senate CoITLmittee on Commerce. The Conservation section of the Comparative Analysis was submitted as part of the record of hearings by this Committee onS. 3424/2932, the Energy Conservation Loan Guarantee Bill. OTA material was used as background in preparing this bill and for recommendations regarding energy conservation which were subr1Ltted by the Senate Committee on Com~erce to the Senate Cor:imittee on Interior and Insular Affairs for consideration in the latter's markup of the ERDA Authorization Bill.

PAGE 41

33 A formal presentation was made to the Subcommittee on In~rior, of the House Committee on Appropriations on March 31, 1976. The material provided a very useful and independent perspective of the areas of concern, and the subcommittee made use of it in preyaration of the Fossil Fuel and Conservation portions of the ERDA appropriation bill which are under its jurisdiction. OTA provid2d testimony on March 30, 1976 to the Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Subcommittee of the House Committee on Science and Technology at hearings on legislation creating an energy extension service. The OTA material was used to help determine the need for such a program in terms of ERDA's efforts in conservation technology dissemination. An Analysis of the Impacts of the Projected Natural Gas Curtailments for the Winter 1975-76 Requested by: House Committee on Government Operations. Use: This assessment report was used as background by Committees interested in efforts to deal with any emergencies created by a gas shortage and legislation on natural gas pricing. The report was used as background material by the Conservation, Energy, and Natural Resources Subcommittee of theHouse Committee on Government Operations for hearings they held on November 5 and 6, 1976, to investigate preparedness for potential severe natural gas shortages. The OTA materials were used in questioning the witnesses participating in the hearings. OTA also made a formal presentation to the Energy and Power Subcommittee of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce for use in the subcommittee deliberations on the need for proposed changes in price regulation of natural gas. Solar Energy Assessment Requested by: House Committee on Government Operations. Use: Although this study is not complete, a section on the evaluation of Federal research, development, and demonstration programs and related efforts in solar energy has been made available to the requesting committee and other Congressional staff and members for comment and limited use. It is expected that this assessment will provide background for Congressional Oversight and future legislative efforts.

PAGE 42

34 Health Drug Bioequivalence I~equested by: Senator Kennedy, OTA Board Member and Chairman of the Health Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, February 6, 1974. Use: Secretary of HEW Weinberger and other officials in testimony before the Subcommittee on Health stated that Federal reimbursement for Medicare drugs would be limited to the lowest price generic equivalent drug available in the community. This ne,,1 policy made a funda mental assumption that two drugs of the same basic composition but produced by different procedures would be biologically equivalent. HEW contended that the technology to assure bioequivalence exists while the phannaceutical industry said it did not. OTA was asked to resolve the issue. The report concluded that not all drugs containing the same chemicals produce the same reaction in users and that there are even differencE!S in the effects of different batches of a drug produced by the same manufacturer. The report recommended (1) organizing a system to generate an offic_.._ ..... 1 list of interchangeable drug products, (2) tightening of the Federal regulation on drug quality and standards, anJ (3) establishing a single organization to nsupersede" the private organizations controlled by health professionals which now set drug standards. The Health Subcommittee included most of the panel's recommendations into a Drug Utilization Imorovement Act (S. 3441), but did not complete action on that measure. Development of Hedical Technologies Requested by: Senate Cormaittee on Labor and Public Welfare. Use: The Committee staff has indicated that OTA's report will probably lead to new legislation requiring the National Institutes of Health to establish an organizational mechanism and to carry out technology assessments on new technologies being developed with Federal funds. Preliminary hearings have been held, during which this subject was discussed. Further hearings are being planned this surr.iller for the purpose of developing legislation.

PAGE 43

35 Medical Record Systems Requested by: Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. Use: Both the majority and minority staff of the Senate Co::imittee on Labor and Public Welfare have informed OTA of their desire for new legislation concerning autorEatecl medical record systems and of their belief that the OTA study on that subject will lead directly to legislation. Although this study is now in progress and no final preliminary results have yet been transmitted to the Committee in writing, Coirmittee staff have indicated that the OTA study is developing the kinds of information needed to assist in drafting legislation. Adverse Drug Effects Requested by: House Committee on Ways and Means. Use: During the entire course of the OTA study on Adverse Drug Effects, OTA has maintained close communication with the House Conmtittee on Ways and Neans. That Committee is strongly interested in developing 1t~gislative amenck,ents to the Medicare legislation as well as sections in national health insurance legislation related to reimbursement for prescription drugs. The Committee needs information on a broad range of alternatives in order to decide the most appropriate legislative course of action to provide incentives which would lead to utilization of drugs in the safest, most efficacious, and least costly manner possible. The committee staff has indicated that OJA's pre liminary draft produced useful information which should be of great assistance to them in cl.rafting legislation. Hospital Outpatient Services ~~quested by: Senate Corr.:uittee on Finance. Use: Preliminary work by OTA on a study regarding Hospital Outpatient Services has already led Committee staff to dro? previously planned legjslative amendments. This preliminary OTA work has caused the nature of the study to be modified, and new legislative action to be discussed.

PAGE 44

36 -Food Food Information System Assessment Requested by: Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. Use: Materials from the OTA Food Information System assessme~t have beenused by the Congress in various aspects of legislative foruu lation, funding, oversight, and hearings. Specifically: 1) the U.S. Congressional delegation was provided a background paper on world food information systems for the 1974 World Food Conference. The ch,legates used this material to develop the U.S. position on Conference Resolution XVI, which established "An Early Warning and Agriculture Inforr:-,?.ti.on System. 11 2) Four Congressional hearings drew heavily upon preli::i\ir,ary material in their planning and final reports: o Subco~:mittee on Foreign Agriculture Policy of the Senate Conunittee on Agriculture and Forestry on "Implementation of World Food Conference Resolutions." a Subcomnittee on Foreign Agriculture Policy of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry on "Improving the Coordination of U.S. and Foreign Agricultural Policy. 11 o Subco2mittee on Census and Population of the House Ctr::~nittee on Post Office and Civil Service on "The Need for Improvement and Coordination in Federal Government Statistics.11 s The Senate Select Corr.mittee on Nutrition and Human Needs for a staff report on 11The U.S., FAO, a.nd World Food Politics, U.S. Relations with an International Food Organization." (3) S. 3215 and H.R. 12397, introduced by Senator Hubert H. Humphrey and Representative Neal R. Smith, "to relieve the Secretary of Commerce of the responsibility for taking Censuses of Agriculture every fifth year and require the Secretary of Agriculture to collect comparable information using sampling methods," were based upon material prepared for OTA's Board hearings. (4) The Food Information Systecr assessment concluded that there was little information available on the nutritional status of the nation, or on the effectiveness of food assistance programs in improving the health_ and/or nutritional status of the recipients. This assessment inforn.ation was used as follows: o The OTA staff met with the staff of the Labor-HEW Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee and presented a letter from Senator Hubert H. Humphrey requesting $24 million increase in funding for nutritional research in HEH. The co2sitte3 felt the need so compelling that $21 million was appropriated aP.d very strong language included in the Committee Report rr:a!l.dating nutrition education and research initiatives in F.EW.

PAGE 45

37 -9 In the course of OTA's Agricultural R&D assessment:t it becane apparent that minimal funds are expended for nutrition research by the USDA, and these were expended in an uncoordinated and fragmented manner. Thus, with this infornation before them, and with the assistance of OTA staff, the House Agriculture Cot1nittee authorized $5 million for nutrition research in Fiscal Year 1977. Both of these were r1ajor advances for the nutrition research and set a precedent in both the House and Senate bodies. Heretofore, specific funds for these purposes had never before been authorized or appropriated.

PAGE 46

38 Nuclear Effects Analysis of Effects of Limited Nuclear Harfare Requested by: Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Subco~mittee on Ar;s Control, International Organizations and Security Agreements, September 19, 1976. Use: At the conclusion of the Subcommittee hearings exploring planned changes in national strategic doctrine, OTA was requested to perform an independent review and analysis of Department of Defense estimates of the potential effects of.limited nuclear warfare. ThE: OTA Board requested advice from the Advisory Council on how to respond to the request. The-Advisory Council convened an ad hoc expert panel which concluded that OTA should not undertake an independent study, that the estinated casualty figures of DOD appeared low, and that there were several requests that could be made of DOD by the Subcommittee, both short and long-term, which would improve DOD's estimates. The Subcormnlttee requested DOD to rework their estimates along lines suggested by the.OTA panel. On March 19, 1976, the OTA panel, at the request of the Subcommittee, provided extended views relative to the need for exploring the broader implications of current U. S. defense policy. The OTA panel, on September 15, 1975, provided an additional analysis of later DOD estimates which contained information previously suggested by the panel.

PAGE 47

39 -National R&D Policies and Priorities Review of the National R&D Program and Policy Activity Requested by: Senate Corm:iittee on Aeronatitic:al and Space Sciences, House and Senate Budget Committees, the Congressional Budget Office, Joint Economic Cor.unittee, House Com:rrittee on Science and Technology, the Senate Committee on Comm2rce, OTA Board Members, Chairman Teague, Senator Humphrey, and Senator Kennedy. Use: OTA's Advisory Council requested Dr. Jerome Wiesner to chair a panel on National R&D Programs and Priorities, which met at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in June, 1975. Based on conclusions and reccn.mendations reached at that meeting and deliberations of the Advisory Council, a letter was sent by Dr. Harold Brown to Chairman Teague in October, 1975, setting forth the Council's reco,,....-nenda tions for a~ assessment in this area. Following Board approval, three separate panels were established to deal with (1) the health of b~sic R&D, (2) the applications of re$earch resu:ts, and (3) the art of decisionmaking in R&D. As of mid-June, 1976, all three panels had convened to consider input papers and relevant reports in order to reco~~end specific assessments to be coITut1enced before the next Congress.

PAGE 49

APPEt.."DIX I SECTION 3 OF THE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSl[t.:NT ACT OF 1972 "Establishment Of The Office Of Technology Assess:nent Sec. 3. (a) In accordance with the findings and declaration of purpose in section 2, there is hereby created the Office of Technology Assessment (hereinafter referred to as the "Office") which shall be within and responsible to the legislative branch of the Government. (b) The Office shall consist of a Technology Assessment Board (hereinafter referred to as the "Board") which shall formulate and promulgate the policies of the Office, and a Director who shall carry out such policies and administer the operations of the Office. (c) The basic function of the Office shall be to provide early indications of the probable beneficial and adverse impacts of the applications of technology and to develop other coordinate information which may assist the Congress. In carrying out such function, the Office shall: (1) identify existing or probable impacts of technology or technolo6ical programs; (2) where possible, ascertain cause-and-effect relationships; (3) identify alternative technological methods of implementing specific programs; (4) identify alternative programs for achieving requisite goals; (5) make estimates and comparisons of the impacts of alternative methods and programs;

PAGE 50

I-2 (6) present findings of completed analyses to the appropriate legislative authorities; (7) identify areas where additional research or data collection is required to provide adequate support for the assessments and estimates described in paragraph (1) through (5) of this subsection; and (8) undertake such additional associated activities as the appropriate authorities specified under subsection (d) may direct. (d) Assessment activities undertaken by the Office may be initiated upon the request of: (1) the chairman of any standing, special, or select committee of either House of the Congress, or of any joint coTIL~ittee of the Congress, acting for himself or at the request of the ranking minority member or a majority of the committee members; (2) the Board; or (3) the Director, in consultation with the Board. (e) Assessments made by the Office, including information, surveys, studies, reports, and findings related thereto, shall be made available to the initiating committee or other appropriate committees of the Congress. In addition, any such information, surveys, studies, reports, and findings produced by the Office may be made available to the public except where --(1) to do so would violate security statutes; or (2) the Board considers it necessary or advisable to withhold such information in accordance with one or more of the numbered paragraphs in section 552(b) of title 5, United States Code."

PAGE 51

IT-1 LIST OF COMNITTEFS 3~IXG SERVICED BY OTA House Corr.mittees on: Agriculture Appropriations Banking, Currency and Housing Budget Comrri.erce District of Colunbia Government Operations Interior and Insular Affairs International Relations Interstate and Foreign Commerce :Merchant Narine and Fisheries Post Office and Civil Service Public Works and '::'ransportation Science and Technology Ways and Means Continental Shelf (Select) Senate Committees on: Aeronautical and Space Sciences Agriculture and Forestry Appropriations Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Budget Commerce (including National Oceans Policy Study) Finance Foreign Relations Govern2ent Operations Interior and Insular Affairs Judiciary Labor and Public Welfare Public Works ~utrition and Human Needs (Select) Joint Committees: Atomic Energy Defense Production Economics Others: Congressior.al Budget Office Congress ion al Hembers-~;a tional Commission on Supplies and Shortages

PAGE 53

111-1 APPENDIX III ROLE OF THE OTA PROGRAM MANAGER The Program Manager reports directly to the Director of OTA. He implements the policies set by the Director's Office in the development and conduct of program activities in a specific area. His responsibilities are as follows: o Supervises program staff and reviews their performance 0 Develops staff and program capabilities $ Manages program with quality, cost, and scheduling objectives o Formulates contracts and supervises contract management Maintains liaison with Congressional Committees o Maintains liaison with program Advisory Panels The Program Manager works with the Personnel Officerindeveloping and planning personnel resources and supervising, evaluating and developing program staff. The Program Manager works with the Operations Officer in the development of overall OTA program objectives, long-range planning, and multi-program activities. The Program Manager works with the Director's Office and the Administrative Officer in formulating, justifying and executing the annual program budget.

PAGE 55

'-...' \. -' I ~-' : .,I 1..:1e.rzv 101 *Solar/Eleclric 102 *;::::::,c-Rt.:.
PAGE 57

tJTP~O i-1 : 0 MJ040 t-10010 t-i O O l 0 MR010 HI 1}i 0 Pr=:OO"? PFi010 fHO l 0 i::oo 1 ;:r F'0020 F'U02:) ~:OOG2 F:U O 0 F-:U010 PIJ010 :~:ROl c, SEOlO :S:101(: :::noo-.:, ::t-1010 ~-no 1 o -~ T (I 1 U ::.u (I 1 0 r :-: o 11) REPORT OF SALARY COST ALLOCATIO:-: BY EMPLOYEE f-l l L ER MILLS MOTTUP HOF'.ELLI t;t=CH 11 I I:LOCI< F'ALRDinD Pf:Rl
PAGE 58

IV-C-1 REPORT OF EMPLOYEE SALARY BY COST CErn'ER. Cost Name Charges Center Current ----BELL ~' 423. KELLY H l.136. PRPKEP LM 1.12. 101 TOTAL 1670. GAGF:NIDZE TP 0 .. PflS:KEF.: LM o. RDl.1.!F.:EF:G F.: o. SEDOR JM o. t03 TOTAL o. GRGRtHDZE TP 940. 106 TOTAL 940. CRRt-iE AT 1136. PAK:i"7::, ..JI L 8665. 12304. 3649. 340. 3988. lhte

PAGE 59

IV-D-1 MONTHLY REPORT OF EXPENSE A:::D RESERVATIO?-IS ---------. ----------------.. -----.. --------------------------BY COST CENTER PROJECT EXPENSE REPORT OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT _____ -PERIOD ENDING 06-30-76 __________________________ -::: SOLAR = OBJECT CURRENT PERIOD YEAR TO DATc CLASS DESCRIPTION l l l 11.3 12 21.1 21.3 22 23 24 25 26. 31 99 1 1 l 12 23 24 25 26 31 99 EXPENSE REG SAL ---------________ ... 4, 109______ 29,330. ---CONSoCOMP. 4,513 35,822 EMPLoBENEF 372 2,922 REG TRAVEL _____________________ .------------------26_______ 550 .. ____ ... CONSeTRAVL 1,189 9,936 TRSP.OF TH O 0 RENT o.COMH. ____ __ __ ______ --------------------_________ 30 _______ ... ______ 3 0 PRINTING O 0 OTHER SRCV 217560 37,105 SUPPLIES ... ____ ... ____ ______ ______________ ---____________ o_ --____ : l 7 4 EQUIP+ 10 202 UNO!ST. 0 0 TOTAL EXPENSE 31,809 116,571 RESER VAT I ON S --.. -. REG SAL 3,301657 EMPL B ENEF: _______ .. ________ ----------------________ 261-______________ 45 RENT&COMM O 0 P.RINTING O 0 OTHER SRCV._, __ --------0----7,225"'.'.. ______ SUPPLIES EQUIP UNO I ST. ____ -----.... ___ ..... TOTAL RESERVATIONS PROJECT TOTAL 0 0 .... -------------0. ________ 10,78721,022 l>3, 863 0 0 -.. 6 161,136 *-:,.

PAGE 60

IV-E-1 MONTHLY REPORT OF EXPEHSE AND RESERVATIONS BY PROGR.A!:1 AREA PROGRAM EXPENSE REPORT OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT PER I OD END ING O 6-30-76 -----------------------------------------__ = ENERGY OBJEC, CLASS DESC~!PTION = CURRENT PERIOD YEAR TO DATE --~--------------. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------E;XPENSE: 11.l ____ REG SAL---------------~------_________________________ 26,903 ____ 197,395-________ lle3 CONSCOMP. 16,079 170,525 12 ENPLBENEF 2,182 16,014 21.l REGeTRtWEL. _______________________________________________ 254.-:.. ____________ 3,a,~1. ___________ 21.3 CONS.TRAVL _2,~95 55,940 22 TRSPoOF iH O 141 23 __ RENT&COMM ________________________ -----------------1,960 ___________ 9,969 __ .. ---24 PRINTING 4,661 141759 25 OTHER SRCV 26,630 91,014 26 SUPPLIE.5 __________ : ____________ __:_ __ -______ _. __ ---------------------0 ---------1,539 ____ 31 EQUIP 100 1,162 99 UNO IS T 0 0 --------------... -. ----------. ------.. -... --------. -------------------------------------------------------------... --------------------TOTAL EXPENSE 562,300 RES ERV AT I b NS.------... :. _____________ --------.. :~--------------11.l _REG SAL 10,2052,941 12. EMPL BENEf ___________________ : ___ --------------------___ ... 78.4-.,--------____ 468-; ______ 23 RENT~COMM l,002~ 1,831 24 PRINTING 6,278 22,660 25 OTHER SRCV .. ------------------___ .. 12, 137~-------___ 79, 434 ____ 26 SUPPLIES O 0 31 E a.u IP o o 99 .... ____ UNO I ST o .. ------------------________ ______ _______ -------------------O __________ _____ .. __ -0 ---TO~AL RESERVATibNS PROGRAM TOTAL 1 i,850-63,914 106,398 o 668,698 ,H> -. --. ... -.----

PAGE 61

IV-F-1 .. _. ........ .. -------NQH1JILY .RI;PQR~COf .. J".XPJ:~~ISE .. A.2{P.. Rf:SEI.3-.V.AJJQN~--'-----_ ... OFFICE-WIDE -------------SUMMARY EXPENSE REPORT OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT ---------. .. PER I OD END I NG O 6-30-76 .... _______ ----------------..... = ALL PROGRAMS c OBJECT CLASS DESCRIPTION CURRENT PEn.roo YE.AR TO DATE ----------.. --... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------~ EXPENSE 11.1 --REG .SAL -------------.-----------------229,801._ ... 11.706,ltJl> ........ ___ .. 11.3 CONS a COMP. 47,918 429,441 12 EMPL.BENEF 181346 138,GSO .. 21 l REG.TRAVEL---------------------_ -.. 9, 0 58 .. --44, 931 ---. ~1.3 CONSTRAVL 20,941 153,695 22 TRSPoOF TH 48 1,798 .. 23 RENT&COMM --:----,---,-----:--~-----------~ .l.1,.623 _____ .. 127,871) ..... --24 PRINTING 13,984 76,963 25 OTHER SRCV 228,616 500,915 26. SUPPLIES ----------....... ----4,233. ----,888 31 EQUIP 6,701 37,750 99 UNDIST. 51,992 0 11.1 12 22 23 21.i, 25 26 .31. 99 TOTAL EXPENSE 643,261 3,258,765 o RESERV~'\ T IONS.---------------:..-------------------------------------REG, SAL lli,iB7-1,042 .EMPL BENEF ... ------------------..... ---.10, 4.32':'.'"._---'_ 2, 323-. ---_ .. TRSPOF TH O 97 RENT&CONM 7,870-26,985 .. PRINT l NG. ---.. -------.. ------. --........ 31 55 0 ----113,606 ...:. .... --OTHER SRCV 57,584 419,135. SUPPLIES 2,655 543 E OU I~" ----. -......... -----. l 2 0 7 .. ---'" 1 J., 329 __ .. -UNOIST. 198,948-52,029-TOTAL RESERVATIONS ..... PROGRAM TOTAl --.,,-......... 242, l .:~1401,120 ....... s20, 3as 3, 779 t 150 :!,;}'

PAGE 63

COST CODE COST CENTER .. 10 l SOUl.R __ .102 .ERDA -BUDGET .. 103 RDA-R&D PLANS 104 ENERGY PRIOR. 105 ... GAS CURTAIL, lOG ENHANCED GAS&O 107 NUCLEAR ISSUES EST I t--H\ TE CFULL FYl MONTHLY STATEMENT OF BUDGET EXECUTION OFFrCE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT SALARIES AND EXPENSES -----------PERIOD .END! NG ..... O 6-3 0-76.---------------__ --YEAR TO DATE -UN-RE~. EXPENDITURES BY MONTH IV-G-1 EXPENDITURES BY QUARTER EXPEND!::D .. F~ESf.~.Vi:::.C) ______ f3f'\LANCE ___ ___ .. APR -MAY .... JUM ... 15 T .... .2ND ............ 3FW t; J H .. 4 6 2 l l 6 6 l; 6 1 1 5 0 -l O 3 l ~3 o ? 3 ( B .. 0 ? 8 6 3 0 G 5 7. ::; ... 0 ....... l O 6 3 -. --l 5 ..... _. ___ to. 7 a.-....;... __ ._ .. 0 ... -. --. 0 <+------... 1 c.4.. -----' 0 ... -.... 0 6 6 .. ... -. l 7 9 .. -.. .. 1 .. 10304 58ol '.\-8.8 3.5-5.2 2.l~ s.q .o 30,3 l4w6 i3.~' o o o o .. o o s 1 2 1" 7- o 7. 9 7. 0 J .... (}' o_ -l. .;l 5 -------o---9. 5-----. t O --"---f. 1 --....... l .o 5 ... ... 0 -.. ---1) !3 l (, 106.0 602 a2-l0Qo0 o0 1.6 3.1 c0 }.5 .Q L,~ 96,7 22 .4 7t+o0 8,8 t.,,3 S,7 .o ~2 3.3 U,,.,, -' ..... _..l0G F:ES E/-JRY. CONS-.... 1 $ 5 0 ____ .... l l 4 -.. -------'.-l tt 3 9 9. _________ t 0 ... ------? fL. ---r., 1------" 0 ______ .. --. O ------... l .t ?. -......... l. 0 :: 109 IND ENRG CNSRV 112.0 .o vO ll2v0 .o .O .O .o tO ~O 1C: 110 URANIUM ENRICH 11908 .o .o 119.a ~o .o .,o .o .o .o ,c 111 NUCLEAR FUF.L C. 16,~3 .............. o ---_a_0_. ___ .. .. 16.3 O ..O-. o. .O ,0 .o ,C 112 COAL UT!LIZN 157,7 33o2 06 123.9 605 7o3 lly3 tO 8ol 2:.1 117 EPA R~D PLAN 8 0 0 1 0 l G 6 3 2 8 l -1 9 2 6 6 5 .' 8 0 0 r O 3 3 l ,, --l 99 ..... PR MGMT, ENERGY. ... 23 o l.. .. .. 9 2 .9._, ---_t.J,_,:_z ___ ._7J;.o.5----. 0-----A 6-... --'--9 Q __ ---"-------~ 0 .... -------3 G. B---_3 6 7... ... 1 Si., '-i ?Ol 201 .l 202 202.1 .203 204 205 206 207 ?. l 0 29.9 '.102 PROGHAM TOTAL 3::11 5 55,5 81.7 0 203.7 1 a 3 i r INFO SYS 91,0 39.13 28,9 22,3 2,8 2~3 lL,3 ~o 15.3 G.2 16,:, NUTRITION .. I NF .. ----. .. 0 18 o 9 ______ 6 ,.2------12.,7;;,._ ----~ 0 ... -----1 .t~. ----.-... 6 .2 ..... ---... 0 ... ............ 1.l, 3 -------_ 7. :) .. AGRIC R&D 125,7 l6o7 .4 108e6 ,2 oO 9.0 .o 5.0 2.6 9.2 NUTRITION INF, .o .o .o ,0 .o ~o oO .o oO .o .o fdCE BLENDING.... .. 2.0 1~9 ----O---------L ................... 4 ......... ...... .,0'. .... -....... oO ___ .......... ,0 ............... 1.,5 ,0.. ,,, i{ A s T E c o N s E R v s v o o o s o 1 1 a a o o o ,J PRO CS TECH D C 13 0 0 8 9 0 12 l" l l 6 2 0 l B 0 0 ~3, 6 S NUTRTN SURVLC 100.0 ,2. -______ 9.9.o ____ :.-....... 0 ....... -----.: .. ....... .o .. .o ............... 0... 1 ,l FOOD GRAD!i1G 115.0 10..l 3.2 101.t .9 lo9 2,7 ,0 l.~) 3.1 ~:,:i ALT US t-1 AT t L l 9 ::~ 0 7 0 v 6 l 4 12 3 0. 9 CJ 1 ll 7 l B 7 o 0 0 2 3 2 ,, .l Pk MGMT FOOD....... l O O. 0 ....... -. 7 0, 5 -----5 ,.0---2 4, 5----l q L ....... :.._ ... 2 3 ..... --5, 5 .. -....... 0 ........... 3 S 2 .. 2 6 5 t:, -" PROGHAM TOTAL 863,7 237 32,7 59 3, (, l 7, 0 28,6 55.2 0 69.B 1 0 u MED MALPHCTICE 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0

PAGE 65

I. II. .II. -1-v-n-.L Co~; t Cc.n ter; Perioi of Perforn~nce: to Dire2t Labor (Including full time consulting) (3y ~a~e and Title) i'.farr Days I ,(Program Manager) -------------I I i I (Project Manager) ---------------------------'----------I I ______________ __________ --------------'----------I Subtotal I P2r12l Cost Co::c:;-iensation: C 1 11 11.< : D /" t onsu tan~s,u neeLings,k ays rlee ing -----_ ..... :----Travel Reimbursement: f __ Trips/Consultant,t __ ._Days/Trip I I Locations of oeetings: ---------------(City) I Facilities Required: ______ ~--{Hotel Name) (Govt. Office) i Subtotal' Panel Support Costs Cor?ensation: f.: __ Consultar:.ts, /} ___ Days/Consultant i Tr2.;2l: # __ ~rips/Consultant,( __ Days/Trip I I l;on OT/1.: f ___ Trips/Consulta.nt, f.! ___ Days/Trip Cle=i22l Support: f.!__ ___ D:,ys C! $ ____ Rate/ d,Ty (if knoi-,n) (Xerox, etc.) s~ibtotal ~----------------To be fill~ in by t Ad1,1:inistrati;." O.Cfice ; _____ ____.; Rate per day/r:.o Cost !-_ t_, ;

PAGE 66

l'TT.OJEC:T COST ESTIMATE -l'a;_:E: '1\:o IV. Contracts Unclucle Short Description) Do-not :i-0.-clude ov:rhead. /: -(-I_b_n_l--'.-o_n_t_h s )v. Staff 1 .. r2.vel (List in Detail) Trips to for if J'. Trips to for 1; J: Trips to for J, VI. Publication $ (Other Direct Charges) Subtotal Days/Trip Days/Trip Days/Trip Subtotal Report: ;f ___ Volmne (s), !,: ___ Copies, /f __ P_ages/Volume Flrst Dra_~-1... ',1 C n P s L 1, ____ ot'ies,,,-____ age Typing Assistance: __ Editorial Services: ---(ye.s/no) (yes/no) Graphics: ---(yes/no) Subtotal VIl. Other Direct Costs (Itemize) Direct Cost Subtotal lI H-2 To b::. r'i 1 1 ,. ,t -; -_._ ,. .~ .-..tl t,#. Administr~tiv~ Ofi :_ -~-----------------t-------------P r o gram 0/H Estimate --+----------Ceneral a.1dAdministrative Cost TOTAL Estimated Cost -,l----------

PAGE 67

PI~OJECT COST ESTIUAT[ -Pag<~ Thre2 IV-H-3 Please siu, in order indicatccl and return to l,dsinistr2t:ive officerUse extra sheets as required. Attach d2tc.1ilc
PAGE 69

V-l In all matters per:.:oin:i.r,g to coatr.acts, inclu(line neg(;tiat:lc:-1, Lriy iJ.ction ,:,:id, :-:-ould result in a coEn-,itr~~nt on behalf of OT.!. or c.a.u.::;c a char1[;r! :i.n the scope of \:ark, period of performance, contr2.ct prices or ar,1otmts, or othr:!r terms, cond~ tions > or spc:-:ificatior.s of or directions giv2n pursunnt to the terms Rnd conditions of a ccntracL shall be in \,ri. tic,g and, except where othenJise specifically authoriz(~d, be prepared fnr ttc Direcipr's signature. 2. Contractl:;.~y: Authority OTA will enter into all co:.1tracts under the authox-:i.t;of the Technology /,ssessniGnt Ac.t of 1972. ,, ..,. Identification of Rr~["~po::.sible Offic:L::tls a. Dir2ctor. The Director is the individual vested with re:;;ponsibility for the contr.:ictu:::.l relationship i:ith a contractor. lHn.,ctor to h::.~; or her pr.c:gram D.rca.

PAGE 70

\'-2 the Director. The Pr0jc~t Le~d2r will be notified of such designri.tion_. a11d hiB dc'.~~Jgnees t..i t11 s taf ass is t.n11ce, as necf;S~-:ary. a. OT;,. Fill solicit: cm-.;_)('t:itive pi:op0s::11s to the e1~tent men ts ,;,;ill l;2 :~2;.de on.l}.,, under special circu.1T;.s.t2.n:::.es. b. Jstificatio3. for Noncornp,2titiv2 Ptoc.urea,ent. If only one source is to be solicited, a justificat.:i.on fo:c noncm:~rietitive procurement r:mst be a part of the contract. file. The j1..~stification t-iill be prepared by the responsible Progr.:l,-:l Vianar,er \-r:i.th the assist<111ce of the Administrative Officer. The justificatio-:i. will fully set forth the circumstances '.-.rhich make cornpeti tion i.mpract:i c:::-1 l. and should, ns appropriate: (J) Explain with p;:i.rticularity the C):cJ.rn~ive or rr:en.ts of tlic proctn-cm,::r~.t; pas~;iblc cont_ rn_(:t0n: in the f:i_cl
PAGE 71

V-3 (3) E:-:pl~:in c.,ny uti!Cl'.' rec:~;;0,,s uhy it 1s nst in OT/_:;.~ Office1: should co;!:'.i!llnic2te uith pro2pective: prcpos21s. 1-:ritteTJ. n~c:ords of all oral cornnunic.a.tior.s; ;;,,hich involve the giving of n:ore than obvious inforns.tion, wilJ. be prepare
PAGE 72

(3) >1,, -,-a-.,,,.,,--:,,r l"t\., (; ..... 0 c}ll...:... .,, ... ,_ ...._.._,.! lib~ co,.-J.n~; to them in the c.ourc;c:: of t1u:::Lr official duties. b. Proposal Evaluation such factors as the prapose~'s: o Concept of tech.-wlogy asscsc~L-1-'.!nt; o. Understanding of Corrgressior~al needs and objectives; @ Specific technology or problem area to be assessed; o Identification of major problem areas expected to be encountered and plans for solving thera; e Attention to, ~nd methods for assess~1g, major impact areas including socioeconomic, l_egal and environmental aspects. (b) Organizational Qualifications, including: 0 .Orgtinizational resources, flcxibilityto meet OTA'b particular needs, and c~periencn in similar te.chn:i.cal areas or with cor-:;J.-::rnb}.e projects (ii1cluding proposer's past n:cor.J};

PAGE 73

V-5 (c) Eusiness/Co~tractual Factors o l)c.~;L rc-~ord) ir,.c.:1.t~\:L~7"i-:-"' _cl.u:::tlit;/ of pc r f o 1.:-:1 -~:-c .i d cJ. 3. \1~-: r~,r :c <-!:!. :i tlb :i. J. i_ t y c. co.:~t e~-;.t.i:::2t.c.:::; c_n(! c.1(:~_1e_;_:-r~::-,.cc~ to ~~c.hc.C.u1e:>; o / ... btl=i ty to n~anag::: pL"oj c:::..~. t.s of COTapc~~~'.:"._:).lc.. fi0'\72lty-. f;l:2~:-C:.itd.(~C: f;Tt.J (:)ti1ple:Ki.i:y > inclu~ing overall p0rform2ncc and co1:sd.t:::~t to \\10.ct. 2nd top 1nae.:::.gei!17.:::t: inte:r,:,st; and o }Jill5_11~-~r,.1~~ss to accc:pt csr;c:nti::.l te::.::3 L"!.~i_d CO!.-~d i ~: i ::>:-:.~~ will advise the Director in writing of any proposal~ that are tedmical1.y ,iC:~'-CC2ptc:ble, incluclir,g the reasons. (2) The Director, D2puty Dir~ctcr, Program Mana~er, and r2.ue.J., as reqt:irec.:.1, \ill c.or:1~1i'!:1e the scie~.1.tific/tecl1r1.ical and. bu.~~Ii_~:~s:-:./ competitive range (those having 2 realistic chance of being sel2ctcd n2iotiation~ ~ust b~ coa
PAGE 74

. .. .. '. ..... --i { -: .,, ... ..._..._ .. --.... .>-\.. .......... ~) l)~ Jt12tificatioi:1 i~o:r l({C1( of co.0.:p~titi.0:..1.; c. Type of_conti&ct or agreern2nt; a~d d.. Co;-:1pen.satj_on arrcngerr~c~nts. include d1e Informa~iou ~equired for Contract Nc3otiations. 7. Contract ~2goti?tion

PAGE 75

V-7 obraining n2cess~ry approvals or cie~rn~ccs r~ora th~ Dicector. ,,. lt'l':! A
PAGE 76

v-s co~::: and a. Cc~0ral. lft0~ selection of the suc~essful pr0Jos2r, Proirarn lhn~gar 2nd Admi~istr~tive Officer will forward the proposed If any organiia~ion requc~to either ad~jtional informatioa or a de-briefing on the: solicit2.tion, it: will be. provided cooperatively by both the Pro3n,,::. llanager a1:cl AdministratLve Officer, only after the contract hDs b20,1 awarded. 9. ContrDct Ad~inistr~tion a. Rc~pousibilitles (1) Project Le2
PAGE 77

."."). ., (1-) '1 .... ) --, :i e ~., "'"" ; --'"',., _,_ i .... ,-, cc!_,. .. ---,;J __ J. L:_.t !_t.,:). :0.ece~.,:1.r,/ All technical tlir2ctions issc~~ by the P~oject Leader n~st ba n:'.lde in ,.;r.citicg in <'tc.c.ordan.:.c: c,::'..'.:h this 2rUcle. (f')' \TQltr.i---:~--~J: ..... ,:r{ :'='\.7 ----~'--.1 --------. that the 2~ounts clnir~
PAGE 78

'i_~--J 0 i nclL1:J~~::. g nlso ins u ;: 1.11:; co:1.t:cact --. \,. -' Ulid ttJ_::-;cu.::; ;:l_(J .:., ,1it:h OTtl.,. c. (including Jc.:<:.0:3 and oth.e1.-agr(:f:.i:\8lltS) gener.1t2d und2r OTA cost.-reiwbursei:~.:::nt: p:-:i.1.;.(' contracts in accordance with the term.:; of: e2ch pri1;1c co1!tract. Tile prine contn:ctor shell be 2:i.rise.d to se.nd subcontractt;
PAGE 79

.-, <-> V-J:: the need for such ~wngcs, a cost estimate if addition~l funds ar~ other. th:::n those for inc.re:::~ntal funding, whel'.'c only min:l:n'3.l infor1::c't.:ion is requireJ, upon rccelpt of a copy of e cor.tractor's request) the Project Leader will pre.pare his recommeniiations nc:e.
PAGE 80

. _. .. _:~~---,_,.;;_':' CT: c, .. ::....,_ u ... -~-~.,.... .-::, r .. c. : ; L.1-L.I Date

PAGE 81

INFORru\TION REQUIRED FOR SOLICITATION OF PROPOSALS ON CONTRACTS FOR TECHNOLOGY ASSESS~,ENT V-13 1. A coricise description of the proposed project and its product (s) and timetable. 2. The relationship of the proposed project to other OTA program activities both present and planned. 3. The extent of coordination with Congressional Cmmnittees which has occurred or should take place. 4. Other agencies or organizations planning to participate in the support of the proposed project. Explain how and to what extent. 5. The extent to which support of the proposed project is a commitment for further support. 6. If it is recommended that sole source procurement be used" the justification for this, i.e.: a. Explain the exclusive or predominant capability of the proposed contractor to meet the requirements of the procurement. b. Show what consideration has been given the other organizations in the field and show where they lack the capabilities which the proposed contractor possesses. c. Explain any other reasons why it is not in the government's best interest to obtain competition. 7. A draft request for proposal (RFP) (indicating how many copi~s will be required). This state:nent should be ir. detail sufficient to elicit responsive proposals, to permit competitive eva1uatioa of them, to minimize the amount of staff time required to answer

PAGE 82

V-14 questions and to provide additional information to prospective proposers. The statement should include: a. Background of Congressional CoITu~ittee interest and prospective action b. Objectives of assessment c. Scope of work (description of proposed project) and suggestions on methodology d. Reporting requirements e. End product(s) required, and f. Suggested period of performance 8. Data to be required from proposers (e.g., resumes of key personnel, list of relevant previous experience). 9. Criteria to be used in technical evaluation of proposals, including relative importance of each. 10. Estimated timetable for project. a. Estimated time for technical evaluation b. Proposed starting date under contract 11. Estimated cost or price of the work. 12. Names and complete addresses of suggested sources which should receive RFP (also estirrate of number of organizations sufficiently interested to request copy of RFP and number likely to propose).

PAGE 83

VI-1 APPZNDIX VI PERSONNEL FUNCTIONS AND OPERATIONS The following personnel functions, broken down by category, have been in effect during the last calendar year and, in some instances, for a longer period. Recruitment and Selection Procedures Full-time and Part-time Personnel Senior professional staff are recruited by the Program Managers and the D:':-:-ector, following justification by the program manager to the Director oi the need for additional personnel. Sources of recommendation for personnel are: professional societies, the academic community, industry contacts, contacts with other agencies of government, as well as Congressional committees. Secretarial, administrative, and junior professional staff are recruited by the program managers and the Assistant to the Director for Personn.~l, following justification by the program manager. Sources are the Congressional Placement Office, other government agencies and Congressional Committees, and "word of mouth" contacts. To justify the need for additional personnel, consideration is given to increased workload, such as the "start-up operation11 of a new assessment, increased scope of a current assessment, and emerging complexities which would impact the co~pletion date of a study to meet the requesting committee deadline. For clerical and support staff, consideration is also given to the ratio of support staff to professional positions. A determination is then made as to the qualifications needed and the level of experience required for the position. Salary levels are based on experience and/or academic training, salary history of the selectee, and the salaries of similar positions within other OTA program offices. Reference checks are made on all prospective employees. A number of our full-time professional staff have been recruited for the duration of an assessment. Although they.are appointed under the proced~res utilized for full-time, reviews of these cases will be made toward the end of their duty tours to determine whether they will be separated, extended, or converted to indefinite full-time employees. Personnel appointments are coordinated with the Administrative Officer to assure the availability of funds.

PAGE 84

VI-2 Consultants Th2 need for consultant assistance is determined by the Program Manager and/or Director. Requests for appointr.-tents are initiated by the Program Manager with a statement of justification for such assistance. This appointment mechanism is utilized primarily to gain the advice of recognized experts for short-term periods, as well as technical assistance during peak workloads. In some instances, where the need is clearly defined, full-time consultants are appointed (not to exceed 130 days). Rates of compensation for consultant appointments are based on the fees normally requested by each expert or on the current salary of the indi vidual concemecl. In the case of Advisory Panels, a fixed rate of cowpensation is set for all members of the panel. In some cases, consultants elect to serve without compensation. Orientation During the recruitment and on through the selection process, information concerning OTA policies and practices is given to personnel selected. This information is in oral and/or written form, and covers the following: a. OTA's charter, PL 92-484, and general description of organi zational evolution from Decer.:1ber1 1973 to present. Information on Board, Director and Deputy is also given (e.g. names, states and parties of Board, its bi-partisan nature, names and background of Director and Deputy). b. A sarapling of OTA publications (annual report, press releases, OTA report) c. Secretarial position description (where applicable); d. OTA's performance review guidelines; e. The salary review process; f. Government fringe benefits (hospitalization, life insurance, retirement); g. Hours of duty; h. Parking privi.leges; i. Vacation periods, sick leave privileges, and holidays. j. Correspondence gu~delines (for secretarial staff).

PAGE 85

Appointment Processing VI-3 I2~J-time and p~rt-time personnel An OTA appointment forr.1 (Attachment /fl), with a resume attached, is for uarded to the Director and Chairman for approval and signature. A Stc.:.n::lard Form 171, (Attachment #2), Personal Qualifications Statement, detailing qualifications, employment history, and salary itiformation is signed and certified by all personnel. This is the beginning of each eraployee' s per sonnel folder which becomes the repository for personnel actions affecting hi.r;1, and other papers such as health and life insurance forms, retirerr:ent papers, etc., which he w:i.11 have completed when he enters on duty. Consultants Requests for appointment of consultants are initiated in writing by the Program Managers (Attachment /,f3). Each request gives the following information: name, affiliation, qualifications (with resume attached), s3.lary information, and the proposed rate of compensation, a justification and explanation for the appointment, and the estimated days his services will be utilized. A preliminary review of the request is made by the Assistant to the Director to assure that adequate infor~ation has been provided and that the rate of corap2nsation is in keeping with salary history. Following this review, it is forwarded to the Administrative Officer for'certification that funds are available for the proposed appointment. Upon certification of funds availability, a consultant appointment form (Attachment #4), with resume attached, is forwarded to the Director and Chairman for approval and signature. The majority of the consultant appointments are made for a one-year period, even though.they may be utilized for as few as ten days throughout the year. This provides flexibility for the program manager in determining the days for which his services are most needed, and eliminates processing _new sets of appointment papers for each timeperiod utilized. In instances where the time frame for assistance can be defined more clearly, consultant appointments are made for shorter periods, e.g., one month, three months, six months, and they are utilized on selected days during that period. This method is particularly suited to periods of intensive workload, where additional technical or other assistance is important to meet assessment deadlines and similar situations. Employee Duties and Responsibilities Statements Although the development of roles and resp9nsibilities statements for professional personnel is getting underway at the present time, a general secretarial description (Attachment #5) was developed in November of 1974. It was given to all secretarial staff when it was issued, is frequently given to applicants whom we are interested in hiring, and is used as a guideline fc: secretarial growth and development. 'l: .. description assumes that OTA do2s not take "beginne.rs", and categ0..--ize.s t~., levels of secretarial positions--mid-level and senior. It describPS the salary levels of each, general secretarial duties and-requirements, and di.c;tinguishes between the mid-level and senior secretarial functions by emphasis on experienced judgment, initiative, limited supervision, anJ

PAGE 86

VI-4 independent preparation, of correspondence, research, and office management. "Beginners" were not included in the description because, at the time and even today~ we are lacking adequate numbers of staff and facilities to properly train persons entering the secretarial field. Performance Evaluation OTA performance review guidelines were developed in November, 1974 (Attachment f.f6). Simply stated, they provide for a six-month performance review for new employees, and a performance review on the anniversary date for the purpose of salary adjustment. Salary adjustments are based on meritorious performance. The six-month review has not always been practiced for professional staff by program managers. Many of them through day-to-day work relationships corrm1unicate their satisfaction with their staff's performance. Certainly any problems surface before the annual evaluation for salary adjustment, since at that time the program manager is called upon to evaluate an individual's performance. Six-month reviews for secretarial, clerical, and junior professional staff have been adhered to more closely. If a supervisor does not trigger th~ review, it is frequently set in motion by the affected person, who is aware of the procedure during his OTA indoctrination, either by a call to the Director's office or a discussion with the appropriate supervisor. The six-month reviews are designed to provide open lines of com..~urtication between the ehlployee and supervisor, and have not been structured or consistent in their format. In some instances, the Assistant to the Director has sat in on the reviews with the supervisor, particularly with the junior secretarial staff, where she has been invited and has had some opportunity to observe perforw3nce. In those instances where an additional party would be an inhibiting factor, the review has been limited to the supervisor and employee. The discussions center around job requirements and the performance to date, with comments on work well done, constructive criticism where improvement is required, and the means for achieving improvement. Usually there is some comment by the sup~rvisor on whether the employee's performance is at a level where he might look toward a salary adjustment upon his anniversary date (budget permitting). This has a positive effect on employee morale and motivation. Frequently, the employee has been invited by the supervisor to make suggestions on his own methods of operation which might improve or aid the employees performance. In some instances, the results of these evaluations have been docum2n.ted, although it has not becr1 a cor.m:on practice.

PAGE 87

VI-5 Salary Reviews An evaluatio; coP--...mil tee composed of three people (the Assistant to the Director for Personnel, the Administrative Officer, and the Operations Officer) review each employee's performance duringthe month of his anniversary date. The employee's supervisor is brought into these reviews to give his evaluation of the employee's perforniance, and recorrroendation on whether there should be a salary increase. The review committee representatives discuss their observations of the individual's performance based on operational contacts with the supervisor. After meeting with the employee's supervisor, the committee develops recommendations for salary increases based on the supervisor's evaluation, and comparison with other staff in similar positions. The committee then meets with the Director and Deputy Director to discuss each evaluation and salary recom.'1lendation. Approval of the recommended salary adjustments rests with the Director. The exception to this is performance of program managers and other senior staff reporting directly to the Director. The Director evaluates these p2rsonnel coordinating with the Deputy Director. The review committee gives the Director the benefit of their observations of senior staff performance, however. Employee Counseling Employee counseling has been an important part of the personnel operation, both for professional and support staff. There is no record of the number and kinds of problems which have been counselled, but they fall into the following areas: under-utilization of skills by supervisors; in.adequate instructions for tasks assigned; division of duties and responsibilities for better operat1ons; reassignment of personnel to positions better suited to their talents; explanations of salary differences and reasons therefor; attitudinal improvement for better working relationships; leave utilization due to emergencies, i.e., family or sick; personal problems which could impact performance; personality conflicts. Training As OTA programs and staff have grown, there is an increasing awareness that a formal training program would be of value to the organization. Employee potential could be developed and new skills could be learned, both of which would enhance the effectiveness of our personnel. Plans are underway to initiate such a program. Over the last two years, there has been limited opportunity for in-house training, primarily because of heavy workloads and limited staff resources. Steps were taken, however, to assist adninistrative and secretarial staff in the performance of their duties. General correspondence preparation guidelines

PAGE 88

6 VI-6 were developed in July of 1974. These were reissued in November, 1975 (Attachment ff7) and contain detailed instructions for the preparation of letters, memoranda, Board correspondence, and inform~tion about OTA's w~il control system. These guidelines were supplemented by periodic meetings with administrative and secretarial staff which covered these matters in more detailed fashion. These meetings also imparted instruc;tional information on: recent administrative practices and procedures, e.g., preparation of travel requests and vouchers; annual and sick leave practices; mutual operating problems; gram.~ar instruction; and assuming additional responsibilities looking toward senior secretarial and/or administrative responsibilities. Adverse Personnel Actions Fortunately, our relatively small staff has had a very limited problem in this area. The only serious case occurred in August, 1974. A letter placing the employee in a probationary status and discussing work deficiencies wei; given to the employee concerned. The employee elected to resign upon receipt of the letter. A copy of that letter with the name deleted :is ate.ached (Attachment #8) .. This same or a similar practice would be follo;ved with any additional problems involving unsatisfactory performance. There were two other cases that would fall into the adverse-action category. Both were clerical. In one instance an employee was relieved of duty (with p:iy) two weeks earlier than his resignation. In the other, a clerk w-as terminated during his probationary period for unsatisfactory performance. He had been counselled on several occasions, with no improve nent forthcoming. Neither of these has been documented as adverse personnel actions.

PAGE 89

Co~igress of the United Stales OrFIC!! OF TECH:WLCGY ASSESSM;:HT --------------------------------------------------------, 19 ----M ____________________________ is htreby cppointed _________________________ at $ _____ per anrtum, to date: from ___________ Approved:-------------Director, Office of Technology Asse3srnent Chairman. Techt!.ology Ass~.33ma,:i.t Board Sec .. I 757, Revised Statutes of the United States: "Every person appointed to any office of honor or profit shall, before enrering upon the duties of such office, and before bei..--ig entitled to any pan of the salary thereof, tike and subscribe the follo,;-1ing oath: I, --------------------------------------------------------------------------------, do solemnly swear (onter lull n,tm!t) (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States ag:,--inst all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purp0$e of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.,, f.,1,1'hmibeb an'a JfmGrn to before me this __ day of _____ _, 19 __ State of --------------------------------_ My commission expires -------------------(OVER)

PAGE 90

... M ... c.n LU 1-PERSONNEL AFFIDAVIT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (OR STATE OF) .......... -ss I do solemnly s"ear {or affirm)-Thac J. 2. 3. 3o. 3b. 3c:. 3d. (a) __ I am a citizen of the U'nite. a citizen or, (c) __ I owe allegiance to the United State:, or, (d) __ I am an alien from Poland or the Baltic countries lawfully admitted to tha Unite<.1 St.i.tes for pe,n:anent residence or, (e) __ I am a citizen of tha :Republic o! the PME:pp1nes or, (f) __ I am a r.atio:-ial of a country allied with foe United Stat<:s in the cunent dP.fense effort <--) (?ta...n ............. Address: ............ ___ ....................... ----.. --.. .My life. insu?llllce coverage was: D optional; D :regular; D waived; D ineligible lfy health insurance r..atus was: D enrolled; D not enrolled; D ineligible I L ............ :: not} in a leave without pay (LWOP) $,tus from my p~vious Federal employment 4. I certifr that I{::::==:=::: not } receiving a pension, annuity, or retired pay from tha United States Covermue.nt. Source of the above incom:e: .. District of ColUI11bia Police or Fire Departments. ........... Civil Service Retirement Act. .......... Social Security or Vcter::!llS benefits ........... Department of State (Foreign Service) ........... Retired military pay. Claim number, if any .......... ---.:. .......... o;;--}> .. --.. ------.... -----(Signa~e o! =illo,n) 5. Subsc:rib.!d nnd sworn to before me this .... day of ............................... 19 .. .. .. (Sipst:are) No~,:;ry Pub [ !':OTARY] SF.AL State of --.. .. -.. -.. .. ---My commission expires ........ ----..

PAGE 91

Congress of the United States OF::=ICE o;: TECHl'iOLOGY ASS~S5JA'ENT APPOINTMENT, OATH OF OFFICE, PERSONNEL AFFIDAVIT, AND RELATED EMPLOYMENT :FORMS 'l'O il ~u (S) Th.t crt-:,(:~1;,J 0:i?h oI 0-i-Htt o:i~ ,?strzonn$1 AHi,:h:.ivH mint~ pr~~rly "l:- -----------------------------------------------ZIP Codi! ---Emplo;;ee's SignaL:--, -------r .. .. ..... -----------------------------------------------J):it, ----

PAGE 92

.... PERSON~1EL AFFIDi\V1-r DISTRICT OF Cor.UMBL\ ( OR STA TE OF) ........ ........ -.................. -......... .... ............. __ ...... -... --................. __ .... __ .. .. ss: I do solemnly swear (or ::i.ffinn)-That 1. 2. 3. 3o. 3b. 3c. 3d. 4. {a) ___ I am a citizen of the "United States or, (b) ___ if in the service on ............................. and b~in~ eligible for citiwnship, I had thercfore.frled a declaration of inte:r.tion to ~:ome '.l citizen or, (c) __ I owe allcginc1ce to the United Stut-:is or, (d) ___ I am an alien from Pobn.. geni:'y ................... --..................................... -.-..... -_ ................... --.--.. -Bureau ........................................................... .. ...... -... -... .-.... ----Oa.ot ~ay on tile par.all) Address: .... ................................................ .... .............. ___ ___ My life insurance coYer;,.~ wa:i: O optional; D ~gular; O waived; O ineligible :\Iy health insJ.ra:-.ce statu3 wns: O enrolled; D not enrolled; D ineli;ri!Jla I f .............. _am } in a leaYe without pay (LWO?) *tus from my p:reviou3 Federal employment 1 ........ ...... am not .. ., i!il i Pli ZWS 21 U PIPIW I certify that I { ................ .arn .. } receivinz a p~nsion, annuity, or :retire
PAGE 93

STAL'i'DARD FORM 171 0:'5.c: 'lf :-.r-1~<~:::.:".':?C :m~ B::.:!5::t 51 A'I~ ,',H:.NT .... p:,::-.:,s-l ;.-.:,fr>: I B. Ano.u~:-icc:nenc !\lo. ~fai:~rfal En!J!'t":-! ~.:\i_..:-:r 0 Ap!X>r. 0 Su~mi!ted D. ?rirn.\rf pb..:~(:; _i }''.llJ wlih to Ce emp!;Jy,.~.II~INb (JF!H .. :". ~J\;r:, 0 N.:i~;>;>or. 0 Ret1.1roed I ==----"----"-"--==-----..,_--------12 j No~.:ion-:.: g r-1 io~~" r?>or.! (ir.:!u.!,n;; .-Jre..i Cod,) 2 1.----------------------tf;: Fo:m P..e;;ie-:1,ed: ;:.:: l I,. "' i-:.F..:..'':.....-n_..:.A...:;:c..:i>_r_o_:c_d_: __ ~--~--~----.,-----1 Grade !Ear,:icd F:.,fen :c _Au.;. Z I I lb:,:,g -'-'~"1&1 9 0 1 _pr,i,,:s (ll<:.j I I ~------------------------------------! n1;; Po'..-i~s Uw,-.,;>.D:.. I 5. Leg1I or ,cJ~$ r:,:.J.::n-:" (S::,fl) 1----------+---+---I L-STAl'\DARD I'ORM 171 IMPORT AMT ~EAIJ HH: FOL!.01NING INSTRUCT!ONS CAREr-t.m. Y 3i:/=O;<;-.: flU.lNG OUT YOUR SiAT?:.M::NT All requested inform:ition must be furnished. The inforrr.:i.ti,,., yo0u gt;e will be us"d r:i dc:cermine your qualifi<;ations fc,r em2l.,:,ymt:nt. Ir is D-!PORTANT that you ans,q,r all questions on your St:itement jtdlj ?.nd ac:ur,trd_;; failu:e to do so m.iy dday its CO!lside: .tion 1nd could mean loss of employment oppo:ruP..icies. If an irerr. does no, apply to y,:,u, or if there is no infor'.!'11':xi ,o be 6iven, ple,m: write in the letre~s "N.A." for ::-:ot Apylic~bie. 9 cs~ type-;..:lc::r if -1.va!Li:.)!e. Other,;::ise, \1rririe legibly or print clea:ly in .t.1r!~ ink. 0 J, :,ou ~re applying for a specific civil sc:rvice examination, fo?hw e:::1-:.tl~ the dircl.tion., in the ex..11n~natlon announcC"ment a.; vpcU 2.s t:ic instruccion~ for filling out this form. 9 F.-,!" a writtt:"n e:,:.1.~nin..;.tion, the 1da1iss'.L)n ca:-J teils you wh:ic to do v-ith this s~~te~-::nc. a L-t}:e ex:ix,.i11.:_c!on invoh.-e, no writ::r:n ce3t, m.1.il this S::,!:t:.:-.:nt t:l the o~1i.:c nar..ed in tLe exa!nin:~ion annouru:emenc. Ee s::~~ :o i,~ your n.1;n~ 0~ address. J;\lS'rR!JCTlO:i'l xEt.ATl!'H3 TO 5~CJFJC n::h\S n,::;-,\ 13. LO'\NEST CRA02 0~ SAtA~Y will not be considered for any lower g!"1de or s:dary; you 1d!! be consid::r::<;i for higher grades or salary. If you enter gra:!e, do not enter sa!ary. ITEM 19. ~CilVE Mll.lTARY SEJVICI: AND VETERAN PREFExENCE Five-point preference is granted to \"eterans if they are hononb!:, separated fron:, the armed force,; (a) afrer a~ti,e duty during the periods April 6. 1917,toJdyZ, 1921,or December 7, 1941,:.j Ju!r l, 1955; (b) after more than :180 con;ecuti\e days of a::rive duty after January 31. 1955 (not counting secvice under an initbl period of active duty for training under the ''6-monch" Rese:-.-e or National Guard programs); or (c) afcer ser-.-ice in a campaign for which a campaign badge has been :i.uthori;:~d. If you claim fi:e-point p;eferer.ce, you are not required c0 furnish records to supporc your daira until the time of app:iint:n-em. Ten-point p.referencc is granted in some C.l3i.!S ~o .Jis.:tb!;.!d veterar.:;. including v-ete:-.1ns a"t;,rd~d the Pu:ple }ie1.rc. !:1.> ..,.-:do\\"; t~; veterans. m wives of,m, ;:o this Statem~nt. ITEM 20. :EX?.'.:RIENCi: 0 1:1k.: ti:r:e to fill in tht-:-,;: t:'.t.perien(e bl~:ks (.1: ... ;.l~!; .._,!.! ,'Jn1r!etdy. '{our G1..ul;fi1:.1:ions r.1ti1!5 ~cp!:'nds ;n a la:-;t" .. .-: -.':i y.,1-~ ,~:,per!enc~ .:1nJ ernp!:..,:,r,it:nt his:,J:r. F...:i:;.rt :,: gi!-t l,,;.: .. :.:., :-!-:;-_:;:_: :.J.J ,t:.'.i_; contid1r.-1titJr: "/_lour St..;.Ul!un:. 4-\ns"Cllt-crs _g!,~:-: i (h:s :":~~ rn.t~ :-:: verified ,vich former employers. \Vhen the blo(k concains experien,e in n:vr,: th.in <:>ne typ,: :f work ( examples: carpen:,; anJ p.1.inting, or ;-~,:,,,:,n,! ,mJ budg,:-c) es:lmate 2.ncl in,fo:ace the approxim.ite pem::n:,,~,, J :i:-::e spenc i;i e-.!ch type of wc,rk. Pl:ice tr.e~e percenca;es ir. r:m,:1theses ar che E,,tc:r the lowest grads:: OR che lowest ,a!.1ry you will acct;C. Yna end of the des~dprion of the duties. PlEA';i: READ ADDl;lONAL l~IST::tUCTIONS ON !IACi< Qi' THIS SHI:::',

PAGE 94

L ___ 2(;. Ar-! :v .1 -:!frz.::n of the-t.:nitcJ S:.Hc.>? 29. It" :-:.J, give (;_n1ntry ci v:hid? y,):...t .:u:e ::1. citi.;.:'.n: ------------------.i~rc y,-..'.J r,0-... -. or ~ic~~:!1 th~ l:sc c~."":. ye.us ha1,.~ you !:.~en, a. r,-i;~rntx::r of: rL,.: C.0:-u..n1..n;~~i: P:1.::cy, t:.S.!.\ ... 'Jr 2r\1 s..dJth'i"!-)!! '---.:" til.e Com;n:.!r~i.::;r P.Ft'f, U.S.A.? .. An -..1.'1,r :PJ /..;1!'J :~ tLe fil!o::..i::z -f!J!';tic?J i,--: lt:37 0~ r;n ,. J~"J.-U.tt? pi::~! .,f p;;pa: {,~) Tiu .... ::.;rn~ of:.~, or,:;Jr.i !..z:10.f:? ( B) T,0, --'..-:;t; o/ Jt'!U r:~r:-:b1,.)/.: i/'? ( CJ Y~:lf 11n !-:.rJ!.o-ndini of t1)?. ai,.,; a .... ::f _t::r/i-JJef cf !ht,; ".:,.-.:n:::::::tiJ~ ..;; 1/,~ :i-t c/ )J!4r ,7!.: .-,:i;~nhi,':; I _l I ---,-, ,~-.-+..,--1 : 1 j 1 If; :,;it;D!: :::;,f ;::; ,:::Ei)~i~;;:t;;':f '.D\'.S!;;~::'.';::;;;; ;;;::,::il:i:t::::if ;,; ':~,!~:.c~.:.":: :.. :i! ,:\ '. ,,, .. ,;;:;_;--lf4 30 \\,",d, r! fr, 1,: '.,, irs h;-. e yoa bee~ S,,1 :,,, ~, ar:y joci lo: .n/ ,-,,o:,> ..... .. _. ................. _. . -~ l1-3i: ",X,'ithi~-. :!"' .! l fi= p::J.:S ?~_;.c: you q,1i: 1l }:)b 1.f:,:r L1ein5; !1(.,(!fi=r-: !J.:.;:/J tn ir~.~-: _;:"_ S};,;:.:; t::\ t:,;;,.,>i .,-;.J,ln;s (it;c!u1!i1!g Zl P Ca.it) cf -::;,>1)!0J!r, ~p;r'-'-; r ... ;:.: ;.Lt! .. -.,-:.1 -. :---___ 1 r~t;fvr:J _:,: f.'-[~ l-.";:::'. T/:.,tr i1:/ r:::..t:0:1 ,cJ:-,1:.-f} ,;,~r:~ :.,,,i;}] )r.,a .:r::~r:, i,: J,-"?:'.'t 201 EJ{PE.Rii!.J\'CE. ------------------.-----,,:..~-,,---! t~ ;~ \~t,.:;;~~t~=(~1)'~/;_):~~~.1~,f[~t~:~~;~;5-~-:~t{~:,/};:i~1 : tY~:-:r~;lt o~~~:l~t1:~:1; :~da(; r~~t~;:!r~~~~~::::~~/tf:J t~~(:~\::e~~::j:~~~-;..~:~~t::\\~) I ,. .,3.-; fi.r.2!'.; .1i;u,lir:acej in 2. j,_,,,~nl~~ co~;t er u:: .:~r ct Yvu:h O:fc:nJ~c bw.) ...................... ~................................... L V/h;i:: i~ t~.-:: ;n!~iti.:-y Sf.::r'-~-:~ .1.;-:r.:: :,ou ~-':-::r cc.!1,::::.:d by f~n.::nl C,)urr::-r.:.1.1.[~..!!! . .. . . . . . . . . . l _-_~\.-_-,_-, Ij _;1;,r .;,-!j:.,n :v 32 or 33 j;; .. \';5, ,, g:,: d1::;i/; :n le.,; :r. 5f,C.1' f,r R~:,;/; 1",/~~r.;,!; ( 1) d,1.t:; (2j ch.:r;_<:,-:; (3) :.tdr..iii?; ( 4) ~'"!.,!;r:, JJld {)) JC{:,,. :.::..11. -~-. i )2. i.-------------------------------it7'." ---~. 3,-;_ Dee, ::-.t L,1i:e:-.:! S:ate-; G1J':c>:'~.:-:;n~ ern?LJy i:; :1. (l;!li}.n c.p.i:!t) 1...'\i -1s a :-:1e:r.:')-:r of the r..rrrteC Forces iift~;" c~btiv-;: cf yoi;~ (by b;, _-,..J,..i ,.):-c2rri:.i~)'." (S-~ iceIT!> )-! .1nd 35 iu che J:::1::-'.~-d ir-sc:u.:r:!,Jn s!-:e.:~r:.). ................. ................................. D 1 ~ .:-... !1:,: ,;.-i:h, o.-v. ~::-~;-.:: p.-lst t 2 r;-;:--:::~!S !n.-c y01J. fl;;~J. J.i~~ o: these: r:.-l.Hi1.,es w:10 tr:ipl:Jy~.! i:1 a :iitian cap?:-~t:,?. J I ff)-_,: .. : ; (~. r :,; 34 i.: .. :,. :i.: :,: [:; ','.' 3:; ..::,: ,";,'~ti. / :.: ... ] _;' /e;;,; r .;,.1.~r.:s.t ~-:,,.: .... .. ?1:1;; Zl p c ,.~;.-j: ( 3) r.:l.,;!: ,.-;: ...... :'~I -~,, .r: ~,.. -' .. ---1, ,?::;!, -.;:_,,:.;, ,;:i:;,._z!:h of:,;~ .r~:'.j i'-'Jr~!;. I./)-1:t, ... ;,:;:ur f,1 ~;.5 J; :.}'.;,;, .~fr,,_.:.:i~fh:: k:r..l r.f:;j,'j::.!t;t::.:r.: h:id bj th-: rd.i:t:,:(s) ),: .. J;:~: ~:;-:/ f..:: -t li1,1 .l :.:;.~ '!t:.(:,11h1 f'.t:: 1:: -~-;.~1:ths .. _3_::; ____ D...c"_-,_~_ ..... _.: .'._'_:::_,_"o'_L~_-e_o ___ r_d_o __ v_.co __ _~_,_~._l~--~-_'<_-;P_-_n_~_'l_~_;_._";:'_._D._::-::::.--t-1_ ... _~_:_o_r_r_;;;_t-:r-"_"'_-~_Cl_=_o_,_"~_,_a_i._,~_~r_p_,_r_,_p_e_n_,_:o_n_,_o.,...r_o_t_h_e_,_c_o_m_,_r-_~_n_'.i! ti~~e. At:~.1di .a~t s~-:t.:rs r.-1 ~b.i"-Succmer1t .11: rht trJ? of P.16e 3 .----------------------------------------------------------------------1 I I R~od th:-.! F.');lov:y fir.a ".:t 1';::->ri5onm9r1' ( U.:... !:~d-~, Ti?!r., l'=l, 53(.,. 10:1 ) ... ..\jl "it::Ji?~~;,ts er~ ill:,: ~:t. ?o =r....,_~s:;~;;;n, I::::,t.:i;Ul=t w ::i1e1=., o: ..J.-:....:r f!ntrr ..:a:l;"\1'j, ;.n,~;" r--:,cor-:!:-s1 on~ !1:Jrr:11T n-m::,loyf11,. AH t"::> sn;o-.-,'7'ti::!;-.,,,.., vcv <:;1.r~1 .. :,'l ::~~.JI.: JI!-, r.),i--)Hii;J 'f!J,.t-r ,jr.::tJ~.'"l7"'i .:~di~ .su~1~,~~ i'~ inv::11t!9:!lion. A t..::-,cJ ans~'!lr ?.:> H~mJ. "11 or :a c:,cl~ -:'.,pd~--, r:.;-.; A -;our d3:l1 .J ;,;-: o:.:_~~.~1 \/,'~~~~--~~~: ~:1_:~~-~-~~t ,;;~:!..".'_.~r.: !'J:.:lditicn to 1h.., _:Joo~l:ias ~t"scr;~_;1d_c:_!->_o_.,_~_. __________ ~--CE~ilrl:..H TIO"-l SlG:s;.\TUR.E (Sig::;,, in~) I D.-1.T', S,G:--.!,D I CERTIFY .!ll oi t!i.o:.! ,tc,r_:::~ncs m.1\:,: in this StJtemen:: arc trv :, co:-:-.:--'.:c~. J.n..i i:orrc,.t t
PAGE 95

REQUEST FOR APPOii-i'n-frSf OF OTA co:~sur:r,\"::T r~-~:"~.-:~-;-'..:~:. .;~-.:-~_\ v-_~-:~~-~--~---~~--~:~--~ .. :_:~--_.-__ :. ~-> ~;j_:r;}~-~< ~; ~-.-~-.. ::~--~~-~-~~.:.:..~<-;~-" -~:' -~-~~--.~~-~---~ :i: ~: _: --.. ~~:~~:~,~~-~-.;_-:_-~:;::~~:::~-~ .-: --~~:_ --~-<=~ ... -_--: :.;_-. ------------==--1-"'o:_..._,hc COIT'.:)J.<2tcd b.v pro>;r,~m of f_j._c_::.-"=c,'--______ TO: The Director Date Consul t.:i.n t 's Nm:12. ______________ ~-'---------------------------Aff :i.lia tion ________ --,--------------------'----'---------,------Address ______________________________________________ Qualifications (also attach resume) U.S. citizen:_ ______ ___,,es _______ no Current salary _____________ Proposed Daily Compensation Rate ---------Period of Appoin_tr:e:1 t ____________________ to __________________ Estiqatcd Days to be ,;o:::-kccl _________________ --'-Cost Center __________ Justification for Appointment ------------------------------------.....=.:Rem._1e;; t inrr Official r::;~:~~=-~r.~~--?.?-~~-f;~;.,~:~~~~~.-\.;.:-:f.\.~~~ .. -?~~~~~.z:.c~!.=,.z-:f~~i'~i,~~Y~:e-~~1.vJ-_.;:y--:~-;.:..=..-eG:~~~:~~~;-f .. ""!.'\t--:,;;~:.,~i:;,, Tn hr! r.o:r,n] ;:t:e>:l bv .\,hini.strnti'.'e Offi_c2 Se.ct iott 2 ~::.: .. ~;-.. ;.;~-.:~::,:~-:::;;;. ~--::-E!~_;;;_:_~-.:: _;:~~-: ~_;.. --.. t.!. ~.~-=!,...:'~~,.--:-}.'.~!-_.:;.7~---.t-::<>::=~-:~ .. _:~.----~:_:;;_._~._:.i.fu~~~:;~.: ....... :.~:-~"; ~~-:~..:.:-;.,:.::~z~~~"-l~:;;: .::.:. -_:.>:.:.:->..: :.. ... :.: ~-.-.:~-:,.: :.:-;-:.:-.~---Funds Availability within progra:n budget reservations for proposed .1.ppoint::12.~:: Adninistrativc Officer Instruct.ions Section 1 should be coxpleted by the reque.stinz off:i.cc, resur.te attached, and s:i.gn2d by office head (program n2nc1gcr). AEter completion of Sec~ioi 1, plense fonrarc.l to the (J[[ic.c of th'2 D.ircctor, elttention: Assistant to ti1c: Di~c::c:tor.

PAGE 97

Washington, D.C. 20515 -------~-----------, 19 __ M _________________________________ __, s here by c ppo i ntc.d for tr.::: period from _____________ thro:.igh _________________ at the rote of $ ___per day while in the performance of the duties of the above position as directed or approved. In a~ditlon, the appointee shall be reimbursed for travel, subsistence and other necessary e:xp,rnses in occordance with appropriate law and OTA policies. This appointment is med~ pur~uant to Public Law 92-484. Approved: (SIGNATURE.) (SlGHATUREl {TITLE) (TITLE) The op;:x>intee must f!Jrnish tt,e following information and take the octns on the reverse side: Nome Birth dcte (FIRST) !M!DOLE) (MONTH! (DA.YI (Y.;:ARl Mc: l'r.g Ac!:::ess ____________________ Social Security No. __________ ____________ Zip _____

PAGE 98

Congress of the lfr:ited States ~ashington, D.C. 20515 1,----------------------, do soL:!mnly swear (or affirm) thct-A. OATH OF OFFICE I will support end defend the Constitution of the Unit-ed States against ell en'Jmics, foreign and dor.1estlc; that I will b~or true Feith o.id clhf;ion~e to the some; thar I t,:ikP-this Qblig:::tion freely without any mental ie~e;vaticn or purpose of evasion; thci-~ I y,,ill well a.id faithfully discharge the duties of the offic,, en .which I om !:ibout t,:i ,;;nter, SO HELP .\\E GOD. B. Af ?iDAVrr AS TO STRIKING AGAINST TH2 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 1 am not engaged in any strike against the Goverr.ment of the United States and that I will n
PAGE 99

Noverrtber 26, 197~ 0,-, -lA Secretarial Standards Secretarial standards for the Office of Technology Assess ment generally will require that candidates for employment have a minimum of two years of stenographic experience. There are two levels of secretarial positions in OTA. The first level duties include general secretarial responsibilities such as typing, shorthand, filing, answering and screening telephone callers as well as visitors to the office; making travel arrangements, including hotel and tra.T1sportation arrangE:ments, ticket purchases, voucher preparation, etc.; arranging meetings, inviting participants, agenda preparation, scheduling conference rooms, etc. Incuinbents of these positions are expected to familiarize theraselves with OTA administrative practices and procedures. The duties are performed with supervision by the professional staff and the staff assistant to the director. The salary range for this level is $8,000 to $11,000. \hthin this level, salaries will be set commensurate with experience, performance levels, supervision required and continuous service with O~A. The next l(;.;el is that of senior secretary. The responsibilities of these positions include the duties listed above. However, at this level they are P.erformed larsrely on the incu::-:-bent' s own initiative, coupl~d with good judgment, a...'1d with a. minimum of supervision. The level of performance is more advanced to include preparation of correspondence, research, independent determination of files to be maintained and retired, and such other duties as will assure the smooth work flow of the office. The salary range for the senior level is $11,000 to $14,000. Within this level, salaries will be set commensurate ,:rith experience, performance levels, and continuous service with OTA. A limited number of executive secretarial positions are within OTA and the salary levels for them are within the discretion of the Director.

PAGE 100

November 26, 1974 OTA Performance Review Guidelines 1) Six-month performance reviews will be conducted for all ne\,1 employees of OTA. These reviews ,ire designc:: os a measure of performance in relation to the over-a'~ goals and objectives of the office, and are sep2., :~ ::e and dis ti net from salary---' increase revie-;;-:s. Hmevt,~-, in u11usual or exceptional cases, salary adjustm;::Dts will be considered. 2) Performance reviews will be held for each employee on his first anniversary date, at which time salary adjustments will be considered. All salary adjustments will be based on merit. Subsequent reviews will be at the discretion of the Director. 3) All salary adjustrnen ts wi 11 be cons is tent with est;:,;_; lis:12d organizational structure and will take into consideration budgetary constraints.

PAGE 101

Noverr.ber 20, 1975 CORRESPONDENCE GUIDELINES LETTER PREPARATION Sample letters for the Directo,r' s signature are provided to all new secretarial and administrative personnel. The sarnple also applies to letters prepared for the Deputy Director, except for the signature block. Please note the following: a. BLOCK STYLE is used. The body of the letter should be placed on the page in a manner which is attractive to the reader--properly framed. b. DATES are not typed on letter prepared for the Director or Deputy Director. Letters will be dated after signature and dispatched from the Office of the Director. c. DICTATOR and TYPIST,' S INITIALS and DATE TYPED are shm-:n on all file copies and carbon copies for OTA staf. For example: EQD/km/18 Nov 75. d. ENCLOSURES should be indicated on letters and memos as follows: for one--Enclosure; for more than one, indicate number, _e.g. -Enclosures-3. In general, enclosures should also be attached to the PINK file copy so that files reflect an accurate record of material transmitted. In some cases, a set of enclosures should be attached to carbon copies for staff members or other addresS..ees {see OTA Board Correspondence and Advisory Council Correspondence). e. INFOP..i.'-1..1\TION { CARBON) COPIES are provided for staff who have received copies of an incoming letter {except Lynn Davis) as indicated on the control stamp placed on all incoming action mail controlled by the Office of the Director. The name of each staff member to receive a copy is typed on all carbons, including file copies. A red check mark is placed beside the name for whom the carbon is intended. See below for information on copies of correspondence for addresses outside OTA.

PAGE 102

2 -f. FILE COPIES necessary are: PINK with incoming letter attached. This copy will be returned to the initiating office for the HAS'YER file. BLUE arcd HHJ'.TE for the Director's chron files, appropriately marked. OTHER copies required by the initiating office, appropriately marked for return to that office. These should be kept to a minimum. EXCEPTION TO e and f: ASSESSMENT REQUESTS -Letters in response to Congressional requests will be prepared as above with one ADDI'l'IONAL PINK copy, marked for the Directors' s office, TO WHICH HAS BEEN AT'l'ACHED A COPY OF THE INCOMING LETTER. No copies are needed for Board staff except for M.r. Yeager ,;,,hen correspondence is for chairman1s signature. Other exceptions apply to OTA Board correspondence and Advisory Council correspondence which are covered in separate sections below. g. ENVELOPES are prepared for all correspondence addressed outside OTA or to the OTA Board and Advisory Council. For correspondence addressed to Congressional Offices (Congressmen, Senators, Committees, etc.), INSIDE MAIL must be typed or stamped on the lower left-hand corner of the envelope. Airu-~lIL correspondence should be indicated by stamping both the front and back of envelopes. h. ASSE~illLING LETTERS OR MEMOS (See Sample) Original with envelope behind letter Enclosures Incoming letter (if any) attached to pink file copy with pink folded behind incoming Blue and ~fuite chron for Office of the Director's files Other carbon and file copies i. INFOill-1.Z:\TION COPIES TO ADDRESSES OU'l'SIDE OF OTA should be xeroxed in order that correspondence can be identified by the OTA letterhead for the recipient.

PAGE 103

3 j. FORMS OF ADDRESS are important. The Government Style Manual L; a good source. Other references, such as "Who's who" and "Am2rican Men of Science" 2.re available i.n the library. Follmving are some examples of correct: forms of address: Senators and Congressmen Honorable John Smith United States Senate Washington, D. C. 20510 Dear Senator Smith: Honorable John Doe U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D. C. 20515 Dear Congressman Doe: Cabinet Membe:cs Honorable Sa2uel Smi~h Secretary of State Washington, n~ C. (Zip Code) Dear Mr. Secretary: Heads of Independent Agencies Honorable Samuel Doe As A Cor'.1.!uittee Chairman Honorable John Smith Chairman, Com.mt tee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, D. C. 20510 Dear M.r. Chairman: Honorable John Doe Chairman, Comrn.ittee on Appropriations U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D~ C. 20515 Dear Mr. Chair!t'~h: Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Washington, D. C. (Zip Code) Dear Dr. {or Hr.) Doe:

PAGE 104

4 -Assistant Secretary of Executive Departments Honorable John Jon~s Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower and 'Personnel) ciffice of the Secretary of Defense Washington, D. C. {Zip Code) Dear Mr. Jones: NOTE: Correspondence prepared to persons at the above levels is prepared for the signature of the Director. When a staff me1T:.ber receives a letter directly from a Hernber of Congress, the reply should be revie .. ,,ed by the Director's office ind.raft form. In those cases involving substantive or policy issues, the reply will be prepared for the Director's signature. I1Et,10R."':..NDA. PREP A RAT ION I'1EM.ORANDA are used for internal off ice communications. The format used in the attached HENORA.NDUM SAMPLE may be followed. For internal meu:os, the information copies provided to other st.2 members are indicated on the original as well as on the carbons. ~lhen a raemoranc.um is addressed to the Director, a copy is provided fo the D~puty Director. This may be done by jointly addressing the memo or by an indication on the original that a copy has go~e to the Deputy Director.

PAGE 105

-5 -OTA BOARD CORRESPONDENCE CORRESPONDENCE TO THE OTA BOARD will be in MEMORANDUM FORH and will be forwarded over the SIGNATURE OF THE -DI'.RECTOR. A sample format is attached. A.11 ORIG::CNAL, plus appropriate file copies (see Letter Preparation) are typed .. It is not necessary to prepare copies for each Board Member. These will be reproduced from the original after signature by the Office of the Director. Enclosures to the memorandum will be provided for each member (12) plus the Director and Deputy Director, and the master Board File. The original of the memorandum will be retained in the 0/D Master Board File. Envelopes should be prepared for each Board Member and addressed to the attention of each Board Staff Member-as indicated on the attached list. Enclosures will be placed in the envelopes BEFORE forwarding to 0/D for signature. Letters prepared for the Chairman and/or Vice Chairman's signature These letters are prepared in the same manner as for the Director, except that signature blocks will be different, and an additional carbon copy will be provided for the -Board staff member. Examples follow:. Sincerely, Olin E. Teague Cha.:i.rman cc: Mr. Yeager (on carbons and file copies only) Sincerely, Clifford P. Case Vice Chairman cc: Mr. Mills (on carbons and file copies only) All correspond~nce prepared for the Chairman, Vice Chairman, or other Board Members' signatures will be forwarded to 0/D for review and transmission for signature. ADVISORY COUNCIL COR..-qESPONDENCE Correspondence transmitting OTA reports will be forwarded to the Advisory Council over the signature of the Executive Secretary. It is the responsi~ility of the appropriate pr:o:rram office ta fonvard the correct number of copies {J.2 + three file copies) to the Executive Secretary with g,_1idance from the program manager indicating the need for fon;arding the documents to the Council (for comment, for information, etc.)

PAGE 106

6 -Correspondence related to OT'A policy will be forwarded to the Council over the signature of the Director and, in some instances, the OTA Board Chairman. For guidance in these circumstances, an inquiry should be made to the Office of the Director. H2UL CONTROL When incoming mail is assigned a suspense date by 0/D, 1~ is the responsibility of the progra.In office to which act:i.on has been assigned to meet that suspense da.'te. In those cases "1,,;h0re an extension of the "due elate" is desired, a requc=~;]t should be made from the program office to Kathy Mason for such an extension. Where appropriate, additional time \,ill be given. Correspondenc2 received froma Senator or Congressman requires a 48-hour suspense. If a subs tan ti ve reply cannot be prcp2.::::-ed within 48 hours, an acknowledge~ent is required. When a suspense date has been assigned to correspondence for repl~/ at the prograit1. level, a copy of the reply should be forwarded to Kathy Mason to close out her usus:gense" file. MISCELLANEOUS ADVISORY COIJU:'Z"::'SE .MEETJNGS -: Dates for these meetings should be called to Ba::c;)ara Bacon and Harian Fitzhugh for the Direct.or's. and Dsputy Director's calendars. They should also be notified of cancellati6ns. AGENDA and appropriate background information for these meetings should be provided BEFORE the meetings to the Director, Deputy Director, and the Assistant to the Director.

PAGE 107

TECHNOLOGY ,.l'--.SSE~SMENI Eo~RD OLIN F.. lEAGU~:. -n.:XAS, CHl\l?.MAN CLlr"FORO P. CASS, r--;.J., ViCC CHAIRMAN ()'."!.\HQ: M. KF..NN::".DY. :.1~ss. MOP.ill$ K. UOALL. Al1lZ. t.:P:S:'.":::Si r:. HOLL1NGS. s.c. GE:.ORG:: E. ~pr)wN, J?. CAL1F'. H<.,:::J::R"'i" H. HUMPHREY. MIN:-J. CHAflLE~ A. MOSHC:n, OHIO n.t::HARO S. SSHWCIK'ER, PA.. MAP.VIN L. E5CH, l'JHCH. TLO STS\/::NS., ALA~KA Mt,'RJCr\lC: S. HOLT. !v'.O. EMIUO Q. DAO::lARIO MEMO&"'\NDUH cnsrcg5 ct f(Je Unite'tl ;0tnte.s OFFICE OF tECHNOLOSY ASSESS:VE::NT WASHINGTON, 0.C. 20510 (NO DATE) TO: FROH: THE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT BOARD DIRECTOR SUBJECT: Draft Energy Conservation Report The enclosed draft, Energy Conservation Report, is forwarded for your review. Earlier versions of this r~port were reviewed by Board staff and by the Advisory Counci'i. Their comments have been incorporated into the final report. The Board will be requested to approve this docu ment for transmittal to the requesting committee, the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, at the Board meeting to be held'on November 18, 1975. EMILIO Q. DADDARIO Enclosure SAMPLE MEMORANDUM 0;>.:--11=.!.. V. De S1'.-:0~~== O~D'.r!~~~~

PAGE 108

TECHNOLOGY ASSESS.MEN'l' BOARD STAFF Honorable GeorgeE. Brown, Jr. U. S. House of Representatives 2342 Rayburn H. O. B. Washington, D. C. 20515 Attention: Tim Lynch Honorable Marvin L. Esch U. s ... House of Representatives 2353 Rayburn H. O. B. Washington1 D. C. 20515 Attention: Jack Seum Honorable Marjorie-S. Holt U s. House of ;Representatives 1510 Longworth H. o. B. Washington, D. C. 20515 Attention: Bruce Rickerson Honorable Edward M. Kennedy United States Senate Attention: Ben Massell Honorable Ernest S. Hollings United States Senate 437 Russell S. O. B. Washingtoni D. C. 20510 Attention.: Mary Jo Manning Honorable Richard S. Schweiker United States Senate Attention: Rodger Digilio Honorable Charles A. Hosher U.S. House of Representatives 2368 Rayburn H. O. B. Washington, D. C. 20515 Attention: Bette Welsh Mr. Ph{lip Yeager Committee on Science and -rechnoiogy U.S. House.of Representatives 2321 Rayburn H. O. B. WashiD:gton, D. C. 20515 Honorable Morris K. Udall U. S.. Ho'u.se of Representatives 1626 Longworth H. o. B. Washington, 'D. C. 20515 Attention:: i-villiam Birdsall Honorable Clifford P. Case uni:tet:i s:ta tes Senate Attenti9n: Bill Mills Honorable Hubert H. Humphrey United States Senate Attention: J.B. Cordaro Honorable Ted Stevens United States Senate 411 Russe~l S. O. B. Washington, D. C. 20510 Attention: Phil McLeod

PAGE 109

.t.:ll'."/,\i,:n r.t. J\t"":rJf":SDY, i"-~,-.~,;_;. Cll\lt(M,'\N Cli,\l~Lr.,~; l\. r-1.0:.;, i'.iR. O!:iO. v:cr: CIIAlr-H,!,-.N OFFICE OF l Crn:OLOG Y ASSESS1\1cMT f ,;, .... : ,: ... :-c.1:.u:,.:.:.s. s.c. ,;o:-!N ;.:.DA.VIS.(;;,._ ~:l; ,' .,.-,!. t,;:J:.ti--~f(C::Y, ~-IH~~.t. c:._1:~ ~-TF:AGLI~. TCXA~ :,. '" ,_., :-.. scr:v.:r-:L:<:srl. P,\. Ci-it\~LES s. CtJ:S.S!:.I!. CALI:=. _. ";~ ,:..,~L::---:s. ,\LkS~~" r-~,\R'.,"IN.L. r::sct1. ;-..!!CH. l-:Ml!....10 Q. DAOVA'rUO Au:;L!St 14, 1974 This is to inforn you that, cffecti '.c August 15, 1974, your cmulo:--rncnt with the Office of Technology ;\ssess1;;cnt will be on a pro1>ation:: .. ::y basis for a period of thirty (30) dr:.ys, folloidng \\hich you wi 11 be: terminated, nless, J:here is improve.::ent in the perfoT,:rance of your duties. I regret -'the need for this decision, and ar-rive-at it reluctantly. However, inadequate pe::cfor:.nance of your duties neces::-: I si t:c:tes this action. Yo:tr performance is judged inacr to assc:wblc. The above f'Xanples illustrate the po'.)r quality of iw"!:k \,;hich has oc-.::ur.red on a continuirig basis. fo an effort to be 11elpful ,. the St,1-t"f Assistant; to _:the.UiTcctor m8t :,ith you-in M:J.rch to discuss y_-,ur. ,:ork pcrfo-iaance arid to call yo~:r att.enti oil to the nc~d for L,provc::1cnt. Since that meeting, ,,Tit.ten gui
PAGE 110

2. Your frc-qucn.t ~!b~::.enccs fror,1 duty have also been of concern .!nd ,-:er,3. discusseJ with you in early June. You were granted a two-week n~riod of le:1vc for yo~n marriage and subsequent honeynioon in recogni ti.on of the.: .in:portance of these events. In cxch~,nge, hm-:e,'cr, it \:as expected that you t.;ould keep other absences to a 1:1inimum. During an 81:?-::ionth period of e1aplo;rrncnt, you have been absent approximately 23 clays. This i-cprc:.;cnts one \!ork month out of your total ei:iployme,:t period of~\ uonths. [',u ring your last absence, you t-ic:ce requested to prcse;1.t a physician's note stating that you ,-:ere under his care during the period of absence, and I un

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E9OONLJDE_DSBR86 INGEST_TIME 2017-05-22T19:21:05Z PACKAGE AA00055144_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES