[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT OF THE ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL'S OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
ADMINISTRATION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 24, 2017
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on the Internet:
www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/administration/index.html
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
27-284 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
Committee on House Administration
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi, Chairman
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois, Vice ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania,
Chairman Ranking Member
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia ZOE LOFGREN, California
MARK WALKER, North Carolina JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland
ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
OVERSIGHT OF THE ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL'S OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
----------
WEDNESDAY, MAY 24, 2017
House of Representatives,
Committee on House Administration,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:02 a.m., in Room
1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Gregg Harper
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Harper, Davis, Walker, Loudermilk,
and Brady.
Staff Present: Sean Moran, Staff Director; Kim Betz, Deputy
Staff Director/Policy and Oversight; Bob Sensenbrenner, General
Counsel; Erin McCracken, Communications Director; C. Maggie
Moore, Legislative Clerk; Ed Puccerella, Professional Staff;
Jeff Orzechowski, Professional Staff; Rob Taggart, Deputy
Legislative Clerk/Oversight; Jamie Fleet, Minority Democratic
Staff Director; Eddie Flaherty, Minority Democratic Chief
Clerk; and Teri Morgan, Minority Democratic Deputy Staff
Director/Counsel.
The Chairman. I now call to order the Committee on House
Administration, for purposes of today's hearing, the examining
of the Architect of the Capitol and its Office of the Inspector
General. The hearing record will remain open for 5 legislative
days so members may submit any materials they wish to be
included. A quorum is present, so we may proceed.
I would like to thank my colleagues and our witnesses for
being here today. The Architect of the Capitol, Mr. Ayers,
appeared before us in February.
Mr. Ayers, as you know, with a full panel of witnesses, it
was difficult to have a broad discussion, and I appreciate your
willingness to reappear today.
Mr. Ayers. Thank you.
The Chairman. Before going into my opening statement, I
would like to take a moment to send our thoughts and prayers to
the entire Architect family and the family of Matthew
McClanahan. As most of you know, Matthew died on April 18 of
this year while serving the United States Capitol. He was one
of more than 2,100 Architect employees who work around the
clock to maintain and preserve these historic buildings and
grounds, and we all thank him for his service, and we pray for
the family and their loss.
Mr. Ayers, thank you again for being here. When you
testified in February, the Committee focused on the future
challenges and priorities of the Architect of the Capitol.
Today, I would like to direct our attention to a November 2016
report issued by the General Accountability Office highlighting
problems with the Architect of the Capitol's Office of the
Inspector General. The report, as you know, led to the
resignation of Mr. Mulshine, the former Inspector General, 1
month later.
Prior to 2007, the Architect of the Capitol had a single-
person, nonstatutory inspector general. In December of 2007, as
part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year
2008, Congress established the Architect of the Capitol's first
Office of the Inspector General. Congress created the office in
response to concerns about the delays and escalating
construction costs associated with the Capitol Visitors Center.
Congress established a statutory inspector general position to
audit and report semiannually on management and operations
issues and other issues as required.
Last November, the General Accountability Office, the GAO,
issued a report on the Architect of the Capitol's Office of the
IG operations, which raised some very serious concerns. GAO
found that over a 4-year period, from 2012 through 2015, the
Office of the IG completed only 14 audits, none of which
included audits of large scale projects, such as the Cannon
House Office Building's renovations.
As you know, the Cannon renovations are expected to occur
over the next 10 years at a cost of approximately $750 million.
As the GAO reported, and I quote: OIG provided little assurance
that AOC's most critical programs and contracts received
adequate oversight, that audit resources were being applied to
the most critical areas, and that the OIG's efforts would fully
inform AOC's management of the Congress of any problems or
deficiencies.
In addition, GAO reported serious concerns with both the
auditing and investigative functions of the Architect Office of
the IG during this time period. Specifically, GAO noted, and I
quote: The OIG's lack of adequate audit planning, lack of
criminal investigators, and reliance on AOC program offices to
conduct investigations of alleged wrongdoing have contributed
to a significant decline in its audit and investigative reports
and reported monetary accomplishments.
This lack of transparency concerns this Committee and calls
into question the veracity and completeness of information
presented to Congress about project management.
GAO continued, as a result of the OIG's minimal audit
report coverage, the Architect and the Congress may not be
fully and currently informed about the operations of AOC's
jurisdictions, offices, and major contracts.
I look forward to hearing the GAO report, discussing that,
and the diminishment of the Office of the IG with our witnesses
today. I would also like to use this hearing to develop a
strategy to move the Office of the IG forward under the
direction of Mr. Failla. And, again, I thank each of you for
your appearances before our Committee today.
And I now recognize my colleague and the Ranking Member of
this Committee, Mr. Brady, for an opening statement.
[The statement of The Chairman follows:]
Mr. Brady. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, it is a pleasure
to be here with the Architect of the Capitol, Mr. Ayers, and
the new Inspector General, and the GAO.
When I became Chairman of this Committee, I inherited an
overbudgeted and behind schedule Capitol Visitors Center.
Working with my colleague and my excellent Ranking Member, Vern
Ehlers, we were able to partner with the Architect's office and
get the project back on track. As a result of that work was the
creation of the Inspector General's Office. So I know from
experience what the CVC, the Capitol dome renovations, and now
the Cannon rehab, how important an independent set of eyes can
be when you are spending billions of taxpayers' dollars.
I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, your leadership on having these
issues, and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.
[The statement of Mr. Brady follows:]
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. Thank you, Mr.
Brady.
Does any other Member wish to be recognized for the purpose
of an opening statement?
Seeing none, I would now like to introduce our witnesses.
First, let me introduce Stephen T. Ayers, who was
officially appointed on May 13, 2010, to serve a 10-year term
as the 11th Architect of the Capitol. The Architect is charged
with the sizeable task of preserving historical buildings
around the Capitol, throughout the Capitol Grounds, and
ensuring the structural integrity and the safety for millions
of visitors who travel here each year to experience firsthand
the rich history of our Nation's government.
Under Mr. Ayers' leadership, the Architect oversaw the
restoration of the U.S. Capitol dome, restoring it to its
original splendor. He also led the restoration of the Ulysses
S. Grant memorial, a campus-wide effort to restore and repair
deteriorating stone facades, and launched the renewal of the
Cannon House Office Building.
So we thank you, Mr. Ayers, for being with us today.
Mr. Ayers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I also would like to introduce Christopher P.
Failla, who was appointed on April the 17, 2017, a little more
than a month ago, as the Architect of the Capitol's Inspector
General. Before his appointment as the IG, Chris completed a
26-year Naval career and retired as a Navy captain. And we
thank you for your service to our country, as well as you, Mr.
Ayers. His final assignment with the Navy included three
positions within the Department of Defense's IG Office,
including director for the Technical Assessment Directorate,
executive assistant for the deputy inspector general for Policy
and Oversight, and the senior military advisor and office for
DOD OIG. So thank you for being here today and for your
service.
Now I would like to introduce from GAO, Beryl H. Davis. She
is the director of Financial Management and Assurance at the
Government Accountability Office, where her responsibilities
include audits related to improper payments, grant management,
agency internal controls, and Federal inspectors general. Ms.
Davis previously served as vice-president of the standards and
guidance for the Institute of Internal Auditors, as well as the
director of audit services and management support for the city
of Orlando. Ms. Davis is the author of the GAO report on the
Architect of the Capitol's Office of Inspector General, which
we will be discussing further during today's hearing. And so
thank you, Ms. Davis, for being here today.
Ms. Davis. Thank you.
The Chairman. The Committee has received each of your
written testimonies. You will each have 5 minutes to present a
summary of that submission. As you know, to help keep the time,
we have a timing device there on your witness table. The device
will emit a green light for 4 minutes and then will turn yellow
when 1 minute remains. When the light turns red, it means that
your time is out, and try to bring it in for a landing if you
can at that time. Also, remember to hit your mike button to get
started. And so, again, we thank each of you for joining us
today.
And at this time, the Chair will now recognize the
Architect of the Capitol, Stephen Ayers, for his testimony.
STATEMENTS OF HON. STEPHEN T. AYERS, ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL;
CHRISTOPHER P. FAILLA, INSPECTOR GENERAL, ARCHITECT OF THE
CAPITOL; AND BERYL H. DAVIS, DIRECTOR OF FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
AND ASSURANCE, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
STATEMENT OF HON. STEPHEN T. AYERS
Mr. Ayers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member
Brady, and Members of the Committee. I appreciate the
opportunity today to testify and provide an overview of the
Architect of the Capitol's Office of Inspector General. And we
are incredibly pleased to have recently welcomed Chris Failla
as our new statutory Inspector General. I believe that Mr.
Failla's leadership and experience in several different roles,
both in high pressure environments and others, perfectly aligns
with my efforts to transform and strengthen our Office of
Inspector General. And I can tell you, in his first 30 days, he
has already made a positive impact.
The AOC Inspector General Act of 2007 afforded us the
opportunity to improve and expand IG operations, and I remain
fully supportive of this effort. And over the years, I have
ensured that adequate resources are available to support the IG
and the functioning of his office. In addition to providing
these resources, I support the IG by setting policy as well as
setting the tone with my leadership team to ensure that we
fully support the IG and respect their independence.
I firmly believe that the IG's value-added and independent
audits, evaluations, and investigations positively impact my
agency's success. We empower all of our employees to join in
the effort to improve our performance and the effectiveness of
our agency. We require a high performing and engaged workforce
to continue to deliver and improve upon the specialized
services that we provide to the Congress and the American
public.
We use a variety of communication channels to encourage AOC
employees to use the inspector general hotline as well as other
avenues to ensure they avail themselves of the services of the
IG.
At a leadership level, when gaps or weaknesses in internal
controls are identified or suggestions are made to improve our
operations, we move quickly to address those in a timely
manner. And I am proud to report to you today that we have
addressed each and every one of the more than 360
recommendations put forth by our statutory inspector general to
date.
As an example, in the AOC's fiscal year 2016 performance
and accountability report, their inspector general identified
that the management of concurrent construction projects is one
of our key management challenges, and our leadership team
understands the importance and complexity of this that is
associated with managing more than a billion dollars in ongoing
active construction work right now.
We have implemented sound strategies and used the best
tools available to incorporate planning, risk assessment and
risk mitigation, quality control techniques into our
disciplined project management approach. We will continue our
commitment to closing out all management challenges and
opportunities, and ensure the projects that we oversee remain
on schedule, within budget, and free of waste, fraud, and
abuse.
Currently, we are working with the Inspector General on
several ongoing audits and evaluations, as well as an
agencywide risk assessment that recently kicked off. And by
focusing on these types of efforts that increase our ability to
mitigate risks, the IG is able to maximize its effectiveness
and advance the agency's goals and objectives.
We believe that our partnership with the inspector general
furthers our efforts to improve transparency and
accountability, and reduce costs. And with your continued
support and the support of our Inspector General, I am quite
confident we can continue to carry out that mission.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement of Mr. Ayers follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Ayers.
The Chair now recognizes Christopher Failla for purposes of
an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER P. FAILLA
Mr. Failla. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Harper, Ranking Member Brady, Members of the
Committee, I am pleased to testify today regarding the Office
of Inspector General's oversight of the Architect of the
Capitol. I am excited to be at the helm of the AOC OIG as its
third statutory IG. Created in 2008, the OIG is a relative
newcomer to the IG community, overseeing a legislative branch
agency that is a hundred years old--excuse me--that is hundreds
of years old. There is enormous potential to strengthen our
organization to adeptly oversee the agency's programs and
operations with independence and objectivity.
I joined the AOC after a 26-year career in Naval aviation,
retiring as a Navy captain. My last assignment over the past 3
years was with the Department of Defense OIG, where I was the
director for the Technical Assessment Directorate, leading 19
engineers who conducted CIGIE inspections and evaluations on
major acquisition defense programs along with military facility
safety inspections. I also oversaw hotline complaints and
congressional inquiries.
This experience taught me that effective oversight requires
audits with clearly defined objectives and criteria. I also
learned how a successful inspector general's office should be
staffed, run, and exercise its independence. This perspective,
among others, will guide my efforts to have well-defined
objectives and scope in order to increase the effectiveness of
our audits and evaluations. While AOC projects are large, we
will do our review work in smaller chunks and report earlier in
the project or program lifecycle, providing recommendations
that can still effect change.
Rather than monitoring the agency through the practice of
being embedded and attending program meetings, we will be
shifting to performing well-defined field work, with timelines
for deliverables and changing our process to ensure
transparency in our work and also enlist the help of subject
matter experts where needed to lend credibility to our
findings.
The OIG has done a tremendous amount of work in the absence
of an IG to address the GAO recommendations. They have executed
the acting IG strategic plan, contracted for an agencywide risk
assessment, and a quality assurance review of the audit
program.
The OIG has scheduled a CIGIE peer review for the
investigative program, while issuing a revised fiscal year 2017
and 2018 audit plan, thereby answering all the GAO's concerns
but one. That one issue concerns restoring criminal
investigators with law enforcement authority.
The AOC needs a program that can perform complex criminal
investigations involving contracting and procurement fraud in
major programs and contracts. However, I am awaiting the
results of the CIGIE peer review to help provide the
information to make this decision.
In my first 30 days, I have noticed the need for realistic
expectations in the face of our current resources and staffing.
We are a small staff required to oversee the useful spending of
approximately $1 billion of construction and improvements. This
is a daunting task. I need to evaluate the leverage of
contracting services, the need for additional staff, and
prioritizing our work.
Despite these challenges, my office will continue to be a
vital resource at an important time in the lifecycle of the
U.S. Capitol by making the following changes: I have adjusted
plans to devote more resources to focusing on the high-risk and
high-impact activities of the agency. The initiatives and plans
developed will transform the office and expand our in-house
expertise. This means developing the right expertise to perform
oversight work and increase our use of subject matter experts.
We will also perform stringent follow-up investigations of
recommendations and embark on proactive evaluations.
Additionally, I have committed to meeting regularly with
committee staffers interested in OIG matters and with Speaker
Ryan's Director of House Operations to provide informational
updates on our work.
Currently, we have a number of exciting programs, audits,
and initiatives underway. In April, we contracted with an
independent certified public accountant firm to audit the AOC's
2017 financial statements. In May, we initiated an agencywide
risk assessment to help identify and appropriately consider the
AOC's risks. We will use the results of this risk assessment to
assist us in future audit planning efforts.
We will continue to provide quarterly project status
reports on the Cannon renewal project and on the Capitol Power
Plant to the Appropriations Committees, and we are also
planning--are in the planning phase of a focused audit on
contract change orders on the Cannon renewal project, and
expect issuing a report by the end of the fiscal year.
Additionally, with our review of the U.S. Capitol dome
restoration project, payments completed are expected to be
released this audit by the end of the third quarter. I am also
planning an evaluation which will examine the possibility of
product substitution on select projects.
Our investigative program will continue to monitor the live
hotline center we stood up 2 years ago. We have developed a new
hotline poster, which is on display across the AOC, and
recently we have seen an uptick in hotline complaints, along
with seeing the first use of the AOC Speak Up program to make
confidential contact with the OIG.
My first 30 days has been a time of listening, constructive
conversation with leadership, building on ongoing initiatives,
and working to be responsive to stakeholder feedback. I will
work hard to continue to improve our oversight capabilities to
fight fraud, waste, and abuse. I see my office's presence,
oversight, and reports as a deterrent to abuses as much as it
is an office to find abuses.
My written statement provides expanded detail on the
ongoing OIG work, and I will be happy to brief the Committee in
further detail on any of our efforts. Thank you for the
opportunity to address the Committee.
[The statement of Mr. Failla follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Failla.
And now we will hear testimony from Ms. Davis. You are
recognized for 5 minutes. And thank you again for being here.
STATEMENT OF BERYL H. DAVIS
Ms. Davis. Thank you.
Chairman Harper, Ranking Member Brady, and Members of the
Committee, I am pleased to be here today to discuss GAO's
report issued in November 2016. This report addresses the
extent to which the Office of Inspector General developed plans
and policies for oversight of the Architect of the Capitol's
jurisdictions, offices, and major contracts during fiscal years
2012 through 2015, and the extent to which such oversight was
provided.
The Architect of the Capitol is responsible for the
maintenance, operation, and preservation of the buildings and
grounds that make up the U.S. Capitol complex. Overall, AOC
programs are managed by 10 jurisdictions, supported by the
Capitol Construction and Operations, which is made up of nine
central offices. Contracting plays a central role in helping
the AOC achieve its mission in managing projects.
During the time of our audit, there were four large ongoing
mega projects, with an estimated combined cost of over $1
billion.
As the Chairman noted, the AOC Office of Inspector General
was established by the AOC Inspector General Act of 2007 as an
independent and objective office to conduct and supervise
audits and investigations relating to the AOC and to keep the
AOC and the Congress fully and currently informed about
problems and deficiencies related to the administration of
programs and operations of the AOC. The office was established
in part because of congressional concerns about time delays and
cost overruns during the construction of the Capitol Visitors
Center, which was open to the public in 2008.
GAO's recent audit determined that the office's audit
planning during this period did not include an assessment of
the AOC's risks or the assignment of priorities for conducting
audits consistent with standards of the Council of the
Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, also known as
CIGIE. Instead, the inspector general at that time emphasized a
continuous review of mega projects, which the inspector general
defined as an effort to alert the Architect and the Congress of
contract management issues as they occurred. This approach and
the prior inspector general's efforts did not result in any
audit reports of Capitol mega projects during the 4-year period
we reviewed. Further, the office provided only one audit report
of a Capitol jurisdiction program during the 4-year period.
During this period, the office also reported a decline in
total audit reports and monetary accomplishments and potential
dollar savings. In large part, because of the office's
insufficient audit planning, a limited number of audit reports
were produced and there was a lack of coverage of the Capitol's
mega projects. As a result, AOC management and the Congress may
not have been fully and currently informed about potential
problems and deficiencies relating to the administration of
programs and operations of the AOC during the 4-year period.
Our November 2016 report also addressed our view of the
Inspector General's changes to the office's investigative
operations. In fiscal year 2014, the Inspector General at the
time removed the Office of Inspector General's law enforcement
authority and the investigators' responsibility to complete
criminal investigations. Instead, the office investigators had
responsibility for administrative investigations and relied
primarily on another entity to perform criminal investigations,
and on occasion other AOC program offices to perform their own
investigations.
The Office of Inspector General has responsibility for
ensuring the investigations comply with CIGIE standards for
investigations, which other entities are not subject to. These
office changes contributed in part to a significant decline in
investigative reports and monetary accomplishments reported by
the office. Monetary accomplishments for investigations
declined from $445,000 in fiscal year 2013 to $7,000 in fiscal
year 2015.
GAO made two recommendations to the Architect of the
Capitol Office of Inspector General in its report. The first
was to revise and implement policies and procedures to provide
audit reports based on planning that include risk assessment
and assignment of priorities consistent with CIGIE standards.
The second was to obtain a peer review from another Federal
Office of Inspector General of the office's overall
investigative operations, including consideration of its
reliance on investigations performed by other entities, and to
make any needed changes based on the results of such review.
The former inspector general agreed with our
recommendations and stated that the office would implement
them. We were recently provided with information on the
office's efforts to address our recommendations, which we are
in the process of analyzing.
Chairman Harper, Ranking Member Brady, and Members of the
Committee, this concludes my prepared remarks. I look forward
to answering any questions you may have.
[The statement of Ms. Davis follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Ms. Davis, for your
testimony, and each of you for the testimony that you have
given.
We now have a time for our Committee Members to ask
questions of each of you. Each Member is allotted 5 minutes to
question the witness. To help each Member track their time, we
will use the same timing device that you have seen. And I will
now begin by recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
There is so much raised in this report and things that are
here. And just to kind of set the parameters, nobody ever likes
surprises, and so when you go into the report and you read
things that you weren't aware of, that is something that causes
a little bit of concern. But I will start, if I may, with you,
Mr. Ayers, to ask you some questions on some of the things that
are here.
I want to talk for a moment about the decision that is in
the report about removing the criminal investigators. Did
that--how was that decision made? Was that--obviously, you knew
about the decision being made, I assume. Were you informed by
the previous IG that that was going to be the new plan?
Mr. Ayers. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I was. And from a big picture
perspective, you know, Mr. Failla's our third statutory
Inspector General. And I can recall our first statutory
Inspector General, Ms. Carol Bates, initially told me upon her
arrival that she did not believe that deputization of our
investigators was appropriate. I know about a year into her
term, she changed her mind on that and informed me that she
changed her mind, and sought deputization of our investigators
from the Justice Department, and received it. And then our
second statutory Inspector General rescinded that. So I am
aware of all of those comings and goings.
And I believe, whether they are criminal investigators or
administrative or whether they carry weapons or don't is solely
and completely an Inspector General decision, and I haven't
influenced them or asked them to take one action or another.
The Chairman. So do you--Mr. Failla, at this point, do you
support having criminal investigators, or you said that is
something you are evaluating now?
Mr. Failla. Yes, sir, I am evaluating that. I am leaning in
that direction. I believe that the AOC needs those folks to do
proper fraud, bribery, et cetera, types of investigations that
are in accordance with CIGIE standards for investigations.
The Chairman. Okay.
Mr. Failla. I want to see what the peer review says about
my investigators. I am obviously new and I am still----
The Chairman. Sure.
Mr. Failla [continuing]. Learning my people, and I think it
is wise to understand the folks that you have doing that job
before making that decision. And I will--it is not a decision I
take lightly, especially with the carrying of firearms around
folks here at the Capitol and also the people within the AOC,
but at the same time, I think there are mitigating things I can
do as the IG to ensure the safety of people and also not an
intimidation factor, if you will, be present.
The Chairman. You know, one of the concerns and one of the
things that you have raised, Mr. Ayers, in your testimony,
certainly in your written testimony and certainly your job, is
you worry about waste, fraud, and abuse. Now, waste is more
negligent, abuse could be negligence or some criminal, but
fraud is criminal. So how do you properly go to see if there is
any fraud without a criminal investigator? So that is--I know
that is going to be part of your understanding and your thought
process here.
Ms. Davis, did you find in your report that one of the key
reasons to not have criminal investigators or do away with them
was because other employees were uncomfortable with the weapons
in the office, or did I misread something?
Ms. Davis. There was some information that we came across
about, you know, concerns about having firearms, but that
really was not the focus of our recommendation----
The Chairman. Sure.
Ms. Davis [continuing]. And the reason we made the
recommendation.
The Chairman. Right.
Ms. Davis. Our reason was, of course, the responsibility of
the Inspector General to look at issues related to fraud,
waste, and abuse.
The Chairman. Is it your opinion that the office would be
more properly run, better oversight by the IG, if they had
criminal investigators? Is that your opinion?
Ms. Davis. We could not provide that opinion. And, in fact,
our recommendation really focuses on having a peer review.
The Chairman. Sure.
Ms. Davis. And that peer review would be--the peer
reviewers would be in a better position to really make that
determination.
The Chairman. Gotcha. And we may come back to this, but my
time is almost expired.
So I will now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Brady, for
5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Brady. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, for the
record, I need to say I am a big fan of Mr. Ayers. I think you
are doing a great job, and I thank you for your service.
Mr. Ayers. Thank you.
Mr. Brady. Could you just tell me a little update on the
Cannon Office Building, you know, what the phases are and how
we are--how far we have to go and when will it be completed?
Mr. Ayers. I would be happy to, Mr. Brady. Thank you. So
the complete renewal of the Cannon House Office Building is
essentially scheduled to be complete in five different phases.
The first phase was work in the basement level, and that took
about a year and a half to 2 years. That work is now complete.
It was complete on budget and on schedule.
We now moved into Phase 1 on the congressional election
cycle, and we are well into Phase 1. Phase 1 is progressing on
budget and on schedule as well. All of our indicators and all
of our analysis tell us that that trend of remaining on budget
and on schedule will continue.
The next phase of that--of course, the phase we are
currently in is the west wing of the Cannon building. And we
will see some important work come up in the next month where a
temporary roof will go over the fifth floor, and we will then
demolish the entire fifth floor of the building and construct a
new fifth floor over the next year and a half or so.
The next phase, during the next congressional move cycle,
will happen on the north side of the building. That will take 2
years, 2 years on the east side, and then 2 years on the south
side, and we will be complete. It is going very well for us.
Mr. Brady. So a total of maybe like 4 years?
Mr. Ayers. Eight years.
Mr. Brady. Eight years. Well, I hope it is--I hope it works
out. I guess we will have to have a--I know it is a major
headache for you because you have to move all the offices back
and forth, but I guess it will be a prime piece of real estate
to move back into once it is done. But you are moving them back
in, phasing people back in, though, right, as you are working?
Mr. Ayers. That is correct. So we are--the west phase now
is completely abandoned and we are demolishing all of the
mechanical, electrical systems in the west wing of that
building. When that is finished, we will move Members from
Cannon, Longworth, and Rayburn back into that phase, and at the
same time, we will empty the north wing of the building.
Mr. Brady. Thank you.
Mr. Failla, are you auditing that? Are you--do you have
your eyes on that, making sure that everything is being done
properly and correctly?
Mr. Failla. Yes, sir. We are----
Mr. Brady. I mean, that is a pretty big project for you to
jump right into, right? I mean----
Mr. Failla. There was--before I got here, there was some
oversight of the Cannon renewal project. We do provide
quarterly updates to the approps committees on that, so I have
folks that are in there providing quarterly reports. And we are
preparing to kick off an audit of contract change reports,
which often drive costs, often drive schedule, making changes
to the contract. So we are going to look at that currently and
hopefully have a report done by the end of the fiscal year on
the contract change process.
Mr. Brady. Thank you.
And, Ms. Davis, thank you for your service. I have no
questions for you, but I don't want to leave you out. Thank
you.
Ms. Davis. Thank you.
Mr. Brady. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from North
Carolina, Mr. Walker, for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Walker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank
the panel for being here today for questions.
Let me start with Mr. Ayers, if I could, please. The
purpose in creating the independent IG within the Architect of
the Capitol office was to keep Congress and the AOC informed of
risk, issues, and management challenges. During the fiscal
years of 2012 through 2015, the AOC OIG, let me shell that out,
Architect of the Capitol Office of the Inspector General,
failed to issue a single audit on any of the mega projects
under construction by the AOC, which have an estimated combined
cost of over $1.5 billion, as I am not telling you anything you
don't know here.
But my question for you is, were you concerned about the
lack of independent audits, and did you raise these concerns
with anyone during those times?
Mr. Ayers. Thank you, Mr. Walker. I certainly did, and I
certainly have concern about that. And so let's talk about the
big picture for a moment, the 8 years that we have had a
statutory Inspector General. During the first 5 years of having
a statutory Inspector General, no major projects, in fact, no
construction projects, no projects at all were reviewed or
audited or investigated by the IG.
When our second statutory Inspector General came into
office, I challenged him, you have to turn this ship away from
the variety of small, important but small financial audits and
churn that you are doing and move this office to follow the
money and start auditing major construction projects, as I
believe that the Congress desired in setting up this act.
I know that Inspector General worked hard to move in that
direction. It was a very difficult transition from auditing
financial work and credit card purchases to doing multimillion-
dollar contracts, and we are now beginning to see the results
of righting that ship. And we have the Capitol Power Plant
cogeneration system audit under our belt, two on the Capitol
dome under our belt, on the Cannon building under our belt. And
our new Inspector General fully embraces this focus of auditing
major projects.
Mr. Walker. Thank you. Thank you for that answer. And to
use your words as you were talking, you said it was a very
difficult transition. Was that due in any part because you were
hindered in your ability to prioritize these projects?
Mr. Ayers. I think it was due in part to the skill set of
the people that worked there at the time. I think it was due in
part to lack of leadership and direction and really pushing
this agenda forward in a strong way.
Mr. Walker. Okay. I appreciate your answer there.
Mr. Failla, what changes are necessary with respect to the
OIG's current audit or investigative processes? Could you speak
to that?
Mr. Failla. So as Mr. Ayers said, I don't--when the office
was set up, its focus was not on producing mega project audits.
It was set up very differently than it is acting today. It
focused much on the fraud investigations, the investigations in
that arm, and not solely on mega project audits.
Today, we are trying to bring in the folks that can do that
work, viz the people that were hired. I currently have two
vacancies in my office, one for an auditor, and I am
advertising for that person to be a construction auditor so
they can do proper audit work in the large construction areas.
Mr. Walker. All right. Well, you are making a nice
transition. We seem to be talking a lot about the past. Let's
have a question about the future.
How do you intend to partner with other stakeholders and
oversight entities, such as this Committee, in conducting your
work moving forward? Do you have a vision forecast? Can you
share a little bit of that?
Mr. Failla. Yes, sir. So I have--in my first 30 days here,
I have met with all the Committee's staffers, I have met with
all the jurisdiction heads within the AOC. I have worn holes in
my shoes walking around the AOC to get to know people,
understand the issues, find out what projects are going on, and
also to discuss with the Committee Members what their
expectations of me are. I plan to meet monthly and quarterly
with some and provide updates as requested, but in my meetings,
I will always have an agenda, I will go over what we are
currently investigating or looking at and provide them updates
on the Cannon project and any other projects that we are
currently in the process of doing.
Mr. Walker. Thank you, panel.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair will now recognize the gentleman from Georgia,
Mr. Loudermilk, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate all
the witnesses being here today.
Mr. Ayers, just a couple of questions to clarify. I have
heard a lot of numbers out here. How much was the cost overrun
to the CVC? I have read $400 million, I have read $200 million.
How much was that?
Mr. Ayers. I would suspect it was $200 million,
approximately.
Mr. Loudermilk. Okay. And how behind schedule was it in the
completion?
Mr. Ayers. Approximately 2 years.
Mr. Loudermilk. Two years? Okay. I have read several. I
just wanted to be clear to make sure that we were on that.
With that information in mind, $200 million over, 2 years
behind schedule, what is different now to ensure that the
Cannon renewal project, which is already $752.7 million, is
going to stay within budget, hopefully under budget, hopefully
on schedule? How are you going to ensure that? And what is
different between now and the CVC?
Mr. Ayers. I think there are a number of factors that go
into that. First, every project's success, I believe, is first
determined on developing what the project is, the scope of the
project. And once you have that scope nailed down and don't
change it until construction is complete, that ensures success.
Mr. Loudermilk. So were there changes mid----
Mr. Ayers. There were----
Mr. Loudermilk [continuing]. Midway through the CVC
project?
Mr. Ayers. Hundreds of millions of dollars of changes on
the Capitol Visitors Center project throughout the job.
Mr. Loudermilk. Was this because of structural design or
you encountered things that you didn't anticipate, rocks, you
know, things--I grew up in a construction family, so--okay.
Mr. Ayers. All of those things, number one; and, two, I
think the most seminal change in that project was 9/11 happened
after we were already--we had already awarded all of our
construction projects and started construction. That required a
complete redesign of all mechanical, electrical, and security
systems in the building.
Mr. Loudermilk. Okay.
Mr. Ayers. It was a massive change after we had already
awarded contracts. That is the worst thing that could happen.
Mr. Loudermilk. So with that significant change, it would
seem it would be--because you are changing a major project
midstream, effective auditing and oversight seems to be it
would be more important then.
What I was looking for is a more active IG is--in your
opinion, will that play a factor in helping to complete this
project, with providing Congress and you with what may be
happening, not at the surface level, but be able to audit, be
able to investigate?
Mr. Ayers. Yes, Mr. Loudermilk, I think it absolutely will.
Not only our inspector general is reviewing the project, but
the Government Accountability Office is fully embedded on this
project and keeping the Congress and me informed of what is
going on. And so making sure that leadership and management is
fully aware of the challenges that are present and the budget
and schedule metrics on a job is important to the success of
it.
Mr. Loudermilk. Is there more transparency now than there
was maybe with the Capitol Visitors Center?
Mr. Ayers. I think that is probably a true statement, and
let me give you a couple of examples of that. We meet every 30
days with the relevant committees and stakeholders on this
project. That committee makes the important decisions of what
happens on the job. We also issue all of the relevant
committees a very detailed monthly report on all of the
activities on the project. You can clearly see where money
goes, what the risks are, how we are abating those risks, what
the schedule is, and what the budget is in that monthly report,
and we send to this Committee leadership as well as the
Appropriations Committee. So everyone is fully and concurrently
aware of what is happening.
Mr. Loudermilk. Okay. And, of course, for Mr. Failla, this
is in preparation if we have another round of questioning,
because as I heard multiple numbers on CVC, I have heard three
different pronunciations of your name. What is the proper
pronunciation?
Mr. Failla. The proper pronunciation is Failla.
Mr. Loudermilk. Failla. All right.
Mr. Failla. I go by a lot of nicknames. Failla works also,
sir.
Mr. Loudermilk. Well, I have found out after being in this
office, I have a whole lot more names out there, a lot of them
that we can't speak of in this Committee. But thank you for
your service.
And I will yield back at this time, anticipating some more
questions.
The Chairman. The gentleman from Georgia yields back.
I now recognize the Vice Chairman of the Committee, Mr.
Davis, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I can also
reiterate, many do call him names that we can't pronounce here.
But, Mr. Failla, Failla. Right? Thank you. Failla. There
goes my time. Glad you asked that question, Barry. I will come
back to you, Mr. Failla.
But, Mr. Ayers, thank you for what your office does. You
have so many good employees. A few were up in my office
yesterday, and they are always very responsive. And I would
like you to relay my thanks to the many men and women who work
for the AOC for the job that they do keeping this campus as up-
to-date and as beautiful as it is for, not just Members of
Congress, but for the millions of people who come to our
Nation's Capitol each year.
With that in mind, we see the CVC as a great, wonderful
opportunity to bring many tourists in each year, but not
without its problems in the building process, not without its
problems as we move ahead and look at other projects like
Cannon. And that is where we come in as the House
Administration Committee. You have been the AOC and the deputy
before that, right?
Mr. Ayers. That is correct.
Mr. Davis. Okay. Were you surprised? I mean, please, were
you surprised by the GAO findings that we have talked about
today?
Mr. Ayers. This particular GAO report?
Mr. Davis. Yeah.
Mr. Ayers. I certainly wasn't surprised by the law
enforcement discussion. I was certainly fully aware of that,
and I know the back and forth of----
Mr. Davis. What about----
Mr. Ayers [continuing]. Deputizing. On the other portion--
--
Mr. Davis. What the information, the quality of information
that you were receiving from the OIG?
Mr. Ayers. I am certainly aware that our past IG took a
completely different approach than the previous IG, and so it
was no surprise to me to see that an accounting of the number
of reports issued was very significantly different. That was
not a surprise to me.
It was a surprise to me to learn that perhaps some of our
stakeholders are not being fully informed and kept up-to-date
on the activities of the Office of Inspector General.
Mr. Davis. Did you express any concerns?
Mr. Ayers. Absolutely. Yes.
Mr. Davis. Who did you express those concerns to?
Mr. Ayers. To the Inspector General.
Mr. Davis. To the Inspector General? To this Committee at
all?
Mr. Ayers. Not to this Committee, no.
Mr. Davis. Okay. The last Inspector General came from
where?
Mr. Ayers. He was the Deputy General Counsel in the
Architect's Office of General Counsel.
Mr. Davis. So somebody that worked within your agency under
your supervision?
Mr. Ayers. Correct.
Mr. Davis. Did you select him?
Mr. Ayers. I did select him.
Mr. Davis. Okay. Okay.
Mr. Ayers. He was not selected--he was not the first
selectee. That is an important point. I have heard some
criticism about that in the past, and not many people know that
we actually offered that job to someone different than that IG,
and we were not able to seal a deal with that applicant and we
went to this one.
Mr. Davis. Okay. When you saw a precipitous decline of
monetary accomplishments associated with the changing practices
of the last IG, did that alarm you?
Mr. Ayers. It certainly alarmed me when I saw that in the
GAO report. And I also would see that in the semiannual reports
to Congress that the IG submitted every 6 months.
Mr. Davis. Okay.
Mr. Ayers. So I was aware of that, I saw that, but I also
know I don't--I urged the IG--as you know, I can't direct the
IG to do anything--but I urged them to stop looking at all of
the things you were looking at in the past and look at the big
construction projects and the more than 5,000 procurement
actions that we take every year.
Mr. Davis. Sure. And that is exactly what we want your
focus to be. And we also want you to communicate with us. We
are here to help. We appreciate what you do, but it is
frustrations we have with the process that we are talking about
today and that was mentioned in the GAO study that bring you
here today----
Mr. Ayers. Yes.
Mr. Davis [continuing]. And cause frustration, I am sure,
for you too. But we want to work with you and we need open
communication.
Mr. Failla, thank you. I am not going to subpoena your
shoes you wore out. Okay? But they told me I could, but I am
not going to do that.
Mr. Failla. It is true.
Mr. Davis. You have got a tough job in front of you.
Obviously, there wasn't much communication with this Committee
from your predecessor. We just established that. I would urge
you to understand that we are here to work with you to make
sure projects get finished on time, but to also make sure that
if there are concerns, there are issues, that we get them
addressed. And I don't think that happened in the past, and I
would urge you in your new position to make sure it happens in
the future.
And with that, I saw my red light. I yield back no balance
of my time.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
I would like to ask a couple of follow-up questions, if I
may, in this. And as we go through that, and, Mr. Ayers, you
have said that you--while you don't obviously interfere with
what the work of the IG is, you do express concerns that you
have. But you are the person who appoints or names that person
to be the IG and you also have removal authority if they aren't
doing their job. Is that correct?
Mr. Ayers. That is correct.
The Chairman. Okay. And so you expressed some of these
issues with the previous--Mr. Mulshine, the previous IG. And
what was his response when you had those conversations with
him?
Mr. Ayers. He fully understood the concerns, and often
spoke about the challenges that he might be facing in his
ability to move the office in this direction and righting the
ship towards that goal. And we would have open conversations
about the challenges and the expectations of me and the
expectations of Congress.
The Chairman. This, of course, was obviously a pattern or a
problem for a number of years. Did it never rise to the level
that you felt removal was necessary?
Mr. Ayers. It did not.
The Chairman. Okay. All right.
Ms. Davis. I had another question I wanted to ask you. In
that November 2016 report, GAO noted that because of the OIG's
insufficient audit planning, the OIG provided no audit reports
of the AOC's mega projects with an estimated combined cost of
over $1.1 billion, and the OIG provided limited audit oversight
of the AOC's jurisdictions and offices. So we know we have
discussed that in this hearing.
I guess the biggest thing would be is, do you have any
sense at this point whether or not those have been corrected in
the followup and whether or not the OIG has adopted the CIGIE
quality standards for Federal inspectors general?
Ms. Davis. I do not have that information. I will say that
the inspector general at the time did agree with the
recommendations that we made. And based on some comments that
have been made here today, I understand that progress is being
made in addressing our recommendations, but we have not done an
analysis of the operations or the activities at this point.
The Chairman. And you do anticipate to do an analysis or
further review. Would that be correct?
Ms. Davis. We will do a followup of the recommendations,
yes.
The Chairman. And when might that be?
Ms. Davis. With--I would say in the next few months would
be reasonable.
The Chairman. Okay. Certainly, before the end of the year,
you would have looked at this----
Ms. Davis. Yes.
The Chairman [continuing]. And done another----
Ms. Davis. Yes. Absolutely.
The Chairman [continuing]. Review. Would that be correct?
Let me ask you how--for you, how important are those--are
those standards to an office?
Ms. Davis. They are standards that are established by CIGIE
for looking at the risk assessment or performing a risk
assessment and determining, you know, what jobs need to be
placed in priority, is extremely important. And I say that
because often offices will have a peer review, the peer review
will be based on particular engagements, and those engagements
will only be reviewed during a peer review. However, when GAO
goes in to conduct an audit, we look a little bit more broadly
at whether or not the audit coverage that is intended is
actually there and effective. So that is important to make sure
that the audit coverage is based on prioritization of risks and
that, you know, that work is being done.
The Chairman. Well, we will look forward to a future
followup on these issues as well.
And certainly, I can think of incredible responsibilities
that your office has, Mr. Ayers. This is--you know, it is a
daunting task that you have to juggle these even multiple mega
projects, but all of the things that have to be done. Our
objective here is to provide our oversight that we need to do.
We are also here to help, and it is better for us if we know
when there is an issue, rather than read about it in a GAO
report. I think that is best for everybody.
And, Mr. Failla, if you have any questions, we are all
available to help in any way we can. We wish you the best. You
are almost--you are like the person that--almost like the dog
that caught the car, you know. So here you are. So we wish you
the best. That is a very challenging job you have.
Mr. Brady, any followup for you?
Mr. Loudermilk, do you have any follow-up questions before
we adjourn?
Mr. Loudermilk. Yes, if I may, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Failla, or Failla. I even asked, and then I pronounced
it wrong. Just a couple questions for you and one for Ms.
Davis. As I was looking at the numbers on the CVC, originally
anticipated to be $295 million, ended up being $600 million, I
mean, that is almost enough to build another structure. I mean,
that is a significant increase.
Considering the Cannon renewal and other major projects, we
have the Rayburn parking, there are several other things going
on, do you feel in your current position, do you have the
proper amount of tools, resources, authority, and flexibility
to do your job properly?
Mr. Failla. When I first came onboard here, looking at the
number of FTE that we have to do, the work that we need to do
and the oversight that we need to do, I do not feel that we
have enough personnel to do it.
Mr. Loudermilk. Okay.
Mr. Failla. Currently, my office, and this is no fault of
anyone else's, but we had a death before I arrived. We lost one
of our more experienced auditors, so we are trying to fill that
position now. My deputy and lead counsel has accepted a
position at AbilityOne as the next IG there, so that position
is vacant. So I have no second nor counsel. And my AIG for
audit had back surgery last Thursday, and he is going to be
convalescing up to 6 weeks.
I have a very small office to begin with, and I am already
well behind in trying to do the things that I am being asked to
do. So that is where the reprioritization comes in. I am trying
to take on the things that are important, continue to do the
quarterly audits that have been mandated by us, but also trying
to get a project or two out, and do them in smaller scoped
projects that my folks that I have onboard can handle, get
things done that we can effect change on and show results and
bring back stuff.
I think what happened in the--previously, in the way the
process was working with the IG, I don't want you to think that
he wasn't and the folks in my office weren't doing their job or
doing work. They were. They were just doing it in a different
way. They were reporting on things as of running kind of
project and commentary. If they saw something, they would tell
project managers that this seemed to be a problem and they had
a recommendation for them, but they weren't putting it into
reports. I think that is what the change has to be and is going
to be with my office.
Mr. Loudermilk. Does the lack of criminal investigatory
powers inhibit your ability to effectively do the job?
Mr. Failla. I think it concerns me, for sure, to fight
fraud and to look at the criminal aspects that could be taking
place, bribery, et cetera, things like that, where we could
stop it. And I am leaning in that direction to bringing back
criminal investigators.
Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you.
Mr. Failla. I would like to say that a criminal
investigator is not a gun.
Mr. Loudermilk. Right. Exactly.
Mr. Failla. And that is the kind of big point I would like
to make about it. It doesn't necessarily mean it is a gun. And
my folks, you know, when I get to know them a little better and
after this peer review and I can make that decision freely and
wisely, I will have things in place that ensure that folks
within the AOC are not--never intimidated nor see a gun.
Mr. Loudermilk. Well, and I would reemphasize that many
investigators in the criminal field, especially forensic
investigators dealing with information technology never carry a
gun, never--they are digging through computer files, they are
digging--their investigation is done tracking documents. And so
I appreciate you bringing that up.
Ms. Davis, basically the same question, but from your
opinion, does Mr. Failla have, or Failla, have the tools, the
resources, the authority, and the flexibility he needs to
ensure that his job can be done effectively?
Ms. Davis. I would like very much to answer that question,
but I don't have the knowledge to answer that question, or we
have not done research in that area.
Mr. Loudermilk. Okay. If you would let us know at the point
that you have the opportunity to do that, I appreciate it,
because our objective is to see the success of these projects
and of the office.
And I may close with this, Mr. Chairman: Recently, we had a
bridge that made national news in Georgia, in Atlanta, burned
down. The initial estimates--and it was a major interstate,
created a lot of problems. The original estimate is that it was
going to take 6 months to build that. It is open. It was just a
matter of weeks to not only repair it, but actually do other
road improvements.
I was on the phone with a contractor, I said, how did we do
this so fast? He said, basically the Federal Government got out
of the way.
I would hope that maybe we would take a look at some of the
restrictions and obstacles that we face, and maybe a 10-year
project could end up being a 5-year project if we didn't
restrict our own selves.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days
to submit to the Chair additional written questions for the
witnesses, which we would forward to you and ask that you
respond as promptly as you can to those so that those answers
can be made a part of the record.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Before I adjourn the hearing, I want to take
a moment to congratulate one of our Committee Members. This
week marks the 10th anniversary of Mr. Brady's service as the
Ranking Democratic Member or Chairman of this Committee. While
Mr. Brady and I, maybe sometimes we need an interpreter, but
we--we may disagree, we come from obviously different political
backgrounds, but I can think of no one that I respect more or
we--even when we disagree, it is friendly, and he has become a
dear friend. So we want to congratulate you, Mr. Brady, on that
service. Thank you so much.
Mr. Brady. No pizza?
The Chairman. And all--thank you.
Mr. Brady. Thank you.
The Chairman. But thank you all for being here.
Without objection, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:02 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[all]