Federal Personnel: Architect of the Capitol's Personnel System Needs
Improvement (Briefing Report, 04/29/94, GAO/GGD-94-121BR).

The Office of the Architect of the Capitol (AOC), which maintains
congressional buildings, the Supreme Court, and the Library of Congress,
lags behind other federal and private sector organizations in hiring
women and minorities.  Although GAO noted progress in some areas, many
generally accepted principles of modern personnel management are absent
in AOC's system.  GAO concludes that this situation has led to a
demoralized and distrustful working environment, as evidenced by the
views expressed to GAO by employees working at the Senate Office
Buildings and Senate Restaurants.  AOC lacks an Equal Employment
Opportunity Program with affirmative action features to ensure a diverse
workforce.  As a result, women and minorities at AOC were
underrepresented in higher-paying skilled and managerial jobs. AOC's
hiring and promotion policies and procedures are not defined in an
agencywide staffing plan or other document.  Case file reviews
discovered that hiring and promotion procedures were not uniform or
fully documented.  Moreover, supervisors were not required to provide
employees with annual performance appraisals or routine feedback on job
performance, and AOC employees had little chance of receiving
agency-funded, skill-based training.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  GGD-94-121BR
     TITLE:  Federal Personnel: Architect of the Capitol's Personnel 
             System Needs Improvement
      DATE:  04/29/94
   SUBJECT:  Personnel management
             Human resources utilization
             Minorities
             Women
             Fair employment programs
             Employment or training programs
             Employee promotions
             Labor-management relations
             Hiring policies
             Personnel evaluation systems
IDENTIFIER:  GAO Employee Assistance Program
             Federal Wage Grade System
             
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO        *
* report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,       *
* headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are           *
* identified by double and single lines.  The numbers on the right end   *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the page       *
* numbers of the printed product.                                        *
*                                                                        *
* No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although figure    *
* captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but may not resemble     *
* those in the printed version.                                          *
*                                                                        *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document    *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your        *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015,             *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time.                                    *
**************************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Briefing Report to the Chairman, Committee on Rules and
Administration, U.S.  Senate

April 1994

FEDERAL PERSONNEL - ARCHITECT OF
THE CAPITOL'S PERSONNEL SYSTEM
NEEDS IMPROVEMENT

GAO/GGD-94-121BR

AOC Personnel System


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  AOC - Architect of the Capitol
  CFR - Code of Federal Regulations
  EAP - Employee Assistance Program
  EEO - Equal employment opportunity
  FWS - Federal Wage System
  GS - General Schedule
  HRMD - Human Resource Management Division
  OPM - Office of Personnel Management
  RW - Restaurant Worker
  WG - Wage Grade
  WL - Wage Leader
  WS - Wage Supervisor

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-256160

April 29, 1994

The Honorable Wendell H.  Ford
Chairman, Committee on Rules and
 Administration
United States Senate

Dear Mr.  Chairman: 

This briefing report responds to your request that we examine the
personnel management policies and practices of the Architect of the
Capitol (AOC).  As agreed with the Committee, we examined the extent
to which AOC's personnel system incorporates selected personnel
management principles in eight areas--(1) equal employment
opportunity (EEO)/affirmative action, (2) performance management, (3)
hiring and promotion, (4) training and employee development, (5)
classification, (6) employee assistance, (7) adverse action, and (8)
employee relations.  We also reviewed steps taken by AOC to address
concerns regarding hazardous-duty pay raised by the window washers of
the Senate Office Buildings.  As agreed with you, we limited our
review of individual personnel records to employees working in AOC
components under the Committee's jurisdiction--the Senate Office
Buildings and the Senate Restaurants.  Appendix I contains the
materials used to brief you on the areas reviewed and on accepted
personnel management principles and the corresponding conditions that
exist at AOC. 


   RESULTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

Personnel management at AOC has not kept pace with the human resource
management practices common among other federal and private sector
organizations.  Although we noted progress in some areas, many
generally accepted principles of modern personnel management are not
present in AOC's system.  We believe that this situation has
contributed to a demoralized and distrustful working environment, as
evidenced by the views expressed to us by employees working at the
Senate Office Buildings and the Senate Restaurants.  Our findings
include the following: 

  AOC does not have an EEO program with affirmative action features
     for ensuring a diverse workforce.  Minority and female employees
     at AOC were underrepresented in the higher-paying skilled and
     managerial occupational series. 

  AOC's hiring and promotion policies and procedures are not defined
     in an agencywide staffing plan or other document.  Case file
     reviews showed that hiring and promotion procedures were not
     uniform or fully documented. 

  Supervisors were not required to provide employees with annual
     performance appraisals or routine feedback on job performance. 
     Consequently, employees may not be aware of the need to improve
     performance or how to do so. 

  AOC employees had minimal opportunities to receive agency-funded,
     skill-based training.  This disadvantage can inhibit their
     ability to improve performance and advance to targeted positions
     of greater responsibility. 

  The hearing process used for adverse actions appeared to be handled
     fairly, and case files contained the required documentation. 
     However, many employees were unaware of the range of
     disciplinary actions that could be taken or the procedures for
     appealing a disciplinary measure. 

  AOC did not maintain regular channels of communication with its
     workforce through publications, employee organizations, or
     regular work unit meetings.  The lack of communication can lead
     employees to misunderstand management's actions and contributes
     to low morale. 

AOC has recently taken steps to address some of these and other
personnel issues.  For example, AOC established an Office of Fair
Employment Practices in 1993 to mediate employee complaints, and AOC
has drafted operating procedures for this office.  In November 1992,
AOC augmented the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) and has prepared
draft operating guidelines that, among other things, should provide
greater protection of participants' confidentiality. 

AOC reviewed the concerns of the six window washers assigned to the
Senate Office Buildings.  These employees believed that they should
have received hazardous duty pay for cleaning the "clouds" that hang
about 70 feet above the floor because of the height and suspended
scaffolding used to perform this task.  The "clouds" are the mobile
section of the Calder artwork, "Mountains and Clouds," which was
installed in the atrium of the Senate Hart Office Building in 1986. 
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) criteria authorizing hazardous-duty
pay for height work includes working on any structure of at least 50
feet above the floor if the structure is unstable. 

AOC officials believed that an upgrade the window washers received in
1982 from Wage Grade (WG) 04 to WG-05 reflected a recognition of the
hazardous nature of this work.  The officials also pointed out that
if a hazardous-duty pay differential had been granted, the AOC would
have been obligated to downgrade the positions by one grade and
reduce pay accordingly. 

However, recognizing the concerns about the hazardous nature of this
work, AOC officials contracted in fiscal year 1993 for services to
clean the "clouds" and the exterior windows of the Senate buildings. 
AOC reassigned the window washers, at their current grades, as
helpers in the Upholstery Division.  The exterior window washing and
mobile cleaning duties, however, were not removed from the employees'
position descriptions.  According to AOC officials, these duties were
maintained in the position descriptions in case cleaning needs arose
between scheduled visits by the contractors.  Since the
hazardous-duty pay issue could arise in the future if the window
washers were instructed to clean the mobile, we believe further
examination of whether the tasks should be compensated by
hazardous-duty pay is warranted. 

Although AOC has taken some steps and planned others to update its
personnel system, we believe AOC would benefit from developing and
implementing a detailed plan aimed at modernizing its personnel
system to incorporate commonly accepted personnel principles and
policies.  The development and implementation of such a plan would be
more likely to succeed if the Committee, possibly in conjunction with
the comparable House committee that oversees AOC operations, were to
regularly monitor AOC's progress. 

The Architect and other senior AOC officials agreed with our
assessment and are willing to explore ways to improve personnel
management.  The Architect pointed out, however, that AOC will need
the support of Congress in this effort because of policy questions
and the need for additional positions and funding to expand personnel
programs. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

AOC is a legislative branch agency responsible for the structural,
mechanical, and domestic care of the U.S.  Senate and House
buildings, Senate Restaurants, Library of Congress buildings, Supreme
Court building, U.S.  Capitol Building and grounds, and the Capitol
Power Plant.  AOC employed a staff of about 2,233 full-time employees
in March 1993.\1 Most of these employees (82 percent) were
blue-collar or Federal Wage System (FWS) employees--WG, Wage
Supervisor (WS), Wage Leader (WL) and Restaurant Worker (RW)
employees. 

Of the 2,233 employees, 825 worked at various Senate facilities--261
assigned to the Senate Restaurants and 564 assigned to the Senate
Office Buildings.\2 About 90 percent of these 825 employees were
blue-collar workers who performed such services as general cleaning,
plumbing, upholstering, painting, carpentry, heating and air
conditioning repair, and food service and preparation. 

As a legislative branch agency, AOC is not subject to the provisions
of many personnel statutes that guide personnel policy for other
federal agencies.  AOC's personnel office, the Human Resources
Management Division (HRMD), is responsible for developing,
interpreting, and administering personnel policy and regulations for
AOC employees.  As of March 1993, HRMD had 28 employees. 


--------------------
\1 The workforce of the Botanic Gardens is not included because it is
a separate entity with its own budget. 

\2 Technically, Senate Restaurants workers are employees of the
Senate rather than AOC; however, AOC provides all personnel services
for these employees.  House restaurant workers are contract
employees. 


   OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND
   METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

The Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, which has oversight
responsibility for the Senate Office Buildings and the Senate
Restaurants, asked us to review the extent to which the AOC personnel
system incorporates selected personnel management principles in eight
areas.  These areas are (1) EEO/affirmative action, (2) hiring and
promotion, (3) performance management, (4) employee training and
development, (5) classification, (6) employee assistance, (7) adverse
action, and (8) employee relations.  At the Committee's request, we
also reviewed the window washers' concerns about hazardous-duty pay
for work performed at the Senate Hart Office Building. 

To identify basic personnel management principles, we reviewed the
provisions of various personnel laws, GAO reports, Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) guidance, and personnel publications.  We
then examined draft and final AOC policies and procedures in these
areas to determine the extent to which basic personnel principles
were a part of AOC's personnel system.  We discussed personnel
functions and practices with the Architect and other key executives,
HRMD staff responsible for various aspects of personnel operations,
selected managers and supervisors in the Senate Restaurants and
Senate Office Buildings, and employees.  We also reviewed audit
reports on personnel operations at AOC and discussed them with AOC's
Internal Auditor. 

We analyzed AOC personnel statistics to develop general and EEO
profiles and examined selected personnel actions, such as promotions,
hiring, training, and adverse actions taken in fiscal year 1992.  To
determine if AOC's workforce was reflective of a diverse workforce,
we compared fiscal year 1992 race and gender profiles of AOC
employees in selected occupational series with 1992 OPM data on the
total federal workforce and 1990 census data on the metropolitan
Washington, D.C., civilian workforce in similar occupations. 
Appendix II shows the results of this comparison in 22 occupations. 
As agreed with you, we limited our review of individual files to AOC
employees working in the Senate Restaurants and the Senate Office
Buildings.  We developed and administered a survey to 637 of the 825
employees (77 percent) working at the Senate facilities to solicit
their views about personnel practices.  Appendix III contains the
full text of this survey and a summary of the responses.  We also
received unsolicited comments from numerous AOC employees about
personnel practices at AOC.  We considered these comments in
selecting areas for review.  We did not, however, pursue individual
concerns and allegations. 

We conducted our review from July 1992 to March 1994 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. 


   RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE
   ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

We recommend that the Architect develop and implement a detailed plan
to revise AOC's personnel system to incorporate basic personnel
management principles, including policy statements, procedures, and
implementation dates. 

We also recommend that the Architect reconsider whether duties
associated with cleaning the mobile in the Senate Hart Office
Building warrant hazardous-duty pay in light of the specific criteria
for such pay in the CFR. 


   MATTER FOR CONGRESSIONAL
   CONSIDERATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

We suggest that the Committee, possibly in conjunction with the
comparable House committee that oversees AOC operations, monitor the
development and implementation of the Architect's plan to improve
AOC's personnel system. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
   EVALUATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

AOC provided written comments on a draft of this report, which appear
in appendix IV.  In general, AOC characterized our report as a
generally balanced review of its personnel system and acknowledged
the need to improve the system in several areas. 

The principal area of disagreement AOC had with our draft report
involved the discussion of the window washers' concerns over cleaning
the "clouds." AOC said that it did, in fact, view the "cloud"
cleaning as hazardous duty and that the window washers were
compensated for this work when their positions were upgraded from the
WG-04 to the WG-05 level in 1982.  Further, AOC pointed out that if
they had elected to pay a hazardous-duty differential instead of the
upgrades, the window washers would have experienced a net decrease in
their pay because they would have received hazardous duty pay only
for the time actually spent cleaning the "clouds." We have clarified
page 3 of this report to more precisely reflect AOC's view. 

AOC said that it will continue to use an outside contractor to clean
the "clouds" and will delete any duties involving the "clouds" from
the position descriptions of the window washers.  If, as AOC
suggests, these duties are deleted from the position descriptions,
the objective of our hazardous-duty recommendation should be met. 

AOC also provided perspectives on the other issues covered in our
report.  AOC pointed out that it is not required to have performance
appraisals but agreed that preparing formal performance appraisals
would be a positive step.  It indicated that substantial resources
would be needed to incorporate an appraisal system for AOC.  AOC also
pointed out that (1) approval has been given to the Senate
Restaurants for a program to provide employees feedback on
performance and conduct, and (2) although it has no formal appraisal
system, AOC is required to certify that GS employees have performed
at an acceptable level of competence for within grade increases. 

We did not examine the extent that additional resources would be
needed to develop and implement an appraisal system.  However, we
believe that a system that incorporates expectations and performance
feedback is fundamental to a performance management system aimed at
improving organizational and individual performance.  Required
resources and other needs should be included in the detailed plan we
recommend that AOC develop to revise its personnel system.  The
certificate of acceptable performance for the purposes of within
grade increases is generally not helpful in improving employee
performance, except in instances where an employee's performance is
already at the unacceptable level. 

AOC said that its incentive awards program is presently limited to
recognition of career service.  It also said that Congress would have
to authorize additional funding if monetary awards were to be
provided.  We did not intend to suggest that a program of monetary
rewards was necessary.  We believe considerably more could be done,
however, to expand the use of non-monetary awards (letters of
commendation, plaques, small gifts) to reward employees. 

AOC also said that final approval of its Career Staffing Plan will
address many of the hiring and promotion issues cited in our report. 
AOC accepted our observations about inconsistent interviewing
practices and recognized a potential need to train supervisors in
interviewing techniques.  However, AOC did not think these practices
were systemic weaknesses or adversely affected the selection process. 
While we found no evidence that the selection process was adversely
affected, we believe the absence of a formal process could lead to a
lack of uniformity in conducting and documenting the process as well
as reduced employee confidence in the system. 

Regarding training opportunities, AOC said that, with increasing
workload demands and personnel reductions, supervisors are more
reluctant to nominate employees for training that is not considered a
critical need.  AOC said that it is not aware of any critical
training not being provided.  We did not attempt to identify critical
training that was or was not provided.  However, we believe it is
significant that approximately 46 percent of the employees responding
to our survey believed they were not getting the training (classroom
or on-the-job) needed to do their jobs adequately.  We also noted
that training, as an investment in employee and organizational
performance and productivity, becomes even more important during a
period of increasing workloads and personnel reductions. 

AOC pointed out that every employee receives and signs for a copy of
the AOC's disciplinary policy and that in disciplinary cases
employees are notified of their appeal rights.  AOC also questioned
the results of our employee survey, which indicated that 24 percent
of the respondents believed that appeals would not be handled fairly. 
AOC asked if we could help explain why this perception was present. 

While we cannot cite the specific causes for such perceptions, in our
view, the employees' general lack of knowledge about the adverse
action program contributes to this condition.  For example, 35
percent of responding employees said they were not aware of the range
of possible disciplinary measures and 54 percent reported they were
not familiar with procedures to follow in appealing a disciplinary
action. 

AOC commented on our discussion of its EAP and the recommendation of
AOC's Internal Auditor that, to mitigate the need for HRMD officials
to examine EAP folders, it should contract with an EAP consultant to
review the status of the program.  AOC explained its reasons for
deciding not to implement this recommendation, including the fact
that its new EAP manager has significant experience with quality
assurance practices.  AOC also said that all EAP activities are
managed in a confidential manner. 

The recommendation of AOC's Internal Auditor was aimed at avoiding
future situations that would allow personnel officials to have access
to EAP participant records.  When a personnel official reviewed and
purged EAP records earlier in the program's history, it created
concerns among employees about the confidentiality of EAP records. 
As AOC implied, a satisfactory alternative could be for AOC
management to rely on the new EAP manager to provide the necessary
program administration reports while protecting the confidentiality
of participants' records. 

AOC pointed out that the importance of regular staff meetings and
communications are emphasized in its basic supervisory training
course.  While this is a positive step, we noted that about 79
percent of the respondents to our survey indicated that staff
meetings were not held. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1

We are sending copies of this briefing report to the Architect, the
Ranking Minority Member of the Committee on Rules and Administration,
and other appropriate congressional committees.  Copies will be made
available to other interested parties upon request. 

The major contributors to this briefing report are listed in appendix
V.  If you have any questions about this report, please call me on
(202) 512-5074. 

Sincerely yours,

Nancy Kingsbury
Director
Federal Human Resource Management
 Issues


AOC PERSONNEL
MANAGEMENT--PRINCIPLES AND
CONDITIONS
=========================================================== Appendix I









We summarized the results of our audit on the following pages. 
First, we identified the personnel principles pertinent to the
personnel management areas discussed.  We summarized the conditions
we found at AOC on the next and following pages and provided
narrative when additional discussion was needed. 

A total of 637 AOC employees working at the Senate Office Buildings
and Senate Restaurants participated in our survey.  However, the
number of respondents to specific questions varies because some
participants did not answer every question in the survey. 









Note 1:  The above graph represents the racial profile of AOC's total
population of full-time FWS employees as of fiscal year 1992. 

Note 2:  Federal Wage System includes employees in WG, WL, and WS
positions. 



Note:  The above graph represents the racial profile of AOC's total
population of full-time GS employees as of fiscal year 1992. 



Note:  The above graph represents the racial profile of AOC's total
population of full-time RW employees working at the Senate
Restaurants as of fiscal year 1992. 



As the preceding charts and table indicate, minorities and women in
AOC's workforce are underrepresented.  For example, information in
the above table represents summarized data about 11 of the
higher-paying blue-collar occupations at AOC--(1) electronics
mechanic, (2) electrician, (3) electrician (high voltage), (4) sheet
metal mechanic, (5) painter, (6) pipefitter, (7) wood crafting, (8)
carpenter, (9) air conditioning mechanic, (10) elevator mechanic, and
(11) utility systems operator.  As shown, the AOC workforce in these
occupations is not reflective of the comparable federal workforce and
the civilian workforce of the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. 
Appendix II shows the racial and gender profiles for each of 22
occupations at AOC, and the profiles of the federal workforce and the
Washington, D.C., civilian labor force for the same occupations. 









We reviewed AOC documentation for 15 of the 16 promotions made in
fiscal year 1992 at the Senate Restaurants and 61 of the 83
promotions made at the Senate Office Buildings during the same year. 
The documentation indicated inconsistencies in the promotion
practices.  For example, while vacancy announcements were posted for
all except one of the promotions at the Senate Restaurants, the
interviewing procedures appeared inconsistent.  In some instances,
the files contained copies of the specific questions posed by the
interviewing official and noted responses to each question.  In other
instances, the files did not contain a copy of the interview
questions or the responses.  Since formal written performance
appraisals are not provided to most AOC employees, these were not
available to the selecting officials.  When the files showed that
selecting officials received some verbal input from the candidates'
supervisors, it was noted as one-word adjectives such as good,
reliable, or excellent. 

Documentation at the Senate Office Buildings indicated that 50 of the
61 promotions were not advertised.  Less information about the
selection process was available at the Senate Office Buildings than
at the Senate Restaurants.  For example, the files did not contain
enough information to determine the type of interviews (panel or
one-on-one), questions asked, responses, or panelists' scores, when a
panel may have been used. 

At our request, AOC officials researched the 50 promotions that
showed no evidence of competition.  They reported that 44 did not
require competition because they were due to such circumstances as
career-ladder progressions, upgrades pursuant to classification
reviews, and increased duties.  They said that the six remaining
promotions had been posted and subsequently provided us with copies
of the announcements. 

We believe that AOC's explanation of the 44 promotions demonstrates
the benefits of a formal staffing plan.  Among other things, such a
plan would inform employees of the policies and procedures of, as
well as the exceptions to, merit staffing.  The lack of such
information, in our opinion, supports the survey results of employee
perceptions about promotion.  In that survey, 617 employees responded
to the question "In your opinion, how fair or unfair are the current
promotion practices in your unit (Senate Office Building or
Restaurants)?" A total of 361 (58.5 percent) gave negative
responses--103 (16.7 percent) indicated "somewhat unfair" and 258
(41.8 percent) answered "very unfair."

AOC is developing a formal staffing plan. 





We reviewed data on training provided in fiscal year 1992 to AOC
employees working at the Senate Office Buildings and Senate
Restaurants.  In total, 219 of 825 employees took training during
that year.  Twenty-nine of the 825 employees (3.5 percent) took
courses offering technical skill training directly related to their
jobs.  The remaining 190 (23 percent of the 825 employees) took
nontechnical training, such as sexual harassment, substance abuse,
supervision, or remedial reading.  Fiscal year 1992 training data
showed that AOC spent $63,695 on training for its employees at the
Senate Office Buildings and Senate Restaurants.  This amounts to
about $225 for each employee who took a course, or about $77 per
worker for all employees. 

According to the Architect, AOC's fiscal year 1995 budget contains a
line item request for $80,000 for training in the Senate Office
Buildings appropriation.  Initial funds were provided for training in
fiscal year 1986 by reallocating funds from other Senate Office
Buildings allotments.  AOC requested and received training funds in
fiscal years 1992 and 1994. 









AOC established its EAP in 1988 under the direction of a personnel
management specialist.  The program operated without formal policies
and procedures.  Concerned about the status of the program and the
type of information kept in the EAP files, a personnel official
reviewed and purged the files in 1991.  Such access to the files
added to concerns among employees about the confidentiality of the
EAP records. 

AOC's Internal Auditor advised in a May 1992 report that access to
EAP files by personnel officials was "risky and does not adhere to
program intent." To mitigate the need for personnel officials to
examine EAP folders, the auditor recommended that AOC contract with
an EAP consultant to review and report on the status of the program. 
AOC did not implement this recommendation.  However, AOC hired an new
EAP manager in November 1992 and, according to this new manager, file
access is now restricted to EAP personnel. 





Adverse action files we reviewed showed that they contained required
documentation, such as the nature and reasons for the proposed
actions and notification to employees explaining their right to
review the material supporting the adverse action.  We listened to
two of three audio tapes of adverse action hearings available for our
review.  These hearings appeared to have been conducted fairly. 
However, employees had a limited awareness about potential
disciplinary actions for misconduct and the disciplinary appeal
process.  Thirty-five percent of 589 respondents said they were not
aware of the range of disciplinary measures AOC could take for
offenses, and 54 percent of 585 respondents indicated that they were
not familiar with the appeal procedures. 









Concerns of the six window washers stemmed from their assignment to
clean the "clouds"--the mobile section of the "Mountain and Clouds"
artwork in the atrium of the Senate Hart Office Building.  This
assignment requires workers to suspend a swinging scaffold
approximately 70 feet above the atrium floor and, using extended dust
mops, reach out from the scaffold to brush the dust and debris off
the top of the "clouds." The window washers believed this work
qualified them for a hazardous duty pay for the hours spent doing
this work.  Criteria provided in the CFR defining hazardous duties
includes working on any structure of at least 50 feet above the base
level if the structure is unstable.  In an August 1992 audit report,
the AOC Internal Auditor concluded that a hazardous duty differential
should be authorized for these employees. 

AOC officials disagreed.  They believed that an upgrade that the
window washers received in 1982 from WG-04 to WG-05 reflected a
recognition of the hazardous nature of this work.  These promotions,
however, occurred in 1982 in recognition of the responsibilities and
hazards associated with cleaning the windows in the atrium and the
galleries of the Senate Hart Office Building.  The mobile of the
"clouds" was installed in 1986, about 4 years later. 

In fiscal year 1993, AOC officials contracted for services to clean
the cloud mobile and exterior windows that the six window washers had
been responsible for cleaning.  Estimated contract costs for cleaning
the "clouds" are about $3,600 a year for three scheduled cleanings,
or $1,200 per visit.  Estimated contract costs for cleaning the
exterior windows of the Senate buildings are about $28,600 a year for
two scheduled cleanings, or about $14,300 per visit.  According to
the Superintendent of the Senate Office Buildings, these duties were
contracted out to reduce the risk to AOC employees.  The
Superintendent also told us that the window washers were reassigned
at their current pay and grade levels to the Upholstery Division to
provide them opportunities to learn a skilled craft that will qualify
them for greater responsibilities and pay. 

However, we noted that the position descriptions of the six window
washers transferred to the Upholstery Division as upholstery helpers
still contained the duties of cleaning the exterior windows and the
"clouds." AOC officials told us that these duties were kept in the
position descriptions to provide for cleaning that may need to be
done between scheduled visits by the contractors.  If such a
situation were to occur, we see the potential for the issue of
whether the work merits a hazardous-duty pay differential to arise
again. 

In commenting on a draft of this report, AOC said that it will delete
any duties involving the "clouds" from the position descriptions of
the window washers.  In our opinion, deletion of these duties from
the position descriptions would prevent the issue from arising in the
future. 


COMPARISON OF SELECTED AOC,
FEDERAL, AND CIVILIAN OCCUPATIONS
BY RACE AND GENDER, FISCAL YEAR
1992
========================================================== Appendix II


Se
ri                Compared
es  Title         units          Male   Female     Male   Female     Male   Female
--  ------------  ----------  -------  -------  -------  -------  -------  -------
30  Administrati  AOC            44.2     23.3     20.9     11.6      0.0      0.0
1   on

                  Federal        38.3     36.1      5.0     16.3      2.0      2.2

                  Civilian       12.2     52.4      4.1     23.7      1.4      6.2

53  Cash          AOC             0.0     11.1     14.8     55.6      0.0     18.5
0   processing

                  Federal         5.0     27.0     11.0     51.0      1.0      5.0

                  Civilian       11.5     39.2      5.0     25.2      4.6     14.5

54  Civilian pay  AOC            22.2     33.3      5.6     27.8      5.6      5.6
4

                  Federal         3.3     27.4      9.0     57.4      0.2      2.6

                  Civilian        5.9     51.5      4.8     30.0      1.3      6.5

11  General       AOC            40.0     15.0     10.0     20.0     10.0      5.0
01  business

                  Federal        40.6     28.4      6.5     21.1      2.0      1.4

                  Civilian       12.2     52.4      4.1     23.7      1.4      6.2

26  Electronics   AOC            77.1      2.9     20.0      0.0      0.0      0.0
04  mechanic

                  Federal        66.3      3.0     24.9      1.8      3.6      0.6

                  Civilian       54.2      6.3     24.0      2.5     12.1      0.9

28  Electrician   AOC            89.8      0.0      9.1      0.0      1.1      0.0
05

                  Federal        63.5      0.3     33.6      0.8      1.7      0.0

                  Civilian       68.8      1.0     22.9      1.1      6.2      0.1

28  Electrician   AOC           100.0      0.0      0.0      0.0      0.0      0.0
10  (high
    voltage)

                  Federal        64.0      0.0     35.1      0.0      0.9      0.0

                  Civilian       70.4      0.6     24.8      0.0      4.2      0.0

35  Laborer       AOC            17.9      0.0     80.3      0.3      1.4      0.0
02

                  Federal        13.3      2.0     62.4     19.7      2.6      0.0

                  Civilian       33.2      6.5     40.6      7.5      8.4      3.7

35  Custodial     AOC             0.0      3.6      2.8     90.0      0.0      3.6
66  worker

                  Federal         3.1      3.3     37.6     55.4      0.5      0.1

                  Civilian       14.6      7.1     33.2     19.6     13.6     12.1

38  Sheet metal   AOC            89.3      0.0     10.7      0.0      0.0      0.0
06  mechanic

                  Federal        68.6      0.0     29.3      0.0      2.1      0.0

                  Civilian       71.7      2.0     19.0      0.0      7.3      0.0

41  Painter       AOC            83.9      3.2     12.9      0.0      0.0      0.0
02

                  Federal        41.7      1.1     53.0      2.8      1.4      0.0

                  Civilian       44.5      3.8     17.2      0.4     33.4      0.8

42  Pipefitter    AOC            86.1      0.0     13.9      0.0      0.0      0.0
04

                  Federal        69.4      0.3     29.5      0.0      0.9      0.0

                  Civilian       70.1      1.1     22.9      0.4      5.6      0.0

46  Wood          AOC           100.0      0.0      0.0      0.0      0.0      0.0
05  crafting

                  Federal        66.7      2.8     24.1      0.9      5.6      0.0

                  Civilian       65.9      1.0     11.9    0.3 2      0.6      0.2

46  Carpenter     AOC            77.3      4.5     13.6      0.0      4.5      0.0
07

                  Federal        70.5      0.0     27.6      1.3      0.6      0.0

                  Civilian       65.9      1.0     11.9    0.3 2      0.6      0.2

50  Gardener      AOC            51.0      2.0     47.1    0.0 0       .0      0.0
03

                  Federal        35.2      5.0     56.8      2.0      1.0      0.0

                  Civilian       49.1      5.8     23.0    2.0 1      9.6      0.5

53  Air           AOC            88.6      0.0      9.8      0.0      1.5      0.0
06  condition
    mechanic

                  Federal        71.0      0.7     25.3      0.3      2.7      0.0

                  Civilian       70.9      0.5     18.8      0.9      8.9      0.0

53  Elevator      AOC            85.4      0.0     14.6      0.0      0.0      0.0
13  mechanic

                  Federal        61.2      0.0     35.3      0.0      3.5      0.0

                  Civilian       86.1      0.6      5.9      1.8      5.7      0.0

54  Utility       AOC            61.8      0.0     35.3      0.0      2.9      0.0
06  systems
    operator

                  Federal        60.0      2.9     37.1      0.0      0.0      0.0

                  Civilian       69.4      3.0     15.6      3.3      2.0      6.6

57  Motor         AOC            21.4      0.0     57.1     10.7      3.6      7.1
03  vehicle
    operator

                  Federal        18.3      1.0     75.5      3.4      1.8      0.0

                  Civilian       42.4      4.1     44.4      2.1      6.6      0.4

74  Cook          AOC            11.1      0.0     33.3     29.6     11.1     14.8
04

                  Federal         6.2     17.2     41.4     30.3      4.1      0.7

                  Civilian       19.3     13.0     18.6     13.5     22.7     13.0

74  Food service  AOC             4.3      2.2     39.1     30.4     12.0     12.0
08  worker

                  Federal         4.5      5.5     23.6     62.5      1.0      2.9

                  Civilian       14.0     17.1     15.5     15.6     24.4     13.4

74  Waiters/      AOC             0.0      5.6     11.1     55.6     22.2      5.6
20  waitresses

                  Federal         N/A      N/A      N/A      N/A      N/A      N/A

                  Civilian       19.1     43.1      5.3      9.4     12.9     10.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Other minorities include Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic, and
Native American. 

Note:  Row totals may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. 

Sources:  AOC data obtained from the AOC personnel database for
fiscal year 1992.  Federal workforce percentages were calculated from
fiscal year 1992 data for the Executive Branch obtained from OPM. 
Civilian labor force percentages were calculated from 1990 Census
data for the Washington, D.C., metropolitan statistical area. 




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix III
GAO SURVEY OF EMPLOYEES AT THE
SENATE OFFICE BUILDINGS AND SENATE
RESTAURANTS
========================================================== Appendix II



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix IV
COMMENTS FROM THE ARCHITECT OF THE
CAPITOL
========================================================== Appendix II



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS
BRIEFING REPORT
=========================================================== Appendix V

GENERAL GOVERNMENT DIVISION,
WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Richard W.  Caradine, Assistant Director
Helen Fauntleroy Branch, Assignment Manager
Steven J.  Berke, Evaluator-in-Charge
Stuart M.  Kaufman, Senior Social Science Analyst
Jerry Sandau, Evaluator
Ernestine B.  Burt, Secretary

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL,
WASHINGTON, D.C. 

James M.  Rebbe, Attorney Advisor
