The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE'S LEASE PROCUREMENT” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Commerce was published in the Senate section on pages S9482-S9483 on July 30, 1998.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE'S LEASE PROCUREMENT
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to set the record straight about the Patent and Trademark Office's lease procurement for a new or remodeled facility. There is a continuing misinformation campaign being waged to delay the Patent and Trademark Office's lease procurement or put it back to square one.
Allegations are being made that, to the taxpayer's detriment, the new facility is vastly overpriced and that a new federal construction option has not been considered.
The fact is that the procurement has been conducted by the book and has undergone several, impartial reviews, all of which conclude that the project is on the right track, competitively sound and should continue.
Mr. President, we all know that funding is not available to support the federal construction of a new headquarters for PTO because of the limitations of the Balanced Budget Act. We also know that the new lease, authorized by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in Fall of 1995, will result in cost savings of $72 million over the life of the lease. That cost savings will accrue in spite of moving costs, an upgraded work environment, new furniture and other improvements designed to enable the PTO to more effectively do its job.
The PTO is fully fee funded and does not receive any taxpayer support. All lease and moving costs will be borne by PTO's customers in the normal course of business.
The Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure intends to have a hearing on this matter in September. In the meantime, I am submitting a number of points regarding the procurement, in addition to a letter sent to me by Bruce A. Lehman, Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks.
I urge you to take time to hear the real story of the PTO project. The clear facts are that failure to take action to consolidate PTO space will result in wasteful use of funds and prevents PTO from modernizing services for its customers.
The material follows:
the facts on the patent and trademark office procurement
No taxpayer funds are being spent on the project. PTO is fully user fee funded.
PTO's largest user groups support the project. The American Intellectual Property Law Association, the Intellectual Property Owner's Association and the Intellectual Property Section of the ABA have all expressed strong support in numerous Congressional letters for continuation of the ongoing procurement.
Federal construction is not a viable option. The Administration and PTO's Appropriations Committees agree that a competitive lease is the only viable option since neither user fees nor taxpayer funding are available to construct or purchase a facility for PTO.
Consolidated project will save the PTO at least $72 million. Whether the project proceeds or the PTO remains at its current leased, unconsolidated locations, the PTO will spend approximately $1.3 billion in lease costs over the next 20 years to house the agency. Delaying consolidation will prevent PTO from passing this $72 million in savings on to its fee-paying customers.
Senate Bill already caps build-out costs. The Senate Appropriations Bill (S. 2260), as passed, would cap interior office build-out at $36.69 per square foot, the Government-wide standard rate. Moreover, these costs are included in the new rent amount.
PTO's projected moving costs are reasonable. All moving costs were taken into account in computing the $72 million in savings. PTO's projected costs are comparable to those spent by other recently consolidated agencies.
PTO will not purchase $250 shower curtains, etc. Estimates for $250 shower curtains for the fitness facility, $750 cribs for the child care center, $309 ash cans for smoking rooms, and $1,000 coat racks for training facilities were intentionally ``worst case'' estimates used for the purpose of calculating the cost savings that would result from consolidation. Standardization, mass buys and competitive furniture purchases will generate lower actual costs. PTO has not yet made any requested appropriations of user fees for furniture purchases. Proceeding with the procurement and applying a sharp pencil to PTO's future appropriations requests for furniture can only enhance the $72 million in savings.
Any environmental costs will be totally funded by the developer. All three sites competing for PTO's lease already house Federal employees. The Government just constructed a federal courthouse on the Carlyle site, the Defense Department has occupied the Eisenhower site for over 20 years, and the PTO has occupied the Crystal City site for over 25 years. There is no evidence that developers cannot accomplish any environmental work that may be required to further develop these sites.
DOC's IG concluded that the project should proceed. The IG's key conclusion was that PTO will benefit from the project and will realize long-term cost savings. Both the IG and an independent consultant to the DOC Secretary (Jefferson Solutions) found that enhanced building capability, which is the goal of planned interior upgrades, is not unreasonable in terms of cost and purpose. And S. 2260, as passed, would place the ceiling on build-out that the IG recommends.
Two of the PTO's three unions fully support the project. National Treasury Employees Union locals 243 (representing clerical and administrative staff) and 245 (representing trademark examining attorneys) have already signed a partnership agreement supporting PTO's plans for the project. The PTO is continuing talks with the third union.
U.S. Department of Commerce,
Patent and Trademark Office,
Washington, DC, July 29, 1998.Hon. John W. Warner,U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Warner: In light of recent reports on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's (PTO) on-going procurement process to competitively acquire new, consolidated space for the PTO, I want to assure you that this procurement is based on sound principles.
These reports are focused on estimates of furniture costs mentioned in our Deva and Associates business case study. This study was undertaken to compare our present, unconsolidated space with a worst-case scenario of moving to a new, consolidated facility under the GSA prospectus.
Many of the dollar amounts cited in the Deva report are being touted as what the PTO is spending for furniture at a new facility. Nothing is farther from the truth. I personally assure you, we have never contemplated nor will we spend $250 for a shower curtain, $750 for a crib, or $1,000 for a coat rack. I agree that some of these furniture estimates are too high even for a worst-case scenario. However, it must be kept in mind that even with these extremely high estimates, this procurement project still shows savings of at least $72 million. No one is disputing this fact.
I look forward to working with you and our appropriators to ensure that any expenditures for furniture are prudent and responsible. Delaying or stopping this procurement will only increase space costs for our fee-paying customers.
Sincerely,
Bruce A. Lehman,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce andCommissioner of Patents and Trademarks.
____________________
