text:
 ROZPORZĄDZENIE WYKONAWCZE KOMISJI (UE) .../...
 z dnia XXX r.
 w sprawie rodzajów i gatunków roślin przeznaczonych do sadzenia, które nie są zwolnione z wymogu dotyczącego kodu identyfikacyjnego w paszportach roślin na mocy rozporządzenia Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady (UE) 2016/2031 oraz uchylające dyrektywę Komisji 92/105/EWG
 KOMISJA EUROPEJSKA,
 uwzględniając Traktat o funkcjonowaniu Unii Europejskiej,
 uwzględniając rozporządzenie Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady (UE) 2016/2031 w sprawie środków ochronnych przeciwko agrofagom roślin
 1
 , w szczególności jego art. 83 ust. 3,
 a także mając na uwadze, co następuje:
 (1)W rozporządzeniu (UE) 2016/2031 ustanowiono przepisy dotyczące treści i formatu paszportu roślin wymaganego do przemieszczania na terytorium Unii oraz do i w obrębie stref chronionych niektórych roślin, produktów roślinnych i innych przedmiotów.
 (2)Paszport roślin przeznaczony do przemieszczania na terytorium Unii zawiera kod identyfikacyjny, z wyjątkiem niektórych roślin przeznaczonych do sadzenia, które są gotowe do sprzedaży użytkownikom ostatecznym. Wyjątek ten nie ma zastosowania do rodzajów i gatunków roślin przeznaczonych do sadzenia, które mają być wymienione przez Komisję.
 (3)Niektóre rośliny przeznaczone do sadzenia podlegają środkom unijnym przyjętym na podstawie art. 28 lub art. 30 rozporządzenia (UE) 2016/2031 w odniesieniu do określonych agrofagów. Niektóre z tych roślin przeznaczonych do sadzenia, w szczególności te, co do których wiadomo, że są bardziej narażone na porażenie lub zakażenie tymi konkretnymi agrofagami lub które zostały przechwycone na rynku wewnętrznym z powodu porażenia lub zakażenia tymi konkretnymi agrofagami, mogą przyczyniać się do rozprzestrzeniania się tych agrofagów w Unii, a tym samym zwiększać potencjał tych agrofagów w zakresie wywoływania poważnego i długotrwałego negatywnego wpływu na te rośliny przeznaczone do sadzenia.
 (4)Niektóre rośliny przeznaczone do sadzenia pochodzące z Unii podlegają szczególnym wymogom określonym w odniesieniu do niektórych agrofagów kwarantannowych dla Unii zgodnie z art. 41 ust. 2 rozporządzenia (UE) 2016/2031 i art. 8 ust. 2 rozporządzenia (UE) 2019/2072
 2
 . Te rośliny przeznaczone do sadzenia mogą przyczyniać się do rozprzestrzeniania się tych agrofagów w Unii, a tym samym zwiększać potencjał tych agrofagów w zakresie wywoływania poważnego i długotrwałego negatywnego wpływu na te rośliny przeznaczone do sadzenia.
 (5)Niektóre z tych roślin przeznaczonych do sadzenia zostały przechwycone podczas ich przemieszczania w obrębie Unii, ponieważ były żywicielami agrofagów kwarantannowych dla Unii.
 (6)Należy zatem wprowadzić wymóg kodu identyfikacyjnego dla wszystkich przypadków paszportów roślin wydawanych dla tych roślin przeznaczonych do sadzenia w celu zwiększenia szybkiej identyfikowalności tych roślin.
 (7)Rozporządzenie (UE) 2016/2031, rozporządzenie wykonawcze Komisji (UE) 2017/2313
 3
 i niniejsze rozporządzenie ustanawiają zbiór nowych przepisów dotyczących stosowania i treści paszportów roślin. Z tego powodu dyrektywa Komisji 92/105/EWG
 4
 staje się nieaktualna i powinna zostać uchylona.
 (8)Aby podmioty profesjonalne i właściwe organy miały wystarczająco dużo czasu na dostosowanie się do tych wymogów, niniejsze rozporządzenie powinno mieć zastosowanie od dnia 31 grudnia 2021 r.
 (9)Środki przewidziane w niniejszym rozporządzeniu są zgodne z opinią Stałego Komitetu ds. Roślin, Zwierząt, Żywności i Pasz,
 PRZYJMUJE NINIEJSZE ROZPORZĄDZENIE:
 Artykuł 1
 Rodzaje i gatunki roślin przeznaczonych do sadzenia, które nie są zwolnione z wymogu dotyczącego kodu identyfikacyjnego w paszportach roślin
 Zwolnienie z wymogu dotyczącego kodu identyfikacyjnego w paszportach roślin na potrzeby przemieszczania na terytorium Unii, o którym mowa w art. 83 ust. 2 akapit drugi rozporządzenia (UE) 2016/2031, nie ma zastosowania do rodzajów i gatunków roślin przeznaczonych do sadzenia wymienionych w załączniku do niniejszego rozporządzenia.
 Artykuł 2
 Uchylenie dyrektywy 92/105/EWG
 Dyrektywa 92/105/EWG traci moc.
 Artykuł 3
 Wejście w życie i data rozpoczęcia stosowania
 Niniejsze rozporządzenie wchodzi w życie dwudziestego dnia po jego opublikowaniu w Dzienniku Urzędowym Unii Europejskiej.
 Niniejsze rozporządzenie stosuje się od dnia 31 grudnia 2021 r.
 Niniejsze rozporządzenie wiąże w całości i jest bezpośrednio stosowane we wszystkich państwach członkowskich.
 Sporządzono w Brukseli dnia 26.11.2020 r.
 W imieniu Komisji
 Przewodnicząca
 Ursula VON DER LEYEN
 (1)
 Rozporządzenie Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady (UE) 2016/2031 z dnia 26 października 2016 r. w sprawie środków ochronnych przeciwko agrofagom roślin, zmieniające rozporządzenia Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady (UE) nr 228/2013, (UE) nr 652/2014 i (UE) nr 1143/2014 oraz uchylające dyrektywy Rady 69/464/EWG, 74/647/EWG, 93/85/EWG, 98/57/WE, 2000/29/WE, 2006/91/WE i 2007/33/WE (Dz.U. L 317 z 23.11.2016, s. 4).
 (2)
 Rozporządzenie wykonawcze Komisji (UE) 2019/2072 z dnia 28 listopada 2019 r. ustanawiające jednolite warunki wykonania rozporządzenia Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady (UE) 2016/2031 w sprawie środków ochronnych przeciwko agrofagom roślin i uchylające rozporządzenie Komisji (WE) nr 690/2008 oraz zmieniające rozporządzenie wykonawcze Komisji (UE) 2018/2019 (Dz.U. L 319 z 10.12.2019, s. 1).
 (3)
 Rozporządzenie wykonawcze Komisji (UE) 2017/2313 z dnia 13 grudnia 2017 r. określające specyfikacje dotyczące formatu paszportu roślin służącego przemieszczaniu na terytorium Unii oraz paszportu roślin służącego wprowadzaniu do strefy chronionej i przemieszczaniu w niej (Dz.U. L 331 z 14.12.2017, s. 44).
 (4)
 Dyrektywa Komisji 92/105/EWG z dnia 3 grudnia 1992 r. ustanawiająca stopień normalizacji w odniesieniu do „paszportów” roślin używanych przy przemieszczaniu niektórych roślin, produktów roślinnych i innych przedmiotów w obrębie Wspólnoty i ustanawiająca szczegółowe procedury dotyczące wydawania takich „paszportów” roślin oraz warunki i szczegółowe procedury dotyczące ich wymiany (Dz.U. L 4 z 8.1.1993, s. 22).
 ---documentbreak---
 ZAŁĄCZNIK
 Rodzaje i gatunki roślin przeznaczonych do sadzenia, które nie są zwolnione z wymogu dotyczącego kodu identyfikacyjnego w paszportach roślin
 Rośliny przeznaczone do sadzenia, inne niż nasiona:
 Cytrus
 Coffea
 Lavandula dentata L.
 Nerium oleander L.
 Olea europea L.
 Polygala myrtifolia L.
 Prunus dulcis (Mill.) D.A. Webb
 Solanum tuberosum L.


type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b" REVIEW OF SPACE UTILIZATION\n IN THE\n FRANCES PERKINS BUILDING\n\n\n\n\nOFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT\n\n\n_______________________________________________________________\n\n\n\n\n Report No. 2E-07-731-0001\n Date Issued: September 27, 2000\n\x0c TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n\nACRONYMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i\n\nEXECUTIVE SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii\n\nBACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1\n\nPURPOSE AND METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2\n\nFINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3\n\n 1. DOL is Not Enforcing Targeted Utilization Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3\n\n 2. OASAM is Not Consistently Analyzing Space Utilization Rates . . . . . . . . . 6\n\n 3. DOL\xe2\x80\x99s Space Initiative was not Achieved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9\n\n Major FPB Planned Space Realignments Within the FPB\n Which Did Not Occur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9\n\n Planned Movement Into the FPB During Review Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13\n\nOASAM RESPONSE AND OIG CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . 17\n\nEXHIBITS\n\n Exhibit 1 - Space Utilization of the Frances Perkins Building FY 1996\xe2\x80\x932000 . . . . . . . . . 20\n\n Exhibit 2 - Examples of Agency Overpayment of Rent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22\n\n Exhibit 3 - Current DLMS Space Management Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24\n\n Exhibit 4 - New Pricing Policy Information/GSA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26\n\nAPPENDIX\n\n Agency Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .28\n\x0c ACRONYMS\n\n\n\n\nALJ Administrative Law Judges OASAM Office of the Assistant\n Secretary for Administration\nBOC Business Operations Center and Management\n\nBRB Benefits Review Board OFCCP Office of Federal Contract\n Compliance Programs\nDLMS Department of Labor\n Manual Series OLMS Office of Labor-\n Management Standards\nDOL Department of Labor\n OMAP Office of Management,\nECAB Employees\xe2\x80\x99 Compensation Administration, and Planning\n Appeals Board\n OSTM Office of Space and\nESA Employment Standards Telecommunications\n Administration Management\n\nFPB Frances Perkins Building OWCPOffice of Workers\xe2\x80\x99 Compensation\n Programs\nFTE Full Time Equivalent\n SOL Solicitor of Labor\nFY Fiscal Year\n VETS Veterans\xe2\x80\x99 Employment and\nIG Inspector General Training Services\n\nILAB Bureau of International WB Women\xe2\x80\x99s Bureau\n Labor Affairs\n WHD Wage Hour Division\nMSHA Mine Safety and Health\n Administration\n\n\n\n\n i\n\x0c EXECUTIVE SUMMARY\n\nWe conducted this evaluation to assess the Department of Labor\xe2\x80\x99s (DOL) efforts in attaining optimum\nutilization of space in the Frances Perkins Building (FPB). Our evaluation covered Fiscal Years 1996\nthrough 2000. The evaluation was designed to provide information on DOL\xe2\x80\x99s conformance to\nregulations pertaining to space, evaluate the actual utilization of space over a specified time frame, and\nmake recommendations for any necessary improvements in space utilization in the FPB.\n\n\n RESULTS OF EVALUATION\n\nOur evaluation identified several areas where improvements, if implemented, should ultimately result in\ncost savings to DOL in the millions of dollars. Implementation of our recommendations will improve the\nability of the Office of Space and Telecommunications Management (OSTM) to more effectively\noversee the space management program in the FPB.\n\nFINDING 1 - DOL is Not Enforcing Targeted Space Utilization Rates\n\nDOL\xe2\x80\x99s written policies and procedures are in conformance with standards developed by the General\nServices Administration (GSA). However, enforcement by OASAM and agency heads of DOL\xe2\x80\x99s\ntargeted utilization rate has not occurred. As a result, we estimate that DOL is paying $3.5 million\nannually for underutilized space in the FPB.\n\nFINDING 2 -OASAM is Not Consistently Analyzing Space Utilization Rates\n\n(a) Staffing information, including contractor usage, is not provided to the Office of Space and\nTelecommunications Management group annually, as required of agency heads in the current and draft\nof the revised DLMS on Space Management.\n\n(b) There is a lack of consistency in OASAM\xe2\x80\x99s analysis of actual space utilization in the FPB, due in\npart to the agencies\xe2\x80\x99 failure to provide required staffing information. For example, (a) the targeted\nversus actual space utilization rates of DOL agencies, (b) agency costs versus utilization rates, and (c)\nuse of space in the FPB by contracted employees has not been consistently examined, with results\ncommunicated to agency heads. OASAM has both the staff and the ability to perform these analysis\nwhen all the required information is received.\n\n\n\n\n ii\n\x0cFINDING 3 - DOL\xe2\x80\x99s Space Initiative was not Achieved\n\nThe objective of the space initiative was to increase the effective utilization of space within the FPB\nthrough internal realignments and the relocation of Headquarters\xe2\x80\x99 employees from satellite locations into\nthe FPB, leaving only the Bureau of Labor Statistics located in the Postal Square Building. In 1998,\nOASAM estimated that the downsizing and relocation initiative would save the Department a minimum\nof approximately $3,900,000 in rent each year after completion.\n\nSeveral planned moves for the consolidation of DOL Headquarters\xe2\x80\x99 staff into the FPB were not\ncompleted. Several planned internal realignments of agencies in the FPB did not occur, due in part to\nstalled negotiations with the American Federation of Government Employees - Local 12.\n\n\n RECOMMENDATIONS\n\n1. OASAM needs to reemphasize DOL\xe2\x80\x99s space management program in the FPB. Agency\n heads should be informed they will be held accountable for making concerted efforts to achieve\n the targeted space utilization rate in accordance with DOL policy.\n\n2. (a) OASAM/OSTM should inform agency heads of the need to obtain accurate staffing\n information, including contractor usage, on a quarterly basis. Each agency and sub-agency\n (e.g., ESA\xe2\x80\x93OMAP, OFCCP, OLMS, OWCP, WHD, etc.) should be held accountable for\n providing OSTM with support documentation pertaining to the staffing numbers (e.g., employee\n name, social security and/or badge number, and job title for DOL and contractor employees\n alike). Should an agency fail to provide staffing information on a regular basis, the agency head\n should be notified.\n\n (b) OASAM should conduct quarterly analyses on space utilization for each agency and sub-\n agency in the FPB, and on that leased space outside the FPB which houses headquarters\xe2\x80\x99\n employees. The reports should highlight: the targeted versus actual utilization rate; actual rental\n costs versus targeted rental costs; and use of space by contracted employees, including\n associated rental costs.\n\n (c) The resulting utilization trend reports should be disseminated to each agency and sub-\n agency quarterly.\n\n (d) The draft of the revised DLMS on space management should continue to assign the\n responsibility for providing specific staffing information, including contractor usage, to the\n agency heads, and assign the responsibility for requesting the information to OSTM.\n\n\n iii\n\x0c3. OASAM should reevaluate the proposals for realignment of agencies within the FPB, and the\n relocation of MSHA, SOL and the ALJ into the FPB, through the following steps:\n\n (a) Following the completion of the first quarterly space utilization analysis for the Women\xe2\x80\x99s\n Bureau and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, OASAM should\n reevaluate the need for the agencies to pursue labor negotiations with Local 12. The\n decision to request that the agencies move forward with the stalled union negotiations\n should be dictated by the difference between the actual and targeted utilization rates,\n based on current staffing figures which have been verified by OSTM. Use of\n contractors by OFCCP and the WB should also be addressed in the report. OSTM\n should highlight the cost factors in allowing the agencies to continue their underutilization\n of space, as well as costs associated with contracted employees. Agency heads\n (OFCCP and WB) and the Assistant Secretary for ESA should be notified in writing of\n OASAM\xe2\x80\x99s findings.\n\n (b) Upon completion of the space utilization trend analyses for each agency and sub-\n agency in the FPB, and for the leased space which houses Headquarters\xe2\x80\x99 employees,\n OASAM should reevaluate the feasibility of moving any or all of these agencies into the\n FPB\xe2\x80\x93MSHA, ALJ, SOL. This evaluation should include analysis on the amount of\n space used by contractors in the FPB versus the amount of space needed to move\n these agency Headquarters\xe2\x80\x99 employees into the FPB. The report should contain\n specific recommendations and outcomes based on associated costs incurred and\n potential savings (i.e. rental fees, estimated move costs, etc.). The report should be\n shared with the Office of the Secretary of Labor.\n\n\n\n OASAM RESPONSE AND OIG CONCLUSIONS\n\nThe agency\xe2\x80\x99s response to the OIG\xe2\x80\x99s official draft report agrees with the recommendations made. The\nrecommendations have been resolved and will be considered closed upon OIG\xe2\x80\x99s receipt of the\ndocumentation detailed in the \xe2\x80\x9cOASAM Response and OIG Conclusions\xe2\x80\x9d section of the report. The\nagency\xe2\x80\x99s complete response is found in the Appendix.\n\n\n\n\n iv\n\x0c BACKGROUND\n\nThe Frances Perkins Building serves as the National Office headquarters facility for the Department of\nLabor. However, as of July 2000, the Department is also renting 602,624 square feet of office space\nat six additional sites in the Washington metropolitan area in order to house DOL Headquarters\xe2\x80\x99\nemployees.\n\nIn DOL, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Administration and Management is responsible for the\nplanning and administration of the Department\xe2\x80\x99s space management and telecommunications programs.\nThe Office of Space and Telecommunications Management, a division of the Business Operations\nCenter, has direct responsibility for all space management issues concerning the FPB, including:\nadministration of the programs; making recommendations to ensure conformance with the General\nServices Administration (GSA) standards; coordination of space planning; reviewing and evaluating\nrequests for all space changes; developing and monitoring a space utilization survey program; and\noverseeing the development and implementation of space realignment plans to improve utilization of\nspace.\n\nSince moving into the FPB in 1975, the Department has been in a continuous process of renovating and\nrealigning space among its agencies. As agencies have expanded and contracted over the years,\nspecific projects were undertaken to either move satellite offices or agencies into the FPB, or locate\nand renovate space outside the FPB to accommodate the needs of expanding programs. Such moves\nand realignments are reviewed with the American Federation of Government Employees\xe2\x80\x93Local 12, in\naccordance with article 23 of the labor agreement between the Department of Labor and the National\nCouncil of Field Labor Locals. While the article states that it is desirable that issues concerning space\nbe resolved informally through discussion among the affected employees, the office steward, and local\nmanagement, there is an understanding that any unresolved issues can always become the subject of\nformal midterm bargaining.\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\x0c PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGY\n\n\n PURPOSE\n\nThe purpose of this evaluation was to assess the Department of Labor\xe2\x80\x99s (DOL) efforts in attaining\noptimum utilization of space in the Frances Perkins Building (FPB). Specifically, we addressed DOL\xe2\x80\x99s\ncurrent Space Management policies and procedures, space utilization trends in the Frances Perkins\nBuilding over a five year period, and plans to improve and/or maintain proper space utilization in the\nFPB.\n\nThis evaluation was conducted in support of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration\nand Management\xe2\x80\x99s strategic goal number 3.2\xe2\x80\x93reduce DOL space bill by more than $4.0 million by the\nend of FY 2000 through increased efficiency of the internal DOL work space.1 It also assists the DOL\nin meeting its strategic goal #6\xe2\x80\x93Departmental Strategic Management.\n\n\n METHODOLOGY\n\nWe obtained all data and information related to space management of the FPB from representatives of\nthe Office of the Assistant Secretary of Administration and Management (OASAM), Business\nOperations Center (BOC), Office of Space and Telecommunications Management (OSTM). We did\nnot independently verify the validity of the data provided by the agency.\n\nWe eliminated 1995 as a review year because OASAM purged much of the space-related information\nfor that year in accordance with the General Records Schedule 11, Space and Maintenance Records\nTransmittal No. 8, issued December 1998. This transmittal allows for the destruction of records\nrelating to the allocation, utilization, and release of space under agency control, and related reports to\nGSA, two years after termination of assignment, or when a lease is canceled, or when plans are\nsuperseded or obsolete.\n\n\n\n\n 1\n The related agency strategic goal is: \xe2\x80\x9cBy FY 2002 OASAM will complete a series of cost saving\nand performance enhancing initiatives including consolidation and modernization of space,\ntelecommunications, printing/document reproduction; and, consolidation of financial operational functions of\npayroll and invoice payment, and centralization of contracting activities.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n 2\n\x0c FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS\n\n\n\n Finding 1 \xe2\x80\x93 DOL is Not Enforcing Targeted Space Utilization Rates.\n\n DOL\xe2\x80\x99s written policies and procedures are in conformance with standards developed by the\n General Services Administration (GSA). However, enforcement by OASAM and agency\n heads of DOL\xe2\x80\x99s targeted utilization rate has not occurred. As a result, we estimate that\n DOL is paying $3.5 million annually for underutilized space in the FPB.\n\n\n\n\nRegulations\nThe DOL\xe2\x80\x99s Space Management Program is authorized by the Federal Property and Administrative\nServices Act of 1949, as amended (40 U.S.C. 471 et seq.); the Public Buildings Act of 1959, as\namended (40 U.S.C. 601-619); the Federal Property Management Regulations (FPMR, 41 CFR,\nChapter 101, revised July 1, 1999). GSA policy on assignment and utilization of space is found at 41\nCFR 101, part 101-17.\n\nDOL policy issuances on space management conform to the provisions of the Code of Federal\nRegulations, Title 41 Public Contracts and Property Management, Chapter 101 (rev. 7-1-99).\n\nFor the period under review [Fiscal Years (FY) 1996-2000], the targeted space utilization rate2 of the\ngeneral use space3 in DOL is indicated below. The average actual utilization rate in the Frances Perkins\nBuilding is also indicated:\n\n\n\n\n Targeted/Actual Utilization Rates Per FTE\n\n\n 2\n An indicator of the efficiency with which space is used. It is calculated by dividing the total square\nfootage of the general use space in question, by the number of personnel in the space. The calculation can be made\nfor any of the classifications of space, but is commonly done only for \xe2\x80\x9cgeneral use\xe2\x80\x9d as the rate has little meaning for\nany other category.\n\n 3\n Federally controlled space in buildings and structures which provide an acceptable environment for the\nperformance of mission by employees or by other persons occupying it, including, but not limited to, office space,\nand special purpose spaces such as courtrooms, laboratories, and computer centers. General Use replaces the\nfollowing three (3) categories : 1. Office Space, 2. Special Space, and 3. Office Storage Space (2/2000).\n\n 3\n\x0c YEAR 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000\n\n TARGETED 150 sq. ft. 150 sq. ft. 150 sq. ft. 150 sq. ft. 150 sq.ft./\n UTILIZATION RATE PER 190 sq. ft.**\n FTE\n\n ACTUAL UTILIZATION 197.87 232.5 173.8 194.8 235.5/\n RATE PER FTE @ 150 sq. ft.\n\n * Reference Exhibit 1\xe2\x80\x93Space Utilization Chart\n ** Proposed as of 2/2000\xe2\x80\x93still in proposal stage as of 8/00\n\n\nThe targeted utilization rate of 150 square feet per person is irrespective of type of furniture, age of\nbuilding, grade levels of staff, or any other consideration. The proposed rate of 190 square feet per\nperson reflects GSA\xe2\x80\x99s recent price policy changes. It is important to note the difference in the scope of\nthe current 150 square feet per person, and the proposed 190 square feet. Currently, the 150 square\nfeet includes \xe2\x80\x9coffice space\xe2\x80\x9d only (i.e., that area assigned to personnel as their work station). The\nproposed 190 square feet includes \xe2\x80\x9cgeneral use\xe2\x80\x9d space (i.e., office space and special space and office\nstorage space). The additional 40 square feet per person encompasses all three categories, not only\nthe office space category.\n\nFinancial Impact\nThese figures show that DOL was not in conformance with the targeted utilization rate of 150 square\nfeet per person in the FPB during this period. The financial impact is that DOL is paying an estimated\n$3.5 million annually for underutilization of space in the FPB, as seen below:\n\n Because GSA changed its method of calculating rental costs in FY 1998, we are highlighting\n two years which reflect the rent changes, plus they include contractor figures in the staffing\n totals\xe2\x80\x93FYs 1998 and 1999.\n\n FPB Staff, Space & Cost Information\n\n Year FY 1998 FY 1999\n\n Number of Staff in FPB 3,979 3,943\n\n Estimated Space Based on Target Utilization 596,850 sq. ft. 591,450 sq. ft.\n Rate of 150 Sq. Ft. Per Person\n\n Actual FPB Agency Space Utilized 691,688 sq. ft. 768,221 sq. ft.\n\n Difference in Estimated and Actual Space 94,838 sq. ft. 176,771 sq. ft.\n\n Overpayment of Costs for Space in FPB $2,213,518.90 $4,668,522.10\n ($23.34/sq. ft.) ($26.41/sq. ft.)\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\x0c By averaging the overpayment of costs for space in the FPB for FY 1998 and 1999\n ($2,213,518.90 and $4,668,522.10), we find that on average DOL has paid approximately\n $3.5 million in rent annually for space in the FPB that is underutilized. Our evaluation of the\n leased space for MSHA, SOL, and ALJ employees showed that underutilization of space in\n those locations is costing DOL approximately $1.5 million annually. Therefore,\n the estimated total monetary loss for underutilization of space in the FPB, Ballston Towers, and\n the Techworld Building is approximately $5 million annually.\n\nIn addition to highlighting the total overpayment for underutilized space in these locations, we have\ndemonstrated overpayment by specific agencies in the FPB in Exhibit 2\xe2\x80\x93Additional Examples of\nAgency Overpayment of Rent Based on Underutilization of Space. This exhibit provides details on\ncosts associated with space for the Veterans\xe2\x80\x99 Employment and Training Service, and the Bureau of\nInternational Labor Affairs.\n\nOf great importance in evaluating rental costs versus utilization of space in the FPB is the fact that DOL\nhas an average of approximately 650 contractors working in the building. Fiscal year 2000 figures\nshow the total staffing figures for MSHA, SOL, and ALJ Headquarters\xe2\x80\x99 employees who are working\noutside the building to be approximately 360 employees. The utilization of space by contractor\nemployees in the FPB versus DOL employees should be emphasized by OASAM to the agency heads.\n The majority of contracted employees in the FPB are associated with information technology projects.\nWhen feasible, agencies should explore alternatives to housing contract employees on-site, thereby\nfreeing-up space for additional DOL employees.\n\nWe noted at the beginning of this report that one of the strategic goals of the Office of the Assistant\nSecretary for Administration and Management (strategic goal number 3.2), is to reduce DOL space bill\nby more than $4.0 million by the end of FY 2000 through increased efficiency of the internal DOL\nwork space. This goal has not been achieved, and will not be achieved until DOL agency heads agree\nto strive to attain the targeted space utilization rate, and to address the issue of housing contracted\nversus DOL employees in the FPB.\n\n\n\n Recommendation 1:\n\n OASAM needs to reemphasize DOL\xe2\x80\x99s space management program in the FPB. Agency heads\n should be informed they will be held accountable for making concerted efforts to achieve the\n targeted space utilization rate in accordance with DOL policy.\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\x0c FINDING 2 -OASAM is Not Consistently Analyzing Space Utilization Rates\n\n (a) Staffing information, including contractor usage, is not provided to the Office of Space\n and Telecommunications Management group annually, as required of agency heads in the\n current and draft of the revised DLMS on Space Management.\n\n (b) There is a lack of consistency in OASAM\xe2\x80\x99s analysis of actual space utilization in the\n FPB, due in part to the agencies\xe2\x80\x99 failure to provide required staffing information. For\n example, (a) the targeted versus actual space utilization rates of DOL agencies, (b) agency\n costs versus utilization rates, and (c) use of space in the FPB by contracted employees has\n not been consistently examined, with results communicated to agency heads. OASAM has\n both the staff and the ability to perform the analysis when all the required information is\n received.\n\nFPB Staffing Information: We were able to piece together staffing information from a variety of\nreports which shows that the DOL population in the FPB increased from 3,641 to 3,943 employees\nfrom FY 1996 to FY 1999, as indicated in the figures below. While fiscal years 1996, 1998, and\n1999, include contractor numbers provided by the agencies to OSTM, contractor numbers were not\nprovided to OSTM for fiscal years 1997 and 2000.\n\n Staffing in the Frances Perkins Building\n (HR Statistics)\n Year FY 1996 FY 1997* FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000*\n\n Staffing 3,641 3,248 3,979 3,943 3,310\n * Does not include contractor numbers\n\n\nWhile OASAM conducted a variety of ad hoc analyses on staffing versus space utilization, (which\nconsistently support our findings that space in the FPB is being underutilized), we could find no\nconsistency in analyzing staff, including contractors, versus actual space utilization for the review period.\n\n\nNevertheless, data reveals that on average there are approximately 650 contractors working in the FPB\nannually. This plays a significant role in blocking OASAM\xe2\x80\x99s attempts to move DOL Headquarters\xe2\x80\x99\nemployees who are currently located outside the FPB, into the building. While the financial impact of\nhousing contractors in the FPB is addressed in finding number one, the statistics alone highlight the need\nfor consistent review of staffing information, including contractors.\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\x0cDLMS Responsibilities for Space Management : Responsibilities for implementation of DOL\xe2\x80\x99s\nspace management program are detailed in the Department of Labor Manual Series (DLMS), section\n2\xe2\x80\x93Administration, Chapter 400\xe2\x80\x93Space Management, section 413,\nResponsibilities. This DLMS has been in effect since March 1979, and delineates the space\nmanagement responsibilities in DOL. Reference Exhibit 3 for specific information.\n\nIn February 2000, OASAM issued a draft proposal to revise this DLMS. The proposed section\n413\xe2\x80\x93Responsibilities, continues to charge the DOL Agency Heads with responsibility for providing\nstaffing information to OSTM when needed. Ownership of requesting the required staffing information\nis assigned to OSTM, while ownership of providing all requested staffing information is assigned to the\nagency heads.\n\nSpace Utilization Reports: We attempted to conduct a five-year trend analysis on space utilization in\nthe FPB, covering FYs 1996-2000 (reference Exhibit 1). We were provided numerous reports\nshowing utilization rates for a specified period of time, but there were no consistent reports which\ndisplayed the actual space utilization rate versus the targeted utilization rate for each agency for the five\nyear period. As mentioned above, accurate staffing information was missing for fiscal years 1997 and\n2000, since no contractor information was provided to OSTM by the agency heads. It is not possible\nto calculate the true space utilization rate without contractor information because the results will be\nmisleading. We believe that OASAM has both the staff and the ability to perform the analysis when all\nthe required information is received.\n\nIn attempting to conduct the five-year space utilization trend, we abstracted information from a variety\nof reports provided by OSTM. While we made numerous efforts to include analysis of space-related\ncosts for each agency for the same period, such information was difficult to abstract from the numerous\nreports. There was a lack of consistency in the identification of actual square footage costs associated\nwith each agency for the five-year period. This was primarily due to the fact that GSA changed its\nmethod for calculating its rental rates during this period, as previously mentioned.\n\nPrior to the change, the rate was calculated based on 16 different classes of information, resulting in an\n\xe2\x80\x9coffice space\xe2\x80\x9d rate. The rental rate per square foot for fiscal years 1996 and 1997, prior to the change,\nis shown at $38.49, while the rates for fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000 reflect the new blended rate,\nusing only four classifications\xe2\x80\x93$23.34, $26.41, and $26.85 respectively. When using these figures in a\nfive-year trend analysis, the results were so skewed that they were rendered meaningless. Therefore,\nwe eliminated the rental costs paid by each agency during the\nreview period as part of our overall trend analysis. Reference Exhibit 4 for additional information on\nthe GSA price policy changes.\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\x0cRecommendation 2:\n\n(a) OASAM/OSTM should inform agency heads of the need to obtain accurate staffing information,\nincluding contractor usage, on a quarterly basis. Each agency and sub-agency (e.g., ESA\xe2\x80\x93OMAP,\nOFCCP, OLMS, OWCP, WHD, etc.) should be held accountable for providing OSTM with\nsupport documentation pertaining to the staffing numbers (e.g., employee name, social security\nand/or badge number, and job title for DOL and contractor employees alike). Should an agency fail\nto provide staffing information on a regular basis, the agency head should be notified.\n\n(b) OASAM should conduct quarterly analyses on space utilization for each agency and sub-agency\nin the FPB, and on that leased space outside the FPB which houses headquarters\xe2\x80\x99 employees. The\nreports should highlight: the targeted versus actual utilization rate; actual rental costs versus targeted\nrental costs; and use of space by contracted employees, including associated rental costs.\n\n(c) The resulting utilization trend reports should be disseminated to each agency and sub-agency\nquarterly.\n\n(d) The draft of the revised DLMS on space management should continue to assign the responsibility\nfor providing specific staffing information, including contractor usage, to the agency heads, and assign\nthe responsibility for requesting the information to OSTM.\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\x0cFinding 3\xe2\x80\x93DOL\xe2\x80\x99s Space Initiative was not Achieved\n\nThe objective of the space initiative was to increase the effective utilization of space within\nthe FPB through internal realignments and the relocation of Headquarters\xe2\x80\x99 employees from\nsatellite locations into the FPB, leaving only the Bureau of Labor Statistics located in the\nPostal Square Building. In 1998 OASAM estimated that the downsizing and relocation\ninitiative would save the Department a minimum of approximately $3,900,000 in rent each\nyear after completion.\n\nSeveral planned moves for the consolidation of DOL Headquarters\xe2\x80\x99 staff into the FPB were\nnot completed. Several planned internal realignments of agencies in the FPB did not occur.\n\nDOL pays approximately $34 million in annual rent to GSA for the FPB. The Department pays an\nadditional $22 million annually to house the Bureau of Labor Statistics Headquarters\xe2\x80\x99 employees in the\nPostal Square Building. Over $4 million is paid for rent in six additional buildings in the metro area,\nwhich house other Headquarters\xe2\x80\x99 employees.\n\nDuring the period under review, OASAM planned for the consolidation of DOL staff into the FPB.\nOne phase of transforming the FPB into a true Headquarters building was to restructure the space of\nsome of the agencies already in the FPB. The plan was especially important for those agencies that had\nunderutilized space. Another phase was to move some of the agencies currently outside of the FPB\ninto the building.\n\nWe are highlighting some of the results of these planned space initiatives below. Section A highlights\nsome proposed space realignment plans in the FPB which did not occur, while Section B provides\ninformation on the proposals to move into the FPB those Headquarters\xe2\x80\x99 employees working in leased\nspace outside the FPB\n\nMajor Planned Space Realignments Within the FPB Which Did Not Occur\n\nThere were three major pending space realignments planned during the period under review which did\nnot occur. In correspondence dated 1997, the OSTM noted that a substantial savings in the amount of\n$2.7 million would occur if DOL\xe2\x80\x99s realignment plans were approved by the American Federation of\nGovernment Employees\xe2\x80\x93Local 12. OASAM has documented their encouragement of Local 12's pre-\ndecisional involvement in space-related moves of the agencies. However, the General Counsel of the\nFederal Labor Relations Authority informed OASAM that\nno further negotiations are required at the Departmental level. It thus becomes the responsibility of\neach DOL agency to consult and/or negotiate its specific space changes.\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\x0cThere were three agency realignment plans highlighted in OASAM\xe2\x80\x99s summary of planned internal\nrealignments which involved some form of union participation:\n\n (1) ESA-Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP):\n OASAM reported that the agency agreed to release 7,055 square feet of space. The space\n was redesigned and the floor plan submitted by management to Local 12 for approval. Local\n 12 did not approve the plan. No documentation was provided to show any action was taken\n on the plan from 1997 through the date of our review.\n\n Update information provided by OFCCP following the Inspector General\xe2\x80\x99s (IG)\n request:\n By memorandum dated June 29, 2000, the Acting Director, Office of Management\n Administration and Planning, Employment Standards Administration, noted that information we\n had been provided was 4 years old, that both the FTE allocation and the IT contractors\n working for OFCCP have changed, thus rendering the 1997 space plan inoperative. It was\n confirmed that OFCCP and Local 12 attempted to reach agreement through formal\n negotiations in 1997, when the plan was viable. Agreement could not be reached, at which\n time both sides agreed to request mediation. No formal request for mediation went forward to\n the Labor Management Review Committee and no further action has occurred.\n\n Conclusion:\n Using the 150 square feet per person ratio in effect for FYs 1998-2000, the following utilization\n and cost information is calculated:\n\n Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs\n Space Utilization Trend\n\n 1998 1999 2000\n\n Staffing 88 91 94\n\n Targeted Space Utilization (sq. ft.) 13,200 13,650 14,100\n\n Actual Space Utilization (sq. ft.) 18,695 18,695 18,695\n\n Amount of Space Above Target (sq. ft.) 5,495 5,045 4,545\n\n Over Payment $128,253.30 $133,238.45 $122,033.25\n (23.34/sq. ft.) (26.41/sq. ft.) (26.85/sq. ft.)\n\n\n (2) Bureau of International Labor Affairs (ILAB):\n OASAM reported that the agency agreed to release 6,615 square feet of space. Once the\n issue is resolved, the Administrative Law Judges (ALJ) will move into the space vacated by\n\n 10\n\x0cILAB. No documentation was provided to show any action was taken on the plan from 1997\nthrough the date of our review.\n\nUpdate information provided by ILAB following the IG\xe2\x80\x99s request:\nBy memorandum dated June 28, 2000, the Deputy Under Secretary for ILAB informed us that\ndue to additional FTEs funded in FY 2000, the agency will no longer be releasing any space.\nCurrent plans call for some realignment and upgrading of ILAB\xe2\x80\x99s space, with a net gain of 65\nsquare feet. The agency has consulted with OSTM and Local 12 regarding the plans.\n\nConclusion:\nWe were able to confirm through OASAM and through budget information that ILAB\xe2\x80\x99s\nproposed staffing will necessitate a need for additional space. Therefore, the 1997\nrealignment/reduction proposal is not viable at this time. However, as noted in finding number 4\nB below, based on the number of ILAB employees in the FPB during fiscal years 1998, and\n1999, the agency paid $460,343.25 more than it should have, based on the targeted utilization\nrate of 150 square feet per person.\n\n(3) Women\xe2\x80\x99s Bureau (WB):\nOASAM reported that the agency agreed to release 3,340 square feet of space. The space\nwas redesigned and the floor plan was submitted by management to\ntheir agency local 12 representative. The plan was rejected by Local 12. No documentation\nwas provided to show any action was taken on the plan from 1997 through the date of our\nreview.\n\nUpdate information provided by WB following the IG\xe2\x80\x99s request:\nBy memorandum dated June 16, 2000, the Director of the Women\xe2\x80\x99s Bureau informed us that\nrealignment/reduction of WB space is a closed issue. The memorandum states that OASAM\ninvited the WB to relinquish 3,340 square feet of its space in April 1999, based on a need to\nhouse a research group and another DOL agency in the FPB. Due to FY 1999 projected\nbudgetary challenges, the WB explored the possibility of a space realignment/reduction with\nOSTM, OLMS, and Local 12, through a series of meetings that never escalated to formal\nnegotiations with Local 12. The WB further states that these conditions no longer existed in\nearly FY 2000, (other locations were used for the\ntwo groups and the budgetary concern no longer existed), therefore the space\nrealignment/reduction proposal was canceled.\n\nConclusion:\nUsing the 150 square feet per person rate in effect for FYs 1998-2000, the following utilization\nand cost information is calculated:\n\n\n\n 11\n\x0c Women\xe2\x80\x99s Bureau Space Utilization Trend\n\n 1998 1999 2000\n\n Staffing 42 40 40\n\n Targeted Space Utilization 6,300 6,000 6,000\n\n Actual Space Utilization 9,910 9,910 9,910\n\n Amount of Space Above Target 3,610 3,910 3,910\n\n Over Payment $84,257.40 $103,263.10 $104,983.50\n (23.34/sq. ft.) (26.41/sq. ft.) (26.85 /sq. ft.)\n\n\nBoth OFCCP and the WB continue to underutilize their space in the FPB, based on staffing. We\nbelieve the agencies should be made aware of the costs associated with the underutilization, and\ninstructed to vigorously pursue required labor/management negotiations in order to effect the changes\nnecessary to achieve compliance with the targeted space utilization rate.\n\n\n Recommendation 3 (a):\n\n Following the completion of the first quarterly space utilization analysis for the Women\xe2\x80\x99s Bureau and\n the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, OASAM should reevaluate the need for the\n agencies to pursue labor negotiations with Local 12. The decision to request that the agencies move\n forward with the stalled union negotiations should be dictated by the difference between the actual\n and targeted utilization rates, based on current staffing figures which have been verified by OSTM.\n Use of contractors by OFCCP and the WB should also be addressed in the report. OSTM should\n highlight the cost factors in allowing the agencies to continue their underutilization of space, as well as\n costs associated with contracted employees.\n Agency heads (OFCCP and WB) and the Assistant Secretary for ESA should be notified in writing\n of OASAM\xe2\x80\x99s findings.\n\n\n\n\n 12\n\x0cPlanned Movement Into the FPB During Review Period\n\nOASAM presented a variety of proposal objectives for moving the Benefits Review Board (BRB), the\nEmployees\xe2\x80\x99 Compensation Appeals Board (ECAB), the Mine Safety and Health Administration\n(MSHA), some of the Solicitor of Labor (SOL), and the Administrative Law Judges (ALJ), into the\nFrances Perkins Building during the review period. Following are the results of the proposals:\n\n (1) The Benefits Review Board was located in the Techworld Plaza through FY 96.\n OASAM was able to successfully move the group into the FPB, realizing the following savings\n from the move:\n\n\n Benefits Review Board Move\n\n Estimated Staff 100\n\n Actual Space (in Techworld) 32,504 square feet\n\n Targeted Space at FPB 16,480\n\n Annual Lease Cost (Techworld) $1,155,463\n\n FPB Cost $634,315\n\n Lease Savings $521,148\n\n Moving Expenses $216,250\n (including internal readjustments)\n\n Total Savings First Year $304,898\n\n OASAM Projected Savings for FY 1997 $1,155,463\n Date of data: 11/97\n\n\n (2) The Employees\xe2\x80\x99 Compensation Appeals Board (ECAB) was located in the Reporters\n Building through August 11, 1996. OASAM was able to successfully move the group into the\n FPB. A net increase was realized in the move:\n\n\n\n\n 13\n\x0c Employees\xe2\x80\x99 Compensation Appeals Board\n Estimated Staff 50\n\n Actual Space (Reporters Bldg.) 7,688 square feet\n\n Targeted Space at FPB 8,755\n\n Annual Lease Cost (Reporters Bldg.) $231,178\n\n FPB Cost $336,980\n\n Moving Expenses no information\n\n Rent Increase First Year $105,802\n\n OASAM Projected Savings for FY 1997 $231,178\n Date of data: 11/97\n\n\n(3) The Mine Safety and Health Administration is located in the Ballston Towers. The\nplanned moved of MSHA into the FPB has not occurred. OASAM informed us recently that\nthe proposed plans to move MSHA have now been canceled. Had MSHA been moved into\nthe FPB as planned, the following savings would have been realized:\n\n Mine and Safety Health Administration\n Staff 239\n\n Actual Space (Ballston Towers) 56,324 square feet\n\n Actual Utilization Rate Per Person 235.67 sq. ft.\n\n Targeted Space in FPB\n at 150 sq. ft. per person 35,850 square feet\n\n Actual Annual Cost (Ballston Towers) $1,260,852\n\n Targeted Cost ($26.85 per sq. ft. in FPB $962,572.50\n at 150 sq. ft.)\n\n Difference in Actual/ Targeted Costs\n at current rate of $26.85/sq. ft. $298,279.50\n at 150 sq. ft. per person\n\n Proposed Annual Rent Savings if Moved to FPB\n at 150 sq. ft. per person $298,279.50\n\n February 2000 Data\n\n\n(4) The Solicitor of Labor also has some employees located in the Ballston Towers. The\nplanned moved of these SOL employees into the FPB has not occurred. OASAM has\n\n\n 14\n\x0c informed us recently that the proposed plans to move SOL have now been eliminated.\n\n Had SOL been moved into the FPB as planned, the following savings would have been\n realized:\n\n Solicitor of Labor/Ballston Towers\n Staff (National Office employees) 34\n\n Actual Space (Ballston Towers) 6,897 sq. ft.\n\n Actual Utilization Rate Per Person 202.85 sq. ft.\n\n Targeted Space in FPB\n at 150 sq. ft. per person 5,100 sq. ft.\n\n Actual Annual Cost (Ballston Towers) $247,908\n\n Targeted Cost ($26.85 per sq. ft. in FPB)\n at 150 sq. ft. per person $136,935\n\n Difference in Actual/ Targeted Costs Annually\n at 150 sq. ft. per person $110,973\n\n February 2000 Data\n\n\n (5) The Administrative Law Judges are located in the Techworld Plaza. The planned\n moved of the ALJ into the FPB has not occurred. Had the ALJ been moved into the FPB as\n planned, the following savings would have been realized:\n\n Administrative Law Judges\n Estimated Staff 84\n\n Actual Space (Reporters Bldg.) 28,739 square feet\n\n Targeted Space at FPB 13,350\n\n Annual Lease Cost (Reporters Bldg.) $955,814\n\n FPB Cost $529,728\n\n Projected Moving Expenses (w/furniture) $371,280\n\n Annual Rent Savings $426,086\n\n OASAM Projected Savings for FY 1998 $1,071,444\n February 2000 Data\n\n\nReview of the data presented clearly demonstrates a need to reevaluate, from a cost savings view, the\nplanned proposals to move agencies such as MSHA, SOL, and ALJ into the FPB, and to encourage\n\n 15\n\x0cresolution of outstanding space related issues with Local 12. We realize there are costs associated with\nthese kinds of realignments and relocations, (i.e. space reconfigurations, moving, furniture, etc.), and we\nprovided such information in our analyses when it was available. In several cost projections associated\nwith internal realignments and relocations, OASAM calculated estimates that revealed recurring cost\nsavings for agencies if they accepted the initial expenditures associated with the realignments and\nrelocations.\n\n\n Recommendation 3 (b):\n\n Upon completion of the space utilization trend analyses for each agency and sub-agency in the FPB,\n and for the leased space which houses Headquarters\xe2\x80\x99 employees, OASAM should\n reevaluate the feasibility of moving any or all of these agencies into the FPB\xe2\x80\x93MSHA, ALJ, SOL.\n This evaluation should include analysis on the amount of space used by contractors in the FPB versus\n the amount of space needed to move these agency Headquarters\xe2\x80\x99 employees into the FPB. The\n report should contain specific recommendations and outcomes based on associated costs incurred\n and potential savings (i.e. rental fees, estimated move costs, etc.). The report should be shared with\n the Office of the Secretary of Labor.\n\n\n\n\n 16\n\x0c OASAM RESPONSE AND OIG CONCLUSIONS\n\nOASAM Response\n\n\xe2\x80\x9cI have reviewed your draft report on Space Utilization in the Frances Perkins Building, and\ngenereally concur with your findings. We are currently proceeding to implement your\nrecommendations. However, it should be noted that we will continue to evaluate our progress as\nwe move forward and will revise our options and management approach, as necessary, to obtain\nthe best results.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nOIG Conclusions\n\n1. Recommendation to Finding #1:\n\n OASAM needs to reemphasize DOL\xe2\x80\x99s space management program in the FPB. Agency\n heads should be informed they will be held accountable for making concerted efforts to achieve\n the targeted space utilization rate in accordance with DOL policy.\n\n Conclusion: We consider this recommendation to be resolved. The recommendation will be\n closed pending our receipt of OASAM\xe2\x80\x99s notification to agency heads, reminding them of their\n accountability for making concerted efforts to achieve the targeted space utilization rate.\n Please provide written documentation to this office regarding such notification by\n October 30, 2000.\n\n2. Recommendations to Finding #2:\n\n (a) OASAM/OSTM should inform agency heads of the need to obtain accurate staffing\n information, including contractor usage, on a quarterly basis. Each agency and sub-agency\n (e.g., ESA\xe2\x80\x93OMAP, OFCCP, OLMS, OWCP, WHD, etc.) should be held accountable for\n providing OSTM with support documentation pertaining to the staffing numbers (e.g., employee\n name, social security and/or badge number, and job title for DOL and contractor employees\n alike). Should an agency fail to provide staffing information on a regular basis, the agency head\n should be notified.\n\n Conclusion: We consider this recommendation to be resolved. The recommendation will be\n closed pending our receipt of OASAM\xe2\x80\x99s notification to agency heads, reminding them of their\n responsibility to provide OASAM with staffing information, including contractor usage, on a\n quarterly basis beginning the first quarter of fiscal year 2001. Please provide written\n documentation to this office regarding such notification by October 30, 2000.\n\n\n 17\n\x0c (b) OASAM should conduct quarterly analyses on space utilization for each agency and sub-\n agency in the FPB, and on that leased space outside the FPB which houses headquarters\xe2\x80\x99\n employees. The reports should highlight: the targeted versus actual utilization rate; actual rental\n costs versus targeted rental costs; and use of space by contracted employees, including\n associated rental costs.\n\n Conclusion: We consider this recommendation to be resolved. The recommendation will be\n closed pending our receipt of OASAM\xe2\x80\x99s first quarterly report. Please provide copies of the\n analyses covering the period October 1, 2000 through December 31, 2000, to this\n office by February 16, 2001.\n\n (c) The resulting utilization trend reports should be disseminated to each agency and sub-\n agency quarterly.\n\n Conclusion: We consider this recommendation to be resolved. The recommendation will be\n closed pending our receipt of documentation that OASAM has disseminated the first quarterly\n report. Please provide written documentation to this office regarding such\n dissemination by February 16, 2001.\n\n (d) The draft of the revised DLMS on space management should continue to assign the\n responsibility for providing specific staffing information, including contractor usage, to the\n agency heads, and assign the responsibility for requesting the information to OSTM.\n\n Conclusion: We consider this recommendation to be resolved. The recommendation will be\n closed pending our receipt of the subject DLMS. Please provide a copy of the revised\n DLMS to this office by October 30, 2000.\n\n\n3. Recommendations to Finding #3:\n\n OASAM should reevaluate the proposals for realignment of agencies within the FPB, and the\n relocation of MSHA, SOL and the ALJ into the FPB, through the following steps:\n\n (a) Following the completion of the first quarterly space utilization analysis for the Women\xe2\x80\x99s\n Bureau and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, OASAM should reevaluate\n the need for the agencies to pursue labor negotiations with Local 12. The decision to request\n that the agencies move forward with the stalled union negotiations should be dictated by the\n difference between the actual and targeted utilization rates, based on current staffing figures\n which have been verified by OSTM. Use of contractors\n\n\n 18\n\x0c by OFCCP and the WB should also be addressed in the report. OSTM should highlight the\n cost factors in allowing the agencies to continue their underutilization of space, as well as costs\n associated with contracted employees. Agency heads (OFCCP and WB) and the Assistant\n Secretary for ESA should be notified in writing of OASAM\xe2\x80\x99s findings.\n\n Conclusion: We consider this recommendation to be resolved. The recommendation will be\n closed pending our receipt of OASAM\xe2\x80\x99s findings as reported to OFCCP, WB and the\n Assistant Secretary for ESA. Please provide this office a copy of the findings by April\n 13, 2001.\n\n (b) Upon completion of the space utilization trend analyses for each agency and sub-agency in\n the FPB, and for the leased space which houses Headquarters\xe2\x80\x99 employees, OASAM should\n reevaluate the feasibility of moving any or all of these agencies into the FPB\xe2\x80\x93MSHA, ALJ,\n SOL. This evaluation should include analysis on the amount of space used by contractors in the\n FPB versus the amount of space needed to move these agency Headquarters\xe2\x80\x99 employees into\n the FPB. The report should contain specific recommendations and outcomes based on\n associated costs incurred and potential savings (i.e. rental fees, estimated move costs, etc.).\n The report should be shared with the Office of the Secretary of Labor.\n\n Conclusion: We consider this recommendation to be resolved. The recommendation will be\n closed pending our receipt of OASAM\xe2\x80\x99s report to the Office of the Secretary of Labor.\n Please provide this office a copy of the report by April 13, 2001.\n\n\n\n\nContributors to this report:\n\nBarbara Farrell, Project Leader\nDennis Raymond\n\nGregory D. Simmons, Director, Division of Evaluations and Inspections\n\n\n\n\n 19\n\x0c EXHIBIT 1\n\nSpace Utilization of the Frances Perkins Building\n FY 1996\xe2\x80\x932000\n\n\n\n\n 20\n\x0c SPACE UTILIZATION FOR THE FRANCES PERKINS BUILDING\n Fiscal Years 1996\xe2\x80\x932000\n\n FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000\n\n STAFF* STAFF STAFF STAFF STAFF\n AGENCY (w/cont.) SPACE UR** (no cont.) SPACE UR (w/cont.) SPACE UR (w/cont.) SPACE UR (no cont.) SPACE UR\n\n\nOASAM 518 105,980 204.6 442 109,859 248.5 452 70,802 156.6 626 110,304 176.2 461 110,955 240.7\nOIG 190 28,954 152.4 150 29,420 196.13 188 25,745 136.9 188 29,405 156.4 151 29,405 194.7\nPWBA 253 43,890 173.5 234 43,890 187.6 253 41,570 164.3 268 46,390 173.1 234 46,390 198.2\nILAB 80 21,470 268.4 93 20,115 216.3 68 18,380 270.3 75 20,215 269.5 89 20,215 227.1\nOCFO 110+ 18,515 168.3 85 18,465 217.2 132 17,865 135.3 109 18,465 169.4 92 18,465 200.7\nOSHA 393 86,330 219.7 371 98,285 264.9 575 87,325 151.9 498 100,780 202.4 393 100,780 256.4\nETA 771 132,714 172.1 597 137,146 229.7 756 134,146 177.4 734 139,346 189.8 596 139,346 223.8\nO/SECY 58 26,005 448.4 58 26,005 448.4 66 25,835 391.4 66 25,835 391.4 188++(77) 69,767 371.1\nASP 30 8,285 276.2 31 8,595 277.3 30 8,295 276.5 30 8,295 276.5 30\nOCIA 35 7,895 225.6 31 7,895 254.7 25 7,895 315.8 28 7,895 282.0 28\nOPA 22 6,142 279.2 30 6,142 204.7 29 8,537 294.4 24 8,537 355.7 24\nARB (OAA) 22 5,030 228.6 20 3,105 155.3 16 3,505 219.1 19 3,505 184.5 19\nDSA 10 2,225 222.5 10 2,225 222.5 10\nWB 45 9,910 220.2 44 9,910 225.2 42 9,910 236.0 40 9,910 247.8 40 9,910 247.8\nBRB 145 16,480 113.7 123 16,480 134.0 100 16,480 164.8 88 15,330 174.2 78 15,030 192.7\nECAB 30 8,030 167.3 48 8,755 182.4 48 8,780 182.9 50 8,780 175.6 50 8,780 175.6\nESA 617 117,330 190.2 495 120,380 243.2 758 118,288 156.1 760 123,039 161.9 556 121,549 218.6\nSOL 295 84,975 288.1 365 81,725 223.9 400 79,430 198.6 408 82,240 201.6 346 81,200 234.7\nVETS 29 8,975 309.5 31 8,975 289.5 31 6,675 215.3 27 7,725 286.1 36 7,725 214.6\n\n\nTOTALS 3,641 720,430 197.87 3,248 755,147 232.5 3,979 691,688 173.8 3,943 768,221 194.83 3,310 779,517 235.5\n\n\n * Agency staffing statistics, including contractors, were provided by the Agencies to OSTM for fiscal years 1996, 1998, 1999; staffing statistics for fiscal years 1997 and 2000 were not provided\n by the Agencies; figures for those years are provided by the Human Resources Center, and do not reflect contractor numbers.\n ** Utilization Rate: calculated by dividing the total staff by the total office space. The UR is the average square feet per person.\n + Includes Office of Budget\n ++ OSEC space information was provided in a lump sum for FY 2000; it includes the groups listed under it with no space information\n\n\n\n\n 21\n\x0c EXHIBIT 2\n\nExamples of Agency Overpayment of Rent\n\n\n\n\n 22\n\x0c Examples of Overpayment of Rent\n\n\nIn addition to the total overpayment in the FPB discussed in finding number four \xe2\x80\x9cOverpayment for Space\xe2\x80\x9d, we have\nselected a few agencies to highlight this issue:\n\n\n A. Veterans\xe2\x80\x99 Employment and Training Service\n\n VETERANS EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING SERVICE\n\n\n Year Staff Space Actual Targeted Difference Associated\n sq. ft. Utilization Space in Space Cost\n Rate (150 sq. ft. Sq. Ft. Difference\n (sq. ft.) X staff)\n\n 1998 31 6,675 215.3 4,650 2,050 $54,140.50\n (@$26.41/sq. ft.)\n\n 1999 27 7,725 286.1 4,050 3,675 $99,210.75\n (@26.85/sq. ft.)\n\n\n 2 Year\n Difference $153,351.25\n\n\n\n\n B. Bureau of International Labor Affairs\n\n BUREAU OF INTERNATIONAL LABOR AFFAIRS\n\n Year Staff Space Actual Targeted Difference Associated\n sq. ft. Utilization Space in Space Cost\n Rate (150 sq. ft. Sq. Ft. Difference\n (sq. ft.) X staff)\n\n 1998 68 18,380 270.3 10,200 8,180 $219,633.00\n (@$23.34/sq. ft.)\n\n 1999 75 20,215 269.5 11,250 8,965 $240,710.25\n (@26.85/sq. ft.)\n\n\n 2 Year\n Difference $460,343.25\n\n\n\n\n 23\n\x0c EXHIBIT 3\n\nCurrent DLMS Space Management Responsibilities\n\n\n\n\n 24\n\x0c DOL AGENCY H EADS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR: O FFICE DIRECTOR, O FFICE OF SPACE\n M ANAGEMENT, DAPS, IS RESPONSIBLE FOR:\n (1) Ensuring that a space management program consistent\n with the policies, procedures, standards, and guidelines (1) Planning and coordinating the DOL Space Management\n included in Chapter 400 of DLMS 2 is conducted within the Program relating to the acquisition of real property and its\n respective Agency's area of jurisdiction. continued management. This includes the coordination of\n all activities relating to the major improvements or additions\n (2) Designating a space management representative at the to existing buildings, and alterations and repairs to\n DOL National Agency level, and forwarding in writing the buildings housing all DOL activities.\n names of representatives to the Office Director, Office of\n Space Management (OSM), Directorate of Administrative (2) Assigning and reassigning real property and space\n Programs and Services (DAPS), Office of the Assistant holdings to DOL Agencies in coordination with the GSA.\n Secretary for Administration and Management (OASAM)\n (3) Developing and maintaining space management\n standards and guidelines for departmental activities.\n (3) Informing the OSM or RA-OASAM of their space\n requirements. (4) Developing long-range plans and programs for the\n housing of departmental activities in the Washington\n (4) Providing the following information upon approval of metropolitan area.\n each fiscal year budget:\n (5) Developing and maintaining policy and procedural\n (a) Staffing patterns, e.g., the number of employees to be instructions related to the management of real property.,\n located in each geographic area by grade, position title,\n supervisory status, and organizational units; (b) Total (6) Serving as the Department's principal representative to\n distribution of approved authorized budgeted positions by Federal, State, and District of Columbia Government\n geographic area; (c) Information required to continuously officials and private realty firms; engineers; architects; and\n study and maintain records of assigned space, upon building owners and operators for matters concerning the\n request, to the OSM or the Regional OASAMs.4 construction, acquisition, renovation, repair, and\n improvement of real property not under GSA control in the\n (5) Promptly reporting to the OSM or Regional Washington metropolitan area. Liaison services between\n Administrators-OASAM space, assigned which is no the GSA and the regions are provided to the Regional\n longer needed. Administrator--OASAM upon request to the OSM.\n\n (6) Providing funds necessary for space rentals, building (7) Conducting periodic surveys of space utilization in the\n Washington metropolitan area to ensure that assigned\n alterations, and services.\n space is being used efficiently and economically.\n (7) Obtaining approval from the OSM, or at the regional (8) Furnishing policy guidance and technical assistance to\n level from the RA-OASAM, prior to any and all space- DOL Agency space representatives and Regional\n related internal or external (between buildings) moves. Administrators-OASAM on space management matters.\n\n (9) Securing approval for the commitment of funds from\n DOL National Offices for the payment for space,\n renovation, moving costs, etc., for the Washington\n metropolitan area.\n\n\n\n\n 4\n This highlights the current and proposed DLMS\nSpace Management Policy responsibilities as it relates to\nagency heads.\n\n 25\n\x0c EXHIBIT 4\n\n\nNew Pricing Policy Information/GSA\n\n\n\n\n 26\n\x0c New Pricing Policy/GSA\n\n\nGSA developed its pricing policy, called New Pricing, in response to the concerns of customers,\nchanges in the way the U.S. government conducts business, and the competitive pressures of the\nmarketplace. New Pricing is based on market-based mechanisms to provide a variety of benefits.\n\n\nNew Pricing has four space categories. Generally, no more than two will be present in any one\nbuilding. Determined by the predominate use of the space, these categories are broad in concept, and\nacknowledge the need for flexibility to use space in the way that best serves the mission of the agency.\nThe categories are:\n General use. Most space falls into this category. It includes general office space and\n special-purpose spaces as courtrooms, laboratories, and computer centers. It replaces the\n following categories that existed under the previous pricing system: office space, special\n space and office storage space.\n Parking. Before, parking was measured in terms of square footage. The current process\n is to simply count the number of parking spaces included in the Occupancy Agreement.\n Parking is designated as surface when the spaces are outside, or structured when they\n are inside a garage.\n Warehouse. The warehouse designation applies to properties where 70% or more of the\n space is used for storage.\n Unique. Some properties, such as border stations, fulfill purposes that have no equivalent\n in the private sector and therefore cannot be priced by a reasonable market comparison.\n This category accounts for such one-of-a-kind situations.\nExcept for parking and certain types of unique space designations such as antennas, space is\nrecorded and billed by the square foot. The Occupancy Agreement shows the measurement in two\nways:\n Rentable square feet. This measurement uses the ANSI/BOMA (American National\n Standards Institute/Building Owners and Management Association) system that is the\n most commonly used standard in the real estate industry. It enables you to make easy\n comparisons with market equivalents.\n Usable square feet. This measurement affords you ease and precision in analyzing lease\n offers and your use of space. It is analogous to occupiable square feet, the measurement\n we formerly used.\n\n\n\n\n 27\n\x0c APPENDIX\n\nAgency Response\n\n\n\n\n 28\n\x0c\x0c"


type: wikipedia

text:
Tabivere (1582 Tabrafer, Tabberfer, 1627 Tabifehr, 1638 Tabaferre kylla, 1684 Tappifer) on alevik Tartu maakonnas Tartu vallas Piibe maantee ääres, enam-vähem võrdsel kaugusel Tartust ja Jõgevalt. Tabivere paikneb Vooremaal, Saadjärve ääres.
 Asula keskelt kulgeb läbi Tapa–Tartu raudteelõik, millel asub ka Tabivere raudteejaam.
 Enne Eesti omavalitsuste haldusreformi 2017. aastal oli alevik Tabivere valla halduskeskus.
 Tabivere alevikus elas 2018. aasta 1. märtsi seisuga Rahvastikuregistri andmetel 908 inimest.
 Alevikus asuvad Tartu vallavalitsuse Tabivere teeninduspunkt, Tabivere Põhikool, huvikool, lasteaed, raamatukogu, rahvamaja ja noortekeskus, sotsiaalkeskus, perearstipraksis, hambaravikabinet, apteek, kaks kauplust (Coop Saadjärve kauplus, Meie toidukaubad), postkontor, lillepood, päästekomando, tööstusettevõtted Same (põllutöömasinad), Mayeri Industries (tarbekeemia), Baltic Connection (puutööd). Tuulikus tegutseb Juhuse pruulikoda.
 Kunagises Tabivere mõisa valitsejamajas tegutseb Tabivere muuseum.
 Tabivere alevik sai ametlikuks nimeks 1977. aastal, enne seda oli Voldi alevik. Nii Tabivere kui ka Voldi on olnud sama mõisa nimi: Voldi eesti keeles, Tabbifer saksa keeles. Et Voldi nimi pärines mõisaomaniku nimest (Adam Otto Wolffeldt), saksa tarvituses oli aga kasutusel algupäraselt eesti nimi, propageerisid M. J. Eisen ja Akadeemiline Emakeele Selts 1920. aastatel Tabivere nime ning 1925 nimetatigi kohalike elanike vastuseisust hoolimata Voldi raudteejaam Tabivere jaamaks.
 Galerii
 Vaata ka
 Tabivere Põhikool
 Tabivere mõis
 Tabivere raudteejaam
 Tabivere RSK
 Viited
 Eesti alevikud
 Tartu vald


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 22.2.2014
 SV
 Europeiska unionens officiella tidning
 C 52/23
 Domstolens beslut (sjätte avdelningen) av den 12 december 2013 — Fercal — Consultadoira e Serviços, Lda mot Byrån för harmonisering inom den inre marknaden (varumärken, mönster och modeller), Jacson of Scandinavia AB
 (Mål C-159/13) (1)
 (Överklagande - Gemenskapsvarumärke - Förordning (EG) nr 40/94 - Ordmärket JACKSON SHOES - Ansökan om ogiltighetsförklaring framställd av innehavaren av den nationella firman Jacson of Scandinavia AB - Ogiltighetsförklaring - Uppenbart att överklagandet ska avvisas)
 2014/C 52/40
 Rättegångsspråk: portugisiska
 Parter
 Klagande: Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços, Lda (ombud: A.J. Rodrigues, advogado)
 Övriga parter i förfarandet: Byrån för harmonisering inom den inre marknaden (varumärken, mönster och modeller) (ombud: P. Guimarães och G. Schneider), Jacson of Scandinavia AB
 Saken
 Överklagande av den dom som tribunalen (femte avdelningen) meddelade den 24 januari 2013 i mål T-474/09, Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços mot harmoniseringsbyrån — Jacson of Scandinavia, genom vilken tribunalen ogillade en talan mot det beslut som meddelats av harmoniseringsbyråns andra överklagandenämnd den 18 augusti 2009 (ärende R 1253/2008-2) angående ett ogiltighetsförfarande mellan Jacson of Scandinavia AB och Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços, Lda.
 Avgörande
 1.
 Överklagandet ogillas.
 2.
 Fercal — Consultadoria e Serviços Lda ska ersätta rättegångskostnaderna.
 (1) EUT C 171, 15.6.2013.