|
|
| Line 78: |
Line 78: |
|
| |
|
| In 2013, a result of the Open Government Initiative's instruction for federal agencies to open their activities to the public, GSA developed Data.gov to foster transparency and information sharing. That same year GSA also launched the Total Workplace initiative to modernize the workplace of federal agencies and increase efficiency, alongside the Presidential Innovation Fellows and the 18F programs. In 2016, the Acquisition Gateway and Making It Easier programs were launched to assist buyers from federal agencies in acquisitions, and to assist new companies in doing business with the government. Improvements were also made in the deliverance of digital government services with the creation of the Technology Transformation Services.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.gsa.gov/about-us/background-history/a-brief-history-of-gsa/ |title=A Brief History of GSA |publisher=General Services Administration |access-date=2019-07-12 |archive-date=2019-07-12 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190712165044/https://www.gsa.gov/about-us/background-history/a-brief-history-of-gsa/ |url-status=live }}</ref> | | In 2013, a result of the Open Government Initiative's instruction for federal agencies to open their activities to the public, GSA developed Data.gov to foster transparency and information sharing. That same year GSA also launched the Total Workplace initiative to modernize the workplace of federal agencies and increase efficiency, alongside the Presidential Innovation Fellows and the 18F programs. In 2016, the Acquisition Gateway and Making It Easier programs were launched to assist buyers from federal agencies in acquisitions, and to assist new companies in doing business with the government. Improvements were also made in the deliverance of digital government services with the creation of the Technology Transformation Services.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.gsa.gov/about-us/background-history/a-brief-history-of-gsa/ |title=A Brief History of GSA |publisher=General Services Administration |access-date=2019-07-12 |archive-date=2019-07-12 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190712165044/https://www.gsa.gov/about-us/background-history/a-brief-history-of-gsa/ |url-status=live }}</ref> |
|
| |
| ===Controversies===
| |
| ====Ted Weiss Federal Building controversy====
| |
| In July 1991, GSA contractors began the excavation of what is now the [[Ted Weiss Federal Building]] in [[New York City]]. The planning for that building did not take into account the possibility of encountering the historic cemetery for colonial-era African New Yorkers located beneath the footprint of the $276 million office building. When initial excavation disturbed burials, destroying skeletons and artifacts, GSA sent [[archaeologist]]s to excavate—but hid their findings from the public. Revelation of the discoveries led to 18 months of activism by African-descendant community members, public officials, academics, and concerned citizens. Ultimately, GSA made public amends by funding extensive scientific research under the auspices of [[Michael Blakey (anthropologist)|Michael Blakey]]; creating a new subagency, the Office of Public Education and Interpretation; truncating the building plan; and funding public reports on the story of the African Burial Ground. The efforts led to the creation of a new unit of the [[National Park Service]], The [[African Burial Ground National Monument]], at the facility. GSA fully funded that portion of the National Park Service<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/101077 | title = The African Burial Ground | publisher = U.S. General Services Administration | access-date = 2013-02-08 | archive-date = 2013-02-20 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20130220081113/http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/101077 | url-status = live }}</ref> until 2010, when GSA's formal involvement with the African Burial Ground ceased.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.nps.gov/afbg/ |title=African Burial Ground National Monument New York |publisher=National Park Service |access-date=2012-06-12 |archive-date=2010-08-30 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100830000216/http://www.nps.gov/afbg |url-status=live }}</ref>
| |
|
| |
| ====Lurita Doan controversy====
| |
| During President George W. Bush's Administration GSA Administrator, [[Lurita Doan]], was forced to resign after GSA had awarded a sole source contract for $20,000 to her friend. Doan appeared to have violated the [[Hatch Act of 1939|Hatch Act]] and was criticized for political activity while on the job. The investigating team recommended she be punished to the fullest extent, and she resigned soon after.<ref>{{cite news |newspaper=[[Washington Post]] |title=Doan Ends Her Stormy Tenure as GSA Chief |first=Robert |last=O'Harrow Jr. <!-- |author-link=Robert O'Harrow Jr. --> |author2=[[Scott Higham]] |date=May 1, 2008 |access-date=2013-10-04 |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/30/AR2008043001271.html |archive-date=2013-09-12 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130912142057/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/30/AR2008043001271.html |url-status=live }}</ref>
| |
|
| |
| ====Western Regions Training Conference controversy====
| |
| In 2012, U.S. representative [[John Mica]], chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, called for a congressional investigation into the misuse of federal money by GSA.<ref name=Brockell2010>{{cite web |url=http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?nid=447&sid=2814682 |title=Former GSA head faults regional commissioners in spending scandal |first=Gillian |last=Brockell |publisher=FederalNewsRadio.com |date=2012-04-04 |access-date=2012-06-12 |archive-date=2013-01-17 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130117104436/http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?nid=447&sid=2814682 |url-status=live }}</ref> Lawmakers accused GSA of "lavish spending" following the 2010 Western Regions Training Conference at the [[M Resort]] in [[Las Vegas]].<ref>{{cite news | url = http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46931908#.T3uIvNWiYoo | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120412200530/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46931908 | archive-date = 12 April 2012 | title = GSA head resigns amid reports of lavish spending | first = Philip | last = Elliott | agency = Associated Press | location = Washington DC | url-status = dead | work = MSNBC}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=April 7, 2010 |url=https://www.foxnews.com/politics/agency-under-fire-for-vegas-conference-had-ballooning-budgets-in-recent-years/ |title=Agency under fire for Vegas conference had ballooning budgets in recent years |publisher=[[Fox News]] |first=Judson |last=Berger |access-date=2012-06-12 |archive-date=2012-06-05 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120605232604/http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/04/agency-under-fire-for-vegas-conference-recorded-ballooning-budgets-in-recent/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |first1=Lisa |last1=Rein |first2=Timothy R. |last2=Smith |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gsa-conference-went-over-the-top/2012/04/04/gIQAi23suS_story.html |title=GSA conference went 'over the top' |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=2011-06-28 |access-date=2012-06-12 |archive-date=2012-05-06 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120506110634/http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gsa-conference-went-over-the-top/2012/04/04/gIQAi23suS_story.html |url-status=live }}</ref>
| |
|
| |
| GSA spent $823,000 in taxpayer money toward the October 2010 convention, including $100,405.37 spent on employee travel costs for a total of eight pre-planning meetings, scouting trips, and a "dry run". The report also found excessive spending for event planners, gifts for participants, and lavish meals.<ref name="Elliott">{{cite web |url=http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/government/gsa-head-resigns-amid-reports-lavish-spending-las-vegas-conference |title=GSA head resigns amid reports of lavish spending at Las Vegas conference |author=Elliott, Phillip |work=Las Vegas Review-Journal |date=April 2, 2012 |access-date=March 18, 2017 |archive-date=March 19, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170319112253/http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/government/gsa-head-resigns-amid-reports-lavish-spending-las-vegas-conference |url-status=live }}</ref>
| |
|
| |
| The conference had been the most recent in a series of similar lavish conferences organized by regions of GSA's Public Buildings Service (PBS, not to be confused with the public broadcaster [[PBS|of the same name]]). In May 2010 GSA treated 120 interns to a five-day conference at a [[Palm Springs, California]], resort. An additional investigation led by Inspector General Brian D. Miller found 115 missing [[Apple iPods]] meant for an employee rewards program.{{Citation needed|date=April 2021}}
| |
|
| |
| GSA administrator [[Martha N. Johnson]] resigned in the wake of the controversy, after firing Public Buildings Service head Robert Peck and senior advisor Stephen Leeds. Four regional commissioners of the Service, who had been responsible for planning the conference, were placed on administrative leave.<ref>{{citation | url = http://www.gsaig.gov/?LinkServID=908FFF8C-B323-14AD-270C38936310AEBD&showMeta=0 | title = Management Deficiency Report: General Services Administration, Public Buildings Service, 2010 WESTERN REGIONS CONFERENCE | date = 2 April 2012 | publisher = Office of Investigations, Office of Inspector General, U.S. General Services Administration | access-date = 20 July 2012 | archive-date = 17 August 2012 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120817095624/http://www.gsaig.gov/?LinkServID=908FFF8C-B323-14AD-270C38936310AEBD&showMeta=0 | url-status = live }}</ref>
| |
|
| |
| ====Trump–Biden presidential transition controversy====
| |
| {{See also|Emily W. Murphy#2020 presidential transition}}
| |
| After [[Joe Biden]] was called by media outlets as the [[president-elect of the United States]] – defeating [[Donald Trump]] in the [[2020 United States presidential election|November 2020 election]] – Emily W. Murphy, the chief executive of the General Services Administration, initially refused to sign a letter authorizing [[United States presidential transition|Biden's transition team]] to begin work and access federal agencies and [[United States presidential transition|transition funds]], according to ''[[The Washington Post]]''. This came as Trump refused to concede Biden's presumptive – but not yet certified – victory and follow the norm of facilitating a [[peaceful transition of power]] to the presumptive winner.<ref>{{cite news | newspaper=[[Washington Post]] | title=A little-known Trump appointee is in charge of handing transition resources to Biden — and she isn't budging | first=Lisa | last=Rein | author2=Jonathan O'Connell | author3=Josh Dawsey | date=2020-11-08 | url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-gsa-letter-biden-transition/2020/11/08/07093acc-21e9-11eb-8672-c281c7a2c96e_story.html | access-date=2020-11-09 | archive-date=2020-11-09 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201109100819/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-gsa-letter-biden-transition/2020/11/08/07093acc-21e9-11eb-8672-c281c7a2c96e_story.html | url-status=live }}</ref> There are no firm rules on how the GSA determines the president-elect. Typically, the GSA chief might make the decision after reliable news organizations have declared the winner or following a [[concession (politics)|concession]] by the loser.<ref>{{cite news|first=Anne|last=Flaherty|title=Trump could make a Biden transition messy: Here's how|date=November 18, 2020|work=ABC News|url=https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-make-biden-transition-messy/story?id=74060595|access-date=November 18, 2020}}</ref> On November 23, 2020, Murphy issued the letter of ascertainment that meant the Trump administration was ready to begin the formal transition.<ref>{{Cite web|author=Kristen Holmes and Jeremy Herb|title=First on CNN: Key government agency acknowledges Biden's win and begins formal transition|url=https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/23/politics/transition-biden-gsa-begin/index.html|access-date=2020-11-24|website=CNN|date=November 23, 2020 }}</ref>
| |
|
| |
| ====Login.gov Digital Identity Standards controversy====
| |
| In April 2022, the Office of Inspector General (OIG), Office of Inspections, initiated an evaluation of the GSA's Login.gov services.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.gsaig.gov/content/gsa-misled-customers-logingovs-compliance-digital-identity-standards|title=GSA Misled Customers on Login.gov's Compliance with Digital Identity Standards | GSA Office of Inspector General|website=www.gsaig.gov}}</ref> OIG initiated this evaluation based on a notification received from GSA's Office of General Counsel identifying potential misconduct within Login.gov, a component of GSA's Technology Transformation Services (TTS) under the Federal Acquisition Service (FAS). OIG's evaluation found that GSA misled their customer agencies when GSA failed to communicate Login.gov's known noncompliance with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800-63-3, Digital Identity Guidelines.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-03-07 |title=GSA Misled Customers on Login.gov's Compliance with Digital Identity Standards |url=https://www.gsaig.gov/sites/default/files/ipa-reports/GSA%20Misled%20Customers%20on%20Login.gov%27s%20Compliance%20with%20Digital%20Identity%20Standards%20%28JE23-003%29_Redacted.pdf |access-date=2024-09-24 |website=GSAIG}}</ref>
| |
|
| |
| Notwithstanding GSA officials' assertions that Login.gov met SP 800-63-3 Identity Assurance Level 2 (IAL2) requirements, Login.gov has never included a physical or biometric comparison for its customer agencies. Further, GSA continued to mislead customer agencies even after GSA suspended efforts to meet SP 800-63-3.
| |
| GSA knowingly billed IAL2 customer agencies over $10 million for services, including alleged IAL2 services that did not meet IAL2 standards. Furthermore, GSA used misleading language to secure additional funds for Login.gov. Finally, GSA lacked adequate controls over the Login.gov program and allowed it to operate under a hands-off culture. OIG found that because of its failure to exercise management oversight and internal controls over Login.gov, FAS shares responsibility for the misrepresentations to GSA's customers. In response to OIG's report, GSA management agreed with the findings and recommendations.
| |
|
| |
|
| ==Organization== | | ==Organization== |
