S. Hrg. 104-401 S. 1224-THE ADMINISTRATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION ACT OF 1995 HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON S. 1224 TO AMEND SUBCHAPTER IV OF CHAPTER 5 OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE, RELATING TO ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF DISPUTE RES- OLUTION IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS, AND FOR OTHER PUR- POSES NOVEMBER 29, 1995 "*"'>'4,. Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs May OS ms U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON 1996 : ForsalebytheU.S.GovernmentPnntingOffice .SuoerintendentofDocuments.CongressionalSalesOffice,Washington,DC 20402 Y 4. G 74/9; S.HRS. 104-401 "6-052457-1 S. 122^ - The Adninistrative Disput... . S. Hrg. 104-401 S. 1224-THE ADMINISTRATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION ACT OF 1995 HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OWRSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OF THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON S. 1224 TO AMEND SUBCHAPTER IV OF CHAPTER 5 OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE, RELATING TO ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF DISPUTE RES- OLUTION IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS, AND FOR OTHER PUR- POSES NOVEMBER 29, 1995 Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs / May Ob U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON 1996 : ForsalebytheU.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice .SuDerintendentofDocuments,CongressionalSalesOffice,Washington,DC 20402 """""' G 74/9; S.HRQ. 104-401 2A - The Adninistrative Disput. . COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman WILLIAM V. ROTH, Jr., Delaware JOHN GLENN, Ohio WILLIAM S. COHEN, Maine SAM NUNN, Georgia FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee CARL LEVIN, Michigan THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi DAVID PRYOR, Arkansas JOHN McCAIN, Arizona JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut BOB SMITH, New Hampshire DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii HANK BROWN, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota Albert L. McDermott, StaffDirector Leonard Weiss, Minority StaffDirector Michal Sue Prosser, ChiefClerk SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WILLIAM S. COHEN, Maine, Chairman FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee CARL LEVIN, Michigan THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi DAVID PRYOR, Arkansas JOHN McCAIN, Arizona JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut HANK BROWN, Colorado DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii Kim Corthell, StaffDirector David H. Schanzer, ChiefCounsel Linda J. Gustitus, Minority StaffDirector and ChiefCounsel to the Minority Frankie de Vergie, ChiefClerk (II) CONTENTS Opening statements: Senator Cohen . WITNESSES Wednesday, November 29, 1995 Steven Kelman, Administrator, Office ofFederal Procurement Policy 3 Peter R. Steenland, Jr., Esq., Senior Counsel for Alternative Dispute Resolu- tion, U.S. DepartmentofJustice 8 John A. Wagner, Manager, ADR Services, Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, accompanied by Eileen Hoffman, General Counsel, Federal Medi- ation and Conciliation Service 9 Nancy G. Miller, Esq., Senior Attorney, Administrative Conference of the United States 23 Philip J. Harter, Esq., Chairman, Section ofAdministrative Law and Regu- latory Practice, American BarAssociation 26 Marshall J. Breger, Senior Fellow, The Heritage Foundation and Former Chairofthe Administrative Conference ofthe United States 30 Gray Castle, Esq., Government Contract Disputes Committee, Center for Public Resources 34 Alphabetical List of Witnesses Breger, Marshall J.: Testimony 30 Prepared statement 113 Castle, Gray: Testimony 34 Prepared statement 132 Harter, PhilipJ.: Testimony 26 Prepared statement 98 Kelman, Steve: Testimony 3 Prepared statement 47 Miller, Nancy G.: Testimony ' 23 Prepared statement 88 Steenland, Peter R. Jr.: Testimony 8 Prepared statement 64 Wagner, JohnA.: Testimony 9 APPENDDC S. 1224, theAdministrative Disputes Resolution Actof1995 41 Prepared statements ofwitnesses in orderofappearance 47 Statementsubmitted forthe record by Charles Pou, Jr., Nov. 16, 1995 140 Statement submitted for the record by Thomas Furtado, President, The Om- budsman Association 152 Letter to Senator Cohen from Shirley Ann Jackson, Chairman, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Nov. 9, 1995 159 Letter to Senators Cohen and Levin from Philip Lader, Administrator, U.S. Small Business Administration, Nov. 28, 1995 163 (III) IV Page Letter to Senator Cohen from John C. Biechman, Acting Assistant Secretary, U.S. DepartmentofHousing and Urban Development, Nov. 13, 1995 166 Letter to Senators Cohen and Levin from Ginger Lew, General Counsel ofthe U.S. Department ofCommerce, Nov. 22, 1995 170 Letter to Senators Cohen and Levin from Gilbert F. Casellas, Chairman, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Nov. 13, 1995 172 Letter to Senator Cohen from Joseph Duffey, Director, U.S. Information Agen- cy, Nov. 15, 1995 179 Letter to Senator Cohen from Judith A. Miller, General Counsel of the De- partment ofDefense, Nov. 28, 1995 180 Letter to Senator Cohen from Lawrence M. Baskir, Principal Deputy General Counsel, Department ofthe Army, Nov. 9, 1995 182 Letter to Senator Cohen from Lawrence M. Baskir, Principal Deputy General Counsel, Departmentofthe Army, Jan. 26, 1996 187 Letter to Senator Cohen from Leigh A. Bradley, Acting General Counsel, Departmentofthe Navy, Nov. 7, 1995 190 Letter to Senator Cohen from Sheila C. Cheston, General Counsel, Depart- mentofthe Air Force, Nov. 24, 1995 194 Letter to Senator Cohen from Hazel R. O'Leary, Secretary of Energy, Dec. 5, 1995 202 Letter to Senator Cohen from Edward S. Knight, General Counsel, Depart- ment of the Treasury, Dec. 8, 1995. Enclosure retained in Subcommittee files 205 Letter to Senator Cohen from Roger W. Johnson, Administrator, General Services Administration, Dec. 8, 1995 206 Letter to Senators Cohen and Levin from Robert W. Hickmott, Associate Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Nov. 28, 1995 209 Letter to Senator Cohen from John Calhoun Wells, Director, Federal Medi- ation and Conciliation Service, Dec. 8, 1995 211 Letter to Senator Cohen from Donna E. Shalala, Secretary, Health and Human Services, Feb. 26, 1996 213 1224—THE ADMINISTRATIVE DISPUTE S. RESOLUTION ACT OF 1995 WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1995 U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, and the District of Columbia, Committee on Governmental Affairs, Washington, DC. The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:36 a.m., in room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. William S. Cohen, Chairman ofthe Subcommittee, presiding. Present: Senators Cohen and Levin. Staff Present: Kim Corthell, Staff Director; David Schanzer, Chief Counsel; Frankie de Vergie, Chief Clerk; Elise J. Bean, Mi- nority Counsel; Andrea Gerber, Majority Staff Assistant; and San- dra Bruce, Minority Legislative Fellow. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR COHEN Senator COHEN. The Committee will come to order. Over the past decades a consensus has emerged that traditional litigation is an inefficient way to resolve disputes. Not only is litigation costly, but due to its adversarial contentious nature, litigation often deterio- rates working relationships and fails to produce long-term solutions to problems. Private corporations recognized this many years ago, that certain types of disputes could be resolved much less expensively and with less acrimony by relying on techniques such as mediation, arbitra- tion and partnering, which collectively have become known as al- ternative dispute resolution or ADR. In addition, since ADR is based on reaching a consensus among parties instead of deciding which party "wins" the dispute, ADR helps to build relationships and construct lasting solutions to con- flict. In 1990, Congress recognized that the government lagged well behind the private sector in this field and in response, enacted the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act to promote the use of ADR in government agencies. Senator Grassley and Senator Levin led the effort to pass this legislation and bring the benefits of ADR to the Federal Government. The Act authorizes agencies to apply ADR to almost any type of claim involving the government, requires the appointment of ADR specialists in each agency, establishes procedures for hiring neutral third parties to help resolve disputes and provides confidentiality protection to parties who are participating in ADR. (1) By all accounts the ADR Act has been a modest success. Agencies are using ADR to resolve contracting disputes, discrimination and other employment claims, and regulatory enforcement matters. Two dozen federal agencies have signed a pledge to use ADR in contracting disputes and are saving money by resolving claims more quickly and with less acrimony. By reducing contracting delays and litigation costs, ADR improves the way government functions and provides tangible savings to the American taxpayer. It is worth noting that while the number of civil cases filed in federal court per year has increased by 15 percent since 1991, the number of cases in which the Federal Government is a party has dropped by 15 percent. Although we do not know if this decrease in government litigation has been caused by the increased use of ADR, it is a positive trend that we can only hope is going to con- tinue. S. 1224, the bill being considered by the Subcommittee today, would permanently authorize the ADR Act. It would also improve the system for hiring mediators, provide additional confidentiality protections to ADR participants and make a number ofother minor adjustments to the Act. In addition to discussing these issues, the Subcommittee is going to be exploring whether the Act should be strengthened to promote greater use of ADR especially in the agencies that have not re- sponded to the mandate ofthe original legislation. I welcome our witnesses today and I look forward to hearing your testimony but first, I would like to yield to Senator Levin, one of ADR the principal sponsors ofthe legislation. Senator Levin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for holding this hearing and for your support ofthis legislation. We all want a government which works better and—costs less. To- day's hearing looks at one way to achieve that goal using cost-ef- fective methods for the Federal Government to resolve disputes without stepping into a courtroom. It is a fact of life that many people have disputes with the Fed- eral Government. In the late 1980's, of the 220,000 civil cases filed in Federal Court, more than 55,000 involved the Federal Govern- ment. Resolving these disputes costs taxpayers billions of dollars every year. Resolving them before they become courtroom dramas is one way to make a dent in this billion-dollar drain on taxpayers' funds. Me- diation, arbitration, mini-trials and other methods offer cheaper, faster alternatives to civil litigation. That is why, 5 years ago. Sen- ator Grassley and I co-sponsored the Administrative Dispute Reso- lution Act. It is why we have teamed up again this year on legisla- tion to ensure that alternative dispute resolution techniques, which we call ADR, remain a cost-effective tool that Federal agencies can use to resolve disputes and hopefully will use more often to resolve disputes. Since the passage ofthe ADR law in 1990, Federal agencies have increasingly used these alternatives to courtroom battles to save time and money. The Army Corps of Engineers, for example, suc- cessfully resolved 53 out of 55 contract disputes using ADR over a five-year period, including, in 1994, settling a $55 million claim for $17 million in 4 days. — 1 The Resolution Trust Corporation saved legal costs of approxi- mately $115 million from 1991 to 1994 by using alternative dispute resolution instead of litigation. The Navy shortened dispute resolu- tion times in some cases from 4 years to 3 months by replacing for- mal litigation with informal abbreviated proceedings. Not all Federal agencies have used ADR extensively, but those agencies that have tried it report both savings and satisfaction with the process. In these times of tight Federal budgets and shrinking Government, we need more of the savings that ADR of- fers, not less, and that is why the ADR Act should become a per- manent fixture in Federal law.— The Act's unfortunate lapse due to the press of business before Congress rather than dissatisfaction with or disinterest in ADR shows why this step is necessary. The bill that Senator Grassley and I have introduced would fill the current statutory void by per- manently reauthorizing the ADR law, while fine-tuning some of its provisions. Mr. Chairman, again, I commend you and I thank you for hold- ing this hearing and advancing the cause of low-cost dispute reso- lution that, in 5 years, has already produced savings in time and money. ADR costs less, it is quicker, it is less adversarial, it re- solves disputes, it frees up courts for other business and it is a suc- cess story which I hope this Subcommittee and the full Committee will see fit to preserve and to strengthen. Senator COHEN. Thank you very much, Senator Levin. Do you think we might apply it to Congress? [Laughter. Senator Levin. We are open to an amendment on that score, I will tell you that. Senator Cohen. I want to welcome our first panel. Our first wit- ness is Steven Kelman, the Administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP). Dr. Kelman testified before the Sub- committee earlier this year on legislation that I introduced to im- prove how the government approaches and acquires information technology. I should tell you that that legislation is progressing. It is in the defense authorization conference which needs an ADR desperately. I would note that Dr. Kelman and his colleagues at OFPP and 0MB have been extremely helpful in working with me to address the inefficiencies in the current procurement system. Also testifying are Peter Steenland, Senior Counsel for Alter- native Dispute Resolution, U.S. Department of Justice; and John Wagner, the Manager of the ADR Services at the Federal Medi- ation and Conciliation Services. Gentlemen, welcome, and Dr. Kelman, do you care to begin? TESTIMONY OF STEVEN KELMAN,i ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF FEDERAL PROCUREMENT POLICY Dr. Kelman. Could my full statement be placed in the record? Senator COHEN. It will be placed in the record, in full. Dr. Kelman. I will try to speak briefly. I am pleased to appear today on behalf of the Administration to give our warm endorse- ment for S. 1224, and for improvement and continuation of ADR. iTheprepared statementofDr. Kelman appearsonpage 47. We would like to very much commend Senator Grassley and Sen- ator Levin for introducing this bill and, as Senator Levin did, com- mend you for holding these hearings and also for your leadership role in the procurement area in reducing bid protests and litiga- tion. I am hopeful that out of that authorization bill is going to come some very good, positive steps towards reducing litigation in the procurement system. I will be addressing in my testimony ADR as it applies specifi- cally to Government contracting. We have litigation in Government contracting, broadly speaking, in two areas. One is generally referred to as contract disputes or contract claims. Those are the situations where, during contract perform- ance, there is some dispute: does the Government owe the contrac- tor money, does the contractor owe the Government money and so forth. Those are called disputes or claims. And the other area where we have litigation in the contracting process is so-called bid protests where an unsuccessful company sues the Government for not having made the award to them but making it to some other party. So those are the two areas where we have litigation. I think it is fair to say that, compared to relationships in the commercial world between suppliers and customers, the amount of litigation in the Government between suppliers to the Government and the Government customer is far, far greater and that is a real problem. In the commercial world there are, of course, sometimes contract disputes, but the number is far, far less. I remember when I was doing research on Government contracting, in my previous life as a professor, I remember some Government people saying to me that some ofthe companies they dealt with it seems as ifthey had more lawyers assigned to the contract than engineers, which was not a positive situation. In the bid protest area, as you know, the very idea that an un- successful company in the private sector would sue their would-be customer if they did not get p contract awar—d is unheard of. The idea that if Proc—ter & Gamble or L.L. Bean to take an example from your State makes a decision to go with one supplier rather than another, say they buy their computers from Compaq rather than IBM, the idea that IBM would take the customer to court to protest that, it would be considered absurd on the face of it, yet we put up with this on an every-day basis in the Government context. And I think the reason why we really need to make a concerted effort to reduce litigation in government contracting is for the exact reason you pointed out in your opening statement. Senator: that it creates, it damages good relations between the parties in a busi- ness relationship. I think what the commercial world has learned is that to get the most value out of a relationship between a sup- plier and a customer you need to have a good partnership. That is the way to maximize the value in the relationship, and litigation destroys that partnership. And, therefore, in the commercial world it is realized that you want to do everything that you can to avoid litigation.