Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1978

Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1978
Name	Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1978
Date	1978
Signed by	Jimmy Carter
Purpose	Federal administrative reorganization of procurement and property functions

Contents

Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1978. Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1978 transferred federal procurement and property management functions among executive entities to create a centralized General Services Administration structure, reflecting administrative priorities of the Carter administration and responding to reform pressures from Congress, the Congressional Budget Office, and oversight bodies such as the Government Accountability Office. The plan intersected with statutory frameworks including the Administrative Procedure Act, the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, and debates in the United States Senate and United States House of Representatives over executive reorganization authority.

Background and Legislative Context

The plan emerged amid reform efforts linked to precedents like the Reorganization Act of 1949, the Presidential Reorganization (1939), and structural changes influenced by the New Deal era and later executive initiatives during the Nixon administration and the Ford administration. Concerns voiced by committees such as the House Committee on Government Operations and the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs paralleled recommendations from advisory bodies including the National Academy of Public Administration, the Brookings Institution, and the Commission on Federal Paperwork. High-profile incidents such as procurement controversies involving the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, and the Veterans Administration helped shape congressional pressure for consolidation, while legal opinions from the Office of Legal Counsel and budget analyses from the Office of Management and Budget framed the executive proposal.

Major provisions centralized procurement authority, transferred surplus property management, and reorganized administrative responsibilities to enhance efficiency under the General Services Administration and to align with statutes like the Federal Acquisition Regulation regime. The plan delineated functions reassigned from entities including the Department of the Interior, the Department of Commerce, the Treasury Department, and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to streamline contracting, property disposal, and asset management. It established reporting requirements tied to existing mechanisms such as the Paperwork Reduction Act and coordination with the Office of Personnel Management on staffing and with the United States Postal Service where mail contracts intersected.

Agencies directly affected included the General Services Administration, which absorbed expanded procurement offices, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for certain property functions, and the Department of Defense for specific contracting overlaps. Civilian agencies such as the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Department of Labor saw reallocations of contracting authority or administrative support responsibilities. Independent entities such as the Federal Trade Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission were engaged for regulatory considerations where procurement intersected with regulatory enforcement, while interagency coordination involved the Federal Reserve, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Archives and Records Administration.

Implementation required phased transfers of personnel, records, and appropriation language, with transition teams drawing officials from the Office of Management and Budget, the Office of Personnel Management, and the General Services Administration itself. Memoranda of agreement referenced labor standards under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 and consultation with unions such as the American Federation of Government Employees and the National Federation of Federal Employees. Transition milestones were overseen by congressional committees including the House Appropriations Committee and the Senate Appropriations Committee, with oversight hearings featuring testimony from agency heads like the Administrator of General Services and inspectors general from the Department of Defense and the Department of Commerce.

Legal analysis addressed the scope of the Reorganization Act of 1949 authority versus the Appointments Clause and separation-of-powers considerations raised by critics in the United States District Court and commentary from constitutional scholars associated with institutions like Harvard University and Columbia University. Litigated or threatened challenges invoked precedent from cases such as Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer and doctrinal debates reflected in opinions by the Supreme Court of the United States and advisory memos from the Department of Justice. Questions about statutory interpretation involved the Anti-Deficiency Act, appropriations riders debated in the Congressional Record, and compliance with notification requirements to the Government Accountability Office.

Short-term impacts included consolidation of procurement personnel, altered contracting practices referenced in later revisions of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, and enhanced centralized property disposal managed by the General Services Administration. Subsequent administrations, including the Reagan administration and the Clinton administration, revisited procurement reform through initiatives that interfaced with the plan's framework, and later legislation such as the Clinger–Cohen Act and the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act reflected ongoing evolution. Academic assessments from scholars at the Brookings Institution and case studies in journals like the Public Administration Review traced long-term effects on federal acquisition, while watchdog reports from the Government Accountability Office and Inspector General audits continued to evaluate outcomes.

Category:United States federal administrative law