[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

CONSOLIDATING DHS: AN UPDATE ON THE ST. ELIZABETHS PROJECT

=======================================================================

HEARING

before the

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MANAGEMENT,
INVESTIGATIONS, AND OVERSIGHT

of the

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

__________

MARCH 26, 2009

__________

Serial No. 111-12

__________

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html

__________

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
55-059 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010
___________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi, Chairman

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California PETER T. KING, New York
JANE HARMAN, California LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
Columbia MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
ZOE LOFGREN, California MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas
SHEILA JACKSON-LEE, Texas CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York CANDICE S. MILLER, Mississippi
LAURA RICHARDSON, California PETE OLSON, Texas
ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona ANH ``JOSEPH'' CAO, Louisiana
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico STEVE AUSTRIA, Ohio
BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey
EMMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri
AL GREEN, Texas
JAMES A. HIMES, Connecticut
MARY JO KILROY, Ohio
ERIE J.J. MASSA, New York
DINA TITUS, Nevada
VACANCY

I. Lanier Avant, Staff Director

Rosaline Cohen, Chief Counsel

Michael Twinchek, Chief Clerk

Robert O'Conner, Minority Staff Director

______

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MANAGEMENT, INVESTIGATIONS, AND OVERSIGHT

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania, Chairman

PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
BILL PASCRELL, Jr, New Jersey ANH ``JOSEPH'' CAO, Louisiana
AL GREEN, Texas DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
MARY JO KILROY, Ohio PETER T. KING, New York, (ex
BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi, officio)
(ex officio)

Tamla T. Scott, Staff Director

Carla Zamudio-Dolan, Clerk

Michael Russell, Senior Counsel

Kerry Kinirons, Minority Subcommittee Lead

(ii)
C O N T E N T S

----------
Page

STATEMENTS

The Honorable Christopher P. Carney, a Representative in Congress
from the Sate of Pennsylvania, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
Management, Investigations, and Oversight...................... 1
The Honorable Gus M. Bilirakis, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Florida, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Management, Investigations, and Oversight...................... 2
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Mississippi, Chairman, Committee on Homeland
Security
Oral Statement................................................. 3
Prepared Statement............................................. 4
The Honorable Anh ``Joseph'' Cao, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Louisiana.................................... 20
The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Delegate in Congress from
the District of Columbia....................................... 17

Witnesses

Mr. Donald Bathurst, Chief Administrative Officer, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 6
Prepared Statement............................................. 7
Mr. William (Bill) Guerin, Assistant Commissioner for
Construction Programs, Public Buildings Service, General
Services Administration:
Oral Statement................................................. 9
Prepared Statement............................................. 11

Appendix

Questions and Responses:
Responses submitted by Mr. William (Bill) Guerin............... 31
Responses submitted by Mr. Donald Bathurst..................... 37

CONSOLIDATING DHS: AN UPDATE ON THE ST. ELIZABETHS PROJECT

----------

Thursday, March 26, 2009

U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Management, Investigations,
and Oversight,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in
Room 311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Christopher Carney
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Carney, Thompson, Green,
Bilirakis, and Cao.

Also present: Representative Norton.
Mr. Carney. [Presiding.] The subcommittee is meeting today
to receive testimony on consolidating DHS, an update on the St.
Elizabeth project.
I would like to thank everyone for joining us, and I would
like to offer a warm welcome to Chairwoman Norton. Given her
chair of the Economic Development, Public Buildings and
Emergency Management Subcommittee on the T&I Committee and her
seat on the Homeland Security Committee, she brings unique
expertise to this hearing.
Today, we will receive an update from the Department of
Homeland Security and the General Services Administration on
the effort to locate DHS headquarters at the St. Elizabeths
site.
Work on the DHS consolidation at the St. Elizabeths West
Campus began in 2004 and has finally reached the point where
construction can begin. The plan to bring all components to one
facility and create the much-needed space and infrastructure to
effectively carry out DHS's mission should have a positive
impact on the department's effectiveness and morale.
The subcommittee is interested in the steps that have been
taken to ensure a seamless transition occurs when moving the
disparate components of the department to the St. Elizabeths
site.
Last week, I toured the St. E's site. And as I walked the
grounds, the scale of the project truly sunk in: This project
is a massive undertaking that will take years to complete, and
it is of utmost importance that it be completed on time and
within budget.
To begin phase one construction on the new facility,
Congress has so far appropriated over $200 million to DHS and
$795 million to GSA.
Based on 4.5 million square feet of office space, plus
parking, GSA and DHS originally estimated the overall
headquarters consolidation on the St. E's West Campus would
cost at least $3.26 billion, but preliminary estimates have
already increased. The current estimate is $3.4 billion. It is
imperative that this upward trend does not continue.
During a March 2007 hearing in this subcommittee, former
DHS Undersecretary for Management Paul Schneider testified that
the consolidation of 4.5 million square feet of offices at St.
E's would save DHS roughly $1 billion over 30 years when
compared to an alternative involving renewing existing leases
during that same period.
A revised GSA analysis, assuming a lower rental rate for
parking space than office space, estimates the cost savings at
$743 million. As a result, the Government Accountability Office
has raised concerns that the estimated funding may not be
adequate and the savings to the government might be somewhat
overstated.
Additionally, DHS currently faces a number of challenges
involving the protection of its facilities. Surprisingly, it
does not possess a physical security plan.
In the past, both GAO and Congress have been critical of
DHS's failure to develop a physical security plan, despite the
requirement that all executive agencies are mandated under
HSPD-7 to have such a plan in place.
According to DHS, many of the issues regarding the physical
security of DHS facilities will be resolved within the
development of the headquarters at the St. E's location. I hope
that the witnesses here today will elaborate on DHS's plans for
facility security.
As the committee continues to conduct its oversight,
particular attention will be paid to whether the final product
meets the department's needs and whether the project is staying
within the estimated budget and the timeframe. The committee
will continue to hold hearings, schedule site visits, and
oversee the department's activities.
I thank the witnesses for their participation today. I look
forward to hearing from Mr. Bathurst and Mr. Guerin.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much. I join you in welcoming
our witnesses today.
I am pleased to have had the chance to meet with both Mr.
Bathurst and Mr. Guerin when we went on the tour of St.
Elizabeths West Campus earlier this week. I appreciated the
opportunity to visit St. Elizabeths and see the department and
GSA's plan firsthand. And I thank our witnesses for taking this
time to show it to me.
I agree that the consolidation plan will provide measurable
benefits to the department in terms of coordination and
efficiency. And I think that St. Elizabeths is an ideal
location for the department's headquarters.
I do hope, however, that as the department and GSA move
forward with this project that we do not lose sight of its--
project's cost. The St. Elizabeths project is projected to cost
$3.4 billion, and nearly $1.2 billion has been appropriated to
date.
As with projects of this magnitude, there are frequently
unforeseen expenses. I hope that both the department and GSA
have some mechanisms in place to prevent cost overruns and
delays on this project.
We in Congress are familiar with such overruns and delays,
unfortunately. The Capitol Visitors Center opened 4 years ago
behind schedule, and--excuse me--4 years ago, it opened--it was
4 years behind schedule and $356 million over--overrunning the
original budget, I understand. I hope we can avoid a similar
outcome with the St. Elizabeths project.
I would also like to note that, as the department's
consolidating its headquarters, Congress has its own
consolidating to do, namely the consolidation of congressional
jurisdiction over the Department of Homeland Security.
Consolidation of the department's headquarters on the St.
Elizabeths campus will help the department meet its vital
mission, but the department will not be able to work in the
most efficient manner possible until Congress consolidates
oversight jurisdiction.
The most recent statistics provided by the department
indicate that there are currently 108 congressional committees
and subcommittees exercising oversight over the department.
This is simply unacceptable, in my opinion. The fractured
congressional oversight often provides conflicting guidance and
distracts from the department's vital mission.
I believe--and I am sure the two chairmen over here--and
they will speak for themselves--that the Committee on Homeland
Security should be the principal point of oversight for
homeland security. I hope that the members of this committee
will work together in a bipartisan manner to accomplish this
goal.
That said, I support the plan to consolidate the
department's headquarters at St. Elizabeths, and I will look
forward to hearing from our witnesses.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Carney. I thank you.
The chair now recognizes the chairman of the full
committee, the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Thompson, for an
opening statement.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much, Chairman Carney. And I
really appreciate you holding this oversight hearing. I think
it is very important for us to do the committee's work on this,
which will be one of the larger construction projects going on
in this area. And it is nice to start from the beginning.
Let me welcome our two witnesses to this hearing this
morning, also.
And since the Department of Homeland Security was created
in 2002, the department has had 7 of its core components spread
out among 85 buildings in 53 separate locations. As one would
assume, this separation has adversely affected the need for
cohesive communication, coordination and cooperation across
department component agencies as the department seeks to
fulfill its mission.
It has also had an impact on the department's ability to
create the ``One DHS'' culture that Secretary Napolitano
referred to in her testimony last month before this full
committee. Moreover, 55 percent of the department's square
footage is federally owned and under the control of the
department; however, 41 percent is leased through GSA.
Excluding the Coast Guard, department components lease
approximately 71 percent of its real property, a rate that is
higher than any other rate government-wide. The majority of
these leases will expire over the next 10 years. According to
GAO, building ownership, rather than leases, saves money in the
long run.
It is for these basic reasons that there is a great need
for the department to consolidate its physical infrastructure
into one central location. A single unified headquarters that
houses the secretary, senior department leadership, component
heads, and program managers will significantly aid the
department in fulfilling its mission.
With 176 acres and over 60 available buildings, the West
Campus of the St. Elizabeths Hospital appears to be the most
logical place to house the department's vast headquarters
operations. The federal government already owns the space; the
buildings are sitting empty; and the site is strategically
located less than three miles from the U.S. Capitol and
downtown D.C.
While I agree that the consolidation plan and the location
are excellent, I do, however, have some concerns about the
cost. It is estimated that this will be $3.4 billion
undertaking. Unfortunately, the department has not always
carried out large-scale procurement projects in a cost-
effective and timely manner.
Staffing shortages, overspending, and overdependence on
contractors has led to numerous examples of waste, fraud and
abuse. Moreover, small and disadvantaged businesses have all
too often been left out of the process.
Hopefully, as the department and GSA moves forward on this
joint effort, I commend you on how well you have worked
together thus far, these past shortcomings should not
materialize.
I look forward to receiving today's testimony, Mr.
Chairman, and to being a part of this consolidation process.
[Statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, Chairman,
Committee on Homeland Security

I would first like to thank Chairman Carney for holding this
important hearing and for being at the forefront of an issue that I am
sure will require this Committee's rigorous oversight. Since the
Department of Homeland Security was created in 2002, the Department has
had 7 of its core components spread out among 85 buildings in 53
separate locations. As one would assume, this separation has adversely
affected the need for cohesive communication, coordination, and
cooperation across Department component agencies as the Department
seeks to fulfill its mission. It has also had an impact on the
Department's ability to create the ``One DHS'' culture that Secretary
Napolitano referred to in her testimony last month before the full
committee.
Moreover, fifty-five percent of the Department's square footage is
federally owned and under the control of the Department; however, 41
percent is leased through GSA. Excluding the Coast Guard, Department
components lease approximately 71 percent of its real property, a rate
that is higher than any other rate government-wide. The majority of
these leases will expire over the next ten years.
According to GAO, building ownership-rather than leasees--saves
money in the long run. It is for these basic reasons, that there is a
great need for the Department to consolidate its physical
infrastructure into one central location. A single unified headquarters
that houses the Secretary, senior Department leadership, component
heads, and program managers, will significantly aid the Department in
fulfilling its mission. With 176 acres and over 60 available buildings,
the West Campus of the St. Elizabeths Hospital appears to be the most
logical place to house the Department's vast headquarters operations.
The federal government already owns the space, the buildings are
sitting empty, and the site is strategically located less than three
miles from the U.S. Capitol and downtown DC.
While I agree that the consolidation plan and the location are
excellent, I do however have some concern about the cost. It is
estimated that this will be $3.4 billion undertaking. Unfortunately,
the Department has not always carried out large scale procurement
projects in a cost effective and timely manner. Staffing shortages,
overspending, and overdependence on contractors has led to numerous
examples of waste, fraud and abuse.
Moreover, small and disadvantaged business have all too often but
left out of the process. Hopefully, as the Department and GSA move
forward in this joint effort, and I commend you on how well you have
worked together thus far, these past shortcomings will not materialize.
I look forward to receiving today's testimony and to being a
part of the consolidation process.

Mr. Carney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Other members of the subcommittee are reminded that, under
committee rules, opening statements may be submitted for the
record.
I would now like to welcome both the witnesses. Our first
witness is Mr. Donald Bathurst. Mr. Bathurst currently serves
as the chief administrative officer of the Department of
Homeland Security. In that capacity, he is responsible for
delivery of administrative services to the Department of
Homeland Security, including facilities acquisition, facilities
management, inventory management, records management, health
and safety programs, environmental compliance, mail room, motor
pool, fleet management, and customer service center.
Really?
Most recently, he served as the director of the Office of
Asset Management at DHS, responsible for planning development
acquisition, management, protection, and disposal of all
tangible assets of the Department of Homeland Security,
including land, buildings, motor fleet, aircraft, and all other
personal property.
Mr. Bathurst has served within FEMA as the director of the
National Dam Safety Program, coordinating the activities of 24
federal agencies and the 50 states, as director of building
sciences and public education programs in the mitigation
directorate and as the deputy U.S. fire administrator, where he
was instrumental in establishing counterterrorism training,
coordinating anti-arson efforts, and putting facility
management plans in place for the National Emergency Training
Center.
Mr. Bathurst is a member of the federal government's Senior
Executive Service, holds a bachelor's of science in fire
protection engineering from the University of Maryland, and a
master's of public administration from the American University,
where his practicum project explored relationships between the
executive and legislative branches of the federal government.
Our second witness is Mr. Bill Guerin. Mr. Guerin currently
serves as the assistant commissioner for construction in the
GSA's Public Buildings Service. In his position, Mr. Guerin is
responsible for the delivery of GSA's more than $1 billion
annual capital investment program focused on the design and
construction of federal buildings, land ports of entry, port
houses, and other construction projects for the nation's
landlord.
Prior to his current post, Bill was the director of asset
management at the Department of Homeland Security. He shares
that distinction with Mr. Bathurst. In that position, Bill was
responsible for the development, implementation,
administration, evaluation of and monitoring the compliance of
Department of Homeland Security policies and programs for real
property, personal property, fleet, mail, and other
administrative services.
Mr. Guerin hails from California with a B.A. in
architecture from the University of California at Berkeley and
an MBA from the Golden State University in San Francisco.
Without objection, the witnesses' full statements will be
inserted in the record. I now ask that each witness to
summarize his or her statement for 5 minutes, beginning with
Mr. Bathurst.

STATEMENT OF DONALD BATHURST, CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Mr. Bathurst. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Carney, Ranking Member Bilirakis, Chairman
Thompson, and members of the committee, good morning. I would
like to thank the committee for your support in consolidating
the department's headquarters.
I am Don Bathurst, the chief administrative officer for the
Department of Homeland Security. I am here to update you on the
DHS headquarters consolidation efforts.
As you know, DHS and our components are currently occupying
over 7 million square feet of office space scattered in more
than 40 locations and 70 buildings throughout the National
Capital Region. These numbers will increase through 2010.
Given the need and the lack of a site within the National
Capital Region capable of housing the entire department, we
carefully analyzed the critical mission functions and
determined that a minimum of 4.5 million square feet of office
space on a secure campus is necessary to support the DHS
operations and integration.
Our housing plan reduces the number of locations, provides
for the anticipated growth, and maintains our center of gravity
for critical core functions of the department at St.
Elizabeths.
Realigning our headquarters to enhance mission execution is
cost-beneficial from a total ownership perspective. GSA
estimates that the St. Elizabeths development will result in a
30-year present value cost advantage of more than $600 million.
Additionally, through the sharing of common services on the
campus and reductions in administrative overhead due to fewer
occupied locations, we will extract additional efficiencies
through the implementation of our headquarters consolidation
effort.
Moreover, our plan for St. Elizabeths is a successful
integration of historic preservation and the federal agency
mission need. The plan benefits from extensive public
involvement that improved the final product. As a result, the
St. Elizabeths master plan was approved by the U.S. Commission
of Fine Arts and the National Capital Planning Commission.
These planning and design authorities recognize the
significant improvements made to the master plan during the
consultation process. The final approved master plan to reuse
and preserve this national historic landmark minimizes harm to
the maximum extent possible, while creating a functional campus
supporting our mission.
The fiscal year 2009 DHS Appropriations Act combined with
GSA's appropriation provides the funds necessary to begin
construction of the new Coast Guard headquarters this year.
This is the first phase of our consolidation effort.
I would like to thank the committee for your support of
this project in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009, which provides additional funding of $200 million for DHS
and $450 million for GSA to continue with phase one
construction and the design of the following phases.
I would like to note that the entire project will create
direct employment opportunities for more than 32,000 people in
the region from construction and related activities. And that
doesn't include the 14,000 employees that will relocate and be
housed at the St. Elizabeths campus upon its completion.
The St. Elizabeths campus offers a tremendous opportunity
to create a secure, state-of-the-art headquarters focused on
achieving our core mission: protecting our homeland.
We look forward to joining the Ward 8 community and the
opportunity to redevelop and preserve St. Elizabeths for
generations to come.
I would be pleased to answer any questions the committee
may have.
[The statement of Mr. Bathurst follows:]

Prepared Statement of Donald G. Bathurst

Chairman Carney, Ranking Member Bilirakis, and Members of the
Committee, good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before
this Committee and for the support and efforts in consolidating the
Department's headquarters operations.
I am Donald Bathurst, Chief Administrative Officer of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS). In this position, I serve as the
Department's Senior Real Property Officer and the Senior Policy
Official for historic preservation matters. I am here today to update
you on the DHS National Capital Region (NCR) Housing Master Plan and
our progress toward the establishment of a DHS Consolidated
Headquarters Campus a St. Elizabeths.
DHS and component headquarters employees currently occupy more than
seven million gross square feet (GSF) of office space, in nearly 70
buildings throughout 40 locations in the NCR. These numbers will
increase, as we have more than 25 space requests pending with the U.S.
General Services Administration (GSA) to meet the demands of the
Department and component headquarters. This extreme dispersion of the
DHS workforce imposes inefficiencies in our daily operations.
The centerpiece of our Housing Master Plan is a Consolidated
Headquarters at St. Elizabeths that will support operations and
integration. Given the magnitude of our space requirements, and the
lack of a NCR site capable of housing the entire Department, DHS
carefully analyzed the critical core mission execution functions and
determined that a minimum critical mass of 4.5 million GSF of office
space plus parking must be collocated on a secure campus for effective
and efficient management across all business lines. The housing plan is
structured to manage the anticipated growth through the off-campus
housing while maintaining a stable 4.5 million GSF occupancy for the
critical core functions of leadership, operations coordination, program
management and policy at the consolidated campus.
Realigning our Headquarters (HQ) facilities to enhance mission
execution also provides benefits from a total ownership cost
perspective. GSA estimates through The Automated Prospectus System
(TAPS) that the St. Elizabeths development will result in a 30 year
present value cost advantage of approximately $631 million over the
cost of individually replacing leases as they expire without the
benefit of consolidation or federal construction. In addition, through
the sharing of common services on the campus, and reductions in
administrative overhead due to fewer occupied locations in the NCR, we
will extract additional efficiencies through the implementation of the
DHS NCR Housing Master Plan.
The Department is very pleased with the close cooperation and
support we have received from Congress, and particularly the Homeland
Security Committees, and the District of Columbia Government on this
project. The breakthrough in the Master Plan development was the
opportunity to synchronize the East Campus and West Campus developments
for the benefit of both Homeland Security and the District of Columbia.
The National Capital Planning Commission played an important role in
our development of a plan that spans both campuses to reduce impacts on
the West Campus historic resources. DHS believes that this minimizes
harm to this National Historic Landmark. We relocated a portion of our
program to the East Campus that will allow DHS to obtain a consolidated
4.5 million square feet of office space, address density concerns on
the West Campus, and still provide a campus that can function as a
single unified headquarters. It will also further enhance our
interaction with the community and serve as a catalyst for retail and
commercial development on the East Campus.
The St. Elizabeths Master Plan for development of the DHS
Consolidated Headquarters is a successful integration of historic
preservation with agency requirements and has benefited from an
extensive public involvement process to improve the final product. The
Master Plan was approved by the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts on
November 20, 2008. The National Capital Planning Commission approved
the Master Plan for the West Campus at its January 2009 meeting
contingent on GSA's ability to construct the west access road
connecting Firth Sterling Avenue, SE to the modified Malcolm X Avenue,
SE / I-295 Interchange, through the Shepherd Parkway. NCPC commented
favorably on the East Campus plan, but required that GSA submit an
Amendment to the Final Master Plan for NCPC review and approval of both
the East Campus plan and the access road improvements. Both of these
Federal planning and design authorities recognized the significant
improvements to the final Master Plan that were made during the
consultation process that will preserve this National Historic Landmark
(NHL). The final West Campus Master Plan minimizes harm to the landmark
to the maximum extent possible, while creating a functional campus
supporting our mission.
The DHS Consolidated Headquarters at St. Elizabeths will adaptively
reuse 52 of the 62 buildings that contribute to the NHL on the West
Campus; representing approximately 99 percent of the square footage
relating to the landmark status. Eight of the 10 buildings to be
demolished are severely degraded greenhouses that do not lend
themselves to adaptive reuse. New construction is placed in areas of
previous historic development that has since been demolished to
preserve the important view sheds to, from and within the campus.
Parking is placed at the perimeter to retain the historic walking
nature of the campus and is consistent with NCPC guidance on employee
parking ratios for day workers and 24/7 functions.
GSA selected award winning architects to ensure that new building
designs are compatible with the existing historic fabric of the campus.
The concept for the new U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters Building is a
prime example of the successful integration of preservation goals and
programmatic requirements through innovative design. The consulted
stakeholders have reacted very favorably to the concept presentations
for the Coast Guard building, and GSA expects to award a Design-Build
Bridging Contract for this new facility by the fourth quarter of FY
2009.
The DHS Consolidated Headquarters at St. Elizabeths will provide
significant benefits to the community. The project will create direct
employment opportunities for more than 32,000 persons in the region for
construction and construction-related activities (not including the
14,000 Federal employees who will work at St. Elizabeths). As a result
of these jobs, the economy will gain payroll earnings of approximately
$1.2 billion through the planned completion in FY 2016. GSA and DHS
continue to work closely with District of Columbia Government officials
and community leaders to synchronize the East Campus Small Area Plan in
order to help ensure that neighborhood residents are positioned to take
advantage of the opportunities associated with the project. Recently,
GSA and Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton co-sponsored a U.S. Small
Business Administration 8(a) Certification Seminar attended by more
than 30 local business owners. The DHS Chief Human Capital Office has
already started outreach on future employment opportunities at the
campus with a briefing to the Ward 8 Business Council.
While the campus will be designated an Interagency Security
Committee Level 5 secure facility, the department is committed to
working with the community and the consulting parties to provide
scheduled public access to the area known as the Point, as well as the
auditorium. We believe we can accommodate this access while still
preserving our security and operational requirements. The Final Master
Plan also provides for the West Campus Cemetery to be situated outside
the DHS security perimeter, maximizing public access to this previously
secluded and interesting asset.
Historically, the campus has been physically separated from the
community. The wall along Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue protected
patients' privacy and provided a physical barrier between the public
and the patients. Although the wall will remain because of its historic
significance, the interaction that once existed between the community
and the hospital will be restored and enhanced with DHS Headquarters.
Our Components, such as the U.S. Coast Guard, have a rich tradition of
being located in, and integral parts of, the communities they serve. We
intend to continue and expand those efforts and look forward to being a
good neighbor and a valued member of the Ward 8 Community.
I want to thank the Committee for their support for the project,
specifically Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member King, Chairman Carney,
Ranking Member Bilirakis and Congresswoman Norton for their leadership
in urging funding as shown in the FY 2009 DHS Appropriations Act. This
law provides $97.58 million for tenant requirements to begin
construction of the new Coast Guard Headquarters on the West Campus,
which is the first phase of our Consolidated Headquarters effort. Now
that GSA has received their FY 2009 appropriation for the project,
jointly we look forward to starting the building construction in
earnest this fiscal year.
Further, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
provides an additional $200 million for DHS and $450 million for GSA to
continue with the Phase 1 and Infrastructure construction and design
for the following phases of the St. Elizabeths project. Again, the
Department is very appreciative of Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member
King's support and the coordination with Chairman Lieberman and Ranking
Member Collins of the Senate, in obtaining this funding. We are working
close with GSA on the timely execution of these funds.
While St. Elizabeths is the center of gravity for our HQ portfolio
realignment, I want to touch briefly on the mission support
consolidation effort as we characterize both of these initiatives as
``two sides of the same coin''. As functions move to St. Elizabeths,
our plan is to simultaneously address our growth requirements while
consolidating the remaining occupancies and minimizing vacancy risk. We
envision an end state portfolio of about eight to nine locations in the
NCR including Federally-owned space at St. Elizabeths, the Nebraska
Avenue Complex, the Ronald Reagan Building, and the U.S. Secret
Service's Headquarters. We also plan to retain the long term lease
locations currently housing the Transportation Security Administration
and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. We plan to then consolidate
the remaining functions at a small number of locations dependent upon
market conditions.
The St. Elizabeths Campus offers a tremendous opportunity to create
a secure, state-of-the-art Headquarters that will foster the
Department's ability to focus on achieving our core mission--to protect
the homeland. We look forward to the opportunity to redevelop and
preserve the St. Elizabeths National Historic Landmark for generations
to come. I would be pleased to answer any questions the Committee may
have.

Mr. Carney. Thank you, Mr. Bathurst.
Mr. Guerin for 5 minutes, please?

STATEMENT WILLIAM GUERIN, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR
CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMS, PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE, GENERAL
SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

Mr. Guerin. Good morning, Chairman Carney, Ranking Member
Bilirakis, Chairman Thompson, and Congresswoman Norton, and
other members of the subcommittee.
My name is William Guerin, and I now the recovery executive
in the newly estimated Recovery Program Management Office in
the U.S. General Services Administration's Public Buildings
Service. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of GSA
to support the establishment of a consolidated headquarters for
the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
GSA, in partnership with DHS, is now undertaking one of the
largest, most complex projects in our history. We are creating
a headquarters campus for DHS on the site of the former St.
Elizabeths Hospital in southeast Washington, D.C. This project
will create 4.5 million square feet of space for DHS and
include structured parking, as well. It will combine the key
components of DHS into its headquarters facility.
The development costs of this project are expected to be
$3.4 billion; $1.4 billion will come from the Department of
Homeland Security, and GSA will provide an additional $2
billion, assuming Congress appropriates it.
The construction of the first phase for the project of this
new U.S. Coast Guard headquarters has been funded in the fiscal
year 2009 omnibus appropriations act. Design work on this 1-
million-square-foot Coast Guard building is already underway.
The site for this project is truly fitting. It is only two
miles from our nation's Capitol. It is located on a hill with a
commanding view of Washington. The site is a national historic
landmark, and most of the historic buildings and landscapes
will be integrated into the new facility.
St. Elizabeths is the only federally owned site in
Washington that is large enough to accommodate this plan. The
creation of this complex presents the best opportunity for
preserving, reusing, and revitalizing a national historic
landmark.
Additionally, housing DHS on a federally owned site will
save the American taxpayer more than $600 million in present
value terms. Compared with the cost of leasing the same amount
of space for the next 3 decades, this is significant savings.
It is truly a win-win situation for DHS, the city, the site,
and the American taxpayer.
The master plan for the consolidation was approved by the
National Capital Planning Commission on January 8, 2009. The
consolidation will rehabilitate and reuse 52 of the 62 historic
buildings and preserve the historically significant landscapes
and views. This plan meshes with GSA's strong track record and
commitment to historic preservation.
The master plan strikes a measured balance between meeting
the extraordinary housing needs of DHS, while preserving the
exceptional historic character of this landmark. There has also
been extensive consultations, as well as continuous
coordination with the Federal Highway Administration, the
National Park Service, and the District of Columbia.
We believe the project will bring substantial economic
benefits to the community. Opportunities will arrive from
direct employment in construction and the multiplier effect
that construction activities and its payroll generates.
The new DHS headquarters operations will over the longer
term provide a tremendous economic boost to the Anacostia and
Congress Heights neighborhoods, as well.
Construction contractors will be encouraged to establish
pre-apprenticeship and apprenticeship programs, thereby
providing job training for local residents. Employees on site
will patronize local merchants, thereby creating additional
jobs in the area. In addition, DHS contractors may opt to
locate their offices nearby, as contractors have done for other
large federal government facilities, creating even more jobs in
the community.
We look forward to developing this important site for the
DHS. That concludes my testimony, and I would be happy to
answer any questions you may have.
[The statement of Mr. Guerein follows:]

Prepared Statement of William (Bill) Gruen

Good morning, Chairman Carney, Ranking Member Bilirakis and members
of the subcommittee. My name is William Guerin and I am the Recovery
Executive in our newly established Recovery Program Management Office
in the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), Public Buildings
Service. I appreciate this opportunity to speak on behalf of GSA to
support the establishment of a consolidated headquarters for the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
GSA, in partnership with DHS, is now undertaking one of the
largest, most complex projects in our history. We are creating a
headquarters campus for DHS on the site of the former St. Elizabeths
Hospital in Southeast Washington, DC. This project will create 4.5
million square feet of space with 1.5 million square feet of structured
parking, to bring together the mission components DHS requires in its
headquarters facility.
The site for this project is truly fitting for such an important
Cabinet level agency. It is only two miles from our Capitol located on
a hill with a commanding view of Washington and Northern Virginia. The
site is also a National Historic Landmark, with historic buildings and
landscapes, many of which will be preserved, reused, and incorporated
into the Department of Homeland Security's new headquarters facility.
St. Elizabeths is the only federally owned site in Washington that
is large enough to accommodate the DHS headquarters. Concomitantly, the
creation of this headquarters complex presents the best opportunity
available for preserving, reusing, and revitalizing this National
Historic Landmark. Additionally, housing DHS on a federally owned site
will save the American taxpayer up to over $600 million (in present
value terms) compared with the cost of leasing the same amount of space
for the next three decades. This is truly a win-win solution for the
agency, for the City, the site, and the American taxpayer.
The National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) approved the Master
Plan for the West Campus at its January 2009 meeting contingent on GSA
ability to construct the west access road connecting Firth Sterling
Avenue, SE to the modified Malcolm X Avenue, SE/I-295 Interchange,
through the Shepherd Parkway. NCPC commented favorably on the East
Campus plan, but required that GSA submit an Amendment to the Final
Master Plan for NCPC review and approval of both the East Campus plan
and the access road improvements. The U.S. Commission of Fine Arts
approved the Master Plan on November 20, 2008. Both of these Federal
planning and design authorities recognized the significant improvements
to the final Master Plan that were made during the consultation process
to help preserve this National Historic Landmark. The Master Plan
provides for the rehabilitation and reuse of 52 of a total of 62
historic buildings and the preservation of historically significant
landscapes and views. This is emblematic of our agency's strong track
record and commitment to historic preservation. To date, we have funded
$28 million for the stabilization, evaluation and assessment of
historic buildings, landscapes and archaeological features on the West
Campus in anticipation of its redevelopment. GSA believes that the
Master Plan strikes a measured balance between meeting the
extraordinary housing needs of DHS while preserving the exceptional
historic character of the National Historic Landmark.
The development costs of the DHS headquarters complex are expected
to be $3.4 billion. Of this, $1.4 billion will be provided by DHS. GSA
is studying how the project may provide substantial economic benefits
for the community. These opportunities arise from direct employment in
construction and the multiplier effect that construction activity and
its payroll generate.
The new DHS headquarters will provide a tremendous economic boost
to the Anacostia and Congress Heights neighborhoods, which are already
experiencing a significant level of investment, thanks to the efforts
of the District of Columbia Government. Construction contractors will
be encouraged to establish apprenticeship programs, thereby providing
job training for local residents. GSA expects that employees on site
will patronize local merchants and additional jobs should be available
to provide various vendor services to the site. In addition, DHS
contractors may opt to locate their offices nearby, as contractors have
done for other large government facilities.
The design for the U.S. Coast Guard headquarters on the St.
Elizabeths Campus is underway with ongoing Section 106 consultations
and there is continuous coordination with Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), National Park Service (NPS) and the District of
Columbia Department of Transportation (DDOT) concerning Shepherd
Parkway, a portion of which we propose to use to provide an access road
off of I-295 that will accommodate 70% of the people working on site.
GSA anticipates that FHWA will issue a Record of Decision (ROD) for
transfer and interchange issues in July 2009.
While most of the new campus that is owned by the Federal
Government will be located west of Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue,
750,000 square feet plus structured parking will be placed on the East
Campus, which is now owned by the District. The commencement of a
Master Plan amendment containing a detailed analysis of the East Campus
is targeted for contract award in April 2009 with a NEPA Notice of
Intent (NOI) planned for May 2009. Phase
Phase 1a construction for the DHS headquarters consolidation
project, the new U.S. Coast Guard headquarters building, which GSA may
commence only after complying with a set of NCPC conditions, has been
funded in the FY 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act. Design work on the
one million square foot building is already under way. GSA will meet
with NCPC in May 2009 to review the concept design.
This development represents an important prospect of preserving
many of the historic buildings and landscapes that make St. Elizabeths
a National Historic Landmark and we look forward to developing this
important site for the DHS.
Lastly, we would like to acknowledge the help and assistance of
many people and organizations, to which we owe a debt of gratitude. The
Congressional support for the project, specifically that of Delegate
Eleanor Holmes Norton, the Department of Homeland Security, the staffs
of the National Capital Planning Commission, the Commission of Fine
Arts, the DC Historic Preservation Office, and the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation, who coordinated so closely with GSA throughout
the planning process; all the Consulting Parties, whose time,
attention, input, and dedication improved the plan, and whose efforts
on the successfully concluded Programmatic Agreement were invaluable;
the Ward 8 community and finally the District of Columbia Office of
Planning and Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic
Development, without whose cooperation, the East Campus portion of the
final Master Plan and ultimate development would not have been
feasible.

Mr. Carney. Thank you, Mr. Guerin.
Without objection, the gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia, Ms. Norton, is authorized to sit on the dias for the
purpose of questioning the witnesses during the hearing today.
And hearing no objections, so ordered.
I would like to thank each of the witnesses for the
testimony.
I will remind each member that he or she will have up to 5
minutes to question the panel.
And I now recognize myself for questions for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bathurst, you know, in my opening comments, I discussed
sort of a delta now between what the estimated cost savings
would be. Could you discuss that? Why the change? Why the cost
savings seem to be reducing, coming down, and----
Mr. Bathurst. Well, I think most of the present value cost
advantage is based on a calculation model that GSA uses. Most
of the change--and I will defer to Mr. Guerin for more of the
detail--but it is related to some of the assumptions on the
cost of parking in some of the leased spaces and also some of
the time movement of money and that we have not received
appropriations to get things started in the last 2 budget
years.
But I think Mr. Guerin may have more information on the
actual model that is used to do that calculation.
Mr. Carney. Okay.
Mr. Guerin, is the GAO's estimate--is their model incorrect
that they are using?
Mr. Guerin. We use a model internal to GSA that calculates
the cost based on hard costs associated with the construction
and the value of the site as it relates to that.
GAO's model, I think, takes more factors into account, in
terms of what the cost savings might be, including some
intangible factors that don't factor in to the construction
costs, but are directly related to DHS's cost savings
associated with the move to St. Elizabeths.
Mr. Carney. For example?
Mr. Guerin. For example, they have a series of shuttle
buses moving back and forth. I think Don might be able to
answer this one. I don't want to pass it back and forth. But
they have significant costs, in terms of transporting people
around the city, now that would be consolidated into the
headquarters.
There are other things similar to that that are affected by
the additional security requirements. The campus will be
consolidated so there will be one security perimeter around the
campus. Right now, they have those kinds of expenses that are
associated with having their forces distributed throughout the
city.
So it is examples like that that are not direct
construction costs, but are real costs associated with the
consolidation.
Mr. Carney. Okay. They are costs that taxpayers will have
to absorb?
Mr. Guerin. Exactly.
Mr. Carney. All right. Okay.
Mr. Bathurst, of the--I think you said there is--14,000
employees will be relocated to St. E's site, at least
initially? Is that correct?
Mr. Bathurst. That is correct.
Mr. Carney. Okay. How many locations other than St. E's
will the department continue to have?
Mr. Bathurst. Right now, we are estimating that we will be
in eight to nine total locations.
Mr. Carney. How many buildings?
Mr. Bathurst. I don't have an answer on the number of
buildings. I have to get back to you, because there will be
several buildings--there is going to be 65 or 70 buildings at
St. E's because of the nature of the buildings, with most of
those being four or five----
Mr. Carney. I am sorry. Okay. I will just be a little more
clear here. Of the other sites other than St. E's, how many
more buildings?
Mr. Bathurst. About eight or nine total.
Mr. Carney. Total?
Mr. Bathurst. Total.
Mr. Carney. Okay. All right. So who is actually coming to
St. E's then?
Mr. Bathurst. St. E's is going to be a slice through the
department. It is going to be the executive leadership, the
leadership of the components, of the program managers, and the
operations activities.
And, again, one of the--the core pieces of St. E's is going
to be the National Operations Center, which will be a co-
location of not just the National Operations Center as it
exists now at the Nebraska Avenue complex, but it will be co-
located with the operations centers of our operating
components.
Mr. Carney. Okay. You know, of course, we were together
last week, and I toured the site, and, you know, I am impressed
by the site. It is a beautiful area. The vistas are amazing.
But the historic nature of the buildings, you know, I
really do have questions on, are we going to be able to
maintain the integrity, the historic integrity of those
buildings while retrofitting them to meet the needs of the
department? Is that----
Mr. Bathurst. Well, the current buildings make up about
900,000 square feet, and our total requirement is four-and-a-
half. So the majority of the space that we will have at the St.
Elizabeths site will be new construction, which will be on
sites that were--had other development in years past.
The retrofitted buildings or the adaptively reused
buildings, GSA is going through the studies, the historic
building studies to determine and document what portions of
those buildings are significant in how they need to be
restored, but we--from the preliminary reviews, we believe that
we will be able to adaptively reuse those for appropriate uses,
a lot of our common and shared activities.
You may recall the auditorium. We would use that as an
auditorium. We also have areas for food service. And, again, we
are looking for--to make some of these areas available to the
community, also.
Mr. Carney. Okay. My time is up.
I now recognize the gentleman from Florida for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much.
I want to follow up on, actually, the chairman's question.
Mr. Bathurst, your written testimony also highlighted the fact
that at some point in the future DHS may consolidate remaining
components that will not be located at St. E's. How would such
an effort compare to the St. Elizabeths project, in terms of
size, scope and cost?
Mr. Bathurst. Right now, we are looking--we have in our
more than 40 locations--it is growing in the metro area. Most
of these are very small blocks of space, anywhere from 5,000
square feet to 30,000 or 40,000 square feet.
And as we have said, it adds to the inefficiency that we
have just in the day-to-day administrative overhead:
transportation, mail delivery, and the time it takes to get
back and forth to these locations that people have to do.
So we are looking to consolidate those in larger market
blocks of space. And we estimate that right now we are looking
at a project that is probably about a total of 1.1 million to
1.2 million square feet of space. And this is, for the most
part, space that we are already in that will be leases that
will be expiring. And I believe it is much more efficient to
have the overhead to manage one acquisition and a smaller
number of new leases than to try to go out and renew all of
those individually.
These will be more of our administrative admission support
activities. They don't require quite the same level of security
as those that would go to St. Elizabeths, so we believe that it
is appropriate that those be leased or be acquired on the open
market, which also gives us some flexibility for future growth
or contraction, as we may need to do.
Mr. Bilirakis. Okay, thank you.
Are there warning signs, important milestones, or decision
points at which we should look to ensure that this project
doesn't turn into another Capitol Visitors Center by going over
budget and beyond the projected timeline for completion?
And are there controls in place to guard against cost
overruns? The Capitol Visitors Center, as you know, ending up
costing more than twice what we originally promised. If that
happens with this project, then the consolidation of St. E's
could end up at $7 billion. So can you elaborate a little bit
on----
Mr. Guerin. Yes. This is one of the things, as an engineer,
that, you know, we are most concerned with. One of the--the way
that we are going to do this--and we have put together an
executive steering group between GSA and DHS that we manage and
oversee at a high level those critical milestones, the decision
points that need to be done. That is how we got the master plan
completed on time, to get this--to be able to move this project
forward.
But most critically is we will ruthlessly manage the
requirements of the department. Requirements creep is probably
the biggest problem in the cost overruns in any project. And we
have done a meticulous job of analyzing the requirements of the
department. And absent some new issue being put on the
department that would change those requirements, we believe
that we can hold the requirements for the project steady.
The other thing we are going to do is we are standardizing
our space. We are standardizing the layouts, the amount of
space for certain types of positions and activities. And,
again, that drives right back to the requirements.
And then from that, that will then drive the cost and the
schedule. And as we manage working with GSA in partnership to
look at those critical milestones and decision points, we
believe we can keep this project on or ahead of schedule and on
budget.
Mr. Bilirakis. Mr. Guerin?
Mr. Guerin. Yes, I was just going to add that the
accomplishment of the funds coming through the recovery act is
going to go a long way towards helping us stay on budget.
The biggest problem we have is projects that extend over
time because of GSA's inability to fund our projects as timely
as we would like that to happen. And the fact that we have an
additional $450 million coming to this project in an
accelerated way is going to help us ensure that the project
does stay on budget.
Mr. Bilirakis. Okay. Well, I think I am almost finished, so
I will allow somebody else. Thank you.
Mr. Carney. Thank you, Mr. Bilirakis.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi for
5 minutes.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And I think there is no question that this committee fully
supports the concept of a centralized headquarters. If you have
ever gone to the wrong building looking for a particular DHS
department, you understand. So we are excited about it.
Some of the issues that I would like a little discussion
speaks to what steps we have gone through as a department, both
DHS and GSA, to make sure that the community around this site
is informed, will have an opportunity to participate in aspects
of employment, aspects of contracting opportunities.
It is a historic area. And to the extent that we can
preserve that area while getting us a headquarters, have we--
Mr. Bathurst, we will start with you and kind of go to GSA
later--have we kind of taken that under serious consideration?
Mr. Bathurst. Chairman Thompson, I would like to start by
thanking you for your personal support for the department and
this project specifically. We would not be where we are without
the support of you and the committee.
And in answer to your question, it is a resounding yes.
Both GSA and DHS, especially with the Coast Guard being our
first component phase of the project, have long histories with
community involvement.
There have been a series of public meetings--many have been
hosted by Delegate Norton--to bring the community together with
the federal partners. And I do see us as federal partners or
partners with the community.
This is not like any kind of development in the federal
enclave, downtown or along K Street or anywhere else. We are
going to be in a neighborhood. And we have to be a good
neighbor in that neighborhood.
As such, in these meetings, there have been meetings with
the Ward 8 Business Council, that we have had presentations by
our security office and our human capital office, as well as
several presentations and discussions with the community with
our small and disadvantaged business office, to take away any
kind of--or to ensure the understanding of hiring processes,
the security process, you know, the fact that to work for
homeland security doesn't mean you have to have a security
clearance. There are all kinds of people that work for DHS.
And GSA has worked with Small Business Administration on
training and registration for businesses in the Ward 8 area to
get them ready to contract for work.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you. Now, a couple of other questions I
want to get before I lose my time.
With respect to the whole issue of the historic nature of
the buildings, have we taken into consideration from a
technology standpoint, security standpoint, that we will limit
as much of the destruction in the name of technology? Or do we
plan to follow existing historic preservation guidelines with
respect to this?
Mr. Guerin. Yes, of course, Congressman. We are intending
to follow the guidelines of national preservation. We have had
people during the master plan process on the team throughout
keep making sure that we are on track, in terms of preserving
the buildings.
The center building is the most historic building on the
campus. It was the original hospital, that that will be the
headquarters of--DHS headquarters. The secretary will be in
that building.
We are going through each of the buildings now, identifying
the very significant spaces that we need to save, and we will
continue to do so. GSA has a tremendous track record of
preservation, and we expect to continue to exhibit it here on
the campus.
Mr. Thompson. Have any professional contracts been let to
date on this undertaking?
Mr. Guerin. Yes. We had a contractor on board in the master
planning phase, Mary Oehrlein and Associates, very well-known
preservationists, that helped us guide us through that process
with the master planning. And as we move forward into the
design of the Coast Guard building and the design of the
additional phases of the project, there are going to be
professionals with us every step of the way.
Mr. Thompson. So only one professional contract so far, to
your knowledge?
Mr. Guerin. The master plan, yes. And then we are moving
forward with additional contracts now.
Mr. Thompson. When you say moving forward, what do you
mean?
Mr. Guerin. We have a series of contracts associated with
this project, the first the design of the Coast Guard
headquarters, and that is ongoing. The design work is being
done now. As we move into the historic buildings on the
campus----
Mr. Thompson. Excuse me. I am just trying to make sure,
when you said being done now, does that mean you have hired a
contractor?
Mr. Guerin. Yes. Yes.
Mr. Thompson. So it has another contract----
Mr. Guerin. For the Coast Guard headquarters, which is a
new building, we have a contractor onboard. We just hired two
additional firms. One is Goody, Clancy and Associates, which is
a well-known preservation designer firm, and they will have
consultants with them that are specifically focused on
preservation.
Mr. Thompson. All right. Now we burrow down--now, are there
any small business opportunities within this?
Mr. Guerin. Yes, in both--yes, in both design and
construction, there will be multiple opportunities for small
business.
Mr. Thompson. Minority business?
Mr. Guerin. Yes, of course.
Mr. Thompson. Well, can you provide the committee with a
detailed breakdown of all those professional services and then
the breakdown of small and breakdown of minority business
opportunities on a professional service side?
Mr. Guerin. Okay. Yes, Congressman, we have on the design-
build contract and the construction management contracts, there
is a requirement for 40 percent small business and 8(a)
requirement in both of those contracts, but we will provide you
with more details.
Mr. Thompson. Okay. Now, you said 40 percent small. Are you
saying----
Mr. Guerin. Small and disadvantage contracts.
Mr. Thompson. Okay. All right, so--okay, well, just provide
me that information.
Mr. Guerin. Will do.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Carney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And we will now recognize the gentlewoman from the District
of Columbia, Ms. Norton, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for your
courtesy. I am a member of the full committee, but not of this
subcommittee, and I appreciate the opportunity to ask questions
today.
The ranking member asked an important question about cost.
I am not sure that you described the design-build nature of the
requests that has gone out. Is not a design-build contract one
that is for fixed costs? And was the contractor agreeing to
provide it for upfront fixed costs and then with certain
sanctions if the contractor does not?
Mr. Guerin. Yes. Yes, the design-build process really is
advantageous in that regard, because it allows us to establish
a maximum price for the project, which would obviously be set
within the parameters we have. And the design builder has the
opportunity to make changes to the contract that are obviously
acceptable to DHS and to GSA in order to ensure that the
project remains on budget.
So, Congresswoman, you are absolutely----
Ms. Norton. And what happens if it goes over budget, over
the budget that the contractor has agreed to where you have not
agreed to changes that cause the increase?
Mr. Guerin. The contractor would be expected to propose
changes that would bring the project back into budget.
Ms. Norton. Let me ask you about the process of proceeding.
You are building the Coast Guard building first, as I
understand. Then you are considering going to build another
building.
You will meet some resistance from employees to move to
this new location, because employees won't always remain where
they are or have fixed notions about where they believe they
are going.
I am puzzled. By leaving these employees, probably the
largest number, in a building without simultaneously beginning
the work that I think you should be commended for on reusing
the many buildings that will be on the campus--I understand
something like two-thirds of the buildings will be reused.
But I don't understand the planning that would leave one
set of employees there without any of the shared space done,
and nor do I understand why that couldn't be done
simultaneously with any other building that is going on,
including the building of the Coast Guard building.
I don't understand why that wouldn't even get more jobs,
particularly since the contractors have a certain set of
skills--sorry, the construction workers have a certain set of
skills, and then there are another set of skills that another
whole set of workers would have who could then begin to work on
the buildings to be reused.
So I don't understand that there is human capital planning
here. I can understand some people who have said, ``Hey, I like
to build buildings.''
The reason I ask this question, Mr. Chairman, is because,
as you and I know and the full committee chairman knows, as
well, it was very hard to get money for this one building. And
we--I do not sit here and guarantee you that, while you may
have some money for design of another building, I have a vested
interest in that building going up.
I am not here sitting and telling you there is going to be
another billion dollars rolling down the pike, as much as I
want that to happen. We have got this out by bits and pennies.
And even this part came out by bits and pennies.
Meanwhile, I need to understand whether the planning is
being done, keeping in mind that there will be real people
there, sitting there in the midst of a building with nothing
happening, having have been left there for, what, months,
years, with no work on the reuse? And if there is going to be
work done on the reusing of the building, why hasn't that been
included in your testimony this morning?
Mr. Guerin. Congresswoman, thank you for the question. The
fact is, the additional funding that we received through the
recovery act will start us down that road.
We proposed the initial project, the Coast Guard
headquarters. That was new construction. But our intention was
always to follow on with shared-use spaces, which the Coast
Guard has identified----
Ms. Norton. You have not testified that you could either--
begin to do that simultaneously or that you would even begin to
do it afterwards. We are trying to understand the sequence of
what you are doing. And I am trying to understand why you would
leave these employees without the shared space.
If they could look around them and see the shared space and
the space for other employees, some of the concern you will
surely find about coming to the new location in the first place
might well be alleviated.
Mr. Guerin. You are absolutely right. The phase 1-B, which
is the funding that was received recently, will go towards
getting the shared-use spaces built that the Coast Guard has
identified as their needs. Those buildings will be--those needs
will be put into some of the existing historic buildings.
And as we move through the future phases of the projects
and we phased it in a way that construction can happen, we want
to build the Coast Guard first and move kind of through the
site. So we are doing this in a very systematic way.
Ms. Norton. Well, so but phase two does not involve
building another building, but it involves----
Mr. Guerin. But it also includes the headquarters, which is
the most historic building on the campus.
Ms. Norton. Will the reuse of those many other buildings be
going on simultaneously, the work to reuse them be going on
simultaneously with the work to build the big headquarters
building? And have you any plans and has anyone seen what they
will look like?
Mr. Guerin. The work will begin with the Coast Guard, but
the other projects will follow on, so they will be
simultaneously starting some time in 2010.
Ms. Norton. I ask you about that, because I am trying to
find if there are any economies of scale going on. Here we are
going to have this big project over at St. Elizabeths.
Any big developer doing it would say, ``Wait a minute. I
have to have a grid for all these places, for example. I am not
going to do grid here for one contract and then, 2 years later,
say, 'Well, we need another grid.' And, of course, the cost is
going up, so let's have what you will pay us with the other
grid.''
How are you assuring that, since we are doing the biggest
project since the Pentagon, that, in fact, all that
infrastructure will be done at one time, not one piece at a
time, that you will, in fact, take advantage of the fact that
you are building all these buildings and reusing all these
buildings, and you know exactly what you are doing, and that
you won't be doing it piecemeal by piecemeal, thereby costing
the government a great deal more money?
Mr. Guerin. The infrastructure costs were included in the
$450 million that Congress provided to GSA. So that will go a
long way towards----
Ms. Norton. So the grid, for example, which is separately
in the budget of the Homeland Security Department, that grid
will be the grid for the entire St. Elizabeths campus,
including the parts that are being reused and the rest of it,
so there is one contract, somebody has to build on that, build
on it with design build, saying he can do that whole thing for
one contract?
Mr. Guerin. Yes, we are in the process of hiring a
construction management company that will help us to do exactly
what you are suggesting, Congresswoman, which is to lay out the
entire construction phasing for the project and make sure that
we are doing things in a logical and cost-effective manner.
Ms. Norton. The access--and here you have one part of
government saying no to another part of the government. Thank
you, sir.
Mr. Carney. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Louisiana, Mr. Cao, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cao. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
With respect to these cost overruns that Councilwoman
Norton was alluding to, I think this is very much a recurring
situation in other areas. Can you explain to me how these cost
overruns may occur?
Mr. Guerin. Yes. The recent history has shown a tremendous
increase in material costs and labor costs for the General
Services Administration's projects, where we are doing federal
construction, and it is across the industry.
Material costs skyrocketed in the last 5 years. As we
budget our projects, we come to Congress, obviously, and you
appropriate funds for our projects, we try to predict the
escalation associated with our construction projects, but, in
fact, in recent years, we had a very hard time predicting the
10 percent and 15 percent increases every year. So that is one
way that that happens.
In addition, when we propose a project, we put a timeline
associated with that, where GSA isn't able to get these funds
that it needs to accomplish our projects when they become
available for construction and a project gets delayed, for
instance, for a year or more than that in many cases, that also
has an impact, because those tremendous inflation factors are
then pressing against a project that is being stretched out
over time.
So it is quite common and was in recent years that our
projects had some tremendous overruns, but, in fact, we have
delivered 85 percent of our projects within the budget, even
with those constraints. So we have a good track record. The
ones that obviously come to Congress and get heard of are the
ones that we aren't able to deliver with in the budget, so we
have to come back looking for additional funds.
Mr. Cao. In your process of contracting, drawing up the
contracts, do you somehow accommodate for this increase cost,
so there might be a share of the risk between the federal
government versus the private contractors who are building
these facilities?
Mr. Guerin. Again, we have guaranteed maximum prices, where
we establish and negotiate a position with our contractors with
the goal of ensuring that we are capping the construction costs
where they are.
We do have some incentive projects, but we have not used
that significantly in the past.
Mr. Cao. Thank you. Those are all the questions I have.
Mr. Carney. Thank you.
I think we have questions for at least another round. And I
will begin with myself.
A couple of questions, first, on the Coast Guard building.
Why was the Coast Guard building chosen as the first building
to be built?
Mr. Bathurst. It is a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation.
The Coast Guard is in a leased facility in southwest
Washington, the Buzzards Point area. And that lease, they have
been there for about 20 years, and the lease was coming due.
And this was before the department was created.
So the Coast Guard had actually started work on
consolidating their requirements to replace their building that
was in GSA's inventory. And they started working that through
the process.
In the meantime, the department was created, and I actually
was involved with discussions with the Coast Guard and with GSA
and with OMB about what they needed to do to do that. There was
a lot of concern. It was a very, very large requirement.
And we looked and said, you know, it makes sense that we
look--put the Coast Guard in federal construction. They have
been in leased buildings for quite a while. And that was
agreed. And in the development of the 2004 budget, GSA was
directed by the administration to pursue federal construction
for the Coast Guard building and was directed to look at that
at the St. Elizabeths campus, which the GSA was just starting
to become--take custody and control of.
About that same time, we were realizing that the Nebraska
Avenue complex was not going to meet our requirements as a
cabinet--as a new cabinet-level agency, and we started to
develop the overall headquarters plan. And it coalesced with
the Coast Guard project.
So that said, the Coast Guard project was moving forward
and it was authorized and the design was funded. So that got
started out of the gate first. So rather than try to stop and
re-wicker that, we kept that moving, and that is why they are
first.
Mr. Carney. All right. Thanks.
So that is right. The administration said we are going to
do the Coast Guard first in the new headquarters. Now, when the
design of the building was done, was that given to competitive
bid or was a contractor just appointed to do this--the initial
design of the headquarters, of the Coast Guard headquarters?
Mr. Bathurst. Everything with this project, as I know, is
competitive--very aggressively competitively bid. The GSA can
go more into the process.
Mr. Guerin. The design is actually governed by the Brooks
Act, which requires that we select based on merit, so it is
not--the price is not competed, but the actual design firms
compete with each other to be awarded the contract.
Mr. Carney. Do you have an estimate of how many firms
actually competed for that?
Mr. Guerin. Oh, boy, no. Typically--I can get that number
for you.
Mr. Carney. Yes, we would--sure.
Mr. Guerin. Typically, we get 20 to 40 proposals, and then
we reduce it down, and eventually settle on a design team that
will--to get the contract.
Mr. Carney. Okay. Very good.
I will pass on to my ranking member, Mr. Bilirakis. Thank
you.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much.
Are there specific non-funding challenges remaining on this
project that may require congressional intervention? And how
can Congress help achieve your goals, completion goals?
Mr. Guerin. We have several challenges ongoing that we are
continuing to work out. We have not decided to go to seek your
assistances yet, but the National Park Service land on the
Shepherd Parkway continues to be challenging. And we are
working with them to apply that property for an access road to
the site.
Other challenges include the five buildings that are owned
by the District of Columbia on the campus that we need to
negotiate with them. And there is a tripartite agreement
associated with that, including the architect of the Capitol
and the District of Columbia.
The first building will be at the warehouse, which is
actually one of the five buildings owned by the district. So we
are continuing to work with them, also, and have not concluded
that we cannot work out those arrangements internal to our
processes. So we are not yet seeking your assistance on those
things.
Mr. Bilirakis. Okay. Let me ask you another question. As
far as the location, St. E's, why is it so uniquely qualified
to be the headquarters for DHS? If you can elaborate on that a
little bit.
Mr. Guerin. The St. Elizabeths campus provides a lot of
advantages for the department and for GSA. It is 180 acres,
first of all. This is a large campus. It does have close to a
million square feet of historic buildings, and we are intending
to reuse 900,000 square feet of those.
It is within two miles of the Capitol. It is a--you know,
very proximate to the airports, to the transportation, to the
Capitol itself, to the White House, so it has those advantages.
We have the opportunity to protect the campus with a
perimeter security fence, which saves a tremendous amount of
money, in terms of individual building construction costs. That
by itself is a significant savings. We don't have to harden
each of the buildings, and I think you are familiar with the
type of work that we have to do in a downtown location, where
we--we have to strengthen all the walls and the windows and
everything else to make sure that they are blast-proof. We
don't have that issue here.
The campus itself is accessible, so we are able to get the
construction that we need there. We are able to provide a
campus setting for DHS, as opposed to, you know, a single large
building or something like that or, more importantly, having
them spread out over the city. So those are the advantages that
come to mind immediately.
Mr. Bilirakis. So would you like to comment, as well?
Mr. Bathurst. No, I would just--I agree with the
characterization Mr. Guerin has given. It is federally owned
land, so we actually use something that taxpayers already
invested in, and it is a tremendous opportunity to build the
kinds of space that the department needs to function.
One of the critical things I think we have to keep in mind
with the way that we are doing this headquarters co-location is
it is not just putting people into space. We are actually
designing the space to support the unified mission of the
department and drive the ``One DHS'' culture.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
Mr. Carney. Thank you, Mr. Bilirakis.
Just continuing on that note, did GSA look at any other
sites anywhere else?
Mr. Guerin. We did. We did a very thorough investigation of
not only sites available within the district and surrounds, but
also what agencies would be most appropriate to put on the St.
Elizabeths campus before we agreed with DHS that they were the
most appropriate agency to put there.
Mr. Carney. Okay, thanks.
Mr. Guerin. Sorry for the interruption. The basic problem
is, the pure volume of space is very hard to accommodate in the
district. And we would have ended up quite far out of town, if
we had done something different.
Mr. Carney. Understood.
Okay, I now recognize Ms. Norton for another 5 minutes.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You could break ground this spring, is that not true, here?
Mr. Guerin. Probably more like summer, Congresswoman, but,
yes, this year.
Ms. Norton. Are you changing steps to get a contract for
pre-apprentice and apprenticeship program so that there could
be employment of people in the community? And what steps are
those?
Mr. Guerin. The National Capital Region is taking those
steps now. I will get you specifically information about that.
Ms. Norton. I would very much appreciate that.
What direction is being provided for contracting officers
to help achieve the GSA's small and disadvantaged business
goals? And what are those goals?
Mr. Guerin. Again, the goals for the design-build contract
that is coming up and the construction management contract are
40 percent small business and 8(a) from small-business,
disadvantaged firms. That requirement is in those contracts
moving forward, and that is--those types of numbers will
continue throughout the process.
I think you are aware, Congresswoman, that the work that
has been done on the campus so far was 100 percent small
business opportunity--corporation very near the campus in the
district.
Ms. Norton. Yes, and what were the percentage of small and
disadvantaged?
Mr. Guerin. On that one, it was 100 percent.
Ms. Norton. A hundred percent with the small and
disadvantaged? And that is important opportunity because that
was the--the work where small businesses might be best equipped
to do the work.
Let me ask you about something I think that you were about
to comment--or you were commented on, but not in any detail,
begun to talk about how one part of the government needs to
talk to the other part of the government. And the National Park
Service controls a road into the property from 295.
And one of the things you have done very well is to make
sure Martin Luther King Avenue doesn't become some kind of
thoroughfare. And yet the National Park Service has been
resistant to allowing access through this road. I don't
understand why you have to acquire the property. Don't you
simply have to have some sort of ability to use the property in
order to get to your own part of the property?
The only reason that is "their property" is they value--and
I think it is very important that they value park land. This is
a road existing, isn't it?
Mr. Guerin. It is not a road existing now, Congresswoman.
It was identified as a parkway, but it is--actually, it is
mature trees and landscape.
The fact is, the Federal Highway Administration has a
process that they use, the 4(f) process, that allows for the
taking of park land in order to create roadways. And we are
working with the Federal Highway Administration now and the
National Park Service to complete that, the study that is
required and the record of decision associated with that, which
will be happening very shortly and will allow us to then move
forward with the----
Ms. Norton. Yes, it seems to me what the Park Service
should be interested in is the preservation of the park land
around there and the obligation, it seems to me, of DHS,
certainly in exchange for allowing access, to take some
responsibility for that.
And I don't understand why that kind of exchange wouldn't
be pretty easy from one part of the government to the other
part of the government. For example, who is going to take care
of this historic cemetery here, where the public has had no
access? Are you going to provide access? Are you talking to
them about how that is kept up, who keeps that up?
Mr. Guerin. The General Services Administration keeps that
up now, Congresswoman. And it is property.
Ms. Norton. So it is on park land, but they----
Mr. Guerin. No, no, no. The cemetery's on the St.
Elizabeths campus, which is our property now, the----
Ms. Norton. Can anyone get to that cemetery today?
Mr. Guerin. Our intention--the design is not complete yet--
our intention is to provide the security fence that goes around
the cemetery with the idea that the cemetery would be available
to the public.
Ms. Norton. And open to the public?
Mr. Bathurst. At all time.
Ms. Norton. That is the best--obviously, an advantage and a
gain that seems to me negotiators should make--what good is it
to have a cemetery there that is a very historic place that
nobody can even get to see? In the same way we have the so-
called point, one of the highest places you say in your
testimony, Mr. Guerin, I think it is, located on a hill with a
commanding view of Washington and in Northern Virginia. Now,
everyone has been talking about the point, and will we have
access to the point?
Firstly, they don't have access to the point now. No one
has been able to get on to the property to go to the point. So
what I would like to know is how, given the security that is
necessary at the site, how will visitors have access to this
highest point in the city or one of the highest points in the
city and a part that has now been closed off to visitors?
Mr. Bathurst. Yes, Ms. Norton--and, again, I would like to
thank you for your personal support for this project and for
the Department of Homeland Security.
Access to the point is a significant issue for us, as well
as some of our other federal partners. It has a strategic
overlook, but at the same time it is a spectacular point in the
city.
We are committed to working with the community and to
develop a plan and an ongoing plan for regular--or for periodic
access to the point, as well as other locations on the campus.
Some of our other buildings, for example, the auditorium we
think would be a great place to have community meetings and the
like.
The details of that, I think, will remain fluid. It could
change as our security posture changes, and that is why we
really need to be an active member of the community.
In the past, as you said, the campus right now is not
accessible to the public. And ever since its beginning in 1855,
it was a secure campus, more then to keep the patients' privacy
and the like protected, but it was also a major employer in the
area. So a lot of people that worked in the community had
access and their families had access because they worked here.
We foresee at some time, hopefully in the relatively near
future, should the remainder of the project be appropriated and
we can move forward with the other phases, that we would also
be a major employer in the community and we would see some of
those same kinds of interaction, that this isn't just 14,000
employees being dropped in here that would come and go to work
and not interact.
We see that we would actually be a vibrant part of the Ward
8 community with a lot of our employees coming from that area.
Mr. Carney. The chair now recognizes Mr. Green for 5
minutes.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank the witnesses for appearing, as well. My
understanding is that you have the seal of approval of the
congresswoman. And if you have her seal of approval, you merit
my support.
I want to thank you for the prudent way that you have gone
about conducting your business. My understanding is that you
have had input from the community and that you have gone to
great lengths, if you will, to make sure that there will be
minimal disruption in the lives of people who are in the area
and that you will be a good neighbor.
Now, understanding that you will be a good neighbor, let me
just ask one or two questions, perhaps. I will be as pithy and
concise as possible.
In being a good neighbor, have you developed some sort of
model for the ingress and egress--I assume that this has been
discussed, but I have been in a Financial Services hearing, and
we have Secretary Geithner there--have you developed some sort
of model for ingress and egress? Because we will have an
unusual amount of traffic in the area, as a result.
And how would you propose to make sure that the flow of
traffic is such that we don't become, in the minds of some of
the people who were there before us, less than a good neighbor?
And I will give you one example. Before this life, I was
the judge of a court. And we had a facility placed in an area,
and the people in the community thought it was a great idea to
have the courthouse come to this given location. But when we
started having dockets that had 500 cases, and cars were up and
down the street, and people were having difficulty negotiating
into their homes, we were not the good neighbor that they
thought we would be.
What I don't want to find out later is that we went in with
goodwill and we at some point become persons of ill will in the
eyes of some. So would you kindly respond, please?
Mr. Guerin. Yes, Congressman, thanks.
The fact is, we have done extensive studies on traffic in
order to accommodate the campus. That was a large part of our
master planning effort, which has been approved by the National
Capital Planning Commission in early April.
So we are moving forward with a plan that would allow us to
provide most of the transportation and traffic coming off of
295 and the Suitland Parkway with a connecting road between the
two. And I think someone has put up here on the screen, very
simply, we don't want to have all the traffic going on Martin
Luther King Avenue and Malcolm X Avenue. That is a great
street, by definition one that has been recognized and is going
to be improved over time, and we don't want that to be the main
thoroughfare to the campus.
So we have identified alternative pathways to the campus
that are very direct access off the freeways nearby. And so we
have been very cognizant of that concern, and I believe we have
addressed it adequately.
Mr. Bathurst. In addition, if I may, we see transportation
because not only do we want to be a good neighbor, but we also
want to take care of our employees. We have worked with the
National Capital Planning Commission and are going to meet
their parking planning guidance, which is one to four parking
spaces, one parking space for every four employees, which
limits the amount of parking, which should limit the amount of
traffic coming in and out.
And we are working to develop carpool and ride-sharing
programs and see that a majority of our staff will come and go
to work with public transportation.
Mr. Green. Martin King and Malcolm X, Martin Luther King
and Malcolm X, these streets, do they have businesses on them?
Mr. Guerin. They do.
Mr. Green. What I don't want, also, is for us to become so
isolated that the businesses in the area don't benefit from our
presence. And I trust that this does not appear to be
contradictory, but I do think that people tend to move in and
about a given area where their jobs are located. Will there be
a means by which persons who are in the facility or facilities,
they will have the opportunity to make it to some of these
small businesses in the area?
Mr. Bathurst. Yes.
Mr. Green. If they so choose.
Mr. Bathurst. Yes, sir. One of the features of the master
plan for the site was negotiations with the historic
preservation community that was concerned about the number of
employees that were going to be on the West Campus and a
suggestion that some of that density of building be moved to
the East Campus, which is under the control of the District of
Columbia.
GSA and DHS worked with the district's office of planning,
both the mayor's office as well as the City Council, and the
city has come forward with a plan for the East Campus which is
part of our plan.
So we are going to actually have some of our buildings on
the East Campus, across Martin Luther King. And the city's plan
for that is to have small businesses and retail establishments
along Martin Luther King around there. And the way that this is
going to be laid out, it will drive that interaction of people
going back and forth to their offices and through that retail
activity.
Mr. Green. Thank you.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I especially thank the congresswoman for her leadership on
these issues. She is invaluable to me when it comes to issues
concerning Washington, D.C.
And I thank the witnesses, as well.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Carney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I guess I have some more questions, as well. The cost of
the site is what it is. Have we factored in what the cost will
be to build a parkway into the site? Have we figured in the
cost of shuttling folks from Anacostia Metro station up the
hill? And I would love to be able to think that all the DHS
employees could trek the three-quarters of a mile up the hill,
but I don't think that is reasonable.
So what are those additional costs going to be? We touched
upon this very early on in this hearing.
Mr. Guerin. The cost of providing the transportation
access, the road itself is factored into the total budget of
$3.4 billion. It would be in GSA's portion of that budget.
There are other costs, as well, associated with the
interchange, which would be a federal highways cost, coupled
with Department of Transportation in the district. So there are
costs outside of the project, but those are upgrades that were
expected to made anyway.
In fact, the district had a series of upgrades to try to
provide access to the Anacostia area, Poplar Point, and some of
the developments on the East Campus, including what they are
proposing in terms of development, that they had already
targeted these funds and these improvements, so they played
very well into what the federal government's trying to do on
West Campus. The costs that we need to provide to the process
are factored into the numbers that you have seen.
Mr. Carney. Okay.
Mr. Bathurst. And as far as the shuttles go, we already run
a tremendous number of shuttles between our buildings, a lot of
different transportation, and we believe that that amount that
we are currently doing will be reduced at the St. Elizabeths
campus, because we will have fewer locations and it will be a
lot more direct.
Mr. Carney. Do you have any estimates on how many people
will drive to work and how many people will Metro to work?
Mr. Bathurst. I believe that we do have those done as part
of the transportation management study. We have done some
surveys of the employees. Obviously, over time, you know, that
is going to change, but we do have a baseline for--we could get
that for the committee.
Mr. Carney. Yes, please do.
My last sort of train of questions here does deal with
security. As we all know, the site is beautiful. It sits high
on the bluff. But it overlooks, basically, where Marine One
takes off and where it is based. And if you are going to allow
public access to this site, I can imagine a security nightmare
for those who are involved with Marine One and, indeed, for
those who work at DIA, there at Bolling, you know, I can see a
whole number of issues arise.
I am still very interested in how you intend to balance
sort of the public access with the need for probably tightened
or at least heightened the security. That, to me, is truly one
of those conundrums I am not sure how you are going to quite
get around. But I think Ms. Norton was very correct here in
raising this issue.
You know, when we were there last week, people--you know,
there was sort of a cursory glance, ask what you are doing
here, and people were just driving on when we were there. And
that was concerning to me, actually, I have to admit.
And as somebody who has been around these sorts of
environments for a great portion of his adult life, you know,
you have to have all kinds of controls, especially if you are
going to have the kinds of buildings with the kinds of
sensitivities that these buildings will be handling involved.
So I would love to hear what your intent is in addressing
all these issues.
Mr. Bathurst. Well, one of the aspects in the appropriation
for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act included the
funding for our site security team for DHS. And we are in the
process of bringing that team onboard. Those are going to be
DHS employees, security professionals who will have the
responsibility for--we have the overall structure for the
security plan for the campus, but they are going to put the
meat on that skeleton and be on site to manage security of the
site during construction and lay the plan forward.
As I had said earlier, we will work with the community for
periodic controlled access to certain areas. I believe that
that is possible to be done. Andrews Air Force Base is open on
Armed Forces Day for tours and the like. It is controlled and
the like. And we need to develop those types of plans and
working with the community to try to strike that balance.
Mr. Carney. Have we estimated a DHS Day yet, Ms. Norton? Do
you know if--okay.
Mr. Bathurst. We would welcome something like that.
Mr. Carney. I imagine so. But, you know, bear in mind that
we will be very closely monitoring the security aspect of this,
as well. You know, given the extremely important and sensitive
nature of what is going to go on, on that campus, you know, we
cannot be overly cautious here at all. And I think it is a very
aggressive plan that you have to integrate the community, to
bring all the functions of DHS to the site, to have the op
center there, you know, I mean, all this is remarkable.
We will be your partner in this. We will provide the
oversight as best we can in this. We want to assure that we
have a very open and honest relationship going both directions,
as these develop. But, you know, from my seat, I am very
concerned about the security aspect of all of this.
Ms. Norton, do you have any further questions?
Ms. Norton. Just one question. And I must say, Mr.
Chairman, I appreciate your initiative in calling this hearing
in particular, so that we keep our eyes on both concerns here.
I am certain that the security concerns can be addressed
because we addressed them coming into this Capitol. We address
them coming into every office building. And there will be
people coming back and forth, Homeland Security, Justice, every
other office building. We do not build enclaves often that the
public can't get into, but we do preserve our security.
My concern, though, is that there are not--that we do not
have central planning on how that security is done. And all too
often I have found that who is in charge of security is
somebody who really has no expertise and can decide to close
the whole building up or be more relaxed about it. And that is
the agency head.
And that is what we have to get a hold of. This, indeed, is
a secure facility. But if you try to go to the Department of
Homeland Security when you are a tourist from Mr. Carney's
district, he will not be able to get his--a child in there, to
use a you-know-what. And there is something wrong with that
being a high-security building when, in fact, you could get
into the House of Representatives and the Senate to allow your
child to use the laboratory.
One question only, and that is about the green features.
Here we have an opportunity not to talk about how to do what
the President is trying to do, and that is to weatherize and
green up federal buildings, but how to do it from the
beginning. What are the plans, green and energy conservation
features for this building?
Mr. Guerin. We have a series of actions we are taking,
Congresswoman. The fact is, this is going to be a very green
facility. GSA is in the forefront of green design, and we are
very proud of that, sustainable energy and those kinds of
things.
The Coast Guard headquarters is the only one that is on the
boards now, so I will speak to that. We have green roofs, green
walls. We have a controlled--as you can imagine, there is a lot
of water that hits the site. We are controlling that in a very
eco-friendly way.
We have--the buildings are designed to provide natural
light. The building actually has, opposed to one large
building, is a series of cascading smaller appearing buildings,
which not only accommodates the concerns of the preservation
community and the people interested in the site, but also
provides natural light to everybody that is in the building.
So we have created a series of courtyards and green spaces
there, as well, in order to accommodate that. Obviously,
Congress has asked that we provide significant energy savings
in all of our buildings, and we will achieve those savings in
this building, as well.
Mr. Carney. Thank you. And thank you for joining us today,
Ms. Norton.
Mr. Bathurst, Mr. Guerin, I thank you for your testimony
today, showing up. This is going to be quite an iterative
process, I believe. I know we have probably stirred as many
questions as we answered. So in that spirit, we will probably
get back to you. And when we do, please respond promptly in
writing to those questions.
Thank you very much. The hearing stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:27 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

A P P E N D I X

----------

Questions and Responses

Questions from the Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, Chairman, Committee on
Homeland Security

Responses from Donald Bathurst

Question 1.: The Final Master Plan indicates that the completed
site will house a daycare, a cafeteria, a training facility, and other
shared services space. Please provide to the Committee your Acquisition
Plan and Acquisition Strategies for these support services contracts.
Response: The final decisions on the types of the shared service
activities that will be contracted out have not been made. As the
Department gets closer to the first occupancy currently planned for
Fiscal Year (FY) 2013, we will work with the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) Procurement Office, the U. S. Coast Guard (USCG) and the
U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) to validate the services
required on the campus, the lead agency for acquiring the services and
the appropriate strategies to employ if these services require contract
support. Shared Services are scheduled to be delivered in each delivery
phase of the project. The current schedule anticipates delivery in
fiscal year 2013, fiscal year 2014 and fiscal year 2016
In general, we anticipate campus-wide support services such as the
cafeteria, lawn, landscape and building maintenance will be
administered by GSA as the landlord. Other services will be evaluated
on a case by case basis to determine the appropriate procurement
strategy and lead procurement agency.
The USCG currently operates a federal employee managed day care
center that will be relocated to St. Elizabeths. In addition, the USCG
operates a Coast Guard Exchange System (CGES) retail facility that will
relocate to St. Elizabeths. The USCG also has a requirement for Dry
Cleaners Drop-off/Pick-up activity and a Barber/Beauty shop for
military personnel. The specific acquisition strategy for these
services has not been determined.
As identified in the Master Plan and Prospectus requests, training
and conference facilities are also planned but the Department has not
determined the extent of contract support that may be required, if any.
DHS and GSA are working with the District of Columbia Government on
their plans for the East Campus to determine the types of retail and
support services that could be provided in conjunction with their
redevelopment efforts. DHS' expectation is the East Campus will be
developed in a manner that provides a variety of amenities that could
support federal employees and the Ward 8 community.
The Department would be pleased to follow-up with the Committee, in
coordination with GSA, on future plans as they are developed.

Question 2.: The $3.4 billion that the DHS Consolidation is
expected to cost is a large sum of money. Unfortunately, as we have
seen with previous large scale procurements, DHS has not always had the
necessary number of personnel to handle these projects in a timely and
cost effective manner.
What steps have the Department taken to ensure that the number of
personnel assigned to this project is adequate?
If you have identified personnel shortages or staffing issues, how
will your office work with the DHS Chief Human Capital Officer to
ensure the project is handled in a timely and cost effective manner?
Response: The Department has taken the initiative to ensure the
necessary staff is available to adequately manage the overall
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Headquarters (HQ) Consolidation
Program, including the St. Elizabeths (St. E's) development. The
project is being lead by four experienced engineers, who collectively
bring over 110 years of facilities, construction, planning, and
management expertise.
DHS developed an organizational structure for a program team that
includes Architects, Engineers, Interior Space Planners, Real Estate
Specialists/Move Coordinators, Environmental Specialists, Security
Professionals and Administrative Support to effectively manage the
project in coordination with the General Services Administration (GSA),
which is the lead agency for the design and construction development.
In addition to the DHS staff of 27 who will provide DHS oversight, GSA
will actually lead the design and construction of St. E's. GSA's St.
E's program management office currently has a staff of 25 people
growing to approximately 95 after the construction is started.
The DHS project team will provide a central point of contact
coordinating DHS tenant requirements, and working with the GSA team to
stay on target, on schedule and on budget. In the Fiscal Year (FY) 2009
DHS appropriation, the Congress provided funding and the authority to
hire 21 positions (11 Full Time Equivalents [FTE]) to staff the program
office. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funded six
DHS site security positions (three FTE) to monitor construction
personnel and on-site activities for a total of 27 positions.
Currently, DHS has hired or made offers to applicants for 24 of the
positions. The remaining three are posted and will make selections
before the end of April. We expect to have all of the staff dedicated
to the DHS HQ Consolidation program on board before August 2009.
Both DHS and GSA are committed to executing this project in a
fiscally responsible manner and have assigned dedicated program staff
for full-time management of the overall DHS HQ Consolidation. The staff
will institute controls/systems throughout the design and construction
phases to effectively manage the scope, schedule, and budget. To
prevent the project from undisciplined cost growth and schedule
extensions confronting other high profile projects that had schedule
delays and cost overruns, DHS and GSA intend to reduce risks and
uncertainties and will focus on the design and construction process to
deliver a high quality product within the schedule and budget.
Design Guidelines establish standardized office sizes, furniture,
furnishings, equipment, and will maximize shared use amenities. Generic
office plans will allow maximum flexibility for the occupancy so
changes to the program will limit impact to the design and construction
contracts. GSA plans to employ a Design-Build (D-B) Bridging delivery
model for Phase 1 of the St. Elizabeths development that will
facilitate fast tracking of design and construction for expedited
delivery. The D-B Bridging model will improve design and construction
coordination. The D-B contractor is brought onto the project team early
in the design to provide pre-construction phase services such as
constructability reviews, coordination of long lead items, construction
cost estimating, and construction market analysis to reduce the
likelihood of cost overruns when the design is complete. This delivery
model fosters a better team environment and cooperation between all
parties avoiding contract damages and claims.
The GSA/DHS team will also implement a Configuration Management
(CM) process for the St. Elizabeths development. CM is a discipline
that applies technical and administrative direction and surveillance
over the lifecycle of the design and construction process to control
changes, record and report information needed to manage the delivery
process, track the status of proposed changes, and implementation
status of approved changes. CM also audits configuration items to
verify conformance to specifications, drawings, and other contractual
requirements.

Question 3.: You stated during your testimony that the Department's
Chief Human Capital Officer reached out to the Washington, D.C. Ward 8
Business Council regarding future employment opportunities at the St.
Elizabeths location.
When did this outreach occur?
Response: The outreach occurred during a joint Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) and General Services Administration (GSA)
meeting with the Ward 8 Business Council on February 2, 2009.

What recruitment efforts, if any, will the Chief Human Capital
Officer or other Department officials, make outside of Ward 8?
Response: Although not St. Elizabeths specific, the DHS Chief Human
Capital Office conducts a broad based corporate recruitment and
outreach effort in the Washington--Baltimore metro area and across the
country. The table attached identifies the 2009 Total Department
Recruiting Plan, including events and locations. The events highlighted
in red in the location column indicate two or more components will
participate, thus meeting the requirements for Corporate (total
Department) recruiting. In addition to the Total Department Plan, the
U.S. Coast Guard and U. S. Citizenship and Immigration Services conduct
additional component specific events across the country and include the
DC metro area.

Questions from the Honorable Christopher P. Carney, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Management, Investigations, and Oversight

Question 4.: It is estimated that the St. Elizabeths West Campus
development will cost approximately $3.4 billion dollars. During your
testimony you discussed the additional 8 to 9 other facilities that
will be needed to house Department of Homeland Security (DHS) employees
throughout the National Capital Region. What is the estimated cost for
the additional office space and has the General Services Administration
(GSA) and DHS made any preliminary decisions regarding where the
additional sites will be located?
Response: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) National
Capital Region (NCR) Housing Master Plan was developed to provide the
strategic vision for facilities that support a unified department,
organizational structure, operations and culture. The plan outlines
priorities of implementation and addresses the mission fragmentation
caused by the Headquarters (HQ) elements being scattered throughout the
NCR. While St. Elizabeths will accommodate the main Department and
Component HQ mission execution functions, it does not have the capacity
to accommodate all of the DHS mission support functions. As a result,
the DHS NCR Housing Master Plan proposes to consolidate and realign the
remaining functions, that are currently dispersed throughout the NCR in
more than 40 locations, to enhance performance across the spectrum of
operations, through improved communications, coordination and
cooperation among all DHS Headquarters Components. In addition, since
DHS will incur occupancy costs for leases regardless of the location,
consolidation will reduce risk by replacing existing leases throughout
the NCR as they expire with new occupancies that meet the ISC
standards. Consolidating locations will foster a ``one-DHS'' culture,
will optimize our prevention and response capabilities.
GSA used a national real estate broker to complete a study of DHS
HQ real estate requirements and to develop a migration strategy for the
DHS HQ consolidation. The study determined that keeping the current
federal property housing DHS HQ elements is the best course of action
because it results in a lower cost versus leasing. The strategy they
developed will allow DHS HQ to go from more than 40 locations down to
less than ten using St. Elizabeths as the center of gravity and keeping
the federally owned locations at the Nebraska Avenue Complex (NAC), the
U.S. Secret Service HQ and the space at the Ronald Reagan Building. DHS
has two long-term leases that will also be retained--the TSA HQ in
Arlington, VA and the ICE HQ in SE Washington, DC. One short-term lease
for the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) at Vermont Avenue might
be retained given the OIG's requirement to be isolated from other HQ
Elements. The consolidation strategy indicated one to three additional
leases for approximately 1.2 million Rentable Square Feet (RSF) of
office space is needed to replace the remaining fragmented leases as
they expire and a prospectus is being submitted to Congress for
authority to procure this space.
The 30 year net present value (NPV) difference between continuing
the status quo versus following a comprehensive strategy that retains
the federally owned space and has the least amount of short-term lease
extensions is $163 million (M) cost avoidance. DHS HQ is growing and is
requesting space from GSA on a fragmented basis potentially increasing
the number of locations to over 100 or more. Therefore, after the DHS
HQ five year growth is determined and the leased space needs are better
defined, GSA will submit a prospectus, as necessary, to Congress for
leased space authority.

Question 5.: It is estimated that DHS will be transferring
approximately 14,000 employees to the St. Elizabeths location. During
your testimony you stated that a study had been completed regarding the
amount of new traffic, both pedestrian and vehicular, that will flow
into the St. Elizabeths neighborhood as a result of the relocation.
According to that study, or any additional information you might have,
what is the estimated number of employees that will be driving to work
on the facility versus those that are expected to use public
transportation; and how will DHS continue to lessen the impact of these
increased traffic flow on the community?
Response: Transportation is a critical consideration for the DHS
Consolidated Headquarters and worked with the General Services
Administration (GSA) to prepare a Transportation Management Program
(TMP) as part of the overall St. Elizabeths Master Plan to address the
challenges and opportunities in moving 14,000 employees to and from the
campus every day without causing gridlock in the local community. A key
component of the TMP is the establishment of Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) strategies to achieve our goals to effectively move
employees to and from the campus. With the planned phased occupancy of
the campus, we will be able to monitor and evaluate the progress
towards achieving the TDM goals and make adjustments as necessary to
meet our employees' needs while minimizing the impacts on the local
community and the transportation network. The table below is excerpted
out of the TMP and provides a summary of our existing, projected and
recommended goals to achieve the mode splits to effectively move
employees to and from the campus.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended Goal
--------------------------------------
Travel Mode Existing * Expected West Campus East Campus Overall
** *** Campus
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drive alone (SOV) 31% 36% 17% 17% 17%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carpool with non DHS passengers (arriving- 4% 3% 4% 4% 4%
departing worksite *alone)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metrorail 30% 30% 35% 35% 35%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carpool/Vanpool with DHS passengers 10% 10% 16% 16% 16%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commuter Bus/Express Bus from location near 4% 2% 4% 4% 4%
home
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commuter Rail (i.e. VRE/MARC) 7% 7% 7% 7% 7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metrobus from home to work 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bicylcle 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drop-off 2% 1% 1% 1% 1%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motorcycle 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walk 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Work from home or AWS 3% 1% 5% 5% 5%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't know 7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did not work today 1% 2% 2% 2%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other (none of the other mode 5% 2%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Agency Telework Centers 4% 4% 4%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Agency Park-&-Ride Facilities (Agency 4% 4% 4%
Shuffles)
����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
No employees / No. vehicles 2.62 2.19 3.87 4.00 3.90
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parking Ratio (1 parking space / number 1: 2.62 1: 2.19 1: 3.87 1: 4.00 1: 3.90
employees)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AVO (Average Occupancy Rate of All Vehicles) 1.17 1.23 1.41 1.42 1.41
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Occupancy Rate of Carpool/Vanpool 2.94 2.93 3.06 3.06 3.06
Vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected Employee Parking Requirement (No. of 5,347 6,390 2,819 775 3,594
space)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Department's plan provides a 1 to 4 parking ratio for all day
working employees on the campus consistent with National Capital
Planning Commission (NCPC) guidance for this area. Our 24/7 operations
will adopt a 1:3 ratio consistent with the District of Columbia Unified
Communications Center on the East Campus and overall there will be
approximately 3,594 employees parking spaces for the 14,000 employees
to be housed at the campus. This equates to an overall 1:3.9 Parking
Ratio. The majority of DHS employees (approximately 10,400) will be
using public transportation or other means. The TMP outlines aggressive
goals to reduce single occupancy vehicles and increase use of alternate
modes such as car pools, express buses, alternate work schedules,
telework, and metro ridership.
Shuttles will operate between the campus and the metro stations to
facilitate metro use by employees. The DC Government is examining the
feasibility of a new spur metro station on the East Campus near MLK as
part of their redevelopment effort. We highly support this idea as it
will make metro that much more convenient for our employees to use and
reduce total travel time.
Lastly, The Master Plan also calls for a new access road between
Firth Sterling and Malcolm X Avenue which will handle 70 percent of the
employee traffic and minimize impacts to the surrounding community. The
National Capital Planning Commission's January 2009 approval of the
Master Plan for DHS consolidation at St. Elizabeths is contingent upon
GSA's ability to construct the west access road connecting Firth
Sterling Avenue, SE to the modified Malcolm X Avenue, SE/I-295
Interchange, through the Shepherd Parkway. Shepherd Parkway is
currently under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service. GSA, the
Federal Highway Administration, and the Department of the Interior are
currently discussing the future availability of the Parkway as an
access road for St. Elizabeths, but this issue has not yet been
resolved.

Question 6.: The D.C. Unified Communications Center, which handles
all District of Columbia emergency police and fire calls, houses the
D.C. Emergency Management Agency and serves as the mayor's command
center in the event of a natural or terrorist-related disaster, is
currently located on St. Elizabeths East Campus.
Will the presence of this facility enhance DHS Communications
operations?
Response: Yes, the D.C. Unified Communications Center is a very
desirable adjacency that will enhance federal and local response
coordination and integration.
Given the amount of power needed to support the present D.C.
operations and the estimated DHS requirements, is there a risk of
overloading the area's power supply?
Response: The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) identified
early in the Master Planning process for the St. Elizabeths Campus that
the coordination of the campus power demands to support the Department
of Homeland Security (DHS) operations and the capacity of the
electrical grid are critical issues to be resolved with the
development. GSA conducted studies and initiated an early dialogue with
the electrical utilities in effort to gauge the potential impacts of
our development, the East Campus development, and other planned
improvements in the region, including Barry Farm Housing Redevelopment
and the Poplar Point project. The Department continues to work closely
with GSA on the overall infrastructure development to ensure our
current and future requirements are addressed in the build-out.
GSA determined that the existing electrical grid does not perform
well from a reliability perspective and although their budget for
infrastructure development includes impact funding to the local
utilities to expand capacity to meet the demand, we jointly agreed on
the necessity to take an approach to mitigate the risks of overloading
the transmission system. As a result, the full development of the St.
Elizabeths Campus includes the provision of a Central Utility Plant
with Cogeneration that will allow the campus to generate up to 25
percent of campus demand and provides energy efficiency with the reuse
of waste heat from cogeneration for domestic hot water heating. The
cogeneration plant is anticipated to come on line with the second phase
of development (DHS Headquarters, Federal Emergency Management Agency
and the National Operations Center) subject to future year budget
requests and appropriations.

Question 7.: The Department has an Investment Review Process that
is designed to promote sound capital asset decisions across the
department. Based on the dollar amount, the St. Elizabeth's
consolidation should fall under the Investment Review Board's purview.
Have you, or your team worked with the Investment Review Board, to
ensure that the management of this asset is closely monitored?
Response: DHS is responsible for overseeing the St. Elizabeths
consolidation project and has exercised this oversight via various
mechanisms that will include the current Acquisition Review Board (ARB)
process--the successor to DHS' Investment Review Board (IRB) process..
As the landlord for the United States Government, the U.S. General
Services Administration (GSA) owns the St. Elizabeths property. GSA, as
our agent, is responsible for developing the property as the location
for consolidating the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Headquarters. As this development completes, DHS will occupy the
property as a rent paying tenant agency.
In addition to the ARB, the St. Elizabeths consolidation project
was and continues to be briefed regularly to DHS Senior Leadership.
Additionally, the program is reviewed monthly by the DHS Chief
Administrative Officer's Council to ensure compliance with the DHS
Asset Management Plan. In preparation for its Acquisition Review Board,
the project will also reviewed by the DHS Asset Review Board (DARB).

Question 8.: How does the physical security of the St. Elizabeths
site accommodate the high-level of security that will be needed to
protect DHS employees and the information that will be contained on its
premises and how will it comply with the standards set by the
Interagency Security Committee and HSPD-7?
Response: Consistent with the requirements of Homeland Security
Presidential Directive 7 (HSPD-7), Critical Infrastructure
Identification, Prioritization, and Protection, the new Consolidated
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Headquarters Campus at St.
Elizabeths will be considered critical infrastructure for essential
governmental functions. Accordingly, the security measures to be
deployed at St. Elizabeths will comply with the new physical security
criteria of the Interagency Security Committee (ISC). The entire
Headquarters site will be designated an ISC Facility Security Level V
facility. This designation requires the highest level of protection for
a high threat, highly symbolic U.S. Government facility.
Security measures will be deployed to secure the site perimeter,
all entrances, all buildings, and critical areas within the site and
within each building as necessary. Access to the campus and individual
buildings by employees and authorized visitors will be controlled
electronically and monitored. Access to restricted areas will have
additional security measures. The security plan for the St. Elizabeths
Campus includes the following:
Layered Security to provide security in-depth beginning with
the site perimeter with progressively more stringent security
measures protecting the most sensitive and critical areas.
These security measures will focus first on deterrence, then
detection, and delay providing essential time to asses a
security violation and initiate the appropriate response;
Vehicle Barriers and Setback distances to protect critical
assets;
Electronic access control based on authorized identification
cards/badges and, where necessary, dual identity requirements;
Employee and Visitor screening as required particularly for
sensitive/critical areas;
Video Monitoring to secure entrances, critical areas, remote
locations [perimeter barriers]; other associated measures to
secure the facility and provide evidence of any security
violations;
Security Officers and Law Enforcement on site to control
access, traffic, deliveries, and assist with VIP visits and to
detain and arrest if necessary;
Chemical Biological, Radioactive, Nuclear, and Explosives
(CBRNE) Detection and Response plans and procedures; and
On-going Awareness Training to ensure employees are
continually aware of security requirements for protecting
people, assets, and information.
An integral part of the facility design process will be
coordination with the local community to develop an overall strategy to
ensure the most cost-effective and efficient development of the
facility, including security concerns. This process will integrate site
development and security requirements with community concerns including
future commercial growth and development in the surrounding community.
In addition, physical security must be approved by the National Capital
Planning Commission, which has also developed urban design and security
guidelines for federal buildings in the national capital.
Consistent with ISC requirements, security requirements will be
continually monitored and modified when appropriate based on periodic
security assessments of the entire campus and individual assets. This
will ensure security measures are continually validated and tested
based on current threat, vulnerability, and consequence information and
intelligence.
Although the campus will be designated as an ISC Level 5 facility,
DHS has committed to work with the community to allow periodic
controlled access to certain areas of the campus such as the Point and
the Auditorium for public meetings on a not to interfere basis with our
operations and threat conditions. Our commitment to providing public
access at St. Elizabeths is memorialized in the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 Programmatic Agreement to which we
are a signatory. Consulting parties to the National Historic
Preservation Act Section 106 process are having ongoing consultation on
whether to include the historic cemetery within the boundaries of the
DHS headquarters or to exclude the cemetery from the security
perimeter. The ongoing consultation is focused on balancing
considerations of security, protecting the cemetery's historic
integrity, and allowing public access.
Since its opening in 1855, St. Elizabeths has been in some form, a
secure campus. Patients were treated here that could not function in
the public domain and the historic wall along Martin Luther King Jr.
Ave not only protected the patients privacy but also provided security
to keep the patients from wandering off the campus.
The level of security and the threats we face today are not the
same as those of the historic campus. While St. Elizabeths was not an
``open'' campus, it was one of the largest employers in the area and
many local residents did work here and had access to the Point and
other areas. The Department respects the historic connection of the
campus to the community, which is why we have committed to provide
periodic public access to certain areas of the campus.

Questions from the Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, Chairman, House
Committee on Homeland Security:

Responses from William (Bill) Guerin

Question 1.: During your testimony you stated that several
professional services contracts have already been awarded for both the
design and construction for the Coast Guard Headquarters that present
opportunities for small and minority business participation.
a. Please provide the Committee with a breakdown of all
professional services contracts that have been utilized by GSA in the
design-build and the construction management stages of the project, in
addition to a listing of estimated professional services contracts that
will also be utilized.
Response: A list of contracts that have been utilized by GSA in the
design-build and the construction management stages of the project is
provided in Attachment A. A list of contracts that will be utilized in
the future is provided in Attachment B.
b. Please also provide a detailed breakdown of the small and
minority business that have been the recipients of these opportunities
and a listing of those opportunities that have not yet been awarded.
Response: See Attachment C.
You also mentioned during your testimony that 100% of the work had
taken place thus far has been fulfilled by small and disadvantaged
businesses. Please provide the committee with a list of the small and
disadvantaged businesses that have performed work on the site up to
this point, the category each business falls in, and the type of work
that they were contracted to complete.
Response: The work completed by March 2009 at the site consists
primarily of building stabilization and repairs. When GSA mentioned in
testimony that ``100% of work that had taken place thus far had been
fulfilled by small and disadvantaged businesses'', the agency was
referring to the work performed by those small and disadvantaged
businesses outlined in the table below. The bulk of the remaining work
was done off site by consulting firms involved in the master planning
process.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Firm Name Types of Work Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nastos Security Improvements, $6,777,673
Construction Historic Repairs,
Stabilization, Fire &
Life Safety
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DESBUILD Stabilization, Lighting 3,013,254
Repairs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monument Stabilization, Tree 2,246,107
Construction Care, Utility Studies
Corporation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CJW Contractors Illumination of Street 426,000
Lights
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLARO Historic Building 583,457
Communications Repair
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Renovations, Historic 13,047,491
Building
Repairs, Security
Improvements
------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. The testimony primarily focused on the West Campus as that is
where the bulk of the Department will be located. Are there plans,
however, to also utilize buildings of the East Campus? If so, what are
these plans?
Response: The final master plan provides for 750,000 gsf plus
parking of DHS program to be placed on the East Campus. There are no
current plans to utilize existing buildings on the East Campus; DHS
program will be satisfied in newly constructed facilities.
d. How many patients are currently housed on the East Campus and
what steps will be taken to secure the West Campus from East Campus
activities; while still allowing for interaction and coordination
between the two campuses?
Response: According to information published by the DC Department
of Mental Health, as of January 31, 2009, the Hospital was serving a
total of 404 inpatients.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://dmh.dc.gov/dmh/frames.asp?doc=/dmh/lib/dmh/pdf/
sehmonthlytrendanalysisDecember
2008.pdf, 4/21/09
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The development of the DHS facility at St Elizabeths will include
secured DHS facilities on the East and West Campuses connected by a
secure pathway so as to function as a single campus. This will allow
employees to move freely within the secure campus perimeter without the
need to go through security screening.
The West Campus DHS development will not include significant
services, therefore federal employees will be encouraged, when not
traversing the campuses solely for work, to leave secure program space
and to take advantage of amenities the District has shown it will
develop on the East Campus in its small area planning document.

Questions from the Honorable Christopher P. Carney, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Management, Investigations and Oversight

Question 1.: During your testimony, you mentioned the award for the
Coast Guard Headquarters contract was composed based on merit of the
design and not strictly based on price. Please provide to the committee
the number of proposals received and the basis for the final design
that was chosen.
Response: There were 35 firms included in the procurement. The firm
selected for the U.S. Coast Guard design was procured using the
regulations outlined in the Brooks Act and contained in 48 CFR ' 36, et
seq. Brooks Act procurements allow for the Government to select firms
based on professional qualifications and then to negotiate price.

Question 2. It is estimated that the St. Elizabeths West Campus
development will cost approximately $3.4 billion dollars. During your
testimony you discussed the additional 8 to 9 other facilities that
will be needed to house Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
throughout the National Capital Region. What is the estimated cost for
the additional office space and has the General Services Administration
(GSA) and DHS made any preliminary decisions regarding where the
additional sites will be located?
Response: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) National
Capital Region (NCR) Housing Master Plan was developed to provide the
strategic vision for facilities that support a unified department,
organizational structure, operations and culture. The plan outlines
priorities of implementation and addresses the mission fragmentation
caused by the Headquarters (HQ) elements being scattered throughout the
NCR. While St. Elizabeths will accommodate the main Department and
Component HQ mission execution functions, it does not have the capacity
to accommodate all of the DHS mission support functions. As a result,
the DHS NCR Housing Master Plan proposes to consolidate and realign the
remaining functions that are currently dispersed in more than 40
locations.
GSA used a national real estate broker to complete a study of DHS
HQ real estate requirements and to develop a migration strategy for the
DHS HQ consolidation. The study determined that keeping the current
federal property housing DHS HQ elements is the best course of action
because it results in a lower cost versus leasing. The strategy
developed will allow DHS HQ to go from more than 40 locations down to 8
using St. Elizabeths as the agency headquarters and keeping the
federally owned locations at the Nebraska Avenue Complex (NAC), the U.
S. Secret Service HQ and the space at the Ronald Reagan Building. DHS
has two long term leases that will also be retained--the TSA HQ in
Arlington, VA and the ICE HQ in SE Washington, DC. One short term lease
for the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) at Vermont Avenue might
be retained given the OIG's requirement to be isolated from other HQ
Elements. The consolidation strategy indicated one additional lease for
approximately 1.2M Rentable Square Feet (RSF) of office space is needed
to replace the remaining fragmented leases and a prospectus is being
submitted to Congress for authority to procure this space within Metro
proximity of St. Elizabeths.

Question 3.: It is estimated that DHS will be transferring
approximately 14,000 employees to the St. Elizabeths location. During
your testimony you stated that a study had been completed regarding the
amount of new traffic, both pedestrian and vehicular, that will flow
into the St. Elizabeths neighborhood as a result of the relocation.
According to that study, or any additional information you might have,
what is the estimated number of employees that will be driving to work
on the facility versus those that are expected to use public
transportation; and how will DHS continue to lessen the impact of this
increased traffic flow on the community?
Response: Transportation is a critical consideration for the DHS
Consolidated Headquarters and we worked with DHS to prepare a
Transportation Management Program (TMP) as part of the overall St.
Elizabeths Master Plan to address the challenges and opportunities in
moving 14,000 employees to and from the campus every day without
causing gridlock in the local community. A key component of the TMP is
the establishment of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies
to achieve our goals to effectively move our employees to and from the
campus. With our planned phased occupancy of the campus we will be able
to monitor and evaluate the progress towards achieving the TDM goals
and make adjustments as necessary to meet our employees' needs while
minimizing the impacts on the local community and the transportation
network. The table below is excerpted out of the TMP and provides a
summary of our existing, projected and recommended goals to achieve the
mode splits to effectively move employees to and from the campus.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended Goal
--------------------------------------
Travel Mode Existing * Expected West Campus East Campus Overall
** *** Campus
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drive alone (SOV) 31% 36% 17% 17% 17%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carpool with non DHS passengers (arriving- 4% 3% 4% 4% 4%
departing worksite *alone)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metrorail 30% 30% 35% 35% 35%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carpool/Vanpool with DHS passengers 10% 10% 16% 16% 16%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commuter Bus/Express Bus from location near 4% 2% 4% 4% 4%
home
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commuter Rail (i.e. VRE/MARC) 7% 7% 7% 7% 7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metrobus from home to work 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bicylcle 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drop-off 2% 1% 1% 1% 1%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motorcycle 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walk 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Work from home or AWS 3% 1% 5% 5% 5%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't know 7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did not work today 1% 2% 2% 2%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other (none of the other mode 5% 2%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Agency Telework Centers 4% 4% 4%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Agency Park-&-Ride Facilities (Agency 4% 4% 4%
Shuffles)
����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No employees / No. vehicles 2.62 2.19 3.87 4.00 3.90
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parking Ratio (1 parking space / number 1: 2.62 1: 2.19 1: 3.87 1: 4.00 1: 3.90
employees)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AVO (Average Occupancy Rate of All Vehicles) 1.17 1.23 1.41 1.42 1.41
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Occupancy Rate of Carpool/Vanpool 2.94 2.93 3.06 3.06 3.06
Vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected Employee Parking Requirement (No. of 5,347 6,390 2,819 775 3,594
space)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Existing scenario based on
employee travel survey responses at
current work location
* * Assuming 1,137 employees (24/
7 shift) at 1:3 and 9,763
employees (regular hours) at 1:4
[both on the West Campus]
* * * Assuming 3,100 employees
(regular hours) at 1:4 [on the
East Campus]
Our plan provides a 1 to 4 parking ratio for all day working
employees on the campus consistent with National Capital Planning
Commission guidance for this area. For the 24/7 operations of the
District of Columbia Unified Communications Center on the East Campus,
there will be a 1:3 ratio. Overall we will have about 3594 employee
parking spaces for the 14,000 employees to be housed at the campus.
This equates to an overall 1:3.9 Parking Ratio. The vast majority of
our employees (approximately 10,400) will be using public
transportation or other alternate means of transportation. The TMP
outlines aggressive goals to reduce single occupancy vehicles and
increase use of alternate modes such as car pools, express buses,
alternate work schedules, telework, and metro ridership.
DHS will also operate shuttles between the campus and the Metro
stations to facilitate use by our employees. The DC Government is
examining the feasibility of a new spur Metro station on the East
Campus near MLK as part of their redevelopment effort. We strongly
support this idea as it will make Metro that much more convenient for
our employees to use and reduce total travel time.
Lastly, the Master Plan also calls for a new access road which will
handle 70% of the employee traffic and minimize impacts to the
surrounding community. The National Capital Planning Commission's
January 2009 approval of the Master Plan for DHS consolidation at St.
Elizabeths is contingent upon GSA's ability to construct this access
road, which will connect Firth Sterling Avenue, SE to the modified
Malcolm X Avenue, SE/I-295 Interchange, through the Shepherd Parkway.
Shepherd Parkway is currently under the jurisdiction of the National
Park Service. GSA, the Federal Highway Administration, and the
Department of the Interior are currently discussing the future
availability of the Parkway as an access road for St. Elizabeths, but
this issue has not yet been resolved.

ATTACHMENT A
BA 51 CONTRACT SUMMARY OF ST. ELIZABETHS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contract
Company Name Description 8(A) Y/N Status
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AEC Info Sys-- BIM Roadmap for St. Y Open
(PJ7N02916) Elizabeths
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bishop Environmental-- Hazardous Waste Y Closed
(PJ8N01360) Analysis and
Disposal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cetrom--(PN6NA3670) Cultural Landscape Y Closed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicora--(PJ7N00709) Civil War Cemetery N Closed
Study
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CJW Contractors, Inc.-- Light Repairs Y Open
(PN8N01638)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claro Communications Security Cameras Y Closed
Group--(PJ7N01619)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claro Communications Renovation of Bldg Y Closed
Group--(PN7N02117) #40
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claro Communications Repairs to Y Closed
Group--(PN7N03477) Hitchcock Bldg
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Des Build--(PN6NA3027) Site Lights Y Closed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Des Build--(PN5N02354) Perimeter Fencing Y Open
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ERT--(PJ6NA3012) Ground Penetrating Y Open
Radar
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farewell Mills Gatsch-- WPC--Cultural N Open
(PJ8N01637) Landscape Study
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farewell Mills Gatsch-- Basement Study N Open
(PJ5N00364)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geoconcepts-- Soil Boring Y Open
(PJ9N01280)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greenhorne & O'Mara-- Soil Remediation-- N Open
(PJ6NA3347) Dixion Study
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ivory, William P. Building Y Open
(PJ5N02724) Stabilization
------------------------------------------------------------------------
JLL-Master Planningudy-- N Open
(PJ5N01109)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monument Construction Enhanced Resource Y Closed
Co.--(PJ6NA3009) Conservation Study
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monument Construction Campus Water Supply Y Open
Co.--(PJ6NA3010) Study
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monument Construction Dining Hall & Y Open
Co.--(PJ6NA3011) Kitchen Rehab
Study
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monument Construction Center Building Y Open
Co.--(PJ6NA3023) Study
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monument Construction Utilities Study Y Closed
Co.--(PN6NA3605)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monument Construction PDS for NOC Y Open
Co.--(PJ7N01313)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monument Construction PDS for DHS Y Open
Co.--(PJ7N01314)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monument Construction Historic Tree Care Y Open
Co.--(PN8N01361)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nastos Construction-- Building Y Open
(PN6NA2239) Stabilization
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nastos Construction-- Wall Repair Y Closed
(PN6NA2554)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nastos Construction-- Fire Line Y Closed
(PN6NA3607)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nastos Construction-- Wall Repair Y Open
(PN8N0102)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Onuma and Associates-- WPC Rapid Y Open
(PJ8N01241) Programming for
NOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perkins + Will-- USCG Design N Open
(PJ6NA2036)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perkins + Will-- USCG Design N Open
(PJ6NA2036)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Procon Consulting-- CQM Services Y Open
(PJ6NA2778)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Procon Consulting-- Project Support Y Open
(PJ8N03047) Services
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sempra Energy Solutions - Primary Electrical N Open
(PJ7N00399) Service and Grid
Interconnection
Study
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sempra Energy Solutions-- Campus Heating and N Open
(PJ7N00401) Cooling
Requirements Study
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Singhal Company-- IT Infrastructure Y Open
(PJ6NA3022) Study
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Business Program Management Y Closed
Group--(PJ7N00528) + Coordination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Business Master Plan Y Open
Group--(PJ7N02339) Facilitator
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MISCELLADesign Charrette/ N Open
Orders Community Outreach
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Competitive 8(a) Award Warehouse/Annex Y Pending
HAZMAT Abatement &
Demolition
------------------------------------------------------------------------

ATTACHMENT B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPCOMING PROJECT LIST
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Construction Management Opportunity
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Historic Preservation Program Manager
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 Historic Preservation Project Manager
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 CQM Infrastructure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 Program Support Services
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 East Campus Master Plan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 Phase 2 & 3 (Center Building/Admin Building Design)
Subconsultants for ZGF design firm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8 Phase 3 (Pavillion Site Design) Subconsultants for
Goody Clancy design firm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9 Cemetery Preservation Phase 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 Soil Borings for Phase 2 & 3 on West Campus; Soil
Borings for Shepherd Parkway Malcolm X to Firth
Sterling; MLK East Side for Road Widening; East
Campus DHS Site
------------------------------------------------------------------------
11 Firth Sterling Surveying
------------------------------------------------------------------------
12 Firth Sterling Intersection Concept
------------------------------------------------------------------------
13 Shepherd Parkway Archeological Study
------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 Concepts/Design MLK widening
------------------------------------------------------------------------
15 Demolition of Incinerator & Containment Area from
Oil Storage Tanks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
16 ``L''
painting, carpet, heat, power, water
------------------------------------------------------------------------
17 Security Field Admin Office Cleanup (Contaminant
Removal, painting, heat, power, water)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 Admin Building Cleanup for tours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
19 Center Building Basement Contaminant Removal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20 Ground Penetrating Radar Completion
------------------------------------------------------------------------
21 Existing Historic Database -Update & Connect to a
Network
------------------------------------------------------------------------
22 Public Website
------------------------------------------------------------------------
23 Pump House Repair
------------------------------------------------------------------------
24 Contaminant Removal for all Existing Buildings on
Site
------------------------------------------------------------------------
25 Oral Histories
------------------------------------------------------------------------
26 Transcriptionist for Consulting Party Meetings (4
years)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
27 Facilitiator for meetings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
28 USCG Design Build Package - Subcontract requirement
included in RFP
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Any construction awards greater than $1,000,000 and A&E awards greater
than $550,000 to a large business require submission of a small
business sub-contracting plan.