[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

JOINT OVERSIGHT HEARING ON
MANAGING COSTS AND MITIGATING DELAYS
IN THE BUILDING OF SOCIAL SECURITY'S
NEW NATIONAL COMPUTER CENTER

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

JOINT HEARING

before the

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOCIAL SECURITY

of the

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

and the

SUBCOMMITTEE ON
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

of the

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

of the

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

__________

FEBRUARY 11, 2011

__________

Serial No. 112-SS1

__________

Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
70-872 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SOCIAL SECURITY

SAM JOHNSON, Texas, Chairman

KEVIN BRADY, Texas XAVIER BECERRA, California
PAT TIBERI, Ohio LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
AARON SCHOCK, Illinois SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
ERIK PAULSEN, Minnesota FORTNEY PETE STARK, California
RICK BERG, North Dakota
ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska

______

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT

JEFF DENHAM, California, Chairman

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
RICK CRAWFORD, Arkansas Columbia, Ranking Member
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois HEATH SHULER, North Carolina
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
BOB GIBBS, Ohio RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
RICHARD HANNA, New York DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
JOHN L. MICA, Florida BOB FILNER, California
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia

C O N T E N T S

__________
Page

Advisory of February 11, 2011, announcing the hearing............ 2

WITNESSES

The Honorable Patrick P. O'Carroll Jr., Inspector General, Social
Security Administration........................................ 8
David Foley, Deputy Commissioner of the Public Buildings Service,
U.S. General Services Administration........................... 17
Kelly Croft, Deputy Commissioner, Social Security Administration. 23

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD

David Foley...................................................... 55
Kelly Kroft...................................................... 58
Patrick P. O'Carroll............................................. 73

JOINT OVERSIGHT HEARING ON
MANAGING COSTS AND MITIGATING DELAYS
IN THE BUILDING OF SOCIAL SECURITY'S
NEW NATIONAL COMPUTER CENTER

----------

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2011

U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Ways and Means,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
Room 1100, Longworth House Office Building, the Honorable Sam
Johnson [Chairman of the Subcommittee on Social Security,
Committee on Ways and Means] presiding.
[The advisory of the hearing follows:]

HEARING ADVISORY FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

Chairman Johnson and Chairman Denham

Announce a Joint Oversight Hearing on

Managing Costs and Mitigating Delays

in the Building of Social Security's

New National Computer Center

February 4, 2011

U.S. Congressman Sam Johnson (R-TX), Chairman of the House
Committee on Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security, and U.S.
Congressman Jeff Denham (R-CA), Chairman of the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Economic Development,
Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, announced today that the
Subcommittees will hold a joint oversight hearing on managing costs and
mitigating delays in the building of the Social Security
Administration's (SSA's) new National Computer Center (NCC). The
hearing will take place on Friday, February 11, 2011 in 1100 Longworth
House Office Building, beginning at 10:00 a.m.

In view of the limited time available to hear witnesses, oral
testimony at this hearing will be from invited witnesses only. However,
any individual or organization not scheduled for an oral appearance may
submit a written statement for consideration by the Committee and for
inclusion in the printed record of the hearing. A list of invited
witnesses will follow.

BACKGROUND:

Information technology (IT) is the foundation of the SSA's ability
to serve the public. Over the past decade, the SSA has migrated 95
percent of its workloads from a paper-based system to an electronic
processing system. This year the IT infrastructure supports the payment
of over $700 billion in benefits to 56 million people, completing an
average of over 75 million business transactions per day. Along with
maintaining earnings, benefit, and demographic information for most
Americans, the SSA's computers also house the electronic medical
records of millions who have filed disability claims. In addition, over
1 billion data files are exchanged annually between the SSA, Federal,
State, and local government agencies and businesses in order to
administer Social Security benefits and other programs.

Until January 2009, the SSA ran its nationwide computer operations
from its Baltimore-based 30-year old NCC. Since then, a second state-
of-the-art support center now runs approximately 35 percent of all
workloads and is able to recover all critical systems and restore
services within 4 days should a catastrophic failure of the NCC occur.

As time passes, the risk of a failure at the NCC is increasing due
to its aging electrical and mechanical infrastructure. Should an NCC
failure occur, lengthy service disruptions would severely affect
service to the American public and cost taxpayers millions of dollars.

In February 2009, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 provided $500 million for the SSA to replace the NCC, the single
largest building project funded under the Act. The General Services
Administration (GSA) and the SSA are managing the development and
construction of the new project, including the development of
requirements for the new center and site selection. The project remains
on budget but the projected date for complete commissioning of the new
facility has been delayed one year to January 2015.

In announcing the hearing, Chairman Sam Johnson (R-TX) stated,
``Information technology is the most important element in driving
Social Security to deliver 21st century customer service. Taxpayers are
investing in a $500 million upgrade and they will not tolerate cost
overruns or further delays in another failed stimulus project. Neither
will I.''

``We need to hold the General Services Administration accountable
for this half billion dollar project,'' Chairman Jeff Denham (R-CA)
stated. ``The agency needs to use the resources they were provided,
stay on budget and get this project back on schedule.''

FOCUS OF THE HEARING:

The hearing will focus on the progress made by the SSA and the GSA
to replace the NCC, including progress to date and reasons for project
delays. The Subcommittees will also assess how the SSA and the GSA plan
to avoid further delays and stay within budget. Finally, the
Subcommittees will examine the SSA's preparedness should an NCC failure
occur.

DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS:

Please Note: Any person(s) and/or organization(s) wishing to submit
for the hearing record must follow the appropriate link on the hearing
page of the Committee website and complete the informational forms.
From the Committee homepage, http://waysandmeans.house.gov, select
``Hearings.'' Select the hearing for which you would like to submit,
and click on the link entitled, ``Click here to provide a submission
for the record.'' Once you have followed the online instructions,
submit all requested information. ATTACH your submission as a Word
document, in compliance with the formatting requirements listed below,
by the close of business on Friday, March 4, 2011. Finally, please note
that due to the change in House mail policy, the U.S. Capitol Police
will refuse sealed-package deliveries to all House Office Buildings.
For questions, or if you encounter technical problems, please call
(202) 225-1721 or (202) 225-3625.

FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS:

The Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the
official hearing record. As always, submissions will be included in the
record according to the discretion of the Committee. The Committee will
not alter the content of your submission, but we reserve the right to
format it according to our guidelines. Any submission provided to the
Committee by a witness, any supplementary materials submitted for the
printed record, and any written comments in response to a request for
written comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any
submission or supplementary item not in compliance with these
guidelines will not be printed, but will be maintained in the Committee
files for review and use by the Committee.

1. All submissions and supplementary materials must be provided in
Word format and MUST NOT exceed a total of 10 pages, including
attachments. Witnesses and submitters are advised that the Committee
relies on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing
record.

2. Copies of whole documents submitted as exhibit material will not
be accepted for printing. Instead, exhibit material should be
referenced and quoted or paraphrased. All exhibit material not meeting
these specifications will be maintained in the Committee files for
review and use by the Committee.

3. All submissions must include a list of all clients, persons and/
or organizations on whose behalf the witness appears. A supplemental
sheet must accompany each submission listing the name, company,
address, telephone, and fax numbers of each witness.

The Committee seeks to make its facilities accessible to persons
with disabilities. If you are in need of special accommodations, please
call 202-225-1721 or 202-226-3411 TTD/TTY in advance of the event (four
business days notice is requested). Questions with regard to special
accommodation needs in general (including availability of Committee
materials in alternative formats) may be directed to the Committee as
noted above.

Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available on
the World Wide Web at http://www.waysandmeans.house.gov/.

Chairman JOHNSON. Good morning. Welcome to the first
hearing of the Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security
in the 112th Congress. I especially want to welcome the new
members of our subcommittee and our colleagues from the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, the
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and
Emergency Management, especially the new chairman, Jeff Denham,
who is sitting right here.
I also want to say how much I look forward to working with
our new subcommittee ranking member and my good friend, Xavier
Becerra. Thank you for being here.
As our nation ages, more Americans are depending on Social
Security benefits and the services they paid for through their
hard-earned wages. To deliver those benefits and services,
Social Security needs technology that it can count on.
Because I take technology needs of Social Security very
seriously, last year I toured the National Computer Center in
Baltimore, Social Security's technological nerve center. This
center allows the agency to process applications, pay benefits,
and store secured data on most U.S. workers. Two weeks ago I
also visited the second support center in North Carolina. Yet,
as we know, Social Security's 30-year-old National Computer
Center is past its prime, and that is why the Congress
authorized $500 million of taxpayer funds to build a new state-
of-the-art data center.
Just over a year ago, our subcommittees held a similar
joint hearing to check in on Social Security's and the General
Services Administration's progress. Back then we couldn't get
good answers--I hope we can today--as to why they decided to
locate the new center away from Social Security's headquarters
in Baltimore, which I found out just this morning that they
have over a couple hundred acres up there. So I don't know
still today why we couldn't have found a place there.
Now the project is already delayed a year, and that is
before a single shovel has hit the ground. All the while, the
more time passes, the higher the risk of the National Computer
Center failing.
If any of you have ever been up there, it was a firetrap.
And I think people fail to realize that if that place burned
down, we would lose all our onsite Social Security records.
That is why we built the second center down in North Carolina,
which still hasn't got the capability to come up immediately.
While progress has been made, it would still take four days
to restore critical operations, and that is not good enough,
and Social Security knows it. Americans want, need, and deserve
better, and today we will learn more about the plans to
improve.
Taxpayers are investing in a $500 million infrastructure
upgrade. The last thing they deserve is another failed stimulus
project due to further delays or future cost overruns. Social
Security owes it to the American taxpayer to make good on this
investment.
Today we need to find out whether GSA and Social Security
are doing everything they know how to do to make this project
right and on time, if not ahead of time. This project should
have started yesterday. And I want to thank all the witnesses
in front of me for joining us today and presenting their expert
testimony.
I would like to at this time ask Ranking Member Becerra,
would you care to make a statement, sir? You are recognized.
Mr. BECERRA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is a timely topic for our first hearing. I appreciate,
Mr. Chairman, that you are continuing the tradition of this
subcommittee of conducting bipartisan oversight of the Social
Security Administration (SSA) in the interests of the American
people.
The new data center that SSA is constructing in conjunction
with the GSA, the General Services Administration, is vitally
important to the continued operation of the Social Security
Administration. Today, 54 million people rely on SSA to keep
America's promises to all Americans and to deliver each month
the money they have earned and expect from their Social
Security system. They have contributed for years into the
system from their own paychecks.
In addition, 160 million workers rely on SSA to keep
accurate records of their earnings so, in the future, they will
receive the full benefits they too have earned. We know they
will receive the benefits they have earned because their
contributions over the years have built up a trust fund with
over $2.6 trillion in Treasury bonds, the safest investment
there is, sought after by investors throughout the world. Today
it is not an exaggeration to say that Social Security, and the
Social Security number, touch virtually every American in this
country.
I think we can all agree about the importance of this data
center, the replacement project itself, and of course,
everything it means to the American people. SSA's existing
primary data center is nearing the end of its useful life and
is increasingly vulnerable to catastrophic failure. Congress
acted wisely by responding swiftly to the needs for the
replacement center by providing full funding for construction
and a down payment on equipping the center in the Recovery Act.
This funding has allowed the project to get started
immediately, which reduces the danger that SSA will be without
full data center capability, and building the data center will
create jobs that strengthen our economic recovery. I understand
that there have been some delays in selecting a site for the
new center, and I am pleased that things are once again moving
ahead.
I hope our witnesses will give us more information on the
project's timeline and budget, as well as their plans for
preventing future delays. Keeping to project timelines is
critical to ensuring that SSA can continue to effectively serve
workers and beneficiaries today and in the future.
I look forward to hearing a progress report on the project
today. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Becerra.
Chairman Denham, welcome aboard. Congratulations. Would you
like to make a statement this morning? You are recognized.
Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. First let me start by thanking you,
Mr. Chairman, for holding this joint hearing on managing costs
and mitigating delays in the building of the Social Security
Administration's National Computer Center.
This is the second joint hearing of our subcommittees. We
have had to provide oversight of this important project. The
National Computer Center is critical to supporting all of SSA's
functions, including storing data and processing billions of
transactions annually.
The NCC must be reliable and operational 24/7, 365 days a
year. However, the current data center is aging and outdated,
lacking key redundancies and failing to meet current standards
for data centers.
The Recovery Act, which included the $500 million for the
replacement of the NCC in SSA has engaged GSA in locating,
designing, and building a new data center. Millions of
Americans and employers rely upon the proper function of NCC
every day.
Unfortunately, only last week did GSA select a site, more
than a year after the original date for site selection, and we
know that delays often produce cost overruns. We must ensure
this project is completed on time and within budget. We cannot
afford any further slip in the timeline, and we cannot afford
any added cost. The operations of this data center are too
critical for the American people, and this project is too
costly, to allow any more delays.
The GSA and SSA must work together to identify risks in the
process and either avoid or mitigate against them. I look
forward to hearing from the witnesses today on this important
issue. As well, I look forward to hearing what is going to
happen with the current facility and the 260 acres that it sits
on.
We will also be focused on liquidating any unused,
excessive, or surplus properties and those properties which are
not deemed excess, surplus, or underutilized yet. We want to
have a good track record moving forward.
Thank you.
Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you. I appreciate your comments.
Ranking Member Holmes Norton, would you care to make a
statement? You are recognized.
Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I am
pleased to sit with you, Mr. Chairman, and with our friends on
the Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee again to
examine the process for replacing the Social Security
Administration's current data center.
Today's hearing is a followup to our December 15, 2009
hearing on whether to locate the NSC on the current campus in
Woodlawn, Maryland or to ensure that a full and open
competitive process is used for this significant project. The
reason our subcommittee is here is that the Subcommittee on
Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency
Management has jurisdiction over the General Services
Administration now.
This project was able to begin at all because it received
$500 million in a direct appropriation to the Social Security
Administration, so urgent was the need. And indeed, this is the
largest single building funded under the Recovery Act.
GSA assists agencies in construction when they get direct
appropriations because these agencies are not in the business
of building or developing. And we are pleased that GSA is
indeed deeply involved in this project. It is very, very rare
that there is a direct appropriation to an agency rather than
to the GSA in order to do the work for the agency because of
its expertise.
After our last joint hearing and at our request, GSA
conducted a feasibility study of the Woodlawn campus that
examined the budget and schedule risks the project might face
staying on or leaving the Woodlawn campus. As a result of the
feasibility study, the GSA and SSA decided on an offsite
location--away from the campus, that is--for the NSC because
that option posed the least risk to both budget and schedule,
they believe.
The existing NCC, originally constructed in the 1970s, is
housed in an antiquated building that is very energy-
inefficient and otherwise in urgent need of replacement. A 2008
study commissioned by the SSA concluded that the NSC is an
aging facility with significant electrical and mechanical
challenges, including several single points of failure, that
could force the NSC to point down should any of these points
fail.
This near-emergency situation requires GSA and SSA to stay
on schedule. Both SSA and its inspector general believe that
the present structure is inadequate to meet the service needs
of a 21st century computer facility, and that it poses a
significant risk to operations. In the present structure, the
security of 460 million records of earnings and benefits data
for almost 57 million beneficiaries and the continuity of
operations are both at significant risk.
After the decision was made to locate the NSC offsite, GSA
narrowed the available sites to two locations, a new site in
Woodlawn, Maryland and a site in Urbana, Maryland. Last week
SSA and GSA notified Congress of their decision to locate the
NSC at the Urbana, Maryland site 33 miles from SSA
headquarters.
The SSA IG believes that the site selected for NSC is
acceptable because of its existing infrastructure and proximity
to highways, although he apparently, in his latest report, has
some compunctions.
Today we will look closely at the site selected and will
examine whether the critical project can stay on schedule and
how GSA and SSA will mitigate risk. Among the most obvious
questions is why GSA and SSA selected this site out of 150
sites that were initially considered, and why the agencies felt
that this is the best side for the NSC.
I look forward to learning more about this project from
today's witnesses, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you.
Before we move on to our testimony, I want to remind our
witnesses to limit their oral testimony to five minutes. And
without objection, all written testimony will be made part of
the permanent record.
We have one panel today. Our witnesses are seated at the
table: the Honorable Patrick O'Carroll, Inspector General of
Social Security Administration--he made me coffee down in
Carolina; David Foley, Deputy Commissioner of the Public
Buildings Service, U.S. General Services Administration; and
Kelly Croft, Deputy Commissioner, Systems, Social Security
Administration. Thank you for being here today, all three of
you, and we appreciate your testimony.
Mr. O'Carroll, you may proceed for five minutes.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PATRICK P. O'CARROLL, JR., INSPECTOR
GENERAL, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Mr. O'CARROLL. Good morning, Chairman Johnson, Chairman
Denham, Congresswoman Holmes Norton, Congressman Becerra, and
members of both subcommittees. Thank you for the invitation to
testify today. I would like to welcome the new members of the
112th Congress and the new members of both subcommittees.
The replacement of SSA's National Computer Center, or NCC,
is the agency's most critical IT investment over the next five
years. Several factors make building a new data center
imperative for SSA. Those factors are: increasing agency
workloads, expanding communication and data services, and
structural and electrical capacity issues at the current NCC.
The NCC is more than 30 years old and might soon be unable
to support SSA's operations, and as time passes, the risk of a
lengthy outage at the aging data center increases. An extended
outage at the NCC could have devastating consequences affecting
the lives of Americans who depend on Social Security.
Given the infrastructure concerns of the NCC, SSA has three
main challenges to plan for over the next five years. Those
challenges are: delivering the agency's new National Support
Center, or NSC, on time; maintaining the current NCC with
repairs and improvements; and further developing reliable
backup options if an extended NCC outage occurs.
SSA and GSA recently announced it would locate the agency's
new NSC in Urbana, Maryland. GSA said it anticipates completing
construction of the NSC by September 2014, and SSA expects to
complete the IT migration of the facility by July 2016.
For the project to be completed on time, GSA and SSA need
to plan for contingencies that can arise during the
construction and IT migration. Solutions to such contingencies
should be determined in advance before the project stalls.
These possible project delays might include: excavation
challenges, problems with utility installations, or weather-
related issues. SSA and GSA must also ensure that builders meet
construction due dates.
SSA's timeline for project completion means relying on the
current NCC for at least another five years. Therefore, SSA
must do all it can to mitigate the risk of an extended NCC
outage.
Since 2009, SSA has taken many steps to address the
structural and technical issues at the NCC. Those actions
include: replacing electrical feeder cables and electrical
panel breakers; replacing the NCC roof; monitoring the
building's foundation, plumbing, and HVAC system; and
performing annual building inspections with technical experts.
SSA performs proper maintenance of the NCC. For the facility to
be maintained through 2016, the same level of management and
oversight should continue until the new NSC is built and
operational.
If the NCC sustains an outage before the new data center is
completed, the agency would then rely on the Second Support
Center, or SSC, until data and applications are recovered. The
SSC is a co-processing center, but SSA has purchased equipment
and is performing tests so the SSC will be able to operate as a
fully functional backup data center within the next two years.
Recent disaster recovery tests at the SSC show that SSA can
recover critical operations in a little less than five days.
Over the next year, the agency has said it plans to reduce that
five-day period to about one day.
SSA has also indicated it is exploring several options if
an extended outage occurs at the NCC, including using
generators or entering into a contract with alternate hot-site
vendor.
In conclusion, the sustainability and expansion of SSA's IT
systems are critical to the agency's ability to meet its goals
and fulfill its mission. That mission affects nearly all
Americans every day. GSA and SSA need to present a clear
strategic vision on how they will deliver the new data center
on time and how to mitigate the risks of relying on the aging
NCC.
With long-term planning and proactive management, we should
be able to avoid a repeat of the current situation at the NCC.
My office will continue to work with you and SSA to make sure
that this vitally important project is completed timely and
efficiently.
Thank you again for asking me to testify today, and I will
be happy to answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. O'Carroll follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872A.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872A.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872A.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872A.004

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872A.005

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872A.006

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872A.007

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, sir. I appreciate it.
You indicated that--I know I am not supposed to ask
questions yet, but I am going to.
[Laughter.]
Chairman JOHNSON. You indicated that their recovery time is
five days. And when I was down there, Mr. Croft, you indicated
to me you thought they could do it in two.
Mr. CROFT. Sir, we are at four days now, and we are working
towards one.
Chairman JOHNSON. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. O'CARROLL. And when we did our report on this, sir, we
observed the testing, which is what we are reporting. That was
when they were at four-plus days, which is why we rounded it to
five, but from talking to the agency, they have brought that
five down to four. But at the time, it was still almost five
days.
Chairman JOHNSON. Okay. Four legislative days is five.
Mr. Foley, you are recognized for five minutes.

STATEMENT OF DAVID FOLEY, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF THE PUBLIC
BUILDINGS SERVICE, U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

Mr. FOLEY. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Johnson,
Chairman Denham, Ranking Members Becerra and Norton, and
Members of the Subcommittees. I am pleased to have the
opportunity today to discuss the considerable progress GSA has
made in delivery of the new SSA National Support Center.
I am glad to report the project is on budget, and GSA and
SSA have recently reached two significant project milestones in
the site selection and procurement for the data center. After
an extensive due diligence process, we recently announced the
site selection of the new Support Center at Urbana in Frederick
County, Maryland. Last month GSA also issued the first phase of
our design/build construction solicitation.
GSA and SSA are working closely together to ensure we
achieved our new project milestones while remaining on budget
and minimizing risks to deliver an efficient, modern, and
secure data center to support SSA in meeting their mission
goals and providing the best value to the taxpayers.
GSA diligently sought locations that would meet SSA's
unique requirements for a data center. We conducted an
extensive evaluation of potential sites within a 40-mile radius
of Woodlawn, Maryland. We reviewed government-owned properties,
contacted local communities, and requested expressions of
interest through Federal Business Opportunities online.
These efforts resulted in over 150 potential sites that
were evaluated against specific criteria, including: site
characteristics, location and accessibility, energy and
utilities, security and operations, environmental impacts,
local planning and development, land and site development
costs, and schedule risks.
In 2009, at these committees' request, GSA conducted a
study to examine the possibility of locating the new data
center at the current campus. In April of the following year,
we delivered this study which showed that building on the SSA
campus would present significant concerns and high risk,
including the possible disruption of mission-critical
operations.
Although GSA and SSA remain committed to the presence of
SSA at the Woodlawn campus for current mission needs and future
expansions, the study showed that the data center would be
better served at a new site where risk and cost would be
minimized, and the data center could be completed more quickly.
Upon the completion of this study and with the support of
these committees, GSA continued to press forward with our
review of potential sites. Our deliberative process led to a
short list of two sites: Johnnycake Road in Baltimore County
and Urbana in Frederick County.
Given the importance of this project and the potential
impacts of a site selection decision, GSA initiated an
environmental assessment last August that we completed in
January where the GSA solicited public comment and assessed all
environmental impacts and advantages and disadvantages for each
site.
After a full and fair analysis and in coordination with
SSA, GSA selected Urbana as the site for the new data center.
This site will most effectively meet SSA's needs and best serve
the interests of the taxpayers.
Urbana not only meets SSA's requirements but offers a
variety of benefits, including its physical site
characteristics, available infrastructure, and favorable
environmental conditions. Additionally, Urbana is most
favorable in minimizing risks, cost, and schedule impacts.
Now that we have announced the site, we are initiating the
acquisition of the property, which we anticipate to be
completed this June. We are also moving forward with the next
phase of this project with the procurement for the design and
construction of the facility.
GSA and SSA worked collaboratively, consulting with leading
data center experts to develop a program of requirements for a
design/build solicitation. This POR was completed last August.
The project will meet all of SSA's requirements and all of the
appropriate security and IT redundancy standards for a data
center of this type, as well as achieve a minimum of LEED Gold
certification and the goals of the executive orders for
sustainability and energy.
The National Support Center project is based on an
integrated design/build delivery method that includes a design
firm and a constructor contractor. GSA is using a two-phase
procurement process that evaluates the contractor's
qualifications first to establish a short list of most highly
qualified bidders, and then considers technical proposals and
price in the second phase to achieve the overall best value for
the government. This process began last month when GSA issued a
request for qualifications, inviting contractors into the
bidding process.
We look forward to the next major milestones on this
project. Phase 2 of the design/build solicitation is scheduled
for April, site acquisition is scheduled for June, and award of
the design/build contract is on track for next January, with
substantial completion in September of 2014.
GSA appreciates the opportunity to come here today to
highlight the considerable progress we have achieved on this
project. We look forward to continuing to work with you on the
successful delivery of this data center.
Chairman Johnson, Chairman Denham, Ranking Members Becerra
and Norton, and Members of the Subcommittees, this concludes my
statement, and I will be pleased to answer any questions you
may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Foley follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872A.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872A.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872A.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872A.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872A.012

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, sir. We appreciate your
comments.
Mr. Croft, thank you for being here, and you are
recognized. And I appreciate your help down south.
Mr. CROFT. Thank you.
Chairman JOHNSON. Pleasure.

STATEMENT OF KELLY CROFT, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR SYSTEMS,
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Mr. CROFT. Chairman, Ranking Members, and Members of the
Subcommittees, thank you for the opportunity to share
information about our data center replacement project. My name
is Kelly Croft, and I am the Deputy Commissioner for Systems at
Social Security Administration (SSA). I have worked at the
agency for 28 years and have been in my current job since
January of 2010. I am responsible for safeguarding the
information assets of Social Security, and also delivering
information technology (IT) services across the agency.
At Social Security, our reliance on technology has
dramatically evolved since I joined the agency as a front-line
public service worker in the 1980s. In those days, I took
retirement and disability claims on paper forms and assembled
cases in thick paper folders.
Today, the vast majority of our work is electronic, and we
are extraordinarily more efficient because of it. Our claims
process is virtually paperless. We have a number of highly
regarded Internet applications for public use, and it is not
unusual for us to process over 150 million computer
transactions in a single day.
To be blunt, if our computer systems are down, then we are
pretty much out of business. We can still talk to people in
person and on the telephone, and we do have contingency
arrangements to ensure established payments go out. But we
cannot do things like compute and pay new claims, change direct
deposit accounts, issue Social Security cards, or even answer
specific questions about beneficiary records. Pretty much all
we do relies on high availability computer systems.
Even an hour of computer outage for us is a very big deal,
and at the massive scale we operate on, with over 50 million
seniors and disabled people to serve, an extended outage of
multiple days would have national implications.
The hubs for our entire IT infrastructure are our two data
centers, one in Maryland and one in North Carolina. Data
centers are special buildings that require significantly more
security and mechanical features than normal office space. For
example, data centers should have sophisticated electrical
systems and generators. They should also have advanced fire
suppression systems. In addition, the equipment in data centers
produce large quantities of heat, so they need extremely robust
air conditioning.
Our North Carolina center opened in 2009, and it is a
modern, well-designed facility. On the other hand, our Maryland
center is 30 years old, and the building is fraying. I want to
emphasize that the computers inside our Maryland center are
modern; but if the building fails because of a plumbing,
heating, ventilating, and air conditioning, or electrical
breakdown, it won't matter how capable the computers are. They
simply won't work.
Both of our centers function 24/7 and process a portion of
our daily computing workload. Both also have the reserve
capacity to run the critical systems of the agency in the event
of a long-term outage at the sister facility. If we lost our
Maryland data center, it would currently take us four days to
recover critical operations in North Carolina. We are working
to lower our recovery time to just one day.
As bad as any days of national outage would be, we would
also be left with just one remaining data center and no viable
backup for that. In light of the wake-up call that came with 9/
11 and for something as important to the country as the
delivery of Social Security services, it is crucial that we
always have a viable backup position.
We were relieved when Congress appropriated $500 million in
2009 to replace our aging Maryland facility with a state-of-
the-art data center, a facility that we expect will faithfully
serve the American public for decades, just like our old
building has.
We are relying on the expertise of our General Services
Administration (GSA) colleagues to manage the process for
acquiring land and building our replacement data center. We
provided our requirements to GSA, and I assure you we seek only
a safe, energy-efficient, and modern data center that will be
sized to handle current and projected computing workloads for
the agency.
As a final note, we all worry about the length of time a
large government building project like this takes. The current
schedule will not provide me keys to the new center until
January of 2015, and then it will take my staff up to 18 months
to safely move all of our extensive operation out of the old
building and into the new.
In Social Security, we will do everything we can to ensure
our old building continues to function while we wait. Although
we cannot do large-scale building improvements without
unacceptable impact to our operations, we will continue to
undertake smart, cost-effective maintenance work.
We strongly appreciate the support we have received from
the Congress. I look forward to your questions, and will do my
best to answer them. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Croft follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872A.014

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872A.015

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872A.016

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872A.017

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872A.018

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872A.019

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872A.020

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872A.021

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872A.022

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872A.023

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872A.024

Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, sir. I appreciate your
testimony. I want to thank you all for your testimony. We
appreciate you being here today.
To make sure everyone has a chance to ask questions, I am
going to limit my time for questions to five minutes, and ask
Chairman Denham and the ranking members to limit their time to
five minutes.
Mr. Foley, Social Security is supposed to get the keys to
the new center in January 2015, and that is a year later than
originally planned. And the way you talk, it sounds like to me
you are about to delay it another year. Can you talk to that
question?
Mr. FOLEY. We are on schedule to turn the keys over to
them. As I mentioned, construction would be complete in
September of 2014. There is some commissioning of the major
building systems, as Mr. Croft, my colleague, testified.
The data center is a complicated operation and complicated
building system, so we have to do all the testing to make sure
that it will work and support their operations. But we don't
anticipate any further delays as we move forward on the
project.
Chairman JOHNSON. Well, why can't you move it faster? I
mean, you know where the site is. Why are you waiting until
June to purchase it?
Mr. FOLEY. We are actually in the acquisition for the site
phase. We are moving forward on the procurement for the
construction. So we are moving forward on all of those. It will
take us, we think, that long to actually complete the
acquisition.
I should say, though, that GSA is committed to looking for
every opportunity to accelerate the project wherever possible.
We are looking at multiple avenues to do that, whether it is
exploring incentive clauses, potentially, in the construction
contract.
Once we have a contractor on board, we can clearly work
with them to look at phasing and sequencing, delivery of long
lead items to see where we can actually cut time out of the
construction schedule, although I should note that as you look
at reducing time frames, that also increases, potentially,
project risk. So we have got to make sure we do our due
diligence and look for those tradeoffs.
But we do recognize the urgency of this facility, and are
committed to looking for every way we can to accelerate.
Chairman JOHNSON. Okay. Well, I just wonder why you are
waiting until July to confirm the site and, you know, get it
bought. Why is it taking you that long?
Mr. FOLEY. Well, we are actually in the acquisition phase
right now, so we are working to acquire----
Chairman JOHNSON. You just think it would take that long to
get it done?
Mr. FOLEY. Well, there are a couple of things that have to
happen with the site. We actually have to do some of the
subdivision of the site. They have to bring some of the
infrastructure in before we can actually acquire the site and
actually transfer the deed to the Federal Government. We will
have a purchase agreement in place prior to that.
Chairman JOHNSON. You got a fixed price?
Mr. FOLEY. We are in negotiations now.
Chairman JOHNSON. Okay. Mr. O'Carroll and Mr. Croft, do you
see how we can make up for lost time any other way?
Mr. O'CARROLL. Well, Chairman, as you are well aware, we
are very concerned with the parallel issues that are coming up
with the aging NCC, and we are encouraging both SSA and GSA to
look for any opportunity they can to trim down on the time it
takes to do this.
But at the same time, we don't want any corner-cutting or
any degradation in terms of the services or the quality of the
work. So I can assure you we have a contractor who is going to
be taking a look and making sure that they are staying on
schedule, and any opportunity to cut that time will be
encouraged.
Chairman JOHNSON. So we have a contractor already?
Mr. O'CARROLL. We have a contractor. It is called Strategic
e-Business Solutions, that works for us. One of our concerns
was at the beginning, when we began our oversight, we didn't--
we have IT expertise on our audit staff, but we don't have
experience with state-of-the-art IT, or data facility
construction.
So we went to Strategic e-Business, and they have a
subcontractor called Fortress International that they are
using, both of which have done a lot of work with computer
centers and redundant computer centers. We are going to have
them taking a look.
We don't know whether we are going to put it out to them or
to another contractor. But we will have a three-stage process
taking a look at the next several years out.
Chairman JOHNSON. Do we know when construction will begin?
Mr. FOLEY. We are looking at award of the design/build
contract next January. Depending on the design period, one of
the advantages of design/build is it actually allows us to
streamline the process, and they can begin some of the site
work and construction prior to the final design.
But until we actually have some of the preliminary design
and know what it looks like, we don't have an exact date on
when we will begin moving dirt on the site.
Chairman JOHNSON. Is there any reason why we can't
duplicate the site down in Carolina?
Mr. FOLEY. I am not familiar with all of the specific
characteristics, but I think Mr. Croft can talk to some of the
differences.
Mr. CROFT. Yes. First, sir, to your overall question about
speeding it up and making sure it goes well, I will say we are
committed to keeping up with David and his team. I think it is
a really good team. They have some very good people on it, as
do we. And we are going to keep a lot of oversight on this.
But I would also say we want to be careful we don't
bottleneck it by continuing to second-guess all the decisions
that the experts have made as they have been working through
this process.
Regarding whether we can duplicate North Carolina, I
believe we will end up looking something like what you saw in
North Carolina. And, by the way, we very much appreciated your
time to come down and look at the facility. I think the
computer space will be about the same size.
I think this building will have some more robust
infrastructure to it. You may remember going down in those
industrial rooms in the basement of the building in North
Carolina. I think the new one will have more size and heft in
the industrial part. But ultimately, I think it will look a lot
like what you saw in North Carolina.
But we are really going to rely on the expert designers and
architects. Also, we are looking for a lot more energy
efficiency in this building, even more so than what you saw in
North Carolina.
Chairman JOHNSON. Well, do they have all the equipment to
fit the building out when we get it done?
Mr. CROFT. Well, no. We will have to go through a very long
process to actually move all that equipment that you saw in
Baltimore into----
Chairman JOHNSON. You are not going to use that old stuff,
are you?
Mr. CROFT. I am going to use some of it. Right. I am not
going to use stuff that is obsolete. But some of it is very
current and very modern, and it would cost a lot of money just
to set aside equipment that still runs well.
Chairman JOHNSON. Well, it is going to cost to move it,
too. Thank you for your comments.
You are recognized, Mr. Chairman Denham.
Mr. DENHAM. Thank you.
Mr. O'Carroll, the uninterrupted power supply system that
supports the power of the current facility is over 30 years
old. Many of the parts are no longer manufactured, and the
service contract expires in 2012, well before the new data
center will be completed.
You described the importance of the UPS system in the SSA
plans to do--what are you going to do after 2012?
Mr. O'CARROLL. Chairman, on the technical part of it, I am
going to defer to Mr. Croft.
But on the oversight part of it, which is what we have been
doing, Lockheed Martin did a study on the NCC. They identified
the uninterrupted power supply as an issue. There is a single
source of power going to the NCC at the moment, which is
another risk.
And what we are concerned with is the aging of the
uninterrupted power supply that they have. I am told that SSA
has engaged with a contractor that is going to be able to
extend the life of the uninterrupted power supply that they
have.
And then also, we are monitoring SSA's progress in getting
an alternate source of power, which we highly support.
And I will let Mr. Croft give you more of the technical
details on the uninterrupted power supply.
Mr. CROFT. Yes, Mr. Chairman, just a general comment. We
have done an awful lot of things to the building that have
extended the capacity, if you will, of electrical distribution
in particular, which was the main concern with that 2012 date
that you referenced in your question. We have taken action to
mitigate that. So that is not one of our major concerns at the
moment.
But our major concerns are things like uninterruptible
power supply, the plumbing in the building, the HVAC in the
building, the fire suppression. These are original to the
building, and we will do what we can to maintain them, but the
longer we go, the higher risk there is that they will fail.
Mr. DENHAM. And if the system does fail, how long would the
North Carolina system be able to fully support the entire
process?
Mr. CROFT. It will be able to support us indefinitely. The
issue then, Mr. Chairman, would be that we would be left
without a backup to that. So we would have to be scrambling to
come up with a viable backup to North Carolina at that point.
But the center in North Carolina is big enough now--has
enough capacity--to be able to run the critical systems of the
agency. And with a little bit more time, we would even be able
to bring back our non-critical systems in the agency. So it is
our ultimate risk mitigation.
Mr. DENHAM. Thank you.
And Mr. Foley, I thought you said in your testimony that
this project would be on budget and on time?
Mr. FOLEY. We will meet our milestones from this point
forward. Obviously, there have been some delays, and we are
looking to make up the time. But as far as budget, yes. We are
still on budget.
Mr. DENHAM. And time, even after the one-year delay? So you
don't plan on making up the one-year delay, but you do plan on
being on time this point forward?
Mr. FOLEY. Yes. As far as physical construction of the
factory, we are about 11 months behind our original schedule.
But we believe we can make that, and we are looking for every
opportunity to accelerate, if possible.
Mr. DENHAM. So final completion of construction?
Mr. FOLEY. September of 2014.
Mr. DENHAM. And up and running completely, 100 percent
transition?
Mr. CROFT. We would take keys to the building--to use my
term--in January of 2015 because, as David said, there would
need to be testing of the building systems to make sure that
they were ready to accept the equipment.
And then we will transition in phases. We have said it will
take us up to 18 months to transition the entire facility over.
We will be running out of both facilities for some period of
time. We will do everything we can to beat that 18-month
period, and as we get closer, we will do a lot more precise
planning and see how well we can do to beat 18 months.
Mr. DENHAM. And at what point was this project started, or
the need identified?
Mr. CROFT. I believe it tracks back to a study that would
have come out in early 2008.
Mr. DENHAM. So nearly a decade, by the time it was
identified and the new system will be up and running.
Just a couple quick followup questions to Mr. Foley. In
your site selection, any other existing properties that you
identified that are existing public properties today?
Mr. FOLEY. We did screen for available public properties.
The Woodlawn campus, obviously, was the most logical choice,
and we did study that. But as I mentioned in my testimony,
because of the additional risk due to schedule, cost, and
disruption of critical services for SSA, we decided that a new
site would be more appropriate and would allow us to deliver
the facility more quickly.
Mr. DENHAM. No other public properties anywhere in the
area?
Mr. FOLEY. We did screen through them. I don't know the
specific sites that we looked at.
Mr. DENHAM. I would like to see a list of the specific
sites and how you went about that process.
Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you.
Mr. Becerra, you are recognized for five minutes.
Mr. BECERRA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you to the three of you for your testimony and
constant vigilance on this issue. I want to say that we
appreciate that you have been very forthcoming in the constant
efforts that we have engaged in within this committee to try to
work hand in hand with you to move forward with this project.
I think everyone understands how important it is to get it
done right. We can't have any kind of failure, the way we saw
with the IRS with its computer system, because in your case,
people on a monthly basis depend on you being able to operate.
So we thank you for the work you have been doing.
I also want to mention that I know that we worked hand in
hand with you in the whole process of site selection. We were
somewhat concerned that you go forward with the best site, and
so I know that especially in 2009, we were constantly asking,
are you sure you are going to do it the right way? Are you sure
you are going to have good sites to select from?
So I want to thank you for having gone through the
additional analysis that you undertook. And I suspect we
probably feel more confident today that the site that was
selected was the best site that we could go with. Is that the
case? Yes?
[A chorus of ayes.]
Mr. BECERRA. Good. Do you have the funding that you need to
continue to move forward? Yes? So if we could just say that for
the record. Mr. Foley? Mr. Croft?
Mr. FOLEY. Yes. For the construction phase, we do.
Mr. CROFT. Yes, sir. We do.
Mr. BECERRA. Are you still on budget? I think I heard you,
Mr. Foley, say that you are still on budget?
Mr. FOLEY. We are.
Mr. BECERRA. So because we took a while on that site
selection, that moved us back a ways, about a year, in terms of
when you would complete the project. But in terms of the
budget, you feel like we are still on budget?
Mr. FOLEY. Yes.
Mr. BECERRA. Good. And the consequences: If you didn't have
your money, what would happen if you didn't have the money to
move forward?
Mr. FOLEY. I mean, obviously, if we didn't have the money
to move forward and award construction, the project would grind
to a halt. I think as far as the consequences on operations, I
would leave that to Mr. Croft to discuss.
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Croft.
Mr. CROFT. Well, sir, if the project came to a halt, the
risk would just continue to grow of a significant failure with
the current building. It is that simple. It is a risk-based
decision. It gets worse and worse the longer we go.
Mr. BECERRA. And I know the initial estimates of the first
data center were that by 2013, you would max out on capacity.
And I know you have done some things to gain some additional
capacity there, and we now have the second site, which helps
us.
But even then, you need to have that redundancy so you can
move forward. So if you have collapse at one site, while you
could continue after, as you say, four days to get back up and
running, you are still not running the way, operationally, we
would want to have a center that controls so much data would
have to.
Mr. CROFT. Yes. In the four-day time frame, we use the term
``critical systems.'' And these are the core systems that, in
your districts, your field office staffs use to process the
claims and do all the things that the public is really looking
for.
We have other activities and systems that are important to
us but would not be in that four-day critical period of
recovery. For example, we would bring up some of our management
information systems and things like that.
But yes, we do have the capacity in the second site now to
be able to recover all of that.
Mr. BECERRA. Not only would you go down, I suspect pretty
much every one of our district offices would go down as well
because I doubt that there are many offices that don't handle,
as a significant part of their work, these Social Security
claims, disability and otherwise.
Mr. CROFT. Right. They could still interact with the
public. If the outage was going to be for a full four days,
they could take claims, conceivably, on paper the way we used
to in the olden days. But then they would have to transcribe it
back----
Mr. BECERRA. Don't take us back to those olden days,
please.
Mr. CROFT. Right. I mean, they could. We wouldn't be shut
down. They would still talk to the public. They just wouldn't
be able to actually transact anything.
Mr. BECERRA. Let me ask one last question, and I think, Mr.
Foley, you probably can answer this best. Given the extensive
work that was done in selecting the site, do you anticipate any
protests at this stage on the selection itself?
Mr. FOLEY. I believe we learned last night that there has
been a GAO protest filed. I think the important part for us to
focus on is that the site selection is not on the critical path
at this point for the procurement. We are moving forward with a
two-phase source selection, and so the first phase is all about
finding qualified contractors who can design and build this
facility. So we can narrow that down to the most qualified
candidates.
So we do anticipate--and I believe there has been a protest
filed. Based on the process that we used, we are confident we
will prevail on that protest and that it won't impact the
schedule at this point.
Mr. BECERRA. Do you mind, please, keeping this committee
informed about the progress on that protest and any protests
that may come along the pike?
Mr. FOLEY. Absolutely.
Mr. BECERRA. Thank you very much.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, sir.
Ms. Holmes Norton, would you care to comment?
Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Last thing we want is more delay on this project. But
remembering that what concerned both subcommittees before was
site selection, I am concerned with the report that we got just
yesterday from the inspector general and with reconciling what
is in that report with the testimony of Social Security;
specifically, the change in the criteria used in site
selection, which you, Mr. O'Carroll, indicate is somewhat
problematic.
For example, the three finalists, three final sites, have
one, two, and even three secondary criteria, while several of
the unsolicited sites had only one documented secondary
criteria conflict. Now, you changed, apparently--the team
changed some mandatory to secondary.
Now, to keep us from talking jargon, Mr. O'Carroll, Mr.
Croft, explain what secondary and mandatory are, and why the
team in the process of selection would change from one category
to another, or recategorize in the way you did.
Mr. O'CARROLL. Congresswoman, I will take the first crack
at it before I turn it over to Mr. Croft.
There are a couple issues, and you said that probably the
biggest one is documentation. And our concern, as we have been
monitoring this project throughout, is with a couple things.
One, we don't sit at the same table with GSA and SSA as
these decisions are being made. And that is probably good for
the sake of independence. We are not part of the process. We
are just evaluating it.
One of the biggest concerns with regard to evaluating it is
the timely receipt of the information. And then also, the
documentation that we get. And that is where a couple of our
issues have come up--the documentation on the decision-making.
Many times the documentation has been lacking.
And another issue is that we try to be ahead of the curve.
One of the biggest complaints about inspectors general is what
they call the ``gotcha'' mentality, that we wait until things
go wrong and then we point it out. What we are trying to do
here is point out issues before they go wrong.
We have had a couple instances where by the time we got the
information, a decision has already been made. And that is what
happened with this report--the decisions had been made. The
site had been selected. And subsequent to the decision, we
issued our report where we flagged the issue. A year ago there
were 14 different sites that were being evaluated, and they
were being discarded based on different secondary criteria and
primary criteria that were being considered. They kept
narrowing it down. And then it got down to the three sites.
And what our concern was, was there any one of the ones
that were discarded beforehand that would have been better than
the three that were selected? And that is what the substance of
our report was.
Ms. NORTON. Well, it raises a question, and maybe Mr. Croft
and Mr. Foley can make us understand it. It raises some
question when you change the criteria. You know, you change the
criteria in the middle of the game and you can get any site you
want.
So changing criteria is very bothersome. And I would like
to know why the criteria for site selection would change in the
midst of site selection. I mean, that is pure and simple what I
am interested in.
Mr. FOLEY. I will answer first because I think a lot of the
site selection process falls under GSA.
Ms. NORTON. Yes.
Mr. FOLEY. As far as changing the primary and secondary
criteria for the site selection, it was done very early on the
process----
Ms. NORTON. So give us examples of primary and of
secondary.
Mr. FOLEY. Primary are sort of the critical go/no-go. So
does the site have the appropriate infrastructure? Can it
provide the utilities to the site? All of those sorts of
things. Secondary criteria are things like access to the site
and other criteria that are nice to have but not critical to
the operation of the factory.
And so as we were beginning the process and before we began
evaluating any of the offers, we recognized that some of the
criteria that we had as primary criteria were narrowing the
number of available sites. We wanted to maximize competition,
and we looked for other ways to mitigate some of the risks that
were raised by some of these primary criteria.
So before we did any evaluation of any of the sites, we did
change one of the criteria to a secondary. But that was really
done so we that could maximize the number of available sites
and the competition and find the most appropriate site with the
least amount of risk so we could deliver it as quickly as
possible for SSA.
Ms. NORTON. Generally, when GSA builds--am I out of time?
Chairman JOHNSON. You can go ahead and ask one more.
Ms. NORTON. I will just ask this remaining question, then,
and I thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman.
Generally, of course, when GSA puts out an RFP, one of the
criteria is proximity to mass transportation. Is there any
proximity to mass transportation? Do these workers have
proximity to mass transportation where they are now located?
How will they get to the site?
Mr. FOLEY. I would defer to Mr. Croft on the current mass
transportation. We did evaluate all of the sites. The data
center is a little bit of a unique facility in that the density
and utilization and number of employees is less than, say, a
typical office building that GSA----
Ms. NORTON. How many employees?
Mr. CROFT. In the new facility, my staff would be about 79,
and then there would be additional facility staff, guards,
things like that. And remember, these are three shift, 24/7
operations.
Chairman JOHNSON. Tell you what, the gentlelady's time is
expired. Can you submit that answer in writing?
Mr. FOLEY. Certainly.
Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The projected number of employees for rotating shifts at
the national Support Center (NSC) to provide coverage 24 hours
a day, 7 days a week, and 365 days a year is 208. Of these, 97
will be Federal employees and 111 will be contractors.
Chairman JOHNSON. Mr. Brady, you are recognized.
Mr. BRADY. Thank you, Chairman Johnson, Chairman Denham.
Thank you for hosting this hearing. Nice to see you again, Mr.
O'Carroll. Appreciate it. Look forward to working with you
again this session. Mr. Foley, Mr. Croft, thanks for being
here.
You know, our seniors just depend upon getting their checks
on time and accurately, plus Social Security and the data you
have play a critical role with other federal, state, and local
agencies. So this is a critical issue.
When natural disasters in California collapsed roads and
bridges, when the Minneapolis bridge, an I-35 construction
flaw, collapsed, the Federal Government worked with remarkable
speed, knowing that truly they didn't have an option and they
needed to move quickly.
I am not saying we have a natural disaster on our hands.
But obviously, we are on borrowed time with the aging NCC
system as it is today. Mr. Foley and Mr. Croft, why can't we
apply those principles to getting this project back at least to
its original timetable in moving forward just to ensure that we
have bought ourselves again more time to prevent anything from
happening that really would have pretty critical impacts? Mr.
Foley?
Mr. FOLEY. Certainly. As I said, we are committed to
looking for every avenue to accelerate, and we are exploring
all those. I think we have an aggressive schedule for the
delivery of the data center on the construction side. And, you
know, as with any project, there are clearly components of risk
as we move forward through the procurement phase and through
the construction phase.
But we are taking every step we can to mitigate those. So
on the procurement side, we have detailed criteria, and we have
a well-established process for the procurement, and we are
confident that we can move through that quickly without any
delays.
On the construction side, the two components, typically,
where you see opportunities for delay are when you have an
issue with the contractor. And so by going for the two-phase
source selection where we get only the most qualified
contractors, we think we are mitigating that risk as we move
forward. The second phase or the second place where you often
see delay is in changes in requirements, and we have worked
extremely closely with Social Security to ensure that we have a
well-developed program of requirements.
And so I think we are--we don't anticipate any further
delays. And as I said, we are looking at all avenues we can to
accelerate on the construction side, and I think on the
migration side as well.
Mr. BRADY. On the construction side, of the elements that
go into, both acquiring the site, designing and building,
construction, as you said--and obviously, Mr. Croft, you have
got the installation as well--what are the greatest risk
factors for further delay in your experience with other
projects? Where do we see the most risk in something slowing us
down further?
Mr. FOLEY. I mean, I think I mentioned them previously. The
two places where we see risk are during the procurement, where
you have a risk, potentially, for a protest among the
unsuccessful bidders----
Mr. BRADY. And how much could that delay it?
Mr. FOLEY. I think we are hopeful that we can move through
that process fairly quickly. You know, it could be a matter of
months to just a matter of weeks. We know we have got a good
process in place, so we hope to keep that to a minimum and we
hope we wouldn't have any protest on the award.
On the construction side, the biggest risk is typically
where you have changes of requirements. So as you get through
the design and into construction----
Mr. BRADY. And does that hinge, really, on the coordination
between Social Security and GSA?
Mr. FOLEY. Absolutely. And that is where our close working
relationship has proved beneficial. We have a well-detailed
program of requirements, and we are working in close
coordination to make sure that we don't have any delays as we
move through the construction side.
Mr. CROFT. Mr. Brady, I echo what David said. We have
invested massive amounts of time working with the GSA team to
make sure that that program is complete and will not be an
impediment to this project.
So we are very, very much in the middle of this, and we
will commit to keeping up with our colleagues from GSA.
Mr. BRADY. Thank you. What is the degree of certainty that
we will get this building to Social Security in January 2015?
And what is the degree of certainty we will finish the IT and
systems 18 months later?
Mr. Foley, is it 100 percent? Ninety percent? Eighty
percent? Seventy percent? Your experience with other projects,
what should we expect?
Mr. FOLEY. Based on my experience, we do have an aggressive
schedule, in part because we recognize the criticality of this.
I think because of all the coordination and in part because of
some of the environmental work and things that we need to know
a little extra time up front, we are fairly confident that we
can certainly deliver within the schedule we currently have and
because of the risk mitigation that I mentioned up front.
Mr. BRADY. How comfortable?
Mr. FOLEY. We are very comfortable we could deliver that.
Mr. BRADY. Eighty percent comfortable? A hundred percent
comfortable?
Mr. FOLEY. I would say at least 80 percent and more.
Mr. BRADY. I knew you didn't want to give that number.
[Laughter.]
Mr. BRADY. But for our own sake, I wanted to know just what
this comfort level was.
Mr. FOLEY. I had to try.
Mr. BRADY. I am over time, Mr. Chairman. Do you want to
answer quickly, Mr. Croft?
Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you. Go ahead.
Mr. CROFT. Well, for IT migration, I am extremely
comfortable that we can make it within the 18-month time frame.
And I am not a betting person, but I would bet we will
substantially beat it.
Chairman JOHNSON. Well, I am concerned that you are moving
some of the equipment from the old facility to the new one, and
I don't know how you are going to make that transition on time.
I hope you can.
Mr. Stark, do you care to question?
Mr. STARK. Not at this point, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you.
Mr. Paulsen, do you care to----
Mr. PAULSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you.
Mr. PAULSEN. I just have maybe a couple of questions. Part
of it has been the reassurance, obviously, of the members of
this committee, and I am just learning about the timelines that
are around the data centers that are out there. But let me just
understand, maybe, some more of the impact because I am
learning exactly all about the Social Security and the data
that is kept there.
But Mr. Croft, knowing that what you are doing right now,
you are doing everything possible, right, that you can to
prevent the aging NCC from failing, if it were to fail this
year--let's just say it failed. And I know there is a four-day
backup plan that comes up. And I visit my local Social Security
office the next day.
I mean, what would I find if I went in there the next day
after a failure? Would I be able to file a claim? Would I be
able to change the bank to where my checks get sent? Would I be
able to do that? Would I be able to file an appeal that day if
a claim was denied, for instance, or would it take a long
period of time? Just help me sort out what might happen.
Mr. CROFT. Yes, sir. I appreciate the question.
First, if we had a situation like that, one of the first
things we would be doing, of course, is communicating, not only
to our own management team and workforce but also to the
communities. We would be sending out information about the
likely outage and the impact on operations. And for people that
can wait to come file a claim or do things with us, we would be
encouraging them to wait until we are back up and operational.
If you came into the office, though, and our systems were
down, you could file a claim. We couldn't process it, though.
You could file a claim on paper. We might take information from
you to protect your filing date to make sure you don't lose any
benefits and so forth.
We could take information from you related to changing a
direct deposit, but we couldn't actually process that, either.
We would wait until the system was up, and then we would have
to work to key that information in and process it at that time.
So we would be there. We would be able to talk to people.
We could take information from people. We could actually take
paper claims and things like that. But we could not process
them until the system was back up.
Mr. PAULSEN. So it sounds like essentially you are going to
have a backlog occur until everything starts up again?
Mr. CROFT. A tremendous backlog would build up very
quickly.
Chairman JOHNSON. Mr. Croft, can I interrupt you a minute?
I thought you told me that a certain percentage of the system
was running in Carolina now.
Mr. CROFT. It is. That is correct.
Chairman JOHNSON. And those would not be affected, would
they?
Mr. CROFT. Yes. The things that are in Carolina would not
be affected. That is correct, sir.
Chairman JOHNSON. So take the State of Texas, for example,
which you are doing down there. If the main center went down,
Texas would not be affected. Is that true?
Mr. CROFT. What we showed you there was the printing of
Social Security cards for Texas. We could still print Social
Security cards if we had the new information coming in. The
main thing that is in North Carolina is all the medical
evidence associated with our disability process, which is a
huge growth area for us. That would still be up and
operational.
But a lot of the online types of system and the claims
systems that the question referred to, they are dependent on
the National Computer Center at this time. So they would be
down under the scenario that the question----
Chairman JOHNSON. For four days, according to you, five
according to him?
Mr. CROFT. Four days to me, and working towards one.
Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you.
Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Croft, let me just follow up, too. So if I
am a business owner and I am using the E-Verify system,
participating in that--that is the voluntary program that
allows me to verify work authorization of my new hires--will I
be able to verify new hires during that time frame?
Mr. CROFT. Yes, you will. That is one of the redundant
systems between the two data centers. If it happened tomorrow,
it would require some additional work from our colleagues at
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to point their system
to North Carolina. But we are all set up and ready to do that.
Mr. PAULSEN. And if I was going to call on like the 800
number, for instance, would I get an answer on the phone? Would
I be able to conduct business or be a part of that?
Mr. CROFT. Yes. Yes, sir. Our phones would work, but our
staff would have limited ability other than to talk to you and
take information from you. For example, they would not be able
to pull up your master beneficiary record to answer questions
with specificity about your claims or your benefits.
Mr. PAULSEN. And maybe just I will close here. But let me
ask you this, too. With the timelines, and you say you are
reasonably sure that you can meet the current timelines even
though we have already been delayed, but if everything is
completed with the new center and there was an outage, is it
going to be the same four-day backup? Or is it going to be we
are going to have a backup now and we are not going to have
that time frame to meet an emergency if there was an outage?
Mr. CROFT. Yes. We are at a four-day recovery time now, and
we have an active project, irrespective of the replacement data
center project, to drive that down to one day. And we will make
that, as we have said, by the end of fiscal year (FY) 2012. And
I believe we will actually beat that one as well, Mr. Johnson.
But we will be driving that down. So we will be at a one
day recovery time if either of our centers fail.
Mr. PAULSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you.
Ms. Berkley, do you care to question?
Ms. BERKLEY. I do indeed, and thank you very much for
holding this hearing. And thank you, gentlemen, for being here.
We are in the process of building a VA medical center in my
congressional district. There are three buildings 147 acres,
and it is the first new construction in the VA in 20 years. It
is a massive undertaking. So I very much appreciate what you
are doing and how you are doing it.
One of the questions that many people in my community would
ask when we got the timeline on how long it would take to build
these facilities was if we could build a 5,000-room hotel in
Las Vegas in 18 months, how is it that this is going to take so
long?
But now that it is nearing completion and I see what went
into creating these buildings, I understood why it took as long
as it did. So I fully appreciate your need to do your due
diligence and produce a building that is going to not only be
functional and safe, but will be with us for many decades to
come.
I also realize how challenging site selection is because I
grew up in my congressional district. I know every inch of it.
And I had many suggestions for the appropriate site for this VA
medical center. And as each one of my suggestions was shot
down, I also came to appreciate that even though it was not
even on my radar screen, the site that we chose was perfect for
the function of these buildings. And we are going to be
creating a whole new city within a city once this is up. So I
want to thank you for doing your work.
We were able to build this VA center with a $600-million
earmark. And I am a great proponent of earmarks, although they
seem to have fallen out of fashion lately. But what I was
astounded is when we were talking about it being on time and
being on budget, and I thought that was just great.
A few years after the start, I came to realize that there
was another $100 million that was needed for equipment and
furniture and training and hiring, because we are going to be
hiring a thousand people.
Do you need additional resources from the Federal
Government? Do we have to appropriate it? Is it now up to your
Social Security Administrator to come and make the request?
Where are we in that process?
Mr. CROFT. Yes. Thank you. Out of the $500 million that
have been appropriated for this project, $100 million is to be
used as the down payment, if you will, for the actual
outfitting of the building with IT, the transition of the IT,
and so forth.
And at the time that this was done, we estimated that it
could cost upwards of $350 million altogether to do a full
transition from the old building to the new. So what we will be
doing is making requests as part of our budget process.
I believe you will start seeing requests from us, based on
current timeline, in FY 2013/2014/2015, possibly 2016 as well,
to cover the additional costs associated with transitioning all
of the IT from the old building into the new and establishing
that as a fully functioning new data center.
Ms. BERKLEY. And I am glad you brought that up because
there have been a couple of questions asked about the
effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness of transferring
existing equipment from the old building to the new.
I am sure you have done a cost study on this, and is it
less expensive to do this than purchase new?
Mr. CROFT. It will be for equipment that still has a lot
of----
Ms. BERKLEY. Life?
Mr. CROFT. Correct. That is right. And we will be doing
much, much more precise planning, actually starting later this
year and getting into next year, as we actually are getting
closer and closer to being able to take over this facility.
We will develop a master plan. We will start working
through our budget cycles. We buy a lot of things, a lot of
hardware, a lot of IT equipment anyway. What we're trying to do
is time our regular refreshments of equipment.
If we can extend some of our equipment a little bit longer
in the old building so that we can just ride our normal budget
cycles for equipment that we were going to replace anyway and
have it go directly into the new facility, that will be a way
for us to cut down on that cost and make it go smoother.
Ms. BERKLEY. Thank you.
Mr. O'Carroll, in my final moments, seconds, you know the
situation in my district, with the unprecedented growth and the
amount of backlog we have and the lines that we have. If we
roll back our budgets to 2008 numbers, what will that do to the
people in my congressional district that depend on Social
Security?
Mr. O'CARROLL. Congresswoman, I think that is an issue that
Social Security is looking very hard at--what is going to
happen to customer service. When you take a look at the last
two years, the growth that SSA has had, the expectations now of
the public are higher because backlogs have dropped, service
has improved. If there are going to be budget cuts obviously it
is going to have an effect on customer service.
One other thing we are always very concerned with is
stewardship. One of my concerns is that stewardship not
decrease. SSA should do its due diligence to make sure that the
right people are getting the right benefits, and that that
doesn't suffer, because oftentimes stewardship suffers whenever
customer service gets higher priority.
Ms. BERKLEY. So penny wise and pound foolish?
Mr. O'CARROLL. Yes.
Chairman JOHNSON. The gentlelady's time has expired. Thank
you.
Mr. Smith, you are recognized.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
panel for sharing your expertise and insights here. It has been
interesting to listen to this now that the 2008 spending levels
have been injected into this hearing and the stimulus funds and
so forth.
But I can't help but think that the whole process--and I am
fairly new to this project--but looking at the delays, and then
the extra funds being directed to that and maybe not even
speeding things up--and I don't want to go there necessarily. I
am curious as to how the process could be streamlined in the
future. I have talked to private contractors who say that
government projects tend to take a long time, therefore cost
more money, or vice versa.
And so if you could speak to something that could be done,
perhaps--and maybe not even being able to respond to that
today, but for the record in the future--how can we get to the
bottom of some of these things, the delays? And I am not
faulting any one particular person or agency.
It is just that there seems to be so much placed into the
decision that it becomes so burdensome. Then it is delayed. It
is more expensive. Service perhaps could suffer, and efficiency
overall is lost.
Can any of you speak to that in a brief moment?
Mr. FOLEY. I will take the first shot at it. I think there
are unique requirements to building a federal facility. In
particular, the data center is a complicated facility unlike a
traditional or typical office building, even the ones that GSA
builds for many of our other customer agencies.
So the timeline on this project is longer just simply
because of the type of facility. When you are building a $400-
or $500-million project, including equipment and all the
technology that has got to go into there, the building
mechanical systems are much more complicated. The phasing and
sequencing is much more complicated. And so it does take a
longer period of time.
There are also requirements that the Federal Government has
for additional security--redundancy on the systems, which I
defer to my colleague at Social Security to discuss a little
more--but that are more complicated, require more due diligence
than perhaps a typical private sector facility might go
through. So I don't know if you----
Mr. CROFT. I appreciate your question. I am not an expert
on this process. I do find it daunting, and I really respect my
colleagues for the way they maneuver through it. It is an
extensive process, and I don't have words of wisdom about it,
to be honest, Congressman.
Mr. O'CARROLL. Mr. Smith, I am also in that same position--
what we are doing is monitoring. What we are trying to do with
our monitoring process is not to impede, not to delay the
project, and do everything that we can to keep it on schedule.
But we have the same role of oversight. So I guess the best
thing I can say, Mr. Smith, is I can assure you that the
oversight role isn't going to be a lag indicator on the future
of this project.
Mr. SMITH. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman JOHNSON. Just know that I understand duplication
in effort in these kind of buildings. And there is a lot of
technology going in there, and backup power, backup generators,
backup this, backup that. And it is great that you are
considering all those things.
Mr. Rangel, do you care to question?
Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and Congressman Norton
for having this hearing. I only want----
Chairman JOHNSON. Microphone.
Mr. RANGEL. I only want to take advantage of this moment to
thank the panel of the great job that they are doing for
hundreds of millions of Americans that we don't say thank you
enough. But their lives and their families have been affected.
And I think the Social Security Act is one of the highest
moments of our nation and the Congress. And continue your good
work, and count on our support.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, sir. You lost your words, huh?
You can talk longer if you want to.
Mr. RANGEL. No, no. I really think, when you are hearing
things positive, progress is being made, you don't go
backwards. You just thank them and move on.
Chairman JOHNSON. They do do good work in my view.
Mr. Berg, you are recognized.
Mr. BERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I want to thank
you for all the work you put into this. In my real life I am
involved in commercial real estate, and so I am somewhat
familiar with the private sector.
And I just had a couple of just big picture questions. How
big is the facility, and what is our cost per square foot in
the new facility?
Mr. CROFT. I believe the building will be approximately
400,000 gross square feet.
Mr. FOLEY. I think it is, 400,000 square feet. And I think
the overall total construction cost, including management and
inspection and the design services, is about $381 million. So I
don't have my calculator here to do the quick math, but we can
certainly provide the estimated construction cost per square
feet for you.
Mr. BERG. Well, obviously, one of the things that is of
concern to everyone here is what might be in jeopardy if we
have a crash in the current facility, and really what is going
on.
The other thing that I see is obviously our economy is in a
slump now. And we look at this project and we say, when will
the bulk of the jobs actually be out there receiving paychecks,
and how can we speed that up?
And I am not going to go through all the timetable and
everything you are doing because again, as you look at that, we
can argue about that and talk about that. But in my
experience--and I am just going to kind of lay out an analogy.
I don't know if this is true or not.
But I think when it comes to government projects, there is
kind of a private sector construction world out there, and
there is kind of a way they do things, whether it is a data
center or office building or warehouse, that they have
timetables and what they go through.
And to some degree, it seems like through the government,
when we are doing construction projects, we are saying, okay.
We don't really care about how the industry normally does this.
We are the government, and here is how we do this, and we are
so concerned about having everything accounted for and
everything competed for that we end up, in my opinion,
sometimes taking twice as long for a construction project that
ultimately costs us more because of the delays.
My other concern is in our effort to make everything fair
for every contractor, we end up not having that many
contractors compete because they are like, I don't want to do
all that paperwork and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars
to get in the game when there is only a 10 percent chance that
I will get it. Instead of doing that, I am just going to do my
normal work.
So maybe just--again, I am kind of stepping back. And not
to pick on this project, but if we were going to kind of
rethink how we do major construction projects like this in a
way that would be, again, two years rather than five years, I
am asking for ideas or what you might think could be done
differently from out standpoint to deliver, again, the same
results, but faster.
Mr. FOLEY. Sure. I think that first I should note we have
brought in expertise from the private sector, from folks who
build data centers all the time, because this is a unique,
highly complicated project.
So we are using our expertise, SSA's expertise of their
requirements, and we have brought in consultants who are
experts in terms of data centers to help with that, to make
sure that we aren't adding things to the process and help make
sure that we do that.
As far as your concern about how do we make sure that we
get competition because of the process and all of that, that is
one of the benefits of our two-step source selection, where we
don't require as much detail up front before we narrow the list
down.
So you get to a short list of folks, so they know I am not
one of 50 competing. I think, based on our experience with
other Recovery Act projects, we are confident that we are going
to get good competition on this project.
And so I think there are differences between private sector
and government, but we are always looking for opportunities and
ways that we can streamline, and do it in the most efficient
manner. But we do have certain rules, regulations, and a
certain duty as the Federal Government to make sure that there
is a fair opportunity for all entities to compete in this.
Mr. BERG. Mr. Chairman, let me reask that question. First
of all, I am not asking you to defend anything.
Mr. FOLEY. Okay.
Mr. BERG. I trust that you are making a good decision. I
trust that you have great contractors. I understand the
process, and someone can have a dispute or a protest and it
screws things up.
My question to you is, again, on the big picture, if we
said this had to be done in two years rather than five years,
is there anything that you can think of that says, you know, we
could streamline this by removing some of these obligations or
requirements? That is my question to you.
Mr. FOLEY. I mean, I think the longest parts in the process
are through the environmental phase, which you are well aware
of, you know, through any private development as well. Through
the procurement, there are additional rules and regulations
that do take a little bit longer for the government because we
do have to have full and open competition as opposed to being
able to go out to two or three contractors and say to do that.
And so that does add time to the process.
As far as construction goes, we are hiring a private sector
contractor to build the building, and so I hope that our actual
construction time frame and the process we are using, design/
build, is--it is common practice in private sector real estate.
And so I think that portion of the process is fairly similar.
So I think it really is on the front end where it is a little
bit different.
Mr. BERG. Thank you. Just one followup? Or am I out of
time?
Chairman JOHNSON. Go ahead. What have you got?
Mr. BERG. My question is, what is the plan for the property
that you are going to be moving out of?
Mr. FOLEY. Sure.
Mr. BERG. And that may have been already addressed. If so,
I apologize; you don't need to respond to that. But we don't
want to wait.
Mr. CROFT. No. It hasn't been asked, sir. We are going
through a master planning process on the campus. The building
will stay in use. It probably will need to have some
renovations once the IT is out of it. Again, the plumbing and
all that stuff is original to the building.
My speculation would be it will be an office building for
Social Security workers in Baltimore.
Chairman JOHNSON. Yes. That is another issue we need to
look at. Thank you for bringing it up. Your time is expired.
I am going to allow Mr. Denham, the chairman, to ask one
more question.
Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Actually, my question
is the same as Mr. Berg's question, which I don't think was
fully answered. I understand that there is going to be tenant
improvements on the facility, on the building itself. But this
is a 260-acre piece of property, is it not?
Mr. FOLEY. I believe that is correct. Yes.
Mr. DENHAM. What are we going to do with the rest of that
property?
Mr. FOLEY. The Woodlawn campus has multiple SSA facilities
on it, you know, as far as the operations there. But we have an
operations center that we have just recently completed a major
renovation on. There is the Altmeyer Building as well.
And so there are multiple other uses for the SSA
headquarters. We are utilizing the site in a multiple of
capacities. We are, as Mr. Croft said, in the master planning--
--
Mr. DENHAM. Is it 100 percent utilized?
Mr. FOLEY. I believe so, yes.
Mr. DENHAM. 260 acres, no vacant land out there?
Mr. FOLEY. Oh, there is additional land.
Mr. DENHAM. So it is not 100 percent utilized?
Mr. FOLEY. The buildings themselves are, yes. But there is
additional land.
Mr. DENHAM. And what are we doing with the land?
Mr. FOLEY. Right now, I mean, it is just buffer area around
the campus.
Mr. DENHAM. Could it be utilized for something other than
buffer?
Mr. FOLEY. As a part of the study, one of the things we did
look at was the ability to build on some of these portions. The
topography and other things create some challenges. But as a
part of the master plan, we will be looking at how we can
better utilize the facility and the possibility for future
growth and expansion of SSA at the Woodlawn campus.
Mr. DENHAM. Are there houses on that property?
Mr. FOLEY. I believe there are.
Mr. DENHAM. Individual dwellings?
Mr. FOLEY. I believe there are contiguous----
Mr. DENHAM. I believe there are, too. Any reason why we
couldn't utilize the rest of the 260 acres to develop that
area, put houses on there, and sell it off to some private
developer that may be able to provide housing for that
community?
Mr. CROFT. Well, part of the issue, Congressman--and we
would love to have you come out to the campus if you want to
look at it.
Mr. DENHAM. I would love to visit.
Mr. CROFT. A lot of it is parking, parking lots and so on.
Mr. DENHAM. 260 acres of parking lots?
Mr. CROFT. But there is also quite a lot of woodland area.
But a lot of that has been buffer around the computer center,
the National Computer Center.
Mr. DENHAM. But we are now moving the computer center.
Correct? So we would not need the large buffer zone, and we
would be able to develop that property, sell the property off.
I am curious of what the timeline is to sell the property and
to better utilize the existing facilities.
It is also my understanding that a number of the facilities
on there we lease from private individuals for SSA. Correct?
Mr. CROFT. Not on the campus, no.
Mr. DENHAM. Obviously, which is even a bigger problem. We
are leasing property outside of the campus even though we have
got 260 vacant acres there. We are leasing property. Are we
going to now move those individuals into the location that we
are moving out of once the tenant improvements are done?
Mr. FOLEY. That is part of the master planning process. So
we are looking at the best way to accommodate the overall needs
on the site.
Mr. DENHAM. I would like to take a look at the entire plan
and have that available to our committee. My assumption is that
we are not going to fully utilize the 260 acres, so I would
like to see what the opportunities would be to sell off that
property and what it could be used for.
And then finally, I am assuming----
Chairman JOHNSON. I would like for you to respond to both
committees in that regard, please.
Mr. DENHAM. Thank you.
Contingency on the overall project, I assume, is 10 percent
contingency?
Mr. FOLEY. I believe so, yes.
Mr. DENHAM. So $50 million, there could be an opportunity
to reprogram $50 million, assuming you come in on budget.
Mr. FOLEY. At the end of the process, yes.
Mr. DENHAM. Just as a statement, it is my understanding
that in the past, when money is reprogrammed, it does not
always go back through this committee, even though you have the
obligation to bring it before this committee. This committee
will make sure that we follow up on every project to make sure
that every contingency comes through this committee as well as
Appropriations.
Thank you for my time.
Chairman JOHNSON. Thank you, sir. I appreciate the
question.
And thank you all for your presence here today and your
comments. Thank you all, and the subcommittees will continue to
monitor your progress, both of us, to make sure the project is
done right, within budget, and completed on time, if not ahead
of time.
I appreciate all of my members who joined us. At this time,
the committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:34 a.m., the subcommittees were
adjourned.]
[Questions for the record follow:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872A.025

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872A.026

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872A.027

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872A.028

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872A.029

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872A.030

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872A.031

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872A.032

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872A.033

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872A.034

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872A.035

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872A.036

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872A.037

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872A.038

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872A.039

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872A.040

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872A.041

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872A.042

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872A.043

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0872A.044