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


For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ï¿½091800  
Fax: (202) 512ï¿½092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402ï¿½0900012010


 
54-476 PDF

       CONSOLIDATING DHS: AN UPDATE ON THE ST. ELIZABETHS PROJECT

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

                                HEARING

                               before the

                      SUBCOMMITTEE ON MANAGEMENT,
                     INVESTIGATIONS, AND OVERSIGHT

                                 of the

                     COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             MARCH 26, 2009

                               __________

                           Serial No. 111-12

                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
                                     
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13

                                     

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

                               __________

?

                     COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

               BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi, Chairman

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

                    I. Lanier Avant, Staff Director

                     Rosaline Cohen, Chief Counsel

                     Michael Twinchek, Chief Clerk

                Robert O'Conner, Minority Staff Director

                                 ______

       SUBCOMMITTEE ON MANAGEMENT, INVESTIGATIONS, AND OVERSIGHT

             CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania, Chairman

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

                     Tamla T. Scott, Staff Director

                       Carla Zamudio-Dolan, Clerk

                    Michael Russell, Senior Counsel

               Kerry Kinirons, Minority Subcommittee Lead

                                  (ii)
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

                               STATEMENTS

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

                               Witnesses

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

                                Appendix

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

 
       CONSOLIDATING DHS: AN UPDATE ON THE ST. ELIZABETHS PROJECT

                              ----------                              


                        Thursday, March 26, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                Prepared Statement of Donald G. Bathurst

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

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

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

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

               Prepared Statement of William (Bill) Gruen

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

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


                            A P P E N D I X

                              ----------                              


                        Questions and Responses

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

                     Responses from Donald Bathurst

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Recommended Goal
                                                                          --------------------------------------
                  Travel Mode                     Existing *    Expected   West Campus  East Campus    Overall
                                                                                **          ***         Campus
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drive alone (SOV)                                        31%          36%          17%          17%          17%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carpool with non DHS passengers (arriving-                4%           3%           4%           4%           4%
 departing worksite *alone)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metrorail                                                30%          30%          35%          35%          35%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carpool/Vanpool with DHS passengers                      10%          10%          16%          16%          16%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commuter Bus/Express Bus from location near               4%           2%           4%           4%           4%
 home
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commuter Rail (i.e. VRE/MARC)                             7%           7%           7%           7%           7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metrobus from home to work                                1%           1%           1%           1%           1%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bicylcle                                                  1%           0%           0%           0%           0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drop-off                                                  2%           1%           1%           1%           1%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motorcycle                                                0%           0%           0%           0%           0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walk                                                      1%           0%           0%           0%           0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Work from home or AWS                                     3%           1%           5%           5%           5%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't know                                                             7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did not work today                                        1%                        2%           2%           2%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other (none of the other mode                             5%           2%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Agency Telework Centers                                                    4%           4%           4%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Agency Park-&-Ride Facilities (Agency                                      4%           4%           4%
 Shuffles)
ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½
Total                                                100.00%      100.00%      100.00%      100.00%      100.00%
ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½
No employees / No. vehicles                             2.62         2.19         3.87         4.00         3.90
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parking Ratio (1 parking space / number              1: 2.62      1: 2.19      1: 3.87      1: 4.00      1: 3.90
 employees)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AVO (Average Occupancy Rate of All Vehicles)            1.17         1.23         1.41         1.42         1.41
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Occupancy Rate of Carpool/Vanpool               2.94         2.93         3.06         3.06         3.06
 Vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected Employee Parking Requirement (No. of         5,347        6,390        2,819          775        3,594
 space)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        * Existing scenario based on employee travel survey responses 
        at current work location
        * * Assuming 1,137 employees (24/7 shift) at 1:3 and 9,763 
        employees (regular hours) at 1:4 [both on the West Campus]
        * * * Assuming 3,100 employees (regular hours) at 1:4 [on the 
        East Campus]

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

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

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

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

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

                  Responses from William (Bill) Guerin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Recommended Goal
                                                                          --------------------------------------
                  Travel Mode                     Existing *    Expected   West Campus  East Campus    Overall
                                                                                **          ***         Campus
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drive alone (SOV)                                        31%          36%          17%          17%          17%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carpool with non DHS passengers (arriving-                4%           3%           4%           4%           4%
 departing worksite *alone)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metrorail                                                30%          30%          35%          35%          35%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carpool/Vanpool with DHS passengers                      10%          10%          16%          16%          16%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commuter Bus/Express Bus from location near               4%           2%           4%           4%           4%
 home
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commuter Rail (i.e. VRE/MARC)                             7%           7%           7%           7%           7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metrobus from home to work                                1%           1%           1%           1%           1%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bicylcle                                                  1%           0%           0%           0%           0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drop-off                                                  2%           1%           1%           1%           1%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motorcycle                                                0%           0%           0%           0%           0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walk                                                      1%           0%           0%           0%           0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Work from home or AWS                                     3%           1%           5%           5%           5%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't know                                                             7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did not work today                                        1%                        2%           2%           2%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other (none of the other mode                             5%           2%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Agency Telework Centers                                                    4%           4%           4%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Agency Park-&-Ride Facilities (Agency                                      4%           4%           4%
 Shuffles)
ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½ï¿½
Total                                                100.00%      100.00%      100.00%      100.00%      100.00%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No employees / No. vehicles                             2.62         2.19         3.87         4.00         3.90
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parking Ratio (1 parking space / number              1: 2.62      1: 2.19      1: 3.87      1: 4.00      1: 3.90
 employees)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AVO (Average Occupancy Rate of All Vehicles)            1.17         1.23         1.41         1.42         1.41
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average Occupancy Rate of Carpool/Vanpool               2.94         2.93         3.06         3.06         3.06
 Vehicles
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected Employee Parking Requirement (No. of         5,347        6,390        2,819          775        3,594
 space)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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


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

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