    [House Hearing, 115 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

    BUILDING FOR THE FUTURE: EXAMINING CHALLENGES FACING THE DEPARTMENT OF
             HOMELAND SECURITY'S CONSOLIDATED HEADQUARTERS PROJECT

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                                 OVERSIGHT AND
                             MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCY

                                     OF THE

                         COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 APRIL 12, 2018

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 115-57

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

                                   __________

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    30-895 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2018

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                         COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

                       Michael T. McCaul, Texas, Chairman
    Lamar Smith, Texas                   Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
    Peter T. King, New York              Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas
    Mike Rogers, Alabama                 James R. Langevin, Rhode Island
    Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania           Cedric L. Richmond, Louisiana
    Scott Perry, Pennsylvania            William R. Keating, Massachusetts
    John Katko, New York                 Donald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey
    Will Hurd, Texas                     Filemon Vela, Texas
    Martha McSally, Arizona              Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey
    John Ratcliffe, Texas                Kathleen M. Rice, New York
    Daniel M. Donovan, Jr., New York     J. Luis Correa, California
    Mike Gallagher, Wisconsin            Val Butler Demings, Florida
    Clay Higgins, Louisiana              Nanette Diaz Barragan, California
    John H. Rutherford, Florida
    Thomas A. Garrett, Jr., Virginia
    Brian K. Fitzpatrick, Pennsylvania
    Ron Estes, Kansas
    Don Bacon, Nebraska
                       Brendan P. Shields, Staff Director
                       Steven S. Giaier, General Counsel
                        Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
                      Hope Goins, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND MANAGEMENT EFFICIENCY

                      Scott Perry, Pennsylvania, Chairman
    John Ratcliffe, Texas                J. Luis Correa, California
    Clay Higgins, Louisiana              Kathleen M. Rice, New York
    Thomas A. Garrett, Jr., Virginia     Nanette Diaz Barragan, California
    Ron Estes, Kansas                    Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi
    Michael T. McCaul, Texas (ex             (ex officio)
        officio)
                   Diana Bergwin, Subcommittee Staff Director
          Erica D. Woods, Interim Subcommittee Minority Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                   Statements

    The Honorable Scott Perry, a Representative in Congress From the
      State of Pennsylvania, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight
      and Management Efficiency:
      Oral Statement.................................................     1
      Prepared Statement.............................................     3
    The Honorable J. Luis Correa, a Representative in Congress From
      the State of California, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
      Oversight and Management Efficiency:
      Oral Statement.................................................     4
      Prepared Statement.............................................     5
    The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress
      From the State of Mississippi, and Ranking Member, Committee on
      Homeland Security:
      Prepared Statement.............................................     6

                                   Witnesses

    Mr. Thomas D. Chaleki, Chief Readiness Support Officer,
      Directorate for Management, U.S. Department of Homeland
      Security:
      Oral Statement.................................................     7
      Prepared Statement.............................................     9
    Mr. Michael Gelber, Deputy Commissioner, Public Buildings
      Service, General Services Administration:
      Oral Statement.................................................    12
      Prepared Statement.............................................    13
    Mr. Christopher P. Currie, Director, Emergency Management,
      National Preparedness and Critical Infrastructure Protections,
      Homeland Security and Justice Team, U.S. Government
      Accountability Office:
      Oral Statement.................................................    14
      Prepared Statement.............................................    16

                                    Appendix

    Questions From Chairman Scott Perry for Thomas Chaleki...........    41
    Questions From Ranking Member Luis Correa for Thomas Chaleki.....    44
    Questions From Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson for Thomas
      Chaleki........................................................    46
    Questions From Chairman Scott Perry for Michael Gelber...........    47
    Questions From Ranking Member Luis Correa for Michael Gelber.....    47
    Questions From Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson for Michael
      Gelber.........................................................    49
    Questions From Ranking Member Luis Correa for Christopher P.
      Currie.........................................................    49

    BUILDING FOR THE FUTURE: EXAMINING CHALLENGES FACING THE DEPARTMENT OF
             HOMELAND SECURITY'S CONSOLIDATED HEADQUARTERS PROJECT

                                  ----------

                            Thursday, April 12, 2018

                 U.S. House of Representatives,
                        Committee on Homeland Security,
                                 Subcommittee on Oversight and
                                         Management Efficiency,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in
    room HVC-210, Capitol Visitor Center, Hon. Scott Perry
    (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Perry, Higgins, Garrett, Estes,
    Correa, and Rice.
        Mr. Perry. Good morning. The Committee on Homeland Security
    Subcommittee on Oversight and Management Efficiency will come
    to order. The purpose of this hearing is to examine the
    Department of Homeland Security's headquarters consolidation
    project.
        The Chair now recognizes himself for an opening statement.
        Last month, DHS celebrated its 15-year anniversary, an
    important milestone for the Department and a reminder of the
    progress that has been made in securing the homeland since 9/
    11. Despite significant accomplishments, organizational and
    management challenges continue to hinder DHS's ability to
    operate as a fully matured agency.
        Perhaps no other initiative has come to symbolize this more
    than DHS's on-going headquarters consolidation project at the
    historic St. Elizabeths campus in southeast Washington, DC.
        In 2006, then-DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff outlined a
    vision to unify core DHS headquarters and component facilities
    spread across the National capital region into a consolidated
    location in order to improve mission effectiveness, increase
    organizational efficiency, and save taxpayer dollars.
        The Department in coordination with the U.S. General
    Services Administration, or GSA, developed plans to utilize a
    combination of new construction and the rehabilitation of
    existing historic structures to build a Department-wide
    headquarters at St. Elizabeths by 2016 at an estimated cost of
    $3.26 billion.
        Unfortunately, today 2 years past the original scheduled
    completion date, this vision is still very far from reality.
    From the onset or the outset, the project at St. Elizabeths has
    been plagued by a multitude of setbacks that have led to
    significant cost overruns and scheduled delays.
        For example, rehabilitation of the Center Building, which
    will house the executive leadership of the Department, has
    encountered numerous delays due to the extensive deterioration
    of the building's historic structure.
        Additionally, DHS and GSA have consistently failed to
    proactively respond to shifting fiscal and construction
    realities throughout the project's duration, suggesting
    persistent program management shortcomings.
        In 2013, concerns over progress at St. Elizabeths led this
    committee to request that the U.S. Government Accountability
    Office conduct a performance audit of the project. GAO's audit
    revealed that DHS and GSA plans did not conform with leading
    capital decision-making practices, failed to conform with
    leading costs and schedule estimating practices, and had not
    been updated to reflect economic challenges and innovative
    workplace efficiencies.
        Following GAO's audit, committee legislation was signed
    into law codifying several GAO recommendations which sought to
    address some of the foundational management issues crippling
    the consolidated headquarters project and to get St. Elizabeths
    back on track.
        This law, Public Law 114-150, also required DHS to submit
    to Congress updated information relating to the St. Elizabeths
    project by September 2016. However, over a year-and-a-half
    later, DHS and GSA have failed to comply with the requirements
    prescribed by the law and have not fully implemented other
    related recommendations made by GAO.
        DHS and GSA are currently operating under the DHS
    headquarters consolidation enhanced plan implemented in 2015,
    which scaled back the original plans for St. Elizabeths. The
    enhanced plan reduced the expected cost of the project from
    $4.5 billion to $3.7 billion and set a new completion date of
    2021. Not surprisingly, the latest reports already have this
    plan behind schedule and at risk of going over budget.
        As things currently stand, over a decade of consolidation
    was originally conceived, only the U.S. Coast Guard has moved
    to St. Elizabeths and lingering occupancy issues with the Coast
    Guard's Munro Building have marred even this phase of the
    project.
        The enhanced plan's proposal for a reconfiguration of the
    Munro Building to increase occupancy has been met with concern
    from the Coast Guard and still has not yet been executed,
    despite receiving full funding in fiscal year 2016.
        With no end in sight, I am concerned that despite the
    President's fiscal year 2019 combined DHS and GSA budget
    request of over $400 million for St. Elizabeths, headquarters
    consolidation is no longer a priority for the Department. It
    sure seems that way.
        DHS has real challenges to overcome to be sure, from
    securing the border to guarding our Nation's critical
    infrastructure from cyber attacks. Building office space should
    not be one of those challenges. After nearly a decade of
    failure, the American people simply deserve better. It is long
    past time for DHS and GSA to take responsibility at St.
    Elizabeths.
        If headquarters consolidation remains a priority, continued
    mismanagement moving forward is unacceptable. The mission of
    DHS is too important, and it is imperative for the future
    success of the agency that the office space housing the
    Department's headquarters is able to meet mission requirements.
        I want to thank our panel for appearing before this
    subcommittee this morning on this very important issue. I look
    forward to receiving an update on construction, cost, and
    occupancy at St. Elizabeths and learning why DHS and GSA have
    failed to fully implement the requirements of Public Law 114-
    150.
        [The statement of Chairman Perry follows:]
                       Statement of Chairman Scott Perry
                                 April 12, 2018
        Last month, DHS celebrated its 15-year anniversary, an important
    milestone for the Department and a reminder of the progress that has
    been made in securing the homeland since 9/11. Despite significant
    accomplishments, however, organizational and management challenges
    continue to hinder DHS's ability to operate as a fully matured agency.
    Perhaps no other initiative has come to symbolize this more than DHS's
    on-going headquarters consolidation project at the historic St.
    Elizabeths Campus in Southeast Washington, DC.
        In 2006, then-DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff outlined a vision to
    unify core DHS headquarters and component facilities spread across the
    National Capital Region into a consolidated location in order to
    improve mission effectiveness, increase organizational efficiency, and
    save taxpayer dollars. The Department, in coordination with the U.S.
    General Services Administration (GSA), developed plans to utilize a
    combination of new construction and the rehabilitation of existing
    historic structures to build a Department-wide headquarters at St.
    Elizabeths by 2016 at an estimated cost of $3.26 billion.
    Unfortunately, today--2 years past the original scheduled completion
    date--this vision is still far from reality.
        From the outset, the project at St. Elizabeths has been plagued by
    a multitude of setbacks that have led to significant cost overruns and
    schedule delays. For example, rehabilitation of the Center Building,
    which will house the executive leadership of the Department, has
    encountered numerous delays due to the extensive deterioration of the
    building's historic structure. Additionally, DHS and GSA have
    consistently failed to proactively respond to shifting fiscal and
    construction realities throughout the project's duration, suggesting
    persistent program management shortcomings.
        In 2013, concerns over progress at St. Elizabeths led this
    committee to request that the U.S. Government Accountability Office
    (GAO) conduct a performance audit of the project. GAO's audit revealed
    that DHS and GSA plans did not conform with leading capital decision-
    making practices, failed to conform with leading cost and schedule
    estimating practices, and had not been updated to reflect economic
    challenges and innovative workplace efficiencies.
        Following GAO's audit, committee legislation was signed into law
    codifying several GAO recommendations which sought to address some of
    the foundational management issues crippling the consolidated
    headquarters project and to get St. Elizabeths back on track. This law,
    Public Law 114-150, also required DHS to submit to Congress updated
    information relating to the St. Elizabeths project by September 2016.
    However, over a year and half later, DHS and GSA have failed to comply
    with the requirements prescribed by the law and have not fully
    implemented other related recommendations made by GAO.
        DHS and GSA are currently operating under the DHS Headquarters
    Consolidation Enhanced Plan, implemented in 2015, which scaled back the
    original plans for St. Elizabeths. The Enhanced Plan reduced the
    expected cost of the project from $4.5 billion to $3.7 billion and set
    a new completion date of 2021. Not surprisingly, the latest reports
    already have this plan behind schedule and at risk of going over
    budget.
        As things currently stand, over a decade after consolidation was
    originally conceived, only the U.S. Coast Guard has moved to St.
    Elizabeths and lingering occupancy issues with the Coast Guard's Munro
    Building have marred even this phase of the project. The Enhanced
    Plan's proposal for a reconfiguration of the Munro Building to increase
    occupancy has been met with concern from the Coast Guard and still has
    not been executed despite receiving full funding in fiscal year 2016.
    With no end in sight, I am concerned that despite the President's
    fiscal year 2019 combined DHS and GSA budget request of over $400
    million for St. Elizabeths, headquarters consolidation is no longer a
    priority for the Department.
        DHS has real challenges to overcome, from securing the border to
    guarding our Nation's critical infrastructure from cyber attacks.
    Building office space should not be one of those challenges. After
    nearly a decade of failure, the American people deserve better. It is
    past time for DHS and GSA to take responsibility at St. Elizabeths. If
    headquarters consolidation remains a priority, continued mismanagement
    moving forward is unacceptable. The mission of DHS is too important and
    it is imperative for the future success of the agency that the office
    space housing the Department's headquarters is able to meet mission
    requirements.
        I want to thank our panel for appearing before the subcommittee
    this morning on this very important issue. I look forward to receiving
    an update on construction, cost, and occupancy at St. Elizabeths, and
    learning why DHS and GSA have failed to fully implement the
    requirements of Public Law 114-150.

        Mr. Perry. The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Minority
    Member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from California, Mr.
    Correa, for his statement.
        Mr. Correa. Good morning and thank you, Chairman Perry, for
    holding this hearing on the Department of Homeland Security's
    headquarters consolidation project.
        I thank the witnesses for being here today.
        I am disappointed not to have under secretary for
    management with us here today. The under secretary oversees the
    Department's budget and is responsible for management and
    administration of the Department. It would have been useful to
    hear her version and her vision of plans for this St.
    Elizabeths project.
        At previous hearings on this issue, the under secretary's
    testimony shed significant light on the Department's plans and
    priorities for the project and how Congress could best support
    this project.
        Much has been said about DHS's inability to effectively
    consolidate these offices and components at the St. Elizabeths
    campus. However, many do not recognize that while Congress
    authorized the project, it did not fully fund it.
        But let us start at the beginning. What are the reasons for
    the consolidation today? What were the reasons for
    consolidation originally? Our National security. We moved in
    this direction because we all agreed that it was most efficient
    to protect our country, to protect our citizens if we
    consolidated all functions in one centralized location.
        It is my understanding that even General Kelly, when he was
    Secretary of Homeland, complained that moving, commuting from
    one building to the other to try to address management issues
    was very inefficient. I have to ask all of you here today is
    our objective still to protect the homeland? Is our top
    priority still to protect American citizens and taxpayers?
        If that is our objective, is consolidation of these
    buildings, consolidations of these departments under one
    centralized location, still the most effective way of
    protecting our citizens? If it is, what is the problem?
        It is my understanding this project is essentially
    scheduled to cost about $4 billion. It is also my understanding
    that we have already invested about $2 billion of taxpayer
    dollars toward this project. It is also my understanding that
    we spend about $1.6 billion annually on leases in the
    Washington, DC area for various buildings to perform these
    projects.
        It is also about $400 million a year that we spend for
    upkeep and maintenance. So if we take $1.6 billion plus $400
    million, that is about $2 billion a year that we spend just on
    leasing buildings throughout the District of Columbia to do
    this function.
        Now, if I pencil it out, $2 billion a year, takes us
    another $2 billion, $3 billion to complete this project, what
    is the payback? In about 2 or 3 years we break even and we get
    more efficient operation of Homeland Security for the benefit,
    for the safety of our taxpayers.
        I want to hear from the witnesses here today, first of all
    what went wrong? No. 2, how do we get back on track? Of course,
    No. 3, most importantly, is consolidation of all these
    operations in one place, St. Elizabeths, still the most
    effective way of protecting American citizens, of protecting
    taxpayers from those that would do us harm?
        Mr. Chairman, I yield.
        [The statement of Ranking Member Correa follows:]
                   Statement of Ranking Member J. Luis Correa
                                 April 12, 2018
        I am disappointed not to have the under secretary for management
    before us today. The under secretary for management oversees the
    Department's budget and is responsible for the management and
    administration of the Department. It would have been useful to hear her
    vision and plans for the St. Elizabeths project.
        At previous hearings on this matter, the under secretary's
    testimony has shed significant light on the Department's plans and
    priorities for the project and how Congress could best support
    progress.
        Much has been said about DHS's inability to effectively consolidate
    its offices and components at the St. Elizabeths campus. However, many
    do not recognize that while Congress authorized the project, it failed
    to fully fund it.
        Let's start from the beginning of this consolidation project. Are
    the reasons for consolidation still valid today? Has anything changed
    from the initial plans? Focused National security will stop the bad
    guys and protect citizens and our communities.
        This project will house major components of the Department to
    improve its effectiveness and efficiencies such as communication and
    information sharing and to be more effective in protecting our Nation.
        In 2013, we were paying $1.6 billion on dozens of leases throughout
    the Washington DC, Virginia, and Maryland areas with $400 million on
    maintenance and upkeep costs.
        These numbers are from 2013, and we don't know what those numbers
    are today?
        While this project was supposed to be completed by 2016, at this
    subcommittee's last hearing on the DHS headquarters consolidation held
    in September 2014, we learned that from fiscal years 2006 through 2014,
    Congress provided $1.6 billion less than requested. That gap has
    persisted.
        To date, of the $4.8 billion requested by DHS and General Services
    Administration (GSA) for the project, only $2.3 billion has been
    appropriated.
        DHS and the GSA were able to complete the new Coast Guard
    Headquarters at St. Elizabeths on time in 2013 because they received
    adequate funding at the beginning of the consolidation project.
        Funding has decreased since that time, impeding DHS and GSA's
    efforts to make significant progress. The Government Accountability
    Office acknowledged in a September 2014 report that a lack of funding
    was responsible for delays in building the Secretary's Office as well
    as headquarters for four components: The Federal Emergency Management
    Agency, Transportation Security Agency, Customs and Border Protection,
    and Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
        At its inception, the DHS Headquarters Consolidation Project was
    justified on the basis that it was going to centralize leadership,
    enhance operations, save taxpayer money, and improve morale.
        The more time that goes by without Congress providing adequate
    funding for the project, the less likely those benefits will be
    achieved. This is especially true of achieving taxpayer cost savings.
        DHS components and offices that should have already moved into
    owned space at St. Elizabeths are extending expensive leases in the
    D.C. area.
        Long-term leases result in unnecessary costs to taxpayers and mean
    less money spent on conducting DHS's mission.
        Enough time has elapsed that the Transportation Security
    Administration--a DHS component that was originally scheduled to move
    to St. Elizabeths--is instead building a new headquarters in
    Springfield, Virginia.
        Given the inception of the Department of Homeland Security in 2003
    and the support of the Bush administration, if I may, I would suggest
    renaming St. Elizabeths Campus to the George W. Bush Homeland Security
    Center. Maybe that will get Congress to fund it.
        Scaling back the project as originally envisioned brings into
    question whether the intended benefits of consolidation, such as
    enhanced operations, will be achieved.
        Given the changes being made to the original master plan, DHS and
    GSA owe taxpayers a clear picture of the path forward for future
    consolidation.
        Today, I look forward to discussing with the witnesses how we can
    continue to make progress at the St. Elizabeths campus to realize the
    benefits of the DHS Headquarters Consolidation Project. With $2 billion
    already spent on the project, DHS cannot afford to fail.

        Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the Ranking Member.
        Other Members of the subcommittee are reminded that opening
    statements may be submitted for the record.
        [The statement of Ranking Member Thompson follows:]
             Statement of Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS)
                                 April 12, 2018
        It has been nearly four years since the committee held a hearing on
    the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Headquarters Consolidation
    Project at St. Elizabeths in Southeast, Washington, DC.
        While we have continued to follow the project, we are overdue for a
    detailed update on the progress that has been made since our last
    hearing.
        With that being said, it is unfortunate that the under secretary
    for management is not with us today to discuss this pressing issue.
        The under secretary, being third in command of the Department, and
    responsible for overseeing its budget and management programs,
    including procurement, should be on this panel today. I hope we can
    have her before the subcommittee in the future to discuss this and many
    other important issues.
        Turning to today's business, stood up in 2003, following the
    September 11 attacks and the enactment of the Homeland Security Act of
    2002, the Department of Homeland Security unified several legacy
    agencies from 22 various Federal agencies.
        The previously existing agencies and DHS's headquarters have been
    separated since the Department's inception--with the Department
    operating at over 50 different locations throughout the Washington, DC
    area.
        I have repeatedly expressed concern about how this separation of
    Department personnel has adversely affected cohesive communication,
    coordination, and cooperation across all component agencies as the
    Department seeks to fulfill its critical mission.
        We learned from Hurricane Katrina that Federal Government response
    organizations should be housed together and strengthened in order to
    better mitigate disasters.
        In 2006, a post-Katrina White House after action report called for
    a new National Operations Center within DHS to integrate Department-
    wide operations and improve coordination of response efforts to
    catastrophes and other homeland security events.
        However, without a consolidated DHS headquarters to house a new and
    improved center, its ability to provide robust command-and-control
    functions and execute its mission is limited.
        Moreover, the delay in consolidation has also hindered DHS's
    ability to sustain a ``One DHS'' culture and improve Department morale.
        There are several factors behind the rising costs and drastic
    delays facing the completion of the St. Elizabeths project, and I'm
    looking forward to an opportunity today to explore those issues
    further.
        Yes, schedules have slipped and cost estimates have not always been
    accurate, but most importantly--Congressional Republicans have failed
    to deliver consistent funding throughout the entirety of the project.
        Appropriated funding has been far below what was requested by
    administrations of both parties, and the funding gap has widened over
    the years--further contributing to project delays and cost inflations.
        The Majority claims a desire to reduce waste and save taxpayer
    dollars, yet their actions show otherwise.
        Currently, the Department employees are housed at over 50
    buildings, costing the Department over $1.6 billion annually, as of
    2014.
        In 2014, GSA estimated that over the next 30 years, the St.
    Elizabeths project would save the Government nearly $700 million
    compared to the cost of continued leasing.
        Four years later--still kicking the can down the road--I am unsure
    when or if those overhead savings will be realized.
        It is time my colleagues across the aisle put their money where
    their mouth is and prioritize the completion of the DHS consolidation
    project.
        The operational, cultural, and fiscal implications of the
    consolidation demand it. As such, I look forward to hearing from DHS,
    GSA, and GAO about how Congress and the administration ought to get it
    done.

        Mr. Perry. We are pleased to have a distinguished panel of
    witnesses before us today. The witnesses' entire written
    statements will appear in the record. The Chair will introduce
    the witnesses first and then recognize each of the witnesses
    for their testimony.
        Mr. Thomas Chaleki is the chief readiness support officer
    for the Department of Homeland Security. Mr. Chaleki has served
    in a variety of readiness and mission support roles in DHS
    headquarters and the Coast Guard. Mr. Chaleki retired as a
    colonel in the Air Force Reserve, having served as a civil
    engineer. Mr. Chaleki, we thank you for your service.
        Mr. Michael Gelber is the deputy commissioner of the Public
    Building Service for GSA. Mr. Gelber has overseen major Federal
    acquisitions in the United States and abroad since joining GSA
    in 1988. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Christopher Currie is the director of emergency
    management, National preparedness, and critical infrastructure
    protection on the GAO's Homeland Security and Justice team. We
    thank you for your service and your attendance here.
        Thank you all for being here today.
        The Chair now recognizes Mr. Chaleki for an opening
    statement.

        STATEMENT OF THOMAS D. CHALEKI, CHIEF READINESS SUPPORT
        OFFICER, DIRECTORATE FOR MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
                           HOMELAND SECURITY

        Mr. Chaleki. Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Correa,
    distinguished Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the
    Department of Homeland Security's consolidated headquarters at
    St. Elizabeths.
        I am Tom Chaleki, chief readiness support officer for DHS.
    My responsibilities include the oversight and management of the
    Department's facilities and real property and the consolidation
    of DHS facilities in the National Capital Region.
        I am pleased to appear with my colleagues from the General
    Services Administration and the Government Accountability
    Office to update the subcommittee on the progress we have made
    and our future efforts for GSA's development at the St.
    Elizabeths West Campus as the DHS consolidated headquarters.
        My experience to date, as outlined in my written statement,
    give me a deeper appreciation for the challenges of this
    complex development in an uncertain funding environment. I can
    testify to the benefits that completion will bring to the
    Department operationally and fiscally with your continued
    support.
        While the threats, challenges, and priorities of the
    Department have evolved over time, the need for a consolidated
    headquarters is just as important today as it was when we
    started this effort in 2006.
        Five secretaries, including Secretary Nielsen, have
    determined that the existing DHS headquarters at the Nebraska
    Avenue Complex is insufficient to meet the Department's needs.
    Additionally, DHS component headquarter offices are presently
    scattered across 46 different locations within the NCR.
        Aside from the clear operational need, a consolidated
    headquarters offers three key benefits: Improved unity of
    effort through integrated decision making and collaboration
    across the Department, more efficient use of shared resources,
    and greater cost savings through consolidation into long-term
    Government-owned facilities.
        For the past 10 years, DHS has worked in close partnership
    with GSA to achieve our shared vision of building a Federally-
    owned consolidated DHS headquarters on the historical St.
    Elizabeths campus. The first significant steps was the
    completion of the Munro Building in 2013, now the home of Coast
    Guard headquarters, along with numerous support facilities.
        Furthermore, the National operations center construction is
    progressing within the DHS operations center's facility. The
    continued buildout and transition of component operation
    centers to St. Elizabeths is a foundational element of the
    headquarters consolidation effort.
        Among other efforts, we are approaching the completion of
    the iconic Center building, which will house the DHS Secretary
    and nearly 800 additional staff by next April.
        Despite all this activity and clear success, we also
    recognize that a project of this magnitude and complexity is
    not without its challenges. DHS is a large, diverse agency with
    a long list of critical requirements that must be met if we are
    to achieve continuous mission success and bring about true
    unity of effort.
        As a tenant agency, DHS is responsible for providing
    programmatic requirements to GSA, budgeting for and funding
    certain tenant specifications, reviewing GSA-managed design and
    construction activities, coordinating with GSA and all
    stakeholders on historic preservation consultations and
    regulatory reviews of the project, and providing oversight on
    GSA's use of DHS's funding in the execution of their
    responsibilities as the developer.
        The Department fully cooperates with GSA, but does not
    exercise acquisition oversight or procurement decisions related
    to GSA's property development activities. Clearly understanding
    each of our respective roles in this process is critical to
    providing effective program management and oversight.
        To that end, GAO's 2014 report on DHS headquarters
    consolidation provided three recommendations with respect to
    the St. Elizabeths program. The Department concurred with all
    three and has taken action to address each within our
    responsibilities, which I have outlined in my written
    statement.
        In addition to the actions we have taken to meet
    recommendations in the GAO report, Public Law 114-150,
    Department of Homeland Security Headquarters Consolidation
    Accountability Act of 2015, requires the Secretary of Homeland
    Security, in coordination with the GSA administrator, to submit
    to the appropriate committees of Congress information on the
    implementation of the enhanced plan for the Department's
    headquarters consolidation project within the NCR.
        Given the lack of fiscal year 2017 and fiscal year 2018
    funding, the plan is misaligned, outdated, and no longer
    accurate. The GSA is now revisiting the enhanced plan.
        With the fiscal year 2019 President's budget request, DHS
    Secretary Nielsen and GSA Administrator Murphy have committed
    the Department and GSA to continue the headquarters
    consolidation project by requesting funds for a new building
    for FEMA headquarters.
        In addition, GSA and DHS are working aggressively to
    address priority lease expirations, address certain
    programmatic challenges, and validate the remaining occupancy
    requirements. We believe the remaining development needs to
    focus on cost-effective construction that maximizes space
    utilization.
        DHS and GSA will update the consolidation plan, provide the
    Congressional report and brief our Congressional committees and
    GAO on our future plans, including any assistance that may be
    necessary to successfully deliver the campus in the most
    mission-effective and cost-efficient manner.
        In closing, I would like to assure this subcommittee that
    DHS is working hard to remain a good steward of taxpayers'
    money by managing our real estate portfolio, both Government-
    owned and leased, in a cost-effective manner that will
    facilitate securing the homeland and save the American taxpayer
    money.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today on
    this important matter. I would be pleased to answer any
    questions the committee may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Chaleki follows:]
                    Prepared Statement of Thomas D. Chaleki
                                 April 12, 2018
                                  introduction
        Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Correa, and distinguished Members of
    the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
    today to discuss the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS)
    Consolidated Headquarters at St. Elizabeths. I am Tom Chaleki, chief
    readiness support officer for DHS. My responsibilities include the
    oversight and management of the Department's facilities and real
    property, and the consolidation of DHS facilities in the National
    Capital Region (NCR).
        I am pleased to appear with my colleagues from the General Services
    Administration (GSA) and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to
    update the subcommittee on the progress since the 2014 hearing of GSA's
    development of the St. Elizabeths West Campus as the DHS Consolidated
    Headquarters. I have experience with the Headquarters Consolidation
    Program, as until very recently I was the deputy chief readiness
    support officer with oversight responsibilities for the DHS property
    portfolio. I also worked for several years in facility planning for the
    U.S. Coast Guard and as an Air Force Reserve civil engineer. As a
    result of my background and experiences, I have a great appreciation
    for the challenges of this complex development in an uncertain funding
    environment, and can testify to the benefits that completion will bring
    to the Department operationally and fiscally with your continued
    support.
        Beginning with the submission of the DHS National Capital Region
    Housing Master Plan submitted to Congress in 2006, in cooperation with
    the developer GSA, five Secretaries, including Secretary Nielsen, have
    determined that the existing DHS Headquarters at the Nebraska Avenue
    Complex (NAC) is insufficient to meet the Department's needs.
    Currently, DHS component headquarters offices are scattered across the
    NCR, which adversely impacts critical coordination. It is clear that
    GSA's development of a new DHS Consolidated Headquarters at St.
    Elizabeths is vital to effective mission execution and to support the
    Department's Unity of Effort. While the threats, challenges, and
    priorities of the Department have evolved over time, the need for a
    consolidated headquarters is just as important today as it was when we
    started this effort in 2006. Aside from the operational benefits, a
    consolidated headquarters allows for effective utilization of the
    Department's resources. Rightsizing the portfolio in long-term
    Government-owned space and taking advantage of the changing dynamics of
    the Federal workplace will reduce long-term occupancy costs and free up
    scarce dollars for other priorities.
                                2014 gao report
        The GAO Report (GAO-14-648), Federal Real Property: DHS and GSA
    Need to Strengthen Management of DHS Headquarters Consolidation,
    provided three recommendations with respect to the St. Elizabeths
    program. The Department concurred with all three and has taken action
    to address each within our responsibilities.
        As a tenant agency, DHS does not manage the development side of the
    St. Elizabeths campus project. We provide programmatic requirements to
    GSA; budget for and fund certain tenant specifications; review GSA-
    managed design and construction activities; coordinate with GSA and all
    stakeholders on historic preservation consultations and regulatory
    reviews of the project; and provide oversight on GSA's use of DHS's
    funding in the execution of their responsibilities as the developer.
    All development activities are managed by GSA in accordance with GSA
    policies, to include the preponderance of contracting and construction
    activities. The Department fully cooperates with GSA, but does not
    exercise acquisition oversight or procurement decisions related to
    GSA's property development activities.
        GAO's first recommendation was that GSA and DHS should conduct a
    needs assessment and gap analysis of current and needed capabilities;
    and an alternatives analysis that identifies the cost and benefits of
    leasing versus construction alternatives. In response to the first
    recommendation, DHS worked closely with GSA to revise the Headquarters
    Consolidation Plan, resulting in the development of the Enhanced Plan,
    which served as the basis of the fiscal year 2016 budget request. The
    Enhanced Plan reduced planned construction at St. Elizabeths while
    implementing DHS's new space standards and flexible workplace
    strategies to accommodate 17,000 employees; this represented a 3,000
    staff increase over the original plan. This plan was based on a
    comprehensive revision of the program of requirements for housing DHS
    in the NCR and also accelerated completion of the St. Elizabeths
    construction to 2021 rather than 2026. The relocation from existing
    leased and Federally-owned facilities was aligned with the construction
    plans cognizant of the management of existing lease contracts. DHS
    provided GAO a copy of the business case analysis on November 20, 2015.
        This business case analysis provided the comprehensive needs
    assessment for DHS Headquarters facilities in the NCR based on updated
    space standards and implementation of flexible workplace strategies to
    optimize the DHS portfolio, as recommended by GAO. The analysis
    compared the continued development of St. Elizabeths with Federal
    construction under the Enhanced Consolidation Plan versus commercial
    lease consolidation. The analysis showed that consolidation under the
    Enhanced Plan would provide a $1.2 billion, 30-year present-value cost
    avoidance to DHS, over the best-case commercial lease consolidation
    plan, if funded and executed on a timely basis. The plan was
    prioritized based on lease expirations, which requires an annual
    decision to fund Federal construction, extend or replace existing
    leases.
        The second GAO recommendation dealt with the development of revised
    cost estimates and schedules in accordance with leading practices. As
    noted above, GSA manages these aspects of the project. DHS collaborated
    with GSA in their development of these comprehensive documents over a
    period of more than 2 years.
        The third GAO recommendation indicated that the Secretary of
    Homeland Security should designate the headquarters consolidation
    program a major acquisition, consistent with DHS acquisition policy,
    and apply DHS acquisition policy requirements. DHS concurred with the
    part of the recommendation that the DHS funded portion would come under
    the purview of the Acquisition Review Board. However, given the project
    is managed by GSA in accordance with GSA acquisition polices, it would
    not necessarily follow the fully-defined DHS acquisition process. The
    business case analysis provides the foundational documentation for the
    consolidation and related acquisition efforts. The Department conducted
    a program review of the DHS-funded portion of the project on November
    15, 2016, utilizing the draft updated cost, schedule, and risk data
    developed by GSA in response to GAO recommendations. Further, the
    office I lead, the DHS Office of the Chief Readiness Support Officer,
    is actively working with the DHS Program Accountability and Risk
    Management Office to align the extensive program documentation
    developed under this GSA-managed acquisition to meet the spirit of the
    DHS Acquisition policy guidance.
          department of homeland security headquarters consolidation
                           accountability act of 2015
        Public Law 114-150, Department of Homeland Security Headquarters
    Consolidation Accountability Act of 2015, requires the Secretary of
    Homeland Security, in coordination with the GSA administrator, to
    submit to the appropriate committees of Congress information on the
    implementation of the Enhanced Plan for the Department's Headquarters
    Consolidation project within the NCR. Given the lack of funding in
    fiscal year 2017 and fiscal year 2018, the plan is misaligned,
    outdated, and no longer accurate. The administration is now revisiting
    the Enhanced Plan. While DHS and GSA developed initial estimates in
    response to the reporting requirement, these analyses are no longer
    informative because of the underlying assumptions about the project's
    schedule. The plan and supporting documentation are now being revised
    with the recognition that certain leases must be re-competed as a
    result of the 2-year delay and that other adjustments are necessary
    given the challenges encountered with historic building renovations on
    the St. Elizabeths campus.
                         next steps with st. elizabeths
        With the fiscal year 2019 President's budget request, DHS Secretary
    Nielsen and GSA Administrator Murphy have committed the Department and
    GSA to continue the Headquarters Consolidation project. It remains
    vital for operations integration and mission effectiveness as well as
    for the efficient management of our property portfolio. Both GSA and
    DHS are committed to completing the remaining development in the most
    cost-effective manner possible. GSA and DHS are working aggressively to
    address priority lease expirations, address certain programmatic
    challenges, and validate remaining occupancy requirements. We believe
    the remaining development needs to focus on cost-effective, space-
    efficient construction that maximizes site utilization. DHS and GSA
    will brief our Congressional committees and GAO on our future St.
    Elizabeths plans, as appropriate.
        Despite these challenges, the St. Elizabeths campus project
    demonstrates effective interagency cooperation between DHS and GSA in
    executing this highly complex development in an uncertain funding
    environment. At this time next year, we project we will have reached a
    critical milestone as we will be moving the majority of the Office of
    the Secretary and Executive Management from the NAC to the renovated
    and historical Center Building at St. Elizabeths. The renovation of the
    Center Building will be complete this fall, and will then be followed
    by information technology and outfitting installations.
        At the same time, the National Operations Center construction is
    progressing within the DHS Operations Centers facility. The stand-up of
    this relocation will be synchronized to the Secretary's move. The
    continued build-out and transition of component operations centers to
    St. Elizabeths is a foundational element of the headquarters
    consolidation effort. The collocation of operations centers at St.
    Elizabeths will enhance communications/coordination among components
    and lead to more effective operational resource planning and allocation
    in mission execution. GSA is also proceeding with the Central Utility
    Plant expansion and the Hitchcock Hall renovation that will be
    completed in conjunction with the Center Building occupancy. The new
    Center Building West Addition construction is also well under way with
    occupancy planned for 2020. While all this activity is on-going across
    the campus, GSA and DHS continue to support U.S. Coast Guard
    Headquarters operations, including the Coast Guard National Command
    Center, a joint operations center space housing both the Coast Guard
    Cyber Command Watch and the DHS Chief Information Officer Enterprise
    Security Operations Center, the Information Technology Operations
    Center, and the Campus Security Operations Center.
                                   conclusion
        DHS and GSA fully support the St. Elizabeths project. With the DHS
    Secretary's occupancy a year from now, we will have achieved a critical
    milestone in the development of St. Elizabeths. We must continue to
    develop the campus to its fullest potential and leverage the
    significant investment the taxpayers have made in the campus thus far
    by providing the Department with the facilities it needs to
    aggressively perform its mission into the future. We appreciate
    continued support from Congress for this critical investment to help
    advance DHS's mission and Unity of Effort.
        In closing, I would like to assure this subcommittee that DHS is
    working hard to remain a good steward of taxpayers' money by managing
    our real estate portfolio, both Government-owned and -leased, in a
    cost-effective manner that will facilitate securing the homeland and
    save the American taxpayer money. Thank you again for the opportunity
    to testify today on this important matter. I would be pleased to answer
    any questions the subcommittee may have.

        Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chaleki.
        The Chair now recognizes Mr. Gelber for his opening
    statement.

       STATEMENT OF MICHAEL GELBER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC
           BUILDINGS SERVICE, GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

        Mr. Gelber. Good morning, Chairman Perry, Ranking Member
    Correa, and Members of the subcommittee. My name is Michael
    Gelber, and I am the deputy commissioner of the U.S. General
    Services Administration, Public Building Service. Thank you for
    inviting me to discuss the on-going consolidation of the
    Department of Homeland Security headquarters operations on the
    St. Elizabeths campus in Washington, DC.
        GSA's mission is to deliver value and savings in real
    estate, acquisition, technology, and other mission support
    services across the Federal Government. Given the current
    fiscal environment, GSA's working with agencies on multiple
    fronts to reduce and optimize the Federal Government's real
    estate footprint.
        This work includes reducing customer agency's space
    requirements, improving space utilization, reducing real estate
    costs, and delivering space that allows our Federal partners to
    more efficiently and effectively carry out their missions.
        For more than a decade, GSA has worked with DHS, other
    Executive branch offices, Congress, the city of Washington, DC,
    community organizations and others to deliver a consolidated
    DHS headquarters at St. Elizabeths. By substantially reducing
    DHS's more than 45 headquarters locations in the National
    Capital Region, the Department's mission effectiveness will be
    enhanced through colocation. This will strengthen the
    Department's internal and external communication, coordination,
    and responsiveness.
        U.S. Coast Guard's move from Federally-leased space into
    the Federally-owned and -controlled Douglas A. Munro Coast
    Guard Headquarters Building is an excellent example of the real
    and potential benefits of consolidated efforts at St.
    Elizabeths.
        The on-time and within budget completion of the Munro
    Building delivered a modern, secure headquarters to the Coast
    Guard while eliminating five leases in privately-owned
    facilities from the Federal Government's real estate portfolio.
        In addition to the completion of the Munro Building, GSA
    and DHS have delivered a central utility plant which, when the
    current expansion is complete, will meet the energy
    distribution needs of the current and future campus occupants.
    A secure campus perimeter, needed for all planned operations at
    St. Elizabeths, is in place. GSA completed a 2,000-vehicle
    parking garage in August 2013.
        The current phase of the DHS consolidation is the adaptive
    reuse of the historic Center Building. In April 2019 the DHS
    Secretary and executive leadership are scheduled to move from
    the Nebraska Avenue Complex in northwest Washington to St.
    Elizabeths.
        To mitigate traffic congestion in and around St.
    Elizabeths, GSA is working with the District of Columbia's
    Department of Transportation to construct new access road
    extensions along with the reconstruction of the Interstate 295-
    Malcolm X Avenue interchange. This infrastructure work is in
    addition to the Metro and shuttlebuses that already serve St.
    Elizabeths and the surrounding area.
        The key challenge faced by GSA with regard to this project
    is that constraints and uncertainties surrounding project
    funding have been a significant detriment to the delivery of
    the consolidated headquarters project. GSA's appropriations
    requests, which total over $400 million for the construction of
    a headquarters for the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
    other DHS components and additional campus infrastructure
    improvements were not funded in either fiscal year 2017 or
    2018.
        Collectively, delays in appropriations have lengthened the
    scheduled completion date for the campus years beyond the
    enhanced plan's completion date of fiscal year 2021.
        As a result, GSA is now working with DHS to update the
    master plan to address the lack of recent appropriations, the
    schedule of DHS commercial lease expirations, and incorporate
    lessons learned from the adaptive reuse of historic campus
    buildings.
        In closing, to maximize the investment taxpayers have
    already made in the campus, GSA and DHS must continue to
    consolidate in a cost-effective manner as many DHS components
    and employees as possible on to St. Elizabeths. For that
    reason, we urge Members of this subcommittee to seek full
    funding for the President's fiscal year 2019 request for St.
    Elizabeths of $229 million for the construction of a
    headquarters for FEMA.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look
    forward to answering your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Gelber follows:]
                      Prepared Statement of Michael Gelber
                                 April 12, 2018
        Good morning Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Correa, and Members of
    the subcommittee. My name is Michael Gelber, and I am the deputy
    commissioner of the U.S. General Services Administration's (GSA) Public
    Buildings Service. Thank you for inviting me to discuss the on-going
    consolidation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) headquarters
    operations on the St. Elizabeths campus in Washington, DC.
        GSA's mission is to deliver value and savings in real estate,
    acquisition, technology, and other mission-support services across the
    Federal Government. Given the current fiscal environment, GSA is
    working with agencies on multiple fronts to reduce and optimize the
    Federal Government's real estate footprint. This work includes reducing
    customer agency space requirements, improving space utilization,
    reducing real estate costs and delivering space that allows our Federal
    partners to more efficiently and effectively carry out their missions.
        For more than a decade, GSA has worked with DHS, and other
    Executive branch offices, Congress, the city of Washington, DC,
    community organizations, and others to deliver a consolidated DHS
    headquarters at St. Elizabeths. By substantially reducing DHS's more
    than 45 headquarters locations in the National Capital Region, the
    Department's mission effectiveness will be enhanced through co-
    location. This will strengthen the Department's internal and external
    communication, coordination, and responsiveness.
        The U.S. Coast Guard's move from Federally-leased space into the
    Federally-owned and controlled Douglas A. Munro Coast Guard
    Headquarters Building is an excellent example of the real and potential
    benefits of consolidation efforts at St. Elizabeths. The on-time--and
    within budget--completion of the Munro building delivered a modern
    secure headquarters to the Coast Guard while eliminating five leases in
    privately-owned facilities from the Federal Government's real estate
    portfolio.
        In addition to the completion of the Munro building, GSA and DHS
    have delivered a central utility plant which, when the current
    expansion is complete, will meet the energy distribution needs of
    current and future campus occupants. A secure campus perimeter needed
    for all the planned operations at St. Elizabeths is in place, and GSA
    completed a 2,000-vehicle parking garage in August 2013.
        The current phase of the DHS consolidation is the adaptive reuse of
    the historic Center Building. In April 2019, the DHS Secretary and
    Executive Leadership are scheduled to move from the Nebraska Avenue
    Complex in Northwest Washington to St. Elizabeths.
        To mitigate traffic congestion in and around St. Elizabeths, GSA is
    working with the District of Columbia's Department of Transportation to
    construct new access road extensions along with the reconstruction of
    the Interstate 295/Malcolm X Avenue interchange. This infrastructure
    work is in addition to the Metro and shuttle buses that already serve
    St. Elizabeths and/or the surrounding area.
        The key challenge faced by GSA with regard to this project is that
    constraints and uncertainties surrounding project funding have been a
    significant determinant to the delivery of the consolidated
    headquarters project. GSA's appropriations requests, which totaled over
    $400 million for the construction of a headquarters for the Federal
    Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), other DHS components, and
    additional campus infrastructure improvements, were not funded in
    either fiscal year 2017 or 2018. Collectively, delays in appropriations
    have lengthened the scheduled completion date for the campus years
    beyond the Enhanced Plan completion date of fiscal year 2021.
        As a result, GSA is now working with DHS to update the Master Plan
    to address the lack of recent appropriations, the schedule of DHS
    commercial lease expirations, and incorporate lessons learned from the
    adaptive reuse of historic campus buildings.
        In closing, to maximize the investment taxpayers have already made
    in the campus infrastructure, GSA and DHS must continue to consolidate,
    in a cost-effective manner, as many DHS components and employees as
    possible onto St. Elizabeths. For that reason, we urge the Members of
    this subcommittee to seek full funding for the President's fiscal year
    2019 request for St. Elizabeths of $229 million for the construction of
    a headquarters for FEMA.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look forward
    to answering your questions.

        Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Gelber.
        The Chair now recognizes Mr. Currie for his opening
    statement.

        STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER P. CURRIE, DIRECTOR, EMERGENCY
     MANAGEMENT, NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS AND CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
    PROTECTION, HOMELAND SECURITY AND JUSTICE TEAM, U.S. GOVERNMENT
                         ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

        Mr. Currie. Thank you, Chairman Perry, Ranking Member
    Correa, the Members of the committee. Appreciate the
    opportunity to be here today. I would like to discuss a couple
    things. One is our past work on the St. Elizabeths project, but
    more important, the future of the project.
        First, like everyone here has said already, we support the
    concept and the ideal of the consolidation. Improving
    coordination of a huge, fragmented department like DHS, saving
    taxpayer dollars, reducing facilities all sound fantastic.
    Unfortunately, ideals don't lead to success without realistic
    planning and execution as well.
        Back in September 2014, we reported on a number of problems
    with DHS and GSA's capital planning related to the project. For
    example, at that time some consolidation plans hadn't been
    updated since 2006, way back when the project was originally
    conceived.
        In that report we also recognized that a significant
    funding gap for the project, which back at that time was about
    $1.6 billion--I think the chart showed that well--was a major
    challenge. However, we also found that the cost and the
    schedule estimates weren't reliable.
        This is important. These estimates are a key factor in
    Congress' funding decisions. So it is also not surprising there
    were concerns about fully funding the project. What we
    recommend is that DHS and GSA take a hard look at the project
    and develop a revised consolidation plan.
        We also recommended they develop alternatives for the
    remainder of the project with various construction and leasing
    options so Congress could understand what options were out
    there.
        Congress agreed with our concerns and codified the
    recommendations, as you noted, in the DHS Headquarters
    Consolidation Act. Unfortunately, there has been little
    progress implementing the act or our recommendations.
        In fact, our concerns about this lack of progress led us to
    designate these recommendations among the handful of highest
    priority recommendations the GAO has open, both at DHS and GSA.
    There is only a few of those so we don't do that lightly. We
    actually have a total of 400 open recommendations, so this
    tells you how important we see this issue as.
        I think it is really important to reiterate the past, but
    many of these issues are even more valid today. So where are we
    today? Well, there is a construction going on at St. E's, as
    has been discussed, on the buildings that will house the
    Secretary and top management. However, what is not being
    discussed, I think, is the future of the project and that is
    still totally unclear.
        Since so much time has passed since initial planning, I
    think there are some really difficult questions that need to be
    discussed today. First, are the original efficiency and
    coordination benefits even still relevant if certain components
    won't be moving there?
        Second, if an expected outcome was cost savings, is that
    still valid given the cost increases we have seen and the new
    leases that are being signed? To be more specific, here are
    some examples of what I am talking about.
        DHS and GSA are requesting $400 million in fiscal year 2019
    in the budget to move FEMA into the St. E's campus. However, we
    found this by digging in voluminous budget documents. Without
    the comprehensive plan we have no idea why this is the next
    step or how it fits in with the overall project.
        Also, the window to bring in other components may have
    already closed. DHS testified almost 4 years ago for this
    committee that 70 percent of DHS leases in the National Capital
    Region expired between 2016 and 2020. At the same hearing GSA
    said that original consolidation plans would eliminate 50
    leases. However, since then, components have signed new leases
    or plan to move outright to other locations, such as TSA.
        As a result, it is not clear that it is even possible for
    St. E's to be the consolidated headquarters that was originally
    planned. Further, these changing conditions make prior
    assumptions about costs null at this point.
        So where do we go from here? We understand that DHS expects
    to issue a revised plan at the end of the year. We are mandated
    in law to review that plan within 90 days. We will do that. But
    I think it is important as DHS and GSA develop this new plan
    that they really consider the lessons of the past and deliver
    something that is very realistic with viable alternatives for
    the project.
        Also now with years of experience building and renovating
    on a historic location, we would also expect the specific
    complexities and challenges that they have faced in doing that
    to be considered as the project moves forward.
        This concludes my statement, and I look will forward to the
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Currie follows:]
                  Prepared Statement of Christopher P. Currie
                                 April 12, 2018
        Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Correa, and Members of the
    subcommittee: I am pleased to be here today to discuss the Department
    of Homeland Security (DHS) headquarters consolidation project at St.
    Elizabeths campus in Washington, DC, including a status update on the
    recommendations that we made in a 2014 report on this issue.\1\ The
    multi-billion dollar construction project, managed by DHS and the
    General Services Administration (GSA),\2\ is the centerpiece of DHS's
    larger effort to manage and consolidate its workforce of over 20,000 in
    the National Capital Region.\3\ As conceived in 2006, the Federally-
    owned St. Elizabeths site was designed to consolidate DHS's executive
    leadership, operational management, and other personnel at one secure
    location rather than at multiple locations throughout the Washington,
    DC, metropolitan area.\4\ The St. Elizabeths project is intended to
    allow for more efficient DHS operations and provide long-term cost
    savings by reducing reliance on leased space. From fiscal year 2006
    through fiscal year 2014, the St. Elizabeths consolidation project had
    received approximately $495 million through DHS appropriations and
    approximately $1.1 billion through GSA appropriations, for a total of
    over $1.5 billion.\5\ However, since construction began in fiscal year
    2009, the project has generally received less funding than requested,
    which DHS and GSA officials have stated has led to cost escalations and
    schedule delays. The President's fiscal year 2019 budget requests a
    total of about $400 million for continued consolidation and new
    development funds for the project.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ GAO, Federal Real Property: DHS and GSA Need to Strengthen the
    Management of DHS Headquarters Consolidation, GAO-14-648 (Washington,
    DC: Sept. 19, 2014).
        \2\ GSA, the landlord for the civilian Federal Government, acquires
    space on behalf of the Federal Government through new construction and
    leasing, and acts as a caretaker for Federal properties across the
    country. As such, GSA had the responsibility to select the specific
    site for a new, consolidated DHS headquarters facility, based on DHS
    needs and requirements.
        \3\ The National Capital Region is composed of the District of
    Columbia and nearby jurisdictions in Maryland and Virginia.
        \4\ The St. Elizabeths campus is a National Historic Landmark and a
    former Federally-run hospital for the mentally ill.
        \5\ Since we reported in September 2014 through fiscal year 2018,
    approximately $277 and $485 million more had been appropriated to DHS
    and GSA, respectively, for the St. Elizabeths consolidation project.
    Since fiscal year 2006, amounts appropriated to DHS and GSA for the St.
    Elizabeths consolidation project have exceeded $2.3 billion in the
    aggregate.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In September 2014, we made three recommendations to improve the
    management of DHS headquarters consolidation, and DHS and GSA concurred
    with the recommendations.
        In 2014, we recommended that:
        1. DHS and GSA conduct the following assessments and use the
            results to inform updated DHS headquarters consolidation plans:
         a comprehensive needs assessment and gap analysis of
                current and needed capabilities that take into
                consideration changing conditions; and
         an alternatives analysis that identifies the costs and
                benefits of leasing and construction alternatives for the
                remainder of the project and prioritizes options to account
                for funding instability.
        2. DHS and GSA develop revised cost and schedule estimates for the
            remaining portions of the consolidation project that conform to
            GSA guidance and leading practices for cost and schedule
            estimation, including an independent evaluation of the
            estimates.
        3. DHS designate the headquarters consolidation program a major
            acquisition, consistent with DHS acquisition policy, and apply
            DHS acquisition policy requirements.
        In our September 2014 report, we further stated that Congress
    should consider making future funding for the St. Elizabeths project
    contingent upon DHS and GSA developing a revised headquarters
    consolidation plan that conforms with leading practices and that: (1)
    Recognizes changes in workplace standards, (2) identifies which
    components are to be colocated at St. Elizabeths and in leased and
    owned space throughout the National Capital Region, and (3) develops
    and provides reliable cost and schedule estimates.
        Subsequently, in 2015, we designated our three recommendations to
    DHS and GSA as ``Priority Recommendations'' due in part to the
    important fiscal and operational implications of DHS headquarters
    consolidation. In addition, we have designated the broader areas of
    Managing Federal Real Property and Strengthening DHS Management
    Functions as High-Risk areas due to mismanagement vulnerabilities or a
    need for transformation.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ GAO, High-Risk Series: Progress on Many High-Risk Areas, While
    Substantial Efforts Needed on Others, GAO-17-317 (Washington, DC: Feb.
    15, 2017).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Headquarters
    Consolidation Accountability Act of 2015, enacted in April 2016 would,
    according to the accompanying Senate committee report, ensure that DHS
    and GSA fully address the recommendations from our September 2014
    report and provide Congress the additional information needed to make
    sound decisions regarding the headquarters consolidation project.\7\
    Among other things, the Act requires DHS, in coordination with GSA, to
    submit information to Congress about DHS headquarters consolidation
    efforts not later than 120 days after enactment (enacted April 29,
    2016).\8\ Required information includes a comprehensive assessment of
    the difference between the current real property and facilities needed
    by DHS in the National Capital Region, an analysis that identifies the
    costs and benefits of leasing and construction alternatives for the
    remainder of the consolidation project, and updated cost and schedule
    estimates. Furthermore, under the Act, the Comptroller General is to
    report on its review and evaluation of the quality and reliability of
    the cost and schedule estimates not later than 90 days after their
    submittal to Congress.\9\ As of April 2018, DHS and GSA had not
    submitted the required headquarters consolidation information to
    Congress or implemented our related recommendations.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ See Pub. L. No. 114-150, 130 Stat. 366 (2016); see also S. Rpt.
    No. 114-227 (Mar. 14, 2016).
        \8\ Specifically, the DHS Secretary, in coordination with the GSA
    Administrator, is to submit to the Committees on Homeland Security and
    Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives, and
    the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the
    Senate, information on the implementation of the enhanced plan for the
    DHS headquarters consolidation project within the National Capital
    Region. See Pub. L. No. 114-150,  2, 130 Stat. at 366-68.
        \9\ See Pub. L. No. 114-150,  2(b), 130 Stat. at 367.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Although DHS and GSA have yet to provide the information to
    Congress, construction is proceeding at the St. Elizabeths campus.
    Figures 1 and 2 show progress made to the Center Building from
    September 2016 to March 2018. This structure will house the Secretary
    of Homeland Security and other key leadership.
    Figure 1: The Center Building at St. Elizabeths in 2016 (left) and 2018
    (right)

    Figure 2: The Center Building at St. Elizabeths in 2016 (left) and 2018
    (right)

        My testimony summarizes the key findings of our September 2014
    report on DHS and GSA efforts to manage the DHS headquarters
    consolidation project, and provides a status update on DHS and GSA
    implementation of our recommendations. To complete our September 2014
    report, we compared DHS and GSA capital planning efforts against
    applicable leading practices in capital decision making and interviewed
    DHS and GSA officials responsible for the planning and management of
    the DHS headquarters consolidation.\10\ We also compared DHS and GSA
    documents on the estimated cost and schedule for the St. Elizabeths
    project with cost-and schedule-estimating leading practices we have
    identified in our prior work, and relevant GSA guidance.\11\ To assess
    subsequent DHS and GSA actions to implement our September 2014
    recommendations, we conducted periodic follow-up with DHS and GSA
    officials and obtained relevant documentation. The work upon which this
    statement is based was conducted in accordance with generally accepted
    Government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and
    perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide
    a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
    objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable
    basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ GAO, Executive Guide: Leading Practices in Capital Decision-
    Making; GAO/AIMD-99-32 (Washington, DC: Dec. 1, 1998) and Office of
    Management and Budget (OMB), Capital Programming Guide, Supplement to
    OMB Circular A-11 (Washington, DC: July 2014).
        \11\ GAO, GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide: Best Practices
    for Developing and Managing Capital Program Costs, GAO-09-3SP
    (Washington, DC: Mar. 2, 2009) and GAO Schedule Assessment Guide: Best
    Practices for Project Schedules, GAO-12-120G (Washington, DC: May
    2012).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        consolidation plans did not fully conform with leading capital
         decision-making practices and gao recommendation has not been
                                  implemented
        In our September 2014 report, we found that DHS and GSA planning
    for the DHS headquarters consolidation did not fully conform with
    leading capital decision-making practices intended to help agencies
    effectively plan and procure assets.\12\ Specifically, we found that
    DHS and GSA had not conducted a comprehensive assessment of current
    needs, identified capability gaps, or evaluated and prioritized
    alternatives that would help officials adapt consolidation plans to
    changing conditions and address funding issues as reflected in leading
    practices.\13\ At that time, DHS and GSA officials reported that they
    had taken some initial actions that may facilitate consolidation
    planning in a manner consistent with leading practices. For example,
    DHS had an overall goal of reducing the square footage allotted per
    employee across the Department in accordance with workplace standards,
    such as standards for telework and hoteling.\14\ As we reported in
    2014, DHS and GSA officials acknowledged that new workplace standards
    could create a number of new development options to consider, as the
    new standards would allow for more staff to occupy the space at St.
    Elizabeths than previously anticipated. DHS and GSA officials also
    reported at that time that analyzing different leasing options could
    affect consolidation efforts. However, we found that the consolidation
    plans, which were finalized between 2006 and 2009, had not been updated
    to reflect these actions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ Congress, OMB, and GAO have all identified the need for
    effective capital decision making among Federal agencies. OMB's Capital
    Programming Guide, a Supplement to OMB Circular A-11, along with GAO's
    Executive Guide: Leading Practices in Capital Decision-Making provides
    detailed guidance to Federal agencies on leading practices for the four
    phases of capital programming--planning, budgeting, acquiring, and
    managing capital assets. These practices are, in part, intended to
    provide a disciplined approach or process to help Federal agencies
    effectively plan and procure assets to achieve the maximum return on
    investment.
        \13\ GAO/AIMD-99-32 and OMB Capital Programming Guide, Supplement
    to OMB Circular A-11.
        \14\ Telework is a work arrangement in which employees perform all
    or a portion of their work at an alternative work site, such as from
    home or a telework center. Hoteling allows allow employees to work at
    multiple sites and use nondedicated, nonpermanent workspaces assigned
    for use by reservation on an as-needed basis.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In addition, we found in September 2014 that funding for the St.
    Elizabeths project had not aligned with what DHS and GSA initially
    planned. We reported that according to DHS and GSA officials, the
    funding gap between what DHS and GSA requested and what was received
    from fiscal years 2009 through 2014, was over $1.6 billion. According
    to these officials, this gap created cost escalations of over $1
    billion and schedule delays of over 10 years relative to original
    estimates. We found in 2014 that these delays posed challenges for DHS
    in terms of its leasing portfolio. Specifically, DHS's long-term
    leasing portfolio was developed based on the original expected
    completion date for St. Elizabeths development in 2016. In 2014, DHS
    and GSA reported that they had begun to work together to consider
    changes to the DHS headquarters consolidation plans, but they had not
    announced when new plans would be issued. Furthermore, because final
    documentation of agency deliberations or analyses had not yet been
    developed, it was unclear if any new plans would be informed by an
    updated comprehensive needs assessment and capability gap analysis as
    called for by leading capital decision-making practices. Therefore, in
    our September 2014 report we recommended that DHS and GSA conduct
    various assessments and analyses and use the results to inform updated
    DHS headquarters consolidation plans. DHS and GSA concurred with this
    recommendation and stated that their forthcoming draft St. Elizabeths
    Enhanced Consolidation Plan would contain these analyses.
        As of April 2018, however, the agencies had not submitted updated
    plan information to Congress that would either meet the requirements of
    the DHS Headquarters Consolidation Accountability Act or address our
    recommendation. According to DHS officials, the agencies prepared a
    comprehensive response to the Act, including updated analyses, but the
    information is no longer current and now needs to be revised and
    revalidated before it is submitted to Congress. Officials told us that
    the updated consolidation plans and analyses assumed that the project
    would receive more funding in fiscal years 2017 and 2018 than was
    appropriated. Further, officials told us that the current
    administration is expected to provide input on the planned DHS
    component occupancies at the St. Elizabeths campus. We continue to
    believe that DHS and GSA attention to following leading capital
    decision-making practices--including having a consolidation plan that
    justifies future actions--is critical given the project's multi-billion
    dollar cost and impact on Departmental operations.
      cost and schedule estimates for the st. elizabeths project did not
         reflect leading practices and gao recommendation has not been
                                  implemented
        In our September 2014 report, we found that DHS and GSA cost and
    schedule estimates for the headquarters consolidation project at St.
    Elizabeths did not conform or only minimally or partially conformed
    with leading estimating practices, and were therefore unreliable.\15\
    Furthermore, we found that in some areas, the cost and schedule
    estimates did not fully conform with GSA guidance relevant to
    developing estimates.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ GAO-09-3SP and GAO-12-120G. For both the cost and schedule
    estimates, our analysis focused on how well DHS and GSA met each of the
    four characteristics based on our assessment of conformance to the
    leading practices associated with that characteristic. We then arrayed
    the extent to which DHS and GSA cost and schedule estimates conformed
    with the four characteristics of each using five rating categories--
    fully meets, substantially meets, partially meets, minimally meets, or
    does not meet.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Cost Estimates
        In 2014, we found that DHS and GSA cost estimates for the
    headquarters consolidation project at St. Elizabeths did not reflect
    leading practices, which rendered the estimates unreliable. For
    example, we found that the 2013 cost estimate--the most recent
    available at the time of our 2014 report--did not include: (1) A life-
    cycle cost analysis of the project, including the cost of repair,
    operations, and maintenance; (2) was not regularly updated to reflect
    significant changes to the program including actual costs; and (3) did
    not include an independent estimate to determine whether other
    estimating methods produce similar results. In addition, a sensitivity
    and a risk and uncertainty analysis had not been performed to assess
    the reasonableness of the cost estimate. We have previously reported
    that a reliable cost estimate is critical to the success of any
    program.\16\ Specifically, we have found that such an estimate provides
    the basis for informed investment decision making, realistic budget
    formulation and program resourcing, meaningful progress measurement,
    proactive course correction when warranted, and accountability for
    results. Accordingly, in 2014, we concluded that DHS and GSA would
    benefit from maintaining current and well-documented estimates of
    project costs at St. Elizabeths--even if project funding is not fully
    secured.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ GAO-09-3SP.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Schedule Estimates
        In 2014, we also found that the 2008 and 2013 schedule estimates
    (the estimates available at the time of our review) did not include all
    activities for both the Government and its contractors necessary to
    accomplish the project's objectives and did not include schedule
    baseline documents to help measure performance as reflected in leading
    practices and GSA guidance. For the 2008 schedule estimate, we found
    that resources (such as labor, materials, and equipment) were not
    accounted for and a risk assessment had not been conducted to predict a
    level of confidence in the project's completion date. In addition, we
    found the 2013 schedule estimate was unreliable because, among other
    things, it was incomplete in that it did not provide details needed to
    understand the sequence of events, including work to be performed in
    fiscal years 2014 and 2015.
        In 2014, we concluded that developing cost and schedule estimates
    consistent with leading practices could promote greater transparency
    and provide decision makers needed information about the St. Elizabeths
    project and the larger DHS headquarters consolidation effort. However,
    in commenting on our analysis of St. Elizabeths cost and schedule
    estimates, DHS and GSA officials said that it would be difficult or
    impossible to create reliable estimates that encompass the scope of the
    entire St. Elizabeths project. In response to our findings, officials
    said that given the complex, multiphase nature of the overall
    development effort, specific estimates are created for smaller
    individual projects, but not for the campus project as a whole.
    Therefore, in their view, leading estimating practices and GSA guidance
    cannot reasonably be applied to the high-level projections developed
    for the total cost and completion date of the entire St. Elizabeths
    project. GSA stated that the higher-level, milestone schedule currently
    being used to manage the program was more flexible than the detailed
    schedule we proposed, and had proven effective even with the highly
    variable funding provided for the project.
        However, our September 2014 review found this high-level schedule
    was not sufficiently defined to effectively manage the program. For
    example, our review showed that the schedule did not contain detailed
    schedule activities that included all Government, contractor, and
    applicable subcontractor efforts. In our 2014 report, we recognized the
    challenges of developing reliable cost and schedule estimates for a
    large-scale, multi-phase project like St. Elizabeths, particularly
    given its unstable funding history and agreed that incorporating cost-
    and schedule-estimating leading practices could involve additional
    costs. However, we also concluded that unless DHS and GSA invest in
    these practices, Congress risked making funding decisions and DHS and
    GSA management risked making resource allocation decisions without the
    benefit that a robust analysis of levels of risk, uncertainty, and
    confidence provides. Therefore, in our September 2014 report we
    recommended that DHS and GSA develop revised cost and schedule
    estimates for the remaining portions of the consolidation project in
    accordance with leading practices. DHS and GSA concurred with the
    recommendation.
        As of April 2018, however, the agencies had not submitted revised
    cost and schedule information to Congress that would either meet the
    requirements of the DHS Headquarters Consolidation Accountability Act
    or address our recommendation. GSA is leading efforts to revise the
    project's cost and schedule estimates, and according to GSA officials,
    the revised figures will take into account leading cost- and schedule-
    estimation practices, including a risk assessment. We continue to
    believe that creating up-to-date, reliable cost and schedule estimates
    for DHS headquarters consolidation should be an integral part of DHS
    and GSA efforts to reassess the project. Without this information, it
    will be more difficult for agency officials and Members of Congress to
    make informed decisions regarding resource allocations and compare
    competing funding priorities.
         dhs did not consistently apply its acquisitions guidance when
    overseeing the st. elizabeths project, but has taken steps to implement
                              gao's recommendation
        In our September 2014 report, we also found that DHS had not
    consistently applied its major acquisition guidance for reviewing and
    approving the headquarters consolidation project. Specifically, we
    found that DHS had guidelines in place to provide senior management the
    opportunity to review and approve its major projects, but DHS had not
    consistently applied these guidelines to its efforts to work with GSA
    to plan and implement headquarters consolidation. Part of the
    inconsistency was the result of DHS designating the headquarters
    consolidation project as a major acquisition in some years but not in
    others. For example, we found that in 2010 and 2011, DHS identified the
    headquarters consolidation project as a major acquisition and included
    the project on DHS's Major Acquisitions Oversight List.\17\ Thus, the
    project was subject to the oversight and management policies and
    procedures established in DHS major acquisition guidance; however, the
    project did not comply with major acquisition requirements as outlined
    by DHS guidelines. For example, we found that the project had not
    produced any of the required key acquisition documents requiring
    Department-level approval, such as life-cycle cost estimates and an
    acquisition program baseline, among others.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \17\ At the time of our 2014 report, DHS reviewed its acquisition
    portfolio annually and designated programs as major acquisitions based
    on DHS investment thresholds. Generally, programs that incurred costs
    greater than $300 million over the life cycle of the program were
    considered major acquisitions. In 2014, DHS changed the name of the
    Major Acquisition Oversight List to the Master Acquisition Oversight
    List to more accurately distinguish between the Department's major
    (Level 1 and 2) and non-major (Level 3) acquisitions and nonacquisition
    activities included in the list.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As we reported in 2014, in 2012, the project as a whole was dropped
    from the list. Subsequently, in 2013 and 2014, DHS included the
    information technology (IT) acquisition portion of the project on the
    list, but not the entire project. DHS officials explained that they
    considered the St. Elizabeths project to be more of a GSA acquisition
    rather than a DHS acquisition because GSA owns the site and the
    majority of the building construction is funded through GSA
    appropriations. In our 2014 report, we recognized that GSA had
    responsibility for managing contracts associated with the headquarters
    consolidation project. However, we also noted that a variety of
    factors, including the overall cost, scope, and visibility of the
    project, as well as the overall importance of the project in the
    context of DHS's mission, made the consolidation project a viable
    candidate for consideration as a major DHS acquisition. By not
    consistently applying this review process to headquarters
    consolidation, we concluded that DHS management risked losing insight
    into the progress of the St. Elizabeths project, as well as how the
    project fits in with its overall acquisitions portfolio. Thus, in our
    September 2014 report we recommended that the Secretary of Homeland
    Security designate the headquarters consolidation program a major
    acquisition and apply DHS acquisition policy requirements. DHS
    concurred with the recommendation.
        As of April 2018, DHS has made some progress implementing this
    recommendation. For example, on September 16, 2014, DHS issued an
    Acquisition Decision Memorandum designating the DHS-funded portions of
    the headquarters consolidation program as a Major Acquisition Program
    to be overseen by the Departmental Acquisition Review Board (ARB). DHS
    also made progress implementing this recommendation by conducting and
    documenting an ARB of the program in November 2016. The ARB process
    provided DHS greater oversight of headquarters consolidation, and
    provided a forum for officials to consider a wide range of issues
    affecting consolidation efforts, such as funding and project scope. In
    addition, in January 2018, DHS officials reported that they were
    working to align headquarters consolidation program documentation to
    meet the spirit of DHS acquisition policy guidance. We will reassess
    the status of this recommendation after the consolidation plan and cost
    and schedule estimates are updated and submitted to Congress per the
    DHS Headquarters Consolidation Accountability Act. At that time, we
    believe there will be more certainty about the future direction of the
    project overall, and DHS's funded portion in particular, and we will be
    better able to assess the level of DHS acquisitions oversight for the
    project.
        Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Correa, and Members of the
    subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I look forward to
    responding to any questions that you may have.

        Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Currie.
        The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes of
    questions.
        With that, I think I will start with you, Mr. Currie. I am
    concerned. I am not sure how it is going to work out, but I am
    concerned there is going to be, like, well, it is that guy,
    right? Or it is going to be I think, you know, with all due
    respect, it is going to be there is a funding shortfall and let
    me just start there before I ask you any questions.
        So I have got a list of projects here that have been fully
    funded. I can go through a whole list of acronyms, access road
    extension, Center Building West addition, OHA, DNDO, and S&T
    relocation into the Munro Building. I can go through a whole
    list of things here that are fully funded yet not complete.
        So just in laymen's terms, just in laymen's terms as a
    person who lives a life and runs a household, like, which one
    of any of us in the room gives money to somebody that can't
    complete the things that we already paid for before?
        Then when they come and say, well, we need more money,
    somehow it is our fault that we didn't give you more money even
    though you haven't shown the ability to complete the things we
    have already fully paid for, right? So that is a concern.
        I am willing to listen to this argument that it has not
    been adequately funded, but I think that is questionable, at
    least questionable. That having been said, I am trying to
    determine the relationship between DHS and GSA as the
    developer.
        DHS is a tenant, right? So GSA is the one that is doing the
    work but DHS has requirements. That is fair.
        I guess my larger question from your standpoint, DHS
    holding up GSA by changing requirements, by slow-walking or not
    knowing what they need and then it shows up later and there
    have to be changes, is this relationship, is it a fair
    relationship and is it a sound relationship that is sincere and
    working well?
        Mr. Currie. Yes.
        Mr. Perry. Because we are looking for accountability here,
    too.
        Mr. Currie. Yes, yes, sir. No, it is a great question. I
    mean, I think one thing that is important to say here from the
    front is that GSA works with every Federal department and
    agency on these kinds of issues. This isn't the first--this
    project is actually----
        Mr. Perry. Right.
        Mr. Currie [continuing]. Not that unique. The location is
    unique, but, you know, been doing this for 100 years. So I mean
    GSA works with every Federal department and agency and has the
    same relationship with those agencies. So the complexities of
    this are not solely related to just the funding issue of this
    project or the location.
        There have been many projects in the past where there have
    been similar challenges. I mean, that is one of the reasons,
    you know, Federal real property has been on GAO's high-risk
    list for so long because this funding issue is such a difficult
    challenge to address.
        I mean, this is one of the reasons we always bring up these
    best practices in capital planning. This is why cost estimates,
    great planning is so important and realistic analysis of
    alternatives. I know that is kind of a buzzword, but----
        Mr. Perry. Sure.
        Mr. Currie [continuing]. What that means is, is do you have
    a menu of options if things don't go so well? I think those are
    critical for you all to be able to assess.
        Mr. Perry. I don't want to be hypercritical here, and I
    understand that. You know, to a certain extent I understand
    that you are digging something up. You are fixing an old
    building. You have got these historic preservation
    requirements. You run into a foundation problem.
        I understand and I don't understand to a certain extent,
    but when we did the assessment that is part of the assessment.
    Can we fix this thing to standard and what kind of problems do
    we foresee? Any kinda working with an existing old structure
    you are going to run into things that are unforeseen, and I get
    that.
        But like you said, you have got to update your plans if you
    see something that has happened. This is like years and years
    on now and it seems like that is used as a crutch to not get
    things complete as opposed to a real reason why things have
    changed and things have been drawn out.
        But my real question here, and I am not sure I feel
    comfortable with the answer is, is that is GSA, are they
    proceeding with--with the mandate that they have or are they
    being hindered by DHS in any way in completing this? Because I
    am trying to get to some accountability here. Who is dropping
    the ball here? Is it DHS or is it GSA?
        Mr. Currie. Well, it is hard for me to say. I don't----
        Mr. Perry. Well, I doubt they are going to say, right?
    Unless they probably work together and don't want to point to
    each other. But somebody is dropping the ball. I am trying to
    figure out who it is and why.
        Mr. Currie. Well, I mean, our recommendations we have made
    were to both in our report in 2014, I mean, for GSA from the
    standpoint of using those leading practices in the construction
    development. But also to DHS in making sure that it brings this
    project underneath its own major acquisition process so I think
    they have equal responsibility in this.
        I think they have equal leverage in this project. I don't
    think one has more than the other. There are definitely
    distinct responsibilities, but it is absolutely a joint
    project.
        Mr. Perry. I hate to say it, but maybe that is the problem,
    right? Maybe DHS should say GSA, this is your project. Here is
    what we need. Tell us when it is done. Then at least we got
    someone to go to and say get this done and if you don't, here
    are the consequences. Right now, I think we are going to get
    this all day long.
        With that, I yield to the Ranking Member.
        Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to follow up with
    some of your questions and thoughts about efficiency. First of
    all, if you can lift this? This is essentially a chart of the
    funding, or lack thereof, inconsistent. Is that a factor in all
    of this?
        Mr. Currie. Well, yes, sir, I mean we----
        Mr. Correa. Major factor or minor factor?
        Mr. Currie. Oh, it is a major factor, I mean, but like I
    said before, this is a major factor in a lot of these capital
    planning projects and a lot of these construction projects in
    Government. This is not a new issue, and I think that that
    doesn't excuse----
        Mr. Correa. So, we have the act of 2015 over here that took
    into consideration a lot of the old inconsistencies in terms of
    funding. As the Chair was saying, some of the projects were
    funded, some were not.
        We have the Coast Guard that is essentially doing a little
    better job or a lot better job than the rest. Should we put the
    Coast Guard in charge of this project? That is not a question
    to answer here, but just to think about.
        DHS versus GSA, the act of 2015, it sounded like that act
    was really supposed to get everybody to coordinate a little bit
    better, to acknowledge all the past inconsistencies--I am not
    going to say mistakes, but maybe folks dropping the ball. It
    sounds like we are supposed to update the plan, change the
    plan.
        I would imagine you are supposed to do this on an on-going
    basis. Private-public partnerships where I come from, Orange
    County, got a little bit involved in those, and asked for the
    public and the private sector always talking with each other.
    As you are building, you are changing the plan because of those
    unforeseen circumstances so you continue to move the project
    forward.
        Here it sounds like that is not what is going on. So like
    the Chair said, how do we move ahead and not keep dropping the
    ball here? You are spending about $2 billion a year on these
    leases and maintenance outside you are paying through the
    private sector that could be used to, you know, build this out,
    to finish this project. Yet I am not hearing a specific date
    when this whole project is going to be done.
        What is it that we need to do? Does a law have to be passed
    that you all come back to us every month to say how you are
    working together or how you are not working together?
        It is not about pointing fingers. It is about saving
    taxpayer dollars, making sure we have the best, the most
    efficient security, that our citizens, you know, deem that they
    need, that they deserve, and it is not happening. Open it up
    for any of you to give us some answers here.
        Mr. Gelber. Thank you. Sir, if I could just address this
    matter and some of the points that were made regarding the
    General Services Administration and how we work with the
    Department of Homeland Security? We have a partnership.
        We have been working together on this project for an
    extended period of time. The significant challenge that GSA
    faces on this project is the lack of regular funding to
    actually implement the plans that we develop.
        Across the campus, we have spent close to $500 million on
    infrastructure improvements with the expectation that the
    campus will accommodate over 10,000 people--the current number
    is 12,800. So the goal is by providing a steady stream of
    funding, year in and year out, over a period of time to
    complete this project, that will facilitate the work that we
    are intending to do.
        In 2015, in response to the GAO audit----
        Mr. Correa. So you are saying, sir, that this chart, this
    inconsistent funding is the major factor why things are getting
    held up?
        Mr. Gelber. It is a significant issue in our ability both
    to plan and implement when we request money in 2016, 2017, 2018
    and are only provided funding in 2016. It is difficult to then
    build the buildings that we are proposing to build. Without
    money, we simply cannot proceed.
        The money that has been provided to us we have created
    infrastructure. We have created facilities at the campus. That
    is your reference to Munro Building. The Central Building will
    come on-line next year. Where we have money, we have
    implemented and created the infrastructure that Congress has
    requested us to provide.
        Mr. Correa. Mr. Chaleki.
        Mr. Chaleki. Yes, sir, I would echo GSA's concerns as well.
    GSA builds the buildings and they build those buildings to our
    requirements. Our job is to provide clear, unambiguous
    requirements to GSA.
        But what we also need is we need a sequenced time line on
    when things will happen. Because our move to St. E's is
    predicated on----
        Mr. Correa. Who provides that sequenced time line?
        Mr. Chaleki. We work together on that because we have to
    line up our existing commercial leases, time those out so we
    expect a building at this point, this is when our lease
    expires, and that is when we are prepared to move in.
        You know, there may be construction difficulties that move
    that time line out. I am not going to say that it is GSA's
    fault. That is not my fault. My experience is----
        Mr. Correa. That is just the way business----
        Mr. Chaleki. That is the way it is when dealing with some
    of these buildings, sir. When that happens, we have to make
    adjustments. Just like we do at the Center Building, we made
    adjustments and we are going to to move forward.
        Sometimes those are painful. Sometimes they result in we
    have to consolidate in other leases where we were expecting to
    go into St. Elizabeths, and that has a downstream effect to our
    overall plan. That is where we are right now.
        Mr. Correa. Mr. Chair, I yield.
        Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentlemen.
        The Chair now recognizes Mr. Higgins from Louisiana.
        Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Gentlemen, this conversation we are having today is exactly
    reflective of why the American citizens that we serve just
    stare upon Washington, DC in disbelief. We are going to spend
    $4 billion--a billion is 1,000 million--to house agencies under
    one campus, in this case.
        So I wasn't here in 2006 when the decision was made to move
    what should be the most modern and responsive agency in the
    world into a campus that was founded in 1855. I did historical
    renovations in college as a carpenter. It is difficult work.
        When you are talking about constructing the most modern and
    capable, responsive, off-the-grid, protective network of
    agencies in the modern world, how are you going to run your
    fiber optics? How do you run your counter-espionage
    technologies? How do you run your surveillance technologies?
        Well, I wasn't here when that decision was made, because I
    would have made a lot of noise about it. It is incredible to me
    that across the expanse of these United States of America, we
    cannot find a more efficient means by which--and location--to
    house a consolidated headquarters for the Department of
    Homeland Security and associated agencies.
        Mr. Currie, you mentioned several times ``best practices in
    capital planning.'' In your wildest imagination, you said you
    have been doing this for a long time. When would it ever be
    best practices in capital planning to put the most modern
    facility, or what should be the most responsive and modern
    facility on the earth, in a campus established in 1855?
        Explain to me, please, and to the American people how that
    could possibly be reflective of best practices in capital
    planning.
        Mr. Currie. Yes, sir. I think it is a great question. I
    mean, I think it is a good question for DHS and GSA back at the
    time in 2006 when the decision was made.
        But, I mean, one of the points we have been making is that
    these complexities and these challenges, and especially the
    experience they have had so far building on this campus, have
    to be figured into the future. Because it is likely that these
    challenges are not going to just go away with the other
    buildings that are going to get renovated and the----
        Mr. Higgins. Well, the American people want it to go away.
    The American people expect the Federal Government to operate
    within the parameters of the revenue that we take in. We are a
    Nation that is $20 trillion in debt, and yet we continue to
    have conversations and throw around numbers like $4 billion for
    an office complex, for Christ's sake.
        You have the most luxurious hotels across the world built
    for less money with more square footage, modern from the ground
    up.
        I wasn't here when that decision was made in 2006. I wasn't
    here in 2009 when construction began. I wasn't here in 2014
    when your report was turned in, but I am here now and we are
    going to make some noise about this.
        Now, all of us are stuck with this ridiculous plan. We have
    to complete it. This committee is going to expect excellent
    response from the agencies responsible for spending the
    people's treasure on this perhaps the worst idea in the history
    of best practices in capital planning ideas.
        I ask you, Mr. Gelber, to please give me some feedback.
    Leave me with something uplifting, sir. Explain to the American
    people how we can move forward more efficiently to complete
    this poorly devised and planned construction project.
        Mr. Gelber. Well, sir, I would like to say that while GSA
    is working on some of the historic structures on the facility,
    we are also, in concert with the Department of Homeland
    Security, creating those modern, new office buildings that you
    are referencing.
        The Munro facility was a ground-up construction. Our
    proposal for the FEMA facility would be a brand-new facility
    that would not be engaged, if you will, or interacting with an
    existing historic structure.
        Sir, our goal is to respond to the mission needs of the
    Department of Homeland Security, provide them the mission space
    to do their work, and to do that within the modern facilities
    that you are referencing. That is what we are working to do.
    But in order to do that, sir, we do need the money in order to
    proceed.
        Mr. Higgins. Thank you for your response.
        Mr. Chairman my time has expired. I yield back.
        Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
        Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from New York, Miss
    Rice.
        Miss Rice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Gelber, can you explain--forgive my ignorance, but how
    did GSA choose St. E's as the ideal spot to do this whole
    consolidation?
        Mr. Gelber. Well, like many other site selections that we
    engage in, it is a variety of factors. We work with the agency
    that is looking for the space, and we also respond to, if you
    will, the tenor of the time. At that time, when the Department
    of Homeland Security was stood up, following the attacks of 9/
    11, there was the desire to collocate the Department's
    components in one space.
        The decision is as the Department, it needs to be within
    the boundaries of the District of Columbia. So one primary area
    that was looked at was the St. Elizabeths campus. It had
    recently been declared excess, no longer needed by the
    Department of Health and Human Services.
        So it was viewed as an opportune site that was large
    enough, that could become secure enough, to address the
    Department of Homeland Security's needs, while also addressing
    other local community issues, including development
    opportunities within the District of Columbia.
        As with most site selections, we are looking to balance a
    variety of factors and seek what is the best location that
    meets as many of those requirements as possible.
        Miss Rice. Coming to that determination, you obviously
    looked at the location, seen what kind of condition it was in,
    how that would affect the cost and efficiency of actually doing
    renovations that could give DHS what they needed? Even after
    looking at all of that, it was still understood to be a good
    location?
        Mr. Gelber. That is correct, ma'am, primarily----
        Miss Rice. Yes.
        So Mr. Currie, you said at some point when you were
    speaking that you expect some doubt about St. E's actually
    being a place that can, going forward, be what DHS needs it to
    be. Can you expound on that?
        Mr. Currie. Absolutely. So much has changed since 2006 that
    I think the original ideals and the concepts that are still
    being discussed a lot today, this idea of what is a
    consolidated headquarters? I think when you open up the hood
    and you look underneath, and you look at some of the initial
    plans of who they planned to bring over to St. E's, are pieces
    of certain agencies.
        At this point, we are potentially not talking about a
    headquarters where every single component is there, the
    leadership of the component is there. That was the original
    vision. That has been scaled back.
        Of course, I have to caveat that, because we don't have an
    updated plan. You know, the last plans that we have seen are
    more than a couple years old. So I feel like there is----
        Miss Rice. Can I just stop you right there for 1 second?
        Mr. Currie. Sure.
        Miss Rice. Because I am a little confused. It is what came
    first, the chicken or the egg, kind of thing. I mean, are your
    concerns--you are saying that you don't have an updated report
    about what plan should be implemented. They might say we you
    don't have an updated report because we ran out of money and
    now we are trying to play catch-up.
        I mean, in your opinion, what came--because it is a little
    frustrating. I could close my eyes and open them and be at a
    V.A. hearing. I am on the Veteran's Affairs Committee. I could
    be hearing this same thing about construction of V.A. hospitals
    across this country.
        The same inefficiencies, the same late reports, the same,
    you know, God-knows-where the money went. So can you unravel--
    it is a conundrum for me. I don't understand why this seems to
    happen every time the Government is involved in rehabbing or
    building something.
        Mr. Currie. Yes. Absolutely.
        Miss Rice. By the way, I am not bringing politics into--
    there is plenty of blame to go around. You know, Trump cut the
    money for this project, I get it. But when Democrats were in
    control, I am sure we were maybe that not--so this is not a
    political issue.
        Really, let us try to get to the bottom of why it is that
    no project like this, regardless of the Federal agency that is
    the subject of it, ever seems to get done on time and on
    budget.
        Mr. Currie. Yes, yes, I can address that. So I mentioned
    before that, you know, Federal real property has been on our
    high-risk list at GAO for a long time, and this is one of the
    reasons. It is very difficult to have these large projects
    without all the funding up front, to get it piecemeal on the
    uncertainty.
        There is no----
        Miss Rice. Has the Government ever funded a project up
    front? Has there ever been an instance where a report is given,
    everyone acknowledges, OK, this is what--like, and not, you
    know, a year and a half ago. I am understanding that, you know,
    obviously costs rise. If you give an estimate on, you know, a
    project in 2006, it is clearly not going to cost the same in
    2015 or 2018.
        But has there ever been a construction project that was
    fully funded up front?
        Mr. Currie. I don't have an example for you off the top of
    my head. I can definitely get back to you with some specifics
    across different agencies through on that.
        Miss Rice. I am just curious, you know, whether that ever
    happens. But--so go ahead. I am sorry.
        Mr. Currie. No. I think your points are valid. I mean, we
    have said before that the funding issue is a challenge. But it
    is a challenge in a lot of projects. I think one of the things
    we told DHS and GSA in 2014 is that understanding the funding
    uncertainties, which always exist, and austere budget
    situations, which also always exist, those have to be factored
    into realistic plans.
        I think there have to be options going forward. So if we
    get all the funding we could hope to ever get, then this is
    what option A looks like when we finish. But if we don't----
        Miss Rice. Can I stop you there, Mr. Currie, because my
    time is running out? With the Chairman's indulgence, why was
    St. E's a good choice in 2006 and not in 2018? Is it
    technology?
        Is it the idea that maybe not everyone has to be colocated
    physically? Tell me, because it seems to me that if that is
    what we are talking about, and your opinion is that this should
    not be a campus right there, I mean, where do you go or what is
    your opinion?
        Mr. Currie. No, ma'am. I want to be clear. We don't either
    support or not support the idea of St. E's. We support that
    consolidation is a good idea for coordination's sake. I think
    what we have looked at is the process and the practices that
    have been used.
        What we think is needed is a realistic option plan for
    moving forward, given the reality of the situation.
        Miss Rice. But you mean option as in an alternative other
    than St. E's, or----
        Mr. Currie. Well, just alternatives in general, given the
    uncertainties and the complexities of the project moving
    forward.
        Miss Rice. Even given how much money has already been put
    into the project, do you still think there should be
    alternatives to maybe doing something somewhere else?
        Mr. Currie. I am not saying there needs to be something
    done somewhere else. I am just saying there needs to be
    alternatives considering what has happened so far and the
    complexities of the project.
        Miss Rice. OK.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentlelady.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
    Garrett.
        Mr. Garrett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to tip my hat to my colleague, Congresswoman Rice. I
    want to also take a little bit of a swipe at my good friend,
    Congressman Thompson, and his statement that you might find at
    the back of the room, if you are in the press. It says,
    ``Republicans have failed to deliver consistent funding
    throughout the entirety of the project.''
        Except I am not that good at Google. Having said that, this
    idea was conceived in 2006. The ground was broken in 2009. I am
    pretty sure that the 111th Congress, who was originally
    responsible for putting this funding forward, wasn't led by
    Republicans. I could go on, but I won't, because as Miss Rice
    rightly indicated, it is time to stop fixing blame and start
    fixing problems.
        So we sit here discussing the consolidation of a
    department, Homeland Security, tasked with defending the
    American people from an emerging and dynamic set of threats
    that aren't even the same as we could have contemplated in
    2006.
        I read in this report, and these are the report's words,
    not mine, footnoted, ``too much emphasis may have been placed
    on revitalizing neighborhoods in Washington, DC.'' Where in the
    mandates of DHS does it say we should be revitalizing
    neighborhoods in Washington, DC? That is rhetorical.
        Negotiations with historic preservationists led to a 3-year
    delay. I note that my colleague, Mr. Thompson, fails to mention
    that, but it is a tragic note when we can't build an outhouse,
    let alone a fence across the desert, without knowing that there
    are going to be lawsuits. Now, none of this is targeted at you
    three gentlemen. But wait, because it is coming.
        So in 2006, a plan for consolidation emerged. Construction
    begins in 2009. The original estimated completion date is 2016.
    Then it is moved to 2021. Then it is moved to 2026. We hear,
    oh, it is funding, it is funding, it is funding.
        When I was a taxpayer and not a member of this august body,
    I got so sick and tired of the concept that money would solve
    all the problems in the world. If we can't estimate the actual
    cost of anything, which is what your testimony just indicated,
    anything accurately on the front-end, then why should we even
    work with the numbers?
        What I would do, as a history major, not a mathematician or
    an engineer, is look at cost overruns on Government projects
    across the board, figure out what the average percentage is and
    tack that crap on at the beginning so that there is a little
    bit of transparency and honesty for the taxpayer.
        But here we sit fighting with historic preservationists and
    revitalizing the District of Columbia's housing, which I am not
    sure where it falls in the DHS mandate, but I am pretty sure it
    is not there. We have got a headquarters that is designated to
    protect the American people from very real existential threats
    of death. We are pushing numbers back from 2016 to 2021 to
    2026.
        So here is what flummoxes me as somebody who still sort of
    identifies with the private sector. I will betcha, and this
    question is coming, that nobody responsible for--and don't tell
    me about funding when there is no DHS request, none, in the
    fiscal year 2018 budget for a single dollar.
        We have got $135 million requested from GSA. Don't talk to
    me about partisan responsibility when the blood is on both
    sides' hands--both sides' hands.
        Talk to me about who has been fired for failure to meet
    time lines set by law by this body. A name, one name of one
    person who has been held to account. Anybody been fired? Has
    anyone been reprimanded? One name. Has anyone responsible for
    meeting these deadlines, who has failed to meet these
    deadlines, been subsequently promoted?
        I mean, sometimes I wonder why we are here. Again, not
    targeting you three gentlemen. But at some point, again, and I
    would again tip my hat across the aisle to Congresswoman Rice,
    it is time to stop fixing blame and start fixing problems.
        The Department of Homeland Security should not be in the
    business of revitalizing D.C. neighborhoods, and we should not
    be building multi-billion dollar facilities where we know that
    we are going to have 3-year long delays because of historical
    preservationists.
        Consolidation, good idea. Communication, good idea. Might
    have saved lives on 9/11. But all this is reasonably
    foreseeable. Overrun on costs? It is as predictable as the
    swallows returning to San Juan Capistrano.
        How can we do it differently? I apologize for the
    soliloquy, but we have to change the paradigm. I want you
    gentlemen, please, and I mean this sincerely and with all due
    respect, and a lot is due, to start looking for ways to do
    things differently, to start looking for ways to hold people to
    account.
        When you go home at night and you know you can't be fired
    to failure to meet a deadline that is, in fact, the law of the
    land, what is your motivation, right, to steal a Hollywoodism?
    So again, my tone, as it relates to you three individuals, who
    are probably not directly, personally responsible, I apologize.
        But when we are spending DHS money to revitalize
    neighborhoods in Washington, DC, God forbid there is a
    cascading cyber attack tomorrow. God forbid that there is some
    sort of unconventional terror attack involving chemical or
    biological threats that might have been precluded had we had
    consolidation and communication across lines tomorrow because
    who do we have to blame? I say we, not you, us. We have us to
    blame.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Please, I don't want to do this again in 5 years. They were
    doing this in 2013. I don't want to do this again in 2022,
    2023. I don't. Thank you.
        Mr. Perry. How fortuitous.
        The Chair thanks the gentleman, and now recognizes the
    gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Estes.
        Mr. Estes. This was a monumental project. A lot of times
    monumental projects struggle to be successful. I know I missed
    part of the introductory comments, but thinking through of how
    do we best use our resources in moving forward in terms of what
    we are trying to accomplish in terms of spending the taxpayer
    resources in the right manner, making sure that we look at all
    of our different unique agency needs through that as well.
        So I guess my question more centers around--and I apologize
    if some of this was mentioned before, but is there the
    strategic plan to say how do we make sure we address the
    different needs of agencies and consolidate and making those
    more effective moving forward?
        Mr. Gelber. Sir, if I could address that, and obviously my
    colleagues can if they wish, as well? Our intent, we fully
    agree with the Government Accountability Office, is to develop
    a new plan to move forward with this project.
        The previous plans have been created to become out of date
    because of changes in circumstances, primarily the lack of
    funding. Our goal is to have a plan that is as responsive as
    possible to the uncertainties that we face, but also meets the
    mission needs of the Department of Homeland Security.
        Prior to your arrival, there were references--and I do want
    to clarify this. When GSA has been providing money for this
    project, we have used that money and created the infrastructure
    we have promised and committed to do as per the law.
        Some of that work has been on time and on budget. Some of
    that work unfortunately has delayed. Currently, the Center
    Building is delayed, and we acknowledge that delay.
        But our goal is to work with the Department of Homeland
    Security, create a new plan that addresses their mission needs,
    which have by and large not changed since the inception of this
    project, but also address the realities working within that
    campus that has been identified to date.
        GSA, the Department of Homeland Security, the American
    taxpayer, has expended close to $500 million at this facility
    to create infrastructure. To walk away from that infrastructure
    at this point, while that is possible, in GSA's opinion would
    not be appropriate, because it would lose the opportunities
    that we have created by the work that we have done to date at
    that facility.
        Mr. Estes. You just mentioned--and again, I apologize if it
    was brought up before, in terms of dollar amounts, but you
    mentioned a lack of money in previous.
        Can we talk through that in terms of either we have not
    done what expectations were set differently as the Legislative
    and Executive branches planned for and appropriated for, versus
    what the needs? How do we make sure that we make ourselves in
    alignment moving forward so that that is addressed?
        Mr. Gelber. Understood, sir. In 2014, GAO issued a report
    requesting an effective plan for this facility. In 2015, the
    Department of Homeland Security and GSA developed what we refer
    to as the enhanced plan. That plan was predicated on a 4-year
    funding stream, fiscal year 2016, fiscal year 2017, fiscal year
    2018, and fiscal year 2019.
        The intent was that with the money provided in fiscal year
    2016, we could complete some existing infrastructure at this
    facility. Fiscal year 2017, we planned to use that money for
    the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Fiscal year 2018, we
    planned to use that money for the Immigration and Customs
    Enforcement, ICE, organization. In fiscal year 2019, we planned
    to use that money for Customs and Border Protection.
        Fiscal year 2016, we received the money we requested, and
    we have been using that money as we said we would. Fiscal year
    2017, we did not receive the money for FEMA, which then led us
    to have to revise our plan, which no longer made it possible
    for us to consider the funding for the ICE headquarters or the
    CBP headquarters.
        Understandably these are difficult times in terms of budget
    discussions and how funding is available. I understand
    difficult decisions need to be made.
        But the impact of those decisions on this particular
    project is that our goals for FEMA, ICE, and CBP have not been
    able to be implemented. That is why DHS and GSA are now working
    to develop a revised plan to see how we can best move forward.
        Mr. Estes. I don't want to rehash things that have happened
    years ago. I mean, obviously when--I won't use the term--the
    rug gets pulled out from under you. But when either directions
    change from a funding approach, how does the process work to
    come back and say, OK, that 4-year plan needed to be changed?
    How do we approach that now moving forward?
        Mr. Gelber. The way we approach that now, at least from
    GSA's perspective, is we are working with DHS to develop a new
    master plan for the facility that will account for the
    realities of where we are and what we have learned with our
    construction at the campus.
        Account where we are with the various leased facilities
    that we have with DHS around the Washington, DC area and with
    DHS's input, working together, develop a new plan for the
    facility that says here is the level of infrastructure that we
    can create at the St. Elizabeths campus. Once those buildings
    are built, here are the entities from DHS that will be able to
    be moved in.
        Our goal working with DHS is to develop that plan during
    this calendar year and then present it as DHS has been
    requested the statute to provide that plan.
        Mr. Estes. Thank you.
        My time is up, I yield back.
        Mr. Perry. I am going to go for another round for anybody
    that wants to stick around. I might be short in my questions.
        But let me turn to Mr. Chaleki here. The Munro building
    reconfiguration was fully funded, unless you tell me it is not,
    but that is my understanding so correct me if I am wrong, in
    2016, at $26.7 million. What is the current status of that
    project?
        Mr. Chaleki. Yes, sir. It was fully funded in 2016. So what
    we have been looking at is working with the Coast Guard to look
    at what are the options going forward? So where we are right
    now is Coast Guard has a number of concerns with moving other
    folks in there. Right now we are looking at CWMD or Science and
    Technology as possible tenants to go in there.
        So we are looking at the range of options in terms of
    number of people we can go in, see configurations, all of those
    things. Coast Guard has serious reservations about this, and
    that is what we have been working on with the Coast Guard is to
    determine what is the best alternative going forward?
        Mr. Perry. When was that project supposed to be completed,
    if you know?
        Mr. Chaleki. I believe around 2018, yes, sir.
        Mr. Perry. All right. So 2018, and just for the record,
    again, not to--I agree with both sides here. I mean, look, we
    got our differences here in this room. But the one thing I
    think we all have in common is we are pretty frustrated with
    the circumstances here. So there is $26.7 million fully funded,
    not done.
        What about the access ramp or the road extensions on I-295?
    What is the story there?
        Mr. Gelber. That is a project that the General Services----
        Mr. Perry. Sorry.
        Mr. Gelber [continuing]. Administration is managing. We
    have worked with the District Department of Transportation to
    construct that road, that interchange. The District has
    reported to us that they plan to award that contract within the
    next 60 to 45--excuse me, 45----
        Mr. Perry. That was funded in 2015, right? When was that
    supposed to be complete?
        Mr. Gelber. The intent of that was to be completed in 2017.
    The reason it was not was in our work with the District, it
    took longer than we had expected and planned.
        The benefit of that road is tied to the various
    infrastructure that I have referenced and while the project is
    delayed, the reality is that that road is not necessary until
    these other components are relocated to the campus.
        Mr. Perry. All right, but you kind of get my point here,
    right?
        Mr. Gelber. Understood, sir.
        Mr. Perry. You get my point. I mean, fully funded but still
    not done, yet you are saying that the reason that the other
    issues aren't completed is because they are not fully funded.
    Yet when you are fully funded, or when they are fully funded,
    it doesn't seem to make a difference.
        Let us talk about some options here. St. Elizabeths is a
    National historic landmark. I have been there, and the place is
    magnificent. The site is magnificent. The buildings are
    magnificent and majestic.
        However, I shudder to say this because I love all that old
    stuff. I mean that. What is the cost of tearing that stuff down
    and just building the building? Is that one of the options, as
    Mr. Currie has talked about options? Is that a viable options?
    Are there--options.
        Are there unknown or--well, if they are unknown, I can't
    ask you that. But are there currently unseen but maybe known or
    suspected toxic dumping sites on the site that are going to
    have to be remediated? What the other options?
        I mean, like I said, I shudder to think about it, but I
    feel like all we are doing with respect to the American
    taxpayers' money is throwing this money down a rathole.
        Mr. Gelber. So there is physical space on the campus to
    construct new buildings. There are also, as you referenced,
    historic structures on the campus.
        Mr. Perry. Can they be torn down or must they be
    maintained?
        Mr. Gelber. They are not required to be maintained. Our
    approach has been to save what we can and complete what we
    refer to as adaptive reuse, which is to take this historic
    structure and use it for modern purposes.
        When that is possible, we work to do that, given the
    requirements that we have with the National Capital Planning
    Commission, the National Environmental Policy Act and the
    Historic Preservation Act. So we have to comply with those
    statutes when dealing with an historic property, to do all we
    can to either preserve or document the historic nature of that
    property.
        Regarding toxic issues or any types of hazardous waste, we
    are not aware of, to this date, of any types of hazardous
    chemicals or wastes on the site. That has not been the
    challenge to date. The challenge to date has been modifying
    historic structures to accommodate modern needs.
        Mr. Perry. Sure and just like the gentleman from Louisiana
    said, and he works as a carpenter, restoring old stuff is
    tough, long, hard, arduous work--you know, those were built 200
    years ago now. There are not people that do that kind of stuff
    the way it was done then. So we get that.
        But the question I have is: Is that, has it ever been in
    the list of options? There is a footprint there where the
    buildings currently stand. You either fix them and move into
    them, or you destroy them and build a new thing, a new building
    on that site or somewhere close by. But you can't just let it
    sit there languishing and falling down and being a safety
    hazard, et cetera.
        Is that one of the options that was ever considered? Is it
    considered now? Is it part of the consideration as we move
    forward to tear a portion of those buildings down and use that
    space to build new stuff?
        I mean, you do have underground infrastructure, too,
    whether it is water, sewer, electricity. It is already located
    there, so I mean, there is at least a savings there. But you
    have got this big edifice you have got to deal with.
        Mr. Gelber. So as we develop the plan that we plan in
    concert with the Department of Homeland Security, we are
    looking at the full spectrum of opportunities regarding those
    properties and the potential to demolish the property is an
    option. But it is also in the same spectrum, if you will, to
    reuse the property.
        So we are looking at all those things based on what we have
    learned at the Center Building and our experience with working
    at the Center Building. What is the viability of continuing to
    use the historic structures at the site?
        But in order for us to make a determination on that matter,
    GSA, the Department of Homeland Security, we have to work with
    a series of entities across the Washington, DC area, through
    the National Capital Planning Commission process, to ensure
    that whatever decision we make is in concert, if you will, with
    those other entities' objectives.
        Mr. Perry. I thank you for your answers. I went way over
    time.
        I now recognize the Ranking Member.
        Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have some
    questions. But before I get to my questions, I just wanted to
    just point out a point of procedure decorum, Mr. Chairman. That
    is our learned colleague from Virginia called Mr. Thompson by
    name.
        I hope next time we do those kinds of things, you wait
    until that Member is present so they can at least respond to
    the statements that are made using their name. I just think it
    is disrespectful just, you know, calling out another person
    when not around to defend themselves.
        With that being said, I wanted to get back to the gentlemen
    here. You know, a lot has been talked about here. I come back
    to the question I start out with. Is this plan still valid? Is
    this plan still important toward the goal of enhancing American
    security? Is this plan of consolidating these agencies a more
    effective way of protecting our citizens?
        If it is, I mean, we talk about a new plan, a new, you
    know, set of goals. I would say it is more revising the
    existing plan. Not starting from scratch, but going back and
    revising based on the circumstances, and are we 30 percent
    complete on this? Fifty percent complete? We have sunk billions
    of dollars into this project. How many more billions is it
    going to take for us to finish?
        How much are we going to save in terms of paying rent
    leases outside to private sector versus investing in this
    project to complete this project, so to speak? Open it up.
        Mr. Chaleki. To answer your first question, sir, this is
    absolutely what DHS wants to continue to do. Consolidation is--
    --
        Mr. Correa. This is what DHS wants to do because this is in
    furtherance of National security?
        Mr. Chaleki. Exactly. Consolidation is very important to
    us. It is as relevant today as when the Department first stood
    up. My goal is to get as much DHS headquarters consolidated as
    possible. St. E's right now is our best solution going forward
    from both an operational standpoint and a fiscal standpoint.
        Operationally, we are combining our operations centers.
    Joint operations is important to us. Just having folks sit next
    to one another is a critical way for us to do business for the
    National security reasons that you point out. Fiscally, if we
    are inside Federally-owned facilities that is a cost savings
    for us.
        Commercial leases widely dispersed is not helpful. It is so
    much easier for the Secretary to have her leadership walk
    across the street than have to cross town just to have a
    conversation.
        This is where the Department of Homeland Security has been
    steadfast on. We need to keep going in this direction, and we
    support any effort that we can to revise this plan to see how
    much we can get onto that campus going forward.
        I think what we have to do, sir, is we have to take a look
    at the revised master plan that GSA spoke about and take a look
    and see what are the possible scenarios going forward? The
    enhanced plan is just not a workable solution anymore. One of
    the reasons that you point out is we are going into a lot of
    those historical buildings.
        Lessons learned from the Center Building point to we need
    to revisit those. So I have requirements. I know what those
    requirements are. Question is, what kind of a safe, efficient
    building can we get to house those requirements?
        Mr. Correa. Yes, there is--Mr. Gelber?
        Mr. Gelber. Given our role is to respond to the mission
    requirements, the space requirements of the agencies you work
    with, DHS has articulated their need. Our goal is to work and
    meet that need at the St. Elizabeths campus.
        A focus that we have is to develop a plan that allows us to
    use the dollars that we might be able to get to create the
    office space that would allow the DHS components that DHS
    wishes to locate at the campus should be built to be housed
    there.
        In terms of percentages, the enhanced plan created the
    following spectrum. This is a 3-year-old plan. We had spent
    $1.5 billion to date, and our expectation at the time was that
    we would need an additional $800 million to proceed.
        That plan is now the one we need to look at and revise,
    given the passage of time and the potential change of
    requirements that DHS may have, coupled with what we have
    learned in terms of our work at this campus.
        Mr. Correa. Mr. Currie, is this still a project vital,
    necessary to our National security?
        Mr. Currie. Well, sir, you know, our job at GAO is to help
    you all evaluate how good of a job the agencies are doing in
    implementing their mission. You know, what----
        Mr. Correa. But you did make some statements questioning
    the validity of this project.
        Mr. Currie. Sir, the statements that I made were not so
    much about questioning whether St. Elizabeths is the right
    choice or not. What we have looked at is the processes that
    have been used to develop this project and to manage it. The
    concerns we have had are about how it has been managed.
        But our bigger concerns are about the future. If this
    project continues to go forward and get funding, we want to see
    it managed well and the funding to be used effectively. So
    without an updated plan, though, right now it is hard to answer
    the percentage question because we don't even know right now
    what the end state looks like.
        We know what it looked like back in 2006. But the end state
    is not clear, and that is what I am raising today. I think that
    has to be discussed and figured out.
        Mr. Correa. Mr. Chairman, I yield.
        Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
        The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas.
        Mr. Estes. Mr. Gelber, a couple questions for you. When you
    were just talking with Mr. Correa, you made the comment around
    we spent $1.5 billion and expected another $800 million at that
    point in time. Now, we are talking about $3.7 billion for the
    entire project. Isn't that what we are looking at? Am I not
    adding the right numbers together to compare apples to apples?
        Mr. Gelber. The first two figures you mentioned were
    obviously the ones I just said. I guess the question for me is
    where we are today that those numbers that I presented to you
    were based on a plan developed in 2015. We have not been able
    to implement that plan.
        What we are in the process of doing with the Department of
    Homeland Security is developing a new plan which would have the
    cost estimates associated with going forward. It would capture
    what we would have spent to date, but also state here is how
    much money we need in order to proceed.
        But the way those numbers tie in, that we plan to propose,
    with what we have presented to date, those numbers will be
    different for the reasons that I have stated previously.
        Mr. Estes. So we don't have the total plan laid out or
    where we go from here, but the best estimate that we have today
    is looking at to be the $3.7 billion. Is that----
        Mr. Gelber. I wouldn't tie ourselves to a 3.7 number
    because the plan that we are going to be developing will have
    its own independent cost estimate associated with that. We
    agree with GAO that there is a need for a plan, and there is a
    need to develop cost estimates associated with that plan before
    we come forward and request funding for those.
        Mr. Estes. Yes. I have not been here very long. Trying to
    wrap my arms around lots of things. I have been involved in a
    few major projects, whether it is a State capital renovation or
    an airport renovation. Understand the dynamics and understand
    thinking through those pitfalls that you get into that you have
    to adjust the plan as you go along.
        But, you know, we are kind of sitting here now trying to
    figure out how do we move forward? I mean, we have put a lot of
    time, we have put a lot of money. We are not seeing the
    results.
        I know the sense of the body has been some frustration.
    There is probably frustration in the Department, in the GAO as
    well, in terms of where we are and how do we get to where we
    need to be.
        I am trying to figure out, how do we best move forward? One
    mention that was made earlier was, you know, tear down some of
    the old buildings and start from scratch. I mean, the thought
    that has got in my head is, is this the right location?
        I mean, I understand the concept of having the whole
    Department together. There is certainly some value in that. I
    know space is at at a premium, finding a space big enough for
    the Department just from that standpoint. But I don't know.
    When you go through the plan, is the intention going to be how
    to make the current design?
        Is that the direction of the plan? Are you going to look
    at, is this the right space again? Is this, is this our right
    needs? What is the scope, I guess, of the planning process from
    here?
        Mr. Gelber. From GSA's perspective, the scope of the plan
    would be how can we best use the St. Elizabeths campus to meet
    the needs of the Department of Homeland Security, given
    everything we have learned to date and given what their mission
    requirements are for the facility?
        So our sense is the envelope, if you will, of that campus
    is the area we are working within, and our goal is to make the
    best use of that envelope given everything we have learned to
    date and given everything we have done to date at that
    facility.
        Mr. Estes. Again, I will apologize for asking this question
    but--it may have been answered already--but when is the
    expectation of that plan being completed? I mean, the draft of
    the plan, so that we can actually say this is what it takes and
    what it costs and the time frame and----
        Mr. Gelber. Working with DHS and GSA together, our
    expectation is to complete that plan this calendar year, to
    work to complete that plan this calendar year.
        Mr. Estes. So from our standpoint on this committee, is
    once that plan is prepared, I assume it flows up through the
    Department for approval. Does it then bring it back to our
    committee for discussion around what do we do? Is that the plan
    we want to proceed with and move forward?
        Or where is the authorization to move forward? I am not
    sure who is best to ask that question for from a planning that
    execution process.
        Mr. Gelber. Normally, documents of this nature, in this
    case, the Department of Homeland Security and GSA, we would in
    effect clear that, vet that document through both our
    individual agencies, as well as with other components of the
    Executive branch. Then my understanding is that--again, I am
    not here to speak for the Department of Homeland Security, but
    they would submit the plan to the committee for the committee
    to review.
        Mr. Estes. OK.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
        Kind of one final parting thought, question, DHS is more
    than a year-and-a-half late in submitting a Congressionally-
    mandated report detailing the path forward for St. Elizabeths,
    which in a way, I think, would encompass elements or
    substantially the plan that Mr. Estes was just talking about.
    Right?
        That is what we would see. At this point, I am not even
    going to ask why, but maybe I should. Is there a reason why? I
    mean, can somebody----
        Mr. Chaleki. Yes, sir. The enhanced plan, the assumptions
    that it was based on, the time lines, the cost estimates, they
    are no longer valid.
        Mr. Perry. OK. Why couldn't we at least get that report,
    and I mean, we are a year-and-a-half late. I guess that I asked
    that in the context of I am going to submit some questions for
    the record after the fact here because I don't want to keep
    everybody here.
        Look, the last thing I want to have you guys doing is
    sitting in some office answering my questions. I would prefer
    you to be, like, getting this thing done, right? But our job is
    to watch over this stuff and make sure the taxpayers' money is
    spent correctly. So we have got to get these questions
    answered.
        So is this report, that is now a year-and-a-half late, when
    can we expect to see that? Is that what Mr. Gelber was talking
    about as well in the revised plan that is going to be done this
    calendar year? Understanding it is April and we have until
    December, you know, the end of December in this calendar year?
    So what is the story there?
        Mr. Chaleki. Yes, sir. The revised master plan, that is
    what is going to generate this report because that is going to
    be the GSA-DHS way forward in the St. E's campus.
        Mr. Perry. OK. All right, well, the Chair thanks the
    witnesses for their valuable testimony.
        No. I yield.
        Mr. Correa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I just wanted to follow up on the Chairman's comments, and
    questions, which is how long are we going to have to wait until
    the next report? If we don't know the answer to that, can we
    have you all come back and tell us what you have in terms of
    the report? What revisions you have made? What you think you
    need to do?
        I just, you know, don't want to wait until next quarterly
    earning, or next annual report from you. Can we do something
    mid-term, meaning in the next few weeks. Tell us where you are
    at, what you are thinking this is going to be and what you
    don't think it is not going to be.
        I feel like we are, you know, missing something. I don't
    like thinking that this report is a year-and-a-half late and we
    don't have anything. Am I missing something?
        Mr. Gelber. Regarding, you know, meeting with your office
    and meeting with your staff, GSA is more than able and willing
    to do that and provide you the updates and information that you
    would be requesting, yes.
        Mr. Correa. I feel like it is my fiduciary duty to know
    what is going on. So if you could help me out here a little
    bit, clarify some things for me. Finally, as part of the
    updated report, not sure why it was named St. Elizabeths, but I
    know our President when 9/11 occurred was George W. Bush.
        So I would like to ask the committee to consider naming the
    St. Elizabeths area after our President George W. Bush, because
    he was President, the man in charge when our country was
    attacked, and he responded accordingly. So I would like to have
    that considered for the record. Instead of calling it St.
    Elizabeths, call it the George W. Bush DHS Headquarters.
        I yield, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
        The Chair thanks the witnesses for their valuable testimony
    and the Members for their questions. Members may have some
    additional questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to
    respond to these in writing. Pursuant to committee rule VII(D),
    the hearing record will remain open for 10 days.
        Without objection, the subcommittee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:24 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

             Questions From Chairman Scott Perry for Thomas Chaleki
        Question 1a. To date, how much has been appropriated to DHS and
    GSA, respectively, for the headquarters consolidation project at St.
    Elizabeths?
        Answer.
       DHS has received $745 million.
        Total: $2.357 billion (As of 4.12.18).
        DHS defers to GSA to respond to questions regarding GSA
    appropriations requests.
        Question 1b. As of April 2018, what portion of the funds
    appropriated to the project have been obligated?
        Answer. As of April 2018, DHS has obligated $637,824,204.60 of the
    $745,747,729.00 appropriated. DHS will defer to GSA for GSA obligation
    figures.
        Question 2. Moving forward, what are some of the biggest internal
    management challenges facing DHS and GSA regarding the consolidated
    headquarters project at St. Elizabeths?
        Answer. One of the biggest challenges facing DHS is that the delay
    in completion of the Headquarters Consolidation program adversely
    impacts the Department's strategic imperative to consolidate and reduce
    the number of locations of our core headquarters and component offices
    to enhance mission effectiveness and unity of effort.
        The funding time line is critical to sequence planning, design,
    construction, and outfitting to synchronize occupancy with lease
    expirations. This is essential to optimize cost savings and minimize
    additional costs for short-term lease extensions and building fit out
    in the interim.
        Short-term lease extensions are not cost-effective; however, they
    became a necessity with repeated gaps in planned funding. The
    Department and GSA have executed short-term lease extensions (at
    premium rates) where required due to these gaps. GSA and DHS are
    exploring long-term lease replacement procurements with the options to
    backfill with other Federal agencies as we are hopeful that Congress
    will fully appropriate future appropriations requests in support of St
    Elizabeths. This will allow DHS to address the potential higher costs
    associated with short-term extensions.
        Equally important to the real property challenges is the adverse
    impacts the uncertainty has on the DHS workforce. Our inability to
    accurately tell them where and/or when they will be moving has a clear
    negative impact on employee morale, recruitment, and retention.
    Commuting time and distance are also significant factors in employee
    work-life considerations. While there are no direct Federal Viewpoint
    Survey (FEVs) questions that address commuting time and distance,
    scores on, ``what is going on in the agency, involvement in decisions
    and overall satisfaction'' are correlated to these low satisfaction
    areas.
        Question 3a. The President's fiscal year 2019 budget requests about
    $400 million for continued consolidation and new development funds for
    St. Elizabeths. In 2014, GAO recommended making funding for the St.
    Elizabeths project contingent on DHS and GSA developing a revised
    headquarters consolidation plan that conforms with leading practices.
        Why should Congress approve the fiscal year 2019 budget request for
    St. Elizabeths before DHS and GSA have finalized an updated plan for
    the project moving forward?
        Answer. Congress should continue to support the funding requested
    by both GSA and DHS, and new construction of the FEMA headquarters, as
    it will enhance mission effectiveness, operational efficiency, and
    unity of effort between FEMA and Department Headquarters. It will
    reduce long-term costs. The revised enhanced plan prepared by GSA and
    DHS will include the new FEMA Headquarters building in fiscal year
    2019.
        The tenant portion (DHS) of the fiscal year 2019 request is $171.5
    million for tenant costs of the FEMA Headquarters to be constructed on
    the plateau. Additionally, construction of a new, Federally-owned FEMA
    Headquarters eliminates the need to re-compete commercial leases every
    15 years and reduces the long-term cost of housing the FEMA
    Headquarters. The FEMA building at St. Elizabeths is part of the
    current Master Plan.
        Question 3b. One challenge for DHS and GSA planning has been a
    failure to properly consider the impact of funding shortfalls on the
    project's schedule estimates. How will updated plans for St. Elizabeths
    take into consideration the possibility of funding shortfalls in fiscal
    year 2019 and beyond?
        Answer. DHS will continue to plan for the best options for the
    Department and adjust plans as needed to account for any funding
    shortfalls in fiscal year 2019 and beyond. The intent is any necessary
    replacement leases executed by GSA will be long-term replacement
    leases, avoiding the need for costly short-term extensions. As DHS
    vacates the space to relocate to the St Elizabeths campus, DHS will
    return this unneeded space to GSA.
        Question 4. What do GSA and DHS plan to do with owned space already
    occupied by DHS, such as the current headquarters facility on Nebraska
    Avenue that will be vacated as a result of the headquarters
    consolidation project?
        Answer. As functions relocate from the Nebraska Avenue Complex, DHS
    plans to return unneeded space to GSA. DHS defers to GSA for this plan.
        Question 5a. During the April 2018 hearing before the subcommittee,
    GSA testified that the I-295 Interchange and Access Road project falls
    under its management. However, in fiscal year 2013 DHS requested $89
    million for funding for construction on the project.
        Why did DHS request funding for this project in fiscal year 2013,
    when GSA is the agency responsible for the management and therefore
    funding and construction of the project?
        Answer. In rare instances, on the largest of projects such as St
    Elizabeths, tenant agencies have requested funding in support of
    construction. Historically, GSA and the Federal Buildings Fund request
    funding for site, design, construction, and management and inspection.
        Given the urgent need for this critical infrastructure project and
    the lack of appropriations provided for GSA in fiscal year 2011 and
    fiscal year 2012, DHS took the initiative to include it in our budget
    request in the hope it would receive greater support from the Congress
    than it did in the GSA request the prior 2 years. Unfortunately, DHS
    was not sufficiently funded in fiscal year 2013 to execute this
    project.
        Question 2b. How are budget requests for funding for the St.
    Elizabeths project divided between DHS and GSA?
        Answer. GSA, as the owner and developer of the campus, is
    responsible for the overall campus infrastructure (utilities, roads,
    parking structures, capitalized physical security improvements, etc.),
    and the core and shell construction of each building.
        DHS is responsible for tenant space design, the interior build-out
    of tenant spaces, information technology and electronic physical
    infrastructure and equipment within the building, and the overall
    campus IT enterprise architecture (DHS network), outfitting (furniture,
    fixtures, and equipment), commissioning, decommissioning (removal of
    DHS-specific items from the prior location) and move planning/execution
    costs, plus associated GSA fees.
        Question 6a. GAO's 2014 report found that the St. Elizabeths
    project has moved on and off DHS's major acquisition list.
        Is St. Elizabeths currently deemed a ``major acquisition'' by DHS
    and therefore subject to greater Departmental oversight? If not, why?
        Answer. From end to end, this is a GSA facility and will be for its
    entire life cycle. Even once occupied by DHS components, GSA will be in
    charge of the facility, its major maintenance, any new capital
    developments, and its eventual disposition. As a result, this is not a
    DHS acquisition.
        The Department agreed with the Government Accountability Office
    (GAO) recommendation that the Headquarters Consolidation project should
    be considered a major acquisition for the DHS funding portion and would
    come under the purview of the DHS Acquisition Review Board (ARB).
    However, it would not necessarily follow the fully-defined DHS
    acquisition process, given the project is managed wholly by GSA in
    accordance with GSA acquisition polices and the stage of the project in
    the acquisition cycle (i.e., in the process of renovation of the Center
    Building).
        The Business Case Analysis submitted to GAO provides the
    foundational documentation for the consolidation and related
    acquisition efforts. The Department conducted a program review on the
    DHS-funded portion of the project on November 15, 2016, utilizing the
    draft updated cost/schedule/risk data developed by GSA in response to
    GAO recommendations. The Department will continue to conduct reviews as
    required.
        Question 6b. If St. Elizabeths is currently designated as a major
    acquisition, has the Department aligned the project with DHS's
    acquisition policy guidance, as recommended by GAO?
        Answer. Given the fact that the St. Elizabeths Development is
    managed by GSA in accordance with GSA acquisition guidance, the DHS
    funded portion of the St. Elizabeths development does not follow all
    steps in the DHS acquisition process. DHS has conducted an ARB on the
    DHS funding and provides daily coordination with GSA on the use of DHS
    funds. The project does have full and regular visibility by DHS
    leadership.
        Further, the Chief Readiness Support Officer is actively working
    with the Office of Program Accountability and Risk Management to align
    the program documentation developed under this GSA-managed acquisition
    to meet the intent of the DHS Acquisition policy guidance.
        Question 7a. Under the Enhanced Plan, DHS proposed to move the
    Science and Technology Directorate, the Domestic Nuclear Detection
    Office and the Office of Health Affairs into the Munro Building at St.
    Elizabeths, which currently houses Coast Guard's headquarters.
        What concerns has the U.S. Coast Guard voiced on this move, and how
    is DHS mitigating such issues in a timely manner?
        Answer. The Coast Guard is a critical operational component. The
    Coast Guard has raised concerns that placing additional components
    could adversely impact operations and compromise growth in programs for
    cybersecurity and Ice Breaker acquisitions.
        The Department is reviewing the Coast Guard's concerns
    methodically, testing out different design approaches, and evaluating
    the tradeoffs required to meet the competing priorities.
        DHS Leadership is currently evaluating options for the Munro
    Optimization, with the U.S. Coast Guard's concerns in consideration.
    The Department expects to have a final decision this summer on the path
    forward for this project.
        Question 7b. Has DHS had to extend the current leases for the
    Science and Technology Directorate or the Domestic Nuclear Detection
    Office and the Office of Health Affairs (now combined as the Countering
    Weapons of Mass Destruction Office) due to delays in starting the Munro
    Building Reconfiguration?
        Answer. The CWMD Office and S&T have 7 leases between 3 locations,
    of which 3 leases have expired and are in a holdover status, with 4
    more leases approaching expiration in 2018, and one lease set to expire
    in 2019. GSA continues to negotiate lease extensions for the expired
    leases and leases approaching expiration.
        Question 8. Which DHS offices and components were originally slated
    to move to St. Elizabeths and what entities are slated to move to the
    Campus currently?
        Answer. The Original Master Plan (2009) envisioned the following
    functions would relocate to the St. Elizabeths campus:
       USCG (full)
       DHS Headquarters
         Office of the Secretary (full)
         Office of the Deputy Secretary (full)
         Office of the Executive Secretary (full)
         Office of the Military Advisor (full)
         Management Directorate (partial staff)
         Office of Operations Coordination (full)
         Office of Policy (full)
         Office of Intergovernmental Affairs (now Office of
                Partnership and Engagement--full)
         Office of Public Affairs (full)
         Office of Legislative Affairs (full)
         Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (full)
         Office of Privacy (full)
         Office of Citizenship & Immigration Services Ombudsman
                (full)
         Counter Narcotics Enforcement (full)
         Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (now CWMD--full)
         Office of Health Affairs (now CWMD--full)
         Science & Technology Directorate (leadership only)
         Office of Intelligence & Analysis (leadership only)
       FEMA (full)
       ICE (partial staff)
       CBP (partial staff)
         USCIS (leadership only)
         USSS (leadership only)
         TSA (partial staff)
         OIG (leadership only)
        The Enhanced Consolidation Plan (2016) revised planned occupancies
    as follows:
       USCG (full)
       DHS Headquarters
         Office of the Secretary (full)
         Office of the Deputy Secretary (full)
         Office of the Executive Secretary (full)
         Office of the Military Advisor (full)
         Management Directorate (full)
         Office of Operations Coordination (full)
         Office of Policy (full)
         Office of Partnership and Engagement (full)
         Office of Public Affairs (full)
         Office of Legislative Affairs (full)
         Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (full)
         Office of Privacy (full)
         Office of Citizenship & Immigration Services Ombudsman
                (full)
         Science & Technology Directorate (full)
         Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (full)
         Office of Health Affairs (full)
       FEMA (full)
       ICE (full)
       CBP (partial staff)
       CIS (USCIS Operations Center only)
       USSS (USSS Decision Support Cell only)
       TSA (Transportation Security Operations Center only)
        Due to lack of full funding for the project thus far, the Enhanced
    Plan is no longer viable as envisioned. DHS is currently working with
    GSA to revise the Master Plan, and will brief the Congress on the
    future St Elizabeths plans, as appropriate.
          Questions From Ranking Member Luis Correa for Thomas Chaleki
        Question 1. In response to the DHS Headquarters Consolidation
    Accountability Act of 2015, this committee was owed information in
    August 2016 to better understand DHS headquarters enhanced
    consolidation plan, but we're still waiting. Why is this information
    long overdue and when can we expect to receive it?
        Answer. DHS, in concert with GSA, prepared a comprehensive response
    to the Act with the detailed cost estimates/schedules in accordance
    with GAO recommendations.
        The draft report was prepared with the anticipation that full
    funding would be supported in the fiscal year 2017 and 2018 budget
    request and appropriations process. With the lack of fiscal year 2017
    appropriations to build the new FEMA Headquarters and the corresponding
    deferral of the fiscal year 2018 planned execution, the draft report is
    outdated and inaccurate.
        Both the DHS and GSA concluded the report was no longer an accurate
    reflection of the program estimate or schedule as written and this was
    communicated to the committee in lieu of the Report. The Enhanced Plan
    will be revised with the recognition that certain leases must now be
    re-competed as a result of the 2-year delay and that other adjustments
    are necessary given the challenges encountered with retrofitting
    historic building renovations on the campus.
        GSA, in partnership with DHS, is currently developing a Master Plan
    revision.
        Question 2a. The DHS headquarters consolidation was justified on
    the basis that it was going to centralize leadership, improve
    operations, save money, and boost morale. However, the project is
    behind schedule, increasing in cost, and not bringing DHS components
    together.
        When will we start to see the benefits?
        Answer. Operationally, the benefits of headquarters consolidation
    began to accrue when the U.S. Coast Guard moved from Transpoint and the
    Jemal Building into the Munro Building in 2013. Collocating their
    entire headquarters staff under one roof, as opposed to two separate
    facilities has enhanced operational efficiency, esprit de corps, and
    unit integrity.
        With the Department's Headquarters relocation into the Center
    Building and new National Operations Center coming on line in April
    2019, along with the West Addition in 2020, the Department will begin
    operating in a more consolidated footprint, which will enhance mission
    effectiveness, operational efficiency, and unity of effort.
        With continued Congressional support for the project, including the
    fiscal year 2019 budget request to construct a new FEMA headquarters
    and future fiscal years, DHS will continue to leverage the investment
    in St. Elizabeths to its optimum potential.
        Government-owned, permanent facilities provide long-term costs
    savings over the best available commercial leasing plan. Had the
    Enhanced Plan been fully funded and executed as originally envisioned,
    it would have provided DHS cost avoidance of $1.2 billion present value
    over 30 years over the best available commercial lease plan.
        The financial benefits will accrue as sufficient funding is
    provided to complete additional development segments to allow a
    reduction in the current 46 scattered locations that house DHS and
    component HQ offices across the National Capital Region.
        Question 2b. To what extent will these benefits be fully realized
    given components, such as TSA, are building their own headquarters?
        Answer. Through the original Master Planning process completed from
    2005 through 2009, GSA determined there were no available sites within
    the National Capital Region (NCR) to allow a complete consolidation of
    DHS and component headquarters. Accordingly, a ``perfect'' solution was
    and is not a viable option. However, that does not mean that enduring
    improvements in mission effectiveness and portfolio management cannot
    be achieved with significant reductions in our scattered 46 locations
    throughout the NCR. From its inception, the plan sought to reduce the
    46 current locations down to about 8 to enhance mission effectiveness,
    operational efficiency, portfolio management, and unity of effort. TSA
    headquarters consolidation into a commercial lease was and is a part of
    the overall plan to reduce down to roughly 8 locations.
        Question 3a. DHS previously estimated that the relocation of the
    Coast Guard to St. Elizabeths would save $16 million dollars in shuttle
    expenses over 5 years.
        Has DHS identified any cost savings associated with the Coast
    Guard's move that occurred 5 years ago?
        Answer. Yes. The utilization of WMATA buses for shuttle services
    between Anacostia Metro and both the GSA Regional Office Building at
    301 7th Street S.W. and St. Elizabeths has resulted in an actual
    savings to Coast Guard over the past 5 years, compared to the
    commercial motor coaches used prior to relocation. Actual costs for the
    WMATA service from August 2013 through June 2018 was approximately
    $11,900,000. The estimate for commercial motor coach shuttles providing
    the same service over this period was approximately $25,000,000. As a
    result, DHS/USCG realized a cost avoidance of approximately $13,100,000
    in just supporting the Coast Guard population.
        Question 3b. Has DHS estimated any other similar cost savings with
    future moves to St. Elizabeths?
        Answer. The fully implemented Enhanced Plan would have resulted in
    a 30-year present value savings to the Department of $1.2 billion
    compared to the best available commercial lease options.
        Additional savings in shared services/overhead expenses could also
    be realized by fully executing the Headquarters Consolidation Program
    and reducing our NCR locations from 46 to about 8. These include:
       Infrastructure.--GSA installed 70 percent of the utility
            distribution systems during the first phase to support future
            campus occupancies and mitigate impacts on operations. These
            will go underutilized without additional construction.
       Security.--Without consolidation, guard services and
            physical security building enhancements will have to be
            duplicated in commercial leases with lost opportunities to
            leverage the St. Elizabeths Interagency Security Committee
            (ISC) Level V secure campus costs already being paid.
       Mail Delivery.--DHS currently spends $2.1 million delivering
            mail (transportation only) to approximately 50 locations. With
            consolidation, DHS projects that the costs could be reduced by
            $500,000 annually or 25 percent.
        Question 4a. Both DHS and GSA are requesting money in fiscal year
    2019 to design and construct FEMA's new headquarters at St. Elizabeths.
        What planning have GSA and DHS completed thus far for this segment
    of the project?
        Answer. GSA is developing initial core and shell massing
    alternatives for a new FEMA headquarters to be constructed on the
    plateau of the West Campus. The DHS St. Elizabeths team is currently
    working with FEMA to review their Program of Requirements in
    preparation for detailed programming meetings to be held with each FEMA
    office and the design architect over the next 2 months.
        Question 4b. When will DHS and GSA be able to begin construction on
    the FEMA headquarters assuming funding is provided?
        Answer. DHS defers this question to GSA. DHS does not manage the
    acquisition process or construction scheduling. DHS provides funding to
    GSA to meet our tenant obligations. GSA is responsible for the
    acquisition and construction time lines.
        Question 5. DHS's fiscal year 2019 budget request includes $171
    million for construction at St. Elizabeths, and the GSA budget request
    includes even more. If you don't have cost and schedule estimates to
    submit to Congress, what are these requests based on?
        Answer. Both GSA and DHS have estimates for FEMA construction and
    outfitting the fiscal year 2019 request. This project was part of the
    Enhanced Plan execution included in the fiscal year 2017 budget request
    that was not funded. The cost and schedule estimates have been updated
    to address the 2-year delay in execution from fiscal year 2017 to
    fiscal year 2019.
        GSA and DHS are working together to develop a Master Plan revision.
    The revised plan will include updated cost and schedule estimates.
      Questions From Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson for Thomas Chaleki
        Question 1a. In 2013, former Chief Readiness Support Officer Jeff
    Orner testified before the House Committee on Transportation and
    Infrastructure that DHS's rental expense was approaching $1.6 billion
    in rent and $310 million in maintenance and upkeep each year.
        Please provide the committee with an update on DHS's current total
    rental expenses, including a breakdown of the costs by each location,
    per square foot.
        Answer. The total rental expenses for DHS facilities serviced by
    GSA as of April 2018 projected out annually is $1,623,404,264.04. See
    cost breakdowns in attachment ``DHS Facilities Serviced by GSA--April
    2018''.
        Question 1b. Additionally, how much money can still be saved on
    leases if Congress adequately funds the project to allow for
    consolidation of several components and offices in owned space at St.
    Elizabeths?
        Answer. Leveraging the Federal investment at St. Elizabeths
    provides long-term savings over leasing commercial space, which has to
    be re-competed every 15 years with tenant costs incurred.
        Government-owned facilities provide long-term costs savings over
    the best available commercial leasing plan. Had the Enhanced Plan been
    fully funded and executed as envisioned, it would have provided DHS
    cost avoidance of $1.2 billion over 30 years.
        With expiring commercial leases, GSA and DHS are faced with annual
    decisions to pursue short-term lease extensions (where possible) at
    premium costs with no guarantee that delayed appropriations will be
    forthcoming, or re-compete the commercial leases with tenant costs
    incurred and not realize the benefits of consolidation.
        Given the lack of full funding for the project in fiscal year 2017
    and fiscal year 2018, and the subsequent misalignment of leases, GSA
    and DHS are working to update the Master Plan. At that point, DHS will
    be able to update the savings analysis based on the revised Master
    Plan.
        However, it is clear that consolidating DHS components into
    Government-owned property at St. Elizabeths is the more cost-effective
    choice. Additional savings will be achieved in overhead expenses from
    reductions in shuttles/sedans, mail, energy efficiency, etc. at full
    implementation of consolidation.
        Question 2a. Have you revisited the projected need for physical
    space at the St. Elizabeths Campus and how many personnel will be
    housed there?
        Answer. The original Master Plan provided total development of 4.5
    million gross square feet of office space and 1.5 million square feet
    of parking on the West and East Campus, accommodating a total of 14,000
    employee seats.
        The Enhanced Plan proposed to reduce the construction, eliminating
    the East Campus development and proposed to accommodate 17,000
    employees in 12,800 seats in 3.7 million gross square feet of office
    space on the West Campus.
        Given the lack of full funding in fiscal year 2017 and 2018, the
    misalignment of expiring commercial leases, and the lessons learned
    from the Center Building renovation, GSA and DHS are in the process of
    developing a Master Plan revision. The revised plan will identify DHS
    personnel/programmatic space requirements and GSA overall construction
    targets/approaches for the remaining campus development.
        Question 2b. Conversely, how many personnel will remain in leased
    space?
        Answer. Through the original Master Planning process completed from
    2005 through 2009, GSA determined there were no available sites within
    the National Capital Region (NCR) to allow a complete consolidation of
    DHS and component Headquarters. From its inception, the plan sought to
    reduce the 46 current location down to about 8, with the goal of
    enhancing mission effectiveness, operational efficiency, portfolio
    management, and unity of effort.
        Had the Enhanced Plan been fully funded/executed, the DHS NCR
    portfolio would have reduced from 46 to roughly 8 locations with St.
    Elizabeths as a focal point, and with Federal space retained in the
    Ronald Reagan Building, the USSS Headquarters building, and the
    Nebraska Avenue Complex. Commercial lease occupancies were planned for
    TSA, USCIS, and OIG. We are still moving forward with these commercial
    leases, however given the misalignment of lease expirations and the
    challenges with retrofitting historic buildings, additional leases must
    be considered.
        GSA and DHS are working together to revise the plan and expect to
    have this completed by the end of the calendar year. This revised plan
    will identify the updated mix of owned and leased occupancies.
        Question 3a. One of the initial goals of the DHS Headquarters
    Consolidation Project was to integrate Department-wide operations and
    improve coordination of response efforts to various threats and
    homeland security events.
        Still awaiting completion of the project, how effectively can FEMA
    coordinate with other DHS entities in the immediate response to
    incidents with the current facilities available for DHS headquarters?
        Answer. The dedicated FEMA workforce continues to perform at high
    levels despite being housed in two different commercial leased
    buildings and separated from other DHS entities. FEMA is in commercial
    leased space with leases that will expire in the next few years.
    Without the Federal facility, FEMA may have to move when their lease
    expires. The Department's perspective is that collocating FEMA with the
    DHS Headquarters at St. Elizabeths enhances communications,
    coordination, resource allocation, and overall mission effectiveness as
    compared to placing them in a new commercial lease somewhere in the
    National Capital Region.
        While the business case for Federal construction over commercial
    leasing is compelling, the operational coordination and unity of effort
    enhancement on mission execution represents the foundational aspect of
    headquarters consolidation.
        Question 3b. How could a consolidated headquarters have contributed
    to an improved response to the 2017 disasters?
        Answer. A consolidated headquarters with collocated components will
    enhance communications, coordination, resource allocation, and overall
    mission effectiveness as compared to components scattered in commercial
    leases across the National Capital Region. In times of crisis and/or
    high operational tempo, proximity matters. Face-to-face communications,
    operational coordination, and courses of action development, enhances
    the quality and timeliness of recommendations provided to leadership
    for action. Working collaboratively together produces better results
    than individual components working on their own.
        Question 4a. Construction of the new DHS headquarters was initially
    to be completed 2 years ago in 2016 at a cost of $3.26 billion. Nine
    years after construction only the Coast Guard has moved to its new
    location on the St. Elizabeths campus and significant work remains
    before other DHS component agencies are able to relocate. The last
    estimate I saw was completion in 2026 at the cost of $4.5 billion.
        What efforts are you undertaking to reassess cost and schedule
    estimates for the St. Elizabeths project?
        Answer. DHS and GSA are working together on the revision to the
    Master Plan to address misaligned leases due to the lack of full
    funding for the project in fiscal year 2017 and fiscal year 2018, and
    challenges with retrofitting historic buildings. We will continue to
    carefully manage our requirements to mitigate cost growth as the plan
    is revised.
        Question 4b. How do those efforts conform with leading practices as
    identified by GAO?
        Answer. As the tenant, DHS does not oversee the development side of
    the St Elizabeths campus project. The Department defers to GSA.
        Question 5. How much have DHS and GSA been appropriated to date for
    the St. Elizabeths project and how much more is needed to complete
    consolidation?
        Answer.
       DHS has received $745 million.
        Total: $2.357 billion (As of 4.12.18).
        DHS defers to GSA to respond to questions regarding GSA
    appropriations requests.
        GSA and DHS are working together to develop a Master Plan revision.
    The Master Plan revision is expected to include updated cost estimates
    to complete the headquarters consolidation at St. Elizabeths.
        Question 6. Who is primarily responsible for the project and
    controls the contracts that obligate (or spend) taxpayer money on St.
    Elizabeths?
        Answer. GSA is the owner and developer of the campus. In this role,
    they manage all development contracts to include planning, design, and
    construction.
        As the tenant, DHS's responsibilities include the development of
    clear requirements for housing DHS staff and budgeting and funding all
    tenant requirements for build-out and outfitting of tenant space and
    move planning/execution. DHS does not exercise acquisition authority
    over the construction or schedule development. DHS transfers most DHS
    project funding to GSA for obligation and expenditure. DHS does
    monitor, review, and approve GSA's use of DHS funding for specific
    projects segments.
        GSA is responsible for design and construction. GSA is fully
    responsible for the obligation and expenditure of GSA-appropriated
    project funds.
             Questions From Chairman Scott Perry for Michael Gelber
        Question 1a. To date, how much has been appropriated to DHS and
    GSA, respectively, for the headquarters consolidation project at St.
    Elizabeths?
        Question 1b. As of April 2018, what portion of the funds
    appropriated to the project have been obligated?
        Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
        Question 2. Moving forward, what are some of the biggest internal
    management challenges facing DHS and GSA regarding the consolidated
    headquarters project at St. Elizabeths?
        Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
        Question 3a. The President's fiscal year 2019 budget requests about
    $400 million for continued consolidation and new development funds for
    St. Elizabeths. In 2014, GAO recommended making funding for the St.
    Elizabeths project contingent on DHS and GSA developing a revised
    headquarters consolidation plan that conforms with leading practices.
        Why should Congress approve the fiscal year 2019 budget request for
    St. Elizabeths before DHS and GSA have finalized an updated plan for
    the project moving forward?
        Question 3b. One challenge for DHS and GSA planning has been a
    failure to properly consider the impact of funding shortfalls on the
    project's schedule estimates. How will updated plans for St. Elizabeths
    take into consideration the possibility of funding shortfalls in fiscal
    year 2019 and beyond?
        Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
        Question 4. What do GSA and DHS plan to do with owned space already
    occupied by DHS, such as the current headquarters facility on Nebraska
    Avenue, that will be vacated as a result of the headquarters
    consolidation project?
        Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
        Question 5a. During the April 2018 hearing before the subcommittee,
    GSA testified that the I-295 Interchange and Access Road project falls
    under its management. However, in fiscal year 2013 DHS requested $89
    million for funding for construction on the project.
        Why did DHS request funding for this project in fiscal year 2013,
    when GSA is the agency responsible for the management and therefore
    funding and construction of the project?
        Question 5b. How are budget requests for funding for the St.
    Elizabeths project divided between DHS and GSA?
        Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
          Questions From Ranking Member Luis Correa for Michael Gelber
        Question 1. GSA guidance requires the development of a life-cycle
    cost estimate for construction projects that includes the cost to build
    and operate the construction project. However, GAO found that the cost
    estimate for St. Elizabeths only included the cost to build, not any
    operations or maintenance costs.
        Have you developed an improved life-cycle cost estimate to include
    operations and maintenance costs?
        Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
        Question 2. In December 2017, the Coast Guard expressed concerns
    with the plan to move three other DHS offices--Office of Health
    Affairs, Science & Technology Directorate, and Domestic Nuclear
    Detection Office (DNDO)--into Coast Guard's headquarters at St.
    Elizabeths, which is already over capacity.
        What is the status of reaching agreement with the Coast Guard on
    the reconfiguration of its headquarters to accommodate the additional
    1,500 personnel?
        Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
        Question 3a. Both DHS and GSA are requesting money in fiscal year
    2019 to design and construct FEMA's new headquarters at St. Elizabeths.
        What planning have GSA and DHS completed thus far for this segment
    of the project?
        Question 3b. When will DHS and GSA be able to begin construction on
    the FEMA Headquarters assuming funding is provided?
        Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
        Question 4. DHS's fiscal year 2019 budget request includes $171
    million for construction at St. Elizabeths, and the GSA budget request
    includes even more.
        If you don't have cost and schedule estimates to submit to
    Congress, what are these requests based on?
        Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
      Questions From Ranking Member Bennie G. Thompson for Michael Gelber
        Question 1a. DHS has established an acquisition oversight process
    that includes an Acquisition Review Board and the under secretary for
    management or the deputy secretary as the acquisition decision
    authority. I understand that GSA, as the developer, is responsible for
    the acquisition and contracting actions on the St. Elizabeths project.
        Who is the acquisition decision authority at GSA for this project
    and similar construction projects?
        Question 1b. Additionally, please explain what processes GSA uses
    for oversight of such large construction projects like St. Elizabeths.
        Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
        Question 2. Please provide the following information on all
    contracts to date that GSA has awarded for the St. Elizabeths campus:
       awardee, dollar amount, and description of work to be
            performed for each prime and sub-contract, including contracts
            to small and disadvantaged businesses;
       the percentage of contract dollars awarded to small and
            disadvantaged businesses; and
       a description of what future opportunities exist for small
            and disadvantaged businesses to work on this project.
        Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
        Question 3a. Construction of the new DHS headquarters was initially
    to be completed 2 years ago in 2016 at a cost of $3.26 billion. Nine
    years after construction only the Coast Guard has moved to its new
    location on the St. Elizabeths campus and significant work remains
    before other DHS component agencies are able to relocate. The last
    estimate I saw was completion in 2026 at the cost of $4.5 billion.
        What efforts are you undertaking to reassess cost and schedule
    estimates for the St. Elizabeths project?
        Question 3b. How do those efforts conform with leading practices as
    identified by GAO?
        Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
        Question 4. How much have DHS and GSA been appropriated to date for
    the St. Elizabeths project and how much more is needed to complete
    consolidation?
        Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
        Question 5. Who is primarily responsible for the project and
    controls the contracts that obligate (or spend) taxpayer money on St.
    Elizabeths?
        Answer. Response was not received at the time of publication.
      Questions From Ranking Member Luis Correa for Christopher P. Currie
        Question 1a. In its September 2014 report, GAO made five
    recommendations to DHS and GSA to improve the headquarters
    consolidation project at St. Elizabeths. Over 3 years later those
    recommendations remain open as they have not been implemented.
        Have DHS and GSA made any progress implementing the
    recommendations?
        Answer. DHS and GSA have not made progress implementing four of our
    recommendations dealing with revised plans that reflect leading
    practices for capital decision making and reliable cost and schedule
    estimates. In January 2018, DHS and GSA reported that they had prepared
    alternatives analyses, updated plans, and cost and schedule estimates
    for DHS headquarters consolidation, but needed to reexamine these
    efforts relative to new administration priorities and budget
    circumstances.
        DHS has made some progress implementing our recommendation that DHS
    designate the headquarters consolidation program a major acquisition,
    consistent with DHS acquisition policy, and apply DHS acquisition
    policy requirements. On September 16, 2014, DHS issued an Acquisition
    Decision Memorandum designating the DHS-funded portions of the
    headquarters consolidation program as a Major Acquisition Program to be
    overseen by the Departmental Acquisition Review Board (ARB). DHS made
    further progress implementing this recommendation by conducting and
    documenting an ARB of the program on November 15, 2016. DHS reported in
    January 2018 that they are working to align headquarters consolidation
    program documentation to meet the spirit of DHS acquisition policy
    guidance.
        Question 1b. What further work needs to be done?
        Answer. A comprehensive report to Congress on DHS headquarters
    consolidation, along with reliable project cost and schedule estimates,
    could inform Congress's funding decisions. The Department of Homeland
    Security Headquarters Consolidation Accountability Act of 2015 (Pub. L.
    No. 114-150) was enacted on April 29, 2016. Among other things, the act
    requires DHS, in coordination with GSA, to submit information to
    Congress about DHS headquarters consolidation efforts not later than
    120 days of enactment.
        As of April 2018, DHS and GSA had not submitted the information to
    Congress required by Pub. L. No. 114-150. Required information
    includes: A comprehensive assessment of property and facilities
    utilized by DHS in the National Capital Region; an analysis that
    identifies the costs and benefits of leasing and construction
    alternatives for the remainder of the consolidation project; and
    updated cost and schedule estimates for the project that are consistent
    with our recommendations. DHS should also demonstrate a continued
    commitment in applying DHS acquisition policy requirements to the
    headquarters consolidation program.

                                     [all]