OUTLINE 'OPTIONS FOR PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION IN THE LANGLEY COMPOUND'

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP86-00244R000300100003-0
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 28
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 8, 2002
• Sequence Number: 3
• Content Type: OUTLINE

STATINTL
Approved Fier Release 2002/05/07: CIA-RDP86-00
"Options for Proposed Construction in the Langley Compound"
I. Introduction (Purpose of the paper; approximately
1/4 double-spaced page)
A. Whether new building? (Phrased as assumed yes)
B. Scope, new building?
1. Subquestion - Contain Hqs. ESE or other special
functions?
C. How fund?
II. Brief History (1 to 1 1/2 double-spaced pages)
STATINTL
STATINTL
A. Current Agency MWA facility posture
1. Number and size of outlying buildings
a. Specific listing as attachment
2. Lease and ownership status
a. Lease expiration dates (also on Att. 1)
b. Possi lit of loss of 2430 E Street complex,
NPIC,
c. Status statement on magazine Building replacement
B. Previous Planning
1. BPS No. 2
a. Justification for consolidation by cost-
effectiveness
b. NPIC exclusion from consolidation
2. Garage and Master Plan (Simple statement that Plan
required for garage and filed with NCPC, EPA, and
Fiarfax County)
3. Current BPS
a. Resulted from ESE study
b. Manning level and recruitment progress
. Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP86-00244R000300100003-0
 Approved For Release 2002/05/07 CIA-RDP86-002 4R000300100003-0
III. Discussion - Options and Factors Affecting New Construction
A. Justification
1. Cost-effectiveness of consolidation (cite BPS No. 2
study)
2. Has. overcrowding
?3. ESE facilities problems (cite study)
B. Scope and Cost Options (Refer to Att. 2 listing incre-
mental cost options)
1. Relieve Has. overcrowding
a. Scope and cost
2. Relocate Has. ESE
a. Scope and cost
b. Statement pros and cons in parallel form
3. Consolidate OR leased buildings
a. Sco e and cost in area increments (Rosslyn,
STATINTL C of C)
4. Consolidate Government-Owned building (2430 E Street
complex)
a. Scope and cost
5. Parking structures
a. Statement of requirement and concept
b. Cost
6. Single building or complex
a. Pros and cons in parallel form
C. Funding Options (Statement of necessary steps each
option and time and cost variables)
1. Public Law 92-313
2. Direct Congressional approval
Approved For Release 2002/5/07 : CIA-RDP86-00244R000300100003-0
 Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP86-00244R000300100003-0
D. Regulatory Agency Impact on Time, Cost, and Procedures
(Brief statement of regulatory requirements, pro-
cedures, and problems for each subheading)
1. GSA
2. NCPC,
3. EPA
4. State and local Government (Virginia and Fairfax Co.)
5. HEW
6. MWTA
7. Other
IV. Summary (1/2 page double-spaced, identification of major
conceptual questions requiring Management Committee
resolution plus statement recognizing extensive
additional BPS study to sharpen definition and
explore options)
A. Approximate scope building to be constructed?
1. Subquestion - Relocate Has. ESE or other special
functions? (Possible deferral or tentative con-
clusion with later reexamination based on further
BPS study)
2. Subquestion - One building or complex? (Possible
tentative conclusion with later reexamination based
on regulatory agency position)
B. Fund Public Law 92-313 or direct? (Possible tentative
conclusion with possible reexamination if time or
political factors dictate)
V. Attachments
1. Listing external buildings by location, size, and
lease expiration date
2. Cost matrix for new construction by scope increment
3
Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP86-00244R000300100003-0
 Approved FQp Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP86-00244R000300100003-0
I. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this paper is to address the various basic
factors and key questions which would influence a new building
program and to present a preliminary overview of potential options
for proposed construction in the Langley Compound. The obvious
first question is "Will there be a new building?" Assuming the
answer to be yes, other questions arise. What will be the scope and
scale of this new facility? Will the new facility solve for
Headquarters Building needs, external building needs, or both?
How will the building program be funded and what time frame is
acceptable? The intent of this effort is to evaluate these
factors and considerations as a preliminary assessment which
will provide a basis for further study, development, and future
decision-making relative to such a potential program.
II. BRIEF HISTORY
Throughout the years, the Agency has strived to consolidate
its Headquarters functions and holdings at one central location.
Due to the approval of less than required appropriations from
the Congress, only a portion of the Agency was provided for in
the new Headquarters Building at Langley in early 1960. The
remainder of Agency external functions were eventually relocated
from temporary buildings to permanent building satellite complexes
in Washington, D.C., and Northern Virginia. Several years after
Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP86-00244R000300100003-0
 Approved F,pj Release 2002/05/07: CIA-RDP86-002R000300100003-0
the occupancy of Headquarters Building, the Printing Services
Building was constructed on the Headquarters site. In 1974,
the new Headquarters Motor Pool Garage was completed and occupied.
A new classified waste destruction Hammermill Building will be
constructed on the site within the next year. In 197_ approxi-
mately acres of Department of Transportation land to the
west of our Headquarters compound was assigned to the Agency as
part of an underutilized federal property excessing process.
A. Current Agency MWA Facilities Posture
1. Number and Size of MWA Buildings
In addition to the facilities on the Headquarters com-
pound, the Agency occupie external buildings
and square feet of space in the Washington, D.C.,
Northern Virginia, Metropolitan Washington Area. These
facilities are located in satellite complexes such as
STATINTL
2430 E Street andi which are federally
owned buildings; and Rosslyn,
STATINTL
which are commercially leased buildings. A specific
listing of Agency occupied space inthe MWA is contained
I
in Attachment 1. Other Agency holdings such as covert,
operational, or functionally incompatible space have
not been included since their consideration is irrelevant
to the objectives of this paper.
2
Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP86-00244R000300100003-0
 Approved IF pr Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP86-00' 4R000300100003-0
2. Lease and Ownership Status
Forthcoming and oroing negotiations of leases on
all comercially leased buildings will occur within
the next year. Lease arrangements are intended to
provide the flexibility necessary to be compatible with
a seven-to-ten-year time frame anticipated for imple-
mentation of an Agency building program at Headquarters.
Lease expiration dates and present lease conditions
for each leased building is contained in Attachment 2.
Continuing efforts have been exerted with the General
Services Administration to aquire a replacement
building on an accelerated basis for Magazine Building
whose lease expires in November 1975. GSA has received
offerings of space from prospective building owners in
response to a formal GSA request of interest and has
issued solicitations for specific bid proposals which
are due in mid-March for 90,000 square feet of space
within a five mile radius of Headquarters Building.
External federally owned buildings occupied by the
Agency appear to pose no major tenure problems. On-
going construction in newly acquired space on the
STATINTL sixth floor
should provide NPIC with
sufficient expansion space. There are no known future
3
Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP86-00244R000300100003-0
 Approved Far Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP86-002+R000300100003-0
plans for other than continued federal occupancy of
which houses the OGCR/DDI Map Library. Continued Agency
occupancy of the 2430 E Street Complex appears certain and
unlimited. A major factor requiring its tenure is the existence
of satellite telephone equipment systems in Central Building
through which all telephone switching for "downtown Agency com-
ponents" is accomplished. The only potential threat to continued
occupancy could be the contiguous bcation of this complex to
State Department Headquarters. It is understood that the State
Department has expressed interest in these facilities in the past.
B. Previous Planning
1. Ad Hoc Study Group
In 1966 an ad hoc study group analyzed Agency space
posture and recommended the need for further and serious
consideration for the design and construction of a
"Special Purpose Technical Building" in which all
existing and proposed technical functions could be
consolidated at the Headquarters site.
2. Building Planning Staff No. 2
A Building Planning Staff was established in 1969. Its
major contribution consisted of an interim partial con-
solidation plan involving expansion of the Printing
Services Building and the implementation of a Preliminary
Master Plan conceptualizing the consolidation of MWA
STATINTL
Approved For Release 2002/Q/07 : CIA-RDP86-00244R000300100003-0
 Approved For Rs4ease 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP86-00244RQp0300100003-0
Agency functions other than the National Photographic
Interpretation Center (NPIC) and the Central Depot on
an expanded Headquarters site. The consolidation was
justified on the basis of cost effectiveness and opera-
tional efficiency. The exclusions of NPIC and Central
Depot were due to excess size, functional incompatibility,
acceptability of operational separation, and unnecessary
excessive costs of reproducing perfectly adequate
sophisticated facilities.
3. Headquarters Garage and Preliminary Master Plan
Upon the development of design drawings for the Head-
quarters Garage, federal law required the review of
the garage design and the Preliminary Master Plan of
the Headquarters site by the National Capital Planning
Commission (NCPC) and a review of environmental impact
descriptions for these presentations by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) prior to project approval. A
ser.ies of discussions were held with NCPC and EPA and
certain parameters were established for physical and
environmental factors that would have to be considered.
Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP86-00244R000300100003-0
 Approved Fe Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP86-002*tR000300100003-0
4. Building Planning Staff No. 3
Re-establishment of the current Building Planning Staff
resulted from the impact of an in-house Environmentally
Sensitive Equipment (ESE) study which concluded that our
Headquarters Building sensitive equipment functions were
marginally supported in terms of reliability and safety
and that trends indicated existing ESE areas could not
provide an adequate environment for future equipment.
Study recommendations included a proposal to renovate
an area of Headquarters Building to provide adequate
ESE facilities while maintaining on:oing ESE operations.
Affected Agency component reaction to the study favored
the construction of a new ESE building rather than
modification of the Headquarters Building.
Accelerated action to recruit five contract professional
architects and engineers for the Building Planning Staff
is underway and many of the candidates are presently
undergoing concurrent background investigations and
internal processing. Upon successful recruitment and
staffing, the BPS will conduct the necessary surveys,
research, analysis, and planning to determine Agency
facilities requirements for a new building. This
6
Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP86-00244R000300100003-0
 Approved For-Tease 2002/05/07: CIA-RDP86-00244R@00300100003-0
effort will result in a program requirements document
for internal approval which will also consist of
various planning options, budgetary estimates, timing,
organizational posture, and design and construction
process recommendations. Upon achieving internal
program approvals, a Congressional strategy and program
justification will be prepared for Congressional project
approval, design funding appropriations, and construction
funding appropriations. The BPS will then perform as
Agency focal point for the coordination, liaison,
monitoring, and influencing the implementation of
design and construction of the building project.
III, DISCUSSION - OPTIONS AND FACTORS AFFECTING NEW CONSTRUCTION
A. Justification
1. Cost Effectiveness
The present dispersed location of Agency functions has
had a effect upon Agency operational
efficiency and cost effectiveness in terms of personnel,
money, and facilities. Agency occupancy of such multi-
building locations has resulted in loss of personnel
time due to travel between facilities and duplication
of guards, receptionists, couriers and mail clerks,
building services officers, and administrative/supervisory
personnel. Large sums of.money are being expended on
7
Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP86-00244R000300100003-0
 Approved Fir Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP86-002+4R000300100003-0
rents for leased commercial buildings, TWX service,
telephone mileage charges, additional telephone
switching equipment, reimbursement of private car
use and formal vehicle and shuttle bus service. In
addition, many space functions have been duplicated
such as, supply rooms, receptionist areas, guard
locker rooms, snack bars, and classified waste
storage and collection vaults. In 1972, Building
Planning Staff No. 2 prepared a study which addressed
the benefits to be derived in this area through con-
solidation at Headquarters. The study concluded that
worthwhile operational cost savings and personnel
savings could be realized in the above areas and
that very obvious operational efficiencies would be
achieved.
2. Headquarters Overcrowding
Through the years of Agency growth and general on oing
reorganization, there have been component relocations
to external buildings to provide space for components
whose presence is required in Headquarters Building.
As Headquarters components continue to grow and new
organizations are created, they are willing to accept
more densly occupied space conditions in Headquarters
Building in order to be more contiguous to their patent
Approved For Release 2002/057 : CIA-RDP86-00244R000300100003-0
 Approved Epr Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP86-06244R000300100003-0
component and achieve greater operational efficiency.
Accordingly, the Headquarters Building has become over-
crowded to the saturation point. Agency Headquarters
standard office space occupancy rates are
square feet per person as compared tofederal government
standards of square feet per person. These
sub-standard levels of space occupancy are unacceptable
since they create inadequate working conditions which
are a deterent to operational efficiency, employee
morale, and employee health. The relief of such over=
crowded conditions.in Headquarters Building is one of
the several logical and necessary justifications to
construct anew facility.
3. Environmentally Sensitive Equipment Facilities Problems
In addition to changes in Agency organization and
growth, the Agency has undergone a transition in its
technological development. Increasing amounts of the
building have become technically oriented and contain
FSE housed in environmentally sophisticated areas which
are supported by special and independent back-up utilities
support systems. Continuing saturation of these areas
with additional equipment is taxing the capacities of
utilities support systems and present physical features
Approved For Release 2002/05J07 : CIA-RDP86-00244R000300100003-0
 Approved F Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP86-002R000300100003-0
of these areas are drastically limiting further
utilities distributions. The ESE study previously
referred to in this paper identified marginable
support posture for existing ESE areas and an inadequate
environment for future equipment. Study recommendations
included relocations and replacement of ESE areas within
adequately designed state of the art facilities in Head-
quarters Building. Using components desire relocation
to a new facility. The problems to be overcome and the
benefits to be derived in the relocation of ESE functions
would support justification of new construction or re-
placement construction within Headquarters Building
depending upon the overall advantages to be gained by
the Agency.
Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP86-00244R000300100003-0
 Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP86-002 4R000300100003-0
B. Scope and Cost Options
In order to establish a cost yardstick for general
discussion purposes, an assignment of costs for various
portions of this proposed building program has been
projected and is submitted as Attachment 3. Cost factors
used are a measure of current average square foot costs
of pure office buildings and special purpose buildings
in the construction industry. Total project costs also
include projected yearly cost excalation; projected costs
for architectural and engineering (A/E) design services,
General Services Administration (GSA) services, and con-
tingencies. Total area requirements have been determined
on the basis of a ratio of 75 percent net area space to
25 percent gross area space. Cost assignments should be
interpreted as general "ballpark estimates" for comparative
purposes at this time. More accurate estimates will be
available as specific requirements are identified through
further study and project development.
1. Relieve Headquarters Overcrowding
The average rate of office space occupancy in the
Headquarters Building is
and approximately
square feet per person
square feet per person relative
to all useable operational space. Such occupancy
STATINTL
11
Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP86-00244R000300100003-0
 Approved Far Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP86-002 4R000300100003-0
conditions are below comparable Federal occupancy
levels of approximately 150 square feet per person
for an overall building average. In order to relieve
such overcrowded space occupancy conditions and pro-
vide an average of 150 square feet per person,
STATINTL approximately
STATINTL
Isquare feet would have to be
vacated in Headquarters Building and approximately
0
gross square feet of new construction at an
approximate cost of 12.9 million dollars would have
to be provided for relocated office type functions.
2. Relocate Headquarters Building ESE Space
The referenced ESE study identified approximately
65,000 square feet of environmentally sensitive
equipment areas in Headquarters Building which should
be relocated to more adequate facilities. Functions
recommended to be relocated included the OJCS, ISG,
OEL, computer centers, the OC signal center Max II,
ACT, and Data Communications functions, the telephone
frame room, and several smaller sensitive equipment
areas. It is anticipated that approximately
facility. A new facility of approximately
net square feet, including some expansion, would be
required to satisfy these requirements in another
STATINTL
STATINTL
Approved For Release 2002/05/014 CIA-RDP86-00244R000300100003-0
 Approved F Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP86-002.44R000300100003-0
gross square feet at a cost of approximately
would be necessary to adequately house such functions
and provide the operational environment and the
sophisticated utilities support required.
Statement of Pros and Cons
Pros
1. Provide adequate physical 1. Exteisive expenditure of sunk
and technical state of the art costs for existing ESE areas sup-
environment and reliable utili- ports retention of these functions
ties support. in Headquarters Building.
2. Provide adequate space and 2. Relocation to a new facility
expansion potential. would separate ESE functions from
parent and using components in
Headquarters Building, resulting
in inconvenience and a reduction
of operational efficiency.
3. Solve immediate, short, 3. A new facility for Headquarters
and long range Headquarters Building relocated ESE functions
Building ESE problems in- excludes the solution of remaining
volving a decreasing marginal special purpose areas and external
ability to provide adequate facilities ESE area requirements.
utilities reliability support
and safety conditions.
4. Avoid decentralized expan- 4. Per the ESE study recommendation,
sion of overcrowded Headquarters relocation of ESE areas to adequate
Building ESE areas due to re- facilities on the first floor of
strictive permanent physical Headquarters Building would be
barriers. less expensive than the construc-
tion of a new ESE building.
5. Eliminate the perpetua-
tion of incremental, de-
centralized and potentially un-
reliable Headquarters Building
utilities system expansions
due to overloaded, overcrowded,
and restricted status of ex-
isting support systems.
5. The time required for new
construction would not allow for the
solution of current and immediate
future ESE expansion requirements
and would result in duplicate
Headquarters Building construction
and eventual new building con-
struction.
Approved For Release 2002/05/0713 CIA-RDP86-00244R000300100003-0
 Approved Foi"Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP86-002448000300100003-0
Pros
Cons
6. Existing Critical and UPS
power generating systems could
be made to serve a new ESE build-
ing.
7. Existing independent special
Headquarters air conditioning
systems could be made to serve
the building winter cooling
load of special office functions
in place of larger powerhouse air
conditioning systems.
8. Recapture of Headquarters
Building operational space for
more suitable use as general
administrative office support
space could be achieved.
9. Existing special utilities
support systems ahve reached or
are nearing full capacity.
10. Special purpose space in
Headquarters Building has always
been adapted within an inadequate
office space designed environ-
ment which is a limiting factor
to existing and expansion ESE
design and construction.
Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP86-00244R000300100003-0
 Approved Fes- Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP86-00244R000300100003-0
3. Consolidate Leased Buildings
Present :lease buildings occupied by the Agency are
located in three satallite locations as follows:
Rosslyn - Ames,
and Fairfax - Chamber of Commerce
Key and Magazine Buildings;
STATINTL
Building.
Rosslyn:
Relocation of Rosslyn space would predominently involve
97 percent office space and 3 percent special-use space
including signal centers, computer centers, photographic
dark rooms, and medical laboratory/examination facilities.
A total of 339,000 net square feet or 452,000 gross
square feet of space at an estimated cost of $55,325,000
would be required to replace this space at Headquarters.
Fairfax County:
The Chamber of Commerce Building consists of general
office space and includes seminar rooms, classrooms, a
language training laboratory, and student language
training study rooms. Relocation of these functions to
a new facility at Headquarters would involve 103,000
new feet or 137,300 gross square feet of space at an
estimated cost of $16,595,000.
Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP86-00244R000300100003-0
 Approved Forelease 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP86-0024AR000300100003-0
~s essentially general office space
but includes a 10,000 square foot vault, a screen
room computer center, screen room communications
center, a sophisticated task force briefing/conference
center, emergency power, and emergency air conditioning.
Replacement and relocation of these facilities and
functions to a new facility at Headquarters would re-
quire 40,500 new square feet or 54,000 gross square
feet of space at an estimated cost of $7,090,000.
4. Consolidate Government-Owned Buildings:
The only Agency occupied government-owned facilities
which are being considered for potential Headquarters
consolidation are East Building, Central Building and
South Building in the 2430 E Street complex. Functions
in these buildings consist of 70 percent general office
space and 30 percent special-purpose space which
includes chemistry laboratories, student training
photographic dark rooms, sophisticated photographic
processing dark rooms, and various specialty laboratory
process areas. Replacement of these functions in Head-
quarters construction would require 78,300 net square
feet or 104,400 r oss square feet of space for a total
estimated cost of $14,350,,000.
Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP86-00244R000300100003-0
 Approved Fo&Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP86-0024aR000300100003-0
5. Parking Structures
Previous parking studies indicate that total external
Agency consolidation at Headquarters site would require
0
additional parking spaces. Agency land at
Headquarters presently available for a new building
program is not sufficient to satisfy the total con-
solidation building construction requirement and
total new surface parking. in this amount. Therefore,
it is anticipated that the parking requirement of
0
cars for total consolidation would require
approximately 654,500 square feet of elevated structured
parking over either the West, South or North parking
lots at an approximate cost of $10,205,000.
Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP86-00244R000300100003-0
 Approved FRelease 2002/05/07: CIA-RDP86-
STATINTL
6. Single Building or Complex of Buildings
The various options available in a new building program include
either a single building or a complex of buildings approach to
solve for Agency potential consolidation needs. The merits
of each option can be evaluated upon the comparison of pros
and cons of each approach as follows:
Single Build
Pros
1. Maximize operational efficiency.
2. Maximize flexibility of organi-
zational and functional relationships
3. Allow the &.sired contiguity of
office space and special purpose
space.
4. Maximize limits of functional
expansion area.
5. Maximize the flexibility of
organizational and functional re-
location between Headquarters
Building and one single new
building.
6. Minimize the number of utilities,
housekeeping, connnunications,
digital data, security, safety,
and control systems required to
operate and maintain facilities
and to support Agency operations.
7. Achieve maximum amount of
building for the dollar.
1. Require lengthy time frame
for total implementation and
occupancy.
2. Limit the ability to achieve
multiphased interim occupancy to
satisfy ongoing needs prior to a
total one building project
completion.
3. The scale of one massive
structure may compete with
Headquarters Building and be
incompatible with the scale and
character of the surrounding
national park land environment.
4. The overlapping. of utilities
support system serving standard
office space and special purpose
could cause facilities environ-
mental adequacy and efficiency
problems.
16
5. Provides no interim alter-
native which would allow in-
cremental occupancy of portions
.of a new single building.
Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP86-00244R000300100003-0
 Approved Rap Release 2002/05/07 CFA-RDP$6-002 R000300100003-0
Pros Cons
8. Maximize energy conservation
through the efficient utilization
of minimal numbers of utilities
support services located in one
facility.
9. Minimize the amount of site
area for building use.
6. Provides no intermediate
alternative other than the
support and justification of a
major one-time funding appro-
priation during a timeframe of
unfavorable national economic
conditions, reduced federal
expenditures, and questionable
congressional receptivity.
10. Minimize size of security
guard force required for coverage
and control.
Complex of Buildings
1. Allow for the pure design
characteristics of separate
office buildings and special
purpose buildings.
2. Allow for the specific design
and independent dedication of
utilities support systems to
adequately and efficiently serve
pure office space functions or
pure special purpose functions.
1. Project costs would be higher
for a series of buildings.
2. Larger site area would be
required for a series of buildings.
3. Provision of independent
utility systems in separated
locations would be more costly,
require more space, and involve
greater costs in maintenance
and operation.
3. A complex of buildings would
allow multiphased or incremental 4. Reduce organizational and
smaller building completion and operational efficiency through
partial occupancy in shorter separation of office and special-
timeframes to solve key Agency use functions.
ongoing requirements as they occur.
5. Reduce the flexibility of
4. Multifiscal year phased project component relocation, expansion
funding would be possible to achieve options and deter accommodation
such multiyear phased incremental of office space/special-purpose
project completion and occupancy. space relationships.
Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP86-00244F200300100003-0
 Approved Fi Release 2002/05/07: CIA-RDP86-00W4R000300100003-0
Pros Cons
5. Separation of buildings by
space type, utilities support type
and timeframne of operations would
minimize areas to be served utili-
ties support after standard working
hours and result in more efficient
utilities use and greater energy
conservation.
6. Phased incremental building
program implementation would
provide more flexibility in
solving the variable external.
impacts on our external build-
ings and our Agency organiza-
tion as a whole.
6. Require duplication, re-
dundancy, and extensive addi-
tional distribution of com-
muQnicatigns systems, digital
data systems, security and
safety alarm systems, and
general support systems.
7. Increase the level of
security guard and reception-
ist requirement. _
8. Limit the flexibility of
organizational and functional
relocations between Head-
quarters Buildings and a series
functionally designed buildings.
7. The scale of a complex of
buildings may be more appropriate
to the Headquarters site and its
surroundings than a second massive
single building which would compete
with the present Headquarters
Building and overpower the scale
and character of the adjacent
National Capital Park area.
Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP86-00244R000300100003-0
 Approved F Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP86-00R000300100003-0
C. Funding Options
1.. - Public Law 92-313
Under PL 92-313, a "Federal Building Fund (FBF) has
been established in the Treasury into which are deposited
the standard level user charges provided under the act, and
from which construction of public buildings is financed,,'
A Federal Agency identifying. a need for construction of
a public building is required to prepare. its requirements
of the proposed facility and submit them to GSA which,
in its project liaison and implementation role, approves
the project and prepares a prospectus (statement of the
proposed proj-ect). The prospectus is submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval and then to
the committee on Public Works of the Senate and the
House of Representatives for their respective approvals.
When approved by these Committees, the project is placed
as a line item in the GSA budget for the next fiscal
year. Priority of projects is determined by the
Administrator of GSA on the basis of equality of
geographic distribution aid comparative urgency of need.
The GSA budget with the assigned priorities for construction
is submitted to the Appropriations Committees of the House
of Representatives and the Senate for approval and then
approval of appropriation by final enactment as Public
Law by the Congress.
Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP86-00244R000300100003-0
 Approved 4or Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP86-0 4R000300100003-0
In view of the limited funds available in the FBF,
GSA assigned project priority preogatives, minimal Con-
gressional project appropriations in decending-priority'
order, the disadvantages of competing for priority con-
struction position with lesser dollar value projects of other
agencies, and the extensive uncontrolable timeframe required
for the multifaceted standard approval and appropriations
process realistic timeframe implementation of a new
building program could become more increasingly
difficult to predict and result in almost certain
abnormally l'ngthier timeframes than possibly available
through other- approaches available to the Agency.
;Approved For Release 2002/05/07 : CIA-RDP86-00244R000300100003-0