GENERAL OVERVIEW - FACTORS OF CONSIDERATION INVOLVED IN THE UNDERTAKING OF A MAJOR HEADQUARTERS AREA CONSOLIDATION BUILDING PROGRAM

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP86-01019R000100230007-3
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 11
• Document Creation Date: December 19, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 26, 2006
• Sequence Number: 7
• Publication Date: October 5, 1973
• Content Type: MF

Approved For Release 2006/04/26: CIA-RDP86-01019R000100230007-a
Preliminary Master Plan - CIA
December 1972
Special Purpose Bldg. - Langley, Va.
1967
Occupancy Plans -
Headquarters Master Plan
Master Planning - General
Printing Services Bldg. Background Material
Space Studies
Space Saving & Component Consolidation
OL/RECD Folder broken down into the following
sections:
The above listed folders were used in
preparing this report.
Approved For Release 2006/04/26: CIA-RDP86-01019R000100230007-$
 Approved For Release 2006/04/26: CIA-RDP86-01019R000100230007-3
CC' 1973
ME RANDUM9 FOR: Deputy Director of Logistics
THROUGH : Chief, Real Estate and Construction Division, OL
SUBJECT : General Overview - Factors of Consideration Involved
in the Undertaking of a Major Headquarters Area
Consolidation Building Program
1. The attached discussion paper which addresses the areas of potential
Agency involvement and concern inherent in undertaking a major consolidation
building program at the Headquarters site is submitted per your request. It
has been developed as a general overview of such factors, and it is intended
that further in-depth efforts are necessary to provide more specific and
complete interpretation of these considerations.
2. For the purpose of completeness and as a basis for maximum benefit
to be derived from discussions on this paper, a comprehensive background of
previous Agency building planning efforts has also been included.
,a and Construction Division, OL
Att
Distribution:
Orig. & 1 - Adse., w/att
_I'- OL/RECD Official, w/att
1 - OL/RECD Chrono, w/att
1 - OL/RECD/HEB, w/att
1 - OL Reader, w/o att
OL/RECD
(4 October 19 3
Approved For Release 2006/04/26: CIA-RDP86-01019R000100230007-3
 Approved For Release 2006/04/26: CIA-RDP86-01019R000100230007-3
%W11 ItIllie
DISCUSSION PAPER
INTRODUCTION:
In view of ongoing trends relative to the accelerated rate and increased
scale of Federal office building construction, it has been suggested that the
Agency undertake more aggressive action to implement the design and construc-
tion of additional facilities at the Headquarters site to house and consolidate
Agency components located elsewhere in the Metropolitan Washington Area (MWA).
The various factors concerning such an undertaking involve large-scale
planning and an analysis relative to a multitude of Agency activities, trends,
and needs. This insight can best be understood, built upon, and put into
proper perspective by examining where we have been, where we are, and where
we may be going. From such a review, decisionmaking addressing consolidation
planning can most effectively be influenced.
COMPREHENSIVE BACKGROUND:
Original efforts to consolidate all Agency components at the Langley
site resulted in a project scope of work estimated to cost $48,000,000.
Congressional Committee hearing action authorized $38,000,000 for a new CIA
Headquarters facility and $8,000,000 for the construction of the George
Washington Memorial Parkway from the Rosslyn area to the Headquarters site.
The $10,000,000 reduction in project authorization resulted in the continued
occupancy of a sizable amount of Agency space in the MWA. A Building Planning
Staff (BPS) consisting of professional architects and engineers was established
as a planning liaison vehicle to accomplish project programming, influence and
control design, oversee and monitor construction, and manage building occupancy.
Several years after the occupancy of the Headquarters Building, the
Printing Services Building was designed and constructed at the Headquarters
site with funds remaining from the Headquarters Buildin ro'ect. In this
general time period, NPIC was designed and constructed ST FT
Soon thereafter, all Agency components occupyin T
buildings and in certain dispersed leased space in the MWA were relocated to
commercial leased space in Rosslyn (Ames, Key, and Magazine Buildings),
and Arlington (Chamber of Commerce Building). Plannt'ng,
on monitoring, and management for these projects were
accomplished through the Real Estate and Construction Division (RECD) project
officer vehicle.
Approved For Release 2006/04/26: CIA-RDP86-01019R000100230007-3
 Approved For Release 2006/04/26: CIA-RDP86-01019R000100230007-3
In 1966 a special study group was created to develop an overview and
posture relative to space needs in terms of quantity, quality, kind, loca-
tion, influence of Agency growth and mission trends, and impact of the state-
of-the-art of technology on future requirements. The special study group
recommended the creation of a new BPS as a specific planning vehicle and
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.
The impact of the above recommendations, the continuing desire to con-
solidate the Agency at the Headquarters site, and the desire to justify early
Agency claim to a significant portion of the anticipated excessing of the
Bureau of Public Roads (BPR) property for this potential future consolidation
resulted in the implementation of ad hoc interim planning efforts and finally
the formal creation of a new BPS in 1969.
Initially, BPS was intended to develop a reservoir of planning expertise,
data, knowledge of Agency organization and requirements, and an updated knowl-
edge of the state-of-the-art of technology and planning techniques which could
impact upon the definition of the Agency's future needs. The staff was intended
to be called upon by senior management for instant response to apply the expertise;
derived from the above factors to further facilities consolidation planning and
related land acquisition.
The highlights of BPS activity consisted of the creation of a centralized
historical and updated planning data base, an interim partial consolidation
plan involving either vertical and/or horizontal expansion of the Printing
Services Building, implementation of a master plan conceptualizing and consolid-
ation of MWA Agency functions other than NPIC and n an e)3-TAT
panded Headquarters site, and a series of studies for space
allocations and moves in existing buildings to solve for ongoing space utiliza-
tion problems.
Implementation of the new garage design and the factors impacting upon
new and necessary design and construction procedural approvals for all new
projects have placed additional planning consideration on both RECD and BPS.
These considerations involve the approval of project design by the National
Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) and Agency assurance through stringent
procedures that a proposed facility is in conformance with the environmental
standards of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as specified by the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Such approvals by NCPC and EPA
have required and involved an updated site master plan, NCPC hearings, in
depth environmental impact descriptions and/or environmental statements for
both garage design and master plan concept.
The preparation and submission of a master plan acceptable in concept
to NCPC was a prerequisite in attaining NCPC approval for the garage design
and construction. As a necessary expedient to attain the required NCPC
Approved For Release 2006/04/26: CIA-RDP86-01019R000100230007-3
 Approved For Release 2006/04/26: CIA-RDP86-01019R000100230007-3
approval of the garage design, the Agency master plan was significantly
revised to acquiesce to the conceptual desires of the NCPC staff. Both
garage design and master plan were eventually approved and garage construction
is presently in process. The existing approved master plan is essentially a
conceptually and esthetically desirable scheme but lacking in reality, prac-
ticality, and engineering judgment in areas modified to suit NCPC criteria
for approval. Serious intentions to implement a total consolidation at Head-
quarters will require an in-depth review, analysis, and modification of the
existing approved master plan to provide a more realistic and compatible
architectural and engineering-based scheme with subsequent efforts to influence
future NCPC approvals of such modifications.
The BPS charter is presently intact and'organizationally BPS is a staff
of the Real Estate and Construction Division although not presently staffed.
Since the structure and charter exist, it can be reactivated through increased
staffing according to the timing and priority needs of the Agency in anticipa-
tion of desires to create a planning vehicle for further decisionmaking
relative to proposed consolidation.
FACTORS OF CONSIDERATION:
The areas of concern and consideration which the Agency must address
in its desire to implement an aggressive consolidation building program in-
volve both internally and externally controlled factors. Internal factors
include the obvious human resources staffing, project definition through
programming, in-house project approvals, quantification and justification
of required project funding, and measuring of the impact of the advancing
and updated state-of-the-art upon a definition of realistic future Agency
needs. Externally controlled factors include funds authorization through
Congressional Committee hearings, the review process for NCPC hearings and
approval, the review process for EPA approvals, the impact of PL 92-313, and
the miscellaneous regulatory acts pertaining to new Federal construction.
At this time a general insight into the above factors should be sufficient
for an overview. Further in-depth efforts will be necessary to study the more
specific content of such factors and their actua' impact upon the Agency. A
general discussion of these factors is as follows:
Staffing:
The establishment of a planning vehicle will, of course, involve
increased staffing with professional architects, engineers, and various
specialists in the fields of electronic data processing, management
analysis, systems analysis, environmental engineering, and impacting
Federal legislation.
Approved For Release 2006/04/26: CIA-RDP86-01019R000100230007-3
 Approved For Release 2006/04/26: CIA-RDP86-01019R000100230007-3
Organizational Analysis:
The base reference point for definition of problems is the iden-
tification of the organization and the interaction of its related parts.
Such an analysis includes recreating the existing organizational structure
and relating it to the kinds and quantity of personnel, functions and
missions performed, physical plant required to operate, quantity of space
occupied, kind of space occupied, location of space, and functional rela-
tionships between components.
Systems Analysis:
The various existing operational systems supporting component
functions in existing physical plants must be analysed as presently
performed, as compared to other ongoing Agency supportive systems, and
as compared to the present and anticipated state-of-the-art. The strengths
and weaknesses of present systems applications can therefore be more
realistically identified as a base for future planning and beneficial
change.
General Project Programming:
The overviews and data derived from the above analyses will provide
a quantifiable information base and accordingly allow predictive deter-
minations relative to the development of a project organizational, space,
and systems program on a general policy scale. The accomplishment of this
general programming will result in a quantifiable concept which can be
realistically examined, expanded, contracted, measured, and approved for
implementation.
Project Quantification:
The estimating of project costs and the development of required
funding will require interpretation of general programming require-
ments by professional technical expertise into project cost estimates
indicating present day costs and anticipated yearly escalation costs
for both short and long-range budgeting.
Project Justification:
The development of data pertaining to space, people, systems, and
money programming provides a structure of conceptual resources upon
which a project justification analysis can be derived. Such programming
proposals will be the basis for the necessary in-house and external
project justifications.
Approved For Release 2006/04/26: CIA-RDP86-01019R000100230007-3
 Approved For Release 2006/04/26: CIA-RDP86-01019R000100230007-3
NOW
Agency Program Approvals:
Large scale efforts are required to attain internal Agency project
program approvals. These actions range from project program orientations
and briefings by Directorate, across Directorates, for the Management
Committee, the Director and his staff, and along functional Agency
component lines. Desired in-house approvals are necessary prior to
addressing external actions.
External Project and Funding Reviews:
Agency participation and involvement in the Congressional Committee
hearing process for project and funding'reviews is a necessary procedural
action to obtain ultimate project approvals. This effort involves a
restatement of Agency requirements in terms of program, funding, Agency
mission, personnel, for Congressional digestion, comment and challenge.
Although the Director normally presents the Agency position and defends
the proposed requirement, the efforts required to prepare the data and
presentation for the Director's use is extensive.
Project Prospectus:
All proposed projects of this scale presented before Congressional
Committee hearings for project approvals and funding authorizations
require a Project Prospectus. A Project Prospectus is a document ex-
hibiting the definitive project program, funding requirements, and
evidence that other affected regulatory agencies of the Federal Government
have been informed of the proposed project for comment and related approval
input. The prospectus is prepared by the General Services Administration
(GSA), the design and construction agent of the Federal Government. Agency
efforts to orient,participate with, and input data to GSA requires ex-
tensive involvement and influence. Since GSA endorsement of the prospectus
is essential, GSA participation in prospectus presentation to Congressional
Committee normally occurs.
Design Funding Authorization:
This effort requires refinement and presentation of the Agency
project program and the GSA project prospectus to Congressional Committee
for design funding authorizations and project approval. Agency/GSA
coordination and joint input are necessary in these hearings.
Construction Funding Authorization:
Upon authorization of design funding, coordination and mutual
efforts by the Agency, GSA, and the Architect-Engineer (A&E) are
required for the development of a project directive which is a more
definitive descriptive document identifying project scope, proposed
building treatments, materials building costs, architectural and engineer-
ing costs, supervision and inspection costs, and total project costs. On
the basis of this preparation and presentation, the necessary construction
funding authorization is obtained from the Congress.
Approved For Release 2006/04/26: CIR-RDP86-01019R000100230007-3
 Approved For Release 2006/04/26: CIA-RDP86-01019R900100230007-3
Detailed Project Programming:
Detailed engineering and space programming of Agency design require-
ments will require the greatest degree of in-house effort to accomplish.
Although GSA is the Agency design liaison agent, it is not staffed to
perform such detailed programing requirements. As a result, the Agency
performs this exacting, time-consuming task to protect our own interests,
minimize our exposure, influence the project more effectively, and to
use this product as a way of helping GSA and the A&E to help us. This
programming effort results in the creation of a "space directive" which
defines specific engineering requirements and relates them to equipment,
space, room enclosures, people per room; and organizational structure to
its lowest level. The space directive in this form is a formidable design
instrument which is the basis for control of the major A&E formal design
effort. It also continues to serve as a communications and reference
medium between Agency liaison planning officers and the client component
in updating and explaining needs during transition.
Project Design:
The sensitive nature of Agency operations requires the minimum of
exposure of non-Agency personnel to our facilities and operations. For
this reason, the intensive participation of an Agency planning group in
the actual design with the A&E design firm is necessary. In its under-
manned coordinating role, GSA allows the Agency, in its presence, to deal
directly with the A&E in providing information to supplement the space
directive, influence the design, and even accomplishment of portions of
the design. It is through our efforts to extend ourselves that we help
others to help us and thus achieve a facilities project which meets our
needs. The effort is extremely time-consuming, but the returns to the
Agency in terms of responsive design and construction is immeasurable.
Implications of Project Impact:
The impact of facilities design and construction projects upon the
environmental and planning factors of a community has become a most
significant area of consideration. It requires involvement and coordin-
ation between the Agency, local government, private sector, and agencies
of the Federal Government in the attainment of prerequisite reviews and
concurrences required as part of the specific project design and construc-
tion approval process.
Legislation implementing the National Capital Planning Commission
and the Environmental Protection Agency (National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969) have created regulatory agencies and procedures which are
intended to review, evaluate, coordinate, approve, and monitor project
development and implementation relative to their impact upon the environ-
ment and upon existing and proposed regional planning and economics.
Approved For Release 2006/04/26: CIA-RDP86-01019R000100230007-3
 Approved For Release 2006/04/26: CIA-RDP86-01019R900100230007-3
NOW
In the preparation of project data and justification for original
Congressional Committee review, the Agency must be prepared to report
that NCPC, EPA, among other interested agencies, have been informed of
our proposed project on a general scope and scale basis. Comment from
such agencies could be requested by committee as part of their total
general project review. Additional Agency presentations resulting from
such external Agency input could be required for further committee re-
view.
The charter of NCPC authorizes it to review, coordinate, and make
recommendations for approval or disapproval of Federal facilities
design and construction in the National Capital Region. Its area of
jurisdiction is the National Capital Region and its reference or control
instrument is the NCPC Comprehensive Plan for the development of the
National Capital Region. As a regulatory overall planning arm of the
Federal Government, NCPC has been established as a focal point through
whose guidelines and offices all factors impacting upon project imple-
mentation are directed, screened, and redirected for coordination prior
to and following NCPC project approvals.
Since the structure of NCPC is designed as a focal point for all
input, it has-issued guidelines which specifically define the review
process prior to and for NCPC hearings. NCPC guidelines include analytical
and reporting criteria for compliance with its Regional Comprehensive
Plan; submission of environmental impact statements per the requirements
of EPA; provision of evidence of Agency project compliance with Metropolitan
Council of Governments (COG) housing, water, and sewage programs; compli-
ance with regulatory procedures on housing of the Department of Housing
and Urban Development and GSA; and various other regulatory acts requir-
ing coordination and reporting.
The provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
created EPA and the Council on Environmental Quality. According to this
legislation, each Federal agency is responsible as lead agency to coordinate
and devise procedures mutually acceptable to both CEQ and the Agency for
future reporting of environmental impact statements or environmental
descriptions to EPA on the impact or lack of impact of a proposed project
on various aspects of the environment. These interagency procedures are
in being. The preparations of such environmental statements or descrip-
tions to EPA or through NCPC to EPA are a necessary and tedious respons-
ibility of the Agency. NCPC and EPA guidelines require that such environ-
mental statements or descriptions be submitted to specified clearing houses
for public distribution as requested. Reviews by local and regional levels
of government, private citizen groups, private citizens, and miscellaneous
organizations can result in challenges to the Agency proposals and require
meetings and public relations efforts to clarify, defend, and correct
areas of concern. Documentation of differences and steps to overcome
differences are required for submission to NCPC and EPA prior to the
conduct of approval hearings.
7
Approved For Release 2006/04/26: CIA-RDP86-01019R000100230007-3
 Approved. For Release 2006/04/26: CIA-RDP86-01019R000100230007-3
Since the above process examines the impact of new facilities
construction on population relocation, personnel residence location,
traffic and air pollution, water and sewage, land use, ecological systems,
and housing, extensive Agency research and analysis must be performed
and defended in light of our desired approvals. Our position must also
indicate the degree of adverse environmental effects, alternatives
considered, relationship between short-term uses and long-term pro-
ductivity, and a statement addressing the irreversible and irretrievable
committments of resources in the implementation of our program.
In addition to the above factors and in keeping with NCPC guide-
lines, our presently approved conceptual Master Plan of the Headquarters
site must be submitted for additional approvals if, as we must, revise
it to indicate a more realistic practical engineering scheme for maximum
benefit to the Agency and the Government. As previously mentioned, the
existing Master Plan is an approved conceptual scheme which served as
an interim expedient measure to gain timely concurrences for the siting
and approvals of the new Headquarters garage project. In view of
previous Agency desires to avoid public disclosure of a building program
which it had no intention of accomplishing in the foreseeable future,
NCPC was willing to review and approve our Master Plan and garage design
scheme in executive session. Revision to the Master Plan in consonance
with a definite intent to enter a substantial building program at Head-
quarters will undoubtedly require both NCPC committee actions and formal
NCPC public hearings.
National Capital Plannin
Commission Hearings:
Such formal public hearings are normally preceded by in-depth Agency/
NCPC staff coordination and reviews of the total range of products emanat-
ing from project design, master plans, environmental planning and review
conclusions, regional planning impacts, and compliance with miscellaneous
regulatory legislation. Give and take at this level of analysis and dis-
cussion results in negotiation of an approval position acceptable to both
participants. The resultant recommendation is submitted by the NCPC
staff to the NCPC committee and to the Commission in formal public hearings
on 2 consecutive days. Although the NCPC staff presents all the factors
relative to the proposed programs to the Committee and the Commission,
members of the Agency, GSA, and the A&E also participate in the presentation
and response to questions and challenge from NCPC, private citizens,
representatives of interested organizations, and the press as necessary.
The attainment of such approvals fulfills the review and approval process
required by law and allows for the completion of design and implementation
of desired construction.
Completion of Design and Construction:
Continuation of Agency liaison, coordination, and monitoring efforts
are required to influence the completion of design and construction, the
implementation of final acceptance, and the management of building occu-
pancy.
Approved For Release 2006/04/26: CIA-RDP86-010198000100230007-3
 Approved For Release 2006/04/26: CIA-RDP86-01019R000100230007-3
GENERAL COMMENT:
The preceding compilation of factors is considered a general overview
of major considerations which the Agency should be aware of if it desires
to enter into a large building program at Headquarters. There are obviously
numerous other less major, but no less important, considerations which must
also be addressed as part of such an effort. The intent of this paper is
to provide a broad brush, first-glance understanding of Agency scale of
involvement in such an undertaking. Detailed efforts to more specifically
define and restate such required actions in a formidable work plan for
action would require additional staffing of human resources for accomplishment.
Approved For Release 2006/04/26: CIA-RDP86-01019R000100230007-3