United States. Congress. House. Committee on Publi.

Suspend and review program of the General Services Administration's real estate projects; and GSA's plans for changes in real property services as indicated in the National Performance Review : hearing before the Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds of the Committee on Public Works and Tra online

. (page 1 of 4)
Online LibraryUnited States. Congress. House. Committee on PubliSuspend and review program of the General Services Administration's real estate projects; and GSA's plans for changes in real property services as indicated in the National Performance Review : hearing before the Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds of the Committee on Public Works and Tra → online text (page 1 of 4)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


I03

"SUSPEND AND REVIEW" PROGRAM OF THE GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION'S REAL ESTATE PROJECTS; AND GSA'S
PLANS FOR CHANGES IN REAL PROPERH SERVICES AS INDI-
CATED IN THE NATIONAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW



4.P 96/11:103-47



3-47)



uspend aid Revleu" Pro§ran of the...

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON
PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

PUBLIC WORKS AND TRANSPORTATION

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION



NOVEMBER 4, 1993



Printed for the use of the
Committee on Public Works and Transportation




nconQTT/iRv



JUL 2 1994



iOSTGlV)P^batub



U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
78-707 WASHINGTON : 1994

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office. Washington. DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-044361-X



I03

"SUSPEND AND REVIEW" PROGRAM OF THE GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION'S REAL ESTATE PROJECTS; AND GSA'S
PLANS FOR CHANGES IN REAL PROPERH SERVICES AS INDI-
CATED IN THE NATIONAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW



4.P 96/11:103-47



3-47)



uspend aid Revleu" Progran of the...

HEAKING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOM.AIITTEE OX
PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

PUBLIC WORKS AND TRANSPORTATION

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION



NOVEMBER 4, 1993




Printed for the use of the
Committee on Public Works and Transportation

nconQvmpv



JUL 2 1994



U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
78-707 WASHINGTON : 1994

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents. Congressional Sales Office. Washington, DC 20402
ISBN 0-16-044361-X



COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS AND TRANSPORTATION
NORMAN Y. MINETA, CaUfornia, Chair



JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
DOUGLAS APPLEGATE, Ohio
RON DE LUGO, Virgin Islands
ROBERT A. BORSKI, Pennsylvania
TIM VALENTINE, North Carolina
WILLIAM O. LIPINSKI, IlUnois
ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
JAMES A. TRAFICANT, Jr., Ohio
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JAMES A. HAYES, Louisiana
BOB CLEMENT, Tennessee
JERRY F. COSTELLO, lUinois
MIKE PARKER, Mississippi
GREG LAUGHLIN, Texas
PETE GEREN, Texas
GEORGE E. SANGMEISTER, Illinois
GLENN POSHARD, lUinois
DICK SWETT, New Hampshire
BUD CRAMER, Alabama
BARBARA-ROSE COLLINS, Michigan

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
Columbia

LUCIEN E. BLACKWELL, Pennsylvania

JERROLD NADLER, New York

SAM COPPERSMITH, Arizona

LESLIE L. BYRNE, Virginia

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington

PAT DANNER, Missouri

KAREN SHEPHERD, Utah

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey

JAMES E. CLYBURN, South Carolina

CORRINE BROWN, Florida

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

JAMES A. BARCIA, Michigan

DAN HAMBURG, California

BOB FILNER, Cahfornia

WALTER R. TUCKER III, California

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

PETER W. BARCA, Wisconsin



BUD SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

WILLIAM F. CLINGER, JR., Pennsylvania

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma

BILL EMERSON, Missouri

JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee

SUSAN MOLINARI, New York

WILLIAM H. ZELIFF, Jr., New Hampshire

THOMAS W. EWING, Illinois

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

JENNIFER DUNN, Washington

Y. TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas

BILL BAKER, California

MICHAEL A. "MAC" COLLINS, Georgia

JAY KIM, California

DAVID A. LEVY, New York

STEPHEN HORN, CaUfornia

BOB FRANKS, New Jersey

PETER I. BLUTE, Massachusetts

HOWARD P. "BUCK" McKEON, California

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan

JACK QUINN, New York

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan



Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds

JAMES A. TRAFICANT, Jr., Ohio, Chair

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee

Columbia, Vice Chair THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin

EDDIE BERNIOT JOHNSON, Texas BILL EMERSON, Missouri

DOUGLAS APPLEGATE, Ohio BUD SHUSTER, Pennsylvama

JAMES E. CLYBURN, South CaroUna (Ex Officio)
WALTER R. TUCKER III, California
NORMAN Y. MINETA, California

(Ex Officio)



(H)



CONTENTS



TESTIMONY

Page

Stasch, Julia, Deputy Administrator, General Services Administration 1

Prepared statement 29

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Duncan, Hon. John J., Jr., of Tennessee 4

Molinari, Hon. Susan, of New York 6

ADDITION TO THE RECORD
Bovis, Inc., Susan J. Loomis, Vice President, letter and statement 30

(III)



SUSPEND AND REVIEW PROGRAM OF THE
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION; AND
GSA'S PLANS FOR CHANGES IN REAL PROP-
ERTY SERVICES AS INDICATED IN THE NA-
TIONAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW



THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 1993

House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds,
Committee on Public Works and Transportation,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to other business, at 8:51 a.m.
in room 2253, Raybum House Office Building, Hon. James A.
Traficant, Jr. [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.

Mr. Traficant. The subcommittee will now begin its hearing on
GSA's suspend and review process.

We have as our witness today Ms. Julia Stasch, the Deputy Ad-
ministrator of the General Services Administration.

We are pleased to have you once again before this subcommittee.
We have your written statement and would ask you to summarize.
Your written statement will be placed in the record. Without objec-
tion, so ordered.

Ms. MOLINARI. Mr. Chairman, may I ask unanimous consent that
I sit in on this hearing as a member of this subcommittee?

Mr. Traficant. Without objection, so ordered. I would also like
the gentlelady from New York to know that we will allow you the
opportunity to ask any questions that affect you and your region.

Ms. MOLINARI. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.

TESTIMONY OF JULIA STASCH, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR,
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

Ms. Stasch. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to appear here today to bring you up
to date on GSA's Time-Out and Review process and the status of
planning and implementation of the National Performance Review
recommendations for real estate.

As you indicated, I have submitted complete testimony for the
record, but I do have a few summary comments here.

I realize how anxious everyone is to begin to learn the results of
the Time-Out and Review, and we appreciate the frustration that
the first group of project recommendations has not yet been re-
leased. We are also mindful, however, that the first recommenda-
tions will be the test of the seriousness, care, and professionalism
of the effort. It will be the first answer to the questions posed by

(1)



Member after Member as Mr. Johnson and I met many of them.
They asked, "Can we save money by taking another look at the re-
quirements, particularly in light of current circumstances and the
right-sizing imperatives of the NPR? Can we save money by look-
ing at available alternatives, and also at cost? Are our specifica-
tions and approach to procurement in any way precluding us from
creative, cost-effective solutions from the design and construction
industry?"

A great deal of credibility rests on the seriousness of the effort,
and we want you to feel confident that the recommendations are
something we can both be pleased to present as evidence of a joint
effort to use limited resources wisely.

The first group of recommendations will be available next week,
and we will follow an agreed-upon procedure for communication,
established with the committee, for notification as well as the ap-
propriate established process for rescission or modification, if that
is the context of any recommendations.

With respect to the real estate recommendations contained in the
National Performance Review, I know you are aware that we are
not merely talking about streamlining or getting better at what we
do. We are talking about a change in how we handle real estate
and serve our agency clients.

The advice from a recent GAO-convened panel of representatives
from private sector firms with significant real estate operations
cautioned us to go slowly. Nevertheless, planning is intensely un-
derway to combine our current real estate functions and restruc-
ture them as an asset manager and a service provider organization,
complimented by a cadre of professional account managers. The
priority is the careful creation of the asset manager, whose purpose
will be to manage the Federal portfolio for yield in the same man-
ner, and measured against comparable benchmarks, as the private
sector.

Supporting this activity will be a major effort to ensure that we
have in place long-range plans for major markets, looking out over
five to seven years.

These are my highlights, and I would be prepared to respond to
any questions that you have.

Mr. Traficant. Mr. Duncan, any statement?

Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had previously
mentioned that I think that Administrator Johnson and Deputy
Administrator Stasch are headed in the right direction and doing
what I think is best in reviewing all of these different projects. Ap-
parently we're not at the point where Ms. Stasch can give us a lot
of specific information.

I do understand, though, that the Administration submitted to
Congress recently a package which calls for rescission of $126 mil-
lion for the GSA. It really is not specific on where those cuts would
be made. Can you tell us anything about that?

Ms. Stasch. I don't have the specific detail on that, but we're
confident that over the next few weeks, as the results of the first,
second, and possibly third group of recommendations fall into place
and the savings are expressed, that we will be able to fill this out.

Mr. Duncan. All right. When are you going to submit the specific
details about your first package of projects that you have reviewed?



Ms. Stasch. Next week.

Mr. Duncan. Next week?

Ms. Stasch. Yes.

Mr. Duncan. All right. ,

You know from previous appearances here that we have had
many questions about the Atlanta project, and also there have beert'
a number of questions raised about the cost of the new Federal
Courthouse in Boston. Have you looked at the Federal Courthouse
project in Boston, and can you tell me what the status of that is
at this time?

Ms. Stasch. Both the Atlanta project and the Boston courthouse,
because of their imminent milestones, are in the first group.

Mr. Duncan. They are in the first group?

Ms. Stasch. Yes.

Mr. Duncan. Okay. So you will becoming out with statements on
them next week?

Ms. Stasch. Yes.

Mr. Duncan. Are there 11 projects in that group?

Ms. Stasch. Between 11 and 16.

Mr. Duncan. Between 11 and 16?

Ms. Stasch. Yes.

Mr. Duncan. All right.

Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I have a prepared statement for the record.

[Mr. Duncan's prepared statement follows:]



PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR.



I AM PLEASED TO WELCOME DEPUTY GSA ADMINISTRATOR, JULIA STASCH, TO
THE SUBCOMMITTEE'S "TIME OXJT AND REVIEW" AND NATIONAL PERFORMANCE
REVIEW OVERSIGHT HEARING TODAY. I HAVE BEEN VERY IMPRESSED WITH MS.
STASCH AND GSA ADMINISTRATOR ROGER JOHNSON AS A RESULT OF THEIR
WILLINGNESS TO INTRODUCE BOLD COST SAVING INITIATIVES AT GSA. I
APPRECIATE MR. JOHNSON'S AND MS. STASCH' S ONGOING CONSULTATION WITH
ME AND OTHER MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AS THEY MOVE FORWARD WITH NEW
INITIATIVES.

I HAVE ENDORSED WITH ENTHUSIASM THE "TIME OUT AND REVIEW" PROCESS
SINCE IT WAS ANNOUNCED ON SEPTEMBER 16, 1993. I AM HOPEFUL THAT
SUBSTANTIAL SAVINGS CAN BE FOUND IN THE OVER 2 00 PROJECTS UNDER
REVIEW. WE DO EXPECT RESULTS BUT NOT PERFECTION IN THIS PROCESS.

WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT $4.2 TRILLION IN DEBT, IT WOULD BE
IRRESPONSIBLE TO CEASE THE SEARCH FOR OPPORTUNITIES TO REDUCE THE
COST OF FEDERAL OFFICE BUILDINGS AND COURTHOUSES. THE SUBCOMMITTEE
MUST STAY THE COURSE, WHICH BEGAN WITH THE SECRET SERVICE BUILDING
IN 1992, IN OUR BIPARTISAN EFFORT TO REMOVE THE FACTORS WHICH
DRIVE-UP THE COST OF FEDERAL OFFICE AND JUDICIAL SPACE. FOR
EXAMPLE, WE MUST ELIMINATE APPLICATION OF THE "SCORING RULES" TO
FEDERAL BUILDING PROJECTS THROUGH PASSAGE OF H.R. 2680. WE SHOULD
ALSO CONTINUE TO EXPAND DELINEATED AREAS WHICH RESTRICT OUR ABILITY
TO ACQUIRE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION SITES THAT ARE AFFORDABLE FOR THE
TAXPAYER.

I APPLAUD CHAIRMAN TRAFICANT AND THE VICE CHAIRMAN, MS. NORTON FOR
THEIR BIPARTISAN SUBCOMMITTEE LEADERSHIP. WE HAVE BEGUN TO
TRANSFORM THIS SUBCOMMITTEE FROM A "RUBBER STAMP" INTO ONE WHICH
VIGOROUSLY AND INDEPENDENTLY CHALLENGES THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION
AND LEASING PROPOSALS.

I WELCOME ALL WHO WILL TESTIFY TODAY.



Mr. Traficant. The gentlewoman from New York?

Ms. MOLINARI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I ask unanimous consent that my statement be included in the
record.

Mr. Traficant. Without objection, so ordered.

Ms. MOLINARI. I have been dealing with GSA and FDA over re-
cent weeks concerning a prospectus that was mandated by the Con-
gress for moving FDA headquarters currently located in Brooklyn,
New York, to York College in Queens. Part of my concern, Mr.
Chairman, and to the Deputy Administrator, obviously stems from
the fact that the Congressional mandate happened before a base in
Staten Island, that I represent, was closed. Nonetheless, I am now
trying to fmd tenants for this Federal property.

I have been meeting with both FDA and GSA to determine if re-
locating the FDA lab to Staten Island is a viable proposition.
Madam Administrator, do you have any additional information as
to how FDA is proceeding, along with GSA, relative to its analysis
on York College and any other property available in the area?

Ms. Stasch. I'm sorry, I don't have the specific details, but we
can make sure that

Ms. MOLINARI. I would appreciate that.

What prompted me to come here this morning was upon review
of Ms. Stasch's preliminary statement, I see that GSA is now going
to try to emphasize accommodating properties that have been put
through base closure. I am very grateful to see the sensitivity to
trying to reuse already existing Federal owned properties that have
been mothballed due to the base closure decisions earlier this year.
GSA's review obviously makes a lot of sense.

Ms. Stasch, how do we, as a community, work with you to make
sure that you are going through your list of closed bases and con-
sider the Staten Island homeport facility for future Federal use?
How do we help you sell this property to other Federal agencies,
I suppose? What relationship do we need to engage in?

Ms. Stasch. I'd like to get much more up to speed on the specif-
ics of that, but we are in the process of finalizing — and some of the
staff members of the committee have seen an asset management
tool that we have put together which integrates, in a graphic man-
ner, all of the U.S. Government general purpose office assets. It
also has an overlay of all of the base closure assets, so that we can
tap into it in a very quick, automated manner so that we can see
proximity, potential, relocations within an area. I think that very
soon we would be pleased to make a demonstration of this tool, and
I think you would be very pleased.

Ms. MOLINARI. I appreciate that. Would you please contact my of-
fice when you are at that point?

Ms. Stasch. Yes.

Ms. MOLINARI. That would be great. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's all.

Mr. Traficant. Thank you.

[Ms. Molinari's prepared statement follows:]



Hon. Susan Molinari
Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds
Nov. 4, 1993, 8:30AM, 2253 RHOB

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to sit in

on your hearing regarding GSA's Time-Out-and-Review of some 200

major real estate projects. I am sure that we in Congress can

support the savings which are realistically achievable for projects

with varying degrees of progress toward construction or lease

award .



Deputy Administrator Julia Stasch makes an important point on
page 2 of her statement wherein she states: "that regional
reassessments will focus on the conformity of projects to bench
mark construction cost and efficiency values, and on the
availability of suitable alternative real estate solutions, such as
base Realignment and Closure Act properties ..."



Mr. Chairman, in my district of Staten Island, New York the



naval base is scheduled for closure in 1994. There is a facility
built in 1990, which the Navy currently occupies, consisting of
approximately 190,000 square feet of space — a portion of which is
office and the remainder of which is a laboratory and testing
facility.

Two years ago this committee approved a lease prospectus for
the FDA to relocate from its Brooklyn, New York facility which is
slated for demolition due to age and obsolescence, to a facility to
be built in Queens, New York. This summer the Senate Committee
amended this prospectus to direct GSA to negotiate a long-term
lease with York College for the FDA.

This lease which would run for 20 years at an annual cost of
7.9 million dollars would leave GSA in the unenviable position of
lease payments for a specialized facility with no residual asset at
the end of the lease term.



8

Furthermore, this Queens facility would be built from scratch,
I am told at a cost of some 80 million dollars, and that cost would
be borne by the College. While I do not have the specifics, it is
my belief that renovating the existing facility on Staten Island
would be cheaper, and more importantly would utilize a facility
that is slated for closure under the Base Closure Act.



So, today Mr. Chairman I am asking both you and GSA to review
this matter and analyze the feasibility of the FDA relocating to
Staten Island, New York for this important regional lab and
headquarters facility.



Mr. Traficant. Deputy Administrator, I have a number of ques-
tions. Some of them I will ask; some of them we will submit to you
in writing, and hopefully you can respond to us in a timely fashion.

I would also like to say that if there is any member of the staff
on either side of the aisle, pursuant to the questions that I ask,
who may have a follow-up of significance, you may convey it to me
and I will ask it.

I will also be open, Mr. Duncan, as we move through my ques-
tioning — if it prompts any concerns you may have, feel free to jump
in at any time.

Has GSA contracted out to any private firms any of this review

work?

Ms. Stasch. To date, GSA has not used any outside support in
conducting our internal review of the construction, modernization,
and lease projects that are a part of our Time Out and Review.
However, we do expect to use a contractor to assist in our review
of the cost estimates for construction projects. This contractor,
which will support the Central Office review, will be procured
through our National Capital Region, and we expect the total cost
of this support to be approximately $75,000.

Mr. Traficant. You stated that next week you would be submit-
ting a package relevant to the questions asked by Mr. Duncan and
Ms. Molinari. What day next week will that be, when you submit
that package?

Ms. Stasch. Probably Tuesday or Wednesday.

Mr. Traficant. What do you estimate the cost of the Suspend
and Review process will be as you have started to initiate that
process?

Ms. Stasch. The cost of the process?

Mr. Traficant. The cost of the process.

Ms. Stasch. Savings?

Mr. Traficant. Staff time. I am under the impression that these
projects have already been recommended by GSA staff to the point
where they are workable; they have looked at the numbers, and
they have recommended them to the Congress for enactment. Now,
they have been put in limbo. They have been recalled and they are
being reevaluated.

What is the cost in staff and all the other processes to reevalu-
ated estimate or recommendation?

Ms. Stasch. We actually did a manloading analysis of this, and
we can apply some salary and time factors to it and supply that
to you.

[Information received follows:]

We estimate that the "Time-Out and Review" process, from inception through
completion, will require approximately 2,000 staff days of effort from GSA's regional
offices and approximately 3,000 staff days of effort from GSA's Central Office. As-
suming an average salary cost of $150/staff day, the personnel costs associated with
"Time-Out and Review" are conservatively estimated at $750,000. Overhead attrib-
utable to the process can be said to add approximately $250,000 to that cost for a
total of $1,000,000.

Ms. Stasch. But we felt that notwithstanding the additional
staff time, it was an investment that we needed to make.

Mr. Traficant. What do you estimate the savings will be from
such a process as you look at this and foresee any savings?



10

Ms. Stasch. We are confident that there will be savings. We are
confident that savings are going to come from several areas. We be-
lieve that there will be some projects that, notwithstanding an ear-
lier review, that upon reexamination based on current conditions
and current projections of downsizing, that they may not be justi-
fied at this time, and we imagine there will be savings there.

We also know that we will find savings at several stages for
projects that are in various stages of development, either in the
planning stage, at conceptual design, nearing the end of the design
phase, or actually ready to be bid for construction.

We are confident that if we take a fresh look at the nature of our
specifications, to determine whether or not they are too proscriptive
and therefore resulting in a higher cost, we will find savings there
at that stage.

We are going to take another look at how we could do procure-
ment of construction services to see if possibly a source selection
approach, inviting value engineering at that stage, could yield addi-
tional savings. We have some estimates of as much as 5 to 7 per-
cent savings of estimated construction costs if we invited the value
engineering with the source selection process for construction pro-
curement.

Mr. Traficant. What is the status of the Atlanta project?

Ms. Stasch. As I said, the Atlanta project will be in the first
group of projects. I indicated last week that we anticipated that to
the extent that it did survive the Suspend and Review, we would
probably be recommending an ownership option, and that we are
confident that there are a number of factors that would result in
savings, including one which GSA does not take credit for, which
is, of course, the decline in interest rates from the time when the
project was authorized.

Mr. Traficant. Do you have another list that is more current
than the updated list of September 16th?

Ms. Stasch. We have added a few lease projects and we will sub-
mit it to the committee.

Mr. Traficant. Okay.

[Information received follows:]

A list of 26 additional lease projects follows. These projects are being reviewed to
confirm client agency requirements and commitment, and where it is requested,
whether expansion space is still needed.

ADDITIONAL LEASE PROSPECTUSES SUBJECT TO TIME-OUT AND REVIEW

[Provide current best estimate of maximum and minimum rental authority required per rentable and per occupiable square

foot based on anticipated market conditions]



Proiect Location



Expiration Expansion

date space (OSF)



Projects to remain lease procurements — re-
view client requirements and commitment
only:

Corps of Engineers Mobile. AL 09/14/93 (10,761)

03/31/94

Multiple agencies Los Angeles. CA 04/24/96 (75.677)

USGS/Bldg 7 & 8 Menio Park, CA 06/30/96

IRS San Francisco, CA 07/25/95

Multiple agencies San Francisco, CA 12/31/93 (9,451)

EPA @ 501 3rd St Washington, DC 03/08/97

USSS field office Washington, DC 05/31/95



11

ADDITIONAL LEASE PROSPECTUSES SUBJECT TO TIME-OUT AND REVIEW— Continued

[Provide current best estimate of maximum and minimum rental authority required per rentable and per occupiable square

foot based on anticipated market conditions]



, , Expiration Expansion

Proiect Location (,3,^ space (OSF)



INS Miami, FL



Westwood Mam Annex Bettiesda, MD ....

1390 Piccard Drive Rockville, MD

SSA Woodlawn. MD ...

EPA Research TP, NC

2800 Crystal Drive Arlington, VA



IRS Fresno, CA

525 Market St San Francisco, CA

Commerce (BEA) Washington, DC ....



DEA Washington. DC

NLRB/Penn 17 BIdg Washington, DC

Multiple Agencies Guam

Probation Office Chicago, IL

EPA Lab Boston, MA

INS Baltimore, MD ...

USSS New York, NY ....

Lease prospectuses to be reviewed in
conjuction with modernization project re-
quirements:

Interior Swing Washington. DC

Lafayette Swing Washington, DC

Justice Swing Washington, DC



03/31/92


1 3 4

Online LibraryUnited States. Congress. House. Committee on PubliSuspend and review program of the General Services Administration's real estate projects; and GSA's plans for changes in real property services as indicated in the National Performance Review : hearing before the Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds of the Committee on Public Works and Tra → online text (page 1 of 4)