QUESTION #6: WHY DOES THE CIA NEED TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND BUILDING AT LANGLEY BEGINNING IN FY-84

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP85B01152R000500580105-6
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 5
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 2, 2008
• Sequence Number: 105
• Publication Date: March 17, 1986
• Content Type: REPORT

')flla^
Approved For Release 2008/06/04 : CIA-RDP85BO1152R000500580105-6
Data /
ROUTING AND TRANSMITTAL L_:
TO (Name. office symbol, room number,
building, Agency/Post)
`yi ofi- =-Lij
f -77)
on FIN
royal For Clearance
s Requested For Correction
comment Investigate
Coordination Justify
See Me
Signature
REMARKS
Q/tom,
hL L/
ab't
43
ovals. concurrences, disposals,
DO NOT use this form as a RECORD similar a a actions
OPTIONAL. FORM 41 (Rev. 7-76)
P~~crlbee M GSA
FPMR (41 CFIU 101-11.203
 QUESTION #6: WHY DOES THE CIA NEED TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND BUILDING
AT LANGLEY BEGINNING IN FY-84?
RESPONSE: Knowing that a federal construction program requires five
years from initiation of design to beneficial occupancy,
construction ideally should have begun in FY-81 to provide
facilities necessary to accommodate the planned growth in personnel
and systems. Unfortunately, the decision to pursue construction
occurred simultaneously with the decision to rebuild the Agency.
This has resulted in a two-year delay in requesting construction
funding while necessary approvals and project design were
undertaken.
it
The delay has been costly in terms of operating efficiency and
ultimate construction costs. Without a new building in sight, we
have been forced to add 150,000 square feet of leased space to our
inventory this year alone. Continuing expansion of ADP has forced
more of the workforce out of Headquarters, adding to the operating
costs and detracting from effectiveness. Inflation has added
approximately $15 million a year to construction costs.
Our need for FY-84 construction funds is based on the urgency
attached to reversing the trends of rising operating costs and
decreasing efficiency and effectiveness. Bid packages for the
construction contract will be complete in the spring of 1984.
Without the requested funding, we forecast a need to continue adding
to the lease space inventory through FY-87.
QUESTION #6, PART 2: WHAT IS THE IMPACT ON THE NFIP IF THIS
BUILDING WERE SLIPPED TO FY-85 AND TOTALLY
FUNDED THAT YEAR?
RESPONSE: The current funding profile for the New Building
Construction was derived from detailed trade-offs between ongoing
support costs and high priority operational needs. Deferring all
construction funding until FY-85 will have a significant ripple
effect on a carefully constructed five-year program.
The immediate effect of deferring funding will be the need to
delay or cancel operational initiatives in the amount of
approximately $75 million to accommodate total construction cost.
The deferral will also cause additional increases in the out-year
support cost to cover the need for additional leased space,
communications, security, transportation, and other support costs
attributable to increased dispersion of Headquarters activities.
Thesedual support cost impacts will cause a major restructuring of
the program with the only two possible outcomes being reduced
operational initiatives or higher budget levels. Neither of these
alternatives appears necessary or desirable.
 QUESTION #6, PART 3: WHY WAS FUNDING OF THE BUILDING SPLIT
OVER THE FY-84 and FY-85 PERIOD?
RESPONSE: It was our intent and desire to request total
construction in FY-84. However, in adjudicating all of the NFIP
priorities, it became obvious that placing all construction funding
in FY-84 would necessitate deferring the rebuilding of CA
capabilities until FY-85. Such a delay would have been detrimental
to National priorities.
To prevent this outcome, the decision was made to request only
that level of construction funding that could be expended by a
contractor in the first year of construction. While this strategy
complicates the design and administration of the construction
program, it achieves the objective of allowing two major
inititatives to proceed on timely schedules.
 1. Estimated total cost:
oBuilding
oGarage
oReception Bldg
oPower House
oA&F
oRoad Costs (123 and 193)
oFurniture
oMoving
2. Which external buildings will be retained:
oNumber
oLocations
oCost to retain
3. Cost savings:
oTransportation
oMan-years
oLeases
4. Building:
-Square footage
-Cost per square foot
oUseable space
-'Machine space
o Gym
owho moves in
S. Garage:
oSpaces
-Spaces outside
 6. Number of people:
-Housed
?SF per person
7. Amortization:
?No. years
8. Construction:
"RFP
"Bids
-Commence
"Beneficial occupancy
?Disruption
-Impact:
-Agency
-Community
-Security
9. Approvals/Concurrence:
?NCPB
"McLean Cit. Assoc.
?Fairfax Supervisors
Virginia
"Utilities (sewage,
water and power)