Office of Administrative Services FOIA Requester Service Center December 7, 2018 Mr. Austin Evers American Oversight 1030 15th St, NW Washington, DC 20005 Dear Mr. Evers: This letter is in response to your two (2) U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) FOIA requests which are now the subject of Case No. 1:18-CV02423-CKK in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia: 1) GSA-2018-001618- All records reflecting communications (including emails, email attachments, text messages, voicemails, voicemail transcripts, messages on messaging platforms (such as Slack, GChat or Google Hangouts, Lync, Skype, WhatsApp, Facebook messaging, Twitter Direct Messages, or Signal), telephone call logs, calendar invitations, calendar entries, meeting notices, meeting agendas, informational material, draft legislation, talking points, any handwritten or electronic notes taken during any oral communications, summaries of any oral communications, or other materials) between or among (including those copied or blind copied on emails) the following individuals and any person at the White House Office (including anyone with an email address ending in @who.eop.gov) regarding the FBI headquarters consolidation project: a. Administrator Emily Murphy b. Acting Administrator Tim Horne c. Chief of Staff to the Administrator d. Anyone communicating on behalf of the Administrator (including those performing duties in an acting capacity), such as a Chief of Staff, Executive Assistant, or Secretary e. Public Affairs Spokeswoman Pamela Dixon f. Public Buildings Service Commissioner Daniel Mathews g. Former Acting Public Buildings Service Commissioner Michael Gelber h. Former Public Buildings Service Commissioner Norman Dong i. Associate Administrator and Acting Chief of Staff P. Brennan Hart III, Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs; and 2) GSA-2018-001619- All records reflecting communications (including emails, email attachments, text messages, voicemails, voicemail transcripts, messages on messaging platforms (such as Slack, GChat or Google Hangouts, Lync, Skype, WhatsApp, Facebook messaging, Twitter Direct Messages, or Signal), telephone call logs, calendar invitations, calendar entries, meeting notices, meeting agendas, informational material, draft legislation, talking points, any handwritten or electronic notes taken during any oral communications, summaries of any oral communications, or other materials) between or U.S General Services Administration 1800 F. Street, Northwest Washington, DC 20405 Telephone: (202) 501-0800 Fax: (202) 501-2727 A f PVERSIGHT 2 among (including those copied or blind copied on emails) GSA Senior officials and employees of the White House and Trump Org officials. In response to request No. GSA-2018-1618, GSA is providing you with the responsive documents. Please note that portions of the responsive documents have been withheld pursuant to FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5). Additionally, portions of the responsive documents have been withheld pursuant to the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6) as well. Please be advised that GSA has interpreted the subject matter of your FOIA request No. GSA2018-1619 to be for communications pertaining to the FBI headquarters consolidation project. GSA has no responsive documents to this request. Sincerely, Travis Lewis Travis Lewis Deputy Director (Formerly FOIA Director) Office of Accountability and Transparency Office of Administrative Services Enclosure AMERICAN PVERSIGHT //FOUO// -·JT· • ' • :. . i. .': • . l'.}llll·:::.-•. ·�-~•.:\.:_·...... ... 1.-~..- --::....... - -- - - -;:::·~ ........ ,";j ..._ ·----.. : ~ ·..• ...- :, . . .. ' ~· - f/ •~ • - I • • ,• . . FBI HEADQUARTERS CONSOUDATION EXCHANGE PROJECT FACT SHEET •;..'.I.•.-·• ~- ~~~ ( - • - - \ . . :>~~-·.-: ':_~ ~ '-~,· .:_.~~--"-•._,_·.:.: ...~- ~-. ..._· .'. •.1� �-.;_.~i- •• _..·:.-.,�:-�.,,·:.:·· .:.;.:.:.. .• • -.•1 Issue The FBI Headquarters Consolidation Exchange Project has a combined $1.405 billion of requested FY 2017 appropriations unaccounted for in the current Continuing Resolution. Executive Branch messaging to Congress is that without full funding the project cannot proceed. If full funding is not provided ... - will GSA entertain changing its position and moving forward without full funding? - will GSA accept the project risks associated with moving forward without full funding? -If Yes, what does moving forward look like (award contract and/or purchase land and/or complete design), and how much partial funding is required? -If No, what are the alternatives? Briefing Objectives -Awareness and understanding of project decisions and timeframes upon FY17 funding clarity -Awareness and understanding of request to engage land owners for purchase option negotiations 1:::c: C, 7ci5 0a: 4.25.2017 GSA-18-0524-A-000001 ((w L�l> �Q. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION HEADQUARTERS CONSOLIDATION PROJECT FACT SHEET AND RECOMMENDATION Recommendation The Public Buildings Service (PBS) seeks full funding for the FBI Headquarters Consolidation Project. Requested Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 funding includes $759 million for GSA and $646 million for Department of Justice – Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). GSA and FBI received a combined $255 million in project funds in FY 2016. PBS also recommends not proceeding with the preferred Site and Offer Identification (March 10th Milestone) until Congress approves both the GSA and FBI FY 2017 appropriation requests. Timeline December 19, 2014 – GSA issues RFP-Phase I for evaluation of interested offeror team qualifications. This phase of the project seeks to verify that each offeror has the technical and financial capabilities to develop, design, construct and deliver the new FBI facility. The Government vets interested parties and selects a short-list of developer teams to compete in Phase II. FY 2016 Budget – GSA receives $75 million and FBI receives $180 million in funds for the project. January 22, 2016 – GSA issues RFP-Phase II for short-listed offerors to submit proposals on any or all of the three predetermined sites (Greenbelt (MD), Landover (MD), and Springfield (VA); identified by GSA on July 28, 2014). FY 2017 Budget – GSA requests $759 million and FBI requests $646 million to support the FBI consolidation project. Funding is for the construction of a new 2.1 million square foot, federally owned facility on one of the three identified sites. The facility will bring together FBI operations from the J. Edgar Hoover building and 13 leased locations in a new, modern and secure facility tailored to fully support FBI’s national security, intelligence and law enforcement missions. December 9, 2016 – Congress passes Continuing Resolution through April 28, 2017. The resolution does not address GSA’s or FBI’s FY 2017 requests. January 6, 2017 – GSA receives final proposals from the offerors. The proposals are currently under review with technical evaluations nearing completion. GSA is developing a draft of the final source selection report. March 10, 2017 – GSA has publicly identified March 10th as the date for the Government’s announcement of the tentative selected Site and Offeror. April 28, 2017 – GSA has internally identified April 28 as the award date for this contract. Issue The FBI Headquarters Consolidation Project has a combined $1.405 billion of requested FY 2017 appropriations. Existing Executive Branch messaging to Congress has been that without full funding the project cannot proceed. The March 10th Site and Offeror Identification milestone is an important date for the project in that it will identify which location and by which offeror the FBI headquarters will be built. Not only will it identify the selected site, it will identify the unselected sites. With both Maryland and Virginia Congressional delegations aggressively pursuing this opportunity, the Site and Offeror announcement is a pivotal project milestone. 02212017 Page 1 of 2 AMI HICAN PVERSIGHT GSA-18-0524-A-000002 FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION HEADQUARTERS CONSOLIDATION PROJECT FACT SHEET AND RECOMMENDATION Making such a significant announcement, as the selection of the preferred Site and Offeror, without full funding secured, is not in the best interest of the project. Doing so, will subject the project to an extended period of scrutiny and possible protest, during a time when the disposition of the project funding is uncertain and able to be influenced. Delay of the preferred Site and Offeror announcement will impact the schedule. The ultimate award date (currently April 28, 2017) is directly dependent upon the identification milestone due to the linkage of the procurement and the regulatory time frames of the National Environmental Policy Act. The award will be delayed at a day-for-day rate until the preferred Site and Offeror are identified. In addition, GSA will not be able to begin the award process until the FY 2017 funding question is resolved. 02212017 Page 2 of 2 AMI HICAN PVERSIGHT GSA-18-0524-A-000003 Folder: GSA-2017-001369-Pull2_tim.horne@gsa.gov_0 Subject: Date: From: To: Cc: Message-ID: FBI Documents Tue, 25 Apr 2017 10:10:11 -0400 Eitan Naftali - WPBB Timothy Horne - 8P Joanna Rosato - 3P MD5: 11a79f077da22b958f6040b6cf092ed7 Attachments:Scanned from a Xerox Multifunction Printer.pdf Good morning Tim, Attached please find the FBI documents. Thank you, Ei tanS. N af t al i A ct i ngC hi ef o f Staf f ,PB S U .S.General Serv icesA dm i ni st rat i on ((b)(6) ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Date: Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:38 AM Subject: Scanned from a Xerox Multifunction Printer To: "eitan.naftali@gsa.gov" Please open the attached document.  It was scanned and sent to you using a Xerox Multifunction Printer. Attachment File Type: pdf, Multi-Page Multifunction Printer Location: Room 6231 - CO, Washington DC, 1800 Fst. NW Device Name: ICOH2P-6231-XERX7885 For more information on Xerox products and solutions, please visit http://www.xerox.com I PVERSIGHT Page #1 GSA-18-0524-A-000004 For Official Use Only FBI Headquarters Consolidation Procurement Hill Briefing Talking Points • Thank you for coming. GSA and FBI endeavor to keep you up to date on the progress and procurement process. • GSA and FBI reaffirm that the need for a Headquarters facility that meets the FBI mission needs, consolidates personnel dispersed across the National Capital Region, and addresses security requirements has not diminished. • As you know, GSA and FBI are engaged in a procurement seeking an Exchange Partner to develop, design, construct, deliver, operate and maintain a consolidated headquarters facility of up to 2.1 million rentable square feet for the FBI in the National Capital Region. In exchange the developer would receive approximately $1.4 billion, and the J. Edgar Hoover (JEH) building and site. • The combined Executive branch (GSA, FBI, OMB) position with Congress has always been full funding was crucial for the Government to make an award. • The FY 2017 budget request included $1.4 billion for a new FBI Headquarters consolidation; however the funds appropriated leave an $882 million gap. The FY 2017 appropriation (provided in May 2017) only included $523 million ($323 million for FBI and $200 million for GSA), bringing the current appropriated amount for this project to $703 million. • In addition, Developers valuing JEH in an exchange that will occur in 7+ years in the future had to consider additional risk factors over a longer than normal period of time compared to a traditional asset disposal. Moreover, uncertainty regarding future project funding creates additional downward pressure on JEH value while, at the same time, creating upward pressure on construction cost. • Based on a review of current project status, GSA and FBI believe it necessary to cancel the current procurement. Moving forward with this procurement absent full funding puts the Government at risk for cost escalations and likely further devaluation of JEH. • • • GSA and FBI will work to develop an alternative procurement approach that will eliminate the risks associated with the current procurement structure, reduce overall project costs, and position the Government to maximize JEH disposal value when that facility is ready to be vacated. Hill notification will occur the week of July 10. This requires GSA to notify the bidders that the procurement has been cancelled prior to or concurrently with Hill notifications. Page 1 of 1 VERSIGHT GSA-18-0524-A-000005 Folder: GSA-2017-001369-Pull2_mary.gibert@gsa.gov_0 Subject: Date: From: To: FBI Docs Discussed at 12:30 Wed, 21 Jun 2017 13:42:01 -0400 Aaron Hassinger - WPIA Michael Gelber - PD , Shapour Ebadi , Mary Gibert - AD Message-ID: MD5: d0769bf70782dcf77d0403eb7c04a81f Attachments: Decision Backup 6-20-17.docx (b)(5) All, See electronic versions of both docs. Thanks, -Aaron -Aaron D. Hassinger, LEED AP Project Executive Office of Design and Construction Public Buildings Service National Capital Region  U.S. General Services Administration 301 7th Street, SW, Room 7512 Washington, DC 20407 aaron.hassinger@gsa.gov (b)(6) 202-208-0382 (office) I PVERSIGHT Page #1 GSA-18-0524-A-000006 Folder: GSA-2017-001369-Pull2_tim.horne@gsa.gov_0 Subject: Date: From: To: Message-ID: Fwd: FBI HQ project check-in call Fri, 7 Jul 2017 17:44:38 -0400 Tony Costa - AG Timothy Horne MD5: f8ea01a675443056ffbd8b5910204ff2 (b)(5) Attachments:(b)(5) (b)(5) (b)(5) ; FBI New HQ Termination Hill TPs_070717 FINAL.docx Hey. See way below. Copies of FBI points. Tony Costa Acting Deputy Administrator U.S. General Services Administration 202.501.0800 - main (b)(6) ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Donatelli, Angela M. EOP/OMB Date: Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 4:38 PM Subject: FBI HQ project check-in call To: "Abrams, Andrew D. EOP/OMB" , "Connolly, David C. EOP/OMB" , "Newman, Kimberly A. EOP/OMB" , "Boden, James EOP/OMB" , "richard.haley@ic.fbi.gov" , "Grant, Douglas S. (FD) (FBI)" , "Goodwin, Maya N. (FD) (FBI)" , "Rhodes, William A. (FD) (FBI)" , "Anthony Costa (C)" , Michael Gelber - PD , "Jack St. John - A" , Mary Gibert - WP Cc: "Johnson, Melanie M. (FD) (CON)" , Latonia Williams H1AC-C , "Marten, Lexi N. EOP/OMB" , "Kraninger, Kathleen L. EOP/OMB" In adv anc eof T ues da y ’sroll out, we will hold a final check-incall on Monday afternoon.     A ttachedare the F inalT alkingP oints and Q &A documentswith edits cons is tentwith yes terday’scall and a n updated roll out s chedulewith updated information in red.   P lea s es end u s the draft C ong res s ional staff email and the employeeemail a s well a s the draft pres s releas ea s s oon a s pos s ible,we will turn around a ny edits quickly.     I PVERSIGHT Page #1 GSA-18-0524-A-000007 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SEE FAR 3.104 FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION Cancellation of Request for Proposals (Phase I and II) FBI Headquarters Consolidation I. BACKGROUND This Findings and Determination ("F&D") concerns the General Services Administration (GSA) Request for Proposals (Phase I and II) ("RFP") for the FBI Headquarters Consolidation {the "Procurement" or "Project"). The RFP sought an exchange partner to develop, design, construct, deliver and operate a consolidated headquarters facility of up to 2.1 million rentable square feet for the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI"). As consideration for its performance, the exchange partner would receive Federal construction funding and, upon completion and acceptance of the new FBI headquarters facility, fee simple title to the J. Edgar Hoover Building and land generally consisting of the full city block bounded by Pennsylvania Avenue and 9th, 10th, and E Streets, NW in Washington, D.C., (collectively referred to as "JEH"). In January 2013, GSA issued a Request for Information (RFI) to garner reaction from members of the development community, local and state jurisdictions, and other interested parties regarding feasibility, issues, and considerations related to a potential project exchange structure. The ■ responses to the RFI helped to inform GSA's strategic planning for the Project. In November 2013, the RFI was followed by a Request for Expressions of Interest (REOI) for sites within the National Capital Region to be used for the development of a new FBI headquarters. From the site evaluation process, three acceptable sites were identified: one in Fairfax County, Virginia and two in Prince George's County, Maryland. On December 19, 2014, GSA issued RFP Phase I for the Government to select a shortlist of no more than five Offerers to compete in Phase II. On October 13, 2015, GSA identified short-listed Offerers to proceed to Phase II of the Procurement. On January 22, 2016, GSA issued RFP Phase II to the qualified Phase I Offerers. This RFP Phase II set forth requirements for Phase II proposals for the selection of an exchange partner to design and construct the Project described in the RFP documents, and included the draft Design Build Exchange Agreement that the successful Offerer was expected and would be required to execute if selected. RFP Phase I contained certain language to place offerer participants on affirmative notice that GSA was not warranting that the Procurement would proceed. Section E, paragraph . A of the Phase I RFP stated: "This Phase I RFP shall not be construed in any manner to create 2017-07-10 Page 1 of 13 AMERIC PVERSIGHT GSA-18-0524-A-000008 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SEE FAR 3.104 an obligation on the part of GSA to enter into any agreement, nor to implement any of the actions contemplated herein, nor to serve as the basis for any claim whatsoever for reimbursement of costs for efforts expended in preparing a response to the Phase I RFP or participating in the selection process." Further, RFP Phase II contained the following quoted language to place offerer participants on affirmative notice that GSA was not warranting that the Procurement would proceed or that funding would be obtained: • "Award of the Contract shall be subject to the availability of appropriated funds, and the Government shall incur no obligation under this RFP in advance of such time as funds are made available or appropriate funding authority is made available to the Contracting Officer for the purposes of Contract award." (Section B.3.1) • · "The Government reserves the right to reject all proposals if doing so is determined to be in the best interest of the government." (Section C.2.1) • Additionally, "The Government may reject any or all proposals if such action is in the Government's interest." (Section D.1.e.2) This D&F and related cancellation of the RFP are consistent with the foregoing provisions of the RFP. II. DISCUSSION and FINDINGS This Procurement relies upon authority found in 40 U.S.C. § 581 and 40 U.S.C. § 3304, together with Federal Acquisition Regulation concepts embodied in part 15 (contracting by negotiation) and part 36.3 (two phase design-build selection procedures). As historical context, successfully completed GSA exchange procurements have involved projects where the value of the Government exchange property was greater than or equal to the new facility being proposed. 1 GSA conceived using an exchange concept for the FBI HQ requirement at a point when the estimated Project cost was $1 billion (as referenced in Question For the Record dated April 24, 2013 for House Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and 1 "To date, GSA's Public Buildings Service (PBS) has completed eight exchanges, with the highest value exchanged property worth $10.8 million. Five of these completed exchanges were under $3 million. All of these completed exchanges were negotiated with a single party, generally a state or local public agency." Since the conclusion of audit fieldwork, PBS signed the Volpe exchange agreement for $750 million, which is more than the value it expected to receive. (March 30, 2017 GSA-OIG "Audit of PBS's Planning and Funding for Exchange Projects", Report A160024/P/R/R17004.) 2017-07-10 Page 2 of 13 AM~ HI( PVERSIGHT GSA-18-0524-A-000009 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SEE FAR 3.104 million Emergency Management) and the estimated value of JEH was approximately$2 million difference was feasible. based on a 2010 appraisal. GSA believed funding for the$The circumstances surrounding the Procurement have evolved substantially since early formulation of the exchange construct. a. Program Requirement for Up-Front Full Funding to Ensure Project Success As the needs of FBI became more clearly identified over time, the cost of the Project increased, and GSA continued to inform Congress of the need for full funding of the Project in order for the Procurement to be awarded successfully, as is detailed in brief by excerpts of GSA communications to Congress, below: January 21-22, 2016 Briefings to House and Senate Oversight and Appropriation Committees Staff by William Dowd, Public Buildings Service (PBS) Project Executive, GSA; Richard Haley, Assistant Director/Chief Financial Officer, FBI: and Scott Nathan, Associate Director for General Government Programs, 0MB • • "What will the President's FY 2017 budget propose? o The President's FY 2017 Budget will propose construction funding of $759 million in the GSA Federal Buildings Fund and $646 million in the FBl's Construction account. Together, this construction funding should ensure that GSA is in a position to award a contract for the design and construction of the full consolidation of FBI HQ in FY 2017." "The FY 2017 Budget request will ensure that if Congress enacts the Administration's proposal, funding will be available to award a construction contract for full consolidation." February 8, 2016 Prospectus - Construction, FBI Headquarters Consolidation, National Capital Region • 2 "The costs of the consolidated FBI Headquarters facility will be supported by: ( 1) FY 2016 enacted funds from the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, which included $180 million in FBI construction funding, $135 million in resources made available from the FBl's prior year balances, and $75 million in GSA FBF construction funding; (2) the value realized from the exchange of the JEH; (3) the President's Fiscal Year 2017 budget proposal of $759 million in construction funding within the GSA FBF; and (4) the President's Fiscal Year 2017 budget proposal of $646 million in the FBl's Construction account. Combined, these funds should ensure that GSA is in a position to award the project on schedule in $- million could potentially be expected as a The Office of Management and Budget assumed that JEH credit for purposes of determining the FY 2017 budget request for "full funding" of the FBI HQ project. 2017-07-10 Page 3 of 13 AM~ HIC PVERSIGHT GSA-18-0524-A-000010 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SEE FAR 3.104 FY 2017, and support the design and construction of the full consolidation." [Emphasis Added] February 29, 2016 Statement of Denise Turner Roth, Administrator, GSA before the Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives • "The President's FY 2017 request for the FBI Headquarters within the GSA budget [$759 million], paired with $646 million in the FBl's FY 2017 construction budget, as well as·the value of the J. Edgar Hoover Building and the prior year design and construction of a resources, will allow GSA to award a contract new FBI headquarters by the end of this calendar year." for October 24, 2016 Briefing to House and Senate Oversight and Appropriation Committee Staff by Michael Gelber, Deputy PBS Commissioner, GSA and Richard Haley, Assistant Director/Chief Financial Officer, FBI • • • "One thing that the oveiwhelming developer response has cemented is that: 1) FBI HQ remains FBI and GSA's highest funding priority, and 2) we need the funding level requested for FY 2017. We cannot underscore clearly enough that these resources are necessary to capitalize on that interest level and deliver the project in a timely way. We have a unique opportunity to execute this transaction in FY 2017 - and that opportunity will not wait." "What if Congress doesn't provide full funding in FY17? How would that impact that project timeline? o We will not be able to execute an award for construction until both FBI and GSA receive the full funding requested in FY 2017. o Any delay by Congress in providing that funding will cause delays in project delivery beyond our updated schedule. o Delays in appropriated funding may well put the whole project at risk; due to the offerers' commitment of their own resources, these offerors are not going to be able to keep their offers on the table indefinitely. This has the potential of increasing the total cost of the project and lowering the value "Is this project o o o 2017-07-10 of the Hoover building." project scalable? What are the minimum funding requirements for FBI HQ in FY17? Practically speaking, no. Scaling or phasing the project would extend the timeline for project delivery, significantly increase the cost of constructing a new FBI Headquarters, potentially devalue Hoover based on a delayed turnover, and not achieve FBI mission requirements. We will not be able to execute an award until both FBI and GSA receive the full funding requested in FY 2017 ." Page 4 of 13 Ar\lLHC PVERSIGHT GSA-18-0524-A-000011 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SEE FAR 3.104 In the appendix to this F&O are contained Offerer Requests for Information and GSA's responses during the procurement indicating a high level of concern by the Offerers in terms of problems that might be caused by less than full up-front funding of the Project. GSA's answers indicated that the agency was anticipating such full up-front funding. GSA has repeatedly communicated - to Congress, the agency's Office of Inspector General, and Offerers - that less than full up-front funding of the Project would place the Project at risk. b. Insufficiency of Credit Value Received for JEH Asset In studying ways to provide FBI with a-new headquarters, GSA commissioned an independent, licensed appraiser in 2010 to appraise JEH under several scenarios. Of those scenarios, two are most relevant to this Procurement. The appraiser's opinions of the estimated market values "As Is", of the fee simple interest effective August 20, 2010 with an unoccupied and Prospective Market Value of the entire underlying land area building was $.,000,000 and sold as one parcel, "as vacant and available to be developed to its highest and best use" as of August 20, 2019 was $.,000,000. As the Procurement proceeded and in order to evaluate the Offerer's valuation of JEH, GSA commissioned another appraisal in 2016 to determine the fair market value of the land only, as if vacant, unimproved and available for development. The appraiser's opinion was that Independent demolition the value of the property as of December 15, 2016 was $.,000,000. contractors had provided GSA in 2016 with estimates for the razing the JEH building at approximately $■,000,000, indicating that the "As Is" condition value at approximately for an immediate closing. $.,000,000, GSA's experience in certain exchange transactions, such as the Federal Triangle South initiative, corroborates agency concerns regarding JEH valuation. Receipt of initial Procurement offers further validated these concerns. As a result, GSA issued an amendment placing offerers on notice to maximize JEH credit values and provide their best offer. The amendment further notified Offerers that GSA retained discretion to cancel if JEH credit values were not high enough. RFP Phase II, as amended, contained the following quoted language to place offerer participants on affirmative notice of the manner in which the agency was consider credit offers from the JEH asset: • "Any proposal including an initial proposal, that offers a value for the JEH Credit that the Government, in its sole discretion, does not consider to be fair and reasonable, may result in the entirety of the offeror's proposal being rejected without further consideration." (Section C.2.2) 2017-07-10 Page 5 of 13 AM~ HIC PVERSIGHT GSA-18-0524-A-000012 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY PROCUREMENTSENSITNE SEE FAR3.104 The Government added the foregoing clause by amendment to the RFP because the Government became concerned that the structure of the exchange might reduce the value offered for JEH. Including this provision explicitly placed Offerers on notice of the potential of such non-acceptance. Notwithstanding this amendment, the Final Proposal Revisions (FPR) credit offers for JEH fell below appraised values. Furthermore, FPR offers for JEH generally 3 moved downwards relative to initial proposal offers. The FPRs received January 6, 2017 contained values offered for JEH of . Under the Procurement, such a credit would be available to the Project at the end of the construction delivery schedule, a number of years in the future, and potentially many years in the future if necessary appropriated funds were not received, thereby further reducing the net value or 'purchasing power' of the credit. These ·JEH credit values, when viewed in comparison to the independent appraisals, were not "fair and reasonable" and fell far short of the Government value assu_mptionsunderlying the FY 2017 budget request. In short, assumptions for "full funding" presumed a JEH value significantly higher than credit offers received. c. Among other Areas of Uncertainty, Funding Uncertainty and Delay Diminishes Efficacy of JEH Credit Value and Increases Need for Appropriated Funds Developers valuing JEH in an exchange that would occur in more than seven years after 5 contract award had to consider additional risk factors over that period of time. The exchange structure contemplated by t~e FBI HQ project differed significantly from a traditional Government disposal where conveyance would occur virtually immediately following public sale and closing. This extended time for conveyance and associated investment risk resulted in downward pressure on the exchange value of JEH. Current uncertainty regarding the timing of future Project funding and the ability for project design and construction activity to proceed without delay or interruption would likely create increased downward pressure on JEH credit value while, at the same time, creating upward pressure on construction cost. Ina similar vein, additional uncertainty is introduced pertaining to Assignable Purchase Options for private land that could be the location of the new HQ - the Landover and Greenbelt sites. At present, these Assignable Purchase Options expire Sep. 30, 2017 and have already been extended on multiple occasions. The two site owners have not offered definite responses to GSA's most recent requests for extension. Terms and conditions for any such extensions have not been finalized and could ultimately yield additional expense for the government. In addition to potential added expense related to use of the sites, the timing related to a potential 3 . Initial proposal offers for JEH were The offerer submitting this offer also included an alternate credit figure that varied by approximately $IM dependent upon the new HQ site that was selected by GSA. 5 See GSA OIG report A160024/P/R/R17004, supra. 4 2017-07-10 Page 6 of 13 AM~ HI( pVERSIGHT GSA-18-0524-A-000013 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SEE FAR 3.104 re-opening of proposals to allow bidders to refresh, at a minimum, their offered pricing, the evaluation of such further FPRs, and other Government evaluation processes that are necessary prerequisites to any award, add further timing uncertainty to an already uncertain funding landscape. This also could result in offerers submitting higher priced construction cost proposals together with further devaluations of JEH credit values in such proposals. _In specific relation to this Project and more generally, GSA's OIG has articulated concerns related to devaluation pressures placed upon assets GSA attempts to include in 6 exchange projects, such as those that follow. September 12, 2013 GSA-OIG Monitoring Service • The GSA-OIG notified GSA's National Capital Region on September 12, 2013 that it would be conducting a Monitoring Service of the FBI Headquarters Consolidation project. Among other questions and areas of interest, GSA-OIG has had an initial and continued interest in discussing "potential funding alternatives should the JEH building not provide sufficient assets for the FBI HQ Consolidation Program of Requirements." March 30, 2017 GSA-OIG "Audit of PBS's Planning and Funding for Exchange Projects", Report A 160024/P/R/R 17004 • "Finding 1 - PBS did not fully factor risk into its planning for exchange projects ... " 6 Others articulated similar concerns . See eg, FBJ RFI Report {July 10, 2013) noting that potential developers commented on the timing of the exchange and impact on the value of JEH. See eg, H. Rept. 114-624, Report of the Committee of Appropriations, June 15, 2016, ("This Committee has consistently questioned whether an exchange was financially and practically advisable and whether GSA's decision to forgo the normal disposal process would obtain the best deal for the taxpayer.") See eg O'Connell, Hoyer: I'm not a fan of Hoover Building swap for FBI headquarters, Washington Post, December 5, 2015 (staling "House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Thursday that he was encouraged by the Obama administration 's efforts to build a new FBI headquarters, but that he is exploring ways to pay for it other than by trading the J. Edgar Hoover Building to a developer.") See eg, Heckman, J.; New FBI headquarters gets go-ahead from House committee; (2016, December 07), from Federal News Radio: https://federalnewsradi o .com/agency-oversighU2016/12/new-fbi-headquarters-gets-go-ahead-house~ committee/ ("I am concerned that they've come up with this bizarre construct where they're going to try to get someone to bid on buying the old FBI headquarters and building the new one. I think pairing the two is stupid, it's certainly going to limit the number of people who are interested in constructing and bidding on the new FBI headquarters . I'm concerned that we won't get full value for the downtown property, and I assume this is being done by GSA because they don't want to ask for an appropriati9n for the entire new project, so they're just going to muddy up the water here and mush the two together," Ranking member Peter Defazio said.) 2017-07-10 Page 7 of 13 -AM~ HIC PVERSIGHT GSA-18-0524-A-000014 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SEE FAR 3.104 o "PBS's current guidance, the 1997 Exchange Guidance and Section 412 Guidance, does not require it to quantify risk, nor does it address discounting property values to account for the time the developer will have to wait to realize a return on its investment in exchanges. In exchanges involving construction services, the developer must complete the construction services before receiving the government's property as consideration. Depending on the extent of the construction services, this may take several years. As a result, developers discount the value of . PBS's properties to account for investment risk. While PBS was conceptually aware of this risk, it did not fully factor the risk into its initial decisions to pursue exchanges or into the value it expected to receive for its properties from developers." o "PBS relied heavily on appraisals to establish the value of its properties. PBS officials noted that appraisals are generally only relevant and reliable for 12 months since they are based on current market conditions." "However, appraisals do not factor in the extended length of exchange transactions and the time it would take for the developer to receive the property. PBS also did not discount property values in its financial analyses or business cases to account for future market conditions or other risks, such as change order risk, that developers factored into their evaluations." GSA used appraisals for the initial valuation of JEH to decide to pursue an exchange and did not estimate the full cost effect of these risks. However, as the Project progressed, it did eventually estimate the value of JEH, accounting for the risks associated with a delayed exchange. These valuations and cost estimates were a basis of the FY 2017 budget request. However, in this Project the risk of funding delays for the Government's contribution to the cost of the new facility can significantly compound the devaluation of JEH and increase the Project's cost. d. Recent Appropriations, Budget Activity, and Executive Branch Leadership The FY 2017 budget request included $1.405 billion for a new FBI Headquarters consolidation; however, the funds appropriated leave an $882 million gap, which also does not account for the additional pressure created by the JEH valuation described in this F&D. The FY 2017 appropriation (provided in May 2017) only included $523 million ($323 million for FBI and $200 million for GSA), bringing the current appropriated amount for the Project to $703 million, well short of full funding required for full consolidation. Funding was not requested in FY 2018 in the expectation that FY 2017 budget request would be fully funded. 2017-07-10 Page 8 of 13 Af\/fR( PVERSIGHT GSA-18-0524-A-000015 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SEE FAR 3.104 On June 28, 2017, a House Appropriations Subcommittee released the FY 2018 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill which, in Section 518 if enacted, would rescind the "unobligated balance of amounts provided for National Capital Region, FBI Headquarters Consolidation, in paragraph (1)(A) under the heading "General Services Administration-Federal Buildings Fund" in division E of Public Law 115-31." This proposed rescission is further indication that full and timely funding of the Project is highly unlikely, and contributes to increasing uncertainty regarding the potential for full funding to be received in a timeframe that would not delay project performance. Although Offeror proposals were received in January, 2017 and GSA proceeded diligently in its evaluation, GSA placed the Procurement on hold until the FY 2017 budget was completed in May 2017. Since the full request was not funded at that time, GSA has since then been evaluating if and how the Project might proceed, which has led to related internal executive branch coordination and this F&D. GSA has coordinated with FBI and the Office of Management and Budget throughout the implementation of this Procurement initiative. Administration coordination has yielded independent input indicating that inclusion of the exchange component of this initiative is not favored. e. Summation of Rational Basis for Cancellation From the issuance of RFP Phase II and the submission of the FY 2017 budget request, GSA consistently and repeatedly informed Congress of the need for the full budget request to be funded in order to make an award. GSA stressed that phasing the Project was not practical and that full and timely funding was necessary. In addition, throughout the RFP Phase II process Offerers questioned the consequences of not receiving full or timely funding and were aware of the associated risks. Beginning with the issuance of RFP Phase I, continuing through RFP Phase II and the responses to Requests for Information from Offerers, GSA has consistently and repeatedly stressed that the Government is under no obligation to enter into any agreement, nor to implement any of the actions contemplated within those documents, and may cancel the Procurement. It is acknowledged that the Procurement and associated Design Build Exchange contract were prepared to allow award without full funding; however, the magnitude of the increase in costs due to delayed appropriated funding is too great to continue the Procurement and is beyond what _GSA reasonably expected when the agency was contemplating an award without full funding. Since the lapse of time from receipt of FPRs would require GSA to seek a "refresh" of offerer pricing proposals, at a minimum, the agency's expectation would be that uncertainties over future funding (as evidenced by the House Appropriations Subcommittee's rescission language) will result in cost proposals going up to account for uncertainty, and JEH credit values being reduced. 2017-07-10 Page 9 of 13 Af\/fR( PVERSIGHT GSA-18-0524-A-000016 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SEE FAR 3.104 All of the foregoing issues support the use of more tested, conventional project delivery methods that should minimize costs while, at the same time, allow for maximization of JEH value since the property would be disposed in a timeframe more proximate to when the Government will be able to convey to the successful purchaser. De-linking the two transactions (construction of a new FBI HQ and disposal of the current FBI HQ) significantly un-complicates the overall project structure and offeror financing issues. Cancellation will also provide an opportunity to work further with FBI to better understand their program needs, and refine those needs such that when GSA is prepared to pursue a more conventional delivery approach, FBl's program needs are assured to be current as of that time . These Findings indicate it is necessary and within the agency 's discretion to cancel the current Procurement. Ill. DETERMINATION Consistent with the terms of the RFP, and applicable legal authority, GSA has determined it is reasonable and in the best interest of the Government to cancel the FBI Headquarters Procurement. GSA will work to develop an alternative procurement approach that will eliminate the risks associated with the current Procurement structure , reduce overall project costs, and position the Government to maximize JEH disposal value when that facility is ready to be vacated. [Signatures follow .] 2017-07 -10 Page 10 of 13 AMERC PVERSIGHT GSA-18-0524-A-000017 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONL y PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SEE FAR 3.104 (b)(6) ltf~/4 Dal ,:!di 1 . (b)(6) Jo~I.. ·•f:loro1~on 1 rnotlngOfficer PublloBulldJn{ls sa,v!ca(WPR/\) ~li~~..f1U-----~ Pub11n Bul!d!ngo ·sorv16e (WP) 2017-07-10 Page 11 of 13 AMLHI< PVERSIGHT GSA-18-0524-A-000018 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SEE FAR 3.104 APPENDIX • OFFEROR QUESTION: Section 8.3 .1 states that each phase of the work pursuant to the Contract shall be subject to the availability of appropriated funds. The delay in appropriation of funds could delay the completion of the overall project and the date by which the JEH would be transferred to the Offeror. How will the Government account for potential increases in costs or reductions in value if the Project is delayed due to delays in approval of appropriations? (RFI #37; 2/22/2016) o • OFFEROR QUESTION: Appropriations - What h~ppens if the Government Contribution has been exhausted, the Exchange Value has been exhausted, and the project is not complete because of Government delay or changes to the project? Will the Government require additional appropriations to cover such costs? What if they are not obtained? Will the Government commit to using best efforts to obtain necessary appropriations? (RF! #117; 5/13/2016) o • The contractor may recover for compensable delays through the equitable adjustment process. It is the Government's intention to seek and obtain all necessary appropriations. OFFEROR QUESTION: Substantial Completion - Section 1.8(2), Ill.A - It appears that Developer must propose a final, binding Substantial Completion date for -the entire project during the Concept Design Phase. If the date is missed, Developer is in default and subject to significant liquidated damages. The Government has suggested that Developer is protected by the "excusable delay" provisions of the FAR and that Developer can request equitable adjustments for "compensable delay." However, the DBEA also states that schedule extensions may be granted or withheld in the Government's sole discretion. Given this language, it would be helpful if the Government could confirm the following: (i) Government delay can result in both an extension of the schedule (thereby forestalling liquidated damages) and an equitable adjustment of the JEH value (reflecting the increased carry costs for Developer and the time value of money); (ii) Delays from failures of Congress to appropriate funds will constitute Government delay; and (iii) Repeated or excessively protracted design reviews will constitute Government delay. (RF! 114; 5/13/2016) o 2017-07-10 (i) Government caused delays, without any developer concurrent delays, shall be resolved at time of impact per the terms of the contract and time extensions would not subject the Developer to LDs. Subject to a pending Page12of13 Ar\lLHC PVERSIGHT GSA-18-0524-A-000019 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY PROCUREMENT SENSITIVE SEE FAR 3.104 amendment, the Bid sheet will identify a bid cost for delays for three periods over the contract duration as follows: 1) Design phase; 2) construction phase; 3) Post substantial completion. Equitable adjustments of the JEH value are not anticipated. (ii) The Contract is subject to availability of funds and bound by the Antideficiency Act; limited notices to proceed will be issued for funds available . The Government has no requirement to issue NTP prior to funding. Failure of Congress to appropriate funds is not anticipated to constitute Government delay . The contracting officer would not issue a partial notice to proceed unless such NTP was in accordance with the DBEA. (iii) Design reviews by the government are identified in the RFP. Design submission requirements are identified on P-100 and the Developer shall provide their design quality review program to address their quality control measure to mitigate design deficiencies with each submission. The developer may elect to hold on-board reviews or presentations of each submission with the reviewers to minimize time for large or complex design submissions. If Developer requests and the CO approves a fast track design, the design review performance periods shall be scheduled to avoid federal holidays and overlapping review periods for submissions. The Government intends to review and approve design deliverables in accordance with the DBEA. 2017-07-10 Page 13 of 13 AMERC PVERSIGHT GSA-18-0524-A-000020 RFP Language on Government’s Rights Section B.3.4 states “The Government will not bear any expenses associated with the Offeror’s preparation of their proposals.” Section C.2.1 states “The Government reserves the right to reject all proposals if doing so is determined to be in the best interest of the Government.” Section C.2.2 states “Any proposal, including an initial proposal, that offers a value for the JEH Credit that the Government, in its sole discretion, does not consider to be fair and reasonable, may result in the entirety of the offeror’s proposal being rejected without further consideration.” Section D.1.e.2 states “The Government may reject any or all proposals if such action is in the Government’s interest.” Section B.3.1 states “Award of the Contract shall be subject to the availability of appropriated funds, and the Government shall incur no obligation under this RFP in advance of such time as funds are made available or appropriate funding authority is made available to the Contracting Officer for the purpose of Contract award.” RFP Language on Fact-Track Schedule Section C.1.1.1.3 states “The Government envisions and welcomes a fast-track designbuild approach and will consider partial plan submittals and parallel activities within and across project phases, subject to the limitation of Section B.3.1. In evaluating the project schedule, the Government will consider (i) the total duration of the schedule, with a shorter duration preferred; (ii) the duration of the on-site construction period, with a shorter duration preferred; and (iii) whether the schedule incorporates early phased mission deployment, but only to the extent that such phasing reduces schedule duration.” Developer RFI Question 37 Q: Section B.3.1 states that each phase of the work pursuant to the Contract shall be subject to availability of appropriated funds. The delay in appropriation of funds could delay the completion of the overall project and the date by which the JEH would be transferred to the Offeror. How will the Government account for potential increases in costs or reductions in value if the project is delayed due to delays in approval of appropriations? R: The contractor may recover for compensable delays through the equitable adjustment process. Developer RFI Question 117 Q: Appropriations - What happens if the Government contribution has been exhausted, the Exchange value has been exhausted, and the project is not complete because of Government delay or changes to the project? Will the Government require additional 1 GSA-18-0524-A-000021 appropriations to cover such costs? What if they are not obtained? Will the Government commit to using best efforts to obtain necessary appropriations? R: It is the Government's intent to seek and obtain all necessary appropriations. Developer RFI Question 114 Q: Substantial Completion - Section I.B(2), III.A - It appears that Developer must propose a final, binding Substantial Completion date for the entire project during the Concept Design Phase. If the date is missed, Developer is in default and subject to significant liquidated damages. The Government has suggested that Developer is protected by the “excusable delay” provisions of the FAR and that Developer can request equitable adjustments for “compensable delay.” However, the DBEA also states that schedule extensions may be granted or withheld in the Government’s sole discretion. Given this language, it would be helpful if the Government could confirm the following: (i) Government delay can result in both an extension of the schedule (thereby forestalling liquidated damages) and an equitable adjustment of the JEH value (reflecting the increased carry costs for Developer and the time value of money); (ii) Delays from failures of Congress to appropriate funds will constitute Government delay; and (iii) Repeated or excessively protracted design reviews will constitute Government delay. R: (i) Government caused delays, without any developer concurrent delays, shall be resolved at time of impact per the terms of the contract and time extensions would not subject the Developer to LDs. Subject to a pending amendment, the Bid sheet will identify a bid cost for delays for three periods over the contract duration as follows: 1) Design phase; 2) construction phase; 3) Post substantial completion. Equitable adjustments of the JEH value are not anticipated. (ii) The Contract is subject to availability of funds and bound by the Antideficiency Act; limited notices to proceed will be issued for funds available. The Government has no requirement to issue NTP prior to funding. Failure of Congress to appropriate funds is not anticipated to constitute Government delay. The contracting officer would not issue a partial notice to proceed unless such NTP was in accordance with the DBEA. (iii) Design reviews by the government are identified in the RFP. Design submission requirements are identified on P-100 and the Developer shall provide their design quality review program to address their quality control measure to mitigate design deficiencies with each submission. The developer may elect to hold on-board reviews or presentations of each submission with the reviewers to minimize time for large or complex design submissions. If Developer requests and the CO approves a fast track design, the design review performance periods shall be scheduled to avoid federal holidays and overlapping review periods for submissions. The Government intends to review and approve design deliverables in accordance with the DBEA. 2 GSA-18-0524-A-000022 Specific Developer Final Proposal Revision Language Peterson's proposal states..."Another area in which we will need to closely coordinate with the Government is regarding funding. The fast track approach assumes funding is available to support the start of construction activities. In an effort to support this our team will prepare an anticipated cash flow analysis based upon our schedule for Government review and coordination. Adjustments may need to be made to the schedule to ensure that fiscal year appropriations match anticipated cash flow needs, particularly with the complex nature of the transactions associated with this project." FCDP's proposal states..."We heeded the comments about schedule and worked hard with the design and construction teams to take a year off of the schedule. This was primarily accomplished by finding ways to overlap the design and construction schedules and to start design earlier." GSA Obligations to Date To date GSA has obligated $20.526 Million for the FBI project. Of that, $9.0 Million is from the FY16 BA51 appropriation ($75M) for program management support. “Sunk costs” are approximately $10 Million. 3 GSA-18-0524-A-000023 Folder: GSA-2017-001369-Pull2_mary.gibert@gsa.gov_0 Subject: FBI F&D Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 15:38:44 -0400 From: Aaron Hassinger - WPIA To: Michael Gelber - PD Cc: Mary Gibert - AD , Shapour Ebadi Message-ID: MD5: 0185281a6ffcf1e673017f772f921914 Attachments: 7.10.17_EXECUTED VERSION_FBI HQ_F and D.pdf Michael, The FBI F&D has been executed. Attached for your reference. Thanks, -Aaron -Aaron D. Hassinger, LEED AP Project Executive Office of Design and Construction Public Buildings Service National Capital Region  U.S. General Services Administration 301 7th Street, SW, Room 7512 Washington, DC 20407 aaron.hassinger@gsa.gov (b)(6) 202-208-0382 (office) I PVERSIGHT Page #1 GSA-18-0524-A-000024 Folder: GSA-2017-001369-Pull2_mary.gibert@gsa.gov_0 Subject: Date: From: To: Cc: FBI Headquarters Consolidation Project: Evaluation of Exchange Impacts Documents Fri, 28 Apr 2017 10:48:52 -0400 Aaron Hassinger - WPIA Dean Smith Michael Gelber - PD , Mary Gibert - AD , Shapour Ebadi , Joanna Rosato - 3P Message-ID: MD5: 8ab0be3085469c6c3efa4beb710c4f5d Attachments: (b)(5) ; (b)(5) Good Morning Dean, Per Michael's direction, I am sending you the FBI Headquarters Consolidation Project: Evaluation of Exchange Impacts documents for your review and comment. Please let me know if you have any questions. We look forward to your feedback. Thanks, -Aaron Attached files: (b)(5) (b)(5) -Aaron D. Hassinger, LEED AP Project Executive Office of Design and Construction Public Buildings Service National Capital Region  U.S. General Services Administration 301 7th Street, SW, Room 7512 Washington, DC 20407 aaron.hassinger@gsa.gov (b)(6) 202-208-0382 (office) I PVERSIGHT Page #1 GSA-18-0524-A-000025 FBI Headquarters Consolidation Procurement: Executive Questions & Responses Question # 1: Site Selection within Current Procurement Format (Could a site be selected and then request BAFO's from developers on a single site?) Response #1: A change of this magnitude would be quite complicated, would require significant rework and an amendment to the RFP. A large change such as this could greatly increase the risk of protest. The CO was consulted, and her determination was that this change could be substantial enough to require cancellation per FAR 15.206 (e). FAR § 15.206(e): If, in the judgment of the contracting officer, based on market research or otherwise, an amendment proposed for issuance after offers have been received is so substantial as to exceed what prospective offerors reasonably could have anticipated, so that additional sources likely would have submitted offers had the substance of the amendment been known to them, the contracting officer shall cancel the original solicitation and issue a new one, regardless of the stage of the acquisition. Question #2: Would Significantly Reducing the Scope/Cost of the New Facility Increase Competition? Response #2: The scope of the FBI Program of Requirements (POR) is driven by the FBI’s mission and composed of FBI personnel and square footage requirements. While the program will undergo robust value engineering for the ultimately selected site during the design phase, a straight scope reduction prior to award is not value engineering. An across the board scope reduction of personnel and/or square footage during the ongoing procurement would be subject to FAR § 15.206(e). Generally, changes of this nature are limited to a maximum of approximately 10% (b)(5) . A reduction of this magnitude would likely necessitate a full review and revision to the FBI’s POR. - The exchange and the financial qualifications to be considered under the exchange will remain to be significant factors for competing teams. If scope was reduced but most of the other parameters stayed in place some of the teams that didn't make the original short list may become viable competitors. However, any reevaluation of shortlisted teams would initiate a re-procurement. Initially we had ( development b teams and short listed(b With a smaller scope there may be an uptick in competition at the GC/AE ) ) subcontract level (again only if re-procured), but this would still be a very large effort even ( if the scope (5 5 information were cut in half. The CO ) was consulted, and referenced FAR 15.206 (e). Additional specific ) would be required to make a determination on the impact of such a change on the procurement. I I Question #3: Is JEH Sale/Lease Back Approach Executable within the Current Procurement? Response #3: A JEH Sale/Lease back does not fit into the current procurement, cancellation would likely be required. PBS P 4065.1 Page 8: Title to the GSA property cannot be conveyed to the PSEO until the services required to be delivered under the exchange agreement are completed and accepted by GSA. Page 9: c. The exchange of GSA’s property will only occur after the PSEO completes the required construction services to the satisfaction of GSA. Note: Page 3: This guidance is for Section 412 exchanges, no such guidance exists for Section 581 exchanges. For Official Use Only VERSIGHT 5/23/2017 GSA-18-0524-A-000026 Folder: GSA-2017-001369-Pull2_mary.gibert@gsa.gov_0 Subject: Fwd: FBI HQ Q and A's Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 17:48:40 -0400 From: Mary Gibert - WP To: Anthony Costa Cc: Mary Gibert - WPT Message-ID: MD5: 62d25995a1297e5ca4f4523bcbaf35e0 Attachments: FBI HQ Executive Q and As R2 5-23-17.docx FYI -  Provided to Michael and Joanna - was leaving to them to provide to you. Mary  ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Mary Gibert - WP Date: Tue, May 23, 2017 at 11:21 AM Subject: Fwd: FBI HQ Q and A's To: Michael Gelber - PD , Joanna Rosato - 3P Cc: Mary Gibert - WPT , Shapour Ebadi Michael and Joanna: Responses to questions per our last meeting. Available to discuss. Mary  ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Aaron Hassinger - WPIA Date: Tue, May 23, 2017 at 9:07 AM Subject: FBI HQ Q and A's To: Mary Gibert - AD Cc: Shapour Ebadi , "Stephen L. Schwartz" Mary, Per your request. See attached questions and answers. Thanks, -Aaron -- A v1 )I( /\ PVERSIGHT Page #1 GSA-18-0524-A-000027 Folder: GSA-2017-001369-Pull2_mary.gibert@gsa.gov_0 Aaron D. Hassinger, LEED AP Project Executive Office of Design and Construction Public Buildings Service National Capital Region  U.S. General Services Administration 301 7th Street, SW, Room 7512 Washington, DC 20407 aaron.hassinger@gsa.gov (b)(6) ) 202-208-0382 (office) -Mary D. Gibert PBS Regional Commissioner, National Capital Region (NCR) General Services Administration 301 7th St, SW Room 1075 Washington DC 20407 202-690-9201 (central line) (b)(6) -Mary D. Gibert PBS Regional Commissioner, National Capital Region (NCR) General Services Administration 301 7th St, SW Room 1075 Washington DC 20407 202-690-9201 (central line) (b)(6) I PVERSIGHT Page #2 GSA-18-0524-A-000028