**[REAL PROPERTY POLICYSITE]{.underline}**

**News and Views on Real Property and Workplace Policy**

**Spring 2003**

**FEDERAL REAL ESTATE**

**AT RISK**

**...according to GAO Report**

# *GAO Designates \$328 Billion Federal Portfolio as a "HIGH RISK" Program for 2003*

[Special feature inside:]{.underline}

# Federal Real Property Council

# Security Resource Guide

# [Index]{.underline}:

Federal Initiatives

-   Federal Real Estate Deemed **at Risk**

Outreach

-   Top Federal Real Estate Execs Address Outsourcing

Security Resource Guide

Regulations You Can Use

-   Real Property Policies in FPMR Cancelled, FMR Amended

-   GSA Assists Agencies in Complying with the Rural Development Act

Sustainability

-   The Business Case for Sustainable Design and Construction in Federal
    Facilities

-   Park Service *Recycles* with \"Green\" Building in San Francisco

Telework

-   EEOC Moves Ahead with Telework

-   What is the Status of Telework in the Federal Government?

-   State \"STEPS\" into Telework with Success!

Best Practices

# States Best Practices Profiled

-   GSA Issues Call for Entries for Real Estate Best Practices

Newsroom

-   HHS Volunteers for e-RealEstate Experiment

-   Check out new Federal Real Property Profile

# 

# [FEDERAL INITIATIVES]{.underline}

# FEDERAL REAL ESTATE DEEMED *[AT RISK]{.underline}*

(by Ronald Whitley, GSA Office of Real Property)

# U.S. General Accounting Office Designates Federal Real Estate as a "HIGH RISK" Program for 2003

*"Long-standing problems in the Federal real property area include
excess and underutilized property, deteriorating facilities, unreliable
real property data, and costly space. These factors have
multibillion-dollar cost implications and can seriously jeopardize the
ability of Federal agencies to accomplish their missions."* David M.
Walker, Comptroller General of the United States, January 2003 High-Risk
Series, Federal Real Property

There are more than 30 Federal agencies that control real property
assets in the United States and abroad. Because the majority of these
agencies are governed by legislation that is more than 50 years old,
many must continue to manage their inventories by relying on business
practices and models that have been in place for a half-century without
significant change. In addition, all agencies have suffered from many
years of chronic capital improvement and maintenance underfunding.

According to GAO, the government's inventory of real estate is
deteriorating at an alarming rate, incapable of meeting technological
demands, confronted with a growing list of health and safety issues, and
unable to benefit from leveraging the huge equity that is tied up in the
real property assets. If these problems continue to grow unabated, the
number of government real property assets that can meet the changing
mission requirements of Federal agencies will further decline.

Sidebar: **[Federal Real Property Assets]{.underline}. According to the
fiscal year 2001 financial statements of the U.S. government, the
Federal government's real property assets are worth about \$328 billion.
In terms of facilities, the latest available governmentwide data from
GSA indicated that as of September 30, 2000, the Federal government
owned and leased approximately 3.3 billion square feet of building floor
area worldwide.** January 2003 High-Risk Series Federal Real Property

## GAO Unveils High-Risk Report

In response to this growing problem, at a press conference on January
29, 2003, the General Accounting Office (GAO) unveiled a report entitled
"High-Risk Series" [Federal Real Property]{.underline} that underscores
the importance of agencies having the appropriate and up-to-date
business practices and incentives to manage the stewardship of agency
real estate. The report is a clear depiction of how the management of
Federal real property must change to satisfy the new work paradigms of
the 21^st^ century as well as helping to attract and retain a quality
Federal workforce. Agencies will need appropriate and up-to-date
management tools and incentives to manage their real property portfolios
as strategic assets. This will help ensure that the government's
inventory of real property assets is healthy, safe, efficient and
effective.

*(sidebar)* **[GAO High-Risk Series]{.underline}. This report on Federal
real property is part of GAO's high-risk series, first issued in 1993
and updated periodically. This series identifies areas at high risk due
to either their greater vulnerabilities to waste, fraud, abuse, and
mismanagement or major challenges associated with their economy,
efficiency, or effectiveness.**

The designation "high-risk\" is the strongest term used by GAO to
communicate the growing concern regarding a programmatic issue, and the
importance of taking corrective action immediately. The designation will
serve to focus the Administration and Congress on supporting solutions
to resolve the growing challenges of realigning the government's realty
holdings to fully address the workplace of the future, and improve
government agency performance and accountability.

Present at January's press gathering were Senator Susan Collins (R-ME),
Chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, and
Representative Tom Davis (R-VA), Chairman of the House Government Reform
Committee. Both Chairs have oversight roles for the governmentwide real
property program, and will be working with GSA to pass legislation that
would reform the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of
1949 (Property Act). Comments from each Chair were a very positive and a
strong indicator that there is a renewed synergy on the part of
Administration and Congress to give Federal landholding agencies the
proper tools and incentives to promote efficient and effective real
property management. Chairman Davis was quoted as saying, "From
workplace improvement to real property reform, the Administration has
made it a priority to improve government management and performance."
The Chairman further stated, "Deterioration and underutilization of the
government real property inventory has been a long-standing problem.
Both the President and the Congress have identified the need to reform
the 1949 Property Act as a major priority."

***"I will work to turn these high-risk programs around."***

Senator Susan Collins, Chairman, Senate Governmental Affairs Committee

**Why Federal Real Property?**

According to the GAO report there are many reasons for designating
Federal real property as a high-risk program. Below is GAO's rationale:

-   Long standing problems with excess and underutilized real property,
    deteriorating facilities, unreliable real property data, and costly
    space challenges are shared by several agencies.

-   These factors have multi-billion dollar cost implications and can
    jeopardize mission accomplishment.

-   Federal agencies face many challenges securing real property due to
    the threat of terrorism.

An example of vacant Federal property is the west campus of the St.
Elizabeths Hospital complex in the District of Columbia. The Federal
government owns almost all of the west campus of St. Elizabeths, which
has 61 mostly vacant buildings containing about 1.2

million square feet of space on 182 acres. The government has not needed
the property which has remained mostly vacant for many years. The
government has recently taken steps to dispose of the property, which
contains magnificent vistas of the rivers and city, but the property has
significantly deteriorated and faces environmental and historic
preservation issues.

Restoration, repair, and maintenance backlogs in Federal facilities are
significant and reflect the Federal government's ineffective stewardship
over its valuable and historic portfolio of real property assets. The
backlog is alarming because of its magnitude---current estimates show
that tens of billions of dollars will be needed to restore these assets
and make them fully functional.

For example, although DOD no longer reports data on backlog of repairs
and maintenance, it reported in 2001 that the cost of bringing its
facilities to a minimally acceptable condition was estimated at \$62
billion; the cost of correcting all deficiencies was estimated at \$164
billion.

**What Should Be Done?**

What remains to be done according to GAO includes the following:

-   The need for a comprehensive and integrated real property
    transformation strategy that:

    -   could identify how best to realign and rationalize Federal real
        property and dispose of unneeded assets.

    -   address significant real property repair and restoration needs.

    -   develop reliable, useful real property data.

    -   resolve the problem of heavy reliance on costly leasing.

    -   minimize the impact of terrorism on real property.

-   Independent commission or task force may be needed to develop this
    strategy.

-   Legislative action to address long-standing challenges.

GAO also acknowledges that in addition to the corrective measures above,
there are other recommendations that can be taken to further mitigate
the problem of high-risk Federal property. In the August 2002, forum on
major issues confronting real property that GAO and the National
Research Council sponsored, Federal agency participants recommended the
following (some of these have already been integrated into GAO's
recommendations above):

-   the need for top-level support and commitment form Congress, OMB and
    other real property holding agencies to recognize the significance
    of these problems and seek solutions to resolve them.

-   the need to integrate facilities within agency mission strategic
    planning.

-   the need for a broader range of financing and management tools.

-   the need for skilled people in the real property management area.

-   the need to address the negative effects that budget scoring rules
    have on capital decisionmaking.

-   the need to balance security concerns with costs and meeting public
    accessibility requirements.

-   the need for high quality data on real property assets to provide
    better information for strategic decisionmaking.

GAO's report is a further step in moving Property Act Reform forward,
and reflects the growing support within the government to ensure that
Federal agencies have the freedom to manage their assets to achieve
stated missions and goals. This effort will reduce the amount of
deteriorated, vacant, and underutilized space in the existing inventory
of government facilities. The General Services Administration believes
that the report will be a catalyst for passing legislation that reforms
the aging Property Act this Congress. Such action will ensure that
agencies have the proper tools and incentives to promote efficient and
effective stewardship of the government's assets in the 21^st^ century.

(quote) "Deterioration and underutilization of the government real
property inventory has been a long-standing problem. Both the President
and the Congress have identified the need to reform the 1949 Property
Act as a major priority." Representative Tom Davis, Chairman, House
Government Reform Committee

## *SIDEBAR*

**[What is GSA Doing?]{.underline} GSA and the Office of Real Property
remain committed to real property reform legislation and will continue
to work with the Administration and Congress to promote the broadest
tools and best incentives for landholding agencies to ensure the
efficient and effective stewardship of the Federal portfolio.**

######### 

######### 

######### OUTREACH

TOP FED REAL ESTATE EXECS ADDRESS OUTSOURCING\
(by R. Ornburn, GSA Office of Real Property)\
\
*Top real estate executives from around the government convened in
Washington DC to address several high profile issues, especially
outsourcing, challenging Federal real estate programs.*

The February 5th Federal Real Property Council (FRPC) meeting, with a
record 45 attendees from 20 Federal departments and agencies, kicked off
with a spirited panel discussion on outsourcing. The FRPC is a forum for
Federal leaders of real estate and workplace programs to address
significant issues and provide an avenue for resolution.

Paneled by Mike Mowry, of the U.S. Department of the Army, and Bill
Jenkins, GSA\'s Public Buildings Service, the council raised many issues
and provided significant information to the members.

Bill Jenkins is the National Realty Services Officer, for the Office of
Realty Services (ORS), GSA Public Buildings Service (PBS). He described
ORS's new approach to leasing. It is viewed as "voluntary outsourcing"
in an effort to improve the current leasing program and to free time for
its realty specialists to concentrate on project management, customer
relationships, and customer service. Noting a lack of consistency in the
existing decentralized operation, PBS Commissioner Joe Moravec realized
that GSA was not operating like a national company, nor was it
leveraging its buying power. PBS is now moving towards centrally
managed, national broker contracts. Four outcomes will result:

1.  Increase the capacity of GSA's regions

2.  Leverage buying power to obtain better pricing

3.  Improve customer service as a result of the above two items

4.  Create national coherence and consistency

Mike Mowry, Competitive Sourcing Office, Office of the Assistant Chief
of Staff for Installation Management, U.S. Department of the Army,
discussed competitive sourcing under OMB Circular A-76. The intent is to
achieve maximum return on taxpayer money and promote increased
efficiency and effectiveness of government supplied products and
services through competition between the public and private sectors.
Benefits include increased competitiveness, level of service, and
efficiency and decreased costs to the taxpayer. The Army has conducted
214 studies involving 28,880 spaces to determine whether the services
should be privatized or governmentally performed.

FRPC members learned that there is an existing venue for sharing
information on various procurement issues, specifically, the Procurement
Executive Council. If additional mechanisms are deemed needed, then GSA
may facilitate a working group with a focus on real property.

Led by co-chair David Bibb, GSA Deputy Associate Administrator for Real
Property, the FRPC also examined the latest GAO report, designating
Federal real property as a high-risk area. The FRPC fulfilled its
chartered role at the meeting, that of providing a governmentwide
platform for executives to review and seek action on significant asset
management issues challenging agencies. As a result of the meeting, the
council resolved to support the formation of a working group this year
to influence and help GAO address high risk Federal properties.

The council also resolved to support use of the new Federal Real
Property Profile (FRPP) which replaces the Worldwide Inventory, for
providing reliable portfolio data.

Additional topics to be addressed by the council this year were reviewed
and will be voted on by members, who will also elect a new co-chair, to
replace Gary Arnold, from the Social Security Administration. Meetings
are also planned for June and September.

######### SECURITY RESOURCE GUIDE

A Federal Real Property Council (FRPC) Publication

***The Federal Real Property Council identified [security]{.underline}
as its number one issue to address in 2002.***

**Overview**

The Federal Real Property Council (FRPC) is a group of senior level real
property executives from more than 30 Federal agencies representing the
global portfolio of all Federal real property assets. The Council
provides a forum to address critical real estate and workplace issues
challenging all Federal agencies.

The FPRC is currently co-chaired by David Bibb, Deputy Associate
Administrator, Office of Real Property, General Services Administration,
and has been co-chaired by Gary Arnold, Deputy Associate Commissioner,
Office of Facilities Management, Social Security Administration.

The FPRC identified security as its number one issue to address in 2002
and formed a work group of representatives from a cross section of
Federal agencies, including the Departments of Agriculture, Justice,
State, and Interior, as well as NASA, National Research Council, OPM,
SBA, SSA and GSA.

The work group began in March 2002 and quickly acknowledged that there
was sufficient policy available or being created in other arenas and
that its focus would be on how best to function in the day-to-day
environment facing each agency. That led the group to concentrate on
four major security areas:

##### Design and Construction

I.  **Existing Space (leased and government-owned)**

II. **Occupant Emergency Organizations**

III. **Sharing Information/Valuable Resources**

Through a series of meetings and featured speakers, the group
acknowledged the need for improvement and, at the same time, identified
the outstanding practices to be found in each agency. Many of the ideas
and practices are simple measures that may appear obvious, but they are
all worth repeating. Among the group members, each participant found
many actions that would enhance their security programs, frequently with
minimal effort and expense. In the hope that others will find these
ideas and practices equally useful, the working group offers the
following.

## I. Design and Construction

This section identifies the relevant policies, guidelines and standards
affecting security and construction and alteration projects in leased
and Federally owned buildings. Secondly, a synopsis of currently
available information and general guidelines of resources is provided to
assist agencies in incorporating appropriate levels of security into
their facilities. Relevant web sites are found at the end of the
document.

The security needs of each agency and building are dependent on the
threats to the agency and physical characteristics of the building.
Security guidelines should be on a case-by-case basis and should be
tailored to address the specific threat and vulnerability. In general,
agencies should look for and follow the recommendations of the
Interagency Security Committee, which is responsible for publishing
guidelines for security improvements at both leased and owned buildings.

#### Applicable Security Standards and References

-   DOD Antiterrorism Minimum Construction Standards for Buildings
    http://www.tisp.org/files/pdf/dodstandards.pdf

-   GSA Facilities Standards for the Public Buildings Service (Section 8
    and others) http://hydra.gsa.gov/pbs/pc/facilitiesstandards/

-   DOJ Vulnerability Assessment of Federal Facilities (contact Adam
    Bodner at

Adam.H.Bodner@usdoj.gov)

-   Document security for sensitive but unclassified paper and
    electronic building information, GSA 3490.1, March 8, 2002

-   Mail Room Safety information available at http://www.gsa.gov and
    through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers
    for Disease Control and Prevention at http://www.bt.cdc.gov/

-   Technical Assistance Document for Anthrax Cleanup at
    http://www.nrt.org/production/nrt/home.nsf

-   FMR 102-71 through 102-83 "Real Property Policies Update"

-   FPS Occupant Emergency Program Guide at http://www.gsa.gov

## Sources for execution (design and construction): GSA term contracts, MOBIS schedule, etc. at http://www.gsa.gov under Security Design and Construction

[Checklist]{.underline} of significant security issues to consider
related to construction and alteration projects.

-   Setbacks

-   Progressive collapse

-   Control of parking and first floor retail

-   Window glazing/framing

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Electronic security/access control systems

-   Biohazard mitigation

-   Anthrax decontamination

-   Isolated air handling for mail centers

-   Back-up public utilities (emergency power)

[Points of Contact]{.underline}: Major Federal agency headquarters have
projects underway in the National Capital Region, which will require the
application of new security standards/criteria. The following points of
contact can provide further information:

-   Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) Headquarters Project: Mignon
    Anthony, (202) 927-1688

-   Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Headquarters Project: Rick
    Hendricks, Project Manager, (202) 401-4319

-   Department of Transportation (DOT) Headquarters Project

-   Pentagon Modernization/Renovation http://renovation.pentagon.mil

[Questions and Answers]{.underline}:

-   ***Who do I contact in the GSA Central Office for security surveys
    of my agency's buildings and office space throughout the US?***

    -   Bruce A. Davis at (202) 219-1236

-   ***What are typical security costs as a percentage of new
    construction and renovation/alteration projects?***

    -   Costs average 6 to 8 % for new construction while renovations
        and alterations costs depend on the building and are
        site-specific

-   ***What is GSA's schedule for conducting surveys?***

    -   Surveys are conducted of GSA's building inventory, depending on
        the level of the facility, as defined by the June 28, 1995
        Department of Justice Vulnerability Assessment of Federal
        Facilities:

        -   Level 1 (10 or fewer Federal employees): Survey conducted
            every 4 years

        -   Level 2 (11-150 Federal employees): Survey conducted every 4
            years

        -   Level 3 (151-450 Federal employees): Survey conducted every
            3 years

        -   Level 4 (450 or more Federal employees): Survey conducted
            every 2 years

        -   Level 5 (a facility such as the Pentagon or CIA Headquarters
            with missions critical to national security): Survey
            conducted every year

**II. Existing Space (leased and government-owned)**

# A. Aids for Employees

In its examination of how various departments and agencies handle
physical security, the FRPC work group discovered or identified a number
of aids that can make it easier for employees to keep requirements and
procedures in mind. Here are several:

-   [Wallet sized emergency procedure cards]{.underline}

> These wallet cards can be designed to contain whatever information the
> agency deems most critical. For example, the card can contain, in
> simple abbreviated language, the steps each person must take to
> evacuate the building in an emergency, including where to regroup and
> how to report should the building be closed. They can also indicate
> the color or numerical emergency codes used and their meanings.
>
> Often the cards contain emergency numbers, names of contacts, and
> hotline numbers for employees to report suspicious activities,
> emergencies and deficiencies/inconsistencies in practices and a
> website with frequently asked questions (FAQ) about security policy.
>
> Several agencies have found it useful to make the cards compatible
> with access badges so that employees have the information with them at
> all times.
>
> An example is provided by OPM:
>
> (OPM has provided a pdf file with a graphic image that will appear in
> the final document without specific evacuation locations)

-   [Bomb Threat or Emergency Contact Cards]{.underline}

> There are a number of aids that employees can keep at their
> workstations, near their telephones or computers that give
> step-by-step instructions in case of an emergency. An example is the
> FBI's Bomb Data Center card (FBI Form FD 730), which contains the key
> items the person receiving the call should elicit from the caller.
> Similar cards, tailored to individual agency needs, contain
> agency-specific information, like emergency telephone numbers, which
> can be affixed to the telephone.
>
> It is best to keep the cards simple and advisable to make them a
> different color than normal notices and correspondence, so that the
> individual can find them in a hurry. The emphasis is on enabling the
> person who is responding to do so as calmly and as quickly as
> possible, without having to rely solely on memory.

-   [Security Reminders]{.underline}

> Many agencies have found it valuable to reinforce security by sending
> out specific messages regularly with each message concentrating on an
> individual issue, such as reminders about how to identify and handle
> suspicious packages. In some cases there are posters to accompany
> these reminders available through another agency (e.g., the USPS
> poster on suspicious mail). While much information can be sent via
> email, sometimes to overcome the email overload many employees
> experience, it is good to find another venue or to use several venues
> simultaneously. Desk to desk distribution of a brightly colored fact
> sheet (and using the same color for all security related material),
> along with the use of in house newsletters and publications can be
> very effective.
>
> Examples include:

-   USPS poster

-   Internal agency bulletins such as the Social Security
    Administration's Bulletin on Suspicious Packages

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   [Incident Reporting]{.underline}

> FMR Section 102-74.15 requires that agencies in GSA space promptly
> report all crimes and suspicious circumstances occurring on Federally
> controlled property first to the regional law enforcement organization
> and other designated law enforcement agencies, and then through
> internal agency channels. In addition, GSA investigates crimes
> committed on property it controls and exchanges intelligence
> information with other Federal, State and local law enforcement
> agencies.
>
> Since security needs vary by location, even among facilities at the
> same security level, the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Vulnerability
> Assessment of Federal Facilities established the Building Security
> Committee (BSC) as a formal mechanism for addressing security concerns
> at each facility. The BSC should consist of representative(s) from
> each of the Federal agencies occupying the building. The BSC also
> ensures that people follow proper security practices in the building
> and that employees receive training concerning the Occupant Emergency
> Plan and security awareness. The BSC must continually evaluate
> standards to make sure they protect the facility. For its inventory of
> buildings, normally, GSA will conduct routine security assessments and
> then share, discuss, and validate findings with the BSC during a
> regular meeting. However, the BSC should meet whenever tenants or an
> agency's mission changes.
>
> All agencies, and particularly those that involve face-to-face service
> to the public, can benefit from formally recording incidents. The
> collection and analysis of this information over time allows agencies
> to modify their security programs and justify expenditures. This
> information also is a solid basis for objective discussions by
> building security committees as they determine the appropriate
> security procedures and equipment for a facility. It is critical that
> the agencies housed in a multi-tenant facility share this information
> with the other occupant agencies since an incident in one office can
> easily affect other offices as well.
>
> The types of incidents captured depend to some extent on the level of
> interaction with the public.
>
> Agency examples include:

-   [Communications]{.underline}

> Most agencies depend on computers, telephones and pagers/beepers of
> various types to communicate during emergencies. Given the situation
> these may or may not work, so it is vital that there be back up
> systems. For example, if there is an automated sign-in system and
> access to the system is unavailable, it may be difficult to
> reconstruct who was at work on the day of the incident. Or if the
> communications systems are down or overloaded, at least the key
> emergency response personnel should have some alternative method of
> communicating.
>
> Many of the newer building emergency systems provide voice
> instructions (e.g., there is a fire in Building A; only the occupants
> of Building A need vacate at this time). While these systems are
> appropriate and valuable, many times the announcements are
> misunderstood or the programmed announcements do not apply to the
> situation. Again there needs to be a backup or an override, and one
> that is tested to verify its operation. An emergency backup is an
> automated message that overrides whatever the activity is on an
> individual's computer screen at the time. Special attention needs to
> be paid to the requirements for persons with disabilities and to
> people who may be unfamiliar with the building. Section 7 of GSA's
> Facilities Standards for the Public Buildings Service addresses
> "Audible Notification Appliances" requirements, and can be accessed at
> http://hydra.gsa.gov/pbs/pc/facilitiesstandards/.
>
> Agency examples include:
>
> USDA or Pentagon message systems

-   [Accommodations for Persons with Disabilities]{.underline}

> Individual arrangements need to be made for persons with disabilities
> and consideration must include visitors to the facility as well. There
> are many devices that should be evaluated, including strobe lights for
> the hearing impaired and special chairs for assisting mobility
> impaired individuals for evacuating (and which allow assistants to
> evacuate via stairways). Attention needs to be directed to the
> assignment of monitors or aides, as well as the assignment of backups
> or alternates. Because employees and visitors may be anywhere in the
> facility at the time of the emergency, additional devices should be
> available as well. Buses, vans, etc. may be available to shelter
> employees with disabilities during emergencies.
>
> Accommodations requirements are found in 36 CFR 1190, "Minimum
> Guidelines and Requirements for Accessible Design,\" and 36 CFR 1191,
> entitled \"Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility
> Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities.\" The Federal Protective
> Service\'s Occupant Emergency Program Guide at http://www.gsa.gov also
> provides guidance such as assisting handicapped persons out of the
> building and knowing the locations and telephone numbers of the
> handicapped persons to be assisted, the types of handicaps, and the
> location of crutches, wheelchairs, and other support devices. All
> devices (such as strobe lights and the special chairs for assisting
> mobility impaired individuals) should be evaluated in light of
> handicapped accessibility standards and fire and life safety
> standards.
>
> An example is the Evac+Chair, which can be used for stairway
> evacuation and emergency transport. Its size when folded is 38\"H x
> 20.5\"W and 8\" thickness. It can be easily stored on walls in
> stairways or an employee\'s workspace. More information is available
> at www.evac-chair.com.

######## Emergency Power Considerations

Section 6.11, entitled \"Emergency Power Systems,\" of the Facilities
Standards for the Public Buildings Service (PBS-P100), requires that all
new GSA-constructed facilities have an emergency power system for life
safety as required by code. It must be designed in accordance with NFPA
110, Emergency and Standby Power Systems. Also, the GSA leasing
solicitation for offers (SFO) requires that emergency building power for
life safety systems be provided in GSA-leased buildings.

> In addition, the Interagency Security Committee (ISC) Security Design
> Criteria for New Federal Office Buildings and Major Modernization
> Projects provides electrical engineering criteria aimed at protecting
> the electrical system and ensuring that it functions in the event of a
> blast. During an emergency, the electrical system maintains power to
> essential building services, facilitates evacuation, and allows for
> continuing communication. These design criteria also specify the need
> for a tertiary power source, such as a trailer-mounted generator, for
> buildings where operational continuity is critical. Additionally, the
> ISC Security Design Criteria indicate that the electrical system
> should be coordinated with the building's Occupant Emergency Plan
> requirements. Information on design criteria is available at
> http://hydra.gsa.gov/pbs/pc/facilitiesstandards/.
>
> Renovations to the Pentagon include provisions for illuminated
> directional arrows and signs in case of power outages and other
> emergency situations. More information can be found at
> http://renovation.pentagon.mil/.

# III. Occupant Emergency Organizations 

Each agency and facility is required to have an Occupant Emergency Plan
(OEP) supported by an Occupant Emergency Organization (OEO). The
regulations state that officials shall be designated as members of the
OEO organization as well as receive training specifically tailored to
their positions. The OEP should detail:

-   Responsibilities

-   Emergency numbers

-   Primary evacuation procedures and routes

-   Alternate routes

-   Assembly areas

-   Contact lists

The OEP's primary purpose has been to evacuate the facility in the face
of fire or natural disasters. It may be supplemented, if necessary, by a
Security Action Plan (SAP) which delineates procedures to follow in case
of incidents involving the public, protests, terrorist threats or
attacks. The important consideration is that the plan or plans address
as many contingencies as possible. The focus has to be on solid
preparation, followed by practice. Conducting drills under varying
circumstances is the best possible measure to take.

A key factor in the OEP is the delineation of duties with the assignment
of backup and support roles so that in the absence of one individual,
another can step in seamlessly. This is especially important in the
evacuation of persons with disabilities. As people move about the
facility during the workday, they may be away from their primary
location when the emergency occurs. Having additional people trained to
assist in evacuations is critical to the safety of all.

Monitors may play a key role in ensuring dissemination of information
and prompt evacuation in an emergency. Monitors should be easily
identifiable; some agencies use brightly colored vests, armbands and/or
hats to facilitate identification. In an emergency, hats may prove more
visible than other items.

Another key factor is the relationship between the Federal facility
managers and the local fire, law enforcement and emergency response
personnel. Response times can be kept to the minimum possible if
everyone involved knows who to call and the respondents know how and
where to respond.

Once the plan is developed and explained to facility occupants, it
cannot remain static. People move in and out of offices, telephone
numbers and methods of contact change, and the plans must be updated
quarterly if not more frequently depending on the situation in the
facility.

Several departments and agencies have been updating and expanding their
OEPs and are willing to share their documents:

-   OPM -- contact Wayne Steneck at wpstenec@opm.gov

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   SSA -- contact Brian Clevenger at (410) 965-4542, or
    brian.clevenger@ssa.gov

-   USDA --contact Ed Campbell at (202) 720-2371 or
    edc.Campbell@usda.gov

# IV. Sharing Information/Valuable Resources

Before listing sites that have valuable information, it is necessary to
issue a reminder about the need to exercise extreme caution before
sharing security-related information. Specifics about building layouts,
exits, locked doors, etc. that are in Occupant Emergency Plans (OEP)s
should not be disseminated beyond a need to know. Emergency call in
numbers can be publicized, but the phone numbers for individuals should
be guarded.

**[Web Sites]{.underline}:**

###### **Federal Agencies and Programs:**

Air Force Civil Engineering Support Agency

http://www.afcesa.af.mil/

Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence (AFCEE)

http://www/afcee.brooks.af.mil/afceehome.asp

Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention

(Information on bioterrorism, select agent regulations)

http://www.cdc.gov

Department of Homeland Security

http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/

Department of State Travel Warnings and Consular Information Sheets

http://travel.state.gov/travel_warnings.html#a

AFCEE Force Protection Handbook

http://www.afcee.brooks.af.mil/dc/dcd/arch/force.pdf

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) http://www.fema.gov/

Many publications are available, including How-To Guide #7: Integrating
Human-Caused Hazards Into Mitigation Planning
http://www.fema.gov/fima/planning_toc6.shtm

General Services Administration (GSA): A variety of information is
available through www.gsa.gov and then searching for the desired topic.
Among others, the following may be of interest:

GSA Making Federal Buildings Safe

http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/content/pubs_content.jsp?contentOID=119420&contentType=1008

GSA Security Solutions Catalog

http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/content/pubs_content.jsp?contentOID=117096&contentType=1008

GSA Office of Federal Protective Service

http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/content/orgs_content.jsp?channelId=-13884&programId=10735&contentOID=117945&contentType=1005&cid=1

GSA Mail Communications Policy (includes standards and guidelines for
Federal mail centers, including many related documents, such as
responding to anthrax threats, mail center security management,
irradiated mail, etc.)

http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/content/orgs_content.jsp?contentOID=22920&contentType=1005

Interagency Security Council (ISC) Design Criteria

http://hydra.gsa.gov/pbs/pc/facilitiesstandards/

National Capital Planning Commission http://www.ncpc.gov/:

> "The National Capital - The Urban Design and Security Plan" at
> http://www.ncpc.gov/publications/UDSP.html
>
> Designing for Security in the Nation's Capital
> http://www.ncpc.gov/whats_new/ITFreport.pdf

National Infrastructure Protection Center

http://www.nipc.gov/

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health: "Guidance for
Protecting Building Environments from Airborne Chemical, Biological, or
Radiological Attacks"

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/bldvent/2002-139.html

Navy/DOD Force Protection Course

http://atfp.nfesc.navy.mil/training.htm

### Pentagon Renovation Program

http://renovation.pentagon.mil

**[B. Organizations:]{.underline}**

### Building Owners and Managers Association International www.boma.org

### 

Interagency Security Committee
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/resources/govdocs/eos/eo12977.html and

http://hydra.gsa.gov/pbs/pc/facilitiesstandards/

International Facility Management Association http://www.ifma.org/

National Academies of Science and the Federal Facilities Council
information and publications can be downloaded from
http://www.nationalacademies.org/publications/

####### The Protection of Federal Office Buildings Against Terrorism

> [Protecting People and Buildings from Terrorism]{.underline}
>
> [Learning from our Buildings]{.underline}

Security Design Coalition http://www.designingforsecurity.org/

Terrorism Research Center http://www.terrorism.com/index.shtml

The Infrastructure Security Partnership http://www.tisp.org/

**[C. Recent Studies:]{.underline}**

-   GAO "Security Responsibilities for Federally Owned and Leased
    Facilities"

http://www.gao.gov

-   GAO "ISC has had Limited Success in Fulfilling its Responsibilities"

http://www.gao.gov and enter Report \# GAO-02-1004 in search

-   GAO "Technologies to Secure Federal Buildings"

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02687t.pdf

**[REGULATIONS YOU CAN USE]{.underline}**

**Real Property Policies in FPMR Cancelled, FMR Amended**

(By John Thomas, GSA Office of Real Property)

***Use of the FMR will save time for Federal real property
professionals\...\...***

On December 13, 2002, the GSA Office of Real Property published Federal
Management Regulations (FMR) and Federal Property Management Regulations
(FPMR) Amendments, impacting real property policies, as final rules in
the Federal Register (67 FR 76820). These regulations are applicable to
GSA, agencies operating under a GSA delegation of authority, and in some
cases (e.g., disposals) to all Federal agencies. Publication of these
regulatory amendments marks the completion of a multi-year initiative by
the GSA to make regulations easier to read and understand. Historically,
the GSA had published its regulatory guidance in the Federal Property
Management Regulations (FPMR), which also included non-regulatory
guidance in the form of detailed operating procedures. In addition, the
real property guidance was interspersed with guidance on personal
property and administrative services. By contrast, the Federal
Management Regulation contains only a refined set of policies and
regulatory requirements, with non-regulatory guidance made available in
separate documents, such as customer service guides, handbooks,
brochures, internet websites, and FMR bulletins.

The FMR, written in plain language, enables the Government to focus on
implementing statutory requirements, Executive Orders, and
Governmentwide policies rather than on detailed operating procedures.
Also, the new FMR represents the first time in 31 years that all real
property regulations can be found in one location.

The FMR Amendment amends the initial set of FMR real property policies
(FMR Parts 102-71 to 102-82), published in the Federal Register on
January 18, 2001, and completes the transfer of coverage on real
property policies from the FPMR to the FMR. It also creates a separate
part, FMR Part 102-83, to deal specifically with updated policy
concerning the location of space. (FMR Parts 102-71 to 102-83 describe
the real property policies applicable to GSA and Federal agencies to
whom GSA real property authority has been delegated). The FPMR Amendment
removes all real property policy coverage from the FPMR and provides
cross-references that direct readers to the coverage in the FMR. Both
amendments are effective December 13, 2002.

Use of the FMR will save time for Federal real property professionals
and their counterparts in the private sector, because the regulations
are in one place and because they are easier to read and understand. The
real property parts of the FMR cover the following policy areas:
delegation of authority, real estate acquisition, facility management,
real property disposal, design and construction, art-in-architecture,
historic preservation, assignment and utilization of space, safety and
environmental management, security, utility services and location of
space.

Overall, these new real property regulations impact a workforce of more
than 1,000,000 Federal employees and more than 330 million square feet
of Government-controlled space. Now that the real property policies in
the FPMR are cancelled, Federal real property professionals will be able
to find answers to their basic real property questions within only 100
pages of real property regulations, compared to the 223 pages of real
property regulations formerly in the FPMR. The real property policies in
the FMR are anticipated to save the Government an estimated \$10 million
annually, based on Federal real property professionals spending fewer
hours researching real property regulations.

In conclusion, the new rule eliminates non-regulatory guidance and
consolidates real property regulations into one location. The new rule
improves customer service by making real property regulations easier to
read and understand, which will enable real property professionals to
save time researching real property regulations and will improve
efficiency and effectiveness in the Federal real property community.
Contact: John D. Thomas (202) 501-0365

**GSA Assists Agencies in Complying with the Rural Development Act**

(By John Thomas, GSA Office of Real Property)

On January 21, 2003, the Office of Real Property published FMR Bulletin
2003-B1 in the Federal Register (68 FR 2776) to assist Federal agencies,
having their own statutory authority to acquire real property, in
complying with the Rural Development Act of 1972.

GSA issued this bulletin in response to GAO Final Report GAO-01-805,
entitled \"Facilities Location: Agencies Should Pay More Attention to
Costs and Rural Development Act,\" which examined the Federal laws and
policies governing facility location and the extent that agencies were
implementing these laws and policies. In addition, the GAO report
identified recommendations to be implemented by GSA, which involved
issuing a Federal Register bulletin defining the term ''rural area'' and
recommending that Federal agencies, having their own statutory authority
to acquire real property, include a written statement in their files
affirming that they have given first priority to locating in a rural
area. Contact: John D. Thomas (202) 501-0365

**[SUSTAINABILITY]{.underline}**

**The Business Case for Sustainable Design and Construction in Federal
Facilities**

# (article provided by: Principle Investigator -- Marylynn Placet, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory; 

# Project Officer -- Beverly Dyer, DOE Federal Energy Management Program)

The U.S. Department of Energy's Federal Energy Management Program
(FEMP), working in collaboration with other Federal agencies under the
auspices of the Interagency Sustainability Working Group, has undertaken
an effort to better understand the 'business case' for sustainable
design in Federal facilities. Sustainable design is a natural extension
of FEMP's established role as an energy efficiency, renewable energy and
water efficiency advocate in the Federal sector. This effort focused on
providing solid arguments, supported by defensible data, to further
justify the application of sustainable design principles in Federal
agency construction projects.

Three highly interrelated cornerstones of sustainable design that were
explored include:

-   **Economic prosperity** -- reducing costs, adding value, and
    creating economic opportunity for both an organization and its
    stakeholders, such as the communities in which it is located

-   **Social responsibility** \-- improving the quality of life and
    equity for employees, surrounding communities, as well as society as
    a whole

-   **Environmental stewardship** \-- protecting air, water, land, and
    ecosystems, as well as conserving resources, including fossil fuels,
    thus preserving the Earth's resources for future generations

The categories of sustainable features selected for the analysis were
derived loosely from the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED) and are consistent with the *Whole Building Design Guide* .

# To study the direct economic costs and benefits of sustainable design, we used two approaches. First, we conducted an energy modeling exercise and cost analysis of various sustainable features in a prototypical commercial office building located in a hypothetical site in the Middle Atlantic region of the country (in Baltimore, Maryland). We estimated the incremental first cost differences (both positive and negative) and the annual cost savings associated with adding features related to sustainable siting, water efficiency, low-emitting and recycled materials, and energy efficiency. These were translated into lifecycle costs, savings-to-investment ratios and simple payback period values. We also calculated certain environmental emission reductions associated with the energy-efficiency improvements. Second, we reviewed case studies of several US Government buildings, focusing on the cost aspects. 

Social, Environmental and Economic Benefits of Sustainable Design
Features

+-------------+-------------------+----------------+------------------+
|             | **Social**        | **E            | **Economic**     |
|             |                   | nvironmental** |                  |
+-------------+-------------------+----------------+------------------+
| **Su        | Improved          | Land           | Reduced costs    |
| stainable** | aesthetics (e.g., | preservation,  | for: site        |
|             | better appearance | lower resource | preparation and  |
| **Siting**  | of site to        | use,           | clear-cutting    |
|             | neighbors), less  | protection of  | (when site       |
|             | public            | ecological     | disturbance is   |
|             | disturbance,      | resources,     | minimized),      |
|             | increased         | soil and water | parking lots     |
|             | transportation    | conservation,  | (when located    |
|             | options for       | reduced energy | near public      |
|             | employees         | use resulting  | transportation), |
|             |                   | from optimal   | storm drainage   |
|             |                   | orientation,   | and landscape    |
|             |                   | reduced        | maintenance      |
|             |                   | negative       | (when natural    |
|             |                   | micro-climate  | techniques are   |
|             |                   | impacts, lower | used), energy    |
|             |                   | air pollution  | use (when        |
|             |                   | from vehicle   | orienting the    |
|             |                   | traffic (when  | building for     |
|             |                   | siting near    | passive solar    |
|             |                   | public         | heating and      |
|             |                   | t              | cooling).        |
|             |                   | ransportation) |                  |
+-------------+-------------------+----------------+------------------+
| **Water     | Preservation of   | Lower potable  | Lower water      |
| E           | water resources   | water use,     | costs; potential |
| fficiency** | for future        | waste          | savings from     |
|             | generations and   | generation,    | landscape        |
|             | for recreational  | and pollution  | maintenance;     |
|             | uses of the       | discharges to  | less wastewater  |
|             | current           | waterways;     | treatment        |
|             | population;       | less strain on | infrastructure   |
|             | avoidance of new  | aquatic        | needed; lower    |
|             | wastewater        | ecosystems in  | first cost in    |
|             | treatment plants  | water-scarce   | some cases (e.g. |
|             | in neighborhoods  | areas:         | some no-water    |
|             |                   | preservation   | urinals cost     |
|             |                   | of water       | less to install  |
|             |                   | resources for  | than traditional |
|             |                   | wildlife and   | ones)            |
|             |                   | agriculture.   |                  |
+-------------+-------------------+----------------+------------------+
| **Materials | Fewer landfills   | Reduced strain | Decreased first  |
| &           | and associated    | on landfills,  | costs due to     |
| Resources** | nuisances,        | reduced virgin | material re-use, |
|             | maintaining of    | resource use   | decreased        |
|             | forests and       | and depletion  | operating costs  |
|             | conserving        | of long-cycle  | for waste        |
|             | natural resources | renewable      | disposal,        |
|             | for future        | materials,     | decreased        |
|             | generations       | healthier      | replacement cost |
|             |                   | forests due to | through more     |
|             |                   | better         | durable          |
|             |                   | management,    | materials,       |
|             |                   | lower energy   | expanded market  |
|             |                   | use for        | for              |
|             |                   | material       | environmentally  |
|             |                   | transportation | preferable       |
|             |                   |                | products         |
+-------------+-------------------+----------------+------------------+
| **Energy    | Improved thermal  | Lower          | Reduced energy   |
| E           | conditions;       | electricity    | costs and        |
| fficiency** | better occupant   | and fossil     | peak-demand      |
|             | comfort           | fuel use and   | charges,         |
|             | satisfaction      | air pollution  | increased        |
|             |                   | and carbon     | operating        |
|             |                   | dioxide        | efficiency,      |
|             |                   | emissions,     | lower first      |
|             |                   | decreased      | costs when       |
|             |                   | impacts of     | systems can be   |
|             |                   | fossil fuel    | downsized due to |
|             |                   | production and | innovative       |
|             |                   | distribution,  | energy solutions |
|             |                   | ozone          |                  |
|             |                   | protection     |                  |
+-------------+-------------------+----------------+------------------+
| **Indoor    | Reduced adverse   | Better air     | Organizational   |
| En          | health impacts;   | quality inside | productivity     |
| vironmental | improved occupant | the facility   | improvements due |
| Quality**   | satisfaction and  | including      | to improved      |
|             | comfort, improved | reduced        | worker           |
|             | individual        | volatile       | productivity,    |
|             | productivity      | organic        | lower            |
|             |                   | emissions,     | absenteeism,     |
|             |                   | carbon dioxide | reduced staff    |
|             |                   | and carbon     | turnover; lower  |
|             |                   | monoxide       | d                |
|             |                   |                | isability/health |
|             |                   |                | insurance costs; |
|             |                   |                | reduced threat   |
|             |                   |                | of litigation    |
+-------------+-------------------+----------------+------------------+
| **Commi     | Occupant          | Lower energy   | Energy cost      |
| ssioning;** | satisfaction,     | consumption    | reduction, lower |
|             | health and safety | and air        | opera            |
| **          |                   | pollution      | ting/maintenance |
| Operation** |                   | emissions      | and replacement  |
|             |                   |                | costs, reduced   |
| **&**       |                   |                | cost of dealing  |
|             |                   |                | with complaints  |
| **Ma        |                   |                |                  |
| intenance** |                   |                |                  |
+-------------+-------------------+----------------+------------------+

To study the social impacts of sustainable design, we conducted a
thorough assessment of information and data in peer-reviewed journal
articles, conference papers and other published studies on occupant
effects. Very little work has been done to date to study impacts of
sustainable buildings on communities or society, though some ongoing
work at various research organizations interested in sustainability is
attempting to link social impacts of sustainable practices to business
value.

The finding of the analysis, as well as the conclusions from the review
of the literature and case studies, are framed below in the form of
'arguments' for sustainable design:

#  

1.  Some sustainable design options reduce first costs, compared to
    traditional approaches.

2.  Some sustainable design features have more favorable lifecycle costs
    than traditional approaches.

3.  The environmental damage costs associated with a traditional
    approach may be higher than the cost of sustainable design features
    that eliminate or reduce that damage.

4.  Some sustainable design features cost more now because they are just
    entering the market, but government incentives often lower their
    cost significantly.

5.  A very sustainable building can be built at the same first cost as
    its traditional counterpart.

6.  Certain features of sustainable buildings foster the health,
    well-being, satisfaction, and better work performance of building
    occupants.

There is also some fairly limited, anecdotal evidence to support a
number of other arguments related to indirect financial benefits to
building owners.

Even though additional case study data analysis and gathering is
required to support some of the arguments, the results of this study
indicate there is sufficient qualitative and quantitative information to
support the claim that sustainable design and construction is good
business for the Federal government. **To counter the question, "What is
the business case for sustainable design?" one might ask, "What is the
business case for un-sustainable design?"**

# 

# PARK SERVICE *RECYCLES* WITH \"GREEN\" BUILDING IN SAN FRANCISCO

(by Bob Harding, GSA Office of Real Property)

At the Golden Gate National Recreation Area in San Francisco, the
National Park Service (NPS) has taken a former U.S. Engineers Warehouse
and transformed it into a park information center and bookstore/café
that draws large crowds into the newly opened Crissy Field area of the
park, while simultaneously showcasing the sustainable elements used in
the renovation project.

The facility, known as the Warming Hut (pictured), is a two-story wooden
structure containing 2,400 square feet. It was built in 1909 at what was
to become Crissy Army Air Field. After the property passed to NPS, it
became part of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area that comprises a
series of Federal holdings that gird San Francisco Bay.

The project was able to integrate the Park Service's resource
conservation mission with the agency's commitment to sustainable
development and was carried out in conjunction with its partner, the
Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy. The timing of the project
provided the opportunity to link it with the completion of the Crissy
Field redevelopment.

The Warming Hut contains a wide array of sustainable design elements
including the use of concrete containing fly ash (a waste product from
coal burning), water based sealants, and re-milled fir timbers from the
original structure. A unique feature of the facility is the insulation
that is comprised of 85% post-industrial cotton denim treated with
Borate (boric acid) for pest control.

For information on this and other NPS projects, read the National Park
Service [Sustainability News]{.underline} on-line at
**www.sustainability.nps.gov.** For more specific information on the
Warming Hut process, contact Carrie Strahan at carrie_strahan@nps.gov,
or Marien Coss with the Parks Conservancy at jmcoss@ggnpc.org

**[GRPIS]{.underline}**. This NPS project is one of many Federal
facilities that were visited in the greater Bay Area as part of the
**Governmentwide Real Property Information Sharing (GRPIS) Program**.
The GRPIS Program is a cooperative effort of GSA's Office of
Governmentwide Policy, in collaboration with participating Federal
Agencies of the San Francisco Bay Area GRPIS Forum. The next meeting of
the Forum is scheduled for Tuesday, April 29, 2002 at the Parks Reserve
Forces Training Area in Dublin, CA. For further information on the
Forum, please contact Sheldon Greenberg at 202-501-0629.

**[TELEWORK]{.underline}**

**EEOC MOVES AHEAD WITH TELEWORK**

(by Wendell Joice, GSA Office of Real Property)

As mentioned in the winter 2002 Policysite issue, the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is one of the "Agencies Getting Serious
About Alternative Officing Cost Savings." In January 2003, EEOC's Office
of the Inspector General (IG) issued a final report, "Reducing
Infrastructure Cost Through Increased Use of Telework - An Analysis of
Four EEOC Field Offices" (OIG REPORT NUMBER OIG-01-13-AMR:
http://www.ignet.gov/internal/eeoc/eeoc.html).

As previously mentioned, GSA's Office of Real Property (MP) served as
the primary consultant on this project. A key reported finding was that
the organization could achieve financial savings, without adversely
impacting operations, by expanding telework (employees teleworking two
or more days a week). Initially, this study, which utilized MP's Cost
per Person Model, was conducted for and by EEOC's IG organization.
Triggered by the impressive findings, however, EEOC ramped up the
study's recommendations into an agency-wide initiative to reduce
infrastructure costs.

As a result, EEOC implemented a management directive to reduce its
agency-wide rental costs by 35% over the next 5 years. EEOC managers may
use any of a variety of measures to achieve this cost reduction goal;
expanding telework, however, is likely to be the primary measure.

**WHAT IS THE STATUS OF TELEWORK IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?**

(by William Michael, GSA Office of Real Property)

Find out in the January 2003 report the U.S. Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) has submitted to Congress, \"The Status of Telework in
the Federal Government.\"

Last Fall, OPM surveyed agencies about their telework programs,
practices, and policies. Seventy-seven agencies responded and reported
90,010 teleworkers as of December 2002. This represents a 21 percent
increase from the 74,487 teleworkers who were reported to OPM in
November 2001. These numbers include both regular and episodic
teleworkers; the majority are episodic (46,765).

The agencies reported that 625,313 employees were eligible to telework
(35 percent of the Federal workforce). This is a 20 percent increase
from the 521,542 employees determined eligible in 2001. In 2002, 14.4
percent of eligible employees teleworked.

Five percent of the Federal workforce is now teleworking, up from 4.2
percent in 200l. GSA agency-wide participation is 25 percent. The Office
of Real Property\'s participation rate is 65 percent. Approximately 25
percent (22,522) of all teleworkers reported by agencies are stationed
in the Washington, DC metropolitan area.

The full report will be posted at the joint OPM/GSA telework website,
**http://www.telework.gov**.

**STATE \"STEPS\" INTO TELEWORK WITH SUCCESS!**

(by Wendell Joice, GSA Office of Real Property)

*GSA\'s **Spouse Telework Employment Program (STEP)** Program is a
Win-Win for State Department.*

During the last two years, a public/private task group was organized by
officials from the State Department, all services of the Department of
Defense, Labor, the U.S. Coast Guard, the General Services
Administration, and the Community Learning and Information Network. The
officials named this task group, the Spouse Telework Employment Program
(STEP), and focused their attention on sharing information and resources
to expand "portable/mobile careers, remote training, and telework
opportunities for spouses of Federal employees and military personnel in
the private sector."

The Department of State has accomplished much during 2002:

1.  The STEP concept was pilot tested at nine posts: Brussels, Cairo,
    London, Mexico City, Ottawa, Seoul, Singapore, Tokyo, Warsaw. STATE
    appointed \"Local Employment Advisors\" (LEAs) in those posts, who
    contacted nearly 800 potential employers, resulting in 65 job offers
    and 42 acceptances.

2.  Overall, the STEP program has been very well received at all posts.

3.  In several posts, morale has improved even if spouses have not
    located employment, due to the existence of STEP.

4.  STEP positively affects recruitment and retention of Foreign Service
    personnel.

Lessons learned include:

1.  For maximum effectiveness the program needs the support of senior
    management at all posts.

2\. The program is only as effective as the Local Employment Advisor
(LEA).

3\. On going training of LEAs is essential.

Future plans will involve:

-   STATE plans to continuously review the program and make
    recommendations and adjustment; expand the program in ten more
    countries in 2003.

-   NAVY and LABOR approved a multi-million dollar spouse education and
    training grant in Virginia

-   COAST GUARD announced that they are exploring ways to improve spouse
    employment by sharing the use of their existing employment, resume,
    and training databases and/or creating new ones.

-   DOD and LABOR provided testimony to congress about assistance needed
    for spouse employment

-   STEP partners in the private and public sectors may utilize telework
    facilities sponsored by GSA.

The STEP initiative will continue in the formative stages during the
next three to five years before gaining full executive, legislative, and
private sector acceptance.

***\"I appreciate the STEP and Spouse Networking Assistance Program
(SNAP) that the State Department provides for the professional spouse,
because it has benefited my entire family.\" (a spouse in Brussels)***

**[BEST PRACTICES]{.underline}**

######### STATES' BEST PRACTICES PROFILED

######### (by Andrea Kuhn, GSA Office of Real Property)

######### 

######### Best Practices in Real Property Management in State Governments is Published by GSA's Office of Real Property

Identifying and sharing best practices is critical to improving the way
we do business, whether at the Federal or other levels of government.
The many levels of government have many of the same missions and
operations in common. Learning from each other can only lead to better
business.

The Office of Real Property has just released a guide to highlight the
best practices at the state government level. Many of these innovative
and best practices have resulted in streamlined operations, cost
savings, innovative solutions to complex problems, and other benefits.
They offer new ideas for real property management. Here is a glimpse
into the study:

***Imagine*** a rooftop ice pond system that freezes water at night and
blows air across it by day to provide the primary source of air
conditioning. Then...imagine grass growing on other portions of the
roof, for use as insulation and as a storm water measure. The building
also stores storm water, pumps it to the roof, and then uses it to flush
the toilets.

***Imagine*** finding all maintenance materials for a building on a
CD-ROM, complete with links to drawings, manuals, etc.

***And then...***imagine trading in your existing property with its
outmoded facilities for a new site with facilities built to your
specifications, valued at twice the value of your original property.

***Imagine and now acknowledge*** that each of these scenarios are real
and exist as a result of innovative best practices undertaken by states
throughout the country.

These are only a few of the innovative practices you'll find detailed
within the study. You'll find more details about Maryland's Smart Growth
program and movement to create "green" buildings. Washington's
"Buildings on a Disk" system that provides maintenance information
electronically is explained. The unheard of real estate transaction in
Washington, which turned a \$4.8M asset into one worth at least \$9.5M
is detailed within.

The following states were chosen as exemplars in the following study
areas:

-   **Acquisition and Construction (Maryland, Minnesota, Utah)**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Operations and Maintenance (Michigan, Missouri, Utah)**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Web-Enabled Software (Texas, Washington)**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Public-Private Partnerships (Arizona, Washington)**

We hope that these best practices will inspire you to take a new look at
your asset management practices and enhance or perhaps develop new
management approaches.

The study will be taken "on the road" when it is presented as a panel
discussion at the National Association of State Facilities
Administrators (NASFA) conference on June 23, 2003 in Kansas City. The
National Association of State Facilities Administrators is a
professional organization whose mission is to provide leadership in the
development and implementation of state facility administration
practices. For more information on NASFA, go to http://nasfa.net.

The report is available on the Office of Real Property website at
www.gsa.gov/realpropertypolicy. If you have any questions about the
study, contact Andrea Wohlfeld Kuhn at (202) 208-1237 or
andrea.kuhn@gsa.gov.

**GSA ISSUES CALL FOR ENTRIES FOR REAL ESTATE BEST PRACTICES**

The 2003 Call for Entries has been issued for the GSA Achievement Award
for Real Property Innovation. This year, in addition to best innovative
policy or practice, a new award is available for the "Adopted Best
Practice." Award winners receive \$5K for an individual award and \$10K
for a winning team award. A copy of the Call for Entries and more
information are also available on the website at
**www.gsa.gov/realpropertypolicy**. Entries are due by May 30, 2003. The
Award ceremony will take place on October 9.

**[NEWSROOM]{.underline}**

**HHS VOLUNTEERS FOR E-REALESTATE EXPERIMENT: *How will an agency decide
whether to \"web-enable\" a particular real estate function?***

Health and Human Services (HHS) will find out\....as part of [Phase III
of GSA\'s e-RealEstate initiative]{.underline}. GSA\'s Office of Real
Property met in January with agencies, including HHS and Veterans
Affairs, which were interested in web-enabling one or more real estate
management functions in their organizations. The process for the
development of a Business Case document that could be used by
participating agencies as the basis for deciding whether to web enable a
particular real estate management function was reviewed. HHS volunteered
to be the initial pilot project participant. Graphic Systems, Inc., the
contractor in the project, will prepare Business Cases for various parts
of HHS. The contents of a Business Case will typically include:
Strategic Alignment & Business Needs; Option Analysis & Recommendation;
Benefit Analysis; Cost Analysis, ROI/Payback Analysis and Risk &
Dependency Assessment. *[Stay tuned to see what happens!]{.underline}*

**CHECK OUT NEW FEDERAL REAL PROPERTY PROFILE:** Having the best data on
your real estate portfolio is critical to more effective asset
management. GSA is helping by releasing the new ***[FY2002 Federal Real
Property Profile]{.underline}*** \-- a consolidated report of real
property owned and leased by the Federal government. It will be
available in print and on the GSA website **www.gsa.gov** in March 2003.
The report, formerly named the Summary Report of Real Property Owned and
Leased by the United States throughout the World, was rewritten during
FY 2002. The new format more closely reflects the Federal real property
holdings with all but two agencies (Department of Energy/Bonneville
Power Administration and Navy) providing FY 2002 updates. In order to
publish an accurate report of Federal real property assets, GSA
requested that the Federal agencies confirm summary figures of the data
provided to the FRPP database. Due to the large number of agencies that
confirmed the data, the FY 2002 FRPP represents one of the most accurate
reports of Federal real property in many years.