Vulnerability Assessment Appendi,--:: D , D-1 U.S. Department of Justice Sample ofProfile United States Marshals Service

Appendix D - Sample of Profile

ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia

Case No. 03-05 ZONING COMMISSION District of Columbia CASE NO.03-05 EXHIBITDeleted NO.33A2 r Federal Facility Profile 1

GSA Building Number Page 3 of 5

I. Bomb Threats K. Security Force:

Does this building have an occupant emergency plan? If applicable, please enter total number of federal]:,olice and/ O Yes O No O Unknown or guards and number of hours of coverage.

Has this building received a bomb threat in 1995? .GSA FPO ResponseJPatrol O Yes O No O Unknown If so, how many bomb Number of Guards threats has the building DD DODD received? Number of Hours of operation:

How many of the bomb O Less than 10 hours threats have· resulted in a 0 10 - 12 hours per day building evacuation? DD 0 . More than 12 to 14 J. Hours of Operation: O More than 14 to 18 O More than 18 up to 24 Excluding unusual overtime situations, how many days of th.e 0 24 hours per day week is this facility open to: USMS Court Security Officers Employees? o The Public? D Number of Guards DODD How many hours is this facility open: Number of Hours of operation:

To Employees: D Less than 10 hours 0 10 - 12 hours per day O Less than 10 hours per day 0 More than 12 to 14 0 10 - 12 hours per day 0 More than 14 to 18 O More than 12 to 14 hours per day O More than 18 upto 24 O More than 14 to 18 hours per day 0 . 24 hours per day O More than 18 but less than 24 hours 24 hours per day 0 GSA Contract Guards T_he General Public: O Fe

Equipment Issued to GSA ~ntract Guard: O Firearm O Gas O Handcuffs O 2-Way Radio O Baton D None

L J r Federal Facility Profile l

GSA Building Number Page 4 of 5

Owner/Lessor Provided Security Guards Fire Detection/ Suppression System· Number of Guards 0 .Complete {all areas of the b1,1ilding) DODD D Partial· Number of Hours of operation: D None

O Less than 10 hours M. Protection of Utilities 0 10 -12 hours per day O More than 12 to 14 y N u O More than 14 to 18 Are there exterior propane fuel tanks? O More than 18 up to 24 D 0 D 0 24 hours per day D 0 0 Are they protected? 0 0 0 ls the water supply to the building_protected? 0 0 0 Is the main unit of the air/ventilation system Equipment Issued to Owner/Lessor provided Security Guard: accessible to the public?? 0 0 0 Is the wire closet locked? D Firearm D Gas It utility access locked? D Handcuffs 0 2-Way Radi:> D 0 D O Baton O None Is there exterior access to: 0 0 0 ·electric service? Are Security Guards Armed? D 0 D gas service? O Yes O No O Unknown 0 0 0 water service? 0 0 0 telephone service? 0 0 0 other heating source? .... Security Systems 0 0 D Is fuel stored within the building? !Please indicate the presence of the following physical security systems: N. Please indicate if the following areas are Monitored by Electronic Means? {Cameras, security alarm systems, O Duress Alarms etc.) O Perimeter Lobbies · 0 Interior D 0 Secured Corridors "=:] CCTV 0 .Courtrooms D Perimeter D Parking O Interior D Cell Block·· 0 Prisoner Handling IJ Remote Monitoring Facility 0 Office Doors 0 Stairwell O Security Console on Site D Security Screening Post D Interior Security Patrol flumber of hours security 0 Building Perimeter console is monitored: DD 0 Entrances 0 Garages ,lvailable Emergency Power: O Generator O Battery Operated Lighting

J r Federal Facility Profile

GSA Building Number Page 5 of 5 o·. Tenant Agency Security Measures

Please fist the count of agencies in the facility that have each of the following security measures. Also, please list the count of agencies that do not have theses features, and the number of agencies for which this information could not be gathered.

Yes No Unknown ODD ODD ODD Duress System ODD ODD DOD Vault Packages ODD ODD DOD Transaction Window at Public Counter ODD DOD DOD Intrusion Detection System DOD DOD ODD Ballistic Glazing ODD DOD ODD Alarm Annunciation System ODD ODD ODD CCTV DOD ODD ODD Central Station Monitoring DOD DOD ODD Access Control System DOD DOD ODD other (List in Comments)

L Vulnerability Assessment AppendixE E-1 U.S. Department of Justice Compilation ofResults ofSurvey United States Marshals Service

Appendix E - Compilation of Results of Survey Vulnerability Assessment AppendixE E-2 U.S. Department of Justice Compilation ofResults ofSurvey United States Marshals Service

This appendix presents the compilation of the actual results of the surveys of federal facilities. All told, 1330 survey forms were sent out. Of these, 1239 were completed in a timely manner, and their results are included in this report.

This appendix simply presents the compiled results of the survey, and does not include any interpretation of the results. The information is presented in the actual order of the survey document. Appendix D presents a copy of the survey, as it was sent out.

A. Facility Description

Toe following .describes the types of facilities for which surveys were returned.

• 48 facilities house a Federal Courthouse Only. • 407 are Multi-Tenant Federal Buildings. • 179 are Single Tenant Federal Buildings. • 306 are Multi-Tenant Leased Buildings. • 252 are Single Tenant Leased Buildings.

The facilities that were included in the survey were intended to represent the facilities which contain the offices of the largest numbers of federal employees. Because of the number of e:mployees, these facilities represent the highest risk forterrorisinattack. They should be considered a stratified grouping of government facilities, but not a random sample.

Further, the facilities for which surveys were returned should not be considered a random sample of those selected, since there is no ~ason to believe that the factors which led to complete survey forms can not be considered random.

Therefore, it is important that the percentages presented fa this survey only represent percentages of the survey respondents. While these percentages may be considered indicative of trends, exceptional caution should be exercised in extrapolating the results. Vulnerability Assessment AppendixE E-3 U.S. Department of Justice Compilation ofResults ofSurvey United States Marshals Service

B. Construction

This section of the survey deals with the materials used in the construction of the facility, its size, and the number of occupants.

Age of Buildings

The first construction questioq deals Less than 5 years with the age of 19 236 1980- 1989 6- 15 years old the buildings. 262 1970-1979 · · 16-25 years old TableE.B.l 21 presents the ages 16 196 1960- 1969 , 26-35 years old. of the buildings 4 49· 1950- 1959 . 36-45 years. old for which surveys 6 79 1940-1949 46-55 years old were returned. 11 130 1930- 1939 56-65 years old 2 ·26 1920-1929 66-75 years old 5 68 1900- 1919 76-95 years old 1 18 before 1900 over 95 years old. TableE.B.1 Vulnerability Assessment AppendixE E-4 U.S. Department of Justice Compilation ofResults ofSurvey United States Marshals Service

Exterior Materials

TableE.B.2 presents the percentage and count of buildings that were identified 52% 573 . Brick by each type of exterior material. 32% 352 Block .Note that many buildings listed 25% 276 . Precast Concrete more than· one type of material. so the 22% ·240 Poured Concrete total is greater than 100%. 9%. 98 Metal Panels

25% · 272 Glass ·Exterior

Table E.B.2

Special Glass

Special glass on the exterior of a building may be used for several different reasons;

• Glass with a lilylar film is used to reduce flying glass in case of breakage. • Polymer treated glass is also effective in reducing flying.glass. • Ballistic treatment is a way to make glass "bullet-proof". • Wire reinforcement is designed to prevent the movement of large objects tbrough- broken glass. it will keep a thrown rock from breaking through and going into the building, ifthe glass is broken. it will also keep a prisoner from leaving the building ifthe glass is broken.

Typically, protective glass is used on the lower floors of buildings. Vulnerability Assessment Appendix E E-5 U.S. Department of Justice Compilation ofResults ofSurvey United States Marshals Service

The following table E.B) presents the results of the actual count of buildings which have special glass, by type of glass and the percentage of the building that is covered with the glass. This is the percentage of total glass in the building that is the special type of glass. All buildings are covered in this survey, not just the buildings that have glass exteriors.

Percent of Building Covered of

MylarF1lm 81 33 34 25 23. Ballistic Treatment 66 11 1 4 5 Polymer 32 10 8 5 8 Wire Reinforced 53 7 2 0 4 Table E.B.3

Building Size and Occupancy

Facilities which house government workers range in size from small offices to very large buildings and complexes. This survey covered a subset of the facilities which contain Federal government offices which tended to be the larger facilities.

There typically is a relationship between square footage and number of employees. This relationship is reflected in the Security Level cl~sifications, as shown in this report. The information in this section is organized based on these security classifications. It should be noted, however, that Security Level classification is determined by a range of criteria For purposes of this analysis, security level was primarily based on the number of employees in the facility. Vulnerability Assessment AppendixE E-6 U.S. Department of Justice Compilation ofResults ofSurvey United States Marshals Service

Level I

Level I is defined as a facility with 2,500 square feet or less, 10 or fewer federal employees, and a low volume of public contact. This could be a .. store front" operation. In many cases, Level I facilities occur when the government rents offices and the building also contains non-government tenants. There are only 14 (1%) such facilities in the survey. This low percentage reflects the nature of the facility selection process, and is not representative of the total population of ·facilities in this level. Of the surveyed facilities with up to 10 employees, it was reported that;

• 1 contains space of2500 or fewer square feet. • 12 have more than: 2,500 square feet. (It may be that the security investigators reported the number of square feet in the entire facility, rather than the number of square feet in the federal space.)

• 4 are in one story buildings, • 10 are in multiple story buildings, • 2 are in buildings which have floors below ground (which may be parking),

• 3 have fewer than 10 daily visitors, • 5 have between 10 and 50 daily visitors, • 2 have between 51 and 100 visitors daily, and • 4 have over l 00 visitors daily.

• None have day care centers.

Level Il

Level II is defined as a facility with 11 - 150 f~deral employees, 2,500 to &0,000 square feet, and moderate volume of public contact. These facilities may also be shared with private sector businesses. 497 (40%) of the surveyed facilities report between 11 and 150 federal employees. For the facilities with 11 - 150 federal employees, it was reported that;

• . 23 have less than 2500 square feet, • 278 have between 2500 and 40,000 square feet of space, • 113 have between 40,001 and 80,000 square feet, and • 83 have over 80,00 I square feet. Vulnerability Assessment Appendb:E E-7 U.S. Department of Justice Compilation ofResults ofSurvey United States Marshals Service

• 154.are·in single story facilities, • 232 are in two or three floor facilities, • 79 are in 4 - 9 floor buildings, and • 16 are in high rise (IO or greater floor) buildings .

• 200 of these facilities have one level below ground (including parking), and • 19 of these facilities have more than one level below ground.

• 63 of these facilities report 10 or fewer daily visitors, • 214 report from 11 to 100 daily visitors, • 134 report from 10 I to 500 daily visitors, • 11 report from 50 I to 999 daily visitors, and • 3 0 report: I 000 or more daily visitors .

• 10 of these facilities contain day care centers .

Level ill

Level ill is defined as a facility with 151 -450 federal employees, 80,000 to 150,000 square feet, and a moderate to high volume of public contact. These facilities tend to be multi-story facilities, and frequently contain several agencies or offices. 353 (28%) of the surveyed facilities report between 151 and 450 federal employees. For the facilities with 151 - 450 federal employees, it was reported that:

• 60 have less thari 40,000 square feet, • 70 have between 40,001 and 60,000 square feet of space, 45 have between 60,001 and 80,000 square feet, and • 42 have between 80,001 and 100,000 square feet • 32 have between 100,001 and 125,000 square feet . • 16 have between 125,001 and 150,000 square feet • 75 have greater than 150,000 square feet .

• 44 are in single story facilities, • 108 are in two or three floor facilities, • 15 5 are in 4 - 9 floor buildings, and • 36 are in high rise (10 or greater floor) buildings. • 151 of these facilities have one level below ground; and Vulnerability Assessment AppendixE E-8 U.S. Department of Justice Compilation ofResults ofSurvey United States Marshals Service

• 46 of these facilities have more than one level below ground . • 35 of these facilities report 10 or fewer daily visitors, • 166 report from 11 to 100 daily visitors, • 100 report from 101 to 500 daily visitors, • 17 report from 501 to 999 daily visitors, • 16 report between 1000.and 2000 daily visitors, and • 8 report over 2000 daily visitors .

.. 9 of these facilities contain day care centers .

Level JV

Level IV is defined as a facility with greater than 450 federal employees, 80,000 to 250,000 square feet, and have a high volume of public contact. These facilities tend to be multi-story facilities. 347 (28%) of the surveyed facilities report greater than 450 federal employees. For the facilities with more than 450 federal employees, it was reported that:

• 44 have less than 100,000 square feet, • 19 have between 100,001 and 125,000 square feet, and • 21 have between 125,001 and 150,000 square feet • 34 have between 150,001 and 200,000 square feet. • 36 have between 200,001 and 250,000 square feet. • 176 have greater than 250,000 square feet.

• 24 are in single story facilities, • 38 are in two or three floor facilities. • 127 are in 4 - 9 floor buildings, • 110 are in high rise (10 - 19 floor) buildings, and • 36 are in very tall buildings, with 20 or more floors.

• 122 of these facilities have one level below ground, and • 130 of these facilities have more than one level below ground.

30 of these facilities report 10 or fewer daily visitors, 110 report from 11 to 100 daily visitors, • 129 report from 101 to 500 daily vis.hors, • 19 report from 501 to 999 daily visitors, Vulnerability Assessment AppendixE E-9 U.S. Department of Justice Compilation ofResults ofSurvey United States Marshals Service

• 38 report between 1000 and 2000 daily visitors, and • 10 report between 2001 and 5000 daily visitors, and • 10 report over 5000 daily visitors.

• 68 of these facilities contain clay care centers.

C. Day Care Centers

Of the 1239 facilities for which surveys were received, 88 (7%) of the facilities surveyed have associated day care centers. Of these day care centers:

• 63 (72%) report that there are day care services within the facility, • 25 (28%) report associated day care services that are not actually housed in the facility, • 71 (81 %) report having above ground space, • 5 (6%) report having below ground space, • 46 ( 52%) report that their main point of access is an interior door, • 38 (43%) report that the main point of access to the day care center is an exterior door, and • 73 (83%) facilities report having an outside playground area .

D •. Public Access

The ability of the public to get close to a facility presents a p~tential risk of terrorist attack. Because the strength of a bomb is related to its size, there is a higher risk when vehicles (especially trucks) approach a facility than there is from pedestrian access. Further, the ability to leave a large item, such as a package or a brief case in an undetected location presents a risk. This section of the survey deals with the ability of the public to approach (or enter) a facility without doing business in the facility. Vulnerability Assessment AppendixE E-10 U.S. Department of Justice Compilation ofResults ofSurvey United States Marshals Service

Distance to the Nearest Public Street

.. • . TableE.D.l . .. -·.·._ ... :-· ~-- ..-:; ·.. : -:

presents the ..... ·-:: distance to the Adjacent to the street (0 - 4 yards 188 16% nearest public away) street. The table Close to the street (5 - 9 yards away) 209 18% categorizes the distances, and Near the street (10 - 14 yards away) 241 20% lists the number and Separated from the street (15 - 24 169 14% percentage of yards away) buildings Well separated from the street (25 - 121 10% surveyed in 39 yards) each category. Distance from the street (greater 263 22% than 40 yards)' Table E.D.l Vulnerability Assessment Appendix.E E-11 U.S.DepartnientofJustice Compilation ofResults ofSurvey United States Marshals Service

Distance to the Nearest Public Parking

TableE.D.2 presents the distance to the 170 16% nearest public Adjacent to public parking (0 - 4 yards away) parking. This could be either Close to public parking (5 -9 yards 169 16% on-street a~ay) parking or a public lot. The Near public parking {10 -14 yards · 190 18% table away) categorizes the . Separated from public parking (15 ~ 24 179. 17% distances, and yards away) .lists the number and Well separated from public parking (25 · 98 9% percentage of - 39 yards) buildings Distant from public parking (greater 226 22% surveyed in than 40 yards) each category. Table E.D.2 Vulnerability Assessment Appendix.E E-12 U.S.DepartJnentofJustice Compilation ofResults ofSurvey United States Marshals Service

Distance to the Nearest Public Parking Lot

Table E.D.3. presents the distance to the Adjacent to public parking lot (0 - 4 153 15% nearest public yards away) parking lot. The table Close to public parking lot (5 - 9 123 12% categorizes the yards away) distances, and lists the . Near public parking lot (10 - 14 141 . 14% · number and yards away) percentage of · Separated from public parking lot 115 11% buildings (15 - 24 yards away) surveyed in each category. Well separated from public parking 142 14% · lot (25 - 39 yards) Distant from public parking lot 352 34% .(greater than 40 yards) Table E.D.2

Parks, Plazas, and Other Public Areas

443 of the facilities surveyed (representing 37% of the respondents to this question) are adjacent to parks, plazas, or other public areas.

757 of the facilities surveyed (representing 63% of the respondents to this question) are not adjacent to parks, plazas, or other public areas.

Uncontrolled External Access

In many situations, the building which houses federal offices also contains other businesses, such as restaurants, bars, dry cleaners, drug stores, and banks. Even in facilities with highly Vulnerability Assessment AppendixE E-13 U.S. Department of Justice Compilation ofResults ofSurvey United States Marshals Service

controlled access, there are businesses open to the public, and not subject to any security. The instructions on this question specifically indicated that the question is not dealing with businesses such as snack bars and travel agents, which may operate inside the security perimeter, and are not open to the public.

• 984 of the facilities surveyed (representing 79% of the respondents to this question) do contain commercial businesses with uncontrolled eJCternal access. • 255 of the facilities surveyed (representing 21 % of the respondents to this question) do not contain commercial businesses with uncontrolled external access.

E. On-Site Parking

TableE.E.1 presents a summary of the There is no parking on the property. 103 8% available parking on the There is underground parking on the· 307 25% premises of the property. surveyed facilities There is outside parking on the 942 · 76% property. There is both outside and 162 13% underground parking on the property. .:~-. Table E.E.1

Underground Parking

Of the 307 facilities with underground parking, 210 (68%) have some fonn of controlled access. Of these, 122 have security guards, 177 have some form of automated or electronic control, and 55 have vehicle barriers.

Of the 307 facilities with underground parking, public parking is available in 112 of these facilities. 73 of these are controlled facilities, and 39 are \lllcontrolled facilities. Vulnerability Assessment AppendixE E-=14 U.S. Department of Justice Compilation ofResults ofSurvey United States Marshals Service

Outside Parking

Of the 942 facilities with outside parking, 223 (24%) have some form of controlled access. Of these, 127 have security guards, 126 have some form of automated or electronic control, and 52 have vehicle barriers.

Of the 942 facilities with outside parking, public parking is available in 646 of these facilities. 111 of these are controlled facilities, and 535 are uncontrolled facilities.

F. Perimeter Security

This section addresses the security There is some type of alarm system on 61% systems on the 750 the property. outside of the facility. T abl~ The property is electronically ,402 32% E.F .1. presents monitored using CCTV. the summary information by There is an external roving patrol. 526 42% type of· perimeter The property has some exterior 195 16% security. bamers in addition to at least one of Alarm systems, the three other types of active electronic systems. monitoring, and roving The property has exterior barriers, but 141 11% patrols are the no active systems. three The property has some activ~ systems, 724 58% referenced but no exterior barriers. types of active systems. The property has no perimeter 300 24% security systems. TableE.F.1 Vulnerability Assessment Appendix E E-15 U.S. Department of Justice Compilation ofResults ofSurvey United States Marshals Service

Alarm Systems

Of the 750 facilities which have alarm systems, 9 facilities have window alanns only, 422 facilities have door alarms only, and 284 have both window and.door alarms. Other facilities may have other types of alarm systems, other than window or door alarms. 361 of the alarm systems are monitored by the General Services Administration (GSA), 57 are monitored by the United States Marshals Service (USMS), 262 are monitored by private security services, and I 04 are monitored by others.

651 alann systems were identified as being operational, 33 were identified as being not operational, and the status of 66 was unknown.

Electronically Monitored Closed Circuit Television (CCTV)

Of the 402 facilities that are electronically monitored, 334 are monitored locally, 47 are monitored at a remote facility, and 108 are recorded but not monitored.

342 CCTV systems were identified as being operational, 5 were identified as being not operational, and the status of 55 was unknown.

Exterior Roving Patrols

Ofthe 526 facilities that were identified as having exterior roving patrols:

• 185 are patrolled by the GSA by Federal Protective Service Officers, • 219 are patrolled by GSA contract guards, • 83 are patrolled by Contract Security Officers (CSOs), and • 128 are patrolled by owner/lessor provided security guards.

3 73 surveys identified the facilities as having operational roving patrols, 4. identified the patrols as not being operational, and 149 did not know the status of the roving patrols. Vulnerability Assessment AppendixE E-16 U.S. Department of Justice Compilation ofResults ofSurvey United States Marshals Service

Exterior Barriers

215 of the facilities surveyed have exterior barriers:

• 33 have concrete barriers . • 101 have fences . • 62 have planters . • 20 have bollards (steel or concrete posts) . • 100 have vehicle gate controls .

Of the 100 facilities which have vehicle gate controls, 91 also have at least one of the physical barriers listed.

The status of the exterior barriers was identified as follows:

• Exterior barriers were listed as operational in 169 of the facilities. • Exterior barriers were listed as not operational in 12 of the facilities. • The operational status of the exterior barriers was not known for 34 facilities.

Dumpsten

In response to the question as to whether dumpsters are in a secured areas, the answer was:

• The dumpsters are in a secured area at 3 34 facilities, • The dumpsters are.not in a secured area at 793, and • The area security of dumpster location is undetermined at 112 facilities.

G. Entrances

This section of the survey deals with entrances to the facility, including both entrances that serve the public (including the general public as well as contractors) and entrances for 'employees. Vulnerability Assessment Appendix.E E-17 U.S. Department of Justice Compilation ofResults ofSurvey United States Marshals Service

Entrances with X-Ray and Metal Detectors

201 of the 1239 facilities surveyed have entrances which screen using both X-rays (for packages) and metal detectors. At 76 of these facilities, only visitors are screened. At 125 facilities, everyone entering the facility is screened. At 23 of these facilities there are other public entrances with metal detectors but no X-ray devices, at 19 of these facilities there are other entrances with security systems (either access security systems or guards), and at 24 facilities there are no other types of entrances. There are 63 facilities which have at least one entrance with both a X-ray device and a metal detector and at least one entrance with no security.

• 147 surveyed facilities have one entrance with an X-ray and metal detector. • 43 have two entrances with an X-ray and metal detector. • 6 have three entrances with an X-ray and metal detector. • 5 have four or more entrances with an X-ray and metal detector~

Entrances With Metal Detectors

59 ofthe surveyed facilities have entrances with metal detectors but no X-ray devices. At 27 of these facilities, only visitors are screened. At 32 facilities, everyone entering the facility is screened. At 54 of these facilities there are other entrances with other types of security systems (either access security systems or guards). There are 16 facilities which have at least one entrance with a metal detector and at least one entrance with no security. At 5 facilities there are no other types of entrances.

• 36 surveyed facilities have one entrance with a metal detector (and no X-ray.) • 11 have two entrances with a metal detector (and no X-ray.) • 6 have three entrances with a metal detector (and no X-ray.) • 6 have/our or more entrances with a metal detector (and no X-ray.) Vulnerability Assessment AppendixE E-18 U.S. Department·of Justice Compilation ofResults ofSurvey United States Marshals Service

Entrances with Security Systems

In this question, "key card"is used as an example of an (automated) security system. In general, the question addresses entrances which have physical or automated security system$ limiting entrance, but do not have guards.

598 of the surveyed buildings have some form of (automated) security system. Ofthese:

• 33 facilities have other entrances with s~curity provided by metal detectors, • 252 facilities have other entrances with security provided by a security guard. • 275 facilities have other entrances which have no security, and • for 139 facilities, all of the entrances fit into this category.

Of the 598 buildings that have entrances with (automated) security system:

• 236 facilities have one such entrance, · • 244 facilities have two or three such entrances. • 60 facilities have four or five such entrances. • 31 facilities have six or seven such entrances. • 12 facilities have eight or nine such entrances. • 15 facilities have ten or more such entrances.

Entrance with Security Guard

449 of the facilities had entrances with security guards. At 212, visitors are required to sign-in. The remainder of the facilities have security guards, but visitors are not required to sign in.

• 289 of these facilities aliso have entrances with some other type of entrance security. • 160 of these facilities have all of the entrances guarded, and guarded doors are the· only type of security system used. • 148 of these buildings also have unguarded entrances.

Of the buildings having entrances with security guards:

• 290 facilities have one entran~e with a security guard,· • 118 facilities have two or three entrances with security guards, Vulnerability Assessment AppendixE E-19 U.S. Department of Justice Compilation ofResults ofSurvey United States Marshals Service

• 22 facilities have four or five entranc~s with security guards, • 10 facilities have six or seven entrances with security guards, • 2 facilities have eight or nine entrances with security guards, • 7 facilities have ten or more entrances with security guards.

Entrances without Security

Of the facilities for which surveys were received, 680 had entrances which had no security of any type. Of these, 364 also had entrances which do have security, and 316 did not have security of any type at any entrance. Of the 364 facilities which had entrances with security, 148 have entrances wtth a security guard, but visitors are not required to sign-in. 302 have other types of secured entrance·s.

Among the 680 facilities which have unsecured entrances:

• 151 have one unsecured entrances, • 169 have two unsecured entrances, • I 14 have three unsecured entrances, • 71 have four unsecured entrances, and • 175 have five or more unsecured entrances.

Clearly, there are some buildings which _allow unimpeded entrance during working hours, but are secured at night. This question did not address the difference between security during . working hours and security at other times.

H. Security Screening

This section of the questionnaire addressed security screening at places in a facility other than the public entrances.

Entrances to Specific Agencies and Offices

100 of the 1239 surveys identified situations where specific agencies or organizations within an agency use X-ray or magnetometers (metal detectors) in addition to the security screening that is Vulnerability Assessment Appendix.E E-20 U.S. Department of Justice Compilation ofResults ofSurvey United States Marshals Service

necessary to enter the facility. In 50 of these facilities, only visitors are screened. In 50 facilities, everyone entering the specific area is screened.

Screening the Mail

In 426 of the facilities surveyed, the incoming·mail is screened:

• The mail is screened at a public entrance at 185 facilities. • The mail is screened in the mail room at 183 facilities. • The mail is screened on the loading dock or in the garage at 54 facilities. • The mail is screened at some other location at 59 facilities.

Screening Deliveries

In 427 of the facilities surveyed, incoming deliveries are screened.

• Incoming deliveries are screened at a public entrance at 208 facilities. • Incoming deliveries are screened in the mail room at 101 facilities. • Incoming deliveries are screened on the loading dock or in the garage at 193 facilities. • Incoming deliveries are screened at some other location at 66 faci)ities.

Maintenance and Custodial Staff

406 survey responses indicated that maintenance and custodial staff arerequired to enter the surveyed facility through a secured area. 758 surveys indicated that maintenance and custodial staff are not required to enter the surveyed facility through a secured area. The individual responding to the survey indicated an inability to determine if maintenance and security staff are required to enter through a secured entrance at 75 of the surveyed facilities. Vulnerability Assessment AppendixE E-21 U.S. Department of Justice Compilation ofResults ofSurvey United States Marshals Service

I. Bomb Threats

This section of the survey directly addressed bomb threats and responses.

Occupant Emergency Plans

1,081 of the 1,239 surveyed facilities were identified as currently having an occupant emergency plan. 91 of the surveyed facilities do not have an occupant emergency plan. The individual completing the survey was not able to determine ifthere is an occupant emergency plan at 67 of the facilities.

Bomb Threats in 1995

198 of the surveyed facilities reported having received a bomb threat in 1995. Among the surveyed facilities, there has been a total of903 bomb threats.

• 113 facilities reported receiving one bomb threat in 1995. • 37 facilities reported receiving two bomb threats in 1995. • 37 facilities reported receiving three or more bomb threats in 1995.

Of these facilities, 110 facilities have been evacuated in 1995 as a result of bomb threats. Approximately 105,821 federal employees have been evacuated as a result ofbomb threats in 1995.

• 89 facilities reported being evacuated once as a result of bomb threats in 1995 . • 17 facilities reported being evacuated twice as a result of bomb threats in 1995 . • 4 facilities reported being evacuated three or more times as a result of bomb threats in 1995.

Within the surveyed facilities, 317,829 federal employees have been evacuated more than one time as a result of bomb threats in 1995.

946 of the responses reported that there have been no bomb threats,in 1995. In 95 cases, the preparer was unable to determine if there had been a bomb threat at the facility in 1995. Vulnerability Assessment AppendixE E-22 U.S. Department of Justice Compilation ofResults ofSurvey United States Marshals Service

J. Hours of Operation

The questions related to hours and days of operation deal with the normal operations of a facility.

Days the Facility is Open to Employees

Table E.J.l presents the count and percentage 10 Less than 1% Open to Employees 1-4 days per of facilities week. that are open to the 492 42% Open to Employees 5 days per employees, week. by the number of 54 5% . Open to Employees 6 days per days th.at the week. facilities are 621 · 53% Open to Employees 7 days per open.in a week. week. TableE.J.2 Vulnerability Assessment AppendixE E-23 U.S. Department of Justice Compilation ofResults ofSurvey United States Marshals Service

Days the Facility is Open to the Public

Table E.J.2 presents the count and 13% Not Open to the Public percentage of facilities 6 Less than 1% Open to the Public 1-4 days per week. that are open to the public, 922 86% Open to the Public 5 days per week by the number of 65 6% Open to the Public 6 days per week. days that the facilities 80 7% Open to the Public 7 days per week. are open in a week. Table E.J.2 Vulnerability Assessment AppendixF F-t U.S. Department of Justice Cost Matrix United States Marshals Service

Appendix F - Cost Matrix ' ESTIMATED SECURITY COST OF A SAMPLE MULTI-STORY LEVEL IV BUILDING BUILDING MODEL BASED ON:

17 Story Multi-Agency 64 8 Feel Building Perimeter Tenant Agency Mix: 380,000 Total Square 11eet 30 Foot Street Set-Back (Avernge) ATF DEA 22,500 Square PootlFloor (Averngc) 2 Level Interior Parking Garage Wilh20 Spaces 11.S. Secret Service More Than 450 Employees 2 Level Adjacent Parking Lot Willi 170 Spaces IRS Crimi11al lnvcsliga!ivc Division GSA l'lcld Office

SECURITY MEASURES NEW CONST. COSTS RETROFIT COSTS PERIMETER Interior Parking Garage JJarrier and Access Control $12,150 $13,50{) Pop-lip Hydraulic llanler $35,000 $•10,250 Adjacent Parking Control (Assigned Spaces Wilh Decals) $850 $850 flOecn Adjacent Parking Lot Lights With Emergc11cy f'owcr JJackup $37,500 $41,300 SiK Closed Circuit Television Camerns (Pan-Till Zoom) Wilh Time Lapse Video Recording $85,000 $!05,000 ENTRY One Magoctomcter & X·Ray . $45,000 $45,000 Guard Post@ Entrance I Magnetometer I Parking (Five Guards on Staggered Shifts Covering a 10 I lour Day, Including ltc:licf & Roving Palrol) Per I Year $160,000 l'cr I Vear $160,000 Guard Palrol - 24 I four (Excluding Dusiness Hours) Per I Year $102,000 Per I Year $102,000 l'hrec Card Readers for Controlled Entrances $4,500 $5,•IOO One Central fnlrusion Alarm System (Includes 'J E11lry Points) $2,500 SJ.ISO INTERIOR Approximately 450 Employee Photo !D's $2,800 $2,800 l Approitimately 450 Security Access Cards $2,000 $2,000 Internal Security I Alarms {e.g., CCTV Cameras I Monitors, Intercoms, Duress Alarms, Elcctronlc Door Strlkcs) $720,000 $972,000 One 4 KWA Uninlerruptable Power Supply $10,000 $12,000 fire Detection I Protection Sy,tcn1 (Upgrade) SS00,000 $675,000 SECURITY PLANNING . Annual Employee Security I Safety Training $12,000 $12,000 Install Mylar on Exterior Glass Surfaces (93,000 Square Feel) $743,000 1815,000

ESTIMATED TOTAL COST $2 474 300 $3 007 250 Note: Cost 1s. Based on Adoption of Current Standards and Measures. Future Standards May Be Developed That Would Affect Overall Cost. Vulnerability Assessment AppendixG G-1 U.S. Department of Justice RoleofGSA United States Marshals Service

Appendix G - Role of GSA Vulnerability Assessment Appendix G G-2 U.S. Department of Justice Role ofGSA United States Marshals Service

G.1 Role and Mission of GSA and FPS

The General Services Admiriistration is the government entity charged with providing office space for most of the federal civilian workforce. As a part of this mission, GSA's responsibility is to protect Federal property under its charge and control by providing a safe and secure environment for the conduct of government operations.

The Federal Protective Service (FPS), a division of GSA's Public Buildings Service, is responsible for accomplishing GSA-'s physical security and law enforcement mission. FPS's mission is to protect the federal workplace. This includes preventing the disruption of operations, and ensuring the safety and security of over one million government employees and thousands of daily visitors in over 8,100 buildings nationwide.

The functions of FPS are per(ormed by a highly trained .workforce consisting of police officers, criminal investigators, physical security specialists, security system installers, and control center operators. FPS services include: responding to criminal incidents, installation and monitoring of security devices and systems, crime prevention activities, investigating criminal incidents, performing physical security surveys, security advisory services, and coordinating a· comprehensive Occupant Emergency Plan program.

G.Ll Physical Security Survey Program

The central component.of GSA 's physical security program is the security survey. Security surveys are recurring, on-site inspections and assessments of risks, threats, and vulnerabilities at each GSA control1ed facility. Surveys are conducted on a one to four year cycle based upon a number of variables including building size, nature of operations, and identified or potential threats.

G.1.2 Risk Assessment Methodology and Matrix

During the survey process, the Physical Security Survey (PSS) utilizes a computerized program called the Risk Assessment Matrix (RAM). RAM evaluates a wide range of ~teria such as building environment, crime rate, physical structure, value of the building and its contents, mixture of tenants, and architectural features. Through this process, specific risks to a building are defined, and appropriate countermeasures are recommended. Counterm~ures, or acti~ designed to mitigate risks1 are divided into four categories: electronic security systems, secunty guarding, crime prevention programs, and physical deterrents (locks, key control, protective barriers, protective lighting, environmental and/or architectural design or redesign).

While RAM represents an overall analysis of security needs, it is only one es_sential part of a Vulnerability Assessment AppendixG G-; U.S. Department of Justice RoleofGSA United States Marshals Service

complete phvsical securitv survev, The survey also includes a complete descriptive narrative, interview results, and photographs of the facility. With respect to the risk assessment, the Physical Security Specialist must analyze the countermeasure recommendations within the parameters of their professional judgement, taking into account any factors which may not have been considered by the matrix. When differences occur, the security specialist is responsible for making a final determination. In addition, the specialist must decide upon the specific types of devices, systems, or services which would most effectively meet the countermeasure recommendations.

The security survey program ~d risk assessment methodology have proven historically to be effective and valid tools in both resource allocation and the mitigation of risk. Toe combination of the RAlv.1 and the experienced judgement of the FPS security specialist has been a welcome assurance to client agencies that their work environments are safe and secure.

G.1.3 The Role of Private Contract Security Services

To augment its uniformed force, the FPS oversees a contract guard force consisting of more than 2,300 positions in over 700 locations. Contract guards primary duties include performing access control and security patrol function within GSA controlled space.

G.1.4 Security Role in Construction

The Security Design Chapter of GSA's Facility Standards for the Public Buildings Service provides advice and guidance to architects and engineers on the basic security requirements for GSA buildings. Topics covered include building classifications, access controls, security system design, ·parking lot/structure security, and areas requiring special security measures such as credi1. unions and child care centers.

G.1.5 Countermeasure Identification

FPS maintains a database to track, by building, the countermeasures installed at each facility nationwide. In addition, a separate database records the criminal incidents reported at each facility. Both databases are utilized extensively by physical security specialists when conducting security surveys and recommending countermeasures. Vulnerability Assessment AppendixH H-1 U.S. Department of Justice Federal Agencies with Independent United States Marshals Service Real Property Authority

Appendix H - Federal Agencies with Independent Real Property Authority Vulnerability Assessment AppendixH H-2 U.S. Department of Justice Federal Agencies with Independent United States Marshals Service Real Property Authority

Federal Agencies With Independent Real Property Authority

American Battle Monuments Commission Department of Health and Human Resources Department of Commerce Department of Energy Department of Justice Department of Labor Department of State Department of Agriculture Department of Education . · Department of Housing and Urban Development Department of Interior Department of Transportation Department of Treasury Department of Veterans Affairs Environmental Protection Agency Federal Communications Commission Federal Emergency Management Agency General Services Administration Government Printing Office Commodity Futures Trading Commission , National Achieves and Records Administration National Science Foundation National Aeronautics and Space Administration Tennessee Valley Authority US Postal Service US Infonnation Agency

There are 26 federal agencies that are authorized to purchase, o~ or lease space, buildings, or other parcels ofland. The largest of these agencies are GSA, DoD, and State. Normally the facilities owned by these agencies are specific to there mission, such as; research and development type needs. GSA is the largest and has the only real authority that allows an agency to sublet the space to other agencies and to purchase buildings for that purpose. GSA Public Buildings Service

MEMORANDUM FOR ASSISTANT REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORS FOR PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE 1P, 2P, 3P, 4P, SP, .6P, 7P, SP, 9P, 10P, WP

FROM

DATE:

SUBJECT: Implementation of the lnteragency Security Committee (ISC) Design Criteria Regarding Site Selection.

As you know, the events of September 11,2001 reemphasized the importance of our implementation of the ISC design criteria, signed by the Administrator on May 30,2001. It should be noted that the document was disseminated prior to the horrific events in New York and Northern Virginia. This is truly an indication that the GSA has and continues to serve as a leader in our nation's efforts to protect the American people and the Federal workforce. I appreciate your continuing support, collaboration, and leadership during this most difficult period. ·

Following the events of September 11, I signed a PBS Instructional Letter- PBS-IL-02- 1 on October 15, 2001, Subject: Implementation of the lnteragency Security Committee Security Design Criteria for New Federal Office Buildings and Major Modernization Projects. Although the ISC design criteria, and the PBS instructional letter are primarily performance based, there are certain recommendations and requirements that are somewhat prescriptive and subject to interpretation. Sometimes too "wide a range" of interpretation can be counterproductive to the intent of the criteria as we try to work'with our clients to implement the objectives. Standoff distance recommendations in the ISC criteria fall into this category.

The ISC criteria "recommends" that new buildings achieve a standoff distance from a potential point of explosion of at least 50 feet. The absoiute minimum distance required is 20 feet. However, we know from our exhaustive research on this subject, that each foot that a building is further removed from the center of the blast, there is less damage to human life and property. We also know that it costs us less in bricks and mortar to protect our buildings as the standoff distance is increased. Currently, the Office of the Chief Architect is working with expert consultants to try to quantify cost and lifesafety issues associated with different standoff distances. Since some of this research is

u.s. General Services AdmlnlstraUon 1800 F Street. NW Washington, DC 20405--0002 www.gsa.gov actually based on real field testing it will take more time than we would prefer. The results of this effort will be provided to you as soon as it is completed.

We all recognize that GSA will not be able to always achieve the recommended 50 foot standoff distance for new Federal Buildings; particularly in extremely urbanized and dense Central Business Districts in major cities. However, there are very few American cities that have densities comparable to New York or San Francisco. Therefore, the need to select a site that does not conform to the ISC criteria should be the exception, riot the norm. We also recognize that annexes or modifications to Historic Buildings present a host of additional challenges regarding blast criteria.

All this in perspective, we cannot ignore the importance of this factor on the site selection process; not only regarding the safety of our Federal workforce and the thousands of visitors to our Federal Buildings each day, but on the construction cost to mitigate the effects of blast on a new building that cannot achieve the ISC recommendations. We consider this an issue which can have severe impact on the delivery of the nationwide Capital Program. ·

As such, effective immediately, if a Regional Office cannot recommend a site for a new Federal Construction or Lease/Construction project that will achieve the 50 foot standoff distance, an exemption must be issued by the Commissioner of PBS. The "achievement" of this standoff distance must be based on the feasibility of the site to accommodate a pragmatic, efficient, reasonable, cost effective, and well designed Federal facility. All exemption requests will be processed by the Office of the Chief Architect in consultation with the Office of the Federal Protective Service.

I expect that there will be very few exemptions since I know that you, our associates and our clients will make every possible effort to identify and select sites that will conform to this important requirement. I thank you for your support. If you have any questions please call either Ed Feiner or Wendell Shingler. I Updated List of Witnesses

Benjamin Jacobs, The JBG Companies(Expert in Real Estate Development)

Brian Coulter, The JBG Companies (Expert in Real Estate Development)

Art Turowski, General Services Administration (Expert in Federal Real Estate Development)

Tony Costa, General Services Administration (Expert in Federal Real Estate Development)

John Simeon, General Services Administration (GSA Project Executive)

George Fields, Department of Transportation (Expert in Real Estate Development and Construction)

Lee Privett, Department of Transportation (Expert in Government Security)

Jerome Rasgus, Weidlinger & Associates (Expert in Engineering and Blast Issues)

Thomas Rowe, Michael Graves Architects PC (Expert in Architecture)

Jeff Lee, Lee & Associates (Expert in Landscape Architecture)

Louis Slade, Gorove/Slade Associates (Expert in Traffic Engineering)

Eric Smart, Bolan Smart Associates, Inc. (Expert in Real Estate Economics)

Steven E. Sher, Urban Planner (Expert in Land Use and Planning)

WASl #1205203 vl

BENJAMIN R. JACOBS Principal

EDUCATION

1963-1965 Washington College of Law, American University Juris Doctor

1959-1962 American University Bachelor of Science in Business

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

1962-Present The JBG Companies Washington, DC Principal A real estate company providing investment, transactional, development, advisory, asset, property and project management services.

Development and Investment Activities Exemplary projects include The Four Seasons Hotel, 1400 K Street office building, 1220 L Street office building, Twinbrook MetroPark, Twinbrook Office Center, Courthouse Square, 2000 L Street office building, Rosslyn Gateway and Watergate office building.

Advisory Services and Project Management Exemplary clients include Amtrak, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Potomac Electric Power Company, General Motors Corporation, Government Employees Insurance Company, General Services Administration, UVANirginia Tech Education Center, The World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, Washington Marriott, Wolf Trap Foundation, Steptoe and Johnson, The Washington Post and the Washington Convention Center Authority. BRIAN P. COULTER Managing Member JBG/SEFC Venture, L.L.C.

With over 17 years of experience in the real estate industry, Mr. Coulter has gained extensive hands-on experience in development project management and oversight. Currently Mr. Coulter oversees all JBG's commercial development activities. He is actively involved in the oversight of the development process for the 1.3 million square foot Department of Transportation Headquarters. Other current projects include the recently completed 430,000 sf of the Potomac Center project, in Washington, DC; the 335,000 sf Arlington Gateway office building, under construction in Arlington, VA; approximately 400,000 sf of completed and about to be completed buildings at Twinbrook Metro Park in Montgomery County, MD; a 250,000 sf build-to-suit office building in Rockville, MD.

EDUCATION

1984-1986 Harvard University Master of Business Administration

1977-1981 Rutgers College Bachelor of Arts in Economics and English Summa Cum Laude, Phi Beta Kappa

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

1986-1998 The JBG Companies 1998 - Present Washington, DC Partner One of the owners of a full service real estate company that acquires, develops, manages, leases and finances properties in the Washington metropolitan area.

1998-1999 TrizecHahn Office Properties Washington, DC Senior Vice President Responsible for the management and growth of the mid-Atlantic region for a public real estate company. In one year the asset base of the region doubled, growing to approximately $1 billion in property value. Supervised all development, property management, leasing and asset management activities for the mid-Atlantic region.

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS

• Current President of Rosslyn Renaisance • District of Columbia Building Industry Association Board Member • Downtown Business Improvement District Board Member • Past President of the Washington Real Estate Group • Past Member of NAIOP ARTHUR M. TUROWSKI DIRECTOR, LEASING POLICY AND PERFORMANCE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION

Arthur Turowski is a 33-year career employee of the General Services Administration. He has served in its Atlanta, San Francisco, and National Capital Regional offices as well as GSA's Headquarters.

He was educated at the University of Maryland and has done graduate work in Real Estate and Finance at American University in Washington, DC.

Mr. Turowski has served in a variety of positions during his GSA career ranging from lease negotiator to project manager to senior program executive. Among his many assignments over the years are leasing negotiations on the Tariff Building (aka Monaco Hotel), and the adaptive reuse of the City Post Office. Totaling about 800,000 square feet, both projects were here in Washington, DC.

Today, Mr. Turowski is Director of Leasing Policy and Performance in GSA's National Capital Region. In that position he directly oversees 700 leases comprising 46 million square feet and $1.2 billion in annual rent. He has also participated extensively in the soon to be promulgated standards for security in GSA leased space. ANTHONY E. COSTA ASSISTANT REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE- NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

Anthony E. Costa was named Assistant Regional Administrator for Public Buildings Service, General Services Administration (GSA), National Capital Region (NCR), in April 1999. With the largest real estate portfolio of GSA's regions, Mr. Costa oversees leasing, design, construction, modernization, repair, maintenance, protection, and real property disposition activities for an inventory of more than 600 leased and Government-owned buildings in the Washington, DC area. NCR's real estate portfolio consists of 86 million square feet of space, comprising 46 million feet of leased space and 40 million feet of owned space, which serves 295,000 tenant customers through a workforce of nearly 1700 employees. Mr. Costa possesses a unique understanding of the role of public real estate development in today's communities. His knowledge of the overall operation of Public Buildings Service (PBS) nationally, and its relationship to other parts of GSA and the Federal government, are an invaluable asset to the National Capital Region.

Mr. Costa obtained a Bachelor of Arts degree in geography and economics from Bucknell University in 1982 and a master's degree in regional planning from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. In 1984, he began his career as a Presidential Management Intern with GSA's Public Buildings Service. For much of his early career, he focused on GSA's capital planning and development program, including the successful building acquisition program in the late 1980s and the reestablishment of once-dormant national environmental and planning programs.

In 1994, Mr. Costa was asked to manage the reengineering of GSA's real estate program. His work led directly to major changes in the way GSA conducts its real estate business, including more reliance on private sector techniques and expertise. In 1996, he was appointed chief of staff to the Commissioner of GSA's Public Buildings Service. As chief of staff, Mr. Costa was instrumental in focusing PBS nationally on asset management and core performance and financial measurement issues. He has also been active in community revitalization efforts outside of his work at GSA. For two years, ending in 1997, he was president of the board of directors for the Bailey's Crossroads Revitalization Corporation, a non-profit development organization charged with leading revitalization efforts in the Bailey's Crossroads area of northern Virginia.

Mr. Costa is a native of Trenton, NJ. He and his wife, Maryanne Sugarman, have two children, Alexander and Shanley. He and his family reside in Arlington, Virginia. JOHN SIMEON PROJECT EXECUTIVE PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE - NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

John Simeon joined General Services Administration (GSA) in May 1999, coming from the Department of the Navy to oversee the procurement of the Department of Transportation (DOT) Headquarters as was directed by Congress. His unique understanding of the role of public real estate and private sector development allowed an effective procurment structure for a lease of this facility, which has been designed to DOT's needs and will be constructed to a rigorous set of prescribed performance standards to deliver a world class building. In addition, he coordinated and ensured compliance with the National Environment Policy Act through the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement.

Mr. Simeon obtained a Bachelor of Arts degree from New York University in 1974. He began his career in a Field Activity for the Navy in 1976, moving to Washington DC in 1979. For much of his early career, he focused on facilities management and administration. Later he moved to the Secretary of the Navy's staff and provided advice and expert opinion on Facilities and Real Estate matters. Mr. Simeon's expertise spans both commercial and residential assets.

In 1991, he reviewed Navy's occupancy in the National Capital Area. His work resulted in NCR Master Plan for the Department of the Navy, covering 45,000 people in over seven million square feet of office space and relocation recommendations were incorporated into the plans for the Base Realignment and Closure impacts to the NCR. In 1993, Mr. Simeon was asked to address Navy's aged housing assets in the United States. His work resulted in new legislative authority enacted in 1995 as the Navy Limited Partnership Authority. His work led directly to major changes in the way Navy managed its housing assets, relying more on the private sector expertise and capital. In 1995, he was requested to assist Secretary of Defense in exporting his privatization model to all of the Military services' housing assets. His work resulted in another legislative authority enacted in 1996 as the Military Housing Privatization Initiative. This work lead the Department of Defense to a partnering concept with private sector to employ private capital and expertise to upgrade, maintain, and operate DoD's housing inventory of over 300,000 single family houses and 450,000 apartments and build additional homes as needed.

Mr. Simeon has lived in the area since 1979. He and his wife, Joanne, have three daughters, Elaine, Christine, and Diane, and reside in Potomac, Maryland. GEORGE C. FIELDS DIRECTOR, New Headquarters Building Project/Space Management Office

George C. Fields is the Director of the New Headquarters Building/Space Management Office under the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration in the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) located in Washington, D.C.

As the Project Director, Mr. Fields is responsible for providing the planning, coordination and project management associated with the new headquarters acquisition. This complex multi-million dollar development will ensure that the long term housing requirements for the DOT headquarters staff is satisfied here in the 21st Century. Additionally, he directs the staff that promotes the efficient use of the Department's existing real property assets through oversight and management ofDOT's Headquarters and Field real property space activities. This involves the management of all DOT real estate assets for some 10, 071 owned facilities valued at $4.5 billion and 187 leased buildings with annual rental payments of $225.5 million. These properties are located throughout the country and thus require collaboration with and cooperation of a multitude of political jurisdictions while at the same time assuring that DOT program requirements are met.

Prior to assuming this role Mr. Fields served in the Department of Transportation as the Director of the Transportation Administrative Services Center (T ASC). In this position Mr. Fields lead a non-appropriated administrative and technical services self-financed business enterprise of about 290 employees who provided varied services and products to the operating administrations in DOT as well as to other governmental entities nationwide. Over 70 service areas were offered through T ASC - ranging from IT!felecommunications with annual revenues of $154 million - government-wide distribution of Transit Benefits with revenues of $184 million - project management of DOT' s $734 million Headquarters building project.

From 1987 to 1996 Mr. Fields served as the Deputy Secretary of the Department of General Services for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. He served two terms under Governor Robert P. Casey (D) and was reappointed in 1995 by Governor Tom Ridge(R). As the Deputy Secretary he served as the COO of this state cabinet agency with oversight responsibility for the management of non-highway capital projects, procurement of all state government's goods and services. Additionally, he was responsible for numerous core operations of state government, including state buildings and facilities, performed as the state's real estate agent and insurance broker, managed the state's vehicle fleet, and the Capitol Police force.

During his tenure the state's non-highway capital projects budget averaged $5- $6 Billion annually. Some noteworthy projects completed during this period were: construction of the $800 Million Pittsburgh International Airport Mid-field Terminal Complex; $2 Billion capital construction program for 10 correctional institutions utilizing innovative financing techniques; construction of the $55 Million Bryce Jordan Convocation and Athletic Center on the campus of Penn State.

Earlier in his career, he was co-owner of an electrical wholesale business and acted as its managing partner. And, prior to his business ownership he served in City government as the Assistant Director of Human Relations for the City of Kansas City, Missouri where he began to hone his skills on capital projects through the integration of minority contactors on major construction projects.

He is a graduate of the University of Kansas with a bachelor's degree in Political Science and Human Relations. Lee A. Privett Director, Office of Security U.S. Department of Transportation

In September 2000, Mr. Privett was appointed Director, Office of Security, Office of the Secretary of Transportation. Mr. Privett serves as the senior departmental security executive for internal security policies and programs. He plans, develops, evaluates, and administers departmental polices and programs in a wide variety of security disciplines including personnel, physical, information, and technical security, executive protection, and identification media.

Mr. Privett began his career in 1969 as an officer with the Metropolitan Police Department, Washington, D.C. In 1971 he accepted a position as a Special Agent with the U.S. Secret Service. He served in a variety of assignments to include criminal investigations of counterfeiting, forgery of U.S. Treasury obligations and threats on the life of the President and others protected by statute. He also was assigned to the Presidential Protective Division, Liaison Division and Headquarters Intelligence Division.

In 1989 Mr. Privett accepted a position with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Security. He served as Chief of the Physical Security Division until 1991 and as the Deputy Director until 2000.

Mr. Privett attended Belmont Abbey College, Belmont, N.C. and received a BA degree in Economics and Business. Jerome Rasgus, SE, AIA Senior Associate

Education MS, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL, 1971, Structural Engineering BArch, University oflllinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL, 1970, Architecture

Registrations Registered Architect: IL (8312) 1975 Structural Engineer: IL (3805) 197 4 Professional Engineer: DC (7609) 1980; VA (013994) 1980; MD (13150) 1983; WV (11095) 1983; SC (09562) 1983; CO (39309) 1988; FL (39309) 1988 Brief Professional History Structural Engineering Manager, National Capital Region, Weidlinger Associates Consulting Engineers, Washington, DC (2001- ) Structural Engineering Department Head, URS Corporation, Washington, DC (1995-2000) Associate Partner, Structural Engineering, Skidmore Owings & Merrill, Washington, DC (1977-95) Associate, Perkins & Will, Chicago, IL (1971-76)

Affiliations American Concrete Institute American Institute of Steel Construction Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute Structural Engineering Association of Illinois American Institute of Architects

Publications Steel Design Handbook, LRFD Method; Akbar R. Tamboli, Editor, Co-Author of Chapter 5: "Building Design Loading Criteria and General Considerations," 1997 Structural Engineering Handbook, 4th Edition; Gaylord, Gaylord & Stallmeyer, Editors, Co-Author of Section 23: "Buildings General Design Considerations," 1997

Representative Project Experience New Office Buildings Department of Transportation, Washington, DC United States Marine Heritage Center, Quantico, VA US Capital Visitors Center, Washington, DC US Embassy, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Dulles Park Technology Center Office Building, Chantilly, VA 11111 Sunset Hills Road Office Building, Chantilly, VA US News & World Report Headquarters, Washington, DC

••••• IIIIJI WEIDLINGER ASSOCIATES INC CONSUL TING ENGINEERS Jerome Rasgus - 2

Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington Metropolitan Field Office, Washington, DC InterAmerican Development Bank Headquarters, 1300 New York Avenue NW, Washington, DC 250 West Pratt Street Office Building and Garage, Baltimore, MD 100 East Pratt Street, IBM Baltimore Headquarters and Garage, Baltimore, MD Warren Office Buildings and Plaza, McLean, VA Sallie Mae Virginia Consolidation Master Plan and Phase One Office and Computer Center, Structured Parking and Site Improvements, Reston, VA 3701 Pender Drive Office Building and Parking Structure, Fairfax County, VA 2001 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Office Building and Parking, Washington, DC American Center for Physics Headquarters Building, College Park, MD National Republican Senatorial Committee Headquarters Building, Washington, DC 1400 K Street NW Office Building and Garage, Washington, DC One Thomas Circle Office Building and Garage, Washington, DC 1133 Twentieth Street NW Office Building and Garage, Washington, DC 1333 H Street NW Office Building, Washington, DC 2001 L Street NW Office Building Washington, DC (retail, pedestrian arcade) URBCO Somerset Office Park, Glastonbury, CT 1310 G Street Office Building, Washington, DC (retail) 1250 Eye Street NW Office Building, Washington, DC (retail and parking, within 40 vertical feet of Metro tunnel) Jefferson Court Office and Retail Complex with Garage, Washington, DC

Additions, Renovations and Restorations United States Naval Academy, Michelson and Chauvenet Halls, Annapolis, MD National Archives Building Restoration, Washington, DC Commonwealth Tower Renovation, Arlington, VA Pentagon Building, Phased Renovation and Adaptive Reuse of Basement, Washington, DC Boston University Facility Survey and Structural Upgrade of Residential Building, Washington, DC Goodwin Square Mixed Use Conversion to Office Building and Hotel, Hartford, CT (historic district) Demonet Building, Washington, DC (New office building behind preserved landmark building, retail and parking)

Blast Engineen'ng (Upgrades) Pentagon Wedge 2-5, Arlington, VA Pentagon Secure Access Lane, Arlington, VA GSA Jacob Javits, New York, NY

WEIDLINGER ASSOCIATES INC CONSULTING ENGINEERS Jerome Rasgus - 3

1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC Dulles Northgate, Chantilly, VA 1500 Tysons McLean, Tysons Corner, VA

Hotels and Mixed Use Prqjects The Grand Hotel and 2300 M Street Office Building and Garage, Washington, DC The Park Hyatt Washington Hotel, Washington DC Goodwin Square Hotel and Office Building, Hartford, CT McLean Hilton and Office Tower with Garage, McLean, VA 1001 30th Street NW Mixed Use and Residential Complex with Garage, Washington, DC Metro Center Mixed Use Office Buildings (3), Hotel, Hecht's Department Store and Garages, Washington, DC (directly adjacent to Metro station and tunnels) Transportation-Related Prqjects North and West Flank Parking Garages, Washington Dulles International Airport, Chantilly, VA Northeast Railroad Corridor Improvements - Design Standards (Enhancement of 15 stations, including Baltimore's Penn Station and Wilmington Station in Delaware) Nationwide Indefinite Quantity Contract for Air National Guard Base and Army Air National Guard Bases Two-Stage Development of a New Shaped Maintenance Hangar and Shops for C-17 and C-130 Aircraft, Tennessee Air National Guard, 118th Airlift Wing, Nashville, TN New Carrollton Station Parking Garage, New Carrollton, MD (adjacent to Amtrak and MetroRail) King Abdul Aziz International Airport, J eddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (Administration building and 10,000-car garage)

Special Prqjects George Mason University School of Law, Arlington, VA Brookfield Corporate Center, Fairfax County, Virginia Forty-Story New Office Building Wind Analysis for Economic Design, Korea Aurora Municipal Justice Center and Detention Facility, Aurora, CO (central rotunda covered with copper clad dome, one of the largest segmented pre-cast domes ever constructed in the US)

WEIDLINGER ASSOCIATES INC CONSULTING ENGINEERS MICHAEL GRAVES & ASSOCIATES

THOMAS P. ROWE, AJA

PROJECT ASSIGNMENT Principal-in-Charge PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS AND REGISTRATIONS Member, American Institute of Architects Registered Architect: New York, New Jersey, Michigan, Washington DC Certification with the National Council of Architectural Registration Board (NCARB) MICHAEL GRAVES & ASSOCIATES, INC. PRINCETON, NJ 1984-PRESENT Principal and Principal-in-Charge U.S. DOT Headquarters Washington, D.C. Richard Stockton College Arts & Sciences Building Pomona, NJ Rice University - Campus Master Plan Houston, TX Richard Stockton College Three on the Bund Arts Center Shanghai, China Recreation Center Planning Study Pomona,NJ Theater Square: The Pittsburgh Cultural Denver Central Library Denver, CO District Service Center Pittsburgh, PA University of Cincinnati Science & Engineering Building Cincinnati, OH First Freedom Monument Richmond, VA O'Reilly Theater Pittsburgh, PA Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas: Houston Branch Houston, TX Delaware River Port Authority Corporate Headquarters Camden,NJ 425 Fifth Avenue Mixed-Use Tower NewYork,NY Archdiocesan Center Newark,NJ Miele Appliances Headquarters Master Plan Princeton, NJ Fukuoka Hyatt Regency Hotel & Office Building Museums at Discovery Square Master Plan Erie, PA Fukuoka, Japan Onjuku Town Hall Martel College, Jones College Commons, Onjuku, Japan Brown College Commons, Tajima Office Building Tokyo, Japan Rice University Houston, TX Portside District Condominiums Yokohama, Japan Washington Monument Restoration 10 Peachtree Place Atlanta, GA Scaffolding Design Washington, D.C. Gateway Center Master Plan Atlanta, GA The Detroit Institute of Art Casework for exhibition"Rome Reborn: Washington, D.C. Addition and Renovation Detroit,MI The Vatican Library and Renaissance The Arts Council of Princeton Princeton, NJ Culture" at The Library of Congress The Impala Building NewYork,NY Sotheby's Tower NewYork,NY Century Tower NewYork,NY Detroit Institute of Arts Master Plan Detroit,MI Residence Hall Drexel University Disney Center Schematic Design, NCAA Headquarters Walt Disney World Orlando, FL and Hall of Champions Indianapolis, IN GRAYES-WARNECKE JOINT VENTURE OFFICE U.S. Courthouse & Annex Washington, D.C. Designer 1983-1984 Ortigas Tycoon Twin Towers Manila, The Philippines The Humana Building Louisville, KY Hotel Makati Makati, The Philippines World Trade Exchange Metro Manila, The Philippines JOHN CARL WARNECKE AND ASSOCIATES Senopati Towers Jakarta, Indonesia Designer 1982-1983 International Finance Corporation Washington, DC Codex Headquarters Competition Miele Appliances Headquarters Princeton, NJ Yambu New City Competition Saudi Arabia Fells Point Development Baltimore, MD EDUCATION Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, Master of Architecture 1982 Catholic University, Washington, DC, Bachelor of Science, Architecture 1979

341 Nassau Street, Princeton, New Jersey 08540 PH 609.924.6409 FX 609.924.1795 [email protected] www.michaelgraves.com MICHAEL GRAVES & ASSOCIATES

RESUME FOR THOMAS ROWE (CONTINUED)

AWARDS American Institute of Architects National Honor Award, The Humana Building 1987 AIA National Honor Award for Interiors, Denver Central Library 1998 AIA/ ALA Award for Excellence, Denver Central Library 2001 AIA- New Jersey Design Award, Denver Central Library (as project) 1992 AIA- New Jersey Design Award, Denver Central Library (built) 1995 Rocky Mountain Masonry Institute Steve Dach Architectural Excellence Award, Denver Central Library 1998 Marble Architectural A wards, lnternazionale, Special Mention, Denver Central Library 1998 AIA Cincinnati Honor Award, University of Cincinnati Engineering Research Building 1995 AIA-NJ Design Award, University of Cincinnati Engineering Research Center 1991 AIA-NJ Design Award, Michael C. Carlos Museum, Emory University 1994 AIA-NJ Design Award, International Finance Corporation Headquarters 1997 AIA-NJ Design Award, Delaware River Port Authority Headquarters 1998 AIA-NJ Design Award, Washington Monument Restoration 1998 AIA-NJ Design Award, Miele Americas Headquarters 2002

COMPETITIONS Federal Triangle Site Development - Finalist Beijing Embassy Competition - Finalist Singapore National Library Competition - Finalist Oakland Administration Building Competition - Finalist Washington State Museum Competition - Finalist

341 Nassau Street, Princeton, New Jersey 08540 PH 609.924.6409 FX 609.924.1795 [email protected] www.michaelgraves.com 0 lee · ·. associates Jeff S. Lee, ASLA Principal

landscape architecture Jeff Lee, the founding principal of Lee and Relevant Project Experience urban design Associates, Inc., is a landscape architect/plan­ planning ner who has been a district resident for twenty Pentagon Crash Site Memorial years. During that time, he has built a success­ Jefferson Memorial ful design/planning practice while remaining Millenium Grove very active in the community. Washington Hospital Center He is the immediate past-President of the Univesity of North Carolina: American Society of Landscape Architecture - Ambulatory Care Center Potomac Chapter, a former board member for Holy Cross Hospital: the D.C. Habitat for Humanity, and was a co­ Ambulatory Care Center founding member of the Community Design Kaiser Permanente Medical Office Services (CDS), a non-profit organization that Center provides pro-bono professional assistance to BlueCross BlueShield Headquarters D.C. Communities and non-profits in need of Charollete Mecklenburg Medical technical assistance to receive project funding. Center MasterPlan Jeff and his firm, have provided numerous pro­ Augusta Hospital bono planning and design services including: Howard University School of Law Anacostia Gateway Design Charette, Ballou Center High School Boys & Girls Club, Christmas in National Headquarters for IRS April Headquarters, 14th Street Revitalization Capital Site Security Study Study, Historic Mt. Pleasant Street Walter Reed Medical Center Revitalization Charette, and design for Lamont United States Soldiers' and Airmens' Park, Malcolm Playground, D.C. Millennium Home Grove at Fort Stanton Park in Anacostia, and Sibley Hospital Addition Walter Pierce Park in Adams Morgan. Jeff and Naval Air Systems Command his colleagues, in partnership with Rails-to­ Naval Sea Systems Command Trails Conservancy, also mapped and docu­ University of Baghdad: Arts & Science mented all publicly accessible parks and open Campus spaces, along with trails and bikeways inside King Abdulaziz University: Health the beltway, appropriately named the "National Science Center, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia Capital Greenway Study" which was the cata­ Shanghei Center for Traditional lyst for a regional Greenway Movement. Medicine, Shanghei, China U.S. Embassy Complex, Mogadishu, Education: Somalia USEC: Abidjan, Ivory Coast Mr. Lee holds a Bachelor of Science degree in USEC: Abuja, Nigeria Landscape Architecture from the School of USEC: Kuwait City, Kuwait Architecture at The University of Virginia. He studied architecture as a Virginia Council for Higher Education Scholar at Virginia Professional Activities Polytectnic Institute. President:ASLA, American Society of Landscape Architects, Potomac Chap. Vice-Chairman, Committe of 100 on the Federal City, Washington, D.C. Lambda Alpha International · University of Virginia, School of Architecture: Advisory Board

lee and associates, inc. 638 eye street nw washington de 20001 t:202.466.6666 f:202.466.4232 www.leeandassociatesinc.com The G/SA Team Louis J. Slade, PE, PTOE

VICE PRESIDENT AND PRINCIPAL

Prior to founding Gorove/Slade Mr. Slade's diverse experience bridges the disciplines of civil engineering Associates, Inc. in 1979, Mr. Slade design, urban transportation planning, traffic engineering, land gained professional experience with development, environmental analysis, and transportation systems design. national consulting firms in Mr. Slade has directed major regional comprehensive transportation Washington, D. C. and Chicago, Illinois. His professional experience planning studies and corridor studies, traffic circulation and transit includes highway design, studies, and parking needs and design optimization studies for central transportation planning, traffic business districts and new developments. He has devised and analyzed engineering, and a broad range of alternative public transportation modal options. He has developed multi­ transportation and parking problem­ modal transportation plans incorporating people mover systems. He is resolution assignments. Mr. Slade familiar with road rating and sufficiency evaluation systems for primary currently directs all Gorove/Slade and secondary roads. He has performed analytical assessments of air Associates activities in the Washington, quality and noise levels of transportation facilities and systems. He has D.C. metropolitan area and oversees all performed traffic impact assessments for residential, office, shopping and regional operations. He has provided expert testimony throughout his career convention centers, and institutional complexes. He has been responsible in legal transportation matters, zoning for the transportation and parking components for campus plans for hearings, and public works project academic, government, and corporate clients. hearings. He has represented clients in negotiations regarding facilities design Mr. Slade has worked closely with public agencies and private developers and project funding. devising transportation master plans and major thoroughfare plans. He has been instrumental in the creation of transportation systems and PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATION roadway networks for large acreage developments. As a leader in the AND CERTIFICATION transportation engineering field, Mr. Slade is widely published in leading Registered Professional Engineer: District of Columbia and Maryland transportation and planning journals and has been a guest lecturer at the University of Pennsylvania, Wayne State University, and Stockton State Certified PTOE (Professional Traffic College. Operations Engineer)

EDUCATION CAMPUS PLANNING Master of Science, Civil Engineering Mr. Slade has directed the firm's projects for The George Washington Northwestern University University Foggy Bottom and Mount Vernon College Campuses, the Chicago, Illinois Georgetown University, the American University, the University of Maryland Medical System, the University of Pennsylvania Medical Center. Bachelor of Science, Civil Engineering He has also served as Principal-in-Charge for the National Institutes of Northwestern University Health campuses in Bethesda and Poolesville, MD; the Food and Drug Chicago, Illinois Administration new headquarters campus in White Oak Maryland, the PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS Goddard Space Flight Center, the Patent and Trademark Office new Fellow: Institute of Transportation headquarters in Alexandria VA, and numerous private office, Research Engineers and Development, and mixed use campuses. His areas of expertise Urban Land Institute include: development of conceptual roadway systems, analysis of local off­ Lambda Alpha International Land site intersections, identifying feasible mitigation measures, multi-modal Economics Society transportation options, site traffic management, coordination with jurisdictional, local, county, state and federal agencies, and expert testimony.

Transportation, Traffic & Parking GOROVE/SLADE ASSOCIATES, INC. The G/SA Team Louis J. Slade (Continued)

TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT ExPERIENCE The National Institutes of Health (NIH) As part of the Master Plan, Mr. Slade developed a cost-effectiveness matrix for candidate demand management programs that NIH used to advance their overall efforts to reduce trip generation. This work was presented at the LT.E. Conference in February 1994. Gorove/Slade Associates has had an ongoing contract with NIH to expand and monitor the effectiveness of their demand management program. The City of Alexandria, Virginia Virginia passed a demand management ordinance in 1988 which required that all new development include a demand management program customized for the particular site based on proximity to transit, characteristics of the tenants, etc. Gorove/Slade Associates, Inc. worked with a number of clients to help interpret this new ordinance and to prepare the required program. Institutions Gorove/Slade Associates has developed demand management plans for a number of schools, hospitals, and performance facilities where constrained or sensitive conditions required a special means to control the generation, routing, and storage of vehicle traffic. Anacostia Waterfront, Washington, DC Gorove/Slade developed an area wide demand management plan for the Anacostia Waterfront in Washington, D.C. as part of a master planning study for the City Planning Department. This plan will be implemented by a transportation management association to be established by the city. DOWNTOWN PROJECT PLANNING Mr. Slade has directed all of the firm's projects in downtown Washington D.C. including transportation management and traffic operations planning for the MCI Center Sports Arena, and the new Washington Convention Center, and traffic, loading and parking plans for the National Gallery of Art, the Newseum, the Arts and Industries Building, and the National Museum of Native Americans. He has been a consultant to both the Downtown and Georgetown Business Improvement Districts, and he has directed the firm's assignments on numerous large-scale in-town residential and mixed-use development projects. RAIL STATION PLANNING AND DESIGN Mr. Slade has extensive experience with the planning and design of the vehicular and pedestrian components of commuter rail stations and bus terminals. This includes roadway access, circulation, and parking planning for several Metrorail stations on the Washington, D.C. system for the Transit Authority, the planning of major commuter heavy and light rail stations at the Meadowlands Sports Complex and the Carlstadt New Town Center in Bergen County, N.J., the planning of the station modifications associated with the new MCI Center sports arena at the Gallery Place Station in Washington, D.C., and planning studies for joint public/private developments at several Metrorail stations in the Washington metropolitan area. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDIES Nashua Area Transportation Study, New Hampshire; Genessee/Finger Lakes Regional Study, Rochester, New York; Hartford County Thoroughfare Plan, Maryland; James City County Thoroughfare Plan, Virginia. TRANSIT IMPACT STUDIES AND TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES ANALYSES York County, Pennsylvania; Crystal City in Arlington, Virginia; Albany, New York. CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT CIRCULATION STUDIES Alexandria, Virginia; Herndon, Virginia; Leesburg, Virginia; Baltimore, Maryland; Atlantic City, New Jersey; Indianapolis, Indiana; Albany, New York; Quincy, Massachusetts; Bowling Green, Kentucky, Takoma Center, DC.

Page2 Transportation, Traffic & Parking GOROVE/SLADE ASSOCIATES, INC. The G/SA Team

CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLANS WWII Memorial Truck Access Principal-in-Charge. Seven months into a 30-month construction schedule, Gorove/Slade Associates, was given the challenge of developing a construction truck access plan to improve current construction access to the site. Additionally G/SA was faced with balancing construction access needs with tourist and pedestrian safety. Project engineers used Auto-Tum maneuvering software to make sure construction trucks could safely navigate between trees. G/SA proposed four creative alternatives including rerouting pedestrians and changing lane configuration to accommodate left-turning trucks. The construction site is located between the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument, at the eastern end of the Reflecting Pool on land maintained by the National Park Service which mandated strict observance of environmental issues including the protection, relocation and in some cases the removal of mature trees.

U.S. Capitol Visitors' Center, Construction Traffic Management Plan, Washington, DC Principal-in-Charge. G/SA developed a traffic management plan during the construction of the new underground visitors' center in front of the U.S. Capitol. Construction is expected to last until mid 2005. The traffic management plan will attempt to minimize the impact of truck traffic upon the neighboring residential districts as well as downtown DC. Key issues for this project include taking into consideration the security issues resulting from recent terrorism events such as street closing and security screening requirements.

Page3 Transportation. Traffic & Parking GOROVE/SLADE ASSOCIATES, INC. ERIC SMART Principal

BOLAN SMART ASSOCIATES, INC.

Mr. Smart is a founding principal of Bolan Smart Associates, Inc., a national real estate economic consulting firm based in Washington DC. Prior to that, he was Vice President and Manager of the Washington office of Leggat McCall Advisors, Inc., which was acquired in 1990 to form Bolan Smart Associates. He has twenty-five years of diversified experience in planning and development practice, with expertise in marketability, valuation, financial analysis, negotiations and strategic planning. His clients have included investors, financial institutions, developers, architects, law firms, major users and government. Bolan Smart Associates is affiliated with Grubb & Ellis, one of the largest multi-disciplinary real estate service firms in the United States.

Before joining Leggat McCall Advisors, Inc. in 1985, Mr. Smart was a senior research associate at ULI - the Urban Land Institute, an international land use development research and education organization based in Washington, DC. He was project manager responsible for creating development guidelines for a variety of forms of real estate, including mixed-use, housing, recreational and infill development, each resulting in a major publication. During his six years at ULI, Mr. Smart was senior editor for Urban Land, ULI's monthly periodical on land use and development.

Mr. Smart has also worked as a planner for local jurisdictions in the State of Virginia and for PRC Jacobs, a real estate appraisal firm in Buffalo, New York. He is a frequent speaker and writes regularly on real estate and development planning issues. He has served on the Development Review Board in Arlington County, Virginia. Mr. Smart has testified in a variety of municipal and federal hearings and has acted as an expert witness in court proceedings. He was a member of the University of Maryland University College Real Estate Advisory Board and was Chairperson of the Urban Land Institute's District Council for the 850 member Washington, DC area for four years. Mr. Smart currently teaches as a faculty practitioner in the graduate real estate program at Johns Hopkins University.

EDUCATION Bachelor of Arts in Economics, University of Toronto Masters of Urban & Regional Planning, Virginia Polytechnic and State University

PUBLICATIONS Editor, Urban Land; Author, Making Infill Projects Work, Housing for a Maturing Population, and Recreational Development Handbook; Contributing author, Urban Waterfront Development, Mixed-Use Development Handbook, Shopping Center Development Handbook, New Uses for Obsolete Buildings, Resort Development Handbook, and annual editions of Development Review and Outlook, all published by the Urban Land Institute. Mr. Smart contributes often to a variety of real estate periodicals.

AFFILIATIONS The Urban Land Institute American Planning Association Lambda Alpha, International Honorary Land Economic Society

CERTIFICATION Real Estate Salesperson - State of Maryland (1989)

Detailed Outline of Testimony, Benjamin Jacobs and/or Brian Coulter, The JBG Companies

I. History and Experience of The JBG Companies

II. Proposed Project

A. History and Overall View for Project B. Award of Lease to Develop the DOT Headquarters C. Current Goals for Project D. Catalyst for Development of Southeast Federal Center

III. Dedication of Streets and Importance of Infrastructure for Development of Southeast Federal Center and the re-introduction of the DOT Site into the neighborhood

IV. Project Amenities and Public Benefits

A. Opening and Dedication of New Jersey Avenue, 4th Street, and Tingey Street B. Contribution of $2,500,000 to Canal Block Parks C. Adaptive Re-use of Building 170 D. Comprehensive Signage Program ($75,000) E. Site Animation and Activation Program F. 3rd Street Built to DDOT Standards for Future Use with Extensive Hardscape and Landscaping Improvements G. Southwest Plaza H. Dedicated Retail Space and Kiosk Program along M Street I. Urban Design and Architecture and Landscaping J. Site Planning and Efficient and Economical Land Utilization K. Environmental Mitigation Features L. First Source Employment Opportunities, including Certified Apprenticeship Program M. Local, Small or Disadvantaged Business Opportunities

V. Work with District Representatives, Agencies and Community

A. Work with Office of Planning and DDOT B. Work with Advisory Neighborhood Commissions C. Support from Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton D. Support from Councilmember Sharon Ambrose E. Support from Community Organizations F. Support from Mayor's Office

VI. Construction and Development of Project

VII. Conclusions Detailed Outline of Representative from the General Services Administration

I. Introduction

A. Position at GSA B. Years of Experience/Significant Projects C. Discussion of Role in Case 1. Oversight of DOT Project 2. Coordination with Southeast Federal Center case

II. Role of GSA in DOT Site Selection Process

A. GSA is the government entity charged with providing office space for most of the civilian Federal workforce. B. DOT identified its need for new space in the late 1980's C. As part of its mission, GSA met with DOT to review its space needs and to assist in securing a site. D. GSA issued an SFO in November, 1999, for a new site for DOT E. SFO included certain specifications, including 1. Square Footage 2. Lease Term 3. Location Requirements 4. Security Requirements 5. Other Special Requirements, depending upon the specific site F. The lease was awarded to JBG on February 1, 2002. G. The Conveyance Agreement was executed on September 20, 2002. H.. Overview of Conveyance Agreement/Lease terms.

III. Importance of this Site for Both DOT and GSA

A. The site meets all of the SFO specifications in terms of size, lease term, conveyance agreement, etc. B. The unbuilt nature of the site permits incorporation of all federal security criteria, including DOT's security requirements. C. The development of this site provides the unintended benefit of being a needed catalyst for development of the entire Southeast Federal Center and revitalization of the Anacostia Waterfront. 1. Development of the PUD site as well as the entire Southeast Federal Center is consistent with the legislative intent of the Southeast Federal Center Public/Private Development Act of 2000. 2. The site will serve as a catalyst for development of the entire Southeast Federal Center. 3. This project links the civic and Federal architecture of Washington to the Southeast Federal Center and revitalization of the Anacostia Waterfront 4. If reflects the prominence and importance of a cabinet level headquarters D. The development of this project is an integral part of the proposed development of the Southeast Federal Center in terms of the following: 1. Open Spaces 2. Amenities 3. Providing Pedestrian Access to the Waterfront 4. Allowing for the Dedication of Streets 5. Providing Significant Infrastructure upgrades from the Southeast Federal Center and the Community

IV. Conclusion Detailed Outline of Testimony of Representative from the Department of Transportation

I. Introduction

A. Position at DOT B. Years of Experience C. Discussion of Role in Case

II. DOT's Site Selection Process

A. DOT first identified its need for additional space in the late 1980's B. Basis for DOT's need for an entirely new facility, including experience with existing space C. DOT's extensive work with GSA on site selection

III. Why This Site Meets DOT's needs

A. The site meets all of the extensive SFO specifications in terms of size, lease term, location, security, etc. B. The unbuilt nature of the site permits incorporation of all federal security criteria, including DOT's security requirements.

IV. Description of DOT

A. Description of the broad nature of DOT activities B. DOT's Mission C. Importance of DOT during times of crisis 1. Communications 2. Transportation Routes (rail, highway, air, etc.)

V. The Critical Role of Security to DOT

A. Developing security requirements for Federal buildings has been an evolving process B. After Oklahoma City (1995), minimum security criteria for Federal buildings were developed C. Level IV Rating for DOT: medium level of protection according to DOJ Report D. The risk level relates to the fact that in times of crisis, all major decisions approving our communications and transportation infrastructure are made by the Secretary of the Department of Transportation E. Continuing examination of security requirements since 9/11; however, security report is "law enforcement sensitive" and cannot be released

VI. Security Requirements for this Project

A. Fifty foot setback B. No Publicly-Accessible Retail within Building Footprint 1. Retail within Building Footprint creates unacceptable security risk 2. Retail kiosks along M Street 3. Ground floor can be converted to retail use if/when DOT vacates the site C. Controlled Access to Third Street 1. Uncontrolled access is an unacceptable security risk 2. Even if each building was setback fifty feet from Third Street, uncontrolled access would pose too great a risk because of the attractive nature of the target (i.e., opportunity to damage two buildings in a single terrorist event). 3. Building design allows for changes to Third Street in the future if/when DOT vacates the site D. Coordination of security issues with Federal Protective Services and Department of Homeland Security

VII. Conclusion Detailed Outline of Testimony of Lee Privett, Security Expert

I. Introduction

II. Experience and Expertise

III. Security Requirements for Headquarters Building

IV. Coordinate with Federal Protective Services and Department of Homeland Security

V. Conclusion Detailed Outline of Testimony of Thomas Rowe, Michael Graves Architects, PC

I. Introduction

A. General Description of Michael Graves Architects, PC B. History and Experience C. Work and Design in the District of Columbia

II. Site Location and Description

A. Overview of Site and Surrounding Area B. Design Considerations C. Security Creating Design Implications

III. Project Design

A. Architectural Expression and Design B. Office Components and Design C. Ground Floor Design and Uses D. Retail Components E. Southwest Plaza F. Building 170 G. Access and Parking 1. Below-Grade Parking 2. Parking for Retail Facilities H. Loading

IV. Perimeter Security Measures

A. Fifty Foot Setback B. Bollards and Reinforced Street Furniture/Amenities

V. Design of Open Spaces 1. New Jersey Avenue 2. Third Street 3. M Street 4. 4th Street 5. Tingey Street

VI. Landscape Improvements

VII. Conclusions Detailed Outline of Testimony of Jeff Lee, Lee and Associates

I. Introduction

II. Landscaping Improvements

III. Design of Open Spaces

IV. Perimeter Security Measures

V. Conclusions Detailed Outline of Testimony of Louis Slade, Gorove/Slade Associates

I. Introduction

II. Experience and Expertise

III. Existing Conditions

IV. Future Background Conditions

V. Total Future Development Conditions

A. Proposed Development Plan

B. Proposed Access and Circulation

C. Projected Trip Generation and Distribution

D. Future Traffic Volumes

E. Future Conditions Capacity Analysis

F. Intersection Mitigation Measures

G. Potential for Additional Development in Southeast Federal Center

H. Greater Southeast D.C. Planned Roadway Improvements

VI. Transportation Management Plan

VII. Maintaining 3rd Street Closed

VIII. Loading Dock Management Plan

IX. Retail Demand Parking Analysis

X. Summary of Findings and Conclusions Detailed Outline of Testimony of Eric Smart, Bolan Smart Associates, Inc.

I. Introduction

II. Experience and Expertise

III. Economic Value and Net Gain

IV. Economic Benefits

A. Annual Economic Activity

B. Annual District Tax Revenue

C. Conversion of Government Ownership

D. Visitor, Contractor and Vendor Revenues

E. Neighborhood Enhancement

F. Construction Related Benefits

V. Economic Impact Summary

VI. Conclusions

Annapolis San Francisco HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP Atlanta Seattle Bethesda Tallahassee Boston Tampa Bradenton Washington, O.C. Chicago• West Palm Beach 2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Fort Lauderdale Suite 100 Jacksonville International Offices Washington. D.C. 20006-6801 Lakeland Caracas .. Los Angeles Helsinki Miami Mexico City 202-955-3000 New York Rio de Janeiro FAX 202-955-5564 Northern Virginia sao Paulo www.hklaw.com Orlando Tel Aviv .. Portland Tokyo Providence St. Petersburg •Holland & Knight LLC San Antonio ..Representative Office

REPORT TO THE ZONING COMMISSION

CASE NO. 03-05 DOT HEADQUARTERS

STEVEN E. SHER, DmECTOR OF ZONING AND LAND USE SERVICES HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP

SEPTEMBER 18, 2003

I. Introduction

II. Nature of application

A. Consolidated review of planned unit development

B. Map amendment from unzoned to C-3-C

III. Site location

A. Located at the southeast corner of the intersection of M Street and New Jersey Avenue, S.E.

B. Site also bounded by 4th Street and Tingey Street, streets proposed to be opened as part of the project

C. Part of the Southeast Federal Center

D. Near Southeast area, part of the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative

IV. Site description

A. Trapezoidal shaped site

1. Majority is vacant Report to the Zoning Commission Case No. 03-15 Page2

2. Part of the south side is improved with a one story unoccupied industrial type building, known as Building 170, built in c. 1919

B. Contains approximately 481,338 square feet (approximately 11 acres) of gross land area

C. After establishment of public streets, net land area will be approximately 391,342 square feet (approximately 9.0 acres)

D. Abutting streets

1. M Street - 90 feet wide

2. Additional streets to be dedicated

a) New Jersey Avenue - 115.5 feet wide, plus additional 45.5 foot surface easement for public pedestrian use, for a total accessible width at and above grade of 160 feet

b) 4th Street - 60 feet wide

c) Tingey Street- 90 feet wide

V. Description of the surrounding area

A. General area: Near Southeast area, part of the Southeast Federal Center

B. Immediately adjacent uses

1. Southeast Federal Center

2. Navy Yard

3. New eight story office building at 300 M Street (north side of M Street between 3rd and 4th Streets)

4. New ten story office building under construction at 1100 New Jersey Avenue (the block bounded by 2nd, Land M Streets and New Jersey Avenue)

5. Arthur Capper/Carrollsburg public housing projects

6. Site of Canal Blocks Park, on 2nd Street between I and M Streets Report to the Zoning Commission Case No. 03-15 Page 3

C. General area

1. To the north:

a) Capitol South receiving zone, presently a mix of auto related uses, fast food restaurants, clubs, vacant land, Metro facilities and one office building, proposed for high rise, high density commercial office buildings

b) Capper/Carrollsburg public housing projects

c) The Southeast Freeway

d) Capitol Hill residential area

2. To the east: Washington Navy Yard

3. To the south: Southeast Federal Center and the Anacostia River

4. To the west:

a) Navy Yard Metrorail station on the Green line, with entrances at the southeast corner of M and Half Streets and the northwest corner of M Street and New Jersey Avenue

b) Capitol Gateway light industrial/commercial area, including the WMATA Southeast Bus Garage

c) Further to the west is the Southwest redevelopment area

VI. Zoning

A. Existing zoning: unzoned (Federal property)

B. Proposed zoning: C-3-C

1. General commercial district permitting almost all retail, service and office uses, as well as hotel, residential and institutional uses

2. Maximum height: ninety feet

3. Maximum FAR: 6.5 Report to the Zoning Commission Case No. 03-15 Page4

4. Minimum required rear yard - 2112 inches per foot of height at the rear; for a through lot, may be measured to the center line of the street at the rear

5. Side yard - not required

6. Minimum required parking

a) For office use: one space for each 1,800 square feet of gross floor area in excess of 2,000 square feet of gross floor area

b) For retail use: one space for 750 square feet in excess of 3,000 square feet of gross floor area

7. Minimum required loading for office building in excess of 200,000 square feet of gross floor area:

a) Three thirty foot loading berths

b) One service/delivery loading space

8. PUD guidelines

a) Height: 130 feet

b) FAR: 8.0

c) Yards and courts: as otherwise provided, subject to the Zoning Commission's discretion to approve greater or lesser

d) Parking and loading: as otherwise provided, subject to the Zoning Commission's discretion to approve greater or lesser

C. History

1. Unzoned since 1958

2. Area west of 2nd Street and along I and M Streets between 2nd and 3rd Streets

a) Zoned C-M-1, C-M-2 and C-M-3 in 1958 Report to the Zoning Commission Case No. 03-15 Page5

b) Rezoned to C-3-C in 1996

c) Area west of 2nd Street included in Capitol South Receiving Zone in 1998

D. Zoning of the area

1. To the north across M Street:

a) C-3-C (in Downtown Development District Receiving Zone west of 2nd Street)

b) R-5-B (part proposed to be rezoned to CR in the Capper/ Carrollsburg preliminary PUD)

2. To the east:

a) Unzoned Federal property

b) M (east of the 11th Street bridge)

c) ES/C-3-A (Eighth Street Neighborhood Commercial Overlay District)

3. To the south: unzoned Federal property

4. To the west:

a) C-M-2

b) M

c) Both in the process of being changed to CG/CR

VII. Description of the proposed project

A. Uses:

1. Main building in two components (east and west of 3rd Street pedestrian area): office and support uses for the headquarters of the U.S. Department of Transportation and a one story retail component at the corner of New Jersey Avenue and M Street

2. Building 170: retail Report to the Zoning Commission Case No. 03-15 Page6

3. Kiosks along M Street and New Jersey Avenue: retail

4. Southwest Plaza building: retail

B. Height:

1. Main building:

a) West building:

(1) 121 feet to the top of the parapet

(2) 130 feet to the top of the skylight

b) East building

(1) 108 feet, 9 inches to the top of the parapet

(2) 117 feet, 9 inches to the top of the skylight

2. Building 170 (existing):

a) Approximately 37 feet to the underside of the roof framing

b) Approximately 53 feet to the top of the roof cupola

3. Southwest Plaza building: approximately 32 feet to the top of the roof

C. Floor area ratio (see Table 2, below):

1. Office: 1,454,008 square feet of gross floor area

2. Retail: 24,400 square feet of gross floor area

3. Total gross floor area: 1,478,408 square feet of gross floor area (3.78 FAR)

D. Lot occupancy: 52.15%

E. Parking:

1. Total of 936 off-street spaces to be provided, including full size, compact, handicapped and van spaces Report to the Zoning Commission Case No. 03-15 Page 7

2. 307 spaces are tandem or stacked spaces

3. 50 bicycle spaces

4. 13 motorcycle spaces

F. Loading:

1. 3 55 foot berths

2. 1 40 foot berth

3. 2 30 foot berths

G. Comparison to matter-of-right and PUD standards

1. Use: office and retail permitted

2. Height:

a) Matter-of-right: 90 feet

b) PUD guideline: 130 feet

c) Proposed:

(1) West building: 121 to 130 feet

(2) East building: 108 feet, 9 inches to 117 feet, 9 inches

3. Density:

a) Gross floor area permitted as a matter-of-right under proposed zoning: 2,543, 723 square feet

b) Gross floor area permitted under PUD under the proposed zoning: 3,130, 736 square feet

c) Proposed gross floor area: 1,4 78,408 square feet Report to the Zoning Commission Case No. 03-15 Page8

4. Proposed commercial development is approximately 1,065,315 square feet less than the maximum permitted under the proposed matter-of-right zoning (58% of the total) and 1,652,328 square feet less than the maximum permitted under a PUD (less than half of the total) under the proposed zoning

VIII. Compliance with PUD evaluation standards of §2403

A. Impact of project shall be favorable, capable of being mitigated or acceptable (§2403.3)

1. Developing a vacant site with new Class A headquarters office building for the U.S. DOT has significant favorable impact on achieving city plans and policies for this subarea of the city

2. Study area intersections will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service, per Gorove/Slade Associates

3. Sufficient parking is provided

4. Proposed height and density are consistent with existing and permitted height and density to the west

5. Tax base implications for District are favorable, per Bolan Smart

6. Municipal services

a) Metropolitan Police Department

(1) First District Station at 415 4th Street, S.W.

(2) First District Substation at 500 E Street, S.E.

b) Fire and Emergency Services Department

(1) Engine Company 18 and Truck Company 7 at 414 8th Street, S.E.

(2) Engine Company 7 at 1101 Half Street, S.W.

B. Project is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with other adopted public policies and active programs related to the subject site (§2403.4): see section IX, below Report to the Zoning Commission Case No. 03-15 Page9

C. Commission shall 'judge, balance, and reconcile the relative value of project amenities and public benefits offered, the degree of development incentives requested and any potential adverse effects" (§2403.8)

D. Public benefits and project amenities

1. On-site benefits and amenities

a) Opening and dedication of New Jersey Avenue, 4th Street and Tingey Streets, serving the site and the Southeast Federal Center property which surrounds the site and providing access to the Anacostia River

b) Construction ofroadbase for 3rd Street to DDOT standards for future use as public street under appropriate circumstances

c) Adaptive re-use of Building 170, to include approximately 8,000 square feet (up to 18,500 square feet) of retail and service uses

d) Additional 5,900 square feet of retail

e) Ability and commitment to provide additional ground floor retail when circumstances permit.

f) Enhanced landscape and streetscape materials

g) Open space, including the Southwest Plaza of approximately 35,000 square feet

h) Environmental mitigation measures

2. Community benefits and amenities

a) Contribution of $2.5 million to the Canal Blocks Park;

b) Contribution of $75,000 towards a comprehensive Signage program

c) First Source Employment opportunities

d) LSDBE opportunities Report to the Zoning Commission Case No. 03-15 Page 10

balanced against

E. Development incentives:

1. Maximum height of 130 feet for the west building

2. Maximum height of 117 feet, 9 inches for east building

F. Areas of flexibility from C-3-C standards:

1. Compact parking spaces in groups ofless than 5

2. Roof structure setback on the east side of the west building and the west side of the east building, facing the 3rd Street pedestrian area

IX. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan

A. The District Elements

1. The District of Columbia Comprehensive Plan Act of 1984 (D.C. Law 5-76, March 9, 1984)

2. The District of Columbia Comprehensive Plan Act of 1984 Land Use Element Amendment Act of 1984 (D.C. Law 5-187, February 15, 1985)

3. The Comprehensive Plan Amendments Act of 1989 (D.C. Law 8-129, January 5, 1990)

4. The Comprehensive Plan Amendments Act of 1994 (D.C. Law 10-193, October 19, 1994)

5. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Maps Approval Resolution of 1996 (Resolution 11-313, May 7, 1996)

6. The Comprehensive Plan Amendments Acts of 1998 (D.C. Law 12-275, April 27, 1999)

B. Interpretation of the District elements

1. "The primary dynamic of the District elements of the Plan is the overlapping of its elements' goals. This overlapping is intentional." (§112.1) Report to the Zoning Commission Case No. 03-15 Page 11

2. "District elements of the Plan should be studied and executed in concert with each other and should be interpreted broadly." (§111.(a))

3. "The interpretation and implementation of any element should necessarily rely upon, and be respectful of, the objectives and policies of other elements." (§112.l(b))

4. "An element may be tempered, even defined, by one (1) or more of the other elements. This may occur within one (1) element and between elements. Since the Land Use element integrates the policies and objectives of all other District elements, it should be given greater weight than the other elements." (§112.l(c))

5. "The interpretation of the District elements of the Plan should also be guided by the major themes set forth in §101.1, which establish the overall priorities of the District elements of the Plan." (§112.2)

C. Major Themes

1. Stabilize and Improve the District's neighborhoods (§102)

2. Increase the quantity and quality of employment opportunities in the District (§103)

3. Respect and improve the physical character of the District (§106)

4. Reaffirm and strengthen the District's role as the economic hub of the National Capital Region (§109)

D. Land Use element

1. Generalized Land Use Map: Federal Report to the Zoning Commission Case No. 03-15 Page 12

2. Policies in Support of Public and Institutional Land Use Objectives:

a) "Encourage the appropriate and compatible development of public land near selected Metrorail stations and provide for development at appropriate levels of intensity and use to capitalize fully on the development and public transportation opportunities which the stations provide" (§1115.l(a))

b) "Encourage joint public and private development of publicly owned or controlled land to stimulate desired development" (§1115.l(b))

c) "Develop a waterfront and shoreline plan ... which capitalizes on unrealized opportunities for creating exciting and imaginative water-focused recreation, housing, commercial, and cultural development along the Anacostia and Potomac Rivers and which ensures that new development enhances the physical and environmental quality of the rivers and adjoining areas" (§1115.l(c))

3. Commercial center classifications - within the Central Employment Area

a) "The CEA is the business and retail heart of the District and the metropolitan area." (§1107.6)

b) "The CEA is the employment, retail, office, cultural, and entertainment center, the tourist center of the District and the metropolitan area, and the center of local government." (§1107.6(a))

c) "Office use, in terms of square footage, is the largest commercial use in the CEA." (§1107.6(b))

d) "The CEA also contains the widest range and the largest amount of retail floor space and the greatest sales volume in the metropolitan area, having the largest major department stores and leading specialty shops of the region." (§1107.6(c)) Report to the Zoning Commission Case No. 03-15 Page 13

e) "The CEA also has numerous boutiques and restaurants and the largest number of hotels in the District. The term "CEA" is defined in §199.1 of this title." (§1107.6(d))

E. Economic Development element

1. Objective to "to encourage additional development, economic diversification and job generation in portions of the Central Employment Area outside Downtown" (§205.1)

2. Policy to "Encourage and assist development and employment growth in other [than Downtown] parts of the Central Employment Area" (§205.2(£))

F. Environmental Protection element: policy to promote improvement of air quality by "promot[ing] land use patterns and transportation services which decrease reliance on automobiles for commuting and other routine trips" (§403.2(c))

G. Transportation element:

1. "Support land use arrangements that simplify and economize transportation services ... " (§502.2(a)).

2. "Require major developments to demonstrate that adequate parking will exist for occupants and other users" (§505.2(e))

H. Urban design element:

1. "Maintain and enhance the physical integrity and character of the District as the Nation's Capital" (§702.l(a))

2. "Respect the L'Enfant Plan so it remains a positive guiding force for future development within the District" (§702.l(d))

3. "Create and enhance relationships between the rivers ... and establish attractive pedestrian connections from neighborhoods to activities along the waterfronts" (§706.l(c))

4. "Design residential, commercial, and all other buildings to complement or enhance the physical character of the District;" (§708.2(a)) Report to the Zoning Commission Case No. 03-15 Page 14

5. "Design buildings to include the use of appropriate arrangements of building materials, height, scale, massing, and buffering to complement the immediate region." (§708.2(b))

6. Streetscape policies:

a) "Develop a unifying system of well-designed streets, sidewalks, parks, and pedestrian ways;" (§709.2(a))

b) "Create a visually interesting environment that utilizes the design opportunities present in the public space" (§709.2(c))

c) "Create an environment in public space that attracts people and stimulates redevelopment and commerce" (§709.2(d))

d) "Provide opportunities for appropriate location in the public space of aesthetically appealing vending and programmed activities" (§709.2(£))

e) "Encourage the planting and maintenance of street trees as the single most important streetscape element along commercial and residential streets to provide shade, design continuity, spatial relief, and a juxtaposition of the natural and built environments" (§709.2(j))

7. Areas in Need of New and Improved Character (§712):

a) Objective to "encourage new development or renovation and rehabilitation of older structures in areas with vacant or underused land or buildings to secure a strong, positive physical identity" (§712.1)

b) "Encourage well designed development in areas that are vacant, underused or deteriorated. These developments should have strong physical identities." (§712.2(a))

c) "Encourage in-fill development of attractive design quality in deteriorated areas to stabilize the physical fabric and to encourage renovation and redevelopment" (§712.2(b)) Report to the Zoning Commission Case No. 03-15 Page 15

d) "Utilize large-scale development or capital improvement projects as opportunities for establishing a positive image or redirection in deteriorated areas" (§712.2(g))

I. Historic Preservation element

1. Encourage appropriate adaptive reuse of historic properties consistent with applicable land use regulations (§805.1)

2. Within the L'Enfant city, preserve original street patterns (§805.4)

J. Ward 6 element

1. Economic Development:

a) "It is anticipated that development of the Navy Yard and the Southeast Federal Center will spur additional development, adding at least 10,000 jobs to the near Southeast community." (§1700.2)

b) Objective "To encourage a range of commercial services and facilities for Ward 6 residents through appropriate development of commercial areas when needed and to upgrade commercial areas such as ... the M Street, S.E., corridor from South Capitol Street to north of the 11th Street bridge" (§1701.l(a))

2. Transportation

Objective "To provide an adequate balanced circulation system, properly related to residential, commercial/retail, and other land uses, which will enhance the aesthetic and environmental characteristics along streets in the Ward 6 areas as well as to minimize traffic congestion" (§1713.l(a))

3. Land Use

a) Objective to "Locate the more intensive and active land uses in areas of Ward 6 that, by virtue of existing and planned infrastructures, can accommodate and support those types of uses" (§1733.l(c)) Report to the Zoning Commission Case No. 03-15 Page 16

b) "Stabilize and improve residential and commercial areas throughout Ward 6 11 (§1734.l(a))

K. The Federal elements

1. Goals

a) Encourage "excellence in the design of Federal buildings ... to reflect the appropriate character and image of the Federal Government"

b) Assure that "Federal facilities are compatible with their surroundings and make a positive contribution to their environment"

c) Encourage "the location of proposed Federal employment concentrations in appropriate areas that are consistent with the needs of Federal Agencies and service to the public, are compatible with local planning objectives and are served by Metrorail and other forms of public transit"

2. Federal Facilities element

a) "Principal offices of cabinet level departments ... should locate in the Central Employment Area and the Southeast Federal Center"

b) Map specifically shows the Southeast Federal Center as a location for the principal offices of Executive branch administrative facilities

c) "Federal Facilities with special security or safety requirements should make special provisions, to the extent practicable, for commercial, cultural, educational or recreational activities, which are compatible with the operation of the facility."

d) "Civic art, such as memorials, plazas and public gardens ... should be incorporated into Federal Facilities as an exhibit to the symbolic and creative achievements of contemporary life." Report to the Zoning Commission Case No. 03-15 Page 17

3. Federal Employment element

a) "Within the District, Federal employment should continue to be located in the Central Employment Area in proximity to one another as function, mission and needs dictate"

b) "Agencies or activities with common or complementary functions should be consolidated in common or adjacent space to improve administration, employee management and productivity."

c) "In the relocation or selection of new locations for Federal employment, special consideration should be given to the impact on Federal employees as well as on economic development and employment opportunities."

d) "Employee parking ... should be at a level that assumes maximum use of mass transit, a high ratio of car/van pools, and a high number of occupants per car/van pool."

e) "In the deployment of Federal employees, special consideration should be given to employment areas in close proximity to Metrorail stations."

f) "The locations selected for Federal employment should, to the greatest extent practicable, be consistent with local zoning and land use policies and be compatible with local, regional, or state plans and development, redevelopment, or conservation objectives."

X. Other planning policies

A. Transit oriented development (Trans-Formation, Mayor's Task Force on Transit Oriented Development, September, 2002, and Recreating Neighborhood Centers with Transit, D.C. Office of Planning)

1. "A land use strategy to accommodate new growth, strengthen neighborhoods, expand choices and opportunities by capitalizing on bus and rail assets to stimulate and support vibrant, compact, diverse and accessible neighborhood centers within an easy walk of transit" Report to the Zoning Commission Case No. 03-15 Page 18

2. "Transit assets provide an opportunity to steer growth to where it can best be accommodated"

3. Development near transit:

a) Provides multiple travel options

b) Maximizes public investment

c) Reduces growth of auto traffic and congestion

d) Increases pedestrian activity and safety

e) Strengthens neighborhood retail

f) Provides diverse housing options

g) Equalizes access to opportunity

4. Strategies for creating a defined transit oriented center

a) Connectivity

b) Quality public realm

c) Pedestrian friendly

d) Appropriate architecture and design

e) Mix of uses

f) Traffic management

B. Anacostia Waterfront Initiative Urban Design Framework (April, 2003)

1. Planning Principles

a) Extend existing streets to the River, for public access and view corridors

b) Transform M Street into a vibrant mixed use center Report to the Zoning Commission Case No. 03-15 Page 19

2. Key framework issues

a) Support a mix of office, retail, and residential uses along M Street

b) Reduce the amount of underutilized land occupied by surface parking and industrial uses

c) Increase land dedicated to public open space

3. Neighborhood Sub-Areas

a) Southeast Federal Center includes new headquarters for DOT

b) Extend the L'Enfant street grid into the Southeast Federal Center in a manner which promote multi-modal access to the waterfront

c) Integrate and preserve historic structures in the redevelopment of the site

XI. Compatibility with the area

A. Use:

1. Office building with service retail in an area long planned for nonresidential uses and currently devoted to nonresidential uses

2. Commercial use on M Street facing commercial and government uses existing and proposed on the north side of M Street

B. Height: existing and proposed buildings to west and northwest are of greater height than that proposed

C. Density:

1. Overall density, at 3. 78 FAR, is substantially less than existing and permitted development to the north and west

2. Density would be only approximately 3.07 FAR if viewed on gross site basis (before street deductions) Report to the Zoning Commission Case No. 03-15 Page 20

XII. Areas of flexibility

A. Interior components

B. Final selection of exterior materials within color ranges and types as proposed

C. Garage configuration

D. Interior layout of Building 170

XIII. Conclusions

A. Project is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan

B. Office building leased to Federal government for cabinet department headquarters office on site designated for Federal use

C. Project is within the applicable height and bulk standards of the Zoning Regulations

D. Substantial public benefits which accrue to the District from the project outweigh the development incentives received by the project

E. PUD allows the Zoning Commission to condition approval to what is specifically proposed, without allowing more density or uncontrolled development

F. Project should be approved

WASl #1203536 vl

FIRST SOURCE EMPLOYM:ENT AGIREEMENT

Contract'Number:Zoning Commi .s.si an Case No·· .0'.3-05C (Planned Unit Development & Map Amendment). Contract Amount: $0 ~~~~-~--~~----~~~--~- Project Name:: Department.· of Transportation Head qJJ arters

Project Address:-: NJ Ave, SE, & M St. 2 .....§]_ Ward: 6

Nonprofit Organization: (Yes) ____ (No)_X__

This First Source Employment Agreement, in accordance with D. C. Law 14-24, D.C. Law 5-93, and Mayor's Order 83-265 for recruitment, referral, and placernent of District of Columbia reside11ts, is between the District of Columbia Department offanploymen.t Services, hereinafter refcn-c~d to as DOES, nnd .JBG SEFC. Ven tu .• hereinafter, referred to as EM:PLOYER. Under this EmploymentAgtee,.nent, the E LOYER will use DOES as its first source for rect1.1ttm.ent, referral, and placement of new hires or employees for the new jobs created by this project and will bi1e Sl % District of Columbia . res.ide'l'lts !or alt new jobs created, as well, as 51 % of a.pprenl'ices employed in connection with ·the project shall be Ojstrict residents registered jn programs B.i1proved by the Djstriet of Cohunbia. Apprenticeship Council

I. GENERAL TERMS

A. The EMPLOYER. will use DOES as h:s first source for the recruitment, referral and placement of employees.

J3. The Elv!PLOYER shaU require all cont,-actors and subccrntractors, with

contracls totaling $.l00,000 or 1note1 to enter lnto a First Source Employment Agreemmt with DOES.

C. DOES wilt provide reoru..i.tment, referral a.nd placement services to the EMPLOYER subject to th.e limitatio1'l5 set out in this Agreement.

D. DOES puticipa.f.ion in this Agreement will be carried out by tb.e Office of the Director, with the Office ofEmplorer Se;rvice:s, whiehis responsible for referral and placement of employee.;, or such other offices or division.s designated by DOES. 2

E. This Agreement shall take effect when signed by the parti.e~ below and shall be fully effective for the duration cf tb.e c:onttact and a.11y extensions or modi fi.cations to the contract.

F. TI'lis Agreement shall net be co1'l..'!trued r.s an a.pprove.l of the BM'PLOYBR'S bid package, bend appli,:iati.o,,, lease ag(eement, ~o.nir.ig

application1 loan, or contract/subcontr;ir:t.

G. DOES and the, EMPLOYER agree that ::or purposes of this Agreement, new hires a1Jd jobs created (beth union :ind nonunion) include all E:MPLOYER'S job openings and vaean,:ies in. the Washington Stan.dard Metropol;ta.,1. Statistical Ana created as a result of internal promotions, tenninations, and expansions of the EMPLOYER'S workforce, a.s e. re.mlt of this project, includitig loans, lease ag~eemeots, zoning applications, bonds, bid.s, and contracts.

H. For purposes of this Agreement, apprentices a.s defined in D.C. Law 2-156 are included.

l. The EW.LOYE'.P.. shall regi&ter ~?I apprenticeship program with the:: D.C. Apprenticeship Council for constructiou or renovation con.tracts or subcontracts totalin2 $500,000 or more. This jncludes any construction or rec.ovation contract or subcontract signod as the result of, but is not limited

to, a loan, bond, grant, Exclusive Right Agreement1 street or alley closing, or a leasili.g agreement ofreal property for one (1) year or more.

J. Al.l contractors who contract with the Gover.mnent o!the Disl'X'ict or Columbia to perform inf'orrnalion techllology work with a. single contrac,: or cumulative contracts of at least $5'00,000, let within any twelve (1.2) month period ~hall be required to i::egistcr an appr.enti.ccsltip program with the Di5tiict of Columbia Apprenticeship Council.

K. The: tcz:m "lnfonn.ation technology work" shall incll.'lde1 but is not limited to, the occupations of com.outer proenunmer. pro~ammer analySt, desktop specialist, tecbnical support specialist, 1lata.bs.se sped.a.list, network support specialist, and any other related occupations as the Pistx'ict of Columbia Apprenticeship Council may designate by regulation.

II. RECRUITMENI'

A. n1e EMPLOYER. will complete thr: attschecl Employm~t:F'lan, wh,ch will indicate the t'lumbe.-r of'ncw jobs p1ojccted., salary range, hhil'\g dates, ~d union requirements. The EJ.'\!PLOYBR will ~otify DO:BS of its sp~ci.fir: need for new m1.ployees as soc,:n as that need is identified. 3

B. Notification or specl.tic needs, as set for1h in Scotiol, n.A. must be given to DOES at least :fiv~ (S) business da.ys (Monday - Friday) boforc U1$ing any oth~ :rcf'c:.rral souroc, and shall inotude, ,~ta. mudmu.m, the number of employees needed 'by job title, quali:fiea·:ion. hiring date, ~te of pa.y, b.ou.ra of work, duration of employment, and work to be perl'onned.

C. Job openings to be filled by internal pro motion fro1n the EMPLOYER'S . current workforce need not be referred to DOES for placement and referral.

D. ihi: EMPLOYER will submit to DOES, prior to startillg work on the project, the names, and social security numbers of all current employees, including apprentices, trainees, and laid,offworkers who will be employed on the project. m. REF:EAAAL

DOES will screen and refer a.pplic3litS ~.ccording to the qua.lificatio:os. supplied by the EMPLOYER.

IV. PLACEMENT

A. DOES will notify the EM1'LOY~ pri,:,r to the anticipated hiring dates, o.f. the number of .applicants DOES ~,m refer. DOES will make every reasonable effort to refer at least two q1.:.alified applicants for each job opening.

B. The EMPLOY.BR. will ma.kc all d~ci.sio:11S en hiring :oew cmplo)"i:t::s l;iut will in. good faith use rea.soXJable effort: to select its new hires or empl.oyees from :;.mo11g the qualified. pE rs:ons referred by DOES.

C. Tn the event DOES is unable to refer the~ qua.ti.fled personnel requested, within five (5) b\lSiness days (Monday .. Friday) from the da.te of

noti:fication9 the.I~MPLOYE~ wiJl be fi-ee to directly fill :r.ero.a.icing positions for which no qualified applk2nts have been referred.

Not\.yjthstanding1 the EMPLOY:BR will still be requ.i.red to hi.r.e 51 % District residents for the new jobs creat&d by the project.

:O. After the EMPLOYER b.as selected its g:rnployees 1 DOES Will not be r05ponsib\e for \:he employees' actions md the EMPLOYBR hereby releases DOES, M.d the Government ofth.i:, District of Columbia., tha: District of Columbia Municipal Co:rpora.ti.on, and the officers and employees of the District of Columbia ::rom any li.:a.bilii.y for employees' actions. 4

V. TRAINING

DOES and the EMPLOYER may agree to develop s:kills training and on­ .the-job training programs; tbe training s;?ecifica.ttons and cost for S1.1ch training will be mutually agreed upon. b:1the EMPLOYER and DOES arid set forth jn a separate Training Agreeme.nt.

VI. CONTROLLING REGULATIONS AND LAWS

A. To the extent this Agreement is in cont1 lc:t with any labor laws or governmental regulations, the Jaws or rcigulalions shall prevail.

B. DOES will make every effort to work" ·ithin the terms of all colloctive bargafaing agreements to which the ENPLOYER is a party.

C. 'The EMPLOYER will provide DOES ,11ith written documentation that the EMPLOYBR has pro,,ided the representative of any involved collective bargaining unit with a copy of thls Agrc:ement and has requested comments or objections. If the representative has any comments or objections, 1.ht EMPLOYER will promptly pro,,i.de them to .DOES.

VI!. EXEMPTIONS

A. Contracts, s1.1bcontracts or other forms c,f goverr:nncnt~assistance less than $100,000.

B. Employment openings 1l1e contractor will fill with individuals already employed by the company.

C. Job openings to be filled by laid-offwol'kers according to fonnall;y establish~d recall procedures and roster::.

D. Suppliers located outside of the Washington Si:andard Metropol,.tan. Statistical Area and who will perform t.o work. in the Washingtol'l Standard MetTopolitan Statistical Area.

VIIl. AGREEMENT MODIFICATIONS, RENEW AL, MCiNITO:RlNG, AND PENALTIES

A. If1 during the term of this Agreement, the EMPLOYER should transfer possession of all or a portion of its busl ness cone ems affected by this Agreement to any other party by lease, sak, assignment, merser, or otherwise, the EMPLOYER as a condi·:ion of transfer shall:

1. Notify the party taking possession of the existe11ce of the :EMPLOYER'S Agreement.

2. Notify the party ta\

3. EMPLOYER shall, adclitionallys advise DOES within seven {7) bl1siness/calendar days of the transfer. This advice will inc,h.uie U1e name of th.e party taking possession and the na.r:oe and telephone oJ that party's represetltative.

B. DOES shall monitor EMPLOYER'S performance under this Agreenumt. The EMPLOYER vvill cooperate in DO:BS1 monitoril'lg effort a11d will sub.roit a Contract Compliance: Forro to DOES m.onth!y.

C. To assjst DOES in the conduct of the monitoring review, the EMPLOYER will make available payroll and employment records for the review period indicated.

D. If additional informatio11 is needed durhg tbe review, the EMPLOYER will provide the requested inforrna,tion 1o DOES.

E. With the submission of the final reques·: for payment from the District, the EMPLOYER shall:

1. Document in a report to the Con,trac:ting Officer its compliance with the requirement that 51 % of the ne.,., employees hired by the project be District residerit-s; or

2. Submit a req_uest ta the Contracting Officer for a waiver of complia11cc with thic requirement that S 1% of the riew employees hired by the project be District residents and il':i.clude tl1e following documentations: a. Material supporting a good ::aith effort to comply; b. Refmals provjded by DOE:3 and otb.er refen'al sourc~s; and c. Advertisement of job openings listed with DOES and. other referral sources.

F. The Contracting Officer may waive the re~_uirem.ent that 51 % of the new e1nployecs hired by the proj ed be District :~esidents, if the Contracth,g Officer fim:ls th.at:

1. A good faith effort to comply is demonstrated by th.e contractor;

2. The EMPLOYER is looated outsid! the Washington Standard Metropolitan Statistical /uca and none of the contract work is per:fomi.ed inside the Washin.gton Standard Met-ropolitan Statistical Area; The Washington Standard Me':ropolltan Statistical Atea includes

the Distnct of Columbia1 the Virginia Cities of Alexai'.\dr.i.~ Falls Churc~ Manasas, Manasas Park, Fairfax, and Fredericksburg; the Virginia Counties ofFainax~ Arlington, Prince William, J..,oundon, Stafford, Clarke, W.uren, Fai,quier, Culpeper, Spotsylvania. and King George; tb.e Maryland Couttties of Montgomery, Prince Georges, Charles, Frede.rick, and Calvert; and. the West Virginia Countfos of Berkeley and Jefferson. 6 3. The EMPLOYER enters into a. special workforce development traini11g or placement arrangement with DOE:S; or

4. DOES ce1tifies that insufficient nmr..bers of District residents in the labor market possess the skills required by the positions crea.ted as a result of the contract.

G. Willful breach of the First Source Emplc,yment Agreement by the EMPLOY.ER. or fail~m: to submit the Contra.ct Compliance Report, or deliberate submission of falsified data. 1x,ay be enforced. by the Contracting Officer through imposition of penalties, including monetary fines of 5% of the tot.al amount of the d: rect and indirect labor costs of the conu·act.

H. Nonprofit organizations are exempted from the rt-:quirement that 51 % of the new employees hired on the project be District residents.

I. The EMPLOYER and DOES, or such c,ther agent as DOES may designate, may mutually agree to modify this Agreement.

J. The project may be terminated because: of the EMPLO"'.fER1S non­ cotnpliance with the provisions of this Agreement

Dated this. __-=2_2_n_d ___day of August 20 03

Signed: Brian P. Coulter Depattn1e11t of Employment S¢1"Vices ~dSignature of Employer Managing Member JBG/SEFC Venture L.L.C, Name of" Company

5301 Wisconsin Ave #300 Washington DC Ji.ddress

(202) 777-7100 Telephone

[email protected] E-mail 7

EMPLOYMENT pJ..,AN

NAMEOFFIRM JBG/SEFC Yeotu:ce J,J.C

ADDRESS 5301 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Suite 300, Washington DC 20015

TELEPHONE NCJMBE~02 7777100 FEDERAL IDENTIFICA!IONNO. 52-22353669

CONTACT PERSON David Jacobs TITLE Mana__ging Director

E-niail;[email protected] TYPEOFBUSINESS: Real Estate Development

• • •• •• •• • ...... • ...... ,, ,t• ., ''' ...... 1-•ff, .. • • ··-· - "• ...... ___ , ____ ., ...... ···-·-····· ...... _,._,., ..... n,1••••··· ...-, •• ·····-···-·- ·-···· • ... .

ORIGrNATJNG DISTRICT AGENCY DC Zoning Commission

CONTRACTING OFFICER:------TELEPHONE NUMBER: 2 o2 7 2 7 6 311

TYPE OF PROJECT Off; ce & Retai J FUNDINC·AMOUNT_.$_0...______construction

PROJECTED START DATE Nov. 2003 PRO.TECT DURATION 2 years 1 9 months

... •"-•••-•-·'4-•"-"'''""W'" _,._.. _,... _. .. , ... -,,1.,"',-'•""'w~•-·-·--...._..... -•-·•----•.. ,1 .... ,.--.. ~--~-.,..,.,• .,., .. ,.-i.-...... ,...... --:--•----.-

NEW JOB CREATION PROJECTIONS (Attach additional sheets. as needed.) Please in.dicate the new position(s) your firm wiU create as a tes1.tl't of this project. - JOB TITLE # OF JOBS SALARY UNION MElvCBERSHIP PROJECTED PIT PIT RANGE REQUIRED HIRE DATE NAME LOC!~L# A The Applic !int has sel ected a g ~neral contractor but has not B completed ts contrac or negot ations, thus is unable tc make a c new job cr1 1:>ation proj ~ction. 0 1ce awarded, and a contrac t is D executed, ... he general contract Jr and its subcontractors will be E required tJ comply wi .. h this a~reement. F G !-I r J T( . e

ClJRRENT EMPLOYEES: Please list The r1ames and social security numbers of all current employees i:nchiding apprentices and trainees who will be •!mployed on the project. Attach additional sheets as needed.

NAME OF EMPLOYEE SOCIAL ~,ECUJUTY

There are no current emnlovees en this project. As employees are hired, the required

information will be submitted.

, -·· -·· ·-- -· ....

"Revieed 0'>/03

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

JBG/SEFC VENTURE, L.L.C., (hereinafter, the "Company"), in accordance with D.C. Law 1-95, D.C. Code Section 1-1-1141 et seq. (1987 Ed. as amended), and in consideration of the District of Columbia Government in granting the Company's request FOR APPROVAL OF A CONSOLIDATED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT ("PUD") known as D.C. ZONING COMMISSION CASE No. 03-05C FOR THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION located at THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF NEW JERSEY AVENUE, S.E. AND M STREET, S.E., commits to utilize Local, Small or Disadvantaged Business Enterprises ("LSDBEs") certified by the D.C. Local Business Opportunity Commission in order to make a bona fide effort to achieve, at a minimum, the goal of thirty-five percent (35%) participation (the "35% Goal") in the contracted development costs in connection with the design, development, construction (including, but not limited to, pre-construction activities), maintenance and security for the project (the "Project"), including janitorial, refuse collection, provision of supplies and other similar post-construction activities relating to the Project, in accordance with the following provisions.

A. The Company shall utilize the resources of the Office of Local Business 11 Development ("OLBD ), including the Local Business Opportunity Commission's Directory of Certified Local Small and Disadvantaged Business Enterprises, and periodic updates, as the primary referral sources for LSDBEs. The primary contact for such referrals shall be the Director of the Office of Local Business Development (the "Director").

B. The appropriate representatives of the Company who negotiate, sign and are responsible for the implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding with the OLBD agree to meet with the Company's procurement and project officers to explore and develop ways for achieving the 35% Goal.

C. The Company agrees to make a continuing bona fide effort to utilize LSDBEs for certain goods and services as may be required by the Company to conduct its daily operations and understands that such efforts will accrue toward the 35% Goal.

D. Not later than (60) days following award of a contract of the first phase and each subsequent phase of the project, the Company agrees to submit a minority business plan to OLBD for approval, which plan shall be incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement. E. Not later than thirty (30) days following the filing of an application for a building permit pursuant to the approved PUD, the Company will submit to OLBD a more extensive plan listing all of the projected procurement items, quantities and estimated costs, bid opening and closing dates, and start-up and completion dates. This plan should indicate whether any items will be bid without restriction in the open market, or limited to LSDBEs certified by the Local Business Opportunity Commission.

F. The parties hereto understand and agree that the means of achieving the 35% Goal may vary according to the types of goods and services contracted for and the current availability of Certified LSDBEs. However, the Company agrees to make a bona fide effort to achieve, at a minimum, the 35% Goal over the life of the project.

G. The Company further agrees to submit quarterly contracting and subcontracting reports to OLBD no later than thirty (15) days after the end of each calendar quarter; the quarterly report periods shall begin on January 1, April 1, July 1, and October 1. The quarterly report shall be submitted on a form provided by OLBD. These reports should include detailed documentation of outreach efforts to LSDBEs in order to determine bona fide efforts.

H. The Company agrees to meet quarterly with OLBD staff on a mutually agreeable schedule to discuss LSDBE's participation on the Project.

I. In the event that there are no LSDBEs in the District of Columbia which manufacture, construct, distribute, install, or otherwise supply the goods and services required to develop, construct, renovate and/or maintain the Project, the Company agrees to make bona fide efforts to achieve the 35% Goal through a broad scale approach to contracts with other local business enterprises certified by the District.

J. The Company further agrees to include in the terms of its contractual agreements with the general/prime contractor and/or construction manager (in any of such events, the "Contractor"), language which puts the Contractor on notice that the Contractor is expected to make a bona fide effort to achieve the 35% Goal in (1) its own contracting with respect to the Project and (2) engaging subcontractors to perform work on the Project.

K. The Company will publish, in a timely manner, a public notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the District of Columbia and in one or more other newspapers serving the District of Columbia local business community, to inform the business community as a whole of

2 the overall project, including a general description of projected phases and anticipated time tables.

L. For purposes of this agreement, it is agreed that bona fide effort means that the Company will obtain the following commitments from its General Contractor ("GC"):

1. The GC will publish a public notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the District of Columbia and in one or more other newspapers serving the District of Columbia local business community, designed to inform the business community as a whole of specific contracting and subcontracting procurement opportunities.

2. The GC will publish notices in a newspaper of general circulation in the District of Columbia and in one or more other newspapers serving the District of Columbia local business community, soliciting bids for products or services being sought, and will allow a reasonable time for all bidders to respond to invitations/requests for bids.

3. The GC will contact OLBD to obtain a current listing of all LSDBEs qualified to bid on major procurement as they arise.

4. The GC will negotiate with all bidders pre-qualified by the Company and the GC, including LSDBEs, to obtain each pre­ qualified bidder's best and final price as understood in the marketplace.

5. The GC will not require that the LSDBEs provide bonding on contracts with a dollar value less than $100,000, provided that in lieu of bonding the GC may accept a job specific certificate of insurance.

6. The GC will design and include in all contracts and subcontracts a process for dispute settlement. This process shall incorporate an opportunity for the presentation of documentation involving the work performed and invoices regarding requests for payments. Included in the contract shall be a mutually agreed upon mediator and provisions for arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association.

7. The GC and subcontractors shall strictly adhere to their contractual obligations to pay all subcontractors in accordance with the contractually agreed upon schedule for payments. In the event that there is a delay in payment to the general

3 contractor, the GC is to immediately notify the subcontractor and advise as to the date on which payment can be expected.

8. The GC commits to pay all subcontractors, including LSDBEs, within fifteen (15) days following the GC's receipt of a payment, which includes funds for such subcontractors, from the Company. The Company agrees to require the project manager to establish a procedure for giving notice to the subcontractors of the Company payments to the GC.

M. In order to encourage the Company to develop creative, cost competitive ways in which to meet its 35% Goal, OLBD will give credit negotiated by the parties for the opening up of opportunities in areas not traditionally provided to LSDBEs and/or expansion of opportunities in existing areas.

N. If at the end of the first calendar quarter following the issuance of a building permit, the Company is unable to comply with the proposed utilization plan for the Project, representatives of the Company and the Director of OLBD shall confer with a view toward adjusting goals and strategies to extend the time of performance based on facts and circumstances.

DATED THIS 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2003.

OFFICE OF I LOCAL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT

Y7dd By: BRIANP COULTER Its: MANAGING MEMBER

W ASl #1070292 vl

4 D First Source I LSDBE Experience New Convention Center, Washington, D.C. Experience of the JBG Companies and Clark Construction Group

Under the leadership of Convention Center Associates (CCA), a joint venture lead by an affiliate of the JBG Companies, the Clark Construction Group and its joint venture partner, Sherman R. Smoot Construction Company, recently completed work on the new Washington D.C. Convention Center. At 2.6 million SF and spanning six blocks, the facility is the largest building in the District of Columbia. In addition to providing a world-class convention center, a major goal of the Washington Convention Center Authority was to use the project to provide opportunities to businesses and residents of the District of Columbia.

Clark participated in the District's Department of Employment Services (DOES) First Source program. This program assures that District residents receive priority for new jobs created by municipal financing and development programs. As a result of this program, Clark hired a total of 1,045 District residents. This total represents 23% of the over 4,000 new positions that were created throughout the duration of project. Although Clark did not achieve the 51 % goal set for the First Source program due to lack of available skilled craftsmen and competition with other ongoing First Source projects, 54% of all new apprentices on the project were DC residents and contributed significantly to expanding the base of skilled tradespersons in the District of Columbia. In addition, DOES has recognized Clark for its achievements in far exceeding total participation than in any other First Source project. Clark now employs many District residents who were first identified through the Convention Center efforts, on current Clark projects in the District.

The LSDBE program for the Convention Center was an integral part of the program management responsibility established by CCA as part of its winning proposal. Based upon Clark/Smoot's original contract amount, 35% ($171 million) of the project was to be awarded to local small disadvantaged business enterprises (LSDBE's). Through an aggressive and innovative campaign, Clark/Smoot achieved 45% participation by awarding over $255 million of work to LSDBE's. Recognizing the significance of the project and the level of effort and cooperation required to obtain the 35% goal, Clark worked in partnership with CCA, the Washington Convention Center Authority (WCCA), the District government, industry organizations and the community to maximize participation on the project.

At the outset of the project, Clark surveyed the pool of existing, certified LSDBE firms and determined that there was insufficient capacity to meet the demands of the project. Clark undertook an aggressive certification campaign that included mailing over 1,200 applications to potential LSDBEs followed by providing assistance in completing the applications for interested firms. Concurrently, Clark worked with the Corporation Council to enact project-specific legislation that provided special provisions for LSDBE registration. As a result of these efforts, Clark was able to significantly increase the support base of LSDBE firms for the project.

Clark, following the program established by CCA, then implemented a multi-faceted campaign to increase awareness of business opportunities on the project and actively encourage participation. Clark and CCA held Business Opportunity Fairs, LSDBE Workshops, established an LSDBE Plan Room, distributed a Monthly Newsletter, held Community Organization Meetings, hosted Bonding Seminars, prepared a Subcontractor's Handbook to assist with procedures for participation on the project and sponsored a Mentor-Protege program for LSDBE firms. Due to the size and complexity of the project, joint ventures between LSDBE firms and other prime contractors were strongly encouraged and LSDBE participation was a primary evaluation factor in every subcontract award.

Clark also developed the first commercial Step-Up Apprentice Program for the DC Convention Center project. Clark worked with WCCA and the Washington, D.C. Building and Construction Trades Council to develop and run this program. In the program, the Step-Up Apprentices gained job readiness, classroom instruction, and an opportunity to complete their GED and on­ the-job training. The duration of the Step-Up Apprentice Program was 12 months and participants rotated through as many crafts as possible during the 12-month period. By the end of the program, the participants acquired the necessary knowledge and skills to pass an entrance exam into a regular Trade Apprenticeship program. Of the 126 residents that entered this program, 70 have transferred to regular apprenticeship programs/permanent jobs. The program is the first of its kind in the nation on a commercial project and was modeled after HUD's Building Maintenance Repairer Program. Subcontractors were required to participate in this program through their subcontract agreements. The program also helped subcontractors achieve their DC resident hiring goals.