The most effective way to manage expectations of the Region, team, customer agency, and community is through education about the site selection and acquisition process. This should occur during the early stages of preliminary planning and feasibility, before expectations are set. The customer must understand the Capital Program Delivery Process (see Exhibit 1.1). The Feasibility Study is only the beginning of the process. Site selection follows a few years later, and the final decision is made only after funds are authorized. Stakeholders don't need all of the details, but they need to understand that site selection is basedon specific criteria. Some of these are congressionally imposed, and some are developed in concert with the customer to meet operational needs. They must understand who makes the site selection decision and the myriad required activities before reaching that point. The customer agency must know whether there are any outstanding issues, how the issues are addressed, and what effect they have on the final decision.
The community must understand that the process is complex and that their voice is heard. However, the final decision is based on which site is the most advantageous to the federal government and the taxpayer.
Be proactive through a well-planned press release before gossip and misinformation spread. If early and appropriate information is provided about the site selection process, then the expectations and assumptions about preselection of sites can be minimized.
Make sure that the entire team and local representatives understand that the site information is confidential. Determine whether the Team Leader or the Project Manager will be the point of control. GSA, as the building owner, provides the point person on site selection discussions. A good Communications Plan addresses the sharing of critical site information in a timely and prudent manner. Until the information is made public, the release of site investigation information should be controlled and limited to only those persons having a "need to know."
The team must develop the priorities and criteria to address these issues. In the site evaluation, the team must reach a consensus on the evaluation criteria based on all of the information regarding the customer's operational and security needs, the type of facility to be constructed, costs, local community concerns, and the comprehensive plan for the city's redevelopment/revitalization.
The following language, which provides the government with the opportunity to select the best site, considering all factors (including subjective factors), is to be included in the advertisement:
"The Government will select the site considered to be most advantageous to the United States, all factors considered. In order to ensure that the selected site is most advantageous to the United States, the Government also will consider any unique attributes or other nuances of a site deemed worthy of consideration, even if not listed in the advertisement."
"None of the above listed evaluation criteria are considered to be more important than any other. However, as sites are evaluated, each site's unique attributes may result in one or more criteria becoming more important as to that particular site."
Prepare to discuss the pros and cons of each of the alternative sites, based on factual findings. This helps to identify and build consensus for the site that is most advantageous to the government.
Often, the best way to validate your decision is to advertise for alternative sites. This approach ensures that the site decision is based on the best information available. Just as looking at comparable sales helps to assess the value of the property in the appraisal process, investigating comparable site alternatives helps to evaluate the sites in terms of the project requirements, as well as the technical and financial factors. Advertising is also an opportunity to solicit donated sites and emphasize our consideration for use of historic buildings in accordance with E.O. 13006.
If the site issue presented by the customer agency is not resolved, then the Team Leader typically presents the issue to the Director and/or ARA for consideration. The Team Leader summarizes the outstanding points and recommends alternatives. At this point, the Office of the Chief Architect also may be contacted to solicit additional assistance in resolving the matter with the customer.
The acquisition must be performed in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act and the implementing regulations in 49 CFR, Part 24. The Site Specialist must be both knowledgeable of the Uniform Act requirements and able to communicate them clearly to the property owner.
While it is usually preferable to advertise for sites, it is not required. Soliciting for sites is one way of "proving" that the alternative is the best one. If a local government has identified an acceptable site for donation or exchange, or if the federal government has an acceptable site, then the advertising process may not be necessary. The evaluation process always must be completed, regardless of how the site is obtained.
There is no legal requirement that GSA obtain competition in selecting sites for public buildings, nor is GSA required to solicit proposals for the sale of sites by public advertisement.
In particular, 40 U.S.C. ? 3304 (formerly Section 5 of the Public Buildings Act of 1959, 40 U.S.C. ? 604) provides in pertinent part:
"(b) Acquisition of Land or Interest in Land for Use as Sites. The Administrator may acquire land or an interest in land the Administrator considers necessary for use as sites, or additions to sites, for public buildings authorized to be constructed or altered under this chapter."
"(d) Solicitation of Proposals for Sale, Donation, or Exchange of Real Property. When the Administrator is to acquire a site under subsection (b), the Administrator, if the Administrator considers it necessary, by public advertisement may solicit proposals for the sale, donation, or exchange of real property to the Federal Government to be used as the site. In selecting a site under subsection (b) the Administrator... may
(1) select the site that the Administrator believes is the most advantageous to the Government, all factors considered; and
(2) acquire the site without regard to Title III of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 251 et seq.)."
Accordingly, as a matter of law, GSA is not required to comply with the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA), which requires full and open competition and a statement of all significant factors and subfactors that the agency expects to consider in evaluating competitive proposals. Nevertheless, to the extent that GSA's site selection criteria are known and identifiable, disclosure of these criteria enables potential offerors to make more informed decisions regarding whether to submit their sites for consideration. Also, the time involved in site selection is potentially shortened when offerors know the criteria that the government will use and, therefore, can submit more responsive proposals.
Therefore, when site selection is made among competing sites, GSA should notify offerors of at least minimum site requirements and known evaluation criteria. There is still the opportunity, however, to retain discretion for the government to consider other factors, resulting in selection of the most advantageous site. See the sample site advertisement that covers all of these factors ("Appendix D").
During the Feasibility Study, the team relies upon either the Regional appraiser, who should be part of the Site Investigation Team, or a contract appraiser to provide a preliminary estimated value of the potential sites. The appraiser gathers market data, comparable sales data, and tax assessment records during the site investigation visits. Only a limited appraisal or estimate of value is needed at this point.
When the site is selected officially and GSA is ready to begin negotiations, then the team contracts for a fee appraisal, based on title, boundary/topography/utility surveys, and environmental studies (e.g., Phases I, II, III,) that are provided to the appraiser. The government is required to offer "just compensation" for the property, which is to be no less than the approved appraised fair market value (AFMV).
GSA does not pay a broker's commission based on a percentage of a property's appraised value. A broker, however, often represents an individual property owner or assembles a site comprising multiple owners. In such cases, the asking price of land includes a fee for the broker. This does not necessarily increase the AFMV of the property.
If the property owners know the total site budget, then they often expect that the government has "deep pockets." Many times, the owners will ask how much site money has been budgeted and expect that GSA can offer much more than the AFMV. GSA must control property owners' expectations by addressing the specific property value and answering the property owners' questions in an honest, straightforward manner during the site investigation. Maintaining the competitive process as long as possible also discourages this type of expectation.
The owner should be advised that the appraisal will be based on the property's highest and best use. Any perceived increase or decrease in the value of the property due to the proposed project cannot be considered in the AFMV.
Only arm's length transactions (or comparable sales of property) are taken into consideration in the valuation of the property. Purchases under the threat of condemnation, or those involving other considerations such as special financing, are not considered comparable.
Just because the site is free doesn't necessarily make it the best site for the project. Soliciting for sites is one way of "proving" that the alternative is the best one, even if no money is involved in the acquisition. The site that is being offered as a donation may not be the only one available for donation. If you read the advertisement for sites included in GSA Guidebook 1: Acquisition of Real Property, we ask for donated sites.
However, if we have made a formal commitment or Memorandum of Agreement with a local municipality regarding a site to be donated, then it may not be advisable to advertise for sites. This is one of the reasons we should be very careful not to make binding agreements regarding a site too early in the process (preliminary planning and feasibility stages). The scope of the project may change, programs may change, and so forth. We need to look at all alternatives. If we do not include any money for a site in the Prospectus, expecting to take a donated site, then we had better be sure that we have fully analyzed the site and do not anticipate substantive changes in the project.
Offers of site donations or exchanges should trigger some preliminary site investigative studies. Especially because the shortcomings of free sites may not be readily apparent, these sites require the same level of site investigation and preacquisition due diligence as required for purchased sites. Be sure to follow NEPA, NHPA, appraisal, and title search procedures thoroughly on donated or exchanged sites as early as possible. If there are problems, then you may need to proceed with either mitigation or a new site selection.
GSA cannot provide advice to a property owner or a tenant on these issues. But, GSA can return offers quickly and advise them when their property is no longer under consideration. If the owner's site is included in the short list, then the answer must wait until a final site selection is made. However, the "preferred site" is addressed in the NEPA document, which is public information.
The best way is to talk to the appropriate people (GSA Central Office, consultants, SHPO, local community, etc.) and fully engage them in the process. Make sure that issues from the criteria checklists have been considered fully. Follow through on NEPA and other required studies. Maintain open lines of communications, follow local news stories, ask lots of questions, and maintain an interest in local issues. Don't rely solely on information provided by brokers or owners. If you learn something questionable, then follow through until you're satisfied with the answers. Discussions of "lessons learned" with colleagues in other Regions and in the GSA Central Office also can help avoid pitfalls.
Site selection officially begins once the Site Directive is received from the GSA Central Office, following submission of the President's Budget (which includes the and Site and Design Prospectus) to Congress. However, preliminary site investigation activities are permitted and encouraged prior to receiving the Site Directive. Funding for preliminary site investigations typically comes from Regional planning budgets.
As long as all major federal stakeholders (GSA decision-makers, customers, etc.) agree that it is appropriate to proceed with site selection activities before funding is approved, most activities leading to site selection can be conducted, pending the availability of funds. It is also important to conduct such preliminary actions when a property is offered for donation or a property exchange is being proposed.
Funding for preliminary site selection work (before site and design funds are released) comes through the Regional Budget Activity 61 fund. It is recommended that Regions budget for these expenses to ensure that funds are available. Sometimes, it also can come out of the customer agency budget in the form of an RWA.
Possible sites are reviewed during the Feasibility Study to develop a realistic budget for the Prospectus. While a preferred site may be identified in the Feasibility Study, GSA has neither a formal, approved project nor congressional authority at this point. Selection of a site during the feasibility phase is predecisional because insufficient data have been gathered, and all potential sites have not yet been identified or evaluated. Upon receipt of the Site Directive and initiation of the formal site investigation, the site selection process begins a more detailed level of analysis and investigation of all potential sites.
The site selection process can be streamlined or more comprehensive, depending on the project. These recommendations are not mandatory. This Guide has been developed to provide assistance on important issues of site selection.
Two things to keep in mind:
1. Early opposition is better than late opposition.
2. Partnering to meet mutual interests is always better than working in opposition.
Regional associates who have real property acquisition, relocation, and site selection experience can be identified by the Site Knowledge Bank. You also may contact the Site Knowledge Bank at 817-978-4662 for project advice, consultation services, and training.
The Site Knowledge Bank is responsible for providing real property acquisition, relocation, and related training, along with national advisory and consultation services. The Site Knowledge Bank schedules and offers training each year to the Regional associates, based on their level of experience, training, and special needs. Class offerings vary each year, depending upon class size, availability, and the specific needs and requests of management and Regional associates.
The Contracting Officer Warrant Program (COWP) also offers training. There are specified training curriculums and education requirements for each warrant and level (such as Basic, Simplified Acquisition, Realty Leasing, Real Property Disposal, and Personal Property Disposal). However, there is no training for Site Acquisition under the COWP.
The GSA Central Office, including the Office of the Chief Architect, the National Office of Realty Services, and the Portfolio Management Office, provide support to the Regions during all stages of the project delivery process. Those offices are the liaisons to OMB and Congress and offer expertise in most areas of development and design. The Program Coordinator from the Office of the Chief Architect provides multiple levels of support throughout the life of the project.
The Office of the Chief Architect offers expertise in Architecture, Engineering, Urban Development, Construction and Project Management, Historic Buildings, and Courthouse Programs.
While many requirements and processes are common to both, there are a few differences.
First, with Federal Construct, the land is purchased outright. With Lease Construct, the government does not take fee title to the land, but assigns the option to the developer.
Second, with Federal Construct, the team must evaluate the overall cost of the site plus relocation and all other site costs to ensure Prospectus integrity. With Lease Construct, the team must evaluate the cost of the land in addition to the anticipated rental rate to ensure integrity with the net rent, authorized in the Prospectus.
Third, with Federal Construct, every effort is made to meet local regulations and codes, but it is not a requirement. With Lease Construct, the developer is required to meet all regulations and codes (or seek variances and waivers).
Fourth, with Federal Construct, the government has the right of eminent domain. With Lease Construct, the practical difficulties associated with the execution of this authority would likely preclude its use.
Scopes of work for appraisals, appraisal reviews, title, land surveys (boundary/topography/utilities), acquisitions, and relocations are included on the Realty Services Web site.
The scopes of work for all of the environmental documents (EA; EIS; ESA Phases I, II, III; Cultural Resource study) are included in GSA Guidebook 1: Acquisition of Real Property. GSA Guidebooks, including this one, will be made available online (check the GSA Web site for availability).
GSA usually contracts for this work. The appraisal and title must meet Department of Justice Standards for federal land acquisitions.
The ARA (or designee) should send a memorandum requesting the exemption to the Commissioner of PBS, through the Office of the Chief Architect. The request should briefly outline the reasons for the exemption, describe the mitigation efforts required to achieve the intent of the security requirements (ballistic glazing, wall hardening, landscape barriers, elimination of parking), provide the related costs, and address alternative solutions to the exemption.
All exemption requests will be processed by the Office of the Chief Architect in consultation with the Office of the Federal Protective Service. Exemptions for Lease Construct projects also are to be reviewed by the National Realty Services Officer. The Center for Construction and Project Management in the Office of the Chief Architect can assist in drafting a request for your project. See the PBS Commissioner's Memorandum dated April 26, 2002, for further information, and call the Office of the Chief Architect or the Office of the Federal Protective Service with any questions.
It is assumed that the need to select a site that does not conform to the ISC criteria will be the exception. However, it is recognized that buildings in the central business areas of major cities, as well as annexes and modifications to historic buildings, present additional challenges regarding blast criteria.
No, not in the long run. Avoiding public involvement can cause significant delays. One of the biggest threats to a project is strong opposition that arises at the 11th hour, with delays measured in years rather than weeks. Opposition often is based on legitimate concerns that were not understood, identified early, nor sufficiently addressed. For this reason, make sure that you have covered all of the bases of special interests before selecting the short list. Don't rely solely on city officials for project support; they may not share the interests of the person or group that stops your project.
Try to understand the "opportunity costs" as a community would see them. Be well versed in the benefits that the project can bring to the areafrom architectural quality, the numbers of employees and visitors, and their potential spending, to the value of the public space at the federal building. (The Office of the Chief Architect and your Urban Development Advisor can help assemble this information.) Maintaining open communications is the best way to understand how a community is assessing your project.
Developing an effective Work Plan and a good Communications Plan is the best way to ensure that the project stays on the right track.
The premature release of project-specific site information can create speculative land purchases and inflated land value. However, it's difficult to validate the claim that discreet discussions with public officials and design professionals early in the project will change the market's knowledge enough to significantly affect site costs.
Discussions with public officials may be done at a relatively low profile, but once brokers or other players in the local market are brought in, it is hard to keep a lid on it. Care must be taken in these early discussions to fully investigate all alternatives and to avoid making commitments or giving the impression that a site has been preselected.
By the time the Site and Design Prospectus has been submitted to Congress, open public discussions can occur. Two reminders: (1) Both the schedule and the funding available for site acquisition will be in public documents (the Site and Design Prospectus) before authorization is granted to acquire a site. (2) Make sure that the congressional and administration leadership are a part of the "announcement of the project," as appropriate.
If a municipality assembles a site for a GSA project, then GSA must ensure that both the site acquisition and the relocation of site occupants are accomplished in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act, 42 U.S.C. ?? 46014655 and the implementing regulations in 49 CFR, Part 24. These are statutory requirements that must be followed when federal funds are used in any part of the project (not just site acquisition).