Attachment I Courthouse_FS_Guide_08-27-07 - fedbizopps.pdf

General Services Administration

COURTHOUSE FEASIBILITY

STUDY GUIDE

Center for Courthouse Programs Office of Chief Architect Public Buildings Service

August 27, 2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction

GSA’s Courthouse Program

Overview of Courthouse Project Planning

The Feasibility Study

Sample A-E Scope of Services for a Feasibility Study`

INTRODUCTION

Within the Office of the Chief Architect, GSA's Center for Courthouse Programs, is involved in the programming, Feasibility Studies, budgeting, prospectus development, site selection, architect-engineer selection, and concept design approval for the nation’s federal courthouse building program. Courthouse projects focus on requirements set by the Interagency Security Council (ISC), Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC), U.S. Marshals Service, U.S.

Attorneys office, and GSA Facility standards. The Center is an advocate for the needs of its unique customers, and shares responsibilities with Regional Project teams for standards and budget compliance.

The Courthouse Feasibility Study Guide has been developed to assist all participants of the development process in evaluating, developing and implementing federal courthouse projects.

For those who are about to embark on a Feasibility Study (FS) this guide outlines the project delivery process and keys to success. This Guide provides information on how you can support the process, as team member, expert resource, or intended user of the final product.

The Guide relies upon many additional sources to provide detailed support to the process. GSA has developed a comprehensive body of guidebooks on key topics that are important to project development, from pricing guides to facilities standards and preservation handbooks. These are being continually revised. This Guide directs you to these resources and the experts that can provide further support. The Feasibility Study Phase outlines the process for beginning, conducting, and completing a Feasibility Study, a process that ends with the submission of the prospectus package for site design authorization. This section describes the process, ‘deliverables’, and ‘keys to success’ to develop a sound project and site/design-funding request.

For Courthouse Projects the Feasibility Study plays the most important role in shaping the final delivered project. It evaluates alternatives, sets expectations, and forms the breadth and scope for the project.

GSA’s Courthouse Program

The Center for Courthouse Programs (CCP) is part of the General Services Administration’s Public Buildings Service national commitment to ensure the consistent, excellent, and cost-effective delivery of the new construction courthouse program. Not since the New Deal, has the nation embarked on such an ambitious civilian federal building program. These new courthouses are being designed and built in many American cities, and in many cases sparking new development in their neighboring areas. Most of these buildings provide valuable urban public spaces that enrich their cities. These monumental buildings represent the vigor, strength and stability of the federal government in communities throughout the country.

Over the last several years, the courthouse initiative has evolved into a highly organized program with interdependencies between the various involved stakeholders. The center is designed to address these expected interdependencies in four key areas:

1) Central Project and Program Information Source

2) Courthouse Standards and Policy Analysis, Development and Implementation

3) Construction Cost Benchmarking

4) Quality Assurance

As a programmatic focal point, the Center for Courthouse Programs listens carefully to national stakeholders’ concerns and works to ensure that policies are implemented directly addressing these issues. Since the center is exposed to every major courthouse project, it is able to analyze and solve recurring problems to better the process incrementally over time. The Feasibility Study is an integral part of the process.

Our History

In the early 1990’s following a lengthy analysis of space in United States federal courthouses nationwide, the AOUSC determined that the judiciary’s housing was at or approaching a state of crisis; approximately 200 federal courthouses, nearly one out of three, would be out of space within a decade. To meet this critical demand for space, PBS would be required to undertake the largest courthouse construction program in more than 50 years, estimated to cost approximately $10 billion. The size and complexity of federal courthouses, combined with the magnitude of the program, require a systematic, programmatic approach as opposed to proceeding project-by-project.

In 1993, PBS and the AOUSC convened an Independent Courts Building Program Panel – a blue ribbon panel of leaders in the design and construction industry – to gather advice on improvements to the program. The panel’s first recommendation was the establishment of a “Courthouse Management Group” to be the central management organization for the courthouse new construction program. In 1995 the CMG was established as part of GSA’s PBS and has later been named the Center for Courthouse Programs. As part of the GSA’s Office of the Chief Architect, the Center establishes an efficient system to manage the development, design, and construction of federal courthouses. The Center works closely with the AOUSC as it established priorities among many projects. Based on the AOUSC’s analysis, the Judicial Conference of the United States approved the first prioritized 5-year plan of new construction courthouse projects in

March 1996. In subsequent years, after congressional appropriations for funding courthouse projects were finalized, the judiciary revised and adjusted the plan, “rolling” it forward each year for the next 5-year period.

The planning, design and construction of a new federal courthouse brings together all three branches of the U. S. Government into and integrated effort. The U. S Courts begin the process by identifying each court’s space or functional requirements and then prioritizes a list of projects based on greatest need. While working with the courts, the Center for Courthouse Programs, formulates prospective projects and necessary budgets to meet the Judiciary’s need. The Center continues to support these projects as they proceed through the executive branch and on through Congress, where they are approved and funded. Pursuant to the Public Buildings Act of 1959, GSA then designs, constructs, and operates the approved facility.

The Center’s centralized, systematic approach to the courthouse construction program provides assurance to fiscally conscious stakeholders in the program, such as top GSA and PBS management, the Congress and the Office of Management and Budget, that it is being managed in a cost-effective manner.

OVERVIEW OF COURTHOUSE PROJECT PLANNING

In GSA’s Capital Investment and Leasing program, the Feasibility Study supports a request for site and design funding. In the Feasibility phase, the project team, their customer, and national stakeholders consider alternatives and set a course of action for the project. The recommended alternative establishes a sound foundation upon which to pursue the design and execution of the project. It provides the foundation upon which the A/E will begin design and sets the budget parameters for that design and site acquisition.

A Feasibility Study is required for all GSA capital projects – including those initiated by GSA’s internal planning or by congressional requests to evaluate needs in a community (i.e., “an 11(b) request”). The only exception is limited scope alteration projects.

Years after its completion, the quality of the Feasibility Study continues to support or constrain the project team as they respond to unforeseen conditions, revised customer needs, customer expectations, and site acquisition. The Feasibility Study process has the single greatest influence on a project’s development.

This Guide suggests a process through which to begin, conduct, and complete a successful Feasibility Study and deliver a successful funding request in preparation for a successful project.

The Project planning phase assembles the people, information, and budgets needed for an effective evaluation of the alternatives developed in the Feasibility Study. The AOUSC has developed its five-year plan and “AnyCourt” model that define the courtrooms and chambers requirements based on caseload In the Feasibility phase, the project team, their customer, and national stakeholders consider alternatives and set a course of action for the project. By the completion of this phase, GSA must select an alternative to meet a customer or facility need. The choices establish a sound foundation for the design and execution of the project. The Feasibility Study process has the single greatest influence on a project’s development.

Here are the basic steps necessary to have support, prepare, and approve a courthouse project:

Long-Term Planning

The planning of a new courthouse begins with an identified need by the Judiciary. The necessary documents to identify the need include:

Long Range Plan Letter from the Chief Judge approving the Long Range Plan Utilization Matrix Anycourt Letter from the Circuit Judicial Council approving the Anycourt and any special requirements

Long Range Plan

Developed by the District Court with support from the AOUSC and the Circuit Executive.

Includes input from all court offices, GSA. U.S. Attorneys, USMS, and Trustees.

It forecast changes in the district court over a 30-year period based on historical and projected caseloads.

Approved by the Circuit Judicial Council.

The Five-Year Plan

Developed by the District Court with support from the AOUSC and the Circuit Executive.

GSA requests authorization and funding of a Courts program based on an approved Five- Year Plan.

Developed by the AOUSC and approved by the Judicial Conference. It ranks the projects by fiscal year in according to the scoring based on:

Forecasted year out of space Security Considerations Operational concerns (like split facilities) Current or project judges without courtrooms

Required in response to Congressional request that the courthouses be prioritized into a systematic program.

The plan proposes about $500M per year for site, design, and construction funding.

It is updated each fiscal year in the Second Quarter.

The “Anycourt”

Provides preliminary space requirements developed by the AOUSC and approved by the Circuit Judicial Council.

It is the basis on which GSA develops the project budget for submission to Congress for the design prospectus.

Since the AOUSC is responsible for the courts rent, it is important any deviation from the Anycourt are approved by the AOUSC.

The AnyCourt becomes the maximum “not to exceed” amount of space for the project. Written approval by the Judicial Conference will be required for any space deviations from the total amount requested in the anycourt.

Feasibility Studies

Feasibility Studies are generally performed for projects listed in the third year of the current Five-Year Plan. The study consists of:

Detailed Programming Requirements Definition of four to six alternatives. Common alternatives include moving all court operations into a new courthouse, expanding the existing courthouse with an annex, and building a dedicated district courthouse with the Bankruptcy using the existing courthouse.

Each alternative will have its own housing plan and project cost.

Construction cost (based on benchmarks) broken out into shell and TI costs Market Survey of available sites; comparative analysis of various site options including preliminary market appraisal.

Financial Analysis Evaluation of each alternative

The study does not provide a preferred alternative. Based on the analysis of the alternatives the preferred alternative is determined jointly by the GSA and the Courts taking into account the project cost and rent to the courts.

Occupancy Agreement (OA) Commitments

The OAs provide an agreement between GSA and the tenant agencies on the rent and program square footage. The rent is either appraisal (market) based or Return on Investment (ROI). Items in the OAs that impact the design consists of:

Usable and rentable square footage Core and Shell; TI allowances

The initial draft version is required before a project is submitted for site and design funds and is based on requirements developed in the feasibility study.

A final OA is required prior to award of construction.

OAs should be updated during the design process if any decision impacts the program or the cost of the project.

Some of the keys to success of a feasibility study and some of the key relevant documents are shown here:

Courthouse Project Planning—Keys to Success Supply logical support for design/site prospectus Supply sufficient information to establish design and site budget Set realistic customer expectations for future project Emphasize Project Management Plan Evaluate broad range of alternatives Set expectations Provide clear pricing and TI information

Tasks Identify team roles and responsibilities Establish project goals Assess existing facility conditions Assess present and future customer needs Assemble needed resources and guidelines Identify range of alternatives to meet needs and goals Evaluate program, cost, and project goal implications of each alternative Assess logistical considerations and risks Recommend alternative Recommend designer procurement process Establish project schedule Create customer and community communication plan Initiate Section 106 and NEPA consultations Create project management plan Provide documentation to support design prospectus Deliverables

Feasibility Study (all alternatives) Project Management Plan Design (and Site) prospectus request Project Development Rating Index (PDRI) Acquisition Plan

Approvals Approval of Project Management Plan PBS submittal of project OMB inclusion of project in budget request Congressional authorization of site/design prospectus

Resources Scope of Work for Feasibility Studies Office of the Chief Architect U.S. Courts Design Guide Facilities Standards – P100 Office of the Chief Architect GSA PBS pricing desk guide Office of Asset Management PBS Business Assignment Guide Office of Real Property Asset Management CILP Planning Call Office of Portfolio Management Site Selection Guide Office of the Chief Architect Project Management Plan Outline (samples) Office of the Chief Architect Design Excellence Guide Office of the Chief Architect QA/Commissioning Tool Office of the Chief Architect Local Portfolio Plan (LPP) Regional Office of Portfolio Management Asset Business Plan(s) (ABP) Regional Office of Portfolio Management GSA Preservation Desk Guide Office of the Chief Architect Building Preservation Plans (BPP) Regional Historic Preservation Officer GSA Courthouse Project Handbook Office of the Chief Architect GSA NEPA Desk Guide Office of Business Operations Planning With Communities Office of the Chief Architect Urban Policy Updates: Hist. Buildings in Central Cities

(no. 1); Downtown Imp. Strategies (no. 2) Office of the Chief Architect USMS Publication 64 Interagency Security Committee Design Criteria Interagency Security Committee (ISC)

The GSA publications are available with other resources on PBS websites.

THE FEASIBILITY STUDY

The Feasibility Study (FS) evaluates customer needs, facility needs, options to meet those needs, and impacts to GSA’s inventory and business goals. It looks at various alternative scenarios and develops, evaluates and recommends a solution. The FS supports a site/design prospectus that requests a smaller funding request than the new construction prospectus and it takes place early in the project’s life, when the final direction may seem distant and tenuous. Despite this, the FS is immensely important. The Feasibility Study process has the greatest impact on project’s success because it defines the project’s basic parameters. It defines what the project will be. Because of this, the FS must address the project’s fundamental issues and not delaying key issues until they are far too late.

GSA requires a Feasibility Study to support an authorization request for site acquisition and design funding. The CCP does not require a program development study (PDS) to support an authorization for construction funding. GSA must request and receive authorization for design and site acquisition funding and construction funding in separate years. Depending upon the project schedule, these requests typically are one or two years apart.

The Feasibility Study:

Creates various housing plans for the considered alternatives, which support alternatives analysis and design prospectus.

Provides info for shell and tenant improvement (TI) costs, which will be reflected in the Occupancy Agreements (OA).

Supplies the initial OA signed by the customer to support design prospectus.

Assesses alternative impacts on customer moves and phasing.

Proposes design and construction budget for preferred alternative that can accommodate foreseeable changes to the strategy during project development (e.g., site availability).

Sets the budget for building shell and TI work.

Establishes a ‘firewall’ between GSA budget responsibility (shell) and the customer budget responsibility (TI).

Assesses the ability of existing buildings to meet seismic zone and progressive collapse performance requirements, estimates associated costs, and includes needed work in design funding proposal.

Completes studies needed to make such assessments.

Establishes security level requirements for agency and facility and evaluates special requirements and costs associated with sensitive occupancy or facility types.

Evaluates each alternative’s ability to meet security needs.

Highlights special telecommunications needs that impact project design strategy, phasing, or costs (e.g., 24-hour operations, allowable downtimes, sensitive equipment and operations). These are incorporated into the Project Management Plan’s implementation strategy.

Uses benchmarks for basic costs.

Considers ‘macro’ alternatives and compares their relative life cycle costs.

Establishes fundamental project parameters (including disposition of existing buildings) and the scope for the project.

Ensures adequate design and site acquisition budgets.

Sets customer expectations to allow for high quality design effort later.

Site Identification and Investigation vs. Site Selection and Acquisition

The site selection process informally “begins” during the pre-planning phase, as developing client needs for a new building give rise to expectations about desirable sites. The FS helps these expectations get further and redirects them, as necessary. Because the FS sets the site acquisition budget, a general project area, and the customer and community expectations for site acquisition, it is immensely important. The site is not formally selected until after a thorough site investigation, typically two or more years after the FS completion. But the FS sets parameters, directions, and strategies that are crucial to acquisition of a high quality site that meets the project’s needs. The Site Selection Guide is a valuable tool to consult throughout the process, from the feasibility stage through final site acquisition.

Proposes project size, scope, typical floor plate size, setbacks, and other requirements, which drive the size, location requirements, and cost of the site, and play a large role in building massing and design decisions.

Evaluates the market’s ability and the cost to provide a sufficient site at the time of acquisition.

Begins to set customer and community expectations about the future site selection.

Considers NEPA-related impacts of various alternatives.

Begins informal consultations with local officials, stakeholders, or experts.

Includes plan for the NEPA process in the Project Management Plan that supports the design prospectus.

Provides supporting information for GSA’s Environmental Checklist, which is submitted with the site and design prospectus.

Ensures that the customer understands the NEPA process and sets expectations accordingly.

Completes Building Preservation Plans (BPPs) for all GSA properties that may be affected before the FS begin.

Establishes project direction based upon consideration of macro-level alternatives that affect the fundamental disposition of historic resources (e.g., demolition, new construction, disposal, or restoration).

Identifies historic districts and properties that may be affected.

Develops a plan to implement the project in accordance with Section 106.

Establishes design budgets that are sufficient to meet Section 106 obligations.

Sets customer expectations.

Proactively identifies community issues and opportunities associated with alternatives to create positive impacts and manage risks.

Begins informal consultations with local officials and stakeholders.

Proposes responsive design scope and funding.

Outlines a process for early community consultation and coordination in the Project

Management Plan.

Establishes sustainability goals for the project.

Proposes and evaluates alternatives accordingly.

Assesses public nature of building and the resulting public art opportunities.

Evaluates alternatives for project phasing and procurement.

Proposes implementation strategy and incorporates it into the PMP to support design prospectus.

Sets project delivery method.

Confines delivery options based upon parameters established in the design prospectus.

The CCP provides cost estimates based on the most recent Benchmarking applies applicable programming and pricing models to courthouse and border station new construction projects.

Sites present the greatest challenges to new construction projects and they are the most obvious prerequisite for a good project. Planning for site costs is tricky because prices are subject to great variability, even within a sub-market. A site’s availability and suitability over time can vary greatly. The Feasibility Study should have a handle on which of these issues are relevant for each project. Although official site acquisition begins later, the FS should include a shortlist of potential sites, with test fits, projected costs, and likely issues as a basis to develop the acquisition budget. A skilled appraiser who knows the market and can provide supportable future site costs for the potential sites should provide input to the analysis. This cost information is necessary to propose a sufficient budget that is defensible to stakeholders. Real Estate costs have contributed to higher acquisition and site preparation costs which contribute to higher rent for the Judiciary.

There are several consistent reasons.

1) Property costs have increased dramatically since 2000.

2) Sites for new stand alone buildings in lieu of onsite expansion are not readily available in dense downtown Commercial Business Districts. Limited supply has driven up site costs.

Dense sites have higher demolition and mitigation costs.

3) Acquisition of larger sites to accommodate minimum 50’ setbacks has increased costs.

(ISC criterion is minimum 20’.)

Understand the right value for the properties likely to be available in the future is paramount to the feasibility study for courthouse projects. Regions should work closely with OCA on the identifications of appropriate sites.

The FS should provide information that:

Supports site and design prospectus.

Supports delineated area cited in the prospectus Ensures sufficient site budget for future site acquisition, based upon macro program test fits, likely availabilities, and supportable market data.

Ensures sufficient design budget.

Provides sound estimate for construction costs with shell and TI costs broken out.

Provides sound estimates for feasibility analysis, including estimates required to compare the preferred alternative to other viable alternatives.

Evaluates broad alternatives that may impact multiple GSA properties and the community.

Relies upon the LPP and relevant ABPs.

Defining Viable Alternatives

After identifying business and program goals, the Feasibility Study must define a number of alternatives that may satisfy these goals. Alternatives include alteration, new construction, leasing, purchase, build-to-suit leasing, disposal, out lease (including Section 111 historic out leasing), status quo, and combinations thereof. The Status Quo alternative helps to define the urgency of the project, but it also may represent realistic fallback position (in whole or in part).

Alternatives should be identified broadly and creatively and then narrowed down as the analysis progresses. The customer agency, project team, and FS contractor should all participate in the development of alternatives. A workshop may be the most effective way to bring all the information and participants together. The event should be planned to:

Review existing conditions and program goals Creatively generate potential alternatives Describe all alternatives according to a few key characteristics Evaluate alternatives to establish viable alternatives for further study

The Feasibility Study should discuss all developed alternatives, including viable ones and others that were rejected early in the process. This is the most important and time-consuming element of the feasibility study. The preferred alternative is the best alternative to meet customer agency, asset, and portfolio objectives. Based upon its evaluation of alternatives, the Feasibility Study should include a written summary that concisely documents the decisions, explains its findings, and provides justification for proceeding with the preferred alternative as part of GSA’s Capital Program.

The Feasibility Study must include accurate budgets. Estimates must conform to the standards dictated by the Planning Call. The analysis of alternatives will develop these costs throughout the FS. The estimates for site costs are most crucial, because they will directly support the site/design prospectus. Although the construction prospectus will provide more detailed construction costs for that request, the Feasibility Study must estimate those costs accurately as well. Refine Site acquisition costs. Use of professional appraisal estimates based on representative (i.e., build-able) sites rather than unsuitable market comparisons are recommended.

Site costs should include estimates for demolition and relocations. The estimate should ensure that site request will enable purchase of a suitable site in the planned year of purchase.

And some final keys to success for a feasibility study:

KEYS FOR THE FEASIBILITY STUDY SUCCESS

Set Expectations Expectations developed during the Feasibility Stage can last a project lifetime. A customer or community who understands the process and their role in it can be the greatest ally. It is important that the GSA team, rather than the Feasibility Study contractor, is the leader on setting expectations. Make sure all stakeholders understand the Feasibility process and the status of alternatives (especially regarding site selection).

Customize the Scope of Work The standard scopes of work are invaluable tools, but only a starting point. Ensure that your Feasibility Study is focused, complete, and on time by customizing the scope of work to meet project specifics

Emphasize the Project Management Plan Create project management plans at the beginning of the Feasibility process and update them throughout. Use them as a tool to focus the team, customer, and contractor’s efforts.

Keep the Feasibility Team Engaged Assemble a broad-based team early and keep them involved. In-house GSA experts and customers are crucial to help set strategy, ensure an effective study, and manage expectations right up until the capital program submission for the design/site request.

Ensure In-House Knowledge GSA holds responsibility for the general understanding of the project, from housing plans and phasing, to community coordination and procurement methods. GSA’s in-house team is needed to answer questions in support of the project throughout the approval process. They must know the project, as they have important roles in the future design team and support the project over the long-term. The Feasibility contractor will develop project costs, but the regional Portfolio Management office will conduct the analyses required by the Capital Program.

Conduct PDRI Process Like the Project Management Plan, putting your project team through the Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI) process can help you identify strengths and weaknesses early on. See the Planning Call for detailed process and requirements.

Evaluate Broad Range of Alternatives Examine all reasonable options to meet customer and project needs. Start broadly and refine the alternatives during the Study. Only limited scope projects should begin the Study with already defined solutions.

Preferred Alternative The study does not provide a preferred alternative. Based on the analysis of the alternatives, the preferred alternative is determined jointly by the GSA and the Courts taking into account the project cost and rent to the courts.

The following is an example of a scope of work for a feasibility study that was developed by a regional project team for your review. It’s a scope the CCP feels has led to some successful feasibility studies we have seen. While many of these scopes will be customized by the regions, it is hoped this scope can be used a basic template for discussion. If only some points are picked up before a specific study, it will have been worth the effort. We hope this can help to produce better feasibility studies for our courthouses projects, and our customers. If you have nay questions, please contact your Program Coordinator in the Center for Courthouse Programs.

SAMPLE A-E SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY

The purpose of this Feasibility Study is to allow GSA to evaluate prospectus-level proposed projects to meet tenant agency space needs and government-owned facility requirements. It would also be used to determine the preferred alternative and basis for preparing a Prospectus Development Study (PDS) which will meet the housing needs of United States District Courts and associated functions U.S. Marshals Service, and U.S. Attorney, in _____________ through the year 20__.

The Architect-Engineer (A-E) shall utilize their professional expertise to develop and provide a Feasibility Study that documents an analytical process that explores viable alternatives for meeting these requirements and validates the selection of a preferred alternative.

SECTION 1 Statement of Services—Feasibility Study

The Architect-Engineer (A-E) shall provide all professional services necessary to design and prepare documents specified in this scope of work.

1.1 General

The A-E shall prepare a feasibility study that identifies the significant conditions, general direction, and best technically feasible alternative for the Government. In developing the package, the A-E must investigate all data relevant to giving feasibility to the project direction.

The A-E shall prepare submittals to comply with all the requirements indicated in this scope of work. Specific tasks include, but are not limited to the following:

a. Investigate current conditions. Schedule and conduct field investigations of the current location, proposed sites, and neighborhood: develop base maps; collect and analyze existing information; set up and carry out interviews with personnel from client agencies (if necessary), regulatory groups, planning agencies, and GSA building operations.

b. Establish the overall project needs.

c. Establish project parameters for evaluating each of the alternatives. Develop goals, objectives, trade-offs, and priorities.

d. Assist GSA in developing the full range of viable alternatives within existing assets, new facilities/additions, lease or purchase alternatives, and/or combinations of these.

e. Develop and assess each of the alternatives as to their technical viability.

f. Provide relevant information to allow GSA to complete their long-term financial analysis.

g. During the submission phase, alternatives may be added, deleted and/or modified.

h. Make recommendation to GSA as to the best technically feasible alternative

i. Coordinate and document the GSA decision of the best technically feasible and long-term financial alternative, to include advantages, disadvantages for each alternative and the reasoning behind selecting the ‘best’ alternative.

j. Organize and present program information in a clear, concise, reporting format as defined in the scope of work.

k. Present reports to project groups as requested by the contracting officer.

l. Prepare separate construction cost estimates for Shell and Tenant Improvement (TI) costs.

(See attachment for definition of Shell and Tenant Improvement costs.)

1.2 Feasibility Study (FS)

1.2.1 The A-E shall prepare the FS for the indicated project, conforming to the content and direction within the Feasibility Study Guide and supplemented by this scope of work.

Generally, the Feasibility Study should include the following in order to allow for capital development decision making and to support the prospectus:

Client/Asset Needs Assessment Benchmark Level Project Cost Estimate Procurement Strategy Delivery Schedule Identification and Study of Viable Alternatives Technical and Financial Analysis of Viable Alternatives Selection and Justification of Preferred Alternative Supporting/Input Documentation Documentation and reporting the GSA decision of the ‘best alternative

1.2.2 Format

The study shall be presented in sections as indicated below.

a. Executive Summary: A summary statement of the project need, background, and project approach. Address current and projected needs, identify alternatives, and provide a comparative analysis.

b. Introduction: This section should include the key issues to be addressed for housing the client agencies and overall strategy for obtaining this goal

c. Existing Conditions: This section will provide current community and space profile, including economics, environmental, historical, and housing data.

d. Needs Assessment: This section will identify agency requirements, reference space standards, and planning considerations.

e. Viable Alternative Development: This section shall formulate and present the viable alternatives for meeting the requirements. This section shall include significant characteristics, strengths and weaknesses, and comments on why an alternative was rejected or selected for further analysis.

f. Analysis of Viable Alternatives: This section shall contain the technical and financial evaluation criteria with their weighted values and resulting analysis for each alternative.

1.2.3 Preferred Alternative

This section should address the viable alternative that is preferred for the project. A written summary shall provide clear and concise justification for proceeding with the preferred alternative as part of the CILP. This shall include technical/first costs of each alternative, financial long-term returns for each alternative, advantages/disadvantages of each alternative, lease and swing space issues related to each alternative and reasoning for GSA selecting the ‘best’ alternative. The study does not provide a preferred alternative. Based on the analysis of the alternatives the preferred alternative is determined jointly by the GSA and the Courts taking into account the project cost and rent to the courts.

1.2.4 Approach

Feasibility Study preparation shall include the work itemized within the scope of work.

a. General: In addition to the narrative, the feasibility study should contain, where applicable any site plans, floor plans, schematics, sketches, and other graphic diagrams that best demonstrates the viability of the project alternative.

b. Existing Conditions:

Perform field investigations.

Examine the space and conditions in the existing building.

Provide an assessment on alternatives for commercial uses of the existing building, estimating appropriate rental rates and general tenant finish costs to accommodate both public and private uses.

Tour and photograph a minimum of three potential sites for federal construction.

Obtain base maps.

Research market trends and competing new projects.

Research uses of neighboring properties and economic health of the neighboring areas.

Provide information on environmental issues.

Provide information on supply/demand potentials.

Potential uses of the existing building.

Address any historical issues.

Investigate and document existing housing of federal agencies.

Discuss the project with the, Asset Manager and other various user group representatives

(if necessary).

c. Overall Needs Assessment: The Needs Assessment establishes the basic requirements for which a real estate solution is sought. Needs may be client or asset based and must be of sufficient scope to require a prospectus-level capital project. Building Evaluation Reports (BER), Historic studies (if applicable), other studies (such as structural, NEPA, hazmat, seismic, site investigation), Asset Business Plans, Client Plans, and Local Portfolio Plans are critical tools for the evaluation of client agency and federal facility needs. Needs Assessment is used to articulate changing client mission, changing client housing requirements, deterioration in asset condition, and decline in asset financial performance. The Needs Assessment should be performed in sufficient detail to clearly define a goal/required outcome.

Provide each agency’s requirements including personnel projections by examining the total project areas to be accommodated.

Provide joint-use and facility support requirements including accommodations for shared conference rooms, food service, health and fitness units, child-care units, and custodial and maintenance areas.

Identify what user groups form the base program of needs to be met.

Reference the space standards to be applied in the planning process. Area requirements will follow the definitions of the ANSI/BOMA Standard Method for Measuring Floor Area in Office Buildings.

Identify specific and unique planning considerations that relate to the functional components in the project. Include all types of parking requirements in the analysis.

Detailed individual space requirements are not required in this early stage only the aggregate areas, by functional component. A housing plan, as per referenced examples, shall be developed presenting the useable, rentable, and gross area requirements of the assessment. To allow cost analysis by space type, the housing plan shall provide the functional group space requirements divided into office, storage, and special space totals.

Further division of special space is required to differentiate construction costs based on GSA established criteria for Shell and TI in the Pricing Desk Guide.

Delineate requirements to meet both the 10-year and 30-year need.

d. Alternative Development:

Describe each of the alternatives.

Describe site evaluation and sites considered. The site should meet the needs of the 30-year plan. At least three (3) sites must be presented for new government construction alternative.

Provide preliminary site geo-technical information, and the rating of each site.

Provide the strengths and weaknesses of each of the alternatives. Present each of the schemes developed for consideration with a site plan and a proposed housing plan for each.

Viable alternatives may include the following types of activities/actions and should not require unavailable resource levels or unobtainable authority:

- Alteration

- New Construction

- Lease

- Lease with Option to Purchase

- Build-to-Suit

- Purchase

- Disposal

- Sale/Leaseback

- Section 111Outlease (in historic buildings)

- No Action/Status Quo

- Any combination of the above

In addition, the method of delivery should be evaluated, such as:

- Design/Bid/Build – Design/Build – CMc – Design/Build/Bridging

- Phased Funding/Execution

- Swing Space Requirements

- Affect of existing and any new leases needed

- Phased Move Out/Move In

e. Technical and Financial Comparative Analysis of Viable Alternatives: Viable alternatives are considered that could satisfy the client agency space needs or facility repair requirements.

Each alternative should be analyzed in the context of regional and national business strategies, technical merit, other business/investment opportunities, capital (first) cost, and financial impact to the Federal Buildings Fund (FBF).

OMB Circular A-94 provides guidance on the analysis to be used by Federal agencies in evaluating proposed program activities. It includes guidance on the discount rates used to evaluate activities whose benefits and costs are distributed over time. It also contains expanded guidance on the measurement of benefits and costs, treatment of uncertainty, and related issues. This guidance must be followed in all analysis submitted to OMB in support of the GSA Budget.

f. Technical Analysis: The Feasibility Study requires that a technical analysis be performed for each viable alternative. For proposed client space requirements, consideration should be given to existing GSA owned/leased assets especially where there is current or projected vacant space. Proposed projects where tenant moves may be necessary (building systems work, etc.) should include a cost analysis based upon available space and related tenant moves in other owned/leased assets.

The discussion of the viable alternatives should succinctly address the following issues:

A-E will describe the functional adjacencies.

Provide an assessment on alternatives for commercial uses of the existing building, estimating appropriate rental rates and general tenant finish costs to accommodate both public and private uses.

Address the ease of completion, addressing relocation and disruption of the tenant agencies. For new construction include cost of acquisition and relocation of displaced residents and businesses.

Provide information on the site amenities and location of the alternatives.

Address space management capability.

The study does not provide a preferred alternative. Based on the analysis of the alternatives the preferred alternative is determined jointly by the GSA and the Courts taking into account the project cost and rent to the courts.

The analysis should also include consideration of the following costs:

Tenant Move/Lease Actions: All project related costs, such as the temporary relocation of tenants and lease space needs/impacts should be identified and cost analysis performed for each alternative.

Capital (First) Cost: Project cost and scope should be of sufficient detail to provide basis for review and approval by GSA officials. For new construction, all applicable costs for acquisition of the site should be incorporated. Benchmark and/or parametric level cost analyses (using gross square foot costs) may be used as follows:

New Construction: The GSA General Construction Cost Review Guide (GCCRG) provides data and calculation procedures to establish early planning phase cost estimates for new construction projects. The GCCRG can be used as the basis for establishing the estimated cost in the design prospectus for those projects where the “traditional delivery” procurement approach is envisioned, but Shell and TI costs estimates must be broken out.

Repair and Alterations: Where benchmark cost estimates cannot be performed, cost per square foot estimates (Level III Uniformat), or reliable estimates based upon prior studies may be used to develop the construction costs. Building assessment information (Building Evaluation Report or other building needs assessments) and associated cost estimates will assist in preparation of cost estimates for both Shell and TI.

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis: Life-cycle cost analysis is a method of project evaluation in which all costs arising from ownership, maintenance, and ultimately disposal are considered as part of the decision-making process. Life-cycle costing is applicable in capital investment decisions where initial costs are a trade-off to future costs (e.g. service life). An alternative is the most cost-effective if, on the basis of life-cycle cost analysis, it is determined to have the lowest costs expressed in net present value terms for a given amount of benefits.

Project Delivery Schedule: A project delivery schedule should include critical events and delivery procedures from time of GSA budget authorization/appropriation to tenant occupancy. Slippage of critical events will result in the delay of project completion.

Environmental compliance actions, site acquisitions, swing space requirements, lease terminations/relocations, etc. are examples of critical events that must be clearly identified as milestones on the schedule.

g. Financial Analysis: A financial analysis must be performed for each alternative. For the

Feasibility Study, the level of financial analysis is broad based rather than detailed. Methods of cost analysis to be considered include MAPP or Pro Forma and TAPS.

GSA shall assume the responsibility of performing this financial analysis in-house based on the information provided by the A-E as addressed in this scope of work.

h. Evaluation: The A/E and GSA project team will evaluate both the Technical and Financial analysis data at each design review.

i. Preferred Alternative Recommendation: The preferred alternative is the best alternative for meeting client agency, asset, and portfolio objectives. Based upon the results of the Feasibility Study, a written summary should be provided that clearly and concisely provides justification for proceeding with the preferred alternative as part of the CILP. Provide a summary of the most viable alternative for the project.

Provide the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative.

Provide all costs related to planning, acquisition, design, and construction of the alternative.

Incorporate the GSA provided long-term financial cost for each alternative.

Delineate the lease and swing space issues for each alternative.

Provide a summary timeline and plan for obtaining this objective.

The discussion of the preferred alternative should succinctly address the following issues:

- 1) Client Need: Identify client demand/client plan, local portfolio plan, physical asset need.

- 2) Project objectives and Portfolio Goals: Identify project objectives that relate to overall portfolio goals.

- 3) Design Issues: Identify design constraints/unique requirements. If land cost or availability is such that horizontal expansion is precluded, incorporate vertical expansion plans to meet the 30-year plan.

- 4) Schedule: Identify schedule constraints and risk assessment for project delivery.

Provide comparison of project delivery requirements with regard to funding, site acquisition, design, and construction.

- 5) Funding Sources and Budget Schedule: Identify funding sources (i.e. Budget Activity, New Pricing Tiering for Shell and TI, Reimbursable Work Authorization, Donations, and other sources) and budget schedule for project delivery.

- 6) Procurement Method: Identify procurement method that will allow for the successful delivery of proposed project.

- 7) Cost, Procurement, and Time Issues Related to Leases and Swing Space

- 8) Performance Measurement: Identify how the proposed project will impact performance measurements.

- 9) Document Reasoning that GSA decides on the ‘best’ alternative to provide justification for any Congressional project submission.

1.2.5 Supporting/Input Documents

Backup materials to the Feasibility Study should be included as appendices (i.e. housing plan, cost estimates, site studies, technical references, and delivery schedules).

Input documents support both needs assessment and the development and evaluation of viable alternatives. Some input documents may describe conditions/constraints that may limit the number of viable alternatives. Therefore, the Feasibility Study should reflect all relevant input documents and related information that define client agency and facility needs and may help to define viable alternatives for meeting these needs.

The study does not provide a preferred alternative. Based on the analysis of the alternatives the preferred alternative is determined jointly by the GSA and the Courts taking into account the project cost and rent to the courts.

SECTION 2 Schedule of Submissions

2.1 Submission Format

The A-E and GSA personnel shall review all submittal formats immediately upon notice to proceed.

a. The method of measurement for preparing this scope of work is the ANSI/BOMA standard.

b. The submittal shall include spread sheets using Microsoft Excel for Windows 2000 version.

c. Narrative portions of the FS shall be typed and formatted onto diskettes using Microsoft

Word for Windows version 2000.

d. Final submittals should include a CD-Rom containing electronic files of the feasibility study and any supporting documentation.

e. Upon completion of the FS, all materials originally provided by the GSA will be returned.

2.2 Submittal Content

The Feasibility Study will be developed through 4 submissions as follows: (1) initial outline; (2) working copy of identified viable alternatives and criteria for comparative analysis, (3) Preliminary submittal (90%) and Final completion.

a. Initial Outline: A-E shall provide an initial outline 3 working days after the fact finding survey conducted the week of ________. Information contained in this outline shall be as detailed as possible for evaluation by the GSA COR, CORT, and Asset Manager.

b. Identified Viable Alternatives: A-E shall provide working copy of identified viable alternatives and criteria for comparative analysis when available. Date to be determined upon further discussion after fact finding survey.

c. Preliminary Submittal - 90%: The 90 percent documents must provide complete text and graphics, including cover, table of contents, introduction, description of existing conditions, comparative analysis and viability of the alternatives, advantages and disadvantages, construction cost estimate, and preliminary recommendation.