Erring On Side Of Caution

To protect federal employees who work in privately owned sites from biological, chemical or conventional bomb attacks, the federal government government is seeking new security standards for more than 6,500 buildings it leases across the country, The Washington Post reports in its Saturday editions.

The Post says recommendations being mulled for new or renewed leases include setting sensitive buildings up to 100 feet from streets, securing parking lots or garages and using stronger construction materials and techniques to prevent a catastrophic collapse.

The government also is seeking -- but not mandating -- assurances that foundations, supports and exterior walls will not fail in case of an explosive impact; that heating, ventilation and water systems resist easy tampering with chemical or biological agents; and that electrical and critical communications systems have backups, the Post adds.

Such guidelines would have broad implications for the commercial real estate industry and other corporate tenants in the nation's capital, where the federal government is the dominant renter, and could potentially affect downtowns in larger cities where the government houses workers, the Post points out.

The General Services Administration this week proposed the changes to the federal Interagency Security Committee, a panel that was established soon after the bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building in 1995 to safeguard government operations.

The committee oversees security standards set after that bombing for 1,700 federally owned buildings, a $1.3 billion effort to date that has increased new construction costs 15 percent to 25 percent, according to the Post.

"What we now need, especially after September 11, is similar guidelines for the space the government leases from the private sector," the Post quotes F. Joseph Moravec, commissioner of GSA's Public Buildings Service, as saying.

"It's one thing for government to incorporate some of these expensive measures because we're building buildings to last 100 years," said Moravec, whose agency leads the panel. "But it's going to be challenging for the private sector to incorporate them and at the same time be competitive with market rents."

The proposal is a response to the attacks of Sept. 11 and illustrates the government's pace-setting role in office-building security, says the Post, even as it struggles to streamline actions taken by numeous independent agencies.

Adjusting to the new threat often places security-minded officials at odds with local leaders, urban planners and architects, who say that too much security will sacrifice public access and economic vitality.

The Post says the new standards could mean any building housing a federal office is subject to a security overhaul or even relocation.

"There's a snowball effect here," cautioned Robert A. Peck, who was commissioner of the GSA's Public Buildings Service from 1995 to 2000, referring to security measures embraced by federal agencies. "We're talking about spending a lot of money, disrupting a lot of lives and commerce, and some of it may not be necessary at all."

Peck, who now is president of the Greater Washington Board of Trade, said the government has to be wary of reacting to past threats, instead of future ones, and spending tax dollars on a false sense of security.

"We need to ask . . . 'What are the risks a democracy must take?' " Peck said. "Security people are going to push for what they can get. We need to push back."

"We have to be vigilant," D.C. Planning Director Andrew Altman said at a forum last month on federal security held at the National Building Museum, "not to allow an environment or an atmosphere of fear to pressure us to make huge decisions about the federal workforce and federal offices and relocate them."

The federal government has been wrestling with how to balance security with public access since 1995, when the terrorist attack in Oklahoma City shook federal builders much as Sept. 11 did all the country, the Post says.

The task has largely fallen on the Interagency Security Committee, which meets monthly and draws together security directors from 17 major government agencies as well as representatives from law enforcement and national security agencies.

The panel regularly updates a key June 1995 federal study that set 52 security standards for federal facilities, such as perimeter lighting, physical barriers and television surveillance. The report divided facilities into five security levels, assigning each one to escalating degrees of compliance with the standards.

To meet government requirements for leased buildings, Moravec said, developers need clear standards.

"The idea will be to achieve a consensus that can be used as a template for the private sector," Moravec said. Buildings that fail a guideline would not necessarily be knocked out from a bid but could be graded lower than a competitor, he said. "We really want to avoid being rigid.