Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 19
4
FEDERAL ACTIONS RELATED TO THE QUESTION
The Public Building Amendments act of 1988 is not the first
instance of official concern about the relationship between federal
government design criteria and non-federal standards and criteria. In
1984, the FCC member agencies sponsored a BRB study of opportunities for
increasing the quality and efficiency of federal design and construc-
tion.14 The committee conducting that study expressed concern regarding
lack of coordination among various agencies' criteria for design of
similar facilities, and the overlap of federal regulations with codes,
standards, and criteria used in the private sector. The committee
recommended that, wherever possible, federal agencies should purge their
design criteria of provisions that needlessly duplicate provisions of the
model codes and specify by reference the use of one of these codes.
Executive Guidelines on Federal Participation in the
Development and Use of Voluntary Standards
The federal government, as a whole, has recognized that standards
for describing required characteristics of many products or services used
by the government may be adapted from or used as stated by private
voluntary standards bodies. This recognition, as well as a policy of
reliance on the private sector to supply government's needs for goods and
services, led to issuance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) of
Circular No. A-119, 'Federal Participation in the Development and Use of
Voluntary Standards." The most recently revised version of this circular
was issued October 26, 1982. (Appendix A)
The circular calls upon federal agencies to adopt and use "voluntary
standards that will serve agencies' purposes and are consistent with
applicable laws and regulations," in the interests of economy and
efficiency, unless they are specifically prohibited by law from doing so.
Agencies are further urged to give voluntary standards preference over
non-mandatory government standards unless use of these voluntary
standards would adversely effect performance or cost or have other
l4Design Criteria for Federal Buildings. Committee on Federal
Construction Design Criteria, Building Research Board. National Academy
Press, Washington, DC, 1985.
19
OCR for page 20
significant disadvantages. Agencies responsible for developing standards
are advised to review their standards at least every five years and to
cancel those for which an ''adequate and appropriate voluntary standard"
is available.
The circular also encourages participation of knowledgeable agency
employees in the standards-development activities of groups that propose
voluntary standards. Noting specifically that such participation does
not signify agency endorsement or adoption of agreements and standards
that might result from these activities, the circular suggests that this
participation should be aimed at eliminating the need for development and
maintenance of separate government standards.
While the benefits of reducing duplication of effort and needless
diversity of product standards are clear, there are caveats as well. The
OMB memorandum issuing the 1982 revision of Circular No. A-ll9 included a
copy of the letter from the Department of Justice commenting on issues of
competition raised by the policy. This letter referred to U.S. Supreme
Court opinion and international treaty responsibilities as bases for
federal government agencies to encourage voluntary standards groups to
give open consideration of all relevant viewpoints and interests, and to
remain wary of the possible anticompetitive impact of broad adoption of
standards set by private groups without adequate involvement of existing
and potential industry participants and consumers.
The Secretary of Commerce, given responsibility for reporting
progress under Circular No. A-119, submits a triennial report for the
Director of OMB. An Interagency Committee on Standards Policy (ICSP)
prepares this report based on annual reports by other federal agencies to
the Secretary of Commerce.
The committee noted that the large number of voluntary standards
groups, the very wide range of relevant interests in standards
influencing building products, design, and construction, and absence of
funds specifically designated for agency participation in standards
setting, make it especially difficult for federal construction agencies
to assure that the guidance given by the OMB is effectively applied.
Thus, while agencies have in fact adopted many voluntary standards in
their owner's criteria, the committee found it difficult to distinguish
the impact of OMB Circular No. A-ll9 in current agency practices
regarding building design.
Legislation to Improve the Efficiency and Effectiveness
of Management of Public Buildings
The 100th Congress, in October, 1988 passed the ''Public Buildings
Amendments of 1988.~' (Appendix B) The act includes a section (designated
Sec 21. Compliance with Nationally Recognized Codes) requiring that all
federal buildings be reconstructed or altered, to the maximum extent
feasible" in compliance with one of the nationally recognized model
building codes and other applicable nationally recognized codes such as
electrical codes, plumbing codes, and fire and life safety codes. The
''maximum extent feasible" is as determined by the Administrator of the
General Services Administration (GSA) or the head of the federal agency
undertaking the construction or alteration. The law also requires that
20
OCR for page 21
federal agency officials consult with appropriate state or local
officials and, if requested, submit building plans for review and permit
inspection of construction according to local customary procedures.15
The committee observes that this legislation, in principle, simply
codifies what is already federal agencies' policy. The committee's
experience is that agency design criteria typically meet or exceed the
provisions of the model codes. Further, despite some examples: of agency
personnel failing to take account of concerns or knowledge of local
conditions that state or local officials have, the committee asserts that
responsible managers and professionals for most federal building projects
seek to respect local building and zoning regulations which do not
conflict with the government's needs. Where conflict may arise' the
committee's experience is that efforts are typically made to resolve the
matter to the satisfaction of all parties.
The law may provide state or local authorities with a stronger
weapon for dealing with those cases of conflict that do occasionally
arise. However, the law specifically states that no action may be
brought against the federal government for failure to comply with the
act's consultation and review provisions, and exempts the federal
government and its contractors from payment of any fees that might
normally be collected by a state or local agency for plan review or
construction inspection.
The committee anticipates that guidelines that may be issued by GSA,
regarding how compliance with nationally recognized building codes is to
be assured, will have cost implications for the agencies. In the
extreme, it could become necessary for each agency to prepare point-by-
point comparisons of the agency's design criteria with the requirements
in each nationally recognized building code.
The committee asserts that there is still a benefit to be gained by
reducing the overlap of some agencies' criteria with the principal model
codes, but that a laborious point-by-point comparison would be largely
unproductive, because of both the large number of nationally recognized
codes and the typically equal or higher requirements set in federal
design criteria. However, the committee suggests as well that such a
comparison may evolve with development of computerized building code and
design criteria databases and that such evolutionary development is
worthy of encouragement. (Refer to Chapter 2)
15The act also requires that consideration be given to all require-
ments (other than procedural requirements) of zoning laws and laws
relating to landscaping, open space, building heights, distances between
buildings and property lines (termed ''building setbacks or ) , historic
preservation, aesthetic qualities of a building, and other similar state
or local government laws that would apply if the building project were
not being undertaken by a federal government agency. Such requirements
are outside the scope of building codes and thus are not addressed in
this study.
21
OCR for page 22
Current Agency Activities
The various federal agencies have little uniformity in their
policies and practices regarding the relationship of their owner's
criteria to model codes or local codes. The Army Corps of Engineers
reports, for example, that the agency used the Uniform Building Code
(UBC) as the starting point for developing its criteria documents.
Consequently, the Corps' criteria are very similar to the UBC in matters
having to do with health, safety, and general welfare of building
occupants, but these documents do not make any specific reference to the
UBC.
The Naval Facilities Engineering Command has not followed closely
any single model code in developing its criteria documents, but has
adopted many specific proposed voluntary standards. This more eclectic
approach to criteria development may be most representative of current
federal agency practice.
The Department of Energy (DOE) has in recent years reviewed and
revised its design criteria to virtually eliminate overlap with the model
codes. As they are currently written, the predominant model code in a
region governs on all matters not covered in the agency's design criteria
documents. Design standards are incorporated by reference to voluntary
standards, rather than by incorporation of the specific standard. On
occasion, for example with respect to earthquake design loads, a single
specific model code provision may be referenced. DOE staff estimate that
less than one percent of their design criteria now directly address
matters covered by the model codes.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for many years
issued an extensive list of criteria governing the design and construc-
tion of housing and certain other types of facilities eligible for
financial assistance under HUD programs, the Minimum Property Standards
(MPS). The MPS was developed to protect the government's investment in
mortgages secured by the assisted properties, and to maintain the
integrity of the underlying government policies of providing decent
housing and a suitable living environment to a broad range of people.
Many builders and local governments found the imposition of a second
set of code-like requirements, on top of local codes, to be burdensome
and possibly contributing to costs and management problems in many
projects. Responding to these concerns, HUD adopted a policy that
compliance with nationally recognized model codes or local codes that HUD
staff deemed to be comparable would be considered acceptable for program
eligibility, and substantially curtailed the scope of the MPS. The MPS
now covers only those matters, such as interior sound transmission and
site development characteristics, not covered in the principal model
codes.
22
Representative terms from entire chapter:
design criteria
