And that is the involvement of Security Experts in development of the Design Excellence program. I know there were some who were on the commission to develop it. But ms. Munaz and mr. Green, if you could address the actual input of the Security Experts into the program and setting standards in the program, and whether theres an ongoing effort to keep the Security Experts involved. Beyond what the state department comes up with on its own. One of the criticisms that has happened has been that the state department has underestimated the security needs and the security threats. And i want to make sure as we move forward and build these embassies that security considerations are part of that ongoing process of assessment. So if you could sort of address that, starting from who was on the initial commission and whether that involvement and security continues and mr. Green, if you could gives your assessment as a security expert yourself. Im not really a security expert. You led the committee that was asked by the arb and i think that you have some very valid comments that i would like to hear about in terms of security in the Design Excellence program. But i like ms. Munoz to start, if you dont mind. As i mentioned earlier, the founding commitment with this program as with any other programs that would evolve over time relating to embassy and consulate yux is we meet all the security standards. They increase them and they change them over time. Whatever they throw at us, were going to implement because thats our responsibility. I want to make that point very clear. Our goal with this process is also to improve our coordination with the dip maltic security. So to have them more involved with us and have them more involved earlier to make sure that they see everything that were doing throughout the development of the project. So i would argue that their involvement is going to increase and that the key commitment that i know is important to them is that we continue to meet all of the security standard. And i have assured the department, i assure this committee well continue to do that. Mr. Green . I dont know what the interaction today is between ds and obo as they develop new plans for embassies and consula consulates. What i do know and recognize, this report was done now more than a year ago. Maybe theyre all joining hands and singing now. But when we interviewed people who were concerned with security. Not just ds but people from other parts of the government also, they were not happy, the people we talked to, were not happy in their role with their role in the Selection Process and felt very strongly that the pendulum has shifted from security to design. I mentioned and theres several examples of our observations as i said before didnt come from the six of us. These were based on the interviews that we did with more than 100 people. Not all of them, obviously, opined on obo and security. But many did. And so those observations that are in there, its not my opinion. Its what we got from people who work on a daily basis or hopefully, work on a daily basis with obo. Thank you, im out of time, mr. Chairman. If the gentle woman will yield so she could reclaim some time and respond to this. Yes, i yield. Mr. Green speerhead this is effort and puts together this report which was an offshoot and started because of the accountability review board, ms. Munoz, has the state department accepted in . Has this been approved . Is there anything under your mind thats been that did they disagree with it . As mr. Green pointed out, the ds Management Review Board really looked at dss organizations. I dont know the status of the response or the implementation of the recommendations. I could take it back to my colleagues. Thats my kin. Let me finish. With respect to the questions relating to obo there was one recommendation that we look at the cost umm approximately occasions or the security implications of this program and we have affirmed time and again, that there will be no security implications to this program. Were dedicated to meeting all of the security requirements that ds establishes, that are established in law and in working with ds to innovate better and better products every year that better meet those security standards. If it takes longer to build something do you consider that a security implication . As i explained to the committee, from the time of award, which is how obo receives its funding annually, the time to build the facility, because were doing construction only, will be the same or shorter, which means that well have in safer facilities, faster than using the design build methodology, in particular, when we have advance time to plan. And i hope and Ranking Member and colleagues on both sides of the aisle, this report was done. We asked for a kwoip. The state department has thus far refused to give us a copy. Al jazeera are has it. They minuted it out on their website. We dont have one and youre in the United States congress. Even though im holding one that i got off of al jazeera are. You have Patrick Kennedy in off significant post go on cbs news and say he disagrees with this report. I think its part of our business to understanding with what does hi disagree with and what does he agree where . If the very person thats implementing this office isnt totally familiar with it, isnt necessarily implementing it, theres a problem. Theres a problem. Again, i would like to restate. It was a ds management report. It hit and touched on ds Diplomatic Security would be better positioned to answer that question. I think they would be in a great position to answer it and i think next time we have this panel, we should include Diplomatic Security. If i had to do it over i would include Diplomatic Security here as well. Would the gentle lady yield to me . Yes. Thanks. One question, mr. Green. Again, trying to get to the bottom line, security. When you did your surveying, what exactly exactly you said you talked to 100 people surveyed 100 people. Can you tell us a little bit about that process . So we can fully understand and appreciate what it was that you did and what you were telling these people and why you were asking because thats significant. You went to people whose interests whose interests would be to make sure that they were secure. Am i right . Well, yes. We interviewed more than 100 people. We had them come in and they spread across the all the bureaus in the state department and some from outside of the state. We interviewed some of the people that were on the review board. We asked different questions of different people. Some were organizational questions. Does the assistant secretary for Diplomatic Security have enough of a role within the running the organization . There was a lot of emphasis on highthreat posts. Post benghazi to establish a special cell for highthreat posts. Not all of the people that we talked to, did we ask about the relationship with obo and others, but many of them we did ask that question to. And out of those questions, came these observations we laid out in our report. And the final recommendation, as i said before, we didnt make a determination that Design Excellence should be tossed out the window. All we said was before you go a lot further with this, we recommend that the state department do an indepth analysis to look at the security implications of this program. And it seems to me that, you know, a lot of times we have the departments and individuals disputing issues in government. And the people suffer during the dispute. You know, at some point weve got to figure this out so that our people are protected. I think members of congress and certainly the public, when they hear the debates, you know, not necessarily interested in watching this being made. They want to make sure that people are secure. That the costs are reasonable and that the facility is functional. And that were doing whatever we do effectively and efficiently. I just think sometimes, you know, it seems as if we feel like weve got to argue this and argue that. But at the same time, the people who need what were supposed to be yielding, theyre not getting it. What they get theyre not getting it in a timely fashion. What our report, obviously, focused on security. I understand. And as i said early on, if someone can show me that we can do it just as inexpensively, just as securely, just as fast, using Design Excellence, i will sign up tomorrow. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you the lady for yielding. Thank the gentle woman. Ill now recognize myself. I want to ask the cobb sent to enter into the record, its called the guide to Design Excellence including the message from you, ms. Munoz. The question for you is without hearing any objections, so ordered. Well enter it into the record. Who at state department, has approved this . The director of obo approved that document before i was director. It was adam mann. I want to make clear that this was a development that was widely briefed with security and on the hill and briefed publicly and was provided widely. So while its within obos authority to innovate and to develop programs that help us build the best buildings that we can that are Cost Effective and efficient, that is the and the question that we have long term is Diplomatic Securitys feeling about that. Well come back to that. In response to cbs news, state department put out this statement. There has been no evidence that excellence projects take longer to build. In fact, under the Excellence Initiative, from the fiscal year award to akpan si, facilities will be delivered occupancy facilities will be differented on the same if not shorter schedule. And in response to cbs news it says all facilities will be delivered on the same if not shorter schedules. Theres no evidence to the contrary. Help me understand, then, why this unclassified document help me understand whats going on in maputo. It started as a Standard Embassy Design with an estimated development of 39 months. And, yet, now the says that on march 28th of 2014, they were changing to Design Excellence and that it was going to take 46 months. I dont have the document that you have. Id like to be able to respond to that but i need to be able to go back and look at detailed budgets and schedules. But this is something this is the frustration. We request this type of document formally and you play hide 567bd seek and dont provooid ide it and you make all therepresentat that everything is ahead of schedule. You put that out to the world and you gave that to cbs news and you let everybody know, no, no, no. Nothing is behind schedule and yet i find document. Why is that . Because i said id like to as i said id like to look at the case and the document youre holding to speak knowledgeably about that. Do you dispute what im Say Something. Im not sure what youre saying. Im saying that in maputo you went from a 39 a month project to a 46month project and if youre in africa and dont have the proper security youre going to feel the effects of that. Again, ill have to go back and look at the details of that project. Tell me tell me about oslo. Is it ahead of schedule or behind schedule . Oslo has a new contract working on that project. Is it behind schedule or ahead of schedule . At this time, its behind schedule. And its a Design Excellence project . No. Its not. What is it . Oslo was a project that was developed and could not be done as a Standard Embassy Design because many cities, in particular in europe, have zoning requirements that require us to develop buildings differently. Thats the case in oslo. It seems very convenient that you toggle between is it Design Excellence, is it Standard Embassy Design . Is it or is it not . We dont have that clear definition. Theres a lot of people and i believe some documents out there that say it is Design Excellence. So help me with whats going on in the hague. Is it ahead of schedule or behind schedule . Id have to look up details about the hague. Again, the hague is like an oslo project. The hague was a project that was developed based on it had to be an adjusted design based on city requirements. Based on Design Excellence . No. Not based on Design Excellence. Is it design in the bill . Sfwhooer i believe the hague is a design and build because the requirements in those cities force a very Extensive Development of the project in a way that indicates that design been build is the better option. Thats a condition that we find in very many cities in europe in particular. We have that issue. We had that issue in london. We are had it in oslo and we have it in the hague. But those are projects that were started before the Excellence Initiative. The way in which they were developed yin may very well be responsive to the environment in a way in which the Excellence Initiative would have. Lets go to kiev and the ukraine. What happened there . We needed more seats. We needed more personnel . What did you do there . Usaid aed an next in key zblooef so we added how many seats . I dont have that more than 100 right . More than 100 seats . Youve that at my fingertips. I do. It was Standard Embassy Design and we add more than 100 additional seats. We added annex. Still, seats. Let me go to mr. Jones. Youve been so patient. You were the one in youre testimony here, let me ask you. If it takes longer to build an embassy, we have people in harms way. And it takes longer to build it, do you think that that puts people in harms way or not . In the case of this . Yeah. Is that the question . Yeah. The situation in port morsiby is we had a increase in the number of people who would be located on site and the addition of u. S. Marines. So for those of you that arent as familiar, we had 41 personnel. And that number was going to go up to 71 personnel, correct . Right. But under law, were required to colocate the mission and would north have been able to do so had we only built a building for 41 people. So there is a way, though so theres awe way to build under standard ill design, an increase in the number of personnel. Lets go back as to why why was the number of personal increased. We started with what was essentially a standard yooem design. It was a mini standard design. When we got increase to add the marines, we were unable when did that decision that marines were going in become when did you get that in. I believe it was in march of 2013. And you have documentation for this . Can you provide that to the committee . Yes. When we provide the other documents you requested well include that among them. Okay. So there are no marines there now . And i think the public in general has a misconsengs as to what the marines actually do and dont do. They dont go outside the wall. Theyre there to protect classified information. In port morisby theres an exxonmobil project, multibillion dollar project being developed to support chinese. The chinese have a 20year contract. So i still dont fully understand or appreciate, and youre not necessarily the right person to answer the question want i dont want to put you on the spot, as to why we had to suddenly have this surge in the number of personnel. But nevertheless, the occupancy date for port morisby was going to be may of 2014, correct . That is correct. And the cost of that embassy was estimated to be, what . I believe the cost of the original facility was to be somewhere around 79 million. My understanding is it was going to be less than 50 million. The cost to construct the facility itself was 49. That includes the number i gave you include site costs. So we have the site, whether its Standard Embassy Design or Design Excellence, i happen to go there in february. The chief of mission has no clue that any of this is going on. None of discussions, he had no idea. He was still anticipating and understood there was a delay but still thought that during his tenure they were going to be able to in. What is the new date that theyre going to move in . I believe the new date will be in 2018. So and what is the estimated cost . We dont have a final cost yet because we dont have a completed design. Because its not a Standard Embassy Design, correct . No. Thats not the issue. Are you telling me that this is not Design Excellence . That this is under standard ill design . No. What im saying is that the compound in port morisby began as a standard facility. And it experienced an significant increase in staffing which prevented us from being able to use a standard design. The facility was not capable of being modified because it was so small. So it required an anext and it is the addition of the people and the annex and the marines that are making the delivery date of 2018. That is based on a costbenefit analysis that the department has done. That is the fastest time that were able to get the folks from that mission colocated on the compound with the marines. So this is so amazingly frustrated. The paperwork i have, not from you, but it said are said this facility costs in excess of 200 million. Were going to spend 3 million per seat per seat in port morisby, new guinea. Average per capita income is like 2500. Id like to take some of these questions. Well im not asking you. Im asking mr. Jones. Ill come to you. Ill give you plenty of time. So were going to spend 3 million per seat and theyre not going to be there for a good four yourself. You dont have a final design. What are they supposed to do for security there for the next four years while they wait . We are attempting to get safe and secure facilities open the fastest time schedule that we can. Were doing eve