The Foreign Service Journal, September 2005

The New OBO: A Radical Shift Desperate to rebuild confi- dence in its operations, and stung by criticism from many directions, Secretary of State Colin Powell named a former military man, retired Major General Charles Williams, to head FBO in 2001. Powell also approved a change in the name of the office to Overseas Buildings Operations and elevat- ed its status within the depart- ment, effectively abolishing the former office. It was a signal to Congress that an entirely new agenda and a new way of doing business had been adopted. As part of his reorganization of the office, Williams adopted a business model, turned to design-build pro- duction, and created an Industry Advisory Panel that mostly represents the corporate side of the construction industry. In doing so, he marginalized the existing Architectural Advisory Board, created in 1954 to provide outside expert advice — in an era when modern archi- tecture, not terrorism, was provoking concern. Also, with 89 percent of all primary facilities failing to meet the 100- foot setback requirement, only two of the 25 replacement projects funded after the 1998 bombings completed, a total of 160 replacement facilities to build, and an esti- mated budget requirement of $16 billion, Williams turned to the URS Corporation for a standard embassy design. Based on the recent RTKL Associates’ scheme for Kampala, the SED prototype comes in three sizes (small, medium and large), all consisting of two parallel building blocks separated by an atrium. With a core preapproved for security, new projects have a 24-month timetable, start to finish. (You can see photos and draw- ings of these projects at http://www.state.gov/obo/.) This is a radical shift from the earlier production process in which individual architects submitted original designs for each locale, FBO reviewed them, granted approvals, sent jobs out to bid, hired contractors and built them. Every job was custom-tailored. World events and other factors combined to produce a process in which projects took from two to more than 10 years to com- plete. Now architects and engineers join large international general contractors as part of design-build teams, and work under such time pressure that contractors are often pouring foundations while architects are still completing working drawings. HOK Architects and J.A. Jones Construction are producing SEDs in Tashkent and Tbilisi, for exam- ple. And INTEGRUS Architec- ture and Caddell Construction have SEDs in production in Con- akry, Bamako and Freetown — all varying in size, but based on the “medium” model. For these pro- jects, costs are fixed once a bid is accepted. The timetable is pre-set. If expenses rise during the construction phase, it is up to builders to find ways to reduce total costs. This puts the squeeze on the architects, who can see their input compromised or eliminated in the process. It also means that features designed to improve the work- place environment are often eliminated. According to Jerry Winkler, designer for INTEGRUS, architects can still add distinction to such projects through site plan- ning, landscape treatment, choice of cladding materials, and façade organization, including window spacing and size, but, he notes, “The people who are paying the bills are driving the process.” Winkler’s point is significant because it suggests rightfully that the client for embassy construction is not OBO, not even the State Department, but members of Congress who authorize and appropriate the money, and by extension those of us who elect them. What Congress likes about Williams and his new pro- gram others find troubling. Some sort of standardization makes sense in a program devoted to a single building type, and it makes sense, too, to hire contractors with experience, but what many object to is the notion of “a cookie-cutter embassy” that is symbolized by a logo and sells sameness much like Marriott or McDonald’s. If, as one aide to the House International Relations Commit- tee puts it, Congress’ only concern is “to keep embassies from being blown up,” it is unlikely that anyone will prod OBO to make “design excellence” a higher priority. Why Is Design Important? Why does design excellence matter? It matters because as the study of architectural history shows, our buildings say a lot about us, and in the arena of interna- tional affairs, what we say about ourselves does matter. As F O C U S 48 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 5 The Standard Embassy Design prototype comes in three sizes (S, M, L), all consisting of two parallel building blocks separated by an atrium.