>> >> when it exempted $42 million of additional money without sufficient justification. we found the department's practice in both areas with the added expenses did not fill the requirements for ago as a result we made a full recommendation in the process of being discussed by the department to be close to discuss our finances first the standard requires most new office buildings to protect people

from the effects of the explosions and projectiles. the ball that that criteria of glass protection requirement. with building operations and the bureau of diplomatic security it is responsible to oversee new construction compliance of the security standard. by statute it must certify to congress a new embassy will provide proper security before it undertakes such a process. the interpretation is contained in the foreign affairs to state that no contract should be awarded before certification and. notwithstanding since 2003 authorizing construction contractors prior two's certification in the case of the london compound many

months before they certified the project december 2013 as providing adequate security protection. oh well gee is concerned is certified safety without blast testing results that was not completed until may 2014 within 6 months after certification. as early as november 2012 we had notified concerns with the wall design to reiterate the full blast test need to be completed to meet standards. they change course after the director provided a written assurance it would address any issue if it failed but they agreed it met the standards for go by initiating construction without first completing the blast as the department committed itself to constructing a building but could need redesign putting the taxpayers of financial risk. now to the secondary concern.

initially it targeted early 2017 as the move in date for the compound to meet the target hit shows yearly contractor involvement which was intended to shorten the time between design and construction by involving a construction contractor early in the process. the first experience with this company. if you use the net ec i have two pricing proposals the first is the inert -- initial target price in the second is the final price proposal submitted at the final design stage. they're required to use support sufficient data so they can negotiate a firm price in the case of the london compound they negotiated the final price with requiring the contractor to explain

adequately a $42 million difference between the initial proposal in the final proposal. our findings will have a positive impact on a future projects to reduce risks '02 taxpayers for a big deal for the opportunity to have this work. >> i will recognize itself for five minutes. ms. muniz how was he started construction on this facility prior to having a security parameters in place? how is it the under secretary of management has certified it is safe and secure but they have not completed all the security test? >> i will take that question first then i will handed

over who is the one who certifies to confirm that these projects meet the standards. i will remind the committee when a project is certified and alternately the undersecretary is certifying a design. the design of the london embassy met the requirements that were provided by diplomatic security. by using very complex calculations and running those for hundreds or thousands of hours would is possible to confirm that the design meets the standards and that is what was done. >> why did you start construction prior to the certification? >> i would argue that we did not. we awarded a construction contract as the department has done for the last year's

>> when do you think we started construction? >> for years, a privately in doing the pilot test is considered part of the site work spinach here are pictures provided by the state department on your account. are you telling us that is not construction? i have three pictures here. these are dated by the state department website prior to the certification. that is what the inspector general, it did not come to our attention but for the inspector general you don't seem to agree and we are confused. we're to believe that is not a construction? that seems like a lot of work in a lot of construction and you don't

believe that its construction? >> i agree it is a lot of work but under the definition we have used for years with diplomatic security, we do site pilings and recap of this to stabilize the earth before we come out of the ground. this exact process has been followed but standard embassy design over 10 years that is the same process to award contracts to do this site to work then to come out of the ground after certification. >> we have never built a building like this or a blast wall. it had not been certified for tested. people on the grounds and we have never built anything like this. the point the inspector general is making, you were

taking a huge risk. that looks like construction. you say it is done in the past it is not construction. is that construction mr. linick? what if it did not pass the test? >> with a picture like that to me that does look like construction. but from the point of our view it is irrelevant because the department's own published policy says you can award a contract or undertake or initiate construction prior to certification so in my view mill activity should be based -- occurring based on their own policy that is the initial interpretation of the statute that congress passed by initiating construction and prior to a certification testing, you

were committing to a course of construction that may have to be redesigned if the test fails or certification does not work and that is our concern to take a risk of taxpayers with the failure of testing a don't know what would have happened in this case if it failed. is not clear but it is also for future projects. >> that is why we are here. this picture was taken weeks before you even started your testing. >> they were dated 2014. i.c.e. certified december december 2013. in addition for years we have done some real

stabilization as ms. muniz was referring to. the first photograph is closest to what we allowed to occur before we start constructing the building we will not let obo start constructing the foundation before certification. >> was your blast testing done before that date? >> no sir. >> that is the point. >> there is a requirement to do blast testing. >> you are here to tell me as head of diplomatic security were not required to do blast testing? you need of a piece of legislation? >> if i could explain. >> don't come before us to tell us to certify the building that is not what the inspector general found for you had not done the blast testing.

lead to far developed that is. >> if i may explain, much of 2013 my staff when back-and-forth with obo and did not certify based on the original design. we did have questions about the design of that building. obo and architects went back many times from the original design to look bad in closely evaluate how to build the building to meet our standards. late november 2013, early december. i sat down with my entire staff and obo, the architect of record and the blast consultant one of the

absolute most experienced consultants in the world. bar none. the question that i needed answered to read before certified the building was built the building as currently designed meet our standards? four santry, blast standards. the architect of design and said yes. id will. >> when was that? >> late november early december 2013. we learned things from blast test and i also am from the school show me. but when i have the architect of record and the best blast engineering company in the world to tell

me this will protect our people absolutely, that is a promise they put into writing so i can write a cert that the facility will protect our people adequately. we wanted to do with any way we scheduled those shortly after that and we learn things. in the late up we used last fender, the same or thicker. we learn things. ultimately when we blast tested a full layup it confirmed exactly what the engineers had said. >> that is not true for you had failures. you're telling me there are no failures? were there? >> pieces of glass that we tested those that were less

than what we put up failed. >> period ago. >> less than what we we're doing. we do blast testing to learn about a lot of things. the full-scale mockup of the building passed every single test with flying colors. >> after you started construction. >> read confirming what the engineers gave us. >> my apologies to my colleagues i did not want to take so much time. you have a very skeptical congress eating sure gambling with a lot of money and commitment at the same time inspector general they were not in compliance with the law or your own internal standards and you were here to try to convince us that

is not a construction. that is why we have this meeting. >> i appreciate the opportunity. >> let's be clear you said the pictures were taken in 2014? and your certification is 2013? was there a series of test leading up to the blast test can you explain that? i need to understand exactly what goes into the certification of process briefly. >> the process does not require us to do plasticine. literally we could have expected the engineers and the architect and the blast consultant to say this needs standards. we do this and many standards but because the

windows were very large we decided to blast test anyway berkeley did component testing before and there is a report that says it is inconclusive but we had overpressures higher than what we needed to attest to end pieces of glass that were less robust to test them. wheeler and things from that. with a full-scale mockup as the engineers had predicted and certified to us, it passed with flying colors. we promised we would build a building that meets our standards and we are building a building that meets our standards. >> there has been a lot of discussion how the embassy will look but if you were sitting inside whether a glass wall or another wall, the issue is the same. you want to know you are

protected. right? so i would like to clarify. there was never a doubt that the new london embassy will protect the men and women who work there. the project meets all the state department security requirements. >> yes it is. >> ms. muniz would you agree? >> yes. absolutely. >> and glass curtain wall has been an issue for some time on this committee is one of a bike to be cleared the glass wall surrounding the structure meet all of the specified security requirements? >> yes it does and passed all the test.

>> that doesn't support the structure of the building or is it the extra layer of protection? to make external wall curtain layers. it is differently than a curtain -- when bill ball. it is not load bearing it could be removed the structure would be intact. >> are you confident including up panels? >> i am very confident. >> yes, sir,. >> the security requirements require new features including setbacks at least 100 feet anticrime and ramp features of other physical properties. >> correct.

>> in addition you testified previously those are depending on the pratt and the environment and the stated'' that we constantly examine our security to adapt to the evolving threat environment. you also said'' max scrutinize the environment over security footing can improve for possible. is that right? how do you do that? >> we look at what types of attacks we would likely be subjected to a am the fear we operate at weapons, a terrorist and others have

and how old they can attack us. and we make determinations with a base line standards. we're using overhead cover to ensure and uncertain cases radar warning systems that give us time in advance and we are being attacked for people to take cover. as examples of what we look at depending which country and how we mitigate the threat. >> when you look at paris, i don't want to get into secret information that is there anything we can learn to affect the building of

the embassy at all? >> no sir. we have seen those types of attacks before. those were effective because there were not a hardened with protection. it really does not apply to better protected facilities. >> i understand. does the new project meet the overall security standards or what you believe is the necessary? >> yes. we looked closely at the standards and the facility resulting from this construction project will meet standards and provide the adequate safety and security for personnel in that facility. >> day you agree. >> i do. >> mr. linick you have heard this.

do you disagree with anything that has been said? >> our work did not assess if it is a slight have no reason to dispute. >> going back yesterday to the terrorist incident there was a speech at a building directly across from the fbi building. while waiting i noted there were lines of cameras that i would expect in front of the building and all around it. i was just thinking of the paris peace. du worry about those kinds of attacks at all? >> if you remember the

attack on the consulate with the armed gunman with ak-47 and explosives because of the security standards they never got into the facility and the saudi forces effectively e terminated that. and that is what happened in afghanistan. we are aware of those types of attacks we believe we have the proper security in place to defend against them. >> talk briefly. americans look at this and think $42 million overrun? is that a proper description? >> of $42 million was an increase that was not justified and accepted so we don't go what that is supportive with accurate

data. >> can you comment on that ms. muniz? >> i am not sure with a $42 million is about but when we first notified the project to the hill and the acquisition of the site it was $30 million under the initial notifications and continues to me $30 million under. >> that is out of my security realm. >> get your numbers together a sound like you say one thing you say 30 and under and use a 42 over. hello? >> $42 million teeeighteen was asking for information to support the figure in their not getting it that

contracting on serve misinterpreted the law and did not realize he was supposed to get that from a contractor. this was at obo request and still they are not satisfied with the justification of the $42 million. >> i believe what mr. linick is talking about when we use the early contractor involvement to the degree you can involve them much earlier in the design phase you can resolve a lot of issues that would later become issues during construction so it is a way to get ahold team involved very early. in the ideal circumstance using this method we would have had more pricing information from the contractor and we did try to obtain that additional

pricing information so that is right. it is a tool we are trying to improve and it is an improvement over the prior program and we did not have early contractor involvement but the construction contract is still on target and the budgets are coming and $30 million under the initial proposal. >> we are spending a lot of money on this facility. and we are designing it in the unsecured manner based on the requirements that we should be following.

the state department relies on the memorandum with the overseas building operations security rather than federal law is that correct? >> with any discussion if the federal law takes priority than the federal law takes priority. >> but it doesn't appear that there was proper procedure or consideration for security given the final design. >> i disagree. we fully complied with the law absolutely. we do have one portion that has not been updated since 1993 and in the early 2000's

using standard embassy design it is built a methodology. they stated we're not supposed to sign a contract before he and and that does need to be modified. the law says that big about that. >> that is our recommendation. >> from the inspector general and we are addressing that. >> is very important. it is under construction the design is there. >> goes all the way back to the specifications. we have gone through final iterations until they had directions we needed to certify in advance of construction that the

facility will result that this site -- that is safe for our people and national security. >> does the new design include all embassy functions? or is the foreign commercial service operation or other facilities that i am not familiar with outside of the embassy? >> there were other functions in the navy and expert though we were not. located. that is another lot that to be set back 100 feet but they were not located together. >> but there will be here? >> yes, sir. >> commercial foreign services?

>> i cannot name every agency in the new facility. >> will there be some outside? >> no. a went to the paris air show spent the day looking at the facilities in paris and they chose not to go after them hardened target the cafe or the restaurant or the theater. so the people at a christmas party is the new target. any other recommendations to change the law so we don't have the hiccups' like this particular project? >> no sir. i would like to say something. since 1985 we have gone

traceries of process by universities security policy standards for new construction. laws passed that require us to have 100 set one dash feet of a setback and also to be cp- located also to tell congress that it will require a safe and secure facility. rehab never reached that trust and we never will. every building will meet the security standards. we're getting the funding from congress not because we need to replace out of date buildings with because they are insecure. hot it is not using appropriated funding but i

assure you we would never build the building that would not be safe and secure for our people. >> you will yield the problem is with the facility of life expectancy of less than 10 years is a different set of standards that is and what happened in benghazi or tripoli. that was the biggest embarrassment i have been there and i have seen the you cannot tell me you have done that every single time. >> you are correct the benghazi facility did not meet the standards that we did not build that facility. there is a difference if we have to except what we can lease and upgrade in the meantime but when we build the facilities. >> what do you consider tripoli? >> we least that. >> see you take an american

to put them out there in a very difficult circumstances and we need our diplomats up there to engage. deal think they care there is a difference if you build that or somebody else? you certify it is secure and you don't do that with a regular practice it is regular practice to offer refers one real looking at happened in london that is why we keep having these hearings. believe the congress to believe every facility we put people into a safe and secure when you offer a river after a river after a river you did it with a gauzy in tripoli in before -- and before in benghazi. >> nobody is more cognizant than i am. >> you just sat here to tell is every building we put people in. >> everything that we build. >> that is not being honest and candid with the american

people. >> i am being exact. when we build a new facility from scratch. >> would you tell the kid from tennessee we least this so it is not as secure? >> may answer the question? public loss says when we build a new facility and thanks to congress we have had a new embassy construction program for many years all new meet those standards. if we have to accept and go into different places to lease the facility we know it doesn't meet our standards and we tried hour best to upgrade or provide other methods to mitigate the threat, security agents, marines, a temporary barriers, i cannot make of

leased facility that has never been designed to meet blast standards or setback reach those levels. you asked us to certify when we build brand-new we have to go on the expedition your basis. the facility is in tripoli and benghazi did not meet the new embassy construction standards. >> are there any waivers currently? the user is yes into our building the facility. >> dell believe there are. >> give us a list of new construction refers and you put in writing that number is o. >> every year we provide a report on any waivers we have given for new construction. >> give this committee.

>> the senate foreign relations committee. >> give that to our committee. >> absolutely. >> because you have the inspector general saying you're not abiding by federal law. >> my time is well past. you are recognized for a generous five minutes selected you for calling this important meeting. the number one focus is to protect the men and women serving our country overseas. is this facility secure? are they protected in this facility you were building? >> yes. >> is it one of the most secure in the world now with new technology? >> it will be. >> one of the most secure in the world so the bottom line going forward we have to make sure they are secure

and to justify this is one of the most secured in the world. thank you for that. but president obama last night talked about the evolving threat of terrorism not just what we face today but tomorrow with new techniques. >> the terrorist threat has devolved into a new phase. i want to know how are we responding as a result of new technology is going forward? so to highlight the importance of research and development and testing is important for those designs.

is that correct? >> that did not assess if that was necessary or not our focus was narrow we looked at whether or not the security issues were resolved before construction or contract awarded. i am not in a position to tell you if we need innovation but as far as testing goes my point was the testing of the glass curtain wall did not occur until six months after certification and it was our opinion should have occurred before certification because we fail to see how you certify something is safe without making sure it passes the blast test.

>> so there is 74 research and development and there is a research and development into diplomatic security? >> yes. i understand of what may be classified but can you give a quick overview of the methods that is being developed? >> we work sometimes by ourselves or with an agency or the national laboratory and our buildings meet higher standards i know what to go into exactly what they are within a commercial

building we have to develop new types of products one the redeveloped if you look at the first generation of embassies it was too blast of windows 2 feet by 2 feet and 5 inches thick. to date we can build windows that are 6 feet by 8 feet that meet blast requirements that has further develop to a point but then to still meet the blast requirements. these are the types of things that give different options to build well still meeting rigorous security standards.

>> can you elaborate to adopt to the ever evolving for environment we have around the world? >> talk about the importance of looking at new materials for the state department. prison all technology is a predominant technology with high rise buildings above seven stories we're moving forward in our construction project for our program that increasingly it was difficult to find large sites where real-estate is

expensive allowing us to build buildings higher and to do that efficiently that is the benefit to test new projects such as curtain wall. with the use of the construction industry. with the types of flexibility what we do was non security related the excellence initiative will look at what is used in industry quite skillfully to make better use of the buildings. with those petitions if we need additional staff or configuration it can be done quickly and easily with very

little expense also building as much efficiency and sustainability to drive down operating cost sabir picking sites better closer to you the colleagues in order to your drive down the operating cost to shuttle them one hour to visit their colleagues. so additional flexibility to help us build faster but also in places those are all the things that we're focusing on. >> my time is expired. >> obviously it is an

important topic but today it is also about the process and transparency. december 2013 undersecretary for management certified in congress this dyad ensure the adequacy of all safety related measures to stimulate the blast testing with the curtain wall with duffel mockup before certification and was appropriate. but that did not start until february 2014 not complete until may 2014. it is not clear in this certification package that the blast just was ongoing. so did the state certification with congress explicitly alert the committee's they had not even begun blast testing?

>> i am not certain that it did to we were very clear when it would happen in the succession of the project. it is certification of the design of the project and by calculation all of the designs met the rigorous requirements established by diplomatic security. >> if you say all safety measures have been completed is that with the projection there will be? >> i'm not sure i understand your question. when a building a certified that i will turn over to fluid is responsible. certification is done by

design to engineers calculate it meets any of the requirements. that was done prior to this occasion of the london embassy project. >> certification is a promise you have given us the resources that recertified to you in advance of a building that the facility resulting will be safe and secure. it is a promise. we can feel bad many different ways. and recertified based on what the architects were telling us. we could figure it out so to

rely on the architect and the best blast firm in the world to tell us this design meets your standards. i can take that with a promise the facility resulting from this design will meet our standards. we went even further to make sure the calculations were correct and there were. the office notes should highlight the weakness of the curtain wall ms. muniz has confirmed all necessary steps will be taken to rectify those issues. >> we didn't send that to congress recertified it met the requirements and we also

talked about even though the engineers said it would did receive the memo with the state certification package? >> i am trying to remember the actual package i fake the cert says we have consulted on this. i am not sure that reaction the include the of the mel. -- the of the about. >> / is is the testing with ochre -- would occur. >> my time has expired.

>> i will get back with an answer it has the letter or not. >> i will find out by tomorrow. >> you were taking great liberties that are well beyond your ability to back them up it was not unanimous they did not line up to see it meets every standard. go to page number nine. it goes through the results. please clearly tell us did day or did they not violate their own internal policies and when they should do it? >> they did violate their

policies. by certifying after contract certification. that is the basis of ever finding. that is what congress should know when certification is occurring to be transparency to know what rules the state department relies on that is the essence of the report. >> to suggest they're more secure than the representation in any private sector building on the face of the planet? you cannot get away with saying that. there are a lot of a building is out there using

different materials. wiedmaier make such sweeping generalizations? >> did not pull back the record for you were overstepping your balance. i am not calling on you right now. i am calling on mr. welch who is now recognized for five minutes. >> this issue of the embassy security is very important. you have a tough job and we appreciate that. starting with the 100-foot setback the state department had additional security standards for diplomatic

facilities with the exterior for taking refuge in the event of an attack. to all indices have these features? >> yes. >> are there any their security features or requirements? >> the security standards that we have our extensive the things that you mentioned is not the only thing that we have the a set of directors of all agencies that exist overseas including department of defense, department of justice. >> some of these are more

stringent so none of the congressional office buildings have that climb? >> you are correct. with those new safer sanders. they all have these features that will be organic. >> yes. >> one of the things cytosine there is a the

conflict that oftentimes dictate a remote location of. with the accessibility with those facilities in the outskirts. is there any way to resolve that? >> at the beginning of the program rebuilt many embassies with ted acres and not in the center. as we are approaching the

midpoint we find ourselves in a position to not be very far out with the building on a much smaller site. >> day you have anything you like to offer? they give for your good work. >> i would add strongly we could build great abbacies to meet the security standards where the diplomats need to be.

it takes an approach it is an approach we take now. >> just as a word of advice. with the concern for safety evidence that is helpful i yield back. >> to make those recommendations to not begin construction to make sure it

would survive the blast. >> we recommended teeeighteen to establish controls construction was not initiated for diplomatic security with the syndication of congress. >> we did recommend with that certification. to survive that. then i will go further. did that have controls in place to make sure any building is fully vented? so it is at a spread for security purposes?

finigan any required testing be done before certification and. >> in those recommendations will letter from the architectural firm be adequate? >> there were not satisfied with is the idea of the glass wall. to be concerned just a few days before certification. so they had to do the blast testing that was required. >>.

>> so if they certify that they should do that blast testing because if it failed then what? >> we heard it was not required betted your opinion that is the only way to adequately ensure it is equipped to undergo the blast? . .

>> well, initially -- initially we received pushback but during the compliance process they've agree today -- agreed to comply with our recommendations. >> is there any reason, any valid reason that you can think of as to why nds would not comply, would refuse, deny to implement your recommendations initially. we can't require them to.