News & Insights

A building commissioned for a federal agency today will likely still be in service in 2075. By then, a dozen or more administrations will have set and reset their priorities, and the mission that shaped the original design will have shifted many times over.

That lifespan gap between how long federal buildings last and how quickly the priorities funding them change is where most federal facility problems begin. They appear quietly at first, through deferred maintenance and incremental budget cuts, until what started as a manageable issue becomes an expensive crisis.

The signs are familiar to anyone who works in a facility: an HVAC system limping through another summer with patched controls, restrooms that haven’t met ADA standards for longer than anyone can remember, infrastructure deferred so often that the agency has lost track of when it was last properly addressed. Issues like these are the predictable result of facilities designed for one administration’s priorities and then expected to serve through many more without the resources to keep pace.

When the mission moves and the building doesn’t

Federal facilities carry a structural disadvantage that commercial buildings don’t because they live and die by appropriations cycles. Funding is priority-driven, which means what gets maintained and what doesn’t is less a function of need and more a function of where political attention is pointed at a given moment. Deferred decisions compound until they can’t be ignored anymore, and by then the cost of addressing them is far higher than it would have been.

That pattern carries a human cost that goes beyond line items. In military barracks, years of underinvestment in troop quality-of-life facilities (crowded quarters, poor amenities, basic infrastructure left to deteriorate) eventually surfaced in ways that went far beyond the physical. It took a shift in administration and a deliberate reprioritization to bring meaningful funding to bear on those conditions. The physical problems were fixable. The years lost to inaction were not.

At the same time, the range of new demands being placed on federal buildings is expanding. AI-enabled operations, cybersecurity infrastructure, energy resilience, changing defense postures — agencies are grappling with all of these now, inside buildings that weren’t designed to support any of them. The gap between what those buildings can do and what agencies need them to do will only widen without a more deliberate approach to how federal facilities are designed and delivered.

What building for the long term looks like

Designing a federal facility that can absorb change over 50 or 100 years isn’t a single decision. It’s a series of decisions made at the right moments across design, delivery, and funding. Getting each of them right requires a different kind of discipline than traditional federal procurement tends to encourage, but the principles are straightforward.

Start early, before options close

The most powerful point of leverage in any federal facility project is the earliest phase of design. Before schematic drawings are produced (ideally during programming), the team has the most freedom to understand the full scope of the mission, anticipate how it might evolve, and make decisions that leave room for that evolution rather than foreclose it. The earliest phase of the project is also the best time to involve all stakeholders and decision-makers to understand the full scope of the mission. This also helps reduce the likelihood that an unknown stakeholder will emerge near the end of the project with difficult-to-manage requests that cause further delays. Once those early choices are locked in, changing them gets expensive fast, and in a federal context, expensive often means unfunded.

This front-end investment pays dividends across the life of a project. When a design team takes the time to understand both what a client needs today and where the mission might go in five or ten years, the resulting facility has room to absorb change. That means being deliberate about which elements of a building should be permanent (structure, envelope, core systems) and which should be left flexible enough to serve a mission that hasn’t been written yet. Staying attuned to market conditions is part of that discipline as well.

When the supply of pre-engineered metal buildings (PEMB) tightened significantly on a recent project, switching to conventional stick framing proved both faster and cheaper. Knowing what the market can deliver, and being willing to adjust when it can’t, is part of what responsive facility design looks like in practice.

Invest in what clients can’t see

The practical discipline of adaptive design is less about trying to predict the future and more about avoiding decisions today that close off options tomorrow. That means identifying which systems are likely to evolve, which operational needs are beginning to emerge across branches and agencies, and building in room for those changes rather than locking them out.

The most consequential flexibility decisions in a federal building often never show up in a ribbon-cutting photo. Higher floor-to-floor heights that accommodate future uses. A heavier superstructure that can carry loads the original mission never required. Accessible utility corridors that make system upgrades possible without tearing into finished construction. Standardized structural grids with similar bay sizes don’t optimize the space for a single function, because the less specific a building is, the easier it is to integrate new operations over time.

None of these decisions are easy to justify when a client is focused on day-one return on investment, but the math changes considerably when viewed over the life of the building. Designing for a fixed purpose may optimize the budget in year zero, but it tends to force significant renovations by year 50 and full replacement by year 100.

At NASA’s Johnson Space Center, this approach was applied directly to the mechanical systems of a new building currently under construction. Rather than designing the HVAC for current conditions only, the team sized and configured it so an energy recovery unit could be added later without a field retrofit.

That small decision eliminated what would otherwise have been a disruptive and costly modification down the road. The team used life cycle analysis to make the case, comparing the initial cost with the long-term savings, and it convinced the client that the investment was worth making.

That kind of analysis is often what it takes to secure upfront approval for adaptability spending. Clients are understandably reluctant to pay today’s dollars for a risk that’s 20 years out, but reluctance tends to fade when they see the deferred costs clearly. A roof left past its useful life because the replacement budget wasn’t available ends up costing twice as much as a planned replacement would have, plus the ongoing expense of patches that never fully solve the problem. Framed that way, the math tends to shift the conversation.

Match the delivery model to the reality

Flexibility built into a building’s design is limited by the delivery process. When every design change must pass through a disconnected chain of vendors and consultants, with multi-week turnaround times even for minor adjustments, the adaptability engineered into the facility erodes before construction is even complete. A beam shifted four inches shouldn’t take a month to process. But on one recent project involving a separate PEMB manufacturer, that’s exactly what happened, and the client felt the impact.

Progressive design-build is emerging as a delivery model better suited to federal budget realities. It allows scope and design to evolve alongside available funding, rather than locking in a fixed design before appropriations are confirmed. Milestones trigger contractor pricing based on the design at that point, and the government can make real-time decisions about where to allocate dollars. It’s less linear than traditional design-bid-build, but for agencies operating without budget certainty, it’s often the more practical path.

Even when a facility need is genuine and well-documented, agencies often struggle to surface it through the right funding channels. Base-level contracting officers don’t always know which contract vehicles apply or how to access support further up the chain, and the gap between a local need and the right funding instrument has quietly stopped more than a few good projects before they ever started. A partner who understands those mechanisms and can bridge that gap removes a barrier that’s easy to overlook until it becomes the whole problem.

How can Salas O’Brien help?

The decisions made in the early stages of a federal facility project will continue shaping how that building performs decades from now. Getting them right requires a team that thinks at that timescale, one that can look beyond the current appropriations cycle and help you design for the administrations that come after the one you’re working with today.

At Salas O’Brien, our federal team brings together planning, structural, mechanical, civil, and energy expertise under one roof, which means design changes get coordinated quickly rather than stalling between disconnected teams. We’ve worked with NASA at Johnson Space Center, Kennedy Space Center, and Stennis Space Center, as well as across Department of Defense installations, and across every branch of government, DoD, DOE, and GSA.

We understand how federal funding works, which contract vehicles apply in which situations, and how to help you make the internal case for investments that will hold up over the life of the facility. When you’re building for a mission that’s going to change — and it will — we can help you get ahead of that change rather than react to it.

Reach out to our team at [email protected] to start the conversation