Freedom of Information Act Documents

Requests FA-26-0005 & FA-26-0219

Completed |  GAO Investigation notices, timelines, and communications with USACE personnel about the Investigation.  Communications have been partially redacted to comply with attorney-client confidentiality privileges.

Request FA-26-0195

Completed |  Purchase Request & Commitment Forms specifying the funding used for the  office relocation logistics. These documents show that  the efforts are being funded by a item with a code prefix of "096" and an partial item number of "4902", which indicates  that management is using a Civil Works revolving fund to fund office relocation work (See Note below). The Army Corps   Engineering Regulation 37-1-30 specifically forbids  the use of the revolving fund for  "labor charges ... engaged exclusively in military procurement activities" and "Financing of inventories exclusively for military activities",  further specifying that "headquarters buildings and operational and facility requirements, such as laboratory headquarters and district offices, are generally not authorized in this manner". The ER 37-1-30 was written specifically to restrict the army corps from using civil works funding for anything that is an exclusive military action such as invoking 10 U.S.C. 2661. Note: "096" is a code prefix for funds appropriated for USACE civil works efforts (See  EP 37-1-3 Appendix F Page F-2 for a sample budget) and "4902" is the code specifically for the USACE Civil Works Revolving Fund (See     ER 37-2-15 Appendix C).

Request FA-26-0163

Completed, Under Review |  USACE NAN & NAD FAQ and Q&A Documents addressing questions posed by USACE personnel regarding the relocation.  We are currently making our own redactions to these documents as some names were left  in the document. However, in the meantime, you can view the publicly-available Frequently Asked Questions documents provided by New York District and North Atlantic Division Leadership in this folder:  (USACE NAN and NAD Management Frequently Asked Questions). The Union has also provided responses to the NAN Management FAQs in this document: (NAN FAQ Union Response). The Union is currently reviewing the documents for the following goals:
  • Redacting personally-identifiable information left in the documentation, specifically the names of the people who submitted these questions to management.
  • Determining if there were any questions that management didn't address in their Frequently Asked Questions documents.

Request FA-26-0159

Partially-Completed |   All communications between NAN   & NAD Executive Office personnel + the NAN & NAD Real Estate Division Chief and any other federal agency (with the exception of the SACW office) regarding the potential office relocation at 26 Federal Plaza. There have been no records of communications between NAN and other federal agencies despite USACE's decision to move out of 26 Federal Plaza. Records of communications between NAD and other federal agencies are still pending.

Request FA-26-0152

 Partially-Completed |  USACE NAN & NAD Real Estate Chief Relocation communications with SACW office.

Request FA-26-0151

Completed |  All relocation communications with Administrator    Edward Forst,   GSA   Director of Portfolio Management and Customer Engagement, GSA Field Office Manager, GSA   Senior property managers, and GSA Team leads.

Request FA-26-0146

Completed |   All communications between NAN / NAD management  & either the GSA Building Manager or the GSA Asset Manager were requested. There have been no records of communications with either of these people despite USACE's decision to move out of 26 Federal Plaza.

Request FA-26-0131

Completed    | Requested all final market research reports, briefings, cost-benefit analyses, business-case documents, data collected as per OMB M-25-25, policies/guidance/implementation documents, disclosures/reports made to Congress, and the Current Occupancy Agreement at 26 Federal Plaza. Currently, there is no documentation to prove that the benefits outweigh the costs when moving to a commercial space across the Hudson River. Also, there are plenty of documentation that show that USACE violated the Union contract article 25 where it stipulates that USACE New York District is required to notify and invite the Union to all pre-decisional deliberations on office relocations. This article was specifically written so that the Union can represent worker interests while also flagging potential legal and regulatory issues for the Agency for a more efficient office relocation process. 
​

Pending Requests

  • FA-26-0175   |  Follow Up Office Relocation Market Research and Site Visits performed since March 24, 2026 when FA-26-0136 was responded to.
  • No ID Assigned |    Any documentation...
    • for funds set aside for office relocation logistics (specific to Purchase Request and Commitment process)
    • provided to Congressional staffers and/or elected officials
    • referencing the use of Title 10 authority in regards to the proposed NAN & NAD relocation
    • discussing or referencing USACE methodology and the type of funds to be utilized for current and future office space leases for the New York District
    • referencing or discussing the use of Civil Works funds for the proposed location of the USACE NAN and NAD office
    • (including communications and internal memorandums) discussing, referencing, or directing any other USACE district and division to relocate their office space within the last 12 months, including any required restrictions and requirements pertaining to the directed relocation (including, but not limited to, requirements of location, building type, building square footage, building ownership, and lease cost)
    • concerning the decision to disallow New York landlords from submitting lease proposals in response to the Request for Lease Proposal (RLP) DACW515260008800
    • specifying the delineated area of the proposed office space

IFPTE Local 98
Home | About | Join | Contact