Bill Overview
Title: Embassy Construction Accountability Act of 2022
Description: The bill requires the Department of State, in its biannual report on overseas capital construction projects, to explain when cost estimates exceed 15% of initial estimates, to explain when estimated project completion exceeds initial estimates by 180 days, and to list whether the State Department has any stop work orders on project components.
Sponsors: Rep. Lynch, Stephen F. [D-MA-8]
Target Audience
Population: People involved in or affected by U.S. embassy construction projects globally
Estimated Size: 2000
- The bill's primary focus is on international construction projects managed by the U.S. Department of State, specifically those involving embassies and related facilities.
- The bill aims to increase accountability and transparency in the execution of these projects, impacting individuals and groups directly involved in their planning, execution, and oversight.
- Embassy staff and personnel might be affected, as construction delays and cost overruns could impact them.
- Other affected parties include individuals living in host countries who are potentially employed by these projects or affected by their construction activities.
- The global population directly affected by embassy projects may not be large, as these are specific construction projects located in selected cities worldwide.
Reasoning
- The population directly affected by U.S. embassy construction project accountability includes planners, contractors, and State Department officials based in the U.S.
- The actual number of U.S. citizens directly involved is relatively small, with a global estimate of 10,000 and about 2,000 in the U.S.
- The policy impacts these individuals through increased workloads, potential job pressure due to oversight changes, and could improve transparency and efficiency of work hence improving job satisfaction over time.
- American Target populations include those who might notice incremental changes in their work routines or project management methodologies due to the policy, resulting in varying degrees of impact on wellbeing.
Simulated Interviews
Foreign Service Officer (Washington D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The increased accountability will help streamline processes, reducing stress associated with project overruns.
- Initially, there might be some adjustment period but overall, it should positive in our effectiveness.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Economist (New York)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy represents a step toward better management of government spending.
- As an economist, I see this could increase public trust slightly in how funds are managed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Construction Manager (San Francisco)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might mean more paperwork, but also clearer guidelines and expectations.
- After initial adjustments, it could help in executing projects more efficiently.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Legal Advisor (Miami)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This would make my job slightly more complex initially but aligns with best practices of transparency and accountability.
- I believe over time it would improve compliance and stakeholder trust.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Project Analyst (Houston)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy will initially increase workloads but should lead to better project alignment and reduce stress in the long run as goals are clearer.
- Gives more job sense and clarity.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Junior Project Coordinator (Boston)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As someone new, it will set clear expectations from the beginning, reducing much of the ambiguity.
- It is a net positive as it helps in understanding my role better.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Retired (Seattle)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Although retired, I see the move towards more accountability as positive for current employees.
- Such measures might have eased some work pressures when I was working.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Civil Engineer (Chicago)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More oversight means more paperwork but also an opportunity to leverage transparent management to push higher efficiency.
- Could see bumps in project timelines initially, but smoother execution.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Embassy Staff (Dallas)
Age: 33 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Hopefully, this leads to more efficient project management and fewer operational delays.
- A direct improvement in my workflow could mean balanced work-life over time.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Financial Analyst (Atlanta)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It means more work initially but for good reason as expenses will be more trackable, preventing overspend.
- Believes this also reduces negative media perception scams occasionally draw.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 2: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 3: $20500000 (Low: $15500000, High: $25500000)
Year 5: $21000000 (Low: $16000000, High: $26000000)
Year 10: $22000000 (Low: $17000000, High: $27000000)
Year 100: $30000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $35000000)
Key Considerations
- The administrative cost increase primarily arises from the need to generate detailed reports on construction project progress and costs.
- There is potential for improved management of embassy construction projects due to increased oversight and accountability.