Aligning Federal Projects with Smart Design and Mission-driven Solutions

J.J. Tang is a Senior Vice President and Principal at HDR, bringing over two decades of experience in federal architecture. Originally from China, he earned his Bachelor of Architecture there before pursuing his Master’s at the renowned Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT), the cradle of modern architecture. Tang began his U.S. career under acclaimed architect Helmut Jahn, contributing to global landmarks like Bangkok’s Suvarnabhumi Airport and Berlin’s Sony Center. He transitioned into federal design at MW Zander (formerly Lester B. Knight) and led pivotal projects at the Great Lakes Naval Station. Since joining HDR in 2006, he has been instrumental in securing and delivering high-impact projects for the U.S. Department of Defense, including the $1 billion U.S. Strategic Command headquarters.

In this interview with Construction Business Review, J.J. Tang emphasizes that federal architecture requires a disciplined focus on mission-driven, cost-conscious and secure design, prioritizing function and long-term value over aesthetics.

Federal Design Demands a Different Mindset

Over the past decade, designing to cost has become one of the most pressing challenges in federal architecture. Publicly funded projects, especially large and mission-critical facilities, carry clear expectations. For future-mission adaptation, they must deliver highly secured and highly flexible buildings within tight budgets. Meeting those expectations is far more complex than it appears.

Our recent work on the U.S. Army Cyber Center of Excellence at Fort Gordon reflects this balancing act. As with most Department of Defense projects, the process began with a funding planning phase, called the DD1391 development. A DOD planner established a preliminary cost estimate, which was then submitted for Congressional approval. This stage alone can take up to two to four years. Only after the project is funded does the government bring in a firm like HDR to begin design work. During these years, a lot can change. That lengthy funding process introduces significant risk. The assumptions made early in the process often no longer reflect current market conditions. Rising material costs, supply chain disruptions and unexpected global events such as the COVID-19 pandemic can quickly render original estimates obsolete. This gap between planning and execution has become one of federal architecture’s most difficult structural issues.

Security requirements add another layer of complexity. In defense-related projects, only contractors with proper clearances are eligible. These restrictions are vital, yet they narrow the field of available bidders. Less competition drives up costs, often exceeding those found in comparable private-sector projects.

Still, staying within budget does not mean stripping away design ambition. Creativity in federal work must be rooted in mission. The program defines the need and the need shapes the form. Every design choice must reinforce operational clarity, user experience and long-term adaptability.

This requires a shift in thinking for architects who are more familiar with commercial work. Federal buildings are meant to serve the special mission that they support. They are tools of public service. Their success is measured by how well they support critical missions, not how they look on a magazine cover.

Designing for the federal government comes with weight and meaning. These buildings serve national priorities, support public servants and house essential operations. In a time when public trust depends on both transparency and results, the most impactful designs will be those that align purpose with performance, delivering measurable value at every level.

AI Is the Next LEED Moment for AEC

The federal government remains the country’s largest buyer of architectural and engineering services. That level of purchasing power shapes not only individual projects but the direction of the entire industry. When new standards or technologies emerge, the government’s early adoption often determines whether those innovations become industry norms or remain niche.

A clear example is the rise of sustainable design in the early 2000s. Programs like Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design or LEED, were introduced to encourage environmentally responsible construction. Yet adoption was slow until the federal government raised the bar. New guidelines required that federal buildings over a specific size, typically 50,000 square feet, meet LEED certification or its equivalent. That single mandate sparked momentum. Once in place, private-sector developers followed suit and sustainable design became a baseline expectation rather than a fringe concept.

Today, a similar transformation is beginning with artificial intelligence. Building Information Modeling has helped move the industry into three-dimensional workflows in recent years, improving coordination and design precision. Now, AI is beginning to expand what is possible. Its potential is vast, from design option exploration and performance analysis to design automation, AI is starting to be a powerful tool for our design professionals.

At HDR, we are not chasing novelty. We are testing how AI can bring measurable value to real-world projects. The goal is to improve efficiency, sharpen decision-making and align more closely with client objectives. Practicality guides our exploration. Every use case is grounded in actual project needs.

As with LEED, broader industry adoption of AI will likely depend on the leadership of clients who influence standards at scale. If public agencies begin requiring AI-supported workflows or data-driven design, a new baseline for project delivery will be established. That kind of steady guidance has a ripple effect. It signals where the industry should head and encourages innovation with purpose.

Progress in architecture and engineering rarely happens in sudden leaps. It builds through clear expectations, consistent reinforcement and the leadership of clients who understand the impact of each choice. The federal government has played that role before. It is well-positioned to do so again.

Build for Function, Not for Flash

Architects and engineers have a meaningful opportunity to shape public infrastructure by working on U.S. government projects. For those entering the profession, bold and expressive design appeal often reflects what school studios encourage. While creative expression is important, federal work demands a different mindset. Success in this space depends not on visual flair but on technical excellence, mission alignment and disciplined execution within defined budgets.

Projects funded by public dollars come with accountability. Every line drawn and every system designed must serve a longterm function. Aesthetic choices matter, but only when they support performance. As our CEO, John Henderson, says with a football analogy, strong design starts by getting the blocking and tackling right. Fundamentals come first. Without that foundation, nothing else holds.

Understanding how buildings function is the most important guide to starting. Focus on technical depth. Learn codes, detailing, construction methods and building systems. Let each project’s mission shape the design response. In federal architecture, inspiration grows from purpose rather than appearance.

Several federal agencies offer valuable starting points, like the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command (NAVFAC), U.S. Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC) and the General Services Administration (GSA). They provide early exposure to real-world projects, allowing young professionals to develop skills within highly structured environments. Firms like HDR also provide a clear path for learning and contribution, blending high standards with mentorship and collaboration.