[12] In February 1955, the NCPC tentatively approved the area on the south side of Independence Avenue SW between 9th and 12th Streets for the Air Museum.

GSA would provide financial guarantees to enable the developer to obtain financing for the building's construction, as well as agree to a long-term lease of the structure.

Lease-purchase gave GSA the option of buying the land and building at the end of 20 or 30 years, with its lease payments being put toward the cost of the structure.

[25] In March, the House of Representatives voted to end the lease-purchase program, and provided authorization for GSA to purchase outright any land or buildings it needed.

[26] Among the structures suddenly in limbo were:[26] Members of Congress justified the moratorium on the grounds that the economy in the District of Columbia did not need any economic stimulus.

[38] The United States Department of Defense intended to put 7,000 Air Force and Army personnel in the structure, and GSA told Congress that a call for architectural bids would be issued in July.

[42] A major change in the structure's purpose came in July 1961 when GSA said that the U.S. Navy would instead occupy the building, which now was set to have 1 million square feet (93,000 m2) of office space.

[43] When the federal government issued its call for proposals, it specified a building with 2 million square feet (190,000 m2) of office space, dining facilities for 2,500 people, and an underground parking garage for 1,800 automobiles.

)[45] The architectural firms of Curtis & Davis, Fordyce and Hamby Associates, and Frank Grad & Sons formed a joint venture which won the design competition for the $38 million structure on October 3, 1961.

Numerous plans in the last several years had called for two buildings, one on either side of 10th Street SW. Two or more levels of office space would connect them underground.

"[53] Indeed, the CFA applauded the design, believing it would help frame the Mall and preserve the line of sight along Independence Avenue (which it considered more important).

[58] According to Nathaniel Cortlandt Curtis Jr., Davis's business partner, "A controversy existed between those who wanted to maintain the granite and marble of the Federal City and the new thinkers who favored exposed aggregate concrete, steel, and glass.

"[59] In April 1963,[52] the joint venture led by Curtis & Davis produced a low structure with glass panels held in place by aluminum frames.

The design team argued that nearby structures were clad in buff limestone, red sandstone, white marble, and pink concrete and that there was no way to adopt a compatible façade.

[52] The debate between the CFA and joint venture had now lasted several months, and the Department of Defense (DOD) became frustrated because its structure still had not been built.

Now just four stories high, it was pierced in the middle near both ends by columns designed to contain the mechanical equipment – making the structure look much more like a bridge or arch.

The East Building now was an eight-story-high, block-like mass with an interior courtyard which presented a blank, windowless façade to Independence Avenue.

[62] Although the new façade closely resembled that of the Robert C. Weaver Federal Building (then being designed by Marcel Breuer),[63] it remained highly controversial.

After explaining the problem the joint venture was facing, Curtis claims that Troutman spoke to Kennedy and that the President alone forced approval of the design.

[60] It was in early 1965 that President Lyndon B. Johnson issued an order christening the structure the James V. Forrestal Building, in honor of the first United States Secretary of Defense.

The sculpture, which was carved from a single block of Norwegian granite, by was created by Robert Russin and depicts the worldwide hunger for energy.

The award jury judged DOE's use of metering to improve building operations and maintenance to be of the highest quality in meeting environmental, aesthetic, innovation, technical, and other criteria.

A new, insulated roof was put on the structure, and solar film (designed to turn dark in strong sunlight) was applied to the windows to help keep the building cool.

DOE proposed placing hydraulically activated bollards in the roadway at the north and south ends of the 10th Street perimeter of its site.

The NCPC staff approved the installation of column wraps, the road hardening, and the construction of the lobby around the emergency egress building core.

CFA chairman David M. Childs essentially reversed the commission's approval of the structure in 1962, stating that the Forrestal Building did not maintain the vista along L'Enfant Promenade toward the Smithsonian Castle and the National Mall.

I. M. Pei, who had helped design the master plan for L'Enfant Plaza, fiercely fought construction of the Forrestal Building, believing it would severely compromise the promenade's view of the National Mall.

But it displayed no richness of imagination and demonstrated the outcome of several years of struggle by the General Services Administration, the Fine Arts Commission and the associated architects to raise a large, dull, clumsy building to an acceptable standard of design."

[114] Removing the North Building's span over 10th Street SW has been the goal of several federal agencies, architectural critics, and civic leaders.

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee voted 31–22 along party lines to approve the bill as an amendment to broader legislation designed to allow the federal government sell off or get rid of excess property.