[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




 
     CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROGRAM: IDENTIFYING RISK TO GSA FACILITIES

=======================================================================

                                (117-53)

                             REMOTE HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                            SUBCOMMITTEE ON
    ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

                                 OF THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
                   TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                             JUNE 22, 2022

                               __________

                       Printed for the use of the
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
             
             
             
  [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]           
             
             
             
             


     Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
         transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/      
                                      transportation
                                      
                                      
                                      
                                      
                            ______
 
              U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
49-422 PDF              WASHINGTON : 2022 
                                     
                                      
                                      
                                      
                                      
                                      
                                      



             COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

  PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon, Chair
SAM GRAVES, Missouri                 ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON,
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas    District of Columbia
BOB GIBBS, Ohio                      EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida              RICK LARSEN, Washington
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania            STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois               ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
JOHN KATKO, New York                 JOHN GARAMENDI, California
BRIAN BABIN, Texas                   HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., 
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana             Georgia
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina         ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
MIKE BOST, Illinois                  DINA TITUS, Nevada
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas           SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
DOUG LaMALFA, California             JARED HUFFMAN, California
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas            JULIA BROWNLEY, California
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida               FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin            DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey
BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania   ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON,            MARK DeSAULNIER, California
  Puerto Rico                        STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio                 SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
PETE STAUBER, Minnesota              ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee              TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey
DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota          GREG STANTON, Arizona
JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey       COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas
MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi           SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas, Vice Chair
TROY E. NEHLS, Texas                 JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
NANCY MACE, South Carolina           CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, New York         CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania
BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas                SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts
CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida           JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts
MICHELLE STEEL, California           CAROLYN BOURDEAUX, Georgia
Vacancy                              KAIALI`I KAHELE, Hawaii
                                     MARILYN STRICKLAND, Washington
                                     NIKEMA WILLIAMS, Georgia
                                     MARIE NEWMAN, Illinois
                                     TROY A. CARTER, Louisiana
                                     SHEILA CHERFILUS-McCORMICK, 
                                     Florida
                                ------                                

      Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and
                          Emergency Management

     DINA TITUS, Nevada, Chair
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida              ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON,
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky                District of Columbia
JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON,            SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
  Puerto Rico                        CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire, Vice 
MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi           Chair
BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas                GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida           JOHN GARAMENDI, California
SAM GRAVES, Missouri (Ex Officio)    TROY A. CARTER, Louisiana
                                     PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex 
                                     Officio)



                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page

Summary of Subject Matter........................................     v

                 STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Hon. Dina Titus, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Nevada, and Chair, Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public 
  Buildings, and Emergency Management, opening statement.........     1
    Prepared statement...........................................     3
Hon. Daniel Webster, a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of Florida, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Economic 
  Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management, 
  opening statement..............................................     4
    Prepared statement...........................................     4
Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and 
  Infrastructure, prepared statement.............................    19

                               WITNESSES

Nina Albert, Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, U.S. General 
  Services Administration, oral statement........................     5
    Prepared statement...........................................     7

                                APPENDIX

Questions to Nina Albert, Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, 
  U.S. General Services Administration, from:
    Hon. Dina Titus..............................................    21
    Hon. Daniel Webster..........................................    25
        Attachment: Active Consolidation Activities Program 
          Projects
          7-18-2022..............................................    25
        Attachment: U.S. General Services Administration Public 
          Buildings Service's Infrastructure Investment and Jobs 
          Act Spending Plan......................................    30


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                             June 16, 2022

    SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER

    TO:      LMembers, Subcommittee on Economic Development, 
Public Buildings, and Emergency Management
    FROM:  LStaff, Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public 
Buildings, and Emergency Management
    RE:      LHearing on ``Capital Investment Program: 
Identifying Risk to GSA Facilities''
_______________________________________________________________________


                                PURPOSE

    The Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, 
and Emergency Management will meet on Wednesday, June 22, 2022, 
at 10:00 am EDT in 2167 Rayburn House Office Building and 
virtually via Zoom to hold a hearing titled, ``Capital 
Investment Program: Identifying Risk to GSA Facilities.'' At 
the hearing, Members will receive testimony from the General 
Services Administration's Public Buildings Commissioner.

                               BACKGROUND

    The General Services Administration (GSA) provides 
workspace for 1.2 million federal employees across more than 50 
federal agencies.\1\ GSA's Public Building Service (PBS) owns 
over 1,500 federal buildings.\2\ Approximately 53 percent of 
PBS's portfolio is over 50 years old, and 28 percent is over 75 
years old.\3\ GSA's PBS leases approximately 8,100 office 
buildings, courthouses, land ports of entry, data processing 
centers, laboratories, and specialized space around the country 
for federal agencies.\4\ During the period from fiscal year 
(FY) 2019 through FY 2023, 60 percent of PBS leases will 
expire.\5\ GSA's PBS portfolio is projected to include 183.4 
million square feet of owned space and 183.5 million square 
feet of leased space in FY 2021.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46410.
    \2\ https://www.gsa.gov/cdnstatic/
GSA%20FY%202021%20Congressional%20Justification.pdf.
    \3\ https://www.gsa.gov/cdnstatic/
GSA%20FY%202021%20Congressional%20Justification.pdf.
    \4\ https://www.gsa.gov/real-estate/gsa-properties.
    \5\ https://www.gsa.gov/cdnstatic/
GSA%20FY%202021%20Congressional%20Justification.pdf.
    \6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to GSA's 2022-2026 Strategic Plan,\7\ its 
priorities include developing integrated and virtual workspace 
solutions for agency tenants, moving tenants from leased to 
federally owned GSA-controlled facilities, eliminating the 
backlog of repairs and alterations, disposing of underutilized 
facilities, investing in climate adaptation tools, and securing 
the funding needed to maintain GSA-controlled facilities in a 
state of good repair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ https://www.gsa.gov/cdnstatic/GSA_Strategic_Plan_FY_2022_-
_2026_FINAL_508.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

GSA'S FEDERAL BUILDING PROCESS

    The Administrator of General Services (Administrator) is 
authorized by 40 U.S.C. 585 to enter into lease agreements (of 
no more than 20 years) to secure space for federal agencies.\8\ 
GSA also acquires space through new construction or 
purchase.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ https://www.gsa.gov/cdnstatic/LDG-CHAPTER_INTRODUCTION-FINAL_9-
30-11final_508C.pdf.
    \9\ 40 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  3304, 3305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The current prospectus threshold for leases and capital 
projects is $3.375 million.\10\ If a lease or project cost is 
above the prospectus level, GSA develops a prospectus pursuant 
to 40 U.S.C. 3307 that includes details on the purpose, need, 
size, and scope of the leased space or project.\11\ The 
prospectus is submitted to the House Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on 
Environment and Public Works. Both committees must approve via 
resolution each prospectus prior to GSA executing the 
lease.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ https://www.gsa.gov/real-estate/design-and-construction/
annual-prospectus-thresholds.
    \11\ 40 U.S.C. Sec.  3307.
    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

GAO HIGH RISK REPORT

    Federal real property management was first placed on GAO's 
High Risk List in 2003.\13\ While GAO's 2021 High Risk report 
found that the ``federal government could better manage its 
real property, or real estate, portfolio by effectively 
disposing of unneeded buildings, collecting reliable real 
property data, and improving the security of federal 
facilities,'' GAO noted that GSA has made progress in reducing 
the number and costs of leases. ``GSA continued to demonstrate 
leadership commitment in reducing costly leasing. As noted in 
our 2019 High Risk Report, GSA initiated its Lease Cost 
Avoidance Plan in 2018 to reduce leasing costs by a projected 
$4.7 billion by fiscal year 2023. GSA continued to implement 
its plan through several initiatives including (1) negotiating 
more competitive leases with longer terms, (2) reducing the 
size of leases, (3) moving leased tenants to federally owned 
space, and (4) backfilling vacant leased space.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-119sp.pdf.
    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

UNDERFUNDING OF THE FEDERAL BUILDINGS FUND

    GSA's PBS and its activities are funded through GSA's 
Federal Buildings Fund (FBF).\15\ GSA enters into occupancy 
agreements with its federal agency tenants and charges 
commercially equivalent rent.\16\ Those rents fund the FBF.\17\ 
In turn, the FBF funds the operations of PBS, new construction, 
repairs and alterations, and payments for commercial leases. 
The availability of funds in the FBF are subject to annual 
appropriations.\18\ GSA has raised concerns that since Congress 
has not made available in appropriations bills all rent 
collections over the last ten years, ``GSA is collecting 
commercially equivalent rent from its occupant agencies but is 
precluded from reinvesting all of these funds in the aging 
federal facilities occupied by those rent-paying agencies.'' 
\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ 40 U.S.C. Sec.  592.
    \16\ 40 U.S.C. Sec.  586.
    \17\ 40 U.S.C. Sec.  592.
    \18\ 40 U.S.C. Sec.  3307.
    \19\ https://www.gsa.gov/cdnstatic/
02_FY_2022_CJ_FBF_Narrative_Final_2.pdf FBF-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Since 2011, the amount of funds available in the FBF for 
new construction, repairs, and alternations has decreased below 
receipts received by GSA from its tenant agencies.\20\ In 
addition, reductions, consolidations, and reconfigurations of 
space to improve efficiency and decrease real estate costs 
often require capital upfront.\21\ Given this, a number of 
solutions have been proposed for alternative ways of funding 
projects, including public-private partnerships, discounted 
purchase options, and the creation of a new fund outside of 
GSA's FBF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ See appropriations acts beginning in FY2011.
    \21\ See e.g., GSA's Consolidations Activities Program, Prospectus 
No. PCA-0001-MU21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While GSA has the legal authorities to carry out public-
private partnerships and discounted purchase options, the 
Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) interpretation of 
budget scoring rules effectively prohibits GSA from using these 
alternatives.\22\ Specifically, OMB's interpretation of the 
scoring rules effectively require GSA to have the full amount 
of budget authority for a project up front.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ OMB Circular A-11, Appendix B.
    \23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL OFFICE SPACE TRENDS POST-COVID

    Early in 2020, because of the COVID-19 pandemic, GSA began 
consulting with key tenant agencies and the private sector to 
identify the impacts and trends on federal office space which 
GSA developed into its Workplace 2030 initiative.\24\ The 
initiative examined the potential of increased teleworking 
beyond COVID-19, the opportunities it may present to improve 
efficiency and reduce space needs and costs, and the potential 
savings to the taxpayer.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ Workplace 2030: Envisioning the Future of Federal Work, 
General Services Administration.
    \25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    According to GSA's FY23 Congressional Budget Justification, 
``PBS will play a key role in the transformation of agency 
space requirements, and the facilitation of the Federal 
Government's transition to what is likely to be a smaller, less 
costly real estate footprint. As agencies are evaluating how 
they can most effectively deliver on their missions, GSA has an 
opportunity to partner with its Federal Government occupant 
agencies in the strategic planning of their future space needs.
    Between FY 2023 and FY 2027, approximately 45 percent, or 
82.9 million rentable square feet of leased space, will be 
expiring across the country. Much of this space is larger than 
necessary and prime for potential consolidation into a more 
agile workspace that will reduce the Government's reliance on 
more costly leased space.'' \26\ In 2021, GSA awarded contracts 
to five coworking space companies, including WeWork, 
LiquidSpace Deskpass, Expansive, and The Yard.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ https://www.gsa.gov/cdnstatic/
FY2023_CJ_FBF_Narrative_version2.pdf page 7.
    \27\ See, GSA awards coworking space contract in bid to rethink 
federal office space, Federal News Network, September 1, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DEFERRED MAINTENANCE LIABILITIES

    GSA's FY 2023 budget request ``recognizes that GSA had a 
$7.6 billion unavailable fund balance at the end of FY 2020 and 
accumulated an additional $1.2 billion in FY 2021, for a total 
of $8.8 billion. This fund balance has grown as a result of 
$10.3 billion that could have been appropriated as New 
Obligational Authority (NOA) to the FBF, but instead was used 
to offset increases for other agencies over the last 10 years 
due to limitations in the Financial Services and General 
Government Appropriations Subcommittee's funding allocations. 
This represents a trend in which GSA is collecting commercially 
equivalent rent from its occupant agencies but is precluded 
from reinvesting all of these funds in its aging federal 
facilities occupied by those rent-paying agencies. This 
underfunding relative to revenue generation is almost entirely 
offset and absorbed through PBS's New Construction and Repairs 
and Alterations programs. As such, there are dramatic 
differences between what is needed and what is funded. Habitual 
underfunding of needed reinvestments is the driving factor 
behind PBS's growing deferred maintenance.'' \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ https://www.gsa.gov/cdnstatic/
FY2023_CJ_FBF_Narrative_version2.pdf page 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

GSA CLIMATE RESILIENCE STRATEGY

    President Biden's Executive Order 14008, Tackling the 
Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, directed federal agencies to 
develop a climate resilience strategy.\29\ In response, GSA 
published a Climate Change Risk Management Plan which 
identifies GSA's vulnerabilities to climate change and 
priorities for action.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ 86 FR 7619, pg. 7619-7633.
    \30\ GSA. Climate Change Risk Management Plan. September 2021. 
Available at: Climate Change Risk Management Plan (sustainability.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    GSA guidelines require that it only lease properties 
outside of floodplains to mitigate the risk posed to its 
property.\31\ As floodplain maps are updated to account for 
climate change, GSA anticipates the availability of suitable 
leasing space will be restricted and rental costs more 
expensive as a result.\32\ GSA will also incorporate updated 
floodplain data into its Building Assessment Tool Survey to 
ensure owned property has service life of thirty years at a 
minimum.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ Id.
    \32\ Id.
    \33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Historic buildings within GSA's portfolio are vulnerable to 
disaster risks.\34\ Historic buildings were constructed using 
flood maps that do not reflect updates to 100-year and 500-year 
flood risks.\35\ The age and architecture of the buildings 
limit opportunities to make modifications that enhance 
resilience.\36\ Additionally, GSA's repair backlog has left 
properties within the federal real estate portfolio at greater 
risk to extreme weather events.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ Id.
    \35\ GSA. Climate Change Risk Management Plan. September 2021. 
Available at: Climate Change Risk Management Plan (sustainability.gov).
    \36\ Id.
    \37\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On June 15, 2022, the Committee approved authorization of 
$60 million from the FBF for GSA to undertake climate 
adaptation and natural disaster risk analyses and projects to 
mitigate against risks to federal buildings. While some other 
agencies with a large number of physical assets have done such 
analyses and generated tools that help identify natural 
disaster risks to its facilities and prioritize mitigation 
efforts, GSA has not yet done so.\38\ In addition, agencies 
such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency, produce data 
through its National Risk Index for Natural Disasters that 
could assist GSA in identifying risks to its assets.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\ See, for example, Department of Defense, Climate Assessment 
Tool.
    \39\ See, https://www.fema.gov/flood-maps/products-tools/national-
risk-index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

REAL PROPERTY DISPOSAL

    The Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act of 2016 (P.L. 114-
287) established a new process for disposing of unneeded 
federal space. FASTA created 6-year pilot authority to 
streamline the disposal of certain unneeded properties. A 
Public Buildings Reform Board (Board) was created to bring in 
outside real estate experts to make recommendations on the sale 
or redevelopment of federal real estate.\40\ While separate 
from GSA, GSA provides a critical role in supporting the Board 
activities and carrying out recommendations approved by OMB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \40\ See, H. Rept. 114-578, Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act of 
2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              WITNESS LIST

     LMs. Nina Albert, Commissioner, Public Buildings 
Service, General Services Administration


     CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROGRAM: IDENTIFYING RISK TO GSA FACILITIES

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, JUNE 22, 2022

                  House of Representatives,
      Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public 
               Buildings, and Emergency Management,
            Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m. in 
room 2167 Rayburn House Office Building and via Zoom, Hon. Dina 
Titus (Chair of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Members present in person: Ms. Titus and Mr. Webster of 
Florida.
    Members present remotely: Ms. Norton, Ms. Davids of Kansas, 
Mrs. Napolitano, Ms. Van Duyne, and Mr. Gimenez.
    Ms. Titus. The subcommittee will come to order.
    I ask unanimous consent that the chair be authorized to 
declare a recess at any time during this hearing.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    I also ask unanimous consent that Members not on the 
subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at 
today's hearing and ask questions.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    As a reminder, please keep your microphones muted unless 
speaking. Should I hear any inadvertent background noise, I 
will request that the Member please mute their microphone.
    To insert a document into the record, please have your 
staff email it to [email protected].
    This morning I would like to welcome everyone here to our 
hearing and thank our witness, Ms. Nina Albert, for joining us 
to discuss risks to the General Services Administration's real 
estate portfolio.
    We know the past 27 months have been overwhelming for 
families, businesses, schools, and workers. While adapting to 
remote work was challenging for many, its adaptation has been 
widely considered a success, and it is prompting workers and 
employers to reimagine how and where work gets done moving 
forward.
    How much office space will Federal agencies need? This is a 
question particularly relevant to this subcommittee because we 
authorize the acquisition of space for the GSA.
    The GSA provides workspaces for 1.2 million Federal 
employees in every State and Territory across more than 50 
Federal agencies. Its Public Buildings Service owns over 1,500 
Federal buildings and leases approximately 8,100 office 
buildings, courthouses, land ports of entry, data processing 
centers, laboratories, and other specialized space all around 
the country. With 60 percent of Public Buildings Service leases 
expiring in the next few years and agencies contemplating new 
ways to do work, the Government needs to rethink its real 
estate portfolio.
    Currently, when agencies seek workspace, GSA considers the 
amount of space needed, the type of space, the location, the 
neighborhood amenities, disaster risks such as seismic safety 
and fire protection, and, most of all, the price. That last 
part, the price, is important because we need to be good 
stewards of taxpayer dollars. That is why I introduced the 
House companion to the BRIGHT Act, H.R. 7636, which would 
direct the GSA to install cost-effective and energy-efficient 
lighting in public buildings. This is a simple change that is 
estimated to save millions in taxpayer dollars while also 
making Federal buildings more sustainable.
    As a result of the pandemic, GSA will also have to 
reconsider resilience, sanitation, airflow, spatial planning, 
and telework policies. This pivot will require GSA to consider 
how the built environment can help the Government provide 
better services, attract and retain employees, and protect 
workers' health.
    The built environment also needs to account for the 
challenges and disasters we face as a result of climate change. 
Approximately 53 percent of PBS's portfolio is over 50 years 
old, and many of these buildings were constructed without 
considering the extreme weather risk which are present today. 
So, I am interested to learn more about how the GSA is managing 
climate change risk and how this factors into the repair 
backlog.
    GSA also has other challenges which need to be addressed. 
Persistent underfunding of the Federal Buildings Fund, outdated 
and damaged facilities, underutilized buildings, frustrated 
tenants, expensive short-term lease renewals, insufficient 
funding for new construction, damage to buildings from extreme 
weather events, and a slow prospectus approval process make it 
extremely challenging for GSA to modernize and right-size its 
portfolio.
    That is quite a list of things to address, and we are 
anxious to hear your response to them.
    I am aware of GSA's frustrations with Congress preventing 
full access to the revenues collected in the Federal Buildings 
Fund. But let me point out that, since I became chair of this 
subcommittee--thank you for your help, Mr. Webster, ranking 
member--we have eliminated the multiyear backlog of 
prospectuses, and we have already passed the fiscal year 2023 
climate and resilience, consolidation, energy and water 
conservation, fire protection and life safety, seismic 
mitigation, conveying systems, fire alarm systems, and 
judiciary capital security program prospectuses. Having passed 
these prospectuses prior to the passage of the fiscal year 2023 
appropriations bills means that the authorizers can now return 
to regular order.
    So, Commissioner Albert, I thank you for being with us and 
for participating in today's discussion. You see we have a lot 
of questions. We are grateful for your testimony, and we look 
forward to hearing more about the risks facing GSA's real 
estate portfolio, if I have left some out.
    [Ms. Titus' prepared statement follows:]

                                 
  Prepared Statement of Hon. Dina Titus, a Representative in Congress 
     from the State of Nevada, and Chair, Subcommittee on Economic 
        Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management
    I'd like to welcome everyone to today's hearing and thank our 
witness, Ms. Nina Albert, for joining us to discuss risks to the 
General Services Administration's real estate portfolio.
    The past 27 months have been overwhelming for families, businesses, 
schools, and workers. While adapting to remote work was challenging for 
many, its adaptation has been widely considered a success, and is 
prompting workers and employers to reimagine how and where work gets 
done moving forward.
    How much office space will federal agencies need? This question is 
particularly relevant to this subcommittee because we authorize the 
acquisition of space for the General Services Administration also known 
as the GSA.
    The GSA provides workspaces for 1.2 million federal employees, in 
every state and territory, across more than 50 federal agencies. GSA's 
Public Building Service owns over 1,500 federal buildings and leases 
approximately 8,100 office buildings, courthouses, land ports of entry, 
data processing centers, laboratories, and specialized space around the 
country.
    With sixty percent of Public Building Service leases expiring in 
the next few years and agencies contemplating new ways of working, the 
government needs to rethink its real estate portfolio.
    Currently, when agencies seek workspace, GSA considers the amount 
of space needed; the type of space; the location; the neighborhood 
amenities; disaster risks such as seismic safety and fire protection; 
and most of all, the price.
    That last part is important because we need to be good stewards of 
taxpayer dollars. That's why I introduced the House companion to the 
BRIGHT Act (H.R. 7636) which would direct the GSA to install cost-
effective and energy-efficient lighting in public buildings, a simple 
change that is estimated to save millions in taxpayer dollars and make 
federal buildings more sustainable.
    As a result of the pandemic, GSA will also have to reconsider 
resilience, sanitation, air flow, spatial planning, and telework 
policies. This pivot will require GSA to consider how the built 
environment can help the government provide better services, attract 
and retain employees, and protect workers' health.
    The built environment also needs to account for the challenges and 
disasters we face today as a result of climate change. Approximately 53 
percent of PBS' portfolio is over 50 years old, and many of these 
buildings were constructed without considering the extreme weather 
risks which are present today. I am interested to learn more about how 
the GSA is managing climate risks and how this factors into the repair 
backlog.
    GSA also has other challenges which need to be addressed. 
Persistent underfunding of the Federal Buildings Fund, outdated and 
damaged facilities, underutilized buildings, frustrated tenants, 
expensive short-term lease renewals, insufficient funding for new 
construction, damage to buildings from extreme weather events, and a 
slow prospectus approval process make it extremely challenging for GSA 
to modernize and right-size the portfolio.
    I am aware of GSA's frustrations with Congress preventing full 
access to the revenues collected into the Federal Buildings Fund, but 
let me point out that since I became Chair of this subcommittee we have 
eliminated the multi-year backlog of prospectuses and have already 
passed the FY23 Climate and Resilience, Consolidation, Energy and Water 
Conservation, Fire Protection and Life Safety, Seismic Mitigation, 
Conveying systems, Fire Alarm Systems, and Judiciary Capital Security 
Program prospectuses. Having passed these prospectuses before the 
passage of the FY23 appropriations bills means that the authorizers 
have returned to regular order.
    Commissioner Albert, I thank you for being with us and for 
participating in today's discussion. I am grateful for your testimony, 
and I look forward to learning more about the risks facing GSA's real 
estate portfolio.

    Ms. Titus. I would now open it to Mr. Webster, our ranking 
member, for his statement.
    Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you, Chair. I want to thank 
the GSA Public Buildings Commissioner for being here today.
    It is good to see you. As a matter of fact, it is good to 
see you in person.
    Last week, the committee passed eight resolutions for 
special emphasis programs and alterations that address 
different risks for GSA's aging portfolio. As the committee 
that oversees FEMA and disaster programs, we have a particular 
interest in ensuring agencies like GSA understand the risks to 
its facilities and are working with agencies like FEMA that 
have robust risk data readily available.
    FEMA has the National Risk Index, for example, which 
factors in 18 natural hazards and expected annual losses. This 
kind of data can help communities to make necessary hazardous 
mitigation plans.
    GSA also faces risk by holding onto properties that no 
longer serve a need for the Federal Government. The Federal 
Assets Sale and Transfer Act, FASTA, was passed with the intent 
to not just simply streamline the disposal process, but to get 
agencies to look more strategically at their assets. The goal 
is to produce results that could include sales, redevelopments, 
outleases, and other activities that make the most sense 
financially and operationally.
    To achieve significant changes, it takes the 
administration, including GSA and OMB, working together with 
Congress to get agencies to make better decisions about their 
space and to take new developments into account, like the 
increased telework posture and need for less space.
    It also means alternative financial options should be on 
the table, as well. It makes no sense for the taxpayer to 
effectively pay for a building, sometimes many times over, 
through a lease, only to have to pay fair market value in order 
to own it.
    GSA has the legal authorities to negotiate discounted 
purchase options and enter into public-private partnerships, 
but has not taken advantage of those authorities. GSA should 
use these authorities, where appropriate, to facilitate the 
right-sizing of the portfolio and reduce costs to the taxpayer.
    I hope we can work together to address GSA's growing 
deferred maintenance costs and ultimately reduce costs for the 
taxpayer through strategic investment.
    Thank you, Chair Titus, for the opportunity, and I look 
forward to the testimony.
    [Mr. Webster of Florida's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
Prepared Statement of Hon. Daniel Webster, a Representative in Congress 
from the State of Florida, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Economic 
        Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management
    I want to thank the General Services Administration's (GSA) Public 
Buildings Commissioner for being here today.
    Last week, the Committee passed eight resolutions for special 
emphasis programs and alterations that addressed different risks for 
GSA's aging portfolio. These resolutions tackled seismic mitigation, 
fire alarms and life safety, judiciary security, and assessments on 
building vulnerability to natural disasters.
    As the committee that oversees FEMA and disaster programs, we have 
a particular interest in ensuring agencies like GSA understand the 
risks to its facilities and are working with agencies like FEMA that 
have robust risk data readily available. FEMA has the National Risk 
Index, for example, which factors in 18 natural hazards and expected 
annual loss. This kind of data can help communities to make necessary 
hazard mitigation plans.
    GSA also faces risk by holding onto properties that no longer serve 
a need for the federal government. The Federal Assets Sale and Transfer 
Act (FASTA) was passed with the intent to not just simply streamline 
the disposal process, but to get agencies to look more strategically at 
their assets. The goal is to produce results that could include sales, 
redevelopments, outleases, and other activities that make the most 
sense financially and operationally.
    To achieve significant changes, it takes the Administration, 
including GSA and OMB, working together with Congress to get agencies 
to make better decisions about their space and take new developments 
into account, like the increased telework posture and need for less 
space.
    It also means alternative financing options should be on the table 
as well. It makes no sense for the taxpayer to effectively pay for a 
building, sometimes many times over, through a lease, only to then have 
to pay fair market value to own it. GSA has the legal authorities to 
negotiate discounted purchase options and enter into public private 
partnerships but has not taken advantage of those authorities. GSA 
should use these authorities where appropriate to facilitate the right-
sizing of the portfolio and reduce costs to the taxpayer.
    I hope we can work together to address GSA's growing deferred 
maintenance costs and ultimately reduce costs for the taxpayer through 
strategic investment. I look forward to hearing from our witness today 
on GSA's risk mitigation strategy and plans for the Capital Investment 
Program.

    Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Webster.
    I would now like to welcome our witness, Ms. Nina Albert, 
who is the Commissioner of the Public Buildings Service at the 
GSA.
    Thank you so much for being here today. We are looking 
forward to hearing your testimony.
    Without objection, our witness' full statement will be 
included in the record.
    Ms. Albert, the floor is yours.

   TESTIMONY OF NINA ALBERT, COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC BUILDINGS 
         SERVICE, U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

    Ms. Albert. Good morning, Chairwoman Titus, Ranking Member 
Webster, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Nina 
Albert, and I am the Commissioner of the Public Buildings 
Service at the GSA.
    I appreciate the committee's interest in GSA's Capital 
Investment Program, and I look forward to sharing our outlook 
on the opportunities and risks facing GSA's real estate 
portfolio. I will describe the importance of properly 
maintaining Federal facilities, the financial risk to the 
Government if we do not address mounting deferred maintenance, 
and the savings to taxpayers if we adequately fund GSA's 
Capital Improvement Program.
    By putting the right tools in place, GSA can address 
deferred maintenance as well as modernize and optimize the real 
estate portfolio. This vision includes key national goals, such 
as providing accessible facilities to tens of millions of 
members of the visiting public, to delivering flexible 
workplace environments for Government employees, to ensuring 
physical security and cybersecurity in Federal buildings, and 
achieving a net-zero portfolio by 2045.
    So, how do we advance all of these priorities? At the end 
of the day, the solutions are relatively straightforward.
    GSA seeks to work with Congress to receive full access to 
the Federal Buildings Fund and to streamline the prospectus 
process. Without Congress' support of GSA's full access to the 
Federal Buildings Fund, much of the real estate in GSA's 
control will continue to suffer the consequences of deferred 
maintenance, the liabilities for which now equals $2.6 billion 
per year. And that will compound if it is not addressed, and 
GSA will continue to lease space out of necessity, which is not 
the most cost-effective solution for the Government when we 
know that there is a long-term need.
    There are a number of potential options that would help 
unlock the full value of rent and other collections in the FBF. 
When I appeared before this subcommittee last November, Chair 
DeFazio noted that the FBF funding issue was similar to funding 
challenges around the availability of moneys that were being 
deposited into the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, which 
Congress worked to resolve. I am eager to discuss potential 
solutions with you in this regard.
    By having full access to the FBF, GSA can consolidate 
agencies into federally owned facilities to avoid lease costs, 
we can reduce facility vulnerabilities due to extreme weather 
events, and we can modernize federally owned buildings to meet 
the evolving needs of agencies.
    We also seek to work with the committee on streamlining the 
prospectus process, because this would also improve efficiency 
within GSA's capital investment and leasing programs. A GAO 
report dated January 2022 recommended that GSA assess its 
prospectus processes and communicate its findings to our 
authorizing committees. I am pleased to be able to share our 
findings with you today.
    We evaluated the impact of adjusting the prospectus 
threshold from the current $3.375 million to a $10 million 
threshold. Even at the new threshold amount, roughly 60 percent 
of current projects and 80 percent of major capital projects 
would still be subject to the prospectus process and Congress' 
review. Our preliminary estimate indicates, however, that we 
could save $50 million per year in avoided lease costs and 
costs in our capital repair program, as well as deliver our 
program 23 months sooner.
    GSA will also better be able to respond to emergency 
circumstances, which is vital to enabling agencies to perform 
their missions with minimal disruptions.
    Finally, I want to emphasize that there has never been a 
more important moment to make these improvements. On one hand, 
after 10 years of deferred maintenance, the condition of 
Federal buildings is of concern. On the other hand, based on 
what agencies have learned over the past couple of years, GSA 
needs to have more flexibility to respond to agencies as they 
seek to modernize their mission delivery, update their customer 
service models, and evolve workplace solutions. Gaining full 
access to the Federal Buildings Fund and streamlining the 
prospectus process are two primary means to providing the 
flexibility that is needed to modernize and optimize the 
Federal real estate portfolio.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to share GSA's 
perspective, and I welcome your questions this morning.
    [Ms. Albert's prepared statement follows:]

                                 
   Prepared Statement of Nina Albert, Commissioner, Public Buildings 
             Service, U.S. General Services Administration
    Good morning, Chairwoman Titus, Ranking Member Webster, and Members 
of the Subcommittee. My name is Nina Albert, and I am the Commissioner 
of the Public Buildings Service (PBS) at the U.S. General Services 
Administration (GSA). I appreciate the Committee's interest in GSA's 
Capital Investment Program (CIP) and look forward to sharing our 
outlook on the opportunities and risks facing GSA's real estate 
portfolio. Today, I will describe the importance of constructing new 
and maintaining existing Federal facilities for the safety of the 
public and Federal employees; the financial risks to the government if 
we do not address mounting deferred maintenance and other liabilities; 
and the savings to taxpayers if we institute an adequately funded 
capital construction program. GSA looks forward to partnering with the 
Committee to develop and implement concrete solutions that mitigate 
risk and reflect responsible government.
    GSA oversees federally owned and leased facilities in more than 
2,200 communities across the country where we manage customer service 
centers, courthouses, offices, labs, land ports of entry, warehouses, 
and other facilities. These facilities are visited annually by tens of 
millions of members of the public, including veterans, Medicare and 
Social Security beneficiaries, small business owners, victims of 
disasters, plaintiffs and defendants, contractors, and others. That is 
one of the reasons it is so critically important for GSA to make sure 
these facilities are resilient, safe and accessible.
    It is also critical because of the moment we find ourselves in. The 
COVID-19 pandemic has set in place a once in a generation opportunity 
for Federal agencies to rethink how they provide effective workplace 
environments. The pandemic spotlighted the need for operational 
resilience and ability to transform traditional offices into hybrid 
offices capable of supporting both in-person and remote workers. Using 
lessons learned through the pandemic and leveraging our experience with 
mobile and hybrid work, there are likely to be opportunities to reduce 
general office space--especially opportunities to consolidate from 
leased into owned space, resulting in significant savings for the 
taxpayers and increased use of the Federal portfolio.
    Unfortunately, GSA's ability to seize this opportunity is hampered 
by persistent underinvestment. Much of the federally owned portfolio in 
GSA's control is suffering from the consequences of significant 
deferred maintenance, driven by inadequate investment that is putting 
the American people and government operations at risk. For example, 
many federally owned GSA facilities have had persistent water 
penetration from leaking roofs and windows, which if GSA could have 
repaired when the problems were manageable, would have avoided what 
have now become major liabilities. Other facilities, including many 
U.S. courthouses, have outdated fire, life-safety and elevator systems, 
which prevents or impedes the safe and reliable movement of judges, 
jurors, families, and visitors. The poor conditions of these facilities 
inhibit their tenant Federal agencies from performing their missions at 
the levels of excellence the American taxpayer expects.
    As a result, GSA requires mechanisms to ensure that GSA is able to 
make the necessary investments into the federally owned portfolio both 
now and in the future. Only through adequate and predictable funding 
will GSA be able to both address existing problems and to modernize and 
optimize the Federal portfolio. By replacing outdated and inefficient 
systems with efficient, safe and modern technologies, and updating 
federally owned buildings to deliver modern workplaces and spaces, GSA 
can achieve taxpayer savings. The one-time infusion of $3.4 billion 
investment in land ports of entry through the Infrastructure Investment 
and Jobs Act (Public Law 117-58) is helping to significantly modernize 
those facilities, but they are only a fraction of the Federal portfolio 
that needs investment.
    Financial Risks to the Government from Deferring CIP Investments
    Delaying and deferring capital projects and investment needs only 
increases their overall cost, through project cost increases, scope 
changes, and the compounding expense of temporary repairs. Deferred 
repair projects eventually become full replacement projects. Current 
supply chain volatility and material cost increases only exacerbates 
this trend. The most significant hurdle to timely project execution has 
been lack of available and reliable funding to carry out the necessary 
and desperately needed work. However, other procedural delays can also 
slow progress. Together, both factors have added risks to the Federal 
government.
    Over the past twelve years, GSA's annual appropriation from the 
Federal Buildings Fund (FBF) has averaged $980 million below annual 
collections from customers. As a result, GSA's Capital Investment 
Program (CIP), which supports repairs and renovations, acquisitions, 
and new construction projects, has been consistently underfunded, with 
most of those reductions occurring in the repair and alterations (R&A) 
programs. This level of sustained underinvestment in maintaining 
federally owned buildings has had a devastating effect on conditions in 
hundreds of buildings. Since FY 2011, GSA's immediate annual 
liabilities have doubled from $1.3 billion in FY 2011 to $2.6 billion 
in FY 2021. The total 10-year reinvestment requirements within the 
portfolio have also doubled from $4.7 billion in FY 2011 to $9.4 
billion in FY 2021.
    As an example of how delayed action increases costs, in GSA's FY 
2023 budget request, eight projects that were included in the 
President's Budget were projects that had been requested in previous 
budgets. In fact, several of these have been submitted multiple times, 
with some being submitted as far back FY 2015. In FY 2023, the combined 
costs for these projects have increased by $122 million since they were 
first requested in prior fiscal years and are likely to further 
compound if they are unfunded this year and further delayed. Funding-
related project delays have an especially negative impact on multi-
phase, major modernizations. Funding delays for the Department of 
Commerce's (DOC) headquarters renovation, which was submitted in FY 
2003 and is only on phase 4 of 8, has prevented DOC from releasing back 
to GSA approximately 200,000 usable square feet, and kept other 
agencies in leased space. As a result, an opportunity to avoid 
approximately $10 million in annual lease costs is currently being 
forfeited. There are additional opportunities to reduce lease costs 
through consolidation from private leases into federally owned space. 
However, this is only possible if existing Federal buildings are in 
satisfactory condition and are able to meet agency requirements.
    Even when project funding becomes available, GSA often has to wait 
to begin a project. The prospectus process, as outlined in Title 40, 
adds significant time to routine repair projects and increases risk in 
several ways. First, the size and scope of a repair project can 
increase if a problem is not quickly addressed. Second, if a prospectus 
approval ends up lagging significantly behind the expected time frame, 
temporary or interim solutions may be needed while Committee action is 
pending.
    In January 2022, a review by the Government Accountability Office 
(GAO) of GSA's prospectus process noted the many steps and considerable 
length of time required to develop and approve project prospectuses. 
GAO found that capital repair projects took an average of 23 months 
from prospectus draft to prospectus approval. This timeframe applied 
even for routine capital maintenance issues, such as roof repairs and 
window replacements. As mentioned before, when repairs are delayed, 
smaller repair projects can become full-scale replacements. 
Additionally, forced measures such as lease extensions, temporary 
repairs, or multiple tenant moves also add significant cost and 
disruption to the affected agency. Approximately $20 million a year can 
be saved in the Major Repairs and Alterations program by shortening the 
prospectus timeline and increasing the speed that GSA is able to go to 
the market with construction contracts.
    Finally, I would like to call special attention to the risks posed 
to GSA facilities from extreme weather events and other natural 
disasters. Since 2017, 59 Federal facilities in the GSA portfolio have 
been damaged by floods, hurricanes, and other weather events. We expect 
the frequency of extreme weather events to only increase in the future. 
While Congress has generally provided emergency appropriations to 
repair many of these facilities, preventing damage in the first place 
is almost always the more cost-effective alternative. There are 
proactive measures that can be taken now to reduce facilities' 
vulnerability to these events, thereby reducing the risk of damage.
    Opportunities to Reduce Risk in GSA's Capital Investment Program
    GSA sees a number of opportunities to reduce risk and save money 
long-term. First and foremost, restoring full access to the revenues 
collected into the FBF each year will provide GSA the resources needed 
to address the maintenance backlog, to avoid lease costs through 
consolidations of agencies into federally owned space, and to improve 
the building inventory to meet the evolving needs of agencies and 
visitors alike; this is no more than what any private sector landlord 
would be able to do. With respect to the prospectus process, 
streamlining the current process could reduce risks and also yield 
significant savings. Finally, GSA can manage the financial and 
operational risks from climate change and extreme weather events 
through tailored adaptation measures which may include building-
hardening, relocation, and other preparedness and resiliency measures.
(1) Gaining Access to Annual FBF Revenues
    There are a number of potential solutions that would help unlock 
the full value of collections from the FBF. When I appeared before this 
subcommittee last November, Chair DeFazio noted that the FBF funding 
issue was similar to funding challenges around the availability of 
monies that were being deposited into the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund 
(HMTF), which Congress worked to resolve. We are eager to further 
explore this idea with the Committee and others. One point worth noting 
is that adopting a solution for the FBF similar to what was done for 
the HMTF would preserve both the prospectus approval and annual 
appropriations processes. These processes are important mechanisms to 
allow Congress to provide input and oversight over investments into the 
Federal portfolio.
(2) Streamlining the Prospectus Process
    The January 2022 GAO report recommended that GSA assess its 
prospectus processes and communicate its findings to its authorizing 
committees to address any risks posed by the current process. GSA has 
been conducting this assessment, and I am pleased to communicate some 
of our findings to you today.
    GSA believes setting a higher prospectus threshold for both capital 
and leased projects would allow us to direct scarce resources to many 
of the routine maintenance and repair projects of greatest need. Most 
major projects would still be subject to the prospectus process. 
Simultaneously, GSA could carry out many urgent projects that fall 
between the current threshold of $3.375 million and a proposed 
threshold of $10 million. Overall, roughly 60% of current projects, and 
80% of major capital projects, that currently require prospectus 
approval would still be subject to the prospectus process with a 
threshold of $10 million. This change continues to provide for 
Congressional oversight on major capital projects, while enhancing 
GSA's stewardship function. The current threshold of $3.375 million 
requires GSA to seek authority from Congress to execute low-cost 
repairs to existing facilities that should be considered a part of 
routine maintenance, such as window replacements and elevator repairs.
    Additionally, GSA notes that the Department of Commerce index 
referenced in 40 U.S.C. 3307 to adjust the threshold for annual cost 
increases no longer exists. As such, GSA identified alternative data 
sources and has included reference to the utilized indices in recent 
Congressional notifications of prospectus threshold increases.
    Overall, a streamlined prospectus process with a higher threshold 
for authorization could provide significant benefits for taxpayers. 
GSA's preliminary estimates for lease cost avoidance from a revised 
prospectus threshold suggest that such an update might produce upwards 
of $30 million in annual avoided costs. Similar levels of savings are 
potentially available for capital repair projects as well. By going to 
the market with construction proposals sooner, GSA's repair and 
alterations program could save approximately $21 million annually. 
Additionally, updating the prospectus statute would allow GSA to better 
respond to unforeseen and emergent circumstances more efficiently, 
which is vital to enabling agencies to perform their missions with 
minimal disruptions.
(3) Mitigating Financial and Operational Risks from Disasters
    As previously mentioned, GSA and Federal tenant agencies have 
substantial financial exposure to associated risks from flooding, 
hurricanes, tornadoes, and other significant climate-related events. 
GSA would like to thank this Committee for its support of the budget 
request's $60 million Climate and Resilience Special Emphasis Program 
through the issuance of a prospectus resolution, allowing GSA to 
conduct formal agency-wide vulnerability assessments to align with the 
climate science from the latest National Climate Assessment; fortify 
agency risk management efforts; and identify and execute the highest 
priority projects across the country, such as critical building system 
relocations, flood mitigation and storm water management, and building 
filtration and ventilation projects. I deeply appreciate the 
Committee's quick action on this prospectus, and ask for your continued 
assistance in securing funding for this important work.
    In conclusion, we are at an important inflection point in the 
management of GSA's Federal real estate portfolio, with a unique 
opportunity to modernize and optimize the Federal real estate 
footprint. GSA is committed to meeting this moment. With more flexible 
authorities, funding to improve resilience, and full access to the 
annual revenues we collect from partner agencies, we can provide safe, 
modern, and secure facilities for Federal customer agencies--while 
supporting local economic activity and saving taxpayers significant 
amounts of money over the long-term. I appreciate the opportunity to be 
here with you today, and I look forward to working with the Committee 
on these and other proposals to improve management of the Federal real 
estate portfolio.

    Ms. Titus. Thank you very much. We will now move on to 
Members' questions. Each Member will be recognized for 5 
minutes, and I will start by recognizing myself.
    Earlier this year I introduced the House companion to the 
BRIGHT Act. I mentioned that in my opening statement. That 
BRIGHT Act has passed the Senate. And if the Senate can pass 
anything, it is a miracle. So, that has been done. I wonder how 
you feel about that, GSA, if you would support changing out the 
light bulbs to be more cost effective and more energy efficient 
in our public buildings.
    Ms. Albert. We absolutely support any reforms and 
improvements that provide us the flexibility to invest in 
existing facilities, to dispose faster of underutilized 
facilities, and to make the improvements needed to make sure 
that our buildings are ready for the modern era. That includes 
extreme weather events, unfortunately. That includes greater 
levels of physical security. It includes technology investments 
and improvements and access in our buildings, as well as, 
obviously, modernizing workspaces.
    So, we always appreciate and support when Congress makes 
these investments and acknowledges that, while we take 
buildings for granted--because we don't think about it until 
there is an event that occurs that disrupts operations, that 
impacts people's lives--we are always trying to safeguard 
against those extraordinary events, and we do that by providing 
a reliable and dedicated amount of funding to go ahead and make 
those improvements on a day-to-day and year-to-year basis.
    Ms. Titus. Thank you very much. I am glad to hear that. So, 
maybe we can get that moving out of the House, as well.
    You mentioned the weather conditions. That was going to be 
my next question. We said 53 percent of your portfolio is over 
50 years old; 28 percent is over 75 years old. And when many of 
these buildings were constructed, it was during a time when the 
flood maps weren't very accurate and didn't reflect the kind of 
risk that we are facing today.
    We have got 100-year floods and 500-year floods, and it is 
not just flooding. Other things occur, too. But you are 
vulnerable to a multitude of disasters. You are in great need 
of repair. You have got a backlog. Can you talk to us a little 
bit about how you address flood and sea level rise risks posed 
to some of our existing buildings?
    And are you collecting data on the assets, about how old 
they are, what they need, what their problems are, that sort of 
information? That would be helpful.
    Ms. Albert. Yes. Thank you so much for this question. This 
is of top concern for us.
    Since 2017, we have had 59 buildings subject to some sort 
of extreme weather damage. That includes floods. But of course, 
it also includes tornadoes, hurricanes, other types of damage, 
as well. So, being able to address and repair those facilities 
so that workers and the visiting public can continue to have 
access to those buildings is of concern to us. So, there are a 
number of different things.
    One is taking a proactive approach, making sure that we are 
studying FEMA's--Mr. Webster mentioned the National Risk Index, 
so, incorporating data that is being provided by other 
agencies, and making sure that, as we make capital plans, that 
we are anticipating and using that data so that those capital 
investments allow us to secure that building for a long-term 
future, irrespective of extreme weather events.
    The other side of the coin, of course, is making sure that 
we have the flexibility to repair buildings so they can get 
back into service as quickly as possible, which is, again, why 
I proposed this morning discussing with the committee full 
access to the Federal Buildings Fund. And as I mentioned, even 
by accelerating the prospectus process, we could be saving $50 
million and be able to address emergency repair as needed.
    There is a big opportunity here, as I mentioned, to be 
proactive in our planning and looking at our portfolio across 
the board, making sure that we understand what investments need 
to be made when there is a risk presented to those facilities, 
and then going ahead and making the investments necessary to 
secure the safety of that facility over the long term.
    Ms. Titus. When we talk about infrastructure, we hear a lot 
about building back better. We don't want to just build back to 
a status quo ante; we want to build in resilience for what may 
come down the road. So, is that a part of your consideration as 
you look at the inventory and try to repair some of this 
damage?
    Ms. Albert. Absolutely.
    You mentioned the age of our buildings. There are two ways 
that that predominantly affects us. Number one is the age of 
the building system itself. It is at the end of its useful 
life. When we modernize and put in efficient buildings, we are 
now able to save, on average, 80 percent on the greenhouse gas 
emissions, just based on a systems upgrade alone.
    As it pertains to protecting against flood and other types 
of damage like that, those are more significant capital 
investments, and that is what the Climate and Resilience 
Special Emphasis Program is for. And I want to thank the 
committee for approving and moving that special emphasis 
program forward.
    Ms. Titus. Well, thank you very much. I now recognize Mr. 
Webster for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you, Chair.
    Commissioner Albert, it looks like costs of items in every 
area of life are going up. Inflation is there. And I am sure in 
your arena, especially in infrastructure of buildings--plus, I 
guess, land also is being affected by those costs--what are you 
seeing? What are you doing? How are the costs impacting the 
general operation of GSA, especially in the construction of new 
projects?
    Ms. Albert. Well, thank you for that question. Obviously, 
this is of utmost interest and concern to the construction 
industry and real estate industry at large.
    From a building's operation perspective, we haven't seen 
significant cost increases from that side. That is where our 
buying power and the contracts that we have in place have set 
prices, and we have been able to manage those costs pretty 
well. Where we are seeing costs rise is around certain types of 
materials, labor shortages in many cases. And in those cases, 
we are looking at our portfolio of projects and having to make 
adjustments. They can be sometimes scope changes, they can be a 
different phasing plan to be able to deliver the project within 
budget. And then it can also include, in more challenging 
times, even removing certain projects off the plate, or waiting 
until we are able to deliver them.
    So, these are the tools that are available when we face 
circumstances like this and are having to manage to a fixed 
budget in an environment where there may be escalating costs.
    What is incredibly important for any manager of a major 
portfolio like ours is to have sustained and dedicated funding 
year after year, because we can then plan to manage around 
momentary cost changes. It is sort of a fundamental management 
axiom for people who are managing major capital investments is 
the longer we can have a 5-year or a 10-year capital 
improvement plan, we can manage to the immediate market 
circumstances. And that is, I think, a key part to this moment, 
where everyone is trying to manage the specific cost increases 
that we are seeing in the construction industry.
    Mr. Webster of Florida. So, let's say, last case scenario, 
you don't know exactly what to do. You are in the middle of 
something, they are building it, and all of a sudden the costs 
are going to be more. Do you have any ability to modify what is 
being done?
    Ms. Albert. We do. It depends on what the circumstance is. 
As you know, GSA works very closely during the procurement 
process with the contractor. We often try and negotiate a firm, 
fixed price or a guaranteed maximum price. So, the projects 
that are already underway are being planned according to the 
budget that the contractors committed to.
    When there are unusual circumstances, there are provisions 
within our contracts that allow us to negotiate around whatever 
that what we call force majeure event might be.
    Mr. Webster of Florida. Yes. So, also in the area of 
courthouses, there was a study 10 or 12 years ago about the 
cost--the actual courthouses being larger than what was 
approved. And that certainly costs more money than what we 
have. What are you doing to make sure that what is approved, 
what is talked about, what is voted on is what we are doing?
    Ms. Albert. Well, we are working very closely with the 
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and they have been a 
fantastic partner. They are seeing the opportunity to modernize 
their facilities as a result of what they have learned over the 
last 2 years during the pandemic and how they know their future 
workforce is going to use space.
    So, the past 10 years have been a great collaboration. I 
believe that we have worked very closely with the courts to 
make sure that design standards are put in place and that the 
budgets that are developed are current and also communicated. 
There are changes that occur during the course of any project, 
and we work closely on those scope changes with the courts to 
make sure that they are being properly managed.
    Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you very much.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Webster. We will now go to the 
other members of the committee, and I will recognize them for 5 
minutes.
    First, we have Ms. Van Duyne.
    Ms. Van Duyne. Thank you very much. I appreciate everybody 
being here today.
    Most Americans are getting back to work, and that includes 
getting back to work in the office. In his State of the Union, 
President Biden said it is time for Americans to get back to 
work and fill our great downtowns again. People working from 
home can feel safe to begin to return to the office. We are 
doing that here in the Federal Government. The vast majority of 
Federal workers will once again work in person.
    But from what we have heard from constituents, from what I 
have seen--and it is constituents who are actually acting on, 
working with our Government agencies--that really does not 
appear to be the case.
    I understand you can only speak on behalf of what the GSA 
is doing right now. But as the Government landlord, you should 
be leading by example. So, Ms. Albert, I am going to ask you. 
How many GSA employees are back in the office full-time right 
now?
    Ms. Albert. I don't know the exact number to that.
    GSA has always been a leader, and sort of on the leading 
edge of hybrid work. We have been practicing in a hybrid 
environment for over a decade. And so, as a result of the last 
couple of years, we have been reevaluating which positions 
qualify for remote work, which positions qualify for hybrid----
    Ms. Van Duyne [interrupting]. So, of those positions, how 
many are back in the office 5 days a week?
    Ms. Albert. I am not sure that any are back in the office 5 
days a week, but we are also not aiming for that outcome.
    What we are really looking to do--and I would say that this 
is true----
    Ms. Van Duyne [interrupting]. So, how many days, on 
average, per week are they at the office?
    Ms. Albert. I don't know that I can provide an average. I 
can tell you what I do, which is I am in the office between 3 
and 4 days a week. And so is my supporting staff.
    Ms. Van Duyne. What about other leadership in DC?
    Ms. Albert. I would say that we are in a period of flux, 
and this is across the country in private sector, as well. 
There are very few organizations, private or public, that are 
in the office 5 days a week.
    Ms. Van Duyne. I could tell you our office is in the 
office. Our staff is in the office, both in DC and in the 
district, because that is where constituents call, that is 
where constituents come for help.
    But from a leadership perspective, this is your team. I 
would hope that you would know how often that they are in the 
office. This is a team that you are working directly with.
    Ms. Albert. We are actually encouraging hybrid work so that 
we can fully understand it, so that we can serve agencies that 
are interested in engaging with hybrid, remote, or office-based 
work as effectively as possible. This is an opportunity to----
    Ms. Van Duyne [interrupting]. But can you just give me--and 
I know that we use that term, but I don't know what hybrid 
means. I mean, I know it is a mixture, but is it mostly at 
home? Is it mostly in the office?
    I know at HUD, I think it is like 1 day a pay period they 
have to come back in the office. What is GSA doing?
    Ms. Albert. GSA----
    Ms. Van Duyne [interrupting]. Certainly, you have a policy. 
It is not--it is just not a one-off, right?
    Ms. Albert. No, it is not a one-off. We have actually been 
systematically working through each position.
    This is what best practices are, are to look at what is the 
requirement of the position, and how should it be qualified.
    Ms. Van Duyne. So, you are telling me at GSA right now you 
don't have a standard, that is, each position is different on 
how many days that they come to the office, each position? 
There is no standard?
    Ms. Albert. We have a standard by position. That is 
correct.
    Ms. Van Duyne. OK, and what does that range from?
    Ms. Albert. It ranges from fully remote, hybrid, to onsite.
    Ms. Van Duyne. OK, and then how many would you say are 
fully remote, what percentage?
    Ms. Albert. Six percent, I believe.
    Ms. Van Duyne. OK, and then what is the others?
    Ms. Albert. Let's see. Onsite is about--and please don't 
quote me on these numbers, this is an estimate--onsite, fully 
onsite, 5 days a week--those are our building managers and 
people who provide onsite services, that is about 10 percent. 
And the vast majority is in a hybrid mode. Hybrid means 
anywhere from 1 day a week in the office to 4 days a week in 
the office.
    So, that is what the spread is. This is, again, very 
typical. This is the norms of the private sector, as well as 
public sector. We are all competing for qualified talent in the 
future, and we know that the current generation, after 
experiencing working from home for the last 2 years, as well as 
future generations, are going to anticipate and need and want 
flexible work styles.
    Ms. Van Duyne. Yes, and I think flexible is one thing, but 
going back to the office 1 day every 2 weeks is probably not 
exactly what makes the best team work together.
    But if GSA is in charge of Government office space, 
wouldn't it be in your best interest to actually have the 
office buildings filled again? I mean, otherwise, are we 
looking at shrinking down that footprint? You are spending a 
lot of rent on empty office space right now.
    Ms. Albert. Well, right now, what I think the opportunity 
is, is to have fewer buildings and better buildings. I think 
that there is an opportunity to reevaluate our portfolio and 
take those facilities that are underutilized, and put them to 
better use by either offering----
    Ms. Van Duyne [interrupting]. I hope we can do that soon. I 
yield back my time. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Titus. Thank you. I now recognize Mrs. Napolitano.
    [Pause.]
    Ms. Titus. Mrs. Napolitano?
    Mrs. Napolitano. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Titus. Thank you.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Commissioner Albert, two of GSA's 
strategic plan priorities are developing virtual workspace 
solutions and disposing of underutilized facilities. What 
actions has the Public Buildings Service taken to address this?
    Ms. Albert. Sure. Thank you so much for your question. We 
are doing two things concurrently.
    The first is, we are looking at our assets again. We are 
scrubbing them completely and trying to determine which ones 
are long-term strategic holds for the Federal Government that 
we should continue to invest in, that we should properly 
maintain, that we should upgrade and renovate to withstand 
future climate events----
    Mrs. Napolitano [interrupting]. Is there--pardon me. Is 
there a list of priorities that you can share with the 
committee so we know what you are working on and what has come 
up as a priority for you?
    Ms. Albert. Sure. I mean, the priority for us is to make 
sure that we have a financially and environmentally sustainable 
portfolio. That work incorporates disposition of underutilized 
properties and reinvestment in assets that we know that we are 
going to hang on to.
    And there is a tremendous opportunity, and this is where we 
are working with agencies to determine how they are going to be 
using space in the future and making sure that, when there is 
an opportunity to consolidate space, that we are doing that 
and, ideally, when we have a Federal building available, 
consolidating them into Federal space.
    So, all of those activities take place concurrently. We are 
working very actively. And, as you saw in our----
    Mrs. Napolitano [interrupting]. Pardon me. Do you have a 
report that would show what your priorities are?
    Ms. Albert. Yes, actually. Well, we have a report that is 
deliverable to Congress.
    Mrs. Napolitano. I would like to see it----
    Ms. Albert [interrupting]. Let's see. I think it would be 
in September. And so, we look forward to sharing the results of 
that report with you here shortly this fall.
    Mrs. Napolitano. And the committee, would you please?
    And then your testimony noted that delayed actions have 
increased several projects' costs by $122 million and how these 
delays to repair and maintenance impact your ability to make 
GSA's portfolio more climate resistant.
    Ms. Albert. I am sorry. Could I ask you to repeat the 
question? Unfortunately, it was hard to hear.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Delayed action has increased project costs 
by $122 million. How do these delays in repairs and maintenance 
impact GSA's ability to make its portfolio more climate 
resistant?
    Ms. Albert. OK. Thank you so much. What I think I 
understood was that delays in project delivery can impact our 
ability to make buildings more climate resistant. OK?
    Mrs. Napolitano. Yes.
    Ms. Albert. Well, any time that there is limited 
flexibility in how we manage the portfolio, as well as delays 
due to burdensome process, all of those delays compound our 
ability to react quickly, whether or not there is an immediate 
event that we need to respond to so that we can recover, or 
whether or not we are planning in advance to make upgrades to a 
building.
    These are the fundamentals of what I hope to work with the 
committee on in the near future. We need to have access to the 
Federal Buildings Fund so that we can plan in advance, as well 
as have the flexibility to invest when needed during times of 
emergency, or even times of basic repair.
    The acceleration or the improvements to the prospectus 
process is also about addressing speed. The GAO report 
estimated that the prospectus process in its current form takes 
about 23 months. That is 2 years that a facility isn't repaired 
when it could have been. That is 2 years that an agency is 
delayed in getting into a leased space.
    Mrs. Napolitano. What can you do to cut the redtape?
    Ms. Albert. Well, this is what we would love to talk to you 
about.
    I think fundamentally, when GSA collects rent and other 
proceeds, that populates the Federal Buildings Fund. Twelve 
years ago, we used to have reliable access to the full amount 
of rent that we collect. That is estimated today between $10 
billion to $11 billion. We have been shortchanged by about $1 
billion per year. And unfortunately, where that money is coming 
from is from the Capital Improvement Program, almost 
exclusively. The leasing----
    Mrs. Napolitano [interrupting]. Why have you been 
shortchanged?
    Ms. Albert. That is just the fix that we are looking to 
make in the Federal Buildings Fund, is to be able to get full 
access year after year. That is why the Harbor Maintenance 
Trust Fund example or model is of interest to us. That is how 
that fix was made, so that the Army Corps of Engineers could 
have access to the funds that it collected. We are seeking 
something very similar.
    Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Thank you, ma'am.
    Ms. Albert. Thank you.
    Ms. Titus. Thank you. I don't see anybody else to ask any 
questions. Ms. Norton was going to try to come back, but she 
hasn't.
    Just a followup with that, and then I will see if Mr. 
Webster wants to ask any more questions.
    Where does that money go? How do the appropriators use 
that? Or does it depend on the year?
    Ms. Albert. It depends on the year. I don't have the full 
history. In some cases it has been to make technology 
investments, in other cases it has been for other things. So, 
it has been a variable, depending on the past 10 to 12 years.
    Ms. Titus. You want to ask any more questions?
    Mr. Webster of Florida. I just want to say thank you for 
appearing today. It has been good. I look forward to working 
with you on many of these problems and also coming up with 
solutions that will work for all. Thank you.
    Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Webster.
    I think we can look again at these problems that you 
mentioned. I want to ask you a couple of questions.
    I know that you don't directly oversee the VA, but that 
sometimes you work with the VA, and they do a terrible job of 
managing buildings. I think about the hospital that was near 
Denver that went over budget so much and took so much longer, 
and all that.
    How is your working relationship with them?
    Ms. Albert. Our relationship with the VA is good, and it 
gets better and better. We work pretty closely with them on 
both leasing actions that--we use our lease authority to 
acquire outpatient clinics, for example, and they have been 
talking to us about their interest in partnership around 
construction practices.
    GSA deploys all of the tools available in terms of 
construction management. And so, we have a great depth of 
knowledge in this space. And the VA has been talking to us 
about that.
    A lot of the different portfolios are fairly complex, and 
we are really stepping into a place of becoming a partner for 
different agencies, not only so that they can learn best 
practices, but in many cases where maybe we can augment their 
delivery of projects.
    And so, that is the scope of what we are looking at right 
now: bringing industry best practices to all of Government.
    Ms. Titus. That is good. I am glad to hear that. I hope 
they will listen.
    One other quick question. What is happening about the FBI 
building? We know that money is there. We know it is in 
terrible shape. We know it has been a controversial decision. 
Can you bring us up to date on that?
    Ms. Albert. Sure. We recently briefed the committee on the 
viability of the three previous sites that were identified. 
Just to remind you, one was at Greenbelt Metro Station in 
Maryland. Another one was at Landover, also in Maryland. And 
then the third site is at the Franconia-Springfield Metro 
Station in Virginia. So, we assessed those sites because they 
were based on a significant consolidation previously, and they 
are still available. We talked to each of the landowners of 
those properties. All three sites continue to be viable.
    What we are working on right now with the FBI, in 
accordance with the President's fiscal year 2023 budget 
request, is a consolidated suburban campus at 1 of those 3 
sites where, at minimum, 7,500 employees would relocate to, but 
also working on a 750- to 1,000-person presence here in 
downtown Washington, DC, so that there can be proximity to the 
Department of Justice and the White House.
    We have had a very cooperative and positive set of 
conversations. And what is going to happen next is looking at 
site selection. So, how will we choose, and what are going to 
be the criteria for choosing among those three sites?
    Ms. Titus. Thank you. Will you keep us posted on that?
    Ms. Albert. Absolutely. It is of utmost importance. And as 
you may or may not know, my career was built as an economic 
development and real estate professional in this region. And I 
know how important this project is.
    Ms. Titus. Thank you.
    Ms. Van Duyne, are you still there? Is she gone?
    Is Mrs. Napolitano still there?
    [To Mr. Webster of Florida:] Well, all right, you are set?
    Mr. Webster of Florida. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Titus. Well, thank you very much. It has been helpful. 
You have laid out two major things we need to work with you on, 
and we are happy to do that and willing to. It sounds like we 
can make some improvements there.
    So, that will conclude our hearing. I would like to again 
thank you for your testimony. The comments were, as the script 
says, very informative and helpful. But even more than that, we 
appreciate your being here.
    I ask unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing 
remain open until such time as our witness provides answers to 
any questions that may be submitted to her in writing.
    I also ask unanimous consent that the record remain open 
for 15 days for any additional comments and information 
submitted by Members or the witness to be included in the 
record of today's hearing.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    The subcommittee now stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 10:46 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]



                       Submissions for the Record

                              ----------                              

  Prepared Statement of Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress 
     from the State of Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure
    Thank you, Chair Titus, and thank you to our witness, Commissioner 
Albert, for being here today.
    This Subcommittee has a long, bipartisan history of taking a 
leading role in reforming federal real estate.
    From pressing agencies to reduce their space footprint, to changing 
how we dispose of unneeded real estate, we have saved the taxpayer 
billions of dollars.
    Now we must address the growing deferred maintenance costs in the 
GSA portfolio, and the increased risk these buildings face.
    The committee passed eight resolutions last week focused on 
mitigating risk and the effects of an aging real estate portfolio, such 
as addressing the fire safety system and establishing a system to look 
closer at mitigating against natural disasters.
    I look forward to hearing from the GSA Public Buildings 
Commissioner today on GSA's efforts and plans to reduce risk to its 
portfolio and save taxpayer dollars.
    Thank you, Chair Titus. I yield back.



                                Appendix

                              ----------                              


  Questions from Hon. Dina Titus to Nina Albert, Commissioner, Public 
        Buildings Service, U.S. General Services Administration

    Question 1. Earlier this year, I introduced the House companion to 
the BRIGHT Act which passed the Senate. My bill would direct the GSA to 
install the most life-cycle cost-effective and energy-efficient 
lighting in public buildings which is estimated to save millions in 
taxpayer dollars. Does the GSA support this bill as a means of saving 
taxpayer dollars and maximizing energy efficiency?
    Answer. In accordance with the Energy Act of 2020, Pub. L. No. 116-
260, 134 Stat. 1182, 2418, the U.S. General Services Administration 
(GSA) supports implementing all life-cycle cost-effective energy 
conservation measures, to the maximum extent practicable, using a 
combination of appropriated dollars and alternative financing, when and 
where appropriate. Lighting projects often have a high return on 
investment and can contribute to the viability of alternatively 
financed projects by supporting other energy conservation measures with 
longer payback periods. GSA supports efforts to install high-efficiency 
lighting, equipment and other energy and water conservation projects 
that reduce operating costs and have beneficial environmental impacts. 
Furthermore, GSA supports continued flexibility in the application of 
BRIGHT Act investments to allow use of energy savings performance 
contracts and utility energy service contracts in accordance with the 
Energy Act of 2020.

    Question 2. GSA's repair backlog has left many older properties at 
risk to extreme weather events. How is GSA addressing flood and sea 
level rise risks posed to existing buildings? Is GSA collecting data on 
each asset's condition, age, maintenance costs, and susceptibility to 
damage from extreme weather events? Is the GSA utilizing this data to 
prioritize repairs or disposals? Does GSA use forward-looking climate 
information and climate adaptation analyses in its decision-making 
about potential investments, acquisitions, and disposals? What is GSA's 
approach for investing in the highest priority climate-resilience 
projects? Should the GSA build on this and update federal facility 
location policies to include additional climate risks when siting 
buildings and procuring leases? How is GSA addressing flood and sea 
level rise risks posed to existing buildings?
    Answer. GSA's real estate portfolio faces a number of risks, 
including those from increasing extreme weather events. To address the 
need to evaluate existing assets for their vulnerability to climate 
events, GSA's fiscal year (FY) 2022 and FY 2023 budgets have requested 
appropriations for the Climate and Resilience Special Emphasis program 
to undertake the highest priority projects to mitigate unsafe building 
conditions and to maintain operational continuity. This includes 
appropriations for technical determinations of flood vulnerabilities 
for buildings and sites that were already identified in a prior FY 2020 
report to Congress, the estimation of flood mitigation project costs 
and time frames for project execution. This Special Emphasis Program 
includes modernization of internal guidance, systems and tools to 
assist in location policies, as well as other measures for asset and 
project management. GSA includes safeguarding assets and risk 
management factors as part of its capital construction program reviews 
and prioritization.
    GSA uses the best available government information, such as FEMA's 
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), which characterize flood risk due to 
past incidents. GSA will also consider other flood risk information 
that includes future flooding conditions that FEMA makes available. GSA 
will also consider other flood risk information that includes future 
flooding conditions that NOAA and other federal science agencies 
finalize in the Climate Science Informed Approach (CISA) of Executive 
Order 13690--Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (FFRMS). GSA also 
collects data on each asset's condition, age and maintenance needs, but 
it does not currently systematically collect data on an asset's 
susceptibility to damage from extreme weather events and incremental 
climate change. However, GSA does collect data on climate impacts 
already made to existing buildings and incorporates current and 
forward-looking climate information and analysis into new construction 
and major repair and alteration prospectus projects. For capital 
projects, climate adaptation measures are provided by GSA's licensed 
architects, engineers and subject matter expert consultants using 
forward-looking climate information from the latest National Climate 
Assessment, which is the most comprehensive and authoritative source on 
climate change and its impacts in the United States. Climate adaptation 
measures may include nature-based solutions as appropriate to the 
project.
    Without full annual access to the revenues and collections 
deposited into the Federal Buildings Fund (FBF), though, GSA will 
remain unable to fully address these and other risks that face our 
public buildings.

    Question 3. The current FBI building on Pennsylvania Avenue is 
obviously falling apart and no longer a modern headquarter consistent 
with the level of security and utility of the other members of the 
Intelligence Community. Given the pressing need, has GSA considered 
using alternative financing mechanisms like lease purchase agreements 
to complete the project in a timely fashion? Does GSA have enough funds 
to procure a site and build the infrastructure for a new campus?
    Answer. The Administration is committed to delivering a modern, 
secure, and sustainable headquarters campus for the FBI that allows it 
to accomplish its mission effectively. GSA and FBI collectively have 
funding to acquire a site and complete a design but, at this time, full 
construction funding has not been appropriated to deliver a new campus.
    Historically, GSA has considered a range of alternatives to address 
this pressing need, including lease purchase agreements. Given the 
unique specifications of this Headquarters facility, a lease purchase 
would require upfront funding for the full construction cost. We note, 
that infrastructure needs are dependent on the site selected and the 
design of the facility, neither of which has been completed. The 
Administration is committed to submitting a funding request for this 
project and looks forward to working with Congress to appropriate 
adequate funding for this urgent need.

    Question 4. The Biden Administration has announced ambitious 
environmental and sustainability goals, including some that apply to 
its leased real estate portfolio. To effectuate those goals, will GSA 
give preference to greener buildings in its lease procurement process? 
If so, will buildings that go beyond the minimum requirements of the 
solicitation be given any advantages in procurement, financial or 
otherwise?
    Answer. There is no regulatory or statutory price preference for 
greener buildings with lease procurements. In order for there to be a 
price preference for greener buildings, similar to how there is a price 
preference for historic buildings, the Federal Management Regulation 
(FMR) would need to be updated to include greener buildings as a 
criteria for a price preference with lease procurements.
    In order for GSA to reach its sustainability goals when it comes to 
lease procurements, GSA Office of Leasing is currently evaluating using 
sustainability requirements as a possible award factor when conducting 
Best Value Tradeoff (BVTO) source selection lease procurements. Also, 
GSA is working closely with its stakeholders to fully implement 
Executive Order 14057, which includes sustainability requirements for 
lease procurements that will apply in FY2023 and net zero leasing 
standards that will take effect in FY2030.
    GSA is committed to acquiring sustainable leased space through its 
application of statutory requirements, Federal mandates, and industry 
standards. Federal mandates refer to Executive Orders as well federal 
policies from agencies such as EPA and Dept of Energy. GSA's leasing 
requirements include many building industry standards, such as those 
related to HVAC (ASHRAE), lighting (Illuminating Engineering Society), 
plumbing, and fire-life-safety. The Energy Independence and Security 
Act of 2007 is the statute that requires, with limited exceptions, that 
Federal agencies must not award a lease contract to a lessor for space 
in a building that has not earned the ENERGY STAR label in the most 
recent year. In addition, GSA has 60+ clauses in its lease contract 
that include green standards related to sustainable products and 
practices, as well as, site and environmental conditions that serve as 
minimum, mandatory requirements.
    Recently, the new Executive Order (E.O.) 14057 on Federal 
Sustainability was issued on 12/8/21, with accompanying Implementing 
Instructions finalized on 8/31/22. The E.O. includes additional 
sustainability requirements for Leasing that apply in FY2023 and 
beyond. Currently, work is underway to roll out requirements FY2023. 
Next, The Administration will develop net zero leasing standards for 
full implementation by 2030.
    This list of green requirements for GSA leases, including the 
Energy Star label, the 40+ clauses, and E.O. 14057 provisions, to 
include net zero leasing standards, serve as an effective way to 
achieve sustainability goals.

    Question 5. For a decade, the Energy Independence and Security Act 
(EISA) provided agencies with specific annual energy and water 
efficiency goals. Unfortunately, these expired in FY2015. If revived, 
how would such goals help drive continual progress on sustainability 
throughout agencies including GSA? What are the risks of not having 
stable, long-term goals for energy and water efficiency? How is GSA 
working to help achieve the administration's net zero goals?
    Answer. Energy and water goals, when coupled with: (i) consistent 
funding for GSA's capital improvement budget, (ii) focused appropriated 
funding, such as the Energy and Water Retrofit and Conservation 
Measures Special Emphasis Program included in GSA's FY 2023 budget 
request, and (iii) performance contracting, where appropriate, are keys 
to developing and maintaining a high performing, sustainable real 
estate portfolio.
    The Energy Act of 2020 mandated that life-cycle cost-effective 
energy and water conservation measures be implemented, with 50% 
addressed using performance contracting. Executive Order 14057, 
Catalyzing Clean Energy Industries and Jobs Through Federal 
Sustainability (December 8, 2021), mandates that GSA: (1) establish 
targets for FY 2030 energy use intensity and potable water use 
intensity and (2) propose annual progress targets (based on benchmarked 
performance analysis). These goals and milestones will be part of GSA's 
analysis and planning to meet Executive Order 14057's 65% scope 1 and 2 
greenhouse gas emissions reduction (from 2008 levels) by 2030 and net-
zero emissions building portfolio goals by 2045.
    The combination of these statutory and executive order mandates is 
driving progress on our portfolio sustainability and stewardship. In 
the near term, GSA's lack of access to annual revenues and collections 
in the FBF for capital investments to reduce our backlog of deferred 
maintenance and make our buildings more energy efficient poses a 
significant challenge to maintaining and improving our buildings' 
sustainability performance.

    Question 6. GSA has developed expertise in high performing 
buildings, such as building strategies affecting health and wellness. 
What is needed for GSA to apply this knowledge to enhance conditions 
for health and productivity of the Federal workforce? What lessons have 
you learned from Covid? What percentage of buildings in the portfolio 
stayed fully occupied during Covid?
    Answer. COVID-19 highlighted the importance of effective 
communication and collaboration, especially in an environment where 
research and guidelines are rapidly changing. GSA has learned several 
lessons during this pandemic and, undoubtedly, there will be more 
lessons learned in the future.
      GSA quickly learned the value of constant communications 
in keeping individuals informed and ensuring team members were working 
together to keep facility occupants safe.
      Weekly national team communications were established, 
with additional meetings added when the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC) and the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force guidance 
changed, resulting in immediate calls to action for GSA and GSA 
facilities managers. These included establishing protocols for:
      +  COVID-19 cleaning and disinfecting.
      +  Notification of facility occupants when COVID-19 incidents are 
reported.
      +  Communication templates to ensure consistency of messaging.
      +  Employee COVID-19 contact tracing.
      +  Modifying service contracts, as needed.
      +  Implementing operational changes to heating, ventilation and 
air conditioning (HVAC) systems as recommended by CDC and looking for 
additional opportunities to improve those systems.
      +  Enhancing collaboration with security partners, and ensuring 
all policy, guidance and directives are synchronized.
      This reinforced the importance of leveraging effective IT 
systems:
      +  Several years of work on software (cloud) and hardware (all 
associates having laptops) enabled GSA to pivot almost overnight to 
remote work, where possible, to continue delivering on our mission.
      +  Workspace business apps and collaboration tools to adapt to 
communication, tracking and reporting needs.
      +  Continual review of effectiveness of the tools and enhancing 
or developing additional tools, as needed.
      +  Use of Robotic Process Automation to communicate with hundreds 
of associates as CDC COVID-19 Community Levels change each week.

    Many of these lessons were only able to be put into action 
effectively due to the support Congress provided through CARES Act 
resources to address enhanced cleaning standards, new contract 
requirements and improvements to HVAC systems. GSA continues to 
collaborate with government agencies, service providers and industry 
leaders on best practices and technologies to enhance the health and 
productivity of the Federal workforce. There may be more we can and 
should do in the future to make our buildings more resilient and to 
continue enhancing safety for all occupants.
    Throughout the pandemic, most GSA-controlled facilities remained 
open for Federal employees and contractors to conduct business. 
However, the vast majority of occupant agencies allowed at least a 
portion of their employees and contractors to work remotely at various 
times and continue to do so as COVID-19 transmission rates remain at 
high and medium levels throughout the Nation.

    Question 7. How will gaining full access to the Federal Buildings 
Fund reduce the backlog of repair and alteration projects? Would a fix 
like the one enacted for the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund be 
beneficial to GSA?
    Answer. For more than a decade, GSA's major repair and alterations 
budget within the Federal Buildings Fund (FBF) has been underfunded by 
approximately $1 billion annually, or half of the annual repair and 
alterations need, which is now increasing deferred maintenance across 
GSA's real estate portfolio. A fix for the FBF like the one enacted for 
the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund would be transformative for GSA, the 
federal agencies we serve, and the public that relies on government 
services and the assets that we are charged with maintaining. With 
stable and consistent funding, we can make our public buildings more 
modern, flexible, and resilient, which will allow us to seize the 
opportunity presented by agencies rethinking their workspaces to: 1) 
reduce the real estate footprint; 2) consolidate agencies; and 3) 
rebalance from costly leases to federally owned space. Taken together, 
massive savings are possible--on the order of billions of dollars per 
year.
    We can also make our facilities much more sustainable, 
turbocharging our efforts to make all of our public buildings carbon 
pollution-free by 2030, and net zero carbon by 2045. This will reduce 
the cost of operating buildings, as well as drive smart and sustainable 
improvements in the type of energy we buy off the grid.
    Finally, gaining full access to the annual revenues and collections 
in the FBF will allow us to properly maintain the public assets we 
steward. Moreover, we would be able to address repairs in a much more 
fiscally responsible manner, taking care of smaller issues before they 
become bigger ones, and avoiding the consequences of continually 
escalating costs. In FY 2023, for example, eight of the 17 major 
repairs and alterations line item projects proposed in the President's 
Budget were included in a previous budget request. Since those projects 
were initially requested, costs have risen by $122 million.
    GSA is deeply appreciative of the Committee's interest in ensuring 
we have a safe, efficient, sustainable, and properly maintained real 
estate portfolio to deliver effectively for the Federal workforce and 
the American public. A fix for the FBF would be a game-changer for the 
government and will save money for the American people.

    Question 8. Where are the FY23 lease prospectuses? Is GSA going to 
revalidate the square footage of prospectuses that we've passed or that 
you have sent to us? With so many leases expiring, how will GSA make 
new leasing decisions before the agencies have determined their long-
term leasing posture?
    Answer. GSA typically submits lease prospectuses for each fiscal 
year in the late summer and early fall, following its budget 
submission. The FY 2023 lease prospectuses are currently being reviewed 
within the Executive Branch and will be transmitted to this Committee 
and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works later this 
summer and early fall.
    As part of its lease review process, GSA confirms that its 
prospectus-level lease actions have an approved prospectus to support 
the award of a lease. If a revalidation of the space needs requires a 
new prospectus, GSA will work with the Committee to prepare amended 
lease prospectuses.
    GSA must continue to consider how a particular lease transaction 
aligns with the portfolio strategies of the local market and the degree 
of financial risk GSA is prepared to assume when entering into leases 
on behalf of a customer agency. In some situations, GSA will make 
practical use of shorter-term leasing authorities, such as renewal 
options and strategic extensions, that will enable GSA to avoid long-
term commitments while agencies engage in the planning necessary to 
understand their long-term needs. In other situations, GSA will make 
practical use of longer-term leasing authorities that are appropriate 
for those particular occupancies. In the near term, the Committee 
should expect GSA to propose more shorter-term leases; we are engaged 
with agencies now in planning for their long-term space needs and we 
want to ensure we do not overcommit the government on requirements that 
may change in the next few years. We hope to partner with the Committee 
on what will be a challenging moment of transition, but ultimately one 
that provides a huge opportunity to optimize the real estate footprint 
and save taxpayers money.

Questions from Hon. Daniel Webster to Nina Albert, Commissioner, Public 
        Buildings Service, U.S. General Services Administration

    Question 1. In your response to the Subcommittee on the current 
plan for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) headquarters, you 
specifically mentioned the goal is to have a consolidated headquarters 
at one of three potential sites in either Maryland or Virginia; but to 
also maintain a location in Washington, D.C., to ensure proximity to 
the Department of Justice and the White House. During your verbal 
response, you indicated, at a minimum, 7,500 employees would relocate 
to the consolidated suburban campus, but that there would be a 
continued 750 to 1,000-person presence in downtown Washington, D.C. 
Please indicate if there is any overlap in those staffing levels and, 
if so, how much (e.g., whether employees may be assigned to both 
locations).
    Answer. The FBI is currently updating its requirements, and re-
evaluating its lease inventory, staffing and mission needs for the 
National Capital Region to maximize consolidation opportunities. 
Although GSA has not received FBI's final consolidation analysis, 
minimal overlap of the urban and suburban staffing levels and mission 
activities is expected.

    Question 2. The fiscal year (FY) 2023 Consolidation Activities 
Program submitted to the Committee highlights 87 previously-funded 
projects that will result in reducing space by 1.8 million square feet 
and save taxpayers $163 million in annual lease cost avoidance. The 
prospectus suggests these 87 projects are still underway, please 
provide a timeline for their completion and the Subcommittee with a 
list of those projects?
    Answer. Previous appropriations to the FBF for the Consolidation 
Activities Special Emphasis Program have funded 89 consolidation 
projects. Of those 89 projects, 63 have been completed. The remaining 
26 projects are still underway and have varying estimated completion 
dates between now and August 2023.
    When the remaining projects are completed, the program is estimated 
to have reduced the federal footprint by approximately 1.8 million 
usable square feet and generated more than $163,000,000 in annual 
Government lease cost avoidance.
    Active projects are included as an attachment (``Active 
Consolidation Activities Program Projects 7-18-22'').
                               attachment

                           Active Consolidation Activities Program Projects 7-18-2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Project Name/
             Region                  Program Name          Location           Public Law            Status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................  Consolidation       SSA O'Neil Federal  FY2021, FY18        Active
                                   Activities.         Building Leased     Revised
                                                       to Owned            Expenditure Spend
                                                       Consolidation       Plan #1--Spend
                                                       Project / Boston,   plan Rev #3.
                                                       MA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2...............................  Consolidation       Leo O'Brien         FY2019, 116-6       Active
                                   Activities.         Federal Building--  Major R&A Spend
                                                       Department of       Plan.
                                                       Labor's
                                                       Occupational
                                                       Safety and Health
                                                       Administration
                                                       (OSHA)
                                                       Consolidation--Pr
                                                       oj VNY00090 /
                                                       Albany, NY.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2...............................  Consolidation       201 Varick Street   FY2015, FY 2015 PL  Active
                                   Activities.         DHS/ICE Tenant      113-235.
                                                       Proj# VNY00070,
                                                       VNY00071 /
                                                       Manhattan, NY.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2...............................  Consolidation       Ted Weiss Federal   FY2019, 116-6       Active
                                   Activities.         Building--The       Major R&A Spend
                                                       U.S. Commodity      Plan.
                                                       Futures Trading
                                                       Commission (CFTC)
                                                       consolidation
                                                       VNY00096 / New
                                                       York, NY.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2...............................  Consolidation       Jacob K. Javits     FY2021, FY21 Major  Active
                                   Activities.         Federal Building--  R&A Spend Plan PL
                                                       DOE Consolidation   116-260.
                                                       / New York, NY.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3...............................  Consolidation       HUD Richmond        FY2021, FY18        Active
                                   Activities.         Federal Building    Revised
                                                       Leased to Owned     Expenditure Spend
                                                       Consolidation       Plan #1--Spend
                                                       Project /           plan Rev #3.
                                                       Richmond, VA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4...............................  Consolidation       Claude Pepper       FY2015, FY 2015 PL  Active
                                   Activities.         Federal Building    113-235.
                                                       Proj# VFL00027
                                                       (FY15), VFL00051
                                                       (FY20)/Miami, FL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4...............................  Consolidation       Claude Pepper       FY2020, FY2020      Active
                                   Activities.         Federal Building    Major R&A Spend
                                                       Proj# VFL00027      Plan.
                                                       (FY15), VFL00051
                                                       (FY20)/Miami, FL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4...............................  Consolidation       Martin Luther King  FY2018, 115-141...  Active
                                   Activities.         Federal Building /
                                                        Atlanta, GA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5...............................  Consolidation       536 S. Clark St.    FY2018, 115-141...  Active
                                   Activities.         Federal Building
                                                       (GAO
                                                       consolidation)
                                                       Proj# VIL00134 /
                                                       Chicago, IL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5...............................  Consolidation       Ralph H. Metcalfe   FY2019, FY14-FY17   Active
                                   Activities.         Federal Building    Revision 2
                                                       (CFTC) / Chicago,   Expenditure Plan.
                                                       Illinois.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5...............................  Consolidation       HHS--Chicago, IL,   FY2021, FY17-FY18   Active
                                   Activities.         John C.             Revision
                                                       Kluczynski and      Consolidation
                                                       Ralph H. Metcalfe   Spend Plan HHS
                                                       Federal Buildings   Consolidation.
                                                       Consolidation
                                                       Project. /
                                                       Chicago, Illinois.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5...............................  Consolidation       John C. Kluczynski  FY2019, FY14-FY17   Active
                                   Activities.         Federal Building    Revision 2
                                                       (IRS) / Chicago,    Expenditure Plan.
                                                       Illinois.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5...............................  Consolidation       Kluczynski Federal  FY2019, FY 2014,    Active
                                   Activities.         Building (DOL       2015, and 2016
                                                       ETA, OA, & JC)      Revised
                                                       Proj# VIL00128 /    Expenditure Plan.
                                                       Chicago, IL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7...............................  Consolidation       Employers CASU      FY2015, FY 2015 PL  Active
                                   Activities.         Bldg 1301 Young     113-235.
                                                       St Proj# VTX00278
                                                       (HHS Lease to
                                                       Lease
                                                       Consolidation) /
                                                       Dallas, TX.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8...............................  Consolidation       Denver Federal      FY2019, FY 2014,    Active
                                   Activities.         Center Building     2015, and 2016
                                                       40--(DOI, BLM)      Revised
                                                       Proj# VCO00088 /    Expenditure Plan.
                                                       Lakewood, CO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8...............................  Consolidation       Denver Federal      FY2016, 114-113...  Active
                                   Activities.         Center--(EPA)
                                                       Project# VCO00079
                                                       / Denver, CO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8...............................  Consolidation       Denver Federal      FY2019, FY 2014,    Active
                                   Activities.         Center, Building    2015, and 2016
                                                       41 (DOI, OSM)       Revised
                                                       Proj# VCO00097 /    Expenditure Plan.
                                                       Lakewood, CO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9...............................  Consolidation       DOL Consolidation   FY2020, PL 116-93   Active
                                   Activities.         312 North Spring    FY20 Major R&A
                                                       Street / Los        Spend Plan.
                                                       Angeles, CA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9...............................  Consolidation       Ronald V. Dellums   FY2019, FY14-FY17   Active
                                   Activities.         Federal Building    Revision 2
                                                       and U.S.            Expenditure Plan.
                                                       Courthouse (USDA)
                                                       Proj # VCA00260 /
                                                       Oakland, CA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9...............................  Consolidation       Ronald V. Dellums   FY2019, 116-6       Active
                                   Activities.         Federal Building    Major R&A Spend
                                                       and U.S.            Plan.
                                                       Courthouse--Natio
                                                       nal Labor
                                                       Relations Board
                                                       (NLRB)
                                                       consolidation
                                                       proj # VCA00262;
                                                       VCA00263 /
                                                       Oakland, CA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10..............................  Consolidation       Anchorage Federal   FY2019, 116-6       Active
                                   Activities.         Building--Departm   Major R&A Spend
                                                       ent of Homeland     Plan.
                                                       Security's
                                                       Immigration and
                                                       Customs
                                                       Enforcement (ICE)
                                                       consolidation
                                                       Proj VAK00019 /
                                                       Anchorage, AK.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10..............................  Consolidation       Historic Federal    FY2019, FY 2014,    Active
                                   Activities.         Office Building--   2015, and 2016
                                                       DOL Proj#           Revised
                                                       VWA00070 /          Expenditure Plan.
                                                       Seattle, WA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10..............................  Consolidation       Historic Federal    FY2019, FY 2014,    Active
                                   Activities.         Office Building--   2015, and 2016
                                                       HUD Proj#           Revised
                                                       VWA00069 /          Expenditure Plan.
                                                       Seattle, WA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11..............................  Consolidation       Mary E. Switzer     FY2014, 113-76      Active
                                   Activities.         Building, 330 C     Project ASIDs--
                                                       Street SW /         VDC00125 and
                                                       Washington, DC.     VDC00126.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11..............................  Consolidation       Mary E. Switzer     FY2015, 113-235     Active
                                   Activities.         Building, 330 C     Lower Levels
                                                       Street SW /         Project ASIDs--
                                                       Washington, DC.     VDC00160 and
                                                                           VDC00161.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11..............................  Consolidation       Lyndon Baines       FY2017, 115-31....  Active
                                   Activities.         Johnson Federal
                                                       Building Project#
                                                       VDC00204 /
                                                       Washington, DC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11..............................  Consolidation       Theodore Roosevelt  FY2017, FY17 spend  Active
                                   Activities.         Federal Building    plan.
                                                       (OPM/CIO)
                                                       Project# VDC00205/
                                                       Washington, DC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Question 3. Many private sector companies are turning to flexible 
office space providers to quickly reduce their footprint and lower 
costs. What can GSA do to help the government better utilize this tool 
and realize the value propositions for taxpayers and the federal 
workforce?
    Answer. GSA's Flexible Coworking Services Indefinite Delivery, 
Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract has been awarded to five national 
coworking vendors, four of which are small businesses. The vendors on 
this IDIQ contract are DeskPass, LiquidSpace, Novel, The Yard, and 
WeWork. This contract will allow federal agencies to occupy space on a 
short-term, on demand basis to better manage and respond to their 
changing workspace needs. Contracted coworking space is not intended to 
be a long-term space solution for agencies, as it is not cost effective 
over a long period of time, but can be used to address immediate or 
temporary needs, or both, and provide space in locations where federal 
space is not easily or readily available.

    Question 4. Funding, as you pointed out in your testimony, has been 
a challenge for the Federal Buildings Fund (FBF). Public private 
partnerships (P3s) have effectively been used in the private sector and 
by State and local governments as an alternative way to finance new, 
updated and more efficient space. For example, P3s can be designed to 
not only address the hurdle of upfront capital, but also ensure 
buildings are managed, maintained and operated effectively. Do you 
commit to working with the Committee on ways GSA could leverage P3s to 
carry out its mission?
    Answer. GSA is committed to working with the Committee to explore 
all available avenues to make sure its buildings are managed, 
maintained and operated as effectively as possible. In the past, GSA 
has leveraged P3s, where possible, partnering with industry to invest 
over $700 million in work to save energy, water and utility costs, and 
is happy to consider further opportunities. While the use of P3s can 
assist GSA in carrying out its mission, access to the full amount of 
revenues and collections deposited in the FBF is the single best way we 
can properly and effectively manage, maintain and operate our public 
assets.

    Question 5. While funding challenges may impact GSA's ability to 
reconfigure and consolidate owned space, $5.67 billion is spent 
annually for leased space.\1\ Improving space utilization and 
negotiating good lease deals as leases expire creates an opportunity 
for a significant amount of savings, yet in recent years we have seen 
lease costs increase. Please provide written examples of what GSA is 
doing to get ahead of lease expirations to reduce space and costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ FY2022 Consolidated Appropriations Act, P.L. 117-103.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Answer. GSA continues to focus on improving space utilization, 
negotiating below-market leases and replacing leases in a timely 
manner. Between 2018 and 2021, GSA achieved more than $4 billion in 
lease cost avoidance by proactively managing expiring leases, 
consolidating leases into federally owned space, where available, and 
negotiating below-market rents.
    Congress could further facilitate GSA's ability to achieve this 
lease cost avoidance target by updating GSA's prospectus thresholds. As 
part of an internal review of the prospectus process in response to GAO 
recommendations, GSA analyzed the effects that a higher prospectus 
threshold would have on lease cost avoidance. From FY 2019 through FY 
2022, for every dollar of rent we replaced, we generated about $2.38 of 
Lease Cost Avoidance over the lease term. By increasing the prospectus 
threshold to $10 million per year, GSA estimates that it could avoid 
approximately $40 million in Lease Costs.
    To improve space utilization, GSA engages tenant agencies well in 
advance of lease expiration, gathers requirements through partnership 
with our tenants and develops solutions that look to reduce rentable 
square footage through innovative workplace solutions, consolidations 
and space optimization. GSA has significantly increased its lease 
replacement rate through improved business processes and incentivizing 
the timely replacement through a robust performance management program. 
In addition, GSA has provided its workforce with a number of tools, 
such as the Automated Advanced Acquisition Program and the Requirements 
Specific Acquisition Platform, which have expedited the lease 
procurement process and reduced costly lease extensions by replacing 
them in advance of their expiration date.
    Reducing the Federal footprint continues to be a key strategy. GSA 
has initiated several programs focused on controlling lease costs and 
continues to deliver projects well below market. The Lease Cost 
Avoidance program examines and promotes agency space reduction and 
negotiating the best rates possible.

    Question 5.a. Further, please denote how far in advance of lease 
expiration does GSA begin working with the relevant tenant agency to 
begin the process for replacing the lease.
    Answer. GSA has a standard timeline to engage tenant agencies in 
advance of when their lease is expiring. For leases, GSA generally 
begins the process roughly 36 months prior to lease expiration. GSA 
first looks at vacant federal space and vacant leased space prior to 
posting an advertisement for new leased space to meet an agency's need 
for space.

    Question 5.b. Additionally, please provide the Subcommittee with 
data on what percentage of GSA leases are expiring in the next 5 years.
    Answer. As of 08/21/2022:

By count of leases:........................................       48%
By rentable square feet expiring:..........................       43%
By value:..................................................       42%
 


    Question 6. Land Ports of Entry (LPOEs) are critical assets 
especially now given the crises at the ports and at the border. While 
we receive prospectuses requesting Committee action on specific 
projects or phases of projects, we generally do not receive information 
on context. You mention in your written testimony the one-time infusion 
of $3.4 billion in land ports of entry in the Infrastructure Investment 
and Jobs Act (IIJA). Please provide the Subcommittee with a list of 
current projects, phases completed and future phases of those funded by 
IIJA as well as regular appropriations. Additionally, please provide 
the Committee with its long-range plans for land ports of entry.
    Answer. The IIJA Spend Plan, submitted to Congress on February 14, 
2022, is attached (``IIJA LPOE Spend Plan'').
    A summary of LPOE projects funded by the FBF, separate from the 
IIJA or supplemented by it, is also attached (``LPOE FBF List'').
    The most recent long-range plan for LPOEs from U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection (CBP) is also attached (``CBP Five-Year Plan'').
    [Editor's note: The attachments are included at the end of the 
responses to the questions.]

    Question 7. Recently, the judiciary updated its Courthouse Design 
Guide. The design guide drives the Courts' official space requirements. 
Was GSA included or consulted during this update? If so, please explain 
this process and the GSA's perspective on the matter. If not, please 
explain how the Subcommittee could assist to ensure GSA's role is 
considered in this development.
    Answer. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts solicited 
feedback from GSA during the planning and development of the updated 
Design Guide. GSA was afforded the opportunity to review a draft 
revised Design Guide for comment. Ultimately, the Judicial Conference's 
Committee on Space and Facilities reviewed all proposed changes and 
prepared a revised and updated Design Guide for the Judicial 
Conference's consideration.

    Question 8. The Committee has jurisdiction over the Federal 
Protective Service (FPS) in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 
and building security. Since FPS was transferred from GSA to DHS, there 
have been questions around whether there is adequate coordination to 
address security issues. From GSA's perspective, has there been 
improvements in coordination? Does GSA commit to working with the 
Committee to ensure there is good coordination between FPS and GSA on 
building security issues and identify areas that may need improvement 
moving forward?
    Answer. GSA is committed to its partnership with DHS-FPS and 
working with both DHS-FPS the tenant agencies, and this Committee to 
enhance the safety and security of the facilities under GSA's 
jurisdiction, custody or control and the tenants occupying those 
facilities. Coordination has improved in the recent past, and GSA's 
goal is to make continued progress in mitigating security risks in 
federal facilities under GSA's jurisdiction, custody or control.

    Question 9. According to GSA testimony at prior hearings, over 50 
percent of GSA's building portfolio is over 50 years old. Even if many 
of these buildings are renovated, they are not designed to meet modern 
office space needs. If more funding is available from FBF, how do we 
ensure the funding is not simply going into renovating buildings that 
ought to be sold instead?
    Answer. GSA is the steward of 514 buildings that are listed in or 
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and 
has expertise in modernizing older facilities for modern day use and 
has many examples of successful building modernization. GSA also 
evaluates the financial viability for every building renovation project 
that it proposes. As part of that evaluation, GSA compares the 
estimated present value cost of renovating and maintaining an existing 
building to the estimated present value cost of disposing of that 
building and leasing or constructing a new building. Full access to the 
annual revenues collected through rent and deposited in the FBF would 
facilitate investment in these buildings to meet federal agencies' 
space needs over the long term and pay for agencies to move out of 
underutilized buildings to make buildings without long-term strategic 
value to the government available for sale. GSA is committed to 
divesting of assets it no longer needs and has disposed of 84 
properties in the past 5 years with total net sales proceeds of $243 
million. Avoided repair and alteration liabilities as a result of those 
disposals totaled $122 million. We anticipate significant opportunities 
to divest of unneeded assets in the years ahead and look forward to 
partnering with Congress to complete those repositionings.

    Question 10. Over the years, GSA and the Committee have used office 
space or overall utilization rates as metrics to determine how 
efficiently space is being used. However, these metrics rely heavily on 
self-reporting by tenant agencies on the number of people assigned to a 
building. In order for the Committee to best ensure scare taxpayer 
dollars are used most effectively, more helpful numbers would be how 
space is actually utilized. Has GSA taken any steps on methods of 
determining actual utilization rates? Are there ways, including 
legislation, that the Committee can assist GSA get this information 
from its tenant agencies? If so, please provide.
    Answer. Starting in FY 2020, GSA began piloting occupancy data 
collection methodologies, initially starting with building badging, 
building sensor and customer provided data. Later, in FY 2021, GSA 
piloted cellular mobile data and, in FY 2022, initiated Wi-Fi network 
pilots. Each of these efforts support agencies in the right type and 
amount of space. Based on these efforts, GSA has direct access to daily 
building occupancy data in a portion of its federally owned portfolio 
where the tenant agency is in agreement, and works very closely with 
customers to collect this data in prioritized federally owned assets 
greater than 100,000 square feet in high cost markets, which has 
resulted in a snapshot of occupancy for 44.5 million square feet. 
Because this data proves so important to optimizing and modernizing 
federal space, GSA will continue to work with its customers to 
prioritize the collection of this information for agency use to inform 
data-driven solutions to the future of work.

    Question 11. The Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act (FASTA) 
codified the Federal Real Property Profile (FRPP) which is a 
comprehensive database on federal real estate assets managed by GSA. 
While GSA met the deadline on implementation, the data reported by 
agencies was uneven in terms of how certain exemptions, such as for 
national security, were applied. Is GSA working to ensure more 
consistency in how agencies report data? Is there data not included in 
the FRPP that GSA believes would help in terms of overall property 
management?
    Answer. GSA has continued to work within the governance structure 
of the Federal Real Property Council to adjust the FRPP reporting 
requirements to improve the consistency and accuracy of data that 
agencies report to the system, as well as what data is released to the 
public as prescribed by FASTA.
   attachments referenced in response to question 6 from hon. daniel 
                                webster
     U.S. General Services Administration--Public Buildings Service
                         Federal Buildings Fund
          Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act Spending Plan
    This spending plan details how the U.S. General Services 
Administration (GSA) will invest the $3.418 billion enacted by the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (the Act) on November 15, 2021, 
to construct and acquire, and repair and alter land ports of entry 
(LPOE) on both the northern and southern borders of the United States. 
The spending plan consists of four categories consistent with the 
provisions of the Act.\1\ In coordination with the Department of 
Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection and Federal Motor 
Carrier Safety Administration, GSA will be reviewing the scope and cost 
of each project included in the spending plan and provide additional 
details as part of the quarterly reporting requirements on obligations 
and expenditures, by project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Provided further, That the Administrator of General Services 
shall notify the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
Representatives and the Senate quarterly on the obligations and 
expenditures of the funds provided under this heading in this Act by 
account of the Federal Buildings Fund: Provided further, That funds 
made available under this heading in this Act for Federal Buildings 
Fund activities may be transferred to, and merged with, other accounts 
within the Federal Buildings Fund only to the extent necessary to meet 
program requirements for such activities: Provided further, That the 
General Services Administration will provide notice in advance to the 
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 
Senate of any proposed transfers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Investment in LPOE modernization will improve deferred maintenance 
and existing operating constraints, improve, and expand the throughput 
of commercial traffic and the traveling public, facilitate the economic 
development and sociodemographic growth in the border communities, and 
benefit the American economy on the border and beyond. Through human-
centered and mission-focused design, targeted technology deployments, 
and enhanced space utilization, CBP will be appropriately positioned to 
respond to changing trends in international travel. This will result in 
modern, resilient, and sustainable port infrastructure that strengthens 
the Nation's supply chains, supports U.S. competitiveness by removing 
bottlenecks, expedites commerce, and reduces the environmental impact 
on neighboring communities.
    Moreover, this investment in LPOEs will advance the climate 
resilience and sustainability of the Nation's infrastructure. At 
minimum, all of these projects will employ CEQ 2020 Guiding Principles 
for Sustainable Federal Buildings, will achieve LEED Gold for Buildings 
& SITES Silver certification for Sitework, and will achieve Net-Zero 
Ready \2\ status. GSA's high-performance buildings result in industry-
leading savings in energy and water use and related reductions in 
building operating expenses, as well as produce less waste and achieve 
higher overall tenant satisfaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Section 1.9 of PBS Facility Standards (P100) establishes the 
baseline requirement for Net-Zero Ready. ``Designs must be Energy Net-
Zero ready on a source energy basis with onsite renewables that are 
designated on the plan for future installation including pathways, 
conduits, or other means of getting the power in the building.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    GSA will undertake site acquisition (as required), design and 
construction of facilities to increase efficiency, improve safety and 
security for both commercial and non-commercial vehicular and 
pedestrian traffic, and meet the current and future operational 
requirements of the Federal inspection agencies. Many LPOEs are decades 
old and in poor condition with inadequate space configuration. All work 
will allow inspection agencies to better complete their missions and 
facilitate the efficient movement of travel and trade.
    Infrastructure paving work will improve port operations, eliminate 
further degradation of traffic surfaces and minimize vehicle damage. 
Purchase of several leased LPOEs will result in annual lease cost 
avoidance and enable GSA to maintain the facilities more efficiently 
and more cost effectively. The Department of Transportation-Federal 
Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) projects will allow FMCSA 
to better enforce safety regulations, conduct a sufficient number of 
meaningful vehicle safety inspections, reduce commercial motor vehicle-
related fatalities and injuries, and ensure safety for all inspectors.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Infrastructure    Spending Plan /
                                       Investment and        Capital
                                          Jobs Act         Allocations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projects on the U.S. Department of      $2,527,808,000    $2,527,808,000
 Homeland Security-Customs and
 Border Protection five-year plan...
Additional projects with completed        $430,200,000      $430,200,000
 feasibility studies................
LPOE Paving; LPOE Lease Purchases;        $210,000,000      $210,000,000
 Department of Transportation-
 Federal Motor Carrier Safety
 Administration Requirements........
Program Contingency and Operational       $250,000,000      $250,000,000
 Support............................
                                     -----------------------------------
  Totals............................    $3,418,008,000    $3,418,008,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------


GSA and Department of Homeland Security Five-Year Plan Projects

Calexico, CA..........................................  [$103,376,000 \3
                                                                      \]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The\\ spending plan allocates funding for construction of Phase IIB of 
a two-phase project to reconfigure and expand the existing LPOE in 
downtown Calexico, CA. Phase II has been divided into two sub-phases: 
Phase IIA, funded in 2019, includes the remaining northbound non-
commercial lanes; expansion of the secondary inspection canopy; new 
southbound non-commercial inspection islands, booths, canopies, and 
concrete paving; an administration building; an employee parking 
structure; and a vehicle seizure lot. Phase IIB includes a pedestrian 
processing building with expanded northbound pedestrian inspection 
stations, demolition of legacy facilities and significant earthwork.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Funding identified in this spend plan is an estimate that 
aligns with the FY 2022 President's Budget construction request level. 
Final spending is subject to change due to time and market conditions. 
DHS Furniture, fixtures and equipment to be funded separately by the 
agency.

San Luis I, AZ........................................  [$115,875,000 \2
                                                                      \]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The spending plan allocates funding for construction of Phase II of a 
two-phase project to reconfigure and expand the existing LPOE in 
downtown San Luis, AZ. Phase I was funded in fiscal year 2020. Phase II 
includes construction of a new public facing building; a new pedestrian 
processing building; buildout of the existing North Annex for families 
and unaccompanied minors; the demolition and construction of a new main 
building, kennels and seizure vault; and all associated site 
development, infrastructure, support facilities, and parking.

International Falls, MN...............................  [$249,629,000 \2
                                                                     \]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The spending plan allocates funding for site acquisition, design and 
construction of facilities to modernize and expand the LPOE in 
International Falls, MN. The project includes construction of a new 
state-of-the-art facility that will increase efficiency, improve safety 
and security for both commercial and non-commercial vehicular and 
pedestrian traffic and meet the current and future operational 
requirements of the Federal inspection agencies.

Alcan, AK.............................................  [$187,509,000 \2
                                                                      \]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The spending plan allocates funding for site acquisition, design and 
construction to modernize the existing LPOE in Alcan, AK. Alcan is the 
most isolated port of entry between the United States and Canada. The 
existing location must function 24/7 as a self-contained community. In 
addition to the inspection buildings, the complex includes residences, 
a power plant and a community center. All of these components are 
reaching the end of their functional use and will be replaced in a 
newly constructed complex.

Sumas, WA
The spending plan allocates funding that includes expansion of the site 
through land acquisition, new construction and major repairs and 
alterations to enhance the LPOE's space capacity and create efficient 
inbound and outbound operations.

Coburn Gore, ME
The spending plan allocates funding for a newly constructed facility on 
an expanded site providing outfitted configured canopies, inspection 
lanes and booths, a new outbound inspection lane, a modernized, 
mission-capable main port building, and a hotel-style facility to 
accommodate personnel and families at a remote LPOE.

Douglas, AZ (New commercial)
The spending plan allocates funding for construction of commercial 
operations at a new LPOE west of the downtown area on a site to be 
donated by the City of Douglas. The existing Raul Hector Castro (RHC) 
facility serving the Douglas area, discussed in greater detail below, 
serves both commercial and non-commercial traffic and is located 
adjacent to downtown Douglas. The port processes large equipment and 
hazardous materials for the local mining industry. The new commercial-
only crossing west of downtown will serve all commercial traffic that 
currently uses the RHC LPOE.

El Paso (Bridge of the Americas), TX
The spending plan allocates funding for site acquisition, design and 
construction of facilities to modernize and expand the Bridge of the 
Americas (BOTA) LPOE in El Paso, TX. BOTA is one of four crossings in 
El Paso. The port processes toll-free inbound and outbound commercial, 
non-commercial and pedestrian traffic. As a result, the volume of 
traffic is heavy with many travelers and commercial vehicles choosing 
to enter and exit through this facility in lieu of paying a toll.

Brownsville (Gateway), TX
The spending plan allocates funding for site acquisition, design and 
construction of a project that will expand processing capacity at 
Brownsville (Gateway), TX. The project will address major facility 
deficiencies, including site layout and building space capacity, and 
provide more efficient processing area.

Calais (Ferry Point), ME
The spending plan allocates funding for the construction of a new LPOE 
that will include reconfiguration of the historic main port building to 
accommodate current port functions and add an outbound inspection lane.

Douglas (Raul Hector Castro), AZ
The spending plan allocates funding to modernize and expand processing 
capacity at the Raul Hector Castro (RHC) LPOE. Commercial operations 
currently being processed at the RHC LPOE will be relocated to a new 
commercial LPOE west of downtown Douglas as described in greater detail 
above. Construction at the RHC LPOE will begin after the new commercial 
facility is completed.

Highgate Springs, VT
The spending plan allocates funding for the construction of a new LPOE 
at Highgate Springs, VT. The ongoing construction of the A-35 highway 
connecting to this crossing on the Canadian side adds urgency to expand 
and modernize this LPOE. The project includes improving security at 
secondary inspection, expanding bus processing and enclosing the 
secondary inspection garages.

Alburg Springs, VT
The spending plan allocates funding for the construction of a new LPOE 
that will include the replacement of the obsolete main port building 
and the addition of an outbound inspection lane.

Beebe Plain, VT
The spending plan allocates funding for the construction of a new LPOE 
that will include reconfiguration of the historic main port building to 
accommodate current port functions. A new U.S. access road will secure 
the movement of the occupants of 14 residences located on the American 
side of the border.

Porthill, ID
The spending plan allocates funding for site acquisition and 
construction of a new LPOE. This project will improve inbound and 
outbound operation by optimizing traffic flow.

Dunseith, ND
The spending plan allocates funding for site acquisition, design and 
construction of facilities to modernize and expand the LPOE in 
Dunseith, ND.
                               __________
Additional Projects \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Projects with completed U.S. Customs and Border Protection/
General Services Administration feasibility studies as prioritized in 
the ``American Jobs Plan Project List'' submitted to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations on May 28, 2021.

Fort Fairfield, ME
The spending plan allocates funding for the relocation of the roadway 
to provide secure entry/exit to and from the United States at Fort 
Fairfield, ME.

Grand Portage, MN
The spending plan allocates funding for the construction of a new LPOE 
that will include replacement of the obsolete main port building.

Limestone, ME
The spending plan allocates funding for the construction of a new LPOE 
that will include the replacement of the obsolete main port building 
and the addition of a non-commercial secondary inspection building 
adjacent to the new main building.

Lynden, WA
The spending plan allocates funding for the construction of a new LPOE 
that will include the replacement of the obsolete main port building.

Norton, VT
The spending plan allocates funding to renovate, reconfigure and expand 
the existing main port building.

Richford (Route 139), VT
The spending plan allocates funding to renovate and reconfigure the 
existing port main building and construct a new employee vehicle garage 
and non-commercial secondary inspection garage.

Rouses Point, NY
The spending plan allocates funding for the construction of a new LPOE 
in proximity to the border to support port operations, Trusted Traveler 
and rail inspections. The existing facility is located more than a half 
mile from the border.

Trout River, NY
The spending plan allocates funding for the construction of a new LPOE 
that will include the replacement of the obsolete main port building.

Blaine (Pacific Highway), WA
The spending plan allocates funding for the construction of additional 
inspection lanes and the modernization of the primary inspection 
booths.

Houlton, ME
The spending plan allocates funding to replace the aging building 
systems at the existing LPOE in Houlton, ME.