[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
WHEN THE LIGHTS ARE ON BUT NO ONE'S HOME:
AN EXAMINATION OF FEDERAL OFFICE SPACE UTILIZATION
=======================================================================
(118-23)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS,
AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 13, 2023
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC 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
53-338 PDF WASHINGTON : 2024
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Sam Graves, Missouri, Chairman
Eric A. ``Rick'' Crawford, Rick Larsen, Washington,
Arkansas Ranking Member
Daniel Webster, Florida Eleanor Holmes Norton,
Thomas Massie, Kentucky District of Columbia
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Grace F. Napolitano, California
Brian Babin, Texas Steve Cohen, Tennessee
Garret Graves, Louisiana John Garamendi, California
David Rouzer, North Carolina Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Georgia
Mike Bost, Illinois Andre Carson, Indiana
Doug LaMalfa, California Dina Titus, Nevada
Bruce Westerman, Arkansas Jared Huffman, California
Brian J. Mast, Florida Julia Brownley, California
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, Frederica S. Wilson, Florida
Puerto Rico Donald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey
Pete Stauber, Minnesota Mark DeSaulnier, California
Tim Burchett, Tennessee Salud O. Carbajal, California
Dusty Johnson, South Dakota Greg Stanton, Arizona,
Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey, Vice Ranking Member
Vice Chairman Colin Z. Allred, Texas
Troy E. Nehls, Texas Sharice Davids, Kansas
Lance Gooden, Texas Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, Illinois
Tracey Mann, Kansas Chris Pappas, New Hampshire
Burgess Owens, Utah Seth Moulton, Massachusetts
Rudy Yakym III, Indiana Jake Auchincloss, Massachusetts
Lori Chavez-DeRemer, Oregon Marilyn Strickland, Washington
Chuck Edwards, North Carolina Troy A. Carter, Louisiana
Thomas H. Kean, Jr., New Jersey Patrick Ryan, New York
Anthony D'Esposito, New York Mary Sattler Peltola, Alaska
Eric Burlison, Missouri Robert Menendez, New Jersey
John James, Michigan Val T. Hoyle, Oregon
Derrick Van Orden, Wisconsin Emilia Strong Sykes, Ohio
Brandon Williams, New York Hillary J. Scholten, Michigan
Marcus J. Molinaro, New York Valerie P. Foushee, North Carolina
Mike Collins, Georgia
Mike Ezell, Mississippi
John S. Duarte, California
Aaron Bean, Florida
------
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and
Emergency Management
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania, Chairman
Garret Graves, Louisiana Dina Titus, Nevada, Ranking Member
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, Eleanor Holmes Norton,
Puerto Rico District of Columbia
Lori Chavez-DeRemer, Oregon, Sharice Davids, Kansas,
Vice Chairman Vice Ranking Member
Chuck Edwards, North Carolina Troy A. Carter, Louisiana
Anthony D'Esposito, New York Grace F. Napolitano, California
Derrick Van Orden, Wisconsin John Garamendi, California
Mike Ezell, Mississippi Jared Huffman, California
Sam Graves, Missouri (Ex Officio) Rick Larsen, Washington (Ex Officio)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ v
STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
Hon. Scott Perry, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency
Management, opening statement.................................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Dina Titus, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Nevada, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Economic
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management,
opening statement.............................................. 3
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, opening statement.............................. 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Hon. Derrick Van Orden, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Wisconsin, prepared statement......................... 41
WITNESSES
David Marroni, Acting Director, Physical Infrastructure Team,
U.S. Government Accountability Office, oral statement.......... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Nina Albert, Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, U.S. General
Services Administration, oral statement........................ 21
Prepared statement........................................... 22
APPENDIX
Questions from Hon. John Garamendi to Nina Albert, Commissioner,
Public Buildings Service, U.S. General Services Administration. 43
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
July 7, 2023
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: LSubcommittee Hearing on ``When the Lights Are On
But No One's Home: An Examination of Federal Office Space
Utilization''
_______________________________________________________________________
I. PURPOSE
The Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings,
and Emergency Management of the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure will meet on Thursday, July 13, 2023, at 10:00
a.m. ET in 2167 of the Rayburn House Office Building to receive
testimony on a hearing entitled, ``When the Lights Are On But
No One's Home: An Examination of Federal Office Space
Utilization.'' The purpose of the hearing is to discuss Federal
real estate, including office space utilization, focusing on a
Government Accountability Office (GAO) study which will be
released at the hearing. At the hearing Members will receive
testimony from the United States General Services
Administration (GSA) and the GAO.
II. BACKGROUND
FEDERAL BUILDINGS FUND
In 1972 Congress authorized and established the Federal
Buildings Fund (FBF) under the Public Buildings Act Amendments
of 1972 (P.L. 92-313).\1\ The FBF finances new construction,
alterations and repairs, building operations and maintenance,
and leasing activities by charging commercially equivalent rent
to tenant agencies which is then collected into the FBF.\2\
While the majority of the FBF is funded through agency rent
payments to GSA, the FBF is not a true revolving loan fund.\3\
Instead, the funds are made available to GSA via annual
appropriations bills.\4\ Outside of 2016, appropriators have
not provided GSA full access to the annual revenues and
collections in the FBF since 2011, when appropriators began
using the FBF to offset other unrelated spending in the
Financial Services and General Government appropriations
bill.\5\ For example, in 2021, the FBF accrued $10.4 billion in
revenue and collections, a majority of which was generated by
five customers: the Department of Justice, Department of
Homeland Security, Social Security Administration, Department
of the Treasury, and the Courts.\6\ However, only $9.1 billion
was appropriated to the FBF in 2021, limiting access to $1.3
billion of rental receipts needed for reinvestments.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pub. L. No. 92-313, 86 Stat. 216.
\2\ GSA, Federal Buildings Fund (last reviewed Feb. 1, 2021),
available at https://www.gsa.gov/reference/reports/budget-performance/
annual-reports/2020-agency-financial-report/managements-discussion-and-
analysis/financial-statements-summary-and-analysis/federal-buildings-
fund.
\3\ See 40 U.S.C. Sec. 592(c)(1).
\4\ Id.
\5\ GSA, Fiscal Year 2023 Congressional Justification, Federal
Buildings Fund (2022), available at https://www.gsa.gov/system/files/
02_FY_2023_CJ_FBF_Narrative_Final_
508cO.pdf.
\6\ Id.
\7\ GSA, Fiscal Year 2024 Congressional Justification, Federal
Buildings Fund (2023), available at https://www.gsa.gov/cdnstatic/
02_FY2024_CJ_FBF_Narrative_Final-1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GSA FEDERAL REAL ESTATE PORTFOLIO
GSA currently manages 8,800 owned and leased assets,
totaling over 370 million square feet, and 500 historic
buildings.\8\ Of the 370 million square feet, 181 million is in
leased space, which is comprised of over 6,659 buildings and
costs more than $6 billion per year.\9\ While GSA continues to
reduce the amount of leased space, more than half of GSA's
operating leases (96 million square feet) will expire in the
next five years.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Press Release, GSA, Nina M. Albert Appointed Commissioner of
GSA's Public Buildings Service (July 6, 2021), available at https://
www.gsa.gov/about-us/newsroom/news-releases/nina-m-albert-appointed-
commissioner-of-gsas-public-buildings-service-07062021.
\9\ GSA, Inventory of GSA Owned and Leased Properties (Last
reviewed Sept. 9, 2022), available at https://www.gsa.gov/tools-
overview/buildings-and-real-estate-tools/inventory-of-gsa-owned-and-
leased-properties.
\10\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, office occupancy in the Washington, D.C., metro
area is still below 54 percent of pre-pandemic levels.\11\
Additionally, 30 percent of the Federal workforce is expected
to be eligible to retire this year.\12\ There have also been
increasing reports of ``shadow'' or ``dark'' space in Federal
buildings and leases--unassigned, unused space.\13\ The
concerns about ``shadow'' or ``dark'' space were further
emphasized during the Subcommittee's Roundtable on ``The State
of Federal Real Estate,'' on March 22, 2023, during which
participants noted that 30 percent of Federal employees plan to
retire within the next five years and nearly 30 percent of
Federal employees with remote work agreements live outside
their assigned region.\14\ Given these factors, Congress and
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure have a
unique opportunity, through legislation and oversight, to save
the taxpayer significant money by directing GSA and other
Federal agencies to improve utilization and significantly
reduce the space they occupy and dispose of underutilized and
unused Federal real estate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Bailey McConnel, Chart of the Week: Office Occupancy Rates and
Remote Work, D.C. Policy Center (Feb. 24, 2023), available at https://
www.dcpolicycenter.org/publications/office-occupancy-remote-work-dc/.
\12\ Angie Petty, 2023 Workforce Federal Contracting Trends to
Watch, GovWin, (Dec. 7, 2022), available at https://iq.govwin.com/neo/
marketAnalysis/view/2023-Workforce-Federal-Contracting-Trends-to-Watch/
6981?researchTypeId=1&researchMarket.
\13\ GSA, Unused & Underused Space (Last reviewed Mar. 4, 2022),
available at https://www.gsa.gov/real-estate/gsa-properties/unused-
underused-space.
\14\ The State of Federal Real Estate: Roundtable Before the
Subcomm. on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency
Management of the H. Comm. on Transp. and Infrastructure, 118th Cong.
(Mar. 22, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. PRIOR COMMITTEE ACTIONS
FREEZE/REDUCE THE FOOTPRINT
In 2013, the Committee, followed by the Obama
Administration's Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
announced the ``Freeze the Footprint'' initiative, which
directed Federal agencies to offset requests for new space with
disposal of unneeded space.\15\ Subsequently, in 2015, the
initiative progressed into ``Reduce the Footprint'' with
targeted reductions to the Federal government's real estate
profile.\16\ These efforts resulted in the shrinking of the
Federal footprint, with an 8.2 million square footage reduction
from fiscal year (FY) 2016 to FY 2020, but did little to assess
actual space utilization, due to the focus on the official
number of employees assigned to a given building.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Press Release, White House, Freezing the Footprint, (Mar. 14,
2013), available at https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2013/03/
14/freezing-footprint.
\16\ White House, Reduce the Footprint, (Mar. 25, 2015), available
at https://obamaadministration.archives.performance.gov/initiative/
reduce-footprint.html.
\17\ GSA, Real Property Metrics, available at https://
www.performance.gov/real-property-metrics/; GAO, GAO-22-105105, Federal
Real Property: GSA Could Further Support Agencies' Post-Pandemic
Planning for Office Space Use (Sept. 2022), available at https://
www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-105105.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT REFORM ACT OF 2016 (P.L. 114-318)
The Federal Property Management Reform Act of 2016 codified
the Federal Real Property Council (FRPC) which was established
by Executive Order in 2004.\18\ The FRPC is composed of the
senior real property officers of the 24 Federal agencies
covered by the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Act (P.L. 101-
576).\19\ FRPC's purpose is to develop guidance and ensure
implementation of efficient and effective real property
strategics, identify opportunities to better manage property,
and reduce the costs of managing Federal real estate.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Exec. Order 13327, (Feb. 4, 2004), available at https://
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2004-02-06/pdf/04-2773.pdf.
\19\ See Pub. L. No. 101-576, 104 Stat. 2838; 31 U.S.C. Sec.
901(b) (The CFO Act agencies include the Departments of Agriculture,
Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services,
Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Justice,
Labor, State Transportation, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, Environmental Protection Agency,
United States Agency for International Development, General Services
Administration, National Science Foundation, Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Office of Personnel Management, Small Business
Administration, and Social Security Administration).
\20\ Federal Property Management Reform Act of 2016, Pub. L. No.
114-318, 130 Stat. 1608.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL ASSETS SALE AND TRANSFER ACT (FASTA) (P.L. 114-287)
Enacted in 2016, FASTA established a temporary board--the
Public Buildings Reform Board (PBRB)--composed of non-
governmental experts to make recommendations to OMB on the
sale, disposal, or redevelopment of high value, underused or
unneeded Federal real property.\21\ OMB would then approve or
disapprove of the proposals and, if approved, GSA would execute
the recommendations.\22\ The Board is set to terminate in 2024,
at which time permanent changes to disposal laws will begin,
and agencies will be allowed to retain a portion of sale
proceeds as an incentive to dispose of excess properties.\23\
FASTA also codified the Federal Real Property Profile (FRPP)
government-wide database of real property and made it available
to the public.\24\ Unfortunately, the Board has found it
difficult to execute its mission due to a variety of long-
standing challenges, including limited access to funding,
restrictions on the Board preparing properties for disposal,
and limitations on the Board directing the best approaches for
transactions to maximize the return.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ FASTA, Pub. L. No. 114-287, 130 Stat. 1463.
\22\ Id.
\23\ Id.
\24\ Id.
\25\ GAO, GAO-21-233, Federal Real Property: Additional
Documentation of Decision Making Could Improve Transparency of New
Disposal Process (Jan. 2021), available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/
gao-21-233.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPACE UTILIZATION CORRESPONDENCE
On March 30, 2023, the Committee sent 14 letters to GSA's
largest Executive branch tenant departments and agencies (see
Appendix I) requesting documents related to utilization rates,
telework policies, capital plans and details of any campuses.
To date, the Committee has only received four responses which
failed to provide all the documents requested.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Letter from Debra Wall, Acting Archivist of the United States,
Nat'l Archives and Records Admin., to Sam Graves, Chairman, H. Comm. on
Transp. and Infrastructure and Scott Perry, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management of the
H. Common on Transp. and Infrastructure (Apr. 13, 2023) (on file with
Comm.); Letter from Andrea Brandon, Deputy Ass't Sec'y--Budget,
Finance, Grants and Acquisition, Dep't of the Interior, to Sam Graves,
Chairman, H. Comm. On Transp. & Infrastructure (June 20, 2023) (on file
with Comm.); Letter from Philip McNamara, Ass't Sec'y for
Administration, Dep't of Transp., to Scott Perry, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency
Management of the H. Comm. on Transp. and Infrastructure, (June 9,
2023) (on file with Comm.); Letter from Patricia L. Ross, Ass't Sec'y,
Cong. and Legislative Affairs, Dep't of Veterans Affairs, to Sam
Graves, Chairman, H. Comm. On Transp. & Infrastructure (July 3, 2023)
(on file with Comm.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. GAO's EXAMINATION OF FEDERAL OFFICE SPACE UTILIZATION
During the 117th Congress, the Committee requested GAO
conduct a study on office space utilization rates across the 24
CFO agency headquarters to better understand how the Federal
government is utilizing its real estate portfolio.\27\ In order
to assess space utilization, GAO collected building size and
attendance data from all 24 agencies for one week each in
January, February, and March of 2023. Utilization was then
calculated by dividing in-office attendance by the building's
useable square footage or capacity.\28\ GAO found that on
average, 17 of the 24 CFO agency headquarters were at 25
percent or less utilization.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Letter from Peter DeFazio, Chairman, H. Comm. on Transp. and
Infrastructure, et. al. to Gene Dodaro, Comptroller General, GAO, (Nov.
10, 2021) (on file with Comm.).
\28\ Briefing from Staff, GAO, to Staff, H. Comm. on Transp. and
Infrastructure (June 26, 2023, 11:00 am EST)
\29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAUSES OF LOW UTILIZATION RATES
GAO identified three main causes for the extremely low
rates of office space utilization: underutilization prior to
the COVID-19 pandemic, outdated and inefficient building
configurations, and the increased telework posture implemented
as a result of the pandemic.\30\ Excess building space is not a
new phenomenon and has been on GAO's high-risk list since
2003.\31\ Built years ago, these headquarter buildings consist
of administrative and storage space that is now outdated or
unnecessary.\32\ Coupled with a more lenient telework posture,
these layouts result in large amounts of underutilized, or in
some cases unused, Federal office space.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Id.
\31\ GAO, GAO-23-106203, High-Risk Series: Efforts Made To Achieve
Progress Need To Be Maintained and Expanded To Fully Address All Areas
(Apr. 2023), available at https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-106203.
\32\ Briefing from Staff, GAO, to Staff, H. Comm. on Transp. and
Infrastructure (June 26, 2023, 11:00 am EST)
\33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COSTS OF LOW UTILIZATION RATES
The Federal Real Property Profile data suggests that the 24
CFO agencies spend over $2 billion a year to operate and
maintain Federal office buildings.\34\ While this figure
includes office space across the country, and not just
headquarter buildings, if the utilization rates are similar, it
is indicative of Federal agencies maintaining unused space
ultimately wasting taxpayer dollars.\35\ Additionally, there
are also environmental costs associated with running these
buildings. It is not possible to heat or cool only 25 percent
of a building, so agencies must continue to pay the entire cost
to operate their buildings.\36\ Finally, there is an
opportunity cost for these underutilized buildings. The
government is spending resources to maintain outdated space
that could be directed to the agency's mission--moreover, if
the building is disposed of the locality is able to generate
tax revenue and improve the local economy.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Id.
\35\ Id.
\36\ Id.
\37\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHALLENGES WITH INCREASING SPACE UTILIZATION
The Federal government faces a variety of challenges in
increasing the space utilization of Federally owned office
buildings. Agencies are reluctant to start shedding space given
the uncertainty of in-office attendance policies and
telework.\38\ There is also cultural reticent in many agencies
to give up ``earned space'' or share space as it is seen as
``diminishing'' the importance of said office or agency.\39\
Further, many buildings across the Federal portfolio are
outdated and may prove costly to reconfigure to meet today's
needs with hybrid work.\40\ Finally, there is no set standard
for utilization, a target goal of utilization to work towards,
or a standard practice for measuring utilization and attendance
across the government. Agencies have no real way to assess
space needs until they can accurately assess how their current
space is being used.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Id.
\39\ Id.
\40\ Id.
\41\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. WITNESSES
David Marroni, Acting Director, Physical
Infrastructure, GAO
Nina Albert, Commissioner, Public Buildings
Service, GSA
VI. APPENDIX I
1. LNational Archives and Records Administration \42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Letter from Sam Graves, Chairman, H. Comm. on Transp. and
Infrastructure and Scott Perry, Chairman, Subcomm. on Economic
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Mgmt, H. Comm. on Transp.
and Infrastructure to Debra Steidel Wall, Acting Archivist, Nat'l
Archives and Records Admin., (Mar. 30, 2023) (on file with Comm.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. LDepartment of Commerce \43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Letter from Sam Graves, Chairman, H. Comm. on Transp. and
Infrastructure and Scott Perry, Chairman, Subcomm. on Economic
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Mgmt, H. Comm. on Transp.
and Infrastructure to The Hon. Gina Raimondo, Sec'y, Dep't of Commerce,
(Mar. 30, 2023) (on file with Comm.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. LDepartment of Homeland Security \44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Letter from Sam Graves, Chairman, H. Comm. on Transp. and
Infrastructure and Scott Perry, Chairman, Subcomm. on Economic
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Mgmt, H. Comm. on Transp.
and Infrastructure to The Hon. Alejandro Mayorkas, Sec'y, Dep't of
Homeland Security, (Mar. 30, 2023) (on file with Comm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. LDepartment of Defense \45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ Letter from Sam Graves, Chairman, H. Comm. on Transp. and
Infrastructure and Scott Perry, Chairman, Subcomm. on Economic
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Mgmt, H. Comm. on Transp.
and Infrastructure to The Hon. Lloyd J. Austin III, Sec'y, Dep't of
Defense, (Mar. 30, 2023) (on file with Comm.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. LDepartment of Energy \46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Letter from Sam Graves, Chairman, H. Comm. on Transp. and
Infrastructure and Scott Perry, Chairman, Subcomm. on Economic
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Mgmt, H. Comm. on Transp.
and Infrastructure to The Hon. Jennifer Granholm, Sec'y, Dep't of
Energy, (Mar. 30, 2023) (on file with Comm.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. LDepartment of Justice \47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Letter from Sam Graves, Chairman, H. Comm. on Transp. and
Infrastructure and Scott Perry, Chairman, Subcomm. on Economic
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Mgmt, H. Comm. on Transp.
and Infrastructure to The Hon. Merrick Garland, Sec'y, Dep't of
Justice, (Mar. 30, 2023) (on file with Comm.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. LDepartment of the Interior \48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Letter from Sam Graves, Chairman, H. Comm. on Transp. and
Infrastructure and Scott Perry, Chairman, Subcomm. on Economic
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Mgmt, H. Comm. on Transp.
and Infrastructure to The Hon. Deb Haaland, Sec'y, Dep't of the
Interior, (Mar. 30, 2023) (on file with Comm.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. LDepartment of Treasury \49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Letter from Sam Graves, Chairman, H. Comm. on Transp. and
Infrastructure and Scott Perry, Chairman, Subcomm. on Economic
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Mgmt, H. Comm. on Transp.
and Infrastructure to The Hon. Janet Yellen, Sec'y, Dep't of the
Treasury, (Mar. 30, 2023) (on file with Comm.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. LDepartment of Transportation \50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Letter from Sam Graves, Chairman, H. Comm. on Transp. and
Infrastructure and Scott Perry, Chairman, Subcomm. on Economic
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Mgmt, H. Comm. on Transp.
and Infrastructure to The Hon. Pete Buttigieg, Sec'y, Dep't of Transp.,
(Mar. 30, 2023) (on file with Comm.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. LDepartment of Health and Human Services \51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Letter from Sam Graves, Chairman, H. Comm. on Transp. and
Infrastructure and Scott Perry, Chairman, Subcomm. on Economic
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Mgmt, H. Comm. on Transp.
and Infrastructure to The Hon. Xavier Becerra, Sec'y, Dep't of Health &
Human Serv., (Mar. 30, 2023) (on file with Comm.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. LSocial Security Administration \52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ Letter from Sam Graves, Chairman, H. Comm. on Transp. and
Infrastructure and Scott Perry, Chairman, Subcomm. on Economic
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Mgmt, H. Comm. on Transp.
and Infrastructure to Kilolo Kijakazi, PhD, Acting Commissioner, Social
Security Admin., (Mar. 30, 2023) (on file with Comm.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. LDepartment of State \53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ Letter from Sam Graves, Chairman, H. Comm. on Transp. and
Infrastructure and Scott Perry, Chairman, Subcomm. on Economic
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Mgmt, H. Comm. on Transp.
and Infrastructure to The Hon. Antony Blinken, Sec'y, Dep't of State,
(Mar. 30, 2023) (on file with Comm.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. LDepartment of Veterans Affairs \54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ Letter from Sam Graves, Chairman, H. Comm. on Transp. and
Infrastructure and Scott Perry, Chairman, Subcomm. on Economic
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Mgmt, H. Comm. on Transp.
and Infrastructure to The Hon. Denis McDonough, Sec'y, Dep't of
Veterans Affairs, (Mar. 30, 2023) (on file with Comm.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. LDepartment of Agriculture \55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Letter from Sam Graves, Chairman, H. Comm. on Transp. and
Infrastructure and Scott Perry, Chairman, Subcomm. on Economic
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Mgmt, H. Comm. on Transp.
and Infrastructure to The Hon. Thomas Vilsack, Sec'y, United States
Dep't of Agriculture, (Mar. 30, 2023) (on file with Comm.).
WHEN THE LIGHTS ARE ON BUT NO ONE'S HOME: AN EXAMINATION OF FEDERAL
OFFICE SPACE UTILIZATION
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 13, 2023
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, Hon. Scott Perry
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Perry. The Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
Buildings, and Emergency Management will come to order.
The chairman asks unanimous consent that the chairman be
authorized to declare a recess at any time during today's
hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
The chairman also asks 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, if Members wish to insert a document into
the record, please also email it to [email protected].
The chairman now recognizes himself for the purposes of an
opening statement for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SCOTT PERRY OF PENNSYLVANIA,
CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC
BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
Mr. Perry. I want to thank our witnesses for being here
today to continue the subcommittee's discussion on the state of
Federal real estate, and discuss the eye-opening work that the
Government Accountability Office just completed.
The subcommittee held a roundtable on the state of Federal
real estate in March that highlighted the major challenges with
the Federal Government's real estate portfolio. The buildings
largely are old, in disrepair, and underutilized.
Federal real property continues to be on the GAO's High-
Risk List for about 20 years. And, even before COVID, we had
far too much empty space in our portfolio.
Unfortunately, the ongoing telework policies have only
exacerbated that problem. Here are some basic facts we
highlighted in our roundtable: Federal occupancy in the
Washington, DC, area alone remains below 50 percent of pre-
COVID levels. Nearly 30 percent of Federal employees live
outside their assigned areas, and 30 percent of Federal
employees are expected to retire in the next 5 years. More than
50 percent of the General Services Administration's leases are
expiring in the next 5 years, and we are receiving growing
reports of ``shadow'' space in both owned and leased buildings.
And shadow space is, I guess, a nice term for saying it is
empty, there are not many people there. It is just simply
mostly vacant or very much vacant.
However, after being briefed by GAO on their latest report
that they will testify on today, I have now been informed just
how far off occupancy rates are and how difficult it is to
calculate space utilization rates.
I will defer to GAO to report their findings and look
forward to further discussion. But I do want to highlight one
key finding: A majority of the agencies GAO reviewed use 25
percent or less of their headquarters building space--25
percent. Let that sink in.
And the taxpayer is paying for the remaining 75 percent of
the agencies' unused space. The taxpayer is paying for all of
it. But agencies are using 25 percent. The taxpayer is paying
for 75 percent that is not being used. It is not as though the
GSA can just close down, shut off the lights, and mothball the
unused space to reduce costs. I wish that were the case.
The taxpayer is, quite literally, paying to keep the lights
on even when no one is home. And the lights are just the
beginning of it, right? There is security. There are utilities.
There is upkeep when nobody is there. And, if this trend is any
indication of space usage in leased space, we are wasting
literally billions of dollars each year.
I have been a firm believer that, if agencies aren't using
their space, they have got to give it up. They have got to give
it up. Let's be clear. This goes beyond bringing Federal
employees back to the office, because even pre-COVID, we knew
space utilization was an issue.
This subcommittee, GSA, GAO, and the private-sector experts
have been discussing this for a very long time. We need to get
a handle on this and push agencies--require agencies--if they
won't do it, we are going to have to help them do it. And I
don't mean help in the good way, right?
We are from the Government, and we are here to help. But we
have to examine how they are using their space, and there must
be more accountability for agencies. There are people in charge
of these places. If you are in charge, you have got to take
care of business. And, if you don't want to, someone else is
going to, and that someone is going to be us.
I hope we can use the GAO report as a baseline to
understand the current challenges so we can pass legislation
that will meaningfully help the Government right-size its
portfolio and either use or get rid of--maybe that's not the
right term, ``get rid of''--let it go to the private sector.
Let other people use it. Let some other agency use it. Let some
other government-level--let the municipality--let the county--
let someone else use it. But it can't go unused and paid for.
That is unacceptable.
With that, this will conclude my opening statement.
[Mr. Perry's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Scott Perry, a Representative in Congress
from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and Chairman, Subcommittee on
Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management
I want to thank our witnesses for being here today to continue the
Subcommittee's discussion on the state of federal real estate and
discuss the eye-opening work that the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) just completed.
The Subcommittee held a roundtable on the state of federal real
estate in March that highlighted the major challenges with the federal
government's real estate portfolio. The buildings largely are old,
falling apart, and underutilized.
Federal real property continues to be on the GAO's high-risk list
and, even before COVID, we had far too much empty space in our
portfolio. Unfortunately, the ongoing telework policies have only
exacerbated this problem. Here are some basic facts we highlighted in
our roundtable:
Federal occupancy in the Washington, D.C. area alone
remains below 50 percent of pre-COVID levels.
Nearly 30 percent of federal employees live outside their
assigned areas.
Thirty percent of federal employees are expected to
retire in the next five years.
More than 50 percent of the General Services
Administration's (GSA) leases are expiring in the next five years.
And we are receiving growing reports of ``shadow'' space
in both owned and leased buildings--space that is just simply vacant.
However, after being briefed by GAO on their latest report--that
they will testify on today--I realized just how far off occupancy rates
are and how hard space utilization rates are to calculate. I will defer
to GAO to report their findings and look forward to further discussion,
but I do want to highlight one key finding--a majority of the agencies
GAO reviewed used 25 percent or less of their headquarters buildings'
space. Twenty-five percent.
And the taxpayer is paying for the remaining 75 percent of the
agencies' unused space. It's not as though GSA can just close down,
shut off the lights, and mothball the unused space to reduce costs. The
taxpayer is quite literally paying to keep the lights on even when no
one is home. And, if this trend is any indication of space usage in
leased space, we are wasting literally billions of dollars each year.
I have been a firm believer that if agencies aren't using their
space, they should lose it. And let's be clear--this goes beyond
bringing federal employees back to the office, because even pre-COVID,
we knew space utilization was an issue.
This Subcommittee, GSA, GAO, and private sector experts have been
discussing this for a long time. We need to get a handle on this and
push agencies to examine how they are using space.
There must be more accountability for agencies.
I hope we can use the GAO report as a baseline to understand the
current challenges so we can pass legislation that will meaningfully
help the government right-size its portfolio and either use or get rid
of unused space.
Mr. Perry. I now recognize the ranking member, Ms. Titus,
for 5 minutes for her opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DINA TITUS OF NEVADA, RANKING MEMBER,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank our witnesses, Ms. Albert and Mr. Marroni,
for being here. They have participated in these discussions
with us at the roundtable and in this committee. We have got
the people who know this business and who can help us with it
here at the table: the Commissioner of the General Services
Administration's Public Buildings Service, and Mr. Marroni, the
Acting Director of Physical Infrastructure at the Government
Accountability Office.
Mr. Marroni, I especially appreciate the time and effort
that you and your team have devoted to the topic that we are
discussing today. If it weren't for the 20 years of High-Risk
Reports that you all have put out, we might not even be aware
of the problem. So, thank you for that.
As you heard the chairman say, with the expiration of the
COVID-19 health emergency, the use of maximum telework for
Federal employees ended, and the Office of Management and
Budget directed agencies to update their post-reentry plans.
The agencies have responded. Let's give them credit where
credit is due. DOE, EPA, FDIC, the VA, FEMA, the Department of
Education, and Department of the Treasury have all published
their increased in-office work requirements.
And let's also be clear about the purposes of this hearing.
We need to remember that GSA doesn't set Federal work policies.
They don't have the authority to demand that Federal employees
return to their desk. GSA provides the real estate and the real
estate services to civilian agencies and helps those agencies
define their space. But it does not establish or implement
Federal workforce policies.
The frequency of Federal employees' in-person work
schedules varies widely across agencies and even within
agencies. And it is often determined by department heads or
supervisors in those different categories.
Even though some agencies are sorting through their in-
office policies, the truth is, we are still in the middle of
this shift in the real estate market, and this could take a
long time to play out. We need to recognize that.
But returning to work is only part of the issue at hand.
Within the next 3 years, half of GSA's almost 8,000 leases will
expire, and the agency has insufficient capital to repair and
modernize the 1,500 buildings that it owns.
Persistent underfunding of the Federal Buildings Fund,
outdated and damaged facilities, frustrated tenants, expensive
short-term lease renewals, insufficient funding for new
construction, damage to buildings from extreme weather
conditions that will get even worse with climate change, and a
slow prospectus approval process all combine to make it
challenging for GSA to modernize and right-size its portfolio.
These are all concerns that were expressed in our
roundtable, expressed by constituents, and expressed by you
all. But we can't wait decades to sort this out, I agree with
the chairman. Congress and this subcommittee specifically have
a real opportunity now to improve space efficiency in our
Government portfolio and dispose of underutilized real estate,
both of which will save taxpayers sufficient money, a lot of
dollars, a significant amount of dollars, and that is one of
our priorities.
So, I look forward to hearing from the witnesses, to
working with Members on both sides of the aisle and the
chairman to address some of these problems that I have laid out
before.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
[Ms. Titus' prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Dina Titus, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Nevada, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Economic
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management
Chairman Perry, thank you for having this hearing. And I thank our
witnesses--Nina Albert, Commissioner of the General Services
Administration's Public Buildings Service, and David Marroni, Acting
Director, Physical Infrastructure, at the Government Accountability
Office (GAO), both of whom have participated in previous federal real
estate hearings and roundtables hosted by this subcommittee.
Mr. Marroni, I am particularly appreciative of the time and effort
that you and your staff have devoted to the topic that we are
discussing today. Were it not for GAO's 20 years of High-Risk Reports,
Congress might not be aware of the challenges GSA has faced in
maintaining its owned and leased portfolio.
With the expiration of the COVID-19 health emergency, the use of
maximum telework for federal employees ended and OMB directed agencies
to update their post-reentry plans. Agencies have begun responding to
OMB's direction, with the Department of Energy, the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Federal Deposit Investment Corporation, the
Department of Veterans affairs, the Federal Emergency Management
Administration, the Department of Education, and the Treasury each
publishing increased in-office work requirements.
But half of GSA's almost 8,000 leases are expiring within the next
three years and GSA has insufficient capital to repair and modernize
the 1,500 buildings it owns.
While some Members of Congress may use this hearing as an
opportunity to express their frustration about the use of remote and
telework amongst federal agencies, the truth is that the General
Services Administration (GSA) does not set federal work policies and
does not have the authority to demand that federal employees return to
their desks. The frequency of federal employees' in-person work
schedules varies widely and is often determined by department heads or
supervisors. GSA provides real estate and real estate services to
civilian agencies and helps agencies define their space requirements,
but GSA does not establish or implement federal workforce policies.
And even though some agencies are sorting through their in-office
policies, the truth is that we are still in the middle of a shift in
the real estate market that could take decades to play out.
But we can't wait decades. What does GSA need? Authority?
Accountability? Funding? How can Congress help GSA during these
confusing times?
Mr. Perry. I thank the gentlelady from Nevada.
The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full
committee, Mr. Larsen, for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICK LARSEN OF WASHINGTON, RANKING
MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you, Chair Perry and
Ranking Member Titus, for holding this very important hearing
on the utilization of Federal office space.
Managing Federal real property has been on GAO's High-Risk
List for 20 years, as noted. Access to capital, the lack of
reliable real property data for decisionmaking, and a
cumbersome process for disposing of excess and underutilized
real estate has made it challenging for GSA to carry out its
mission.
The Obama-era Freeze the Footprint and Reduce the Footprint
policies decreased the size of GSA's portfolio from 8,925
leases to 7,760 leases, and 190 million square feet to 180
million square feet. That's great, but I think it shows how
difficult it is to dispose of excess property.
However, underutilization became even more widespread
during the pandemic, even though eight Federal agencies made
limited reductions to the amount of space they lease. As the
COVID-19 emergency wound down, OMB required agencies to bring
staff back into their offices and determine their future space
requirements, but the in-office workforce is not reaching
prepandemic levels due to increased and legitimate use of
remote work.
In this environment, where agencies are unsure of their
long-term space needs, GSA faces significant challenges. GSA
must decide when to lease space or to increase its owned
portfolio and move as many agencies as possible in that owned
space. These challenges present GSA with an opportunity,
therefore, to improve the size, quality, and utilization of the
Federal real estate portfolio.
I look forward to learning how GSA is mitigating the
financial liability of vacant leased space, whether GSA knows
which of its buildings are cash positive, and whether GSA has a
list of buildings that should be disposed of over the next 5
years.
The Inflation Reduction Act provides GSA with $250 million
as well to convert facilities to high-performance green
buildings. It is a great opportunity for GSA to build upon the
previous success in greening our Federal facilities. However,
we need to know which buildings GSA needs to keep.
So, I hope to hear from GSA today about how these funds are
being used and whether the long-term viability and potential
profitability of a building is considered when GSA makes these
investment decisions.
This hearing is an opportunity to begin, or actually
continue discussions, about what the Federal real estate
portfolio should look like in the future and how Congress can
help GSA meet some of its challenges.
So, I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses on how
we can right-size the Federal real estate portfolio and save
taxpayer dollars.
With that, I yield back.
[Mr. Larsen of Washington's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Rick Larsen, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Washington, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
Thank you, Chairman Perry and Ranking Member Titus, for holding
this important hearing on the utilization of federal office space.
``Managing federal real property'' has been on GAO's High-Risk list
for 20 years. Access to capital, the lack of reliable real property
data for decision-making, and a cumbersome process for disposing of
excess and underutilized real estate has made it challenging for GSA to
carry out its mission.
Obama-era ``Freeze the Footprint'' and ``Reduce the Footprint''
policies decreased the size of GSA's portfolio from 8,925 leases to
7,760 leases and 194 million square feet to 180 million square feet.
That's great but I think it shows how difficult it is to dispose of
property.
However, underutilization became even more widespread during the
pandemic, even though eight federal agencies made limited reductions to
the amount of space they lease.
As the COVID-19 emergency wound down, OMB required agencies to
bring staff back into their offices and determine their future space
requirements. But the in-office workforce has not returned to pre-
pandemic levels due to increased and legitimate use of remote work.
In this environment--where agencies are unsure of their long-term
space needs--GSA faces significant challenges. GSA must decide when to
lease space or to increase its owned portfolio and move as many
agencies as possible into that owned space.
These challenges present GSA with an opportunity to improve the
size, quality, and utilization of the federal real estate portfolio.
I look forward to learning how GSA is mitigating the financial
liability of vacant leased space. Whether GSA knows which of its
buildings are cash positive and whether GSA has a list of buildings
that should be disposed of over the next five years.
The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) provides GSA with $250 million to
convert facilities to high-performance green buildings. This is a great
opportunity for GSA to build upon previous success in greening our
federal facilities. However, we need to know which buildings GSA needs
to keep.
I hope to hear from GSA today about how these funds are being used
and whether the long-term viability and potential profitability of a
building is considered when GSA makes investment decisions.
This hearing is an opportunity to begin discussions about what the
federal real estate portfolio should look like in the future and how
Congress can help GSA meet some of its challenges.
I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses on how to right-
size the federal real estate portfolio and to save taxpayer dollars.
Thank you.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the ranking member of the full
committee.
The Chair would now like to welcome our witnesses and thank
them for being here today.
Briefly, I would like to take a moment to explain our
lighting system to our witnesses.
There are three lights right in front of you. Green means
go, yellow means you are running out of time, and red means to
conclude your remarks. It should be pretty self-explanatory. I
think you get about 5 minutes, right, so, hopefully you have
planned for that.
The Chair asks for unanimous consent that the witnesses'
full statements be included in the record.
Without objection, so ordered.
As your written testimony has been made part of the record,
the subcommittee asks that you limit your oral remarks to 5
minutes.
With that, Mr. Marroni, you are recognized for 5 minutes
for your opening testimony.
TESTIMONY OF DAVID MARRONI, ACTING DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE TEAM, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; AND
NINA ALBERT, COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC BUILDINGS SERVICE, U.S.
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
TESTIMONY OF DAVID MARRONI, ACTING DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE TEAM, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Mr. Marroni. Thank you, Chairman Perry, Ranking Member
Titus, and members of the subcommittee.
Mr. Perry. Will you pull your mic closer?
Mr. Marroni. All right. Thank you, Chairman Perry, Ranking
Member Titus, and members of the subcommittee. I am pleased to
be here today to discuss the preliminary results of GAO's
ongoing work on the utilization of Federal headquarters
buildings.
In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Federal
Government has a unique opportunity to reconsider how much
office space it really needs. To get a sense of the magnitude
of that opportunity, we assessed the extent to which 24
agencies utilized their headquarters buildings in January,
February, and March of this year.
What we found was that all 24 of those headquarters
buildings had extra space and that most agencies were using
less than 25 percent of their headquarters capacity on average.
While these figures are estimates, they point to a potentially
large amount of unneeded office space within headquarters
buildings and possibly beyond.
We identified three main reasons for this low utilization.
First, many agencies had more space than they needed even
before the pandemic, one of the reasons Federal real property
management has remained on GAO's High-Risk List now for 20
years.
Many headquarters buildings were built decades ago, before
technology enabled the agencies to do more with fewer workers.
But the buildings remained the same size, so, we end up with
unneeded space.
For example, we calculated that, for one agency, even if
all of its assigned staff came into its headquarters building
on a single day, it would still only use two-thirds of the
building's capacity.
Second, many headquarters buildings aren't configured in
the best way. For example, some include storage areas and
administrative spaces that simply aren't needed in the modern
workplace. And some are configured with larger offices than are
needed today.
Third, agencies have embraced hybrid work. Telework and
remote work existed before the pandemic, but those workplace
flexibilities are used much more frequently now. As a result,
there are simply fewer people coming into headquarters
buildings than there were before the pandemic.
So, why does this matter? Because low building utilization
has significant costs, both to the Government and to the
American taxpayer. For one thing, there are the financial
costs. It costs billions of dollars each year to operate,
maintain, and lease these buildings. Reducing unneeded space
would save taxpayer money.
In addition, holding on to unneeded office space has
environmental costs. Office buildings take a significant amount
of energy to run, whether people are at their desks or not.
Finally, holding on to unneeded space has opportunity
costs. Every dollar an agency spends on unneeded space is a
dollar that can't be used for other priorities, and how much
economic benefit do buildings used at a quarter of their
capacity really provide to the local economy? Housing, hotels,
and other uses could provide more local benefits.
To be clear, figuring out how much office space agencies
really need and shedding any they don't won't be easy or cost-
free. There are a number of challenges to doing so, including
continuing uncertainty about agency in-office policies and a
lack of consistent standards or targets for how agencies should
measure utilization.
That said, the status quo can't hold. Agencies have been in
a wait-and-see mode for more than 3 years. They need to decide
how much office space they really need and start moving in that
direction. That is important for agency missions, for local
communities, and the American taxpayer.
In conclusion, underused Federal buildings have been and
continue to be a costly challenge, and hybrid work has made
that challenge more acute. The Federal Government now has a
unique opportunity to reconsider how much office space it
really needs. Agencies should take a hard look and act to
right-size their real estate portfolios. Only by doing so will
the Federal Government be able to take advantage of the current
moment, optimize the Federal footprint, and save taxpayer
money.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening statement. I will
be happy to take any questions you may have.
[Mr. Marroni's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of David Marroni, Acting Director, Physical
Infrastructure Team, U.S. Government Accountability Office
Federal Real Property: Preliminary Results Show Federal Buildings
Remain Underutilized Due to Longstanding Challenges and Increased
Telework
Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Titus, and Members of the
Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss our ongoing work on
federal agencies' office space utilization in headquarters buildings.
The federal government owns 511 million square feet of office space,
costing billions annually to operate and maintain. During the pandemic,
federal agencies operated under a maximum telework posture, with many
employees working away from the office. As the country emerges from the
pandemic and agencies continue to offer telework as an option, the
federal government has a unique opportunity to reconsider how much and
what type of office space it needs.
Even before the pandemic, federal agencies struggled to determine
how much office space they needed to fulfill their missions
efficiently. Retaining excess and underutilized space is one of the
main reasons that federal real property management has remained on
GAO's High-Risk List since 2003.\1\ In 2015, OMB issued its National
Strategy for the Efficient Use of Real Property, which included the
Reduce the Footprint policy. This policy required a number of agencies
to set annual targets for reducing domestic office and warehouse
space.\2\ The Federal Property Management Reform Act of 2016
established the Federal Real Property Council (FRPC)--a collection of
24 federal agencies that occupy 98 percent of all federal real
property.\3\ The FRPC is chaired by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), and aims to reduce the costs of managing property. Although
these efforts have improved the focus on real property management,
federal agencies continue to have unneeded space.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ GAO. High-Risk Series: Efforts Made to Achieve Progress Need to
Be Maintained and Expanded to Fully Address All Areas. (Washington
D.C.: Apr. 20, 2023). Excess property is any property the agency
determines it no longer needs to carry out its responsibilities.
Underutilized property is property that an agency uses irregularly or
infrequently, or property where agency purposes can be accomplished
with only a portion of the property.
\2\ OMB, National Strategy for the Efficient Use of Real Property
2015-2020: Reducing the Federal Portfolio through Improved Space
Utilization, Consolidation, and Disposal (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 25,
2015). Subsequently, OMB published the Addendum to the National
Strategy. See M-20-10 Memorandum to the Heads of Executive Departments
and Agencies (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 6, 2020).
\3\ The Federal Real Property Council (FRPC) is a statutorily-
recognized group of the 24 CFO Act federal agencies chaired by the
Office of Management and Budget that occupy most of the federal
government's buildings. Members include Senior Real Property Officers
of the 24 Chief Financial Officer Act agencies, the Controller of the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the General Services
Administration (GSA) Administrator and any other officials permitted by
OMB's Deputy Director for Management, who chairs the Council. The CFO
Act of 1990, as amended, established Chief Financial Officers to
oversee financial management activities at 24 agencies, which are often
referred to collectively as CFO Act agencies. The federal agencies
include the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education,
Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban
Development, Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury,
and Veterans Affairs, National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Agency for International
Development, General Services Administration, National Science
Foundation, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Personnel
Management, Small Business Administration, and Social Security
Administration 31 USC 901(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My testimony today provides preliminary observations on our review
of office space utilization in the headquarters buildings of the 24
FRPC member agencies. My statement:
1. assesses the extent to which FRPC-member agencies utilized
their headquarters buildings in selected weeks of early 2023;
2. describes the different types of costs of underutilized federal
office space; and
3. discusses challenges that agency officials identified to
increasing the utilization of their headquarters buildings.
We collected information from all 24 FRPC member agencies related
to the utilization of their headquarters buildings (see Appendix I for
a listing of the buildings). Utilization is a ratio of a building's
capacity and the extent to which an agency uses that capacity.
Utilization differs from attendance because a building's capacity is
based on the size of the building, not the number of people assigned to
it. All assigned staff could go to a building, and it could still be
underutilized if the building has more space than it needs.
To determine the capacity of each building, we collected data from
each agency on the number of usable square feet in each building--the
portion of a building that is available for occupants, which includes
offices, team rooms, and conference rooms.\4\ We verified that
information by comparing it with data from GSA, which has ultimate
control and custody for some of the buildings. We then calculated the
capacity of each building by dividing the number of usable square feet
by the GSA benchmark of 180 usable square feet per staff person.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ American National Standards Institute Building Owners and
Managers Association Standard Methods of Measurement ANSI/BOMA Z65.1-
2017.
\5\ Dividing the number of usable square feet by the alternative
GSA benchmark of 150 usable square feet per staff person will yield a
greater estimated capacity of each building, and thus yield a lower
weekly utilization average. We used the 180 usable square feet
benchmark suggested by GSA and OMB. We used a single benchmark
consistently across agencies for our analysis. However, agencies may
use a different benchmark in occupancy agreements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To determine the extent to which agencies are using the buildings,
we collected daily attendance data at the headquarters buildings of all
24 FRPC-member agencies for three nonconsecutive weeks in January,
February, and March 2023.\6\ Agency officials said these represented
normal weeks at that time, without any obvious reason why there would
be a significantly higher or lower number of staff in the headquarters
building than any other week.\7\ We chose to measure attendance in one-
week intervals because all 24 agencies said that their in-office
presence had stabilized week-to-week. We focused on federal agency
office space in headquarters buildings because of the availability of
attendance data and because they represent office buildings with
relatively consistent types of uses.\8\ We calculated the utilization
of a building by comparing its capacity in usable square feet to the
actual in-office attendance for the sample period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ We did not collect data on the number of staff assigned to each
headquarters building or calculate the percentage of those assigned
staff who came into the office during our sample period because the
focus of our review was on building utilization, not attendance.
\7\ We requested data from January 23-27, 2023; however, the
Department of Homeland Security provided us data from January 30 to
February 3 because of a network issue affecting computer login data.
Also, Department of Housing and Urban Development officials noted they
had ongoing renovation projects, which increased telework during the
time we requested data.
\8\ We previously found that few agencies track in-office
attendance at non-headquarters facilities. GAO, Federal Real Property:
GSA Could Further Support Agencies' Post-Pandemic Planning for Office
Space Use, GAO-22-105105, (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 7, 2022). DOD
provided us data on attendance at the Mark Center in Alexandria,
Virginia, not the Pentagon because it has administrative functions
similar to those at civilian agency headquarters buildings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 24 agencies varied in the type and quality of the attendance
data they collected and were able to provide to us. Agencies provided
us aggregate summaries or raw data files of badging or computer network
login data.\9\ We asked data reliability questions to each agency to
ensure the data could be used for reporting purposes. The percentages
we provide in this testimony are preliminary estimates of building
utilization based on ongoing work and are subject to change. Based on
our discussions with agency officials, responses to our data
reliability questions, and where possible, a review of the data for
omissions and errors, we determined that the data were sufficiently
reliable for the purposes of examining occupancy data and the
buildings' space utilization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Agencies are not required to collect attendance data or in any
specific format.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We conducted site visits to six agency headquarters buildings to
observe current building utilization, conditions, and agency efforts to
adapt their office space. We selected these headquarters buildings to
obtain a variety in size and age of the buildings. We interviewed
federal and private sector officials to understand the costs of
underutilized space and the challenges to increasing the utilization of
agency headquarters buildings. We also gathered information at FRPC
meetings in January and April 2023.
The ongoing work on which this statement is based is being
conducted in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Background
The federal government owns about 511 million square feet of office
space, according to the Federal Real Property Profile--the government
wide real property database maintained by the General Services
Administration (GSA). GSA manages approximately 1,500 federally-owned
buildings, which are used by various federal agencies (see figure 1).
GSA also leases space for tenant agencies from private-sector owners.
As of April 2023, GSA managed 7,685 leases, totaling nearly 180 million
square feet of space.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: GAO. GAO-23-106200
GSA provides guidance and tools to assist agencies with office
space planning. In particular, GSA established a benchmark of 150 to
180 usable square feet per employee.\10\ Use of the benchmark is not
required. These benchmarks and agency efforts generally assume that
assigned employees would work at the office most days during the week.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Usable square footage represents the portion of a building
that is available for occupants, which includes offices, team rooms,
and conference rooms. Gross square footage is a more inclusive measure
of all areas on all floors of a building, which includes additional
spaces like bathrooms, lobbies, and mechanical rooms. See GAO, Federal
Real Property: Measuring Actual Office Space Costs Would Provide More
Accurate Information, GAO-20-130 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 10, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Telework During the Pandemic
The use of federal real property was greatly impacted by the March
13, 2020, national emergency declaration related to COVID-19 and the
release of subsequent guidance aimed at slowing the transmission of
COVID-19.\11\ Federal agencies responded by adopting a maximum telework
posture, allowing many employees to work remotely off-site for
necessary agency operations. As a result, many federal employees
shifted to remote work and telework, including employees who had not
historically done so. In June 2021, OMB issued a memo directing
agencies to create plans for bringing staff back to their agency
offices to perform their work.\12\ All of the 24 FRPC member agencies
said they completed their initial return to the office transitions at
some point during 2022. The national emergency declaration related to
the pandemic was terminated on April 10, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Proclamation No. 9994, 85 Fed. Reg. 15,337 (Mar. 13, 2020).
Off of Mgm't and Budget, OMB Memo No 20-16, ``Federal Agency
Operational Alignment to Slow the Spread of Coronavirus COVID-19'',
(Mar. 17, 2020). This guidance followed preliminary guidance from the
Office of Personnel Management required agencies to review continuity
of operations plans to ensure telework was fully incorporated. Off. of
Personnel Mgm't, CPM 2020-04 ``Preliminary Guidance to Agencies during
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)'' (March 3, 2020).
\12\ Off. of Mgm't and Budget, OMB Memo No. 21-25, ``Integrating
Planning for A Safe Increased Return of Federal Employees and
Contractors to Physical Workplaces with Post-Reentry Personnel Policies
and Work Environment'' (June 10, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB Guidance on Space Planning and Telework
In July 2022, OMB asked the FRPC agencies to collect evidence-based
data to estimate their space needs.\13\ The OMB memo stated that when
determining future physical space requirements, agencies should
consider the agency's mission and customer needs, its current and
future workforce, and how any decisions might impact local communities.
In April 2023, the Administration released additional guidance
directing agencies to describe their telework plans, monitor
organizational health and performance issues, and identify indicators
that support decision-making related to the work environment.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Off. of Mgm't and Budget, OMB Memo No. 22-14, ``Fiscal Year
2024 Agency-wide Capital Planning to Support the Future of Work'',
(July 20, 2022).
\14\ Off. of Mgm't and Budget, OMB Memo No 23-15, ``Measuring,
Monitoring, and Improving Organizational Health and Organizational
Performance in the Context of Evolving Agency Work Environments''
(April 13, 2023). The memo indicated that there was an expectation that
agencies would increase meaningful in-person work at federal offices,
while still using flexible operational policies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of the Federal Agencies Used An Estimated 25 Percent or Less of
Their Headquarters' Capacity During Selected Weeks in 2023
Our review of three selected weeks during January, February, and
March 2023 found that 17 of the 24 federal agencies used on average an
estimated 25 percent or less of the capacity of their headquarters
buildings. On the higher range, agencies used an estimated 39 to 49
percent of the capacity of their headquarters on average. Utilization
is a ratio of a building's capacity and the extent to which an agency
uses that capacity. We calculated utilization based on the size of a
building in terms of usable square feet compared to how many people
entered the building per day.\15\ Figure 2 divides the 24 agencies into
four distinct groups (quartiles) based on the agencies' average
utilization of their headquarters buildings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Utilization differs from attendance because a building's
capacity is based on the size of the building, not the number of people
assigned to it.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: GAO analysis of data from 24 federal agencies. GAO-23-106200
Note: The percentages are preliminary estimates of building
utilization based on ongoing work and are subject to change.
Utilization is a ratio of a building's capacity and the extent to which
an agency uses that capacity. Utilization differs from attendance
because a building's capacity is based on the size of the building, not
the number of people assigned to it. All assigned staff could go to a
building and it could still be underutilized if the building has more
space than it needs. The quartile percentage represents an average but
percentage ranges of space utilization vary by federal agency. The
Department of Defense provided us data on attendance in a government
facility (Mark Center) located in Alexandria, Virginia, which we had
identified as its administrative headquarters. The Office of Personnel
Management indicated that additional non-agency staff occupy space in
its headquarters building, and its numbers include those work spaces
and attendance.
We identified three primary causes for the low space utilization in
federal headquarters buildings.
Excess space is a longstanding challenge. Federal real
property management has been on GAO's High Risk List since 2003 in
large part because the federal government retains more space than it
needs.\16\ We also found in 2023 that recent efforts to reduce unneeded
federal space have faced challenges.\17\ At a meeting of the FRPC in
January 2023, more than half of the agency officials in attendance
acknowledged that their headquarters buildings had excess space prior
to the pandemic. For example, we calculated for one of the headquarters
in the lowest use quartile that if all assigned staff entered the
building on a single day, it would still only use 67 percent of the
building's capacity based on its usable square feet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ GAO-23-106203.
\17\ GAO. Lessons Learned from Setbacks in New Sale and Transfer
Process Could Benefit Future Disposal Efforts, GAO-23-106848
(Washington, D.C., June 8, 2023).
Building configurations do not support a modern
workplace. The headquarters buildings we visited were built decades
ago. They were configured to support a workplace model that included
numerous areas no longer needed in the modern workplace, such as some
administrative and storage spaces. In some cases, agencies also
configured their spaces with larger office spaces than are currently
needed. Department of Treasury officials also said that the historic
nature of its headquarters complicated its ability to reconfigure to
support higher utilization. Officials from several agencies thought
portions of their building could not be easily configured to office
space. Consequently, officials voiced concerns about including these
areas in an office space capacity analysis. For example, VA officials
said the agency's basement (89,000 usable square feet) housed its
cafeteria, mail, and other operations with little availability for
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
office space.
Agencies have embraced hybrid work. All 24 agencies said
that their in-office workforce has not returned to pre-pandemic levels
due to increased use of telework and remote work. Some agencies said
that workplace flexibilities, such as episodic telework and remote
work, existed before the pandemic but are used much more frequently
now. The amount of hybrid work varies by agency because mission needs
vary, which can determine whether work can be done remotely. For
instance, agency officials noted that classified work requires staff to
work in the office.
Underutilized Federal Office Space Has Various Costs
Maintaining unneeded space has financial, environmental, and
opportunity costs.
Financial Costs
Office buildings are expensive to operate, maintain, and lease, and
any reductions in space would reduce these costs. The Federal Real
Property Profile data for 2021 indicates that the 24 FRPC agencies
spend about $2 billion a year to operate and maintain owned federal
office buildings. In addition, agencies may postpone maintenance and
repairs to assets in their portfolios for various reasons, which over
time can create a backlog of costly deferred maintenance and
repairs.\18\ Disposing of underutilized buildings in need of repair
would reduce these costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ GAO and others have reported on issues with managing repairs
and maintenance in federally owned facilities, which are costly to the
federal government. Federal agency financial reports have reported $76
billion in deferred maintenance and repair costs in 2021, an increase
of about 50 percent since 2017. See GAO. Federal Real Property:
Agencies Attribute Substantial Increases in Reported Deferred
Maintenance to Multiple Factors GAO-23-106124 (Washington, D.C.: Oct.
28, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, allowing unneeded leases to expire would directly
reduce costs. Federal agencies spend about $5 billion annually to lease
office space from the private and government sector. As of April 2023,
more than half of GSA's leases (4,108 out of 7,685), which account for
more than 83 million square feet of space, have expiration dates
scheduled for calendar years 2023 to 2027.
Environmental Costs
Office buildings also have environmental costs, and any reduction
in office space could reduce those costs. Emissions--and their
associated monetary costs--are still generated with underutilized space
because agencies continue to operate buildings even when staff are not
in the office. While it is difficult to estimate the environmental
impact of any individual building, commercial buildings in the country
overall consume 35 percent of the electricity consumed in the U.S. and
generate 16 percent of all U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, according to
the Department of Energy.\19\ For example, GSA renovated and reduced
its current real estate footprint. According to a GSA presentation,
these efforts reduced its energy consumption by 50 percent, saving $6.5
million annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ U.S. Department of Energy. Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy. About the Commercial Buildings Integration Program.
(Washington, D.C.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opportunity Costs
Underutilized federal office space involves opportunity costs--the
loss of potential gain from alternative uses of the resources
involved--to both the federal government and the local economy. The
federal government could apply resources for an unneeded building to
other priorities, such as reducing the deferred maintenance on
remaining buildings. In the local economy, unneeded federal properties
and land could be put to productive use. For example, the private
sector successfully converted an unneeded post office in Washington,
D.C., into a hotel. Selling a federal building to the private sector
increases the local tax base, as federal buildings are generally exempt
from local taxes.
Agencies Face Challenges To Increasing Utilization of Federal
Headquarters Buildings
During our interviews and site visits, agency officials described
some challenges to increasing the utilization of their headquarters
buildings. During the April 2023 Federal Real Property Council meeting,
federal agency officials that were in attendance ranked those
challenges. Most federal agency officials placed the budget resources
needed to reconfigure space and concerns about future in-office
attendance policies as the top challenges (see figure 3).
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: GAO analysis of agency comments. GAO-23-106200
Budget Resources to Reconfigure Space
Agency officials ranked the need for additional budget resources to
reconfigure their spaces to support a hybrid office as the top
challenge to increasing utilization of their headquarters building.
Specifically, they said they would need to transform traditional office
configurations into hybrid offices, allowing for more efficient use and
better support of office sharing. For example, USDA officials said that
updating their two-building headquarters to support higher density and
office sharing would require millions of dollars of investments. In
addition, some headquarters buildings are only partially updated. For
example, Department of Housing and Urban Development officials said the
agency made capital investments to update one wing to support modern,
hybrid work (figure 4). However, the rest of the building has an
outdated hallway-office configuration that does not support
collaboration and shared spaces.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: GAO. GAO-23-106200
Concerns About the Future of In-Office Attendance Policies
The second top challenge, as ranked by agency officials, involved
concerns about the future of in-office attendance policies. Although
agency officials said their in-office attendance remained stable, many
worried that policies or habits could change. If they consolidate to
meet current demand, the agency may no longer be able to provide space
for all headquarters personnel if policies change or more staff decide
to return to the office. Agency officials said media reports about
back-to-the-office mandates could make such consolidations seem
premature. Recent congressional bills and an OMB memo have indicated
that there may be additional policy changes. Our September 2022 report
reflected similar concerns. In the report, agencies reported that they
were uncertain of the number of people who would regularly need access
to permanent office space.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ GAO-22-105105.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Challenges To Sharing Headquarters Space With Other Agencies or
Internally
While only two agency officials ranked a reluctance to share
headquarters space with other agencies as the top challenge to
increasing utilization, most listed it as a challenge. GSA officials
said that maximizing utilization could require some agencies to either
share their headquarters with other agencies or move their headquarters
functions into another shared space. One official said their leadership
is reluctant to share headquarters space with other agencies because it
could lower their perceived standing as a cabinet-level agency.
Eight agency officials also ranked inner-agency silos as the first
or second biggest challenge to increasing headquarters utilization. For
example, the Department of Energy noted that groups of seats in its
headquarters are assigned to departmental elements based on their
funding, customers, and workspace needs. Some agency officials said
that individual bureau leadership protected spaces assigned to them,
including offices, conference rooms, and specialized spaces like secure
rooms. They said no current mechanism exists to share those spaces more
broadly throughout their agencies. During our site visits, we observed
building spaces subdivided into smaller bureau-level divisions that can
lead to inefficient utilization. For example, USDA showed us a segment
of their headquarters used for agency-wide workspace sharing, while the
workspaces in the rest of the two buildings were assigned to individual
bureaus (see fig. 5).
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: GAO. GAO-23-106200
No Standard for Utilization or Target for Full Utilization
Agency officials also indicated that the lack of consistent
standards for how agencies should measure utilization or what is
considered full utilization for federal office space made maximizing
space challenging. For example, one agency official said the biggest
challenge to improving utilization was uncertainty about measuring
utilization in a high telework environment. Currently, each agency
establishes its own measures and standards for office space
utilization. We found that agencies use a mix of badge swipes, network
logins, self-reporting, or guard tracking to measure attendance at
their headquarters. These differences feed into additional differences
in how agencies measure building capacity. Not all agencies agreed with
our approach to measuring utilization because they use different
metrics for office space planning. For example, some agencies attribute
a certain square footage per staff person, while others count physical
workspaces. Agency officials questioned if pursuing 100 percent
utilization based on attendance made sense due to likely fluctuations
in daily attendance. Agency officials also said that they have not yet
developed new utilization metrics to respond to the rise of hybrid
work. One agency official said that a lack of standard methods and
measurements can allow agencies to remain in a wait-and-see mode until
there was consensus on how to proceed.
In conclusion, the pandemic has lowered the utilization of
headquarters office space and may have added to the amount of unneeded
space that existed prior to the pandemic. While all agencies have
resumed in-person operations, it is clear that the federal workplace
has evolved as agencies have embraced hybrid and remote office
environments. This moment presents a unique opportunity to reconsider
various aspects of the federal government's real property portfolio and
how best to align the portfolio with future needs.
We shared a draft of our written testimony with all 24 federal
agencies and OMB. The General Services Administration and the
Department of Veterans Affairs provided comments, which are reprinted
in appendixes II and III. Several agencies provided technical comments,
which we incorporated as appropriate.
Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Titus, and Members of the
Subcommittee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased
to respond to any questions that you may have at this time.
Appendix I: The 24 Agency Headquarters Buildings
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Sources: Google Maps and GAO. GAO-23-106200
Table 1: Agency Headquarters Buildings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Main Headquarters
Agency Building Name Address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency for International Ronald Reagan 1300 Pennsylvania
Development. Building. Ave NW
Department of Agriculture....... Whitten and South 1400 Independence
Buildings. Ave SW
Department of Commerce.......... Herbert Hoover 1401 Constitution
Building. Ave NW
Department of Defense........... The Mark Center... 4800 Mark Center
Dr., Alexandria,
VA
Department of Education......... Lyndon Baines 400 Maryland Ave
Johnson Building. SW
Department of Energy............ Forrestal Building 1000 Independence
Ave SW
Department of Health and Human Humphrey Building. 200 Independence
Services. Ave SW
Department of Homeland Security. 7th and D Streets. 300 7th Street SW
Department of Housing and Urban Robert C. Weaver 451 7th Street SW
Development. Building.
Department of Justice........... Robert Kennedy 950 Pennsylvania
Building. Ave NW
Department of Labor............. Frances Perkins 200 Constitution
Building. Ave NW
Department of State............. Harry S. Truman 2201 C Street NW
Building.
Department of the Interior...... Stewart L. Udall 1849 C Street NW
Building.
Department of the Treasury...... Treasury Building. 1500 Pennsylvania
Ave NW
Department of Transportation.... William T. Coleman 1200 New Jersey
Jr. Building. Ave SE
Department of Veterans' Affairs. .................. 810 Vermont Ave
Environmental Protection Agency. William J. Clinton 1200 Pennsylvania
Building. Ave NW
General Services Administration. .................. 1800 F St. NW
National Aeronautics and Space Mary W. Jackson 300 E Street SW
Administration. Building.
National Science Foundation..... .................. 2415 Eisenhower
Ave
Nuclear Regulatory Commission... White Flint 11555 Rockville
Buildings #1 & #2. Pike, Rockville,
MD
Office of Personnel Management.. Theodore Roosevelt 1900 E Street NW
Building.
Small Business Administration... .................. 409 3rd St. SW
Social Security Administration.. Arthur J. Altmeyer 1500 Woodlawn Dr.,
Building. Baltimore, MD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO summary and analysis of information from 24 federal
agencies. GAO-23-106200
Appendix II: Comments from the General Services Administration
U.S. General Services Administration,
1800 F Street NW,
Washington, DC 20405-0002,
July 5, 2023.
The Honorable Gene L. Dodaro,
Comptroller General of the United States,
U.S. Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC 20548.
Dear Comptroller General Dodaro:
The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) appreciates the
opportunity to review and comment on the U.S. Government Accountability
Office's (GAO) draft report, Federal Buildings Remain Underutilized Due
to Longstanding Challenges and Increased Telework (GAO-23-106200). In
particular, the report underscores that in order for GSA to better
optimize the Federal real estate footprint, agencies need access to
resources to modernize and reconfigure space. For GSA, that means
having full and on-going access to the Federal Buildings Fund (FBF) to
make critical improvements in federally owned buildings and consolidate
out of leased space.
Ways of working in offices have changed following the pandemic and
will continue to change--particularly as organizations continue to
leverage new technology and appropriate hybrid working arrangements. As
a result, calculating appropriate building utilization rates will be an
ongoing challenge as standards and methodologies for measuring
utilization (both at GSA and in industry) remain unsettled.
That said, GSA recognizes the unique opportunity that these
emerging working arrangements and technologies present to right size
office space requirements and reduce long-term real estate costs. The
GSA team stands ready to help agencies optimize their real estate
portfolios. However, to do this effectively and expeditiously, GSA
needs full access to annual collections in the FBF and streamlined
authorities to reconfigure space and dispose of unneeded real estate
assets. Those tools will help GSA to catalyze opportunities for
consolidation and co-location and accelerate optimization of the
Federal real estate portfolio. As the draft report points out, funding
is needed to reconfigure existing facilities to better support new ways
of working and support consolidations out of leased space into the
owned inventory. Since fiscal year 2011, the FBF has been underfunded
by almost $13 billion, and the primary impact of that underfunding has
been on the New Construction and Repairs and Alterations accounts,
which are both integral to supporting consolidation activities. The
lack of full access to the FBF has resulted in missed opportunities for
consolidations and co-locations and continues to delay efforts to
reduce the Federal Government's real estate footprint and save money.
Thank you again for your work on this matter and for giving GSA the
opportunity to provide feedback. If you have any questions or concerns,
please contact me or Gianelle Rivera, Associate Administrator, Office
of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs.
Sincerely,
Robin Carnahan
Administrator.
cc: David Marroni, Acting Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues,
GAO
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs
Department of Veterans Affairs,
Washington,
July 3, 2023.
Mr. David Marroni,
Acting Director, Physical Infrastructure,
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street, NW, Washington, DC
20548.
Dear Mr. Marroni:
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has reviewed the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) draft report: Federal Real Property:
Federal Buildings Remain Underutilized Due to Longstanding Challenges
and Increased Telework (GAO-23-106200).
The enclosure contains general comments to the draft report. VA
appreciates the opportunity to comment on your draft report.
Sincerely,
Tanya J. Bradsher,
Chief of Staff.
Enclosure
__________
Enclosure
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
Comments to Government Accountability Office (GAO) Draft Report,
FEDERAL REAL PROPERTY: Federal Buildings Remain Underutilized Due to
Longstanding Challenges and Increased Telework
(GAO-23-106200)
General Comments:
While the report cites low utilization rates, it does not identify
what the ideal utilization should be, how it should be measured or
whether there is a recommendation for a more consistent government-wide
methodology for measuring.
It is longstanding Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) policy to
use 200 usable square feet (USF) per person, rather than the 180 USF
per person stated in this GAO report. The GAO's methodology lowers VA's
utilization rate.
VA also recommends the below grade spaces and spaces under
renovation at 810 Vermont Avenue headquarters be excluded from office
utilization calculations. The below grade spaces house close to 89,000
USF of primarily storage and support spaces like the cafeteria, mail
and IT operations (with very little office space). The spaces under
renovation are unoccupied and not available as office space. When one
excludes the below grades and space under renovation and uses the
utilization rate of 200 USF per person, VA's average daily occupancy
increases to 22% from GAO's estimate of 14%. Even using the GAO's 180
USF per person, VA's occupancy rate would be approximately 20%.
The report should recognize efforts made since the start of the
COVID-19 pandemic to reduce office space in the National Capital Region
(NCR). For VA, that includes a reduction of 242,000 USF/282,000 RSF
(Rentable Square Feet) of leased office space in the NCR since quarter
4 of fiscal years 2020. The reduction represents a 16% reduction in the
VA Central Office portfolio and an annual lease cost avoidance of $15.5
million. The GAO report contains no recognition of the substantial
progress that the VA has achieved in addressing the problem being
analyzed.
Department of Veterans Affairs
July 2023
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Marroni.
Next, Commissioner Albert, you are recognized for 5 minutes
for your opening testimony.
TESTIMONY OF NINA ALBERT, COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC BUILDINGS
SERVICE, U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
Ms. Albert. Thank you.
Good morning, Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Titus, and
distinguished members of the subcommittee.
My name is Nina Albert, and I am the Commissioner of the
Public Buildings Service at the General Services
Administration. I appreciate the committee's invitation to
discuss opportunities to improve building utilization as well
as right-size the Federal footprint.
In GSA's role as the Government's largest civilian real
estate provider, we help agencies develop real estate solutions
that best support their missions and which deliver best value
to the American people.
I had the honor of appearing before this subcommittee in
June of 2022 and again in March of this year at the chairman's
roundtable discussion.
Today, I am prepared to talk about how office owners and
occupants are evaluating space utilization and how strategies
to right-size the Federal footprint can be accelerated by GSA's
gaining full access to the Federal Buildings Fund and by
streamlining GSA's authorities to maintain and dispose of real
property.
The pandemic highlighted the need for operational
resilience, and many agencies have since realized that they can
adapt their workplaces to more efficiently and cost effectively
carry out their missions.
Since 2021, as directed by OMB memos M-21-25 and M-23-15,
agencies have been evaluating how work environments can be
improved to enhance mission delivery for the future, including
evaluating the impacts of telework and other operational
policies.
As these evaluations are completed, GSA is prepared to
leverage its expertise to help agencies optimize their real
estate needs. However, support for GSA's fiscal year 2024
budget request, which proposes key legislative reforms as well
as $2.3 billion for its capital program, is critical to both
modernizing as well as right-sizing the Federal footprint.
Deferring these authorities or limiting the investment in
essential infrastructure further exacerbates our problems and
delays consolidation plans. It also forces the Government to
lease out of necessity while still carrying space we no longer
need. All of these things increase costs to the Government,
especially when we are forced to make emergency repairs.
For example, in our fiscal year 2024 budget request, 13 out
of 17 major capital projects are resubmissions from prior
years, and this is now costing the Government $300 million more
than if it had been funded when originally requested. It is far
more fiscally responsible to fund this work rather than to
delay these projects.
To that end, GSA's 2024 budget request also includes a
legislative proposal modeled after the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund scoring fix, which was championed by this committee, to
ensure that GSA receives full access to the annual collections
that are deposited into the Federal Buildings Fund. We would
like to work with you to advance this proposal this year.
GSA is also requesting to increase its prospectus threshold
from $3.6 million to $10 million. The higher threshold will
allow GSA to more quickly tackle routine projects, reduce
repair costs, and save an estimated $50 million a year in cost
avoidance.
Finally, as GSA works to right-size its real estate
portfolio, there will be properties that are no longer needed
and that should be disposed of. To help accelerate the
disposition of underutilized real property, GSA's fiscal year
2024 budget request includes a legislative proposal to expand
the allowable uses of the Expenses, Disposal of Surplus Real
and Related Personal Property appropriation.
The expanded authority is not a request for additional
funds. Instead, the proposal allows GSA to use existing funds
on analyses and activities that support agency identification
and preparation of real property for disposition.
In summary, GSA and Federal agency alignment around real
estate optimization has never been better. With approximately
half of our leases expiring within the next 5 years, we can
seize this opportunity, but only if we are able to make the
necessary investments in the buildings that the Federal
Government will continue to own, because these are core assets,
as well as accelerate the disposition of properties that are no
longer needed.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today,
and I look forward to answering your questions.
[Ms. Albert's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Nina Albert, Commissioner, Public Buildings
Service, U.S. General Services Administration
Good morning, Chairman Perry, Ranking Member Titus, and
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Nina Albert, and
I am the Commissioner of the Public Buildings Service at the U.S.
General Services Administration (GSA). I appreciate the Committee's
invitation to discuss opportunities to achieve long-term cost savings
by right-sizing the Federal real estate footprint and by improving our
real estate assets to align building utilization with mission delivery.
I had the honor of appearing before this subcommittee in June of
2022 and again in March of this year at the Chairman's roundtable
discussion. Today, I am prepared to talk about how office real estate
owners and occupiers are evaluating space utilization, and how
strategies to right-size of the Federal footprint can be accelerated by
GSA gaining full access to annual collections that are deposited into
the Federal Buildings Fund and on streamlining GSA's authorities to
maintain and dispose of real estate.
The pandemic highlighted the need for operational resilience and
our ability to work with customer agencies to support their many
different mission needs and types of work. And many agencies--including
GSA--have since realized that they can adapt their workplaces to more
effectively and cost-efficiently carry out their missions. As the
Government's largest civilian real estate provider, GSA will play a key
role in helping agencies to redefine their space requirements and in
facilitating the Federal Government's transition to what is likely to
be a smaller real estate footprint.
Since 2021, as directed by OMB memos M-21-25 and M-23-15, agencies
have been evaluating how work environments can be structured to enhance
mission delivery while strengthening their organizations for the
future--including evaluating the impacts of telework and other
operational policies on agencies' performance of their missions. As
these evaluations are completed, agencies will have a better
understanding about their approach to the workplace and future space
requirements. Once these new requirements are in hand, GSA is prepared
to leverage its expertise and experience to help agencies optimize
their real estate needs. However, support for GSA's full fiscal year
(FY) 2024 budget request--including legislative reforms and the
agency's $2.3 billion request for capital program investments--is
critical to help address these concerns.
GSA's proposed FY 2024 projects include essential infrastructure
work and necessary alterations--not only to improve building
operability, but also to improve agency utilization and mission
achievement. If left unaddressed, these projects can lead to issues
which may negatively impact the ability of our customer agencies to
carry out their missions, to the detriment of the citizens and
communities they are seeking to serve. Deferring this work does not
eliminate the need for the work; rather, continued delays further
exacerbate these problems and repairs often turn into more costly
repairs or replacements, with the potential for system failures that
result in cascading impacts to occupant agency missions. It also delays
consolidation plans, forcing the Government to carry space that is
being underutilized. All of these things increase costs to the Federal
Government, especially when we are forced to make more costly emergency
repairs or delay consolidations. In the most extreme cases, these
delays have led to forced temporary relocations until the repairs were
able to be completed.
For example, in FY 2023, 8 of the 17 Major Repairs and Alterations
line item projects that GSA requested were resubmissions from a prior
year's budget request that were not funded when previously submitted.
Many of these unfunded projects would have directly supported increased
building utilization. The collective total cost for those 8 projects
was $122 million above the amounts needed when originally submitted in
prior fiscal years. In FY 2024, 13 out of 17 Major Repairs and
Alterations projects proposed are resubmittals; collectively, the total
costs for those projects is now $300 million higher than the aggregate
projects cost when submitted in prior fiscal years. In addition to
funding requests for building operations, maintenance, and alterations,
GSA's FY 2024 budget request includes a proposal to ensure that GSA is
provided full access to the annual revenues and collections that are
deposited into the Federal Buildings Fund. GSA is also proposing an
increase to the prospectus threshold from $3.613 million to $10
million. Taken together, these proposals work to reduce timelines for
project delivery, support improved building utilization rates, and
provide better services to Federal agencies and the communities they
serve.
Support for GSA's full FY 2024 budget request--including the $2.3
billion requested for capital program investments and the $50 million
requested to support the Consolidation Activities Special Emphasis
Program--will enable GSA to help address many of the long-standing
concerns raised by this Committee. This will also allow GSA to invest
in Federally-owned properties and optimize their configuration and
performance to reduce the reliance on privately-owned space, ultimately
helping GSA to deliver the best value in real estate to our partners
across government.
It is critical that GSA receive full access to the Federal
Buildings Fund in order to reinvest in the Federally-owned portfolio.
There are significant opportunities across the GSA portfolio where
consistent and adequate funding can be used to drive real estate
savings. For example, in FY 2024, GSA collected approximately $10.7
billion in agency rental payments and other revenues that were
deposited into the Federal Buildings Fund. Of that, approximately $5.7
billion (or just over half) will be passed through as rental payments
to private sector lessors. While leasing will always be a vital element
of GSA's real estate strategy, even a 20% reduction in the overall
amount spent on private sector leases represents potentially $1 billion
annually in avoided rent costs. With full access to its annual
collections, GSA could properly invest in Federally-owned properties
and make this transition successful.
In order to reduce the timeline for project delivery and provide
better value to Federal agency customers, GSA is also proposing an
increase to the prospectus threshold in section 3307 of Title 40 from
$3.613 million to $10 million. The higher threshold will allow GSA to
more quickly tackle many routine repair projects that exceed our
current threshold. This proposal also helps to reduce repair costs and
prevent smaller repair projects from growing into larger, more
expensive replacements. And the higher threshold will allow Congress to
remain engaged on the most costly and complex transactions. As noted in
the FY 2024 budget request, GSA conservatively estimates that
increasing the prospectus threshold will yield over $50 million in
annual rent cost avoidance.
As GSA works to optimize and consolidate its portfolio, there will
be some properties that are no longer needed in the Federal inventory
and which should be disposed of. To help accelerate the disposition of
underutilized real estate, GSA's FY 2024 budget request includes a
legislative proposal to expand allowable uses of the Expenses, Disposal
of Surplus Real and Related Personal Property appropriation,
permanently authorized under section 572(a) of Title 40. The expanded
authority will allow GSA to better assist agencies in identifying and
preparing real property for disposition prior to the agency declaring a
property excess. This will allow GSA to help agencies right-size their
portfolios by providing the resources and support necessary to assess,
prepare, and accelerate underutilized property for disposition using
the Disposal Fund rather than agency base resources with repayment of
costs through disposal proceeds.
GSA has a long track record of optimizing space utilization. As one
example involving our own space, in the past 12 years, GSA has
successfully executed two separate consolidations of the Federal
Acquisition Service and National Capital Region offices from numerous
other locations across the Washington, DC, area into our headquarters
facility at 1800 F Street. These moves have yielded significant
operational benefits to the agency, and they have also resulted in a
350,000 square foot reduction in the amount of space we occupy--
reducing energy consumption by 50% below our previous baseline, and
saving $24 million in rent payments annually. These consolidations were
catalyzed in part by funding that GSA received in the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act.
GSA and Federal agency alignment around the opportunity to right-
size the Federal real estate portfolio into one that is a high-
performing, more efficient, and physically smaller than today's
inventory has never been better. Portfolio-wide, GSA has helped to
reduce the footprint of tenant agencies housed in office buildings in
GSA's custody and control by disposing of almost 12 million owned
square feet and reducing 14 million square feet of leased space since
2013. With approximately half of the value of our leased portfolio
expiring within the next five years, we can seize this opportunity--but
only if we are able to make the necessary investments in our owned
portfolio.
I would like to thank this Committee again for its willingness to
address these issues and for being a critical partner as we work to
modernize and right-size Federal facilities. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you today and I look forward to answering
any questions the Committee may have at this time.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Commissioner. And thank you both for
your testimony.
We will now turn to questions for the panel.
The Chair will recognize himself for 5 minutes.
Starting with Mr. Marroni, in this report that I am showing
here [indicating Mr. Marroni's prepared statement]--and I
particularly found a lot of interest in this page right here,
this little graph down here [indicating figure 2 in Mr.
Marroni's prepared statement], which shows the different
quartiles and usage. It is, quite honestly, devastating.
Mr. Marroni, you found some agencies, on average, had a
utilization rate as low as 9 percent. So, that is 91 percent
not being utilized, and, at best, 50 percent. And while
agencies complained about uncertainty regarding future
occupancy, they all admitted their attendance had stabilized
post-COVID. One agency indicated that, even if, as you
testified, 100 percent of their staff came to work, only 67
percent of the building capacity would be used.
Federal workers need to come back to the office, for sure.
But it is accurate to say that, even if there were higher
attendance numbers than pre-COVID, we are paying far more for
space than needed.
Can you tell us which agency indicated that only 67 percent
of their building capacity would be used with 100 percent
attendance?
Mr. Marroni. So, that is the Small Business Administration
headquarters. That is our calculation based on our assessment
of their usable square----
Mr. Perry [interrupting]. Yes. Can you--did you press the
mic button?
Mr. Marroni. The button is on.
Mr. Perry. OK.
Mr. Marroni. I will bring it closer to me.
Mr. Perry. Yes, thank you.
Mr. Marroni. So, that was the Small Business
Administration. To be clear, that was our calculation based on
our assessment of their usable square feet and----
Mr. Perry [interrupting]. And can you inform the committee
of the average square footage that you use to make the
assessment?
Mr. Marroni. Yes. The usable square footage was roughly
228,000 square feet--usable square feet.
Mr. Perry. Right. And I think it bounces somewhere between
180 and 250 or something like that?
Mr. Marroni. In terms of the benchmark----
Mr. Perry [interposing]. Right.
Mr. Marroni [continuing]. Agencies use----
Mr. Perry [interposing]. Right.
Mr. Marroni [continuing]. To plan, it can be as low as 120.
Some use 150, 180. It ranges. So, this is----
Mr. Perry [interrupting]. So, you are probably--this is a
conservative estimate I would want to use.
Mr. Marroni. Correct.
Mr. Perry. One of the challenges that GAO highlights is
that there are no standards for how agencies should measure
utilization, right? Agencies say, well, we don't have anything
that we can--they kind of make it up. And like you said, it
varies.
I think that they agree that there needs to be a benchmark,
although no one wants to have someone else set it for them. I
get it. Historically, GSA and the committee have used the basic
calculation of dividing the number of people assigned to a
building into the total usable square footage of the building,
and I am not sure that is very--you've got hallways, you have
closets, bathrooms, et cetera. I don't think it captures actual
utilization.
Is there a standard or benchmark on actual utilization that
you would recommend?
Mr. Marroni. So, we don't have a specific benchmark we
would recommend. We use the 180 because that is a GSA
benchmark. It is not a requirement for all agencies to use
that. But we think, especially now that we have a more hybrid
work environment, those existing measures, even the 180, may
not make sense going forward. So, we think it is important for
that to be defined governmentwide, what are our standards for
measuring utilization, and what are targets that agencies can
aim for in terms of maximizing their utilization?
Mr. Perry. OK. And your review selected 180 usable square
feet per person as a metric for determining the utilization,
yet GSA's standard is 150. So, that is 30 more. That means the
actual utilization rates you found are even worse if you used
GSA's standard.
What utilization rate should we be aiming for in federally
owned leases to lease spaces?
Mr. Marroni. What level of utilization?
Mr. Perry. Yes.
Mr. Marroni. So, that, I think, is part of what needs to be
defined, too. One hundred percent is not necessarily what you
are aiming for, but it is higher than 25 percent.
Mr. Perry. OK. Yes. Without a doubt. Without question.
Are there some that you can think of that should be
exempted from a set standard right off the bat, or are there
any that should be exempted that do special things that might
not fall into that category?
Mr. Marroni. When you are talking about office space, so,
the kind of space we are talking about at these headquarters
buildings, I think you can set a standard--I don't know if
there is a single number--you would always want 180 square feet
per person kind of a number, but I do think you can lay out
parameters.
I don't think there is a specific agency I would, off the
hand, say they should not be subject to a standard. There are
always going to be exceptions that you can build into your
policy, but we do think there needs to be some standard, some
measure that is across the agency.
Mr. Perry. OK. In the remaining time, in GAO's review, the
GSA's headquarters building was among the group of the lowest
utilization.
Commissioner Albert, what is GSA--I mean, you guys are kind
of leading the charge. You are planting a flag. It is important
that you set a standard. What are you guys doing about it?
Ms. Albert. So, I actually think we are a fantastic example
of what we are doing right, but also what some of the
challenges are.
So, since 2012, GSA used to have two headquarters buildings
in Washington, DC, one at 7th and D, and our flagship at 1800 F
Street. We also used to have six leases. After the Freeze the
Footprint and Reduce the Footprint, we took that to heart. We
consolidated those six leases into our headquarters. Then,
right before the pandemic, we consolidated our two buildings
into one, into the headquarters.
So, since 2012, we have reduced our own footprint by more
than 40 percent, which we have tracked what those savings are
to our agency over the 10 years to be more than $300 million.
Mr. Perry. Which is awesome, Commissioner, but----
Ms. Albert [interrupting]. For 1800 F now, the utilization
is very low.
Mr. Perry. My time has expired, and I want to be respectful
of the other members of the committee, but I would just end my
conversation with this: Still plenty of work to be done per the
report.
And, with that, I yield and recognize the gentlelady from
Nevada, the ranking member, Ms. Titus.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you for your all's testimony.
Now, in my opening statement, I mentioned some of the
problems that you all are having post-pandemic. And you
addressed some of those, Ms. Albert, especially the funding
issue, where you are shortfunded. Plus, the Federal Buildings
Fund keeps being robbed by appropriations, and so, setting it
off and walling it off, kind of like the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund, seems like a good idea. Put that money where it is
supposed to go.
One of the things, though, that I didn't mention but I
think we should talk about are the political problems. And
there certainly are political problems. I think about it.
Members want certain buildings in their district, the earmarks,
or a rose by any other name. There is competition between
Members for the placement of a building. Just let's look at
FBI, for example. There are changing priorities because it
takes so long, so, the agencies may need something different,
or parties may switch, and then priorities may change, may
start to talk about moving to Alabama, for example.
There is the culture among agencies that they want their
own building or they want a new building. There are buildings
available on the Mall, but we are talking about new museums in
new buildings as opposed to repurposing old buildings. So, that
is kind of part of the culture.
I have been here long enough to remember all the disaster
with the VA hospital out from Denver. I know that is kind of
separate from you, but it still illustrates the point.
I would ask both of you: How do you deal with these
political problems when you try to make these important
decisions?
Ms. Albert. Well, Mr. Marroni has ceded his time to me.
Well, I think that, frankly, proper communication is key
and most important, because moving out of real estate or
repositioning real estate takes time, and that time affords us
to communicate well and to develop alternate plans. That
doesn't always work. What might be the right decision from a
real estate perspective may have other consequences.
And so, in those cases, we just have to navigate and try to
find that win-win that makes sense for the agency, for the
local community, and then also for the taxpayer. We are
constantly navigating that. But, like in all situations where
there are differences of opinions, I think that communication
and developing a plan that everybody agrees to becomes of
utmost importance. And there are many examples of that.
But I will say that, once a decision is made, whatever
direction it goes in, there needs to probably be a compensating
or a mitigating answer to whatever got left on the table.
So, for example, if a new courthouse is built, we need to
have the courage then to let go of the courthouse that wasn't
renovated. So, again, if a decision is made, everybody will
accept that decision, whatever it may be. But there is an
alternate and mitigating opportunity to continue to save
taxpayer money. And that is, then, what we need to focus our
plans and agreement to, rather than allowing that other
facility to lay fallow, to cost taxpayer money, and to be
underutilized.
Mr. Marroni. I would say, in terms of targets that I
mentioned earlier, having targets for each agency in terms of
how they are going to maximize the utilization of their space
would be a good way--if there are political considerations
coming into play on whether this facility or that facility
should stay, having targets, at least agencywide, would allow
some objective measure.
I also think the importance of making a good financial
argument for facilities that should stay or should go is
important to show a good return of investment.
And then good communication, good collaboration to try and
come to a solution is important as well.
Ms. Titus. OK. Well, thank you. I am not sure this problem
will ever be solved, but those are good suggestions for dealing
with it.
Also, in listening to the chairman's questions and your
all's answers and reading your testimony, it seems to me that
one of the main problems is just unreliable data. Data from one
agency to another is different, of one year to another is
different. So, would we be better off just having some uniform
data collection plan across all agencies so we can compare
apples to apples and really know what is happening?
Mr. Marroni. Well, data certainly is a concern. That is
part of our high-risk area, too. That has been there for years
at this point. I think improving the quality of real property
data is essential and having standards--particularly when we
are talking about utilization--for how we measure utilization
is really important so we can do an apples-to-apples
comparison.
For this work, there was data at headquarters we could use,
but it varied in quality, and there wasn't a single benchmark.
So, these are estimates as a result. It would be better if
there were clearer standards for how to measure.
Ms. Albert. I think, prepandemic, the need to measure
occupancy was not something that was of high importance. And I
would say that that is true within the public sector as well as
in the private sector.
Badging data is probably the most reliable and ubiquitous
form of measuring occupancy of buildings on any given day.
However, that technology and that equipment is not installed in
every building across the United States, and that has costs to
it.
So, I think that this area of exploration about what needs
to be measured, what utility that data has for making real
estate decisions, I think, is an important topic of
conversation now. But I will just say that, from an industry
perspective, it is a relatively new frontier that we are all
crossing. And GSA has long been a leader in real estate, and
so, we are happy to be a partner in determining what the
methodology is for calculating utilization and also determining
what data really needs to be measured so that it can be useful
for all of us.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentlelady.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr.
Ezell.
Mr. Ezell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for your testimony, Director Marroni.
When I asked about the main causes for office space
underutilization prior to and following the COVID-19 pandemic,
you cited outdated and insufficient building configurations and
increased telework.
My first question is for Commissioner Albert. If there are
outdated and insufficient building configurations, as GAO
reports, why is that data along with operating costs of
building repairs and the number of Federal employees and
contractors in each building not shared with Congress or all
made available through the Federal Real Property Report, and
how is this committee supposed to comprehend the extent of
waste in Federal buildings if the data available is
insufficient or incomplete?
To me, it seems difficult to measure the efficiency of
Federal buildings when key data is not collected.
Ms. Albert. Well, thank you very much for your question.
The Federal Real Property Profile database is specifically
an inventory. So, it is basically a count of how many buildings
there are across the United States. There are complexities to
getting that database just by itself, just number, location,
and address across all these buildings across the United
States. We are still working on perfecting that database.
However, that particular database is not an asset-
management tool. It does not incorporate, as you suggested,
building condition, building liabilities, and inefficiencies.
It doesn't go into that level of detail. That level of detail,
in many cases, is managed by us for our own portfolio, or
managed by individual agencies.
GSA has reported that our backlog of deficiencies is close
to $11.9 billion. When we have looked at the sum total of the
amount of investment needed to get the existing portfolio up to
what I call a state of good repair, meaning safe, operable,
available to agencies, we are looking at an $11.9 billion
investment. That is deferred maintenance. And that is why we
are so concerned with getting full access to the Federal
Buildings Fund, because it was when we stopped getting access
about 12 years ago that this mounting liability number has been
growing and growing.
Prior to 12 years ago, when we had full access to the
Federal Buildings Fund, we were able to keep our liabilities to
about $1 billion a year, now it is $11 billion in total.
So, yes, I agree with you that we need to keep working on
that Federal Real Property Profile database and perfecting it.
But it is not an asset management tool, and we would be happy
to work with the committee on sharing what we know to be
individual asset performance standards right now.
Mr. Ezell. Thank you.
I will continue with the topic. You spoke in your testimony
about the importance of ensuring projects are fully funded to
better save the taxpayer money. However, all this committee
seems to receive are proposals for discrete large projects with
limited context on how they fit into larger efforts to
consolidate and reduce space.
How is the GSA utilizing data to identify and set
priorities to better serve the American taxpayer?
Ms. Albert. So, GSA works closely with agencies. Many
times, we have a good sense of what their real estate portfolio
needs are, where they have excess space. We have some
visibility into that. And so, we work closely on a regional
basis, as well as on a national basis, with agencies to craft
their real estate strategy.
It is not contained in a database per se, but it is
contained with real onsite knowledge of that building condition
and dynamics of what the agency is needing and whether or not
our building can suit their needs or if a lease strategy is
something that makes more sense.
It is more of an art than a science in many cases.
Obviously benchmarks are useful tools to identify whether or
not the request is reasonable. Specifically, every real estate
request is typically in response to an agency-driven need that
gets evaluated both for cost and others.
And we try to make that information transparent to the
committee. And, if there is more information that you require,
we are always happy to make sure that you understand, on a
prospectus-level project, what the rationale is for it.
Mr. Ezell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Washington, the
ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Larsen.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Marroni, can you start with answering the question
about other data? I noted in your report, you focus on the
headquarters, but you weren't able or did not go to regional
offices or as far afield even as Washington State, or Alaska,
or Hawaii.
Why not? Is there a limitation on your ability to do that
in order to get a different picture?
Mr. Marroni. So, there were two----
Mr. Larsen of Washington [interrupting]. Pull that
microphone right to your face.
Mr. Marroni. How is that?
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Better.
Mr. Marroni. Good. So, two reasons we focused on
headquarters and not the larger Federal real property
footprint. First, data availability. In the headquarters
buildings, there was attendance data we could use for our
calculations. It varied in quality and type, but there was
enough there that we could come up with these estimates. In the
field, as we reported previously, there is just much more
limited data available to make our calculations. So, one, it
was a data-availability issue.
And then the second reason is headquarters buildings
generally have similar functions. It's office space for folks
working on policy and working on administrative issues. Once
you get out into the field, the variety of uses of Federal
property are from labs to offices to secure facilities, and
comparing utilization across those may not make as much sense.
So, that is why we decided to focus in on the headquarters
buildings.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Second, on the use of leased
space, are you able to do any sort of calculation on the use of
leased space? For instance, both my offices in the district are
leased, for example.
Mr. Marroni. So, most of these headquarters buildings we
looked at are owned, although some of them are leased
facilities. So, the numbers you have here include both of those
types. Again, just in headquarters, we didn't see significant
differences in utilization whether the buildings were owned or
leased.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Yes. Great.
Commissioner, can you talk a little bit about the Federal
Buildings Fund? You mentioned that you used to have $1 billion
a year for that fund, and now you don't.
Why is that, and what can we do about that?
Ms. Albert. So, GSA collects, last year, for example, $10.4
billion in rent from other agencies. Those agencies' budgets
are appropriated, and rental list space is included in their
budget appropriation. The way that the Federal Buildings Fund
was designed was to collect that rent, and then have automatic
authority to reinvest that money into maintaining buildings.
And so, about 12 years ago, that authority--so, I call that
a revolving fund. That authority was limited, and about $1
billion a year has been siphoned from the collections that GSA
collects and redirected elsewhere.
That shortcut----
Mr. Larsen of Washington [interrupting]. By the
appropriations committees?
Ms. Albert. Correct. That $1-billion-a-year haircut to our
budget every year, most of it--half of it, at least--has come
out of our repair and alterations budgets. So, that is telling
why our buildings now, today, are in the condition that they
are.
What we are proposing is a fix to the Federal Buildings
Fund so that it acts more like what the committee passed
recently for the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, which is a
scoring rule fix, which would allow us and allow the
appropriators to appropriate the full amount of the Federal
Buildings Fund without hitting their appropriations caps.
And so, that is what we would like to work with the
committee on. That is what we are looking to work with the
appropriators on.
Here is what it does----
Mr. Larsen of Washington [interposing]. Yes.
Ms. Albert [continuing]. The important part is why do this,
in this time now, when everyone is talking about reducing the
footprint? It does cost money to save money. So, we need to
move agencies from one location to another. That costs money.
Where they are moving to needs to be improved, either in
our own buildings, or into even a leased space. There are
improvements or changes that need to be made to the physical
footprint to accommodate a new agency and how the new agency
functions. All of those activities take money.
From a management perspective--I am an infrastructure
manager, basically. The most important tool for an
infrastructure manager is to have reliable and adequate
funding, because it takes 4 to 5 years to effectuate these
plans. And so, I need to be able to rely on a known budget 4 or
5 years in advance. And that is what is complicated when we are
living on a year-to-year budget cycle and would like to
structure the FBF more like a----
Mr. Larsen of Washington [interrupting]. So, does the
opposite hold true as well? To move people from space to space,
the space you are moving them from as well, you need to improve
that before it becomes able to be disposed of?
Ms. Albert. Yes. The FBF funds can be used for all of these
types of move activities.
I will give an example, too. When we dispose of a building
and take sales proceeds, that comes into the FBF. And that
allows funding of other agency moves. There are lots of
examples of that. But access to the Federal Buildings Fund is
incredibly important in order to effectuate consolidation.
Mr. Larsen of Washington. Thanks for explaining that. I
appreciate that.
I yield back.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes the vice chair of the
subcommittee, Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer.
Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
this.
I was at the roundtable several months ago in March, and I
was as shocked then as I still am. I think, as a new Member of
Congress, recognizing the work that goes into holding our real
estate portfolio, when we often think that that is a private-
sector issue and knowing that we have hundreds of millions of
square feet that are underutilized is shocking to, I would
imagine, myself and a taxpayer.
And when I hear that there is going to be some
consolidation, I am appreciative of that, that I think you all
recognize that we are wasting taxpayer dollars left and right.
And the general question that I would imagine and that I do get
is it feels like we want more money to waste money. And that is
maybe a private-sector thought, but I want to figure out a way
to save our taxpayer dollars.
And I think that there is going to be, I think, probably
some hard choices to be made within the portfolio to say, we
can no longer do this.
And, really, I know pandemic levels have exacerbated the
problem. All the reports are showing that can we get people to
work? But this even started years before that, and recognizing
that we have to make some changes.
And if this was a private portfolio, at some point, we
would just close the doors and have to forgo those buildings.
Little harder in the public sector when we are running the
show.
And so, I hope that we can give you all guidance, and I
hope that you will respond with better data, better information
gathering to share with us so we can make the right choices for
the American people.
And, with that, I would like to ask Mr. Marroni: Your
report shows the time for action is now. That is what you have
stated. We know that even before COVID, space utilization was
bad, and it was wasting those taxpayer dollars, as I said
before.
So, can you maybe--you touched on it a little bit. What are
your recommendations today on the next steps to right-sizing
the Federal portfolio?
Mr. Marroni. So, a couple things.
First, agencies do need to make decisions now, soon, on
what office space they need and how that is affected by
attendance policies and office attendance. They need to decide
on that, and then decide, OK, how much space do we really need,
and then taking into account how can they go about doing that.
Do they need a standalone headquarters building anymore? Are
there ways to consolidate? Are there bureaus within their
department where they can share space and, therefore, have
better utilization? So, that----
Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer [interrupting]. But we're not starting
that process right today, right? We should have been doing this
years ago, so, is that happening already?
Mr. Marroni. There is some consideration of that already.
In fact, OMB, last year at this time, put out a memo asking for
agencies to submit--to restart the capital planning process,
agencies have submitted their plans to OMB. And some agencies
have started to announce both their attendance policies and
also starting to put out information about their real estate
plans.
So, there are efforts there. And there have been efforts in
the past. Last decade, there were efforts to reduce the Federal
real property footprint as well. So, it is not that this has
not happened at all. It is just, post-pandemic, we have a
particular need now to refocus and potentially make some hard
decisions about what space we need.
Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer. And do we have an expected timeline?
When should those be finished? When should we expect that we
will get the answers, not ``we are working on it, we are
working on it''?
Mr. Marroni. Right. So, I think that is important for the
agencies to say what is their timeline. For OMB, there is part
of that--for OMB to say what are our targets? Where are we
aiming for in terms of the utilization? It is going to--once
that decision is made, there is time it takes to consolidate
space, to dispose of space.
So, there is a tail to this as well, which is why decisions
soon are important.
Ms. Chavez-DeRemer. Great. Thank you.
And, Ms. Albert, it is my understanding that more than
5,000 individuals work for the Public Buildings Service.
What is the utilization rate for PBS occupied space?
Ms. Albert. So, PBS, because we are in buildings across the
country as building managers, I don't know what the exact
utilization is, but we tend to be in buildings because we are
serving the building.
We function as a hybrid organization. So, depending on what
the job description is, is what dictates how often people are
onsite. As you can imagine, we have construction managers and
architects, so, those people aren't coming necessarily into an
office every day. Instead, they are going onto the job site.
So, we have quite a range of different activities. And
people's hybrid posture or how they work is reflected by the
activities that are required of them.
I would like to take a moment to answer maybe or just shed
some light onto what is going on right now in activities.
So, we are the manager of real estate; i.e., we are looking
at the supply side of real estate: what is the quality of the
buildings, how much are they being used, what are the
opportunities for consolidation. So, what is the supply side of
real estate.
The agency is determining and deciding what is the demand
side and how much space they need. And then the body of work is
to marry those two.
That work is ongoing. There is no deadline. It is actively
ongoing all the time. There have been many consolidation
projects that have been in motion for years.
St. Elizabeths, which Representative Norton is very
familiar with, has been a consolidation effort for over 15
years, and we are now coming to the end of realizing that
consolidation plan. And there are many agencies that are
exercising and continuing to refine what their consolidation or
what their real estate plans are.
Our job as GSA is to manage real estate when agencies
contract, which is the state that we are in now generally, but
there are other agencies that are expanding. And so, it is not
a net total of decrease that we are looking at. It is agency by
agency, how are we meeting agency needs?
Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer. Well, thank you.
My time has expired, and I yield back.
Thank you.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentlelady.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
Garamendi.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Albert, thank you very much for this last explanation
that you shared with us. You are on the supply side. The demand
side, you have to deal with. And, therefore, you are in a very
difficult situation, which you have explained to us, at least
in part, today, and I thank you for that.
You cannot control your destiny. Your destiny is really
controlled by the other Government agencies that are making a
decision based on their needs, their budgets. And their budgets
are often--well, always, presumably, controlled by us. And we,
frankly, jerk them around. And so, over time, they are growing;
the next year, they are declining, and the like.
In that context, you are proposing in your 2024 budget
request certain reforms. One of those reforms apparently deals
with how you transition property presently held by the
Government to some other purpose. And it is in that area that I
would like to just focus for a moment and then your comments.
In eliminating excess facilities across the country to cut
costs, do you take into account the social economic impact of a
building being disposed of, or shuttered, in a community? How
do you address that issue, and what is the effect of it?
Now, the decision may not be totally yours in that you are
the receiver of a decision by some agency to reduce its
footprint, but do you take into account the social economic,
and how would you address that if, in fact, you have to dispose
of a building?
Ms. Albert. Yes. So, I think that the decision by the
agency, as you say, is theirs, and we are the service provider.
But, once that agency has made their decision--very often, by
the way, it is difficult to get the agency to make that
decision. But we are in a new day, and I think that more
accelerated moves can be anticipated.
Having said that, once that decision is made, GSA, before
it determines to dispose of property, goes through an internal
process first to see if there are other Federal Government
agencies that are interested in that site before we would even
consider disposing of it.
But, most importantly, if that decision is made to dispose
of property, that is what triggers the outreach to communities
to identify: Are there alternate uses? Are there uses that that
local government has for the site? And we are now, under this
administration, developing the tools for measuring economic
impact, which have not been applied in the past.
That is where my expertise comes in, to try and identify
how to do that responsibly, and how--especially when--right now
is a very complex time for communities, because we are in
contraction mode almost across the country. And communities are
having to reposition how they think about the value of coming
into downtown DC, for example, and remain vibrant.
And so, a lot of communities are thinking about
repositioning towards hospitality, entertainment, and other
things other than office. And that is what the community needs
to tell us how our asset can best support their goals.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you very much.
I think it is extremely important that, in addition to what
you have described, that there is a timing element and that the
decisions flow in a way that leave the community--should there
be a decision to dispose of property--in the best possible
position. And I can understand or at least appreciate somewhat
the complexity that you are faced with, that you don't control
the demand side.
One final point that I want to make: I think we need to be
very, very careful to avoid the one-size-fits-all. Mr. Marroni,
you have basically marched down this so many square feet per
Federal employee. I think we better be very careful that that
not be the criteria, because there are dozens, if not hundreds,
of different demands.
My final point would be that we need to be very, very much
aware here that the GSA is the supply side. It is the demand
side that is driving this problem. I will let it go at that.
I yield back.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr.
Van Orden.
Mr. Van Orden. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Ma'am, it is good to see you again. We sat at a roundtable
together. I asked you some very pointed and specific questions
then. You were not prepared to answer them for me then. It has
been a while now, so, I am going to ask you the same questions.
How many people are under your purview?
Ms. Albert. There are approximately 5,600 people.
Mr. Van Orden. OK. Excellent. So, there are 5,600 people.
So, it is 11 o'clock, 11:01 on July 13th, a Thursday. How many
of those people are at work right now?
Ms. Albert. Everybody is at work.
Mr. Van Orden. How many people are physically located in a
building that I am paying for?
Ms. Albert. I could not answer that question.
Mr. Van Orden. OK. So, that is exactly what you told me a
while ago, and that is completely unacceptable, ma'am. You have
had a long period of time to get that answer, so, we write
checks here, because that is what Congress does.
And, if you are incapable of answering that question, I
don't know that you are capable of holding the position that
you are in. So, there are four GSA buildings in the State of
Wisconsin--four. One of them is in my district. It took me over
2 months to get a phone, as a Member of Congress, in that
office.
And my guys are still having issues getting passes so that
the people that work for me and work for the 750,000
Wisconsinites that we represent can actually go to work. And
that is on you.
And this is just not OK. It is not. I am afraid to address
you again publicly and bring in the word ``incompetent.'' Your
testimony, again, is a pile of gobbledygook. It doesn't make
any sense.
I need a phone so my constituents can call me. I need an
office so they can visit, so that we can actually problem-
solve. And that is on you, and you are failing. You are.
Do you have any reasonable excuse for not being able to
answer the most basic question of how many of your employees
are physically located in a place where they can help American
citizens? Do you have any excuse for that, not being able to
answer that--yes, OK. Go ahead.
Ms. Albert. We don't attribute being able to do our jobs to
whether or not we are sitting in an office. Construction
managers are not in an office. They are out on a job site.
Mr. Van Orden. They are.
Ms. Albert. So, there is a mix----
Mr. Van Orden [interrupting]. How many construction
managers----
Ms. Albert [continuing]. On a daily basis----
Mr. Van Orden [interrupting]. Right now--how many
construction managers right now are at a job site?
Ms. Albert. I don't have a tally.
Mr. Van Orden. You can't answer that question.
Ms. Albert. I am not aware----
Mr. Van Orden [interrupting]. Why?
Ms. Albert [continuing]. Where----
Mr. Van Orden [interrupting]. Because you don't track it.
Ms. Albert [continuing]. Everybody is right now.
Mr. Van Orden. Yes, you don't.
Ms. Albert. Right.
Mr. Van Orden. Yes. And I am a retired Navy Seal. I knew
where all my people are at all times, everywhere. And I managed
folks in three different combat zones simultaneously, and I
could tell you within a 10-meter square where they were at in
combat. And you can't tell me where administrative personnel
are located in the country? And we are giving you how much
money?
That is, ma'am, that is completely unacceptable. And if you
could, because I asked you to give me this answer--and I wrote
it down--it is in my notes. And if you are not taking notes
from a Member of Congress that is asking you very specific
questions, because I got no answers back from you, if you are
not doing that, you are failing. And I am not going to accept
this any longer. I am not going to do this.
This committee is remarkable. The power that this committee
has does not--it is not commensurate with the responsibilities
that we have. We should be able to fire you right now. Like--
no, we should be able to fire you right now because you are
failing, and you have been blowing me off now for a long period
of time.
I want specific answers. How many people, where are they
at, what are they doing every day? Because we have got a
checkbook and you don't.
Ms. Albert. If I could just--we would be happy to answer
your questions.
Mr. Van Orden. Well, then, ma'am, you should have done it a
long time ago.
Ms. Albert. But may I also just say, in terms of failing,
we are not failing. The last 3 years----
Mr. Van Orden [interrupting]. Where is my phone?
Ms. Albert [continuing]. Our projects have been delivered
on time----
Mr. Van Orden [interrupting]. Why can't my people go to
work?
Ms. Albert [continuing]. And on budget.
Mr. Van Orden. Why can't my people that are being paid by
the American taxpayers walk into an office in a single GSA
building in my district, why can't they go in there without
being searched like they are a terrorist? Why?
Are you happy to answer that question?
Ms. Albert. Sure. There are security protocols for each
building----
Mr. Van Orden [interposing]. Sure, there are, ma'am.
Ms. Albert [continuing]. That apply to all Federal
buildings and it is--that is the requirement of the agencies
that are in those buildings.
Mr. Van Orden. Who is in charge of that agency, ma'am?
Would that be you? It would be.
Ms. Albert. Security of a building is run by Department of
Homeland Security. We have a partnership with the Department of
Homeland Security----
Mr. Van Orden [interrupting]. Who owns the building?
Ms. Albert [continuing]. To provide security in buildings.
Mr. Van Orden. Ms. Albert, who owns the building? Who is--
who is--who is actually responsible for that building is you.
My timed is expired.
Mr. Perry. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Washington, DC,
Ms. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Albert, Commissioner Albert, the Court Services and
Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia is a
Federal agency that supervises individuals in DC on probation,
parole, and supervised release.
For the last 20 years, the CSOSA's main facility has been
located within one block of the DC Superior Court. As is the
case with the Office of the U.S. Attorney for DC and the DC
Public Defender Service, proximity to the court is important
for CSOSA to carry out its mission and for the individuals it
serves.
CSOSA's lease expires in 2026. I believe it is important
for CSOSA to remain located near the court after its lease
expires. Does GSA understand the importance of CSOSA remaining
near the court and support CSOSA locating CSOSA near the court?
Ms. Albert. Thank you for that question.
CSOSA is doing a tremendous amount of work with us right
now. They are looking at consolidating multiple locations, and
we are determining what their real estate strategy is. They
have expressed the importance of the location and proximity of
their facility to other mission-essential locations, and we
will make sure that they are supported as they need to be.
Ms. Norton. I appreciate your looking closely at that and
they seem to be asking for that, as well.
Commissioner Albert, at the roundtable in March, I asked
you about GSA's plans for the Department of Energy's Forrestal
Building and for the old DHS headquarters once everyone moves
to St. Elizabeths.
You stated that GSA was systematically going through the
portfolio to understand agencies' plans and reposition assets
to support the needs of the agencies and the local community.
When does GSA anticipate announcing plans for the old DHS
headquarters and the DOE's Forrestal Building?
Ms. Albert. Thank you for that question.
So, you have been a champion of the DHS consolidation,
particularly at St. Elizabeths.
As you know, in our 2023 budget authorization, we were able
to move three additional headquarters and consolidate them at
St. Elizabeths, or three additional projects. And we are asking
in our 2024 budget request for the last component to be able to
be consolidated at St. Elizabeths.
And so, we are hoping that if we get that appropriation, we
will be able to move the last DHS component off of what we call
the Nebraska Avenue Complex site.
If everything goes according to plan and we get funding
this year for this last component, we believe that we will be
out of the Nebraska Avenue Complex in 2028. And prior to that,
we would be working with the District of Columbia and with the
community to determine what the best strategy is for making
that site available.
Ms. Norton. What percentage of the portfolio do you have
left to review?
Ms. Albert. Of the--you mean GSA's portfolio?
Ms. Norton. Yes.
Ms. Albert. Well, it is ongoing. I don't know. We are--we
have gone--what we do is we go through multiple passes. So, we
have gone through one pass in its entirety, and this fall, we
will have gone through that second--it is to confirm what we
know or what we think we know with the regions and with the
agencies. That will happen through the rest of this calendar
year.
Ms. Norton. Commissioner Albert, you also stated that GSA,
and, here, I am quoting you, ``would be delighted to work with
DC on repositioning assets that have historic utilization,
rising costs, and are not a long-term strategic goal for
private use.''
Have you begun conversations with the District of Columbia
on repositioning these assets?
Ms. Albert. So, we are in contact with the District of
Columbia. We understand what their strategies are for
revitalizing and maintaining a healthy downtown core. We have
not spoken about specific assets because we haven't completed
our work yet with the agencies on how they might want to
reposition.
Having said that, we understand what the district is trying
to do with its downtown. And we are trying to make sure that
strategically, our assets can contribute to the vitality of
downtown.
Ms. Norton. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mrs. Chavez-DeRemer [presiding]. The gentlelady yields
back.
Are there any further questions from members of the
subcommittee? I don't believe that we see anybody else arriving
today.
But I do want to thank the witnesses for being here because
this will conclude our hearing.
I think you have been asked some pretty poignant questions,
some direct, some indirect, some more hostile than others. But
I do believe that this committee is committed to getting the
answers, and I hope that you will be forthright and come with
those answers that we have asked today, because I think the
taxpayers, the American taxpayers, deserve to be saved their
taxpayer dollars if the utilization continues to rise. And it
is our due diligence then to do the best with the public
buildings that we have and that real estate portfolio continues
to serve the needs that the American taxpayers deserve.
So, seeing none, this concludes our hearing. I would like
to, again, thank you for spending the morning with us.
I ask unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing
remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided
answers to any questions that may be submitted to them in
writing.
Without objection, so ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent that the record remain open
for 15 days for any additional comments and information
submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in the record
of today's hearing.
And without objection, so ordered.
This subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:14 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
Submissions for the Record
----------
Prepared Statement of Hon. Derrick Van Orden, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Wisconsin
I write today to express frustration over the General Services
Administration (GSA)'s incompetence in addressing two situations
involving my former District office at Federal Courthouse in Eau
Claire, Wisconsin. Both of these issues were simple and should have
been resolved easily. Despite a very pleasant and helpful experience
with our GSA representative (McKinley Noster), ultimately the
incompetence of the GSA on a national scale has prevented my staff and
I from being able to serve our constituents of Wisconsin's Third
District. The GSA's failure to address these problems in a reasonable
and timely manner has forced the taxpayers of Wisconsin's Third
Congressional District to have to pay an additional $300 per month in
rent for a new district office.
I. Inability to fix screening issue
The first issue that my staff and I encountered from the onset was
the GSA's failure to address the security screening process for the Eau
Claire federal courthouse. Members of my staff were the only
individuals who regularly work in the building that were required to be
screened by security. The security in that building was a private firm
that is contracted through the U.S. Marshals Service.
When I inquired with GSA how to get my staff passes similar to the
other employees in the building, we were told to provide their names
and driver's licenses. After the GSA submitted these forms of
Identification, I was told they were still not sufficient.
It later came to my attention that the Marshals Service requires a
formal background check for any individual to be able to bypass the
screening process. I became aware of this after a GSA employee named
Camilla Kadish directed a member of my staff to speak with the entity
that performs background checks for the House of Representatives.
Given that the House of Representatives does not conduct background
checks, this answer was completely unacceptable. The process for my
staff and I to enter our own office took upwards of ten minutes each
time and included removing belt, shoes, placing all objects in a
scanner, walking through a metal detector and being waved by another
metal detector device.
As a Member of Congress trying to enter my own office to serve my
own constituents, I should never have been subjected to these delays.
Moreover, when my office was persistent in attempting to rectify this
situation, the GSA was incredibly unhelpful. The issue remained
unresolved the entire time my office was based at the Eau Claire
Federal Court House.
II. Inability to resolve Asbestos issue
To make matters worse, my staff was notified by a contractor on
Friday, May 5th that some remodeling work would begin the following
Monday, May 8th due to an ongoing asbestos infestation that made our
district office a hazardous workplace. As a result of the remodeling
work, the contractor informed our staff that some minor disruptions to
our office would be experienced. They went on to clarify that beside
some possible noise disruption, the remodeling would not prevent my
staff from continuing to work under normal operations.
When the work began on Monday, May 8th, it created a major
disruption to our office staff and ultimately displaced them due to
construction work taking place directly inside our office suite. Our
staff followed up on Friday, May 12th and assessed they would be unable
to return to the office the following Monday, May 15th.
As of writing, work still remains on this remodeling. This months-
long displacement impeded us from best serving our constituents and
forced us to take action and ultimately break our lease and seek an
alternative office space.
III. Conclusion:
The work we do is vital to ensure our constituents are able to get
the assistance they need with matters involving federal agencies. The
GSA's inability to resolve the screening and asbestos issues actively
inhibited my staff's ability to effectively carry out this mission.
This is unacceptable and outrageous. The result of this is that the
taxpayers of Wisconsin's Third Congressional District must bear the
cost of the GSA's incompetence. I will not accept this outcome and will
demand accountability for those personally responsible.
Appendix
----------
Questions from Hon. John Garamendi to Nina Albert, Commissioner, Public
Buildings Service, U.S. General Services Administration
Question 1. As I understand, GSA plans to eliminate excess
facilities across the country to cut costs.
Question 1.a. Commissioner Albert, has the GSA conducted an
analysis of the socioeconomic status of areas where GSA is shuttering
assets vs. where they are moving?
Answer. Engaging with the local community is a crucial part of the
disposal process--particularly because it helps GSA to fully understand
the opportunities for repositioning a particular property, as well as
challenges to disposition of the property.
GSA has conducted an analysis of the socioeconomic benefits to
local communities after former Federal properties have been returned to
the private sector or reused for other public purposes. During the past
five years, Federal property disposals resulted in 80 properties
(totaling 1.79 million square feet) transferred for a Public Benefit.
This resulted in $10.68 million of annual local tax revenues created.
This analysis highlights the substantial benefits that can result from
the transfer of surplus Federal properties to new owners. Additionally,
35 properties (totaling 2.58 million square feet) were repurposed for
another Federal use. Furthermore, environmental remediation was
conducted on 304 acres prior to disposition.
Question 1.b. Is the agency best using its assets to uplift
communities in need? Or is it once again leaving behind communities
that have been left behind?
Answer. GSA remains focused on providing outstanding value for our
agency customers and for the American people. As noted above in
response to the first question, GSA prioritizes community engagement
throughout the transfer of surplus Federal properties to new owners
(which, as our analysis shows, provides substantial benefits to local
communities) and aims to make smart real estate decisions that support
our agency partners in delivering on their missions--ultimately with
the goal of benefitting the communities they serve.
[all]