[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 10, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8926-8928]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02695]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

[Notice-PBS-2019-06; Docket No. 2019-0002; Sequence No. 15]


Publication of Standards, Criteria and Recommendations

AGENCY: Office of Management and Budget

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The notice provides the list of Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) recommended Federal real property for consideration by the 
Public Buildings Reform Board (PBRB) for disposal, consolidation, or 
co-location and the standards and criteria used to assess the property.

ADDRESSES: Recommendations on Federal real property to be disposed may 
be submitted online at http:www.gsa.gov/fasta.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 
725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503. Contact Bill Hamele by phone 
at (202) 395-7583 and by email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    I. Background: As required in Section 11(d)(2) of Public Law 114-
287, the standards, criteria, and recommendations developed pursuant to 
subsection (b) shall be published in the Federal Register. OMB asked 
landholding agencies to submit projects for consideration through an 
agency recommendation template developed in coordination with the 
General Services Administration (GSA) Public Buildings Service (PBS).
    II. Standards & Criteria: The agency recommendation template allows 
agencies to provide a business-case justification for the inclusion of 
the following project types: Disposal (by sale as authorized by the 
Act) and consolidation (which could include colocation, 
reconfiguration, and redevelopment). The recommendation template 
required agencies to provide the following information for each project 
submitted: Agency priority, ownership, marketability, agency mission 
impacts, financial return (including costs associated with project 
implementation), and utilization rate information. OMB and GSA then 
evaluated these submissions based on real estate fundamentals, 
financial information, schedule certainty, and other factors as 
required by Public Law 112-287 Section 11(b)(3). In addition, GSA and 
OMB established a ranking scheme of high, medium, and low priority to 
assign relative priority to the projects submitted by the agencies. As 
OMB and GSA are working to mature the FASTA process, the OMB list was 
limited to less complex property disposals with the understanding that 
the Board has access to multiple other sources of information to 
determine its next set of disposal recommendations. More complex 
options such as consolidations and land swaps were not included in this 
list because there are other factors, including proposed legislative 
reforms that may impact those types of disposal options. This approach 
is intended to build on OMB's recent approval of the PBRB's high-value 
list and the lessons learned from actions taken to sell those 
properties. OMB looks forward to continuing to refine this process over 
subsequent rounds provided in the statute by developing increasingly 
complex transactions, potentially to include consolidations or other 
actions. Agency submissions were evaluated by review teams from PBS and 
OMB with priority given to projects with strong real estate 
fundamentals, favorable financial data, limited complexity, 
availability of information for the public on effected buildings, and 
high schedule certainty. A combination of the evaluation of submitted 
data, assessment of the evaluation factors required by Public Law 112-
287 Section 11(b)(3), and dialogue with agencies resulted in the final 
high, medium, low rankings. Only projects ranked High or Medium were 
recommended to the PBRB. Project in the Low category did not provide 
sufficient financial benefit to the government or had high risk and 
high cost, generally associated with environmental cleanup.

[[Page 8927]]

    It is important to note that while OMB, with GSA's assistance, did 
conduct this evaluation of the agency-identified properties and is 
providing a list of properties for consideration of the PBRB, it is 
ultimately the responsibility of the PBRB to fully vet each property, 
as the PBRB, working with GSA, is charged with carrying out the 
disposals and consolidations. Like the High Value Asset process, OMB 
will expect that the PBRB provide the necessary financial information 
to weigh the likelihood of project by project success. Further, the 
availability of appropriations including appropriations of proceeds 
from the High Value Round disposals will be a critical determination of 
what is possible to execute, and that is currently unknown.
    III. Standard Utilization Rates: In 2017-2018, GSA and OMB 
researched existing utilization rate standards that could potentially 
be used to evaluate Agency Recommendations, in accordance with Public 
Law 114-287, Section 11(c), ``Special Rule for Utilization Rates.'' 
Specifically FASTA required that standards developed by the Director of 
OMB pursuant to subsection (b) ``shall incorporate and apply clear 
standard utilization rates to the extent that such standard rates 
increase efficiency and provide performance data. The utilization rates 
shall be consistent throughout each applicable category of space and 
with non-government space utilization rates.''
    This research was conducted by GSA with input from OMB. For each 
Federal Real Property Profile (FRPP) predominant building use type, 
potential utilization rate approaches were identified and evaluated 
based on the criteria established in this section, including the 
ability to identify efficiency opportunities, provide performance data, 
and be consistent throughout each applicable category of space.

A. Office Buildings

    The results of the study revealed that only the FRPP building type 
``office'' lends itself to a standard utilization metric. Utilization 
rates for office space are used by the private sector and a majority of 
federal agencies to manage their space and assess its efficient use. 
OMB and GSA recommends to PBRB that buildings reported to the FRPP with 
a building use code of ``office'' should utilize the following 
utilization rate calculation: Total Administrative Office Space 
(useable square feet) divided by Total Headcount = administrative 
Office Utilization Rate (usable square feet per person). This 
Administrative Office Utilization Rate formula focuses solely on that 
space which is commonly found in a commercial office setting: 
Workstations, private offices, collaboration areas, meeting spaces, and 
other standard support spaces, and associated internal circulation. Any 
space that is unique to the agency and does not have a commercial 
office equivalent (termed ``special space'') is removed from the 
calculation. This special space is instead evaluated based on its 
efficiency relative to achieving the agency's programmatic goals and 
established design criteria.

B. Non-Office Buildings

    For all other FRPP building types other than ``office'', the study 
revealed that a clear and reliable utilization rate is not in common 
use within the government or the private sector, and that it is 
currently not feasible to create such rates without extensive and close 
collaboration among the government and the private sector. In some 
building types, there exist significant variations in programmatic 
purpose that prevent reliable comparisons between them. Creating a 
standard utilization rate for non-office building types would often 
provide a misleading and inaccurate efficiency measurements, 
particularly if comparison was made among agencies. Based on this, GSA 
recommends that non-office buildings identified in Agency 
Recommendations be evaluated individually by real estate professionals, 
based on the building's unique ability to meet mission requirements of 
the agency at that specific location, to assess how efficiently the 
building is being utilized.
    IV. Agency Recommendations: In accordance with 11(d)(2) of Public 
Law 114-287, the list of recommendations was submitted by OMB and GSA 
and has been provided to the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure of the House of Representatives; the Committee on 
Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives; the 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate; 
the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate; and the 
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the 
Senate; the Government Accountability Office; and the Public Buildings 
Reform Board. OMB believes that to fully utilize the authority provided 
by FASTA, the next round of PBRB recommendations should include 100 or 
more properties and that projects already identified by the agencies as 
priorities are likely to be strong candidates for that list.

Deidre A. Harrison,
Deputy Controller (Acting).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                   Total
      Agency             Agency         Property name          City          State       Priority     Annual O&M      Total        square    Total acres
                                                                                                        costs     improvements    footage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VA...............  VHA..............  Menlo Park VA     Menlo Park.......  CA.......  Medium.......       $4,302             1       15,200         2.24
                                       Medical Center--
                                       NW Parcel.
Agriculture......  ARS..............  Portion of ARS    Glen Dale........  MD.......  Medium.......    2,500,000            24       31,242           70
                                       Glen Dale.
Energy...........  ANL..............  Argonne National  Argonne..........  IL.......  Medium.......  ...........             0            0          8.4
                                       Lab--Vacant
                                       Land/2 Parking
                                       Structures.
EPA..............  EPA..............  Lakes & Rivers    Grosee Ile.......  MI.......  Medium.......      239,196             4       35,547          3.1
                                       Forecasting
                                       Research
                                       Station.
Labor............  Job Corps........  Earle C Clements  Morgansfield.....  KY.......  Medium.......  ...........             0            0          600
                                       Job Corps
                                       Center--Vacant
                                       Land.
VA...............  VHA..............  Sepulveda North   Sepulveda........  CA.......  Medium.......  ...........            18       35,316         3.53
                                       Parcel.
VA...............  VHA..............  Portion of        Manchester.......  NH.......  Medium.......       33,661             1        2,776          2.8
                                       Manchester VA
                                       Medical Center.
VA...............  VHA..............  Portion of VA     Walla Walla......  WA.......  Medium.......  ...........             0            0           13
                                       Campus--Basebal
                                       l Fields.
VA...............  VHA..............  Tomah Quarters    Tomah............  WI.......  Medium.......       12,401             3       30,823            2
                                       Buildings.
Labor............  Job Corps........  Portion of        Edinburgh........  IN.......  Medium.......  ...........             8    62,840.00        93.00
                                       Atterbury Job
                                       Corps Center.

[[Page 8928]]

 
Labor............  Job Corps........  Gary Job Corps    San Marcos.......  TX.......  Medium.......      558,677            59   142,622.00        60.00
                                       Center Staff
                                       Housing.
VA...............  VHA..............  Portion of FDR    Montrose.........  NY.......  Medium.......  ...........             0            0         5.10
                                       Campus.
VA...............  VHA..............  Portion of VA     Lyons............  NJ.......  Medium.......  ...........             0            0         0.10
                                       New Jersey HCS.
                                                                                                    ----------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       3,348,237           118      356,366       863.27
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2021-02695 Filed 2-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3110-01-P