Federal Real Property: An Update on High-Risk Issues (24-MAY-07, 
GAO-07-895T).							 
                                                                 
In January 2003, GAO designated federal real property as a	 
high-risk area due to long-standing problems with excess and	 
underutilized property, deteriorating facilities, unreliable real
property data, and costly space challenges. Federal agencies were
also facing many challenges protecting their facilities due to	 
the threat of terrorism. This testimony is based largely on GAO's
April 2007 report on real property high-risk issues (GAO-07-349).
The objectives of that report were to determine (1) what progress
the administration and major real property-holding agencies had  
made in strategically managing real property and addressing	 
long-standing problems and (2) what problems and obstacles, if	 
any, remained to be addressed.					 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-07-895T					        
    ACCNO:   A69910						        
  TITLE:     Federal Real Property: An Update on High-Risk Issues     
     DATE:   05/24/2007 
  SUBJECT:   Federal agencies					 
	     Federal property					 
	     Federal property management			 
	     Inventory control					 
	     Property disposal					 
	     Real property					 
	     Standards						 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Surplus property					 
	     GAO High Risk Series				 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-07-895T

   

     * [1]The Administration and Major Real Property-Holding Agencies

          * [2]Agencies Have Met Scorecard Standards to Varying Degrees
          * [3]Agency Actions Intended to Address Some Long-standing Proble
          * [4]Further Efforts Made to Strategically Manage and Address Pro

     * [5]Long-standing Problems in Real Property Largely Persist and

          * [6]The Federal Government Continues to Hold Many Unneeded Asset
          * [7]Major Real Property-Holding Agencies Still Have Multibillion
          * [8]Despite Long-Term Cost, Several Agencies Reported That Relia
          * [9]Governmentwide Real Property Data Inventory Is in Early Stag
          * [10]Individual Agencies Continue to Struggle with Data Reliabili
          * [11]Physical Security Is Still a Problem for Major Real Property
          * [12]Underlying Obstacles Hamper Agency Real Property Reform Effo

               * [13]Several Agencies Cited Competing Stakeholder Interests
                 as Im
               * [14]Legal and Budgetary Limitations Continue to Hamper
                 Agencies'
               * [15]Need for Improved Capital Planning Still Exists

          * [16]Federal Real Property Reform Efforts Still in Early Stages

     * [17]Contact and Acknowledgments
     * [18]GAO's Mission
     * [19]Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

          * [20]Order by Mail or Phone

     * [21]To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
     * [22]Congressional Relations
     * [23]Public Affairs

Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government
Information, Federal Services, International Security, Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

For Release on Delivery
Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT
Thursday, May 24, 2007

FEDERAL REAL PROPERTY

An Update on High-Risk Issues

Statement of Mark L. Goldstein, Director
Physical Infrastructure

GAO-07-895T

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

We welcome the opportunity to testify on the actions that are needed to
address the long-standing problems that led to our designation of federal
real property as a high-risk area. As you know, at the start of each new
Congress since 1999, we have issued a special series of reports, entitled
the Performance and Accountability Series: Major Management Challenges and
Program Risks. In January 2003, we designated federal real property a
high-risk area as part of this series, and we issued updates on this area
in January 2005 and January 2007.1 My testimony is based largely on a
recent report on federal real property high-risk issues,2 and other GAO
reports and testimonies on real property issues. My testimony focuses on
the progress made by the administration and major real property-holding
agencies3 to strategically manage real property and address long-standing
problems, and what problems and obstacles, if any, remain to be addressed.
I will also provide an update of the President's Management Agenda (PMA)
executive branch management scorecard results for the real property
initiative for the second quarter of fiscal year 2007.

Summary

The administration and major real property-holding agencies have made
progress toward strategically managing federal real property and
addressing some long-standing problems. In response to the PMA real
property initiative and a related executive order, agencies covered under
the executive order have, among other things, designated senior real
property officers, established asset management plans, standardized real
property data reporting, and adopted various performance measures to track
progress. The administration has also established a Federal Real Property
Council (FRPC) that supports reform efforts. In addition, the
administration intends to work with Congress to provide agencies with
asset management tools to more effectively manage real property. For
example, VA, NASA, DOD, Energy, Interior, and USPS have limited
authorities that allow the agency to enter into enhanced-use lease (EUL)
agreements. Each agency has been provided its own statutory authority, and
the authority varies from agency to agency. These agencies are also
authorized to retain proceeds from the lease and to use them for items
specified by law, such as improvement of their real property assets.
Additionally, certain agencies such as GSA and VA have been authorized to
retain the proceeds from disposal of their real property and to use these
proceeds for their real property needs.

1GAO, High-Risk Series: Federal Real Property, [24]GAO-03-122 (Washington,
D.C.; Jan. 2003); the report on real property is a companion to GAO's 2003
high-risk update, GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, [25]GAO-03-119
(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 2003); GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update,
[26]GAO-05-207 (Washington, D.C.; Jan. 2005), and High-Risk Series: An
Update, [27]GAO-07-310 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 2007).

2GAO, Federal Real Property: Progress Made Toward Addressing Problems, but
Underlying Obstacles Continue to Hamper Reform, [28]GAO-07-349
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 13, 2007).

3For the purpose of this review, we are focusing on eight of the largest
real property-holding agencies (these agencies are the Departments of
Defense (DOD), Energy (Energy), Homeland Security (DHS), the Interior
(Interior), State (State); and Veterans Affairs (VA); the General Services
Administration (GSA); the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA). Also included is the United States Postal Service (USPS), which is
an independent establishment in the executive branch and is among the
largest property holders in terms of owned and leased space.

Although progress toward strategically managing real property and
addressing some long-standing problems has been made, these problems
largely persist and the underlying obstacles remain. For example, Energy,
DHS and NASA reported that over 10 percent of their facilities are excess
or underutilized. In addition, Energy, NASA, GSA, Interior, State, and VA
reported repair and maintenance backlogs that total over $16 billion. DOD
reported a backlog of more than $57 billion, which includes the cost of
restoring and modernizing obsolete buildings. Furthermore, Energy,
Interior, GSA, State, and VA reported an increased reliance on operating
leases--an approach which we have reported is often more costly for
long-term space needs. While agencies have made progress in collecting and
reporting standardized real property data, data reliability is still a
challenge at some of the agencies, and agencies lack a standard framework
for data validation. Finally, all of the major real property-holding
agencies reported using risk-based approaches to prioritize security
needs, as we have suggested, but cited a lack of resources for security
enhancements as an ongoing problem.

In our past high-risk reports, we called for a transformation strategy to
address the long-standing problems in this area. The administration's
approach is generally consistent with what we envisioned, but certain
areas warrant further attention. More specifically, underlying obstacles,
such as competing stakeholder interests, legal and budgetary limitations,
and a need for improved capital planning, persist. For example, some
agencies cited local interests, such as historic preservation advocates or
various advocacy groups that want to keep the federal government in their
community, as barriers to disposing of excess property. Furthermore,
agencies' limited ability to pursue ownership often leads them to lease
property that may be more cost-effective over time for them to own.
Finally, long-term capital planning efforts to improve the efficiency of
government operations continue to be a challenge, and these efforts are
not clearly linked with the real property initiative. The federal
government has generally not planned or budgeted for capital assets, such
as real property, over the long term. In our April 2007 report,4 we made
recommendations aimed at (1) ensuring the validity of agency data, (2)
focusing reform efforts to better address the leasing problem and security
challenges, (3) and addressing obstacles that include competing
stakeholder interests and the need for improved capital planning. OMB
agreed with the report and concurred with its recommendations. VA, Energy,
DHS, GSA, and NASA generally agreed with the report. State, DOD, Interior,
and USPS did not state whether they agreed or disagreed with the report
and its recommendations.

The Administration and Major Real Property-Holding Agencies Have Taken Actions
to Strategically Manage Real Property and Address Some Long-standing Problems

Pursuant to Executive Order 13327, the administration has taken several
key actions to strategically manage real property. FRPC was established in
2004, which subsequently created interagency committees to work toward
developing and implementing a strategy to accomplish the executive order.
FRPC developed a sample asset management plan and published Guidance for
Improved Asset Management in December 2004. In addition, FRPC established
asset management principles that form the basis for the strategic
objectives and goals in the agencies' asset management programs and also
worked with GSA to develop and enhance an inventory system known as the
Federal Real Property Profile (FRPP). FRPP was designed to meet the
executive order's requirement for a single database that includes all real
property under the control of executive branch agencies. The FRPC, with
the assistance of the GSA Office of Government-wide Policy, developed 23
mandatory data elements, which include four performance measures. The four
performance measures are utilization, condition index, mission dependency,
and annual operating and maintenance costs. In addition, a performance
assessment tool has been developed, which is to be used by agencies to
analyze the inventory's performance measurement data in order to identify
properties for disposal or rehabilitation. In June 2006, FRPC added a data
element for disposition that included six major types of disposition,
including sale, demolition, or public benefit conveyance. Finally, to
assist agencies in their data submissions for the FRPP database, FRPC
provided standards and definitions for the data elements and performance
measures through guidance issued on December 22, 2004, and a data
dictionary issued by GSA in October 2005. The first governmentwide
reporting of inventory data for FRPP took place in December 2005, and
selected data were included in the fiscal year 2005 FRPP published by GSA,
on behalf of FRPC, in June 2006. Data on the four performance measures
were not included in the FRPP report.

4 [29]GAO-07-349 .

Agencies Have Met Scorecard Standards to Varying Degrees

Adding real property asset management to the PMA has increased its
visibility as a key management challenge and focused greater attention on
real property issues across the government. OMB has identified goals
related to the four performance measures in the inventory for agencies to
achieve in right-sizing their real property portfolios and it is the
administration's goal to reduce the size of the federal real property
inventory by 5 percent, or $15 billion, by disposing of unneeded assets by
2015. In October 2006, the administration reported that $3.5 billion in
unneeded federal real property had been disposed of since 2004.

Figure 1: PMA Executive Branch Management Scorecard Standards for the Real
Property Initiative

To achieve these goals and gauge an agency's success in accurately
accounting for, maintaining, and managing its real property assets so as
to efficiently meet its goals and objectives, the administration
established the real property scorecard in the third quarter of fiscal
year 2004. The scorecard consists of 13 standards that agencies must meet
to achieve green status, which is the highest status. These 13 standards
include 8 standards needed to achieve yellow status, plus 5 additional
standards. An agency reaches "green" or "yellow" status if it meets all of
the standards for success listed in the corresponding column in figure 1
and red if it has any of the shortcomings listed in the "red" column.

OMB evaluates agencies quarterly on progress and agencies then have an
opportunity to update OMB on their status towards achieving green.
According to PMA real property scorecards, for the second quarter of
fiscal year 2007, the Department of Labor is the only real
property-holding agency included in the real property initiative that
failed to meet the standards for yellow status as shown in figure 2. All
of the other agencies, have, at a minimum, met the standards for yellow
status.

Figure 2: PMA Executive Branch Management Scorecard Results for the Real
Property Initiative

Among the 15 agencies under the real property initiative, 5 agencies--GSA
NASA, Energy, State, and VA--have achieved green status. According to OMB,
the agencies achieving green status have established 3-year timelines for
meeting the goals identified in their asset management plans; provided
evidence that they are implementing their asset management plans; used
real property inventory information and performance measures in decision
making; and managed their real property in accordance with their strategic
plan, asset management plan, and performance measures. Once an agency has
achieved green status, OMB continues to monitor its progress and results
through PMA using deliverables identified in its 3-year timeline and
quarterly scorecards. Each quarter, OMB also provides formal feedback to
agencies through the scorecard process, along with informal feedback, and
clarifies expectations. Yellow status agencies still have various
standards to meet before achieving green.

Agency Actions Intended to Address Some Long-standing Problems

In addition to addressing their real property initiative requirements,
some agencies have taken steps toward addressing some of their
long-standing problems, including excess and underutilized property and
deteriorating facilities. Some agencies are implementing various tools to
prioritize reinvestment and disposal decisions on the basis of agency
needs, utilization, and costs. For example, GSA officials reported that
GSA's Portfolio Restructuring Strategy sets priorities for disposal and
reinvestment based on agency missions and anticipated future need for
holdings. In addition, GSA developed a methodology to analyze its leased
inventory in fiscal year 2005. This approach values leases over their
life, not just at the point of award; considers financial performance and
the impact of market rental rates on current and future leasing actions;
and categorizes leases by their risk and value.

Additionally, some agencies are taking steps to make the condition of core
assets a priority and address maintenance backlog challenges. For example,
Energy officials reported establishing budget targets to align maintenance
funding with industry standards as well as programs to reduce the
maintenance backlogs associated with specific programs. In addition,
Interior officials reported that the department has conducted condition
assessments for 72,233 assets as of fourth quarter fiscal year 2006.

Further Efforts Made to Strategically Manage and Address Problems

As mentioned previously, Executive Order 13327 requires that OMB, along
with landholding agencies, develop legislative initiatives to improve
federal real property management and establish accountability for
implementing effective and efficient real property management practices.
Some individual agencies have obtained legislative authority in recent
years to use certain real property management tools, but no comprehensive
legislation has been enacted. Some agencies have received special real
property management authorities, such as the authority to enter into EUL
agreements.5 These agencies are also authorized to retain the proceeds of
the lease and to use them for items specified by law, such as improvement
of their real property assets. DOD, Energy, Interior, NASA, USPS, and VA
are authorized to enter into EUL agreements and have authority to retain
proceeds from the lease. These authorities vary from agency to agency, and
in some cases, these authorities are limited. For example, NASA is
authorized to enter into EUL agreements at two of its centers,6 and VA's
authority to enter into EUL agreements expires in 2011.7 In addition, VA
was authorized in 2004 to transfer real property under its jurisdiction or
control and to retain the proceeds from the transfer in a capital asset
fund for property transfer costs, including demolition, environmental
remediation, and maintenance and repair costs.8 VA officials noted that
although VA is authorized to transfer real property under its jurisdiction
or control and to retain the proceeds from such transfers, this authority
has significant limitations on the use of any funds generated by any
disposal under this authority. Additionally, GSA was given the authority
to retain proceeds from disposal of its real property and to use the
proceeds for its real property needs. Agencies with enhanced authorities
believe that these authorities have greatly improved their ability to
manage their real property portfolios and operate in a more businesslike
manner.

Overall, the administration's efforts to raise the level of attention to
real property as a key management challenge and to establish guidelines
for improvement are noteworthy. The administrative tools, including asset
management plans, inventories, and performance measures, were not in place
to strategically manage real property before we updated our high-risk list
in January 2005. The actions taken by major real property-holding agencies
and the administration to establish such tools are clearly positive steps.
However, these administrative tools and the real property initiative have
not been fully implemented, and it is too early to determine if they will
have a lasting impact. Implementation of these tools has the potential to
produce results such as reductions in excess property, reduced maintenance
and repair backlogs, less reliance on leasing, and an inventory that is
shown to be reliable and valid.

5This authority allows the agency to lease real property under its control
or custody to public and private entities and to accept as payment under
the lease either cash or other consideration, such as construction,
maintenance, restoration, and repair of facilities, or services that are
of benefit to the agency.

642 U.S.C. S 2459j.

738 U.S.C. S 8169.

8In 2004, VA was authorized to transfer real property under its control or
custody that is not part of an EUL for fair market value and to deposit
the proceeds in VA's Capital Asset Fund. 38 U.S.C. S 8118.

Long-standing Problems in Real Property Largely Persist and Obstacles Remain

Although clear progress has been made toward strategically managing
federal real property and addressing some long-standing problems, real
property remains a high-risk area because the problems persist and
obstacles remain. Agencies continue to face long-standing problems in the
federal real property area, including excess and underutilized property,
deteriorating facilities and maintenance and repair backlogs, reliance on
costly leasing, and unreliable real property data. Federal agencies also
continue to face many challenges securing real property. These problems
are still pervasive at many of the major real property-holding agencies,
despite agencies' individual attempts to address them.

The Federal Government Continues to Hold Many Unneeded Assets

Although the changes being made to strategically manage real property are
positive and some realignment has taken place, the size of agencies' real
property portfolios remains generally outmoded. As we have reported, this
trend largely reflects a business model and the technological and
transportation environment of the 1950s.9 Many of these assets and
organizational structures are no longer needed; others are not effectively
aligned with, or responsive to, agencies' changing missions. While some
major real property-holding agencies have had some success in attempting
to realign their infrastructures in accordance with their changing
missions, others still maintain a significant amount of excess and
underutilized property.10 For example, officials with Energy, DHS, and
NASA--which are three of the largest real property-holding
agencies--reported that over 10 percent of the facilities in their
inventories were excess or underutilized. The magnitude of the problem
with underutilized or excess federal real property continues to put the
government at risk for lost dollars and missed opportunities. Table 1
describes the status of excess and underutilized real property challenges
at the nine major real property-holding agencies.

9GAO, 21st Century Challenges: Reexamining the Base of the Federal
Government, [30]GAO-05-352T (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 16, 2005).

10GSA Management Regulations define not utilized property as an entire
property or portion of a property that is not occupied or used for current
program purposes of the accountable agency or property that is occupied in
caretaker status only. According to a GSA official, property that is not
utilized is generally considered vacant. The regulations also define
underutilized property as an entire property or portion of a property that
is used only at irregular periods or intermittently by the accountable
agency or property that is being used for the agency's current program
purposes that can be satisfied with only a portion of the property. (41
C.F.R. 102-75.45 and 41 C.F.R. 102-75.50).

Table 1: Status of Excess Property Challenges at the Major Real
Property-Holding Agencies

Agency   Status                                                            
DOD      DOD officials indicated that because its real property holdings   
            are so extensive and DOD has just begun collecting detailed       
            excess facility information, the department has not fully         
            completed its reporting of all excess property.                   
Energy   Energy officials reported that approximately 16 percent of        
            Energy's real property inventory has been identified as excess or 
            underutilized.                                                    
DHS      According to DHS officials, for the 2006 FRPP submission, the     
            percentage of underutilized real property is 9.7 percent.         
Interior In December 2006, Interior reported in the FRPP during fiscal     
            year 2006 that 1,181 assets of 185,527 were disposed, or less     
            than 1 percent of the inventory. Officials reported that Interior 
            is working to address its excess and underutilized facilities,    
            citing two major initiatives undertaken at Interior; (1) Bureau   
            of Land Management (BLM), the Space Management Program and (2)    
            Service First, to better meet space needs and priorities.a        
GSA      According to GSA officials, 258 buildings, with 13.8 million      
            rentable square feet (RSF), have been reported as excess          
            property. Additionally, 21 buildings, with 0.7 million RSF, are   
            pending disposal or demolition.                                   
NASA     NASA officials reported that over 10 percent of all assets are    
            underutilized or not utilized at all.                             
State    According to State officials, the department's properties showed  
            a high level of utilization in 2005. Only about 1.5 percent of    
            the portfolio was reported as underutilized. State has identified 
            65 properties (less than 0.4 percent of the overseas portfolio    
            for government-owned assets) for potential disposal.              
USPS     According to USPS officials, 1 percent of its inventory of 8,807  
            owned properties is considered excess or underutilized. Fewer     
            than 50 properties are considered excess.b                        
VA       According to VA officials, VA has moved from 98 percent utilized  
            space in fiscal year 2005 to 100 percent in fiscal year 2006. In  
            fiscal year 2006, VA disposed of 77 buildings, including 6        
            buildings via sales, 19 buildings via demolition, and 52          
            buildings via EUL.                                                

Source: GAO analysis of agencies' data.

aThe Space Management Program is a top management initiative to review
space requirements and reduce space allocations across the department.
Started in 2003 and managed by the Office of Acquisition and Property
Management, the program is designed to strengthen management decision
making at all levels throughout the life cycle (acquisition through
disposition) of owned, leased and GSA-provided space. The Service First
Initiative is a cross-agency partnership between BLM and the Department of
Agriculture's U.S. Forest Service. It was established several years ago
with three broad goals to improve customer service, increase operational
efficiency, and enhance land stewardship.

bAs part of our ongoing work, we are reviewing USPS infrastructure
realignment plans.

Major Real Property-Holding Agencies Still Have Multibillion-Dollar Repair and
Restoration Backlogs

Addressing the needs of aging and deteriorating federal facilities remains
a problem for major real property-holding agencies. According to recent
estimates, tens of billions of dollars will be needed to repair or restore
these assets so that they are fully functional. Furthermore, much of the
federal portfolio was constructed over 50 years ago, and these assets are
reaching the end of their useful lives. Energy, NASA, GSA, Interior,
State, and VA reported repair and maintenance backlogs for buildings and
structures that total over $16 billion. In addition, DOD reported a $57
billion restoration and modernization backlog.11 We found that there was
variation in how agencies reported data on their backlog. Some agencies
reported deferred maintenance figures consistent with the definition used
for data on deferred maintenance included in their financial statements.12
Others provided data that included major renovation or restoration needs.
More specifically,

           o For DOD, facilities restoration and modernization requirements
           total over $57 billion. Officials noted that the backlog does not
           reflect the impact of 2005 Base Realignment and Closures (BRAC) or
           related strategic rebasing decisions that will be implemented over
           the next several years.
           o For Energy, the backlog in fiscal year 2005 for a portfolio
           valued at $85.2 billion was $3.6 billion.
           o For Interior, officials reported an estimated maintenance
           backlog of over $3 billion for buildings and other structures.13 
			  
11To determine whether agencies still have repair and restoration
backlogs, we asked each agency to provide updated estimates of their
backlogs, which we defined as needs in facilities for which major upkeep,
repair, and maintenance have not been funded and the repair and
maintenance on these assets has been postponed.

12Deferred maintenance is defined by the Statement of Federal Financial
Accounting Standards No. 6, which includes the accounting standards for
deferred maintenance, as maintenance that was not performed when it should
have been or scheduled maintenance that was delayed or postponed.
Maintenance is the act of keeping fixed assets in acceptable condition,
including preventative maintenance, normal repairs, and other activities
needed to preserve the assets, so that they can continue to provide
acceptable services and achieve their expected life. Maintenance excludes
activities aimed at expanding the capacity of assets or otherwise
upgrading them to serve needs different from those originally intended.

13It is important to note that the National Park Service, which has
responsibility for trails and recreation sites in addition to buildings
and other structures, has previously reported an estimated $5 billion
maintenance backlog. The estimated $3 billion maintenance backlog reported
here does not include roads, bridges, trails, irrigation, dams or other
water structures.			  

	        o GSA's current maintenance backlog is estimated at $6.6 billion.
           o For State, the maintenance backlog is estimated at $132 million,
           which includes all of the deferred/unfunded maintenance and repair
           needs for prior fiscal years.
           o For NASA, the restoration and repair backlog is estimated at
           over $2.05 billion as of the end of fiscal year 2006.
           o For VA, the maintenance backlog for facilities with major repair
           needs is estimated at $5 billion, and according to VA officials,
           VA must address this aged infrastructure while patient loads are
           changing.
			  
			  Despite Long-Term Cost, Several Agencies Reported That Reliance
			  on Leasing to Meet New Space Needs Is Increasing

           Many of the major real property-holding agencies continue to rely
           on leased space to meet new space needs. As a general rule,
           building ownership options through construction or purchase are
           often the least expensive ways to meet agencies' long-term
           requirements. Lease purchases--under which payments are spread out
           over time and ownership of the asset is eventually transferred to
           the government-- are often more expensive than purchase or
           construction but are generally less costly than using ordinary
           operating leases to meet long-term space needs.14 For example, we
           testified in October 2005 that for the Patent and Trademark
           Office's long-term requirements in northern Virginia, the cost of
           an operating lease was estimated to be $48 million more than
           construction and $38 million more than lease purchase. However,
           over the last decade we have reported that GSA--as the central
           leasing agent for most agencies-- relies heavily on operating
           leases to meet new long-term needs because it lacks funds to
           pursue ownership.

           Operating leases have become an attractive option, in part because
           they generally "look cheaper" in any given year, even though they
           are often more costly over time. Under current budget scorekeeping
           rules,15 the budget generally should record the full cost of the
           government's commitment. Operating leases were intended for
           short-term needs and thus, under the scorekeeping rules, for
           self-insuring entities, only the amount needed to cover the first
           year lease payments plus cancellation costs needs to be recorded.
           However, the rules have been stretched to allow budget authority
           for some long-term needs being met with operating leases to be
           spread out over the term of the lease, thereby disguising the fact
           that over time, leasing will cost more than ownership. Resolving
           this problem has been difficult; however, change is needed because
           the current practice of relying on costly leasing to meet
           long-term space needs result in excessive costs to taxpayers and
           does not reflect a sensible or economically rational approach to
           capital asset management, when ownership would be more cost
           effective.			  

14According to VA officials, VA does not enter into lease-purchase
agreements.

15The extent to which capital costs are reflected in the budget depends on
how they are "scored." The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and OMB
separately "score" or track budget authority, receipts, outlays, and the
surplus or deficit estimated to results as legislation is considered and
enacted. CBO develops estimates of the budgetary impact of bills reported
by the different congressional committees. OMB also uses the scorekeeping
guidelines to determine how much budget authority must be obligated for
individual agency transactions.			  

           Five of the nine largest real property-holding agencies--Energy,
           Interior, GSA, State, and VA--reported an increased reliance on
           operating leases to meet new space needs over the past 5 years.
           According to DHS officials, per review of GSA's fiscal year 2005
           and 2006 lease acquisition data for DHS, there has been no
           significant increase in GSA acquired leased space for DHS. In
           addition, officials from NASA and USPS reported that their
           agency's use of operating leases has remained at about the same
           level over the past 5 years.

           We did not analyze whether the leasing activity at these agencies,
           either in the aggregate or for individual leases, resulted in
           longer-term costs than if these agencies had pursued ownership.
           For short-term needs, leasing likely makes economic sense for the
           government in many cases. However, our past work has shown that,
           generally speaking, for long-term space needs, leasing is often
           more costly over time than direct ownership of these assets.
			  
			  Governmentwide Real Property Data Inventory Is in Early Stages,
			  and Data Reliability Is Still a Problem at the Agency Level

           While the administration and agencies have made progress in
           collecting standardized data elements16 needed to strategically
           manage real property, the long-term benefits of the new real
           property inventory have not yet been realized, and this effort is
           still in the early stages. The federal government has made
           progress in revamping its governmentwide real property inventory
           since our 2003 high-risk designation. The first governmentwide
           reporting of inventory data for FRPP took place in December 2005,
           and GSA published the data on behalf of FRPC, in June 2006.
           According to the 2005 FRPP report, the goals of the centralized
           database are to improve decision making with accurate and reliable
           data, provide the ability to benchmark federal real property
           assets, and consolidate governmentwide real property data
           collection into one system. According to FRPC, these improvements
           in real property and agency performance data will result in
           reduced operating costs, improved asset utilization, recovered
           asset values, and improved facility conditions, among others.

           It is important to note that real property data contained in the
           financial statements of the U.S. government have also been
           problematic. The CFO Act, as expanded by the Government Management
           Reform Act, requires the annual preparation and audit of
           individual financial statements for the federal government's 24
           major agencies. The Department of the Treasury is also required to
           compile consolidated financial statements for the U.S. government
           annually, which we audit. In March 2007, we reported that--for the
           tenth consecutive year--certain material weaknesses17 in internal
           controls and in selected accounting and financial reporting
           practices resulted in conditions that continued to prevent us from
           being able to provide the Congress and the American people with an
           opinion as to whether the consolidated financial statements of the
           U.S. government were fairly stated in conformity with U.S.
           generally accepted accounting principles. Further, we also
           reported that the federal government did not maintain effective
           internal control over financial reporting (including safeguarding
           assets) and compliance with significant laws and regulations as of
           September 30, 2006.18

16As previously mentioned in this report, GSA, working under the
leadership of FRPC, collaborated with numerous agencies to develop 23
mandatory data elements, which include four performance measures.

17A material weakness is a condition that precludes the entity's internal
control from providing reasonable assurance that misstatements, losses, or
noncompliance material in relation to the financial statements or to
stewardship information would be prevented or detected on a timely basis.

           Individual Agencies Continue to Struggle with Data Reliability
			  Issues

           While agencies have made significant progress in collecting the
           data elements from their real property inventory databases for the
           FRPP, data reliability is still a problem at some of the major
           real property-holding agencies and agencies lack a standard
           framework for assessing the validity of data used to populate the
           FRPP. Quality governmentwide and agency-specific data are critical
           for addressing the wide range of problems facing the government in
           the real property area, including excess and unneeded property,
           deterioration, and security concerns. Despite the progress made by
           the administration and individual agencies in recent years,
           decision makers historically have not had access to complete,
           accurate, and timely data on what real property assets the
           government owns; their value; whether the assets are being used
           efficiently; and what overall costs are involved in preserving,
           protecting, and investing in them. Also, real property-holding
           agencies have not been able to easily identify excess or unneeded
           properties at other agencies that may suit their needs. For
           example, in April 2006, the DOD Inspector General (IG) reported
           weaknesses in the control environment and control activities that
           led to deficiencies in the areas of human capital assets,
           knowledge management, and compliance with policies and procedures
           related to real property management. As a result, the military
           departments' real property databases were inaccurate, jeopardizing
           internal control over transactions reported in the financial
           statements.19

           Compounding these issues is the difficulty each agency has in
           validating its real property inventory data that are submitted to
           FRPP. Validation of individual agencies' data is important because
           the data are used to populate the FRPP. Because a reliable FRPP is
           needed to advance the administration's real property initiative,
           ensuring the validity of data that agencies provide is critical.
           In general, we found that agencies' efforts to validate the data
           for the FRPP are at the very early stages of development. For
           example, according to Interior officials, the department had
           designed and was to begin implementing a program of validating,
           monitoring, and improving the quality of data reported into FRPP
           in the last quarter of fiscal year 2006.
			  
18GAO, Fiscal Year 2006 U.S. Government Financial Statements: Sustained
Improvement in Federal Financial Management Is Crucial to Addressing Our
Nation's Accountability and Fiscal Stewardship Challenges, [37]GAO-07-607T
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 20, 2007).

19DOD, Office of Inspector General, Internal Controls Related to
Department of Defense Real Property, D2006-072 (Arlington, VA: Apr. 6,
2006).

           Furthermore, according to OMB staff, there is no comprehensive
           review or validation of data once agencies submit their real
           property profile data to OMB. OMB staff reported that both OMB and
           GSA review agency data submissions for variances from the prior
           reporting period. However, agencies are required to validate their
           data prior to submission to the GSA-managed database. OMB staff
           reported that some agencies, as part of the PMA initiative, have
           provided OMB with plans for ensuring the quality of their
           inventory and performance data. OMB staff reported that OMB has
           not, to date, requested these plans of all agencies. OMB staff
           reported that agencies provide OMB with information that includes
           the frequency of data updates and any methods used for data
           validation. In addition, according to OMB staff, OMB relies on the
           quality assurance and quality control processes performed by
           individual agencies. Also, OMB staff noted that they rely on
           agency IGs, agency financial statements, and our reviews to
           establish the validity of the data. Furthermore, OMB staff
           indicated that a one-size-fits-all approach to data validation
           would be difficult to implement. Nonetheless, a general framework
           for data validation that could guide agencies in this area would
           be helpful, as agencies continue their efforts to populate the
           FRPP with data from their existing data systems. A framework for
           FRPP data validation approaches could be used in conjunction with
           the more ad hoc validation efforts OMB mentioned to, at a minimum,
           suggest standards for frequency of validation, validation methods,
           error tolerance, and reporting on reliability. Such a framework
           would promote a more comprehensive approach to FRPP data
           validation. In our recent report, we recommended that OMB, in
           conjunction with the FRPC, develop a framework that agencies can
           use to better ensure the validity and usefulness of key real
           property data in the FRPP.
			  
           Physical Security Is Still a Problem for Major Real Property-
			  Holding Agencies
     
           The threat of terrorism has increased the emphasis on physical
           security for federal real property assets. All of the nine
           agencies reported using risk-based approaches to some degree to
           prioritize facility security needs, as we have suggested;20 but
           some agencies cited challenges, including a lack of resources for
           security enhancements and issues associated with securing leased
           space. For example, DHS officials reported that the department is
           working to further develop a risk management approach that
           balances security requirements and the acquisition of real
           property and leverages limited resources for all its components.
           In many instances, available real property requires security
           enhancements before government agencies can occupy the space.
           Officials reported that these security upgrades require funding
           that is beyond the cost of acquiring the property, and, therefore,
           their acquisition is largely dependent on the availability of
           sufficient resources.

           While some agencies have indicated that they have made progress in
           using risk-based approaches, some officials told us that they
           still face considerable challenges in balancing their security
           needs and other real property management needs with their limited
           resources. According to GSA officials, obtaining funding for
           security countermeasures, both security fixtures and equipment, is
           a challenge, not only within GSA, but for GSA's tenant agencies as
           well. In addition, Interior and NASA officials reported that their
           agencies face budget and resource constraints in securing real
           property. Interior officials further noted that despite these
           limitations, incremental progress is made each year in security.

           Given their competing priorities and limited security resources,
           some of the major real property-holding agencies face considerable
           challenges in balancing their security and real property
           management needs. We have reported that agencies could benefit
           from specific performance measurement guidance and standards for
           facility protection to help them address the challenges they face
           and help ensure that their physical security efforts are achieving
           the desired results.21 Without a means of comparing the
           effectiveness of security measures across facilities, particularly
           program outcomes, the U.S. government is open to the risk of
           either spending more money for less effective physical security
           measures or investing in the wrong areas. Furthermore, performance
           measurement helps ensure accountability, since it enables decision
           makers to isolate certain activities that are hindering an
           agency's ability to achieve its strategic goals. Performance
           measurement can also be used to prioritize security needs and
           justify investment decisions so that an agency can maximize
           available resources.
			  
20In GAO, Homeland Security: Further Action Needed to Coordinate Agencies'
Facility Protection Efforts and Promote Key Practices, [38]GAO-05-49
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 30, 2004) we identified several key practices in
facility protection, which included using risk management to allocate
resources; leveraging security technology; coordinating protection efforts
and sharing information; realigning real property assets to an agency's
mission, thereby reducing vulnerabilities; strategically managing human
capital; and measuring program performance and testing security
initiatives.

           Despite the magnitude of the security problem, we noted that this
           area is largely unaddressed in the real property initiative.
           Without formally addressing security, there is a risk that this
           challenge could continue to impede progress in other areas. The
           security problem has an impact on the other problems that have
           been discussed. For example, to the extent that funding will be
           needed for a sustained investment in security, the funding
           available for repair and restoration, preparing excess property
           for disposal, and improving real property data systems may be
           further constrained. Furthermore, security requires significant
           staff time and other human capital resources and thus real
           property managers may have less time to manage other problems.
			  
			  Underlying Obstacles Hamper Agency Real Property Reform Efforts
			  Governmentwide

           In past high-risk reports, we called for a transformation strategy
           to address long-standing real property problems. While the
           administration's current approach is generally consistent with
           what we envisioned and the administration's central focus on real
           property management is a positive step, certain areas warrant
           further attention. Specifically, problems are exacerbated by
           underlying obstacles that include competing stakeholder interests
           and legal and budgetary limitations. For example, some agencies
           cited local interests as barriers to disposing of excess property.
           In addition, agencies' limited ability to pursue ownership often
           leads them to lease property that they could more cost-effectively
           own over time. Another obstacle--the need for improved long-term
           capital planning--remains despite OMB efforts to enhance related
           guidance.			  
			  
21GAO, Homeland Security: Guidance and Standards Are Needed for Measuring
Effectiveness of Agencies' Facility Protection Efforts, [39]GAO-06-612
(Washington, D.C.: May 31, 2006).

             Several Agencies Cited Competing Stakeholder Interests as
				 Impeding Real Property Management Decision Making

	        Some major real property-holding agencies reported that competing
           local, state, and political interests often impede their ability
           to make real property management decisions, such as decisions
           about disposing of unneeded property and acquiring real property.
           For example, VA officials reported that disposal is often not an
           option for most properties because of political stakeholders and
           constituencies, including historic building advocates or local
           communities that want to maintain their relationship with VA. In
           addition, VA officials said that attaining the funding to follow
           through on Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES)
           decisions is a challenge because of competing priorities. Also,
           Interior officials reported that the department faces significant
           challenges in balancing the needs and concerns of local and state
           governments, historical preservation offices, political interests,
           and others, particularly when coupled with budget constraints.
           Other agencies cited similar challenges related to competing
           stakeholder interests. If the interests of competing stakeholders
           are not appropriately addressed early in the planning stage, they
           can adversely affect the cost, schedule and scope of a project.

           Despite its significance, the obstacle of competing stakeholder
           interests has gone unaddressed in the real property initiative. It
           is important to note that there is precedent for lessening the
           impact of competing stakeholder interests. BRAC decisions, by
           design, are intended to be removed from the political process, and
           Congress approves BRAC decisions as a whole. OMB staff said they
           recognize the significance of the obstacle and told us that FRPC
           would begin to address the issue after the inventory is
           established and other reforms are initiated. Without addressing
           this issue, however, less than optimal decisions that are not
           based on what is best for the government as a whole may continue.
			  
			    Legal and Budgetary Limitations Continue to Hamper Agencies'
				 Disposal Efforts

           As discussed earlier, budgetary limitations that hinder agencies'
           ability to fund ownership leads agencies to rely on costly leased
           space to meet new space needs. Furthermore, the administrative
           complexity and costs of disposing of federal property continue to
           hamper some agencies' efforts to address their excess and
           underutilized real property problems. Federal agencies are
           required by law to assess and pay for any environmental cleanup
           that may be needed before disposing of a property--a process that
           may require years of study and result in significant costs. As
           valuable as these legal requirements are, their administrative
           complexity and the associated costs of complying with them create
           disincentives to the disposal of excess property. For example, we
           reported that VA, like all federal agencies, must comply with
           federal laws and regulations governing property disposal that are
           intended, for example, to protect subsequent users of the property
           from environmental hazards and to preserve historically
           significant sites.22 We have reported that some VA managers have
           retained excess property because the administrative complexity and
           costs of complying with these requirements were disincentives to
           disposal.23 Additionally, some agencies reported that the costs of
           cleanup and demolition sometimes exceed the costs of continuing to
           maintain a property that has been shut down. In such cases, in the
           short run, it can be more beneficial economically to retain the
           asset in a shut-down status.

           Given that agencies are required to fund the costs of preparing
           property for disposal, the inability to retain any of the proceeds
           acts as an additional disincentive. It seems reasonable to allow
           agencies to retain enough of the proceeds to recoup the costs of
           disposal, and it may make sense to permit agencies to retain
           additional proceeds for reinvestment in real property where a need
           exists.24 However, in considering whether to allow federal
           agencies to retain proceeds from real property transactions, it is
           important for Congress to ensure that it maintains appropriate
           control and oversight over these funds, including the ability to
           redistribute the funds to accommodate changing needs. In our
           recent report, we recommended that OMB, in conjunction with the
           FRPC, develop an action plan for how the FRPC will address key
           problems, including the continued reliance on costly leasing in
           cases where ownership is more cost effective over the long term,
           the challenges of securing real property assets, and reducing the
           effect of competing stakeholder interests on businesslike outcomes
           in real property decisions.
			  
			    Need for Improved Capital Planning Still Exists

           Over the years, we have reported that prudent capital planning can
           help agencies to make the most of limited resources, and failure
           to make timely and effective capital acquisitions can result in
           acquisitions that cost more than anticipated, fall behind
           schedule, and fail to meet mission needs and goals. In addition,
           Congress and OMB have acknowledged the need to improve federal
           decision making regarding capital investment. A number of laws
           enacted in the 1990s placed increased emphasis on improving
           capital decision-making practices and OMB's Capital Programming
           Guide and its revisions to Circular A-11 have attempted to address
           the government's shortcomings in this area.
			  
22GAO, VA Health Care: Key Challenges to Aligning Capital Assets and
Enhancing Veterans' Care, [40]GAO-05-429 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 5, 2005).

23 [41]GAO-05-429 .

24GSA has determined, and OMB has concurred, that GSA was provided
permanent authority to retain proceeds from the sale or disposition of
real property in its annual appropriation for fiscal year 2005.			  

           Our prior work assessing agencies' implementation of the planning
           phase principles in OMB's Capital Programming Guide and our
           Executive Guide25 found that some agencies' practices did not
           fully conform to the OMB principles, and agencies' implementation
           of capital planning principles was mixed.26 Specifically, while
           agencies' capital planning processes generally linked to their
           strategic goals and objectives and most of the agencies we
           reviewed had formal processes for ranking and selecting proposed
           capital investments, the agencies have had limited success with
           using agencywide asset inventory systems and data on asset
           condition to identify performance gaps. In addition, we found that
           none of the agencies had developed a comprehensive, agencywide,
           long-term capital investment plan. The agency capital investment
           plan is intended to explain the background for capital decisions
           and should include a baseline assessment of agency needs that
           examines existing assets and identifies gaps and help define an
           agency's long-term investment decisions. In January 2004, we
           recommended that OMB begin to require that agencies submit
           long-term capital plans to OMB. Since that report was issued,
           VA--which was one of our initial case study agencies--issued its
           first 5-year capital plan. However, the results of follow-up work
           in this area showed that although OMB now encourages such plans,
           it does not collect them, and the agencies that were included in
           our follow-up review do not have agency wide long-term capital
           investment plans.27 OMB agreed that there are benefits from OMB
           review of agency long-term capital plans, but that these plans
           should be shared with OMB on an as-needed basis depending on the
           specific issue being addressed and the need to view supporting
           materials.
			  
25GAO, Executive Guide: Leading Practices in Capital Decision-Making,
[42]GAO/AIMD-99-32 (Washington, D.C.: December 1998).

26GAO, Agency Implementation of Capital Planning Principles Is Mixed,
[43]GAO-04-138 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 16, 2004).

27GAO, Three Agencies' Implementation of Capital Planning Principles Is
Mixed, [44]GAO-07-274 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 23, 2007). This review
covers the Offices of Science and Environmental Management within Energy
and U.S. Customs and Border Protection within DHS.			  

           Shortcomings in the capital planning and decision-making area have
           clear implications for the administration's real property
           initiative. Real property is one of the major types of capital
           assets that agencies acquire. Other capital assets include
           information technology, major equipment, and intellectual
           property. OMB staff said that agency asset management plans are
           supposed to align with the capital plans but that OMB does not
           assess whether the plans are in alignment. We found that guidance
           for the asset management plans does not discuss how these plans
           should be linked with agencies' broader capital planning efforts
           outlined in the Capital Programming Guide. In fact, OMB's asset
           management plan sample, referred to as the "shelf document," which
           agencies use to develop the asset management plans, makes no
           reference to the guide. Without a clear linkage or crosswalk
           between the guidance for the two documents, there is less
           assurance that agencies will link them. Furthermore, there could
           be uncertainty with regard to how real property goals specified in
           the asset management plans relate to longer term capital plans.
			  
			  Federal Real Property Reform Efforts Still in Early Stages

           The executive order on real property management and the addition
           of real property to the PMA have provided a good foundation for
           strategically managing federal real property and addressing
           long-standing problems. These efforts directly address the
           concerns we raised in past high-risk reports about the lack of a
           governmentwide focus on real property management problems and
           generally constitute what we envisioned as a transformation
           strategy for this area. However, these efforts are in the early
           stages of implementation, and the problems that led to the
           high-risk designation--excess property, repair backlogs, data
           issues, reliance on costly leasing, and security challenges--still
           exist. As a result, this area remains high risk until agencies
           show significant results in eliminating the problems by, for
           example, reducing inventories of excess facilities and making
           headway in addressing the repair backlog. Furthermore, the current
           efforts lack an overall framework for helping agencies ensure the
           validity of real property data in FRPP and do not adequately
           address the costliness of long-term leases and security
           challenges. While the administration has taken several steps to
           overcome some obstacles in the real property area, the obstacle
           posed by competing stakeholder interests has gone largely
           unaddressed, and the linkage between the real property initiative
           and broader agency capital planning efforts is not clear. Focusing
           on these additional areas could help ensure that the problems and
           obstacles are addressed.

           We made three recommendations to OMB's Deputy Director for
           Management in our April 2007 report on real property high risk
           issues.28 OMB agreed with the report and concurred with its
           recommendations.29 We recommended that the Deputy Director, in
           conjunction with FRPC, develop a framework that agencies can use
           to better ensure the validity and usefulness of key real property
           data in the FRPP. At a minimum, the framework would suggest
           standards for frequency of validation methods, error tolerance,
           and reporting on reliability. OMB agreed with our recommendation
           and reported that it will work with the FRPC to take steps to
           establish and implement a framework. For our second recommendation
           to develop an action plan for how the FRPC will address key
           problems, OMB said that the FRPC is currently drafting a strategic
           plan for addressing long-standing issues such as the continued
           reliance on costly leasing in cases where ownership is more cost
           effective over the long-term, the challenge of securing real
           property assets, and reducing the effect of competing stakeholder
           interests on businesslike outcomes in real property decisions. OMB
           agreed that it is important to build upon the substantial progress
           that has been realized by both the FRPC and the federal real
           property community in addressing the identified areas for
           improvement. OMB said that it will share the strategic plan with
           us once it is in place and will discuss strategies for ensuring
           successful implementation. For our third recommendation to
           establish a clearer link or crosswalk between agencies' efforts
           under the real property initiative and broader capital planning
           guidance, OMB stated that as agencies update their asset
           management plans and incorporate updated guidance on capital
           planning, progressive improvement in this area will be realized.

           Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be
           happy to respond to any questions you or other Members of the
           Committee may have at this time.
			  
28 [45]GAO-07-349 .

29VA, Energy, DHS, GSA, and NASA generally agreed with the report. State,
DOD, Interior, and USPS did not state whether they agreed or disagreed
with the report and its recommendations.

           Contact and Acknowledgments

           For further information on this testimony, please contact Mark
           Goldstein on (202) 512-2834 or at [email protected]. Key
           contributions to this testimony were made by Anne Izod, Susan
           Michal-Smith, and David Sausville.
			  
			  GAO's Mission

           The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
           investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in
           meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve
           the performance and accountability of the federal government for
           the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds;
           evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses,
           recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
           informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
           commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
           accountability, integrity, and reliability.
			  
			  Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

           The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at
           no cost is through GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ). Each
           weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
           correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of
           newly posted products every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and
           select "Subscribe to Updates."
			  
			  Order by Mail or Phone

           The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies
           are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the
           Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
           Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are
           discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:

           U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
           Washington, D.C. 20548
			  
           To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax:
           (202) 512-6061
			  
			  To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

           Contact:

           Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail:
           [email protected] Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or
           (202) 512-7470
			  
			  Congressional Relations

           Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
           512-4400 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW,
           Room 7125 Washington, D.C. 20548
			  
			  Public Affairs

           Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
           512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW,
           Room 7149 Washington, D.C. 20548


(543188)

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-895T.

To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.

For more information, contact Mark L. Goldstein at (202) 512-2834 or
[email protected].

Highlights of GAO-07-895T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on Federal
Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and
International Security, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs

May 24, 2007

FEDERAL REAL PROPERTY

An Update on High-Risk Issues

In January 2003, GAO designated federal real property as a high-risk area
due to long-standing problems with excess and underutilized property,
deteriorating facilities, unreliable real property data, and costly space
challenges. Federal agencies were also facing many challenges protecting
their facilities due to the threat of terrorism.

This testimony is based largely on GAO's April 2007 report on real
property high-risk issues (GAO-07-349). The objectives of that report were
to determine (1) what progress the administration and major real
property-holding agencies had made in strategically managing real property
and addressing long-standing problems and (2) what problems and obstacles,
if any, remained to be addressed.

[46]What GAO Recommends

GAO recommended in April 2007 that OMB, in conjunction with the Federal
Real Property Council, (1) develop a framework to better ensure the
validity and usefulness of key agency data; (2) develop an action plan for
addressing key problems, including reliance on leasing, security
challenges, and the effect of competing stakeholder interests; and (3)
create a clearer link between agencies' efforts under the real property
initiative and broader capital planning requirements. OMB agreed with the
report and concurred with its recommendations.

The administration and real property-holding agencies have made progress
toward strategically managing federal real property and addressing
long-standing problems. In response to the President's Management Agenda
real property initiative and a related executive order, agencies have,
among other things, established asset management plans; standardized data
reporting; and adopted performance measures. Also, the administration has
created a Federal Real Property Council (FRPC) and plans to work with
Congress to provide agencies with tools to better manage real property.

These are positive steps, but underlying problems still exist. For
example, the Departments of Energy (Energy) and Homeland Security (DHS)
and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) reported that
over 10 percent of their facilities are excess or underutilized. Also,
Energy, NASA, the General Services Administration (GSA), and the
Departments of the Interior (Interior), State (State), and Veterans
Affairs (VA) reported repair and maintenance backlogs for buildings and
structures that total over $16 billion. The Department of Defense (DOD)
reported a $57 billion restoration and modernization backlog. Also,
Energy, Interior, GSA, State, and VA reported an increased reliance on
leasing to meet space needs. While agencies have made progress in
collecting and reporting standardized real property data, data reliability
is still a challenge at DOD and other agencies, and agencies lack a
standard framework for data validation. Finally, agencies reported using
risk-based approaches to prioritize security needs, which GAO has
suggested, but some cited obstacles such as a lack of resources for
security enhancements.

In past high-risk updates, GAO called for a transformation strategy to
address the long-standing problems in this area. While the
administration's approach is generally consistent with what GAO
envisioned, certain areas warrant further attention. Specifically,
problems are exacerbated by underlying obstacles that include competing
stakeholder interests, legal and budgetary limitations, and the need for
improved capital planning. For example, agencies cited local interests as
barriers to disposing of excess property, and agencies' limited ability to
pursue ownership leads them to lease property that may be more
cost-effective to own over time.

Examples of Excess Federal Facilities

References

Visible links
  24. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-122
  25. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-119
  26. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-207
  27. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-310
  28. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-349
  29. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-349
  30. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-352T
  37. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-607T
  38. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-49
  39. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-612
  40. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-429
  41. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-429
  42. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/AIMD-99-32
  43. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-138
  44. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-274
  45. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-349
*** End of document. ***