Federal Real Property: Corps of Engineers Needs to Improve the	 
Reliability of Its Real Property Disposal Data (09-MAY-08,	 
GAO-08-349).							 
                                                                 
Unreliable real property data has been a long-standing problem	 
for federal landholding agencies. Under the President's real	 
property initiative, agencies are being held accountable for,	 
among other things, improving accuracy of their real property	 
inventory and disposing of unneeded property. The U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (Corps), the fourth largest landholding agency, uses
the Real Estate Management Information System (REMIS) for	 
recording its civil works inventory. GAO was asked to determine  
whether REMIS could provide reliable information on the Corps'	 
civil works land disposals from fiscal years 1996 through 2006.  
GAO's work involved comparison analyses of REMIS disposal data	 
and other Corps reported disposal data, reviews of Corps' real	 
property policies and guidance, and interviews with Corps	 
officials at headquarters, three divisions, four districts, and  
the Real Estate Systems National Center (RESNC), which manages	 
REMIS.								 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-08-349 					        
    ACCNO:   A82080						        
  TITLE:     Federal Real Property: Corps of Engineers Needs to       
Improve the Reliability of Its Real Property Disposal Data	 
     DATE:   05/09/2008 
  SUBJECT:   Accountability					 
	     Best practices					 
	     Data integrity					 
	     Documentation					 
	     Federal property					 
	     Federal property management			 
	     Internal controls					 
	     Inventories					 
	     Land management					 
	     Land use						 
	     Municipal governments				 
	     Property and supply management			 
	     Property disposal					 
	     Real property					 
	     Records management 				 
	     Reporting requirements				 
	     Standards						 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     program goals or objectives			 

******************************************************************
** 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-08-349

   

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. 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. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

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

May 2008: 

Federal Real Property: 

Corps of Engineers Needs to Improve the Reliability of Its Real 
Property Disposal Data: 

GAO-08-349: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-08-349, a report to the Subcommittee on Federal 
Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and 
International Security, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs, U.S. Senate. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Unreliable real property data has been a long-standing problem for 
federal landholding agencies. Under the Presidentï¿½s real property 
initiative, agencies are being held accountable for, among other 
things, improving accuracy of their real property inventory and 
disposing of unneeded property. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
(Corps), the fourth largest landholding agency, uses the Real Estate 
Management Information System (REMIS) for recording its civil works 
inventory. GAO was asked to determine whether REMIS could provide 
reliable information on the Corpsï¿½ civil works land disposals from 
fiscal years 1996 through 2006. GAOï¿½s work involved comparison analyses 
of REMIS disposal data and other Corps reported disposal data, reviews 
of Corpsï¿½ real property policies and guidance, and interviews with 
Corps officials at headquarters, three divisions, four districts, and 
the Real Estate Systems National Center (RESNC), which manages REMIS. 

What GAO Found: 

REMIS did not provide reliable information on the Corpsï¿½ civil works 
land disposals from fiscal years 1996 through 2006, or on the land that 
the Corps owned as of September 30, 2006. Unreliable land disposal data 
impair the usefulness of REMIS as a record of current inventory and as 
a source of data that would be useful for budgeting purposes and the 
strategic management of landholdings. The following contributed to 
problems with data reliability: 

* The Corps did not maintain internal controls over REMIS disposal 
data. Corps policy held district real estate officials accountable for 
the reliability of REMIS data, but in two of four districts GAO 
contacted the individual recording land disposal data was also checking 
the data against documentation such as titles and transfer forms. 
Dividing data entry and data checking responsibilities is an essential 
internal control activity. Corps policy also required division real 
estate staff to ensure the reliability of REMIS data recorded by their 
constituent districts, but the three divisions GAO contacted did not 
review REMIS disposal data. 

* The design of the REMIS disposal module, a software application that 
captures disposal data that users enter, did not follow a best 
practice, commonly referred to as data normalization. Data 
normalization organizes data according to rules designed to minimize 
duplication and redundancies. By not following this best practice, 
users querying REMIS faced the problem of retrieving inconsistent data. 
For example, when RESNC officials queried REMIS for specific real 
property information by district, RESNC officials obtained results that 
differed from those obtained by district officials. 

* Land disposal dates in REMIS were missing or sometimes represented 
the date when district real estate officials entered the land disposal 
rather than when the disposal occurred. The vast majority, or about 89 
percent, of all disposal records within REMIS did not have disposal 
dates. When the records contained dates, large numbers of disposals 
(accounting for about 54,000 acres) in fiscal years 2005 and 2006 had 
occurred as early as 1955. 

* Guidance for processing land disposals in REMIS was unclear. For 
example, guidance issued in 2004 did not indicate whether some types of 
disposals, such as transfers to other federal agencies, required a 
disposal date. New disposal guidance issued in 2007 was also unclear 
because RESNC, which revised the guidance, did not revise the data 
entry screens in REMIS. As a result, the guidance and the data entry 
screens were inconsistent. While the guidance called for entering a 
disposal date, the REMIS data entry screens did not clearly indicate 
whether or where users should enter the date. 

* RESNC provided limited REMIS training; 3 of 32 districts that use 
REMIS received introductory training in 2006 and 2007. RESNC plans to 
train the New England District and at least one other district in 2008. 
RESNC also sponsored conferences to update systems administrators and 
other users on key changes to REMIS, but conference presenters 
discussed aspects of REMIS that some attendees, including real estate 
officials from 2 of the districts GAO contacted, considered too 
advancedï¿½especially for those who had never received introductory 
training. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that the Department of Defense (DOD) direct the Corps to 
improve the reliability of REMIS land disposal data, including 
maintaining effective internal controls, implementing the data 
normalization best practice in REMIS, clarifying guidance for 
processing land disposals in REMIS, and providing REMIS training to 
users. DOD agreed with GAOï¿½s recommendations. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-349]. For more 
information, contact Terrell G. Dorn, (202) 512-2834, [email protected]. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

The Corps' Land Disposal Data from Fiscal Year 1996 through Fiscal Year 
2006 Are Unreliable: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: The Bluestone Dam, West Virginia: 

Figure 2: Number of Civil Works Land Disposals from Fiscal Year 1996 
through Fiscal Year 2006: 

Figure 3: The Process for Entering Land Disposal Data in REMIS Outlined 
in the 2004 Guidance: 

Figure 4: The Process for Entering Land Disposal Data in REMIS Outlined 
in the 2007 Guidance: 

Abbreviations: 

Corps: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: 

DOD: Department of Defense: 

FMFIA: Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act of 1982: 

GSA: General Services Administration: 

OMB: Office of Management and Budget: 

REMIS: Real Estate Management Information System: 

RESNC: Real Estate Systems National Center: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548: 

May 9, 2008: 

The Honorable Tom Carper: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Tom Coburn, M.D. 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, 
Federal Services, and International Security: 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs: 
United States Senate: 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), an agency in the Department 
of Defense (DOD), provides the nation with engineering services such as 
planning, designing, building, and operating water resources projects. 
It has a large and diverse portfolio of civil works real property-- 
which includes about 7.7 million acres of land--whose replacement 
value, estimated at $217 billion, ranks the Corps as the fourth-largest 
federal landholding agency.[Footnote 1] Civil works real property 
includes hundreds of locks and dams, reservoirs, levees, hydropower 
facilities, jetties, as well as millions of acres of land used for 
flood control, recreation, and other purposes.[Footnote 2] 

The federal government has long recognized the need for agencies to 
track the federal property under their control. In 1983, Executive 
Order 12411 required federal agencies, including the Corps, to maintain 
inventories of their federal property. The Corps implemented this order 
and, in 1992, replaced its existing system with its current Real Estate 
Management Information System (REMIS). REMIS is a database for 
recording and updating the Corps' inventory of real property, 
maintaining historical records, helping decision makers develop future 
disposal projections, and determining the total amount of civil works 
land the Corps currently owns, among other things.[Footnote 3] In 2003, 
the Corps established its Real Estate Systems National Center (RESNC) 
to manage its real estate automated information systems, including 
REMIS. 

In 2003, we designated federal real property management as a high- risk 
area for the federal government because federal agencies have faced 
pervasive problems with unreliable real property data, excess and 
underutilized real property, deteriorating facilities, and costly 
leased space.[Footnote 4] In response to our designation of federal 
real property management as a high-risk area, the administration 
initiated several efforts intended to improve the efficiency and 
effectiveness of the federal government's real property management. In 
2004, for example, the President issued Executive Order 13327, which 
established the Federal Real Property Asset Management Initiative, or 
real property initiative. The initiative is being used to hold agencies 
accountable for, among other things, improving the accuracy of their 
real property inventory and disposing of unneeded property. According 
to this initiative, maintaining underused or unneeded federal property 
is costly to the government, not only because agencies may incur 
operating and maintenance costs, but also because they incur 
opportunity costs for failing to sell or exchange underused or unneeded 
properties for more appropriate uses. Under Executive Order 13327, the 
Office of Budget and Management (OMB) was given the responsibility to, 
among other things, review agencies' efforts to implement this order. 
The executive order also established the interagency Federal Real 
Property Council (Federal Council) to support reform. In December 2004, 
the Federal Council published 10 guiding principles, which form the 
strategic objectives for improving real property management. The 
guiding principles include accurately inventorying and describing all 
assets, as well as disposing of unneeded assets. In addition, the 
Federal Council identified 24 data elements--including data on 
disposal--that federal agencies must report annually for inclusion in 
the governmentwide real property inventory database, called the Federal 
Real Property Profile. The Federal Council and federal agencies will 
use current and historical disposal data to help track and measure 
federal agencies' progress toward strategically managing federal real 
property and to estimate the costs of future disposals. 

Through these efforts, agencies have, among other things, established 
asset management plans, standardized data reporting, adopted 
performance measures, and improved the accuracy of their real property 
data. Having accurate, reliable real property data is important for 
agencies to cost effectively manage the properties that they need and 
to identify unneeded properties that they can dispose of and avoid 
unnecessary costs to the government. Based on efforts and plans by the 
Corps to enhance the accuracy of its real property profile, OMB 
approved REMIS as a complete inventory and accurate profile of the 
Corps' real property holdings in compliance with the Federal Council's 
guidance. Although OMB relies on the quality assurance and quality 
control processes performed by individual agencies for such approvals, 
it also relies on agency Inspectors General, agency financial 
statements, and our reviews to establish the validity of the data. 
According to the Corps, REMIS has not been fully validated. 

Improving the reliability of federal real property data and expediting 
the disposal of federally owned land that does not meet the needs of 
the federal government are priorities of this subcommittee.[Footnote 5] 
Therefore, you asked us to provide information about the reliability of 
the real property data the Corps uses to account for its large 
portfolio. Specifically, our objective was to determine whether the 
Corps' real property database, REMIS, could provide reliable 
information on the civil works land that the Corps disposed of from 
fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 2006, or on the civil works land 
that the Corps owned as of September 30, 2006. 

To address this objective, we reviewed documents that defined the 
Corps' real property disposal process, electronic records, and 
rationale for disposal decisions. These documents included the Corps' 
real property policies and guidance, REMIS user/training manual, Asset 
Management Plan, and Three Year Timeline--an action plan for 
implementing the asset management plan and demonstrating that the Corps 
is using real property inventory data for decision making. To gain a 
more compete understanding of the Corps' real property disposal process 
and management of this process, we contacted Corps headquarters 
officials from the Offices of Real Estate, Corporate Information, and 
the Chief Counsel. We also contacted RESNC officials and the contractor 
that maintained REMIS and supported its users. We contacted 4 of the 
Corps' 32 district offices--Baltimore, Maryland; Fort Worth, Texas; Los 
Angeles, California; and Omaha, Nebraska--which maintain REMIS 
databases from which detailed information could be obtained. We 
selected these districts because their land disposals accounted for 
about 82 percent of the acreage that the Corps disposed of from fiscal 
year 1996 through fiscal year 2006, according to REMIS data. We also 
contacted the three Corps divisions that oversee these districts--North 
Atlantic, New York, New York; Northwestern, Portland, Oregon; and 
Southwestern, Dallas, Texas. We spoke with responsible district and 
division officials about the REMIS land disposal process, including 
REMIS data entry, reviews, training, and oversight, among other things. 
Additionally, we visited the Baltimore and Los Angeles Districts 
because, according to Corps headquarters officials, officials in these 
districts could provide insights into REMIS and its accuracy. 
Specifically, the headquarters officials said that the officials in the 
Baltimore District were very knowledgeable about the REMIS disposal 
process while officials in the Los Angeles District had recently 
completed an inventory of the district's entire real property holdings. 

We took several steps to assess the reliability of REMIS disposal data, 
although we did not have direct access to REMIS. At our request, the 
Corps queried data on land disposals from the REMIS database to provide 
us data, including the numbers of land tract disposal records and of 
land tract disposal dates by district. To assess the reliability of 
these data, we performed electronic testing to identify missing data, 
dates outside the time frame of our request, and duplicates. Because 
these data indicated that most land disposals occurred during fiscal 
years 2005 and 2006, we focused on these fiscal years and had three 
districts cross-check their land tract disposal data against their real 
estate documentation. We also conducted limited cross- checking of 
these data against disposal records at the Baltimore District office. 
Based on this work, we found that the REMIS land disposal data were not 
reliable because of inconsistencies among the disposal data files that 
the Corps provided, a significant number of missing disposal dates, and 
inaccurate current inventory data. Finally, we obtained the Corps' 
policies, procedures, and guidance for processing land disposals in 
REMIS and compared them with standards for internal control in the 
federal government,[Footnote 6] as well as other control guidance 
related to control activities, environment, and training.[Footnote 7] 
We also spoke with Corps officials about how they interpreted and 
implemented internal controls with respect to REMIS. 

We conducted this performance audit from December 2006 to May 2008 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 objective. We believe that 
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objective. Further details about our 
objective, scope, and methodology appear in appendix I. 

Results in Brief: 

REMIS did not provide reliable information on the Corps' civil works 
land disposals from fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 2006, or on 
the land that the Corps owned as of September 30, 2006. Unreliable land 
disposal data impair the usefulness of REMIS as a record of current 
inventory and as a source of data that would be useful to Corps 
decision makers for budgeting and strategic land management purposes. 
The following contributed to problems with data reliability: 

* District and division officials did not maintain effective internal 
controls over REMIS disposal data. According to the Corps' policy, 
district real estate officials are accountable for the reliability of 
the real property data recorded while division officials provide the 
oversight necessary to ensure that their constituent districts record 
reliable data.[Footnote 8] Real estate officials in two districts told 
us, however, that the person who recorded land disposal data into REMIS 
was the same person responsible for checking that the REMIS data 
matched the real estate documentation, such as deeds, titles, and 
transfer forms. According to the standards for internal control in the 
federal government, dividing the data entry and data checking 
responsibilities between different people is an essential internal 
control activity, referred to as segregation of duties. The three 
divisions we contacted did not perform the reviews necessary to ensure 
that their constituent districts recorded reliable REMIS disposal data. 
Officials at one division cited prolonged staffing shortages as the 
reason for not performing the reviews, while officials at another 
division relied on verbal assurances from district officials that real 
property data were reliable. Officials in a third division annually 
reviewed the disposal files of their constituent districts, but their 
reviews focused on financial aspects and compliance with applicable 
statutes, among other things, rather than on the reliability of REMIS 
disposal data. 

* The design of the REMIS disposal module, a software application that 
captures disposal data that users enter, did not follow a software 
engineering best practice, commonly referred to as data normalization. 
Data normalization is the process of organizing data in a database 
according to rules designed to protect the data from duplication and 
redundancy. Redundant data can create database problems, especially for 
large databases such as REMIS. If users must enter disposal dates in 
one place, then users must consistently enter disposal dates in all the 
other places where these dates are stored within the database--a 
process prone to errors. Since REMIS users could enter disposal dates 
in more than one place in the database, and because the database was 
not in normalized form, persons querying the database could potentially 
retrieve inconsistent data given that disposal dates were not 
consistently entered in all places. For example, when RESNC officials 
queried REMIS for specific real property information by district, the 
RESNC officials obtained results that differed from those obtained 
separately by district officials. District officials subsequently 
called on RESNC officials to clarify the query RESNC used for 
retrieving the real property data in REMIS. In contrast, a database in 
normalized form would allow any user to query REMIS for disposal 
information and obtain the same result. 

* REMIS land disposal dates were missing or the data sometimes 
represented the date when district real estate officials entered the 
land disposal in the database rather than when the disposal actually 
occurred. The vast majority of all disposal records within REMIS did 
not have a disposal date. Of about 30,700 total disposal records, 
27,400 (89 percent) were missing disposal dates. When the records 
contained dates, we found through our analysis of REMIS land disposal 
data from fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 2006 that large numbers 
of disposals recorded in fiscal years 2005 and 2006 (accounting for 
about 54,000 acres of land) had occurred as early as 1955. Officials 
from two districts consistently said that the large numbers of 
disposals were not current disposals at all, but rather reflected 
database adjustments to identify land that had been previously disposed 
of. Corps officials lacked assurances that REMIS reflected the Corps 
current inventory because they did not know whether all of the Corps' 
32 districts had (1) entered data into REMIS on all of the land tracts 
from their active civil works projects and (2) made adjustments to 
REMIS to reflect land disposals that had occurred years ago. 
Additionally, we found discrepancies between the REMIS land disposal 
data that the Corps reported in its Three Year Timeline and in the 
Federal Real Property Profile in fiscal year 2006. These discrepancies 
raised concerns about the Corps' use of REMIS for budgeting and 
strategic land management purposes. 

* Guidance for processing land disposals in REMIS--one document issued 
in 2004, then updated in 2006, and further revised in 2007--was 
unclear. The 2004 guidance did not indicate whether some types of land 
disposals, such as transfers to other federal agencies, required a 
disposal date. The 2006 guidance incorporated new federal reporting 
requirements and required a date for all disposals but did not tell 
users how to complete the process for disposing of land in REMIS. 
Finally, the 2007 guidance was inconsistent with data entry screens in 
the REMIS disposal module. This inconsistency occurred because RESNC 
did not revise the data entry screens to reflect the changes it had 
made in the 2007 guidance. Consequently, the guidance required users to 
enter the disposal date in a screen that indicated the date was 
optional. At the same time, the guidance described as optional the use 
of a second screen that indicated the disposal date was required. 

* RESNC provided REMIS introductory training in 2006 and 2007 to 3 of 
32 districts that had requested training for their new staff. With 
limited instructors and funding, RESNC plans to train the New England 
District and at least one other district in 2008. RESNC also sponsored 
conferences to update systems administrators and other users on key 
changes to the database, but conference presenters discussed aspects of 
REMIS that some attendees, including real estate officials from 2 
districts we contacted, considered too advanced--especially for those 
who had never received introductory training. In addition, among REMIS 
users within the 4 districts we contacted, about 24 have not received 
introductory, hands-on training, while approximately 39 have received 
the training. None of the daily REMIS users have received periodic 
refresher training. 

To improve the reliability of REMIS land disposal data, we recommend 
that the Secretary of Defense direct the Commanding General and Chief 
of Engineers of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to (1) implement 
effective internal controls, (2) implement the data normalization best 
practice in the REMIS database for disposal dates, (3) correct REMIS 
disposal records, (4) issue clear guidance for entering land disposal 
dates in the REMIS land disposal process, and (5) provide and require 
introductory and periodic refresher training that covers how to 
correctly enter land disposal dates in REMIS. DOD agreed with all the 
recommendations made in this report. 

Background: 

The Corps began using REMIS, the official real property inventory 
database, in 1992. The Corps modified REMIS several times over the 
years to track real estate matters such as revenues from sales of real 
property, property locations by congressional district, and properties 
that are civil works. About 1,000 REMIS users located in 32 of the 38 
Corps districts access the database through the Internet.[Footnote 9] 
District users are responsible for collecting data from real estate 
documents and entering data into REMIS. 

The Corps established RESNC at its Mobile, Alabama, District office in 
October 2003 to serve as the center for the Corps' real estate 
automated information systems, including REMIS. Among other things, 
RESNC officials serve as real estate subject matter experts, issue 
guidance to process land disposals in REMIS, train district users, and 
manage REMIS. RESNC also oversees a contractor who performs maintenance 
on REMIS, runs database queries, helps REMIS users through a hotline, 
and makes numerous changes to REMIS. Although the contractor did not 
design the previous REMIS disposal module (a software application that 
captures data entered into REMIS by a user), it redesigned the REMIS 
disposal module to automatically provide the Corps' financial 
management system with the amounts of disposed acreage, as well as to 
automate other tasks when users completed the disposal process in 
REMIS. The Corps implemented the redesigned module in October 2007. 

Corps headquarters carries out the overall management of civil works 
real property related to navigation, hydropower, recreation, and flood 
control projects, among others.[Footnote 10] Figure 1 shows one of many 
dams owned by the Corps. 

Figure 1: The Bluestone Dam, West Virginia: 

[See PDF for image] 

Photograph of the Bluestone Dam. 

Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

[End of figure] 

Headquarters officials coordinate with eight civil works divisions and 
38 districts around the country on matters that include developing 
future funding requirements using real property data from REMIS. For 
example, REMIS disposal data from past years are to allow Corps 
managers to estimate future disposal costs. Besides the headquarters 
team, real estate officials at each of the divisions oversee the civil 
works projects and activities of their constituent districts. District 
real estate chiefs, specialists, and systems administrators, among 
other district officials, provide daily management of real property, 
including land acquisition for new civil works projects, operations and 
maintenance of existing projects, disposal of unneeded civil works 
land, and recording of data on land acquisitions, disposals, and other 
actions. 

Executive Order 13327 of February 2004 required federal landholding 
agencies, including the Corps, to determine what they own, what they 
need, and what it costs to manage their real property; develop and 
implement asset management plans; and dispose of unneeded properties. 
The executive order established the interagency Federal Council to 
develop the guidance necessary to implement the order and serve as a 
clearinghouse for best practices, among other things. The Federal 
Council developed and published in December 2004 Guidance for Improved 
Asset Management that identified, defined, and listed 23 data elements 
that federal agencies must report to the General Services 
Administration (GSA) for the annual Federal Real Property Profile. In 
August 2006, the Federal Council added disposal as the 24th data 
element that federal agencies must report for the annual profile 
beginning in fiscal year 2006. OMB, the Federal Council, and agencies 
use disposal data to help track how much property that the federal 
government has disposed of, measure the government's progress in 
disposing of its unneeded property, and estimate the costs of future 
disposals. 

The Federal Council guidance specifically requires the Corps and other 
federal landholding agencies to report, among other things, disposal 
dates based on the type of disposal; that is, land sales should record 
deed dates, land transfers between federal agencies should record the 
dates of transfer letters, and public benefit conveyances to nonfederal 
entities should record the date of the assignment letter to the 
sponsoring agency and the subsequent date of the deed's transfer to the 
grantee. In addition, the guidance requires the agencies to report the 
disposal date in the fiscal year that the property exited the agency's 
inventory. On the administration's agency scorecard for real property 
management--established in fiscal year 2004 to measure each agency's 
progress toward implementing Executive Order 13327--the Corps has 
achieved a "yellow" status, indicating that it has made progress in 
strategically managing real property by taking the following actions: 
designating a senior real property officer who is held accountable for 
the effective management of the Corps' real property; developing an OMB-
approved asset management plan;[Footnote 11] developing an OMB-approved 
3-year time line;[Footnote 12] establishing some asset management 
performance measures; completing and maintaining an inventory and 
profile of the Corps' real property; and providing timely information 
for inclusion into the annual Federal Real Property Profile. 

The Corps' Land Disposal Data from Fiscal Year 1996 through Fiscal Year 
2006 Are Unreliable: 

REMIS did not provide reliable information on the Corps' civil works 
land disposals from fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 2006, or on 
the land that the Corps owned as of September 30, 2006, for several 
reasons. These reasons include poorly maintained internal controls over 
REMIS disposal data at various levels of the Corps' organization, a 
database design that did not follow a software engineering best 
practice, and land disposal dates that did not accurately indicate when 
the disposal took place. In addition, unclear guidance for processing 
land disposals in REMIS coupled with a limited user-training program 
contributed to the unreliability of the disposal data. These unreliable 
data impair the usefulness of REMIS as a record of current inventory 
and as a source of data that would be useful to Corps decision makers 
for budgeting and strategic land management purposes. 

Districts and Divisions Did Not Maintain Effective Internal Controls 
over REMIS Data: 

Real estate officials in districts and divisions did not maintain 
effective internal controls over REMIS disposal data. Maintaining 
effective internal controls throughout an organization is an ongoing 
effort that helps to detect and prevent errors in data, such as real 
property data in REMIS. The standards for internal control in the 
federal government provide the overall framework for federal managers 
to establish and maintain effective internal control. Internal control 
activities include assigning different people to check data from those 
who record it--referred to as segregation of duties--recording 
transactions in a timely manner, and reviewing the data for 
reliability. 

The Corps' policy requires real estate officials to be accountable for 
the reliability (i.e., accuracy, completeness, and timeliness) of REMIS 
data related to land located in their districts. Officials in two 
districts, including one district that made about 300 disposals 
accounting for over 34,000 acres of land during fiscal years 1996 
through 2006,[Footnote 13] told us that the same person who recorded 
land disposal data in REMIS was also the one who checked that the data 
matched the real estate documentation, such as deeds, titles, and 
transfer forms. Making one individual responsible for both recording 
and checking data can contribute to errors. Corps officials in a third 
district told us that they divided these responsibilities and provided 
documentation of recent efforts to independently check the REMIS 
disposal records against the real estate documentation. 

In addition, some districts did not always record the disposal in REMIS 
in a timely manner as the standards for internal control in the federal 
government and the Corps' policy require. For example, when we compared 
REMIS disposal dates against the dates when the Deputy Assistant 
Secretary of the Army approved the disposals, we found instances in 
which districts recorded land disposals more than 2 years after the 
disposal transaction had occurred. One district, for instance, recorded 
the disposal of a 3-acre land parcel near York, Pennsylvania, in March 
2006. The disposal had occurred in February 2004--more than 2 years 
earlier. Another district recorded a land disposal in Georgia as 
November 2005, but the disposal occurred 16 months earlier. 

Although the Corps' policy requires division officials to provide the 
oversight necessary to ensure that their constituent districts recorded 
reliable real property data, officials we contacted in all three 
divisions did not perform activities that would ensure the reliability 
of REMIS disposal data. The Northwestern Division, for example, 
experienced prolonged staffing shortages that hindered it from 
reviewing any disposal records. According to the division's Acting 
Chief of Real Estate, a team consisting of a Chief of Real Estate and 
four other real estate officials oversees the real property activities 
of the division's five constituent districts--Kansas City, Omaha, Walla 
Walla, Portland, and Seattle. Specifically, the four real estate 
officials oversee (1) acquisitions, (2) appraisals, (3) recruiting, and 
(4) management and disposal activities, respectively. However, because 
the management and disposal position remained vacant for nearly 2 
years, the division did not review any REMIS disposal data during that 
period.[Footnote 14] Corps officials at headquarters confirmed in 
December 2007 that the position remained vacant. 

Officials in the North Atlantic Division also said they did not review 
any REMIS disposal data from their five constituent districts (New 
England, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Norfolk). They said 
that during their annual visits to each of their districts, they 
reviewed real estate documentation for completeness and compliance with 
applicable statutes, but relied solely on verbal assurances from 
district officials that they had accurately recorded all disposals in 
REMIS. In the view of North Atlantic Division officials, Corps-wide 
organizational changes have affected their reviewing practices. 
Specifically, the Corps' strategic plan through 2012 called on the 
divisions to establish multiple district support teams to provide 
technical assistance to the districts, such as quality control and 
assurance activities. However, the North Atlantic Division was only 
provided sufficient staff for one team.[Footnote 15] Instead of 
reviewing all district disposal records for completeness and accuracy, 
as district officials once did, they now review only some of the 
records. The officials acknowledged that this change could affect the 
reliability of the disposal data, yet they believed that the DOD 
Inspector General, the Army Audit Agency, or the Corps headquarters 
auditors would identify and resolve any errors. 

Officials in the Southwestern Division also visited their four 
constituent districts (Little Rock, Tulsa, Fort Worth, and Galveston) 
each year to review disposal records but did not review REMIS disposal 
data. As part of their annual review, division officials requested that 
each district complete a quality assurance questionnaire focusing on 
financial aspects, compliance with statutes, and revenue collections, 
among other things. The questionnaire included one question about 
whether officials successfully completed civil works disposal 
activities but did not include a question about the reliability of 
REMIS disposal data. Essentially, the Southwestern Division relied on 
assurances from district officials that they accurately entered all 
disposals in REMIS. Obtaining assurances does not ensure REMIS data are 
reliable; other internal control activities are necessary such as those 
identified in the standards for internal control in the federal 
government.[Footnote 16] The Corps policy does little to highlight 
those other control activities, however. Instead, the policy places 
oversight responsibilities on the divisions without detailing the 
specific steps they should take to ensure REMIS disposal data are 
reliable. 

REMIS Disposal Module Did Not Follow a Best Practice That Protects 
Against Duplication and Redundancy: 

The REMIS disposal module--a software application that captures 
disposal dates and other disposal information--did not follow a 
software engineering best practice, commonly referred to as data 
normalization. Data normalization is the process of organizing data in 
a database according to rules designed to protect the data from 
duplication and redundancy. Redundant data can create problems for 
databases, such as REMIS. If users must enter disposal dates in one 
place, then users must consistently enter disposal dates in all the 
other places where these dates are stored within the database--a 
process prone to errors. 

Land disposal dates could be entered in more than one place in REMIS, a 
design artifact that neither RESNC nor the REMIS contractor could 
explain. Because REMIS's database design did not follow the best 
practice, persons querying the database could potentially retrieve 
inconsistent data given that disposal dates were not consistently 
entered in all places. For example, RESNC officials queried REMIS for a 
compilation of specific real property information, including data on 
disposals, for all districts. However, the results RESNC officials 
obtained differed from the results obtained separately by district 
officials, who later called on RESNC officials to clarify the query 
RESNC used for retrieving real property data in REMIS on their 
district. This situation illustrates one of the problems users of the 
nonnormalized database faced. The design of the REMIS disposal module, 
which allowed users to enter disposal dates in multiple places, 
required users to know the location of disposal data within the 
database and how to write the query that would produce the desired 
result. In contrast, REMIS in normalized form would allow any user to 
query the database for disposal information and obtain the same result. 

Although the REMIS contractor redesigned the REMIS disposal module to 
automatically generate certain data, the redesigned disposal module 
continues to capture disposal dates in two places within the database. 
We discussed this matter with the Corps' Chief Information Officer, who 
concurred that REMIS, with respect to land disposal dates, was not in a 
normalized form. 

Land Disposal Dates Were Missing or Sometimes Did Not Represent When 
the Disposal Took Place: 

Land disposal dates in REMIS were unreliable, since the vast majority 
of them were missing, and when disposal dates were present, they 
sometimes represented the date when district real estate officials 
entered the land disposal into REMIS rather than the date when the 
disposal took place. Our analysis found that unreliable land disposal 
dates impair the usefulness of REMIS as a historical record for 
researching past real estate transactions, as a record of current 
inventory, and as a source of data for developing baselines and trend 
data for budgeting and strategic management of land disposals. 

We found that the vast majority of disposal records in REMIS did not 
have a disposal date.[Footnote 17] To determine the extent to which 
disposal dates were available for use in our analyses, we requested 
from RESNC and the REMIS contractor a report containing the total 
number of civil works land records listed in REMIS as disposed, as well 
as the number of those records that were missing disposal dates. The 
report showed that of the about 30,700 disposal records in REMIS, 
27,400 (89 percent) were missing disposal dates.[Footnote 18] The 
contractor reviewed our preliminary findings and agreed that the 
missing dates were troublesome. 

Figure 2 summarizes our analysis of the REMIS data RESNC provided to us 
that contained disposal dates. The data show a small number of civil 
works land disposals in fiscal years 1996 through 2004 followed by a 
sharp increase in the numbers of disposals in fiscal years 2005 and 
2006. 

Figure 2: Number of Civil Works Land Disposals from Fiscal Year 1996 
through Fiscal Year 2006: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the number of Civil Works 
Land Disposals from fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 2006, as 
follows: 

Fiscal year: 1996; 
Land disposals: 19. 

Fiscal year: 1997; 
Land disposals: 69. 

Fiscal year: 1998; 
Land disposals: 11. 

Fiscal year: 1999; 
Land disposals: 4. 

Fiscal year: 2000; 
Land disposals: 10. 

Fiscal year: 2001; 
Land disposals: 14. 

Fiscal year: 2002; 
Land disposals: 18. 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Land disposals: 23. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Land disposals: 48. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Land disposals: 512. 

Fiscal year: 2006; 
Land disposals: 142. 

Source: GAO presentation of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers data. 

Note: Due to data reliability concerns discussed in this report, the 
large increase in land disposals were due to corrections to the 
inventory rather than actual disposals. 

[End of figure] 

The Corps' real estate managers at headquarters could not explain the 
reason for the large numbers of disposals in fiscal years 2005 and 
2006, which account for about 54,000 acres of land. However, officials 
we contacted from two districts said that many of these disposals 
represented corrections to the inventory rather than current disposals. 
Specifically, all 265 land disposals (totaling about 33,000 acres of 
land) that the Fort Worth District entered into REMIS in fiscal year 
2005 were disposals that had occurred in 1975. The Fort Worth District 
also entered 29 land disposals (totaling about 980 acres) in fiscal 
year 2006--almost all of which, according to a district real estate 
official, had occurred from about 1955 through 2003. Similarly, in the 
Baltimore District, we compared data in REMIS against the real estate 
documentation and found that at least 12 of 23 land disposals the 
district had entered in fiscal years 2005 and 2006 (totaling about 137 
acres) had occurred in the 1980s. 

Corps officials explained that these adjustments to the REMIS disposal 
data were necessary to complete a process that began in 1992 when the 
Corps implemented REMIS. According to district officials, they began 
entering land acquisition information into REMIS from real estate 
documentation for their active civil works projects--even if some of 
the land associated with these projects had already been disposed of-- 
and planned to make record adjustments that would identify previously 
disposed land tracts. The Corps chose this method to maintain 
consistency with the real estate documentation and to help reconcile 
REMIS with the Corps' financial management system.[Footnote 19] 

While we support consistency between REMIS and real estate 
documentation, we are concerned that the Corps current inventory of 
land tracts is not accurate, in part because the Corps lacks assurance 
that its districts have updated REMIS to identify in its inventory all 
of the disposed land tracts. Specifically, Corps officials told us that 
they did not know whether all of the Corps' 32 districts have (1) 
entered into REMIS all of the land tracts from their active civil works 
projects and (2) made record adjustments to identify, as disposed, in 
REMIS, all of the previously disposed land tracts. In August 1994, the 
Corps gave the districts about a year to enter, among other things, the 
land tracts data. Because the task was substantial--covering all real 
estate documentation for many years--some districts utilized their 
entire real estate staff to enter real property data into REMIS. Once 
the staff entered these data, the districts were to begin identifying, 
as disposed, land tracts in REMIS that had previously been disposed of. 
However, according to RESNC officials, the districts have not made all 
of these changes. Moreover, the DOD Inspector General reported in 2005 
that districts were not entering new disposals of land tracts into 
REMIS. In response, the Corps directed the districts to identify 
disposals of land tracts that remained in REMIS and update the database 
accordingly. As previously discussed, updating has continued. 
Consequently, although the Corps is taking corrective action, its lack 
of assurance that all of the disposed land tracts have been identified 
as such in REMIS adds to the uncertainty regarding the accuracy of the 
Corps' current inventory of land tracts within the database. 

Recognizing that mistakes can occur when entering data into REMIS, the 
Corps introduced a code in September 2006 that allows users to identify 
administrative disposals and distinguish these disposals from actual 
disposals. This code would be useful if, for example, a user had 
entered the acreage of a land tract into REMIS by mistake and needed to 
dispose of acreage without having the disposal reported to the Federal 
Real Property Profile or any other disposal report. Hence, the new code 
is a positive step toward improving the accuracy of REMIS data. 
However, unless the Corps corrects past disposal records to reflect the 
date of the actual disposal rather than the date of the record entry, 
REMIS will have limited usefulness as a tool for the Corps to assess 
its progress in disposing of land, consistent with the administration's 
goals, as well as to understand disposal trends. As it stands, decision 
makers using REMIS data cannot distinguish between disposal dates that 
indicate when disposals were entered into REMIS and dates of disposals 
that actually occurred from fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 2006. 

Under the President's Real Property Asset Management Initiative, 
landholding agencies are accountable for meeting key milestones and 
performance outcomes. Accurate data describing the Corps' disposals are 
essential to reporting its results, as well as the combined results of 
other landholding agencies. For example, the administration has a 
governmentwide goal for federal agencies, including the Corps, to 
dispose of $9 billion in unneeded assets by 2009, for which federal 
agencies reported disposing of about $4.5 billion since 2004. However, 
the Corps' and the agencies' progress toward the goal is unclear, 
because, as explained previously, the Corps' disposal data are not 
accurate, and the reliability of disposal data in REMIS is unclear. 
Furthermore, deficiencies in the Corps' disposal data mean that the 
Corps lacks accurate baseline and annual data for tracking and 
analyzing trends in disposals and identifying opportunities to improve 
its performance. Finally, inaccurate disposal data limit the accuracy 
of the Corps' and the government's valuations of their real property 
assets, as well as the accuracy of any financial reports that include 
these valuations. 

Additionally, we found discrepancies in the land disposal data that the 
Corps queried from REMIS and reported in its Three Year Timeline and 
the Federal Real Property Profile in fiscal year 2006. The OMB- 
approved Three Year Timeline of April 2007 highlighted, among other 
things, the Corps' progress in disposing of unneeded real property. The 
Three Year Timeline is an action plan that established the schedule for 
achieving the Corps' real property goals identified in its Asset 
Management Plan and analyzed the number of land disposals from 1996 
through 2006 using REMIS disposal data. The data from past disposals 
enabled the Corps' decision makers to make disposal-budget estimates by 
calculating the average cost per disposal. We found the following two 
key discrepancies: 

* First, according to the Three Year Timeline, the Corps disposed of 
184 land tracts in fiscal year 2006 and continued a trend of elevated 
disposal numbers.[Footnote 20] This information contradicted what Corps 
officials told us. They said that little, if any, land is available for 
disposal because the Corps reduced its landholdings years ago in 
response to several executive orders. Another official who works in the 
office that manually tracks, verifies, and reports all Corps disposals 
to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Army told us that the Corps' 
land disposal numbers were down from previous years. Our analysis of 
REMIS data identified 153 land disposals in fiscal year 2006, as shown 
in figure 2. Since both these land disposal numbers were based on REMIS 
data, the numbers should have agreed; however, they differed by 31, or 
about 20 percent. This discrepancy indicated a data reliability problem 
and raised questions about the Corps' disposal-budget estimates. If the 
data overstated the actual number of disposals, then the Corps 
underestimated the average cost per disposal. This could lead to 
budgeting and staffing shortfalls in future years. 

* Second, the Corps submitted 84 land disposals to GSA for the fiscal 
year 2006 Federal Real Property Profile--a number much lower than 
presented in the Three Year Timeline and in the data provided to 
us.[Footnote 21] This number, however, did not accurately reflect how 
many disposals occurred. We found that at least 8 of the 84 disposals, 
or about 10 percent, had occurred in previous years and were 
erroneously entered into REMIS in fiscal year 2006 when the Corps 
adjusted inventory records. In addition, we learned that the Corps did 
not include partial land tract disposals in its submission for the 
profile. According to the REMIS contractor that assembled the 
submission, partial land tract disposals--the disposal of a portion of 
a land tract--were not included because conflicts would arise when the 
submission contained both owned and disposed land tracts with the same 
unique identifier numbers. To reconcile the differences among the 2006 
Federal Real Property Profile, the Three Year Timeline, and the REMIS 
data files provided to us, we obtained the REMIS data file that 
contained the fiscal year 2006 partial land disposals. We identified 39 
partial land tract disposals that could account for some, but not all, 
of the differences among the three data files. 

Unreliable land disposal dates impaired--and continue to impair--the 
usefulness of REMIS as an accurate (1) expression of the Corps' current 
inventory and (2) source of data for the Federal Real Property Profile. 
If land disposal data in REMIS do not accurately reflect actual 
disposals, the Corps risks overstating the amount of land it currently 
holds, which could affect the land values reported in its annual 
financial statements and could cause understatement of the amount of 
land it actually disposed of in any year. 

REMIS Disposal Guidance Was Unclear: 

Guidance for processing land disposals in REMIS--one round of guidance 
issued in 2004, then updated in 2006, and further revised in 2007--was 
unclear. In April 2004, RESNC issued guidance that provided step-by-
step instructions for processing land disposals in REMIS but did not 
require users to enter disposal dates. Figure 3 shows the process for 
entering land disposal data into REMIS in 2004. 

Figure 3: The Process for Entering Land Disposal Data in REMIS Outlined 
in the 2004 Guidance: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is an illustration of the process for entering land 
disposal data in REMIS outlined in the 2004 guidance. The following 
information is depicted: 

The RD-70 screen: 
REMIS Data field entered: Disposal date; 
Created the disposal record (screen indicates disposal date was not 
required). 

The RD-82 screen: 
REMIS Data field entered: *Disposal date; 
Screen used only when the disposal generated revenue, for example, if 
the land was sold (screen indicates disposal date was required). 

The RD-80 screen: 
REMIS Data field entered: Disposal date; 
Completed disposal and removed acreage from REMIS (screen indicates 
disposal date was not required). 

REMIS data field shown in all capital letters and/or with an asterisk 
(the standard indicators) denote that the specified data are required. 

Source: GAO and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

[End of figure] 

Users entered data in three steps using the RD-70, the RD-82, and the 
RD-80 data entry screens. First, users created a land disposal record 
using the RD-70 screen and entered information identifying the land 
being disposed of. Second, if the land disposal generated revenue, 
users accessed the RD-82 screen to enter information about the disposal 
method and date, among other things. The guidance required this 
information, and the Corps used specially marked data fields to 
identify it as required. Third, users completed the disposal record 
after entering additional information, such as the amount of acreage 
being disposed of, in the RD-80 screen. 

REMIS data entry screens use standard indicators to denote required 
data fields[Footnote 22]--all capital letters for the data field name, 
an asterisk next to the field name, or both. In figure 3, for example, 
the RD-82 screen uses both capital letters and an asterisk to indicate 
that the disposal date is a required data field. While the RD-70 screen 
had a field for the disposal date, it was not a required field for this 
screen. The 2004 guidance emphasized that users should enter data into 
the RD-82 screen if the disposal generated revenue, but it was unclear 
whether users should also enter the data in this screen for other types 
of disposals, such as transfers to other federal agencies. While both 
the RD-70 and the RD-82 screens had disposal date fields, only the RD- 
82 screen required the disposal date field. 

RESNC officials updated the guidance in September 2006 after the 
Federal Council decided that federal landholding agencies must report 
disposals. However, the 2006 guidance did not emphasize the importance 
of using specific disposal dates for different types of disposals. The 
updated guidance reduced the land disposal process from three steps to 
two (users entered data into the RD-70 and the RD-82 screens), 
eliminated the RD-80 screen after incorporating its functions into the 
RD-70 screen, and required the RD-82 screen for all disposals. However, 
the guidance did not clearly indicate which data entry screen--RD-70 or 
RD-82--completed the process of recording a land disposal. While both 
screens included fields for disposal dates, each continued to store 
data in a separate place within REMIS--a practice that resulted in a 
nonnormalized database and the associated problems we previously 
discussed. Having the disposal dates in both the RD-70 and the RD-82 
screens illustrates the lack of data normalization. 

RESNC issued a third round of guidance in August 2007 that described a 
new REMIS disposal process. According to this guidance, users should 
create a disposal record in the RD-70 screen (but not enter the 
disposal date and quantity of land), continue to the RD-82 screen "if 
desired," and return to the RD-70 screen to enter the disposal date and 
the amount of land disposed as the final step in the REMIS disposal 
process. Figure 4 shows the new process. 

Figure 4: The Process for Entering Land Disposal Data in REMIS Outlined 
in the 2007 Guidance: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is an illustration of the process for entering land 
disposal data in REMIS outlined in the 2007 guidance. The following 
information is depicted: 

The RD-70 screen: 
REMIS Data field entered: Disposal date; 
Creates the disposal record (screen indicates disposal date was not 
required). 

The RD-82 screen: 
REMIS Data field entered: *Disposal date; 
Screen used only "if desired" (screen indicates disposal date was 
required). 

The RD-70 screen: 
REMIS Data field entered: Disposal date; 
Completes disposal when date and acres are entered and removes acreage 
from REMIS (screen indicates disposal date was not required). 

REMIS data field shown in all capital letters and/or with an asterisk 
(the standard indicators) denote that the specified data are required. 

Source: GAO and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

[End of figure] 

When RESNC issued the 2007 guidance, it did not update the REMIS data 
entry screens to match the guidance--that is, it did not identify the 
required data fields using the standard indicators. This inconsistency 
between the new guidance and the REMIS screens created the following 
two opportunities for users to be confused: 

* The 2007 guidance required users to enter disposal dates in the RD-70 
screen, but the disposal date field in this screen lacked the standard 
indicators used to identify a required data field. Recognizing that 
users could be confused about whether they should enter the disposal 
date into the RD-70 screen, RESNC officials said they are discussing 
ways to resolve the confusion. 

* The 2007 guidance instructed REMIS users to enter data in the RD-82 
screen, "if desired." Although use of this screen was optional, it was 
the only screen with a required data field for the disposal date, 
identified by the standard indicators. According to officials in three 
of the four districts we contacted, they used the RD-82 screen to enter 
the disposal date. Moreover, real estate officials in all four 
districts noted that the RD-82 screen is the only REMIS screen that 
requires the disposal date. Conversely, RESNC officials told us that 
they believe that other REMIS screens already collect the data captured 
by the RD-82 screen. Consequently, RESNC officials are evaluating the 
need for the RD-82 screen. 

Unclear guidance affects the reliability of disposal data because it 
could lead to differences in how users process disposals in REMIS. 
Until the Corps develops clear and consistent REMIS guidance and 
screens for processing land disposals, the reliability of future 
disposal data could be at risk. 

Limited Training Provided to REMIS Users and Systems Administrators: 

Although RESNC officials view REMIS as a user-friendly database that 
requires minimal training to use, we found data reliability issues 
indicating that users may not be receiving the training necessary to 
enter disposal data in a reliable manner. The standards for internal 
control in the federal government state that federal managers should 
demonstrate a commitment to the competence of their employees and 
provide employees with the training they need to accomplish their 
assigned duties. According to RESNC officials, REMIS users received 
introductory training when the Corps implemented the database in 1992. 
In addition, RESNC officials provided introductory training to 3 of 32 
districts that use REMIS in 2006 and 2007. Specifically, they provided 
training to the Kansas City District in 2006 and to the Norfolk and 
Memphis Districts in 2007 upon requests from those districts for their 
new staff. With limited instructors and funding, RESNC plans to train 
the New England District and at least one other district in 2008. 

To its credit, RESNC has sponsored two informational conferences since 
2005 for the districts' systems administrators--those who maintain the 
REMIS database for their respective districts--and other REMIS users. 
At these conferences, presenters discussed technical changes to REMIS 
and the business processes that some attendees considered too 
advanced---particularly those who had not received introductory 
training, including real estate officials in two districts we 
contacted. In response to feedback from the 2007 conference, RESNC is 
planning to offer hands-on training at the next conference in May 2008. 
Nonetheless, we found gaps in training among REMIS users within the 
four districts we contacted. Specifically, 

* of the approximately 63 daily users of REMIS, about 24 have not 
received introductory, hands-on training, while 39 have received the 
training; and: 

* none of the daily REMIS users have received periodic refresher 
training. 

The lack of introductory and periodic refresher training that includes 
hand-on, computer-based training can hinder efforts to ensure that all 
districts consistently process land disposals in REMIS. Introductory 
training is particularly important for new employees, such as systems 
administrators and other officials who enter information into the 
database, because the disposal process in REMIS requires users to enter 
specific data in multiple screens. Periodic refresher training is 
equally important for experienced staff, especially because key aspects 
of the land disposal process in REMIS have changed in recent years. We 
are encouraged that the Corps is planning to expand the scope of 
training at its next informational conference in May 2008. 

Conclusions: 

Having accurate, reliable real property data is important for agencies 
to cost effectively manage the properties they need and to identify 
unneeded properties that they can dispose of and avoid unnecessary 
costs to the government. The Corps, like other federal landholding 
agencies, must determine what real property it owns, what it needs, and 
what it costs to manage its real property, as well as develop and 
implement asset management plans and dispose of unneeded property. To 
measure progress toward the administration's real property disposal 
goal, OMB and the Federal Council are using disposal data to track how 
much property federal agencies have disposed of and measure the 
government's annual progress toward disposing of its unneeded property. 

However, land disposal data in the Corps' real property database-- 
REMIS--are unreliable. Specifically, REMIS does not provide reliable 
information on the Corps' civil works land disposals from fiscal year 
1996 through fiscal year 2006, or on the land that the Corps owned as 
of September 30, 2006. Problems contributing to unreliable REMIS land 
disposal data included the lack of effective internal control, a 
database design that did not follow a best practice and, therefore, 
resulted in error-prone data, poor data entry practices that led to 
missing disposal data and inaccurate disposal dates, unclear guidance 
for processing land disposals in REMIS, and limited introductory and 
refresher training in REMIS for all users of the database, including 
new and experienced staff. In addition, 89 percent of all land disposal 
records in REMIS were missing disposal dates, while many other land 
disposal dates were inaccurate. Although the Corps is taking actions to 
address some data deficiencies, such as implementing additional 
training in some areas, these actions provide little assurance that 
REMIS disposal data are reliable. Unreliable land disposal data impair 
the usefulness of REMIS as a record of current inventory, as a valid 
tool for measuring progress toward the administration's disposal goal, 
and as a source of data that would be useful to Corps decision makers 
for budgeting and strategic land management purposes. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To improve the reliability of REMIS land disposal data for determining 
how much land the Corps currently owns and for budgeting and strategic 
land management purposes, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Commanding General and Chief of Engineers of the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers to take the following five actions: 

* implement effective internal controls, including segregation of 
duties and review, over the REMIS land disposal process by 
incorporating such control into the Corps' real estate policies at 
those districts and divisions identified in this report and others, 
where appropriate; 

* implement the data normalization best practice in the REMIS database 
with respect to disposal dates; 

* correct the disposal records that were created in REMIS as part of 
the efforts to adjust the inventory; 

* issue clear guidance for entering land disposal dates in the REMIS 
land disposal process; and: 

* provide and require introductory and periodic refresher training that 
covers how to correctly enter land disposal dates in REMIS. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to DOD for review and comment. DOD 
agreed with all five of our recommendations aimed at improving REMIS 
land disposal data and outlined its planned actions to address the 
recommendations. Specifically, DOD stated that the Corps is designing a 
REMIS modernization program that, when implemented, is to have in place 
internal controls, such as quality assurance and control processes, 
segregation of duties, and inspection and review phases. In addition, 
according to DOD, the Corps is planning to: (1) check the progress that 
districts are making in updating historical disposal records; (2) issue 
clearer guidance for entering disposal dates, as well as identifying 
the required REMIS screens and data fields; and (3) provide annual 
REMIS training to Corps districts. Further, DOD agreed with our 
recommendation to normalize the database. To reduce the adverse affects 
of the current database's design problem, DOD said that guidance is to 
be updated, and special emphasis is to be placed on this module during 
training. DOD indicated that the Corps would study and implement 
methods to eliminate the redundant and cumbersome data entry that 
causes the data normalization problem. However, updating guidance and 
improving training does not address the fundamental problem we found 
related to data normalization issues because this approach continues to 
rely on people consistently entering disposal dates. The key to solving 
the database problem will be the Corps' implementation of methods it 
identifies to eliminate duplicate and redundant data entry. We 
reprinted DOD's comments in appendix II. The Corps also provided 
technical comments, which we incorporated, as appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense, the 
Commanding General and Chief of Engineers of the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers, and interested congressional committees. We also will make 
copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will 
be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 
512-2834 or at [email protected]. Contact points for our Offices of 
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 
page of this report. Staff who made key contributions to this report 
are listed in appendix III. 

Signed by: 

Terrell G. Dorn: 
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and Methodology: 

[End of section] 

Our objective was to determine whether the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers' (Corps) real property database--Real Estate Management 
Information System (REMIS)--could provide reliable information on the 
civil works land that the Corps disposed of from fiscal year 1996 
through fiscal year 2006, or on the civil works land the Corps owned as 
of September 30, 2006. 

To address this objective, we reviewed relevant federal laws and 
executive orders related to the Corps' disposal of landholdings, as 
well as its applicable real property policies, guidance, and user/ 
training manuals on the processing of civil works land disposals in 
REMIS. We reviewed a number of our previous reports on real property 
management, the Department of Defense Inspector General's work on the 
Corps' real property inventory, and technical papers on database 
normalization. We also reviewed and analyzed the Corps' Asset 
Management Plan and Three Year Timeline--an action plan for 
implementing the asset management plan and demonstrating the use of 
real property inventory data for decision making--to determine the 
extent to which the Corps used REMIS land disposal data. To gain a more 
complete understanding of the Corps' disposal process and of REMIS from 
fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 2006, we contacted Corps 
headquarters officials from the Offices of Real Estate, Corporate 
Information, and the Chief Counsel; Corps field officials from the Real 
Estate Systems National Center in Mobile, Alabama, which manages REMIS; 
and officials of the contractor that maintained REMIS and supported its 
users. Also, Corps headquarters and field officials briefed us on the 
Corps' land acquisition and disposal process, legal authorities, 
applicable executive orders, disposal policies, Asset Management Plan, 
Three Year Timeline, and the REMIS land disposal process. 

To gain a better understanding of the REMIS land disposal process, we 
contacted 4 of the Corps' 32 district offices--Baltimore, Maryland; 
Fort Worth, Texas; Omaha, Nebraska; and Los Angeles, California--with 
REMIS databases. We selected 3 of these 4 districts because their land 
disposals accounted for about 82 percent of the acreage that the Corps 
disposed of from fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 2006, according 
to REMIS data. We selected the fourth district--Los Angeles--because it 
had recently completed an inventory of its entire real property 
holdings. We also contacted three Corps divisions--North Atlantic, New 
York, New York; Northwestern, Portland, Oregon; and Southwestern, 
Dallas, Texas--that oversee these districts. In each of these 
districts, we contacted key district officials responsible for real 
property management and REMIS. We also contacted the key officials who 
were responsible for oversight of real property management and of REMIS 
in these four districts. Additionally, we visited the Baltimore and Los 
Angeles Districts because, according to Corps headquarters officials, 
the officials in these districts could provide insights into REMIS and 
its accuracy. Specifically, the headquarters officials said that the 
officials in the Baltimore District were very knowledgeable about the 
REMIS disposal process and that, as noted, officials in the Los Angeles 
District had recently completed an inventory of the district's entire 
real property holdings. At each location, we observed the REMIS 
disposal process and reviewed the supporting documentation and 
guidance. 

To further address our objective, although we did not have direct 
access to REMIS, we took several steps to assess the reliability of 
REMIS disposal data. We contacted the REMIS contractor to gain a good 
understanding of the REMIS database, the disposal data that it stores, 
the manner districts input data into the database, and the districts' 
ability to query the REMIS database. We requested and obtained from the 
Corps' contractor data files of (1) REMIS land tract disposals from 
fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 2006, (2) the Corps' fiscal year 
2006 Federal Real Property Profile submission for land disposals, (3) 
land disposals used for the Three Year Timeline for 1996 through 2006, 
and (4) each district's current real property holdings in REMIS. These 
data identified individual land tract disposals for each district, 
including specific information about each disposal, such as the real 
property identification number for each tract, date of disposal, 
acreage, and type of disposal, among other things. To assess the 
reliability of these REMIS data, we performed electronic testing to 
identify missing data, dates outside the time frame of our request, and 
duplicates. We obtained and reviewed the queries that the contractor 
used to generate the data that we requested. We focused part of our 
assessment on land disposals that occurred during fiscal years 2005 and 
2006--the years, when according to the data, the bulk of land disposals 
occurred--and specifically focused on the land disposal dates. We 
compared the land disposal data files to identify inconsistencies among 
the disposals. At the district level, we had the Baltimore, Fort Worth, 
and Omaha Districts determine whether our REMIS land tract disposal 
data files for these districts were accurate. Similarly, we had the 
Baltimore and Los Angeles Districts determine whether our REMIS file 
for their districts' real property holdings were accurate. Based on 
this work, we found that the REMIS land disposal data were not reliable 
because of inconsistencies among the disposal data files we analyzed, a 
significant number of missing disposal dates, and inaccurate current 
inventory data. 

In addition, we assessed the Corps' internal controls over the 
recording of land disposals in REMIS. We obtained the applicable Corps 
policies, procedures, and guidance and compared them with standards for 
internal control in the federal government and other control guidance 
related to control activities, environment, and training. We also had 
follow-up discussions with Corps officials about how internal controls 
are interpreted and implemented. In assessing the adequacy of internal 
controls, we used the criteria in GAO's Standards for Internal Control 
in the Federal Government, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1], November 1999. These 
standards, issued pursuant to the requirements of the Federal Managers' 
Financial Integrity Act of 1982 (FMFIA), provided the overall framework 
for establishing and maintaining internal control in the federal 
government. Also pursuant to FMFIA, the Office of Management and Budget 
issued Circular A-123, revised December 21, 2004, to provide the 
specific requirements for assessing the reporting on internal controls. 
Internal control standards and the definition of internal control in 
Circular A-123 are based on GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the 
Federal Government. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Department Of The Army: 
Office Of The Assistant Secretary Of The Army: 
Installations And Environment: 
110 Army Pentagon: 
Washington, DC 20310-0110: 

April 14, 2008: 

Mr. Terrell G. Dorn: 
Director, Physical Infrastructure: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Dorn: 

This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the GAO draft 
report, "Federal Real Property: Corps of Engineers Needs to Improve the 
Reliability of Its Real Property Disposal Data," dated March 14, 2008 
(GAO Code 545050/GAO-08-349). The Department concurs with each of the 
report's five specific recommendations. A more detailed comment for 
each recommendation is provided as an enclosure. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Joseph F. Calcara: 
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army: 
(Installations and Housing): 
OASA(I&E): 

Enclosure: 

GAO Draft Report - Dated March 14, 2008: 
GAO CODE 545050/GAO-08-349: 

"Federal Real Property: Corps of Engineers Needs to Improve the 
Reliability of Its Real Property Disposal Data:" 

Department Of Defense Comments To The Recommendations: 

Recommendation 1: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Commanding General and Chief of Engineers of the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers to implement effective internal control, including 
segregation of duties and review, over the Real Estate Management 
Information System (REMIS) land disposal process by incorporating such 
control into the Corps' real estate policies at those districts and 
divisions identified in this report and others, where appropriate. 

DOD Response: Concur. In order to insure data quality and accuracy, 
internal controls must be implemented at the District level and 
monitored from Headquarters and Division levels. Headquarters U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers is designing a Real Estate Management Information 
System modernization program which when implemented will, among other 
things, put in place internal controls such as quality assurance and 
quality control processes, segregation of duties and inspection and 
review phases. 

Recommendation 2: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Commanding General and Chief of Engineers of the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers to implement the data normalization best practice in 
the Real Estate Management Information System (REMIS) database with 
respect to disposal dates. 

DOD Response: Concur. The Real Estate Systems National Center (RESNC) 
recognizes that the disposal process in REMIS may be unclear to users. 
Guidance will be updated and disseminated to the users to reflect 
clearer instructions regarding the disposal date to be entered, as well 
as the mandatory screens/fields to be filled in. Also, special emphasis 
will be placed on this module during training. In addition, methods 
will be studied and implemented to reduce redundant and cumbersome data 
entry. 

Recommendation 3: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Commanding General and Chief of Engineers of the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers to correct the disposal records that were created in 
REMIS as part of the efforts to adjust the inventory. 

DoD Response: Concur. Once the Real Estate Management Information 
System (REMIS) was deployed in the early 1990's, Districts were 
requested to load all civil and military project data, including 
previous acquisitions and disposals, to reflect the entire history of 
the project/installation. The loading process utilized simple screens 
requiring a minimum amount of data. The initial data loading effort was 
monumental and priority was placed on ensuring the accuracy of data 
concerning active assets. The entry of data concerning historic 
disposals was simplified and was viewed as a lower priority task. The 
plan was to improve the accuracy of the historical disposal data 
subsequent to the initial data load, subject to resources and manpower 
availability. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Real Estate 
Systems National Center (RESNC) is implementing a plan to check the 
progress of updating the records by remotely inspecting the data and 
conducting site assistance visits at Districts which are failing to 
meet data entry goals. USACE concurs that updating the historic 
disposal records should be accomplished, however, the ability to 
quickly and completely update the historic records is limited by 
current workload, available funding, manpower, and incomplete records. 

Recommendation 4: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Commanding General and Chief of Engineers of the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers to issue clear guidance for entering land disposal 
dates in the land disposal process. 

DoD Response: Concur. See response to Recommendation 2 above. 

Recommendation 5: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Commanding General and Chief of Engineers of the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers to provide and require introductory and periodic 
refresher training that covers the correct recording of land disposal 
dates in REMIS. 

DoD Response: Concur. As part of the Real Estate Management Information 
System (REMIS) program management plan, Real Estate Systems National 
Center (RESNC), in conjunction with its operations and maintenance 
contractors and a team of subject matter experts, will be providing 
annual co-located training to the Districts. In addition, training will 
be made available via team visits to those Districts that are unable to 
send its employees to the annual sessions. The goal is to have provided 
training to every District, either at an annual session or site visit, 
by the end of FY10. 

[End of enclosure] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Terrell G. Dorn, (202) 512-2834, or [email protected]: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the individual named above, Gerald P. Barnes (Assistant 
Director), Lindsay M. Bach, Cherry M. Clipper, Melinda L. Cordero, 
Elizabeth R. Eisenstadt, Colin Fallon, Kathleen A. Gilhooly, H. Brandon 
Haller, Vondalee R. Hunt, Chris Martin, Steve Martinez, and Joshua H. 
Ormond made key contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] General Services Administration, Fiscal Year 2006 Federal Real 
Property Report: An Overview of the U.S. Federal Government's Real 
Property Assets (Washington, D.C.: July 2007). 

[2] The Corps' portfolio also includes military land, such as those 
properties associated with Department of the Army military 
installations, but we do not discuss military land in this report. 

[3] This report discusses land owned by the federal government; i.e., 
land for which the United States holds fee simple title. 

[4] High-risk areas are those that either have greater vulnerabilities 
to waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement or major challenges 
associated with their economy, efficiency, or effectiveness. See GAO, 
High Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-119] (Washington, D.C.: January 
2003). 

[5] The Subcommittee Chairman and Ranking Member introduced S. 1667 in 
June 2007. 

[6] GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1] 
(Washington, D.C.: November 1999). These standards, issued pursuant 
to the requirements of the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act 
of 1982 (FMFIA), provide the overall framework for establishing and 
maintaining internal control in the federal government. OMB Circular 
No. A-123 (Revised), Management's Responsibility for Internal Control, 
dated December 21, 2004, incorporated the GAO internal control requirements. 

[7] GAO: Internal Control Management and Evaluation Tool, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-01-1008G] (Washington, D.C.: 
August 2001). 

[8] Specifically, Engineering Circular 405-1-02, Project Inventory 
Management, Accountability and Documentation, March 1, 2004, and 
Engineering Circular 405-1-13, Validation Process and Historical Files, 
December 30, 2003. These two documents are among many other Corps real 
estate policies. 

[9] The Corps has 38 districts under the purview of eight civil works 
divisions. Thirty-two districts maintain real estate offices that 
perform functions for the remaining 6 districts, whose real estate 
portfolios are sufficiently small that they do not merit a real estate 
office of their own. 

[10] The headquarters senior real property management team includes the 
Chief of Real Estate, a Senior Steering Committee, and a Chief of 
Operations. 

[11] An asset management plan lays out an agency's plan to promote the 
efficient use of its real property assets by, among other things, 
accurately inventorying and describing its assets, aligning its assets 
with its mission, and disposing of unneeded assets. 

[12] A 3-year time line is an action plan for implementing the asset 
management plan and identifies the steps the agency will take to 
demonstrate that decisions are regularly made using real property data. 
The Corps' Three Year Timeline identified four areas that include 
investments, operating costs, real property disposal, and compliance 
with the federal real property requirements. 

[13] According to REMIS disposal data. 

[14] Officials explained that the management aspect of this position 
included overseeing outgrants (i.e., special leases), revenue 
collections, and permits. 

[15] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2012, Aligning the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers for Success in the 21st Century, October 2003. 

[16] For example, these control activities include accurate and 
recording of transactions, as well as accountability of records. 

[17] The disposal records consisted of individual land tracts that were 
either fully or partially disposed. Partial land disposal involves only 
a portion of a land tract. The Corps uses the term "tract" to identify 
each separate land parcel requiring ownership documentation, usually a 
title. 

[18] While about 89 percent of the disposal records lacked dates, we 
did not perform any analysis with respect to which land disposal 
records were missing dates. The Corps noted that the design of the 
original REMIS land disposal module did not contain a disposal date 
field. As a result, numerous land disposals were entered without a 
disposal date for a number of years. Nonetheless, this figure 
represents the current condition of land disposal dates in REMIS. 

[19] The DOD Inspector General and the U.S. Army Audit Agency conducted 
numerous audits on the Corps' financial accounting system as it relates 
to portions of balance sheet reporting for the Civil Works mission of 
the Corps. In December 2005, the Corps indicated that it had corrected 
the material deficiencies identified in the DOD Inspector General 
financial audit reports and asserted its readiness for an external 
auditor to audit its financial statements. 

[20] In order to compare the Three Year Timeline data to our REMIS 
files, we adjusted the time line data to fiscal year using the Corps' 
source data. 

[21] The Three Year Timeline data for fiscal year 2006 contained 184 
disposals. The REMIS data we received from RESNC contained 153 
disposals. 

[22] Required data fields are those fields into which the user must 
insert data in order to save the contents of the screen into REMIS. 

[End of section] 

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 [hyperlink, http://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 [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail 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: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: [email protected]: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

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

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 
*** End of document. ***