# **U.S. General Services Administration**

## Office of Governmentwide Policy

## Office of Real Property

### Innovative Workplaces Division

#### REAL PROPERTY PERFORMANCE RESULTS 2002

##### 

December 2002

**Foreword**

The Office of Governmentwide Policy is pleased to issue *Real Property
Performance Results 2002,* our fifth annual analysis of real property
performance in the Federal office space sector. In these pages you will
find our annual update on the 7 key measures of Federal real property
performance selected by an interagency working group in 1998. This
edition also features an update on the number of Federal teleworkers,
the most current private sector benchmarks, and a new metric on
sustainability. A special feature included this year is a section
updating the 1997 *Office Space Use Review: Current Practices and
Emerging Trends*. Our goal is to clearly summarize the relevant data and
to provide our customers with a concise reference document. We expect
this to be useful to Federal real property asset management
decision-makers as well as our stakeholders. The publication will also
benefit interested professionals in other governments, the private
sector, and academia.

I would like to recognize David Bibb, whose Office of Real Property
undertook the data collection and analysis. With leadership from Stan
Kaczmarczyk of the Innovative Workplaces Division, the project team of
Helen Harlow, Shirley Morris, Joanne Shore, and Ray Wynter produced this
fifth annual collection of performance data. Additionally, we would like
to recognize the contributors from the entire real property community,
especially our Federal agency customers. Without your dedication and
participation, this publication would not have been possible. I would
also like to offer special thanks to Chris Coneeney, an original member
of the project team whose personal involvement and commitment in
maintaining data quality were immeasurable.

The Office of Governmentwide Policy presents this information to the
Federal real property community to facilitate more informed
decision-making leading to improved asset management. Organizations
throughout the world in both the private and public sectors have
embraced strategic planning, performance measurement and benchmarking.
We want to support the Federal real property community in this important
transformation, which is consistent with the overall direction of the
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993.

G. Martin Wagner

Associate Administrator

Office of Governmentwide Policy

U.S. General Services Administration

**Table of Contents**

###### Executive Summary 1

###### Acknowledgements 3

Federal Government Benchmarking Participants 3

Other Partners 3

###### 2002 Governmentwide Results 5

Introduction 5

Summary of Results 5

Cost per Square Foot (Owned) 6

Cost per Square Foot (Leased) 6

Vacancy Rate 7

Cost per Person 7

Customer Satisfaction 8

Employees Housed 8

Total Square Feet 8

Employees Housed 8

Federal Teleworkers 9

Sustainability 10

###### 2002 Private Sector Performance 11

Introduction 11

Cost per Square Foot (Owned) 11

Cost per Square Foot (Leased) 12

Vacancy Rate 13

###### Observations and Recommendations 15

Observations from the Data 15

Quality of the Data 16

Recommendations and Next Steps 17

###### Appendix A: Data Collection 19

**Appendix B: Special Study: Office Space Use Update 21**

###### 

###### Appendix C: Innovative Workplaces Division 33

###### Publication Survey 35

**Executive Summary**

The following table summarizes Governmentwide performance for the year
2002 on the\
7 original key indicators plus the number of Federal teleworkers and the
percentage of sustainable Federal buildings estimated by our analysis of
the sample data:

**Summary of Results**

+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| # **Measure**    | ######## 2002 Federal Government Performance      |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
|                  |                                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| Cost per square\ | \$4.94 per rentable square foot                   |
| foot (owned)     |                                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
|                  |                                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| Cost per square\ | \$19.14 per rentable square foot                  |
| foot (leased)    |                                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
|                  |                                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| Vacancy rate     | 3.1 percent                                       |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
|                  |                                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| Cost per person  | \$13,800                                          |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
|                  |                                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| Customer         | 85 percent on GSA Survey                          |
| satisfaction     |                                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
|                  |                                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| Employees housed | 1,773,600 FTE                                     |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
|                  |                                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| Total square     | 759,218,000 rentable square feet of office space  |
| feet             |                                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
|                  |                                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| Federal          | 4.2 percent of Federal work force                 |
| teleworkers      |                                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
|                  |                                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| Sustainability   | 44 percent of Federal agencies                    |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+

We conclude the following based on the 2002 Governmentwide results:

-   2002 Governmentwide performance is consistent with past performance
    as well as private sector performance on the key indicators of Cost
    per Square Foot Owned, Cost per Square Foot Leased, and Vacancy
    Rate.

-   For the fifth straight year, we received outstanding cooperation
    from a core group of Federal agency partners. The main value of the
    annual Performance Results exercise continues to be the opportunity
    for a core group of Federal partners to benchmark performance and to
    benefit from the learning that has occurred around this effort. Good
    examples of this learning are the development and growing use of the
    Cost per Person Model and timely guidance such as we provide this
    year in the Office Space Use Update (see Appendix B).

**Acknowledgements**

####### Federal Government Benchmarking Participants

We would like to thank the following agencies for participating in the
voluntary benchmarking effort for the 2002 edition of *Real Property
Performance Results*:

-   Department of Agriculture

-   Department of Energy

-   Department of the Interior

-   Department of Justice

-   Department of State

-   Department of Veterans Affairs

-   GSA Public Buildings Service

-   National Science Foundation

-   Social Security Administration

-   Tennessee Valley Authority

-   United States Postal Service

-   U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

####### Other Partners

We would like to acknowledge the following organizations, each of which
contributed to the Office of Real Property's performance measurement
initiative in 2002 with data, research and other valuable assistance:

-   Advanced Learning Institute

-   Building Owners and Managers Association International

-   CoreNet Global

-   Federal Facilities Council

-   GSA Federal Technology Service

-   Institute of Real Estate Management

-   International Facilities Management Association

-   International Telework Association and Council

-   Journal of Facilities Management

-   Leadership in Energy and Environmental System

-   Logistics Management Institute

-   National Academy of Public Administration

-   Office of Management and Budget

-   Office of Personnel Management

-   Public Works and Government Services Canada

-   Society of Industrial and Office Realtors

-   Tradeline, Inc.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Worldwide Workplace Web

**2002 Governmentwide Results**

####### Introduction

The Office of Real Property compiled the information in this section
from more than\
660 million rentable square feet of building data submitted voluntarily
by Federal agencies during the latter half of calendar year 2002. The
GSA data were selected using certain pre-established criteria, but the
rest of the Federal data were obtained subject to the discretion of the
contributing agencies.

Although the sampling method may not be rigorously scientific, we
believe that the large volume of data collected provides us with a
reasonably accurate picture of overall Federal real property and
workplace performance. We also believe that the value added by the
benchmarking process itself far exceeds the benefits of a more academic
exercise that would severely limit participation due to excessive
requirements.

**Summary of Results**

+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| # **Measure**    | ######## 2002 Federal Government Performance      |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
|                  |                                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| Cost per square\ | \$4.94 per rentable square foot                   |
| foot (owned)     |                                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
|                  |                                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| Cost per square\ | \$19.14 per rentable square foot                  |
| foot (leased)    |                                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
|                  |                                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| Vacancy rate     | 3.1 percent                                       |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
|                  |                                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| Cost per person  | \$13,800                                          |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
|                  |                                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| Customer         | 85 percent on GSA Survey                          |
| satisfaction     |                                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
|                  |                                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| Employees housed | 1,773,600 FTE                                     |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
|                  |                                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| Total square     | 759,218,000 rentable square feet of office space  |
| feet             |                                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
|                  |                                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| Federal          | 4.2 percent of Federal work force                 |
| teleworkers      |                                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
|                  |                                                   |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+
| Sustainability   | 44 percent of Federal agencies                    |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------+

**[Cost per Square Foot (Owned)]{.underline}**

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  1998                                \$4.36

  1999                                \$4.60

  2000                                \$5.01

  2001                                \$4.51

  2001                                \$4.94

  5 year average                      \$4.92
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

-   The current indicator reflects fiscal year 2002 dollars per rentable
    square foot.

-   The current indicator is an average derived from a Federal agency
    sample of 153,375,618 rentable square feet of owned office space.

-   The definition for this indicator is the sum of expenditures for
    cleaning, maintenance and utilities.

-   In calculating the 5-year average, we inflated all prior year data
    to fiscal year 2002 values.

**[Cost per Square Foot (Leased)]{.underline}**

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  1998                                \$20.16

  1999                                \$17.26

  2000                                \$17.83

  2001                                \$17.10

  2002                                \$19.14

  5 year average                      \$19.24
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

-   The current indicator reflects fiscal year 2002 dollars per rentable
    square foot.

-   The current indicator is an average derived from a Federal agency
    sample of 112,765,105 rentable square feet of leased office space.

-   The definition of this indicator is the fully serviced rental rate.

-   In calculating the 5-year average, we inflated all prior year data
    to fiscal year\
    2002 values.

####### Vacancy Rate

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  1997                                9.3%

  1998                                8.0%

  1999                                6.2%

  2000                                5.4%

  2001                                3.1%
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

-   The current indicator is the average vacancy based on a Federal
    agency sample of 526,037,187 rentable square feet of owned and
    leased office space.

-   The current estimate is based on actual 2001 data submitted by
    Federal agencies.

####### Cost per Person

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  Real Estate                         \$7,900

  IT/Connectivity                     \$5,900
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

-   We derived the 2002 Cost per Person estimate by updating our 2001
    internal study conducted for *Real Property Performance Results
    2001*.

**[Cost Per Person Trend]{.underline}**

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  1998                                \$10,529

  1999                                \$12,000

  2000                                \$12,600

  2001                                \$12,600

  2002                                \$13,800
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

Note: Our popular GSA Cost per Person Model will be updated in 2003. GSA
Cost per Person Model Version 2 will analyze hoteling situations and
additional cost factors.

The new, improved model will be available only by e-mail request. There
is no charge. Please e-mail your requests for the GSA Cost Per Person
Model Version 2 to ray.wynter@gsa.gov.

####### Customer Satisfaction

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  1997                                80%

  1998                                80%

  1999                                85%

  2000                                81%

  2001                                85%
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

This chart summarizes the results of the GSA Public Buildings Service's
Customer Satisfaction Survey. An independent contractor administers this
survey to tenants of approximately half of GSA's eligible buildings
annually, with the entire inventory being surveyed every two years.
Customer Satisfaction is one of the original 7 key indicators of real
property performance derived by an interagency working group in 1998. We
are unaware of other formal Customer Satisfaction surveys administered
consistently and comprehensively by Federal agencies, so we continue to
report the results of the GSA Public Buildings Service survey in our
annual assessment for *Real Property* *Performance Results*.

####### Employees Housed

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  1998                                1,790,200

  1999                                1,778,400

  2000                                1,814,300

  2001                                1,737,800

  2002                                1,773,600 estimate
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

-   The 2002 Governmentwide estimate for Employees Housed is the 2002
    FTE (Full Time Equivalent) estimate in the fiscal year 2003
    President's Budget.

####### 

####### Total Square Feet

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  Year                    Total Federal Space     Office Space

  1997                    2,920,778,000           629,550,000

  1998                    2,959,729,000           635,818,000

  1999                    2,952,966,000           661,790,000

  2000                    3,045,376,000           689,438,000

  2001                    3,045,376,000           689,438,000

  2002                    3,075,429,000           759,218,000
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

-   During the year, OGP met with Federal agency representatives to
    "retool" both input requirements and output results of the inventory
    of the United States. We derived the 2002 Governmentwide totals from
    information in the Federal Real Property Profile, formerly called
    the Worldwide Inventory of the United States' real property. Copies
    of the reports are also available from the Office of Real Property.

####### Federal Teleworkers

Telework means performing work on a regular basis in a location other
than the principal office, such as the employee's home or a nearby
telecenter. Generally, telework arrangements are designed to reduce
employee or associate commutes and are enhanced by the use of affordable
technology.

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  2000                                1.3%

  2001                                2.6%

  2002                                4.2%
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

-   In August 1998, The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) submitted a
    report to Congress that estimated the number of Federal teleworkers
    at 1.3 percent of the Federal work force.

-   In June 2001, OPM issued an interim report to Congress that
    estimated the number of Federal teleworkers at 2.6 percent of the
    Federal work force.

-   In January 2002, OPM issued a report to Congress that estimated the
    number of Federal teleworkers had increased to 4.2 percent of the
    Federal work force.

-   Public Law 106-346 (Section 359) states that each Federal agency
    must establish a policy under which eligible employees of the agency
    may participate in telework to the maximum extent possible without
    diminished employee performance. The law requires that this policy
    be applied initially to 25 percent of the Federal work force, and
    then to an additional 25 percent each year for four consecutive
    years, until 100 percent of the eligible work force is offered the
    opportunity to telework.

-   The International Telework Association and Council (ITAC) estimates
    private sector participation in telework arrangements at 21.2
    percent of the total work force.

While there has been welcome improvement in the number of Federal
teleworkers, Governmentwide performance in this indicator lags private
sector benchmarks and falls short of legislative goals. Telework is an
important alternative workplace strategy that needs to be part of your
Federal workplace planning and human capital development. For more
information about telework, contact the Innovative Workplaces Division
or visit the joint OPM-GSA web site:

[www.telework.gov](http://www.telework.gov/)

**[Sustainability]{.underline}**

The U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental
System (LEED™) is the fastest growing green building metric. LEED™
provides guidance in the areas of building development and design
resulting in a more sustainable project. Agencies such as the Army Corps
of Engineers have adapted LEED in developing their own measurement
programs (SpiRiT). GSA's Public Buildings Service is requiring a LEED™
certification for all new construction and major renovation projects,
with a goal of LEED™ Silver.

As of December 2002, a total of 48 Federal government projects were
registered under the LEED™ rating system for new construction and
renovated buildings. These projects include office buildings,
courthouses, laboratories \--even a daycare center\-- and vary in size
from 6,900 gross square feet (the Bushkill Postal Service facility) to
2,000,000 gross square feet (the USDA modernization of the South
Building). Registered projects involve:

Department of Agriculture

Department of the Air Force

Department of Commerce (NOAA)

Department of Defense

Department of Energy (through GSA)

Department of Health and Human Services (CDC, FDA)

Department of the Interior (USGS, National Park Service, Bureau of
Indian Affairs)

Department of the Navy

Department of Transportation (Federal Aviation Administration)

Environmental Protection Agency

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Social Security Administration

U.S. General Services Administration

U.S. Postal Service

Using the list of landholding agencies included in the Office of Real
Property's Worldwide Inventory (32), this represents approximately 44
percent (14) participating in LEED™ registered projects. To date, the
Department of the Navy, Social Security Administration and GSA have
LEED™ certified projects.

The Office of Governmentwide Policy, while not endorsing the LEED™
rating system, is using the percent of agencies participating in LEED™
registered projects as a performance measure, since we believe it serves
as an indicator of agencies' level of commitment in creating sustainable
workplace environments.

Sustainability Measures

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  \% of Agencies with LEED            44%
  Registration                        

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

**2002 Private Sector Performance**

####### Introduction

The information summarized in this section provides a context for the
Governmentwide data we presented earlier. Each data source analyzes a
different building sample and the methods of data collection and
analysis vary. Using the summary data presented in this report to
benchmark the Federal Government against the private sector would be an
inaccurate oversimplification of the benchmarking process. However,
individual Federal real property asset managers can use the
Governmentwide and private sector data to evaluate and improve their
Federal real property portfolios.

**[Cost per Square Foot (Owned)]{.underline}**

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  BOMA                                IREM

  \$4.67                              \$5.01
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

-   The numbers reflect fiscal 2002 dollars per rentable square foot.

-   The source for the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA)
    numbers is the 2002 BOMA Experience Exchange Report. We escalated
    the reported 2001 actual cost data by 1.8 percent (Consumer Price
    Index or CPI) to obtain 2002 dollars.

-   The BOMA sample consists of 2,790 buildings covering 548,090,758
    rentable square feet of office space.

-   The source for the Institute of Real Estate Management (IREM)
    numbers is the 2002 IREM Income/Expense Analysis. We escalated the
    reported 2001 actual cost data by 1.8 percent (CPI) to obtain 2002
    dollars.

-   The IREM sample consists of 430 buildings covering 132,716,000
    rentable square feet of office space.

**[Cost per Square Foot (Leased)]{.underline}**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  BOMA                    IREM                    SIOR

  \$23.08                 \$18.60                 \$30.47
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

-   The numbers reflect 2002 dollars per rentable square foot.

-   Leasing cost per square foot is derived from office income figures.

-   The source for the BOMA numbers is the 2002 BOMA Experience Exchange
    Report. We escalated the reported 2001 actual cost data by 1.8
    percent (CPI) to obtain 2002 dollars.

-   The BOMA sample consists of 2,970 buildings covering 548,090,758
    rentable square feet of office space.

-   The source for the IREM numbers is the 2002 IREM Income/Expense
    Analysis. We escalated the reported 2001 actual cost data by 1.8
    percent (CPI) to obtain 2002 dollars.

-   The IREM sample consists of 419 buildings covering 132,780,000
    rentable square feet of office space.

-   The source for the Society of Industrial and Office Realtors (SIOR)
    data is the 2002 Comparative Statistics of Industrial and Office
    Real Estate Markets. We escalated the reported 2001 actual cost data
    by 1.8 percent (CPI) to obtain\
    2002 dollars.

-   The SIOR sample consists of buildings from the Washington, D.C. and
    Northern Virginia markets totaling 222,831,186 rentable square feet
    of office space.

####### Vacancy Rate

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  BOMA                                SIOR

  7.7%                                8.7%
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

-   BOMA vacancy rate represents all office space while SIOR vacancy
    rate represents Central Business District (CBD) Class A Office
    Space.

-   The sources for the data are the 2002 editions of the BOMA and SIOR
    publications noted previously.

-   The 2002 vacancy rate estimates are based on reported 2001 data.

**[Vacancy Rate -- Recent Trends]{.underline}**

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  Year                    BOMA                    SIOR

  1997                    8.0%                    9.6%

  1998                    7.0%                    8.8%

  1999                    7.8%                    8.9%

  2000                    7.5%                    8.6%

  2001                    7.7%                    8.7%
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

-   The sources for the BOMA and SIOR data are the 1998, 1999, 2000,
    2001 and 2002 editions of the publications noted earlier.

**Observations and Recommendations**

####### Observations from the Data

1.  Over the past 5 years, we have collected data and benchmarked the 7
    key indicators of real property performance derived by an
    interagency working group in 1998. The work of the interagency group
    and the concept for the benchmarking were published as the
    *Governmentwide Real Property Performance Measurement Study* in
    June 1998. This 2002 edition is the fifth annual edition of *Real
    Property Performance Results*, which presents the annual results of
    the Federal benchmarking effort.

2.  The purpose of this publication is to provide benchmark data in
    support of asset management activities of Federal real property
    professionals. Considering the broad scope of the indicators, the
    data may be useful to stakeholders interested in the relative
    performance of Federal real property asset management as compared to
    other commercial, owner/user, and government organizations. We do
    not represent the information in this publication to be a precise
    cost accounting of the chosen indicators. The correct frame of
    reference for the data is a benchmarking effort, not an audit.

3.  Please remember that most of the data presented in this publication
    are in the form of national averages. When making comparisons to
    local portfolios or individual facilities, you should consider
    geographic cost differentials.

4.  2002 Governmentwide performance is consistent with past performance
    as well as private sector performance on the key indicators of Cost
    per Square Foot Owned, Cost per Square Foot Leased, and Vacancy
    Rate.

5.  For the fifth straight year, we received outstanding cooperation
    from a core group of Federal agency partners. The main value of the
    annual Performance Results exercise continues to be the opportunity
    for a core group of Federal partners to benchmark performance and to
    benefit from the learning that has occurred around this effort. Good
    examples of this learning are the development and growing use of the
    Cost per Person Model and timely guidance such as we provide this
    year in the Office Space Use Update.

####### Quality of the Data

1.  We used conversion factors to translate all submitted data into
    consistent units of rentable square feet and fiscal year 2002
    dollars. These modifications to the original source data were
    necessary to enhance comparability of the results.

2.  We continue to strive for uniformity of definitions among data from
    disparate sources. We occasionally reject data that appears to
    include other factors besides what we are attempting to measure.
    Generally, we err on the side on inclusion.

3.  Many respondents submit data at the summary level, which
    occasionally involves certain assumptions or interpolations on our
    end.

4.  Considering the variety of participating organizations with
    disparate information systems, the overall estimate of
    Governmentwide performance is reasonably accurate.

5.  Information systems for real property inventory and measurement
    continue to be an issue. Many agencies struggle to obtain real
    property performance data from agency financial information systems
    that are not designed to generate such data (they are geared towards
    agency mission). GSA focuses on office space, but many other
    agencies occupy a wide variety of space types. Information systems
    in these agencies often cannot easily break out office data from
    total space and cost data.

####### 

####### Recommendations and Next Steps

1.  In the 1997 *Office Space Use Review*, we noted that real property
    and workplace performance measures only make sense within the
    context of an agency strategic plan that ties real estate and
    workplace planning to agency mission. We immediately picked up on
    the performance measurement "thread" of this argument and instituted
    the voluntary benchmarking effort that has produced this fifth
    annual assessment (and come full circle by itself updating the
    Office Space Use Review in Appendix B). We recently picked up the
    other "thread" by releasing *Strategic Planning: Aligning Workplace
    Services Creates Value*. Copies of this study may be obtained by
    contacting Ray Wynter (see Appendix C).

2.  The Innovative Workplaces Division wants to help Federal agency
    customers reinvent their workplaces to provide modern, healthful and
    productive space that anyone would be proud to work in. We do this
    through programs such as The Integrated Workplace, Sustainable
    Development, Telework, alternative and virtual workplaces. Contact
    Stan Kaczmarczyk, Division Director (see Appendix C) for friendly
    customer service.

3.  Although the number of Federal teleworkers is at an historic high,
    it is still far short of the levels of participation envisioned by
    Public Law 106-346 (Section 359). Federal agencies should strive to
    provide greater opportunities so that everyone whose job will allow
    them to telework has a fair opportunity to participate.

4.  In 2003, we will write a letter to landholding Federal agencies and
    provide some more specific feedback on "lessons learned" from the
    five years of data collection and analysis to date.

5.  In 2003, we will have an independent party conduct a strategic
    evaluation of this performance measurement program to assess its
    value, impact and potential for improvement.

**Appendix A: Data Collection**

The 2002 voluntary benchmarking effort succeeded for a fifth year thanks
to the enthusiastic participation of a core group of Federal partners.

In 2002, we had 12 Federal agency participants in the annual
benchmarking effort. We reclaimed four partners. There are 32 agencies
that report on their independently-owned or leased (non-GSA) space in
the Worldwide Inventory.

####### Participating Agencies

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  Year                                Number of Agencies

  1998                                8

  1999                                10

  2000                                9

  2001                                10

  2002                                12
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

####### Data Collection

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  Year                                Rentable Square Feet

  1998                                179,909,249

  1999                                242,403,149

  2000                                316,840,243

  2001                                310,465,225

  2002                                661,557,026
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

-   In 2002, we collected voluntary data samples from Federal agencies
    representing approximately 661 million rentable square feet of
    space.

**Appendix B: Space Use Update 2002**

####### Introduction

In 1997, the Office of Governmentwide Policy (OGP), Office of Real
Property conducted a review of office space use in the Federal
government and the private sector.[^1] The published findings of that
study have been "used and useful" to many Federal government agencies.
This report provides an update to the 1997 effort.

In the 5 years since publication of the previous review, space
allocation trends have shifted. Increased competitiveness in the
marketplace, coupled with limited space availability, has resulted in
many private sector organizations moving away from strict space
standards based on pay level or employee position. Space planners now
must weigh space availability, corporate culture, mission, job
requirements, cost, and efficiency when determining how to forecast and
allocate space usage; however, they continue to monitor space per person
to assist with space allocation and space planning.

Management and allocation of office space are a constant challenge for
both public and private organizations. Often the issue is complicated by
limited space resources coupled with functional space demands.
Accommodating these issues in a single organizational standard is
difficult.

The Federal government also is shifting away from strict space standards
based on pay grade. The Code of Federal Regulations has been updated to
encourage space planning based on organizational needs. To reflect this
modification, GSA replies to inquiries regarding space allocation,
"Space assignments based on pay grade are no longer mandated by Federal
regulations, stipulated by GSA, or recommended by the OGP Office of Real
Property."[^2]. This is also reflected in GSA's policy for an
"integrated workplace."[^3]

To identify new trends, practices and standards in space utilization
planning and allocation since the 1997 GSA study, we reviewed literature
and searched the Internet to collect new or updated information on
industry and government space allocation standards. We also conducted
telephone and e-mail surveys of public and private organizations,
several of which participated in the 1997 study.

We found that comparison among the organizations is difficult because
space measurement is inconsistent among the organizations surveyed. Some
of the organizations refer to rentable square feet (RSF); others report
square feet (USF); and others measure office square feet. Some
organizations surveyed report a space-per-person standard based on the
position held by a worker. Other organizations base their standard on a
set space per person for the overall organization. Even when an
organization indicated the type of square-footage measurement in its
standard, often the organization neglects to identify the method of
measurement.

####### Summary of Findings

We found that many organizations focus on organizational mission, job
function, space availability, cost, and effectiveness to plan and
allocate space in an organization. Most of the organizations surveyed
that report using a space-per-person allocation standard designate
worker position as a basis for allocating square footage, although some
organizations report a single space-per-person target for the overall
organization. ***We have based our benchmarking analysis primarily upon
those organizations that, as advocated by the original 1997 Office Space
Use Review, provided an overall average square feet per person
standard***.

####### Observations and Recommendations

1.  Summary data from the government and private sector need careful
    interpretation to compare like measurement because large-scale data
    collection gathers from diverse sources.

2.  Our research for this study does not show significant differences
    between government and private space use trends.

3.  Regarding the individual case data on space use, we found a wide
    range of scenarios and space standards depending on individual job
    functions and organizational mission (or business sector) and
    culture. Comparison of office space standards must include an
    in-depth understanding of the type of space measured, the area where
    the standards apply -- overall space or functional areas -- and the
    agency mission or business sector of organizations being used for
    comparison.

4.  The U.S. Federal Government is itself a collection of diverse
    agencies with great variation among missions. This makes the task of
    developing or reconfirming a Governmentwide recommended average for
    space use -- even for a defined space type such as office space -- a
    formidable challenge. While reported averages have trended up, we
    found no evidence of this being the result of actual trends in how
    office space is being used that would require organizations to need
    larger per capita allocations of office space. We benchmarked the
    Governmentwide standard against those organizations that reported
    standards based on overall (all inclusive) average space per person.
    These organizations are all in the private sector, as this type of
    approach has been slow to catch on in the public sector. In the
    latter, rigid standards governing solely primary workspace per
    position or grade level continue to prevail. ***Based on the private
    sector overall average standards reported, and our analysis of
    prevailing trends, we continue to recommend 230 rentable square feet
    per person as the appropriate overall Governmentwide average for
    office space use.***

5.  Based on our own office renovation experience in the GSA Office of
    Real Property project, we found that the Integrated Workplace
    planning and design process can result in 8 percent below the
    recommended average per person square footage. More aggressive
    alternative workplace strategies -- as some organizations in both
    government and the private sector have demonstrated -- can lead to
    even more dramatic reductions in the overall organizational space
    per person average.

6.  Federal agencies that exceed the recommended overall Governmentwide
    average for office space use should ensure that agency mission
    mandates a direct requirement for higher per capita office space
    allocation. Once this link is established, agencies need to
    benchmark their office space to the allocation of other Government
    and private organizations with similar mission and needs. If the
    higher average cannot be directly linked to agency mission and
    corroborated by benchmarking with similar organizations, then the
    agency should seriously consider a strategy to bring office space
    use per person down closer to the recommended overall average of 230
    rentable square feet per person.

####### Research

This section provided some basic information needed to understand the
terminology of the case studies that follow.

## *Space Measurement Standards*

Two major U.S. organizations and affiliated associations have
established standards governing how office space is measured. Those
organizations are the American National Standards Institute, Inc.,
(ANSI) in conjunction with the Building Owners and Managers Association
International (BOMA) and the American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM), in conjunction with the International Facility Management
Association (IFMA).

In addition to the ANSI/BOMA and ASTM/IFMA standards, some organizations
have used their own measurement methodology that may not follow the
nationally accepted measurement standards.

### 

### *ANSI-BOMA*

ANSI developed and continually revises a standard for measuring office
space. The latest revision, "Standard Method For Measuring Floor Area In
Office Buildings, ANSI/BOMA Z65.1-1996,"[^4] was approved in June 1996.
The latest revision was a collaborative effort with BOMA, GSA, and other
professionals in the building industry.

The revised standard, used in both existing and new office buildings,
defines the term "rentable square feet" as the gross square footage
minus vertical penetrations (e.g., stairwells and elevator and pipe
shafts). The standard defines the term " square feet" as the sum of
retail areas, office space used by tenants, and common areas.

Additional information on the ANSI/BOMA standard is contained in the
publication, "Standard Method For Measuring Floor Area In Office
Buildings," available through the BOMA website:
[www.boma.org](http://www.boma.org/). The publication provides detailed
instructions and diagrams for the following space measurements:

-   Gross building area

-   Gross measured area

-   Building rentable area

-   Floor rentable area

-   Floor usable area

-   Usable area

-   Floor common area

-   Basic rentable area

-   Building common area

-   Rentable area

-   Office area

-   Store area.

### *ASTM-IFMA*

In 1996, ASTM/IFMA published a different standard methodology for
measuring building floor area (E 1836-96), and revised it in December
2001 (E 1836-01).[^5]

The ASTM/IFMA standard defines "facility rentable area" as the total
facility gross area minus major penetrations, exterior walls, stairs and
elevators, interior parking, and void areas. It defines "facility usable
area" as the total facility rentable area minus building core and
service areas such as lobbies, telephone rooms, electrical rooms,
mechanical rooms, toilet rooms, and custodial rooms and utility tunnels.

Additional information on the ASTM/IFMA standard is contained in the
publication, *Standard Classification for Building Floor Area
Measurements for Facility Management,* available on the ASTM website:
www.astm.org. The publication provides detailed instructions and
diagrams for the following space measurements:

-   Building exterior gross area

-   Facility interior gross area

-   Facility rentable area

-   Facility area

-   Facility assignable area

-   Common support areas.

### *The Differences in the Standards*

The basic difference between the ANSI/BOMA and ASTM/IFMA standards is
the way floor area is measured when the external wall is reached. BOMA
uses the concept of "dominant portion," defined as "the portion of the
inside finished surface of the permanent outer building which is 50
percent or more of the vertical-to-ceiling dimension." With the
"dominant portion" methodology, if a window takes up more than 50
percent of the wall, then the measurement is taken from the windowpane,
therefore including the windowsill space in the rentable and usable
square footage calculations. If the window takes up less than 50 percent
of the wall, measurement is taken from the finished interior surface,
and as a result, the windowsill space is not included in the
measurement.

The ASTM/IFMA standard does not use the dominant portion theory;
therefore, rentable and usable measurements are taken from the finished
interior surface.

*Space Allocation Policies And Practices*

In addition to the nationally established ANSI/BOMA and ASTM/IFMA
standards, space planners must also consider Federal regulations or
company policies, the use of alternative work arrangements, and the
practices of similar organizations (case studies).

### 

### *Code of Federal Regulations: Federal Management Regulations 102-79.20*

In the December 13, 2002, Federal Register, GSA announced the final rule
completing the transfer of all real property policies from the Federal
Property Management Regulations and cross references them to the Federal
Management Regulations.[^6] The 2002 update to the Code of Federal
Regulation, Title 41, Section 102-79, addresses space allocation within
the federal government. Following is the text of the updated code
pertaining to space assignment and utilization:

Executive agencies must provide a quality workplace environment that
supports program operations, preserves the value of real property
assets, meets the needs of the occupant agencies, and provides childcare
and physical fitness facilities in the workplace when adequately
justified. An Executive agency must promote maximum utilization of
Federal workspace, consistent with mission requirements, to maximize its
value to the Government.

Executive agencies must promote the optimum use of space for each
assignment at the minimum cost to the Government, provide quality
workspace that is delivered and occupied in a timely manner, and assign
space based on mission requirements. [^7]

### *Alternative Office Solutions*

Today, many organizations are seeking methods for using limited space
efficiently and effectively to meet the needs of both the organization
and its employees. Telework, hoteling, and "hot desking" (two to three
employees share a single workspace) are a few of the alternative office
solutions that organizations are using to save space and associated
costs. Often times these alternative office solutions are "win-win,"
benefiting both the organization and the employee. While the employee
benefits with a flexible work schedule, the organization benefits by
saving space as well as the associated real estate savings.

[]{.mark}

According to the Canadian Telework Association, telework has the
potential to save thousands, often millions, of dollars in real estate
cost. Because employees are more mobile in their jobs---spending more
than half their time away from their offices on travel, in meetings, on
vacation, or out sick---valuable office space is underused. Empty office
space can be used more efficiently by use of alternative office
techniques such as space-sharing, hoteling, or other office space
strategies, illustrated in the following list of examples cited on the
Canadian Telework Association website:[^8]

-   AT&T reduced office space costs using telework. The company
    estimates that since 1995, telecommuting has saved AT&T
    approximately \$500 million in lease costs. In 1998, about 55
    percent of AT&T managers telecommuted at least once a month.

-   IBM reduced its need for office space and saves \$56 million per
    year using telework. By using telework for the past 2 years, IBM has
    reduced its need for space by 2 million square feet.

-   Merrill Lynch reported saving \$5,000 to \$6,000 for each office
    eliminated through telecommuting.

### *Comparisons of Space Allocation*

When deciding how to allocate office space, it is important to compare
the practices of similar organizations. Planners must be cautious when
benchmarking for space planning and allocation purposes to ensure
comparison of like measurements, established by asking the following
questions:

-   "How is the square footage expressed (e.g., , rentable, gross, or
    office square footage)?"

-   "How is the measurement calculated (e.g., what standard was used to
    determine square footage)?"

-   "Do the organizations have functions similar to the benchmarked
    organization (e.g., are conference, warehouse, and common area
    requirements similar)?"

Johnson Controls publishes a semi-annual benchmarking briefing, *U.S.
Facility Cost Index.*[^9] The Summer 2002 briefing contains a
cost-per-occupant-per-year and a cost-per-rentable-square-foot benchmark
for building operation costs. The briefing does not mention a benchmark
for allocation of the amount of space per person. The Johnson Controls
briefing says "The cost-per-occupant measure is considered to be the
more meaningful of the two from a business perspective, as for all
services it is that which is most closely aligned to the primary purpose
of the facility from the users perspective; i.e., the productive support
of people."

## 

## *Private Sector Case Studies*

In order to update -- and as it turned out to revalidate -- our
recommended Governmentwide overall average of 230 rentable square feet
per person, we reviewed dozens of case studies and selected those cases
where organizations reported overall standards most directly comparable
to the Governmentwide recommended average. The following table
summarizes this benchmark information. Organization names have been
withheld at the request of the participants. Most of the standards are
reported in square feet per person, so the appropriate comparison to the
Governmentwide standard is 200 square feet per person (equivalent of 230
rentable square feet per person).

######## Summary of Results

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  **Organization**                    **Overall space per person
                                      standard**

  Insurance company -- target         230 square feet per person

  Insurance company -- actual         215 square feet per person

  Consulting company -- actual        320 square feet per person

  Software engineering firm -- actual 220 square feet per person

  Telecommunications company I --     152 -- 174 square feet per person
  actual with hoteling                

  Telecommunications company II -     325 square feet per person
  actual                              

  Energy firm -- actual "best in      200 -- 250 square feet per person
  class"                              

                                      

  Range of benchmark averages         152 to 325 square feet per person

  Mid-point of range                  238 square feet per person

  "Average" of the benchmark averages 239 square feet per person

                                      

  ***Recommended Governmentwide       ***200 square feet per person***
  standard***                         
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

The following case studies provide some detailed information breaking
down aspects of the overall averages reported in the immediately
preceding table. This detailed information is provided for the benefit
of practitioners who are trying to develop space standards or actually
implementing space projects. Most customers of the original *Office
Space Use Review* fall somewhere in this description.

Customers who are struggling with developing or implementing space
standards will often look at overall standards such as provided above,
or simply divide the total space they are paying rent for by the number
of employees, and wonder why they arrive at a result quantified in
hundreds of square feet per person on average. After all, the customer
reasons, I look at my immediate cubicle or office and those of my
colleagues, and no one seems to have hundreds of square feet of space
allocated to him or her.

The tables included in the detailed case studies that follow provide a
crosswalk for these customers. They provide "partial space standards"
for individual primary work areas based generally on position in the
organization. Support space, circulation, collaborative space,
amenities, storage an other special spaces all figure into the equation
summing up the overall average office space use per person represented
by the recommended Governmentwide standard of 230 rentable (equivalent
of 200 ) square feet per person.

### *Case Study #1: Insurance Company*

Insurance Company is a Fortune-500 company that provides worldwide
insurance and diversified financial services. The company indicated it
previously assigned space by grade level, but it now assigns space by
function. Table 1 shows how the insurance company allocates office and
cubicle space by category.

  -------------------------------- ------------------------- -------------
  Table 1. Insurance Company\                                
  Space Allocation by Employee                               
  Category                                                   

  Position                         Office dimension\         Office
                                   (in feet)                 square\
                                                             footage

  Customer contact (call centers)  6.8 x 6                   40.8

  Managers, directors\             6.8 x 10.6                72.8
  (mid-management)                                           

  Everyone else (excluding top     6.8 x 8                   54.4
  executives)                                                

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

There are different space allocations to "operating groups" on a
case-by-case basis (to accommodate growth needs). The company charges
rent to internal customers. All customers are charged the same rental
rate. Customers are allowed to manage their own space, and they can give
back space to save money. As a result, there is a financial incentive
for customers to conserve on space use. As an organization, this company
uses an average of 215 USF per person, which is 15 USF per person less
than the company target of 230 USF per worker.

In its headquarters, only 0.5 percent of its employees telework, and
only then because they are displaced because of major remodeling in the
headquarters building. The company is considering implementing a
shift-work system that will affect the amount of space necessary to
operate efficiently.

### 

### *Case Study #2: Consulting Company*

This organization provides facilities-related advice and counsel to
large public-sector organizations of the Federal government. It has
established standards for its own space that is based on prevailing
industry figures. The firm's standards are based on office area. Space
allocation depends on an employee's position in the company (see Table
2).

*Table 2. Consulting Company\
Space Allocation by Employee Position*

  --------------------------------------- -------------------------------
  Position                                Office square footage

  Executive                               325 (office)

  Director                                225 (office)

  Managerial, supervisory, technical      175 (office)

  Support Staff                           132 (office)

  Telecommuters, hoteling                 N/A
  --------------------------------------- -------------------------------

As an organization, the firm uses an average of 368 RSF per person, and
320 USF per person. The main facility contains a significant amount of
conference and meeting space that is considered in these calculations.

### 

### *Case Study #3: Software Engineering Firm*

This large software engineering and consulting company implements
information systems and technology solutions to help speed and improve
service delivery and give decision makers better information to make
decisions. The company provides converged voice, video, and data
services as well as wireless and e-business solutions. Space allocation
depends on an employee's position in the company (see Table 3).

*Table 3. Software Engineering Company*

*Space Allocation by Employee Position*

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  Position                            USF

  Executive                           140 (office)

  Director                            130 (office)

  Managerial, supervisory, technical  120 (office)

  Support staff                       64 (cubicle)

  Telecommuters, hoteling             NA
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

The average space requirement in the organization is 220 USF; however,
this standard is not enforced on an individual basis. The average space
per person was calculated by dividing the USF by the number of
employees. The company does not have hoteling workstations.

### *Case Study #4: Telecommunications Company I*

This major telecommunications company offers communication services and
products, and it provides voice, data, and video telecommunications
services to consumers, large and small businesses, and government
entities. The company and its subsidiaries furnish regional, domestic,
international, and local telecommunication services. The company also
provides cellular telephone and wireless services. The space allocation
standard depends on an employee's position in the company (see Table 4).

*Table4. Telecommunication Company I*

*Space Allocation by Employee Position*

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  Position                            USF

  Executive                           150 -- 300 (office)

  Director                            96 -- 150 (office)

  Director                            82 (cubicle)

  Managerial, supervisory, technical  56 -- 64 (office)

  Support staff                       42 -- 56 (cubicle)

  Telecommuters, hoteling             36 -- 42 (cubicle)
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

The average space allocation per person in the organization is between
175 and 200 RSF. The average space per person was calculated using space
metric guidelines established in 1997 after extensive research and
participation in pilot programs with leading commercial real estate
firms. The company has established hoteling workstations. These
workstations are designed to allow a 3:1 ratio of use within the sales
organization; otherwise, they are used for visitors or telecommuters.

### *Case Study #5: Telecommunications Company II*

This large telecommunications company designs, builds, and delivers a
wide range of public and private networks, communications systems,
software, and data networking systems. The company also designs, builds,
and delivers business telephone systems and microelectronic components.
Space allocation depends on an employee's position in the company (see
Table 5).

*Table 5. Telecommunication Company II*

*Space Allocation by Employee Position*

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  Position                            USF

  Executive                           225 (office)

  Director                            175 (office)

  Managerial, supervisory, technical  150 (office)

  Support staff                       56 -- 75 (office or cubicle)

  Telecommuters, hoteling             NA
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

The average space allocation per person in the organization is 457 USF
per person, which includes warehouse, manufacturing, and laboratory
space in addition to office space. The average administrative space
allocation per person in the organization is approximately 325 USF per
person. The average space allocation per person was calculated using
space metric guidelines developed through a benchmarking process and
historic usage in the company. Larger locations are calculated based on
measured space; smaller locations are calculated based on square footage
listed in a lease. All are measured using a monthly headcount provided
by the human resources department. The company has very few established
hoteling workstations. Information on the allocation of these
workstations is not available.

*Case Study #6: Energy Firm*

This organization determined that "best in class" space in the firm
averaged 200 to 250 square feet per person, and that 20 to 35 percent of
the space provided in the best of class workplaces was in the nature of
collaborative workspace. All subsequent new and renovation space
projects will use these standards. Individual space allocations per
position are not used.

**Appendix C: Innovative Workplaces Division**

The Innovative Workplaces Division provides Governmentwide leadership
and innovative solutions that enhance the livability of the workplace
and offer a sensible balance between work and home life. We develop
programs, provide technical assistance, and devise strategies that
support high-quality environments wherever people work.

In addition to Performance Measurement, other major programs in the
Division are Telework, the Integrated Workplace, and Sustainable
Development.

In 2002, we published the following studies:

-   Real Property Performance Results 2002

-   Strategic Planning: Aligning Workplace Services Creates Value

-   Technology Barriers to Home-Based Telework

In 2003, we plan to publish:

-   Cost Per Person Model, Version II

-   Innovative Workplace Strategies

-   Real Property Performance Results 2003

Please contact one of our staff professionals for information on
specific programs or to find out how the evolving concept of the
workplace supports your mission, your customers, and your employees or
associates.

Mike Atkinson (202) 439-1251

Innovative Workplaces

<Michael.atkinson@gsa.gov>

Helen Harlow (202) 208-6344

Performance Measurement

[Helen.harlow@gsa.gov](mailto:Helen.Harlow@gsa.gov)

Jonathan Herz (202) 501-3476

Sustainable Development

<Jonathan.herz@gsa.gov>

Dr. Wendell Joice (202) 273-4664

Telework

<Wendell.joice@gsa.gov>

Stan Kaczmarczyk (202) 501-2306

Division Director

<Stan.kaczmarczyk@gsa.gov>

Cherie McClam (202) 208-6771

Integrated Workplace

<Cherie.mcclam@gsa.gov>

Dee McFadden-Wallace (202) 501-1823

Telework

<Dee.mcfadden-wallace@gsa.gov>

Billy Michael (202) 273-4663

Telework Policy

<William.michael@gsa.gov>

Shirley Morris (202) 501-1145

Strategic Planning

<Shirley.morris@gsa.gov>

Theresa Noll (202) 219-1443

Telework Technology

<Theresa.noll@gsa.gov>

Rob Obenreder (202) 208-1824

Integrated Workplace

<Rob.obenreder@gsa.gov>

Joanne Shore (202) 273-4668

Virtual Workplace

<Joanne.shore@gsa.gov>

Glenn Woodley (202) 273-4667

Telework

<Glenn.woodley@gsa.gov>

Ray Wynter (202) 501-3802

Performance Measurement

<Ray.wynter@gsa.gov>

**Publication Survey**

**Real Property Performance Results 2002**

Please take a few minutes to complete this survey so we may better meet
our customers' needs.

1\. The publication is of interest to you.

Strongly agree \_\_\_\_\_Agree \_\_\_\_\_Disagree \_\_\_\_\_Strongly
disagree \_\_\_\_\_

2\. The publication format provides easy access to matters of interest
to you.

Strongly agree \_\_\_\_\_Agree \_\_\_\_\_Disagree \_\_\_\_\_Strongly
disagree \_\_\_\_\_

3\. The publication addresses issues that are of value to you in your
position.

Strongly agree \_\_\_\_\_Agree \_\_\_\_\_Disagree \_\_\_\_\_Strongly
disagree \_\_\_\_\_

4\. Access to detailed comments is necessary because the Executive
Summary does not provide sufficient information.

Strongly agree \_\_\_\_\_Agree \_\_\_\_\_Disagree \_\_\_\_\_Strongly
disagree \_\_\_\_\_

5\. The information provided in the publication is fair and impartial.

Strongly agree \_\_\_\_\_Agree \_\_\_\_\_Disagree \_\_\_\_\_Strongly
disagree \_\_\_\_\_

6\. The publication is an appropriate length.

Strongly agree \_\_\_\_\_Agree \_\_\_\_\_Disagree \_\_\_\_\_Strongly
disagree \_\_\_\_\_

7\. The publication is easy to understand.

Strongly agree \_\_\_\_\_Agree \_\_\_\_\_Disagree \_\_\_\_\_Strongly
disagree \_\_\_\_\_

8\. Please provide any additional comments on the publication:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Organization
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Name (optional)
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_Title\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

E-mail address (optional)
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Please tear this survey page out and fax it to us at (202) 208-7240; or
fold it, tape closed, and mail it back to us. Thank you for your
participation.

> FIRST-CLASS MAIL
>
> Postage and Fees Paid

GSA Permit No. G-30

> **General Services Administration**

**OGP, Office of Real Property (MPE)**

**1800 F Street, NW**

**Washington, DC 20405**

[^1]: U.S. General Services Administration Office of Governmentwide
    Policy Office of Real Property, *Office Space Use Review: Current
    Practices and Emerging Trends*, September 1997.

[^2]: U.S. General Services Administration Office of Governmentwide
    Policy Office of Real Property, *Response to Request for Guidance on
    GSA or Federal Space Requirements,* August 2002.

[^3]: U.S. General Services Administration Office of Governmentwide
    Policy Office of Real Property, *An Overview---The Integrated
    Workplace: A Comprehensive Approach to Developing Work space*
    \[online document\], \[cited November 2002\]. Available from
    www.gsa.gov/attachments/GSA_PUBLICATIONS/pub/Completeiwrpt_1.pdf.

[^4]: BOMA International, *Standard Method for Measuring Floor Area in
    Office Buildings.* ANSI/BOMA Z65.1996, June 1996.

[^5]: ASTM International, *Standard Classification for Building Floor
    Area Measurements for Facility Management. ASTM E1836-01,* 2001.

[^6]: Federal Register, December 13, 2002. Available from
    http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2002/02-30051.htm.

[^7]: Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, *Title 41 Section
    102-79.20* \[online document\], October 7, 2002, \[cited December
    17, 2002\]. Available from
    http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_02/41cfr102-79_02.html.

[^8]: Canadian Telework Association, *Office Space and Innovative Office
    Strategies* \[online document\], \[cited August 2002\]. Available at
    www.ivc.ca/part11.html.

[^9]: Johnson Controls, *U.S. Facility Cost Index Briefing* \[online
    document\], Summer 2002 \[cited August 2002\]. Available at
    www.jci.com/fm/research/JCQ2_20023609_lr.pdf.