prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 1.



Report 2: The federal government owns and leases hundreds of thousands of buildings across the country that cost billions of dollars annually to operate and maintain  In recent years, the federal government has taken steps to improve the management of federal real property and address long-standing issues by undertaking several government-wide initiatives and issuing memorandums to the CFO Act agencies  Within the executive branch, OMB and GSA provide leadership in managing federal real property  As the chief management office for the executive branch, OMB oversees how federal agencies devise, implement, manage, and evaluate programs and policies  OMB provides direction to federal agencies by, among other things, issuing policies and memorandums on real property management  In 2012, OMB issued a memorandum that required agencies to move aggressively to dispose of excess properties held by the federal government and more efficiently use real estate assets  This memorandum initially laid out the requirement to “freeze the footprint ” In 2013, OMB issued a memorandum clarifying the Freeze the Footprint policy  This memorandum required agencies going forward to maintain no more than their fiscal year 2012 total square footage of domestic office and warehouse space  The policy required agencies to specifically identify existing properties to be disposed of to offset any new property acquisitions  In March 2015, OMB transitioned from freezing the federal government’s real property footprint to reducing it  Specifically, OMB issued the National Strategy for the Efficient Use of Real Property (National Strategy) to provide a framework to guide agencies’ real property management, increase efficient real property use, control costs, and reduce federal real property  The National Strategy outlined three key steps to improve real property management: (1) freeze growth in the inventory; (2) measure performance and use data to identify opportunities to improve the efficiency of the real property portfolio; and (3) reduce the size of the inventory by consolidating, co-locating, and disposing of properties  OMB also issued the RTF policy which clarified existing policy to dispose of excess properties and promote more efficient use of real property assets  The RTF policy requires agencies to: (1) submit annual Real Property Efficiency Plans (Plan) to GSA and OMB; (2) issue a policy that specifies a design standard for maximum useable square feet by workstation for use in domestic office space; (3) set and specify in their Plans annual reduction targets for their domestic office and warehouse space for a 5-year period; (4) set and specify in their Plans annual reduction targets for domestic owned building properties reported in the Federal Real Property Profile; and (5) continue to not increase the square footage of their domestic inventory of office and warehouse space  Additionally, agencies must identify in their Plans potential projects related to office and warehouse consolidation, co-location, disposal, as well as construction and acquisition efforts  OMB is responsible for reporting the progress of agencies’ efforts in reducing the amount of federal real property space under the RTF policy  GSA has two key leadership responsibilities related to real property management  First, GSA’s Public Buildings Service functions as the federal government’s principal landlord  In this role, GSA acquires, manages, and disposes of federally owned real property for which it has custody and control on behalf of federal agencies that occupy the space  Additionally, GSA leases commercial buildings on behalf of agencies and manages the lease agreements  In these situations, GSA executes an occupancy agreement with a customer agency for each space assignment that is similar to a sublease between GSA and the agency  The occupancy agreement outlines both the financial specifics of the agreement and the responsibilities of GSA and the customer agency  There are certain unique advantages for customer agencies when GSA leases on their behalf  For example, GSA is able to enter into longer-term leases, and agencies can release space back to GSA with 4 months’ written notice if certain conditions are met, relieving the agencies of the cost for the returned space  Second, GSA’s Office of Government-wide Policy is responsible for, among other things, identifying, evaluating, and promoting best practices to improve the efficiency of management processes  In this policy role, GSA provides guidance for federal agencies and publishes performance measures  It also maintains the Federal Real Property Profile, a real property inventory database that contains information on federal real property government-wide  Based on our review of agencies’ 2016 and 2017 Plans, we found that all 24 CFO Act agencies described strategies for reducing office and warehouse space  As previously mentioned, these annual Plans must include all potential projects related to office and warehouse consolidation, co-location, disposal, as well as construction and acquisition efforts  The agencies’ Plans cited consolidation, co-location, and disposal as the primary means to reduce their office and warehouse space, activities mentioned in the National Strategy  Agencies also cited other methods, such as utilizing telework and decreasing the space they allocate per person to achieve space reductions  The space reduction strategies included most often in the Plans we reviewed include the following  Consolidation: All 24 agencies reported planned or ongoing efforts to reduce their space by consolidating their offices or operations  For example, we spoke with officials at HUD, which is in the process of consolidating staff from four offices in the National Capital Region into its 1 12-million square foot headquarters building in Washington, D C  HUD started by remodeling one floor to create a more open floor plan and intends to apply this design throughout the building  As part of the consolidation project, HUD has reduced the size of some office cubicles from 64 square feet to 56 square feet  (See fig  1 ) HUD leases its space through GSA and estimates that it will be able to return about 175,000 square feet of unneeded space back to GSA once all four offices are closed  At that point, GSA would then bear the cost of the space and work to lease it to another agency or otherwise dispose of it  Once the project is completed, HUD estimated that its headquarters building will accommodate about 500 more personnel (for a total of 3,200) and reduce its annual lease payments by about $11 million  Fifteen of the 24 agencies identified consolidation opportunities outside of their headquarters buildings  For example, the Department of Agriculture (USDA) discussed a consolidation project involving five component agencies in Albuquerque, New Mexico, in its fiscal year 2017 Plan  According to USDA officials, four component agencies occupying nearly 44,500 square feet in one building were to be consolidated into about 34,000 square feet of space in another building already occupied by a different USDA agency  In the prior location, the multiple components spaces’ square footage per person averaged 327, but the proposed consolidation would bring the utilization rate down to 255 square feet per person  USDA estimated that the consolidation project would result in about $238,000 in annual rent cost savings for the four components  Additionally, to enable this consolidation project, the component agency already occupying the building consolidated and vacated about 20,000 square feet, a move that resulted in an annual rental savings of about $500,000  In its fiscal year 2017 Plan, Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation anticipated eliminating 87,000 square feet of office space by consolidating operations from two buildings in Denver, Colorado  Interior estimated that the consolidation will result in a 40 percent reduction in its overall utilization rate to 165 square feet per person and an annual cost savings of about $2 1 million  Co-location: Thirteen of the 24 agencies’ Plans stated that they are exploring or implementing co-location projects to reduce space by merging staff from different components or agencies into another agency’s space  For example, the Social Security Administration (SSA) recently initiated a co-location pilot program with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) within Treasury to combine SSA field offices with IRS Taxpayer Assistance Centers  Co-location of operations can reduce the overall space required by allowing agencies to share common space such as waiting rooms, an action that can reduce rent and operating costs for the co-located agencies  Since the inception of the 1-year program in January 2017, four IRS offices are participating and have moved into SSA field offices  According to SSA, IRS and SSA staff have adjusted to sharing space and the IRS presence in SSA space has not affected SSA wait times or created security or parking issues  According to an IRS official, IRS employees continue all normal operations from their co-located offices with SSA, including meeting with taxpayers in-person  The official also noted that IRS has extended the terms of its agreement with SSA for an additional year  However, SSA noted that the agencies are still working through customer access issues that could determine whether it would be possible to expand the pilot program and pursue additional co-location opportunities  In another example, according to Interior officials, the U S  Geological Survey is co-locating staff from Menlo Park, California, to a National Aeronautics and Space Administration facility in the nearby city of Mountain View, California  About 40 percent of the staff will move early in fiscal year 2019, and the U S  Geological Survey expects the remaining staff to be co- located by the end of 2021  Interior officials estimate that the co- location will result in an overall reduction of 165,000 square feet (about 50 percent of its space) and expects to save about $12 to $14 million in annual rent costs  To help agencies identify potential co-location opportunities and work with other agencies to meet their space requirements, GSA developed and provided agencies access to its Asset Consolidation Tool in fiscal year 2015  This database tool provides agencies with information about federal spaces in their area, including the buildings’ vacancy and utilization rates  Disposal of unneeded space: Thirteen of the 24 agencies reported that they plan to reduce their real property footprint by disposing of unneeded space, including selling or demolishing federal buildings or terminating leases, among other actions  For example, IRS has five tax submission-processing centers that receive all mailed income-tax returns and have warehouses that store the physical tax records  Each of these five processing centers, which include both office and warehouse spaces in multiple buildings, is approximately 500,000 square feet  According to IRS officials, 87 percent of all 2016 individual income-tax returns were filed electronically  As a result, the IRS plans to dispose of three of the five centers by 2024 to align with its reduced need for income-tax return processing and storage space  GSA has the statutory authority to dispose of property for all federal agencies and generally does so on their behalf  In addition, some federal agencies, such as Energy, or departmental components have statutory authority to dispose of buildings and other types of property and are not required to notify or use the services of GSA to complete the disposal  Better utilization of existing space: In their Plans, agencies also reported using tactical tools, such as incorporating space utilization rates into their capital-planning process, to identify opportunities to reduce space  For example, 22 of the 24 agencies reported incorporating office space design standards and agency utilization rates into their processes to identify space reduction opportunities  Agencies set their own space design standards and space utilization rates, which may vary based on agency mission requirements across their components  The RTF policy requires agencies to establish a design standard for the maximum workstation size, which should, at a minimum, be applied to all space renovations and new acquisitions  In addition, GSA has a recommended office space-utilization rate range of 150 to 200 square feet per person  Officials from our case study agencies noted several practices they said were helpful to identify opportunities to better utilize and ultimately reduce their space  For example, Commerce officials described developing a process for identifying and prioritizing space reduction opportunities using a two-factor matrix  Through this process, Commerce plans to target office space with a large number of employees and poor utilization rates (compared to its 170 square foot utilization rate)  According to Commerce officials, these situations may offer the most opportunity for space reductions and achieving significant rent and operating cost savings, particularly in high-cost real estate markets  Using this process, Commerce identified the potential for reducing as much as 1 6-million square feet (16 percent) of its total office space within 52 high priority facilities  According to IRS, retirements, hiring freezes, budget reductions, and increased telework have resulted in excess space throughout its portfolio  In fiscal year 2016, IRS started using a Strategic Facility Plan model to help identify space reduction projects  IRS’s objectives include consolidating multiple offices within a metropolitan area, closing outlying buildings, and leveraging telework, mobility, and its attrition rates  This model utilizes a template form to provide a consistent decision-making framework for assessing various options, articulating the rationale for selecting the preferred option, and documenting decisions and concurrence  According to IRS officials, this model has helped IRS to reduce a lot of its space  In 2014, GSA developed and provided agencies with access to the Real Property Management Tool, which can aid agencies that want to more effectively utilize their space  The database tool provides agencies with the capability to comprehensively view their real property portfolio by consolidating data from the assets that agencies directly manage with the assets that GSA manages on their behalf  As such, regardless of whether an agency initiated the action or GSA did so on its behalf, the tool gives an agency the ability to see all of its data, such as on expiring leases, in one place  The tool enables agencies to create individualized analytic reports allowing them to analyze the data in various ways  Teleworking and hoteling: Fifteen of the 24 agencies also described alternate workplace arrangements enabled by information technology, such as telework and hoteling, to help reduce office space  Telework is a work flexibility arrangement under which an employee performs their work responsibilities at an approved alternative worksite (e g , home)  Executive agencies are required to establish policies that authorize eligible employees to telework, determine the eligibility of all employees to participate in telework, and notify all employees of their eligibility  Federal law also requires that agencies consider whether space needs can be met using alternative workspace arrangements when deciding whether to acquire new space  As such, some agencies are eliminating designated offices for staff who primarily telework, a step that can improve space utilization  In a hoteling arrangement, employees use non-dedicated, non-permanent workspaces assigned for use by reservation and on an as needed basis  For example, the Office of Personnel Management implemented a workspace sharing initiative at one of its program offices  Staff who are not physically present in the office 4 or more days per week are required to share cubicles and offices  The Office of Personnel Management estimated that the initiative resulted in a 47 percent office space reduction for the program office  As part of their fiscal year 2016 and 2017 Plans, the 24 CFO Act agencies also described the major challenges they anticipated facing in their efforts to meet their space reduction targets  The agencies most frequently cited the following challenges: Space reduction costs: Twenty of 24 agencies stated that the costs of space reduction projects pose a challenge  Agencies are generally responsible for the up-front costs associated with relocations and tenant improvements, such as acquiring new furniture and renovating existing areas to reduce space or to accommodate more personnel in a smaller area  For example, the Department of Labor (Labor) reported in its fiscal year 2017 Plan that it did not have sufficient funding to implement a space reduction project that would have reduced commercially leased office space by 4,000 square feet  Similarly, the Department of Veterans Affairs’ fiscal year 2017 Plan noted that assuming a limited budget, large scale consolidations would be difficult to achieve  Some agencies have used or report that they intend to use funding from GSA’s Consolidation Activities program to help fund their space reduction projects  According to GSA, from fiscal years 2014 to 2017, GSA’s Consolidation Activities program funded projects that will eliminate 1 4-million rentable square feet from the GSA inventory and reduce agencies’ annual rent payments by $54 million  According to the IRS, GSA’s Consolidation funds have helped the agency reduce about 500,000 square feet of space  IRS officials noted that these funds helped the agency implement larger and more expensive space reduction projects than it would have been able to do otherwise  However, according to officials from several agencies, to use this program, agencies must also contribute funds to the projects  HUD officials stated that they considered applying for project funding through GSA but did not do so because HUD did not have sufficient funds for the agency’s share of project costs  Three of the 24 agencies specifically noted that the cost to clean up environmentally contaminated buildings is a challenge to disposing of excess office and warehouse space  Agencies are required to consider the environmental impact of property disposals  We have previously found that assessments and remediation of contaminated properties can be expensive and complicate the disposal process  Also, agencies are responsible for supervising decontamination of excess and surplus real property that has been contaminated with hazardous materials of any sort  In its fiscal year 2017 Plan, Energy estimated that over 60 percent of its excess buildings require extensive decontamination prior to disposal  Overall, Energy projected that its total liability for environmental clean-up could cost more than $280 billion  Mission delivery: Thirteen of the 24 agencies reported that mission delivery requirements can also affect their ability to reduce space  Agency missions may require office locations in certain areas or require additional space to accommodate activities such as customer interactions  These requirements may preclude disposals or limit opportunities to reduce space  For example, in its fiscal year 2017 Plan, SSA stated that its efforts to reduce space are affected by its mission, which requires offices widely dispersed throughout the country to administer and support its benefit programs, among other things  SSA has about 1,500 office spaces nationwide, most of which require space to accommodate the public  SSA had an overall office space utilization rate of 301 square feet per person, which exceeded GSA’s recommended office space utilization rate range of 150 to 200 square feet per person  USDA’s fiscal year 2017 Plan stated that its missions require office space in rural areas to, among other things, provide program assistance and leadership on food, agriculture, natural resources, rural development, nutrition, and related issues  In its fiscal year 2017 Plan, USDA also observed that the real estate market in rural areas is less competitive than in urban areas because there are fewer rental options, a situation that can also drive up rent costs  As such, USDA noted that these factors may contribute to difficulties identifying disposal opportunities and finding alternate spaces that could allow for more effective space utilization  Employee organization concerns: Ten of the 24 agencies reported that considering employee organizations’ concerns and addressing collective bargaining requirements when reconfiguring space can add time and affect the extent of their space reductions  For example, in its fiscal year 2017 Plan, SSA noted that the agency must meet with three employee unions when revising office space policies or design standards and collaborating with these organizations adds to the project’s implementation timeline  In July 2017, we reported that SSA officials met with employee union groups about the impact of potential changes to its space configuration or usage  Officials said that while the interactions with the union groups were positive—including gaining input on issues such as ergonomics, the security of field offices, and overall implementation—at times, these negotiations caused delays to individual projects and complicated reduction efforts by requiring union buy-in  In addition, Labor reported in its fiscal year 2017 Plan that its collective bargaining agreement and agency mission requirements for offices and work stations do not always enable it to take advantage of the previously discussed GSA Consolidation Funding program as well as GSA’s Total Workplace Furniture & Information Technology program  For example, the Total Workplace Furniture & Information Technology program requires that cubicles and offices must not exceed a specified square footage  However, according to Labor officials, Labor’s Departmental Space Management Regulation requires a certain utilization rate per person which may make it challenging to also stay within the program’s square footage requirements  Workload growth: Eight of the 24 agencies noted that increases in their workload limited their ability to achieve overall agency space reductions  For example, according to the Department of Justice’s fiscal year 2017 Plan, the agency anticipated having to provide additional court rooms to support an increased volume of immigration cases and accommodate the additional immigration judges needed to handle that volume  The Department of Justice estimated that the space needed to accommodate the new judges and additional public areas could add about 155,000 square feet to its portfolio  Also, according to the Department of Health and Human Services’ fiscal years 2016 and 2017 Plans, the Office of Medicare Hearings and Appeals experienced a 30 percent growth in cases and expected 1 2- million new cases annually after 2017  The Department of Health and Human Services projected that the growth in cases and additional staff needed to process the cases required additional field offices, which would increase its total office space square footage  As previously mentioned, agencies are required to set annual square foot reduction targets for domestic office and warehouse space in their annual Plans  According to an OMB official, to help ensure the targets are realistic, agencies are also required to identify the specific projects that will help them to achieve their space reduction targets  According to GSA and OMB officials, agencies submit their Plans, including their reduction targets, and their Plans are reviewed by both GSA and OMB  But each individual agency ultimately establishes its targets based on what it determines to be cost-effective and feasible  Through its Real Property Efficiency Plan template, GSA provides guidance to agencies on what is expected in their annual submissions  Each agency is required to document its internal controls, such as the process for identifying and prioritizing reductions to office and warehouse space and disposal of properties based on return on investment and mission requirements  The identified internal controls should help ensure that an agency’s proposed space reduction projects reflect an efficient use of space and are cost effective  A review of our five case study agencies illustrated some of the different approaches agencies used to determine their reduction targets  For example, several agencies’ targets were based on the total estimated feasible reductions identified by each agency component  In contrast, one agency centrally established a reduction target percentage and then asked its components to develop projects to meet that target  According to case-study agency officials, the agencies considered many factors, including their missions, priorities, component needs, and available budgets, when determining their targets  We found that the number and magnitude of the space reduction projects agencies identified in their fiscal year 2017 Plans varied greatly and were generally proportional to the size of the agency’s real property portfolio
Report 2:  According to an Air Force analysis, doing so would achieve savings of over $67 million as it replaces or retires devices  As of July 2018, the Air Force had not fully implemented this guidance  Efforts by the military services to demonstrate that they have achieved print device reduction goals have been limited because they have not monitored the actions they have taken to reduce the number of print devices  Military service officials we interviewed said they were unaware of any efforts by the DOD CIO to ensure that device reductions occurred and that DOD components achieved their planned savings, such as providing information to the CIO on the status of their efforts to implement the guidance in the memorandum or data on reductions in the number of devices  Standards for internal control state that management should implement control activities through policies that use quality information to achieve an entity’s objectives, monitor the internal control system, and evaluate the results of the system  Efforts to implement the memorandum to achieve print device reduction goals have also been limited because responsibility for implementation was not clearly assigned  According to a DOD CIO official, the responsibility for the memorandum is not clearly assigned to a member of the CIO staff  This official also stated that because of the consolidation of information technology services in the Pentagon and the national capital region, the Defense Information Systems Agency’s Joint Service Provider assumed responsibility for implementing the memorandum  According to Joint Service Provider officials, however, they were only responsible for implementing the memorandum for the customers they serve in the Pentagon and the national capital region, and not for other DOD components outside those areas, such as military services  Standards for internal control state that management should ensure that key roles in operating the internal control system are clearly assigned  In the absence of these controls, such as reporting procedures to monitor actions to reduce the number of print devices and establishing clear responsibility for implementing the CIO memorandum, DOD has been unable to ensure that it is achieving any estimated savings, which could represent tens of millions of dollars annually  DLA Document Services may be able to realize additional savings from further consolidating facilities beyond those already identified, but it does not currently plan to do so, and it does not have the complete data it would need to make those determinations  As a part of its transformation plan, DLA Document Services identified 38 of its 112 facilities in the continental United States that it would retain  DLA Document Services officials stated that they considered a number of factors in determining whether to consolidate or retain facilities, including the number of staff and customers and the facilities’ workloads, but that they generally consolidated or retained facilities based on whether the facility provided “mission specialty” services  These mission specialties are services that DLA Document Services officials believe cannot be easily outsourced, such as printing and reproduction of classified and sensitive documents and on-demand printing and distribution of certain technical materials  However, our analysis of DLA Document Services data found that some facilities retained for certain mission specialties were responsible for a relatively small share of business for those specialties in fiscal year 2016 (the last full year for which data were provided), which suggests that further consolidations are possible  For example, for each of the four mission specialties for which DLA Document Services provided us with revenue data, the bottom quartile (25 percent) of the facilities retained for each specialty were responsible for less than 5 percent of the total revenue for that specialty, as shown in figure 6  We also found some cases in which DLA Document Services retained facilities that reported less revenue for a given specialty than facilities that it did not retain  According to officials, DLA Document Services took a number of factors into consideration in deciding on consolidations, including the complexity of the work at a facility and whether nearby sites could fulfill the orders  According to these officials, this allowed them to consolidate some facilities even if those facilities had greater revenue from a given mission specialty than other facilities  DOD Instruction 5330 03 requires DLA Document Services to provide effective and efficient document services support to DOD components  Our key practices for efficiency initiatives also note the importance of targeting both short-term and long-term efficiency initiatives  DLA Document Services officials stated that they would consider additional consolidations of facilities, but they have not conducted any analysis or planning to gain further efficiencies and do not currently have plans to do so  These officials stated they are committed to implementing the current transformation plan as announced  Officials also stated that they want to have a better sense of the results from the current transformation, including how workloads may change among facilities as consolidations occur, before considering additional consolidations  DLA Document Services’ current transformation plan includes the possible consolidation of facilities outside the continental United States following the implementation of its current plan (which only addressed facilities inside the continental United States); it does not have any plans for further consolidations within the continental United States  We also found that DLA Document Services did not have revenue data on all of its mission specialties to inform any future decisions on facility consolidations  Standards for internal control state that entities’ management should use quality information to achieve the entities’ objectives  However, DLA Document Services could not provide revenue data on three specific mission specialties—sensitive, classified, and Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information—for which it retained 30 of its facilities, including some that it retained exclusively for those specialties  According to DLA Document Services officials, they did not collect revenue data for these mission specialties because the facilities responsible for processing this type of information were generally retained, regardless of the revenue they produced, due to the sensitive nature of this work  As noted above, our analysis of available mission specialty data found that some facilities that DLA retained for certain mission specialties did a relatively small share of business for those specialties, indicating that there may be opportunities for additional facility consolidations  DLA Document Services officials told us that they had consulted with managers at the facilities about the amount of sensitive and classified they conducted  Because of these consultations, DLA Document Services is closing some facilities that handled sensitive and classified information  However, DLA Document Services does not routinely collect these data as it does for other mission specialties  By collecting and analyzing more complete revenue data on its mission specialties and using those data to evaluate opportunities for further consolidations, DLA Document Services would be better positioned to determine if opportunities exist to achieve additional cost savings  DOD reports some financial information regarding its document services, but this information does not accurately capture the scope of its document services mission  We reviewed the O&M obligations for printing and reproduction in fiscal years 2012 through 2016 that were reported to Congress by the military services  The total obligations ranged from about $534 million to about $736 million annually for the 5-year period (see fig  7)  Our analysis found that DOD’s O&M budget materials for printing and reproduction are inaccurate in two ways  First, the budget materials include obligations that are primarily for non-printing activities, such as the purchase of advertising and radio and television time  DOD and military service financial management officials prepare budget justification materials for their O&M funding requests on an annual basis  DOD and the services report printing and reproduction costs in the Summary of Price and Program Changes budget exhibit (the “OP-32”)  It contains information by line item, detailing, among other items, printing and reproduction and related operations performed by the military services, DLA, or GPO  It also contains elements of expenses for purchases related to document services that are provided by DLA  The OP-32 exhibits are provided to Congress with the budget justification materials accompanying the President’s annual budget request  Officials from AMRG told us that, in accordance with Army guidance, printing and reproduction obligations are coupled with other obligations, including the purchase of advertising space and radio and television time for recruiting activities  Data provided by these officials show that in fiscal year 2016, AMRG’s obligations for printing and reproduction accounted for only about $2 million, or 2 percent, of the Army’s total fiscal year 2016 obligations included in the printing and reproduction line of the OP-32  Obligations for the publication of notices, advertising, and radio and television time accounted for about $78 million, or 63 percent, of the obligations reported for printing and reproduction  According to officials, the Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps also follow their respective guidance on reporting printing and reproduction obligations together with these other obligations  Second, the budget justification information does not represent the full scope of the military services’ document services mission  Specifically, we found that the military services’ annual budget requests do not provide distinct information on two areas of their document services mission— print device procurement and electronic content management  Data we reviewed indicate that the military services obligate a considerable amount of resources in these areas  For example, according to DLA Document Services, sales to DOD and the military services for its print device services are comparable to sales for its printing and reproduction services  According to DLA data, in fiscal year 2017, it received in revenue about $108 million for print device and about $105 million for printing and reproduction services  Officials from the military services told us that obligations for these activities are included within the budget requests for various IT procurement categories  For example, Army Budget Office officials noted that the budget request for IT procurement and office supplies would include estimates associated with the purchase and sustainment of devices, but those line items would include other, non-printing obligations as well  According to these officials, the Army has made efforts to standardize the procurement of information technology, including collecting better data on spending for these types of devices  They told us that these efforts will result in shifts in how those obligations are reported in budget justification materials  The accuracy and completeness of DOD’s financial information about its document services can affect the allocation of budgetary resources, and inaccurate or incomplete information can hamper initiatives to gain further efficiencies  The Handbook of Federal Accounting Standards states that its managerial cost accounting concepts and standards are aimed at agencies providing reliable and timely information on the full costs of their federal programs that congressional and executive decision makers can use in making decisions about allocating federal resources and program managers can use in making decisions to improve operating economy and efficiency  DOD’s Financial Management Regulation lays out the structure of the budget exhibits that the military services develop during the department’s budget process  According to a DOD Comptroller official, DOD has historically reported its budget requests following the format prescribed by the Financial Management Regulation, and it follows this format in its reporting of printing and reproduction costs that are coupled with non-printing costs  Although the department has followed this format, the House Armed Services Committee has expressed concern about the military services’ printing budgets, noting that they were excessive and that portions of the budgets should be realigned to address unfunded readiness priorities  Further, as we discussed earlier in this report, DOD has outlined specific steps it intends to take to achieve a recommended goal of 34 percent reduction in spending on its printing and related activities  Without quality information on the scope of its document services mission, DOD will lack the information it needs to assess whether it is achieving this goal  To assess its progress toward achieving this goal, it will be critical for decision makers to have accurate financial information  According to a DOD Comptroller official, the Financial Management Regulation provides flexibility in how obligations are categorized and reported internally and to Congress, but DOD has not evaluated options to report more accurate funding information on its document services  Unless DOD evaluates options to report more accurate funding information and takes steps to improve the accuracy of its budgetary and financial information reporting, DOD and Congress will not have the full visibility over these costs that they need to make informed decisions  DOD is taking important steps to address congressional concerns about its spending on document service activities  Most notably, DOD is implementing its plan to transform its DLA Document Services mission and has taken certain steps to reduce the number and cost of print devices  These efforts have begun to produce results, but DOD can do more to build on these gains  By better managing fragmentation in printing and reproduction services, DOD could ensure that DLA Document Services is providing the best value in obtaining document services  DOD could further reduce overlap in print device procurement by assessing the various approaches employed by DLA and the military services to determine what constitutes the most cost-effective approach for the department  DOD has set goals intended to reduce the number of print devices and realize tens of millions of dollars in savings each year, but it has not demonstrated that it has achieved these savings, because of limitations in internal controls  Additional efforts aimed at collecting and analyzing information to examine areas for further consolidation of DLA Document Services’ mission specialty locations might provide DOD with additional cost savings  DOD’s O&M budget materials for printing and reproduction activities include information on non-printing activities that make up a much larger portion of its reported spending than printing does  In addition, these O&M budget materials omit information that would capture the full scope of DOD’s document services mission, such as device procurement and electronic content management, which are included with information technology budget materials  By providing more accurate costs for its document services activities, DOD would ensure that Congress and departmental leaders have the insight needed to make informed decisions  We are making a total of six recommendations to DOD  The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment assesses whether DLA Document Services’ single manager role for printing and reproduction provides the best value to the government—as determined by quality, price, and delivery time and in light of DLA Document Services’ transformation plan—and whether any additional efficiencies are possible, and use the results of that assessment to inform the revision of DOD Instruction 5330 03  (Recommendation 1) The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment assesses whether DOD’s current approach to obtaining print devices represents the best value to the government or whether other approaches, such as further consolidations under DLA Document Services as a proposed single manager for print device procurement, would be more cost effective  (Recommendation 2) The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the DOD CIO implements controls, such as reporting procedures, to routinely monitor actions to reduce the number of print devices, consistent with department-wide goals for reducing the number of print devices that are included in the CIO’s 2012 memorandum  (Recommendation 3) The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the DOD CIO assigns responsibility for implementing the CIO’s 2012 memorandum on optimizing the use of employee information technology devices  (Recommendation 4) The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Director, DLA, in coordination with the Director, DLA Document Services and following implementation of the current transformation plan, gathers data on workload revenue at retained facilities and all mission specialties and evaluate whether additional opportunities for consolidation exist based on those data  (Recommendation 5) The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), in consultation with the military services and DLA, evaluates options to report more accurate funding information and takes steps to improve the accuracy of its budgetary and financial information reporting on document services internally and to Congress, including making distinctions between printing and non-printing-related costs and information on device procurement and electronic content management  This information could be provided as part of DOD’s annual O&M budget justification materials  (Recommendation 6) We provided a draft of this report to DOD for review and comment  In its written comments, DOD concurred with five recommendations and identified specific actions and time frames for addressing them, and it partially concurred with the remaining recommendation  DOD’s written comments are reprinted in their entirety in appendix II  DOD also provided technical comments, which we incorporated into the report, where appropriate  DOD partially concurred with our recommendation that the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), in consultation with the military services and DLA, evaluate options to report more accurate funding information and take steps to improve the accuracy of budgetary and financial information reporting on document services internally and to Congress, including making distinctions between printing and non- printing-related costs and information on device procurement and electronic content management  Our recommendation noted that this information could be provided as part of DOD’s annual O&M budget justification materials  DOD stated that the budget materials it submits to Congress are in compliance with OMB Circular A-11’s definitions of printing and reproduction and equipment  It further noted that Working Capital Fund exhibits provided with each annual budget include a breakout, by service, of the appropriated and Working Capital Fund activities and a detailed accounting of unit cost and pricing for all sub- activities of DLA Document Services  As we noted in our report, a DOD Comptroller official told us that the Financial Management Regulation provides DOD with flexibility in categorizing and reporting obligations internally and to Congress  However, we found that, based on this flexibility, DOD’s O&M budget materials reported obligations for printing and reproduction that were primarily for non-printing activities, such as the purchase of advertising and radio and television time  This budget information did not represent the full scope of DOD’s document services mission, since it omitted obligations for print device procurement and electronic content management  We also reported that DOD had not evaluated options to report more accurate funding information on its document services  DOD’s comments did not include plans to address this recommendation  We continue to believe that by providing more accurate costs for its document services activities, DOD would ensure that Congress and departmental leaders have the insight needed to make more informed decisions  We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Defense, the DOD Chief Information Officer, the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, the Director, Defense Logistics Agency, the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps  In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-2775 or fielde1@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report  GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix III  Our objectives were to evaluate (1) the progress the Department of Defense (DOD) has made in achieving efficiencies in its document services and opportunities, if any, for further efficiencies, and (2) the extent to which DOD reports accurate financial information about its document services to key stakeholders  For our first objective, we reviewed DOD documents and interviewed DOD officials in order to understand how each military service obtains document services and identify department-wide and military service efficiency initiatives for these services  We also reviewed the Defense Logistics Agency’s (DLA) and the military services’ document services activities and compared them with a DOD statutory periodic review; DOD Instructions and other guidance; Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance; internal control standards; and best practices for consolidation initiatives, efficiency initiatives, and strategic sourcing to identify any potentially unnecessary duplication, overlap, or fragmentation and any opportunities for greater efficiencies  For specific efficiency initiatives identified by DOD officials or in DOD documents, we interviewed DOD officials regarding their progress in implementing and meeting the goals of these initiatives  To evaluate DLA Document Services’ transformation plan, we interviewed DLA Document Services officials, reviewed DLA Document Services documents regarding the plan, and assessed that plan based on leading practices for consolidation and efficiency initiatives  To assess the plan against these practices, one analyst reviewed the testimony and documents provided and compared it to our key questions to consider when evaluating proposals to consolidate physical infrastructure and management functions  A second analyst reviewed and concurred with the first analyst’s assessments  In any cases where there was a disagreement, the analysts discussed any discrepancies  If they were not resolved, a third analyst reviewed the assessments  To assess the extent to which there may be additional opportunities for facility consolidations, we obtained DLA Document Services data on revenue reported by each facility, which DOD Document Services officials told us they used in determining which facilities to consolidate as a part of their transformation plan  We analyzed the share of mission specialty revenue reported by facilities that (1) were retained by DLA Document Services for a given mission specialty, (2) were retained but not for a given specialty, and (3) were not retained  We further divided those facilities retained for a given specialty into quartiles to better understand the concentration of revenue in those facilities  To assess the reliability of these data, we interviewed DLA Documents Services officials regarding how the data were gathered, analyzed, reported, and used  We found that these data were reliable for the purpose of analyzing the shares of mission specialty revenue represented by each facility or group of facilities  To compare the cost of print devices offered by DLA Document Services, the Army, and the Air Force, we gathered and analyzed data on the monthly cost of multifunction devices with comparable specifications  We compared costs for similar devices based on device specifications including print speeds, monthly volumes, and paper capacities  Because Army and Air Force costs are estimated and there might be other differences in device specifications, approaches to obtaining devices, and which associated services were included, this analysis does not allow us to conclude which sources provide the greatest value  However, it illustrates differences in the cost of print devices across sources  For DLA Document Services, we used DLA Document Services’ standard monthly pricing for 2018 for various categories of multifunction devices  For the Army, Army officials were unable to provide data on the cost of multifunction devices purchased by Army customers  Instead, they provided us with documentation of vendor responses to requests for quotes from the Army’s mandatory source for print devices from April 2017 through January 2018  We reviewed those documents and assigned each device to a DLA Document Services category, based on the device’s specifications as identified in the documentation  We then estimated the monthly cost for each device  For leased devices, we used the monthly cost of the lease  For purchased devices, we used the total cost of the device divided by an estimated service life for the device  We estimated this service life using some indication available in the documentation, such as the length of time a maintenance agreement or extended warranty was provided for the device  Army officials provided 183 quotes for devices  Of those, we were able to include 24 in our analysis  We excluded the other 159 because either we could not determine the cost for individual devices in a quote, there was not enough information on a device’s specifications, there was no DLA Document Services equivalent for the device, or we were unable to estimate a service life based on the information provided  Because the information included all vendor quotes provided and not just those that were selected by a customer, the costs may not represent the actual costs of devices to the customer  For the Air Force, we used an estimated average monthly cost based the standard pricing included in the Air Force’s 2018 catalog for print devices  We reviewed the catalog and assigned each multifunction device offered to a DLA Document Services category, based on the devices’ specifications  The Air Force’s catalog contained 32 devices; we were able to determine the equivalent DLA Document Services category for 13 of those devices  All devices in the Air Force’s catalog are available for purchase and include a 4-year maintenance agreement; therefore, we estimated the average monthly cost as the purchase price divided by 48  To evaluate the extent to which DOD reports accurate and complete financial information to key stakeholders to manage its document services, we analyzed DOD’s operation and maintenance (O&M) budget justification materials for fiscal years 2012 through 2016 and Defense Logistics Agency data on its document services mission  We focused our review on O&M obligations reported by DLA and the military services, which accounted for an average of about 92 percent of DOD’s total document service costs reported by DLA Document Services in fiscal years 2012 through 2016  We interviewed officials, including officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), DLA Document Services, and the military services to determine how they reported costs for document services  We assessed the information we collected against federal accounting standards on how information should be recorded and communicated to management and others  To determine the reliability of the O&M budget justification data provided to us by DOD, we obtained information on how the data were collected, managed, and used through interviews with relevant officials  We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable to represent the military services’ total O&M obligations for document services for fiscal years 2012 through 2016  We interviewed officials and, where appropriate, obtained documentation, from the following organizations: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) Department of Defense Chief Information Officer Defense Logistics Agency – Chief Information Officer Defense Logistics Agency – Document Services Defense Information Systems Agency – Joint Service Provider Army Chief Information Officer Army Publishing Directorate Army Marketing Research Group Army 7th Signal Command Headquarters Air Force – Chief Information Officer Department of the Navy – Chief Information Officer Headquarters Marine Corps Command, Control, Communications, Headquarters Marine Corps Publishing and Logistics Headquarters Marine Corps Budget and Execution Marine Corps Combat Camera Marine Corps Reprographic Equipment Management Program We conducted this performance audit from August 2017 to October 2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  In addition to the contact named above, Matthew Ullengren (Assistant Director), Adam Hatton (Analyst in Charge), Adam Brooks, Joanne Landesman, Amie Lesser, Daniel Ramsey, Carter Stevens, and Walter Vance made key contributions to this report 

ground_truth: First fielded in 1976 on Shemya Island in Alaska, the Cobra Dane radar faces growing sustainment challenges that DOD plans to address through modernization projects. Anticipating future needs, DOD began investing in new radar systems that share capabilities with Cobra Dane to support ballistic missile defense and space surveillance, including the LRDR (Alaska), the Space Fence (Marshall Islands), and the Pacific Radar (location to be determined). The conference report accompanying a bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 included a provision that GAO review the Air Force's report to Congress on the operation and sustainment of Cobra Dane. This report identifies information included in the Air Force's report and describes additional information that GAO reviewed on (1) the capabilities of the Cobra Dane radar and other planned radars to meet DOD's mission requirements, (2) Cobra Dane's operational availability and the plan to mitigate the effect on those missions when Cobra Dane is not available, and (3) DOD's funding plan and project cost estimates for the operation and sustainment of Cobra Dane and its site at Shemya Island. GAO reviewed the Air Force report and related documentation, and interviewed relevant officials. In its January 2018 report to Congress, the Air Force reported how the Cobra Dane radar and the Long Range Discrimination Radar (LRDR) have shared and unique capabilities to support ballistic missile defense and space surveillance missions. The report noted that the respective locations of both radar systems affect their ability to provide those capabilities. The Department of Defense (DOD) also has other radar investments—the Pacific Radar and the Space Fence, which, according to DOD officials, may reduce DOD's reliance on Cobra Dane to provide ballistic missile defense and space surveillance capabilities. The Air Force's report to Congress noted that Cobra Dane met its requirement for operational availability, which refers to the percentage of time that the radar is able to meet its missions. GAO found that the Air Force has developed procedures to mitigate risks when Cobra Dane is not available. For example, U.S. Northern Command and Missile Defense Agency (MDA) officials stated that they can mitigate risks when Cobra Dane is not available by using the Sea-Based X-band radar to provide support for ballistic missile defense. The Air Force would face some limitations in its ability to conduct space surveillance if Cobra Dane were not available, as Cobra Dane tracks objects no other radar can track. However, MDA officials noted there are no plans to take Cobra Dane offline long enough to compromise space surveillance. The Air Force and MDA plan to contribute total funding of $278.6 million for the operation and sustainment of Cobra Dane, according to their fiscal year 2019 budget plans. Specifically, the Air Force and MDA plan to share funding for the operation and maintenance of the Cobra Dane radar and for three modernization projects that make up their sustainment plan for the radar. Further, the Air Force report noted that the Air Force also plans to provide $140 million in funding for the sustainment and maintenance of operational access to Cobra Dane's site at Shemya Island. In addition, GAO found that the Air Force developed a total cost estimate for one project—known as the transmitter group replacement—but not for its other two projects. Air Force officials plan to complete cost estimates for those two projects in conjunction with their fiscal year 2020 budget submission.

prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 2.

Report 1: Cobra Dane and other radar systems can provide capabilities that contribute to a range of missions, such as ballistic missile defense, space surveillance, and intelligence-gathering missions  DOD uses Cobra Dane and other radar systems to provide information over a short period of time to ground-based interceptors so they can hit their targets  Such radar systems contribute to ballistic missile defense by tracking incoming missile threats, classifying the missile threat, and determining if a threat was intercepted successfully  In addition, some radar systems can provide discrimination capabilities, which allow for that radar to identify a warhead when a missile threat deploys decoys at the same time  Radar systems can also have the capability to contribute to a space surveillance mission, which provides an awareness of space objects within or near the Earth’s orbit and their movements, capabilities, and intent  Finally, radars can also contribute intelligence-gathering capabilities  Each radar system’s ability to contribute to various missions can be dependent on that radar’s inherent capabilities and physical location  See table 1 for a description of selected radar systems that can provide some or all of these capabilities  Various offices within the Air Force, in coordination with MDA, are responsible for the operation and sustainment of the Cobra Dane radar  Since 2013, Air Force Space Command has overseen the operation of Cobra Dane, and contributes to the sustainment of Cobra Dane’s site at Shemya Island  The Air Force Life Cycle Management Center has overall responsibility of the sustainment of the Cobra Dane radar  In addition, MDA works in coordination with the Air Force and combatant commands to develop, test, and field ballistic missile defense assets  MDA also shares funding with the Air Force to operate and sustain Cobra Dane  U S  Northern Command and U S  Strategic Command define priorities for the overall radar infrastructure and establish the various missions that those radar systems are intended to meet  U S  Northern Command oversees the homeland ballistic missile defense mission, and establishes operational objectives for radar systems operating in its region  U S  Northern Command officials told us that they are the end user for Cobra Dane  U S  Strategic Command has established a ballistic missile defense and a space surveillance mission, both of which are supported by Cobra Dane  Further, U S  Strategic Command’s components coordinate global missile defense and space operations planning  In its January 2018 report to Congress, the Air Force described how Cobra Dane and LRDR can meet mission requirements through their shared and unique capabilities, as well as how their locations affect their ability to provide those capabilities for DOD’s ballistic missile defense mission  MDA studies we reviewed found that locating LRDR at Clear Air Force Station allows for operational advantages and cost savings  The Air Force included information in its report to Congress on the ballistic missile defense capabilities of Cobra Dane and LRDR, and the effects of each radar’s location on those capabilities  Specifically, the Air Force report stated that both radars have the capabilities to track and classify missile threats  However, the report incorrectly stated that both radar systems have the inherent capability to determine if a missile threat is successfully intercepted  MDA documentation that we reviewed shows that Cobra Dane does not yet have this capability  When we shared our finding with Air Force and MDA officials, they agreed that this reported capability was incorrectly identified in the Air Force report to Congress  MDA officials also told us that Cobra Dane could provide this capability in the future if it implements software changes, but they are unlikely to do this until calendar year 2025  The Air Force report also noted that LRDR would have a unique capability, once it is operational, to discriminate missile threats from any deployed decoys  See table 2 for a summary of what the Air Force reported for the ballistic missile defense capabilities of Cobra Dane and LRDR  In addition to identifying ballistic missile defense capabilities of each radar, the Air Force report noted that both Cobra Dane and LRDR will have the inherent capabilities to support space surveillance and intelligence-gathering missions  DOD officials we spoke to confirmed that they have plans to use those inherent capabilities to support these other missions  For example, U S  Strategic Command identified that DOD needs Cobra Dane to support its space surveillance mission  Further, Air Force and MDA officials told us that they use Cobra Dane to track small objects that no other radar system can track  MDA officials told us that LRDR could be used for space surveillance  However, Air Force and U S  Strategic Command officials stated that there are no plans to use LRDR’s space surveillance capabilities as a replacement for Cobra Dane  Additionally, Air Force officials told us that neither Cobra Dane nor LRDR is required to support an intelligence-gathering mission  The Air Force also included information in its report on how the locations of Cobra Dane and LRDR affect their abilities to contribute to the ballistic missile defense mission  For example, the Air Force reported that Cobra Dane’s location at Shemya Island, Alaska, allows it to track missile threats from North Korea earlier in their trajectories than LRDR would be able to track at Clear Air Force Station, Alaska  This is consistent with an MDA analysis that we reviewed that outlined additional advantages provided by Cobra Dane’s location at Shemya Island  According to that analysis, Cobra Dane can begin tracking missile threats approximately 210 seconds earlier than LRDR  Air Force officials told us that the additional time to track missile threats allows the warfighter an earlier opportunity to intercept a missile threat and deploy additional interceptors if the first attempt fails  Further, the MDA analysis described a tracking gap between the areas covered by LRDR—once it is operational at Clear Air Force Station—and the two sets of AN/TPY-2 radars that are currently located in Japan  Without Cobra Dane’s coverage of this gap, the analysis found that the warfighter would have a more limited opportunity to intercept a missile threat from North Korea  Figure 2 shows how Cobra Dane covers a gap between the LRDR (once operational) and the two AN/TPY-2 radars in Japan  The Air Force report also noted that LRDR’s geographic location has its own advantages in contributing to ballistic missile defense compared to Cobra Dane’s location  For example, the Air Force report noted that LRDR’s location would allow it to track missile threats later in their trajectories beyond Cobra Dane’s coverage as those threats make their way to the continental United States  We also found that MDA has determined LRDR will have other advantages due to its location  For example, an MDA analysis that we reviewed found that LRDR’s location will allow for the radar system to contribute to ballistic missile defense from North Korean and Iranian threats  Absent LRDR, this analysis determined that there are no other radar systems that are located in a position to provide the capability to discriminate missile threats and determine if a threat was successfully intercepted  In addition to what the Air Force reported, we found that DOD decided to locate LRDR at Clear Air Force Station in Alaska after considering the advantages and disadvantages of other locations  For example, MDA completed studies that examined how LRDR could perform at various locations in Alaska, and the cost-effectiveness of constructing and sustaining the radar at those sites  In a June 2015 analysis, MDA compared how LRDR could perform in discriminating missile threats when co-locating it with Cobra Dane at Shemya Island or placing it at Clear Air Force Station  MDA determined that LRDR could provide more real-time discrimination information for missile threats targeting Alaska and the continental United States if it constructed the radar at Clear Air Force Station versus Shemya Island  Additionally, MDA identified in an October 2016 study that the department could obtain operational advantages and cost savings by constructing LRDR at Clear Air Force Station, Alaska, when compared to constructing it at Shemya Island, Alaska  Specifically, MDA determined that Clear Air Force Station could provide better results for 11 of the 13 factors it reviewed compared to Shemya Island  For example, MDA determined that locating LRDR at Clear Air Force Station would result in lower costs and enhanced system performance  According to DOD officials and documents we reviewed, other radar investments may reduce the department’s reliance on Cobra Dane for ballistic missile defense and space surveillance, given that U S  Northern Command identified it has a need for Cobra Dane after DOD begins operating LRDR in fiscal year 2021  Specifically, the Pacific Radar and Space Fence may reduce DOD’s reliance on Cobra Dane to support ballistic missile defense and space surveillance, respectively  Pacific Radar: According to DOD officials, the department may no longer need Cobra Dane to meet the ballistic missile defense mission after MDA fields a new radar in the Pacific region in fiscal year 2025  MDA began developing the Pacific Radar to provide additional missile threat tracking and discrimination capabilities  According to U S  Northern Command and MDA officials, the Pacific Radar may fill the gap in tracking missile threats currently covered by Cobra Dane  Space Fence: The Air Force has also determined it will no longer have a requirement for Cobra Dane to provide space surveillance once the Space Fence is fully operational  The Air Force plans for the Space Fence to be operational in fiscal year 2019  According to a U S  Strategic Command briefing, the Space Fence will provide the same capabilities as Cobra Dane  Air Force officials noted that they want to continue relying on Cobra Dane for space surveillance when the Space Fence is operational, as long as the radar is available and used to contribute to ballistic missile defense  In its January 2018 report to Congress, the Air Force noted that Cobra Dane met its requirement for operational availability—i e , the percentage of time that the radar system is able to meet its ballistic missile defense and space surveillance missions  Specifically, the Air Force report noted that Cobra Dane had been available an average of 91 percent of the time over a 2-year period (January 2016 through December 2017), which exceeded the 90 percent requirement for operational availability  Information that we reviewed from a more recent 2-year period (August 2016 through July 2018) showed that Cobra Dane’s 2-year average for operational availability had declined to approximately 88 percent—below the 90 percent requirement  Air Force officials stated that the decline in the operational availability over the more recent two-year period was due to a few instances where they needed to take Cobra Dane off-line for extended periods of scheduled downtime (e g , regular operations and maintenance, calibration of instruments)  Further, they noted that when Cobra Dane is not operationally available, the reason is usually due to scheduled downtime  Officials also told us there was one instance of unscheduled downtime (e g , part or system failure) in that 2-year period which required emergency maintenance on the radar’s mission control hardware  We also reviewed Air Force data on the frequency of unscheduled downtime between August 2016 and July 2018, which show that Cobra Dane is able to contribute to its missions without unscheduled downtime 99 7 percent of the time  According to U S  Northern Command and MDA officials, they can mitigate the effect on the ballistic missile defense mission if they know far enough in advance that Cobra Dane will not be operationally available— such as during scheduled downtime  Officials stated that they do this by moving a transportable radar, known as the Sea-Based X-band radar, to specific locations in the Pacific Ocean to provide additional tracking coverage of missile threats  A U S  Northern Command analysis that we reviewed describes how DOD can deploy the Sea-Based X-band radar at particular locations in the Pacific Ocean to supplement Cobra Dane  This analysis found that U S  Northern Command can lose the ability to track some missile threat trajectories if Cobra Dane is not available and the Sea-Based X-band radar is not deployed  We also reviewed Air Force data on space surveillance, which shows that the Air Force would face some limitations in its ability to complete its space surveillance mission when Cobra Dane is not operationally available  According to the data, Cobra Dane tracks 3,300 space objects each day that cannot be tracked by any other radar system  Air Force officials noted that when Cobra Dane is not operationally available for space surveillance for short periods (less than 24 hours), they can overcome that downtime without losing track of those unique objects  However, officials told us that it would take six months to reacquire all of the small space objects that Cobra Dane tracks, if they encounter any significant scheduled or unscheduled downtime  MDA officials told us there are no scheduled plans to take Cobra Dane down long enough to compromise DOD’s ability to conduct space surveillance  In its January 2018 report to Congress, the Air Force projected that the Air Force and MDA would contribute total funding of $278 6 million based on their fiscal year 2019 budget plans for the operation and sustainment of Cobra Dane  According to the report, the Air Force and MDA plan to share funding for the operation and maintenance of the Cobra Dane radar, and for three modernization projects that make up their sustainment plan for the radar  Table 3 outlines the plan for how the Air Force and MDA will share funding for the operation and maintenance of Cobra Dane  In addition, the Air Force included information in its report on how the Air Force and MDA plan to share funding to support Cobra Dane’s three modernization projects  Specifically, the Air Force and MDA plan to redesign parts for three sets of obsolete systems: (1) mission system replacement; (2) traveling wave tubes; and (3) transmitter groups  The Air Force has identified that it no longer has vendors that manufacture some critical parts, and failure of any of the three systems could result in Cobra Dane not being available to meet mission requirements  As such, the Air Force determined that it could sustain these three systems more effectively if they were redesigned  Table 4 summarizes the reported funding for the three projects that make up the Cobra Dane sustainment plan  In addition to what the Air Force reported, we identified that the Air Force developed a total cost estimate for its transmitter group replacement, but not for its other two projects  For the other two projects, Air Force officials stated that they plan to complete estimates for the total costs in conjunction with their fiscal year 2020 budget submission  In August 2016, the Air Force estimated that the transmitter group replacement would have a total cost of $91 2 million, but reported it would fund this project at $94 0 million through fiscal year 2023 (see table 4)  Air Force officials plan to request the transfer of any unused funding to the other projects once it completes the transmitter group project  The Air Force also completed a partial cost estimate for the traveling wave tube redesign—covering the redesign of the parts and replacement of 1 of 12 groups of parts—estimating that the first phase would cost $16 0 million  Further, Air Force officials told us that they have not yet developed a total cost estimate for the mission system replacement  We also found that the Air Force and MDA expedited Cobra Dane’s mission system replacement project, but Air Force officials told us they face challenges in expediting the other two projects without compromising Cobra Dane’s operational availability  For the mission system replacement, MDA requested additional funding in fiscal year 2018  Air Force and MDA officials told us that the additional funding they received allowed them to prioritize the mission system replacement and advance its timeline earlier that year  Air Force officials stated that they explored ways to expedite the two other projects: the traveling wave tubes and transmitter groups  However, they stated that replacing too many parts at the same time will result in their having to take Cobra Dane off-line for longer periods of time  According to Air Force and MDA officials, they may look for opportunities to expedite timeframes for their other two projects as long as the amount of scheduled downtime is kept to acceptable levels  In its report to Congress, the Air Force identified that it plans to provide $140 million in funding for the sustainment and maintenance of operational access to Cobra Dane’s site at Shemya Island based on its fiscal year 2019 budget plans  According to the report, the Air Force is solely responsible for funding all work related to the operation and sustainment of Shemya Island, shared between two of its major commands: Air Force Space Command and Pacific Air Forces  Table 5 summarizes the information the Air Force included in its report on how funding will be shared for Shemya Island  We also reviewed a support agreement between Air Force Space Command and Pacific Air Forces that identifies how they will sustain the site and the calculation for sharing costs  The agreement describes the specific work to sustain the site, including maintaining the airfield, support facilities, and communication infrastructure  Air Force officials told us that they are constantly addressing challenges related to operational access to the site at Shemya Island, but Air Force Space Command and Pacific Air Forces work together to address those challenges  We provided a draft of this report to DOD for review and comment  DOD told us that it had no comments on the draft report  We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense; the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisitions and Sustainment; the Secretary of the Air Force; the Director of the Missile Defense Agency; and the Commanders of U S  Northern Command and U S  Strategic Command  In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact Joe Kirschbaum at (202) 512-9971 or kirschbaumj@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report  GAO staff who made contributions to the report are listed in Appendix I  In addition to the contact named above, Kevin O’Neill (Assistant Director), Scott Bruckner, Vincent Buquicchio, Martin De Alteriis, Amie Lesser, and Richard Powelson made key contributions to the report 


Report 2:  The number of projects identified in agency Plans ranged from as few as 3 projects (the minimum required in the Plans) to nearly 400 projects  The estimated space reductions per project across agencies ranged from about 1,400 to over 94,000 square feet  For example, the Department of Veterans Affairs has a relatively large office and warehouse portfolio of over 28-million square feet  As part of its fiscal year 2017 Plan, the agency reported 320 planned or ongoing projects with an average space reduction of about 1,800 square feet per project  Conversely, the Office of Personnel Management has a relatively small office space portfolio of about 1-million square feet; its fiscal year 2017 Plan identified 4 ongoing or potential projects with an average space reduction of about 6,000 square feet  In fiscal year 2016—the first and only year RTF data were available at the time of our review—the majority (71 percent or 17 of the 24 agencies) reported they achieved reductions in their office and warehouse space even though the agencies had varying success in achieving the individual targets they set for themselves  For example, as shown in figure 2, of the 17 agencies that reduced space, 9 exceeded their targets (i e , reduced more space than planned); 7 reduced space but missed their target (by anywhere between 2 8 and 96 7 percent); and 1 agency expected to increase in square footage, but reduced space  Whether an agency met its target is not the only indicator of an agency’s success in reducing space  For example, although some agencies missed their targets, they reduced their office and warehouse space by a larger percentage than some agencies that exceeded their targets  Also, the fact that some agencies missed their targets can in part be attributed to setting more aggressive targets than other agencies  Agencies’ fiscal year 2016 targets ranged from a 0 8 percent increase to an 8 4 percent decrease in office and warehouse space  Of the 9 agencies that exceeded their reduction targets, 4 more than tripled their target  As mentioned, agency targets are set by the agency and are a reflection of their unique situation including mission needs and priorities and therefore cannot be generalized across agencies  For example, Energy exceeded its fiscal year 2016 reduction target and reduced 292,140 square feet of space (0 8 percent of its total square footage)  However, the Environmental Protection Agency missed its target, which was the second most aggressive target across all the agencies at 7 2 percent of its total square footage; but the agency reduced 174,003 square feet (3 24 percent of its total square footage)  Of the three agencies with the most aggressive target reductions—those that ranged between 6 7 and 8 4 percent of their total square footage—only one met its target  Figure 3 shows the extent to which each of the CFO Act agencies met its fiscal year 2016 targets  See appendix II for more detailed information on each agencies’ square footage of space, reduction targets and fiscal year 2016 reductions  Officials from our case study agencies cited a number of factors that influenced whether or not they met their fiscal year 2016 targets, and may also affect their target achievement in subsequent years  Of our five case study agencies, three exceeded their fiscal year 2016 reduction target and two missed their target  Timing and funding: Officials from two case study agencies cited timing as a factor, noting that there is fluidity to the project’s planning, implementation, and disposal process that may not always be within an agency’s control  As a result, space reductions anticipated in one fiscal year may not be realized until a subsequent fiscal year; conversely, some space reduction opportunities may present themselves unexpectedly  For example, according to officials at HUD, which missed its fiscal year 2016 reduction target, some projects take longer than anticipated to start or complete  HUD officials said that their fiscal year 2016 target may have been too ambitious and planned projects were delayed because they were unable to secure sufficient funding  As such, the officials said the agency must carefully select which projects to move forward with in a given fiscal year, but expected to move forward with their delayed, planned projects in the next fiscal year  Energy on the other hand, exceeded its fiscal year 2016 reduction target  Energy officials said that they tend to be conservative in listing potential RTF projects in their Plans  They noted that it takes a long time to dispose of a building and the timing was dependent on the building’s level of contamination, location, size, agency budget, and other factors  As a result, even though the agency may have planned to dispose of a building in a given fiscal year, there were numerous reasons why the project may get delayed  Further, RTF is a long-term effort and should not be judged based on agencies’ progress in their first year  According to an OMB official, it is understood that there may be circumstances in a given year that may hinder agencies from reaching their RTF targets, such as budget constraints or the timing of leases; however, the expectation is that agencies will continue to work toward accomplishing their target in the next year  Accordingly, under RTF, agencies set annual space reduction targets for a 5-year period  Officials from our case study agencies emphasized that the 5-year targets are not static, but rather are subject to annual updates  The RTF policy also acknowledged that changes to mission requirements and the availability of budgetary resources may require modifications to an agency’s targets, particularly in each of the subsequent years  Lastly, given that the RTF policy is still relatively recent, an OMB official noted that agencies are still in the process of learning how to set appropriate targets  Previous space reductions: Officials from three of our case study agencies noted that prior space reductions made during the Freeze the Footprint policy limited their ability to reduce space more aggressively  Though the thrust of Freeze the Footprint was to maintain the fiscal year 2012 size of an agency’s portfolio, agencies started to look more strategically for opportunities to dispose of excess space in their portfolios  The majority of agencies (18 of 24) have been decreasing the square footage of their domestic office and warehouse space since the Freeze the Footprint policy was implemented in 2013  OMB reported that under Freeze the Footprint, agencies achieved a 24 7-million square foot reduction between fiscal years 2012 and 2015  Officials from the IRS, which accounts for 70 percent of Treasury’s real property inventory, noted it has released 2 7-million square feet (approximately 10 percent) in the past 5 years, bringing its total square footage down to 25 3 million  According to officials from three of our case study agencies, a certain amount of space is required to effectively fulfill their missions  As such, the closer agencies get to attaining their optimum footprint, their ability to achieve further space reductions may be limited  In November 2016, GSA put into effect a new standard operating procedure to, among other things, standardize and streamline the process of receiving, reviewing, and documenting agencies’ space release actions  As previously mentioned, GSA’s occupancy agreements for space it leases on behalf of its customer agencies generally allow the agencies to release space back to GSA with as little as 4 months’ notice, if certain conditions are met  This can enable agencies to reduce their space and related rent costs relatively quickly without penalty  As a result of this new process, GSA established a centralized e-mail for agencies to submit their space release requests  The e-mail is maintained at GSA headquarters before it is forwarded to the respective GSA region  GSA also developed a centralized space release tracking spreadsheet to help ensure that all GSA regions were (1) notifying the customer agency of GSA’s determination on whether the space release request was within GSA’s policy, and (2) processing the space release and ceasing rent billings in a timely manner  According to GSA headquarters officials, this new process was implemented to rectify past concerns that space release requests were not centrally tracked, GSA regions may not have been making consistent determinations, and some requests either were missed or were not processed within the appropriate time frames  GSA officials noted that GSA similarly manages all vacant space in federally owned property under its custody and control and in commercial space it leases, and the agency seeks to utilize the space as quickly as possible  GSA has 11 regional offices throughout the country that generally conduct the day-to-day real property management activities for its customer agencies  These responsibilities include acquiring, managing, and disposing of real property, as well as executing, renewing, and terminating leases on behalf of its customer agencies in exchange for a monthly fee for GSA’s services  GSA headquarters officials told us that GSA regional offices track all the occupancy agreements and proactively work with customer agencies to help manage their space needs well before the agreements expire to understand ongoing space requirements  For example, according to GSA headquarters officials, this process includes working with agencies at a strategic level and helping them think about how they can accomplish their space needs and meet their targets 4 to 5 years in advance  GSA headquarters and regional officials noted that the advance planning helps the GSA regional officials integrate agencies’ potential space needs into the work they are already doing in the region as GSA manages the regional inventory as a whole, including managing the amount of vacant space  GSA regional officials told us that they work closely with the agencies in their space consolidation and reduction efforts to minimize the likelihood that GSA would be caught off guard by a release of space  This work enables GSA to develop options for either filling vacant space based on the known needs in the region or developing an alternative plan to effectively utilize the unneeded space  One of GSA’s strategic objectives is to improve the federal utilization of space in order to lower the government’s operational costs  To assess progress, GSA has an agency-wide vacant space performance goal of 3 2 percent for its federally-owned and leased inventory (with a 5 percent goal for federally owned and 1 5 percent goal for leased space)  Based on GSA data, the agency has steadily lowered its percentage of vacant space under its custody and control from 3 8 percent in fiscal year 2013 to 3 percent in fiscal year 2016, exceeding its performance goal of 3 2 percent for the first time in 4 years  The vacant space performance goal’s data help GSA evaluate its real property assets and plan for and make investment decisions while meeting its customer’s needs  According to GSA officials, the lower vacant space percentage is a reflection of the agency’s continued focus on working with its customer agencies to: (1) move into federally owned space, when possible; (2) decrease the size of commercially leased space to reduce agency rental costs and overall government reliance on leased space; and (3) dispose of unneeded federally owned assets  However, GSA officials noted that a certain level of vacant space is necessary to meet the space needs of new customers and customers with changing space requirements  According to GSA officials, GSA also tracks and reports annual cost avoidance data for all office and warehouse space reductions  These data include space covered under RTF in federally owned buildings under GSA’s custody and control and commercial space that GSA leases  Cost avoidance is defined as the results of an action taken in the immediate timeframe that will decrease future costs  The government-wide cost avoidance for fiscal year 2016 was $104 million based upon a net 10 7 million square foot reduction to all office and warehouse space  Of the government-wide figure, according to GSA, the total cost avoidance associated with office and warehouse space reductions in federally- owned space under GSA’s custody and control and commercial space GSA leased in fiscal year 2016 was over $75 8 million and 3 1 million square feet  In its cost avoidance calculation, GSA accounts for space returned to it by customer agencies only if there is a net square footage reduction in GSA’s total square footage across all the space that it manages  Similarly, the space returned to GSA does not reduce the federal government’s overall office and warehouse square footage unless GSA disposes of it  However, space that is returned to GSA is reflected as a square footage reduction for the customer agency and contributes toward that agency’s RTF target reduction  According to GSA regional officials, agencies’ requests to return space prior to the end of their occupancy agreements appear to have increased since the implementation of the RTF policy  Thus far, GSA has processes to manage agencies’ space release requests and keep its vacant space to a minimum  However, it is too early to determine how the recent increase in space release requests, in combination with agencies’ continued focus on occupying a smaller footprint and reducing their square footage, will affect: (1) the size of GSA’s inventory of vacant space in the long term, (2) GSA’s regional office workload to manage the requests, and (3) the cost savings for the federal government  We provided a draft of this report to GSA, OMB, Commerce, Energy, HUD, Interior, and Treasury for review and comment  We received technical comments from Energy, which we incorporated, where appropriate  GSA, OMB, Commerce, HUD, Interior, and Treasury did not have comments on our draft report  We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees; the Administrator of GSA; the Director of the OMB; the Secretaries of the Departments of Commerce, Energy, HUD, the Interior, and the Treasury; and other interested parties  In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or rectanusl@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report  GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix III  Our objectives were to determine: (1) the approaches and any challenges the 24 Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act agencies identified to achieving their Reduce the Footprint (RTF) reduction targets for all their domestic office and warehouse space; (2) the extent to which these agencies reduced space and met their fiscal year 2016 RTF targets; and (3) how the General Services Administration (GSA) manages vacated space that it had leased to these agencies  To obtain background information for all three objectives, we reviewed relevant literature, including laws governing federal real-property management and agencies’ efforts to reduce their real property portfolios and Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) and GSA’s memorandums and guidance governing the RTF policy  We also reviewed prior GAO and GSA inspector general reports describing agencies’ real-property management and efforts to more efficiently manage their real property portfolios  To determine the approaches used and any challenges faced by the CFO Act agencies in achieving their RTF reduction targets for all their domestic office and warehouse space, we conducted a content analysis of the agencies’ 5-year Real Property Efficiency Plans (Plans) for fiscal years 2016 and 2017  These Plans were obtained directly from each of the agencies  Each Plan describes an agency’s overall strategic and tactical approach in managing its real property, provides a rationale for and justifies its optimum portfolio, and directs the identification and execution of real property disposals, efficiency improvements, general usage, and cost-savings measures  The content analysis of the Plans helped us to understand the approaches agencies used to reduce space, how space- reduction targets were set, and any challenges they experienced in reducing their space  To identify agencies’ approaches to achieving their RTF targets, we reviewed all agencies’ Plans to determine the most frequently mentioned approaches agencies reported using or planned to use to reduce their real-property footprints  As part of their plans, each agency is required to include a section detailing approaches it plans to use to reduce space  While these sections were the primary focus of the analysis, we analyzed the Plans as a whole for any additional mention of agencies’ approaches to reduce space  Based on the frequently identified approaches, codes were developed  An analyst reviewed all the agencies’ Plans and coded the approaches and another analyst reviewed the coding  If there was a disagreement, the two analysts reviewed and discussed until they reached an agreement  As a result of the analysis, five approaches were identified that agencies most frequently reported using or were planning to use to achieve their RTF targets  These five approaches are described in more detail in the report: (1) consolidation; (2) co-location; (3) disposition of unneeded space; (4) better utilization of existing space; and (5) teleworking and hoteling  For the purposes of our report, telework and hoteling were combined because these approaches are often used in combination  For example, agencies can use telework strategically to reduce space needs and increase efficiency by making hoteling (i e , desk sharing) possible  To identify any challenges agencies faced in achieving their RTF targets, we similarly conducted a content analysis of agencies’ fiscal year 2016 and 2017 Plans  As part of their Plans, each agency included a section describing challenges it faced to reducing space  While these sections were the primary focus of the analysis, we analyzed the Plans as a whole for any additional mention of agencies’ challenges  Based on the frequently identified challenges, codes were developed  An analyst went through all the agencies’ Plans to code the challenges and another analyst reviewed the coding  If there was a disagreement, the two analysts reviewed and discussed until they reached an agreement  As a result of the analysis, we identified the four challenges that agencies most frequently described in their Plans: (1) space reduction costs; (2) mission delivery; (3) employee organization concerns; and (4) workload growth  In our report, we relied specifically on agencies’ fiscal year 2016 and 2017 Plans to provide examples and context for our description of the approaches agencies use and challenges they experience in achieving their RTF targets  However, after these Plans were submitted, agencies reported that the specific details as described in their Plans may in some instances, have changed due to a variety of factors  For our case study agencies, to the extent possible, we have provided updated information from agency officials as of December 2017  We selected five agencies as case studies to inform our first two objectives  We selected the agencies using a variety of considerations such as the diversity in the size of the agency’s domestic office and warehouse portfolio, the extent to which the agency met its fiscal year 2016 RTF targets, the types of real property authorities the agency has, as well as suggestions from GSA and OMB related to agencies’ experiences  Based on these factors, we selected the: (1) Department of Commerce (Commerce); (2) Department of Energy (Energy); (3) Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); (4) Department of the Interior (Interior); and (5) Department of the Treasury (Treasury)  While our case-study agencies and their experiences reducing their space are not generalizable to all CFO Act agencies, they provide a range of examples of how agencies are implementing the RTF policy  We interviewed officials at the selected agencies as well as GSA and OMB, and reviewed relevant agency real-property management and RTF guidance, to obtain more detailed information about agencies’ RTF approaches, challenges, specific RTF projects, RTF project funding and prioritization, and experiences in meeting their RTF targets  In addition, we visited three office buildings of our case study agencies in Washington, D C , with ongoing or recently completed RTF projects that illustrated approaches the agencies used to reduce space and met with officials to discuss the projects in more detail  The spaces we visited were the headquarters buildings for Commerce, HUD, and Interior  We selected the buildings based on recommendations from officials at our case study agencies  To determine to what extent agencies reduced their space and met their fiscal year 2016 RTF targets, we analyzed the 24 CFO Act agencies’ data as submitted to GSA on their RTF targets and reported reductions for fiscal year 2016  The office and warehouse square footage reductions are calculated annually using GSA occupancy agreement data and agencies’ self-reported data in GSA’s Federal Real Property Profile  For example, for fiscal year 2016, the space reduction calculations based on these data sources at the end of the fiscal year was compared to the square footage reported in fiscal year 2015  At the time of our review, this was the first and only year of RTF data available as the policy was implemented in March 2015  We conducted a data reliability assessment of the RTF data GSA provided by interviewing GSA officials and reviewing documentation, and concluded the data were reliable for our purposes  We also interviewed officials at GSA and OMB and reviewed relevant documentation to learn more about each agency’s role and the requirements of the RTF policy  We interviewed officials from our selected case-study agencies to obtain supporting documentation and to improve our understanding of how agencies set their RTF targets, agencies’ progress toward those targets, and the approaches used and challenges faced in meeting those targets  We also asked the agency officials for examples of successful practices used to reduce their office and warehouse space  To determine how GSA manages vacated federally owned and commercially leased space that it leases to agencies, we reviewed federal requirements and GSA policies and vacancy data  We conducted a data reliability assessment of GSA’s vacancy and cost avoidance data by interviewing GSA officials and reviewing documentation, and concluded the data were reliable for our purposes  We also interviewed GSA headquarters and regional officials and obtained documentation on how GSA manages space returned by agencies  We conducted this performance audit from April 2017 to March 2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  FY 2016- FY 2020 target reduction (118,127) Social Security Administration Missed target and increased in space Department of Health and Human Services (170,147) (520,987) (15,466) (47,946) (56,062) In addition to the individual named above, Maria Edelstein (Assistant Director); Lacey Coppage; Edgar Garcia; Delwen Jones; Catherine Kim (Analyst-in-Charge); Michael Mgebroff; Malika Rice; Kelly Rubin; and David Wise made key contributions to this report 

ground_truth: The federal government continues to work to reduce its real property inventory and associated costs. GSA provides space for agencies in government-owned and commercially leased buildings. In 2015, the OMB issued a memorandum requiring the 24 agencies with chief financial officers to reduce their domestic office and warehouse space. These agencies are required to set annual reduction targets for a 5-year time period and update their real property plans annually. GAO was asked to review the implementation of this space reduction initiative. This report discusses: (1) the approaches and any challenges the 24 agencies identified to achieving their reduction targets for all their domestic office and warehouse space; (2) the extent these agencies reduced their space and met their fiscal year 2016 targets; and (3) how GSA manages vacated space it had leased to these agencies. GAO conducted a content analysis of the 24 agencies' real property plans for fiscal years 2016 and 2017 and analyzed agencies' data as submitted to GSA on their targets and reductions for fiscal year 2016, the only year for which data were available. GAO selected five agencies as case studies based on several factors, including size of the agencies' office and warehouse portfolio, agency reduction targets, and fiscal year 2016 reported reductions. GAO reviewed relevant documentation and interviewed officials from GSA, OMB, and GAO's case study agencies. GAO provided a draft of this product to GSA, OMB, and our case study agencies for comment. GAO incorporated technical comments, as appropriate. Most of the 24 agencies with chief financial officers reported to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the General Services Administration (GSA) that they planned to consolidate their office and warehouse space and allocate fewer square feet per employee as the key ways to achieve their space reduction targets. For example, the Department of Agriculture reported it will consolidate staff from five component agencies in two office buildings. When complete, the space allocated per employee will average about 250 square feet down from a high of 420 square feet per employee. In taking these actions, the agencies most often identified the cost of space reduction projects as a challenge to achieving their targets. Agencies cited costs such as for space renovations to accommodate more staff and required environmental clean-up before disposing of property as challenges to completing projects. Some agencies required to maintain offices across the country reported that their mission requirements limit their ability to reduce their space. In fiscal year 2016, 17 of the 24 agencies reported they reduced their space, but had varying success achieving their first-year targets. Of the 17 agencies, 9 exceeded their target and reduced more space than planned, 7 missed their target (by anywhere between 2.8 and 96.7 percent), and 1 reduced space, despite a targeted increase. Agency officials said that it is not unusual for projects to shift to different years and that such shifts could lead to missing targets one year and exceeding them the next. GSA has processes to manage the space vacated by agencies that is leased through GSA. For example, starting in November 2016, GSA started tracking agencies' space release requests centrally to help standardize the process and established an e-mail address to which agencies can submit requests. GSA relies on regional offices to manage real property in their regions and to identify tenants for vacant space or to remove unused space from the inventory. GSA's regional officials said regular monitoring and coordinating with agencies minimizes the likelihood GSA is caught off guard by a return of space. These processes also help them to plan ahead. GSA met its 2016 performance goal to have an annual vacant space rate of no more than 3.2 percent in its federally owned and leased buildings. However, given the recent implementation of the space reduction initiative, it is too early to determine the extent to which agencies will return space to GSA prior to the end of their leases and the effect on GSA's inventory.