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, through the Department of Energy, operates four regional power marketing administrations (PMAs), created by statute: the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), the Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA), the Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA), and the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA)  Each PMA operates in a distinct geographic area of the coterminous United States (see Figure 1 )  Congressional interest in the PMAs has included diverse issues such as rate setting, cost and compliance associated with the Endangered Species Act (ESA; P L  93-205 ; 16 U S C  §§1531 et seq ), and questions of privatization of these federal agencies  In general, the PMAs came into being because of the government's need to dispose of electric power produced by federal dams constructed largely for irrigation, flood control, or other purposes, and to achieve small community and farm electrification—that is, providing service to customers whom it would not have been profitable for a private utility to serve  With minor exceptions, these agencies market the electric power produced by federal dams constructed, owned, and operated by the Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the U S  Bureau of Reclamation (BOR)  PMAs must give preference to public utility districts and cooperatives (e g , "preference customers"), selling their power at cost-based rates set at the lowest possible rate consistent with sound business principles  The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regulates PMA rates to ensure that they are set high enough to repay the U S  Treasury on schedule for the portion of federal facility costs that have been allocated to hydropower beneficiaries  Since FY2011, power revenues associated with the PMAs have been classified as discretionary offsetting receipts (i e , receipts that are available for spending by the PMAs), thus the agencies are sometimes noted as having a "net-zero" spending authority  Only the capital expenses of WAPA and SWPA require appropriations from Congress  Each PMA also has unique elements and regional issues that affect its business  They are discussed in alphabetical order  Created by the Bonneville Project Act of 1937 (16 U S C  §832) just before the completion of two large dams in the Pacific Northwest—Bonneville Dam in 1938 and Grand Coulee Dam in 1941—BPA was the first PMA  Though it serves a smaller geographical area, BPA is on par with WAPA (which serves the largest area) in the size of its transmission system  The agency operates and maintains about 75% of the high voltage transmission lines in its service territory, which includes Idaho, Oregon, Washington, western Montana and small parts of eastern Montana, California, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming  BPA also markets wholesale electricity from 31 federally owned hydropower facilities in the Northwest  These generation facilities are owned both by the Corps and BOR  BPA differs from the other three PMAs in that it is self-financed: it receives no federal appropriations  Since passage of the Federal Columbia River Transmission System Act of 1974 (16 U S C  §838), BPA has covered its operating costs through power rates set to ensure repayment to the Treasury of capital and interest on funds used to construct the Columbia River power system  BPA also has permanent Treasury borrowing authority, which it may use for capital on large projects  This money is repaid with interest, through power sales  As of 2018, BPA had $5 53 billion of bonds outstanding to the U S  Treasury, with BPA's current borrowing authority capped by Congress at $7 70 billion  BPA has also looked at other financing options as it approaches its debt limit, looking at nonfederal debt refinancing, lease-purchases, and other asset management strategies  BPA has initiated strategies and a financial plan to address a changing power generation and demand market, as it endeavors to meet its mandate for cost-based electric power rates  These plans are outlined in its Strategic Plan for 2018 to 2023, and address goals from financial health to infrastructure modernization  Wholesale power prices in the United States are generally trending downward, while BPA's firm power rates have trended upward  BPA repays its funding from the U S  Treasury largely through electricity sales to customers  While BPA generates its electricity from hydropower (which is traditionally one of the lower-cost means of power generation), increasing amounts of renewable electricity from growing wind and solar capacity installations in the Pacific Northwest are challenging BPA's price competitiveness, and perhaps its ability to repay its debts in a timely manner  In 2014, BPA entered into the Regional Cooperation Agreement (RCA) with the State of Washington to address the debt of Energy Northwest, a "joint action agency formed by the Washington state legislature in 1957" to manage public power utility costs  Energy Northwest owns and operates four electric power generation facilities: White Bluffs Solar Station, Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project, Nine Canyon Wind Project, and the Columbia Generating Station  The Regional Cooperation debt is "the issuance of new bonds by Energy Northwest to refund outstanding bonds shortly before their maturities when substantial principal repayments were and are due " According to BPA, this allows for "integrated debt management" for the combined total debt portfolios of BPA and Energy Northwest, with a net effect reducing the "weighted average interest rate and the maturity of BPA's overall debt portfolio" over the life of the program  This refinancing, according to BPA, has enabled BPA to prepay higher-interest-rate federal obligations, and has "preserved or restored U S  Treasury borrowing authority " However, the debt service of the RCA is "borne by BPA ratepayers through BPA rates " BPA estimates that the "aggregate potential principal amount" of RCA refunding through bonds issued in fiscal years 2019 through 2030 could exceed $4 0 billion  BPA is responsible for maintaining and modernizing the generation and transmission infrastructure of its systems, and preserving and enhancing its physical and cybersecurity  With energy and capacity markets changing in the western United States (especially with the growing need to integrate increasing amounts of variable renewable sources), and the development of the Energy Imbalance Market (EIM) in the West, BPA is considering whether to join the EIM, and how this might affect its operations and customers  Environmental, fishing, and tribal advocates have sued the federal government over concerns that operating rules for hydropower dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers (i e , operations consistent with the National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Opinion) are inadequate to ensure survival of species threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act  In addition, several environmental groups filed a lawsuit blaming the dams for warm river waters in summer 2015 that resulted in the deaths of about 250,000 adult sockeye salmon migrating up the Columbia and Snake Rivers  Some of these parties have sought to remove the four lower dams on the Snake River to ensure survival of some salmon and steelhead species  In 2016, a federal judge overturned a previous management plan for the dams, finding that it would not be sufficient to protect salmon runs, and ordered a new management plan that could include removing the dams  However, in 2018, President Trump issued a Presidential Memorandum accelerating the process for a new management plan, requiring the biological opinion to be ready by 2020  The memorandum ordered the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce "to appropriately suspend, revise, or rescind any regulations or procedures that unduly burden" water infrastructure projects so they "are better able to meet the demands of their authorized purposes " How this will affect the fish endangerment finding is unclear at this time  The Southeastern Power Administration was created in 1950 by the Secretary of the Interior to carry out the functions assigned to the Secretary by the Flood Control Act of 1944 (P L  78-534) in 11 states (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia)  SEPA is unique among the four PMAs in two ways  It is the smallest PMA, with just over 40 employees, and, unlike the other three agencies, SEPA does not operate or maintain any transmission facilities, and thus contracts with other utilities for transmitting the federal power it markets to more than 12 million consumers  Southeastern markets approximately 3,400 MW of power produced at 22 multipurpose water projects, operated and maintained by the Corps  SEPA's facilities are aging; for instance, in 2018 it reported that its Cumberland System customers have agreed to fund $1 2 billion of planned rehabilitations of the nine hydroelectric facilities in the Corps' Nashville District  According to SEPA, it has an overcapacity issue  Projections for electricity load growth (in consultation with its preference customers) made before the 2008 economic downturn reportedly led to SEPA acquiring additional capacity it currently does not use  As a result, municipalities and electric cooperatives in SEPA's service area will have to make economic decisions regarding how to handle this excess capacity  As of 2018, at least one preference customer has terminated its contract with SEPA due to this issue  Section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944 (P L  78-534) established the Southwestern Power Administration  SWPA markets hydroelectric power in Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas from 24 multipurpose Corps dams with a combined capacity of 2,194 MW  SWPA serves more than 100 preference customer utilities with more than 8 million end-use customers  The agency manages nearly 1,400 miles of high-voltage transmission lines  SWPA is the only U S  electrical balancing area supported solely by hydroelectric generation, and its use of the reservoirs and river systems within the SWPA marketing area must be balanced with flood control and other required uses so that the power needs of its customers can be met  SWPA states that it uses alternative financing and offsetting collection authorities to fund expenses and purchase power to help SWPA meet its obligations while minimizing congressional appropriations  Periodically, SWPA has been challenged by low water conditions  It has a rain-based water supply—rather than one that is snow-based, like the mountain snowpack water supply of WAPA and BPA—and sells power from a comparatively small reservoir system which stores that water  Extended dry periods sometimes mean that SWPA must purchase replacement power and energy to meet its contractual obligations  This means that SWPA requires congressional authority to use its revenues from power sales over the long term—across high and low water years  Prior year balances have been available to Southwestern so that we are financially prepared and able to achieve rate stability for our customers  This authority is critical to operating our program according to sound business principles  Southwestern's program is funded by authority to use receipts, alternative financing, and other authorities approved by Congress, including appropriations, which represent only 6 5% of Southwestern's total program  Created by the Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 ( P L  95-91 ), WAPA is the newest and largest of the PMAs in terms of service area  WAPA's service area covers 1 3 million square miles, and its power—transmitted by a high voltage grid over 17,000 miles long—serves customers in 15 western states  WAPA markets and transmits hydropower from 56 federal dams operated by BOR, and the Corps  It also sells hydropower power produced by facilities administered by the International Boundary and Water Commission, and markets the United States' 24 3% share (547 megawatts) of the coal-fired Navajo Generating Station in Arizona  In addition to the types of public bodies traditionally served as preference customers by the other PMAs, WAPA has developed a policy to give preference to Native American tribes regardless of their utility status  WAPA has been working with other regional entities to address the changing electric power needs of its customers  In 2014, WAPA published its Strategic Roadmap 2024, titled "Powering the Energy Frontier " The document is intended to serve as WAPA's strategic plan to guide the agency's actions for the next 10 years  However, according to some, the developing Energy Imbalance Market in the West may provide additional options for WAPA to address transmission development needs to balance regional generation and demand  An issue of continuing importance to WAPA is its role in relieving transmission congestion within its marketing area  There are a number of constrained transmission paths in the West whose limited capacity to transfer power may reduce the ability of utilities to serve electric loads on a seasonal or ongoing basis  In 2009, Section 402 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ( P L  111-5 ) amended the Hoover Power Plant Act of 1984 to give WAPA authority to borrow up to $3 25 billion from the U S  Treasury to pursue transmission projects that integrate renewable generation sources into the electric transmission grid  The law provides authority to construct and upgrade transmission lines to help deliver renewable resources to market  Western created the Transmission Infrastructure Program, also known as TIP, to implement this new initiative  Several transmission projects have been initiated under the program  Previous budget proposals and legislation have proposed repealing WAPA's loan authority, but to date, none of these proposals have been enacted  In 2015, WAPA's Upper Great Plains (UGP) region joined the Southwest Power Pool (SPP), a Regional Transmission Organization (RTO)  Under the operating agreement with SPP, WAPA was required to transfer functional control of UGP's eligible transmission facilities to SPP  WAPA is the first PMA to formally join an RTO, and states that benefits to date from joining SPP have significantly exceeded the original estimate of $11 5 million per year  WAPA reports that two of its other regions are considering joining SPP  For Water Year 2017, WAPA reported that it delivered 26,148 gigawatt-hours of hydroelectric power to its customers, which is 101% of average annual power sales  The West has been experiencing periodic droughts for a number of years, resulting in lower snowmelts and less water in storage and available for power generation  To help smooth the resulting annual differences, a "drought-adder" reduction program has been implemented in recent years  A drought-adder charge was levied to help repay deferred drought costs accrued during the 2000s in the Rocky Mountain and Upper Great Plains regions  The balance was paid a year ahead of schedule and, as of this year, has resulted in $40 million annual savings for more than 50 percent of WAPA's customers in Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Kansas, Nebraska, the Dakotas and the western sections of Minnesota and Iowa  This is the second year that 417 of WAPA's customers, out of 700, have had a rate reduction  The drought-adder component of the rate remains available to WAPA to adjust to the variable hydropower resource—a lasting risk if drought conditions persist in WAPA's territory  Moderate to extreme drought conditions have been reported in parts of the western United States  In addition to issues specific to individual PMAs, some recent proposals have applied to multiple PMAs  In 2018, the Trump Administration proposed to sell the transmission assets owned and operated by the federal Power Marketing Administrations  The proposal suggested that "eliminating or reducing" the federal government's role in owning and operating transmission assets and increasing the private sector role would "encourage a more efficient allocation of economic resources and mitigate unnecessary risk to taxpayers " The proposal calls for federal transmission infrastructure assets (lines, towers, substations, and/or rights of way) to be sold, with the private sector and/or state and local entities potentially taking over the transmission functions now provided by the PMAs  The Federal entities that would result after such sales could contract with other utilities to provide transmission service for the delivery of Federal power just as the Southeastern Power Administration, which does not own transmission lines, already does  The proposal reports that according to the Administration's FY2019 budget justification, the sale of federal transmission assets would result in a net budgetary savings of $9 5 billion, in total, over a 10-year window  Reportedly, the Administration dropped the plan due to stakeholder opposition, with the Department of Energy stating that such a sale of PMA transmission assets would not proceed unless directed by Congress  Proposals to sell all or part of the PMAs are not new, and have been made in some form by almost every President since Reagan  However, Congress has sought to prevent executive branch alterations of PMA structures and authority  Under Section 208 of the Urgent Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1986 ( P L  99-349 ), the executive branch is prohibited from spending funds to study or draft proposals to transfer from federal control any portion of the assets of the PMAs unless specifically authorized by Congress  The Trump Administration divestment proposal could have had an indirect impact on the original congressional intent for the PMAs to provide electricity at the lowest possible cost  This in turn could require changes to the following provisions: Flood Control Act of 1944, as amended (FCA; 16 U S C  §825s et seq  ); The 1937 Bonneville Project Act (BPA; 16 U S C  §832c ); and The Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (RPA; 43 U S C  §485h(c))   These laws also stipulate a preference of public bodies for the sale of federal power  Selling federally owned transmission assets could potentially affect the "lowest possible" rates of sale, and the statutory preference for publicly or cooperatively owned utilities to be the vehicle for sale of electric power produced by federal facilities 
Report 2:  Treasury policy also recommends hoteling for employees who are out of the office 80 or more hours per month, but the Fiscal Service told us that it would like to conduct additional desk-sharing pilots to assess their impact before negotiating broader desk-sharing with the union  At the Fiscal Service, approximately 80 percent of eligible employees teleworked in fiscal year 2015, and about one-quarter of all employees teleworked 3 or more days per pay period, according to OPM data  The Fiscal Service reported that approximately 80 percent of Fiscal Service employees telework at its Washington, D C , Maryland, and West Virginia locations  At the time of our review, the Fiscal Service officials said the agency had reduced space without leveraging telework or implementing hoteling, instead relying on smaller space standards (i e , fewer square feet per workstation) to lease smaller offices  For example, the Fiscal Service reduced space by giving up several floors at its Hyattsville, MD, office starting in 2012  According to Fiscal Service officials, they accomplished these reductions by consolidating data centers to other locations, conducting targeted buyouts of employees, and, most recently, by implementing a new space standard of 183 USF per person through smaller workstations  The officials said that the most recent space reduction at this location resulted in savings in annual rent costs not attributable to telework  Looking forward, the Fiscal Service reported that it has started taking preliminary steps to promote efficient space utilization through telework  These steps have included: creating an Executive Space Management Council that discussed incorporating telework and desk-sharing into space management guidelines; implementing a voluntary, informal desk-sharing pilot in one program area for employees who already telework 50 percent or more of the time; and seeking information from GSA, including discussing and visiting GSA offices that have implemented hoteling as part of their space planning model  In addition, the Fiscal Service officials told us that the agency plans to negotiate the impact and implementation of desk-sharing and hoteling for telework employees with its union, but the Fiscal Service has not yet begun this effort  Our analysis of the survey responses from the 23 civilian CFO Act agencies identified three major planning challenges agencies face with using telework to reduce space: human capital issues such as negotiating workspace changes with collective bargaining units and managing organizational change; the suitability of telework to mission work requirements; and difficulty measuring cost savings that might result from space reductions attributable to telework  This measuring difficulty may include both gross savings as well as savings net of costs, such as for renovations or IT investments  See table 3 for examples of space-planning challenges related to telework reported by the 23 agencies  To address these challenges, nearly two thirds of the agencies we surveyed reported they would like guidance on using telework programs or other alternatives to meet the federal goals of reducing space or using space more efficiently  Our review of agency survey responses, Real Property Efficiency Plans, and other agency space-planning documents, found that human capital challenges to using telework in space planning generally fell into two categories: (1) requirements to negotiate space allocation changes with collective-bargaining units; and (2) managing department workforces in adapting to new workspace designs and altered workspace allocations  Collective-bargaining challenges: Of the 23 civilian CFO Act agencies, 7 of 23 noted that changes to telework policy or workspace arrangements required negotiation with collective bargaining units, for example, The Small Business Administration (SBA) reported its greatest challenge to incorporating telework in office space planning has been with negotiating and securing agreement from all parties, including management and its union, on establishing space standards  HUD reported that it could not implement hoteling or desk-sharing as its collective-bargaining agreements require that each employee retain an assigned workstation regardless of an employee’s type of telework agreement  SSA reported that changing floor plans required negotiation with its three collective-bargaining units, which could extend the time needed for construction and relocation  DOT reported that collective-bargaining agreements posed a challenge to incorporating workforce mobility options, including telework  In addition, the collective-bargaining agreements we reviewed from the four agencies we reviewed in detail––GSA, OJP, CDC and Fiscal Service––required negotiations or the opportunity to negotiate changes to matters relating to workspace arrangements and in some cases, to telework policy  Managing change: Using telework as a strategic space-planning tool, particularly in conjunction with complementary space-saving efforts such as desk-sharing, hoteling, or open-space designs, generally involves a cultural change  Nine of the 23 agencies we surveyed reported challenges associated with managing change  For example, three agencies reported employees’ discomfort or apprehension about desk-sharing and hoteling  In 2013, we reported that organizations may also encounter concerns from agency leaders, managers, employees, or employee organizations when introducing physical space changes associated with increased workforce mobility (telework)  More recently, we reported that management concerns remain the most frequently reported barrier to expanding telework  Two private sector experts we met with underscored the importance of management “buy-in” saying it was imperative that senior executives fully support the initiative to facilitate the necessary cultural change for agencies to use telework in space planning  One noted that management needed to make the business case to employees so that each layer of the organization could understand the importance of the initiative and its potential benefits  Another suggested a change management plan tailored to the work performed within a unit  This individual said that key components of such a plan might include studying existing work practices and program requirements, surveying employee preferences, and including employees in the planning process  Further, a GSA document circulated in response to the Telework Enhancement Act of 2010 mentions obtaining supervisory “buy-in” or support as key to facilitating change  According to survey responses, within agencies there are sub-agencies that have individual mission requirements that may or may not be suitable for telework  This makes it difficult for agencies to implement overarching telework and space planning policies that apply department-wide  Sub- agencies and units within sub-agencies must individually determine if telework is appropriate given their particular mission requirements  For example, the Veterans Administration reported that although it developed an agency-wide telework policy, each sub-agency and supervisor has the flexibility to implement telework based on operational needs  Moreover, because the agency’s core mission involves direct services to veterans, about 83 percent of agency staff positions are not suitable for telework  The Telework Enhancement Act of 2010 outlines two broad exceptions to telework participation for employees: (1) directly handling secure materials determined to be inappropriate for telework by the agency head and (2) on-site activity that cannot be handled remotely or at an alternative worksite  In cases where telework does not support an agency’s mission or where a particular mission may require increases or decreases in personnel, telework as a strategic space-planning tool may not work  About half (12 of 23) of the agencies we surveyed reported that office space reductions resulting from using telework in space planning led to real estate cost savings while the other half reported either that cost savings did not result or they did not know  GSA officials told us that calculating cost savings attributable to a particular aspect of space planning is complicated as several factors contribute to savings  In particular, in survey responses, the Departments of Education, Energy, and Agriculture reiterated this point  OMB’s National Strategy for the Efficient Use of Real Property and its Reduce the Footprint policy encourage agencies to increase and maximize efficiencies in office space by implementing cost-effective strategies such as telework  For example, the National Strategy outlines a framework that aims to measure real property costs and utilization to improve the efficient use of federal real property  The Reduce the Footprint policy requires agencies to measure cost savings that result from reducing space through disposals  However, neither document offers guidance or methodologies on how to measure the costs or savings that may result from using telework  We previously reported that GSA works with client agencies to develop tools to measure office space utilization and, in 2013, was developing an Excel-based tool to help agencies quantify the benefits and costs of using telework to achieve greater office space efficiencies  This tool—the Workplace Investment and Feasibility Tool—is aimed at helping agencies quantify the benefits and costs of increased telework participation and implementing other alternative-work arrangements  When completed, the tool will enable users to quickly develop rough estimates of cost and space impacts resulting from workplace changes, particularly relating to desk-sharing, workspace reconfiguration, and consolidation  Key features include the ability to compare up to three scenarios, which in turn may be used to inform a more detailed design program  As of January 2018, GSA had not yet completed the tool  GSA officials said mission needs, resource constraints, and developmental adjustments have contributed to delays in the time frame for completing the tool  They added that during this time, GSA has diverted resources to space calculation tools for individual agencies  For example, GSA worked with DHS on its Space Calculation Tool as a way to help determine workplace space requirements in a manner consistent with DHS space policies  In January 2018, GSA officials told us that they plan to make the Workplace Investment and Feasibility Tool available to GSA staff in March 2018 along with training on how to use it  However, GSA officials have not decided whether to make the tool available to other federal agencies to use as a space-planning tool  Instead, the officials plan to assess GSA’s use of the tool and then determine in late 2018 if and how it should be released to other agencies for independent use  Given the absence of a government-wide tool, in our review, we found that some agencies had used their own resources to purchase similar tools for their space-planning needs from the private sector  Without such a government-wide resource, agencies may not be able to determine how best to reduce space or use it more efficiently  In responses to our survey, nearly two-thirds of agencies reported that they would find it helpful to have additional information, assistance, or resources to assist them in using telework as a space-planning tool  As noted above, a key element of GSA’s mission is to provide guidance and services that enable agencies to improve space utilization, reduce costs, and better achieve their missions  Moreover, under federal statute, GSA may provide guidance to executive agencies on the implementation of alternative workplace arrangements, which includes telework  Federal standards for internal control also call for agencies to communicate necessary quality information such as guidance with external parties  In reviewing GSA’s websites, we found that GSA last developed formal guidance on alternative workplace arrangements in 2006 and maintains several separate informational websites on implementing telework and optimizing space utilization  Our review of this guidance and these websites found that they do not provide specific guidance for using telework as a strategic space-planning tool  For example, the 2006 guidance is generally limited to defining the factors agency heads must contemplate when considering alternative workplace arrangements along with the equipment and technical services agencies may provide for alternative worksites  However, this guidance does not address in detail the impact of such arrangements on agency office space and resulting planning issues  Similarly, our review of GSA’s teleworking and space- planning websites found that although they separately offered documented case studies along with information such as tips for implementing telework and managing a mobile workforce, GSA did not provide documents consolidating the concept of using telework as a strategic space-planning tool  For example, information on GSA’s Total Workplace Program website––intended to assist agencies in using workforce mobility (including telework) to increase space efficiencies––is generally limited  Although this website includes high-level information that describes the potential benefits of using telework with office space planning and design, it lacks a practical outline of the process agencies might use to achieve them  Because the information in the 2006 guidance and the telework and space-planning websites is neither specific nor detailed, it is of limited assistance for agencies that would like to use telework as a strategic space-planning tool to meet the goals of a more efficient use of space  While using telework to reduce space is not a new challenge, it has become more pressing with OMB’s requirement for federal agencies to explore alternatives to acquiring more office space  Most civilian CFO Act agencies reported having a telework program in place and some reported success with using it in space planning to reduce space or accommodate more employees without increasing space  However, many of the agencies continue to face challenges and do not believe that they have adequate information, assistance, or resources to assist them in using telework as a space-planning tool or assess its costs and benefits  Until agencies have access to detailed guidance and tools to help utilize various space-planning options, they may not be able to effectively identify opportunities to use telework toward the goal of reducing their real property footprint  We are making the following two recommendations to GSA: The Administrator of General Services should ensure that the appropriate GSA offices develop guidance including, but not limited to, how agencies can use telework as a strategic space-planning tool for reducing and optimizing office space efficiency and that the offices make the guidance readily available  (Recommendation 1) The Administrator of General Services should ensure the appropriate GSA offices complete the Workplace Investment and Feasibility Tool and make it available to federal agencies for use in assessing the benefits and costs of telework to achieve office space efficiencies  (Recommendation 2) We provided a draft of this report to GSA, the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of the Treasury  In its written comments, reproduced in Appendix III, GSA concurred with our recommendations and stated that it is developing a plan to address them  We received technical comments from the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human Services, which we incorporated where appropriate  The Department of the 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; and the Secretaries of the Department of Health and Human Services and Department of the Treasury, and the Attorney General of the Department of Justice  In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff has 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 that made key contributions to this report is listed in appendix III  This report addresses: (1) how the 23 civilian Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Act agencies reported using telework in office space planning; (2) the specific ways selected agencies and GSA used telework in their office space planning; and (3) any challenges the 23 civilian CFO Act agencies faced in using telework in office space planning  To determine how the 23 civilian CFO Act agencies reported using telework in office space planning, we surveyed the agencies  The survey asked questions about agency-wide efforts to use telework in the human- capital and space-planning areas; whether agencies had achieved any cost savings as a result; the challenges agencies faced in using telework in space planning; and asked agencies to identify additional information, resources, or guidance that might be helpful  In addition to the survey questions, we asked each agency real property officer to provide copies of agency-wide space-planning documents and the Real Property Efficiency Plans agencies prepared for fiscal years 2016 and 2017 pursuant to the requirements of the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Reduce the Footprint policy  We developed survey questions based on our review of the relevant literature, white papers from federal agencies and private sector entities, and past GAO reports  We pre- tested the survey instrument with three federal agencies to ascertain: (1) the clarity of survey questions; (2) the precision of language; and 3) the availability of information queried  As a result of the pre-tests we made changes to the content and format of the survey where appropriate  We received survey responses from each of the 23 civilian CFO Act agencies in addition to requested space-planning documents and Real Property Efficiency Plans, and thus achieved a 100 percent response rate  We analyzed survey results by calculating the frequency of responses to dichotomous questions (i e , questions requiring a “yes” or “no” answer)  We also conducted a content analysis on the open-ended, narrative-based questions by identifying common themes and tabulating results  We also conducted a content analysis to determine the extent to which agencies referenced telework in their agency-wide space-planning documents and in their Real Property Efficiency Plans  To accomplish these analyses, we developed separate coding schemes for each of the two types of documents  These were based on information obtained in our literature review, interviews with subject matter experts, and our professional judgment  We then identified relevant sections and common themes, and coded and tabulated the results  To validate the coding results, we used a second, independent coder  To determine the specific ways agencies include telework in their office space planning, we selected a non-generalizable sample of three CFO Act agency sub-agencies as illustrative case studies  To select sub- agencies, we analyzed data from the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) Public Use 2014-2015 Telework Data call  First, we applied two selection criteria: (1) agency-wide progress toward a stated goal of using telework to reduce real estate costs, and (2) agency-reported data indicating that more than 25 percent of sub-agency employees teleworked 3 or more days per pay period  Next, we considered variations in sub-agency size and percentage of employees eligible to telework  Finally, we excluded candidates that had recently been selected for related GAO work and we excluded sub-agencies related to agency administration such as Offices of Inspector General or Secretary-level offices  We assessed the reliability of the OPM’s data by interviews with knowledgeable officials and by reviewing prior assessments of the same data, and we found the data reliable for our purposes  As a result of this process, we selected (1) the Department of the Treasury’s Bureau of the Fiscal Service (Fiscal Service); (2) the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); and (3) the Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs (OJP)  For each of the selected agencies, we interviewed agency officials and reviewed their telework and space- planning documents  We also visited four sub-agency office locations to determine if and how telework played a role in any space reductions or efficiencies along with any associated cost savings  In addition to these three sub-agencies, we used the General Services Administration (GSA) as a comparative example since it is responsible for providing space- planning guidance to client agencies and has experience using telework in space planning  We interviewed GSA officials, reviewed relevant documents, and visited three GSA office locations with recent space reductions or efficiencies  In total, we conducted seven site visits including two Fiscal Service locations, one location each for CDC and OJP, and three GSA locations (National Headquarters, Region 2 Office, and Region 3 Office) in Washington, D C ; New York City; and Philadelphia, respectively  To identify any challenges the 23 civilian CFO Act agencies faced in using telework in office space planning, we analyzed results from survey questions addressed to challenges, interviewed sub-agency and GSA officials as detailed above, interviewed two private sector subject matter experts, and representatives from four private-sector entities that had reported using telework to reduce and use office space more efficiently  Statements made by knowledgeable federal officials, outside experts and private sector entities are not generalizable to the universe of civilian CFO Act agencies  We also analyzed the section of each of the 23 civilian CFO Act agencies’ Real Property Efficiency Plans devoted to challenges agency face in reducing space  We selected the two subject matter experts––representatives from Global Workplace Analytics and Fentress Facility Planning and Analytics––based on: (1) their experience working with federal agencies to incorporate telework programs into the space planning process; (2) information compiled in our literature review; (3) prior GAO reports; (4) internal GAO recommendations; and (5) industry recommendations  We selected the four private sector entities (AT&T, Deloitte, Adobe, and CapitalOne) based on our literature review, recommendations from industry experts, and reports of having achieved space efficiencies including space reduction, cost savings, or cost avoidance(s)  To identify what guidance or information on using telework as a space- planning tool GSA makes available through its website, we reviewed the contents of multiple GSA websites including Telework, Total Workplace, Alternative Work, and GSA Telework Resources  We followed links and reviewed webpage contents for information on how agencies might use telework as a strategic tool to reduce space or use space more efficiently  We compared GSA’s guidance and website information to relevant statutory requirements and federal internal controls standards related to external communication  We conducted this performance audit from January 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  In addition to the contact named above, David J  Wise (Director); Amelia Bates Shachoy (Assistant Director); Lindsay Bach (Analyst-in-Charge); Geoff Hamilton; Malika Rice; Kelly Rubin; Shelia Thorpe; Elise Vaughan Winfrey; and Amelia Michelle Weathers made key contributions to this report 

ground_truth: This testimony summarizes the information contained in GAO's January 2018 report, entitled Intellectual Property: Agencies Can Improve Efforts to Address Risks Posed by Changing Counterfeits Market , ( GAO-18-216 ). Changes in the market for counterfeit goods entering the United States pose new challenges for consumers, the private sector, and U.S. agencies that enforce intellectual property rights (IPR). Specifically, growth in e-commerce has contributed to a shift in the sale of counterfeit goods in the United States, with consumers increasingly purchasing goods online and counterfeiters producing a wider variety of goods that may be sold on websites alongside authentic products. For example, 20 of 47 items GAO purchased from third-party sellers on popular consumer websites were counterfeit, according to testing by the products' rights holders (see table), highlighting potential risks to consumers. The changes in the market for counterfeit goods can also pose challenges to the private sector—for example, the challenge of distinguishing counterfeit from authentic goods listed for sale online—and complicate the enforcement efforts of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). CBP and ICE engage in a number of activities to enhance IPR enforcement; however, while ICE has assessed some of its efforts, CBP has taken limited steps to do so. CBP's and ICE's IPR enforcement activities broadly include detecting imports of potentially IPR-infringing goods, conducting special operations at U.S. ports, engaging with international partners, and undertaking localized pilot programs or port-led initiatives. CBP and ICE have collected some performance data for each of the eight activities GAO reviewed, and ICE has taken some steps to understand the impact of its efforts. However, CBP has conducted limited evaluation of its efforts to enhance IPR enforcement. Consequently, CBP may lack information needed to ensure it is investing its resources in the most efficient and effective activities. CBP and ICE generally collaborate on IPR enforcement, but according to private sector representatives, restrictions on CBP's information sharing limit private sector enforcement efforts. GAO found that CBP and ICE have undertaken efforts that align with selected key practices for interagency collaboration, such as participating in developing a national IPR enforcement strategy and agreeing on roles and responsibilities. However, sharing additional information about seized items with rights-holding companies and e-commerce websites could improve enforcement, according to private sector representatives. CBP officials said they share information to the extent allowed under current regulations, but CBP has not completed an assessment of what, if any, additional information would be beneficial to share with private sector entities. Without such an assessment, CBP will not know if sharing additional information requires regulatory or legal changes.

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



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

Report 1: The rise of e-commerce has contributed to a fundamental change in the market for counterfeit goods, according to our analysis of documents from CBP, ICE, and international organizations and our interviews with CBP and ICE officials  U S  agencies and international organizations have observed a shift in the sale of counterfeit goods from “underground” or secondary markets, such as flea markets or sidewalk vendors, to primary markets, including e-commerce websites, corporate and government supply chains, and traditional retail stores  Whereas secondary markets are often characterized by consumers who are knowingly purchasing counterfeits, primary markets involve counterfeiters who try to deceive consumers into purchasing goods they believe are authentic  This shift has been accompanied by changes in the ways in which counterfeit goods are sold  In the past, consumers could often rely on indicators such as the location of sale or the goods’ appearance or price to identify counterfeit goods in the marketplace  However, counterfeiters have now adopted new ways to deceive consumers  For example, as consumers increasingly purchase goods online, counterfeiters may exploit third-party online marketplaces to gain an appearance of legitimacy and access to consumers  When selling online, counterfeiters may post pictures of authentic goods on the websites where they are selling counterfeits and may post pseudonymous reviews of their products or businesses in order to appear legitimate  Additionally, by setting the price of a counterfeit at, or close to, the retail price of a genuine good, counterfeiters may deceive consumers, who will pay the higher price because they believe the goods are real or who believe that they are getting a slight bargain on genuine goods  According to CBP seizure data and CBP officials, the volume, variety, and methods of shipment of counterfeit goods seized by CBP and ICE have changed in recent years  CBP reports indicate that the number of IPR seizures increased by 38 percent in fiscal years 2012 through 2016  According to CBP data, approximately 88 percent of IPR seizures made during this period were shipped from China and Hong Kong  The variety of products being counterfeited has also increased, according to CBP officials  CBP and ICE officials noted that, while many consumers may think of luxury handbags or watches as the most commonly counterfeited goods, counterfeiting occurs in nearly every industry and across a broad range of products  In addition, according to CBP data we reviewed and officials we spoke to, the methods of importing counterfeit goods into the United States have changed in recent years  Specifically, express carriers and international mail have become the predominant form of transportation for IPR-infringing goods entering the United States, constituting approximately 90 percent of all IPR seizures in fiscal years 2015 and 2016, according to CBP data  In an attempt to illustrate the risk that consumers may unknowingly encounter counterfeit products online, we purchased a nongeneralizable sample of four types of consumer products—shoes, travel mugs, cosmetics, and phone chargers—from third-party sellers on five popular e-commerce websites  According to CBP data we reviewed and officials we spoke to, CBP often seizes IPR-infringing counterfeits of these types of products  As table 1 shows, the rights holders for the four selected products we purchased determined that 20 of the 47 items were counterfeit  We did not identify any clear reasons for the variation among the counterfeit and authentic items that we purchased based on the products that they represented, the e-commerce websites where we bought the items, or the third-party sellers from whom we bought them  For three of the four product types, at least one item we purchased was determined to be counterfeit, with results varying considerably by product  Representatives of the rights holders also could not provide a specific explanation for the variation among authentic and counterfeit goods that we received  They noted that the results of covert test purchases can fluctuate depending on enforcement activities and the variety of goods and sellers on a particular website on a given day  Rights-holder testing also showed that we purchased at least one counterfeit item and one authentic item from each of the five e-commerce websites  In addition, our analysis of the customer ratings of third-party sellers from whom we bought the items did not provide any clear indications that could warn consumers that a product marketed online may be counterfeit  For example, we received both counterfeit and authentic items from third- party sellers with ratings that were less than 70 percent positive as well as sellers with ratings that were up to 100 percent positive  Rights holders were able to determine that items we purchased were not authentic on the basis of inferior quality, incorrect markings or construction, and incorrect labeling  Some counterfeit items we purchased were easily identifiable as likely counterfeit once we received them  For example, one item contained misspellings of “Austin, TX” and “Made in China ” Other items could be more difficult for a typical consumer to identify as counterfeit  For example, the rights holder for a cosmetic product we purchased identified one counterfeit item on the basis of discrepancies in the color, composition, and design of the authentic and counterfeit items’ packaging  Counterfeit goods may also lack key elements of certification markings and other identifiers  For example, on a counterfeit phone charger we purchased, the UL certification mark did not include all components of the authentic mark  Figure 1 shows examples of these counterfeit items  The risks associated with the types of counterfeit goods we purchased can extend beyond the infringement of a company’s IPR  For example, a UL investigation of counterfeit iPhone adapters found a 99 percent failure rate in 400 counterfeit adapters tested for safety, fire, and shock hazards and found that 12 of the adapters tested posed a risk of lethal electrocution to the user  Similarly, according to a rights holder representative, counterfeits of common consumer goods, such as Yeti travel mugs, may contain higher-than-approved concentrations of dangerous chemicals such as lead, posing health risks to consumers  According to ICE, seized counterfeit cosmetics have been found to contain hazardous substances, including cyanide, arsenic, mercury, lead, urine, and rat droppings  Representatives of rights holders and e-commerce websites whom we interviewed reported taking independent action to try to protect IPR within their areas of responsibility  For example, both rights holders and e- commerce websites maintain IPR protection teams that work with one another and with law enforcement to address infringement issues  E- commerce websites may also take a variety of steps to block and remove counterfeit items listed by third-party sellers  These efforts rely on data collected through a variety of means, including consumer reporting of counterfeits, rights-holder notifications of IPR infringement, and corporate efforts to vet potential third-party sellers, according to private sector representatives  Our January 2018 report includes information on steps that consumer protection organizations and government agencies recommend consumers take to limit the risk of purchasing counterfeits online  These steps include, for example, buying only from authorized retailers online, avoiding prices that look “too good to be true,” and reporting counterfeit purchases  We identified a number of key challenges that the changes in the market for counterfeit goods can pose to CBP and ICE as well as to the private sector  First, the increasing sophistication of counterfeits can make it difficult for law enforcement officers to distinguish between legitimate and counterfeit goods  Second, as the range of counterfeit goods expands, CBP has a wider variety of goods to screen, which requires CBP officials to have in-depth knowledge of a broad range of products and of how to identify counterfeits  Third, counterfeiters may break up large shipments into multiple smaller express carrier or mail packages to decrease the risk of losing significant quantities of merchandise to a single seizure  This shift toward smaller express shipments of counterfeit goods to the United States poses challenges to CBP and ICE because, according to CBP officials, seizure processing requires roughly the same amount of time and resources regardless of shipment size or value  The changing marketplace also presents challenges to the private sector, according to representatives from rights holders and e-commerce websites  For example, it is more difficult for rights holders and e- commerce websites to identify and investigate individual counterfeit cases, because e-commerce websites face a growing inventory from a larger registry of sellers  Tracking goods from known counterfeiters through various website fulfillment and delivery mechanisms is also a significant challenge for the private sector  Furthermore, the growth of e- commerce has accelerated the pace at which counterfeiters can gain access to consumers or reinvent themselves if shut down  CBP and ICE engage in a number of activities to enhance IPR enforcement; however, while ICE has assessed some of its efforts, CBP has taken limited steps to do so  CBP’s and ICE’s IPR enforcement activities broadly include detecting imports of potentially IPR-infringing goods, conducting special operations at U S  ports, engaging with international partners, and undertaking localized pilot programs or port- led initiatives  CBP and ICE have collected some performance data on activities we reviewed, and ICE has taken some steps to better understand the impact of its efforts, such as creating a process to track cases it deems significant  However, we found that CBP has conducted limited evaluation of its efforts to enhance IPR enforcement  Consequently, we concluded that CBP may lack information needed to ensure it is investing its resources in the most efficient and effective activities  We recommended in our report that CBP take steps to evaluate the effectiveness of its IPR enforcement efforts; CBP concurred with this recommendation  Our analysis showed that CBP and ICE interagency collaboration on IPR enforcement is generally consistent with the following selected key practices for effective interagency collaboration: (1) define and articulate a common outcome; (2) establish mutually reinforcing or joint strategies; (3) identify and address needs by leveraging resources; (4) agree on roles and responsibilities; and (5) establish compatible policies, procedures, and other means to operate across agency boundaries  For example, the agencies may leverage resources by collocating staff or sharing their expertise  CBP and ICE have also issued guidance and developed standard operating procedures to clarify roles and responsibilities  CBP and ICE also coordinate with the private sector in a variety of ways, such as obtaining private sector assistance to determine whether detained goods are authentic and to conduct training  Representatives of rights holders and e-commerce websites noted that information shared by law enforcement entities is critical to private sector IPR enforcement, such as pursuing civil action against a counterfeiter or removing counterfeit items from websites  In the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015, Congress provided CBP with explicit authority to share certain information with trademark and copyright owners before completing a seizure  CBP officials stated that they share information about identified counterfeits with e-commerce websites and rights holders to the extent possible under current regulations  However, according to private sector representatives we spoke to, restrictions on the amount and type of information about seized items shared by CBP limit the ability of rights holders and e-commerce websites to protect IPR  CBP officials noted that there are legal limitations to the amount and type of information they can share, particularly if the e-commerce website is not listed as the importer on forms submitted to CBP  Several private sector representatives stated that receiving additional information from CBP would enhance their ability to protect IPR  Representatives of one website noted that information on the exterior of seized packages, such as business identifiers on packages destined for distribution centers, would be helpful for identifying groups of counterfeit merchandise from the same seller  However, according to CBP officials, CBP cannot provide such information to e-commerce websites  Representatives of one e-commerce website noted that ICE sometimes shares information related to an investigation, but that ICE’s involvement in the enforcement process begins only after CBP has identified and seized counterfeit items  Representatives of two e-commerce websites stated that, because of the limited information shared by CBP, they may not be aware of IPR-infringing goods offered for sale on their websites, even if CBP has seized related items from the same seller  According to CBP officials, CBP is reviewing options for sharing additional information with rights holders and e-commerce websites and is assessing what, if any, additional information would be beneficial to share with private sector entities  CBP officials stated that they have not yet determined whether changes to the amount and types of information provided to e-commerce websites would require regulatory changes or additional legal authorities  These officials also said that they have discussed differences in CBP’s and ICE’s information sharing with ICE officials  In our report, we recommended that CBP, in consultation with ICE, assess what, if any, additional information would be beneficial to share with the private sector and, as appropriate, take action to enhance information sharing where possible  CBP concurred with this recommendation  Chairman Hatch, Ranking Member Wyden, and Members of the Committee, this concludes my prepared statement  I would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have at this time  If you or your staff have any questions about this testimony, please contact Kimberly Gianopoulos, Director, International Affairs and Trade, at (202) 512-8612 or gianopoulosk@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement  GAO staff who made key contributions to this testimony are Joyee Dasgupta, Kara Marshall, Katie Bassion, Kristen Timko, Reid Lowe, Sarah Collins, Neil Doherty, Ramon Rodriguez, Helina Wong, Julie Spetz, Kevin Loh, Wayne McElrath, Grace Lui, James Murphy, Mary Moutsos, Justin Fisher, Rachel Stoiko, and Sarah Veale  This is a work of the U S  government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States  The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO  However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately 


Report 2:  Treasury policy also recommends hoteling for employees who are out of the office 80 or more hours per month, but the Fiscal Service told us that it would like to conduct additional desk-sharing pilots to assess their impact before negotiating broader desk-sharing with the union  At the Fiscal Service, approximately 80 percent of eligible employees teleworked in fiscal year 2015, and about one-quarter of all employees teleworked 3 or more days per pay period, according to OPM data  The Fiscal Service reported that approximately 80 percent of Fiscal Service employees telework at its Washington, D C , Maryland, and West Virginia locations  At the time of our review, the Fiscal Service officials said the agency had reduced space without leveraging telework or implementing hoteling, instead relying on smaller space standards (i e , fewer square feet per workstation) to lease smaller offices  For example, the Fiscal Service reduced space by giving up several floors at its Hyattsville, MD, office starting in 2012  According to Fiscal Service officials, they accomplished these reductions by consolidating data centers to other locations, conducting targeted buyouts of employees, and, most recently, by implementing a new space standard of 183 USF per person through smaller workstations  The officials said that the most recent space reduction at this location resulted in savings in annual rent costs not attributable to telework  Looking forward, the Fiscal Service reported that it has started taking preliminary steps to promote efficient space utilization through telework  These steps have included: creating an Executive Space Management Council that discussed incorporating telework and desk-sharing into space management guidelines; implementing a voluntary, informal desk-sharing pilot in one program area for employees who already telework 50 percent or more of the time; and seeking information from GSA, including discussing and visiting GSA offices that have implemented hoteling as part of their space planning model  In addition, the Fiscal Service officials told us that the agency plans to negotiate the impact and implementation of desk-sharing and hoteling for telework employees with its union, but the Fiscal Service has not yet begun this effort  Our analysis of the survey responses from the 23 civilian CFO Act agencies identified three major planning challenges agencies face with using telework to reduce space: human capital issues such as negotiating workspace changes with collective bargaining units and managing organizational change; the suitability of telework to mission work requirements; and difficulty measuring cost savings that might result from space reductions attributable to telework  This measuring difficulty may include both gross savings as well as savings net of costs, such as for renovations or IT investments  See table 3 for examples of space-planning challenges related to telework reported by the 23 agencies  To address these challenges, nearly two thirds of the agencies we surveyed reported they would like guidance on using telework programs or other alternatives to meet the federal goals of reducing space or using space more efficiently  Our review of agency survey responses, Real Property Efficiency Plans, and other agency space-planning documents, found that human capital challenges to using telework in space planning generally fell into two categories: (1) requirements to negotiate space allocation changes with collective-bargaining units; and (2) managing department workforces in adapting to new workspace designs and altered workspace allocations  Collective-bargaining challenges: Of the 23 civilian CFO Act agencies, 7 of 23 noted that changes to telework policy or workspace arrangements required negotiation with collective bargaining units, for example, The Small Business Administration (SBA) reported its greatest challenge to incorporating telework in office space planning has been with negotiating and securing agreement from all parties, including management and its union, on establishing space standards  HUD reported that it could not implement hoteling or desk-sharing as its collective-bargaining agreements require that each employee retain an assigned workstation regardless of an employee’s type of telework agreement  SSA reported that changing floor plans required negotiation with its three collective-bargaining units, which could extend the time needed for construction and relocation  DOT reported that collective-bargaining agreements posed a challenge to incorporating workforce mobility options, including telework  In addition, the collective-bargaining agreements we reviewed from the four agencies we reviewed in detail––GSA, OJP, CDC and Fiscal Service––required negotiations or the opportunity to negotiate changes to matters relating to workspace arrangements and in some cases, to telework policy  Managing change: Using telework as a strategic space-planning tool, particularly in conjunction with complementary space-saving efforts such as desk-sharing, hoteling, or open-space designs, generally involves a cultural change  Nine of the 23 agencies we surveyed reported challenges associated with managing change  For example, three agencies reported employees’ discomfort or apprehension about desk-sharing and hoteling  In 2013, we reported that organizations may also encounter concerns from agency leaders, managers, employees, or employee organizations when introducing physical space changes associated with increased workforce mobility (telework)  More recently, we reported that management concerns remain the most frequently reported barrier to expanding telework  Two private sector experts we met with underscored the importance of management “buy-in” saying it was imperative that senior executives fully support the initiative to facilitate the necessary cultural change for agencies to use telework in space planning  One noted that management needed to make the business case to employees so that each layer of the organization could understand the importance of the initiative and its potential benefits  Another suggested a change management plan tailored to the work performed within a unit  This individual said that key components of such a plan might include studying existing work practices and program requirements, surveying employee preferences, and including employees in the planning process  Further, a GSA document circulated in response to the Telework Enhancement Act of 2010 mentions obtaining supervisory “buy-in” or support as key to facilitating change  According to survey responses, within agencies there are sub-agencies that have individual mission requirements that may or may not be suitable for telework  This makes it difficult for agencies to implement overarching telework and space planning policies that apply department-wide  Sub- agencies and units within sub-agencies must individually determine if telework is appropriate given their particular mission requirements  For example, the Veterans Administration reported that although it developed an agency-wide telework policy, each sub-agency and supervisor has the flexibility to implement telework based on operational needs  Moreover, because the agency’s core mission involves direct services to veterans, about 83 percent of agency staff positions are not suitable for telework  The Telework Enhancement Act of 2010 outlines two broad exceptions to telework participation for employees: (1) directly handling secure materials determined to be inappropriate for telework by the agency head and (2) on-site activity that cannot be handled remotely or at an alternative worksite  In cases where telework does not support an agency’s mission or where a particular mission may require increases or decreases in personnel, telework as a strategic space-planning tool may not work  About half (12 of 23) of the agencies we surveyed reported that office space reductions resulting from using telework in space planning led to real estate cost savings while the other half reported either that cost savings did not result or they did not know  GSA officials told us that calculating cost savings attributable to a particular aspect of space planning is complicated as several factors contribute to savings  In particular, in survey responses, the Departments of Education, Energy, and Agriculture reiterated this point  OMB’s National Strategy for the Efficient Use of Real Property and its Reduce the Footprint policy encourage agencies to increase and maximize efficiencies in office space by implementing cost-effective strategies such as telework  For example, the National Strategy outlines a framework that aims to measure real property costs and utilization to improve the efficient use of federal real property  The Reduce the Footprint policy requires agencies to measure cost savings that result from reducing space through disposals  However, neither document offers guidance or methodologies on how to measure the costs or savings that may result from using telework  We previously reported that GSA works with client agencies to develop tools to measure office space utilization and, in 2013, was developing an Excel-based tool to help agencies quantify the benefits and costs of using telework to achieve greater office space efficiencies  This tool—the Workplace Investment and Feasibility Tool—is aimed at helping agencies quantify the benefits and costs of increased telework participation and implementing other alternative-work arrangements  When completed, the tool will enable users to quickly develop rough estimates of cost and space impacts resulting from workplace changes, particularly relating to desk-sharing, workspace reconfiguration, and consolidation  Key features include the ability to compare up to three scenarios, which in turn may be used to inform a more detailed design program  As of January 2018, GSA had not yet completed the tool  GSA officials said mission needs, resource constraints, and developmental adjustments have contributed to delays in the time frame for completing the tool  They added that during this time, GSA has diverted resources to space calculation tools for individual agencies  For example, GSA worked with DHS on its Space Calculation Tool as a way to help determine workplace space requirements in a manner consistent with DHS space policies  In January 2018, GSA officials told us that they plan to make the Workplace Investment and Feasibility Tool available to GSA staff in March 2018 along with training on how to use it  However, GSA officials have not decided whether to make the tool available to other federal agencies to use as a space-planning tool  Instead, the officials plan to assess GSA’s use of the tool and then determine in late 2018 if and how it should be released to other agencies for independent use  Given the absence of a government-wide tool, in our review, we found that some agencies had used their own resources to purchase similar tools for their space-planning needs from the private sector  Without such a government-wide resource, agencies may not be able to determine how best to reduce space or use it more efficiently  In responses to our survey, nearly two-thirds of agencies reported that they would find it helpful to have additional information, assistance, or resources to assist them in using telework as a space-planning tool  As noted above, a key element of GSA’s mission is to provide guidance and services that enable agencies to improve space utilization, reduce costs, and better achieve their missions  Moreover, under federal statute, GSA may provide guidance to executive agencies on the implementation of alternative workplace arrangements, which includes telework  Federal standards for internal control also call for agencies to communicate necessary quality information such as guidance with external parties  In reviewing GSA’s websites, we found that GSA last developed formal guidance on alternative workplace arrangements in 2006 and maintains several separate informational websites on implementing telework and optimizing space utilization  Our review of this guidance and these websites found that they do not provide specific guidance for using telework as a strategic space-planning tool  For example, the 2006 guidance is generally limited to defining the factors agency heads must contemplate when considering alternative workplace arrangements along with the equipment and technical services agencies may provide for alternative worksites  However, this guidance does not address in detail the impact of such arrangements on agency office space and resulting planning issues  Similarly, our review of GSA’s teleworking and space- planning websites found that although they separately offered documented case studies along with information such as tips for implementing telework and managing a mobile workforce, GSA did not provide documents consolidating the concept of using telework as a strategic space-planning tool  For example, information on GSA’s Total Workplace Program website––intended to assist agencies in using workforce mobility (including telework) to increase space efficiencies––is generally limited  Although this website includes high-level information that describes the potential benefits of using telework with office space planning and design, it lacks a practical outline of the process agencies might use to achieve them  Because the information in the 2006 guidance and the telework and space-planning websites is neither specific nor detailed, it is of limited assistance for agencies that would like to use telework as a strategic space-planning tool to meet the goals of a more efficient use of space  While using telework to reduce space is not a new challenge, it has become more pressing with OMB’s requirement for federal agencies to explore alternatives to acquiring more office space  Most civilian CFO Act agencies reported having a telework program in place and some reported success with using it in space planning to reduce space or accommodate more employees without increasing space  However, many of the agencies continue to face challenges and do not believe that they have adequate information, assistance, or resources to assist them in using telework as a space-planning tool or assess its costs and benefits  Until agencies have access to detailed guidance and tools to help utilize various space-planning options, they may not be able to effectively identify opportunities to use telework toward the goal of reducing their real property footprint  We are making the following two recommendations to GSA: The Administrator of General Services should ensure that the appropriate GSA offices develop guidance including, but not limited to, how agencies can use telework as a strategic space-planning tool for reducing and optimizing office space efficiency and that the offices make the guidance readily available  (Recommendation 1) The Administrator of General Services should ensure the appropriate GSA offices complete the Workplace Investment and Feasibility Tool and make it available to federal agencies for use in assessing the benefits and costs of telework to achieve office space efficiencies  (Recommendation 2) We provided a draft of this report to GSA, the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of the Treasury  In its written comments, reproduced in Appendix III, GSA concurred with our recommendations and stated that it is developing a plan to address them  We received technical comments from the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human Services, which we incorporated where appropriate  The Department of the 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; and the Secretaries of the Department of Health and Human Services and Department of the Treasury, and the Attorney General of the Department of Justice  In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff has 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 that made key contributions to this report is listed in appendix III  This report addresses: (1) how the 23 civilian Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Act agencies reported using telework in office space planning; (2) the specific ways selected agencies and GSA used telework in their office space planning; and (3) any challenges the 23 civilian CFO Act agencies faced in using telework in office space planning  To determine how the 23 civilian CFO Act agencies reported using telework in office space planning, we surveyed the agencies  The survey asked questions about agency-wide efforts to use telework in the human- capital and space-planning areas; whether agencies had achieved any cost savings as a result; the challenges agencies faced in using telework in space planning; and asked agencies to identify additional information, resources, or guidance that might be helpful  In addition to the survey questions, we asked each agency real property officer to provide copies of agency-wide space-planning documents and the Real Property Efficiency Plans agencies prepared for fiscal years 2016 and 2017 pursuant to the requirements of the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Reduce the Footprint policy  We developed survey questions based on our review of the relevant literature, white papers from federal agencies and private sector entities, and past GAO reports  We pre- tested the survey instrument with three federal agencies to ascertain: (1) the clarity of survey questions; (2) the precision of language; and 3) the availability of information queried  As a result of the pre-tests we made changes to the content and format of the survey where appropriate  We received survey responses from each of the 23 civilian CFO Act agencies in addition to requested space-planning documents and Real Property Efficiency Plans, and thus achieved a 100 percent response rate  We analyzed survey results by calculating the frequency of responses to dichotomous questions (i e , questions requiring a “yes” or “no” answer)  We also conducted a content analysis on the open-ended, narrative-based questions by identifying common themes and tabulating results  We also conducted a content analysis to determine the extent to which agencies referenced telework in their agency-wide space-planning documents and in their Real Property Efficiency Plans  To accomplish these analyses, we developed separate coding schemes for each of the two types of documents  These were based on information obtained in our literature review, interviews with subject matter experts, and our professional judgment  We then identified relevant sections and common themes, and coded and tabulated the results  To validate the coding results, we used a second, independent coder  To determine the specific ways agencies include telework in their office space planning, we selected a non-generalizable sample of three CFO Act agency sub-agencies as illustrative case studies  To select sub- agencies, we analyzed data from the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) Public Use 2014-2015 Telework Data call  First, we applied two selection criteria: (1) agency-wide progress toward a stated goal of using telework to reduce real estate costs, and (2) agency-reported data indicating that more than 25 percent of sub-agency employees teleworked 3 or more days per pay period  Next, we considered variations in sub-agency size and percentage of employees eligible to telework  Finally, we excluded candidates that had recently been selected for related GAO work and we excluded sub-agencies related to agency administration such as Offices of Inspector General or Secretary-level offices  We assessed the reliability of the OPM’s data by interviews with knowledgeable officials and by reviewing prior assessments of the same data, and we found the data reliable for our purposes  As a result of this process, we selected (1) the Department of the Treasury’s Bureau of the Fiscal Service (Fiscal Service); (2) the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); and (3) the Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs (OJP)  For each of the selected agencies, we interviewed agency officials and reviewed their telework and space- planning documents  We also visited four sub-agency office locations to determine if and how telework played a role in any space reductions or efficiencies along with any associated cost savings  In addition to these three sub-agencies, we used the General Services Administration (GSA) as a comparative example since it is responsible for providing space- planning guidance to client agencies and has experience using telework in space planning  We interviewed GSA officials, reviewed relevant documents, and visited three GSA office locations with recent space reductions or efficiencies  In total, we conducted seven site visits including two Fiscal Service locations, one location each for CDC and OJP, and three GSA locations (National Headquarters, Region 2 Office, and Region 3 Office) in Washington, D C ; New York City; and Philadelphia, respectively  To identify any challenges the 23 civilian CFO Act agencies faced in using telework in office space planning, we analyzed results from survey questions addressed to challenges, interviewed sub-agency and GSA officials as detailed above, interviewed two private sector subject matter experts, and representatives from four private-sector entities that had reported using telework to reduce and use office space more efficiently  Statements made by knowledgeable federal officials, outside experts and private sector entities are not generalizable to the universe of civilian CFO Act agencies  We also analyzed the section of each of the 23 civilian CFO Act agencies’ Real Property Efficiency Plans devoted to challenges agency face in reducing space  We selected the two subject matter experts––representatives from Global Workplace Analytics and Fentress Facility Planning and Analytics––based on: (1) their experience working with federal agencies to incorporate telework programs into the space planning process; (2) information compiled in our literature review; (3) prior GAO reports; (4) internal GAO recommendations; and (5) industry recommendations  We selected the four private sector entities (AT&T, Deloitte, Adobe, and CapitalOne) based on our literature review, recommendations from industry experts, and reports of having achieved space efficiencies including space reduction, cost savings, or cost avoidance(s)  To identify what guidance or information on using telework as a space- planning tool GSA makes available through its website, we reviewed the contents of multiple GSA websites including Telework, Total Workplace, Alternative Work, and GSA Telework Resources  We followed links and reviewed webpage contents for information on how agencies might use telework as a strategic tool to reduce space or use space more efficiently  We compared GSA’s guidance and website information to relevant statutory requirements and federal internal controls standards related to external communication  We conducted this performance audit from January 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  In addition to the contact named above, David J  Wise (Director); Amelia Bates Shachoy (Assistant Director); Lindsay Bach (Analyst-in-Charge); Geoff Hamilton; Malika Rice; Kelly Rubin; Shelia Thorpe; Elise Vaughan Winfrey; and Amelia Michelle Weathers made key contributions to this report 

ground_truth: The federal government, through the Department of Energy, operates four regional power marketing administrations (PMAs), created by statute: the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), the Southeastern Power Administration (SEPA), the Southwestern Power Administration (SWPA), and the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA). Each PMA operates in a distinct geographic area. Congressional interest in the PMAs has included diverse issues such as rate setting, cost and compliance associated with the Endangered Species Act (ESA; P.L. 93-205; 16 U.S.C. §§1531 et seq.), and questions of privatization of these federal agencies. In general, the PMAs came into being because of the government's need to dispose of electric power produced by dams constructed largely for irrigation, flood control, or other purposes, and to achieve small community and farm electrification—that is, providing service to customers whom it would not have been profitable for a private utility to serve. With minor exceptions, these agencies market the electric power produced by federal dams constructed, owned, and operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR). By statute, PMAs must give preference to public utility districts and cooperatives (e.g., "preference customers"), and sell their power at cost-based rates set at the lowest possible rate consistent with sound business principles. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regulates PMA rates to ensure that they are set high enough to repay the U.S. Treasury for the portion of federal facility costs allocated to hydropower beneficiaries. With energy and capacity markets changing in the western United States (especially with the growing need to integrate increasing amounts of variable renewable sources), and the development of the Energy Imbalance Market in the West, BPA and WAPA may have to adapt their plans with regard to generation needs and how transmission systems are developed. In 2018, the Trump Administration proposed to sell the transmission assets (lines, towers, substations, and/or rights of way) owned and operated by the federal Power Marketing Administrations. The proposal suggested that "eliminating or reducing" the federal government's role in owning and operating transmission assets, and increasing the private sector's role, would "encourage a more efficient allocation of economic resources and mitigate unnecessary risk to taxpayers." The resulting PMA entities would then contract with other utilities to provide transmission services for the delivery of federal power, similar to what SEPA does currently. Reportedly, the proposed sale of PMA assets was dropped after opposition to the plan emerged from stakeholders. Under Section 208 of the Urgent Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1986 (P.L. 99-349), the executive branch is prohibited from spending funds to study or draft proposals to transfer from federal control any portion of the assets of the PMAs unless specifically authorized by Congress. Environmental, fishing, and tribal advocates have sued the federal government over concerns that operating rules for hydropower dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers (i.e., the National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Opinion) are inadequate to ensure survival of species threatened or endangered under the ESA. In 2016, a federal judge overturned a previous management plan for the dams, finding that it would not be sufficient to protect salmon runs, and ordered a new management plan that could include removing the dams. However, in 2018, President Trump issued a Presidential Memorandum accelerating the process for a new management plan, requiring the biological opinion to be ready by 2020. Since FY2011, power revenues associated with the PMAs have been classified as discretionary offsetting receipts (i.e., receipts that are available for spending by the PMAs), thus the agencies are sometimes noted as having a "net-zero" spending authority. Only the capital expenses of WAPA and SWPA require appropriations from Congress.