FEDERAL 

BUILDINGS

GSA Should Establish 

Goals and 

Performance 

Measures to Manage 

the Smart Buildings 

Program

Report to Congressional Requesters

January 2018

GAO-18-200

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-18-200, a report to 

congressional requesters.

January 2018

FEDERAL BUILDINGS

GSA Should Establish Goals and Performance 

Measures to Manage the Smart Buildings Program

What GAO Found

Limited quantified information exists on the costs and benefits of the General 

Services Administration’s (GSA) smart buildings program’s key technologies. 

GSA officials stated that the approximate cost of equipping a building with these 

technologies ranged between about $48,000 to $155,000. However, they stated 

that accurately calculating installation costs is challenging because GSA typically 

installs these technologies in selected buildings incrementally and sometimes as 

part of other capital improvement projects. Additionally, GSA officials identified 

perceived operational benefits of the smart buildings program’s key technologies, 

including that these technologies enable officials to more precisely identify 

building system problems and more closely monitor contractors. However, 

existing data on the smart buildings program are of limited usefulness in 

quantifying the program’s benefits. For example, according to GSA officials, 

while data from an application within GSAlink that estimates avoided costs from 

addressing each fault that GSAlink identifies are useful for prioritizing 

maintenance actions, the imprecise estimates preclude their use as a measure 

of actual avoided costs in quantifying program benefits.

GSA does not have documented, clearly defined goals for the smart buildings 

program, nor has GSA developed performance measures that would allow it to 

assess the program’s progress. These omissions are contrary to leading 

practices of results-oriented organizations identified in previous GAO work. GSA 

officials verbally described broad goals for the smart buildings program to GAO, 

but the agency has not documented these goals. Further, because GSA has not 

clearly defined its verbally expressed goals, it cannot demonstrate progress in 

achieving them. For example, GSA officials said that the agency cannot measure 

progress for the stated goal of improving tenant productivity and comfort 

because of the subjective nature of individual tenant preferences, such as for 

office temperatures. Additionally, GSA has not developed performance 

measures to assess the program, and GSA’s lack of data that can be used to 

quantify benefits of the program impedes its ability to measure the success of the 

program. Without clearly defined goals, related performance measures, and data 

that can be used to measure its progress, GSA is limited in its ability to make 

informed decisions about the smart buildings program.

GSA faces challenges in implementing the smart buildings program and has 

taken steps to mitigate these challenges. Since smart building technologies are 

Internet-connected, they are potentially vulnerable to cyberattacks that could 

compromise security or cause harm to facilities or their occupants. GSA has 

taken actions intended to mitigate cybersecurity challenges, such as instituting 

policies to address threats and known vulnerabilities and moving Internetconnected building systems to GSA’s secured network. Separately, according to 

GSA officials, GSA faces implementation challenges related to the limited 

technological proficiency of some GSA building managers and contractors or 

lack of buy-in from them. GSA is taking actions intended to address these 

challenges. For example, it has provided training to staff and contractors, and its 

central office monitors the extent to which staff address problems detected by 

the smart buildings program’s key technologies. View GAO-18-200. For more information, 

contact Lori Rectanus at (202) 512-2834 or 

rectanusl@gao.gov.

Why GAO Did This Study

To help comply with federal policies 

aimed at improving federal building 

energy and environmental 

management, GSA has implemented a 

smart buildings program nationwide in 

federally owned buildings under its 

custody and control. Two key 

technologies included in the program 

are Internet-connected advanced utility 

meters and an analytical software 

application, GSAlink, which alerts staff 

to potential building system problems, 

such as equipment operating outside 

of normal hours.

GAO was asked to review GSA’s smart 

buildings program. This report 

examines: (1) what is known about the 

costs and benefits of the program, (2) 

the extent to which GSA has 

developed performance goals and 

measures to help it manage the 

performance of the program, and (3) 

any challenges GSA faces in 

implementing the technologies used in 

the program and GSA’s actions to 

mitigate those challenges. GAO 

reviewed relevant GSA documentation, 

interviewed officials at GSA’s central 

and regional offices, and visited a 

sample of GSA smart buildings in San 

Francisco, California, and Washington, 

D.C. that were selected based on the 

high concentration of GSA smart 

buildings located in each city.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that GSA establish 

clearly defined performance goals and 

related performance measures for the 

smart buildings program, and identify 

and develop data to measure progress.

GSA concurred with GAO’s 

recommendations.
Page i GAO-18-200 GSA Smart Buildings

Letter 1

Background 3

Limited Quantified Information Exists on the Costs and Benefits of 

Key Smart Buildings Program Technologies 7

GSA Does Not Have Documented, Clearly Defined Performance 

Goals or Measures to Help It Manage the Smart Buildings 

Program 10

GSA Faces Some Challenges in Implementing Smart Building 

Technologies and Is Taking Steps to Mitigate Them 13

Conclusions 16

Recommendations for Executive Action 17

Agency Comments 17

Appendix I Organizations Contacted 18

Appendix II Comments from the General Services Administration 19

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 21

Figure

Figure 1: Example of a U.S. General Services Administration 

(GSA) Smart Building 6

Contents
Page ii GAO-18-200 GSA Smart Buildings

Abbreviations

GSA General Services Administration

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology

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.
Page 1 GAO-18-200 GSA Smart Buildings

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

January 30, 2018

The Honorable Ron Johnson

Chairman

The Honorable Claire McCaskill

Ranking Member

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable James Lankford

Chairman

The Honorable Heidi Heitkamp

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper

Ranking Member

Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) maintains custody and 

control of a diverse buildings portfolio that includes approximately 1,600 

federally owned buildings across the United States which cost over $1 

billion annually to operate and maintain. Numerous federal policies aim to 

improve federal building energy and environmental management through 

the implementation of sustainable practices intended to reduce energy 

use, lower operating costs, and limit the environmental impact of federal 

buildings. To help comply with these policies, GSA implemented key 

“smart buildings technologies” nationwide in federally owned buildings 

under its custody and control starting around 2005. According to GSA 

officials, the smart buildings program uses technologies that allow for 

more precise monitoring of energy use, costs, and system operations 

than in buildings without these technologies. These officials told us that 

analyzing data from buildings equipped with smart building technologies 

allows GSA building managers to more directly oversee the operations of 

these buildings.

You asked us to review GSA’s smart buildings program. This report 

addresses: (1) what is known about the costs and benefits of the smart 

Letter
Page 2 GAO-18-200 GSA Smart Buildings

buildings program’s key technologies, (2) the extent to which GSA has 

developed performance goals and measures to help it manage the 

performance of the smart buildings program, and (3) any challenges GSA 

faces in implementing the technologies used in the smart buildings 

program and GSA’s actions to mitigate those challenges.

To describe the costs and benefits of the smart buildings program’s key 

technologies, we reviewed information from GSA regarding these costs 

and benefits. We also interviewed officials at GSA’s central office, as well 

as conducted semi-structured interviews with officials at each of GSA’s 11 

regional offices. In addition, we conducted site visits and interviewed GSA 

building managers and operations and maintenance services contractors 

who work at selected GSA smart buildings in San Francisco, California, 

and Washington, D.C. We selected these locations because of the high 

number of GSA smart buildings located in each city. To obtain a wider 

perspective on smart buildings in general, we interviewed officials at three 

other federal agencies that have implemented smart building efforts, 

including the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, and the 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. We also interviewed 

seven industry stakeholders—including five service contractors and two 

university researchers—who were near the GSA smart buildings we 

visited and had experience in operating smart buildings or researching 

related technologies. The results of our site visits and interviews with 

GSA smart building officials, federal agencies, and industry stakeholders 

are not generalizable to all GSA smart buildings, but provide illustrative 

examples of smart building technologies in general, and the 

implementation of the GSA smart buildings program specifically. 

Appendix I provides a complete list of the organizations we contacted.

To evaluate the extent to which GSA has developed performance goals 

and measures to help it manage the performance of the smart buildings 

program, we reviewed GSA reports and documents concerning the smart 

buildings program and interviewed knowledgeable agency officials. We 

compared GSA’s actions to leading practices of results-oriented 
Page 3 GAO-18-200 GSA Smart Buildings

organizations that we have identified in our prior work,1 as well as federal 

standards for internal control.2

To describe the challenges GSA faces in implementing the technologies 

used in the smart buildings program and its actions to mitigate those 

challenges, we reviewed GSA, prior GAO, and other reports concerning 

building management issues. We also gathered information during our 

site visits and interviews noted above with officials at GSA’s central office, 

GSA regional offices, federal agencies, and industry stakeholders. We did 

not evaluate the effectiveness of the actions GSA has taken to mitigate 

challenges facing implementation of the technologies used in the smart 

buildings program. Related to cybersecurity risks, however, our past work 

has reported on GSA’s efforts to address cyber risks in federal buildings 

in compliance with relevant statute and guidance.3

We conducted this performance audit from October 2016 to January 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.

GSA maintains custody and control of real property for many civilian 

federal agencies and has a large portfolio of federally owned and leased 

properties that GSA rents to its federal agency customers. It is 

responsible for approximately 1,600 federally owned buildings, and the 

agency generally provides operations and maintenance services for 

building systems—such as heating, cooling, and lighting systems—used 

 1

We have previously stated that performance goals and measures are important 

management tools that can serve as leading practices for planning of individual federal 

programs or initiatives. For example, see GAO, Performance Measurement and 

Evaluation: Definitions and Relationships, GAO-11-646SP (Washington, D.C.: May 2, 

2011); Managing for Results: Enhancing Agency Use of Performance Information for 

Management Decision Making, GAO-05-927 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 9, 2005); and 

Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act, 

GAO/GGD-96-118 (Washington, D.C.: June 1, 1996).

2

GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO-14-704G 

(Washington, D.C.: September 2014).

3

GAO, Federal Facility Cybersecurity: DHS and GSA Should Address Cyber Risk to 

Building and Access Control Systems, GAO-15-6 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 12, 2014).

Background
Page 4 GAO-18-200 GSA Smart Buildings

in building operations. According to GSA officials, their federally owned 

smart buildings are managed by a GSA building manager who oversees a 

private operations and maintenance services contractor.

According to GSA officials, the agency began implementing what would 

become its smart buildings program around 2005 in response to 

numerous federal policies aimed at improving federal building energy and 

environmental management. These officials told us that the smart 

buildings program includes two key technologies: advanced utility meters 

and a computer software program known as “GSAlink.” According to GSA 

officials, outfitting buildings with these technologies allows for more 

precise monitoring of energy use and equipment operations in these 

buildings, and was initially based on the use of advanced utility meters to 

meet federal mandates. Later, this concept was expanded to include use 

of analytics, through GSAlink, aimed at reducing energy consumption and 

increasing the efficiency of operations and maintenance activities. 

According to GSA officials, GSA’s smart buildings use these technologies 

to connect and monitor multiple pieces of building equipment, such as 

heating and air conditioning system components. Further, according to 

these officials, the program is intended to achieve efficiencies in energy 

use and in operations and maintenance activities while also providing a 

comfortable workplace potentially conducive to improved tenant 

productivity. As GSAlink and advanced meters are Internet-connected, 

GSA officials told us that they implemented protections that are intended 

to help mitigate potential cyberattacks, including using firewalls.

• Advanced Utility Meters: In response to energy reduction and 

advanced metering requirements established in the Energy Policy Act 

of 2005—as well as subsequent amendments4 and an Executive 

Order5

—GSA began installing advanced meters in its federally owned 

buildings starting around 2005. Internet-connected advanced utility 

meters measure utility use in real-time,6 which GSA officials told us 

allows GSA’s building managers to identify opportunities to reduce 

energy use or anomalies that contribute to energy waste. For 

example, GSA officials said that advanced utility meters can be used 

 4

Pub. L. No. 109-58, 119 Stat. 594 (2005); Pub. L. No. 110-140, 121 Stat. 1492 (2007).

5

Executive Order No. 13693, 80 Fed. Reg. 15871 (Mar. 25, 2015): Planning for Federal 

Sustainability in the Next Decade.

6

According to the Department of Energy, advanced meters continually measure, among 

other things, electrical power, natural gas, or water use. According to GSA officials, their 

advanced meters record utility usage data in 15 minute increments.
Page 5 GAO-18-200 GSA Smart Buildings

to monitor energy consumption patterns and detect lights or other 

building systems being used after normal business hours. According 

to a senior GSA official, GSA currently has 675 advanced meters 

installed in the agency’s approximately 1,600 federally owned 

buildings.

• GSAlink: GSA officials told us that GSAlink is a computer software 

program that collects and analyzes data from advanced meters—

including gas, electric, and water meters—and from a facility’s 

“building automation system” and uses this information to alert 

building staff to potential problems.7 Further, GSA officials said that 

GSAlink allows them to identify building problems that occur over time 

that may not be readily observable through the building automation 

system, which generally presents information to building personnel on 

how a building system is operating in real-time, not over a longer time 

frame. For example, GSA officials told us that GSAlink can collect 

data on the temperature and pressure of chilled water that is being 

circulated through a building’s cooling system and identify equipment 

that is operating outside of normal parameters or normal business 

hours when a building automation system may not be actively 

monitored. If GSAlink detects a potential issue, GSA officials told us 

the software creates a record so that building maintenance staff can 

investigate and remedy that issue. GSA building managers as well as 

GSA staff at the regional and national levels told us they can log in to 

GSAlink to check on the status of building system issues. According 

to GSA officials, the contract for GSAlink was awarded in 2012 and 

GSAlink is currently in use in 81 buildings, with at least one GSAlinkequipped building in each of GSA’s 11 regions. A senior GSA official 

told us that eighty of these buildings are also equipped with advanced 

meters. Further, in September 2017, this official told us that GSA 

contracted to equip 4 additional buildings with GSAlink. According to 

GSA officials, GSA generally plans to limit installation of GSAlink in 

additional buildings until more is learned about using the technology in 

the buildings in which it is currently installed.

Figure 1 illustrates an example of a GSA smart building that includes 

advanced meters, GSAlink, and the building systems monitored by these 

technologies.

 7

A building automation system is a computer system that monitors and adjusts building 

components, for example those associated with a building’s cooling systems. Buildings 

may also have other automation systems that control other system components, such as 

for lighting. According to GSA officials, GSAlink collects data from the different types of 

automation systems that may be in use at a particular building, but does not control these 

or any other systems.
Page 6 GAO-18-200 GSA Smart Buildings

Figure 1: Example of a U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) Smart Building
Page 7 GAO-18-200 GSA Smart Buildings

According to GSA officials, the approximate cost of equipping a building 

with smart building technologies ranged from between about $48,000 to 

$155,000.8 This includes costs for installing: 

• advanced utility meters (approximately $25,000 to $55,000), and

• GSAlink (approximately $23,000 to $100,000).

The cost of installing GSAlink depends on the condition of the building 

automation system to which GSAlink is connected as well as the number 

of individual building components (e.g., chilled water pumps, cooling 

tower fans, thermostats) to be monitored by GSAlink. GSA officials 

anticipate that advances in system architecture and reduced software 

licensing costs will lower the cost of future installations. For example, a 

senior GSA official told us in October 2017 that the cost to install GSAlink 

in four additional buildings—the most recent buildings in which GSAlink 

was installed—ranged between $23,000 and $25,000.

In addition, GSA is undertaking a broader effort to upgrade building 

automation systems in its buildings to enable these systems and 

connected applications, such as GSAlink, to operate on GSA’s protected 

information technology network. According to GSA officials, GSA can only 

install GSAlink in buildings whose building automation system operates 

on GSA’s protected network. To date, GSA has upgraded building 

automation systems to operate on the agency’s protected network in 

approximately 400 buildings. GSA officials told us that the cost of these 

upgrades has varied by building and depends on several factors, 

 

8

In addition to initial implementation costs, GSA incurs annual recurring costs to 

administer its smart buildings program. These annual costs include a $110,000 licensing 

fee for the GSAlink software, as well as $1.5 million for the GSAlink support contractor to 

provide technical support and other services.

Limited Quantified 

Information Exists on 

the Costs and 

Benefits of Key Smart 

Buildings Program 

Technologies

The Smart Buildings 

Program’s Installation 

Costs Are Affected by 

Building Characteristics 

and Can Be Difficult to 

Quantify
Page 8 GAO-18-200 GSA Smart Buildings

including the size of the building, the complexity or condition of its building 

automation system, and its age. According to GSA officials, upgrading 

building automation system components to enable them to operate on the 

protected network has cost approximately $90,000 per building, on 

average. However, in some cases, these costs can be much higher; 

integrating older systems in larger buildings has cost up to $3 million, 

according to GSA officials.

Further, according to GSA officials, accurately calculating smart building 

implementation costs can be difficult because GSA typically installs key 

technologies—that is, advanced meters and GSAlink—and makes 

upgrades necessary to install GSAlink in selected buildings incrementally, 

sometimes as part of other capital improvement projects. For example, 

the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 20099 and annual 

appropriations10 have provided funding to GSA for energy and 

conservation measures, including the purchase and installation of 

advanced meters.

GSA officials we interviewed at the central office, regional, and individual 

building levels identified perceived operational benefits from implementing 

the smart buildings program, including that it (1) enables them to identify 

problems with building equipment or system operations more quickly and 

more thoroughly and (2) allows for their greater oversight of operations 

and maintenance services contractors relative to other GSA buildings. For 

example, according to GSA regional staff we spoke to, both advanced 

meters and GSAlink could detect if the cooling system was operating 

when tenants were not occupying the building, thereby allowing the 

building managers to adjust operations to avoid unneeded energy use 

and wear on the cooling system equipment. Regarding contractor 

oversight, GSA building managers stated that GSAlink allows the agency 

to better monitor operations and maintenance contractors’ performance, 

potentially yielding a better-run building with lower operations and 

maintenance costs. For example, GSA officials described how the 

analytic capability of GSAlink might allow building managers to precisely 

identify and address a problem with a building before that problem is 

noticed by tenants. This may result in, for example, a reduction in the 

number of maintenance service requests from tenants and contribute to 

 9

Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115 (2009).

10See, e.g., Pub. L. No. 113-76, 128 Stat. 5, 212 (2014).

GSA Has Taken Steps 

toward Assessing Benefits 

of the Smart Buildings 

Program, but Efforts to 

Quantify Benefits Have 

Been Limited
Page 9 GAO-18-200 GSA Smart Buildings

lower building operating costs. In addition, GSA officials told us that 

GSAlink allows GSA building managers to confirm the information 

operations and maintenance services contractors present to them on the 

status of issues identified by GSAlink. Further, according to these 

officials, GSAlink allows building managers to monitor contractor 

compliance with GSA’s requirement that contractors address building 

issues identified by GSAlink within 30 days, thereby giving GSA officials 

closer oversight of contractor performance.

GSA has taken some steps in the past to quantify the benefits associated 

with the smart buildings program. While those efforts have identified 

benefits, they have had some limitations. For example, in 2009—after 

having begun installing advanced meters but before installing GSAlink—

GSA attempted to forecast benefits of the smart buildings program by 

commissioning a business case analysis. The business case concluded 

that GSA’s energy and operating costs could be reduced by a smart 

buildings program and that such a program would pay for itself in 1.7 

years based on combined energy and operational savings.11 However, 

this business case’s estimates of the program’s benefits have limited 

usefulness for evaluating the current program because this study took 

place before the program was fully implemented and did not account for 

constraints affecting building operations. For example, a senior GSA 

official told us that GSA’s operations and maintenance service contracts 

are generally for multiple years at a fixed price, calling into question 

whether operational cost savings can be realized to achieve payback 

within the time frame estimated by the study.

In addition, GSA’s service contractor developed an application within 

GSAlink that automatically estimates the costs that would be avoided by 

addressing each type of fault that GSAlink identifies. According to GSA 

officials, these estimates are imprecise and do not reflect actual avoided 

costs, which thereby precludes their use in quantifying program benefits. 

However, according to these officials, these estimates can be used to 

compare the relative benefits expected to be achieved by addressing 

identified faults and to prioritize maintenance and repair actions. GSA 

officials told us that they took steps in June 2017 to improve the accuracy 

of avoided cost estimates produced by this application, for example, by 

enabling adjustments to account for differences in weather conditions and 

 11This study reported that GSA would recoup its $130 million investment in a smart 

buildings program in 11.2 years based on energy savings only, 1.9 years based on 

operational savings only, and in 1.7 years based on both operational and energy savings.
Page 10 GAO-18-200 GSA Smart Buildings

building size, and plan to continue their efforts to adjust and refine this 

tool.

In a separate study in October 2016, GSA—in collaboration with 

researchers at Carnegie Mellon University—analyzed the energy use 

changes associated with both capital upgrades and operational initiatives, 

including the use of smart building technologies.12 Capital upgrades 

include actions such as installing new energy-efficient building systems 

and equipment, whereas operational initiatives include, among other 

things, changes to building operations based on the analysis of advanced 

meter and GSAlink data. While the researchers concluded that the use of 

advanced meter and GSAlink data led to reductions in energy use, the 

researchers found that GSA’s utility consumption records were 

incomplete and that GSA records of capital upgrades often do not include 

key details, such as project start or completion dates, to indicate when 

GSA would have received the benefit derived from the capital project. 

This lack of complete data adds to the difficulty of estimating the reduced 

energy consumption attributable to specific factors, including use of 

advanced meters and GSAlink.

We have previously found that results-oriented organizations set 

performance goals to clearly define desired program outcomes and 

develop performance measures that are clearly linked to the performance 

goals.13 Program goals communicate what results the agency seeks and 

allow agencies to assess or demonstrate the degree to which those 

desired results are achieved. Performance measures also show the 

progress the agency is making toward achieving program goals. We have 

previously reported that performance measurement gives managers 

crucial information to identify gaps in program performance and plan any 

needed improvements.

 12GSA and Carnegie Mellon University – Center for Building Performance and 

Diagnostics, GSA Energy Savings Research: Learning from GSA Operational and Capital 

Investments for Future Energy Savings (October 2016).

13GAO, Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance and 

Results Act, GAO/GGD-96-118 (Washington, D.C.: June 1996); Veterans Justice 

Outreach Program: VA Could Improve Management by Establishing Performance 

Measures and Fully Assessing Risks, GAO-16-393 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 28, 2016); 

Performance Measurement and Evaluation: Definitions and Relationships, 

GAO-11-646SP (Washington, D.C.: May 2, 2011); and Managing for Results: Enhancing 

Agency Use of Performance Information for Management Decision Making, GAO-05-927 

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 9, 2005).

GSA Does Not Have 

Documented, Clearly 

Defined Performance 

Goals or Measures to 

Help It Manage the 

Smart Buildings 

Program
Page 11 GAO-18-200 GSA Smart Buildings

GSA has not documented the smart buildings program’s goals, contrary 

to leading practices we identified in our prior work, which call for program 

goals to clearly define desired program outcomes.14 GSA officials verbally 

described to us broad goals for the smart buildings program: (1) reducing 

energy consumption, (2) generating operations and maintenance cost 

savings, and (3) creating a comfortable work environment conducive to 

improved tenant productivity. However, GSA has not documented these 

goals—for example, in the agency’s performance plan or in other program 

documents. GSA officials could not provide a reason for why the agency 

has not documented the smart buildings program’s goals.

Further, because GSA has not clearly defined its verbally expressed 

goals, it cannot demonstrate progress in achieving them. This lack of 

clearly defined goals is contrary to federal internal control standards, 

which state that agency management should define objectives in 

measurable terms so that performance toward those objectives can be 

assessed.15 GSA could potentially measure progress toward its stated 

smart buildings program goals of reducing energy consumption and 

generating operations and maintenance cost savings, if data were 

available to do so, as these goals seek to identify changes in quantifiable 

outcomes, specifically energy use and cost savings. However, GSA 

officials said that the agency cannot measure progress toward the stated 

goal of improving tenant productivity and comfort because of the 

subjective nature of individual tenant preferences, such as for office 

temperatures. This subjectivity is consistent with statements from the 

industry stakeholders we spoke with, who also said that identifying the 

existence of a causal relationship between a building’s environment and 

the productivity of its inhabitants is challenging. For example, an industry 

stakeholder we spoke to told us that different building occupants have 

different temperature or ventilation preferences and may accordingly be 

the most productive at different ambient temperatures, making it 

challenging to determine a building’s optimal temperature. Without 

documented, clearly defined goals, it will be challenging for GSA to 

determine what type of evaluative information it will need to monitor the 

progress of the smart buildings program.

 14GAO/GGD-96-118. To develop these practices, we reviewed literature, including our 

past work, on the experiences of leading public sector organizations—including U.S. 

states, foreign governments, and large federal departments—that were successfully 

changing their management and accountability practices to be more results-oriented.

15GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO-14-704G 

(Washington, D.C.: September 2014).
Page 12 GAO-18-200 GSA Smart Buildings

In addition, contrary to the leading practices we have identified in our 

previous work, GSA has not developed performance measures for the 

smart buildings program. According to these leading practices, 

performance measures allow for an assessment of progress toward 

achieving goals by including concrete, objective, and observable ways to 

measure the program’s performance and compare this with the program’s 

expected results. Further, federal internal control standards call for 

federal program managers to use quality information to achieve that 

program’s objectives and make informed decisions.16 However, GSA 

lacks quality information that can be used to measure program 

performance. As discussed in the previous section, GSA’s efforts to 

quantify the smart buildings program’s benefits, including energy 

reductions and cost savings, have been limited because GSA has had 

difficulty in compiling data that would allow it to do so. For example, 

GSAlink’s calculation of avoided costs estimated to be achieved by 

addressing identified faults is useful for prioritizing maintenance actions 

but not for measuring program performance because, according to GSA 

officials, the estimates lack precision and relation to actual costs. In 

addition, GSA’s October 2016 study on energy use reductions attributable 

to the program faced problems owing to incomplete records on utility 

consumption and capital upgrades. While we recognize that determining 

what data can be collected in a cost-effective manner and can be used to 

measure the performance of the smart buildings program may be difficult, 

without such data and measures, GSA lacks the ability to determine the 

program’s progress and make informed decisions about its current and 

future operations.

 16GAO-14-704G.
Page 13 GAO-18-200 GSA Smart Buildings

GSA faces cybersecurity challenges to its buildings, but is taking steps 

intended to mitigate these challenges. According to GSA officials, 

advanced meters and GSAlink operate in conjunction with Internetconnected building automation systems on the protected GSA information

technology network. GSA regional staff and industry stakeholders we 

interviewed stated that cybersecurity presents challenges to those 

operating smart building technologies, including GSA. Specifically, 

because these building automation systems are connected to the 

Internet, they provide a potential pathway for cyberattacks on GSA’s 

network. According to our prior work,17 this connectivity could 

compromise security, hamper GSA’s ability to carry out its mission, or 

cause physical harm to GSA’s facilities or their occupants.

GSA has taken several actions that are intended to help mitigate 

cybersecurity challenges to its buildings, including those that affect the 

smart buildings program:

• GSA has instituted policies and procedures addressing cybersecurity 

threats and known vulnerabilities in its building systems. In December 

2015, GSA published an information technology security policy, 

defining the roles and responsibilities of GSA staff and establishing 

controls to ensure compliance with federal regulations, laws, and GSA 

directives.18 For example, this policy defines the role of the Federal 

Government Authorizing Official whose responsibilities include 

ensuring that monthly operating system scans, database scans, and 

 17GAO, Federal Facility Cybersecurity: DHS and GSA Should Address Cyber Risk to 

Building and Access Control Systems, GAO-15-6 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 12, 2014).

18GSA, GSA Order: GSA Information Technology (IT) Security Policy, CIO 2100.1J 

(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 22, 2015).

GSA Faces Some 

Challenges in 

Implementing Smart 

Building Technologies 

and Is Taking Steps to 

Mitigate Them

GSA Is Taking Actions 

That May Mitigate 

Challenges Related to 

Cybersecurity
Page 14 GAO-18-200 GSA Smart Buildings

web application scans are performed and that all vulnerabilities 

identified are resolved.

• According to a GSA senior official, under GSA’s Building Monitoring 

and Controls Program, which provides the infrastructure support 

needed to connect a building to GSA’s network, GSA is taking steps 

to mitigate the effects of potential external cyberattacks by moving 

building automation systems of GSA-controlled buildings away from 

public networks to GSA’s secured network. GSA officials told us that 

there are currently approximately 400 federally owned buildings on 

GSA’s secured network, which includes the 81 buildings equipped 

with GSAlink. According to GSA officials, a building automation 

system must be on GSA’s secured network before GSAlink can be 

installed.

• According to GSA officials, GSA also performs regular assessments 

to validate that GSAlink system controls comply with relevant statutes, 

such as the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002,19

National Institute of Standards and Technology security standards, 

and GSA policies and procedures.20 In December 2014, we reported 

on GSA’s efforts to address cyber risks in federal buildings in 

compliance with relevant statute and guidance, finding that GSA had 

not conducted security control assessments for all of its systems in 

about 1,500 federally owned facilities.21 We recommended that GSA 

assess its building control systems in a manner fully consistent with 

federal law and related implementation guidelines. GSA has since 

implemented this recommendation.

• According to GSA documentation and officials, GSA conducts regular 

vulnerability scanning of the equipment and systems involved in the 

smart buildings program. For example, according to GSA regional 

staff, a recent vulnerability in the GSA system that manages 

maintenance requests was identified by GSA central office and was 

remedied through a software upgrade.

 19Pub. L. No. 107-347, 116 Stat. 2946 (2002). See also, the Federal Information Security 

Modernization Act of 2014, Pub. L. No. 113-283, 128 Stat. 3073 (2014).

20National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Guide to Industrial Control 

Systems (ICS) Security: Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) Systems, 

Distributed Control Systems (DCS), and Other Control System Configurations such as 

Programmable Logic Controllers (PLC), NIST Special Publication 800-82 Revision 2 

(Gaithersburg, Maryland: May 2015). GSA, CIO 2100.1J.

21GAO, Federal Facility Cybersecurity: DHS and GSA Should Address Cyber Risk to 

Building and Access Control Systems, GAO-15-6 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 12, 2014).
Page 15 GAO-18-200 GSA Smart Buildings

GSA faces smart building technology implementation challenges related 

to the limited technological proficiency of or lack of buy-in from some GSA 

building managers and operations and maintenance services contractors, 

but the agency is taking steps that are intended to engage these 

stakeholders and ensure they are learning to use the smart buildings 

program’s technologies. GSA regional staff acknowledge that there can 

be inconsistencies among building managers and operations and 

maintenance services contractors in terms of their familiarity and comfort 

with using computers and computer-based analytical tools. According to 

GSA officials, GSAlink proficiency and adoption varies by building and as 

such, some buildings may obtain greater benefits from the system than 

others. A lack of proficiency among building managers in smart building 

technologies not only affects GSA, but is also an industry-wide concern, 

according to industry stakeholders we interviewed. Industry stakeholders 

we interviewed stated that operations and maintenance services 

contractors are generally not well trained on smart building operations or 

the differences between managing a smart building and managing a 

traditional building.

GSA regional staff and GSAlink’s support contractor we interviewed also 

identified operations and maintenance services contractors’ limited buy-in 

to the smart buildings technologies as a challenge affecting 

implementation of the program. According to GSA officials, this limited 

buy-in to the smart buildings technologies could potentially lead to loss of 

support for the program among operations and maintenance services 

contractors, posing a risk to the program’s successful implementation. 

GSA officials, regional staff, and GSAlink’s support contractor 

acknowledge it is important to demonstrate how GSAlink, for example, 

can make the operations and maintenance services contractors’ jobs 

easier. According to GSA officials, if GSAlink can help a building’s 

systems operate more efficiently, that improvement should result in less 

unscheduled maintenance and fewer work orders for the contractor. 

Additionally, industry stakeholders we interviewed suggested that 

operations and maintenance services contractors do not currently have a 

stake in whether a smart buildings program is successful.

According to those we interviewed, GSA has taken several actions that 

are intended to help address these challenges:

• GSA officials and regional staff told us that GSA provided initial 

training to building managers and operations and maintenance 

services contractors when GSAlink was first installed. According to 

GSA officials, refresher training is available online through recorded 

GSA Is Taking Actions 

That May Mitigate 

Challenges with 

Stakeholder Support
Page 16 GAO-18-200 GSA Smart Buildings

training sessions. Additionally, GSA regional staff told us that 

knowledgeable GSA staff provide training to newly hired staff as 

needed.

• GSAlink’s support contractor staff told us that they lead regularly 

scheduled teleconferences with each smart building’s staff either 

monthly or quarterly depending on each building’s needs. At these 

meetings, the support contractor remotely accesses GSAlink data for 

a particular building to discuss the status of GSAlink notifications of 

building system issues and recommend adjustments to building 

equipment or systems to ensure optimal operations. GSA regional 

staff we spoke with stated that this meeting serves as a form of 

training and helps educate participants on how to use GSAlink.

• To ensure that building personnel are using smart buildings 

technologies, GSA officials told us that GSA’s central office monitors a 

key performance indicator requiring GSA building managers and 

operations and maintenance services contractors to address all 

GSAlink notifications of building system issues within 30 days. 

According to GSA officials, GSA central office and regional staff also 

have the ability to remotely monitor advanced meter and GSAlink data 

for individual buildings.

• According to a senior GSA official, new operations and maintenance 

services contracts will expressly require contractors to use smart 

building technologies as part of their efforts to optimally operate GSA 

buildings.

According to GSA officials, the agency’s smart buildings program is 

intended to allow its staff and contractors to more efficiently manage 

energy consumption and operations and maintenance actions aimed at 

promoting cost-efficient operation of building systems and creating a 

comfortable work environment for tenants in GSA’s buildings. Given 

GSA’s recent decision to expand the use of GSAlink technology, it is 

important that the agency be able to determine whether use of the 

technology achieves these intended results. However, without 

documented, clearly defined goals, performance measures linked to 

those goals, and quality information to measure progress, GSA is limited 

in its ability to make informed decisions about the smart buildings 

program’s current or future operations as it develops plans to enlarge the 

program to serve a greater proportion of its buildings portfolio. As a result, 

GSA risks continuing to expend resources on a program that the agency 

cannot demonstrate is meeting its intended objectives.

Conclusions
Page 17 GAO-18-200 GSA Smart Buildings

We are making the following two recommendations to GSA:

The Administrator of the General Services Administration should establish 

clearly defined goals and related performance measures for the smart 

buildings program. (Recommendation 1)

The Administrator of the General Services Administration should identify 

and develop data that can be used to measure progress in achieving the 

smart buildings program’s goals. (Recommendation 2)

We provided a draft of this report to GSA for comment. In its written 

comments, reproduced in appendix II, GSA stated that it concurred with 

our recommendations and is developing a plan to address them. In 

addition, GSA clarified that the agency has been upgrading building 

automation systems across its buildings inventory for a variety of reasons, 

to include providing needed safeguards to comply with GSA’s information 

technology security protocols. GSA also provided information on the 

methodology used and results reported in its October 2016 study on 

energy savings realized from combined investments in advanced 

metering and GSAlink.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees and the Administrator of the General Services Administration. 

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) 512-2834 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.

Lori Rectanus

Director, Physical Infrastructure

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments
Appendix I: Organizations Contacted

Page 18 GAO-18-200 GSA Smart Buildings

We interviewed representatives from each of the following organizations:

• U.S. General Services Administration

• Central Office

• Regions 1 through 11

• National Aeronautics and Space Administration – Ames Research 

Center

• U.S. Department of Defense

• U.S. Department of Energy

• Headquarters

• Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

• Douglas A. Munro Building

• GSA Headquarters

• Orville Wright Federal Building

• Wilbur Wright Federal Building

• US Appraisers Building

• James R. Browning U.S. Courthouse

• Phillip Burton Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse

• San Francisco Federal Building

• US Custom House

• Aruba

• The Building People

• CBRE

• Hewlett Packard Enterprise

• HP

• Stanford University

• University of California, Berkeley

Appendix I: Organizations Contacted

Federal Government

GSA Smart Buildings –

Washington, DC

GSA Smart Buildings –

San Francisco, California

Industry Stakeholders
Appendix II: Comments from the General 

Services Administration

Page 19 GAO-18-200 GSA Smart Buildings

Appendix II: Comments from the General 

Services Administration
Appendix II: Comments from the General 

Services Administration

Page 20 GAO-18-200 GSA Smart Buildings
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 21 GAO-18-200 GSA Smart Buildings

Lori Rectanus, (202) 512-2834 or rectanusl@gao.gov. 

In addition to the contact named above, Michael Armes (Assistant 

Director); Daniel Paepke (Analyst in Charge); Edward Alexander, Jr.; 

Jenny Chanley; John de Ferrari; Peter Haderlein; Geoffrey Hamilton; 

Thomas Johnson; Nick Marinos; Malika Rice; Stephen Schluth; Elaine 

Vaurio; Jack Wang; Michelle Weathers; and Dave Wise made key 

contributions to this report.

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(101204)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative 

arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the 

federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public 

funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to http://www.gao.gov

and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering 

information is posted on GAO’s website, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Orice Williams Brown, Managing Director, WilliamsO@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, 

Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison

Please Print on Recycled Paper.