United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on Federal Financial 

Management, Government Information, and 

International Security, Senate Committee on 

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

FEDERAL REAL

PROPERTY 

Excess and Underutilized

Property Is an Ongoing 

Problem 

Statement of Mark L. Goldstein, Director 

Physical Infrastructure Issues 

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 10:00 a.m. CST 

Monday, February 6, 2006 

 

GAO-06-248T
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

February 2006

FEDERAL REAL PROPERTY 

Excess and Underutilized Property Is an 

Highlights of GAO-06-248T, a testimony Ongoing Problem 

for the Subcommittee on Federal Financial

Management, Government Information,

and International Security, Committee on 

Homeland Security and Governmental 

Affairs, U.S. Senate

At the start of each new Congress 

since 1999, we have issued a 

special series of reports entitled

the Performance and 

Accountability Series: Major 

Management Challenges and

Program R sks. In January 2003,

GAO designated federal real

property a high-risk area and

issued an update in January 2005

on this area. GAO identified excess 

and underutilized property as one

of the major reasons for the highrisk designation. 

i

This testimony discusses GAO’s 

designation of federal real property

as a high-risk area, focusing on

excess and underutilized property

and describes various efforts to

address the problem and what

more needs to be done. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO is not making any new

recommendations in this

testimony. However, GAO 

continues to believe, as stated in

the high-risk series reports, that the 

overall risk to the government and

taxpayers could be substantially

reduced if an effective

transformation strategy is

developed and successfully

implemented and real propertyholding agencies effectively

implement current and planned

initiatives. Solving the problems in 

this area will require a

reconsideration of funding

priorities at a time when budget 

constraints will be pervasive.

The conditions that led to GAO’s January 2003 high-risk designation still exist. 

The government’s vast and diverse portfolio of real property reflects an

infrastructure based on the business model and technological environment of

the 1950s. Many assets are no longer effectively aligned with, or responsive to, 

agencies’ changing missions and are therefore no longer needed. GAO’s highrisk reports, updated most recently in January 2005, highlighted problems with 

excess and underutilized property at several agencies, including the

Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs, the U.S. Postal Service, and the

General Services Administration. Furthermore, many assets are in an alarming

state of deterioration; agencies have estimated restoration and repair needs to

be in the tens of billions of dollars. These problems have been exacerbated by

underlying obstacles that include competing stakeholder interests in real

property decisions, various legal and budget-related disincentives to 

businesslike outcomes, and the need for better capital planning by agencies. 

The administration has acknowledged the problems in this area; in February

2004, the President added the Federal Asset Management Initiative to the

President’s Management Agenda and signed an executive order on real property 

reform. These and other efforts at the agency level are positive steps. However, 

despite the progress that has been made, GAO still believes that current 

structures and processes may not be adequate to fully address the problems. 

The breadth and complexity of the issues involved and the long-standing nature

of the problems and their underlying causes will likely continue to hamper

agencies’ efforts to realign their real property assets to their missions. 

Example of Vacant Federal Property: The Former Main Post Office in Chicago 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-248T.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above.

For more information, contact Mark Goldstein 

at (202) 512-2834 or GoldsteinM@gao.gov.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on our work related to

federal real property and, in particular, the problem with excess and 

underutilized property. As you know, at the start of each new Congress 

since 1999, we have issued a special series of reports entitled the 

Performance and Accountability Series: Major Management Challenges 

and Program Risks. In January 2003, we designated federal real property a 

high-risk area as part of this series, and we issued an update on this area in

January 2005.1

 We identified excess and underutilized property as one of

the major reasons for the high-risk designation. Other reasons included

deteriorated property, unreliable real property data, over-reliance on 

costly leasing, and the challenges associated with protecting these assets 

from terrorism. My testimony today will (1) discuss our designation of

federal real property as a high-risk area, focusing on excess and 

underutilized property; and (2) describe various efforts to address the 

problem and what more needs to be done. My testimony today will

highlight the following points: 

• The conditions that led to our January 2003 high-risk designation still

exist. Many of the assets in the government’s vast and diverse portfolio of 

real property are not effectively aligned with, or responsive to, agencies’ 

changing missions and are therefore no longer needed. Furthermore, many 

assets are in an alarming state of deterioration; agencies have estimated 

restoration and repair needs to be in the tens of billions of dollars. 

Additionally, a heavy reliance on costly leasing, instead of ownership, to 

meet new needs is a pervasive and ongoing problem. These problems have 

been exacerbated by underlying obstacles that include competing 

stakeholder interests in real property decisions, various legal and budgetrelated disincentives to businesslike outcomes, and the need for better 

capital planning by real property-holding agencies.

• The administration has acknowledged the problems in this area; in

February 2004, the President added the Federal Asset Management

Initiative to the President’s Management Agenda and signed an executive

order on real property management reform.

2

 These and other efforts at the 

agency level are positive steps. However, the breadth and complexity of 

 i t 1

GAO, H gh-Risk Series: Federal Real Proper y, GAO-03-122 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 2003);

GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-05-207 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 2005).

2

Presidential Executive Order 13327, Feb. 4, 2004. 

Page 1 GAO-06-248T 
the issues involved and the long-standing nature of the problems and their 

underlying causes will likely continue to hamper agencies’ efforts to

realign their real property assets to their missions. As a result, we continue

to believe that a comprehensive and integrated transformation strategy is 

needed to address the aforementioned underlying obstacles. As an 

example, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and other 

stakeholders could look to the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) Transformation 

Plan and related progress reports, which GAO has supported for guiding 

postal reform. 

Over 30 federal agencies control hundreds of thousands of real property 

assets—including both facilities and land—in the United States and 

abroad. According to available data, the government owns or leases about 

3.3 billion square feet of building floor area worldwide in roughly a halfmillion buildings. About 380 million square feet of this space is leased. 

These assets are worth hundreds of billions of dollars. However, much of

this vast and valuable asset portfolio presents significant management 

challenges and reflects an infrastructure based on the business model and 

technological environment of the 1950s. Many assets are no longer 

effectively aligned with, or responsive to, agencies’ changing missions and 

are therefore no longer needed. Our high-risk reports, updated most

recently in January 2005, highlighted problems with excess and 

underutilized property at several agencies, including the Departments of 

Defense (DOD), Veterans Affairs (VA), Energy, and State; USPS; and the 

General Services Administration (GSA). Furthermore, many assets are in

an alarming state of deterioration; agencies have estimated restoration, 

repair, and maintenance needs to be in the tens of billions of dollars. 

Compounding these problems are the lack of reliable governmentwide 

data for strategic asset management, a heavy reliance on costly leasing 

instead of ownership to meet new space needs, and the cost and challenge

of protecting these assets against potential terrorism. Regarding the 

federal government’s reliance on costly leasing, we testified on this issue 

before this Subcommittee in October 2005.3

 Building ownership options 

through construction or purchase and lease-purchase are generally less 

costly than using operating leases to meet long-term space needs. 

However, as GAO reported over the last decade, GSA relies heavily on 

operating leases to meet new long-term space needs because it lacks funds 

to pursue ownership. 

The Federal

Government Has 

Many Real Property 

Assets It Does Not 

Need 

 l 3

GAO, Federal Real Property: Re iance on Costly Leasing to Meet New Space Needs Is an

Ongoing Problem, GAO-06-136T, (Washington, D.C.: October 6, 2005).

Page 2 GAO-06-248T 
The excess and underutilized property problem was, and continues to be, 

a major reason the real property area remains high risk. In the last decade 

alone, the federal government has reduced its workforce by several 

hundred thousand personnel, and several federal agencies have had major 

mission changes. With these personnel reductions and mission changes, 

the need for existing space, including general-purpose office space, has 

declined overall and necessitated the need for different kinds of space. At 

the same time, technological advances have changed workplace needs, 

and many of the older buildings are not configured to accommodate new

technologies. The advent of electronic government is starting to change 

how the public interacts with the federal government. These changes will

have significant implications for the type and location of property needed

in the 21st century. Furthermore, changes in the overall domestic security

environment have presented an additional range of challenges to real

property management that must be addressed. For example, agencies are 

employing such measures as searching vehicles that enter federal 

facilities, restricting parking, and installing concrete barriers. 

The experiences of several of the major real property-holding agencies

illustrate how mission changes have affected agencies’ real property 

needs. For example, after the Cold War, DOD reduced its force structure 

by 36 percent. Despite several rounds of base closures, DOD projected

that it still had considerably more property than it needed. The National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 gave DOD the authority for

another round of base realignments and military installation closures in

2005. The results of the 2005 BRAC process, which will be discussed in

more detail later, became final in November 2005. For USPS, various

factors may significantly reduce its need for some of the real property it

holds. These factors include new technologies, additional delivery options, 

and the opportunity for greater use of partnerships and retail co-location 

arrangements. A July 2003 Presidential Commission report on USPS 

stated, among other things, that USPS had vacant and underutilized

facilities that added little, if any, value to the modern-day delivery of the 

nation’s mail.

4

 In April 2005, we reported that USPS faces future financial 

challenges due to its declining First-Class Mail business and has excess 

capacity in its current infrastructure that impedes efficiency gains.5

 USPS 

 

i

i it t l i ill

4

President’s Commission on the United States Postal Service, Embracing the Future: 

Making the Tough Choices to Preserve Universal Ma l Service (Washington, D.C.: July 31, 

2003). 

5

GAO, U.S. Postal Serv ce: Desp e Recent Progress, Pos al Reform Legis at on Is St

Needed GAO-05-453T, (Washington, D.C.: April 14, 2005).

Page 3 GAO-06-248T 
has stated that one way to increase efficiency is to realign its processing

and distribution infrastructure. 

The former main post office building in Chicago, near the Sears Tower, is

an example of a vacant USPS-owned property (see fig.1). USPS is

currently incurring about $2 million in annual holding costs for this

property, which was replaced by a new facility and vacated in 1997. 

Redevelopment of this property has taken several years because, 

according to USPS, the real estate market was weak and the City of

Chicago and the developer have been unable to agree on terms. According 

to USPS, the property buyer is currently in negotiations with the City of

Chicago regarding the property’s redevelopment and the granting of 

certain tax exemptions from the City. 

Figure 1: Example of Vacant USPS-Owned Property—the Former Main Post Office in downtown Chicago, Illinois 

Source: USPS.

In the mid-1990s, VA began shifting its role from being a traditional

hospital-based provider of medical services to an integrated delivery 

system that emphasizes a full continuum of care with a significant shift 

Page 4 GAO-06-248T 
from inpatient to outpatient services. Subsequently, VA has struggled to

reduce its large inventory of buildings, many of which are underutilized or 

vacant. In August 2003, we reported that VA had 577 vacant and 

underutilized properties. Figure 2 shows an example of a vacant VA-owned 

property in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 

Figure 2: Example of Vacant VA-Owned Property—The Former Main Hospital 

Building on the Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Health Facility Campus 

Source: VA.

The L. Mendel Rivers Federal Building in Charleston, South Carolina is an 

example of a vacant, highly visible federal building owned by GSA (see fig.

3). This property, which is contaminated with asbestos, has been 

unoccupied since it sustained damage from Hurricane Floyd in 1999. In the 

last 10 years, GSA has unsuccessfully explored various options for 

disposal or reuse. Currently, GSA is planning, under existing authority, to

exchange this building with a property owned by the City that would suit

the federal government’s needs. 

Page 5 GAO-06-248T 
Figure 3: Example of Vacant GSA-Owned Property—The L. Mendel Rivers Federal 

Building in Charleston, South Carolina 

Source: Ernst and Young.

The magnitude of the problem with underutilized or excess federal

property puts the government at significant risk for wasting taxpayers’

money and missing opportunities to benefit taxpayers. First, underutilized 

or excess property is costly to maintain. In our 2003 high-risk report, we

reported that DOD estimated that it was spending $3 billion to $4 billion 

each year maintaining facilities that were not needed. It is likely that other

agencies that continue to hold excess or underutilized property are also 

incurring significant costs for staff time spent managing the properties and 

on maintenance, utilities, security, and other building needs. Second, in

addition to day-to-day operational costs, holding these properties is costly

for the government, because these buildings and land could be put to more

cost-beneficial uses, exchanged for other needed property, or sold to

generate revenue for the government. Continuing to hold property that is

unneeded does not present a positive image of the federal government in

local communities. Instead, it presents an image of waste and inefficiency 

that erodes taxpayers’ confidence in government. Finally, it also can have 

Page 6 GAO-06-248T 
a negative impact on local economies if the property is occupying a 

valuable location and is not used for other purposes, sold, or used in a 

public-private partnership. 

The excess and underutilized property problem, as well as the other 

problems that led to our high-risk designation, has been exacerbated by a 

number of factors that inhibit the government’s ability to efficiently 

dispose of or reuse excess and underutilized property. These include 

competing stakeholder interests in real property decisions, various legal 

and budget-related disincentives to businesslike outcomes, and the need 

for better capital planning by real property-holding agencies. More 

specifically: 

• Competing Stakeholder Interes s - In addition to Congress, OMB, and the 

real property-holding agencies themselves, several other stakeholders

have an interest in how the federal government carries out its real

property acquisition, management, and disposal practices. These include 

foreign and local governments; business interests in the communities 

where the assets are located; private sector construction and leasing firms; 

historic preservation organizations; various advocacy groups; and the 

public in general, which often views the facilities as the physical face of

the federal government in local communities. As a result of competing 

stakeholder interests, decisions about real property often do not reflect

the most cost-effective or efficient alternative that is in the interests of the 

agency or the government as a whole, but instead reflect other priorities. 

t

• Legal and Budgetary Disincentives -The complex legal and budgetary 

environment in which real property managers operate has a significant 

impact on real property decisionmaking and often does not lead to

economically rational and businesslike outcomes. For example, GSA does 

not have the authority to enter into public-private partnerships to 

redevelop property. We have reported that public-private partnerships

might be a viable option for redeveloping obsolete federal property when

they provide the best economic value for the government, compared with 

other options, such as federal financing through appropriations or sale of

the property. Furthermore, resource limitations, in general, often prevent 

agencies from addressing real property needs from a strategic perspective. 

When available funds for capital investment are limited, Congress must

weigh the need for new, modern facilities with the need for renovation, 

maintenance, and disposal of existing facilities, the latter of which often 

gets deferred. In disposing of excess property, agencies also need to 

consider a range of laws intended to address other objectives—such as 

historic preservation and environmental remediation. 

Page 7 GAO-06-248T 
• Need for Improved Cap al Plann ng - Over the years, we have reported 

that prudent capital planning can help agencies to make the most of

limited resources, and failure to make timely and effective capital

acquisitions can result in increased long-term costs. GAO, Congress, and 

OMB have identified the need to improve federal decisionmaking 

regarding capital investment. Our Executive Guide,

it i

 

6

 OMB’s Capital

Programming Guide, and OMB’s revisions to Circular A-117

 have attempted 

to provide guidance to agencies for making capital investment decisions. 

However, agencies are not required to use the guidance. Furthermore, 

agencies have not always developed overall goals and strategies for 

implementing capital investment decisions, nor has the federal 

government generally planned or budgeted for capital assets over the long 

term. 

Since our designation of the federal real property area as high-risk in

January 2003, the administration and executive agencies have initiated 

some important efforts to address these problems, including the addition 

of the Federal Asset Management Initiative to the President’s Management

Agenda and an executive order on real property management reform

which led to the development of guiding principles for real property asset 

management. The executive order requires the establishment of senior real

property officers at specified executive branch departments and agencies 

who, among other things, prioritize actions needed to improve the 

operational and financial management of the agency’s real property 

inventory.8

 The order also established a Federal Real Property Council, 

with representation from major real property-holding agencies. The 

council has developed guiding principles for real property asset

management, and is also developing performance measures, a real

property inventory database, and an agency asset management planning 

process. Related to the excess and underutilized property problem, the 

administration has set a goal of reducing the value of the federally owned 

property inventory by 5 percent, or $15 billion, by 2009. The executive 

order and related initiatives are clearly positive steps. However, they have

Various Efforts 

Initiated, but a 

Transformation 

Strategy Is Still 

Needed

t i 6GAO, Executive Guide: Leading Prac ices in Capital Decis on-making, GAO/AIMD-99-32

(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 1998). 

7

OMB, Circular No. A-11, Appendix B. 

8

See 31 USC §901 (b)(1) and (b)(2) for a list of executive branch departments and agencies

that are required to establish a senior real property officer.

Page 8 GAO-06-248T 
not been fully implemented and further actions—which will be discussed 

later—are necessary to address the underlying obstacles to reform. 

In addition to the administration’s efforts, the Consolidated

Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005, Public Law 108-447, gave GSA the 

authority to retain the net proceeds from the disposal of federal property 

for fiscal year 2005 and to use such proceeds for GSA’s real property

capital needs. However, this provision was not included in the GSA 

appropriation act for Fiscal Year 2006.9

 Also, the Veterans Health

Programs Improvement Act of 2004, Public Law 108-422, established a

capital asset fund and gave VA the authority to retain the proceeds from

the disposal of its real property for the use of certain capital asset needs 

such as demolition, environmental clean-up, and major repairs. Overall,

agencies such as DOD, VA, and GSA have made progress in addressing 

long-standing federal real property problems. For example: 

• VA has established a process called Capital Asset Realignment for 

Enhanced Services (CARES) to address its aging and obsolete portfolio of

health care facilities. In March 2005, we reported that through CARES, VA 

identified 136 locations for evaluation of alternative ways to align inpatient

services—99 facilities had potential duplication of services with another 

nearby facility or low acute patient workload. VA made decisions to

realign inpatient health care services at 30 of these locations. For example,

it will close all inpatient services at 5 facilities. VA’s decisions on inpatient 

alignment and plans for further study of its capital asset needs are tangible 

steps in improving management of its capital assets and enhancing health 

care. Accomplishing its goals, however, will depend on VA’s success in 

completing its evaluations and implementing its CARES decisions to

ensure that resources now spent on unneeded capital assets are redirected 

to health care. 

• In DOD’s support infrastructure management area, which we identified as 

high-risk in 1997, DOD has made progress and expects to continue making 

improvements. In May 2005, we testified that DOD implemented the 

recommendations from the previous four Base Realignment and Closure 

(BRAC) 10 rounds within the 6-year period mandated by law and work on a 

 9

Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, District of 

Columbia and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006, Pub. L. 109-115, 119 Stat. 

2396 (2005). 

10BRAC is the process DOD has previously used to reorganize its installation infrastructure

to more efficiently and effectively support its forces and increase operational readiness.

Page 9 GAO-06-248T 
5th, 2005 BRAC, was underway.11 DOD estimated that it had reduced its

domestic infrastructure by about 20 percent from the four prior rounds, as 

measured by the estimated cost to replace the property; about 90 percent

of unneeded BRAC property is now available for reuse. DOD has realized 

substantial net savings from those four rounds over time.

Recommendations approved by the 2005 BRAC round are expected to

further reduce DOD’s infrastructure but by a much smaller margin than

initially expected, although it expects to make a significant reduction in

leased space in implementing the BRAC recommendations. DOD also 

expects to use BRAC to further transformation and related efforts, such as

restationing troops from overseas as well as joint basing among the 

military services. The President concurred with and sent the 2005 BRAC 

report to Congress in September 2005, and absent congressional action to

reject the recommendations within the 45 days provided by law, they

became final in November 2005. Planning is now underway to implement 

those recommendations.

• GSA has recognized in recent years that it has many buildings that are not 

financially self-sustaining and/or for which there is not a substantial longterm federal purpose. To address this problem, GSA began its Portfolio 

Restructuring in 2001. This effort seeks to eliminate non-performing or 

obsolete properties from the GSA inventory. In January 2006, GSA told us 

that since fiscal year 2002, it had identified 204 buildings as excess and 

demolished 50 others. We have not evaluated this initiative. 

Despite the progress that has been made, we still believe that current 

structures and processes may not be adequate to fully address the federal 

real property problems. The breadth and complexity of the issues involved

and the long-standing nature of the problems and their underlying causes 

will likely continue to hamper agencies’ efforts to realign their real

property assets to their missions. This is of particular concern for civilian 

agencies that do not have an independent decision-making apparatus like 

BRAC. Given this, we concluded in our high-risk report and in our update

in January 2005, and still believe, that a comprehensive and integrated 

transformation strategy for federal real property is needed. Such a strategy

could build upon the executive order by providing decisionmakers with a

road map of actions for addressing the underlying obstacles, assessing

progress governmentwide, and enhancing accountability for related 

actions. Using input from agencies, the private sector, and other interested 

 11GAO, Military Base Closures: Observations on Prior and Current BRAC Rounds, 

GAO-05-614 (Washington, D.C.: May 3, 2005). 

Page 10 GAO-06-248T 
groups, the strategy could comprehensively address these long-standing 

problems with specific proposals on how best to

• realign the federal infrastructure and dispose of unneeded property, taking

into account mission requirements, changes in technology, security needs, 

costs, and how the government conducts business in the 21st century; 

• address the significant repair and restoration needs of the federal

portfolio;

• ensure that reliable governmentwide and agency-specific real property 

data—both financial and program related—are available for informed 

decisionmaking; 

• resolve the problem of heavy reliance on costly leasing; and 

• consider the impact that the threat of terrorism will have on real property 

needs and challenges, including how to balance public access with safety. 

To be effective in addressing these problems, it would be important for the

strategy to focus on the underlying obstacles by 

• minimizing the negative effects associated with competing stakeholder 

interests in real property decisionmaking; 

• providing agencies with appropriate tools and incentives that will facilitate 

businesslike decisions—for example, consideration should be given to

what financing options should be available; how disposal proceeds should 

be handled; what process would permit comparisons between 

rehabilitation/renovation and replacement and among construction, 

purchase, lease-purchase, and operating lease; and how public-private 

partnerships should be evaluated; 

• addressing federal human capital issues related to real property by 

recognizing that real property conditions affect the productivity and

morale of employees and the federal government’s ability to attract and 

retain high-performing individuals; 

• improving real property capital planning in the federal government by 

helping agencies to better integrate agency mission considerations into the 

capital decision-making process, make businesslike decisions when 

evaluating and selecting capital assets, evaluate and select capital assets 

by using an investment approach, evaluate results on an ongoing basis, 

and develop long-term capital plans; and 

Page 11 GAO-06-248T 
• ensuring credible, rational, long-term budget planning for facility 

sustainment, modernization, or recapitalization. 

As an example, OMB and other stakeholders could look to the USPS 

Strategic Transformation Plan and related progress reports, which GAO 

has supported for guiding postal reform.12 Also, the transformation 

strategy should reflect the lessons learned and leading practices of 

organizations in the public and private sectors that have attempted to 

reform their real property practices. Over the past decade, leading 

organizations in both the public and private sectors have been recognizing 

the impact that real property decisions have on their overall success. 

Better management of real property assets in the current environment 

calls for a significant departure from the traditional way of doing business. 

Solutions should not only correct the long-standing problems we have 

identified but also respond to and support agencies’ changing missions, 

security concerns, and technological needs in the 21st century. If actions 

resulting from the transformation strategy comprehensively address the 

problems and are effectively implemented, agencies will be better 

positioned to recover asset values, reduce operating costs, improve facility 

conditions, enhance safety and security, recruit and retain employees, and 

achieve mission effectiveness. 

Solving the problems in this area will undeniably require a reconsideration 

of funding priorities at a time when budget constraints will be pervasive. 

Without effective incentives and tools; top management accountability, 

leadership, and commitment; adequate funding; full transparency with 

regard to the government’s real property activities; and an effective system

to measure results, long-standing real property problems will continue and 

likely worsen. However, the overall risk to the government and taxpayers 

could be substantially reduced if an effective transformation strategy is 

developed and successfully implemented, reforms are made, and propertyholding agencies effectively implement current and planned initiatives. 

OMB has informed us that it has taken additional steps to address the 

federal government’s problems in the real property area. Specifically, it 

has developed an action plan for addressing these long-standing issues in 

relation to the President’s Management Agenda and the executive order. 

To assist OMB with its efforts, we have agreed to meet regularly to discuss 

progress and have provided OMB with specific suggestions on the types of 

 12U.S. Postal Service, Strategic Transformation Plan (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 2005); U.S. 

Postal Service, Progress Report (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 2004). 

Page 12 GAO-06-248T 
actions and results that could be helpful in justifying the removal of real 

property from the high-risk list. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to

respond to any questions you or other Members of the Committee may 

have at this time. 

We conducted our work for this testimony from October 2005 to January 

2006 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. The work is based on our past reports on federal real property 

and, specifically, excess and underutilized property issues. 

For further information on this testimony, please contact Mark L. 

Goldstein on (202) 512-2834 or at GoldsteinM@gao.gov. Key contributions 

to this testimony were made by Kieran McCarthy, Susan Michal-Smith, and 

David Sausville. 

Scope and 

Methodology 

Contacts and 

Acknowledgments 

Page 13 GAO-06-248T (543154) 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. 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. 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

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

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

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

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER