FEDERAL REAL 

PROPERTY

National Strategy and 

Better Data Needed to 

Improve Management 

of Excess and 

Underutilized 

Property

Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Federal Financial Management, Government 

Information, Federal Service, and International 

Security, Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate 

June 2012

GAO-12-645

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-12-645, a report to the 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Federal Financial 

Management, Government Information, 

Federal Service, and International Security, 

Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate

June 2012

FEDERAL REAL PROPERTY

National Strategy and Better Data Needed to 

Improve Management of Excess and Underutilized 

Property 

Why GAO Did This Study

The federal government has made 

some progress addressing previously 

identified issues with managing federal 

real property. This includes 

establishing FRPC—chaired by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB)—which created the FRPP 

database managed by GSA. GAO was 

asked to determine the extent to which 

(1) the FRPP database accurately 

describes the nature, use, and extent 

of excess and underutilized federal real 

property, and (2) progress is being 

made toward more effective 

management of these properties. GAO 

analyzed the data collection process 

and agency data, visited 26 sites 

containing excess and underutilized 

buildings from five civilian federal real 

property holding agencies with 

significant portfolios, and interviewed 

officials from these five agencies and 

OMB staff about how they collect 

FRPP data and manage excess and 

underutilized properties.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that, in consultation 

with FRPC, GSA develop a plan to 

improve the FRPP and that OMB 

develop a national strategy for 

managing federal excess and 

underutilized real property. GSA 

agreed with GAO’s recommendation 

and agreed with the report’s findings, 

in part. OMB agreed that real property 

challenges remain but raised concerns 

about how GAO characterized its 

findings on FRPP accuracy and other 

statements. GAO believes its findings 

are properly presented. The details of 

agencies’ comments and GAO’s 

response are addressed more fully 

within the report.

What GAO Found

The Federal Real Property Council (FRPC) has not followed sound data 

collection practices in designing and maintaining the Federal Real Property 

Profile (FRPP) database, raising concern that the database is not a useful tool for 

describing the nature, use, and extent of excess and underutilized federal real 

property. For example, FRPC has not ensured that key data elements—

including buildings' utilization, condition, annual operating costs, mission 

dependency, and value—are defined and reported consistently and accurately. 

GAO identified inconsistencies and inaccuracies at 23 of the 26 locations visited 

related to these data elements (see the fig. for an example). As a result, FRPC 

cannot ensure that FRPP data are sufficiently reliable to support sound 

management and decision making about excess and underutilized property.

The federal government has undertaken efforts to achieve cost savings 

associated with better management of excess and underutilized properties. 

However, some of these efforts have been discontinued and potential savings for 

others are unclear. For example, in response to requirements set forth in a June 

2010 presidential memorandum for agencies to achieve $3 billion in savings by 

the end of fiscal year 2012, the General Services Administration (GSA) reported 

approximately $118 million in lease cost savings resulting from four new 

construction projects. However, GSA has yet to occupy any of these buildings 

and the agency’s cost savings analysis projected these savings would occur over 

a 30-year period—far beyond the time frame of the memorandum. The five 

federal agencies that GAO reviewed have taken some actions to dispose of and 

better manage excess and underutilized property, including using these

properties to meet space needs by consolidating offices and reducing employee 

work space to use space more efficiently. However, they still face long-standing 

challenges to managing these properties, including the high cost of property 

disposal, legal requirements prior to disposal, stakeholder resistance, and remote 

property locations. A comprehensive, long-term national strategy would support 

better management of excess and underutilized property by, among other things, 

defining the scope of the problem; clearly addressing achievement goals; 

addressing costs, resources, and investments needed; and clearly outlining roles 

and coordination mechanisms across agencies. 

Building Incorrectly Reported in the FRPP Database

Note: Data for this dilapidated U.S. Department of Agriculture building indicated that it was in near 

perfect condition and fully utilized even though it was vacant at the time GAO visited the site and it 

had multiple safety and health issues including rat and beehive infestations. The building has since 

View GAO been demolished. -12-645. For more information, 

contact David Wise at (202) 512-5731 or at 

wised@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

Letter 1 

Background 5

Excess and Underutilized Property Data Are Inconsistent and 

Inaccurate because of Lack of Sound Data Collection Practices 9

Although Some Progress Has Been Made, Federal Property 

Management Is Still Challenging and Efforts Lack a National 

Strategy 29

Conclusions 44

Recommendations for Executive Action 45

Agency Comments and our Evaluation 46

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 49

Appendix II Federal Real Property Council Fiscal Year 2010 Inventory Data 

Elements and Descriptions 54

Appendix III Comments from the Office of Management and Budget 58

Appendix IV Comments from the General Services Administration 67

Appendix V Comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs 72

Appendix VI Comments from the U.S. Department of Agriculture 82

Appendix VII GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 84

Contents
Page ii GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

Tables

Table 1: Definitions of FRPP Performance Measures in 2010 FRPC 

Guidance 6

Table 2: FRPP Building Utilization Categories 7

Table 3: Utilization and Annual Operating Cost Data for All Assets 

Reported by FRPC in 2010 28

Table 4: Identified Problems with Agencies’ Cost Savings Estimates 

Related to Excess and Underutilized Property 32

Table 5: Desirable Characteristics for a National Strategy, from 

Conception to Implementation 43

Figures

Figure 1: Example of Inaccurate Reporting of Utilization Data at a 

VA site 11

Figure 2: Example of Inaccurate Reporting of Utilization Data at a 

USDA site 12

Figure 3: How Alternative Repair Needs Designations Affect 

Condition Index Data 13

Figure 4: Example of Inconsistent FRPP Condition Index Reporting 

at an Interior Site 14

Figure 5: Examples of Federal Property Reported as Being in 

Excellent Condition in the FRPP Database 15

Figure 6: Excess and Inactive Buildings with High Annual 

Operating Costs 17

Figure 7: Exterior of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building 18

Figure 8: Empty Buildings in Poor Condition with High PRVs 20

Figure 9: Examples of Large Reported PRV Fluctuations for 

Federal Real Properties 22

Figure 10: Alternate Use of a Concrete Slab by GSA 37

Figure 11: Interior Property No Longer Slated for Demolition 

because of Historic Designation Challenges 39

Figure 12: Vacant DOE Property with Radiological Contamination 40

Figure 13: Abandoned and Contaminated GSA Property 41
Page iii GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

Abbreviations

CBO Congressional Budget Office

CPAIS Corporate Property Automated Information System

CPRA Civilian Property Realignment Act

DOE Department of Energy

FRPC Federal Real Property Council

FRPP Federal Real Property Profile

GSA General Services Administration

OMB Office of Management and Budget

PRV plant replacement value

USDA Department of Agriculture

VA Department of Veterans Affairs

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-12-645 Federal Real Property

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

June 20, 2012

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper

Chairman

Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management,

Government Information, Federal Service, 

 and International Security

Committee on Homeland Security 

 and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

Dear Mr. Chairman,

The federal government’s real property portfolio is vast and diverse and 

includes almost 400,000 buildings that are located throughout the country 

and are owned and leased by different federal agencies. We have noted 

long-standing problems with how this property is managed, designating 

federal real property management as a high-risk area in January 2003.1

 

1

GAO, High-Risk Series: Federal Real Property,

In 2004, the administration added managing federal real property to the 

President’s Management Agenda and the President issued an executive 

order establishing the Federal Real Property Council (FRPC). FRPC is 

chaired by the Deputy Director for Management of the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) and is composed of all agency Senior 

Real Property Officers, the Controller of OMB, the Administrator of the 

General Services Administration (GSA), and any other full-time or 

permanent part-time federal officials or employees as deemed necessary 

by the Council Chairman. The executive order required FRPC to work 

with GSA to establish and maintain a single, comprehensive database 

describing the nature, use, and extent of all real property under the 

custody and control of executive branch agencies, except when otherwise 

GAO-03-122 (Washington, D.C.: January 

2003). Our high-risk series identifies areas at high risk because of their greater 

vulnerabilities to waste; fraud; abuse; and mismanagement or major challenges 

associated with their economy, efficiency, or effectiveness.

 
 

Page 2 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

required for reasons of national security.2

These efforts notwithstanding, we have reported that the federal 

government continues to face a number of challenges to effectively 

managing its real property.

FRPC created the Federal Real 

Property Profile (FRPP) to meet this requirement.

3 In particular, we have reported on challenges 

to disposing of excess properties and making better use of properties that 

are underutilized.4

In response to your request that we assess issues related to excess and 

underutilized federal real property, this report addresses two objectives:

1) the extent to which the FRPP database consistently and accurately 

describes the nature, use, and extent of excess and underutilized 

federal real property and

 

2

Federal Real Property Asset Management, Exec. Order No. 13327, 69 Fed. Reg. 5897 

(Feb. 6, 2004). The executive order applies to agencies under the Chief Financial Officers 

Act of 1990. The act agencies are the executive branch agencies listed at 31 U.S.C. 

§901(b) and include the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, 

Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban 

Development, Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, the Treasury, and Veterans 

Affairs; the Environmental Protection Agency; the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration; the U.S. Agency for International Development; GSA; the National Science 

Foundation: the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; the Office of Personnel Management; 

the Small Business Administration; and the Social Security Administration. The order does 

not apply to the U.S. Postal Service.

3

For example, See GAO, Federal Real Property: Proposed Civilian Board Could Address 

Disposal of Unneeded Facilities, GAO-11-704T (Washington, D.C.: June 9, 2011); HighRisk Series: An Update, GAO-11-278 (Washington, D.C.: February 2011); and Federal 

Real Property: Progress Made Toward Addressing Problems, but Underlying Obstacles 

Continue to Hamper Reform, GAO-07-349 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 13, 2007). 

4

Section 102 of Title 40 of the U.S. Code defines excess property as “property under the 

control of a federal agency that the head of the agency determines is not required to meet 

the agency’s needs or responsibilities.” However, GSA officials told us that designating a 

property as excess in the FRPP does not mean that an agency is declaring it to GSA as 

excess for the purpose of disposal. For example, they said that agencies can designate a 

property as excess in the FRPP as a way of creating a “parking lot” for properties that they 

are not prepared to address. Underutilized property means “an entire property or portion 

thereof, with or without improvements, which is used: (a) Irregularly or intermittently by the 

accountable Executive agency for current program purposes of that agency; or (b) For 

current program purposes that can be satisfied with only a portion of the property.” 41 

C.F.R. § 102-75.50.
 

Page 3 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

2) the extent to which progress is being made toward more effectively 

managing excess and underutilized federal real property.

To address these objectives, we obtained and analyzed FRPP 

submissions and other real property data from five civilian5 real property–

holding agencies; interviewed real property officers at these agencies; 

visited sites where the agencies had reported excess or underutilized 

properties; interviewed OMB staff; and reviewed pertinent laws, 

regulations, policies, and other documents related to the agencies’ real 

property management. The five agencies we selected for review were 

GSA, the Departments of Energy (DOE), the Interior (Interior), Veterans 

Affairs (VA), and Agriculture (USDA). On the basis of the available data, 

these five agencies report approximately two-thirds of the building square 

footage reported by civilian agencies. We obtained answers to a set of 

questions about managing excess and underutilized properties that we 

posed to the senior real property officers of these five agencies. For each 

agency, we also obtained fiscal year 2008, 2009, and 2010 FRPP 

submissions, as well as data from each agency’s internal systems that 

were the source of their FRPP submissions.

6

 

5

We reported in September 2011 on Department of Defense excess facilities. We found 

that the Department of Defense is limited in its ability to identify potential excess facilities 

because it does not maintain complete and accurate data concerning the utilization of its 

facilities. See GAO, Excess Facilities: DOD Needs More Complete Information and a 

Strategy to Guide Its Future Disposal Efforts, 

According to our 

conversations with agency officials, FRPP submissions can be changed 

only by the agency submitting the data. As a result, we believe that the 

FRPP submissions obtained from the agencies match the data contained 

in the FRPP database and are sufficiently reliable for the purpose of 

evaluating the consistency and accuracy of the corresponding data in the

FRPP database. To gather detailed examples of excess and underutilized 

properties and to learn about the processes by which data on such 

properties are collected and submitted to the FRPP database, we visited 

GAO-11-814 (Washington, D.C.: 

Sept. 19, 2011).

6

We chose GSA, DOE, Interior, and VA because these agencies contained the largest 

total building square footage of all civilian real property agencies that are required to 

submit data under the executive order. We added USDA to our list of selected agencies 

because USDA reported significantly more excess properties than the other civilian 

agencies in 2009, the most recent data we had available at the time. 
 

Page 4 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

a nonprobability sample7 of approximately 180 buildings at 26 sites 

where excess or underutilized owned buildings had been reported by the 

five civilian agencies.8 We selected sites clustered around four U.S. 

cities.9 In selecting sites, we considered the number of excess or 

underutilized buildings reported at each site and the distance of each site 

from the city. Across the 26 sites, we attempted to balance the numbers 

of sites and buildings selected for the five agencies, and the numbers of 

excess versus underutilized buildings selected. Prior to each visit, we 

analyzed data for each building and developed a set of questions about 

the data submission for local property managers. During site visits, we 

interviewed local property managers, compared what we observed at 

each building with the FRPP data for that building, and documented what 

we observed. Where possible, we took photographs of the buildings.10

We conducted this performance audit from May 2011 to June 2012 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 

In 

addition to this work related to the FRPP, we interviewed OMB staff 

because OMB chairs FRPC, oversees the implementation of the 

executive order, and has set cost savings goals related to excess and 

underutilized properties. 

 

7

Because this is a nonprobability sample, observations made at these site visits do not 

support generalizations about other properties described in the FRPP database or about 

the characteristics or limitations of other agencies’ real property data. Rather, the 

observations made during the site visits provided specific, detailed examples of issues 

that were described in general terms by agency officials regarding the way FRPP data are 

collected and reported and served to complement our analysis of data collection practices 

across these agencies. 

8

In the case of VA, which did not categorize any of its building as “excess,” we visited 

sites where buildings had been reported as “not utilized” or “underutilized.” 

9

We visited excess and underutilized properties in areas of the country where our staff 

members doing this work were located—Washington, D.C.; Dallas, Texas; and Los 

Angeles, California. We found only one DOE site that matched our criteria in these three 

areas, so we selected another region of the country that had a large concentration of 

excess and underutilized DOE properties—Oak Ridge, Tennessee. We did not attempt to 

compare the accuracy of one agency’s data against the accuracy of another. Our purpose 

was to visit multiple sites from different agencies in different geographic regions.

10At some sites, we could not take photographs because of security concerns. 
 

Page 5 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

conclusions based on our audit objectives. Further details on our scope 

and methodology can be found in appendix I.

In 2010, federal agencies reported about 3.35 billion square feet of 

building space to the FRPP: 79 percent of the reported building space 

was federally owned, 17 percent was leased, and 4 percent was 

otherwise managed.11 The data indicated that the agencies used most of 

the space—about 64 percent—as offices, warehouses, housing, 

hospitals, and laboratories. The five agencies we reviewed—GSA, DOE, 

Interior, VA, and USDA—reported owning or leasing more than 866 

million square feet of building space, or about 25 percent of the total 

reported square footage for all agencies.12

Initially, FRPC defined 23 FRPP data elements to describe the federal 

government’s real property inventory. By 2008, FRPC had expanded the 

number of data elements included in the FRPP to 25.13

In addition to developing the database, the 2004 executive order required 

FRPC to develop guidance and best practices for real property 

management and develop performance measures to determine the 

effectiveness of federal real property management. The executive order 

specifically states that performance measures shall be designed “to 

enable the heads of executive branch agencies to track progress in the 

achievement of Governmentwide property management objectives, as 

well as allow for comparing the performance of executive branch 

agencies against industry and other public sector agencies.” In 2005, in 

its initial annual guidance to federal agencies, FRPC designated four 

FRPC requires 

agencies to update their FRPP real property data annually. Each asset 

included in the database is assigned a unique identification number that 

allows for tracking of the asset to the unique data that describe it.

 

11Otherwise managed buildings may be owned by a state government or by a foreign 

government that has granted rights for use to the federal government in an arrangement 

other than a lease agreement. Otherwise managed properties may also be trust entities 

that hold title to real property assets predominantly used as museums, but federal funds 

may be received to cover certain operations and maintenance costs.

12The Department of Defense reported owning or leasing about 63 percent of the total 

building square footage reported for fiscal year 2010.

13See appendix II for a list of the 25 FRPP data elements as defined in 2010.

Background 
 

Page 6 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

FRPP data elements as performance measures: utilization, condition 

index, annual operating costs, and mission dependency. The definitions 

of these four data elements in 2010 can be found in table 1.14

Table 1: Definitions of FRPP Performance Measures in 2010 FRPC Guidance

Data element Description How data are reported

Utilization The state of having been made use of, that is, 

the rate of utilization.

The utilization of a building is recorded as 

overutilized, utilized, underutilized, or not utilized. a

Condition index

b

General measure of the constructed asset’s 

condition at a specific point in time. 

Condition index is calculated as 1 minus the ratio of 

repair needs to plant replacement value multiplied 

by 100. 

Annual operating costs Expenses for recurring maintenance and repair 

costs, utilities, cleaning or janitorial costs, and 

roads or grounds expenses.

Annual operating costs must be greater than or equal 

to zero.

Mission dependency The value an asset brings to the performance of 

the mission as determined by the governing 

agency.

Mission dependency must be recorded as one of 

three options: 

1. mission critical

2. mission dependent, not critical

3. not mission dependent.

Source: GAO analysis of FRPC information. 

a

For office and hospital space, utilization measures the ratio of occupancy to current design capacity, 

for warehouses it measures the ratio of gross square feet occupied to current design capacity, for 

laboratories it measures the ratio of active units to current design capacity, and for housing it 

measures the percentage of individual units that are occupied.

b

Agencies are required to submit utilization information for offices, hospitals, warehouses, 

laboratories, and housing. Any building categorized as a post office, prison or detention center, 

school, museum, industrial, service, communication systems, or “other,” including “other institutional 

uses” does not require utilization information. Buildings categorized as housing are not permitted to 

receive a designation of overutilized or not utilized (not applicable must be recorded in these cases).

FRPC guidance directed agencies to maintain the actual utilization percentage for audit purposes up 

to 2010 and some agencies reported the percentage voluntarily. Beginning in 2011, agencies were 

required to report utilization using actual percentages rather than the four-way classification described 

in this table.

FRPC’s 2010 Guidance for Real Property Inventory Reporting provides 

specific guidelines on how to report a building as overutilized, 

underutilized, utilized, or not utilized based on the building’s use and the 

percentage of the building that is used (see table 2).

 

14GSA, Federal Real Property Council: 2010 Guidance for Real Property Inventory 

Reporting (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 25, 2010).
 

Page 7 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

Table 2: FRPP Building Utilization Categories

Building use Overutilized Utilized Underutilized Not utilized

Office >95% 75–95% <75% Not applicable

Hospital >95 70–95 25–70 <25%

Warehouse >85 50–85 10–50 <10

Laboratory >85 60–85 30–60 <30

Housing Not applicable 85–100 <85 Not applicable

Source: FRPC.

FRPC has been collecting FRPP data on federal government properties 

since 2005. We have reported that results-oriented organizations follow a 

number of sound data collection practices when gathering the information 

necessary to achieve their goals.15

Following the implementation of the executive order and nationwide data 

collection efforts, we have reported that agencies continue to face 

challenges with managing excess and underutilized properties.

For example, these organizations 

recognize that they must balance their ideal performance measurement 

systems against real world considerations, such as the cost and effort 

involved in gathering and analyzing data. These organizations also tie 

performance measures to specific goals and demonstrate the degree to 

which the desired results are achieved. Conversely, we have observed 

that organizations that seek to manage an excessive number of 

performance measures may risk creating a confusing excess of data that 

will obscure rather than clarify performance issues. Limiting the number of 

measures to the vital few not only keeps the focus of data collection 

where it belongs, it helps ensure that the costs involved in collecting and 

analyzing the data do not become prohibitive. Furthermore, resultsoriented organizations report on the performance data they collect.

16 For 

example, we have previously reported that the legal requirements 

agencies must adhere to, such as requirements for screening and 

environmental cleanup as well as requirements related to historical 

properties, present a challenge to consolidating federal properties.17

 

15See GAO, Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance and 

Results Act, 

In 

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

16GAO-11-704T. 

17GAO-11-278. 
 

Page 8 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

addition, before GSA can dispose of a property that an agency no longer 

needs, it must offer the property to other federal agencies. If other federal 

agencies do not need the property, GSA must then make the property 

available to state and local governments as well as certain nonprofit 

organizations and institutions for public benefit uses such as homeless 

shelters, educational facilities, or fire and police training centers.

According to agency officials, as a result of this lengthy process, excess 

or underutilized properties may remain in an agency’s possession for 

years. Furthermore, the costs of disposing of property can further hamper 

an agency’s efforts to address its excess and underutilized property 

problems. For example, properties that contain radiological contamination 

must be mitigated before they can be disposed. In addition, the interests 

of multiple—and often competing—stakeholders may not align with the 

most efficient use of government resources and complicate real property 

decisions.

Despite these challenges, both the previous and current administrations 

have implemented a number of cost savings initiatives associated with 

excess and underutilized property. In August 2005, the administration set 

a goal to reduce the size of the federal inventory by $15 billion by 2009.18

In June 2010, the President directed federal civilian agencies to achieve 

$3 billion in savings by the end of fiscal year 2012 through reducing 

annual operating costs, generating income through disposing of assets, 

using existing real property more effectively by consolidating existing 

space, expanding telework,

19 and other space realignment efforts.20

Furthermore, on May 4, 2011, the administration proposed legislation—

referred to as the Civilian Property Realignment Act (CPRA)—to establish 

a legislative framework for disposing of and consolidating real property,

among other things. In September 2011,21

 

18According to OMB staff, in 2007, this goal was changed to achieving a $9 billion 

reduction in 2009 and a $15 billion reduction by 2015.

OMB projected that the 

proposal would save the government $4.1 billion over 10 years from sales 

proceeds, and that savings would also be achieved through decreased 

19Telework is a work flexibility arrangement under which an employee works at home or a 

work site other than the location at which the employee would otherwise work. 

20The administration reports that agencies have now identified more than $3 billion in 

potential savings.

21OMB, Living Within Our Means and Investing in the Future: The President’s Plan for 

Economic Growth and Deficit Reduction (Washington, D.C., September 2011).
 

Page 9 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

operating costs and efficiencies.22 However, the Congressional Budget 

Office (CBO) has concluded that CPRA would probably not result in a 

significant increase in proceeds from the sale of federal properties over 

the next 10 years.23

FRPC has not followed sound data collection practices, and, as a result, 

FRPP data do not describe excess and underutilized properties 

consistently and accurately. Consistent with this, FRPP data did not 

always accurately describe the properties at the majority of sites we 

visited and often overstated the condition and annual operating costs, 

among other things. 

Agency officials described ways in which key performance measures in 

the FRPP database are reported inconsistently or inaccurately. At 23 of 

the 26 sites that we visited, we found inconsistencies or inaccuracies

related to the following performance measures described in the 

background: (1) utilization, (2) condition index, (3) annual operating costs, 

and (4) mission dependency. As a result of the discussions we had with 

agency officials about how FRPP data are reported, as well as the 

inconsistencies and inaccuracies described in the following sections, we 

question whether FRPP data provide an adequate tool for decision 

making or measuring performance, such as the cost savings initiatives 

put forth by OMB.

 

22When CPRA was first proposed, OMB projected that it would save the government $15 

billion within 3 years after enactment in sales proceeds and operations and maintenance 

savings. However, OMB staff told us that after internal deliberations, they decided to 

change this projection.

23Letter from Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director, Congressional Budget Office, to Darrell E. 

Issa, Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House of 

Representatives, responding to Chairman Issa’s request for the Congressional Budget 

Office to analyze the President’s legislative proposal to expedite the disposal of federal 

civilian real property, June 27, 2011.

Excess and 

Underutilized 

Property Data Are 

Inconsistent and 

Inaccurate because of

Lack of Sound Data 

Collection Practices

FRPP Data Do Not 

Describe Excess and 

Underutilized Federal Real 

Properties Consistently 

and Accurately
 

Page 10 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

We found that the agencies we reviewed do not report property utilization 

consistently. FRPC guidance states that for offices, hospitals, and 

warehouses, utilization is the ratio of occupancy to current design 

capacity.24 Although USDA requires its agencies to follow FRPC 

guidance, USDA stated that FRPC has not established governmentwide 

definitions for occupancy or current design capacity. As a result, each 

agency within USDA has its own internal procedures for determining a 

building’s utilization level. Moreover, VA defines utilization differently 

from FRPC guidance, that is, the ratio of “ideal space” to existing space, 

which VA stated is different from occupancy. Despite the inconsistency of 

this method of defining utilization with FRPC guidance, VA officials 

reported that OMB staff approved of their method of reporting utilization.

25

Among the 26 federal sites we visited, we found utilization data 

inconsistencies or inaccuracies for properties at 19 of these sites. For 

example, at one VA site, a building we toured was reported to have a 

utilization of 39 percent in 2010 FRPP data and 45 percent utilization in 

2011 source data, even though local officials said this building has been

fully occupied since 2008. See figure 1. Another building that we toured 

at the same site was reported to be 0 percent utilized in 2010 FRPP 

data

Furthermore, OMB acknowledged that it is standard practice for agencies 

to measure utilization tailored to the agencies’ specific needs and 

circumstances.

26 and 59 percent utilized in 2011 agency source data.27

 

24 For laboratories, utilization is the ratio of active units to current design capacity. For 

housing, utilization is the percentage of individual units that are occupied.

 However, all 

25In calculating utilization for offices, hospitals and warehouses (see footnote 24 for FRPC 

guidance on measuring utilization for laboratories and houses), FRPC guidance directs 

agencies to determine the ratio of occupancy to “current design capacity,” but VA 

determines utilization based on “ideal space.” Following their concept of utilization, VA 

officials reported that an old building with an inefficient floor plan may be larger than 

necessary for the service it provides, but if changes cannot be made to the building 

because of its historical designation or because it is cost prohibitive to renovate, this 

building may be perpetually designated as underutilized even though it is fully occupied on 

a day-to-day basis. 

26Though not required, VA reported the actual percentage of utilization for buildings that 

required a utilization submission to the FRPP in fiscal year 2010.

27In addition to reviewing FRPP data from fiscal year 2008 to fiscal year 2010, we also 

obtained property data for select data elements from the source databases that each 

agency uses to generate its annual FRPP submissions. This helped ensure we had 

updated information for the buildings we visited during our review. The agency source 

data for each agency was from September or October of 2011.

Utilization
 

Page 11 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

but one of the rooms in the building were vacant, and local officials said 

only 10 percent of the building was utilized.28

Figure 1: Example of Inaccurate Reporting of Utilization Data at a VA site

 

In addition, at one USDA site we visited, we found two houses that have 

been empty since 2009; however, they were both reported to the FRPP 

as utilized for 2009 and 2010. See figure 2 to view images of these two 

USDA buildings. We also found problems with the utilization data at 

properties owned by the other three agencies included in our review. 

 

28VA took ownership of this building from DOD in 2011, but VA began occupying

approximately 10 percent of the space since 2008. According to the local VA officials who 

manage the building, the level of occupancy for this building has not changed since 2008 

and remains only 10 percent occupied.
 

Page 12 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

Figure 2: Example of Inaccurate Reporting of Utilization Data at a USDA site

a

According to FRPC guidance, housing units must be 85 percent to100 percent occupied to warrant a 

utilization score of “utilized.” 

As was the case with utilization, we found that agencies do not report the 

condition of their properties consistently. According to FRPC guidance, 

condition index is a general measure of the constructed asset’s condition 

and is calculated by using the ratio of repair needs to the plant 

replacement value (PRV).29 Needed repairs are determined by the 

amount of repairs necessary to ensure that a constructed asset is 

restored to a condition substantially equivalent to the originally intended

and designed capacity, efficiency, or capability.30

 

29PRV is the cost of replacing the existing constructed asset at today’s standards. PRV 

will be discussed in greater detail later in this report. The entire formula for condition index 

is 1 minus the ratio of repair needs to PRV multiplied by 100.

However, we found that 

agencies do not always follow this guidance. For example, when 

agencies have determined that a property is not needed and will 

ultimately be disposed, they may assign no repair needs to that property 

even though the property may be in a state of significant disrepair. Doing 

so allows agencies to use their limited funds to maintain properties that 

they regularly use, but it can lead to condition index data that do not 

accurately reflect each property’s condition as set forth in FRPC 

30GSA , Federal Real Property Council: 2010 Guidance for Real Property Inventory 

Reporting. 

Condition Index
 

Page 13 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

guidance. Figure 3 is an example of how the condition index of a building 

with high repair needs can significantly change depending on whether 

agency officials choose to follow FRPC guidance or if they assign zero 

dollars in repair needs because repairs are not planned.

Figure 3: How Alternative Repair Needs Designations Affect Condition Index Data

While it may be a good practice not to assign repair needs to dilapidated 

buildings that no longer support agencies in carrying out their mission, the 

fact that these buildings may report a perfect or near-perfect condition 

index provide decision makers with an inconsistent representation of the 

condition of buildings at a given site. We found examples at all five

agencies we visited where a property in very poor condition received a 

higher condition index score than a property in good condition. Figure 4 

demonstrates examples of this at an Interior site we visited.
 

Page 14 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

Figure 4: Example of Inconsistent FRPP Condition Index Reporting at an Interior Site

We found condition index reporting inconsistencies and inaccuracies at 

21 of 26 sites visited. The practice of assigning no repair needs to many 

excess and underutilized buildings because agencies have no intention of 

repairing them led to severely blighted buildings receiving excellent 

condition scores.31

 

31High condition indexes are indicative of properties that are in better condition than 

properties with lower condition indexes. As such, a property with a 100 percent condition 

index would represent a property that is in perfect or near-perfect condition.

Figure 5 illustrates several separate buildings that 

received high condition index scores, even though they are in poor 

condition. Some of the problems with these buildings include asbestos, 

mold, collapsed walls or roofs, health concerns, radioactivity, 

deterioration, and flooding.
 

Page 15 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

Figure 5: Examples of Federal Property Reported as Being in Excellent Condition in the FRPP Database

Agencies are required to report annual operating costs to FRPP for each 

building. However, we found that agencies are not always able to 

determine the annual operating costs at the building level and this can 

Annual Operating Costs
 

Page 16 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

lead to inaccurate and misleading data. For example, some DOE 

buildings are not individually metered, so DOE officials who manage 

those buildings collect annual operating costs data at the site level and 

apportion these costs to the individual buildings according to square 

footage. Additionally, VA told us that many of its buildings are located on 

medical campuses and are not individually metered; therefore, utilities 

cannot be measured for one particular building.

We found data inconsistencies and inaccuracies for annual operating 

costs at 19 of 26 sites that we visited. For example, an Interior property 

had large fluctuations in annual operating costs from one year to the next 

that did not seem to match the utilization of the building. It was listed as 

utilized in 2008 but had recorded annual operating costs of $0. In 2009, 

the building was listed as underutilized but the annual operating costs 

were listed as $10,516. In 2010, the property was then listed as 

underutilized with annual operating costs of $18,981, an increase of more 

than 80 percent. An Interior official at this site told us that annual 

operating costs are determined using a complicated calculation that 

includes a compilation of data from various sources controlled at the 

regional and headquarters levels. Furthermore, because of the difficulty in 

measuring operating costs at the building level, only one of USDA’s 

component agencies even attempts to measure the actual operating 

costs of each individual building. As such, all other agencies within USDA 

have developed their own methods for determining annual operating 

costs at the location and building levels, and this can cause large 

fluctuations in reported operating costs. For example, a USDA property 

we visited had reported annual operating cost increases from $374,000 in 

2009 to more than $1 million in 2010. This increase in operating costs 

occurred while the status, utilization, condition, and value of the property 

remained steady during the same time frame. Officials at this site told us 

another challenge in reporting these costs is that they do not have the 

financial system for determining actual operating costs.

In addition to large fluctuations in annual operating costs from one year to 

the next, we also identified instances of buildings that report high annual 

operating costs even though all utilities have been turned off and no 

maintenance was being conducted. This could lead to inflated 

expectations of the savings potential if these buildings were disposed.

Figure 6 provides examples of some excess and inactive buildings with 

high annual operating costs. 
 

Page 17 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

Figure 6: Excess and Inactive Buildings with High Annual Operating Costs

FRPP guidance provides very little information to agencies on how 

mission dependency should be reported, and the data are generally not 

useful for measuring performance. For example, agencies have three 

options for assigning mission dependency to their assets: mission critical; 

mission dependent, not critical; and not mission dependent.32

 

32FRPC guidance defines these three categories as follows: (1) mission critical: without 

constructed asset or parcel of land, mission is compromised; (2) mission dependent, not 

critical: does not fit into mission critical or not mission dependent categories; and (3) not 

mission critical: mission unaffected. A fourth category, not rated, is available for 

Department of Defense base realignment and closure properties. GSA, Federal Real 

Property Council: 2010 Guidance for Real Property Inventory Reporting. 

A short 

definition of each category is included but no additional guidance or 

clarification is provided. We found that agencies do not measure mission 

dependency in a consistent manner because the data element can be 

measured differently by each agency. For example, one office within DOE 

uses a complex decision tree to determine the mission dependency of 

Mission Dependency
 

Page 18 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

assets while another office at DOE reports mission dependency based on 

the operating status of a building. In addition, VA’s designation of mission 

dependency is a function of utilization. Assets with a high percentage of 

utilization are labeled “mission critical” and those with low utilization are 

labeled “not mission dependent.” VA officials said they use this method 

because it is the best way for them to manage the mission dependency of 

their assets—for example, hospitals measure performance by the number 

of patients served. However, since mission dependency is based strictly 

on utilization in VA data, this performance measure does not provide any 

new information on the asset in the FRPP database.

In fact, FRPC guidance indicates that the reported value of this 

performance measure is determined separately by each governing 

agency; thus, it is unclear how this measure can have any meaning as a 

performance measure across agencies when reported to the national 

database. Furthermore, GSA officials familiar with FRPP submissions told 

us that mission dependency is a subjective data element. As such, we 

could not determine whether FRPP data accurately described the mission 

dependency of the buildings we visited. For example, we visited the 

Eisenhower Executive Office Building in Washington, D.C., which is listed 

as “mission dependent, not critical” even though this building is located 

next to the White House and houses offices for key White House staff.

Figure 7 provides exterior images of the Eisenhower Executive Office 

Building as it is being renovated.

Figure 7: Exterior of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building
 

Page 19 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

In addition to identifying the four performance measures discussed 

previously, FRPC also identified value as a data element for the FRPP 

database. Value is not identified as a performance measure by FRPC, as 

discussed earlier, but it is a key data element and central component for 

calculating condition index. However, the concept of value in the FRPP can 

be misleading. Value in FRPC guidance is defined as the cost of replacing 

an existing constructed asset at today’s standards and is known as PRV.33

Additionally, according to agency officials, many excess properties do not 

have the potential for generating revenue for the federal government.

Specifically, USDA officials reported that a lot of excess properties just 

need to be demolished because they cannot be sold or conveyed.

Indeed, we visited more than 80 buildings on our site visits that agencies 

plan to demolish when they have the resources to execute the 

demolitions. These properties would never be replaced or sold. Some of 

these properties’ PRVs are very high by definition, even though the 

condition of the building clearly indicates that the actual market or 

appraisal value would be much lower (because condition does not factor 

into PRV calculations). Figure 8 shows properties that have high reported 

values and high condition indexes even though they are in poor condition 

and have remained unused for many years. By examining the data alone, 

these properties would not appear to be candidates for demolition.

However, these properties actually have no value to the agencies, 

according to agency officials, and may even be considered liabilities. In 

these cases, even though the agencies may be following FRPC guidance, 

However, GSA officials cautioned us not to think of PRV as an asset’s 

actual worth because it is not an appraisal of the property or any kind of 

measure of the asset’s market value. Moreover, we found that PRV is 

typically much higher than the actual worth of the building because PRV 

does not take into account market conditions or the condition of the asset. 

For example, in May 2011, GSA auctioned a parcel of land that contained 

several buildings and structures for $6.4 million. We visited 10 of these 

properties before the auction was finalized. Although the values may have 

been calculated according to FRPC guidance, the total PRV for the 

properties we saw was well over twice that amount (almost $17 million) not 

counting the value of the land itself. (The value of land is not reported to the 

FRPP.)

 

33FRPC only requires the value of buildings and structures to be reported in the federal 

real property inventory. As such, land is excluded for value. GSA, Federal Real Property 

Council: 2010 Guidance for Real Property Inventory Reporting. 

Value (PRV)
 

Page 20 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

the high PRV values could be misleading if used as an indicator of 

property value and potential revenue.

Figure 8: Empty Buildings in Poor Condition with High PRVs

We are not suggesting that FRPC should create a data element that 

describes the market value or actual worth of a building. Interior officials 

told us that evaluating the market value of federal properties is beyond 

the abilities of many government real property management staff, since 

they are not engaged in the real estate market. Furthermore, GSA 

officials said that it would be cost prohibitive to conduct market value 

appraisals of all federal property, and that it would be impractical, 

considering that many excess properties will be demolished rather than 

sold or conveyed. However, commonly referring to the PRV as “value” 

could perpetuate confusion on the nature of the federal government’s 
 

Page 21 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

property portfolio and an overstatement of its worth. Therefore, any broad 

statements made about the overall worth of the federal portfolio cannot be 

substantiated with FRPP data. As such, the federal government does not 

have any means of accurately characterizing the overall value of the 

federal portfolio.

In addition to the confusion that referencing the PRV as “value” can bring, 

we also found inconsistencies in the reported PRV at the sites we visited.

For example, we found instances of a property’s PRV changing 

significantly from one year to another that officials were unable to explain.

Figure 9 shows properties that reported significant changes in value from 

one year to the next that local agency officials could not explain.
 

Page 22 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

Figure 9: Examples of Large Reported PRV Fluctuations for Federal Real Properties
 

Page 23 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

The types of inconsistencies and inaccuracies we have identified in these 

five key data elements suggest that the FRPP database is not a useful 

decision-making tool for managing federal real property. Even though the 

2004 executive order provides that performance measures shall be 

designed so that heads of executive agencies can track progress in 

meeting property management objectives, three out of five senior real 

property officers at the agencies we reviewed reported that they do not use 

FRPP data to manage real property, but instead use information from their 

own data systems for making management decisions. The other two 

officers stated that the FRPP performance measures were valuable. 

However, we question the utility of these performance measures 

considering the types of inconsistencies and inaccuracies we identified. 

Without consistent and accurate data, heads of executive branch agencies 

may not have the information they need to make effective management 

decisions about their excess and underutilized properties. Furthermore, 

OMB staff will be challenged to effectively manage problems with excess 

and underutilized property across the federal government.

We have previously reported that results-oriented organizations make 

sure that the data they collect are sufficiently complete, accurate, and 

consistent enough to document performance and support decision

making.34

FRPC has not ensured that data elements are consistently defined and 

reported. The 2004 executive order stated that it is the role of the 

Administrator of GSA, in consultation with FRPC, to establish and 

maintain the federal database and to establish data and information 

technology standards to facilitate reporting on a uniform basis. As 

illustrated in the previous section, we found that data were reported 

inconsistently, sometimes because the guidance was not clear or 

because agencies were not following the guidance. For example, Interior 

officials told us that the definitions provided in FRPC guidance of key data 

However, FRPC has not followed sound data collection 

practices when collecting FRPP data that would help them collect these 

data in a way that is sufficiently consistent and accurate to be useful for 

making property management decisions. We found problems with the 

way FRPC has collected FRPP data that relate to data consistency, 

performance measures, collaboration, and data reporting.

 

34GAO/GGD-96-118. 

FRPC Has Not Followed 

Sound Data Collection 

Practices

Data Consistency 
 

Page 24 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

elements, such as utilization, are very basic and that more guidance 

would be needed to report this data consistently. In addition, as stated 

earlier in this report, VA officials reported that OMB agreed to let VA use 

an alternative definition for utilization than the one provided in FRPC 

guidance. Because key data elements are not reported uniformly, they 

can have no collective meaning when amassed in a single database. If 

FRPC finds that certain kinds of data cannot be defined the same from 

agency to agency, that kind of data may not belong in a single database 

that appears to be standard across the government. Decision makers 

may assume that data reported for a particular data element have the 

same meaning across the federal government. This could lead to 

incorrect assumptions about the nature and scope of real property 

management problems.

FRPC has designated performance measures in the FRPP database that 

are ineffective. As discussed previously, FRPC designated four data 

elements in the FRPP as performance measures. However, these 

measures are not linked to any performance goals, and FRPC guidance 

does not explain what constitutes acceptable performance on these 

measures. By establishing performance measures before establishing the 

specific performance goals that it seeks to achieve through FRPP data 

collection, FRPC’s requirements may cause agencies to waste valuable 

time and resources collecting the wrong data. Without effective 

performance goals to guide its data collection, FRPC cannot ensure that 

the data gained from these performance measures are an effective use of 

resources.

In addition, the performance measures designated by FRPC are not 

consistent with the requirements described in the 2004 executive order. 

The executive order states that FRPC should work with the Administrator 

of GSA to “establish appropriate performance measures to determine the 

effectiveness of Federal real property management. Such performance 

measures shall include, but are not limited to, evaluating the costs and 

benefits involved with acquiring, repairing, maintaining, operating, 

managing, and disposing of Federal real properties at particular 

agencies.” Furthermore, the executive order states that the measures 

should be designed in such a way as to allow for comparing the 

performance of agencies against that of industry and other public sector 

agencies. However, because these measures have not been 

implemented consistently, they cannot be used for comparison within the 

government or outside of it and, therefore, cannot be used to determine 

the effectiveness of federal real property management or to evaluate the 

costs and benefits of various management activities. If FRPC determines 

Performance Measures
 

Page 25 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

that it cannot design measures that meet the requirements described in 

the executive order, FRPC could request that the executive order be 

reexamined.

OMB, as the Chair of FRPC, has not collaborated effectively with the 

agencies that submit FRPP data and may be requiring agencies to spend 

resources on data collection that is not useful. The agencies we reviewed 

expressed concerns about the data collection process, including the 

amount of data collection required, the time they are given to implement 

new data requirements, and their ability to collect data as required 

accurately. For example, USDA officials told us that they have a very 

large portfolio of federal property and that it is labor intensive to collect all 

of the required data. In addition, Interior officials stated that when new 

data requirements are implemented, they need 1 to 2 years lead time in 

order to update data systems and train staff in order to collect the data 

accurately—historically, they said they have been given less than 6 

months to implement new guidance. Moreover, GSA officials who review 

FRPP data submitted by other agencies stated that when agencies have 

told OMB staff that they do not have the ability to accurately gather 

information as required, OMB staff have told them to collect the data to 

the best of their ability. GSA officials also told us that OMB staff have 

acknowledged that data collection may not be accurate at first, but that as 

agencies get accustomed to collecting the data, they will find ways to 

collect it more accurately.

These agency concerns were magnified during the last FRPP reporting 

period (fiscal year 2011). The amount of data that FRPC requires federal

agencies to report increased significantly in 2011, and federal agencies 

reported that they did not have the time or resources to respond to these 

requirements effectively. FRPC added five new data elements to the 

collection requirements, not counting the new elements’ subelements, 

which also must be taken into consideration.35

 

35As part of its 2011 guidance, the FRPP requires agencies to collect additional 

information for five new data elements which also consist of 10 subelement categories.

These five new data elements include total annual British Thermal Units consumption, 

personnel, anticipated disposition of asset, determination of excess, and potential 

candidate for sale. In addition, other changes were made to previous data elements. For 

example, beginning in 2011, agencies were required to report the percentage of utilization.

GSA, Federal Real Property Council: 2011 Guidance for Real Property Inventory 

Reporting, Version 3.

To put this into 

perspective, from 2005 through 2010, only two new data elements were 

Collaboration
 

Page 26 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

added to FRPP reporting requirements. Furthermore, FRPC did not 

finalize the guidance for 2011 submission requirements until October 4, 

2011, and data collection was due on December 15, 2011.

Agency officials told us that the reporting changes and short timelines 

created a significant burden to their agencies, and that the submitted data 

subsequently may not be accurate. For example, USDA officials reported 

that it had to make extensive changes to their Corporate Property 

Automated Information System (CPAIS)—USDA’s real property data 

system of record—to comply with the new reporting requirements. They

added that, because of the late distribution of the requirements, agencies 

had little time to respond to the data changes, causing USDA to have to 

shut down the CPAIS system to prevent compromise of fiscal year 2011 

data while they attempted to update their systems to comply with the 

required changes. In addition, Interior officials told us that they requested 

waivers for part of the new reporting requirements that they could not 

report accurately in the time they had to respond. However, OMB staff did 

not respond to their waiver request—to accept or deny it—so Interior 

officials submitted data to the best of their ability, with little confidence 

that the data were accurate. Furthermore, GSA reported that one of the 

new reporting requirements—obtaining the numbers of personnel in each 

building—will be resource intensive and time consuming and that the data 

could be inaccurate. OMB staff told us that they held conference calls 

with the agencies, reviewed their feedback and weighed the burden the 

data collection presented to the agencies. For example, the data element 

describing total annual British Thermal Units consumption was made 

optional for a year and reporting personnel data was limited to only 

certain building asset types. However, the burdens the agencies reported 

with the 2011 data submissions, including the fact that Interior received 

no response to their waiver request at all, raises questions as to the 

effectiveness of the collaboration efforts.

We asked OMB staff why data collection requirements increased in 2011 

and they reported that the data collection requirements were modified to 

provide a more comprehensive basis for governmentwide analysis of the 

federal real estate inventory. However, it is unclear how this information 

provides a more comprehensive analytic basis when the agencies have 

told OMB that they cannot guarantee that the collected data are accurate.

Collecting and analyzing data creates costs for federal agencies as they 

must direct time and staff resources to this task. We have previously 

emphasized the importance of limiting the number of measures to the 

vital few measures considered essential for producing data for decision 

making. Furthermore, increasing data collection requirements without 
 

Page 27 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

ensuring that agencies have the time and resources to respond increases 

the likelihood that inaccurate data are collected. DOE reported that the 

increased reporting requirements drain agency resources and that FRPP 

reporting should be limited to a few data elements that would allow for 

reporting a few critical statistics describing federal properties.

While agency concerns have increased, effective collaboration has 

reportedly decreased. Agency officials told us that FRPC has stopped 

meeting as often as it did in years past, which has limited collaboration 

opportunities. In addition, VA officials told us that they are just one voice 

when FRPC meets to discuss data collection requirements. They said 

that many of the agencies that are part of FRPC have very small 

portfolios, so detailed data collection requirements are not particularly 

burdensome. These agencies with smaller portfolios have an equal voice 

to agencies with large property portfolios, such as VA and the Department 

of Defense, even though agencies with large portfolios bear a much 

greater burden when data collection requirements are added. DOE 

officials stated that there needs to be a formal process for adding data 

elements to collection requirements that includes collecting and formally 

resolving agency comments on difficulties with data collection or the 

inability to report on certain requirements accurately. Without improving 

collaboration efforts, FRPC cannot ensure that the costs involved in 

collecting and analyzing the data are commensurate with the benefits 

obtained from gathering it.

Even if the data were useful, we found that FRPC reports very little of 

what it collects from the agencies. From the millions of pieces of data 

collected from the thousands of assets reported by federal agencies to 

the FRPP in fiscal year 2010, FRPC produced a 19-page, high-level 

summary report.36

 

36See FRPC, Federal Real Property Council’s FY 2010 Federal Real Property Report: An 

Overview of the U.S. Government’s Real Property Assets at 

 In this summary report, two of the four data elements 

listed as performance measures—condition index and mission 

dependency—were not included in the report. In addition, the PRV

reported by agencies is also not included in the report. GSA officials told 

us that some information about federal real property portfolios should not 

be released to the public for security reasons. However, the fact that 

FRPC does not report two data elements that it has designated as 

performance measures raises issues with transparency and 

http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/102880, accessed April 29, 2012.

Data Reporting
 

Page 28 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

accountability. Furthermore, the amount of information that FRPC reports 

compared to the extensive information it collects raises further questions 

about whether FRPC is balancing the cost of collecting the data with the 

benefit it provides. We have previously stated that reporting performance 

information can help Congress make informed decisions and give the 

taxpayers a better understanding of what the government is providing in 

return for their tax dollars.37

The other two performance measures—utilization and annual operating 

costs—are included in FRPC’s report. For example, the data in table 3 is 

provided in the summary report, which listed the annual operating costs of 

all reported underutilized properties at more than $1.5 billion dollars. 

Better alignment between the data collected 

and reported would add transparency and accountability, not only to the 

federal government’s management of its property, but also on the 

resources spent to collect the data.

Table 3: Utilization and Annual Operating Cost Data for All Assets Reported by 

FRPC in 2010

Number of 

assets

Total 

square feet

Annual 

operating cost

Not utilized 6,700 39,645,100 $112,151,700

Over utilized 65,800 959,380,400 9,693,933,400

Under utilized 71,000 450,612,900 1,553,359,300

Utilized 89,000 614,314,900 4,440,635,200

Source: GAO presentation of FRPC data.

Considering that we found inconsistencies in the way utilization and 

annual operating cost data are collected and reported, the accuracy of 

these data and other tables in the summary report is questionable.

Furthermore, providing decision makers with this information is 

problematic. Decision makers could incorrectly use a table such as this to 

estimate potential cost savings through a reduction of annual operating 

costs associated with initiatives to dispose of properties that are 

underutilized or not utilized.

 

37GAO/GGD-96-118. 
 

Page 29 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

The federal government has taken some steps to address excess and 

underutilized property management problems by developing the FRPP 

database, among other things. However, cost savings efforts associated 

with excess and underutilized property over the years were discontinued 

and recent efforts may overstate potential savings. Although the federal 

agencies we reviewed have taken some actions to try to address excess 

and underutilized properties, long-standing challenges remain. As a 

result, a national strategy could help the federal government prioritize 

future management efforts.

The federal government has made some progress in managing real 

property since we first added this issue to our high-risk series. In a 2007 

review of federal real property, we found that the administration at that 

time made progress toward managing federal real property and 

addressing some long-standing problems.38 The 2004 executive order 

established FRPC to develop property management guidance and act as 

a clearinghouse for property management best practices. FRPC created 

the FRPP database and began data collection in December 2005. As part 

of a 2011 update to our high-risk series, we reported that the federal 

government has also taken steps to improve real property management, 

most notably by implementing some GSA data controls and requiring 

agencies to develop data validation plans.39

 

38

Prior to designating property 

management as high risk, reliable tools for tracking property were 

generally unavailable. Consequently, we determined that the 

development of a database and the implementation of additional data 

quality controls were steps in the right direction. However, on the basis of 

our current work, it appears that data controls have not brought about 

widespread improvements with data consistency and accuracy as was 

anticipated. Nonetheless, we found that the FRPP can be used in a 

general sense to track assets. For example, during our site visits, agency 

officials were able to match assets with the real property unique 

GAO-07-349. 

39GAO-11-278. 

Although Some 

Progress Has Been 

Made, Federal 

Property Management 

Is Still Challenging 

and Efforts Lack a 

National Strategy

Limited Progress Has Been 

Made in Managing Excess 

and Underutilized Federal 

Property, but the Extent of 

Cost Savings Is Not Clear
 

Page 30 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

identification numbers assigned to them in the FRPP database and were 

able to locate even small, remote buildings using these numbers.40

In addition to establishing FRPC, developing the FRPP, and 

implementing the executive order, the previous and current 

administrations have sought ways to generate cost savings associated 

with improving management of excess and underutilized properties. 

However, these efforts have not led to proven cost savings associated 

with the management of these properties.

Cost savings goals set by the previous administration were 

discontinued. In 2007, we reported that adding real property 

management to the President’s Management Agenda in 2004 increased 

its visibility as a key management challenge and focused greater attention 

on real property issues across the government.41

Cost savings associated with improved management of excess and 

underutilized properties as directed in the June 2010 presidential 

memorandum are unclear. OMB staff also said that while the goals of 

the previous administration are no longer being pursued, the current 

administration issued a memorandum that directed civilian agencies to 

achieve $3 billion in savings by fiscal year 2012 through better 

management of excess properties, among other things. According to the 

administration’s website, as of September 2011, approximately half of the 

cost savings had been achieved ($1.48 billion). Almost half of the total 

goal (about $1.4 billion) is targeted to the five agencies we reviewed.

Officials from these agencies reported various cost savings measures 

As part of this agenda, 

the previous administration set a goal of reducing the size of the federal 

real property inventory by 5 percent, or $15 billion, by the year 2015.

OMB staff at the time reported that there was an interim goal to achieve 

$9 billion of the reductions by 2009. OMB staff recently told us that the 

current administration is no longer pursuing these goals. Furthermore, the 

senior real property officers of the five agencies we reviewed told us that 

they were never given specific disposal targets to reach as part of these 

prior disposal goals.

 

40We did not attempt to determine whether all buildings at the sites we visited had 

corresponding unique identification numbers. However agency officials were able to locate 

buildings using unique identification numbers. 

41GAO-07-349. 
 

Page 31 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

such as selling real property, forgoing operations and maintenance costs 

from disposed properties, and reducing energy costs through 

sustainability efforts to achieve agency savings targets.42

Four of the five agencies told us that they believe they will reach their 

savings targets by the end of fiscal year 2012; however, whether they 

claim to reach those goals or not, the actual and estimated savings 

associated with excess and underutilized property management may be 

overstated. Furthermore, agencies were not required to develop cost 

savings that reflected a reduction in agency budgets. We found problems 

with cost savings estimates related to excess and underutilized property 

management from all five of the federal agencies we reviewed 

(see table 4).

As of the first 

quarter of fiscal year 2012, only two of the agencies we reviewed—GSA 

and USDA—were claiming any sales proceeds from the sale of federal 

real property: GSA reported $41.1 million in savings from sales proceeds 

and USDA reported approximately $5.6 million. Interior officials stated 

that individual sales with positive net proceeds are offset by those sales in 

which the cost of the disposal (i.e., as a result of environmental 

remediation and repair) is greater than any proceeds realized.

Furthermore, DOE officials reported that the disposition costs of the 

properties they sold during the time frame of the memorandum were 

actually greater than the proceeds. As a result, DOE has reported a net 

loss of $128 million on property sales for this time period. VA also did not 

include asset sales as part of its savings plan.

43

 

42The presidential memorandum does not require that all $3 billion in savings be obtained 

from efficiencies related to excess and underutilized property; cost savings can also be 

achieved through sustainability efforts such as better energy and water use that affect all 

real property in an agency’s portfolio, among other things. However, for the purposes of 

this report, we focused on the extent of agency actions that are taken in response to this 

memorandum that affect excess and underutilized federal real property.

43We did not conduct a comprehensive analysis of the cost savings claimed by the five 

reviewed agencies and have not evaluated the reliability of the cost savings they claim.

We spoke with agency officials about their cost savings targets and found several issues 

that were of concern to us even without conducting an in-depth review of their claims. Our 

concerns are detailed in table 4.
 

Page 32 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

Table 4: Identified Problems with Agencies’ Cost Savings Estimates Related to Excess and Underutilized Property

Agency Cost savings projections Identified problems

DOE DOE officials stated that as of December 31, 2011, the

department had achieved $361 million in savings associated 

with the operations and maintenance of disposed properties. 

DOE officials project that this number will reach $375 million 

in savings by the end of fiscal year 2012. 

DOE used FRPP annual operating cost data to estimate this 

savings. On the basis of our findings in this report, we believe 

that using the FRPP data to project cost savings is 

questionable. 

DOE officials stated that they counted operations and 

maintenance savings for a full year regardless of when in the 

fiscal year the savings were realized.

Using this methodology, DOE would count operations and 

maintenance costs for an entire year, even if the property 

was disposed late in the fiscal year.

DOE counted the repair needs of disposed assets as 

approximately $133 million of its cost savings. 

Using this methodology to determine cost avoidance 

assumes that all of the disposed assets would have been 

fully repaired in the years that this memorandum covers. In 

reality, agencies have limited budgets to repair and maintain 

its assets and must carefully choose which assets to repair in 

a given year. Agencies often choose not to repair assets that 

are going to be disposed because they need to use their 

limited funds to repair the assets that they regularly use.

GSA GSA officials told us that as of December 31, 2011, they had 

achieved approximately $317 million (out of the agency’s 

$450 million target) and that they anticipated that the agency 

would reach the full target by the end of fiscal year 2012. 

GSA did not provide complete information on the projected 

savings that would total $450 million by the end of fiscal year 

2012. Furthermore, as part of its reported $317 million cost 

savings, GSA included $118.3 million for “Lease Transition to 

Federal Construction.” GSA reported that this is the result of 

an analysis of savings that would be accrued if buildings 

were constructed to replace four properties that are currently 

leased. The estimated savings were based on the present 

value of savings over a 30-year period. However, the GSA 

estimate represents savings for the entire 30-year period 

(i.e., over the life of the buildings) rather than only for the 3 

fiscal years specified in the presidential memorandum (fiscal 

years 2010 through 2012). Moreover, GSA has yet to occupy 

any of the four buildings, and it is unclear if their construction 

is under way. Thus, even if cost savings could be claimed for 

all 3 years reviewed for each building, the cost savings for 

these 3 years would be significantly lower than GSA reported 

saving. 

GSA counted repair needs as $55.7 million of its achieved 

cost savings and projects more than $30 million more by the 

end of fiscal year 2012.

Using this methodology to determine cost avoidance 

assumes that all of the disposed assets would have been 

fully repaired in the years that this memorandum covers. In 

reality, agencies have limited budgets to repair and maintain 

their assets and must carefully choose which assets to repair 

in a given year. Agencies often choose not to repair assets 

that are going to be disposed because they need to use their 

limited funds to repair the assets that they regularly use.

Interior Interior officials stated that they had saved $78 million in 

operations and maintenance costs from disposed properties 

as of September 30, 2011. 

In March 2012, Interior officials told us that they had not 

subtracted the disposal costs or taken into consideration 

replacement costs of the disposed assets. Once these costs 

were considered, Interior officials stated that their net savings 

were only $8.3 million. 
 

Page 33 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

Agency Cost savings projections Identified problems

Interior officials stated that although they will fall short of the 

original projections related to the operations and 

maintenance costs of disposed properties, they will still 

achieve their disposal target through higher-than-expected 

innovations savings (more than $40 million higher than they 

had previously projected).

Interior counted $4.2 million of innovations savings from 

capital investment projects the department had canceled. 

Interior plans to count the funds that would have been spent 

on these projects as cost savings toward the presidential 

memorandum targets even though Interior used these funds 

for other projects. In addition, Interior counted $20.1 million in 

savings toward the presidential memorandum based on 

volunteer work (Interior valued volunteer hours at $21.86 per 

volunteer hour). This volunteer work is a normal part of 

Interior’s business and does not reflect any new initiative as a 

result of the memorandum. Furthermore, Interior reported 

more than $20 million in innovations savings from eliminated 

operations and maintenance costs from disposed or 

transferred assets. Interior used FRPP annual operating cost 

data to estimate this savings. On the basis of our findings in 

this report, we believe that using FRPP data to project cost 

savings is questionable. 

VA In February 2012, we reported that VA assumed that it would 

achieve savings of nearly $14 million through a reduction in 

leased space in fiscal year 2012 by increasing the number of 

employees who telework frequently.a

VA did not account for the time necessary to implement this 

initiative—that is, the time it would take the department to 

increase the number of employees who telework frequently, 

put in place office-sharing arrangements, and subsequently 

reduce the amount of leased space. 

 

We reported that as of January 2012, VA officials said that 

they had not reduced the amount of space it leases and does 

not expect to achieve the space reductions necessary to 

achieve estimated savings in this area until the end of fiscal 

year 2012.b

This would result in lower savings than VA estimated. 

 

VA officials told us that other estimated cost savings related 

to excess and underutilized property management will not 

occur before the end of fiscal year 2012. 

VA was not able to demolish or mothball many of the 

buildings it identified as vacant or underutilized, as it had 

planned, particularly larger buildings.c

 

VA expects that it will make up these missed targets through 

higher-than-expected savings from energy and sustainability 

initiatives that affect all VA property.

While these savings could be considerable, they would 

encompass more than $60 million of VA’s $80 million savings 

target, which means that very little of VA’s cost savings 

associated with the memorandum would relate to addressing 

excess and underutilized property.

USDA As of September 2011, USDA officials estimated that they 

would receive more than $40 million of actual cost savings 

(out of the agency’s $300 million target) from proceeds from 

the sale of assets in fiscal years 2010 and 2011.

USDA based this figure on estimates using PRV. As discussed 

previously, the PRV is not the market value of these assets, nor 

is it the sales price of the asset. USDA officials found that these 

sales actually totaled approximately $5.6 million and they had to 

adjust their estimates accordingly. 

USDA officials stated that they counted operations and 

maintenance savings for a full year regardless of when in the 

fiscal year the savings were realized. USDA officials stated 

that it is difficult to project the date of when a lease will close 

and savings will begin, but they acknowledged that USDA’s 

estimated savings assumed that all closures occurred in 

quarter one of the fiscal year.

Using this methodology, USDA would count operations and 

maintenance costs for an entire year, even if the lease was 

closed late in the fiscal year.

Source: GAO analysis of agency information. 

a

GAO, VA Health Care: Methodology for Estimating and Process for Tracking Savings Need 

Improvement, GAO-12-305 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 27, 2012). b

GAO-12-305. 

c

The VA Handbook defines mothballing as abandoning a building but maintaining a minimal level of 

heating and cooling. This also includes blocking entryways, avoiding vandalism, and ensuring 

building integrity. See VA, Managing Underutilized Real Property, Including Disposal, Handbook 7633

(Washington D.C.: Apr. 18, 2006).
 

Page 34 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

OMB staff has not provided information to support projected cost 

savings if CPRA is enacted. In addition to the expected savings 

resulting from the June 2010 presidential memorandum, OMB staff 

reported that CPRA—the legislation the administration has proposed to 

address real property management obstacles—will result in $4.1 billion in 

savings within 10 years following enactment from sales proceeds as well 

as unspecified savings from operating costs and efficiencies. However, 

the CPRA projections may not reflect true cost savings. OMB staff did not 

provide a methodology, calculations, or any other basis for its stated 

projections. Furthermore, CBO concluded that CPRA would probably not 

result in a significant increase in proceeds from the sale of federal

properties over the next 10 years.44 CBO noted that the Department of 

Defense holds about one-third of the excess properties. CPRA would 

have no effect on these properties, because the proposal only applies to 

civilian agencies. Furthermore, CBO estimated that implementing CPRA 

would cost $420 million over the 2012 through 2016 period to prepare 

properties for sale or transfer. The President’s fiscal year 2013 budget 

requested $17 million to implement CPRA (if it is enacted) and $40 million 

to establish an Asset Proceeds and Space Management Fund to facilitate 

the disposal process intended to reimburse agencies for some necessary 

costs associated with disposing of property. This amount is far short of 

the $420 million that CBO projected would be needed to prepare 

properties for sale or transfer within a 4-year period.45

Despite problems with data collection and national cost savings goals, we 

found that agencies have taken steps to address excess and 

underutilized properties in their portfolios. For example, all five agencies 

we reviewed have taken steps to use property more efficiently, as follows:

 

44Letter from Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director, Congressional Budget Office, to Darrell E. 

Issa, Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House of 

Representatives, responding to Chairman Issa’s request for the Congressional Budget 

Office to analyze the President’s legislative proposal to expedite the disposal of federal 

civilian real property, June 27, 2011. 

45While CBO questioned the proceeds that would be obtained through property sales, 

CBO did report in its analysis that CPRA could result in additional properties being 

disposed of in other ways that would reduce the need for future appropriated funds to 

maintain them.

Federal Agencies Have 

Made Progress but Still 

Face Long-standing 

Challenges
 

Page 35 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

• Identifying underutilized assets to meet space needs. VA officials told 

us that they implemented a process to identify vacant and 

underutilized assets that they could use to meet space needs. In 

addition, VA officials stated that the department is planning to reuse 

currently utilized assets that will be available in the future. VA officials

added that they have identified 36 sites that include 208 buildings and 

more than 600 acres that they can use to provide more than 4,100 

units of homeless and other veteran housing.

• Consolidating offices among and within agencies. USDA and Interior 

signed a memorandum of understanding in November 2006 that 

allows the agencies to colocate certain operations and use their 

buildings more efficiently. The memorandum of understanding 

enables the agencies to share equipment and space. In addition, 

USDA closed laboratories at four locations and consolidated 

operations with existing USDA sites. In its National Capital Region, 

USDA has consolidated five separate leased locations, totaling 

363,482 square feet, into one location at Patriot’s Plaza in 

Washington, D.C. USDA reported that the consolidation into Patriot’s 

Plaza will result in annual rent savings of about $5.6 million. DOE 

officials also stated that the department encourages offices to 

consolidate operations when it is cost effective to do so. The 

department also increased the use of an office building at the 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory from 22 percent to 100 

percent by changing its use from office space to a building that 

houses computers. Furthermore, VA consolidated its medical center 

campuses in Cleveland, Ohio, and engaged a number of private 

partners directly to reuse the unneeded sites, using its Enhanced Use 

Lease authority.46

• Reducing employee work space. To use space more efficiently, 

Interior reduced new space utilization per employee from 200 usable 

square feet per person to 180 usable square feet per person. This 

action decreased total new space by 10 percent in all areas including 

employee work space and conference space.

 

46We have work under way that examines how some civilian agencies, as one tool to 

enhance use of federal real property, are using their authority to enter into Enhanced Use 

Leases—long-term agreements with nonfederal entities for the use of excess or 

underutilized federal property in exchange for cash or other considerations.
 

Page 36 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

• Using operations and maintenance charges to reduce operating costs 

and encourage efficient use of space. DOE officials reported that 

several sites servicing multiple programs or performing work for 

others have developed a space charge system whereby a site 

charges tenants for the operations and maintenance of the square

footage they occupy on a square foot basis. This charge defrays 

operations and maintenance costs associated with the site and 

encourages tenants to minimize their own space use.

• Transferring unneeded property to other entities. Interior officials have 

disposed of excess properties by transferring them to other 

organizations to use. For example, Interior officials reported that the 

department donated a freezer building and a laboratory building at the 

Woods Hole Science Center in Falmouth, Massachusetts to the 

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. The department also 

transferred buildings and land at a Corbin, Virginia site to the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

• Creating alternate uses for unused assets. GSA found an alternate 

use for 400,000 square feet of a concrete slab that remained after 

demolishing an excess building. When needed, GSA leases the slab 

to the Federal Emergency Management Agency as outdoor storage 

space for electric generators and other heavy equipment and as a 

staging area for equipment during responses to disasters (see fig. 10).
 

Page 37 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

Figure 10: Alternate Use of a Concrete Slab by GSA

• Using telework and hoteling work arrangements.47

Progress notwithstanding, agencies still face many of the same longstanding challenges we have described since we first designated real 

property management as a high-risk area. 

All five agencies 

we reviewed require or allow employees to use alternate work 

arrangements such as teleworking or hoteling, when feasible, to more 

efficiently use space. For example, GSA instituted a pilot hoteling 

project at the Public Building Service headquarters in Washington, 

D.C., to reduce needed space.

Agency disposal costs can outweigh the financial benefits of 

property disposal. USDA officials reported that the costs of disposing of 

real property can outweigh savings that result from building demolition 

 

47Hoteling is a work arrangement in which employees work in multiple sites and use 

nondedicated, nonpermanent work spaces assigned for use by reservation on an as 

needed basis thus reducing needed space.
 

Page 38 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

and that limited budgetary resources create a disincentive to property 

disposal. USDA determined that the total annual cost of maintaining 

1,864 assets with annual operating costs less than $5,000 was $3 million.

Conversely, USDA concluded that the disposal costs for these assets 

equals or exceeds their annual operating cost of $3 million. Thus, 

disposal of the assets would not result in immediate cost savings, and 

USDA has not demolished the assets. In addition, Interior officials 

reported that numerous National Park Service buildings acquired during 

the planning for a Delaware River dam that was never built are excess, as 

are many cabins and houses along the Appalachian Trail. Because 

Interior is not spending any operations and maintenance on these assets, 

disposing of them would not provide savings to the department. As a 

result, Interior has made a business decision to only fund a small 

percentage of these disposals at the Delaware River dam site.

Legal requirements—such as those related to preserving historical 

properties and the environment—can make the property disposal 

process lengthy according to agency officials. Meeting requirements 

associated with historical properties can delay or prevent disposal of 

excess buildings.48 The National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, 

requires agencies to manage historic properties under their control and 

jurisdiction and to consider the effects of their actions on historic

preservation.49

 

48We have work under way that examines these challenges in more detail. 

For example, VA officials reported that they are unable to 

dispose of a 15,200-square-foot building at Menlo Park, California that 

has been used as both a residence and a research building during its 83-

year history. The building has been scheduled for demolition since 2001, 

but VA cannot demolish it because of a historical designation. In addition, 

in 2010, Interior canceled the disposal of a 95-square-foot stone property

that we visited because it was found eligible for historic designation. The 

property is in poor condition and has not been used for many years, but 

Interior officials told us that they are now planning to stabilize and restore 

the structure (see fig. 11).

4916 U.S.C. §§ 470f, 470h-2.
 

Page 39 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

Figure 11: Interior Property No Longer Slated for Demolition because of Historic 

Designation Challenges

Environmental requirements can also complicate disposal. Under the 

National Environmental Policy Act, as amended, agencies are required to 

consider the environmental impact of their decisions to dispose of 

property;50 landholding agencies are responsible for supervising 

decontamination of excess and surplus real property that has been 

contaminated with hazardous materials of any sort.51

 

50Pub. L. No. 91-190, 83 Stat. 852 (Jan. 1, 1970), codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. 

§§ 4321-4347 (2011).

However, required 

environmental assessments and remediation of unneeded property can 

be expensive and time consuming. For example, DOE officials reported 

that most of the agency’s excess buildings will be costly to demolish 

because of radiological contamination. DOE is responsible for 

5141 C.F.R. § 102-75.955.
 

Page 40 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

remediation of contaminated nuclear weapons manufacturing and testing 

sites that include thousands of excess buildings contaminated with 

radiological or chemical waste. DOE officials reported that because their 

decontamination and disposal funds are limited, they might not be able to 

dispose of these buildings for many years (see fig. 12).

Figure 12: Vacant DOE Property with Radiological Contamination

GSA officials reported that environmental contamination of properties is a 

significant challenge to their property disposal efforts. For example, 

environmental contamination has delayed disposal of a GSA site, that we 

visited, until at least 2015. This 435 acre site is a former Department of 

Defense storage site that includes abandoned warehouses, steel sheds, 

and concrete pier foundations, among other structures. The site is 

contaminated with low level radioactivity and unexploded munitions. GSA 

officials told us that they are working with state officials and the Department 

of Defense to identify the contamination at the site and plan remedial 

actions (see fig. 13).
 

Page 41 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

Figure 13: Abandoned and Contaminated GSA Property

Stakeholder interests can conflict with property disposal or reuse 

plans. VA officials reported that they have been unable to dispose of 

buildings in part because local interests are opposed to the department’s 

disposal plans. In 2006, VA announced a decision to pursue an enhanced 

use lease on approximately 30 acres of the 56.5 acre St. Albans, New 

York campus. Under the terms of the lease, a private partner would 

construct a nursing home and domiciliary and outpatient clinic buildings 

with all needed equipment and furnishings in exchange for development 

rights to the remaining acreage at the site. In 2010, VA selected a 

developer to operate and maintain state-of-the-art buildings and leased 

land for the duration of the lease. However, VA officials reported that 

because of opposition to their plans from local organizations, they 

canceled the disposal and lease plans for the site. GSA officials also 

reported that local stakeholder interests have delayed conveyance of a 

federal building in Portland, Oregon. The Department of Education plans 

to use the building for educational activities beneficial to the community.

However, the officials received a request from the city of Portland that 

certain offices that were already located in the building remain in 

downtown Portland. GSA is attempting to find suitable space for these 

offices in downtown Portland so that it can convey the building to the 

Department of Education.

Locations of some federal properties can make property disposal 

and reuse difficult. DOE officials reported that they demolish most 

excess buildings rather than sell or reuse them, because the department 
 

Page 42 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

must locate buildings in remote areas that include acreage that can serve 

as security and environmental buffer zones for nuclear-related activities.

Likewise, Interior officials reported that most of their buildings are located 

on public domain lands, lands held in trust, or in remote or inaccessible 

areas. Furthermore, VA officials reported that most of their buildings are 

located on medical center campuses. All three agencies reported that 

because excess buildings located on federal land are not easily 

accessible or cannot be sold to nongovernment entities, sales or 

conveyances of these buildings can be prevented. Interior officials 

reported that the department spends significant resources to eliminate the 

nongovernment ownership of parcels of land within the boundaries of 

public domain lands, so selling properties on the land, even if it were 

legal, would contradict the goal of the department. Often, the only option 

they have is to remove buildings or structures, which in many cases, are 

cost prohibitive. For example, Interior officials reported that many former 

privately owned fishing camps and recreation sites at Voyageurs National 

Park in Minnesota are in remote locations that make their removal difficult 

and cost prohibitive.

Nine years after we designated the issue of managing federal real 

property as high-risk, and numerous efforts to address it, the federal 

government still faces many of the same long-standing challenges. We 

previously reported that complex interagency and intergovernmental 

efforts can benefit from developing a national strategy; however, a 

comprehensive national strategy has not been developed to address the 

excess and underutilized property problem.52

 

52GAO, Biosurveillance: Efforts to Develop a National Biosurveillance Capability Need a 

National Strategy and a Designated Leader, 

Given the complexities of 

issues related to excess and underutilized federal real property 

management, unsuccessful implementation of cost savings efforts across 

administrations, and the issues that still remain with data reporting, we 

believe that a national strategy could provide a clear path forward to help 

federal agencies manage excess and underutilized property in the long

term. A national strategy can guide federal agencies and other 

stakeholders to systematically identify risks, resources needed to address 

those risks, and investment priorities when managing federal portfolios.

Without a national strategy, the federal government may be ill-equipped 

to sustain efforts to better manage excess and underutilized property.

GAO-10-645 (Washington, D.C.: 

June 30, 2010).

A National Strategy Could 

Guide Improvement 

Efforts 
 

Page 43 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

In 2004, we identified a set of six desirable characteristics to aid 

responsible parties in developing and implementing national strategies to 

guide senior policy decision makers and to better ensure accountability.53

Table 5: Desirable Characteristics for a National Strategy, from Conception to 

Implementation

Table 5 provides a summary of these six characteristics.

Desirable characteristic Description

Purpose, scope, and methodology Addresses why the strategy was produced, the 

scope of its coverage, and the process by which it 

was developed

Problem definition and risk 

assessment

Addresses the particular national problems the 

strategy is directed toward

Goals, subordinate objectives, 

activities, and performance 

measures

Addresses what the strategy is trying to achieve 

and steps to achieve those results, as well as the 

priorities, milestones, and performance measures 

to gauge results

Resources, investments, and risk 

management

Addresses what the strategy will cost, the sources 

and types of resources and investments needed, 

and where resources and investments should be 

targeted based on balancing risk reductions with 

costs

Organizational roles, 

responsibilities, and coordination

Addresses who will be implementing the strategy, 

what their roles will be compared with those of

others, and mechanisms for them to coordinate 

their efforts

Integration and implementation Addresses how a national strategy relates to other 

strategies’ goals, objectives, and activities, and to 

subordinate levels of government and their plans 

to implement the strategy

Source: GAO analysis.

Such a national strategy could help the federal government make 

progress on managing excess and underutilized properties in the 

following ways, among others:

• Defining the scope of the coverage of national efforts to deal with 

properties managed by federal agencies could help keep efforts 

focused on issues that lend to governmentwide efforts, as opposed to 

those that are better left to each agency to manage. 

 

53See GAO, Combating Terrorism: Evaluation of Selected Characteristics in National 

Strategies Related to Terrorism, GAO-04-408T (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 3, 2004).
 

Page 44 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

• Defining the problem and assessing the risks could help ensure that 

agencies are prioritizing their efforts to manage excess and 

underutilized properties in the most efficient manner.

• Clearly addressing what a strategy for managing federal properties is 

meant to achieve could help FRPC develop effective performance 

measures and evaluate whether current performance measures and 

data elements are necessary for meeting nationwide performance 

goals. 

• Addressing the cost, sources, and type of resources and investments 

needed could help FRPC measure the costs of collecting data and 

ensuring that it is commensurate with the benefits received from the 

collected data.

• Clearly outlining roles and developing an effective mechanism for 

coordination can ensure that effective collaboration is taking place 

between FRPC and federal agencies, particularly when new data 

collection requirements are implemented.

• Addressing how the national strategy relates to agencies’ individual 

goals and management strategies can ensure that the national 

strategy provides the guidance agencies need to better manage their 

portfolios.

The federal government has made some progress in managing real 

property since it was first added to our high-risk series. The FRPC 

created the FRPP database to track federal property and the federal 

agencies we reviewed have taken some actions to address excess and 

underutilized property. Even with long-standing efforts to improve the 

management of excess and underutilized properties and save costs, 

federal agencies continue to face many of the same challenges that we 

have reported for over a decade. The problems still facing the federal 

government in this area highlight the need for a long-term, 

comprehensive national strategy to bring continuity to efforts to improve 

how the federal government manages its excess and underutilized real 

property and improve accountability for these efforts. Such a strategy 

could lay the framework for addressing the issue of inconsistent and 

inaccurate data on excess and underutilized federal properties. We 

continue to believe that consistent and accurate data on federal real 

property are necessary for the federal government to effectively manage 

real property. While the 2004 executive order charged the Administrator 

Conclusions 
 

Page 45 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

of GSA, in consultation with FRPC, to develop the data reporting 

standards for the FRPP database, the current standards have allowed 

agencies to submit data that are inconsistent and therefore not useful as 

a measure for comparing performance inside and outside the federal 

government. Also, the current definitions of certain data elements could 

perpetuate confusion on the nature of federal government properties. For 

example, the FRPP data element, PRV, is commonly referred to as an 

asset’s “value,” which can cause decision makers to make assumptions 

about the worth of the asset even though the PRV cannot be accurately 

used in this way. Moreover, many agencies do not have the resources to 

collect data at the asset level, and the information that is reported in order 

to meet requirements for asset-level data is likely conveying an 

inaccurate picture of excess and underutilized property. Furthermore, 

federal government agencies have vastly different uses for properties, 

and it may be challenging to collect certain kinds of property management 

data using a single database. This makes it difficult for decision makers to 

understand the scope of the problem and assess potential cost savings 

and revenue generation. Now that FRPC has had several years of 

experience with these data, it is in a better position to refine data 

collection requirements by identifying data that are suitable for 

comparison in a nationwide database. Following sound data collection 

practices could help FRPC to thoroughly evaluate and retool the FRPP so 

that it collects and provides data that are consistent and accurate to 

decision makers, even if this means collecting less data in the short term.

GSA is uniquely positioned to lead this effort because of its charge to 

develop FRPP data reporting standards.

We are making two recommendations, one to the Director of OMB and 

one to the Administrator of GSA.

We recommend that the Director of OMB require the OMB Deputy 

Director for Management, as chair of FRPC, in collaboration and 

consultation with FRPC member agencies, to develop and publish a 

national strategy for managing federal excess and underutilized real 

property that includes, but is not limited to, the following characteristics:

• a statement of purpose, scope, and methodology;

• problem definition and risk assessment;

• goals, subordinate objectives, activities, and performance measures, 

including the milestones and time frames for achieving objectives;

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
 

Page 46 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

• resources, investments, and risk management;

• organizational roles, responsibilities, and coordination; and

• integration and implementation plans.

We recommend that the Administrator of GSA, in collaboration and 

consultation with FRPC member agencies, develop and implement a plan 

to improve the FRPP, consistent with sound data collection practices, so 

that the data collected are sufficiently complete, accurate, and consistent. 

This plan should include, but not be limited to the following areas:

• ensuring that all data collection requirements are clearly defined and 

that data reported to the database are consistent from agency to 

agency;

• designating performance measures that are linked to clear 

performance goals and that are consistent with the requirements in 

the 2004 executive order (or seeking changes to the requirements in 

this order as necessary);

• collaborating effectively with the federal agencies that provide the 

data when determining data collection requirements and limiting the 

number of measures collected to those deemed essential, taking into 

account the cost and effort involved in collecting the data when 

determining data collection requirements; and

• developing reports on the data that are collected.

We provided a draft of this report to OMB, GSA, VA, USDA, DOE, and 

Interior for review and comment. OMB did not directly state whether it 

agreed or disagreed with our recommendations. OMB agreed that 

challenges remain in the management of the federal government's excess 

and underutilized properties; however, OMB raised concerns with some 

of the phrasing in our report and offered further context and clarification 

regarding the administration’s overall efforts on real property reform. 

OMB’s comments are contained in appendix III, along with our response. 

GSA agreed with our recommendation to improve the FRPP and 

described actions its officials are taking to implement it. GSA also 

partially agreed with our findings and offered some clarifications. GSA’s 

comments are contained in appendix IV along with our response. VA 

generally agreed with the overall message of our report, but disagreed 

Agency Comments

and our Evaluation
 

Page 47 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

with how we presented certain issues. VA’s comments are contained in 

appendix V along with our response. USDA provided clarifying comments 

which we incorporated, where appropriate. USDA’s comments are 

contained in appendix VI. DOE provided technical clarifications, which 

we incorporated where appropriate, but did not include as an appendix. 

Interior did not provide comments. 

OMB stated that, because our conclusion regarding the accuracy of 

FRPP data is based on our sample of 26 site visits, further study is 

needed to determine whether the problems we found are systemic. 

However, as discussed in the report, our findings are primarily based on 

the issues we identified with FRPC’s data collection practices, which are 

the basis of the entire FRPP data collection process and are thus 

systemic. The 26 sites that we visited complement those findings and 

illustrate how poor data collection practices affect data submissions;

however, they are not the only basis for our findings. Furthermore, OMB 

stated that the administration has a strategy for improving the 

management of federal real property that serves as an important 

foundation for the national strategy we recommend in this report. While 

the initiatives OMB described may represent individual, positive steps, we 

do not believe that they fully reflect the key characteristics of a cohesive 

national strategy. A national strategy would improve the likelihood that 

current initiatives to improve real property management will be sustained 

across future administrations. A more detailed discussion of our views on 

OMB’s comments can be found in appendix III. 

GSA stated that our report correctly identifies many of the problems that 

hampered effective FRPP data collection in 2011. According to GSA, it 

has taken specific actions to begin addressing our recommendation, 

including modifying FRPC guidance to the agencies to clarify report 

definitions and proposing reforms of the collection process to FRPC 

consistent with our recommendation. GSA also offered a few 

clarifications on our findings. GSA stated that it was unclear whether the 

examples of inconsistencies we discuss in our report are systemic. As 

noted, our findings are primarily based on the problems we found with the 

overall data collection process. Thus, our recommendation to GSA 

involves adopting sound data collection practices. In addition, GSA 

stated that, because FRPP data is reported annually, property utilization 

and condition may change from the time that information is submitted. 

However, we took steps, including discussing the history of each property 

with local property managers, to ensure that any inconsistencies we 

found were not due to changes between the time data was reported and 
 

Page 48 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

the time we visited the building. These steps and a more detailed 

discussion of our views on GSA’s comments can be found in appendix IV.

VA generally agreed with our findings and provided additional information 

on VA’s federal real property portfolio, their methods of reporting real 

property data, and efforts the department is taking to address its excess 

and underutilized properties. However, VA disagreed with some of our 

statements related, for example, to property utilization. A more detailed 

discussion of our views on VA’s comments can be found in appendix V. 

In addition, USDA provided comments and clarifications which we 

incorporated, where appropriate. For example, USDA clarified its 

previous statement regarding utilization reporting to emphasize that 

component agencies are directed to follow FRPC guidance, but 

acknowledged that this guidance was inconsistent. USDA also clarified a 

previous statement regarding problems faced by the agency when 

reporting FRPP data in 2011. USDA’s comments can be found in 

appendix VI.

We are sending copies of this report to the Director of OMB; the 

Administrator of GSA; and the Secretaries of Energy, Interior, Veterans 

Affairs, and Agriculture. Additional copies will be sent to interested 

congressional committees. We will also make copies available to others 

upon request, and the report is available at no charge on the GAO 

website at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at 

(202) 512-5731 or wised@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix VII. 

Sincerely yours,

David Wise

Director

Physical Infrastructure Issues
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 49 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

Our objectives were to determine to what extent (1) the Federal Real 

Property Profile (FRPP) database consistently and accurately describes 

the nature, use, and extent of excess and underutilized federal real 

property, and (2) progress is being made toward more effectively 

managing excess and underutilized federal real property. We identified 

five civilian real property-holding agencies for our review: the General 

Services Administration (GSA); the Departments of Energy (DOE), the 

Interior (Interior), and Veterans Affairs (VA); and the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA). We chose GSA, DOE, Interior, and VA because 

these were the four largest agencies in terms of total building square 

footage of all civilian real property agencies that are required to submit 

data under the executive order.1 On the basis of the data available, these 

five agencies report approximately two-thirds of the building square 

footage reported by civilian agencies. We did not consider agencies in the 

Department of Defense because we previously reported on the 

department’s excess facilities.2 We added USDA to our list of selected 

agencies because USDA reported more excess properties than any other 

civilian agency in 2009.3

To determine to what extent the FRPP database described the nature, 

use, and extent of excess and underutilized federal real property, we 

obtained and analyzed FRPP data submissions and other real property 

data from the five selected agencies; interviewed real property officers at 

these agencies; visited sites where the agencies had reported excess or 

underutilized properties; interviewed Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) staff; and reviewed FRPC guidance and other documents related 

to the agencies’ real property data and the FRPP database. We obtained 

the agencies’ FRPP data submissions for fiscal years 2008 through 2010. 

According to our conversations with agency officials, FRPP submissions 

 

1

Based on the square footage reported by GSA in 2009. See GSA Office of 

Governmentwide Policy, FY 2009 Federal Real Property Statistics at 

http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/102880, last accessed March 2, 2012. At the time of 

selection, the 2010 statistical report had not been released.

2

GAO-11-814. 

3

In May 2011, the administration posted an interactive map of excess federal properties 

on its website. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/fiscal/excess-property-map, last 

accessed February 27, 2012. OMB told us that this map was created from the list of 

excess properties submitted to the FRPP database in 2009. The data from this map 

showed that USDA has greater than 2000 more properties than the civilian agency with 

the next highest number.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 50 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

can only be changed by the agency submitting the data. As a result, we 

believe that the FRPP submissions obtained from the agencies match the 

data contained in the FRPP database and are sufficiently reliable for the 

purpose of evaluating the consistency and accuracy of the FRPP 

database. In addition, for select data elements, we obtained real property 

data from the source databases that each agency uses to generate its 

annual FRPP submissions. We obtained source system data to get the 

actual percentage of utilization of each property as of the date when 

these data were extracted and provided to us in September or October of 

2011. For the years of our FRPP data review (fiscal years 2008 through 

2010), agencies were only required to report utilization using four 

categories: overutilized, utilized, underutilized, or not utilized. However, 

the FRPP guidance stated that agencies should maintain the actual 

percentage of utilization in their own systems for audit purposes.4

We posed questions to senior real property officers at the five agencies 

about the collecting and reporting of real property data. To gather detailed 

examples of excess and underutilized properties and to learn about the 

processes by which data on such properties are collected and submitted 

to the FRPP database, we visited sites where the five agencies had 

reported excess or underutilized properties. We selected these sites 

using information from the agencies’ FRPP submissions. To narrow our 

scope, we chose only federally owned buildings for our visits. Using the 

most recent FRPP submissions we had at the time (fiscal year 2010), we 

selected a nonprobability sample of owned buildings for each agency that 

were listed as excess (on the status indicator data element) or 

underutilized (on the utilization data element), or both. Because VA did 

not classify any of their owned buildings as “excess,” we also selected VA 

buildings classified as “not utilized.”5

 

4

Beginning in fiscal year 2011, agencies were required to submit the actual utilization 

percentage for buildings that require a utilization submission.

Because this is a nonprobability 

sample, observations made at these site visits do not support 

generalizations about other properties described in the FRPP database or 

5

VA defined “excess” differently than the other agencies we reviewed. Unless VA was 

ready to turn a building over to GSA to be disposed, it did not list the building as excess,

and in its fiscal year 2010 submission it did not record any agency-owned buildings as 

excess. Because we still wanted to see VA properties not in use, we selected VA 

properties listed as “not utilized” (on the utilization data element) and treated these in the 

same way as properties listed as “excess” (on the status indicator data element) by the 

other four agencies.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 51 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

about the characteristics or limitations of other agencies’ real property 

data. Rather, the observations made during the site visits provided 

specific, detailed examples of issues that were described in general terms 

by agency officials regarding the way FRPP data is collected and 

reported. We focused on sites clustered around four cities: Washington, 

D.C.; Dallas, Texas; Los Angeles, California; and Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 

This strategy afforded both geographic diversity and balance among our 

selected agencies while also accommodating time and resource 

constraints. In selecting sites and buildings in and around these four 

cities, we took into account the following factors:

• We prioritized sites that had multiple excess and/or underutilized 

properties. This allowed us to see more properties in a limited amount 

of time.

• We prioritized the selection of excess and/or underutilized properties 

that fell into one of the five types of real property uses required to 

submit utilization data in 2010—offices, warehouses, hospitals, 

laboratories, and housing. However, we also selected some buildings 

classified as “other,” particularly buildings that were large or that had 

high reported values.6

• We attempted to balance the numbers of excess and underutilized 

buildings we selected. (Some buildings were classified as both excess 

and underutilized since these classifications are made in different data

elements in FRPP.)

• We attempted to visit four or five sites from each of the five different 

agencies.7

 

6

One of our site visits was a return to a property that we had visited for a 2011 testimony 

on federal real property. For that testimony, we visited properties that had been listed on 

the White House website as excess. At that time, local agency officials were puzzled as to 

why some utilized properties were listed as excess. Since we later found out that this 

information was based on the 2009 list of excess properties, we visited those properties 

again to follow up on the data submissions of those properties. 

However, most GSA sites consisted of only one building, 

so we selected more sites for GSA. In the end, we selected four sites 

from each of Interior and USDA, five from each of DOE and VA, and 

eight from GSA. In all, we selected 26 sites.

7

We did not select properties to support comparisons among agencies in the reliability of 

their data, nor do we make any such comparisons.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 52 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

Whereas we selected sites based in large part on the numbers and kinds 

of buildings they had, the exact set of buildings we visited at each site 

depended on additional factors. At some sites, there were too many 

excess and underutilized properties to see them all. In those 

circumstances, we prioritized large buildings with high reported values 

and tried to see a number of different kinds of buildings (e.g., a mix of 

offices and warehouses). At several sites, local property officials identified 

other properties with issues related to excess and underutilized property 

that we toured and analyzed.

Prior to each site visit, we analyzed the FRPP data submissions for fiscal 

years 2008 through 2010 and agencies’ source system data we obtained 

in September or October 2011, and developed questions about the data 

submissions for local property managers. During our site visits, we 

interviewed local property managers and compared what we observed at 

each building with the FRPP data for that building. When not restricted by 

security concerns, we photographed the building. In addition to questions 

about individual properties, we questioned the local officials about the 

kind of data they collect on the properties and how they collect it.

To summarize inconsistencies and inaccuracies between our 

observations at the properties we visited and the FRPP data for those 

properties, we analyzed 2008 through 2010 FRPP data for all of the 

properties. As part of this review, we checked the reported utilization, 

condition index, value, and annual operating costs for each building for all 

three years. Four analysts, working together, evaluated these data both 

for inaccuracies (cases where the data clearly misrepresented the actual 

utilization, condition, value, or annual operating costs of a property) and 

for year-to-year inconsistencies (cases where reported values showed 

large year-to-year changes that did not correspond to observable 

changes in the property and that agency officials could not explain). Each 

of the 26 sites was counted as having a problem on a given data element 

if at least one inconsistency or inaccuracy was identified for that element.8

 

8

For the purpose of our review, we defined an inconsistency as a fluctuation of 20 percent 

or greater for data reported from one year to another and for which local agency officials 

were unable to provide an explanation for such a significant change. We defined an 

inaccuracy as a data error that clearly misrepresented the actual utilization, condition, 

value, or annual operating costs of a property. 

The four analysts discussed each case and arrived at a consensus as to 

whether a problem existed in each data element for each site.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 53 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

To determine the progress being made toward more effective 

management of federal excess and underutilized real property, we asked 

the senior real property officers at each of our selected agencies to 

provide written responses to a standard list of questions. These questions 

addressed management issues related to excess and underutilized 

owned buildings, how FRPP data are reported, and progress the agency 

is making toward sales and utilization goals set by the OMB. We analyzed 

the written responses to our questions and reviewed supporting 

documentation provided by agency officials such as regulations, policies, 

and other documents. In addition to reviewing the written responses to 

our questions, we reviewed a number of our previous reports and 

pertinent reports by the Federal Real Property Council (FRPC), the 

Congressional Budget Office, and the Congressional Research Service.

We also reviewed and analyzed federal laws relating to real property for 

the major real property-holding agencies.

Because OMB chairs FRPC and has set cost savings goals related to 

federal real excess and underutilized properties, we analyzed documents 

related to these goals—including the 2004 executive order, the June 2010 

presidential memorandum on “Disposing of Unneeded Federal Real 

Estate,” and legislation proposed by the administration known as the 

Civilian Property Realignment Act (CPRA). We also interviewed 

knowledgeable OMB staff about agency-specific targets related to the 

June 2010 presidential memorandum, the methodology used to project 

potential cost savings if CPRA were to be enacted, and progress toward 

costs savings goals set by the previous administration.

We conducted this performance audit from May 2011 to June 2012 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.
Appendix II: Federal Real Property Council 

Fiscal Year 2010 Inventory Data Elements and 

Descriptions

Page 54 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

Data 

element 

number Data element name Data element definition

1 Real property type Real property type indicates the asset as land, building, or structure.

2 Real property use Real property use indicates the asset’s predominant use as land, building, or structure.

3 Legal interest The legal interest indicator is used to identify a real property asset as being owned by the 

federal government, leased to the federal government (i.e., as lessee), or otherwise managed 

by the federal government. Otherwise managed properties are (1) owned by a state or 

foreign government that has granted rights for use to the federal government using an 

arrangement other than a lease, or (2) trust entities that hold titles to assets predominantly 

used as museums, yet may receive some federal funds to cover certain operational and 

maintenance costs.

a

4 Status Status reflects the predominant physical and operational status of the asset. Buildings, 

structures, and land assets have one of the following attributes:

b

• Active. Currently assigned a mission by the reporting agency.

• Inactive. Not currently being used but may have a future need. Includes real property in 

a caretaker status (closed pending disposal; for example, facilities that are pending a 

Base Realignment and Closure action) and closed installations with no assigned current 

federal mission or function.

• Excess. Formally identified as having no further program use of the property by the 

landholding agency.

• Disposed. Required for assets that have exited the federal portfolio of assets during the 

current reporting period. 

5 Historical status Each asset owned or leased by the federal government (and those otherwise managed by 

museum trusts) has one of the following historical status attributes:

• National Historic Landmark

• National Register listed

• National Register eligible

• Noncontributing element of a National Historic Landmark or National Register listed 

district

• Evaluated, not historic

6 Reporting agency Reporting agency refers to the federal government agency reporting the property to the 

FRPC inventory database. 

7 Using organization Using organization refers to the predominant federal government agency or other nonfederal 

government entity occupying the property. 

8 Size Size refers to the size of the real property asset according to appropriate units of measure. 

The unit of measure used for the three real property types is as follows:

• For land, the unit of measure is acreage and is designated as either rural acres or urban 

acres.

• For buildings, the unit of measure is area in square feet and is designated as gross 

square feet.

• For structures, the unit of measure includes the size (or quantity) and unit of measure, 

and can include square yards, linear feet, miles, and the numbers of specific types of 

structures. 

Appendix II: Federal Real Property Council 

Fiscal Year 2010 Inventory Data Elements 

and Descriptions 
Appendix II: Federal Real Property Council 

Fiscal Year 2010 Inventory Data Elements and 

Descriptions

Page 55 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

Data 

element 

number Data element name Data element definition

9 Utilization Utilization is defined as the state of having been made use of, that is, the rate of utilization. 

The utilization rate for each of the five building predominant use categories is defined as 

follows:

• office: ratio of occupancy to current design capacity, 

• hospital: ratio of occupancy to current design capacity, 

• warehouse: ratio of gross square feet occupied to current design capacity, 

• laboratory: ratio of active units to current design capacity, and

• housing: percent of individual units that are occupied. 

10 Value Value is defined as the cost of replacing the existing constructed asset at today’s standards 

and is also known as plant replacement value (PRV) or functional replacement value.

11 Condition index Condition index is a general measure of the constructed asset’s condition at a specific point 

in time. The condition index is calculated as the ratio of repair needs to PRV. Repair needs 

are the amount necessary to ensure that a constructed asset is restored to a condition 

substantially equivalent to the originally intended and designed capacity, efficiency, or 

capability. Agencies will initially determine repair needs based on existing processes, with a 

future goal to further refine and standardize the definition. The condition index will be 

reported as a “percent condition” on a scale of zero to 100 percent. 

12 Mission dependency Mission dependency is the value an asset brings to the performance of the mission as 

determined by the governing agency:

• mission critical: without constructed asset or parcel of land, mission is compromised; 

• mission dependent, not critical: does not fit into mission critical or not mission dependent 

categories; and

• not mission dependent: mission unaffected. 

13 Annual operating costs Annual operating costs consist of the following:

• recurring maintenance and repair costs, 

• utilities, 

• cleaning and janitorial costs, and

• roads and grounds expenses

14 Main location Main location refers to the street or delivery address for the asset or the latitude and 

longitude coordinates. 

15 Real property unique 

identifier

Real property unique identifier is a code that is unique to a real property asset that will allow 

for linkages to other information systems. The real property unique identifier is assigned by 

the reporting agency and can contain up to 24 alpha-numeric digits. 

16 City The city or town associated with the reported main location in which the land, building, or 

structure is located.

17 State The state or District of Columbia associated with the reported main location in which the land, 

building, or structure is located.

18 Country The country associated with the reported main location in which the land, building, or 

structure is located.

19 County The county associated with the reported main location in which the land, building, or structure 

is located.

20 Congressional district The congressional district associated with the reported main location in which the land, 

building, or structure is located.

21 ZIP code The ZIP code associated with the reported main location in which the land, building, or 

structure is located.
Appendix II: Federal Real Property Council 

Fiscal Year 2010 Inventory Data Elements and 

Descriptions

Page 56 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

Data 

element 

number Data element name Data element definition

22 Installation/subinstallation 

identifier

Installation identifier. Land, buildings or other structures, or any combination of these. 

Examples of installations are a hydroelectric project, office building, warehouse building, 

border station, base, post, camp, or an unimproved site.

Subinstallation identifier. Part of an installation identified by a different geographic location 

code than that of the headquarters installation. An installation must be separated into 

subinstallations and reported separately when the installation is located in more than one 

state or county. However, an agency may elect to separate an installation into 

subinstallations even if the installation is not located in more than one state or county.

23 Restrictions Restrictions are limitations on the use of real property and include

• environmental restrictions (cleanup-based restrictions, etc.), 

• natural resource restrictions (endangered species, sensitive habitats, floodplains, etc.), 

• cultural resource restrictions (archeological, historic, Native American resources, except 

those excluded by Executive Order 13007, Section 304 of the National Historical 

Preservation Act, etc.), 

• developmental (improvements) restrictions, 

• reversionary clauses from deed, 

• zoning restrictions, 

• easements, 

• rights of way, 

• mineral interests, 

• water rights, 

• air rights, 

• other, 

• not applicable

24 Disposition Agencies are required to provide all assets that have exited the federal portfolio of assets 

during the reporting fiscal year. This will include, but is not limited to, sales, federal transfers, 

public benefit conveyances, demolitions, and lease terminations. Disposition data is reported 

only in the year the asset has exited the federal portfolio of assets.

Agencies are required to provide

• status, 

• reporting agency, 

• real property unique identifier, 

• disposition. 

Agencies are also required to report

• disposition method (methods include public benefit conveyance, federal transfer, sale, 

demolition, lease termination, or other), 

• disposition date, 

• disposition value (the PRV for public benefit conveyances, federal transfers, demolitions, 

and other dispositions; the sales price for sales; and the government’s cost avoidance for 

lease terminations), 

• net proceeds (the proceeds received as part of assets disposed through sales and 

termination of leases minus the disposal costs incurred by the agency), and

• recipient (the name of the federal agency or nonfederal recipient that received the 

property through public benefit conveyance or federal transfer). 
Appendix II: Federal Real Property Council 

Fiscal Year 2010 Inventory Data Elements and 

Descriptions

Page 57 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

Data 

element 

number Data element name Data element definition

25 Sustainability Sustainability is reported for building assets, is optional reporting for structures, and is not 

reported for land and reflects whether or not an asset meets the sustainability criteria set forth 

in Section 2 (f) (ii) of Executive Order 13423. To be considered sustainable and report “yes,” 

the asset must meet the five Guiding Principles for High Performance and Sustainable 

Buildings or be third-party certified as sustainable by an American National Standards 

Institute (ANSI)-accredited institution:

• Yes. Asset has been evaluated and meets guidelines set forth in Section 2 (f) (ii) of 

Executive Order 13423.

• No. Asset has been evaluated and does not meet guidelines set forth in Section 2 (f) (ii) 

of Executive Order 13423.

• Not yet evaluated. Asset has not yet been evaluated on whether or not it meets 

guidelines set forth in Section 2 (f) (ii) of Executive Order 13423.

• Not applicable. Guidelines set forth in Section 2 (f) (ii) of Executive Order 13423 do not 

apply to the asset. This includes assets that will be disposed of by the end of fiscal year 

2015 and are no longer in use. 

Source: FRPC.

a

The legal interest element includes a lease maintenance indicator and a lease authority indicator, 

which are not reported for “owned” and “otherwise managed” properties. This report focuses on 

owned properties.

b

The status element includes an outgrant indicator identifying when the rights to the property have 

been conveyed or granted to another entity. For the purposes of this report, we did not evaluate or 

analyze information for the outgrant indicator.
Appendix III: Comments from the Office of 

Management and Budget

Page 58 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

Appendix III: Comments from the Office of 

Management and Budget

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in 

the report text appear at 

the end of this appendix.

See comment 2.

See comment 1.
Appendix III: Comments from the Office of 

Management and Budget

Page 59 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

See comment 4.

See comment 3.
Appendix III: Comments from the Office of 

Management and Budget

Page 60 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

See comment 6.

See comment 5.
Appendix III: Comments from the Office of 

Management and Budget

Page 61 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

See comment 7.
Appendix III: Comments from the Office of 

Management and Budget

Page 62 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property
Appendix III: Comments from the Office of 

Management and Budget

Page 63 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

The following are GAO’s comments on the Office of Management and 

Budget letter dated May 30, 2012.

1. OMB stated that the agency agreed with the report’s general 

conclusion that challenges remain in the management of excess and 

underutilized properties, but that significant progress has been made. 

While we stated that limited progress has been made, our draft and 

final report do not describe the progress as significant. 

2. OMB stated that the agency is concerned with some phrasing in the 

report that may lead the reader to draw unintended conclusions 

regarding the appropriate next steps for improving the accuracy and 

consistency of the FRPP. OMB stated that based on its 

understanding of our report, our findings are based on the 26 site 

visits we conducted and further study is needed to determine whether 

the issues we found with the consistency and accuracy of FRPP data 

are systemic. OMB also asserts that despite our use of a nonprobability sample, we make generalizations based on the sample in 

the report. As we discuss in the report and reiterated in discussions 

with OMB staff during the comment period, our findings are primarily 

based on the problems we found with FRPC’s data collection 

practices, which affect the entire data collection process. The work 

we did at 26 sample sites complement those findings and illustrate 

how poor data collection practices impact data submissions, but they 

are not the only basis for our conclusions. Furthermore, in its 

comments, OMB acknowledged that “it has been standard practice for 

each agency to measure certain data elements, such as utilization, 

through agency-specific means tailored to the agency’s individual 

needs and circumstances.” Therefore, it is unlikely, as OMB asserts, 

that further study could find consistent data on properties outside of 

our sample when OMB has acknowledged that the standards 

themselves are inconsistent for reporting data. For these reasons, we 

believe our recommendation remains valid that GSA, in consultation 

with FRPC, should first address the problems with data collection 

practices, which our methodology and findings showed were in fact 

systemic. In response to OMB’s comment, we clarified the report to 

emphasize the basis for our findings.

3. OMB commented that this report conflicts with previous testimonies 

and our 2011 update to GAO’s high-risk series which described prior 

improvements. This report acknowledges such prior progress but 

provides a more in-depth review of multiple agencies’ data collection 

practices than prior work. Furthermore, as our report describes, in 

GAO Comments
Appendix III: Comments from the Office of 

Management and Budget

Page 64 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

December 2011, changes were made to the data collection 

requirements which led to further concerns by agencies about data 

accuracy. Our report findings are also consistent with a September 

2011 GAO report that discussed the Department of Defense’s FRPP 

data.1

4. We believe that our first recommendation—that OMB develop a 

national strategy—would assist in addressing the tension OMB 

describes between providing agencies with the flexibility to define data 

elements based on their agency-specific requirements and 

establishing governmentwide data elements that can be used to 

support aggregate analysis across the entire FRPP database. We will 

continue to engage OMB on the topic of real property management 

and we believe that this report outlines the next steps. As we 

recommend in this report, a critical step is for OMB to develop a 

national strategy for managing excess and underutilized properties. 

In the area of data collection, a national strategy could help identify 

management priorities for problems such as this and lay out the 

principles for weighing the cost of uniform data collection to the 

agencies with the benefit that would be obtained by aggregate 

analysis of uniform data. As we stated in the report, if certain data 

elements cannot be collected consistently, they may not be 

appropriate to include in a database that appears to be standard 

across the government. 

 In that report we found that the Department of Defense’s 

reported FRPP utilization data consisted of multiple discrepancies 

between the reported utilization designations and actual building 

utilization, along with other FRPP submission inaccuracies. Therefore, 

this report is consistent with our prior conclusions that some progress 

has been made since 2003, which we have discussed in multiple 

GAO reports and testimonies. However, the report on the Department 

of Defense’s data and this report demonstrated significant problems in 

the data collection process. 

5. We agree with OMB’s statement that the method of attributing cost 

savings to efforts made to improve property management could be 

further clarified so that the public has a clear understanding of how 

such savings are calculated. We believe that transparency and 

accountability are critical in the federal government’s service to the 

taxpayers and would support action taken by OMB to increase 

 

1

GAO-11-814. 
Appendix III: Comments from the Office of 

Management and Budget

Page 65 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

transparency in this regard. We did not make a specific 

recommendation regarding how cost savings, particularly cost savings 

associated with the June 2010 presidential memorandum, should be 

clarified. Our report assessed real property management issues 

related to excess and underutilized property and recommended a

national strategy that could be used to guide efforts such as the June 

2010 presidential memorandum. 

6. OMB stated that the report’s characterization of the administration’s 

Civilian Property Realignment Act (CPRA) proposal could benefit from 

further clarity on savings goals and further context about our recent 

support for the proposal. Regarding savings goals, OMB stated that 

the administration’s $4.1 billion estimate of the potential proceeds 

from the Act’s implementation reflects an analysis of the potential 

proceeds that would result from the entire federal real property 

inventory, not just those currently identified as “excess.” We 

acknowledged in the report that these savings, according to OMB, 

would also come from reduced operating costs and efficiencies. We 

could not, however, analyze the basis for these savings because, as 

we discussed, OMB did not provide us with a methodology, 

calculations, or any basis for its stated projections. We requested this 

information from OMB multiple times over a period of eight months, 

and were only provided with a general description of the savings, 

similar to what OMB provided in its letter commenting on this report. 

Until we can evaluate the analysis OMB references, we will be unable 

to provide a more thorough assessment. Furthermore, our views on 

the effect that CPRA could have on problems we have found in 

federal real property management have not changed: that CPRA can 

be somewhat responsive to real property management challenges 

faced by the government. For example, CPRA proposes an 

independent board that would streamline the disposal process by 

selecting properties it considers appropriate for public benefit uses. 

This streamlined process could reduce disposal time and costs.

7. OMB stated that the administration has a strategy for improving the 

management of federal real property that serves as an important 

foundation for the national strategy we recommend in this report. 

OMB stated that several significant initiatives, including the June 2010 

presidential memorandum on excess property and the 

recommendation for a civilian property realignment board, represent a 

comprehensive and carefully considered governmentwide strategy for 

addressing the government’s long-term real property challenges. 

While the efforts OMB describes represent a range of individual 

initiatives, we continue to believe that they lack the key characteristics 
Appendix III: Comments from the Office of 

Management and Budget

Page 66 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

of a cohesive national strategy. A national strategy would improve the 

likelihood that current initiatives to improve real property management 

will be sustained across future administrations. The desirable 

characteristics of a national strategy that we’ve identified—such as a 

clear purpose, scope, and methodology; problem definition and risk 

assessment; and identified resources, investments, and risk 

management—could serve to articulate a more sustained, long-term 

strategy to guide individual initiatives such as those described in 

OMB’s comments. For example, related to resources and 

investments, agencies often lack funding to prepare unneeded 

properties for disposal or to pursue demolition. A national strategy 

could address this issue directly and transparently so that the true 

costs of real property reform are evaluated more completely by 

decision makers. 
Appendix IV: Comments from the General 

Services Administration

Page 67 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

Appendix IV: Comments from the General 

Services Administration 

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in 

the report text appear at 

the end of this appendix.

See comment 2.

See comment 1.
Appendix IV: Comments from the General 

Services Administration

Page 68 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

See comment 3.
Appendix IV: Comments from the General 

Services Administration

Page 69 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property
Appendix IV: Comments from the General 

Services Administration

Page 70 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property
Appendix IV: Comments from the General 

Services Administration

Page 71 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

The following are GAO’s comments on the General Services 

Administration letter dated June 7, 2012.

1. GSA stated that it is unclear whether the examples of inconsistencies 

described in our report are systemic throughout the FRPP, or are 

occurring in specific agencies’ reporting of the data. As we discuss in 

the report, our findings are primarily based on the problems we found 

with FRPC’s data collection practices, which negatively impact the 

entire data collection process. The examples of inconsistencies and 

inaccuracies that we describe complement those findings and 

illustrate how poor data collection practices affect data submissions, 

but they are not the only basis for our conclusions. In fact, our 

recommendation to improve FRPP data collection involves the sound 

data collection practices that we believe should be put in place. GSA 

has agreed with this recommendation and has taken action to begin 

correcting the problems we identified. In response to GSA’s 

comments, we made some clarifications to the report’s discussion of 

the basis of our findings.

2. GSA stated that, because the FRPP is an annual report, property 

utilization may change from the time it is submitted in December. As 

we conducted site visits for this review, we took steps to ensure that 

any inconsistencies and inaccuracies we found were not due to a 

significant change in the building’s use from the time it was reported 

to the time we visited. First, we discussed the history of the building’s 

use with the local officials who manage the building to ensure that 

there was no recent change in the building’s utilization. Second, since 

2011 FRPP data had not been reported at the time we began our site 

visits, we obtained utilization data from the agencies’ source systems 

(which are used to produce FRPP utilization data) so that we had 

recent utilization data (as of the fall of 2011) before we began our site 

visits in December 2011.

GSA also stated that the condition of the buildings may change or 

may not be updated annually. Related to this issue, we found that all 

five agencies did not always follow the guidance provided by the 

FRPC on how to calculate condition index. This led to severely 

blighted buildings receiving excellent condition scores, which could 

not be accounted for by reported changes in condition over a 

relatively short period of time.

3. GSA made a comment related to the computation formula for 

Condition Index. We have clarified this statement in the report.

GAO Comments
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Veterans Affairs

Page 72 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Veterans Affairs

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in 

the report text appear at 

the end of this appendix.
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Veterans Affairs

Page 73 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Veterans Affairs

Page 74 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

See comment 2.

Now top of p. 24.

Now footnote 25.

Now on p. 10, first full 

paragraph.

See comment 1.
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Veterans Affairs

Page 75 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

Now near the top of p. 18.

Now near the top of p. 16.

See comment 4.

See comment 3.

Now on pages 10-11.
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Veterans Affairs

Page 76 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

Now on p. 31.

Now on p. 20.
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Veterans Affairs

Page 77 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

Now on p. 35.

Now on p. 35.

See comment 5.

Now on p. 33.
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Veterans Affairs

Page 78 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

`

Now on pages 41-42.

Now on p. 41.

Now on p. 38.

This statement is no 

longer in the report.
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Veterans Affairs

Page 79 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of Veterans 

Affairs letter dated May 29, 2012.

1. VA stated that its complex model for calculating utilization is 

consistent with FRPC guidance because the guidance allows for 

flexibility on how agencies determine a key component of utilization 

(current design capacity) and that OMB agreed with their approach. 

However, rather than exercising flexibility in its use of current design 

capacity, VA used a different definition of utilization than the definition 

outlined in FRPC guidance. FRPC guidance defines utilization as the 

ratio of occupancy to current design capacity; however, VA defines 

utilization as the ratio of ideal space to existing space.1

2. VA also stated that “identifying underutilizations is much better than 

ignoring the fact that the building may not be properly sized to deliver 

services to Veterans.” We did not suggest that VA should ignore any 

aspect of its buildings that is problematic. We continue to believe that 

VA’s method of calculating utilization has led to some buildings being 

continuously designated as underutilized even when local officials, 

who know the buildings best, have told us that the buildings have 

been fully occupied. 

While we 

acknowledge in our report that VA received OMB approval for 

reporting utilization differently, this method of reporting utilization is 

still inconsistent with the definition of utilization in FRPC guidance. 

Utilization is a performance measure and the 2004 executive order 

stated that performance measures shall be designed to allow 

comparing the agencies’ performance against industry and other 

public sector agencies. The inconsistencies we found from VA and 

other agencies in reporting utilization makes comparing utilization 

among agencies impossible. 

3. VA stated that the reasons for the inaccuracies that we found in 

utilization at two VA buildings were due to the use of these buildings 

as “swing space,” meaning that utilization changes frequently based 

on need for space. In its comments, VA indicated that since FRPP 

 

1

In calculating utilization for offices, hospitals, and warehouses, FRPC guidance directs 

agencies to determine the ratio of occupancy to “current design capacity.” For 

laboratories, utilization is the ratio of active units to current design capacity. For housing, 

utilization is the percentage of individual units that are occupied. However, VA determines 

utilization based on “ideal space.”

GAO Comments
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Veterans Affairs

Page 80 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

data are reported annually, the designation of this space at the time of 

reporting changed from the time that we visited the sites. However, 

as we conducted our site visits for this review, we took steps to 

ensure that any inconsistencies we found were not due to a significant 

change in the building’s use from the time it was reported to the time 

we visited. First, we discussed the history of the building’s use since 

2008 with the local officials who manage the building to ensure that 

there was no recent change in the building’s utilization. Second, since 

2011 FRPP data had not been reported at the time we began our site 

visits, we obtained utilization data from the agencies’ source systems 

(which are used to produce FRPP utilization data) so that we had 

recent utilization data (as of the fall of 2011). The data we obtained 

from VA were current as of October 2011 and our visit took place in 

December 2011. Based on VA’s comments, we clarified this 

information in our report to show that we accounted for the time 

between 2010 FRPP reporting and our visit in December 2011. 

Based on our visits to the buildings and our discussions about the 

history of the buildings’ use with the VA officials who manage them, 

we do not believe that VA’s explanation accounts for the 

inconsistencies we found in utilization as detailed below:

• Local VA officials who manage the buildings told us that the first 

building VA discussed in its comments is used for accounting and 

payroll purposes and that it was always fully occupied during the 

period of our review (dating back to 2008). However, the building 

was reported to the FRPP as underutilized during each of these 

years. In fact, just two months prior to our visit, VA’s October 

2011 source data showed a utilization of 45 percent for this 

building even though it was fully occupied. 

• Local VA officials who manage the second building VA discussed 

in its comments told us that the building was mostly unoccupied 

because they had recently acquired it from the Department of 

Defense and that multiple improvements had to be made before it 

could be occupied by staff. Based on this, the local officials told 

us that it could not have been utilized at 59 percent in October 

2011 as VA source data indicated. 

4. VA made a comment related to individually metered buildings. We 

clarified VA’s statement in the report so that it is consistent with these 

comments.

5. In reference to our findings on problems with cost savings associated 

with the June 2010 presidential memorandum, VA stated that it 
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Veterans Affairs

Page 81 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

disagreed with findings in a previous GAO report (GAO-12-305) that 

we referenced.2 In its comments on GAO-12-305, VA officials did not 

concur with certain parts of the report related to decreasing energy 

costs and improving non-recurring maintenance contracting. 

However, we did not reference the previous GAO report on these

matters. Rather, we referenced that report’s discussion on savings 

associated with reducing leased space through telework. VA 

confirmed the problems that the previous GAO team found with the 

savings associated with the telework program in its comments on 

GAO-12-305, stating that the “telework program is still in its infancy 

and actual real property savings requires reducing space that is 

currently leased. These reductions in leased space may not be fully 

realized in 2012.” As a result, VA stated it its comments on GAO-12-

305 that the telework initiative was removed from the description of 

savings in its fiscal year 2013 budget. This is consistent with what we 

describe in this report. Therefore, VA’s restatement of its 

disagreement with findings in GAO-12-305 has no bearing on this 

report. 

 

2

GAO-12-305. 
Appendix VI: Comments from the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture

Page 82 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

Appendix VI: Comments from the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture

See p. 48.
Appendix VI: Comments from the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture

Page 83 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

See p. 48.
Appendix VII: GAO Contact and 

Staff Acknowledgments

Page 84 GAO-12-645 Federal Real Property

David Wise, (202) 512-5731 or wised@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, David Sausville, Assistant 

Director; Amy Abramowitz; Russell Burnett; Kathleen Gilhooly; Raymond

Griffith; Amy Higgins; Amber Keyser; Michael Mgebroff; John Mingus Jr.; 

Joshua Ormond; Amy Rosewarne; Minette Richardson; Sandra Sokol; 

and Elizabeth Wood made key contributions to this report.

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(542185)
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 (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 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: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@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

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

Please Print on Recycled Paper.