U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

79–964 PDF 2013

FAILURES IN MANAGING FEDERAL REAL 

PROPERTY: BILLIONS IN LOSSES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEETH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 27, 2013 

Serial No. 113–7 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

http://www.house.gov/reform 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

DOC HASTINGS, Washington 

CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

KERRY L. BENTIVOLIO, Michigan 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

MATTHEW A. CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania 

MARK POCAN, Wisconsin 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

TONY CARDENAS, California 

STEVEN A. HORSFORD, Nevada 

MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico 

VACANCY 

LAWRENCE J. BRADY, Staff Director 

JOHN D. CUADERES, Deputy Staff Director 

ROBERT BORDEN, General Counsel 

LINDA A. GOOD, Chief Clerk 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Ranking Minority 

Member 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

MARK POCAN, Wisconsin 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on February 27, 2013 ....................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

Dorothy Robyn, Ph.D., Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, U.S. General 

Services Administration 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 6 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 9 

Mr. David Wise, Director, Physical Infrastructure Team, U.S. Government 

Accountability Office 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 16 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 18 

Mr. Leonard Gilroy, Director of Government Reform, Reason Foundation 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 33 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 35 

APPENDIX 

Statement of the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty .................. 55 

The Honorable John Mica, a Member of Congress from the State of Florida, 

Opening Statement .............................................................................................. 61 

(1) 

FAILURES IN MANAGING FEDERAL REAL 

PROPERTY: BILLIONS IN LOSSES 

Wednesday, February 27, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS, COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM, Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in Room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Mica [chairman 

of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Mica, Connolly, Cooper and Pocan. 

Also Present: Representative Norton. 

Staff Present: Robert Borden, Majority General Counsel; Molly 

Boyl, Majority Parliamentarian; Caitlin Carroll, Majority Deputy 

Press Secretary; Gwen D Luzansky, Majority Research Analyst; 

Adam P. Fromm, Majority Director of Member Services and Committee Operations; Linda Good, Majority Chief Clerk; Michael R. 

Kiko, Majority Staff Assistant; Mark D. Marin, Majority Director 

of Oversight; Scott Schmidt, Majority Deputy Director of Digital 

Strategy; Peter Warren, Majority Legislative Policy Director; Jaron 

Bourke, Minority Director of Administration; Beverly Britton Fraser, Minority Counsel; and Devon Hill, Minority Research Assistant. 

Mr. MICA. Good afternoon. I would like to call the Subcommittee 

on Government Operations to order. Pleased to have everyone join 

us in this subcommittee hearing of the Government Reform and 

Oversight Committee. 

This is our first Government Operations Subcommittee hearing. 

Delighted to have the opportunity to chair. This is my third subcommittee to chair in Government Reform and Oversight, formerly 

Government Operations Committee. I had the honor of serving as 

chairman of the Civil Service Subcommittee for four years, Criminal Justice and Drug Policy for two years, and now have an opportunity during this period. 

I think our most important responsibility during this period of 

time in the next couple of years, particularly when our Nation faces 

some challenges with finance, with financing government. Tomorrow we face sequestration and fiscal crisis that we can be in a position to examine some of the areas in which we can save taxpayer 

dollars, do a better job, and also hopefully help towards that bottom line when we are approaching a $17 trillion national deficit. 

So I am pleased to call the subcommittee hearing to order today. 

Mr. Connolly, hopefully, will be here in a few minutes. I want to 

thank the staff on both sides of the aisle for working in a cooperaVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:03 Mar 28, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\79964.TXT APRIL
2 

tive, bipartisan manner to launch our effort, and I look forward to 

continuing that effort. Exercise uncovering government waste, 

abuse, and fraud is not a partisan issue, it is something that we 

have a solemn responsibility to pursue, particularly under the charter of this important committee. 

With that being said, too, I try not to offer any surprises. I told 

Mr. Connolly, and I will recite publicly, we will do our first field 

hearing is tentatively scheduled next Friday in Miami, Florida. It 

will be at Miami Dade Community College. It will also be on the 

subject that we will cover some of today here, and that is the subject of failures in managing federal real property, billions in losses 

is the title of today’s hearing. But we will continue that with our 

hearing. 

I come here today also having chaired the transportation committee. Just for the record, began work in transportation we have 

a very limited focus over some of GSA s federal property activities 

and we began some hearings, as you may recall, both looking at 

GSA operations, the guy in the hot tub who everyone remembers 

waving at us while he was wasting extreme amounts of taxpayer 

money on expensive conferences. 

But we also uncovered federal assets that were not utilized, including looking in the Washington area at the Old Post Office, 

which I am pleased we have a plan for; it is moving forward. Instead of losing $10 million a year, it has the potential for income 

for the taxpayers. Instead of being a pit where folks don’t work and 

we pour money into it, as many as 1,000 workers will work there, 

possibly as much as a 400-room hotel. 

So we can take these assets that are costing taxpayers money 

and convert them into performing assets and reduce, again, our 

deficit spending. 

We also looked at the Cotton Building, which is between the 

interstate and the mall, a huge property, smaller building, but it 

sat idle. The power station, two acres right behind, I believe it is, 

the Ritz-Carlton in Georgetown, a vacant power plant on very valuable property sitting idle. And our hearing next week in Miami is 

a continuation of the hearing, because we did one in an empty federal courthouse, which has been vacant, I believe, since 2007. 

After we did the hearing we found out that that federal property 

sitting idle across the street from the community college, in fact, 

the community college had been seeking for some six years access 

to either rent or utilize that space; they needed additional classrooms, particularly in a judicial setting, for some of their programs, 

and it is exactly across the street. So next Friday one of our key 

witnesses will be the president of that college, and he will detail 

some of his efforts to acquire over many years an idle federal asset. 

So we are trying to pick up from where we have been and where 

we are going, we intend to go. 

Today s hearing will focus primarily—I am stalling for a minute, 

as you can tell, trying to give Mr. Connolly time to get here. But 

in today s hearing we are going to focus on high risk property 

issues that have been identified by GAO as high-risk and, unfortunately, the category of high-risk activities of the Federal Government was submitted again, I believe, last month and again, and I 

guess this is the tenth anniversary of appearing high on the highVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:03 Mar 28, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\79964.TXT APRIL
3 

risk category list, is the issue of real federal property and problems 

with management losses and risk involved there. 

So this is the tenth anniversary appearing on that list, and what 

we thought we would do is start out with reviewing some of the 

problems that have been identified, and I think the GAO has done 

a good job of identifying some of the problem areas. And we will 

review some cases to expand what we did in the capital area. We 

looked at a couple properties in the last 30 days since we acquired 

this responsibility, but we wanted to look in the neighborhood first, 

then we will look across the Country, and we looked particularly 

at two properties I will talk about in a few minutes. 

But, again, I am pleased to have Mr. Connolly as a ranking 

member and look forward to working with him. We have had a 

good starting discussion and, again, I appreciate the cooperation of 

his staff and the ranking member personally in helping us launch 

this. 

So as we begin this hearing today, again, Mr. Connolly and staff, 

I have to reiterate our very basic, fundamental principles of our activity, and it is, first, that Americans have a right to know how 

their money in Washington is taken from them and how it is spent, 

and making certain that it is well spent; and, secondly, that Americans deserve an efficient, effective government that works for them. 

And I know Mr. Connolly joins me in trying to uphold those principles. 

Our duty on this committee, the Government Reform and Oversight Committee and this specific subcommittee, is to protect these 

rights of the citizens. They are out working hard, sending their 

hard-earned tax dollars to Washington. They send us here to represent them and that is what we need to do. So we have to hold 

government accountable for the taxpayers and we also have to find 

out what is going on, make that public. The public has a right to 

know what the government is doing and what they get from their 

hard-earned dollars coming here. We will work tirelessly in partnership with our citizen watchdogs to deliver the facts to the American people and bring them genuine reform to the bureaucracy. 

Now, just having this hearing or just talking about some of the 

problems gets us absolutely nowhere, so it is my hope this can be 

an action-oriented subcommittee. Work with Mr. Connolly, again, 

in a bipartisan effort to find solutions, either legislative or working 

sometimes with agencies to get things moving. 

And then let me just cover for a moment, again, the continuation 

of the work I started before and we are entering into. We picked 

up here in the Washington area. And I am not just picking on the 

Nation’s capital, Virginia, or Maryland; we will go to Florida. We 

can go anywhere in the United States and see these abuses. But 

real property management that the Federal Government has responsibility over is 77,000 buildings that have been identified as 

vacant or underutilized. Fourteen thousand of these buildings and 

structures have been declared excess property and the Federal 

Government spends $1.67 billion annually to operate and maintain 

vacant or underutilized properties. 

Here in our backyard, again, we looked at two examples and we 

have some illustrations here. Agricultural Research Center. We 

went out to that facility in Beltsville, Maryland. These photographs 

4 

on the side were taken by our staff. If you look, the Federal Drug 

Administration Building is the first building; it looks sort of 

barnish. That has its title on the door. Next to it you only see 

building 262 and 263. There is a line of these office buildings totally vacant, vines growing over them. You see some of the interior. 

This is part of a nearly 7,000 acre Department of Agricultural 

Research Services Center, covers nearly 7,000 acres. It is just an 

enormous swath of land. In fact, it is bigger than the city territory 

in my State of Key West. That is how big it is. And some of the 

most valuable real estate in the United States of America; it is part 

of the capital district. So there are over 500 buildings here, and 

over 200 of them are vacant or underutilized. In all fairness, most 

of, well, I would say more than half, probably 150, are small, outdated, some of them even shed buildings, but there are 40 buildings that are of significant size. You see these here sitting there 

idle. 

The interesting thing was I asked when they had seen a member 

of Congress, and I think it is in Mr. Hoyer s district or one of the 

Maryland members, and they said they had seen him and maybe 

a senator, but they had never seen another member of Congress, 

at least in recent memory, come there. So my concern is this asset, 

which is incredibly valuable, this valuable piece of real estate that 

could be better utilized. 

I am not trying to do away with the Agricultural Research Services, but a lot of this facility was built in the 1930s and their mission has changed. But we have no plan, we have no plan. We have 

no one looking at coming forward with utilization or maximizing 

these assets. 

Then one of the other things we found, well, actually, the GAO 

found in this high-risk report is some of the reports, we keep an 

inventory of reports of property, and they found the data and data 

quality of property was inconsistent and inaccurate. And they don’t 

collect the data. It is garbage in, garbage out. 

Here is an illustration of two properties on the list of Federal 

Real Property Profile listed in excellent condition. You see the report there? And you can see where, one, the roof is caved in and 

the other one is decrepit. In a recent GAO audit, they found inconsistencies and inaccuracies of 23 of 26 locations visited contained 

in the Federal Real Property Profile. 

So we are only touching, scratching the surface of some of the 

problems that we have. We are here to uncover that, to look at how 

we can do a better job in alleviating some of the problems in dealing with the either excess or current federal property, and then the 

data and information that we have about them. Don’t have time to 

go into visiting a million square feet in a property. I don’t know 

if that is in your district, Mr. Connolly, but the utilization of that 

space, prime real estate in the capital region that someone should 

be looking at for its maximum and best use. 

With those comments, and I will add a lot more, I am just getting started. Thank you for being late, because it gave me more 

time to mouth off here. But let me just say I appreciate—I have 

worked with Mr. Connolly before on projects important to his district and the region. I was delighted to see that he is the ranking 

member. We have had great discussions and preliminary work in 

5 

launching our effort, and I welcome him and pleased to recognize 

him at this time. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being 

here; I had three luncheon meetings all over the Capitol compound, 

and I did not eat at all three, so forgive me for being a little bit 

late. But I do want to thank you so much for holding this hearing, 

and I absolutely pledge to work with you on this subject; I think 

it is a very important subject. 

When I was chairman of Fairfax County, this was a very personal subject to me because of the disposition of the Lorton Prison 

site, federal prison. Going back to very early 1900s, historic site; 

the Suffragettes were actually imprisoned there for protesting the 

lack of vote for women, and it was at one point seen as a model 

sort of penal reform institution. 

It evolved into something quite ugly. It was about slightly under 

3,000 acres and we were able to purchase it from the Federal Government as excess property with certain pledges about what we 

would do with it. But when we got the property, we had over 300 

buildings on this one property site, to your point, Mr. Chairman, 

some of which looked like that, some of which were historic buildings that we had to preserve, we had agreed to preserve, many of 

which had asbestos that had to be abated. And, of course, if a 

building ends up looking like that, Mr. Chairman, the only choice 

is to bulldoze it; it is just too expensive to try to retrofit it and reconstruct it. 

So allowing buildings to get to that kind of decrepitude has a cost 

associated with it, and there is a public safety issue at some point 

in terms of this kind of condition of buildings. The maintenance 

alone, it is estimated, on buildings that we no longer need or use 

is over $1.7 billion a year, according to the GAO. 

There are lots of costs in all of this, and what I would like to 

work with you on, Mr. Chairman, is not only the issue of disposition, but also the relationship to local governments. I know you 

have faced this too. We want to make sure that if there is a compelling use of these properties at the local level, that they get sort 

of first right of refusal, because it is in their midst and we, as the 

Federal Government, have a responsibility in partnership to that 

community. 

So sometimes the highest, best use of a property from a pure dollars and cents point of view may not always be in sync with what 

the local government’s priorities may be, but I would never want 

to just run roughshod over the local governments. I know you and 

I talked about an example back home in Florida, where we would 

want to look at the productive use of a particular property for an 

educational institution. 

So my own experience gives me a lot of sensitivity to what you 

are trying to do here, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to working 

with you and collaborating with you as we work through these 

issues, particularly in light of sequestration and the sort of fiscal 

cloud that now hangs over all of us. It behooves all of us to look 

for every opportunity to try to make sure that the assets we do 

manage we are managing efficiently, and those that we no longer 

need and know we no longer need, instead of always mothballing 

6 

them, maybe we need to dispose of them in a productive way that 

serves the taxpayer and the local community well. 

With that, I look forward to the hearing and the testimony this 

afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MICA. Well, thank you so much. Again, we will be focusing 

today on the high-risk series, GAO s publication and, in particular, 

we are going to be looking at federal real property management, 

and we are pleased that we have three witnesses. We have members, some in a conference and some at other activities, but all 

members, with your permission, may have seven days to submit 

opening statements for the record. Without objection? 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Without objection. 

Mr. MICA. So ordered. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, I was derelict. I would 

ask, without objection, that our colleague, Eleanor Holmes Norton, 

be allowed to participate in this hearing when she arrives. 

Mr. MICA. Without objection. She would be more than welcome. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I would further ask, Mr. Chairman, consent to 

enter into the record a statement of the National Law Center on 

Homeless and Poverty on this subject. 

Mr. MICA. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the chairman. 

Mr. MICA. All statements, any statements, and lengthy statements, we try to limit you to five minutes, our witnesses, but our 

panel can submit lengthy statements. 

I don’t see Ed here, but it is customary, I think, in the past, to 

swear our witnesses in. So if you would stand and raise your right 

hand. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to 

give to this panel of Congress is the whole truth and nothing but 

the truth? 

[Witnesses respond in the affirmative.] 

Mr. MICA. Let the record reflect that the witnesses answered in 

the affirmative. Welcome. We are pleased to have three top-notch 

witnesses, and we can begin by a quick introduction. Dorothy 

Robyn is the Commissioner of Public Buildings Service at General 

Services Administration; Mr. David Wise is the Director of Physical 

Infrastructure Team at the U.S. Government Accountability Office; 

and we have Mr. Leonard Gilroy. He is the Director of Government 

Reform at the Reason Foundation. So we have three excellent witnesses, and what we are going to do, we will give you five minutes 

to sort of launch into it. 

Now, I might say that you will probably hear a bell ringing in 

a few minutes, and that will be a 15 minute warning. I am sure 

we can get through the three of you. Then we may have to come 

back and ask questions. It will be about a 30, probably a 45-minute 

delay for us to go and vote and come back, from what I understand. 

So, with that, let me recognize the Commissioner of Public Buildings, Dorothy Robyn, and welcome her. You are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF DOROTHY ROBYN, PH.D. 

Ms. ROBYN. Good morning, Chairman Mica. Thank you and 

Ranking Member Connolly. It is an honor to be here with you this 

morning. 

7 

Under new leadership, GSA has refocused on its mission of delivering the best value in real estate, acquisition, and technology service to government and the American people. In the real estate area, 

we face three key challenges: one, an aging portfolio of buildings; 

second, limited capital for reinvestment in those buildings; and, 

third, because of the first two issues, an over-reliance on leased 

space, as opposed to government-owned space. 

To meet these challenges, GSA is focusing its effort in four key 

areas: first, we are rightsizing our portfolio. We are working with 

federal agencies to improve their utilization of space and thereby 

reduce their space requirement. We do this by, among other things, 

helping agencies adopt newer, more efficient workspace arrangements and undertake proper planning for mobile work. One indication of our success is our fiscal year 2013 prospectus-level leases, 

which were reduced in size by 300,000 square feet, or about 10 percent. 

Second, we are disposing of excess GSA property. Mr. Chairman, 

I know this has been a particular interest of yours, and I appreciate the visibility you have given the issue. You will be pleased to 

know that the online auction to dispose of the Georgetown heating 

plant has been underway since late January. Although the auction 

was scheduled to end last week, we have kept it going because of 

continued bidding activity. As of a half hour ago, the high bid is 

$16.1 million. 

With our government-wide disposal authority, we have also been 

working to help other agencies dispose of unneeded assets. In fiscal 

year 2012, we disposed of 114 federal properties; of those, 79 were 

sales that yielded about close to $38 million in proceeds. 

However, as GAO has noted, there are a number of longstanding 

challenges to getting agencies to better utilize their current inventory and dispose of unneeded assets. The key ones are the up-front 

cost of property disposal, legal requirements prior to disposal, and 

stakeholder resistance. As you know, the Administration has proposed a civilian BRAC process that would address these challenges. 

I have been involved in the BRAC process since 1993, off and on; 

most recently during a three-year tenure at the Defense Department. It is a painful, but critically important, mechanism and we 

need it on the civilian side. 

I very much appreciate the effort by you and Congressman 

Denham to get a civilian BRAC bill. I would like to work with you 

to get a bill that goes even farther. 

Third, GSA is using the authorities Congress has given us to leverage private capital to deliver better and more efficient space to 

our federal customers. In early December we issued an RFI, request for information, seeking private sector input on exchanging 

the FBI’s J. Edgar Hoover Building, an outdated, but valuable, 

property on Pennsylvania Avenue, for the construction of a new, 

state-of-the-art headquarters somewhere in the national capital region. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Preferably in Northern Virginia. 

Ms. ROBYN. We are following a similar approach to capitalizing 

on our assets in Federal Triangle South, a 22-acre, five building 

area near the national mall that we think can be redeveloped so 

8 

as to better accommodate federal agency needs and, at the same 

time, support the District s vision for vibrant mixed use. 

Finally, we are working with OMB and the Federal Real Property Council to improve the Federal government’s inventory of real 

property, the Federal Real Property Profile, or FRPP. Although I 

would defend the quality of the data in the FRPP on our own property, on GSA-owned property, I recognize the broader limitations of 

the inventory. In line with GAO’s recommendations, we are working with the Federal Real Property Council to get greater consistency agency-to-agency, to clarify the data dictionary with additional detail that will help agencies better understand the data elements, and to tighten the requirements by removing optional data 

fields. 

In closing, let me comment on a statement in the report by the 

Reason Foundation that Mr. Gilroy will be discussing today. It is 

a good report, but the report says at one point that managing real 

property can be considered a mundane chore for the public servant, 

lacking the headline-grabbing issues of health care, energy policy, 

or national defense. 

I want to assure the Reason Foundation and you, Mr. Chairman, 

and you, Mr. Connolly, that GSA in no way finds the management 

of real property to be either mundane or a chore. It is why GSA 

was created. It is a mission we carry out with great passion and 

I would say with considerable skill. 

I look forward to working with you to enable us to perform that 

mission better. Thank you. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Robyn follows:] 

9 


Insert offset folio 1 here 79964.001

u.s. General Services 

Administration 

Dorothy Robyn 

Commissioner 

Public Buildings Service 

Committee on Oversight and Government 

Reform 

Subcommittee on Government Operations 

"Management of Federal Real Property" 

February 27, 2013 
10 


Insert offset folio 2 here 79964.002

Good morning Chairman Mica, Ranking Member Connolly, and members of this 

Subcommittee. My name is Dorothy Robyn, and I am the Commissioner of the U.S. 

General Services Administration's (GSA) Public Buildings Service (PBS). I am honored to 

join you here today. 

Under new leadership, GSA has refocused on its mission of delivering the best value in 

real estate, acquisition, and technology service to government and the American people. 

To meet this mission, GSA is working with agencies to improve their utilization and reduce 

their space requirements, effectively managing our assets, and pursuing innovative real 

property proposals that will increase space utilization, reduce costs, and deliver better 

space to partner Federal agencies. Additionally, as part of our efforts to serve our Federal 

partners, we are working with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the 

Federal Real Property Council (FRPC) to improve the Federal government's inventory 

system of real property, as well as assisting agencies to better utilize their inventories and 

dispose of their unneeded assets. 

These efforts are in line with the Administration's goals to promote efficiency and 

effectiveness across the government, particularly in real property management, and we 

look forward to partnering with Congress in this endeavor. 

GSA's Asset ManagementGSA is one of more than two dozen major landholding agencies in the Federal 

government. Of the more than 834,000 buildings and structures reported by agencies in 

the FY2011 Federal Real Property Profile (FRPP), GSA manages just 9,600. This number 

accounts for about 375 million of the nearly 3.3 billion square feet of space under the 

government's control, or slightly over 10 percent. 

GSA's mission is to provide space to partner Federal agencies at the best possible value, 

and we do that by assisting agencies to effectively fulfill their mission at the lowest cost 

possible. This can be done through new work-space arrangements, proper planning for 

telework, and through shared services where possible. For example, as we formulated 

GSA's prospectus-level 1 leases in Fiscal Year 2013, we worked with agencies to 

significantly reduce their space requirements. GSA and partner Federal agencies reduced 

their space needs from a current requirement of 3,489,739 rentable square feet (RSF) to 

just 3,173,783 RSF, a reduction of over 300,000 square feet. This reduction will save 

millions of dollars each year in reduced rental payments. 

J In FY 2013, prospectus level is any lease with rental payments of$2.79 million per year or more. These projects 

require submission to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and the House Transportation and 

Infrastructure Committee for approval by Committee resolution. 

Page 2 of 6 
11 


Insert offset folio 3 here 79964.003

GSA also has a robust asset management program to ensure the property that is under 

our control is fully utilized. GSA's vacancy rate in our owned and leased inventory is less 

than 4.2 percent, far below the private sector's average vacancy of 17.1 percent. Where 

we find underperforming space, we work quickly to invest in the asset and find a tenant to 

backfill. 

We also aggressively dispose of our unneeded assets. Since 2005, GSA has disposed of 

over 300 of our assets, generating proceeds of over $116 million and avoiding over $153 

million in liability costs. 

Additionally, GSA has developed new tools to dispose of our unneeded and underutilized 

properties, allowing us to leverage the equity of some of our older and inefficient buildings 

in the inventory to get new and highly efficient ones. Already we have put in motion a 

number of potential real property exchanges that can provide considerable savings to 

taxpayers. Here in the District of Columbia, GSA, in coordination with the FBI, has issued 

a Request for Information (RFI) seeking private sector input on a potential exchange of the 

Hoover building on Pennsylvania Avenue for a new Headquarters for FBI that could 

consolidate staff, improve operational efficiency, increase space utilization, and reduce 

costs. 

Through these efforts, GSA will continue to fulfill our important mission, working with 

agencies to reduce their space needs, fully utilizing our inventory, disposing of our 

unneeded properties, and finding innovative ways to reposition our underperforming 

properties. 

The Federal Real Property Portfolio -

GSA also helps the Federal government in the management of real property by helping to 

aggregate data to better understand the Federal inventory. In concert with OMB and the 

FRPC, GSA manages the Federal Real Property Profile (FRPP). The FRPP is the 

"single, comprehensive, and descriptive database of all real property under the custody 

and control of all executive branch agencies, except when otherwise required for reasons 

of national security," in accordance with Executive Order 13327. 

The diverse nature of agencies' real property portfolios requires that the data collected be 

broad and general in order to be met by all agencies government-wide. Additionally, the 

data in the FRPP is an annual report, not a living system, so the data is an annual 

snapshot taken at the end of each fiscal year. This means that it can be a useful tool for 

Page 3 of 6 
12 


Insert offset folio 4 here 79964.004

inventory, but, as GAO itself has noted, "the FRPP was not designed to be an active asset 

management system.,,2 

Importantly, each individual agency is responsible for reporting information into the FRPP. 

Since the database's creation, GSA has worked to improve it, enhancing its technological 

capability, clarifying terminology, and meeting with agencies to help them better 

understand the technology and reporting requirements. In line with GAO's 

recommendations, we are working with the FRPC to clarify the data dictionary with 

additional detail that will help agencies better understand the data fields, tightening 

reporting requirements by removing optional data fields, and revising the data elements so 

that they can support better annual performance measures. 

Administration's Real Property ImprovementsGSA's efforts to reduce costs, increase utilization, and improve the accuracy and 

transparency of the Federal government's data on real property are in line with the 

Administration's priorities and guidance. The Administration has promoted efficient 

spending across the government, and has made real property a focus. 

In June of 2010, the President issued a memorandum, "Disposing of Unneeded Federal 

Real Estate," setting a goal of achieving $3 billion in savings from civilian agencies by the 

end of Fiscal Year 2012. Detailed results on the savings achieved as a result of this 

initiative are on track to be published online next month. 

To further save money on real estate, the President proposed a bill that would usher in a 

new approach to Federal real estate, the Civilian Property Realignment Act. Building upon 

the successful model established by the Defense Base Realignment and Closure 

Commission, the President's proposal would create an independent board of experts to 

identify opportunities to consolidate, reduce, and realign the Federal civilian real estate 

footprint, as well as expedite the disposal of properties. 

This proposal would utilize bundled recommendations, a fast-track Congressional 

procedure, streamlined disposal and consolidation authorities, and a revolving fund 

replenished by sales proceeds to provide logistical and financial support to agencies in 

their disposal of high-value properties. It would be a comprehensive solution to key 

obstacles, such as red tape and competing stakeholder interests, that hinder the Federal 

Government's progress toward improving real estate management decisions. 

Most recently, Acting OMB Director Jeffrey Zients issued a May 11,2012, memorandum, 

entitled "Promoting Efficient Spending to Support Agency Operations," which stated, 

2 Strategic Partnerships and Local Coordination Could Help Agencies Belter Utilize Space. GAO-12-779. 

Washington, DC: July 25, 2012. 

Page 4 of 6 
13 


Insert offset folio 5 here 79964.005

among other things, that agencies may not increase the size of their civilian real estate 

inventory. Any increase in an agency's total square footage of civilian inventory must be 

offset through consolidation, co-location, or disposal of space. 

All of these initiatives are improving the Federal Government's management of real estate, 

ensuring that agency decisions are made in a cost-effective way, and saving taxpayers 

money. 

GSA's Role Government-WideGSA is also utilizing its government-wide leverage, in concert with OMS and the FRPC, to 

assist other landholding agencies to meet the Administration's goals with the property they 

are responsible for managing. 

As a significant Federal asset manager and the agency with government-wide disposal 

authority, GSA helped other agencies achieve the goals outlined in the President's June 

2010 Memorandum. During this effort, GSA worked with agencies to maximize the 

utilization of existing facilities and to find properties they no longer need and should 

dispose. We shared with other landholding agencies an array of strategies to support new 

ways of working, with the goal of reducing physical space, increasing space utilization, 

reducing the cost of space, and increasing its flexibility. 

With our government-wide disposal authority, GSA has been working to assist agencies in 

expeditiously disposing of their unneeded assets. GSA provides strategic direction and 

oversees the development of programs related to the utilization and disposal of Federal 

excess and surplus real property government-wide. 

GSA develops tailored disposal strategies specific to an asset's characteristics, 

environmental issues, community interests, political concerns, market conditions and other 

factors impacting the repositioning of the unneeded asset. Similarly, when preparing a 

property for public sale, GSA develops marketing plans that optimize the public offering. 

We use tools and techniques designed to reach very broad audiences and we target 

specific niche interests. 

While GSA has the expertise to successfully navigate properties through this disposal 

process, each individual landholding agency is responsible for making their own asset 

management decisions on whether that asset is excess to their needs. 

For instance, this past year, GSA sold the Charleston Naval Hospital to the City of 

Charleston, a property that the Navy reported excess to us. Not only did the Federal 

government generate $2 million in proceeds and avoid significant reinvestment costs, the 

Page 50f6 
14 


Insert offset folio 6 here 79964.006

asset will now be re-purposed to support the senior community of Charleston. The city 

intends to transform the base's old 1 O-story hospital into a facility for senior living, senior 

care and a hospice. 

As GAO has noted, there are still a number of long-standing challenges to getting 

agencies to better utilize their current inventory and dispose of unneeded assets, 

"including the high cost of property disposal, legal requirements prior to disposal, 

stakeholder resistance, and remote property locations."3 GSA is working diligently with 

agencies to overcome these hurdles, and the Administration's directives are assisting with 

those efforts. 

Conclusion -

GSA is committed to carrying out its mission of delivering the best value in real estate, 

acquisition, and technology services to government and the American people. We are 

continuing our work to aggressively manage our own assets while also pursuing innovative 

new processes to better utilize our inventory. 

Additionally, we are using our government-wide leverage, in partnership with the FRPC 

and OMB, to better serve our Federal partners by improving our data collection practices, 

assisting them with ideas for better space utilization, and disposing of their unneeded 

assets. These efforts will support the Adrninistration's ongoing initiatives to prornote 

efficient Federal spending. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear here today. I welcome any of your questions. 

3 Federal Real Property: National Strategy and Better Data Needed to Improve Management of Excess and 

Underutilized Property. GAO-12-64S. Washington, DC: June 20, 2012.U.S. 

Page 6 of 6 
15 


Insert offset folio 7 here 79964.007

Dorothy Robyn serves as the Commissioner of the Public Buildings Service (PBS) for the U.S. 

General Services Administration (GSA). 

As PBS Commissioner, Dr. Robyn leads one of the largest and most diversified public real estate 

organizations in the world. The Public Buildings Service is responsible for providing superior 

workplaces for federal customer agencies at good value for the American taxpayer. 

Dr. Robyn manages the nationwide asset management, design, construction, leasing, building 

managemcnt and disposal of approximately 375 million square feet of government-owned and 

leascd space, accommodating over I million federal workers, and covering all 50 states, six U.S. 

territories and the District of Columbia. Additionally, Dr. Robyn oversees an annual budget of 

more than $9.4 billion and a workforce of almost 6,800. 

Immediately prior to joining GSA, Dr. Robyn served as the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense 

for Installations and Environment at the Department of Defense. At DoD, she was the senior real 

property officer and provided department-wide oversight of US military bases around the world. 

These assets are valued at $850 billion and include 29 million acres of land, 300,000 buildings, 

and 2.2 billion square feet of building space. Dr. Robyn led DoD's facility energy initiative, 

which is designed to reduce the Department's $4 billion-a-year facility energy bill and improve 

the energy security of military bases that are largely dependent on the commercial electric power 

grid. She also oversaw the final implementation of the 2005 round of base realignment and 

closure (BRAC), the largest BRAC round undertaken by DoD, and she led DoD's effort to get 

additional BRAC rounds in 2013 and 2015. 

From 1993 to 2001, Dr. Robyn served as Special Assistant to the President for Economic Policy 

and a senior staff member of the White House National Economic Council. She was responsible 

for issues in transportation and infrastructure, aerospace and defense, science and technology, 

and competition policy. Before she joined the DoD in 2009, she was a principal with The Brattle 

Group, an economic consulting firm that specializes in competition and antitrust, energy and the 

environment. In the 1980s, Dr. Robyn was an assistant professor at Harvard's Kennedy School 

of Government, where she taught management and business-governmcnt policy. 

She is co-author (with William Baumol) of Toward an Evolutionary Regimefor Spectrum 

Governance: Licensing or Unrestricted Entry? (Brookings Press, 2006) and author of Braking 

the Special Interests: Trucking Deregulation and the Politics of Policy Reform (University of 

Chicago Press, 1987). 

Dr. Robyn holds a B.A. from Southern Illinois University and a Ph.D. and M.P.P. in public 

policy from the University of California at Berkeley. She is a native of St. Louis, Missouri. 
16 

Mr. MICA. Thank you for your testimony. And we will hold questions. 

I will recognize Mr. Wise next. He is Director of the Physical Infrastructure Team at GAO. Welcome, and you are recognized, sir. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID WISE 

Mr. WISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ranking Member Connolly 

and members of the subcommittee, I am really pleased to be here 

today to discuss federal real property management. The Federal 

government’s real property portfolio includes about 400,000 owned 

or leased buildings located throughout the Country. 

In 2004, the President issued Executive Order 13327 establishing 

the Federal Real Property Council. The Executive order required 

the FRPC to work with the GSA to establish and maintain a single, 

comprehensive database describing the nature, use, and extent of 

all federal real property. The FRPC created the Federal Real Property Profile to meet this requirement and began data collection in 

2005. As we have reported, despite the implementation of the Executive order, data problems have continued and agencies face challenges managing their real property. 

My statement today summarizes our recent high-risk update as 

it pertains to federal real property management and discusses challenges associated with excess and underutilized property, drawing 

on our June 2012 report. 

The Federal Government continues to face longstanding problems managing its real property, including an over-reliance on costly leasing and issues with excess and underutilized property. The 

previous and current Administrations have given high level attention to real property management. For example, in May 2011, the 

Administration proposed legislation referred to as the Civilian 

Property Realignment Act to establish a framework for consolidating and disposing of civilian real property. However, neither 

CPRA nor other real property reform legislation introduced in the 

last Congress has been enacted. 

The Federal Government’s continued reliance on costly leasing 

has been an ongoing problem. The Government leases spaces from 

private landlords in the same real estate market where it owns underutilized property. In some cases federal agencies in the same 

market could consolidate into other government-owned properties. 

However, agencies do not have a strong understanding of real property held by other agencies and may lack the authority or expertise 

to lease their own underutilized property to other federal agencies. 

We have ongoing work assessing GSA s high cost leases that we 

plan to report on later this year. 

In our June 2012 review, we found that FRPP data did not accurately describe the properties at 23 of 26 sites that we visited, often 

overstating the condition and annual operating costs. Our work focused on reviewing selected agency-reported FRPP data elements, 

including utilization, condition, annual operating costs, and value. 

We found that FRPC had also not followed sound data collection 

practices. 

For example, the FRPC has not ensured that agencies data elements are consistently defined and reported, thus limiting the usefulness of FRPP data as a decision-making tool. On our onsite visVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:03 Mar 28, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\79964.TXT APRIL
17 

its, we found that agencies often did not report building utilization 

consistently or accurately. Also, as seen on the posterboards, some 

properties we visited were listed in FRPP as being in excellent condition, even though they were clearly not. 

As for operating costs, we found data inconsistencies and inaccuracies at most sites. In some cases officials apportioned building 

operating costs according to square footage of an overall site. Regarding value, agencies often reported replacement costs higher 

than the property’s actual worth because they did not take into account market or asset conditions. Additionally, according to agency 

officials, many excess properties do not have the potential for generating revenue for the Federal Government. Indeed, we saw more 

than 80 buildings on our site visits that agencies plan to demolish 

when they have the resources to do so. 

Federal agencies reviewed have taken some actions to better 

manage their property, including consolidating offices and reducing 

employee workspace. However, they still face longstanding challenges. For example, agency disposal costs can outweigh the financial benefits in the near term. Legal requirements, such as those 

related to conveyance, preserving historical properties, and conducting environmental remediation can make the property disposal 

process lengthy and costly. Finally, stakeholder interests can conflict with property disposal or reuse plans. 

While multiple administrations have committed to improving 

real property management, their efforts have not yet fully addressed the underlying challenges that we have identified. In the 

June report, we recommended that OMB, in consultation with 

FRPC, develop a national strategy for managing federal excess and 

underutilized real property. OMB did not state whether it agreed 

or disagreed with our recommendation. 

In that report we also recommended that GSA and FRPC take 

action to improve the FRPP. GSA has taken action to begin implementing our recommendation related to FRPP. We will continue to 

monitor these agencies efforts to implement our recommendations, 

which we believe are critical to addressing the challenges that have 

kept federal real property management on our high-risk list. 

Chairman Mica, Ranking Member Connolly, and members of the 

subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be 

happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Wise follows:] 

18 


Insert offset folio 8 here 79964.008

GAO 

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 2:00 p.m., EST Wednesday, February 27, 2013 

GAO·13-422T 

United States Government Accountability Office 

Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on 

Government Operations, Committee on 

Oversight and Government Reform, 

House of Representatives 

FEDERAL REAL 

PROPERTY 

High-Risk Designation 

Remains due to Persistent 

Management Challenges 

Statement of David Wise, Director 

Physical Infrastructure 

GAO 

Accountability * Integrity * Reliability 
19 


Insert offset folio 9 here 79964.009

! GAO & Accountability * Integrlty* Aelleb/Uty 

Highlights 

Highlights ofGAO·13-422T, a testimony 

before the Subcommittee on Government 

Operations, Committee on Oversight and 

Government Refonn, U.S. House of 

Representatives 

Why GAO Did TWs Study 

The federal government has given 

high-level attention to the issue of 

real property management and has 

made some progress. This includes 

establishing FRPC--chaired by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB)-which created the FRPP 

database managed by GSA. 

However, federal real property 

management remains a high-risk 

area, in part, because of the longstanding problems the federal 

government has faced managing tls 

excess and underutilized properties. 

This statement summarizes GAO's 

2013 High Risk update as it pertains 

to real proparty management and 

elaborates on problems associated 

wah excess and underutilized 

property, drawing on a June 2012 

GAO report (GAO-12-645). In that 

report, GAO recommended that 

GSA, in consuttation wah FRPC, 

develop a plan to improve the FRPP 

and that OMB develop a national 

strategy for managing federal excess 

and underutilized real property. GSA 

agreed wilh the recommendation and 

described actions fts officials are 

taking to implement it. OMB did not 

directly state whether it agreed or 

disagreed with the recommendation. 

A full discussion of these 

recommendations and GAO's 

evaluation of them Can be found in 

the June 2012 report. 

This statement is based on previous 

GAO work where GAO analyzed 

agency data and visited 26 sites 

containing excess and underutilized 

buildings from fIVe civilian federal 

real-property-holding agencies with 

signfficant portfolios. 

View GAO·13-422T, For more information, 

contact David Wise at (202) 512-2834 or wised@gao.goy. 

'd.!l!m;*J¥'''IE 

FEDERAL REAL PROPERTY 

High-Risk Designation Remains due to Persistent 

Management Challenges 

What GAO Fouud 

The federal government faces long-slanding problems in managing real property, 

including an overreliance on leasing, and excess and underutilized property. 

Related to leasing, the government owns and leases about 400,000 buildings 

located throughout the country and often leases private space in the same areas 

where it owns underutilized property. This practice is inefficient, resulting in 

millions of dollars of additional costs to federal agencies. Further, agencies often 

do not have a strong underslanding of the real property held by other agencies 

and may lack the authority or expertise to lease their own underutilized property 

to other federal agencies. 

The federal government continues to face persistent challenges related to its real 

property data. GAO examined Federal Real Property Profile (FRPP) data, which 

is managed by the General Services Administration (GSA), and identified 

inconsistencies and inaccuracies, at 23 of the 26 locations visited in 2011 and 

2012, related to the reported utilization, condition, annual operating costs, and 

value of buildings. These findings raised concern that the FRPP is not a useful 

tool for describing the nature, use, and extent of excess and underutilized federal 

real property. These inconsistencies may arise in part because the Federal Real 

Property Council (FRPC) has not followed sound data collection practices. For 

example, the FRPC has not ensured that the data elements used by federal 

agencies are conSistently defined and reported. As a result, the FRPC cannot 

ensure that FRPP data are sufficiently consistent and accurate to use as a 

decision-making tool for managing federal real property. 

The previous and current administrations have sought to generate cost savings 

associated with improving management of excess and underutHized property, 

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

others are unclear. It is important to note that the five federal agencies that GAO 

reviewed have taken some actions to dispose of and better manage these 

properties, including using excess and underutilized property to meet space 

needs, consolidating offices to use space efficiently, and reducing employee 

workspace to use space more efficiently. However, the agencies stH! face 

challenges managing these properties. For example, property disposal costs can 

outweigh the financial benefits of property disposal. Additionally, legal 

reqUirements-such as those related to preserving historical properties and the 

environment-can make the property disposal process lengthy, according to 

agency officials. Finally, the interests of multiple-and often competingstakeholder interests may not align with the most efficient use of government 

resources and complicate real property decisions. For example, GSA officials 

reported that local stakeholder interests have delayed conveyance of a federal 

building in Portland, Oregon. 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. 

_____________ United States Government Accountability Office 
20 


Insert offset folio 10 here 79964.010

United States Government Accountability Office 

Wasbington, DC 20548 

Chairman Mica, Ranking Member Connolly, and Members of the 

Subcommittee: 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss federal real property 

management, with an emphasis on challenges associated with managing 

excess and underutilized real property. The federal government's real 

property portfolio includes about 400,000 buildings located throughout the 

country that are owned and leased by federal agencies. In 2004, the 

President issued an executive order establishing the Federal Real 

Property Council (FRPC).' The executive order required the FRPC to 

work with the General Services Administration (GSA) to establish and 

maintain a single, comprehensive database describing the nature, use, 

and eldent of all real property under the custody and control of executive 

branch agencies. 2 The FRPC created the Federal Real Property Profile 

(FRPP) to meet this requirement and began data collection in 2005. As 

we have reported, despite the implementation of the executive order, 

nationwide data collection efforts, and various reform efforts and 

proposals, data problems have continued and agencies continue to face 

persistent challenges with managing real property. 

In 1990, we began reporting on government operations that we identified 

as "High Risk." Since then, generally coinciding with the start of each new 

Congress, we have reported on these high-risk areas and updated the 

High Risk List. My statement today summarizes our recent High Risk 

update' as it pertains to federal real property management. As part of this 

objective, my statement also elaborates on challenges associated with 

excess and underutilized property, drawing on our June 2012 report on 

this subject4 For our June 2012 report on federal excess and 

underutilized property, we analyzed Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) and GSA documents, and interviewed OMB, GSA, and other 

agency officials. We focused our review on five federal real-property1 Federa! Real Property Asset Management, Exec. Order No. 13327, 69 Fed. Reg. 5897 

(Feb. 6, 2004). 

2 Except when otherwise required for reasons of national security. 

'GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO·13-283 (Washington, D.C.: February 2013). 

4 GAO, Federal Real Properly: National Strategy and Better Data Needed to Improve 

Management of Excess and Underutilized Property, GAO~12-645 (WashIngton, D.C .. June 

20,2012) 

Page 1 GAO-13·422T 
21 


Insert offset folio 11 here 79964.011

Federal Real Property 

Management 

Continues to be High 

Risk 

holding agencies: GSA and, the departments of Energy (Energy), the 

Interior (Interior), Veterans Affairs (VA), and Agriculture (USDA). We 

selected these agencies because, on the basis of the available data at 

the time, these five agencies reported approximately two-thirds of the 

building square footage reported by civilian agencies. We obtained and 

analyzed the fiscal years 2008,2009, and 2010 FRPP submissions from 

these agencies and visited a nonprobabilily sample' of approximately 180 

buildings at 26 sites where excess or underutilized owned buildings had 

been reported by the five civilian agencies· Our representations of the 

condition and circumstances of individual properties in this statement are 

based on information in our June 2012 report; it is possible that conditions 

or circumstances may have changed since then. We conducted this work 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

More detailed information about the scope and methodology used for our 

June 2012 work can be found in that report. 

The federal government continues to face long-standing problems in 

managing its real property, including an overreliance on costly leasing 

and persistent issues with excess and underutilized property, and we 

have made a number of recommendations in this area.' The previous and 

current administrations have given high level attention to the issue of 

federal real property management. For example, in May 2011, the 

administration proposed legislation, referred to as the Civilian Property 

Realignment Act (CPRA). CPRA, among other things, would have 

established a legislative framework for consolidating and disposing of 

civilian real property. However, this and other real property reform 

legislation introduced in Congress have not been enacted. 

5 Because this is a nonprobabHity 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' rea! 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. 

6 In the case of VA, which did not categorize any of its building as "excess,~ we visited 

sites where buHdings had been reported as "not utilized" or "underuti!ized.~ 

7 The High Risk Update also highlights challenges in securing real property that federal 

agencies continue to face. For example, management and funding challenges have 

hampered the Federal Protective Service's ability to protect about 9,000 federal facilities 

managed by GSA 

Page 2 GAO~13422T 
22 


Insert offset folio 12 here 79964.012

Costly Leasing 

Excess and Underutilized 

Property 

The federal government's continued reliance on costly leasing has been 

an ongoing problem. The government often leases space from private 

landlords in the same real estate market where it owns underutilized real 

property' This practice is inefficient, resulting in millions of dollars of 

additional costs to federal agencies. From 2006 to 2011, the amount of 

space that GSA-the leasing agent for many federal agencies- leased 

from the private sector grew more than 12 percent. At the same time, 

GSA lost millions of dollars on these leased assets, even though 

agencies pay GSA rent and fees that are designed to cover costs. GSA 

has lost $200 million on leases since 2005, including $75 million in 2011 

alone. As a result, GSA has used funds generated from its owned 

inventory to offset the losses, which decreases the funds available to 

invest in GSA's owned assets. In some cases, federal agencies in the 

same market could consolidate into other government-owned properties. 

However, agencies do not have a strong understanding of real property 

held by other agencies and may lack the authority or expertise to lease 

their own underutilized property to other federal agencies. We have 

ongoing work assessing GSA's high cost leases that we plan to report 

later this year. 

I would like to elaborate on federal excess and underutilized property, 

which we highlighted in the 2013 High Risk update. In our June 2012 

review, we found that FRPP data did not accurately describe the 

properties at 23 of 26 sites that we visited, often overstating the condition 

and annual operating costs. Our work focused on reviewing agencyreported FRPP data elements including utilization, condition index, annual 

operating cost, and value. 

Utilization: We found that agencies did not report building utilization 

conSistently' For example, FRPC guidance states that for offices, 

hospitals, and warehouses, utilization is the ratio of occupancy to current 

design capacity." USDA stated that FRPC has not established 

8 See, GAO, Federal Real Property: Strategic Partnerships and Local Coordination Could 

Help Agencies Beffer Utilize Space, GAO-12-779 (Washington. D.C.: July 25. 2012). 

9 The FRPC defines utilization as "the state of having been made use of, I.e., the rate of 

utilization," 

10 For laboratories, utllization is the ratio of active units to current design capacity. For 

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

Page 3 GAO-13-422T 
23 


Insert offset folio 13 here 79964.013

government-wide 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. 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 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 

1 to view images of these two USDA buildings, 

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

3According to FRPC guidance, housing units must be 85 percent t0100 percent occupied to warrant a 

utilization score of "utWzed. H 

Condition Index: According to FRPC guidance, the condition index" 

should consider a building's repair needs. 12 However, we found that 

agencies do not always follow this guidance. We found condition-indexreporting inconsistencies and inaccuracies at 21 of 26 sites visited. For 

1l The FRPC defines condition index as "the genera! measure of the constructed asset's 

condition at a specific point in time," and it is calculated as 1 minus the ratio of repair 

needs to plant replacement value (PRV) multiplied by 100. 

12 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. GSA, Federal Real Property 

Council: 2010 Guidance for Real Property Inventory Reporting (Washington, D.C .. Oct. 

25,2010). 

Page 4 GAO-13-422T 
24 


Insert offset folio 14 here 79964.014

example, when agencies have determined that a property is not needed 

and will ultimately be disposed of, they may not repair that property, even 

though it may be in a state of significant disrepair. This allows agencies to 

use their limited funds to maintain properties that they regularly use. In 

some cases, however, agencies gave such properties high conditionindex scores despite their relatively poor conditions, resulting in condition 

index data that did not accurately reflect each property's condition as set 

forth in FRPC guidance. Figure 2 illustrates several separate buildings 

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

condition. On the basis of our work, we found problems with these 

buildings including: asbestos, mold, collapsed wails/roofs, health 

concerns, radioactivity, deterioration, and flooding. 

PageS GAO-13-422T 
25 


Insert offset folio 15 here 79964.015

Figure 2: Examples of Federal Property Reported as Being in Excellent Condition in the FRPP Oatabase 

PageS GAO·13-422T 
26 


Insert offset folio 16 here 79964.016

Annual Operating Costs: We found data inconsistencies and 

inaccuracies for annual operating costs at 19 of 26 sites that we visited. 13 

For example, we found that multiple agencies were unable to measure 

operating costs at the building level. Instead, officials apportioned costs to 

the individual buildings according to square footage. Furthermore, 

because of the difficulty in measuring operating costs, only one of 

USDA's component agencies even attempted to measure the actual 

operating costs of each individual building. We also identified instances of 

buildings with reported high annual operating costs even though all 

utilities were turned off and no maintenance was being conducted. 

Value: FRPC guidance defines value as the cost of replacing an existing 

constructed asset at today's standards, and this factor is known as the 

Plant Replacement Value (PRV). However, GSA officials cautioned us not 

to think of PRY 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. We 

found that the PRY is typically much higher than the actual worth of the 

building because the PRY does not take into account market conditions 

or the condition of the asset. Additionally, according to agency officials, 

many excess properties do not have the potential for generating revenue 

for the federal government. Indeed, we saw more than 80 buildings on 

our site visits that agencies plan to demolish when they have the 

resources to execute the demolitions. Figure 3 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. 

l:l The FRPC defines annual operating costs as "the expenses for recurring maintenance 

and repair costs, utilities, cleaning and/or janitorial costs, and roads/grounds expenses." 

Page 7 
27 


Insert offset folio 17 here 79964.017

Figure 3: Empty Buildings in Poor Condition with High Plant Replacement Values (PRVs) 

These examples of inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the key areas 

described above suggest that the FRPP database is not a useful 

decision-making tool for managing federal real property. In addition to our 

work at these sites, we found that FRPC had not followed sound data 

collection practices when collecting FRPP data. Specifically, we found, 

among other problems, issues with data consistency, collaboration, and 

reporting. For example, the FRPC has not ensured that data elements are 

consistently defined and reported, even though the 2004 Executive Order 

seeks reporting on a uniform basis. In addition, OMB, as the Chair of the 

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 

Page 8 GAO~13422T 
28 


Insert offset folio 18 here 79964.018

Underlying Management 

Challenges 

collection required, the time they are given to implement new data 

requirements, and their ability to collect data as required accurately. 

In addition to the problems we found with real property data, we also 

found that the federal government continues to face other challenges 

managing excess and underutilized properties. The previous and current 

administrations have sought ways to generate cost savings associated 

with improving management of excess and underutilized properties. 

However, some of these efforts were discontinued, and others have not 

led to proven cost savings associated with the management of these 

properties. It is important to note that the five federal agencies we 

reviewed have taken some actions to dispose of and better manage these 

properties, including using excess and underutilized property, 

consolidating offices, and reducing employee work space to use space 

more efficiently. However, the agencies still face long-standing challenges 

to managing these properties. For example, agency disposal costs can 

outweigh the financial benefits of property disposal. Legal requirementssuch as those related to preserving historical properties" and conducting 

environmental remediation-can make the property disposal process 

lengthy according to agency officials. Finally, stakeholder interests can 

conflict with property disposal or reuse plans, and the locations of some 

federal properties can make property disposal and reuse difficult. For 

example, GSA officials reported that local stakeholder interests have 

delayed conveyance of a federal building in Portland, Oregon. At the time 

of our review, the Department of Education planned 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 was 

attempting to find suitable space for these offices in downtown Portland 

so that it could convey the building to the Department of Education. 

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 

14 See, GAO, Federal Real Property: Improved Data Needed to Strategically Manage 

Historic Buildings, Address Multiple Challenges, GAO-13-35 (Washington, D,C.: 

December 11, 2012). 

PageS GAO-13422T 
29 


Insert offset folio 19 here 79964.019

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. 

Agency Corrective Actions Sustained progress is needed to address the conditions and persistent 

challenges that make the area of federal real property management High 

Risk. Multiple administrations have committed to a more strategic 

approach toward managing real property. However, their efforts have not 

yet fully addressed the underlying challenges that we have identified. 

In our June 2012 report, we recommended that OMS, in consultation with 

FRPC, develop a national strategy for managing federal excess and 

underutilized real property. OMS did not directly state whether it agreed 

or disagreed with our recommendation. Additionally, FRPP is not yet a 

useful tool for describing the nature, use, and extent of excess and 

underutilized federal real property. Accordingly, in the same report, we 

recommended that GSA and FRPC take action to improve the FRPP to 

increase federal capacity to implement and monitor corrective measures. 

GSA has taken action to begin implementing our recommendation related 

to FRPP. GSA's actions are intended to address each part of the 

recommendation, including: 

enhancements to clearly define data collection requirements, 

data quality tests and assessments to ensure data reliability, 

development of new performance measures to support governmentwide goals, and 

efforts to improve collaboration with agencies. 

We will continue to monitor these agencies' efforts to implement our 

recommendations, which we believe are critical to addressing the 

challenges that have led us to keep federal real property management on 

our High-Risk List. 

Chairman Mica, Ranking Member Connolly, and Members of the 

Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy 

to answer any questions that you may have at this time. 

Page 10 GAO-13-422T 
30 


Insert offset folio 20 here 79964.020

GAO Contacts and 

Staff 

Acknowledgements 

(542217) 

For further information regarding this testimony, please contact David 

Wise at (202) 512-2834 or wised@gao.gov. In addition, contact points for 

our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 

on the last page of this statement. Individuals who made key contributions 

to this testimony are Keith Cunningham (Assistant Director), David 

Sausville (Assistant Director), Raymond Griffith, Amy Higgins, Joshua 

Ormond, and Jade Winfree. 

Page 11 GAO~13-422T 
31 


Insert offset folio 21 here 79964.021

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 materia!, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 
32 


Insert offset folio 22 here 79964.022

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 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

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

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

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

cost is through GAO's website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select .. E-mail Updates." 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO's actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO's website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htrn. 

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

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

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

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

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

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

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

Contact: 

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnetifraudnet.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 

.. ." ~ 

Please Print on Recycled Paper. 
33 

Mr. MICA. Thank you again, and we will hold questions. 

Let s go to Mr. Leonard Gilroy. He is Director of Government Reform at the Reason Foundation. Welcome, and you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF LEONARD GILROY 

Mr. GILROY. Thank you, Chairman Mica, Ranking Member 

Connolly, members of the subcommittee. I am honored for the invitation to speak today. For the record, I am Leonard Gilroy, Director 

of Government Reform at the Reason Foundation. We are a nonprofit think tank that researches market-based policy and best 

practices for efficient and effective government. 

Managing real property can be a major challenge in government, 

with agencies often lacking their own asset monitoring and tracking systems, leading to a lack of standardization and interoperability. Without the ability to know what government agencies 

own, it becomes very difficult to manage those assets in the most 

cost-effective and efficient ways. 

In my written testimony I include a link to our 2010 Reason 

Foundation report, where we outline the case for a more robust federal real property inventory, a central geographic information systems-based record of government-owned land and assets to serve as 

a tool for improved asset management and public accountability. 

Real property inventories offer a range of benefits. They allow 

public officials to assess whether public property is being used and 

maintained in the most efficient manner possible. Inventories can 

also help assess the potential value of divesting underutilized or 

unnecessary land or assets, which can generate revenues and lower 

maintenance and operation costs over the long term. Selling or 

leasing assets to the private sector can expand the tax base and encourage economic growth. And inventories can potentially help 

lower lease and maintenance costs through space consolidation and 

more efficient utilization. 

Unfortunately, the absence of a robust real property inventory 

presents a major challenge for right-sizing the federal property 

portfolio and causes higher than necessary operating costs and 

maintenance responsibilities. 

The GAO has long noted deficiencies in federal real property 

management and, as you mentioned, has designated real property 

management as a high-risk activity since 2003, in part due to the 

unreliability and limited usefulness of current data. 

More recently, a June 2012 GAO report found that the FRPC has 

not followed sound data collection practices in designing and maintaining the Federal Real Property Profile database, suggesting that 

the database may not be an adequate or useful tool for describing 

excess and underutilized properties consistently and accurately for 

measuring performance and for decision-making in general. 

The Federal Government should take note of recent proactive 

steps at the State level to develop real property inventories. For example, in 2005, former Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue issued an 

executive order creating the State’s first State Property Officer and 

restructuring the State Property Commission to bring overlapping, 

multi-agency management of real estate into one portfolio, with a 

central manager. Governor Perdue also ordered the State’s first 

comprehensive, enterprise-wide asset inventory. As a result, the 

34 

State has sold off over $15 million worth of surplus assets, renegotiated leases at lower rates, and adopted uniform construction 

guidelines. 

Virginia also enacted a law in 2011 requiring the State’s Department of General Services to develop a comprehensive real property 

inventory and an online surplus real property database. Similarly, 

Oklahoma enacted a law in 2011 requiring the State’s Director of 

Central Services to publish a report detailing State-owned properties, including a list of the 5 percent of the most underutilized 

properties, the value of those properties, and the potential for purchase if sold. A separate bill passed in 2012 in Oklahoma would direct the proceeds from State asset sales to a new fund dedicated 

to the maintenance and repair of the State s aging buildings and 

properties, including the capitol complex. 

Considering the Nation’s ongoing economic challenges, the government should take proactive steps to maximize the value of its 

resources, ensure efficient management, and enable private sector 

economic growth through asset divestiture. Real property management is not a partisan issue, nor is it an issue of spending priorities; it is an issue of good governance and fiscal responsibility. 

In conclusion, I commend the subcommittee for considering the 

need to improve federal real property management. It would represent an important step toward bipartisan, responsible stewardship of public assets and resources, and improved transparency and 

accountability to taxpayers. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on this important 

subject, and I am happy to take any questions. 

[Prepared statement of Mr. Gilroy follows:] 

35 


Insert offset folio 23 here 79964.023

Leonard Gilroy 

Director of Government Reform 

Reason Foundation 

Testimony on "Failures in Managing Federal Real Property: Billions in Losses" 

February 27, 2013 

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

Subcommittee on Government Operations 

Mr. Chairman and rnembers of the Subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to testifY. I am 

Leonard Gilroy, Director of Governrnent Reform at the Reason Foundation, a non-profit think 

tank that researches market-based policy and best practices for cfficient and effective 

government. I am also an urban planner by training and have practical experience in geographic 

information systems (GIS) and their application to land management. 

Managing real property can often be considered a mundane chore in the public sector. Each 

government agency often has its own monitoring and tracking methods, which are often not 

compatible or interoperable with other agencies, leading to a lack of standardized reporting 

methods at agencies and departments. Without the ability to know what government agencies 

own, it becomes very difficult to manage those assets in the most cost-effective and efficient 

ways. 

In June 2010, Reason Foundation published a report ("Knowing What You Own: An Efficient 

Government How-To Guide/or Managing Federal Property Inventories," available at: 

http:lhcason.org/stuclicsLsh(j\\'[vvl}at-thc-fcdcral:govCIfH[l(:nt-QWI15) outlining the case for a 

federal real property inventory that is a central record of government-owned land and assets and 

an important component of efficient property management. In that report we assert that 

government initiatives to develop an adequate portfolio management system for publicly owned 

real estate are a sensible step towards improved asset management and public accountability and 

should be given serious consideration. 

Real property inventories offer a range of benefits: 

A comprehensive and current list ofland and assets would allow the government to 

assess whether public property is being used and maintained in the most efficient manner 

possible. 

Inventories serve as a tool to assess the potential value of divesting underutilized or 

unnecessary land or assets, which can generate revenues for government and lower 

maintenance and operations costs. 

Selling or leasing assets to the private sector can expand the tax base and encourage 

economic growth. 

Inventories can potentially help lower lease and maintenance costs through space 

consolidation and more efficient utilization. 

1 
36 


Insert offset folio 24 here 79964.024

Inventory information helps governments plan with more precision, improves efficiency 

and cost effectiveness and increases officials' ability to monitor the use of taxpayer 

money. 

Unfortunately, when it comes to knowing what it owns, the federal government is lacking. The 

absence of a robust real property inventory presents a major challengc for right-sizing the federal 

property portfolio and causes higher than necessary operating costs and maintenance 

responsibilities. 

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has long noted deficiencies in federal real 

property management. For example, a 2002 GAO report found that the international inventory of 

federal real property "contained data that were unreliable and of limited usefulness. Therefore 

decision-makers, such as Congress and the OMB, do not have access to quality data on what real 

property assets the government owns, their value, how efficiently assets are being used and what 

the overall costs are involved in preserving, protecting and investing in them." 

A January 2003 GAO report found that over 30 federal agencies control hundrcds of thousands 

of real property assets worldwide, including facilities and land, worth hundreds of billions of 

dollars. Many of these assets are no longer consistent with agencies' missions, while others are 

no longer needed and many are in a state of disrepair. Notwithstanding some recent 

improvements by the Bush and Obama administrations and real-property-holding agencies in 

their strategic managcment of real property-in part by establishing an interagency Federal Real 

Property Council (FRPC) designed to enhance real property planning processes and improve the 

reliability of federal real property data-GAO has consistently issued reports finding persisting 

problems related to unneeded property and leasing. 

Despite these and similar reports, the federal government has been slow to act. Since January 

2003, GAO has designated real property management as a "high-risk" activity. A 2011 GAO 

report noted that: "In designating federal real property management as a high-risk area, GAO 

reported that despite the magnitude and complexity of real-property-related problems, there was 

no governmentwide strategic focus on real property issues and governmentwide data were 

unreliable and outdated." In its February 2013 high-risk series update, GAO found that "[t]he 

federal government holds excess and underutilizcd property, relies extensively on costly leasing 

practices, and faces numerous challenges in securing real property." While noting some progress 

on improving federal real property management in recent years, GAO notes that "the government 

continues to lack consistent, accurate, and useful data to support decision making. [ ... ] The lack 

of reliable data is a significant challenge to identifying and reducing the government's unneeded 

and underutilized property." 

A separate 2011 GAO report found that: "The federal real property portfolio, comprising over 

900,000 buildings and structures and worth hundreds of billions of dollars, presents management 

challenges. [ ... J The federal government holds many excess and underutilized properties that 

cost billions of dollars annually to operate." The report also found that in fiscal year 2009,24 

federal agencies (including the Department of Defense) reported over 45,000 underutilizcd 

buildings that cost taxpayers $1.6 billion per year to operate. 

2 
37 


Insert offset folio 25 here 79964.025

More recently, a June 2012 GAO report found that the FRPC has not followed sound data 

collection practices in designing and maintaining the Federal Real Property Profile (FRPP) 

database, suggesting that the database may not be an adequate or useful tool for describing 

excess and underutilized properties consistently and accurately, for measuring performance, and 

for decision making in general. After reviewing approximately 180 excess and underutilized 

buildings at 26 sites across the country held by five civilian agencies, GAO found 

inconsistencies or inaccuracies at 23 of the 26 sites related to utilization, conditions, annual 

operating costs, and/or mission dependency. Though noting that all five agencies reviewed have 

taken steps to improve real property management in recent years, GAO identified problems with 

cost savings estimates related to excess and underutilized property management from all five of 

the agencies reviewed. GAO concluded that, "FRPC cannot ensure that FRPP data are 

sufficiently reliable to support sound management and decision making about excess and 

underutilized property." 

The federal government should take note of what states such as Georgia, Ohio and Virginia have 

done in the recent past. They arc taking proactive steps to develop real property inventories, 

track the property they own and analyze the information to determine what, if any, of that 

property can be divested or used more efficiently. 

Our 2010 report found that 16 states had well-functioning inventory systems, 17 states were 

developing a real property inventory, and 17 states (plus Washington D.C.) lacked an inventory. 

Some recent state level developments on real property inventories include: 

Georgia: In the early 2000s, former Governor Sonny Perdue's "Commission for a New Georgia" 

recommended that the state centralize its management of capital assets to improve efficiency, 

reduce lease costs, generate revenue through divestiture and lower the costs of capital 

construction. Most agencies handled their own space management, with little or no opportunity 

for comprehensive management. The Commission found that the state's $ 10.5 billion portfolio of 

over 11,000 facilities was losing value due to poor maintenance, emerging safety issues, and 

underutilization. 

In 2005, Governor Perdue issued an Executive Order creating the state's first State Property 

Officer and restructuring the State Property Commission to bring overlapping, multi-agency 

management of real estate into one portfolio, with a central manager. Governor Perdue also 

ordered the state's first comprehensive, enterprise-wide asset inventory. These moves led to the 

development of Georgia's first comprehensive, GIS-based inventory of government land and 

facilities, the Building, Land and Lease Inventory of Property (www.realpropertiesgeorgia.org). 

This Web-based GIS offers the ability to create maps and download information to spreadsheet 

and database software. 

According to Governor Perdue, Georgia's first State Property Officer consolidated the 

overlapping real estate responsibilities of four agencies and organized the state's property 

holdings into one management portfolio. As a result, the state has sold surplus assets (over $15 

million in FY07 and FY08 alone, according to the State Property Commission), renegotiated 

leases at lower rates and adopted uniform construction guidelines. In a 2008 article, Perdue 

wrote: "Five years ago, nobody in government could say with certainty how many buildings the 

3 
38 


Insert offset folio 26 here 79964.026

state owned. Today, anyone ean go to a public website to look up detailed records on every 

single government building, piece of land, or lease." 

Ohio: In December 2008, former Ohio Governor Ted Strickland signed a bill into law that 

increased state real property management, established a council to oversee facilities operation 

and maintenance and increased requirements on state spending transparency. This included the 

development of a searchable, Web-based list of land and assets, with a feature for citizens to 

report public property they know of that the state might have missed during inventory 

development. 

The state's initial survey found large amounts of unimproved land along state roads and 

highways. Properties designated for public office space or storage were discovered to be vacant 

and unused. Still other state-owned parcels were identified as too small or peculiarly shaped as to 

be virtually unusable for government, but had been ignored for years, precluding opportunities to 

generate potential tax revenues and economic growth through divestiture. 

Virginia: In 2011, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell signed H.B. 2003 into law, requiring the 

state's Department of General Services to develop a comprehensive real property inventory (to 

be annually updated), along with a Web-based, geospatially enabled listing of surplus real 

property. Accelerating the regular divestiture of unused or underused property was a key focus, 

and 50 percent of the net proceeds from asset lease or divestiture are directed to the State Park 

Acquisition and Development Fund under Virginia law. 

Oklahoma: Oklahoma began taking important steps toward better real property management in 

2011 with the passage of House Bill 1438 ("Oklahoma State Government Asset Reduction and 

Cost Savings Program"). The law requires the state's Director of Central Services to publish a 

report detailing state-owned properties-including a list of the 5 percent most underutilizcd 

properties, the value of those properties and the potential for purchase if sold. State polieymakers 

continued to reform the state's real property management in 2012, enacting separate legislation 

(House Bill 2262) to establish a Maintenance of State Buildings Revolving Fund to which 

proceeds from any sales of state assets will be deposited for expenditure on the maintenance and 

repair of the state's aging buildings and properties. 

The aforementioned 2010 Reason Foundation study-"Knowing What You Own: An Efficient 

Government How-To Guidefor Managing Federal Property Inventories," available at 

reason.org/studies/show/what-the-federal-government-owns-recommends 12 steps based on 

best practices in these and other states: 

Take the initiative to build an inventory 

Conduct an inventory of inventories 

Use GIS technology to map and catalogue real property data 

Centralize the management of real property data 

Standardize reporting methods for all agencies and divisions 

Put the inventory online for public access 

Manage the inventory beyond mapping 

Make the inventory continual and dynamic 

4 
39 


Insert offset folio 27 here 79964.027

Divest unneeded and underutilized land and assets 

Utilize the wide range of private sector expertise 

Build the inventory to fit prescribed policy goals 

Look beyond financial benefits 

While one piece of legislation cannot address all 12 recommendations, various pieces of 

proposed legislation in Congress-including H.R. 1620, H.R. 4233, and H.R. 1734 in the 11th 

Congress, as well as H.R. 328 and H.R. 695 in the current Congress, for example-would 

accomplish a number of these recommendations and begin an important process to maximize the 

efficiency and effectiveness of federal real property management. With regard to the 

development of a robust real property inventory, two key aspects are worth noting. First, the 

FRPP excludes the public lands of the Interior Department and U.S. Forest Service, agencies that 

have vast land holdings, particularly in the West. Additionally, the FRPP is not GIS-based; it is 

a spreadsheet, making it inadequate in terms of completeness or in maximizing utility and 

transparency to citizens. Any current or future legislation contemplated by Congress should 

address these shortcomings. 

Second, the federal government should considcr partnering with the private sector to acquire 

commcrcially available geospatial services wherever possible, rather than trying to build them 

in-house. Reason Foundation has written frequently on public-private partnerships and 

contracting techniques, including their application to surveying, mapping and other 

commercially available geospatial activities. The private sector offers a broad, diverse portfolio 

of capabilities and technologies that can support public sector endeavors, and we recommend 

that government at all levels utilize the private sector for commercial activities and avoid 

duplicating services private enterprise is already efficiently providing. 

Considering the nation's ongoing economic challenges, the government should take proactive 

steps to maximize the value of its resources, ensure efficient management and enable private 

sector economic growth through asset divestiture. Real property management is not a partisan 

issue, nor is it an issue of spending priorities. It is an issue of good governance and fiscal 

responsibility . 

In conclusion, I commend the Subcommittee for considering the many benefits of improved real 

property management. It would represent an important step toward bipartisan, responsible 

stewardship of public assets and resources and improved transparency and accountability to 

taxpayers. Thank you again for the opportunity to testifY on this important subject. 

5 
40 


Insert offset folio 28 here 79964.028

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

Witness Disclosure Requirement - "Truth in Testimony" 

Required by House Rule Xl, Clause 2(g)(5) 

1. Please list any fedeml grants or contracts (including subgrants or subcontracts) you have received since October 1. 2010. Include 

the source and amount of each grant or contract. 

NONE 

2. Please tist any entity you are testifying on behalf of and briefly describe your relationship with these entities. 

I ~ 1e:.:;r:,F-/ING- IrJ N'ly CA;f"I\CiT'{ As 't>1;U;:'-~il oF' G't'-'E'e..Nf>,e;-,\,)i 

E:.e:FOIZ-M 'fC,\"t. REASor-:.FCv>Jt>iln'o.J 1 r(\'f EM\''-C'i£R.. 

3. Please list any federal grants or contracts (including subgrants or subcontracts) received since pctober 1. 2010. by the entity(ies) 

you listed above. Include the source and amount of each grant or contract. 

f certify that the above information is tme and correct, 

Signature: 

..: ~&??-~.- ',' -" --. 

Date: 

d /J'd. IJfJI:' 
41 


Insert offset folio 29 here 79964.029

Leonard Gilroy 

Contact: 

DOB October 5, 1971 

Education 

1995 Master of Urban and Regional Planning, Virginia Tech 

Concentration: Environmental Planning and Policy 

1993 Bachelor of Liberal Arts and Sciences, Virginia Tech 

Employment 

2001- Reason Foundation, Los Angeles, California 

2007 - Director of Government Reform 

2006 - 2007 Senior Policy Analyst 

2001 - 2006 Policy Analyst 

Current bio: bttp:!Ireason.org!experts!show!leon<lLc!:gilroy 

1996 - 2001 Fernandez Plans, LLC, New Orleans, Louisiana 

Senior Planner: prepared urban planning reports, land use planning 

documents, environmental assessments, geographic information systems and 

other technical planning work under contract to various local governments in 

Louisiana. 

1994 - 1995 Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research, Virginia Tech 

Research intern: developed research projects on the geography of marketbased sulphur dioxide emissions trading under Clean Air Act Acid Rain 

Program and the economic impacts of Virginia's natural gas industries. 

1994 - 1995 Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, Virginia Tech 

Affiliations 

Graduate teaching assistant: conducted weekly student review classes in 

Advanced Research Methods course; tutored course students. 

Adjunct Scholar, Georgia Public Policy Foundation 

Senior Fellow, Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy 

Senior Fellow, Illinois Policy Institute 

Member, American Planning Association (1996-2012) 

Member, American Institute of Certified Planners (1999-2011) 
42 


Insert offset folio 30 here 79964.030

Research Publications 

Gilroy, L., Kenny, H., and Davidson, T. (2013): Better Service. Better Price. How privatization 

can streamline government, improve services, and reduce costs for Kansas taxpayers, 

Topeka, KS: Kansas Policy Institute and Reason Foundation. 

Gilroy, L., Kenny, H., and Morris, J. (2013): Parks 2.0: Operating State Parks Through PublicPrivate Partnerships, Washington D.C.: Conservation leadership Council and Reason 

Foundation. 

Gilroy, L. and Poole, R. (2012): Ten Myths and Facts on Transportation Public-Private 

Partnerships, Columbus, OH: Buckeye Institute and Reason Foundation. 

Gilroy, L. and Kenny, H. (eds.) (2012): Annual Privatization Report 2011, Los Angeles, CA: 

Reason Foundation. 

Gilroy, L., et al. (2011): Privatizing "Yel/ow Pages" Government in Pennsylvania: Private sector 

solutions for the Keystone State, Harrisburg, PA: Commonwealth Foundation and 

Reason Foundation. 

Gilroy, L. (ed.) (2011): Annual Privatization Report 2010, Los Angeles, CA: Reason Foundation. 

Gilroy, L. and Moore, A. (2011): Corrections 2.0: A Proposal to Create a Continuum of Care in 

Corrections through Public-Private Partnerships, Tallahassee, FL: Florida TaxWatch 

and Reason Foundation. 

Gilroy, L. and Moore, A. (2010): Ten Principles of Privatization, Chicago, Il: Heartland 

Institute and Reason Foundation. 

Summers, A., Gilroy, L. and Snell, L. (2010): Where Did the Money Go? An Analysis of 

Spending and Revenue in Nebraska and Surrounding States, 2002-2008, Omaha, NB: 

Platte Institute for Economic Research and Reason Foundation. 

Gilroy, L., et al. (2010): Public-Private Partnerships far Corrections in California, Sacramento, 

CA: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Foundation and Reason Foundation. 

Gilroy, L. (ed.) (2009): Annual Privatization Report 2009, los Angeles, CA: Reason Foundation. 

Ybarra, S. and Gilroy, l. (2009): The Role for Public-Private Partnerships in Modernizing and 

Expanding Nebraska's Transportation System, Omaha, NB: Platte Institute for 

Economic Research and Reason Foundation. 
43 


Insert offset folio 31 here 79964.031

Gilroy, L. (ed.) (2008): Annual Privatization Report 2008, Los Angeles, CA: Reason Foundation. 

Stokes, D., Gilroy, L., and Staley, S. (2008): Missouri's Changing Transportation Paradigm, St. 

Louis, MO: Show-Me Institute and Reason Foundation. 

Gilroy, L. (ed.) (2007): Annual Privatization Report 2007, Los Angeles, CA: Reason Foundation. 

Segal, G., et al. (2007): Streamlining San Diego: Achieving Taxpayer Savings and Government 

Reforms Through Managed Competition, San Diego, CA: Reason Foundation and San 

Diego Institute for Policy Research. 

Staley, 5. and Gilroy, L. (2007): Statewide Growth Management and Housing Affardability in 

Florida, Tallahassee, FL: James Madison Institute and Reason Foundation. 

Gilroy, L., et al. (2007): Privatizing University Housing, Los Angeles, CA: Reason Foundation. 

Gilroy, L., Summers, A., and Staley, S. (2006): Addressing California's Affordable Housing 

Shortage, Los Angeles, CA: Reason Foundation. 

Gilroy, L. (ed.) (2006): Annual Privatization Report 2006, Los Angeles, CA: Reason Foundation. 

Gilroy, L. (2006): Statewide Regulatory Takings Reform, Los Angeles, CA: Reason Foundation. 

Staley, S. and Gilroy, L. (2002): Smart Growth and Housing Affordability: Evidence from 

Statewide Planning Laws, Los Angeles, CA: Reason Foundation. 

Zipper, C. and Gilroy, L. (1998): "Sulfur Dioxide Emissions and Market Effects under the Clean 

Air Act Acid Rain Program," Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association, 

Vol. 48, pp. 829-837. http://pubs,awma.orgLg~~<lrchLloQrnaI/1998/9/zippei29f 

Zipper, C. and Gilroy, L. (1995): "Economic Impacts of Virginia's Natural Gas Industries," 

Report 95-2, Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research, Virginia Tech. 

www.energy.vt.edu/Publications/report9502,pJll 

Other Publications 

Commentary articles published in such leading publications as The Wall Street Journal, Los 

Angeles Times, New York Post, The Weekly Standard, Washington Times, Houston Chronicle, 

Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Arizona Republic, San Diego Union-Tribune, Orange County 

Register, San Francisco Examiner, Philadelphia Inquirer, Sacramento Bee and The Salt Lake 

Tribune. 
44 

Mr. MICA. Well, thank you, and we will go to questions now, and 

we will divide the time up that we have. 

First, let me start with our report author, GAO. One of the 

things that was interesting that you mentioned, I thought, was 

problems of conveyance. I know that there are certain statutory requirements that have been set up that are impediments. Have you 

given any thought or is there any recommendation to how this 

should be approached? Because, for example, if we took this Department of Agriculture property in the current disposal system, it 

is very difficult. 

We have some acts, too, that have been well-intended passed, but 

also put in impediments to dealing with disposal DOD property. I 

think you have the McKinney Act and some other things they have 

to comply with. Have you given any thought, Mr. Wise, are there 

any recommendations? We have a couple pieces of legislation that 

were crafted that really, I don’t think, solved the conveyance problems, but would you like to comment? 

Mr. WISE. Yes. Thank you for your question, Mr. Chairman. I 

don’t think that it is described as an impediment, per se. Rather, 

these are issues that are part of the entire property system. Now, 

we have recommended, as I noted in my statement, that it would 

be, we think, very helpful if OMB would develop a national strategy for trying to address federal real property. Now, OMB, by 

itself, cannot overcome all these issues, but, nevertheless, they 

could develop a game plan that would help set up a framework so 

that these can be addressed in some manner. 

You have a situation, really, where many conveyances are things 

that are for the public interest as well. You know, you could take, 

for example, a small or medium size city where a building, an old 

courthouse may be located in a downtown facility, a downtown 

area. It is a very valuable piece of property; it is something that 

maybe the city hall is too small for the city government and it is 

quite natural, and I think this process is repeated many times 

around the Country, that a city or a State government would then 

be able to consolidate some of its offices and pull back from leased 

space. In that case, it is helpful for the public good. 

Mr. MICA. What I am interested in, and I don’t know if you or 

Dr. Robyn can help us, but if you can cite any current statutes or 

impediments to conveyance, maybe supply it in the future to the 

committee, I think that would be helpful. 

I was talking to Mr. Connolly informally and we could look at the 

legislation, some of which I helped craft, that had been proposed 

but not passed, but maybe combining that, looking at how we could 

give you the tools to accomplish the job, and also the agencies. We 

go to agencies; you passed the law, we can’t do this. But I would 

be most appreciative if you could identify those and then use it in 

maybe possibly empowering OMB. 

One of the problems we have in looking at properties, and here 

again you have 7,000 acres right up the road, incredibly valuable 

property, 500 buildings. I asked is there a plan, does anyone have 

a plan in the Department of Agriculture for this property. No, they 

didn’t. Has anyone looked—well, there are impediments, asbestos. 

Well, lots of old buildings have asbestos in them. Maybe they won’t 

be used, like Mr. Connolly said, when they get to that condition, 

45 

they have to be torn down. But you still have a valuable real estate 

asset there, and redevelopment and reconstruction is nothing new, 

even within the Capitol Beltway. But we need to be able to make 

that possible. 

I know you are sort of a service agency, too, Dr. Robyn, and you 

are doing the best you can do. I don’t know if you know this, Mr. 

Connolly, with all the disruptions we had in GSA, and has been the 

building commissioner since, I guess, September, trying to pick up 

the pieces of an agency that was having problems. But I am delighted to hear, incidentally, of the online auction. Here is an asset 

that sat there for 10 years and now it has the potential for putting 

some cash in the Treasury or better utilization of that. So I thank 

you for those efforts. 

But, again, I am not sure how we approach this. If we require 

every agency, you can’t do this all, but we may need some requirement to have a plan to someone to analyze. Now, we do have a federal reporting requirement on the property, but we see how flawed 

that is. Here is two properties totally dilapidated on the Federal 

Property Report as in excellent condition. So, first, what about the 

plan, and then maybe, Mr. Wise, you could comment about how do 

you require accurate data. 

Ms. ROBYN. Well, let me speak to the disposal issue, because I 

think I am a veteran of a number of BRAC backgrounds, both in 

the Clinton White House and at DOD, and, Congressman Connolly, 

I led the Clinton Administration effort to make base reuse more 

friendly to communities. It was not friendly to communities when 

I came in Congress. 

Mr. Chairman, I don’t know what Orlando’s experience was with 

McCoy when that was closed in the mid-1970s. 

Mr. MICA. Our big one was the naval training center. 

Ms. ROBYN. Okay. All right. 

Mr. MICA. That was political. They had brand new buildings, 

some under construction, I mean, actually under construction, and 

Rostenkowski had more power than McCollum at the time, so they 

had decrepit buildings in the Great Lakes and winter conditions, 

but they got to open and we actually tore down brand new or under 

construction buildings. It was almost criminal. And Orlando could 

sustain the economic impact of losing the training center, but it 

was horrible. 

But the thing here is we have a responsibility government-wide. 

We want, for example, the Department of Agriculture, somebody 

should have a plan. But how do you do that? You can’t do it all. 

Maybe you can go on and do some spot checking and say, hey, we 

should look at plans or kick them in the butt to make them move 

forward with it, instituting a plan. But to have 7,000 acres, larger 

than the size of the city of Key West in my State, sit like that, with 

almost half the buildings decrepit, it is mind-boggling. 

Ms. ROBYN. I would argue that you need less a plan than a process, and that that process is a civilian version of BRAC. 

Mr. MICA. Okay. Well, we did some of that, and I think we will 

look at our bill. I am not sure, though, that we even required, you 

have to have someone first assess what you have and then someone 

make a damn decision as to disposal best maximum utilization of 

the property. 

46 

Mr. Wise, what do you think? Give us your opinion again on how 

you think we should approach this. 

Mr. WISE. Well, just to elaborate a little bit on what Dr. Robyn 

was getting to, the civilian BRAC process, CPRA, the bill we actually worked pretty closely with staff to help advise on that and 

comment on it, and there, by bundling properties together with a 

total up and down vote required from the Congress I think would 

have helped at least, if not eliminate it, would have helped ease the 

process of some of the steps that right now make it very difficult 

to dispose of excess federal real property. So that is one step. 

Mr. MICA. Would you object to requiring each agency to have a 

true assessment, evaluation plan, and then best utilization? 

Mr. WISE. Well, under the Executive order each agency is required to have such a plan, so presumably these are things that 

are being fed into the process. 

Mr. MICA. Maybe it needs to be done by law? 

Mr. WISE. You mean codified? 

Mr. MICA. Yes. 

Mr. WISE. That is really up to the Congress, but I think that was 

one of the bills actually was aimed at doing that. There was a different version of that bill that also never was enacted that aimed 

at that as well. But I think there is a combination, as you were 

stating earlier, a combination of both legislation, as well as administrative actions, that could help harmonize some of these issues 

and make some progress in dealing with the property issues. 

The disposal one can be very tricky because often, as you mentioned earlier in your statement, it can be very costly to dispose of 

properties due to the environmental issues. As you saw in Beltsville, I went out there also last year and I had an offline conversation with one of the engineers who was responsible for some of the 

activities going on there, and he had mentioned it had cost him almost $200,000 to knock down one of the smaller buildings there because he was dealing with three environmental authorities, between Prince George s County, the State of Maryland, and the federal; and it is a very involved process and very costly process, and 

that is a major challenge. 

Mr. MICA. We need a way to expedite that. 

I am using more of my time, but I am going to give Mr. Connolly 

as much time. 

I just want to say, in conclusion, Mr. Gilroy, thank you, and also 

giving us examples. I will look at those examples. Georgia, you 

probably know Mr. Deal who served here; Mr. McDonnell, your 

governor, was not here; Mary Phalen, Oklahoma; former member 

Kasich from Ohio. I think you cited four States that have taken initiatives. We will look at what they have done and maybe we can 

learn from them or even have them in. 

Mr. Connolly, you are recognized. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Gilroy, you said this should not be a partisan issue. I agree. 

My concern, just to interject, and I know the chairman shares this, 

as someone who spent 14 years in local government, we don’t want 

to do harm to local communities in our zeal to divest ourselves of 

properties we no longer need or want. We want to make sure that 

47 

whatever action we take is integral with the plans of that local 

community. 

For example, it may be sometimes that there is value in parking 

a piece of property and not developing it, not selling it off until 

something else is triggered in a given local community. On the 

other hand, it may be the opposite; the local community may welcome that property being developed to help jumpstart, catalyze redevelopment, or whatever it may be. So we want to make sure we 

are in sync and that we are not an outlier, because the Federal 

Government, frankly, is not subject to local zoning regulations and 

laws, and that can sometimes be problematic in terms of planning. 

I like to believe that the Lorton property here, the Lorton Prison 

property was actually a model for cooperation between the locality 

and the Federal Government, well, I will come back to this. 

Let me ask some questions. Inventory. Do we know, Ms. Robyn, 

how much property we own as the Federal Government? 

Ms. ROBYN. I know how much GSA property we own, yes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. All right, but there are lots of federal entities. 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes. Yes. We represent 10 percent of federal property. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Who is the coordinating entity, going back to the 

Chairman s question, really, for other entities? Like this property 

is a Department of Agriculture property and this is a Department 

of Interior property. So are you confident that those agencies have 

accurate inventories as well? 

Ms. ROBYN. No. No. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. No. 

Ms. ROBYN. And GSA does have a role here, another part of GSA, 

the Office of Government-wide Policy oversees the FRPP, the inventory, or sets the rules for the inventory. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. For the other agencies. So you play that coordinating role. 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes. We are still at the stage of crawling, we are not 

walking yet. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. So in the legislation that the chairman was talking about, maybe one of the elements we could have is to toughen 

up reporting requirements by the agencies to you, maybe even 

toughen up your coordinating role so we actually at least have an 

accurate picture of what do we own as a Federal Government. 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes. I mean, I think there are a number of ways to 

go at it. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Before I get to disposal and utilization, when we 

own property, when do we make the decision and how do we make 

the decision to lease space, rather than go to or develop the property we own? 

Ms. ROBYN. Well, for GSA tenant agencies, we work with them 

to establish a requirement, and we typically work with them to 

lower their requirement below what they, in terms of space, and 

then figure out is there owned space that would meet that requirement, and then we look at leased space as an alternative to that. 

It is not a first choice, but we have increasingly relied on leased 

space because it is often more desirable than owned space that we 

are not keeping up to the level of private sector space, commercial 

space. 

48 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I assume cost is a factor as well. 

Ms. ROBYN. In what sense? 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, you are taking into account the fact that 

it costs X dollars per square foot to lease a space, versus, perhaps, 

retrofitting or constructing. 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes. Yes, in that sense, very much so. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Plus, there is a location issue. 

Ms. ROBYN. Right. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Okay. Utilization. How do we determine the best 

utilization of a property? 

Ms. ROBYN. Well, utilization is a little bit subjective. I mean, 

there are criteria for how much utilization, whether a property is 

utilized, underutilized, not utilized at all. But property that is utilized we think can often be better utilized. The single most powerful thing that my organization is doing now is trying to move our 

customer agencies to collaborative open workspace, much like what 

the private sector is embracing, which allows them to meet their 

needs with less space. 

If you go into a typical federal office building, same is true for 

a commercial space, only a third of the people are there at any one 

time; they are traveling, they are engaging in mobile work. We can 

get by with less space if it is organized in the right way. And agencies tend to love it. I am a convert to it. I have no office; I have 

a workstation and four feet from my desk is my deputy’s 

workstation. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Do we have a process regularly for revisiting the 

utilization? 

Ms. ROBYN. No. I mean, many agencies reach out to us and want 

to do this, and we have an active process typically, at any one time, 

with any agency number of agencies. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. But it seems to me, if you want an action-forcing 

event, it has to be on a schedule. So every five years we review 

your property, or something. 

Ms. ROBYN. Well, we are constantly reviewing. We have an asset 

profile for every single property that we have, leased or owned, so 

we are constantly looking at that. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, leases I understand, because that is an action-forcing event. But if you own this property—— 

Ms. ROBYN. Right. No. We are kind of disposal police. We love 

to dispose of property. I don’t know why we have not reached out 

to USDA on something like that. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. But again, I think that the criteria and the review process, including subjective review, is important. I mean, the 

Secretary of State, William Seward, purchased Alaska. It was 

roundly mocked, roundly disdained. Nobody thought it was a smart 

decision to purchase Alaska from the Russians. In hindsight, we 

are awfully glad Seward’s folly took place and that we banked this 

huge piece of land that today, of course, is mineral-rich and has 

lots of other assets to it. So it depends on one’s perspective. One 

wants to have some cushion to allow one to think longer term than 

just the immediate value of land. 

But, on the other hand, there has to be some process for review 

of what we own. Now, if we had a five-year, let’s just make it a 

five-year plan, in this bill we are looking at, Mr. Chairman, then 

49 

there would be an action-forcing event. Justify this, please. Justify 

why you are still banking this land in that condition and that you 

have no plans for it. Because if that is the answer, then someone 

else will have plans for it for you. And I guess that is what I am 

getting at. I think you have to have some kind of requirement, federal family, that whoever it is who owns land, you have to have a 

mechanism for reviewing it. 

Ms. ROBYN. Well, so we have a pretty rigorous process for working with agencies to downsize their space requirement. That is not 

GSA property, that is USDA. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Don’t get parochial on me, now. 

Ms. ROBYN. Okay. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I am sure you are doing a great job, but we look 

at the whole federal government. 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes, the Federal Government. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And that is why I asked do you have a coordinating role that could be beefed up to force agencies to have to tell 

you what their plans are. 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes. I start to sound like a broken record on this 

subject, but when I was at DOD and again in my current role, I 

am part of the Federal Real Property Council, the real property officers of the largest landholding agencies, and we are the ones who 

develop the civilian BRAC legislation. Senior people in federal 

agencies realize they need to get rid of property, but they are also 

looking at impediments, including a lot of stakeholder interest. 

Just to take USDA, this is a USDA property, they have properties all over the Country because at one time, by statute, you had 

to be able to reach a USDA property on horseback within a day. 

Now farmers sit on million dollar combines and communicate on 

their laptop. But there is an enormous amount of USDA property 

that it is not underutilized, but it is like post office property; one 

has to rethink do we really need this many facilities. 

And the key to that, I think, is a process for insulating you all 

from the political difficulty of doing that on a very broad scale. I 

don’t know how else to do it on a broad scale. I think there is the 

will among senior people in these agencies to do it, but they need 

help doing it. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Yes. My own experience with BRAC, which is extensive, it is good that we have an action-forcing event that is very 

difficult to amend, it is up or down. There is some good in that. 

But that doesn’t guaranty wise decisions, and the last BRAC round 

made some very unwise decisions, depending on one’s point of view, 

about transit and about land use and the like. So, yes, we want to 

force action, but we want to make sure those are wise actions. 

Ms. ROBYN. I won’t disagree with your statement. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I have other questions, as well, but my time is 

up, and I want to give Ms. Norton an opportunity. I think the votes 

have been called, haven’t they? 

Mr. MICA. Yes, I think they are going back in, but thank you, 

Mr. Connolly. 

Also, too, we will be submitting and will leave the record open 

for a period of three weeks to submit additional questions. Without 

objection, so ordered. 

50 

By previous unanimous consent request, which was granted, recognize the gentlelady from the District, Ms. Norton, for five minutes. Welcome, and you are recognized. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am on the full 

committee, I am not on this particular subcommittee, but under 

Chairman Mica, actually, on another committee, we gave a lot of 

attention to this issue. Therefore, it is very frustrating to hear the 

piecemeal approach. 

Mr. MICA. Would the gentlelady yield? Now, you weren’t here 

when Dr. Robyn spoke. 

Ms. NORTON. No. 

Mr. MICA. But we did the hearing at the power plant. 

Ms. NORTON. At the power plant? 

Mr. MICA. Vacant for a decade, I think. And she told me that the 

current bids on the online auction are up to $16.1 million. 

Ms. NORTON. That’s the word I have, too. 

Mr. MICA. Well, just thank you for yielding, but I didn’t know if 

you had heard that. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you. Yes, indeed. It looks like even without 

a process, as you call it, the Administration, at least the GSA, with 

property it controls, has gone ahead, and I salute you for that. 

But the reason I was interested is because I was the ranking 

member when we had this discussion in the Transportation Committee and I sat through similar hearings in this committee and 

two versions of civilian BRAC went to the floor and were passed. 

I think we would have benefitted if, in the process of considering 

our bills, we had collaborated with the Senate, because the Senate 

Homeland Security Committee, it seems to me, is pretty close to us, 

particularly to the bill that came out of this committee, and I think 

that could have happened if that collaboration had gone on. 

So when I hear this talk about data or see these properties, it 

seems to me that these annual reports on federal property management issues will remain exactly as they are and have been as long 

as nobody is in charge. And the central problem is as they are and 

as they have been as long as nobody is in charge. And the essential 

problem is unless you want to keep going agency-by-agency or making you all kick up dust trying to deal agency-by-agency, as if they 

had some call on federal property, it is not their property; it happens to be property in their name that they were using for specific 

purposes. Until we get an umbrella under which to do this, we are 

not going to get anywhere. 

Would everybody at the table agree that some sort of umbrella 

unit, you can call it civilian BRAC. That is not what this committee 

called it, it simply had the GSA and OMB get to together and to 

figure it out, but they had the power to do it. Would everyone agree 

that Congress needs to put in place some umbrella unit that would 

have the statutory authority to get the data and to do the other 

tasks that you are now doing piece by piece, trying to extract agency-by-agency? Would that be useful and beneficial to deal with 

these annual property management problems? 

Ms. ROBYN. Yes, I very much would applaud that. One still needs 

an inventory, a better inventory than we have, and an ongoing 

process. 

51 

Ms. NORTON. I am saying that you are not going to get an inventory, you are not going to get anything until somebody can say here 

is a system, this is how we count. So the way you are doing inventory now, you are going to be doing inventory for a long time. People know how to count, but they will count differently unless there 

is a unit that says this is how we want you to count, this is the 

date by which we want it. So I am taking all of that and putting 

it under one umbrella; data, all of the piecemeal information that 

you are gathering, which I regard as just make work. And I don’t 

know how one can continue it. 

We had the Administration and two committees of the House on 

the same page on some kind of unit. Somebody needed, perhaps the 

Administration, to take more leadership, since the House Homeland Security Committee was not that far from us. We could have 

a bill out of here. The discussion I have sat in on is very frustrating because that is not going to get us anywhere, and you all 

know it. And to task GAO, year after year, to doing this, when 

there are already solutions, this is not a problem that hasn’t found 

a solution; it is a problem where we have failed to act on a solution 

where we were close to, in fact, getting a solution. 

Somebody has to move off their duff and get us moving on these 

bills and get the Administration to say, look, you are close together, 

let’s get together and let’s negotiate these out and get the job done. 

Because I find this just boring every year to go through the same 

telltale, when everybody knows what to do, and subjecting you, the 

GSA, to criticism, and then you come back and say, okay, but we 

only own 10 percent of the buildings. 

You are a peer agency. There is not a damn thing you can do 

when you go to the Department of Energy and say we want your 

things. You just can’t get it. You can’t do it from the Department 

of Agriculture; it is ten times bigger than you are. You ought to say 

that. That is how action is forced. 

Mr. Wise, are you from the GAO? 

Mr. WISE. Yes, I am. 

Ms. NORTON. Well, why don’t you call the question on this? I 

looked at your report. The report is very informative, but why 

doesn’t your report take account of the fact that two bills were 

passed by this House, and that the Senate got close to it and recommend that the House proceed to see what it can do along lines? 

It wouldn’t be controversial for you to say, since you already have 

agreement from the Administration and the House, at least, with 

the Senate not that closed off, instead of just going along with the 

same questions that you asked before the 112th Congress, when we 

had gotten that far. We need a push from someone that says you 

have the solution right there before you, go at it. 

Mr. WISE. Yes. Well, if I may, you may remember a couple years 

ago there was a hearing in the very cold Old Post Office Annex. 

I don’t think you ever took of your gloves. I know I didn’t. But, anyway, at that hearing we had commented that we thought CPRA 

was a step in the right direction in terms of trying to rationalize 

the federal property system. What I think you are actually asking 

is what other steps can Congress take to really help real property 

form methods. 

52 

Well, in fact, we don’t think it is absolutely necessary there be 

additional legislation. Rather, I think the two recommendations 

that we have from our June report, I think, lend themselves, if implemented fully, to really making big strides forward. 

Number one is encouraging OMB implement our recommendation for developing a national strategy and also making the Federal 

Real Property Profile more transparent and open to other agencies, 

who then can access it and see what is going on among each other. 

Right now they keep a very close hold on it. 

Ms. NORTON. Good luck, Mr. Wise. 

Mr. WISE. Okay. That is one. 

Ms. NORTON. Good luck with that approach. 

Mr. WISE. Okay, number two is, again, working with the General 

Services Administration to make these improvements that they 

have said they are planning to make to the Federal Real Property 

Profile, getting everybody on the same page and helping to get the 

agencies to report things in a uniform way, because without proper 

data collection methods, you are going to continue to have a mishmash of data in the profile. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Wise, I thank you for that. Good luck to the 

GSA if they can make the agencies do that. OMB would have a 

hard time doing it. All I am saying is that I think your report 

would have been far more useful to us if you had picked up where 

we left off, seeing that we have such substantial agreement in the 

Congress, instead of going back to the same kinds of approaches 

that, frankly, have not proved very useful. 

GSA has tried to do what you are talking about and GSA simply 

is no match for these larger agencies. I don’t think it gets us anywhere to leave on the table when Congress is close to agreement 

for some kind of unit to help us get to the bottom of this. And if 

I may link this to another part of your report which talks about 

costly leasing, I couldn’t agree with you more. 

Now, Dr. Robyn has now 412 authority, authority to use ground 

leases, leaseback in order to do something about this property. So 

you can talk about leasing all you want to, but the fact is that if 

GSA isn’t pushed to use this authority—we gave GSA this authority at least six or seven years ago. Only this year are we seeing 

any movement toward using this authority, which would mean you 

could act in the way that people in the real estate business act in 

order to build. 

So I don’t see how you can talk about costly leasing without implicating GSA’s unused or virtually unused authority to do something about it. GSA sees a property, and you, quite correctly, say 

the government often leases space from private landlords in the 

same real estate market where it owns underutilized real property 

without indicating that there is authority in the GSA to take that 

real property and use that extraordinary authority that Congress 

gave it. So that is my criticism with you, Mr. Wise. 

But my criticism of Dr. Robyn would be where in the world is 

the 412 authority on this leasing? If you have underutilized property in a city or a county, why aren’t you using leaseback or ground 

lease or some of your flexible 412 authority to save the government 

money? 

Ms. ROBYN. I think, in a word, scoring, scoring issues. 

53 

Ms. NORTON. I thought the whole point of the 412 authority was 

to take you out of the scoring problem. 

Ms. ROBYN. No. Legislation does not—you can’t legislate around 

scoring issues. 

Now, 412 authority provides for exchanges, and we think that 

that is what we think will work for the FBI headquarters in exchange of J. Edgar Hoover for construction services somewhere in 

the National Capital Region. We think that will work for the Federal Triangle South, although we are open to a variety of alternatives. If we have innovative financing authority that we are not 

using, you can be pretty sure that it is because we have tried and 

failed to get around scoring issues. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank you. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you for participating and for your interest and 

questions, and you raised some issues that we need to pursue. 

This, of course, is the first subcommittee hearing, and we are focused, of course, on the high risk series, particularly federal real 

estate. We have opened a whole host of areas that we need to pursue. 

Mr. Connolly and I have been in brief discussion. We are going 

to look at some of the legislation that I helped craft and he is interested in, see what we can do to enhance that language. We would 

appreciate from you your recommendations, anything statutorily, 

any empowering OMB or GSA that is needed. Ms. Norton raised 

the question that some authority has been given, but nothing done. 

We probably need triggers to make that happen. And then Mr. 

Connolly has also cited the sensitivity, when we dispose of or deal 

with these federal properties, to where they exist, and the local and 

State interests that are involved and recognizing them, so a host 

of issues. 

But they have called votes, so I think we already got unanimous 

consent that we would leave the record open. We will have additional questions to submit to you. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, could I just say one thing? Dr. 

Robyn indicated that she wasn’t using this flexible authority because of scoring. She is not talking about CBO scoring. The Administration internally could deal with that scoring from OMB. So I 

just want to put it on the record. When we hear scoring, everybody 

up here thinks you mean CBO, and that is not what you mean. 

You mean your own scoring. 

Ms. ROBYN. OMB and CBO tend to be in lockstep on scoring 

issues. There are cases where it is a CBO call; there are cases 

where it is an OMB call. And I am not criticizing it. 

Mr. MICA. Well, when that issue was brought up, in fact, Mr. 

Connolly and I did have a brief discussion. We need to look at that 

and, actually, our committee has jurisdiction. So if there is some 

question or problem or lack of proper interpretation of scoring, then 

we need to make certain that it is defined so that we can get the 

job done. So that is part of our responsibility and, fortunately, it 

falls within the jurisdiction of our committee. So we will be working on that. 

Mr. Connolly? 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank you. This is 

our first hearing of this new subcommittee, and I think you have 

54 

set a tone of collaboration, cooperation, and bipartisanship. I and 

my staff look forward to working with you and your staff. I think 

we are going to make some music together. Thank you so much. 

Mr. MICA. Well, thank you. We will follow up together. This is, 

again, just a small focus on the issue of, again, federal real property for the tenth year appearing on the high risk report of GAO. 

We need to not just talk about it, do something about it, and we 

are both committed to that. I thank Mr. Connolly. 

I thank our witnesses also for being with us and the staff on both 

sides of the aisle for their work. 

There being no further business before this Subcommittee on 

Government Operations, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

55 


Insert offset folio 32 here 79964.032

Statement of the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty 

United States House of Representatives, 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

Subcommittee on Government Operations 

Failures in Managing Federal Real Property: 

Billions in Losses 

February 27,2013 
56 


Insert offset folio 33 here 79964.033

Chainnan Mica, Ranking Member Connolly, Members of the Subcommittee thank you 

for holding today's hearing, entitled "Failures In Managing Federal Real Property, 

Billions In Losses." 

The mission of the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty is to serve as the 

legal ann of the nationwide movement to end homelessness. We do this through policy 

advocacy, public education, and impact litigation. Our Executive Director, Maria 

Foscarinis played an instrumental role in drafting the original McKinney-Vento 

Homeless Assistance Act in 1987 ("McKinney-Vento Act"). Since that time we have 

worked to strengthen the McKinney-Vento Act, most recently through passage of the 

HEARTH Act of2009. 

We appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement for the record, in support of 

ongoing Congressional oversight over the federal government's management of federal 

real property, and to emphasize the importance that once a detennination is made that the 

government will no longer use that property, homeless service providers should continue 

to have a right of first refusal to obtain it. 

Failed Management of Federal Real Property 

The federal government's difficulty in properly managing its portfolio of real property 

comes as no surprise to this Subcommittee. It has been thoroughly explored in hearings 

held by multiple Congressional Committees, including the full House Oversight and 

Govemment Refonn Committee, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, 

and the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. This issue 

also remains on the Government Accountability Office (GAO) High Risk List for 2013, 

and has been the subject of numerous reports by that agency. 

There is little that we can add to this record, which will only be further expanded through 

today's testimony. However, while every taxpayer should be troubled by government 

waste, we would like to briefly explain why this issue is a matter of additional concern to 

an organization dedicated to ending homelessness. 

In 1987, Title V of the McKinney-Vento Act put in place a set of important rights for 

homeless persons. Under the law, homeless service providers have a right of first refusal 

to acquire federal property no longer needed by the government, to provide housing and 

services to people who are homeless. More than 2.4 million Americans each year benefit 

from assistance provided through these programs. As Congress reviews efforts by 

federal agencies to dispose of property that they no longer use or need, refonns must 

focus on improving the process by which those agencies work, not on curtailing the 

ability of homeless persons to obtain housing. Homeless Americans should not suffer for 

the failings of government agencies. 

1 
57 


Insert offset folio 34 here 79964.034

Legislation To Reform The Federal Property Disposition Process 

The legislative process typically requires the careful balancing of competing interests, in 

order to achieve important policy goals. In the case offederal property disposal reform, 

however, we think that the needs of homeless Americans are in alignment - not conflictwith the goal of making government more efficient. Consequently, while we believe that 

homelessness interests are of paramount importance, the Law Center feels strongly that 

we can protect the ability of homeless service providers to access surplus government 

property while still increasing government efficiency. 

During the last Congress, we worked closely with this Committee on HR 665, legislation 

championed in bipartisan fashion by Representatives Jason Chaffetz and Mike Quigley. 

This legislation would have forced agencies to better manage properties they continue to 

use, required improved reporting of properties that agencies no longer intended to use, 

improved transparency by listing these properties on a public website, and provided 

homeless service providers with a portion of the proceeds of high value federal assets 

sold to eliminate ongoing maintenance costs and help reduce the deficit. H.R. 665 

cleared the House on a vote of 403-0. Unfortunately, it was not taken up in the Senate. 

The Chaffetz-Quigley legislation has been reintroduced this year, as H.R. 328, the 

"Excess Federal Building and Property Disposal Act of 20 13:' Because H.R. 328 

preserves nearly all existing rights of homeless service providers, while enabling the 

federal government to dispose of property more efficiently, we urge the Committee to 

move this bill through the House, and to work with the Senate to see it enacted into law. 

In moving forward with legislation in this area, the Committee should be aware of two 

important factors. First, property provided by the federal government to homeless service 

providers is being used to successfully end homelessness. And.second, the process for 

providing that property is not the cause of significant delay in the property disposition 

process. Thus, there is every reason to preserve Title V, while reforming other elements 

of the property disposition process. 

The Title V Process Is Working Well In Support of Ending Homelessness 

Since 1987, Title V of the McKinney Act has givcn qualified homeless service providers 

the legal right to receive suitable vacant, underused, and surplus federal real property at 

no cost. Title V links non-profits and state and local governments in need of land or 

buildings with federal agencies seeking to divest themselves of excess property. In order 

to receive surplus property through Title V, homeless service providers must complete an 

extensive application and work with HUD, Health and Human Services, and the General 

Services Administration to prove their programmatic and financial capacity to provide 

services in the available property. 

Successful Title V applicants have used surplus federal properties to provide services to 

millions of homeless people throughout the country each year, including shelter, 

2 
58 


Insert offset folio 35 here 79964.035

transitional and permanent housing, case management, food pantries, job training, mental 

health and substance abuse treatment, and childcare. Since the program began in 1989, 

nearly 500 pieces of surplus federal property, including buildings and vacant land, have 

been transferred to homeless service providers. In 2013, we estimate that programs based 

in Title V properties will provide services to 2.4 million homeless people from Maine to 

Montana. 

• When the New England Center for Homeless Veterans opened on the site of a former 

Veterans Administration Outpatient Clinic in Boston, it was the nation's first veteranspecific homeless shelter. Recognized as the 142nd "Point of Light" by President 

George H.W. Bush's administration, NECHV is the largest veterans shelter in the 

region, offering services ranging from emergency shelter and transitional housing to 

employment training and health care to homeless veterans. Its founders and many of 

the staff and board are fellow veterans who understand and help their comrades back 

to recovery. Today, NECHV shelters 250 homeless veterans per night; in its twentyyear history, it has served over 16,000 veterans and more than a million meals. Since 

its founding, NECHV has served over 16, 000 veterans, and its soup kitchen alone 

serves over 220,000 meals per year, while its shelter houses an avcrage of 250 

veterans per night. 

• In 1991, Our House Shelter in Little Rock, Arkansas applied for and received 

property on the site of a former V A hospital that the group converted into a family 

shelter. According to Executive Director Georgia Mjartan: "In the 20 years since Our 

House began operating on the VA Hospital site, over 6000 homeless people have 

lived on the campus of the former hospital. Of these 6000, approximately 2000 were 

homeless children. Of the adults served, over 70% found full time jobs while living 

at Our House and left the program withjobs and money in savings and most 

importantly with the ability to move out into their own place-out of homeless ness 

once and for all." 

• The Emmaus Homeless Shelter was founded in 1992 on the site of a long-vacant post 

office in rural Ellsworth, Maine. Says its Director, Sister Lucille MacDonald, "I 

cannot imagine what life would be like for the homeless and those individuals and 

families struggling to survive if the Emmaus Homeless Shelter never existed. In the 

first four months of2011, this wonderful building acquired through Title V of the 

McKinney-Vento Act has given 2313 bed nights to homeless individuals [and] 

families. The shelter has been full to capacity since last October and with a lengthy 

waiting list. We have also been the catalyst for 6711 individuals/families to receive 

non-residential services - food, clothing, furniture, linens, help with electric, fuel, 

medications, etc." According to Sister MacDonald, "[o]ne big advantage of ... Title 

V ... is the fact that we do not have to pay rent for the use of the building ... [U]pkeep 

of the building and surrounding area is financially difficult enough and if we had rent 

responsibilities, we would not be able to support the many needed components of 

caring for those in need." 

3 
59 


Insert offset folio 36 here 79964.036

• A fonner U.S. Anny training center and annory in Kalispell, Montana is now 

Samaritan House, a multi-dimensional housing and services community for homeless 

individuals, veterans, and families in northwest Montana. The acquisition of the 

property in July 2008 more than doubled Samaritan's property holdings and pennitted 

them to vastly expand their emergency shelter and transitional housing 

programs. Today, Samaritan House houses more than 1500 men, women, and 

children every year, and serves over 21,000 meals annually. 

The Federal Real Property Disposal Process Is Not Being Delayed By Title V 

The Law Center understands the concerns of this Committee, and the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), that the federal government may not be disposing of 

surplus federal real property in the most efficient manner possible. In order to maintain 

the faith of citizens in the federal government's ability to accomplish important policy 

goals such as ending homelessness, our government must manage its resources prudently. 

However, in order to propose responsible solutions, this Subcommittee must also 

detennine what is causing the problem. Because the Title V process is not the cause of 

delays in the federal property disposal process, it should not be drastically altered or 

eliminated in the name of procedural refonn. 

The Law Center has reviewed documents released by OMB, indicating that more than 

14,000 federal properties are available for sale or other methods of disposal including 

demolition, but are instead simply sitting unused, costing the government money to 

maintain as well as the potential proceeds from any sale. Although OMB goes to great 

pains not to say this explicitly, their own data acknowledges that these properties have 

already gone through the Title V process or have been exempted. Consequently, we 

reject any conclusion that Title V is responsible for the inability of government to dispose 

of these properties. 

Title V requires agencies to provide HUD, on a quarterly basis, with a list of all 

properties no longer being used. If HUD finds the property to be suitable for homeless 

use, there is a 60 day period in which homeless service providers are able to apply for 

property without the risk that it can be sold or otherwise disposed of. If no application is 

received during this time, the federal government is free to dispose of surplus property as 

it sees fit. The process takes a matter of months, and once complete the federal 

government may move forward with any alternative means of property disposal. 

For properties that have gone through Title V, homeless service providers declined to 

pursue them during the statutory 60 day period after detennining that they were not 

viable locations for providing homeless services, and they do not claim any ongoing right 

to access that pool of properties. If they continue to languish unsold, it is because the 

properties themselves are not attracting any commercial interest or because federal 

agencies do not have a strong system in place for conducting property sales after Title V 

review. 

4 
60 


Insert offset folio 37 here 79964.037

In the first case, there is often little that can be done to make properties more attractive 

for sale. Many of them are old buildings, often containing asbestos, lead paint, or other 

environmental hazards requiring abatement or remediation. In the second case, the 

proper remedy would be to make improvements to the subsequent steps of the federal 

surplus property disposal process that occur after homeless service providers have the 

opportunity to acquire property through Title V. 

Thank you for allowing us to submit this statement. Should you wish to discuss it 

further, please contact our Policy Director, Jeremy Rosen, at (202) 638-2535 or 

jrosen(Z{)nlchp.org. 

5 
61 


Insert offset folio 38 here 79964.038

Opening Statement 

Subcommittee on Government Operations 

Chairman John Mica 

• Good Afternoon, I would like to thank the witnesses for being here 

today. 

• When I began chairing this subcommittee, I was pleased to learn part 

of the portfolio includes federal real property disposal. 

• While Chairing the House Transportation and Infrastructure 

Committee in the previous Congress, I held multiple hearings on the 

topic of federal buildings. I hope to continue that work here, on the 

Oversight Committee. 

• Today, we are focusing on the fact that for over a decade the 

Government Accountability Office has placed the federal 

government's management of our real property assets on its HighRisk List. 

• This list is produced every two years at the beginning of a new 

Congress. 

• The Federal Real Property Council reports that the poor management 

of our assets costs the taxpayers billions--$1.67--annually in 

operations and maintenance for buildings that are vacant, 

underutilized, or in many cases, in shambles. 

• When the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) or the 

Departments claim cost savings, in most cases, GAO questions these 

savings. 

• The Administration recently claimed to have achieved $2.4 billion in 

savings since 2010 through the disposition of properties, space 

management, sustainability, and innovation. 

• However, in the High-Risk report, GAO said: "the actual savings 

associated with selling excess [property] and better managing 
62 


Insert offset folio 39 here 79964.039

underutilized property are not transparent and may be overstated 

at a time of budget crisis and huge deficits." 

• This is very alarming. The self proclaimed most transparent 

Administration in history unfortunately is blindsiding the American 

people. 

• GAO has found a lack of consistent and useful data to support asset 

management decision-making. 

• The most recent GAO High-Risk report raises serious concerns 

regarding the quality of the data within the Federal Real Property 

Portfolio (FRPP). 

• GAO maintains that "the government continues to lack consistent, 

accurate, and useful data to support decision making." 

• [Visit to ARS facility in MOl 

Image 1: 

• Approximately 500 buildings located on property 

• 203 buildings are declared excess, 40 of those are large 

buildings 

• Food and Drug Administration Building located on the 6,600 acre 

agricultural research property owned by the United States 

Department of Agriculture in Beltsville, Maryland. 

• This building has broken windows, a hole in the roof and vines 

growing up the side of the building. 

Image 2: 

• Office building number 262 located on the 6,600 acre agricultural 

research property owned by the United States Department of 

Agriculture in Beltsville, Maryland. 

• This building has broken windows, peeling paint and various vines 

growing up to the third story. 
63 


Insert offset folio 40 here 79964.040

Image 3: 

• Office building number 263 located on the 6,600 acre agricultural 

research property owned by the United States Department of 

Agriculture in Beltsville, Maryland. 

• This building has boarded up windows and peeling paint. 

Image 4: 

• Interior photo of office building number 264, which is adjacent to 

building 263. 

• This is representative of the interior condition of all buildings 

photographed. 

• [Visit to GSA facility in VA] 

Image 5: 

• 1 million square feet of space 

• This is the largest wood-roof structure east of the Mississippi 

River. 

• Patent and Trademark Office 

• Aerial photo of the GSA-owned warehouse in Springfield, Virginia. 

• The warehouse is outlined in red, and shows the proximity to the 

Franconia-Springfield Metro station outlined in blue. 

• Just north of the warehouse is the Springfield Mall, which closed in 

June 2012 as part of a multi-million dollar redevelopment plan to turn 

it into an open-air 'Town Center" style shopping center. 

• I look forward to hearing from Dr. Robyn, GSA's Public Building 

Service Commissioner, about how the agency plans to fix this data 

integrity problem. 

• Since there has been no concrete strategy or plan to deal with the 

matter, in June 2012, GAO recommended the federal government 

develop a national strategy for improving the current situation. 
64 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 41 here 79964.041

• I look forward to closely monitoring whether OMS implements a 

national strategy. 

• Finally, I hope both Houses of Congress will act to address this 

problem in common-sense manner that saves hard-earned taxpayer 

dollars. 

• Again, I would like to thank the witness for being here today and I 

look forward to their testimony.