FEDERAL REAL 

PROPERTY

Improved 

Transparency Could 

Help Efforts to 

Manage Agencies' 

Maintenance and 

Repair Backlogs

Report to Chairman, Committee 

on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs,

U.S. Senate

January 2014

GAO-14-188

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-14-188, a report to the 

Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate

January 2014

FEDERAL REAL PROPERTY

Improved Transparency Could Help Efforts to Manage 

Agencies’ Maintenance and Repair Backlogs

Why GAO Did This Study

GAO has designated federal real 

property as a high-risk area due, in 

part, to deferred maintenance and 

repair that contributes to deteriorating 

assets. GAO has reported that the 

eventual need to address deferred 

maintenance and repair could 

significantly affect future budget 

resources. 

GAO was asked to review federal 

deferred maintenance and repair 

backlogs. GAO examined, among 

other things, (1) selected agencies’ 

estimated fiscal year 2012 deferred 

maintenance and repair backlogs and 

(2) the strategies, if any, these 

agencies used to reduce their backlogs

and how those strategies compared to 

leading practices. GAO selected five 

agencies for review that had a high 

ratio of deferred maintenance and 

repairs to annual operating costs. GAO 

identified leading practices in 

managing maintenance and repair 

backlogs from NRC reports, analyzed 

data and documents from the selected 

agencies and the NRC, and 

interviewed officials from OMB, 

FASAB, and the selected agencies. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that OMB, in 

collaboration with agencies, collect and 

report information on (1) agencies’

costs for annual maintenance and 

repair performed, and (2) funding spent

to manage their existing backlogs.

OMB agreed with our 

recommendations. Technical 

comments from OMB, DHS, DOE, 

GSA, VA, and the Interior were 

incorporated as appropriate.

What GAO Found

The five federal agencies GAO reviewed—the General Services Administration

(GSA) and the Departments of Energy (DOE), Homeland Security (DHS), the 

Interior, and Veterans’ Affairs (VA)—reported fiscal year 2012 deferred 

maintenance and repair backlog estimates that ranged from nearly $1 billion to 

$20 billion. In accordance with Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board 

(FASAB) standards, agencies report backlog estimates in required 

supplementary information accompanying their financial statements in their 

annual financial reports. In addition, data reported by agencies and included in 

the Federal Real Property Profile (FRPP)—a database overseen by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) in coordination with agencies comprising the

Federal Real Property Council (FRPC)—provides information that can be used to 

estimate an agency’s backlog. FASAB and FRPP guidelines do not share a 

common definition of deferred maintenance, and an agency can make different 

determinations when reporting information in its financial reports and to FRPP,

resulting in dissimilar backlog estimates. In addition, agencies use different 

methods to determine and report backlogs, making estimates across agencies 

not comparable. For example, Interior excludes, while DHS includes, costs for 

some assets scheduled for disposal. In 2011 and 2012, FASAB adopted new 

standards that (1) clarify the definition of deferred maintenance and repair and 

(2) emphasize the need for consistency over time in determining and reporting 

backlogs. FRPC is considering incorporating the FASAB definition of deferred 

maintenance and repair in its fiscal year 2014 FRPP reporting guidance. These 

changes may result in improved information on agencies’ backlogs and prove 

beneficial over time.

All five of the selected agencies followed eight of the nine leading practices GAO 

identified for managing maintenance and repair backlogs, such as the leading 

practice of identifying primary methods for delivering maintenance and repair 

activities. Four of the five agencies, however, generally did not employ a ninth 

leading practice—structuring budgets to identify the funding allotted (1) for 

maintenance and repairs and (2) to address existing backlogs. This leading 

practice emphasizes that sufficiently funding maintenance and repairs is 

important because the costs to address backlogs may be significantly greater 

than if maintenance and repairs had been undertaken when needed. In 2012, 

GAO found that agencies’ budgeting processes differ to reflect the controls the 

appropriations committees consider important; the National Research Council 

(NRC) of the National Academies has also reported that agencies’ budgets vary, 

in part, due to their different missions. OMB and FRPC agencies are working to 

refine FRPP data and develop performance measures that reflect current federal 

real-property management priorities. Thus, as OMB and FRPC agencies work to 

improve FRPC data and develop new performance metrics, the opportunity 

exists to revise requirements for agencies to collect and report costs agencies 

expend on annual maintenance and to address deferred maintenance and repair 

backlogs. Having greater information on agencies’ annual funding of 

maintenance and repairs—and the corresponding effects on their maintenance 

and repair backlogs—would provide transparency about agencies’ efforts to 

manage their real property assets and promote improved effectiveness of federal 

real property spending.

View GAO-14-188. For more information, 

contact David J. Wise at (202) 512-2834 or 

wised@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-14-188 Federal Real Property

Letter 1

Background 4

Agencies Estimate Billions of Dollars in Deferred Maintenance and 

Repair Backlogs, and Recent Changes Affecting Reporting 

Requirements May Improve These Estimates 9

Selected Agencies Employ Most Leading Practices in Managing 

Their Backlogs, but Generally Do Not Identify the Funding 

Allotted to Address Backlogs 13

Conclusions 21

Recommendations for Executive Action 22

Agency Comments 22

Appendix I Examples of Deferred-Maintenance and Repair Projects That 

Included Energy Efficiency Improvements 24

Appendix II Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 30

Appendix III Comments from the Department of Homeland Security 34

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 35

Tables

Table 1: Selected Agencies’ Deferred Maintenance and Repair 

Backlog Estimates, Fiscal Year 2012 10

Table 2: Leading Practices Used by Five Agencies to Manage 

Their Deferred Maintenance and Repair Backlogs 14

Table 3: Examples of How Selected Agencies Structure Budget 

Information about Maintenance, Repair, and Deferred 

Maintenance 18

Figures

Figure 1: Components of Agency Deferred Maintenance and 

Repair Backlogs 7

Contents
Page ii GAO-14-188 Federal Real Property

Figure 2: GSA Deferred Maintenance and Repair Project That 

Included Energy Efficiency Improvements 25

Figure 3: DOE Deferred Maintenance and Repair Project That 

Included Energy Efficiency Improvements 26

Figure 4: DHS Deferred Maintenance and Repair Project That 

Included Energy Efficiency Improvements 27

Figure 5: Interior Deferred Maintenance and Repair Project That 

Included Energy Efficiency Improvements 28

Figure 6: VA Deferred Maintenance and Repair Project That 

Included Energy Efficiency Improvements 29

Abbreviations

BOMA 

International Building Owners and Management 

Association International

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DOE Department of Energy

Interior Department of the Interior

ESPC energy savings performance contract

FASAB Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board

FCA facility condition assessment

FRPC Federal Real Property Council

FRPP Federal Real Property Profile

FWS Fish and Wildlife Service

GSA General Services Administration

MBtu Million British thermal units

NPS National Park Service

NRC National Research Council

NRM non-recurring maintenance 

OMB Office of Management and Budget

SFFAS Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards

UESC utility energy service contract

VA Department of Veterans Affairs

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-14-188 Federal Real Property

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

January 23, 2014

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper

Chairman

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

Dear Chairman Carper:

We as well as others have reported that deferring maintenance and repair 

can reduce the overall life of federal facilities, lead to higher costs in the 

long term, and pose risks to safety and agencies’ missions. In January 

2003, we designated federal real property1 as a high-risk area,2 in part 

due to the deteriorating condition of some government facilities, which 

agencies estimate will require billions of dollars to repair or restore. The 

deteriorated conditions were due, in part, to the age of many federal 

facilities (often over 50 years old) and other factors that resulted in 

agencies’ deferring some maintenance and repair of their facilities. We 

have also reported that federal agencies’ estimates of their deferred 

maintenance and repair backlogs are not comparable and that without 

such information the federal government’s fiscal exposure from agencies’

backlogs is unclear.3

In light of questions about agencies’ backlogs, you asked us to review the 

extent to which agencies are addressing their deferred maintenance and 

repair backlogs. This report discusses (1) selected agencies’ estimates of 

their deferred maintenance and repair backlogs and (2) what strategies, if 

any, have these agencies used to reduce their backlogs and how those 

strategies compare to leading practices. In appendix I, we also provide 

information about and examples of deferred maintenance and repair 

projects that involved energy efficiency improvements.

 1

Real property is generally defined as land and anything constructed on, growing on, or 

attached to land. In this report, when we refer to real property or assets, we are referring 

to assets identified in the Federal Real Property Profile—an inventory system for federal 

real property data—as buildings or structures.

2

GAO, High-Risk Series: Federal Real Property, GAO-03-122 (Washington, D.C.: January 

2003).

3

GAO, Federal Real Property: Government’s Fiscal Exposure from Repair and 

Maintenance Backlogs Is Unclear, GAO-09-10 (Washington D.C.: October 2008).
Page 2 GAO-14-188 Federal Real Property

To address our objectives, we selected five civilian agencies that were 

examined as part of GAO’s 2011 high-risk update on managing federal 

real property. The five agencies were also selected, in part, based on 

having a high ratio of deferred maintenance and repairs to annual 

operating costs. Based on these criteria, we selected the General 

Services Administration (GSA), the Department of Energy (DOE), the 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of the Interior 

(Interior), and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). We gathered and 

analyzed deferred maintenance and repair data from fiscal year 2008 

through fiscal year 20124 from agency financial reports5 and the Federal 

Real Property Profile (FRPP)6 for each of our selected agencies. To 

assess the reliability of the agencies’ deferred maintenance and repair 

data from fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year 2012 financial reports and 

the FRPP, we interviewed agency staffs who manage the data and asked 

them about verification and validation procedures to help ensure the 

accuracy of the data, as well as how the data are gathered and used to 

compile annual reports. We also reviewed agency guidance and 

instructions for reporting deferred maintenance and repair data. We found 

the data to be sufficiently reliable for our reporting purposes and we note 

the limitations we identified in the data where appropriate throughout this 

report. We interviewed Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board

(FASAB) officials and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) staff to 

understand changes made to the FASAB and FRPP backlog reporting 

requirements since 2011. To determine the reasons for differences in 

estimates from the two sources of reporting and the reasons for changes 

in agencies’ estimates over time, we also reviewed FASAB’s Statement of 

Federal Financial Accounting Standards (SFFAS)7

 4

We selected this time period to encompass the available data subsequent to our 2008 

review of agencies’ maintenance and repair backlogs. See 

and related 

documentation concerning deferred maintenance and repair data 

reported annually by agencies in required supplementary information 

GAO-09-10.

5

Agencies report unaudited deferred maintenance and repair estimates as required 

supplementary information accompanying their financial statements in their annual 

financial reports. 31 U.S.C. § 3515. 

6

The FRPP is a federal real property database that, in general, describes the nature, use, 

and extent of all real property under the custody and control of executive branch agencies.

7

FASAB is responsible for issuing accounting standards for the United States government. 

These standards are recognized as generally accepted accounting principles for the 

federal government.
Page 3 GAO-14-188 Federal Real Property

accompanying their financial statements and in the FRPP. We reviewed 

documents and interviewed officials with each selected agency about 

deferred maintenance and repair backlog reporting and methods used to 

collect reported data and calculate measures of deferred maintenance 

and repair.

To identify leading practices that agencies could employ as strategies to 

manage their backlogs of deferred maintenance and repair, we reviewed 

studies conducted by the National Research Council (NRC) of the 

National Academies on maintaining federal facilities.8 Based on the 

findings and recommendations within those studies, we derived nine 

leading practices that agencies could employ as strategies to manage the 

maintenance and repair needs of federal real property assets.9

 8

The National Academies comprises four organizations: the National Academy of 

Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and NRC. For more 

information on our methodology for developing leading practices for this review, see 

appendix II.

To 

determine whether the agencies were employing those leading practices, 

we reviewed agency documents and interviewed agency officials about 

their efforts to manage their backlogs. In addition, we visited sites or 

conducted telephone interviews with site officials to identify possible 

examples of how agencies are employing the leading practices. We 

selected at least two sites for each of our five agencies based on their 

reported deferred maintenance and repair requirements, geographic 

location, and recommendations from agency officials. We contacted 

officials at sites in the District of Columbia, Idaho, Maryland, New Mexico, 

Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. In addition to discussing with officials 

the strategies they may be using to address deferred maintenance and 

repair backlogs, we also discussed deferred maintenance and repair 

projects that enabled energy efficiency improvements. Our findings based 

on work with the selected agencies and at selected sites do not support 

conclusions about other agencies and sites or about the management of 

deferred maintenance and repair across the federal government as a 

whole. However, our work provides insights on sites’ efforts in 

9

NRC findings and recommendations were based, in part, on its assessment and 

identification of some effective maintenance and repair practices that some federal 

agencies employed as well as some effective practices employed by some recognized 

private sector companies. We identified nine leading practices as those most relevant and 

appropriate to federal agencies’ managing deferred maintenance and repair backlogs, but 

note that those do not represent all actions federal agencies could employ to improve the 

management of their real property.
Page 4 GAO-14-188 Federal Real Property

comparison to leading practices to address maintenance and repair 

requirements and manage backlogs. Further details about our scope and 

methodology can be found in appendix II.

We conducted this performance audit from February 2013 to January 

2014 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

The federal government manages a substantial real property portfolio; 

according to a fiscal year 2012 summary FRPP report10 from the Federal 

Real Property Council (FRPC),11 the federal government owns 

approximately 775,000 buildings and structures that cost over $23 billion 

to operate annually.12

Since January 2003, we have designated federal real property as a highrisk area due to problems with excess and underutilized property, 

deteriorating facilities, unreliable real property data, and overreliance on 

FRPP annual operating cost data includes 

combined costs for: (1) recurring maintenance and repair; (2) utilities; (3) 

cleaning and janitorial costs including pest control, disposal collection, 

and recycling operations; and (4) roads and grounds expenses such as 

landscaping and snow removal costs.

 10Federal Real Property Council, FY 2012 Federal Real Property Report, An Overview of 

the U.S. Federal Government’s Real Property (n.p.: n.d.).

11In 2004, Executive Order No. 13327, “Federal Real Property Asset Management”, 

established the FRPC within the Office of Management and Budget for administrative 

purposes, to among other activities, develop guidance for, and facilitate the success of, 

each agency’s real property asset management plan. The FRPC is chaired by the Deputy 

Director for Management at OMB and is composed of all agency Senior Real Property 

Officers, the Controller of the OMB, the Administrator of General Services, and any other 

full-time or permanent part-time Federal officials or employees as deemed necessary by 

the Chairman of the Council. 69 Fed. Reg. 5897 (Feb. 6, 2004). 

12Our review of federal facility maintenance and repair did not specifically examine the 

accuracy of the 2012 fiscal year FRPP data reported on the number of buildings and 

structures—and the annual operating costs associated with those assets—held by the 

executive branch as a whole because our review was limited to five selected agencies.

Background
Page 5 GAO-14-188 Federal Real Property

costly leasing.13 In 2008, we reported that agencies’ backlogs represent a 

fiscal exposure that may have a significant effect on future budget 

resources and our nation’s long-term fiscal sustainability.14 In updates to 

our high-risk report, we have acknowledged that the administration and 

real-property-holding agencies have made progress toward strategically 

managing federal real property. While some progress has been made, at 

the end of fiscal year 2012, agencies continue to report billions of dollars 

in deferred maintenance and repair on their real property assets, and 

budget constraints affect their ability to address these backlogs.15 For 

example, according to the Director of the National Park Service (NPS), to 

hold the national parks’ backlog steady, the agency would have needed 

to spend nearly one-third of its fiscal year 2012 operating budget on 

deferred maintenance projects.16

Real-property-holding agencies are generally responsible for the cost of 

maintaining and repairing their assets, which include buildings and 

structures.17

 13In our 2011 high-risk update, we de-emphasized deferred maintenance and repair as a 

factor contributing to the placement of federal real property on our high-risk list because 

agencies had taken some steps to improve their ability to manage their deferred 

maintenance and repair backlogs, for example, by conducting condition assessments and 

prioritizing projects. For our more recent high-risk update, see GAO, High-Risk Series: An 

Update, 

Component systems (e.g., structural, electrical, heating, air 

conditioning, and others) of these assets have finite, expected useful lives 

(i.e., service life), over which time they should be maintained and after 

which time they can be reasonably expected to need replacement. The 

useful lives of assets can be extended through adequate and timely 

maintenance and repairs of their component systems. Conversely, 

GAO-13-283 (Washington, D.C.: February 2013). 

14See GAO-09-10 and GAO, Defense Infrastructure: Continued Management Attention Is 

Needed to Support Installation Facilities and Operations, GAO-08-502 (Washington, D.C.: 

April 2008). 

15See footnote 5.

16National Park Service, Testimony of the Jonathan B. Jarvis, Director, National Park 

Service, before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, for an oversight 

hearing to consider supplemental funding options to support the National Park Service’s 

effort to address deferred maintenance and operational needs. (Washington, D.C.: July 

25, 2013). 

17FRPP building use categories include offices, laboratories, hospitals, schools, and 

museums, among other categories; structure use categories include airfield pavements, 

harbors and ports, parking structures, and utility systems, among other categories. 
Page 6 GAO-14-188 Federal Real Property

delaying or deferring routine maintenance and repairs can, in the short 

term, diminish the performance of these systems and, in the long term, 

shorten service life. Deferring needed maintenance and repair indefinitely 

may ultimately result in significantly higher maintenance, repair, and 

operating costs.18

Federal agencies typically have a backlog of deferred maintenance and 

repairs created through delay in performing maintenance and repairs 

activities.19 Agencies can manage their backlogs through a number of 

activities, including projects to perform deferred maintenance and 

repair;20 new construction (i.e., repair by replacement); asset disposal; 

and public private partnerships,21

 18See 

among others. (See fig. 1).

GAO-09-10.

19Activities include preventive maintenance; replacement of parts, systems, or 

components; and other activities needed to preserve or maintain the asset. 

20For example, agencies may conduct roof repairs or replace heating, ventilation, and air 

conditioning systems.

21A public-private partnership generally entails the federal government entering into an 

agreement, such as an energy savings performance contract or utility energy service 

contract, with a non-federal partner who provides private financing (also referred to as 

third-party financing) to pay for federal projects, such as a lighting retrofit project. Past 

GAO reporting suggests that a number of factors may cause third-party financing to be 

more expensive than timely, full, and up-front appropriations. For additional details, see 

GAO, Capital Financing: Partnerships and Energy Savings Performance Contracts Raise 

Budgeting and Monitoring Concerns, GAO-05-55 (Washington, D.C.: December 2004).
Page 7 GAO-14-188 Federal Real Property

Figure 1: Components of Agency Deferred Maintenance and Repair Backlogs

In general, agencies annually report estimates of their deferred 

maintenance and repair backlogs in two places: (1) required 

supplementary information accompanying their financial statements in 

their financial reports,22 which are to be prepared in accordance with 

requirements set by the FASAB23

 22See footnote 5. 

and (2) the FRPP, which are to be 

23The FASAB Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards 42 (Apr. 25, 2012) 

defines “deferred maintenance and repair” as maintenance and repairs that were not 

performed when they should have been or were scheduled to be and which are put off or 

delayed for a future period. Maintenance and repairs are activities directed toward keeping 

fixed assets in an acceptable condition, as determined by agency management. Activities 

include preventive maintenance; replacement of parts, systems, or components; and other 

activities needed to preserve or maintain the asset. Maintenance and repairs, as 

distinguished from capital improvements, exclude activities directed towards expanding 

the capacity of an asset or otherwise upgrading it to serve needs different from, or 

significantly greater than, its current use.
Page 8 GAO-14-188 Federal Real Property

prepared under guidance of the FRPC.24 While agencies’ FRPP data 

does not specifically report deferred maintenance and repairs, the FRPP 

requires agencies to report two data elements from which the “repair 

needs” of an asset can be derived and which we consider to be an

indicator of agencies’ deferred maintenance and repair backlogs for 

purposes of this report.25 There are limitations in comparing agencies’

financial report estimates of their deferred maintenance and repair with 

their repair needs estimates as derived from FRPP data. The limitations 

are due, in part, because financial report estimates are intended to 

quantify what is needed to bring assets to “acceptable” condition as 

determined by the agency which may be a condition less than their 

originally constructed condition.26 For example, an agency’s financial 

report estimate may include only the deferred costs to make repairs to a 

warehouse that is in poor condition in order to elevate the asset to fair—

rather than good or excellent—condition. In contrast, FRPP estimates are 

intended to identify the amount of repairs necessary to restore assets 

back to their “original” condition. In addition, as discussed below, an 

agency can make different determinations on reporting information in its 

financial report and FRPP estimates, resulting in dissimilar indications of 

deferred maintenance and repair backlogs.

 24The FRPC 2012 Guidance for Real Property Inventory Reporting (Aug. 16, 2012) 

defines “repair needs” as the amount necessary to ensure that a constructed asset is 

restored to a condition substantially equivalent to the original intended and designed 

capacity, efficiency, or capability. 

25Prior to fiscal year 2013 agencies reported facility “condition index” and “replacement 

value” data to FRPP which can be used to derive “repair needs.” “Condition index” begins 

with the value of “repair needs” divided by “replacement value”. “Replacement value” is 

the amount required to construct an asset of similar size and in the same location at 

today’s construction standards. The resulting fraction is then subtracted from 1 and 

multiplied by 100 to express “condition index” as a percentage. Beginning in fiscal year 

2013, agencies were to report facility “repair needs” and “replacement value” to FRPP, 

and “condition index” was to be automatically calculated.

26FASAB’s deferred maintenance and repair reporting standard indicates that what 

constitutes acceptable condition may vary across and within agencies based on factors 

such as asset type and the importance of an asset to mission. 
Page 9 GAO-14-188 Federal Real Property

The five agencies we reviewed—GSA, DOE, DHS, Interior, and VA—

reported deferred maintenance and repair estimates in their financial 

reports ranging from $0.8 billion to $20.2 billion,27 and FRPP estimates 

from $0.9 billion to $14.4 billion for fiscal year 2012. (See table 1.) Each 

agency has a process for collecting information on the condition of its 

facilities such as through periodic condition assessments. Agencies then 

use this information in determining backlogs used in financial reports and 

FRPP estimates; however, some agencies report different estimates to 

each of these sources. In explaining differences between their financial 

report and FRPP estimates, GSA real property officials indicated the main 

difference is the result of GSA’s including future project requirements in 

its FRPP estimate, while focusing on more immediate needs and omitting 

future requirements in its financial report estimate. VA officials attribute 

the almost $6-billion difference in VA’s estimates principally to the 

exclusion of capitalized projects28

 27The Financial Report of the United States Government of Fiscal Year 2012 estimated 

that government-wide deferred maintenance and repair for fiscal year 2012 ranged from 

about $153.6 billion to about $159.1 billion, including approximately $111.2 billion in 

deferred maintenance and repair for the Department of Defense.

from its financial report estimate and 

inclusion of those projects as part of its FRPP estimate.

28For financial reporting purposes, VA’s considers a project capitalized if it meets VA’s 

capitalization criteria whereby the project extends the useful life of an associated asset or 

has enlarged or improved the capacity or function of the associated asset. 

Agencies Estimate 

Billions of Dollars

in Deferred 

Maintenance and 

Repair Backlogs, and 

Recent Changes 

Affecting Reporting 

Requirements May 

Improve These 

Estimates

Selected Agencies 

Estimate Deferred 

Maintenance and Repair 

Backlogs Range in the 

Billions of Dollars
Page 10 GAO-14-188 Federal Real Property

Table 1: Selected Agencies’ Deferred Maintenance and Repair Backlog Estimates, 

Fiscal Year 2012

Dollars in billions

Agency Financial report estimates

Federal Real Property 

Profile (FRPP) estimates 

GSA $1.5 $4.7

DOE 4.7 5.1

DHS 0.8 – 0.9 0.9 a

Interior 13.8 – 20.2 b 14.4 a

VA 6.7 12.5

Sources: GAO analysis of agency financial reports and FRPP data.

Notes: FRPP estimates were calculated using the reported data elements “condition index” and 

“replacement value,” where condition index is defined by the formula (1 – repair needs/replacement 

value) x 100.

Figures shown exclude deferred maintenance and repair backlog estimates reported by agencies for 

their capital equipment—such as DHS vehicles and vessels—which are required by FASAB as part of 

agencies’ annual reporting. We excluded those figures because our review was focused on federal 

real property and not agencies’ other capital assets, such as ships.

a

FASAB allows agencies to report a low and high estimate but plans to eliminate this practice in fiscal 

year 2015.

b

Interior’s real property portfolio consists of a large number of roads, bridges, and trails, which, based 

on Interior’s fiscal year 2012 financial report, represent just over 50 percent of the agency’s deferred 

maintenance and repair backlog. Interior officials indicated that based on agency-specific direction 

from OMB, they exclude certain assets in their FRPP reporting, such as archeological sites.

In general, FASAB reporting requirements for financial reports,29 as well 

as FRPP reporting guidance,30 do not require a specific process for 

determining the condition of assets and estimating their backlogs, and 

agencies can use their existing processes. As a result, agencies use a 

number of different methods to determine their deferred maintenance and 

repair backlogs. As we previously concluded in April 2008, this variation 

in methods makes their backlog estimates not comparable.31

 29Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards 40: Definitional Changes Related 

to Deferred Maintenance and Repairs: Amending Statement of Federal Financial 

Accounting Standards 6, Accounting for Property, Plant, and Equipment, SFFAS 40. (May 

11, 2011). This standard was effective for agencies’ fiscal year 2012 financial reports.

For the 

30Federal Real Property Council, 2012 Guidance for Real Property Inventory Reporting

(Oct. 25, 2012).

31We previously reported on the various methods agencies use to determine their 

backlogs. See GAO-09-10.

Agencies Methods

for Estimating Their 

Backlogs Differ
Page 11 GAO-14-188 Federal Real Property

agencies we selected in this review, we found that each uses its own 

method for assessing the condition of its assets. The methods vary in the 

frequency in which assets and costs are included and in the types of work 

that are reported as deferred maintenance and repair. For example, VA 

reports cost estimates for asset component systems (such as a roof) that 

are in poor or critical condition. Interior includes costs for inactive and 

excess assets if the work is necessary to maintain assets in acceptable 

condition and excludes costs for some assets scheduled for disposal.32 In 

contrast, DHS includes costs for assets that it does not intend to repair 

and that are scheduled for disposal. In addition, we found that project cost 

components included in estimates vary across agencies. For example, 

GSA officials reported to us their estimates include the cost for design, 

materials, and labor. DOE officials reported their estimates exclude 

design costs but do include costs for materials and labor required to 

accomplish missed maintenance or repair actions.

We have previously concluded that accurate and consistent information 

on deferred maintenance and repair is important to support decision 

making.33 Recent changes affecting reporting requirements may help to 

improve agencies’ backlog estimates in these areas. In particular, in May 

2011, FASAB introduced a new standard (SFFAS #40)34 with the intent to 

clarify what agencies should include in their deferred maintenance and 

repair estimates. These changes were implemented in the agencies’ 2012 

financial reports. In addition, beginning in fiscal year 2013, agencies are 

to directly report “repair needs” to FRPP, in contrast to the past practice 

of reporting “condition index” and “replacement value,” which provided an 

indirect indication of “repair needs.”35

 32For example, Interior officials indicated when public lands are newly acquired or when 

federal real property is transferred to Interior (such as Fort Monroe in Hampton, Virginia, 

where Interior received numerous excess facilities from the Department of Defense), the 

deferred maintenance associated with buildings that are incidental to an acquisition and 

which Interior expects to dispose of are not included in Interior’s backlog estimates.

According to OMB staff, directly 

reporting “repair needs” to FRPP will bring agencies’ attention to this data 

33GAO, Deferred Maintenance Reporting: Challenges to Implementation, 

GAO/AIMD-98-42 (Washington, D.C.: January 1998).

34See footnote 29.

35See footnote 25.

Recent Changes Affecting 

Reporting Requirements 

May Improve Agencies’

Backlog Estimates
Page 12 GAO-14-188 Federal Real Property

element and likely result in a more accurate indication of associated 

maintenance and repair backlogs.

While these changes are intended to result in improved information on 

agencies’ backlogs and prove beneficial over time, they make it difficult 

for agencies to determine their current progress in managing the backlogs 

given that it is not possible for agencies to identify trends since the 

estimates are not based on consistent definitions across reporting years. 

For example, FASAB’s clarification to agencies on what should be 

included in backlog estimates resulted in a significant change to GSA’s 

financial report estimate, which increased from $0 in fiscal year 2011 to 

$1.5 billion in fiscal year 2012. Specifically, in May 2011, FASAB clarified 

that agencies should report both deferred maintenance and deferred 

repairs.36 According to GSA officials, prior to this clarification, they had 

determined the agency had no significant amount of deferred 

maintenance, and thus reported $0 prior to fiscal year 2012. When 

considering deferred repairs in fiscal year 2012, GSA determined it did 

have deferred repair requirements and began reporting the costs to 

address repairs identified during its Physical Condition Surveys that it 

plans to address within 2 years.

37

 36See footnote 29.

In addition, DHS recently underwent 

efforts to standardize the definition and calculation method for the FRPP

“repair needs” data element for its real-property-holding component 

agencies. These efforts, which include providing updates to guidance on 

how to conduct condition assessments, led to DHS’s FRPP estimate 

decreasing from about $2.5 billion to under $1 billion from fiscal years 

2008 to 2012. These fluctuations in the deferred maintenance and repair 

backlogs as reported by both GSA and DHS do not necessarily 

demonstrate a change in the physical condition of their assets; rather a 

change in the way these estimates are determined. As a result, it is 

unclear the extent to which changes to the backlog estimates resulted 

from agencies’ actions to manage their backlogs or changes in the ways 

the agencies determine their estimates.

37GSA officials indicated their Physical Condition Surveys and reporting of deferred 

repairs do not include costs for fire and life safety projects that are needed to bring an 

asset into code compliance, which is an improvement over and above the building’s 

“original condition”. 
Page 13 GAO-14-188 Federal Real Property

To further improve agencies’ reporting of their backlogs over time, in April 

2012 FASAB adopted a second new standard (SFFAS #42), which 

emphasizes that agency assessment methods and condition standards 

be consistently applied to allow agencies to track their backlogs from year 

to year and improve their ability to make appropriate decisions about 

managing their deferred maintenance and repair backlogs.38 In addition, 

FRPC is exploring means to promote consistency in backlog reporting. 

For example, FRPC is considering incorporating the FASAB definition of 

deferred maintenance and repair as an addition to, or replacement for, 

“repair needs” data in fiscal year 2014. An FRPC member agency also 

indicated that FRPC might consider adopting industry standard definitions 

pertaining to maintenance costs to allow for a more comparable 

benchmarking across agencies and with the private sector.39

 38Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards 42: Deferred Maintenance and 

Repairs: Amending Statements of Federal Financial Accounting Standards 6, 14, 29 and 

32. SFFAS #42. (Apr. 25, 2012). This standard becomes effective for agencies’ fiscal year 

2015 financial reports.

39Interior officials identified the Building Owners and Management Association 

International (BOMA International) as a possible source for industry standard definitions. 

BOMA International represents the owners and managers of commercial property 

including nearly 10-billion square feet of office space in the United States. BOMA 

International’s mission is to advance the interests of the commercial real estate industry 

through advocacy, education, research, standards, and information. Interior officials said 

they have proposed FRPC adopt BOMA International’s standard definitions pertaining to 

building maintenance and operations. 

Selected Agencies 

Employ Most Leading 

Practices in 

Managing Their 

Backlogs, but 

Generally Do Not 

Identify the Funding 

Allotted to Address 

Backlogs
Page 14 GAO-14-188 Federal Real Property

We identified nine leading practices recognized as effective strategies for 

managing deferred maintenance and repair backlogs. These leading 

practices derive from more than 15 years of research conducted by the 

NRC on federal facilities to include the subject of their maintenance and 

repair and their deferred maintenance and repair backlogs.40 We found 

that each of the five agencies selected for this study generally use eight 

of the nine practices for addressing their backlogs. These practices 

include actions such as establishing clear maintenance-investment 

objectives, using condition assessments to establish funding levels for 

reducing deferred maintenance backlogs, and identifying primary 

methods for addressing maintenance and repair requirements. However, 

as discussed later in this report, four of the five agencies do not use a 

ninth leading practice that, in general, entails structuring budgets to 

specifically identify the funding allotted (1) for maintenance and repair and 

(2) to address any backlog of deferred deficiencies. Table 2 outlines the 

eight leading practices employed by the agencies to manage their 

backlogs and provides examples of their use. Agencies’ use of some of 

these leading practices, in part, is reflected in our decision to deemphasize concerns over the federal government’s ability to manage the 

deteriorating condition of facilities as a factor contributing to the 

placement of federal real-property management on our high-risk list.41

Table 2: Leading Practices Used by Five Agencies to Manage Their Deferred Maintenance and Repair Backlogs

Practice Examples of actions taken 

(1) Establish clear 

maintenance and repair 

investment objectives 

and set priorities 

among outcomes to be 

achieved. 

• All five agencies established objectives related to maintenance and repair investments.

• For example, Interior’s investment objective is to maintain its mission-critical assets that 

provide the public the most return on federal investment.

• All five agencies employ outcome-based, priority-setting criteria to decide among competing projects 

and outcomes, such as criteria intended to improve safety.

• For example, VA prioritizes its projects according to six major criteria which include, among 

others, “Fixing What We Have” (i.e., making the most of current assets) and “Departmental 

Initiatives” (e.g., such as complying with federal energy standards). 

 40NRC reviews were initiated in response to requests from the Federal Facilities Council 

(FFC). FFC is comprised of representatives from multiple federal agencies’ with the intent 

to, among other purposes, provide a forum to identify government-wide issues regarding 

facility planning, design, construction, operation, maintenance, and real property 

management.

41GAO, High-Risk Series: Managing Federal Real Property, GAO-11-278 (Washington, 

D.C.: February 2011).

Selected Agencies Use 

Most Leading Practices as 

Strategies to Manage 

Their Backlogs
Page 15 GAO-14-188 Federal Real Property

Practice Examples of actions taken 

(2) Identify types of 

facilities or specific 

buildings (i.e., assets) 

that are mission-critical 

and missionsupportive.

• All five agencies have categorized the mission dependency of their assets and generally prioritize 

project funding for assets that support their missions while minimizing investments in non-mission 

dependent assets.

• For example, at the U.S. Coast Guard Training Center in Yorktown, Virginia, officials 

reported maintenance and repair will not be funded on the main ship pier as it is not mission 

dependent, but that safety and environmental requirements will be funded. Mission critical 

assets that the Coast Guard plans to continue to maintain at the site include training 

buildings and a weapons range. 

(3) Conduct condition 

assessments as a basis 

for establishing 

appropriate levels of 

funding required to 

reduce, if not eliminate, 

any deferred 

maintenance and repair 

backlog.

• All five agencies conduct facility condition assessments (FCA) to identify condition deficiencies of 

their assets and inform budgeting decisions. For example:

• GSA sites conduct FCAs every 2 years to estimate repairs and alterations needed to 

correct identified deficiencies and restore its buildings to an “acceptable” condition. 

Deficiencies and needs are categorized as work that should be completed either 

“immediately,” “within 1-2 years,” “within 3-5 years,” or “within the next 6 or more years.”

More in-depth building engineering reports are also performed to support GSA’s majorrepair and alteration projects.

• DOE’s Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility in Newport News, Virginia, conducts 

FCAs every 4 years, and based on risk, some assets are assessed more frequently.

(4) Establish 

performance goals, 

baselines for 

outcomes, and 

performance measures.

• All five agencies have established performance goals, baselines to measure outcomes, and 

performance measures. For example:

• National Park Service (NPS)—part of Interior—annually reports the “percent of historic 

structures in good condition” and outlines its past performance and the current fiscal year 

goal in its budget request. For its fiscal year 2014 budget request, NPS’s goal was that 61 

percent of its historic structures would achieve a good condition rating.

• VA’s FY2014 budget justification reports the past performance, current fiscal year 2013 

goal, and condition targets for VA’s asset portfolio.

(5) Identify the primary 

methods to be used for 

delivering maintenance 

and repair activities.

• All five agencies generally use a mix of project methods to address their maintenance and repair 

needs to include major and minor projects that may entail component system repairs or 

replacements, renovations to existing assets, new construction, disposal of assets, and use of publicprivate partnerships (such as energy-savings performance contracts).

• For example, recent GSA-funded major and minor projects at the Forrestal Building in 

Washington, D.C.—in which DOE is a federal tenant—included a $51 million repair (by 

replacement) of the building’s fire alarm system and installation of a new sprinkler system 

and nearly $1 million in repairs to the building’s expansion joints.

• VA’s non-recurring maintenance (NRM) program is its primary method to address condition 

deficiencies largely through system replacement projects and renovations to its medical 

treatment facilities. For instance, on our site visit to the VA Medical Center in Martinsburg, 

West Virginia, we saw one NRM project under way to renovate a mental health domiciliary 

unit that VA estimates will address approximately $1.5 million in backlog deficiencies. 

(6) Employ models for 

predicting the outcome 

of investments, 

analyzing tradeoffs, 

and optimizing among 

competing 

investments. 

• Four of the five agencies use modeling tools, to varying extents, to support predicting the outcome of 

investments, analyzing tradeoffs, and optimizing among competing investments in assets and 

projects.

• For example, at the Colonial National Historical Park in Virginia, NPS has: (1) grouped its 

assets into “optimizer bands”—based on their condition and mission priority—to make 

decisions on allocating limited maintenance investments; (2) predicted how the condition of 

its critical assets would be affected by investment assumptions; and, (3) modeled the lifecycle system replacement needs (e.g., when to replace a roof) of its assets over a 10-year 

time frame. 
Page 16 GAO-14-188 Federal Real Property

Practice Examples of actions taken 

(7) Align real property 

portfolios with mission 

needs and dispose of 

unneeded assets.

• All five agencies seek to align and modernize their asset portfolios, which may require those 

agencies to renovate existing assets, construct new facilities, or dispose of some assets to meet their 

mission needs. For example:

• Considering DOE’s Thomas Jefferson National Laboratory, we found its 10-year site plan 

identifies the need to both renovate an existing test lab space and construct new research 

space. These projects—which are nearing completion—are expected to: (1) address over 

$5 million in deferred maintenance, (2) vacate over 20,000 square feet of leased space, and 

(3) eliminate temporary trailers that housed staff.

• Within Interior, the Fish and Wildlife Service’s 2008 master plan for the Patuxent Research 

Refuge calls for renovating some of the site’s existing assets, constructing new laboratory 

space, and disposing—through demolition—a number of unneeded assets in order that 

areas may be returned to wildlife habitat use.

• Agencies are also retiring some of their backlog by reducing the “footprint” of their asset portfolios, a 

process that may entail disposing of unneeded assets by demolition, sale, or transfer.

• At Colonial National Historical Park, NPS demolished a 2,700-square-foot seasonal dorm in 

2011 that was excess to NPS’s mission need, not historic, infested with termites, and 

structurally beyond economic repair. The dorm had over $400,000 of deferred maintenance 

and was demolished—along with other excess non-historic structures—under the park’s 

2009 housing master plan. 

(8) Identify the types of 

risks posed by lack of 

timely investment.

• All five of the agencies weigh and manage risks posed by lack of timely investment.

• For example, Interior’s project ranking criteria includes “Consequences of Failure to Act,”

which emphasizes projects that address unacceptable risks. Highest risk critical health and 

safety requirements must be addressed soon after identification, or the facility must be 

closed until repairs are complete in order to protect the safety of employees and the public.

• At DHS’s National Emergency Training Center—in Emmitsburg, Maryland—officials 

reported that in the last 2 fiscal years, DHS has funded critical, emergency repairs affecting 

safety while deferring other repairs due to limited funding. For example, critical roof and 

elevator replacement projects were recently completed while a renovation to the site’s 

cafeteria has not yet been implemented.

Source: GAO analysis of agency-provided information.

While agencies employed eight of the nine leading practices identified by 

the NRC, we found that four of the five agencies selected for this study 

generally do not use a ninth leading practice related to funding. This 

practice, in general, entails structuring budgets to specifically identify the 

funding allotted (1) for maintenance and repair and (2) to address any 

backlog of deferred deficiencies because insufficient levels of such 

funding can cause agencies’ backlogs to increase.42

 42In 2008, we also reported agencies’ observations on the relationship between the level 

of repair and maintenance funding and backlogs. See 

According to the 

NRC, allotting sufficient funding for maintenance and repair is important 

because the funding needed to address deferred maintenance may be 

GAO-09-10.

Agencies Are Not 

Separately Identifying 

Funding Allotted to 

Manage Their Backlogs
Page 17 GAO-14-188 Federal Real Property

significantly greater than if maintenance activities had been funded when 

needed.43 However, agencies’ budgeting processes and justifications may 

not enable implementation of this practice. In September 2012, we found 

that agencies’ budgeting processes, account structures, and justifications 

differ to reflect the preferences of appropriations committees and the 

controls and incentives these committees consider important.44 Similarly, 

the NRC has reported that agencies’ budget development varies as a 

result of their different missions; the sizes, compositions, and distributions 

of their facilities; and their organizational cultures.45

As an example of differences in agencies’ budgeting processes and 

justifications, DOE explicitly reports—as directed by a Conference 

Report—funding allotted and spent by its program offices

As a result, the 

budgeting information provided to Congress on the funding allotted for 

maintenance and repairs and to address backlogs varies across 

agencies. This variance, according to the NRC, makes it difficult for 

individual agencies and the government as a whole (1) to identify the 

beneficial outcomes or the adverse consequences of different investment 

strategies, (2) to share lessons learned, and (3) to improve the outcomes 

of maintenance and repair investments government-wide.

46 for (1) 

maintenance and repair and (2) deferred maintenance and repair backlog 

reduction as part of its annual budget process;47

 43NRC, Investments in Federal Facilities: Asset Management Strategies for the 21st 

Century (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press: 2004). This report identifies a 

2003 study that estimated a capital liability between $4 and $5 is created for each $1 of 

deferred maintenance. 

however, the other four 

44GAO, Veteran’s Health Care Budget: Better Labeling of Services and More Detailed 

Information Could Improve the Congressional Budget Justification, GAO-12-908

(Washington, D.C.: September 2012).

45NRC, Predicting Outcomes from Investments in Maintenance and Repair for Federal 

Facilities (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press: 2012).

46DOE program offices include entities such as Office of Science, the National Nuclear 

Security Administration, and Office of Nuclear Energy, among others. 

47The Conference Report (H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-10) accompanying the Consolidated 

Appropriations Resolution, 2003, directs the Department to ensure that adequate funds 

are budgeted for facility maintenance and disposition, and that the amounts reported in 

the Integrated Facilities and Infrastructure crosscut budget be expended solely for these 

purposes. The Report also directs the Department to provide an annual year-end report 

on maintenance expenditures to the Committees on Appropriations. H.R. Rep. No. 108-

10, at 886-887 (2003).
Page 18 GAO-14-188 Federal Real Property

agencies we examined generally do not explicitly identify funding 

budgeted for maintenance and repair and for addressing their deferred 

backlogs. In addition, within some agencies we found variations among 

offices and bureaus concerning the level of budget information they 

provide on funding needs for maintenance and repairs and to address 

backlogs. Table 3 illustrates examples of differences across and within 

agencies concerning budget structures for funding maintenance, repair, 

and deferred maintenance and repair.

Table 3: Examples of How Selected Agencies Structure Budget Information about Maintenance, Repair, and Deferred 

Maintenance

Agency Examples 

DOE • DOE prepares an “Integrated Facilities and Infrastructure Crosscut” budget exhibit to consolidate and demonstrate 

proposed funding budgeted by DOE programs (such as DOE’s Office of Science) for both (1) maintenance and

repair and (2) deferred maintenance reduction as well as other activities that may reduce DOE’s backlog such as 

implementing capital projects and disposing of assets. At the end of the year, DOE also prepares a real-property 

maintenance expenditures report for Congress that shows what DOE actually expended for maintenance and 

repair.

GSA • GSA requests annual funding for maintenance and repair needs within its “Building Operations” budget account, 

which funds a variety of additional activities such as utilities, cleaning costs, and salaries. GSA officials reported its 

regions have flexibility to manage their building-operations account locally and that GSA headquarters does not 

have detailed insight on how much is allotted by its regional offices for maintenance and repair.

• GSA projects addressing its deferred backlog are funded through multiple GSA accounts to include its “Basic (or 

Minor) Repairs and Alterations” and its “Major Repairs and Alterations” accounts. Because those accounts also 

fund functional alterations and improvements, like space renovations and security improvements, it is unclear what 

effect projects funded by those accounts may have on GSA’s estimated $1.5 billion backlog of repair needs.

DHS • DHS offices structure their budget justifications differently from one another, and funding for facility maintenance 

and repair, as well funding for deferred backlog requirements, are not always identified.

• For example, the Coast Guard requests combined funding for operations and maintenance within its 

“Operating Funds and Unit Level Maintenance” account, and it requests funding for deferred backlog 

projects within its “Depot Level Maintenance” account. Those accounts can fund other activities including 

costs related to cutters, aircraft, equipment, and fuel. Thus, it is unclear how much funding Coast Guard 

allots for the maintenance and repair of its real property assets and to address its backlog.

• In comparison, Customs and Border Protection’s budget justification provides Congress with a “crosswalk”

report that separately shows funding proposed specifically for real property: (1) operations; (2) 

maintenance and repair; and (3) deferred maintenance projects.
Page 19 GAO-14-188 Federal Real Property

Agency Examples 

Interior • Interior bureaus also structure their budget justifications differently from one another and do not always identify 

funding needed explicitly for maintenance and repair nor for addressing deferred maintenance projects as part of 

its budget process. Interior officials reported that some bureaus may include part or all of this information as part of 

their budget requests.

• For example, we found the National Park Service’s (NPS) fiscal year 2014 budget justification separately 

identifies funding requests for (1) “Facility Operations,” (2) “Facility Maintenance,” and (3) “Repair and 

Rehabilitation,” which is NPS’s principal deferred maintenance program. Further, NPS identifies total 

funding needed for maintenance and repair in relation to a lesser amount it actually requested within the 

constrained federal budget environment.

• In comparison, Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) fiscal year 2014 budget justification does not separately 

report funding proposed for maintenance and repair of real property assets. While FWS separately 

reported funding requested for “deferred maintenance,” its request for “annual maintenance” included 

funds for other operating expenses such as refuge habitat and wetland resource maintenance, utilities, 

custodial services, and snow removal. Thus it is unclear the extent funding resources are being directed 

by FWS to maintain the condition of its assets.

• For major construction projects, both NPS and FWS include project data sheets in their budget 

justifications that indicate the deferred maintenance associated with a project and the estimated 

improvement in facility condition that will result from a project.

VA • VA’s budget does not specifically identify recurring maintenance and repair funding allotted to maintain the 

condition of VA hospitals. Rather, VA’s recurring maintenance and repair funding is included in VA’s budget under 

the “Medical Facilities” account, which funds not only routine maintenance and repair but also activities such as 

laundry and leases.

• VA’s budget does identify funds requested for non-recurring maintenance (NRM) projects, such as those that 

address VA’s backlog of condition deficiencies. However, NRM projects may address other needs such as clinical 

improvement projects that may entail space renovations and additions that may not address deferred maintenance 

needs.

• VA’s deferred backlog requirements may be also funded through VA “Major Construction”, and “Minor 

Construction” accounts. While VA’s sites are required to estimate the amount of backlog deficiencies that 

will be reduced by a project, the information is not published in VA’s budget justification. Thus, it is unclear 

how much funding is allotted to addressing VA’s backlog.

Source: GAO analysis based on agency budget information.

While agencies’ budgets may not be structured to provide information on 

funding allotted to address maintenance and repairs and associated 

backlogs as suggested by the NRC, FRPP contains some data elements 

that might be used to obtain insight in this area. In particular, agencies 

must submit “annual operating costs” to FRPP, and as previously 

discussed, FRPP contains “repair needs” data that estimate agencies’

maintenance and repair backlogs. As currently structured, however, the 

“annual operating costs” data element in FRPP does not differentiate the 

amount spent on recurring maintenance and repairs from other annual 
Page 20 GAO-14-188 Federal Real Property

operating expenses, such as costs for janitorial services and utilities.48 As 

a result, agencies’ annual reporting of these data provides a partial 

mechanism for assessing funding allotted for maintenance and repair, but 

the data are not sufficiently useful as currently structured to allow full 

insight into agencies’ funding of maintenance and repairs and the 

corresponding effects on maintenance and repair backlogs.49

As we have previously concluded, FRPC has had several years of 

experience with FRPP data and is now in a better position to refine data 

collection requirements.

Additionally, 

FRPP data elements do not currently allow for the collection and reporting 

on the funding agencies spend on addressing deferred maintenance and 

repair deficiencies.

50 Along these lines, in June 2012, we 

recommended that the Administrator of GSA, in collaboration and 

consultation with FRPC member agencies, develop and implement a plan 

to improve the FRPP data to include designating performance measures 

linked to clear performance goals.51 In response to those 

recommendations, GSA reported it would work with OMB and FRPC 

members to designate new performance measures in FRPP that will

reflect current real property priorities.52

 48FRPC’s fiscal year 2013 reporting guidance indicates it will explore further 

standardization of the definition for operating costs in fiscal year 2014. 

OMB staff indicated to us that, as 

FRPC develops new real property metrics, FRPC is now considering 

collecting data and metrics on asset performance external to FRPP as 

another mechanism to assess the effectiveness of federal real property 

management. As GSA, OMB, and FRPC member agencies work to

improve FRPP data and develop new performance metrics, the 

opportunity exists for them to revise requirements for agencies to collect 

49In its most recent report, Predicting Outcomes from Investments in Maintenance and 

Repair for Federal Facilities, the NRC called for, among other actions, greater 

transparency in budget execution. See footnote 45.

50GAO, Federal Real Property: National Strategy and Better Data Needed to Improve 

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

2012). 

51See GAO-12-645.

52Executive Order No. 13327 established the FRPC to, among other purposes, work with 

the Administrator of General Services to establish performance measures to determine 

the effectiveness of federal real property management. The executive order indicated that 

such measures shall include, but not be limited to, evaluating the costs and benefits 

involved with maintaining and repairing federal real property in addition to other costs.
Page 21 GAO-14-188 Federal Real Property

and report (1) the costs agencies expend on annual maintenance and 

repair and (2) the annual costs incurred to address their deferredmaintenance and repair backlogs. Having this information would further 

improve the federal government’s reporting on its efforts to manage its 

real property portfolio and would enable an accounting of what funding 

resources have been spent in support of agencies’ efforts to manage their 

backlogs. As we concluded in September 2013,53 providing 

transparency—such as shedding light on the amount of spending, what it

is spent on, and what are the results of that spending—is essential to 

improving government accountability and can, among other outcomes, 

improve oversight and the effectiveness of federal spending.54

Federal facilities have developed maintenance and repair backlogs 

totaling billions of dollars that, left unchecked, can result in more 

expensive repairs, higher operating costs, and diminished performance of 

the facilities. Agencies have followed most leading practices in managing 

their backlogs including establishing clear investment outcomes, using 

condition assessments to establish funding levels for reducing deferred 

maintenance backlogs, and identifying primary methods for addressing 

maintenance and repair requirements. However, a mechanism does not 

fully exist to provide, as another leading practice suggests, for a 

transparent reporting of the funding agencies have allotted for (1) 

conducting annual maintenance and repair activities and (2) addressing 

any backlog of deferred deficiencies in relation to their reported backlogs. 

As efforts continue to improve FRPP data and develop metrics for 

assessing the effectiveness of agencies’ real property management, the 

opportunity exists to focus attention on this key relationship between 

agencies’ annual maintenance and repair expenditures and agencies’

deferred maintenance and repair backlogs. Making changes to FRPP—or 

developing related performance metrics outside of FRPP—to convey 

information on funding annually expended on recurring maintenance and 

repairs and to address existing maintenance and repair backlogs would 

 53GAO, Federal Spending Data Transparency: Opportunities Remain to Incorporate 

Lessons Learned as Availability of Spending Data Increases, GAO-13-758 (Washington, 

D.C.: September 2013).

54We also reported that both the administration and members of Congress have 

suggested the need for more transparency.

Conclusions
Page 22 GAO-14-188 Federal Real Property

enable transparent reporting on the resources being directed at managing 

federal agencies’ maintenance and repair backlogs.

To provide increased transparency about the funding amounts agencies 

are spending to maintain their assets and manage their backlogs, we 

recommend that the Director of OMB require the OMB Deputy Director for 

Management, as chair of the FRPC, in collaboration and consultation with 

FRPC member agencies, to take the following two actions:

1. Collect information through FRPP or other mechanisms on agencies’

costs for annual recurring maintenance and repair performed—

information that is currently incorporated within agencies’ annual 

operating costs—and report summary level information in the FRPC’s 

fiscal year report. This recommendation is not intended to limit FRPC 

from continuing to collect and report on agencies’ overall annual 

operating costs, which can include annual maintenance costs plus 

other operating expenses such as the cost of utilities.

2. Collect information—through FRPP or other mechanisms—on funding 

agencies annually spent to address existing deferred maintenance 

and repair deficiencies and report summary level information in the 

FRPC’s fiscal year report.

We provided a draft of this report to OMB, DOE, DHS, Interior, GSA, and 

VA for review and comment. OMB generally concurred with the report 

and agreed with our recommendations. DOE, DHS, Interior, GSA, and 

OMB provided technical clarifications, which we incorporated where 

appropriate. DHS’s letter is contained in appendix III.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Director 

and Deputy Director of OMB, the Secretaries of Energy, Homeland 

Security, the Interior, and Veterans Affairs and the Administrator of GSA. 

Additional copies will be sent to interested congressional committees. We 

also will make copies available to others upon request, and the report will 

be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff has any questions about this report, please contact me 

at (202) 512-2834 or wised@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments
Page 23 GAO-14-188 Federal Real Property

of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are 

listed in appendix IV.

Sincerely yours,

David J. Wise

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues
Appendix I: Examples of Deferred-Maintenance 

and Repair Projects That Included Energy 

Efficiency Improvements

Page 24 GAO-14-188 Federal Real Property

We have previously reported on opportunities to concurrently address 

agency deferred maintenance and repair backlogs and reduce energy 

consumption.1 For example, in January 2009 we concluded that agencies 

can replace old systems—such as heating and air conditioning, electrical, 

and plumbing—with new, more efficient systems that would lead to 

energy savings and reduce or eliminate deferred maintenance and repair 

associated with the systems. Understanding that agencies can address 

their backlogs and energy savings with the same project—these projects 

are principally intended to reduce utility costs but may also reduce 

deferred maintenance—we asked each of our five selected agencies to 

provide examples of locations that undertook deferred maintenance and 

repair projects that also resulted in energy savings (see figs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 

and 6 below). These projects range widely in the extent to which they 

address agencies’ deferred maintenance and repair backlogs and 

increase energy efficiency. For example, DOE’s Idaho National 

Laboratory completed a number of energy-efficiency projects that 

addressed several needed maintenance and repair activities, including 

replacing old fuel-oil-fired heating boilers with new electric boilers (see fig. 

3). DOE estimated the projects reduced its backlog by over $10 million 

and will result in an estimated energy reduction of over 53,000 Million 

British thermal units (MBtu) per year.2 These projects were also funded in 

a variety of ways, including with one-time funds from the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and by use of an energy savings 

performance contract (ESPC) or a utility energy service contract (UESC).3

 1

GAO, Real Property: Infrastructure Investment Presents Opportunities to Address Longstanding Real Property Backlogs and Reduce Energy Consumption, 

Under an ESPC, agencies enter into a long-term contract with a private 

company under which the company finances and implements projects to 

GAO-09-324T

(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 22, 2009).

2

A British thermal unit is a measure of heat energy, such as that produced by fuel burned 

in a boiler to produce steam.

3

Energy savings performance contracts are contracts between a federal agency and an 

energy service provider. Based on the results of a comprehensive energy audit, an energy 

service company, in consultation with the federal agency, designs and constructs a project 

to save energy and arranges the necessary financing. The contractor guarantees that the 

improvements will generate energy cost savings sufficient to pay for the project over the 

term of the contract. Utility energy service contracts are agreements in which a utility 

arranges financing to cover the capital costs of a project, which are repaid by the agency, 

generally using appropriated funds, over the contract term. Repayments are usually based 

on estimated cost savings generated by the energy efficiency measures, but energy 

savings are not necessarily required to be guaranteed by the contractor.

Appendix I: Examples of DeferredMaintenance and Repair Projects That 

Included Energy Efficiency Improvements
Appendix I: Examples of Deferred-Maintenance 

and Repair Projects That Included Energy 

Efficiency Improvements

Page 25 GAO-14-188 Federal Real Property

improve energy efficiency; agencies then repay the company from the 

utility costs savings achieved from those energy projects.

Figure 2: GSA Deferred Maintenance and Repair Project That Included Energy Efficiency Improvements

Note: Estimates above are based on a GAO review of agency information. We did not assess the 

reliability of these numbers because they were not material to our findings, conclusions, and 

recommendations.

a

Steam traps are valves used within a heating system to remove hot condensate, air, and other noncondensable gases while preventing or minimizing the passing of steam.
Appendix I: Examples of Deferred-Maintenance 

and Repair Projects That Included Energy 

Efficiency Improvements

Page 26 GAO-14-188 Federal Real Property

Figure 3: DOE Deferred Maintenance and Repair Project That Included Energy Efficiency Improvements

Note: Estimates above are based on a GAO review of agency information. We did not assess the 

reliability of these numbers because they were not material to our findings, conclusions, and 

recommendations.
Appendix I: Examples of Deferred-Maintenance 

and Repair Projects That Included Energy 

Efficiency Improvements

Page 27 GAO-14-188 Federal Real Property

Figure 4: DHS Deferred Maintenance and Repair Project That Included Energy Efficiency Improvements

Note: Estimates above are based on a GAO review of agency information. We did not assess the 

reliability of these numbers because they were not material to our findings, conclusions, and 

recommendations.
Appendix I: Examples of Deferred-Maintenance 

and Repair Projects That Included Energy 

Efficiency Improvements

Page 28 GAO-14-188 Federal Real Property

Figure 5: Interior Deferred Maintenance and Repair Project That Included Energy Efficiency Improvements

Note: Estimates above are based on a GAO review of agency information. We did not assess the 

reliability of these numbers because they were not material to our findings, conclusions, and 

recommendations.
Appendix I: Examples of Deferred-Maintenance 

and Repair Projects That Included Energy 

Efficiency Improvements

Page 29 GAO-14-188 Federal Real Property

Figure 6: VA Deferred Maintenance and Repair Project That Included Energy Efficiency Improvements

Note: Estimates above based on GAO review of agency information. We did not assess the reliability 

of these numbers because they were not material to our findings, conclusions, and recommendations.

a

Metering is not available to measure that actual energy savings resulting from this project. Therefore, 

officials used equipment specifications to estimate this increase in energy efficiency.
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 30 GAO-14-188 Federal Real Property

The objectives of our review were to determine (1) selected agencies’

estimates of their deferred maintenance and repair backlogs, and (2) the 

strategies, if any, these agencies used to reduce deferred maintenance 

and repair backlogs and how those strategies compare to leading 

practices. We also reported examples of deferred maintenance and repair 

projects that included energy efficiency improvements (see app. I).

To address our objectives, we selected five civilian agencies that were 

examined as part of GAO’s 2011 high risk update on managing federal 

real property and reported a high ratio of deferred maintenance and 

repairs to annual operating costs. Based on these criteria, we selected 

the General Services Administration (GSA), the Department of Energy 

(DOE), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of 

the Interior (Interior), and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

To determine selected agencies’ estimates of deferred maintenance and 

repair backlogs, we gathered and analyzed deferred maintenance and 

repair data for fiscal years 2008 through 20121 from agency financial 

reports2 and the Federal Real Property Profile (FRPP).3

 1

Our determination was based on the most current data available which included the 2012 

financial reports and the fiscal year 2012 Federal Real Property Profile data

To assess the 

reliability of the agencies’ deferred maintenance and repair data from 

fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year 2012 financial reports and the FRPP, 

we interviewed agency staffs who manage the data and asked them 

about verification and validation procedures to help ensure the accuracy 

of the data, as well as how the data are gathered and used to compile 

annual reports. We also reviewed agency guidance and instructions for 

reporting deferred maintenance and repair data. We found the data to be 

sufficiently reliable for our reporting purposes and we note the limitations 

we identified in the data where appropriate throughout this report. Since

agencies do not report deferred maintenance and repair backlogs as a 

FRPP data element, we calculated the selected agencies’ total repair 

needs using the condition index and replacement value data they 

2

Agencies report unaudited deferred maintenance and repair estimates as required 

supplementary information accompanying their financial statements in their annual 

financial reports. 31 U.S.C. § 3515.

3

We selected this time period to encompass the available data subsequent to our 2008 

review of agencies’ maintenance and repair backlogs. See GAO-09-10.

Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 31 GAO-14-188 Federal Real Property

reported for each asset.4

To identify leading practices that agencies could employ as strategies to 

manage their backlogs of deferred maintenance and repair, we reviewed 

literature on deferred maintenance and repair, in general, and also as it

pertains to federal real property portfolios specifically. We reviewed 

studies conducted by the National Research Council (NRC) of the 

National Academies

To determine the reasons for differences in 

estimates from the two sources and the reasons for changes in agencies’

estimates over time, we reviewed Federal Financial Accounting 

Standards issued by the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board 

(FASAB) and FRPP reporting guidance issued by the Federal Real 

Property Council (FRPC). We also interviewed FASAB officials and Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) staff to understand changes made to 

the FASAB and FRPP backlog reporting requirements since 2011. In 

addition, we reviewed documents and interviewed officials with each 

selected agency about their deferred maintenance and repair backlog 

reporting and methods used to collect reported data and calculate 

measures of deferred maintenance and repair. We also inquired about 

the reasons for changes in their backlog estimates over time. We also 

interviewed staff from the OMB to discuss their role in overseeing FRPP 

reporting, including updates to the FRPP reporting guidance.

5 over the past 15 years on maintaining federal 

facilities.6

 4

The formula for calculating repair needs is defined by (1 - condition index/100) x 

replacement value. Under this formula, agencies report condition index as a percentage 

from 0 to 100, with 100 representing the best possible condition for an asset.

Those reported studies included: (1) Stewardship of Federal 

Facilities: A Proactive Strategy for Managing the Nation’s Public Assets

(1998); (2) Investments in Federal Facilities: Asset Management 

Strategies for the 21st Century (2004); and (3) Predicting Outcomes from 

Investments in Maintenance and Repair for Federal Facilities (2012). 

Based on the findings and recommendations within those studies, we 

derived nine leading practices that agencies could employ to manage the 

5

The National Academies comprises four organizations: the National Academy of 

Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and NRC.

6

NRC reviews were initiated in response to requests from the Federal Facilities Council 

(FFC). FFC is comprised of representatives from multiple federal agencies with the intent 

to, among other purposes, provide a forum to identify government-wide issues regarding 

facility planning, design, construction, operation, maintenance, and real property 

management.
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 32 GAO-14-188 Federal Real Property

maintenance and repair needs of federal real property assets.7 We 

identified these nine leading practices as those most relevant and 

appropriate to federal agencies managing deferred maintenance and 

repair backlogs, but note that these do not represent all actions federal 

agencies could employ to improve the management of their real property 

to include their maintenance and repair programs.8

To identify examples of (1) leading practices agencies are using to 

address deferred maintenance and repair and (2) deferred maintenance 

and repair projects that included energy efficiency improvements, we 

selected at least two site-visit locations from our five agencies. These 

selections were based primarily on the amount of deferred maintenance 

and repair,

To determine whether 

the agencies were employing those leading practices, we reviewed 

agency guidance for identifying, prioritizing, and budgeting as it relates to 

managing their deferred maintenance backlogs. We provided the 

agencies—at the headquarters level—a series of structured questions 

and requested written responses about the extent their agency uses any 

of the identified leading practices for managing their deferred 

maintenance and repair backlogs. During 10 site visits and 2 conference 

calls, we discussed with agencies’ site officials whether they employed 

those leading practices.

9

• Colonial National Historical Park—Interior (Yorktown, VA);

geographic location, and recommendations from agency 

officials on sites where a deferred maintenance and repair project was 

undertaken that also improved energy efficiency. Specifically, we spoke 

with officials from:

• Dallas Veterans Affairs Medical Center—VA (Dallas, TX);

• National Emergency Training Center—DHS (Emmitsburg, MD);

 7

NRC findings and recommendations were based, in part, on its assessment and 

identification of some effective maintenance and repair practices that some federal 

agencies employed as well as some effective practices employed by some recognized 

private sector companies. 

8

We provided the identified strategies to internal subject matter experts for review and 

comment before finalizing our selection.

9

The Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security, Department of the 

Interior, and Department of Veterans Affairs each have numerous components, bureaus, 

or programs that may address deferred maintenance and repair differently. Therefore, we 

selected sites within components, bureaus, or programs that had the highest amounts of 

deferred maintenance and repair.
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 33 GAO-14-188 Federal Real Property

• Food and Drug Administration, White Oak Campus—GSA (Silver 

Spring, MD);

• Forrestal Building—GSA (Washington, DC);

• Fort Worth Federal Center—GSA (Fort Worth, TX);

• Idaho National Laboratory—DOE (Idaho Falls, ID); by conference call;

• Los Alamos National Laboratory—DOE (Los Alamos, NM); by 

conference call;

• Martinsburg Veterans Affairs Medical Center—VA (Martinsburg, WV);

• Patuxent Research Refuge—Interior (Laurel, MD);

• Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility—DOE (Newport 

News, VA); and

• United States Coast Guard Training Center—DHS (Yorktown, VA).

Our findings based on work with the selected agencies and at selected 

sites do not support conclusions about other agencies and sites or about 

the management of deferred maintenance and repair across the federal 

government as a whole; however, our work provided us with insights on 

sites’ efforts in comparison to leading practices to address maintenance 

and repair requirements and manage backlogs.

We conducted this performance audit from February 2013 to January 

2014 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 34 GAO-14-188 Federal Real Property

Appendix III: Comments from the 

Department of Homeland Security
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 35 GAO-14-188 Federal Real Property

David J. Wise, (202) 512-2834 or wised@gao.gov

In addition to the contact above, Michael Armes (Assistant Director), John 

Bauckman, Russell Burnett, Matthew Cook, Collin Fallon, Michael 

Mgebroff, and Joshua Ormond made key contributions to this report.

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(542216)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

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

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

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

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

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TDD (202) 512-2537.

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

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

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

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

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

Contact:

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

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

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

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.