U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

30–939 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION–CHECKING 

IN WITH THE GOVERNMENT’S ACQUISITION 

AND PROPERTY MANAGER 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT 

AND GOVERNMENT REFORM 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 15, 2018 

Serial No. 115–70 

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

( 

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

http://oversight.house.gov 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

Trey Gowdy, South Carolina, Chairman 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Darrell E. Issa, California 

Jim Jordan, Ohio 

Mark Sanford, South Carolina 

Justin Amash, Michigan 

Paul A. Gosar, Arizona 

Blake Farenthold, Texas 

Virginia Foxx, North Carolina 

Thomas Massie, Kentucky 

Mark Meadows, North Carolina 

Ron DeSantis, Florida 

Dennis A. Ross, Florida 

Mark Walker, North Carolina 

Rod Blum, Iowa 

Jody B. Hice, Georgia 

Steve Russell, Oklahoma 

Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin 

Will Hurd, Texas 

Gary J. Palmer, Alabama 

James Comer, Kentucky 

Paul Mitchell, Michigan 

Greg Gianforte, Montana 

Elijah E. Cummings, Maryland, Ranking 

Minority Member 

Carolyn B. Maloney, New York 

Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Columbia 

Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri 

Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts 

Jim Cooper, Tennessee 

Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia 

Robin L. Kelly, Illinois 

Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan 

Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey 

Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois 

Jamie Raskin, Maryland 

Jimmy Gomez, Maryland 

Peter Welch, Vermont 

Matt Cartwright, Pennsylvania 

Mark DeSaulnier, California 

Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

SHERIA CLARKE, Staff Director 

ROBERT BORDEN, Deputy Staff Director 

WILLIAM MCKENNA, General Counsel 

RICHARD BURKARD, Senior Counsel 

KILEY BIDELMAN, Clerk 

DAVID RAPALLO, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

Mark Meadows, North Carolina, Chairman 

Jody B. Hice, Georgia, Vice Chair 

Jim Jordan, Ohio 

Mark Sanford, South Carolina 

Thomas Massie, Kentucky 

Ron DeSantis, Florida 

Dennis A. Ross, Florida 

Rod Blum, Iowa 

Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia, Ranking 

Minority Member 

Carolyn B. Maloney, New York 

Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Columbia 

Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri 

Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan 

Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on February 15, 2018 ....................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Emily W. Murphy, Administrator, General Services Administration 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 4 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 7 

The Honorable Alan B. Thomas, Jr., Commissioner, Federal Acquisition Service, General Services Administration 

The Honorable Dan Mathews, Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, General Services Administration 

The Honorable Carol F. Ochoa, Inspector General, General Services Administration 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 17 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 19 

APPENDIX 

Letter for the Record from The Honorable Carol F. Ochoa to Mr. Meadows ..... 50 

Questions for the Record to GSA, submitted by Members of the Committee ..... 54 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(1) 

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION– 

CHECKING IN WITH THE GOVERNMENT’S 

ACQUISITION AND PROPERTY MANAGER 

Thursday, February 15, 2018 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

Washington, DC 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mark Meadows presiding. 

Present: Representatives Meadows, Massie, Blum, Connolly, 

Maloney, Norton, Clay, and Lawrence. 

Mr. MEADOWS. The Subcommittee on Government Operations 

will come to order. 

Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess at 

any time. 

And just for planning purposes, I think we are going to have 

votes around 11:30 today, so it is my intention to make sure we get 

out of here before the vote so that you don’t have to, well, just hang 

out in a hearing room for an hour or so while we go to vote. So 

if you will keep your oral testimony as brief as possible but certainly not over the 5 minutes, Mr. Connolly and I have agreed to 

try and manage that expectation to make sure that we get out of 

here and still have a robust hearing but try to keep it succinct, if 

we can. 

I am pleased to hold the oversight hearing for the General Services Administration, or GSA as it is commonly known. Obviously, 

GSA plays a vital role in providing real estate acquisitions and 

technology services to Federal agencies. For some of you, this is not 

your first rodeo. You are back with us. Thank you so much and 

welcome. 

With respect to the Federal real properties, GSA owns or leases 

over 9,600 buildings. GSA has made some progress in reducing the 

Federal footprint, but GSA is still relying too much on costly 

leases, in my opinion. Total government leases for Fiscal Year 2016 

were well over $7 billion. So as we look at that, I am anxious to 

hear testimony on how we are going to address that. 

The Public Buildings Reform Board, which was created by 

FASTA, has been invested with a unique authority to identify and 

dispose of Federal real properties, and I understand that GSA is 

working to make the board operational, and I hope board members 

will be nominated quickly, and that is quickly in terms of standVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:13 Aug 28, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\30939.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
2 

ards on Main Street, not on K Street. So that would mean expeditiously, if we can do that. 

On the acquisitions side we continue to hear that the Federal acquisition system fails to leverage the benefits of truly buying commercial, so we look forward to hearing on that. 

And, instead the Federal procurement system is so complex and 

slow and often burdened with government unique regulatory requirements, making it difficult for the government to buy goods 

and services at the best price and in a timely manner. Over 20 

years ago, Congress established a preference for using commercial 

items and using standard commercial terms and conditions to 

maximize the extent practicable, and yet the complexity seems to 

have increased over recent years. 

I am going to keep my opening remarks as brief as I possibly 

can, but as we look at that, I will be interested to hear about the 

role of 18F going forward and GSA’s role in promoting the IT modernization and implementing the Government Technology Act. 

Finally, I would like to touch on the Regulatory Task Force work 

by GSA. I was encouraged by the GSA’s October 2017 testimony 

that GSA was working on ways to remove outdated requirements 

in the GSA acquisition regulation, and was also focused on the 

property management and travel regulations. 

So with all of that, I look forward to this being an illuminating 

hearing as we continue to move forward in making sure that our 

government is efficient and effective. 

With that, I will recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Connolly, 

for his opening remarks. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank my friend, and thank you for calling today’s hearing on the General Services Administration. 

GSA is not an agency that many Americans are familiar with, 

but its role in providing other Federal agencies with goods and 

services is essential to leveraging the Federal Government’s buying 

power, to find efficiencies, and to save taxpayer dollars. 

The Federal Acquisition Service helps agencies procure office 

supplies and telecommunication information technology services, 

among other items, and hopefully we will get the Pentagon to cooperate with that. 

GSA’s Public Building Service acts as the government’s landlord, 

helping agencies acquire and manage office space throughout the 

country. 

For the past six years, GSA has been working with the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation to help the Bureau find a replacement for 

its headquarters, which was described to Congress and the public 

as no longer adequate in helping the FBI fulfill its mission. This 

week, GSA announced that it will abandon entirely a plan to fully 

consolidate the headquarters of the FBI in favor of a more decentralized approach that involves the demolition and rebuilding of the 

J. Edgar Hoover building in Washington, D.C. at its current site. 

This followed a decision announced in July that cancelled the procurement of a new consolidated FBI headquarters in either Virginia or Maryland. 

These announcements constitute a body blow to public confidence 

in the Federal Government’s ability to effectively manage a building procurement on the scale of the proposed FBI headquarters. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
3 

The Federal Government comes off as unreliable and whimsical, at 

best. What damage has this done to faith in the Federal procurement process? What has the cost been to the private businesses, localities, and states that in good faith participated in this competition? 

The procurement process alone cost GSA, we believe, $20 million, 

with nothing to show for it. But cost to the FBI has not been disclosed, and even that information would not provide a comprehensive accounting of the taxpayer dollars wasted on this project. For 

that, we would have to include the uncertainty developers will now 

price into all future business involving large-scale Federal real 

property procurements and doing business with GSA. 

The decision has also had an impact on the hard-working men 

and women of the FBI who fight every day to keep our country 

safe. FBI’s current headquarters is, by every account, in disrepair 

and literally crumbling around its employees and on the walking 

public outside. We have to put netting outside the building because 

parts of it are crumbling. Instead of a new consolidated approach 

near home here in the D.C. region, some of those employees now 

face continued uncertainty about the project and the potential relocation elsewhere. 

The new GSA proposal is full of contradictions and flies in the 

face of a decade’s worth of analysis by both the GSA and the Government Accountability Office. The problems with GSA’s proposal 

are numerous, but one need only examine the economics and security aspects to raise serious questions about this decision. 

In July of last year, GSA blamed the inability to secure congressional appropriations for Fiscal Year 2018 for cancelling the 

project, a laughable explanation because, in fact, Congress offered 

money and offered money not even requested, and it was quite 

clear that on a bipartisan basis Congress would have provided the 

necessary funds for going forward with that project. 

So what is the agency’s proposed solution to that problem? Ap- parently, they are going to rely on Congress, a $2.2 billion appropriation request buried in the President’s infrastructure plan, a 

farce within a farce. 

GSA’s estimate of cost savings with this new plan are also overblown. The new plan is supposedly $200 million cheaper than the 

previous plan to consolidate the headquarters in one location. However, the cost estimate for demolish and rebuild will likely increase, 

almost certainly will increase as the project is further vetted, just 

as the estimate for the original consolidation project did. 

This new plan completely contradicts earlier plans that deemed 

the consolidation of the FBI components across the national capital 

region crucial to national security. Apparently, that is out the window. This new proposed plan would ensure that the FBI is one of 

the only members of the intelligence and antiterrorism community 

that does not have a stand-alone campus. So all of the concerns 

about the physical security and the urban setback risk at the current site also thrown out the window. 

CIA, DIA, NSA, and Homeland Security all have their own campuses which help mitigate physical and espionage threats, but not 

the FBI under this new plan. The question must be asked: If this 

decision has been informed by all of the Administration’s belief 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
4 

that the Federal workforce should be less concentrated in Washington, D.C. and more dispersed across the country, efficiencies, 

cost savings, and national security apparently be damned. 

Alternatively, maybe it is motivated by the fact that if GSA had 

gone ahead with their original plan, the Hoover site would have 

been turned into a private development that would have directly 

competed with the Trump Hotel for the entirety of the lease agreement. Developing the Hoover site into a mixed-use retail hotel and 

residential development could have clearly impacted the bottom 

line of the President of the United States. 

These questions hang in the air. The lack of transparency on the 

part of GSA in this process is partly because it has not worked 

with Congress to keep us informed and has stonewalled even basic 

requests from this committee. GSA’s resistance to oversight not 

only prevents Congress from performing its constitutional functions, it leads to stalled projects and appropriations, wasted taxpayer dollars, and public distrust. 

There will be a long-term cost to the profoundly bungled procurement of the new FBI headquarters. It will be difficult to quantify, 

but we can all be sure the American taxpayer will have to be forced 

to pick up the tab. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the gentleman for his opening statement. 

I am now pleased to introduce our witnesses. 

We have as a witness today the Honorable Emily W. Murphy, 

Administrator of the General Services Administration. Welcome. 

The Honorable Alan B. Thomas, Jr., Commissioner of the Federal 

Acquisition Service at GSA. Welcome, Mr. Thomas. 

The Honorable Dan Mathews, Commissioner of Public Buildings 

Service at GSA. 

And the Honorable Carol F. Ochoa, Inspector General at GSA. 

Welcome to you all. 

Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn in before they testify, so if you would please rise and raise your right 

hand. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right, thank you. You may be seated. 

Please, the record will reflect that all witnesses answered in the 

affirmative. 

In order to allow time, as I mentioned earlier, for discussion, 

please limit your oral testimony to 5 minutes, but certainly your 

entire written statement will be made part of the record. 

Ms. Murphy, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

WITNESS STATEMENTS 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE EMILY W. MURPHY 

Ms. MURPHY. Good morning, Chairman Meadows, Ranking Member Connolly, and members of the subcommittee. My name is 

Emily Murphy, and I am the new Administrator of the General 

Services Administration. With me today are Dan Mathews, Commissioner of the Public Buildings Service, and Alan Thomas, Commissioner of the Federal Acquisition Service. Thank you for your 

invitation to testify. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
5 

GSA’s mission is to deliver value and savings in real estate acquisition, technology, and other mission support services across the 

government. Today, GSA provides critical space to Federal agencies 

in nearly 8,700 buildings. Additionally, GSA facilitated $55 billion 

in acquisitions in Fiscal Year 2017. This includes $31 billion directly from GSA’s Multiple Award Schedules Program. 

As Administrator, my vision for GSA can be distilled into four 

principles: ethical leadership; reducing duplication; increasing competition; and improving transparency. In the spirit of reducing duplication, I won’t subject you to additional testimonies from either 

Commissioner Mathews or Commissioner Thomas. Allow me to 

spend a few minutes discussing some of these principles with examples of some of GSA’s work. 

Given the major role GSA plays in managing real estate and 

overseeing acquisition, we strive to ensure the American taxpayer 

is put first in all that we do. To accomplish this, GSA must have 

a culture that values contributions from all employees and is built 

on a strong foundation of ethical conduct. 

One of my first acts at GSA was to quadruple the amount of ethics training required for political appointees at GSA and then to 

work with the Inspector General to establish specific training for 

appointees by her office. Ensuring that senior staff are held to the 

highest standards helps instill a culture of integrity throughout the 

agency. 

Additionally, I have sat on the benches behind you as a Hill 

staffer for nine years, and let me state unequivocally that I strongly believe in the value of oversight and will be as forthcoming as 

possible with regard to all oversight requests. I also plan to rely 

heavily on the work of the Inspector General and GAO. 

Ms. Ochoa and I have monthly meetings, and she and her team 

provide valuable reporting that helps make GSA better. I look forward to meeting with the representatives in the GAO in the coming weeks. 

My second principle is reducing duplication. Keeping in mind our 

role as stewards of taxpayer dollars, it is essential that GSA identify ways to reduce duplication within our agency and across the 

Federal Government. For real property disposal and cost consolidation, GSA is leading by example. In the last five years, the agency 

has reduced the size of GSA’s occupied space by 40 percent. GSA 

also helped its customers reduce their occupancy in GSA-controlled 

space by over 2 million square feet in Fiscal Years 2015 and 2016. 

In Fiscal Year 2017, we partnered with Federal agencies to dispose 

of 123 non-performing or vacant assets government-wide, which 

generated $115 million in gross proceeds. 

Regarding IT modernization, last year we began establishing five 

Centers of Excellence. These Centers of Excellence will accelerate 

the modernization of IT infrastructure across the Federal Government by leveraging private-sector innovation and encouraging collaboration across agencies. 

My third principle is to increase competition. Whether looking to 

buy a product or acquire a new lease, the greater the competition, 

the greater the value to the taxpayer. In public buildings over the 

next five years, 100 million square feet of lease will expire, meaning we will need to reevaluate housing solutions for 55 percent of 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
6 

our lease portfolio. This creates a unique opportunity to promote 

market competition. 

On the acquisition side, GSA has developed tools to encourage 

competition at the contract level. One example is the Schedule 70 

springboard, which has already helped 32 innovative IT companies 

with fewer than two years of experience to join the Schedule 70. 

Finally, Congress provided GSA and other Federal agencies with 

the critical tool when it passed the Modernizing Government Technology Act. This legislation encourages agency IT innovation and 

will create successful templates that other agencies can follow. 

My fourth principle is transparency. Transparency helps expose 

flaws, instills trust in our workforce and among our partners, and 

can lead to better competition, more informed policy, and strong accountability. In accordance with FASTA, GSA released the Federal 

Real Property Profile public data set, which contains detailed information on more than 300,000 Federal assets. Making this data 

public helps reduce costs, increases utilization, and incentivizes 

Federal agencies to achieve greater efficiency. 

It is my hope that you have a clear understanding of the conviction that Dan, Alan and I bring to our roles at GSA. Thank you 

for the opportunity to be here today. We look forward to answering 

your questions. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Murphy follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
7 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 30939.001

Statement of Emily Murphy 

Administrator, U.S. General Services Administration 

Before the Subcommittee on Government Operations of the 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

Thursday, February 15, 2018 

2154 Rayburn House Office Building 

"General Services Administration -Checking in with the Government's Acquisition and 

Property Manager" 

Good morning Chairman Meadows, Ranking Member Connolly, and members of the 

Subcommittee. My name is Emily Murphy and I am the new Administrator of the U.S. General 

Services Administration (GSA). With me today is Daniel Mathews, Commissioner of the Public 

Buildings Service (PBS) at GSA, and Alan Thomas, Commissioner of the Federal Acquisition 

Service (FAS) at GSA. Thank you for your invitation to testify here today; we are grateful for the 

opportunity to talk about our acquisition and real estate programs. 

The mission of GSA is to deliver value and savings in real estate, acquisition, technology, and 

other mission-support services across government. Today, PBS provides critical space to 

Federal agencies across the country which contains nearly 8,700 buildings that represent 371 

million rentable square feet. Additionally, FAS facilitated $55 billion in acquisition in fiscal year 

2017. This includes $31 billion directly from GSA Multiple Award Schedules, which accounts for 

22 percent of the Federal market. 

As I stated at my confirmation hearing, my vision as Administrator for GSA can be distilled into 

four guiding principles that can be applied to every aspect of GSA's mission: ethical leadership, 

reducing duplication, increasing competition, and improving transparency. I will discuss these 

principles below, and provide examples of some of the ongoing work at GSA that applies to 

these categories. 

Ethical Leadership 

My first principle is ethical leadership. Given the major role GSA plays in managing real estate 

and overseeing acquisition, we must strive to ensure that we are putting the American ta\(payer 

first in all that we do. To accomplish this, GSA must have a culture that encourages a diversity 

of opinions and values the contributions of all employees in working together to promote the 

best possible decisions by the agency. 

I previously served at GSA during the second Bush Administration, and since my return to the 

agency, one of my first acts was to quadruple the amount of required ethics training for all 

political appointees at GSA. Political appointees play a critical role in the governance of an 

agency, and it is essential that they have a crystal clear understanding of what constitutes 
8 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 30939.002

appropriate and inappropriate behavior from day one. Moreover, ensuring that senior staff are 

held to the highest standards helps ensure and instill a culture of integrity throughout the 

agency. Moving forward, I plan to enhance this high level of training by adding more targeted 

ethics training by focusing on areas where GSA has a relatively unique role in the federal 

government. such as through a deeper focus on the Competition in Contracting Act. 

Additionally, as a former Hill staffer, I strongly believe in the value of oversight. To that end it 

has been - and will remain - my goal to be as forthcoming as possible with regard to any and all 

oversight requests received from this body. During my prior tenure at GSA, I relied heavily on 

the work of the Office of the Inspector General. I am highly appreciative of the important work of 

this office and grateful to Ms. Ochoa for her assistance as I take on this new role. 

Ms. Ochoa and I have monthly meetings and she and her team consistently provide valuable 

insight and reporting that helps make GSA better. I look forward to continuing our open line of 

communication with our oversight authorities and ensuring we have an environment where it is 

safe to report waste, fraud, or mismanagement. I also look forward to meeting with 

representatives from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in the coming weeks. I 

believe that the findings and recommendations made by GAO and our Inspector General are a 

roadmap of where we need to focus our attention as an agency. 

Moreover, the goal of these relationships is to further strengthen not only GSA's culture of 

ethical behavior, but also to signal to all employees that I wholly encourage the entire GSA 

workforce to share their opinions and be confident that their ideas will be taken seriously. My 

goal is to identify problems while they are still in the future, not after they happen. 

Reducing Duplication 

My second principle is reducing duplication. Keeping in mind our role as stewards of taxpayer 

dollars, it is essential that GSA identify ways to reduce duplication across our internal mission 

support services, in our own systems, and, where appropriate, across the Federal Government 

by facilitating the adoption of shared services. I take this task seriously, and would like to 

highlight some areas in which GSA is already making progress to reduce duplication. 

Disposal & Consolidation 

PBS is committed to leading the Federal Government in optimizing its owned and leased real 

property portfolio. Since 2012, GSA has reduced the size of its inventory occupied by its own 

employees by 2.4 million square feet, or 40 percent. One of the key reasons for achieving this 

success was the development of a GSA space utilization standard of 136 square feet per 

person. Many Federal office buildings now have open floor plans, which has driven the more 

efficient and effective use of office space while also fostering greater employee collaboration. 

In addition to managing its own portfolio, PBS also provides real estate services to more than 50 

Federal agencies and 400 bureaus. GSA equips these customers with long-term planning tools 
9 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 30939.003

to develop housing and mission requirements, as well as strategies to better manage current 

and future workspace. In fiscal year (FY) 2015 and FY 2016, PBS helped its customers reduce 

their occupancies in GSA-controlled space by over 2 million square feet, and has reduced its 

own occupied space by over 1 million square feet. 

The Consolidation Activities special emphasis (Consolidation) program is one of the tools 

available to support agency initiatives to reduce space and rental cost. Since its inception in FY 

2014, Congress has appropriated $263 million for the Consolidation program. These 

appropriations funded 78 Consolidation projects which, when complete, will result in an annual 

lease cost avoidance of $132 million, a space reduction of almost 1.7 million square feet, and 

reduced agency rent by $66 million annually. In other words, this investment pays for itself in 

two years and then saves taxpayers $132 million a year thereafter. 

One example of the Consolidation program's success and benefit to Federal customers is the 

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in New York City. Previously, the IRS occupied expensive 

leased space in Midtown Manhattan. A $3.5 million investment, through the Consolidation 

program, enabled the IRS to relocate to vacant space in an existing Federal building. When the 

IRS moved from federally-leased to owned space, the agency was also able to reduce the 

square footage it occupied by 75 percent. This consolidation saved taxpayers and the IRS $9 

million annually in lease payments. 

In addition to locating and executing consolidation opportunities, PBS also identifies and 

disposes of non-performing and vacant Federal real property. In FY 2017, GSA partnered with 

Federal agencies to dispose of 123 assets government-wide, which generated over $115 million 

in gross proceeds. These disposals resulted in a reduction of over 2.9 million square feet and 

893 acres from the federal footprint. 

However, the Federal Government is not the only participant and benefactor in this process. 

State, local, and non-profit partners play a vital role in helping GSA identify and unlock an 

asset's value and benefit. 

In May 2016, GSA determined that the Austin U.S. Courthouse, a building constructed in 1936 

and steps away from the Texas Capitol, was no longer needed by the Federal Government. 

Local government and others expressed interest in acquiring the building for public use. Travis 

County, in need of a place to house their Probate Courts, submitted an application to acquire 

the building via a Historic Monument Public Benefit Conveyance. The National Park Service, 

the sponsoring agency for the Historic Surplus Property Program, reviewed and approved their 

application. The transfer to Travis County saves the Federal Government funding to operate 

the facility while also benefiting the local community and ensuring the historic nature of this 

facility will be maintained. 

In 2016, Congress passed the Federal Assets Sale and Transfers Act (FAST A) to further 

encourage landholding agencies to reduce the number of unneeded and underutilized 

properties from the Federal inventory. GSA supports FAST A and we view this as one more 

valuable tool to incentivize agencies to be more efficient and effective in their management of 
10 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 30939.004

real property. The legislation streamlines the Federal real property disposal process by 

establishing an independent board to make recommendations for property disposals, along with 

creating a fund that will serve as a catalyst to further right-size Federal real property holdings. 

Last year, GSA issued FAST A data calls to Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act agencies. This 

gave Federal agenCies the opportunity to proactively identify FAST A candidate properties. GSA 

then collected, evaluated, and ranked agency FAST A submissions. GSA has also undertaken a 

contracting effort to engage the private sector to assist in the identification of candidate 

properties and conduct a data gap analysis of the program. GSA is confident that once the 

FAST A board is empaneled, our agency will be able to provide the board with the data and 

information it needs to carry out the .intent of the legislation. 

Multiple Award Schedule Program 

Reducing duplication is also a driving priority in the contracting arena. For instance, when it 

comes to the Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) program, GSA found that the lack of an easy way 

to acquire Order-Level Materials (OLM), also known as Other Direct Costs (ODC), was a major 

driver of contract duplication. This situation forced federal agencies to award duplicative 

contracts and meant some contractors had to juggle and manage many overlapping contracts. 

GSA published a new rule in late January of this year, which when fully implemented, permits 

federal agencies to add order-level materials to Schedule orders. This change, long sought by 

both federal agencies and Schedule contract-holders, is expected to make Schedules faster, 

easier, and less expensive to use for agencies and will reduce duplicative and inefficient 

contracts as well as removing barriers to entry into the federal marketplace, especially for small 

businesses and industry as a whole. 

Fleet Management 

Another area that FAS is engaged in to reduce duplication is through increasing opportunities 

for agencies to take advantage of centralized services. In FY 2018, GSA Fleet is commencing a 

series of consolidation studies at several agencies. We will perform these studies to determine 

if leasing from GSA would be more effective, efficient and would provide additional savings. 

Consolidations are a normal business activity for the private sector and GSA, but this effort 

expands this best practice on a larger scale. 

Leveraging GSA's Fleet shared services can save agencies time and money on operations and 

maintenance when compared to agencies who manage their own fleet vehicles. In fact, GSA 

Fleet leased vehicles demonstrate average savings of $2,514 per year per vehicle based on the 

2015 Federal Fleet Report. The agencies to be studied in FY 2018 all reported vehicle costs 

per mile for their owned vehicles that were notably higher than the costs per mile for GSA Fleet 

vehicles with similar capabilities. 

Centers of Excellence 
11 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 30939.005

Furthermore, FAS is working to reduce duplication in the information technology (IT) 

modernization space. For instance, last year, GSA began efforts, to establish five new Centers 

of Excellence (COE). The GOEs will house centralized, function specific talent, products and 

acquisition vehicles. Agencies have unique missions but the systems they build to deliver those 

missions rely on foundational capabilities that are not unique. The COE teams will provide 

expert advice, consulting, development and support solution implementation in the areas of: 

Cloud Adoption; IT Infrastructure Optimization; Customer Experience; Service Delivery 

Analytics; and Contact Centers. The first client agency for the GOEs is the United States 

Department of Agriculture (USDA). These Centers of Excellence will not only accelerate the 

modernization of IT infrastructure across the federal government, they will also leverage private 

sector innovation while encouraging collaboration across agencies to reduce duplication. The 

goal is to develop a model at one agency that can then be replicated at others, rather than 

several different departments pursuing several divergent IT modernization efforts. 

Regulatory Reform 

Finally, in support of Executive Order 13777, Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda, GSA 

established a Regulatory Reform Task Force that meets regularly to review existing acquisition 

regulations that would benefit from reform or elimination. Examples of regulatory reform 

proposals currently under review or being pursued include making it easier for vendors to do 

business with GSA. More specifically, GSA is looking at ways to remove outdated requirements 

in the GSA Acquisition Regulation that require contractors to submit multiple reports or 

redundant information. 

In addition, GSA issued a series of Federal Register notices to open our review to public input. 

The response has been strongly positive and resulted in over 1,100 comments from the public. 

GSA also sought and obtained input from its federal agency partners as well as GSA 

employees. In total, GSA received close to 2,100 comments addressing regulatory reform. We 

are currently reviewing all the comments, to identify the most appropriate for action, and will 

prioritize such action. 

Increase Competition 

My third principle is to increase competition. Whether it is when we are looking to buy a product 

or acquire a new lease, the greater the competition the greater the value to the taxpayer as it 

drives lower costs and increases quality and delivery speed. 

Lease Renegotiations 

In the public buildings space, more opportunities are on the horizon to further reduce the 

Federal Government's real estate costs through leasing. Over the next five years, just under 

5,000 of GSA's leases will expire-meaning we'll need to evaluate housing solutions for 55 

percent of our leased portfolio, or approximately 102 million square feet of government-occupied 
12 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 30939.006

space. This year, GSA has 7.1 million square feet of leased space expiring in the National 

Capital Region alone. 

To take advantage of these opportunities GSA begins working with Federal agencies as early 

as 36 months prior to lease expiration. This long-term planning allows for the development of 

lease procurements which promote market competition through expanded delineated areas. 

Additionally, GSA works to negotiate favorable longer term leases with property owners and, 

wherever possible, convert leased space to Federal ownership. 

For example, a lease contract to house the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission permits the 

Federal Government to exercise a favorable purchase option at the end of the lease term in 

2025. Upon expiration, GSA will have the opportunity to buy the building for $20 million. This 

purchase price is far less than comparable market rates for commercial buildings in 

Washington, D.C. and allows the government to avoid renewing a costly lease. 

"Making It Easier" 

Knowing the critical role competition plays in safeguarding taxpayer money, FAS's MASprogram 

has created tools to encourage competition at the contract level through the Making It Easier 

(MIE) initiative. MIE tools such as the RoadMap help businesses new to selling to the 

government navigate the on-boarding process by providing a step-by-step streamlined guide to 

potential MAS applicants. 

Another MIE tool is the FASt Lane program which ensures our federal partners have quicker 

access to emerging technologies and innovative suppliers. With FASt Lane, businesses 

experience shorter processing times for IT Schedule 70 contract actions that directly support 

federal requirements, including less than 48 hours for contract modifications; and getting new 

offers on Schedule in as quickly as 45 days. Since April2016, 285 companies have used this 

initiative to get on Schedule. 

Finally, the Schedule 70 Startup Springboard has helped 32 innovative IT companies with fewer 

than two years of experience join Schedule 70. With the goal of getting the latest innovative 

technologies into the hands of federal agencies faster by getting emerging technology 

companies onto Schedule 70, the government's largest IT contract vehicle, Startup SpringBoard 

makes it easier for qualified companies to get access to over $15 Billion in annual federal, state, 

and local IT opportunities. In addition, it establishes a pathway for all highly qualified IT 

companies to join Schedule 70 and give more small businesses access to these opportunities. 

Enterprise Infrastructure Solutions 

In an effort to improve government telecommunications and information technology 

infrastructure systems, GSA has been focused on transitioning from the Networx Universal and 

Enterprise contracts - as well as Regional Local Service Agreements for these services - to the 

Enterprise Infrastructure Solutions (EIS) contract. By consolidating 93 separate contracts into a 

single contract with a 15-year period of performance, GSA has sought to reduce duplication, 
13 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 30939.007

increase certainty and reliability, and more closely align services and solutions to industry 

standards. By enhancing acquisition efficiency, delivering better value and savings, and leading 

with innovation, EIS is a comprehensive solution-based vehicle that addresses all aspects of 

agencies' telecommunications and IT infrastructure requirements. 

Category Management 

Category management is another mechanism GSA is using to encourage competition 

government-wide. Leveraging category expertise streamlines the buying process, provides 

access to competitive pricing as well as quality products and services, and minimizes the time 

needed to make buying decisions for government. For businesses, category management 

increases opportunities for businesses by facilitating a level playing field, increasing 

transparency, and cultivating a well-informed government buyer. 

An example of category management principles in action to increase competition is 

demonstrated by recent work from the Facilities & Construction (F&C) category. The MAS 

program is a set of pre-negotiated contracts other federal agencies can utilize. Schedule 

03FAC, managed by the Facilities and Construction category, provides agencies a suite of 

facilities maintenance services. Conversations between the 03FAC team and the Department 

of Veterans Affairs (VA) revealed that the pool of Schedule 03FAC industry partners was 

insufficient to serve the VA's facilities maintenance needs. Currently, only 70 VA-verified 

service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses (SDVOSB) and veteran-owned small 

business (VOSB)-identified companies are on Schedule 03FAC- clearly, not enough to cover 

3,500 VA facilities. 

To increase the pool of available 03FAC suppliers, the F&C category began a concentrated 

recruitment process for verified companies, resulting in identifying 1, 000+ experienced 

companies that could be SDVOSB and VOSS industry partners. More than 100 of those 

companies have expressed interest to date- potentially doubling the number of VA-verified 

companies capable of meeting the VA's facilities maintenance needs via 03FAC. 

Modernizing Government Technology 

Finally, Congress provided GSA and other federal agencies with two critical tools late last year 

when it passed the Modernizing Government Technology, or MGT, Act. I would like to thank 

members from this subcommittee and the entire House Committee on Oversight and 

Government Reform for their persistence in getting this legislation across the finish line. 

Central to our efforts to modernize the federal government's information technology, the MGT 

Act's Technology Modernization Fund (TMF) is poised to play a leading role in getting better 

value for taxpayer dollars. The TMF will be administered by GSA in accordance with OMB 

guidance and with input from a Technology Modernization Board, to fund "technology-related 

activities, to improve information technology, [and] to enhance cybersecurity across the Federal 

Government." 
14 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 30939.008

The TMF makes federal agencies contemplate their IT needs in a comprehensive manner and 

put forward proposals for critical upgrades and optimization efforts that will modernize systems 

and processes. The Board will review project submissions from all agencies and select those 

with the most promise to transform and innovate. The TMF will challenge agencies to be bold 

and think strategically when it comes to IT modernization, and it will help alleviate the drain of 

bureaucracy, redundancy, and waste that plagues Federal IT. Furthermore, agencies can team 

up to submit proposals that can be implemented at multiple departments, and that have the 

potential to inform efforts at even more agencies down the line. GSA is hopeful that Congress 

will fund this critical provision, and the President has requested $210m in his FY2019 budget 

request specifically for this purpose. 

Additionally, the MGT Act affords agencies the opportunity to operate their own IT Working 

Capital Funds. These funds can be used, subject to an agency's transfer authorities, to improve 

or replace existing IT systems, convert legacy systems to cloud computing, and generally 

improve and enhance cybersecurity. 

Transparency 

My fourth principle is transparency. Transparency helps expose flaws so we can correct them 

earlier, it instills confidence and trust in our workforce and among our partners - including other 

federal agencies - and it can lead to better competition, more informed policy, and stronger 

accountability. 

FRPP Public Data Set 

The Federal Government owns hundreds of thousands of assets costing millions of dollars in 

annual operational costs throughout the United States. To better track these assets, GSA has 

developed new data analytic tools, allowing agencies to identify and prioritize efficiency 

opportunities. These tools enable agencies to use their data to calculate performance metrics, 

assess progress, and manage their disposal programs. 

This past December, in accordance with FAST A, GSA released the Federal Real Property 

Profile (FRPP) public data set, which contains detailed information on more than 300,000 

federal assets. Making data on the federal government's real property inventory available to the 

public and industry stakeholders will help reduce costs, increase utilization, improve the 

accuracy of the federal government's data and incentivize federal agencies to achieve great 

efficiency in their real property inventories. 

SmartPay 

Enabling agencies, through government-credit card transaction reporting tools, to have insight 

into the details of agency spending is indispensable for prudent fiscal stewardship of 

government funds. Currently, GSA is leading and supporting more. than 560 participating 
15 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 30939.009

agencies and organizations across government in preparing for the next generation GSA 

SmartPay 3 (SP3) awarded in August 2017. This contract is the follow-on to the highly 

successful GSA SmartPay 2 program. Beginning in winter 2018, SP3 will continue to provide a 

comprehensive suite of data transparency capabilities in balance with participating agencies' 

mission and security needs. 

For example, total agency transaction and spend data from FY 2009 through the most recent 

prior quarter is posted on the GSA SmartPay program website (smartpay.gsa.gov). 

Furthermore, the program's contractor banks are required to provide Electronic Access Systems 

(EASs) to participating agencies, providing them access to over 50 standard reports as well as 

capabilities to obtain ad hoc queries of their charge card data. Lastly, consistent with the 

requirements contained in Title XVIII of the FY18 National Defense Authorization Act (P .L. 115-

91 ), GSA is meeting regularly with participating agencies to discuss card spending trends, 

address emphasis areas for card oversight and monitoring, as well as industry fraud trends. In 

FY 2017, a total of $28.6 billion was spent through the GSA SmartPay program's purchase, 

travel, fleet, and other payment solutions. 

SAMIIAE 

Ensuring transparency for those seeking to do business with or seeking grants from the 

government is also a priority. Managed by GSA, the Integrated Award Environment (IAE) 

serves as the central repository of registered entities interested in federal awards, it has been 

the single location for over 200 data points on all federal contracts for more than 40 years, it 

serves as the authoritative source for contract award data, including contractor performance 

which is crucial in helping contracting professionals make informed source selection decisions. 

and ensures the integrity of the contract awards process by disclosing criminal violations, 

suspensions, and debarments. 

SAM.gov, the public facing component of IAE, is undergoing a modernization to further 

transparency. The modernization involves improving integration by consolidating the data from 

the ten IAE systems into a single system; providing a central entry point for people who make, 

receive, and manage federal awards. When the modernization is complete, all data will be 

accessible in a single web application, enabling greater visibility across the federal award 

process, and providing opportunities for improved business intelligence and analytics. 

The modernization is also improving usability. Existing now in the beta site, single sign-on 

means that only one account is needed, in contrast to the 10 separate accounts required before 

the modernization effort. Improved search is another outcome of the modernization. The new 

simple unified search across all datasets improves accuracy and display (e.g. ability to quickly 

find total award information for a particular opportunity that previously required users to click 

through each award notice and manually calculate the award total). Another feature is a central 

entry point where users can submit and manage their work. Single entry point reduces burden 

by eliminating the need to visit multiple federal sites to complete work for both government and 
16 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 30939.010

industry (e.g. submitting registration in SAM, finding opportunities in FBO, subcontracting in 

eSRS, and reviewing past performance in CPARs). 

Stakeholder Engagement 

Providing forums for public discussion of and input on GSA initiatives and services is an 

important aspect of GSA's transparency efforts. For example, to ensure user needs and 

expectations are met throughout the SAM modernization effort, the SAM/IAE program has held 

focus groups with over 500 federal and industry users, hosted 16 Industry Days, conducted 

alpha testing with over 200 agency participants, and publicly launched beta.SAM.gov in fall 

2017 with a user feedback tool that captured suggestions to improve the user experience. 

Outreach efforts will continue throughout the SAM modernization. 

Additionally, GSA held its first listening session to gather feedback about the implementation of 

the a-commerce platform included in the FY 2018 NDAA last month. This meeting is one of a 

series of planned outreach efforts to gather feedback from the community of acquisition 

professionals and industry. Knowing the ideas and concerns of our stakeholders will help 

inform the path of this undertaking. Having an open dialogue with the public and members of 

industry to understand and better align our systems and processes with the communities that 

engage with GSA underlies our transparency efforts. GSA is preparing to present its initial 

implementation plan to the relevant committees in the next 30 days, and we appreciate the 

guidance and input you have given the agency as we seek to construct the most effective, 

efficient, and responsive solution that improve the federal procurement process. 

Conclusion 

It is my hope that my testimony today has left you with a clear understanding of the conviction 

that Dan, Alan, and I bring to our roles at GSA. We are ever mindful of the trust that has been 

placed in us, and the utmost importance of being responsible stewards of the taxpayers' dollars. 

Moving forward, we are excited to work with this Congress, other federal agencies, our 

Inspector General, and our private sector partners to make government more efficient, more 

effective, and more responsive for the American people. Thank you for the opportunity to be 

here today; we look forward to answering any questions you may have. 
17 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Ms. Murphy. 

Ms. Ochoa, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CAROL F. OCHOA 

Ms. OCHOA. Chairman Meadows, Ranking Member Connolly, and 

members of the subcommittee, good morning and thank you for inviting me to testify. 

The Office of Inspector General strives to protect taxpayer dollars. In Fiscal Years 2015 through 2017, our criminal, civil, and administrative recoveries totaled $436 million. In addition, last year 

alone, OIG auditors identified more than $287 million in questioned costs and funds that GSA can put to better use. We produced these results, and more, on an annual appropriation of $65 

million. 

Each year we provide GSA with a summary of what we consider 

to be the most serious management challenges the agency faces. I 

would like to highlight four of the challenges we identified for Fiscal Year 2018. 

We included enhancing government procurement as a challenge. 

Our auditors have identified concerns with the variability and the 

reasonableness of prices the Federal Government pays in the GSA 

Schedules Program. For example, a recent audit found that GSA offered identical items on its IT schedule at widely varying prices, 

and that lower prices were available on the commercial market for 

many of these items. 

We also reported that GSA’s contract consolidation process resulted in the award of new professional service contracts worth 

more than $2 billion in annual sales without first determining 

price reasonableness. 

GSA is attempting to address these concerns through a variety 

of pricing initiatives. The OIG has ongoing audits of these initiatives and will remain vigilant in this area. 

GSA’s Public Buildings Service is challenged to maximize the 

performance of its real property inventory. In its space consolidation efforts, GSA must ensure that select projects that will achieve 

measureable benefits for the taxpayer. 

For example, while GSA’s tenants may benefit from a reduced 

footprint lower lease costs, GSA risks significant losses if it cannot 

backfill vacated space that remains under lease. We are auditing 

GSA’s management of vacant leased space to determine whether 

the agency is accurately reporting the amount of that space and 

whether its controls are effective to prevent unnecessary cost to the 

government. 

GSA has also experienced significant challenges in operating its 

Technology Transformation Services and its Office of 18F, both core 

components in its effort to transform the way government builds 

and buys information technology. My office’s reports in this area 

over the last two years found significant weaknesses in 18F’s financial management, management failures that led to routine disregard of fundamental security requirements, and retaliation 

against the former commissioner of the Federal Acquisition Service 

for protected disclosures about the operations of TTS. 

In June 2017, GSA transferred Technology Transformation Services to the Federal Acquisition Service and has since taken other 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
18 

steps to address the findings in our reports. While we are encouraged by this responsiveness to our recommendations, we urge GSA 

moving forward to ensure strong management and financial oversight of the Technology Transformation Services and address challenges arising from frequent leadership changes and high staff 

turnover. 

Finally, the most recent evaluation of GSA’s compliance with the 

Federal Information Security Modernization Act found that GSA’s 

Information Security Program was not effective. We highlighted 

GSA’s challenge of prioritizing cyber security and our management 

challenges, and our numerous reports in this area include findings 

of security vulnerabilities in GSA systems containing procurementsensitive data, breakdowns in compliance with information security 

requirements, unintentional mishandling of personally identifiable 

and sensitive building information, and ineffective agency responses to reported information breaches. 

GSA is taking steps to improve its security posture but must do 

more. 

I look forward to continuing my office’s work with GSA and with 

this committee to address the management challenges the agency 

faces. 

This concludes my prepared statement, and I would be pleased 

to answer any questions you may have. 

[Prepared statement of Ms. Ochoa follows:] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
19 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 30939.011

Statement of 

The Honorable Carol Fortine Ochoa 

Inspector General 

U.S. General Services Administration 

before the 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

Subcommittee on Government Operations 

concerning 

"General Services Administration: Checking in with the Government's 

Acquisition and Property Manager" 

February 15, 2018 
20 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 30939.012

Chairman Meadows, Ranking Member Connolly and Members of the 

Subcommittee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify here today regarding the Office of 

Inspector General's (OIG) work related to the General Services Administration's 

(GSA) acquisition and real property programs. 

Overview 

The OIG has continued to deliver exceptional value to the taxpayer by 

identifying waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement, and by making 

recommendations to improve the performance, accountability, and integrity of 

GSA programs and operations. 

Our work routinely results in large financial recoveries for the taxpayer. 

For example, the OIG's criminal, civil, and administrative recoveries totaled 

$121 million in Fiscal Year (FY) 2017, $72 million in FY 2016, and $243 million 

in FY 2015. In addition, in FY 2017 alone, the OIG identified more than $287 

million in questioned costs and funds that could be put to better use by GSA. 

Our investigative work over the same time period resulted in 62 criminal 

indictments, 35 convictions, and 26 administrative actions. All of these results 

were produced on an annual office appropriation of $65 million. 

Our investigations help preserve the integrity of the procurement process 

by holding accountable those who attempt to exploit the process for illegal gain. 

For example, in FY 2017 we obtained a $16 million settlement of allegations 

under the False Claims Act that a military tactical equipment supplier engaged 

in illegal bid-rigging schemes and fraudulently obtained small business 

contracts by having businesses it controlled misrepresent themselves. 

Additionally, we used data analytics to uncover a scheme in which a contractor 

obtained federal contracts in violation of federal exclusion rules, resulting in a 

five-year prison sentence for the violator. Another investigation revealed that a 

GSA contractor fraudulently obtained set-aside contracts by misrepresenting 

himself and his company as a Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business, 

resulting in a 30-month prison sentence and a $6.7 million forfeiture order. 

These monetary recoveries and investigative work are in addition to 

significant reviews of GSA's Technology Transformation Services (TIS) and its 

Office of 18F, core components in GSA's efforts to transform the way 

government builds and buys information technology. In October 2016, we 

reported significant weaknesses in the financial management of 18F that 

resulted in a loss of over $31 million over a roughly two-year period. In 

February 2017, we found that management failures caused 18F to routinely 

disregard fundamental GSA security requirements related to the acquisition of 

information technology and the operation of information systems. The 

corrective actions implemented as a result of our recommendations, if 

accompanied by continued management vigilance and stringent financial 

controls, should result in more effective operations in the future. 
21 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 13 here 30939.013

Top Challenges Facing the GSA 

Each year we provide GSA with a summary of what we consider to be the 

most serious management and performance challenges facing the agency. For 

FY 2018, we identified significant challenges in six major areas: (1) Enhancing 

Government Procurement; (2) Maximizing the Performance of GSA's Real 

Property Inventory; (3) Sustaining Technology Transformation Services within 

the Federal Acquisition Service (FAS), (4) Making Agency Cybersecurity a 

Priority; (5) Efficiently Managing Human Capital; and (6) Safeguarding Federal 

Facilities and Providing a Secure Work Environment. Our statement to the 

agency identifying these challenges is posted to our public website and 

included in the agency's financial report. Each of these challenges is briefly 

highlighted below. 

Enhancing Government Procurement 

In FY 2014, the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Federal 

Procurement Policy, introduced category management to strengthen federal 

acquisition practices, leverage federal agencies' buying power, eliminate 

duplicative contracts, and collectively manage commonly purchased goods and 

services. Category management is designed to allow the federal government to 

act as one buying entity. 

In support of this initiative, FAS created the Acquisition Gateway as a 

portal for the government contracting community to share acquisition related 

information in an effort to improve the speed and quality of federal purchases. 

As of February 2018, the Acquisition Gateway has over 15,000 users and 51 

hallways; and contains thousands of sample acquisition documents, articles, 

lessons learned, and templates. In FYs 2016 and 2017, FAS spent $10.8 

million and $14.3 million, respectively on the Acquisition Gateway with 

additional funding planned for FY 2018. 

As the Acquisition Gateway matures and additional government funds 

are expended to support it, FAS is challenged with how to measure the success 

and effectiveness of the portal. Thus far, FAS has measured success by the 

quantity of registered users and federal agency participation. However, the 

success of the Acquisition Gateway should not be judged solely by the quantity 

of users and content, but by whether it is actually helping federal agencies 

acquire goods and services at fair and reasonable prices. 

Our audit work has consistently pointed to concerns with the variability 

and reasonableness of schedule prices. For example, in our July 2016 audit of 

IT reseller contracts, we reported that GSA offered many identical items on its 

IT schedule at widely varying prices and that lower commercial prices were 

available for many of these items. Furthermore, in March 2017, we reported 

2 
22 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 14 here 30939.014

that GSA's contract consolidation process for the Professional Services 

Schedule resulted in the award of new contracts without establishing price 

reasonableness as required. As a result, GSA and customer agencies did not 

have assurance that the prices on these new contracts - which accounted for 

over $2 billion in annual schedule sales were fair and reasonable. While GSA 

has attempted to address these concerns through several pricing initiatives, 

such as the Transactional Data Reporting Rule, the Formatted Product Tool, 

and the Contract Awarded Labor Category Tool, challenges remain. 

GSA is currently implementing the Transactional Data Reporting rule, 

which was formalized in the Federal Register in June 2016 as a pilot program. 

Under this pilot, contractors can voluntarily opt to electronically report the 

prices GSA customers pay for contract products and services. Federal 

procurement personnel can then use the information for category management 

and contract pricing. However, to date the data has not been made available for 

either of these purposes. Further, using this data to make comparisons and 

reduce price variability will be difficult because GSA's Schedules Program 

includes non-standard products and services that could impede comparability. 

In addition, contracting officers will compare a contractor's offered price to a 

limited subset of prices paid by federal customers on actual GSA schedule 

sales, which ignores any comparable commercial activity. 

GSA launched its TOR pilot in August 2016; however, it did not finalize 

its evaluation plan until March 2017. Our ongoing audit of the pilot seeks to 

determine if GSA's plan will enable it to objectively measure and evaluate 

whether the TOR pilot is improving the value of the Schedules Program for 

GSA's customer agencies and the American taxpayer. 

In 2015, FAS launched the Competitive Pricing Initiative, built around 

the Formatted Product Tool, in an effort to address concerns over price 

variability in the Schedules Program. This initiative, which focuses on products 

sold through the Schedules Program, centers around an· analysis of a 

contractor's current contract (or proposed) pricing compared to prices offered 

by other contractors for an identical product in the government marketplace. 

One major challenge to meeting this goal is that although the Formatted 

Product Tool may identify a contractor's pricing as falling outside the 

acceptable range for a product, no contractual obligation requires the 

contractor to lower its prices or remove the product from its schedule contract. 

Another concern is that the Formatted Product Tool's price comparisons may 

not be accurate. Users have also experienced significant system issues with the 

Formatted Product Tool, such as difficulty uploading pricing data and 

generating pricing documents and analysis. Because of these issues, GSA has 

suspended the tool's full deployment. 

The Contract Awarded Labor Category Tool (CALC) is designed to assist 

contracting officers in evaluating pricing for services. This tool allows 

3 
23 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 15 here 30939.015

contracting officers to search contract prices by labor category and filter by 

education level, experience, and worksite. However, because contractors often 

use unique pricing on task orders, the tool does not provide the actual 

government prices paid by labor category or the discounts granted to customer 

agencies. Furthermore, the tool does not consider factors such as geographic 

location or basic labor category qualification requirements, which are essential 

to ensuring that the comparison is valid. 

While none of these initiatives or tools completely eliminate price 

variability, they all ignore the commercial marketplace and emphasize the 

acceptance of pricing within an acceptable range based solely on the GSA 

schedule marketplace, increasing the likelihood that the govemment will 

overpay for the same products and services purchased commercially. 

Maximizing the Performance of GSA's Real Property Inventory 

The Public Building Service (PBS) is challenged to maximize the 

performance of its real property inventory in order to provide space that meets 

the needs of tenant agencies at a reasonable cost to the American taxpayer. To 

achieve this goal, GSA should plan the best approach to reducing and 

consolidating space, disposing and exchanging federal property, and reducing 

leasing costs. 

Since FY 2014, Congress has provided GSA with the authority to use 

funds for space consolidation projects. Most recently in FY 2017, Congress 

authorized the use of $48 million from the Federal Buildings Fund to 

reconfigure and renovate space within GSA-owned and leased buildings. 

Congress called for preference to be given to consolidation projects that achieve 

a utilization rate of 130 usable square feet or less per person. GSA plans to use 

the funds to improve space utilization, decrease its reliance on leases, and 

reduce the federal footprint. 

However, GSA is challenged with ensuring that it selects projects that 

will achieve measurable benefits, rather than simply reducing the federal 

building portfolio. In a time of limited funding, GSA must select consolidation 

projects that will allow it to best maintain its buildings, meet its customers' 

needs, and lower the total cost incurred by govemment. For example, while 

GSA's tenants benefit from a reduced footprint's lower lease costs, GSA risks 

significant losses to the Federal Buildings Fund if it cannot backfill vacated 

space that remains under lease. To that end, we are currently conducting an 

audit of PBS's procedures for administration of vacant space in leased 

buildings to determine whether PBS is accurately reporting the amount of 

vacant leased space and whether its controls for managing vacant leased space 

are effective in preventing undue costs to the govemment. 

4 
24 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 30939.016

GSA also faces significant challenges in its management of property 

disposals and exchanges. GSA must plan for and navigate through a complex 

process when disposing of its own properties and the properties of other federal 

agencies. The amount of time that a disposal takes is problematic because 

while a property is vacant or underutilized throughout the disposal process, 

the federal govemment is responsible for ongoing maintenance, operations, and 

security costs. For example, at the vacant West Heating Plant in Washington, 

D.C., the govemment was responsible for $3.5 million in maintenance costs 

over 10 years before the building was sold at public auction in March 2013. 

Due to tight budgets, GSA has recently pursued real property exchanges. 

These exchanges allow GSA to transfer underutilized properties from its 

inventory and use the value of the transferred property to obtain another 

property or finance construction needs on other projects. These projects are 

complicated to execute and require significant upfront planning. Because title 

of the property is not transferred until after construction has been completed, 

the exchange partner incurs significant upfront costs before realizing a return 

on investment. This lag time has caused potential developers to mitigate their 

risk by reducing their valuation of the offered property, often well below GSA's 

expected value. 

As reported in our March 2017 Audit of PBS's Planning and Funding for 

Exchange Projects, PBS's planning and reporting for exchange projects has not 

been comprehensive. Specifically, we found that PBS did not fully factor risk 

into its planning for exchange projects. As a result, it cancelled or chose not to 

pursue several exchanges. We also found that PBS did not fully identify, plan 

for, and report the funding for all aspects of exchange projects, and that PBS's 

exchange guidance is outdated and incomplete. 

Finally, GSA is challenged to maximize competition in leasing and control 

lease costs by reducing its reliance on holdovers and extensions. Short-term 

holdovers and extensions may provide flexibility, but it comes at a cost, as 

long-term leases provide incentives for owners to provide lower rental rates and 

concessions such as periods of free rent. As leases expire, upfront planning is 

important to allow for competitive procurements to achieve better rates for the 

tenant and taxpayer. 

Sustaining Technology Transformation Services within FAS 

GSA has experienced a significant challenge in operating its Technology 

Transformation Services (TTS) and its Office of 18F. GSA established TTS to 

"transform the way government builds, buys and shares technology'' and the 

Office of 18F brought private-sector technology experts into federal service to 

"simplifY the government's digital services, making them more efficient and 

effective.» In August 2016, the U.S. Government Accountability Office found 

5 
25 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 30939.017

that 18F did not fully establish outcome-oriented goals, measure performance, 

and prioritize projects. 

The OIG has conducted several reviews of 18F and ITS. As noted above, 

in October 2016, we reported significant weaknesses in the financial 

management of 18F that resulted in a loss of over $31 million over a roughly 

two-year period. In February 2017, we found that management failures caused 

18F to routinely disregard fundamental GSA security requirements related to 

the acquisition of information technology and the operation of information 

systems. 

During the course of our evaluations, the OIG initiated a reprisal 

investigation after receiving whistleblower disclosures made by a career 

executive, the former FAS Commissioner, regarding wrongdoing in ITS. The 

U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) also received a complaint and referred the 

allegations to GSA's Acting Administrator for investigation. The Acting 

Administrator concluded, based in part on the findings of our evaluations, that 

ITS had engaged in gross mismanagement and violated the Economy Act. In 

June 2017, the Acting Administrator announced a major reorganization that 

transferred ITS and its component offices under FAS in order to "address the 

funding and management control issues" that had been identified within ITS. 

Concurrently, we released the results of our investigation into the former 

FAS Commissioner's complaint ofwhistleblower retaliation, and referred the 

report to the OSC. We found that the Commissioner had made protected 

disclosures regarding the 18F program and ITS and that he was subjected to 

reprisal for engaging in that activity. Specifically, we found that the former GSA 

Administrator threatened the FAS Commissioner with transfer or other adverse 

personnel action, and significantly changed his responsibilities with regard to 

oversight and control of the Acquisition Services Fund. 

In July 2017, OSC reported to the President and Congress that it 

disagreed with GSA's assertion that the reorganization would address broader 

concems about mismanagement or related questions about the benefit of ITS. 

OSC urged GSA to follow our office's recommendations and go beyond the 

reorganization to mandate stringent fmancial controls designed to prevent 

future losses. 

As GSA continues to address the issues identified in our reports, it faces 

additional management challenges surrounding the merger of ITS into FAS. 

For example, GSA will need to ensure that the transition does not adversely 

affect operations and is effective to sustain ITS's mission to "improve the 

public's experience with the govemment by helping agencies build, buy and 

share technology that allows them to better serve the public." Among other 

things, GSA will need to ensure that an effective oversight and control 

structure is implemented for the organization and take steps to address the 

challenge of frequent leadership changes and high staff tumover in ITS that 

makes it difficult to retain organizational knowledge. 

6 
26 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 18 here 30939.018

Making Agency Cybersecurity a Priority 

GSA is responsible for providing stable and secure technical solutions 

and services to meet the business needs of its internal and external customers, 

while ensuring compliance with information technology security-related laws, 

regulations, and guidance. Meeting these responsibilities is a significant 

challenge in an environment of competing priorities and increasingly 

sophisticated cyberattacks. GSA must address deficiencies identified through 

the OIG's oversight work, including weaknesses in the agency's information 

security program, noncompliance with applicable laws and policies, and 

breakdowns in the protection of sensitive information. 

In its FY 2017 evaluation of GSA's compliance with the Federal 

Information Security Modernization Act of 2014, KPMG, under a contract 

monitored by my office, found that GSA's information security program was not 

effective. KPMG identified weaknesses in GSA's functions designed to identify 

risks, protect agency systems from cyber threats, and recover from potential 

incidents. 

In Februruy 2017, the OIG found that management failures in GSA IT 

and 18F caused breakdowns in compliance with IT policy and security 

requirements. Specifically, 18F used information technology that was not 

approved by GSA IT, failed to obtain proper authorizations to operate 

information systems, circumvented the GSA IT assessment and authorization 

process, acquired information technology without the Chief Information Officer 

(CIO) review and approval required by the Federal Information Technology 

Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA), and used unofficial email accounts to 

conduct GSA business. Our recommendations included that GSA should 

ensure compliance with FITARA and with the terms of a Memorandum of 

Agreement that required CIO review and approval of all contracts or other 

agreements entered into by 18F to acquire information technology or 

information technology services. Subsequently, in Januruy 2018, the 

Government Accountability Office found that while GSA was meeting OMB 

requirements for CIO review and approval of IT acquisition plans, the agency 

was not able to adequately identify IT contract obligations, risking not having 

appropriate oversight over IT. 

The OIG has also recently reported on threats to sensitive information 

maintained by GSA. These threats originate from cyber security vulnerabilities, 

unintentional mishandling of GSA's data, and ineffective agency responses to 

reported information breaches. 

In 2014 an.d 2015, we identified and reported on unprotected personally 

identifiable information and sensitive building information in GSA's cloud 

computing environment. During 2016 and 2017, we followed up to ensure that 

GSA was implementing the recommended actions resulting from the initial 

7 
27 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 19 here 30939.019

audits. We found that in both of these areas, GSA did not fully implement all of 

the steps included in its action plans in response to the initial audits. 

Additionally, in September 2016, we issued an audit report detailing 

deficiencies in GSA's response to a breach involving the personally identifiable 

information of over 8,000 current and former GSA employees. We found that 

GSA failed to notify individuals affected by the breach within the timeframe 

outlined in agency policy. GSA also failed to provide evidence to show that its 

notification efforts were successful. 

We also issued two audit reports that identified information security 

vulnerabilities in GSA systems containing procurement sensitive data that 

must be protected to assure the integrity of the acquisition process 

Efficiently Managing Human Capital 

GSA must focus on hiring and retaining staff with the necessary skills to 

perform critical functions, especially given the number of GSA employees in 

mission-critical roles who will be retirement-eligible in the near future. GSA 

identified seven mission-critical occupational categories- Acquisition, 

Financial Management, Information Technology, Program Management, 

Property Management, Realty, and Human Resources - that make up 43 

percent of GSA's workforce. Fifteen percent of these employees are eligible to 

retire now and a significant number will be eligible to retire over the next three 

years. The importance of a skilled workforce is further highlighted by GSA's 

responsibility to provide value to customer agencies, comply with increased 

regulatory requirements, and mitigate the risk of information technology 

security threats. 

Federal Acquisition Service 

In August 2016, the OIG reported on the need for FAS to develop a 

comprehensive human capital plan to address hiring, retention, and 

succession planning for its contract specialist workforce. Between 20 and 70 

percent of the staff in each FAS mission-critical occupation is eligible to retire 

in the next three years. FAS must prepare to adapt to this loss of expertise. 

GSA IT (Office of the Chief Information Officer) 

GSA IT faces the immediate retirement of 23 to 33 percent of its staff in 

three of its four mission-critical occupations. GSA must prioritize the 

availability of qualified cybersecurity staff to operate, maintain, and protect the 

agency's information technology systems and data. 

Office of the Chief Financial Officer 

GSA's Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) is subject to several 

laws that result in significant workload, such as the Digital Accountability and 

8 
28 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 20 here 30939.020

Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act) and the Improper Payments Elimination 

and Recovery Improvement Act of 2012. Our work on GSA's DATA Act 

implementation noted challenges with competing priorities and the availability 

of dedicated GSA resources to ensure continued progress. For example, 

employees working on the DATA Act also have to perform their primary roles in 

GSA, and GSA received no additional funding for its required work under the 

Act. Similarly, in our FY 2015 improper payments report, we observed that the 

OCFO has constant turnover and may be understaffed, likely contributing to 

the audit findings that the agency did not fully comply with the Improper 

Payments Acts. 

Public Buildings Service 

GSA's PBS will also face upcoming retirements of mission-critical staff 

within the next 3 years. For example, PBS already relies heavily on external 

construction managers to support its construction program. The potential 

retirement of more than 50 percent of its own internal project management 

staff within 3 years would create experience and technical voids in PBS's 

workforce, and force PBS to rely on consultants for administration of its more 

than $1 billion dollar capital construction program. 

With a significant portion of its workforce eligible to retire over the next 

few years, GSA officials must strive to maintain technical expertise as the 

Agency works to meet customer demands and regulatory requirements. 

Safeguarding Federal Facilities and Providing a Secure Work Environment 

GSA plays a significant role in providing a safe, healthy, and secure 

environment for employees and visitors at more than 9,000 owned and leased 

federal facilities nationwide. The OIG has identified the safety and security of 

these facilities as one of GSA's major management challenges based on the 

results of a number of recent audits, evaluations, and investigations. 

For example, in December 2017, the OIG issued a report entitled GSA 

Should Monitor and Track Facility Security Assessments. We found that GSA did 

not have facility security assessment reports for most of the buildings we 

sampled. GSA acknowledged that these reports, which are prepared by the 

Department of Homeland Security's Federal Protective Service, should be 

reviewed by PBS property managers to identify security issues and the 

countermeasures to correct them. 

In March 2016, we issued two evaluation reports which concluded that 

GSA-managed facilities are at an increased risk of unauthorized access. We 

identified significant deficiencies in GSA's process for managing the Homeland 

Security Presidential Directive 12 Personal Identity Verification cards issued to 

contractors and for ensuring the completion of contractor employee 

background investigations. Additionally, we found deficiencies in GSA's 

9 
29 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 21 here 30939.021

tracking and maintenance of contractor employee background investigation 

data stored within GSA's Credential and Identity Management System. We also 

found widespread use of unsecured, unregulated facility-specific building 

badges at GSA-managed facilities. GSA does not have adequate controls over 

these badges and cannot determine the extent of their associated security risks 

because it does not centrally monitor the management of the badges. 

In a related example, a recent OIG investigation resulted in a GSA 

building manager pleading guilty in federal court for their role in obtaining a 

building identification card for a family member, who was not a government 

employee. The building manager admitted to obtaining the access card so their 

family member could bypass security when visiting the federal building. 

The OIG is actively engaged in additional work surrounding the security 

and safety of federal facilities. For instance, we have an ongoing audit to 

determine whether child care centers in GSA controlled facilities are adequately 

protected from violence, fire, and life safety concerns. 

Conclusion 

This concludes my update to the committee on the major management 

challenges facing the General Services Administration. I look forward to 

working with the agency and the committee to address these challenges, and 

stand ready to answer any questions which you might have. 

10 
30 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 22 here 30939.022

Carol Fortine Ochoa 

Inspector General 

General Services Administration 

The U.S. Senate confirmed Carol Fortine 

Ochoa as the Inspector General of the U.S. General 

Services Administration on July 29, 2015. As 

Inspector General, Ms. Ochoa leads a nationwide 

workforce of more than 300 auditors, special agents, 

inspectors, attorneys, and other staff whose mission 

is to detect and deter waste, fraud, abuse, and 

misconduct and to promote economy and efficiency 

in GSA operations. 

Under her leadership during the last two fiscal years, the Office of 

Inspector General issued 188 reports, made more than $793 million in moneysaving recommendations to the agency, completed investigations resulting in 80 

successful criminal prosecutions, and recovered $193 million through criminal, 

civil and administrative legal actions. 

Ms. Ochoa's prior career experience includes over 25 years' service as a 

federal prosecutor and manager in the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). Most 

recently, she served as the Assistant Inspector General of the Oversight and 

Review Division in DOJ's Office of the Inspector General, where she oversaw 

complex, sensitive, and broad-ranging investigations of Department of Justice 

operations and personnel. 

From 1989 to 2002, she served as an Assistant United States Attorney in 

the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia. During her tenure in that 

office, she prosecuted more than 40 cases before federal and local juries and 

specialized in federal public corruption and fraud matters. 

Ms. Ochoa received numerous awards during her career with DOJ, 

including the Attorney General's Award for Distinguished Service in 2007 and 

2009. 

Before joining the DOJ, Ms. Ochoa was an associate at Covington & 

Burling. She also served as an associate counsel for Independent Counsel James 

C. McKay and clerked for Chief Judge Charles Clark of the United States Court 

of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. 

Ms. Ochoa received her Juris Doctor, summa cum laude, from the George 

Washington University Law Center in Washington, D.C., and her Bachelor of 

Arts, magna cum laude, from Miami University in Oxford, Ohio. 
31 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you so much for your testimony. 

The Chair will recognize himself for 5 minutes for a series of 

questions. 

Ms. Murphy, let me come to you. The Ranking Member has, in 

a less than passionate way, I guess, expressed his displeasure with 

the FBI decision. So what do you say in response to that? I mean, 

at what point is Mr. Connolly’s concerns not on the mark? 

Ms. MURPHY. Thank you very much for the question, Mr. Chairman. I have been in this role for about 63 days now, so I want to 

refer the question to Commissioner Mathews, who has been intimately involved with the FBI. What I will say is that all decisions 

that we made were made at the direction of the FBI and their program requirements. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Hold on, hold on. Before we go to you, Mr. Mathews, what you are saying is that the FBI determined that they 

wanted to be in Washington, D.C., and that is why you made the 

decision? 

Ms. MURPHY. The FBI changed its program requirements from 

what the original —— 

Mr. MEADOWS. What expertise does the FBI have in real estate? 

Ms. MURPHY. They have better expertise when it comes to their 

own security requirements than GSA does. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, wouldn’t there be a stronger argument for 

security outside of Washington, D.C. in terms of the footprint 

versus inside of Washington, D.C., Ms. Murphy? You are talking to 

somebody who understands real estate extremely well. I don’t know 

that there is a whole lot of expertise in the FBI. I would trust them 

with law enforcement and national security issues. I don’t know 

that I would trust them with real estate matters. If your sworn testimony is that the FBI directed you to do that, I have problems 

with that. 

Ms. MURPHY. The FBI partnered with us when they came back 

to us and had reduced requirements for space. They were looking 

for a consolidation for 8,300 people rather than, I believe, 10,600. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Mathews, do you want to illuminate why this 

decision was made? 

Mr. MATHEWS. Yes, I would be happy to, Mr. Chairman. So what 

the FBI —— 

Mr. MEADOWS. And do you stand by it? 

Mr. MATHEWS. By the decision? 

Mr. MEADOWS. Yes. 

Mr. MATHEWS. Yes, yes. So, the FBI’s role in this—I think it is 

important to talk about this. The FBI’s role in this is in defining 

their mission requirements, not in the real estate solution but in 

the mission requirements. How many people do they need to house 

in their headquarters facility? 

Mr. MEADOWS. And so did the number of people change in the 

last —— 

Mr. MATHEWS. Yes, it did. It changed significantly. It dropped 

from 10,600 to 8,300. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So what you are saying is that because it dropped 

from 10,000-plus to 8,000, you could move them from Virginia or 

Maryland into Washington, D.C.? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
32 

Mr. MATHEWS. Yes, that is the critical mission requirement element. If the requirement was for 11,000 people, then the Pennsylvania Avenue location is not in play. We are not able to put 11,000 

on that site with the density that they would be willing to tolerate. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So did they adjust their mission requirement 

based on the fact that they wanted to stay in Washington, D.C.? 

I mean, why did it change from 10,000 to 8,000? Did we fire that 

many people at the FBI? 

Mr. MATHEWS. No. So, I think it is important to understand 

where we started. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I am trying to understand. Let me just tell you, 

you have a very high bar to convince me, but go ahead. 

Mr. MATHEWS. So, the process began with the cancellation of the 

previous project, and there were very specific reasons why that was 

cancelled, because of the risk of the procurement itself. So if you 

recall, it was an exchange procurement. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So you are saying it is less risky to tear down a 

building in Washington, D.C. and build it back than to make a new 

acquisition, and you say that based on what? 

Mr. MATHEWS. The previous procurement involved an exchange. 

So as part of the payment for building this new campus, we would 

have —— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Are you saying that we couldn’t sell that facility, 

Mr. Mathews? 

Mr. MATHEWS. It wasn’t a sale, it was an exchange. 

Mr. MEADOWS. But, listen, I do exchanges all the time. Let me 

just tell you, you sell it, you exchange it, it is a distinction without 

a difference. Are you suggesting that this was a financial decision? 

Mr. MATHEWS. The cancellation of the procurement was a combination of insufficient funds in hand when the contract would 

have had to have been signed, and the fact that part of the payment for the new facility was handing over the Hoover Building. 

But without the complete funding to fill the gap between the —— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, based on that, you will never be able to do 

an exchange ever. 

Mr. MATHEWS. Well, we can if there is sufficient value in the 

property —— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So let me ask you this question. How many excess 

buildings does GSA have in their portfolio, surplus public buildings? 

Mr. MATHEWS. We have, I believe, 32 excess properties, designated excess, in our —— 

Mr. MEADOWS. In surplus, 32. 

Mr. MATHEWS. Thirty-two. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Where? Do you mean across the country? 

Mr. MATHEWS. Across the country. We provided a —— 

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Mathews, let me just caution you. This isn’t 

my first rodeo. This is not my first hearing when it comes to surplus. You have staffers there. I would suggest that you go back and 

modify that, because I can tell you, if your sworn testimony here 

today is that there are only 32 surplus buildings in the entire Federal —— 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
33 

Mr. MATHEWS. No, not in the entire Federal inventory. In GSA’s 

inventory, we have 32 properties that are designated as excess at 

this point in time. 

Mr. MEADOWS. How many in the Federal Government? 

Mr. MATHEWS. I don’t have that list. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, if you don’t have that list, how do you make 

a determination on where to move people if you don’t know what 

surplus properties we have? How do you know what decisions to 

make in terms of leasing? 

Mr. MATHEWS. I just don’t have it at my fingertips right now, 

government-wide. But when we are looking at new real estate solutions —— 

Mr. MEADOWS. But when you made the decision, did you have 

that number? 

Mr. MATHEWS. For the FBI? 

Mr. MEADOWS. No. I assume that you don’t just do Federal acquisitions and leasing and purchasing just for the FBI. 

Mr. MATHEWS. No, of course. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So when you look at making a decision, and you 

are making that decision, how do you make that decision based on 

what is available, what is not available, what is used and what is 

not used? How do you make that decision? 

Mr. MATHEWS. So, you start off with a requirement from the 

agency, what do they need, what is their real estate requirement, 

the functional requirement. First we look at government-owned inventory, do we have something —— 

Mr. MEADOWS. So you looked at all the government-owned inventory, whether it is under GSA or under another agency, OMB? Because I know OMB has one component, you have another, which 

I have never figured out why we do that, but go ahead. 

Mr. MATHEWS. So we will have a particular geographic area that 

we are looking at for an agency’s requirement. So we will survey 

first the government-owned inventory, first our own inventory, 

then the government-owned inventory, and if we can’t meet it in 

a government location, then we will look at private inventory. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. My time has expired, so here is what I 

would ask you, Mr. Mathews, and you, Ms. Murphy, to do. I need 

you to get us accurate numbers on the number of surplus properties and under-utilized properties that are out there, not just 

with GSA but across the Federal Government, because you cannot 

make the kind of decisions you are making without knowing those 

numbers. I can guarantee you it is more than 32. 

Mr. MATHEWS. It absolutely is more than 32. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. 

I will recognize the Ranking Member for a generous 5 minutes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank my friend, and thank him for his line of 

questioning. 

Let me pick up where the Chairman was questioning, Mr. Mathews. And, Ms. Murphy, I respect that in 63 days we are not going 

to hold you responsible for previous decisions. 

I will ask you to confirm, you and I met privately. You made a 

commitment to me in that private meeting that you would respond 

to all congressional requests and continue to communicate with 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
34 

Congress. Do you now, under oath in this hearing, reiterate that 

commitment? 

Ms. MURPHY. I do. In that meeting I also told you there were certain documents I understand that you had requested that are subject to a lawsuit, and those are out of my hands. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I understand. 

Ms. MURPHY. But we are going to do everything we can to get 

you the information that you need. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I take you as a woman of honor, and I take your 

commitment just now, and I thank you for it. 

Ms. MURPHY. I would also say in that meeting you suggested I 

go out and see the Lorton facility, which had been prior surplus 

property. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Right. 

Ms. MURPHY. I went out there this past weekend. I very much 

enjoyed seeing it and —— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Good. 

I think what Ms. Murphy is referring to in our conversation, Mr. 

Chairman and my colleagues, I referred to the Lorton site, the old 

Washington, D.C. prison site, as a great model of how GSA can be 

a force for good in the community, and it was a win-win kind of 

decision that we have repurposed the property, and the community 

has benefitted. GSA, I think, showed a lot of vision and foresight. 

Ms. MURPHY. They did a beautiful job incorporating historic elements, adding new community —— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And I am so glad you went out. Thank you, Ms. 

Murphy. I knew I could count on an Irishwoman. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. CONNOLLY. By the way, it is only 30 days to the holy day, 

St. Patrick’s Day. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. CONNOLLY. All right. So, Mr. Mathews, you are under oath. 

The Chairman asked you about the FBI, and your testimony is 

they changed their mind. Is that right? 

Mr. MATHEWS. They changed their program requirements, yes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. They changed their program requirements. Well, 

let me call it changing their mind, because under a previous GSA 

document it quoted the FBI as saying, ‘‘It identified’’—FBI—‘‘the 

need to consolidate its headquarters to support information sharing, collaboration, and integration,’’ and then went on to say, ‘‘FBI 

current headquarter elements, because they are not consolidated, 

have become fragmented, which hampers information sharing and 

collaboration.’’ 

So, in other words, this is a functionality issue by having it dispersed. There is a benefit in having it consolidated. You are saying 

that has changed. 

Mr. MATHEWS. What I am saying is the FBI reduced that consolidation —— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. You are going to have to speak into the microphone, Mr. Mathews. 

Mr. MATHEWS. I am sorry. What I am saying is the FBI reduced 

that consolidation from 10,600 —— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. When did it do that? 

Mr. MATHEWS.—to 8,300. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
35 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Right, almost 3,000 change. But, of course, the 

reason for that presumably is because you decided not to have the 

swap and the turnkey and develop a different campus that could 

accommodate the larger number but to stay in the current footprint, which cannot accommodate the larger number. Isn’t that a 

logical conclusion? 

Mr. MATHEWS. I think the order was different, but it does allow 

for that, yes. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Yes. 

Mr. MATHEWS. The reduction was not —— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. So now we are going to allow continued dispersement and fragmentation that the FBI told you in your own document provided to this committee affects its functionality, information and collaboration. Those are pretty important things in an era 

where we are fighting terrorism, Russian interference in elections, 

cyber attacks and the like. Those are not trivial issues. So they are 

going to continue to be affected according to the document your 

own agency provided us quoting the FBI. 

Mr. MATHEWS. Well, the FBI would be in a better position to answer that aspect —— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Yes. I assure you, we will get to that. Right now 

you are here, and you are under oath, and I want to make sure we 

have it understood, you are testifying the FBI told you that. They 

changed their mind, or in your word they changed their program 

direction. 

Mr. MATHEWS. Yes. They reduced the requirement —— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. When did they tell you that? 

Mr. MATHEWS.—but that is an increase —— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Right. When did they tell you that? When were 

you informed they had changed their mind such that you pulled 

the procurement? 

Mr. MATHEWS. Well, that procurement was cancelled before that 

took place —— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Oh. 

Mr. MATHEWS.—and before I was there, but —— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. So GSA decided to pull the procurement without 

that input from the FBI. So you actually pulled the procurement 

still believing the FBI felt otherwise, that the FBI wanted that consolidation and wanted the turnkey deal where we have a land 

swap. 

Mr. MATHEWS. The procurement was cancelled because there was 

insufficient funds in hand to sign the contract, and the fact that 

that contract —— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Insufficient funds, that is another one. So the 

GSA asserted at the time that insufficient funds meant Congress 

wasn’t willing to appropriate money. What is the objective evidence 

of that? Because I know the Chairman and my colleagues probably 

remember Senator Mikulski at the time actually got an appropriation I don’t think you had even requested as a down payment. So 

we were willing to provide the funding to finance this deal over and 

above whatever financing the private sector was able to provide in 

the sale of the FBI headquarters site. 

Mr. MATHEWS. The issue at hand was signing the contract without having the funds in hand. This is not a matter of —— 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
36 

Mr. CONNOLLY. No, Mr. Mathews, let’s deal with GSA’s statement. GSA made the statement ‘‘because Congress wouldn’t appropriate the funds,’’ and I find it strange, if that is what you believed, 

that you would now come back to us in this fiscal year budget asking for $2.2 billion. Do you have faith in Congress appropriating or 

not? If you do, then the previous explanation is false. And if you 

don’t, then the current request is meaningless and feckless. Pick 

one. 

Mr. MATHEWS. I would question the presumption that—the fact 

that when you are actually signing a contract, you are obligating 

the Federal Government to certain activities and expenditures, and 

there was not sufficient funds at that point in time when combined 

with the procurement involved —— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. What would have been sufficient, Mr. Mathews? 

I am curious. 

Mr. MATHEWS. We would have needed—I believe it was about $2 

billion extra than what we had. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. So Congress should have appropriated $2 billion, and it didn’t? Did you ever request a $2 billion appropriation? 

Mr. MATHEWS. The previous administration did not request that. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. No. 

Mr. MATHEWS. It was less than that. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I see. Well, this starts to get Kafka-esque. 

One other issue, because I don’t want to impose. My colleagues 

want to ask questions. But what about the security concern? One 

of the concerns raised about the current site is that given the sensitive nature of the FBI and the kind of world we live in, the urban 

setback just won’t cut it. It actually poses a risk. 

Now, doesn’t this decision to stay with the existing site fly in the 

face of that concern? Did that also go out the window? Did the FBI 

change its mind about that? 

Mr. MATHEWS. New construction —— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I’m sorry? 

Mr. MATHEWS. New construction, demolish and rebuild, as opposed to a renovation of the old building, allows us to incorporate 

significant security enhancements, to blast electronic eavesdropping —— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Mathews, so you are saying it is not a security concern. 

Mr. MATHEWS. What we are saying is we can meet the security 

requirements of the FBI —— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Well, that would come as news to the State Department that all over the world has been moving embassies and 

building new ones with deep setbacks to avoid any kind of security 

threat. So maybe you should talk to the State Department. 

Mr. Chairman, my time is up, but I am going to pose a thought 

to you, and maybe we can deal with it at the end of the hearing. 

We haven’t had time to ask the Inspector General, but I think it 

would be a useful thing if this subcommittee requested formally a 

thorough review of this decision and how it got arrived at and the 

history, the sorry history of this procurement and the cost to the 

taxpayer and the private sector associated with this procurement, 

because I think this subcommittee needs to get to the bottom of 

this. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
37 

This isn’t a partisan issue. This is about process, and it is a very 

failed process and a very troubling one that I think will expose the 

FBI, if we go forward with the current proposal, to some real danger. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the gentleman for his insightful questions. The Chair recognizes and will certainly look at the best approach going forward in working with Administrator Murphy and 

Inspector General Ochoa. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the Chair. 

Ms. MURPHY. If I may, we would be very happy to come and provide you with a detailed briefing. I believe we have actually 

reached out already to offer that. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank you. I thank Administrator Murphy. 

The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia for 5 minutes. 

Ms. NORTON. Administrator Murphy, I sit on the other committee that has jurisdiction, direct jurisdiction over the GSA, so it 

has been pounded in my head ever since I have been in Congress 

that there were two basic principles when the government builds 

or leases: reducing the footprint, and we are taking extraordinary 

measures at the Department of Homeland Security right now to reduce the footprint because that was authorized before that policy; 

and consolidation. Those are two basic principles, and I am not 

sure there are any other principles that stand at that level. 

Here you have proposed exactly the opposite, and I ask you to 

square the circle with me. How do you reduce the footprint of the 

FBI by building separate facilities throughout the United States 

from the ground up and dismembering the FBI so that instead of 

consolidation, we are going in a direction that the agency has not 

gone in since it has been created? Why have you reversed those 

principles when it comes to the FBI? 

Ms. MURPHY. Thank you, Congresswoman. 

Ms. NORTON. Consolidation and reducing the footprint. 

Ms. MURPHY. I am going to defer again to Mr. Mathews on the 

numbers, but it is my understanding—and he will correct me if I 

am wrong on this—that under the proposed demolish and rebuild, 

the per employee utilization rate for the FBI will —— 

Ms. NORTON. The what? 

Ms. MURPHY. The footprint for the FBI will be smaller, and that 

they will be consolidated both within the Department and —— 

Ms. NORTON. But you have to spend more money if you have to 

build facilities in states which are far from one another, far from 

Washington. If you were going to do that, why would you take 

parts of the FBI and scatter them across the United States? 

Ms. MURPHY. And I believe that the FBI identified those locations as places where they already have facilities and they could 

engage —— 

Ms. NORTON. The point is consolidation. I don’t know which facilities, and I wish you had named facilities. There may be FBI offices across the United States, but the notion that part of your 

headquarters is spread across the United States—I mean, that is 

the first time I have ever heard of that. Of all agencies, the FBI 

has parts of its headquarters already in states across the United 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
38 

States? What divisions of the FBI are across the United States that 

this consolidates for? 

Ms. MURPHY. I believe it is some of the administrative functions 

that, just as within the GSA we have some of our administrative 

functions in the regions, they have some of their administrative 

functions —— 

Ms. NORTON. Ms. Murphy, you don’t have facilities in Alabama. 

What are these five states? How are these states chosen? Why, Mr. 

Mathews, have you reneged on the notion of consolidation? And 

why is it cheaper to build from the ground up than to consolidate, 

and with facilities in one place or as few places as possible? 

Mr. MATHEWS. I guess a couple of things. One is I would suggest 

the FBI is a component of the Department of Justice, so consolidated headquarters function of the Department of Justice includes 

the FBI and main Justice. Main Justice is across the street from 

the current location. So actually removing the FBI and putting it 

somewhere else actually —— 

Ms. NORTON. I am asking you about the five states, Mr. Mathews. You don’t have to school me on what the FBI does with the 

Justice Department. Why do you want to build this across a number of states in the United States rather than consolidate it, as is 

the principle that you well know you have abided by since your creation? 

Mr. MATHEWS. So again, this goes back to the FBI’s mission requirements. But speaking, trying to explain what I understand of 

those, is they were looking to be able to move some of the people 

that are part of the headquarters function, 2,300, into these other 

existing FBI locations in Idaho, in Alabama, in —— 

Ms. NORTON. What is in Idaho and Alabama, Mr. Mathews? 

Mr. MATHEWS. I think in Idaho they have an explosives facility 

where they analyze —— 

Ms. NORTON. What does that have to do with headquarters, putting parts of headquarters in Alabama? 

Mr. MATHEWS. My understanding is they would put some of their 

nuclear detection elements out there and some of the things —— 

Ms. NORTON. Why is this less costly? One of the reasons the government favors consolidation is that it is the least costly way to 

build an agency. Why is it least costly to spread the agency across 

five different states? 

Mr. MATHEWS. Well, I guess one thing I would say, building a 

building, as opposed to building a campus, building the building is 

less expensive than building a campus. There are numerous components of a campus that bring additional —— 

Ms. NORTON. Well, that is news to me, Mr. Mathews, because 

you have campuses throughout this region, and the notion that 

building a building is less than a campus rather than just the opposite, you will have to supply this committee with documentation 

for it. And again, you are tossing around words when you say 

building a building is—I mean, building a building, whether it is 

on a campus or not, a campus is simply a plot of land. The reason 

you want them in the same place is because you want the FBI 

headquarters —and understand, we are talking about headquarters 

here, aren’t we, Mr. Mathews? 

Mr. MATHEWS. Yes, ma’am. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
39 

Ms. NORTON. We are talking about headquarters. If we were 

talking about different facilities, that would be one thing. We are 

talking about spreading the headquarters of the FBI across the 

United States, and I know of no headquarters of any agency spread 

across the United States. 

You took a hell of a lot more time than that. 

Mr. MEADOWS. The gentlewoman’s time has expired. 

The Chair took a minute and 32 seconds extra. He gave the 

Ranking Member 2 minutes. He gave you a minute and a half. So, 

for the record, we have given you more time than our side, and I 

will now recognize the gentlewoman from Michigan, Ms. Lawrence, 

for 5 minutes. 

The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia knows that I 

consistently try to be fair in all regards with regards to this, and 

if she is suggesting that I wasn’t, we will take that up at another 

time. 

The gentlewoman from Michigan is recognized. 

Ms. LAWRENCE. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Before I start my questions, I just want to say to Ms. Murphy that it was refreshing to 

hear that you actually understand what this committee is about 

and your commitment to continue to respond to our inquiries and 

understand the responsibility that we have as a committee. So I 

look forward to you keeping your word on that. 

Ms. MURPHY. And you won’t remember me, but I was a staffer 

at the Small Business Committee when you sat on the committee 

and very much enjoyed working with you back then. So, thank you, 

Congresswoman. 

Ms. LAWRENCE. Thank you. 

My question is—and allow me to take this to a personal level. So GSA in 2015 announced a plan to invest $70 million and consolidate many Federal offices. We had an office on Michigan Avenue, 

and in that process IRS said it would move 90 jobs to Tennessee. 

Now, in 2015, the economy in the City of Detroit was one that 

was hanging on by a thread. So whereas some people would not respond to the Federal Government closing a building and moving 

out of the state, it was a major slap in the face, and the entire delegation, congressional delegation came together to urge the IRS to 

look at—because property was a bargain then—to look at existing 

properties, which you did, and we were able to keep those jobs in 

Detroit, and also for you to be able to find cheaper property. 

So I was really confused because I could never get an answer on 

why you just, in the middle there, said okay, we are moving these 

jobs and the IRS is going to Tennessee. And then we talked about 

the wasted millions of dollars on a project to relocate the FBI headquarters—I think you see our concerns—and then you cancel that 

move. 

So my question is what kind of study is put forward? And I 

would like to talk to the FBI again about that. But do you, Administrator Murphy, do you look at the demographics of impact on 

community? Because I work for the Federal Government. You can 

be offered a job where it is going if you can’t relocate. Sometimes 

you get severance pay if there is not another Federal job. 

What do you look at when you make these decisions? Because 

they seem to be so random or some covert actions that are hapVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:13 Aug 28, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\30939.TXT APRIL

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
40 

pening, and GSA always backs up and never has a real answer. It 

is all this political gobbledy-gook. So talk to me about that. 

Ms. MURPHY. Thank you, Congresswoman. Hopefully this won’t 

be gobbledy-gook. So when GSA—the first step in any consolidation 

is that agencies come to GSA with a program of requirements. 

They tell us what they need. We will proactively outreach to some 

agencies to say we think we can help them consolidate within space 

or they have a lease that is about to expire, to try to get them to 

better identify that program’s requirements early so that we can be 

a good partner with them. 

At that point in time Mr. Mathews’ organization, the Public 

Buildings Service, works with them to take that program of requirements, you come up with a delineated area where those requirements could be met. 

Do you want to go further into the details of —— 

Ms. LAWRENCE. Mr. Mathews, when you are answering that 

question, no one had talked to us as a community, and once we reacted and demanded and talked, we were able to satisfy that need. 

So that is why there is that disconnect. If you had said whatever 

your needs were in that community—but no, you came to us and 

said we are moving the jobs to Tennessee. 

Mr. MATHEWS. So, I am not familiar with the details of this particular example you are describing. I have been in the position 

since August. But I understand that the IRS over the past several 

years has basically had a massive restructuring of their workforce, 

their locations. They closed a number of their facilities. And I know 

in Detroit there was one of their key processing facilities was located in Detroit. I know I have actually been out to that facility, 

which the government bought, interestingly enough, for a dollar. It 

was a leased facility, and we had a purchase option for one dollar, 

and the government actually acquired it at the end of the lease. So 

the government is re-using that facility for some other federal 

agencies that are in the area. 

But I do believe the IRS, they have closed a number—they have 

basically consolidated their processing functions. Tax returns have 

been largely paper-based for years. Now they are mostly electronic. 

So they have restructured their tax processing units, and I think 

that is what drove those changes. 

Ms. LAWRENCE. My time is running out, and this is what I want 

to be really clear about. Your moving around just because someone 

randomly says I want to consolidate, so I am just going to pick up, 

there are communities that are affected when you make these decisions. Had we not had the desire and the passion to come to you 

and demand and offer you other options, it wouldn’t have happened, that one dollar sale. So there is a gap. There is something 

missing, and we need to incorporate that, Ms. Murphy and Mr. 

Mathews, when we start talking about uprooting and moving Federal offices without any consideration for local government. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the gentlewoman. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Clay, for 

5 minutes. 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
41 

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let me welcome a fellow Missourian, Ms. Murphy, to the committee. Is this your first time before us? 

Ms. MURPHY. This is my first time as Administrator before this 

committee. I testified here probably 11 or 12 years ago once, as 

well. 

Mr. CLAY. Well, as a fellow Missourian, let me say welcome. 

Ms. MURPHY. Thank you. 

Mr. CLAY. We do intend on fulfilling our obligation as oversight. 

Ms. MURPHY. The Show-Me State, I expect nothing less. 

Mr. CLAY. And I look forward to working with you. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. CLAY. You know, Ms. Murphy, this week GSA announced its 

baffling decision to build a new FBI headquarters at the inadequate site of the current J. Edgar Hoover Building. It is baffling 

because GSA itself had concluded that the current site was too 

small to allow the agency to consolidate its operations and that 

there were serious national security risks with staying at the current site. 

GSA’s own Building Project Survey said, and I quote, ‘‘Key FBI 

headquarters elements have become fragmented, which hampers 

information sharing and collaboration. The FBI has identified a 

need to consolidate its HQ to support information sharing, collaboration, and intergration of strategic priorities.’’ 

Ms. Murphy, every other agency in the intelligence community— 

CIA, DIA, NSA, and Homeland Security—have large campuses 

where they consolidate their operations to prevent both physical 

threats as well as spying. Why has GSA denied FBI that same ability? 

Who wants to take it? 

Ms. MURPHY. Is it all right if I defer to Mr. Mathews? He was 

much more involved. 

Mr. CLAY. I had a few questions for him anyway. 

Ms. MURPHY. Okay. 

Mr. CLAY. But go right ahead, Mr. Mathews. 

Mr. MATHEWS. Yes, Congressman. The first thing I would say, 

there is a consolidation going on. In fact, the FBI consolidation onto 

this location will grow from the current roughly 5,600 people to 

8,300. That is almost a 50 percent increase in the number of FBI 

personnel that will be located and consolidated into this proposed 

demolish rebuild. So there will be a consolidation of FBI employees 

as a significant increase in the headquarters head count in this 

program. 

Mr. CLAY. Okay. Mr. Mathews, you dedicated 20 years of service 

to the U.S. House of Representatives, and I am sure that you are 

aware that for more than a decade GSA planned to build a new 

consolidated FBI campus outside of the District of Columbia, and 

this was a huge undertaking for the entire government. 

This week GSA announced its decision to build a new FBI building on the current site. Can you explain what appears to be an inconsistent position? 

Mr. MATHEWS. Yes, you are right, I have been involved in this 

from the congressional perspective for well over a decade. And you 

are correct, the previous plans were for a larger consolidation, a 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
42 

larger requirement of 10,600. When the requirement was 10,600 

employees for the FBI, that is not going to fit on Pennsylvania Avenue. It necessitated a different location, a larger footprint. But with 

a smaller number of required people for that facility, that put other 

sites into play, not just the current site but other sites as well, and 

there are distinct advantages to the current site when you have 

this small a footprint. 

For example, the transportation network that exists at this site— 

Metro, the road networks—they are already there. The infrastructure that would serve that facility, particularly the classified communication cables and things like that, which are very costly to replace, those exist there already. The utility fees exist there, the 

water systems. The basic infrastructure that feeds that facility, 

which is expensive to replicate, is already there. 

And from the FBI’s perspective, their employees, they live all 

around the Beltway. If they relocated to one particular site on the 

Beltway, no matter where it ended up, they would put a large portion of their employees in a difficult commuting situation, and I 

know that was an important issue for the FBI, their employees’ positions. 

So it is the reduced head count that made it possible to stay at 

that location. And again, like I said, there are very distinct advantages to that. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Would my colleague yield for a second? 

Mr. CLAY. Well, I am out of time. Perhaps the Chair would let 

us do a second round? 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I would just say to my friend from Missouri, that 

is an extraordinary explanation, and it makes sense only if the previous six years did not exist. It flies in the face of everything GSA 

and the FBI argued for the last six years. Now we have a new— 

forget all that, it is a new explanation. And, oh, by the way, physical security has to be discarded on the current site. 

I thank my friend. 

Mr. CLAY. I thank my colleague for those comments, and I am 

out of time, but I yield back. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the gentleman for yielding to the Ranking 

Member on the time that he didn’t have. 

We will recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Blum, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BLUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you to our panelists for being here today. 

I just assured my colleague, Mr. Connolly, that I would not ask 

anyone on the panel today about cows, since I am from Iowa, so 

you can relax. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I was hoping you would ask about cows. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BLUM. There is a story there, obviously. We don’t have time 

to get into that. 

Late last year we received from GSA the following, that there are 

108 time and attendance systems, 86 learning management systems, and 46 financial management systems within the Federal 

Government. I am a career small businessman, not a career bureaucrat. Duplication of services I have to believe is a big issue in 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
43 

the Federal Government. This committee deals with waste, fraud, 

and abuse. If you want to talk about the waste, it is the duplication 

of all of these services. 

In the private sector, when we have an acquisition, for example, 

and the combination of two companies, one of the first things that 

we look at is to eliminate duplication. We don’t need two accounting departments, we don’t need two computer systems that do payroll, and there are efficiencies gained there. 

The Federal Government, this has to be an issue. So I think I 

would direct this to Ms. Murphy, and also Mr. Thomas. Talk to me, 

please, about GSA and the role you are playing in the shared services model, which I think is a great thing, is very important, can 

save taxpayers a lot of money. How do we get rid of duplication 

services? 

Ms. MURPHY. Thank you very much, Congressman. Reducing duplication is one of the four principles that I have set out for GSA 

while I am in my current role. I believe that Beth Engelman with 

the Unified Shared Services Management Group at GSA actually 

testified before this committee over the summer. She has been 

doing wonderful work with her team to partner with other agencies, identify requirements, looking at solutions that could get us 

to core systems where we could reduce that duplication. 

It is bearing fruit. We went out with a draft Request for Proposals for payroll systems last month. We have gotten a lot of feedback on that. We are working through that. We hope to go out with 

a final RFP soon so that we can engage in an open, transparent, 

competitive process so that we can better meet the needs of Federal 

agencies and reduce duplication on payroll. We see that as just the 

beginning of the process, though. 

As we are working on that contract vehicle which ties in very 

nicely with what Mr. Thomas is doing, it also then gives us the opportunity to start analyzing additional systems, be it time and attendance, financial management, contract writing systems, so that 

we continue to search for ways we can reduce duplication. 

If you look at the entire mission of GSA, the Public Buildings 

Service is about having a shared service on Federal space. The Federal Acquisition Service is a shared service around acquisition. So 

we see it as absolutely consistent with the mission of the agency 

to help agencies reduce this duplication. 

Mr. BLUM. We could reduce the cost of purchasing as well, 

couldn’t we? Instead of buying 68 duplicative systems, we buy one. 

Ms. MURPHY. The fewer contracts—we want to make sure that 

we have the appropriate number of contracts, that we always have 

competition and we always have redundancy, because we don’t 

want to find ourselves in a situation where you only have one system and something goes wrong, and then we have a workforce at 

risk or we have a system at risk. So we need to make sure there 

are always multiple options. But I do think that, yes, rather than 

having 108 time and attendance systems, if the Federal Government had three or four that it could work off of, it would make a 

lot more sense. 

Mr. BLUM. How bad is it? Give me a grade, would you please? 

Ms. MURPHY. Oh. 

Mr. BLUM. Be honest —— 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
44 

Ms. MURPHY. I would prefer to grade GSA rather than to grade 

other agencies, if that is all right with you. So within GSA, we 

have a lot of —— 

Mr. BLUM. I just mean the Federal Government in general. Give 

me the duplication of services. How bad is it? 

Ms. MURPHY. There is a fair amount of duplication. We have 

made some progress with lines of business and consolidating financial management, but there is a lot of work to be done, and I think 

it is not going to be a one-year quick win. It is a long-term effort. 

I know that the Chairman has been very supportive of the work 

that we are trying to do on shared services, and it is going to require—I will give you another example. 

The telecommunications contract that Mr. Thomas’ office has just 

released gives us the opportunity to further consolidate telecommunications services within the government, just a great opportunity of ways we can get reductions. The fleet, one of our performance initiatives for next year is looking at, studying, and then 

reducing the number of fleet vehicles government-wide, see if we 

can save money by reducing them. 

Alan, I think you have good statistics on how much we can save 

that way? 

Mr. THOMAS. Sure. Thanks, Emily. 

So, on fleets, there are about 600,000 vehicles in the Federal 

fleet. GSA centrally manages about a third of the fleet, so 200,000 

vehicles. Based on Fiscal Year 2015 numbers, we think, on average, we can manage a vehicle about $2,500 a year more efficiently 

than an agency-owned asset is managed. So there is some significant savings there government-wide if you were to consolidate 

some of the fleet that is managed at the agency level currently. 

Mr. BLUM. If the Chair would indulge me, could I add one quick 

add-on question? 

Mr. MEADOWS. Very quick follow-up, yes. Thank you. 

Mr. BLUM. What incentives are there for the Federal Government to try to reduce duplication? What incentives are there for 

the rank and file Federal Government employees to save the taxpayer money? 

Mr. MEADOWS. Try to answer that succinctly, if you could. 

Mr. THOMAS. If you are the CFO of an agency, or your mission, 

say, at USDA is to ensure the safety of the food we eat, and you 

are spending too much money on vehicles and you are not spending 

enough money on inspectors, the fact that we could come in and 

save you some additional dollars on vehicles and you could maybe 

put that money towards mission I think is pretty compelling. 

Mr. BLUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the gentleman from Iowa. 

The Chair recognizes the Ranking Member, Mr. Connolly, for a 

few items that he wanted to bring up. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank the Chair. 

Mr. Thomas, this committee sent you and your predecessor, Rob 

Cook, two letters, one addressed to you, one addressed to him, 

dated August 30th, with a series of follow-up questions from the 

hearing. We have not, six months later, received a response. Any 

reason why? 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
45 

Mr. THOMAS. We are still coordinating internally on the response. I asked the same question as we were preparing for the 

hearing. We are diligently working on getting you responses to 

those questions. 

Mr. MEADOWS. How do you define diligent? I mean, if you are coordinating for six months, at what point can we expect answers to 

the gentleman’s question? 

Mr. THOMAS. I don’t know if I am ready to commit to a specific 

date, but it is something that we are putting a focus on. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay, I will give you a day. In 14 days, we need 

an answer, okay? 

Mr. CONNOLLY. To both letters. 

Mr. THOMAS. Understood. Thank you. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I mean, Administrator Murphy, you can see what 

we are dealing with. I mean, that is why in our private conversation we had so much emphasis on communication and responsiveness. The position of some people representing GSA saying we will 

only respond to requests coming from the committee chair is absurd. It flies in the face of our oversight responsibilities. And, by 

the way, I assure you, my Republican colleagues will be a little 

nervous about that because should things change around here in 

November, they want the privilege of having inquiries answered by 

a Federal agency. And, by the way, they should. But so should we. 

So I understand there is some litigation, but I want to reiterate 

that I appreciate your commitment. But this is an example. Six 

months? 

Ms. MURPHY. Sir, when I was with the Armed Services Committee, I put in a request in October of 2016 for a briefing from 

GSA. I was at GSA before I got the briefing. So I know I have a 

problem, and we are working to —— 

Mr. CONNOLLY. We need your help, yes. And I think that would 

be a great piece of your legacy, to clean it up. 

Mr. Thomas, I have to tell you, I think on a bipartisan basis, the 

idea that you have had six months and you won’t commit to a time, 

how long it will take to actually answer fairly straightforward 

questions based on a hearing that was over six months ago, is just 

unacceptable, I mean even for government. That is just not an answer the Chairman or I could possibly live with, and I thank the 

Chair for setting a deadline, and I think it does underscore the 

problem of responsiveness and communication in GSA, and it 

makes your job harder, and it makes our job harder. 

Finally, with respect to the FBI headquarters—and you have 

heard from my colleagues, including the representative of the District of Columbia where it is headquartered—all I can say, Mr. 

Mathews, is I just do not feel your answers hold up. I think they 

contradict, as I said, six years of laying the groundwork for a different rationale for where it ought to be located, the value of consolidation, the danger of lack of consolidation, and the legitimate 

physical security concerns. The rationales coming out of the GSA 

do not add up, whether it is we didn’t have the money because 

Congress wouldn’t appropriate it, or the FBI has changed its mind. 

I am going to discuss this with my colleague, the Chairman, and 

we will see how we proceed, but at some point we are going to 

want to see the documents, contemporaneous documents from the 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
46 

FBI that gave you a different direction. But this is not a good moment for the GSA. What I really worry about besides process is the 

mission of the FBI and how it could be impeded, frankly, by this 

decision. 

So you haven’t heard the last of this from me, from Ms. Eleanor 

Holmes Norton, from Chairman Meadows and others. We will revisit this issue at the appropriate time. 

I thank the Chair for his indulgence. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I thank the gentleman. 

The Chair recognizes himself. I want to kind of conclude with a 

couple of things. 

Inspector General, I want to say thank you for being here. I don’t 

want to ignore the fact that your presence here and the lack of 

questions is any indication, as you know. I am a huge fan not only 

of the Inspector Generals, plural, but of this particular Inspector 

General specifically and the work that your group does. 

Here is what I would like to ask of you. I would like the top four 

recommendations that you would have that either have been met 

with a lukewarm reception from GSA’s perspective, or four that 

have been rejected and that you see as having the most significant 

impact on a variety of issues. If you could get that to the committee 

in the next 30 days, is that something that you could do? 

Ms. OCHOA. Be happy to do that, Chairman Meadows. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. And I want to, for the record, express 

sincere appreciation to your entire staff for the work that they do 

on an ongoing basis. As we all know, the GSA, because of one photograph, has probably a very different impression. It came from obscurity into a position of very—well, it made the news, and your 

involvement certainly in trying to correct that is acknowledged. 

I also want to acknowledge the staff that we have here that have 

done a great job. There are a variety of additional questions that 

we will need all of you to answer for the record as they have prepared them and done a good job. 

Administrator Murphy, I want to hit on one area, because in the 

NDAA we talked about the e-portals that would actually start addressing and allowing us to be competitive with that. It is my understanding that you have a March deadline due to Congress in 

terms of the progress of that. Are you going to actually make that 

deadline? 

Ms. MURPHY. I have reviewed the draft report and approved the 

draft report at this point. So we are in the process of clearing it 

with other agencies and making sure that is correct. We have been 

trying to make sure that that is the beginning of a conversation. 

We had 200 industry participants come to GSA to meet on the 

issue, another 300 participate virtually, so we are taking that opportunity seriously. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So yes or no, will you meet the March deadline? 

Ms. MURPHY. We will meet the March deadline. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. Thank you. 

And then finally I would like to ask on that aspect, we talked 

about really the FASTA guidelines, and then you have this kind of 

internal infrastructure. Are those working hand in glove, or are 

they competing with one another? I am not sure exactly—in your 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
47 

testimony you talked about an infrastructure. Is that working hand 

in glove with FASTA or not? 

Ms. MURPHY. It is working hand in glove with FASTA. So a lot 

of the work we have been doing in preparation for the board being 

sat is in place. It also means that we are continuing to work on 

our own processes. The requirement, for example, for the database 

has made it much easier for GSA to do its own work as well. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. So I am going to conclude with this. There 

is much work to be done in terms of surplus properties. Mr. Mathews, the 32 number is, I can tell you based on GAO reports, based 

on previous reports from the GSA and OMB, it is just nowhere in 

the ballpark. So I need accurate numbers there. 

Administrator Murphy, you have a previous staffer from here 

that actually worked on my subcommittee, Mr. Post, who I want 

to acknowledge here today. He is a great asset, I am sure, to you, 

as he was to us, but he will also tell you that I will not let this 

rest as it relates to the FBI building and the decisions that were 

made there. This is a bipartisan issue, and I can tell you that before you proceed ahead, this committee wants to know all the decisions that went into making the new decision that has been announced. I don’t agree with it. I can be convinced, but at this particular point, based on the information in this hearing, I am not 

convinced. 

So I would like a briefing and a follow-up in a bipartisan manner 

on this particular issue. 

If there is no further business before the Subcommittee on Government Operations, this committee stands adjourned. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, could I ask a status question? 

Mr. MEADOWS. Certainly. 

Ms. NORTON. I would also like you to get to the Chairman a 

timeline for the consolidation that Congress did mandate and that 

you are doing, the largest Federal project in the United States, the 

Department of Homeland Security, to make sure that the GSA is 

on its timeline for a project which exemplifies consolidation, as the 

FBI does not. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And I would concur with the gentlewoman from 

the District of Columbia. If you can give the committee, both minority and majority, an update on that, that would be good. 

If there is no further business before the committee, the committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:16 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 


KING-6430 with DISTILLER

KING-6430 with DISTILLER
(49) 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD


KING-6430 with DISTILLER
50 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 23 here 30939.023

U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 

Office of Inspector General 

The Honorable Mark Meadows 

Chairman 

March 8, 2018 

Subcommittee on Government Operations 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515-4802 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

At the February 15 hearing titled "General Services Administration: Checking in 

with the Government's Acquisition and Property Manager," you asked me to provide 

the committee with information about our office's most significant recommendations 

to GSA which received either a rejection or a lukewarm response. The attached 

document provides details of four instances which meet this criteria. 

If you or your staff have any questions or require further details in this matter, 

please feel free to contact me or Robert Preiss of my staff at 202-273-7266. 

Sincerely, 

{lw__(~ 

Carol F. Ochoa 

Inspector General 

1800 F Street, NW, Washington, DC 20405-0002 

Fed.,al R"'J'<ling Pmgrom 0 Printed on R•cyded Pap" 
51 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 24 here 30939.024

Recommendations of the Inspector General of the General Services Administration which 

were Rejected or Not Fully Implemented by the Agency 

March 8, 2018 

Federal Acquisition Service (FAS) Response to GSA OIG Preaward Audit of Carahsoft 

Technology Corporation (Audit Memorandum A160039) 

The OIG issued a preaward audit report related to the Commercial Sales Practices (CSP) 

disclosure and proposal information Carahsoft submitted as the basis for negotiating the first 5-

year option period of its Schedule 70 (IT) contract. Our audit report found that Carahsoft's CSP 

was not accurate, current, or complete because the disclosures were based on outdated 

information and did not reflect Carahsoft's actual business practices. We also found that GSA 

schedule customers did not receive Carahsoft's most favored customer pricing, which the 

contracting officer is required to seek. We estimated that, if the contracting officer negotiated 

better pricing terms based on Carahsoft's commercial sales practices, and given GSA's 

significant annual sales volume advantage, the government could potentially realize over $187 

million in savings during the 5-year option period. 

Contract negotiations regarding the option renewal commenced on June 12, 2017. The 

contracting officer established a negotiation position based on audit findings. After 5 days of 

substantive negotiations, the contracting officer awaited Carahsoft's final review and 

agreement of the negotiated terms, which would have yielded approximately $55 million in 

savings to the government. However, on June 16, 2017, Carahsoft responded by informing the 

contracting officer that it was accepting the TOR modification (a decision it had previously twice 

declined) and therefore, was no longer negotiating based on the CSP. 

With Carahsoft's acceptance of the TOR modification, the contracting officer ended all 

negotiation discussions related to Carahsoft's commercial sales and accepted Carahsoft's 

proposed pricing without any of the improvements previously targeted during the negotiations. 

As a result, the contracting officer forfeited at least $55 million in government savings and 

ignored the purpose of the Multiple Award Schedules program, which seeks to leverage the 

buying power of the federal government. 

The GSA contracting officer was not required to change its negotiating position. 

Carahsoft's acceptance of the TOR clause (GSAR 538.270-2) does not preclude the contracting 

officers from using commercial pricing information during negotiations. In fact, the GSAR 

clause states that in instances like this one when transactional data is not available (Carahsoft 

transactional data was not available as it had just accepted the TDR modification) and pricing 

cannot be determined fair and reasonable through market research (the preaward audit report 

1 
52 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 25 here 30939.025

had identified commercial customers receiving better pricing), the contracting officer can 

perform an analysis of other than certified cost or pricing data to determine fair and reasonable 

pricing. This is the equivalent of the commercial data provided and reported in the stated 

preaward audit report. 

We reported these circumstances to the Commissioner, Federal Acquisition Service, in a 

separate memorandum dated October 12, 2017. We suggested GSA reopen negotiations and 

seek the pricing improvements it had effectively negotiated prior to the most recent award, as 

well as establish clear policy and guidance that if an audit is completed before a contractor 

accepts the TDR modification, the commercial pricing information will be used to establish 

pricing. We received a response from the Commissioner on January 18, 2018; however, the 

response did not address the specific situation or our suggestions. 

GSA's Decisions to Vacate and Renovate the Leased Federal Courthouse in Pensacola Are 

Based on Faulty Premises; Issued 10/25/2016 

In response to complaints received through the OIG fraud hotline, we performed an 

audit of GSA's decisions to vacate the 1 North Palafox Street (Palafox) leased federal 

courthouse in Pensacola, Florida; relocate tenants into temporary leased space; and take 

ownership of and renovate the courthouse. Among other things, we found that GSA's decision 

to partially renovate the Palafox courthouse was based on a flawed financial analysis and that 

GSA's planned renovation would not meet current standards for new courthouses, including 

needed structural security upgrades. GSA disagreed with our position and went forward with 

the project. In moving forward with the project, GSA neither concurred with, nor proposed 

corrective actions that were responsive to, our four audit recommendations. At this point, most 

of the recommendations can no longer be implemented because GSA has begun the renovation 

project. However, we remain concerned that based on a flawed financial analysis, GSA is 

currently investing over $30 million, and plans a future additional investment of $17 million, to 

renovate a courthouse that has known construction deficiencies, has experienced nearly 20 

years of water intrusion issues, and does not meet structural security standards. 

Public Building Service (PBS) National capital Region's $1.2 Billion Energy Savings 

Performance Contract for White Oak was Not Awarded or Modified in Accordance with 

Regulations and Policy; Issued 8/24/2017 

We performed this audit to determine whether PBS's National Capital Region (NCR) 

awarded the White Oak Energy Savings Performance Contract and subsequent modifications in 

compliance with applicable regulations and guidance. We found that PBS NCR did not comply 

2 
53 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 26 here 30939.026

with the federal competition requirements by making a cardinal change to the contract that 

substantially increased the contract's scope of work. Specifically, GSA incorporated unrelated 

operations and maintenance work into the contract at a cost of over $309 million, representing 

a 39 percent price increase from the original task order value of over $785.8 million. Because of 

the significant increases in the scope from the original task order, the additional work should 

have been competed, but was not, resulting in a violation of the Competition in Contracting Act 

of 1984 and the Federal Acquisition Regulation. We also found deficiencies in GSA's award and 

administration of the task order. Our report included six recommendations to GSA 

management, including expediting the procurement of a new operations and maintenance 

contract. GSA management agreed with most of our recommendation but denied the need to 

procure a new contract. We are continuing to work with GSA management to achieve audit 

resolution; however, we are concerned that GSA's failure to take responsibility for its 

noncompliance with federal laws and regulations will foster continued noncompliance. 

Various Reports on GSA's Unauthorized Disclosures of Sensitive Information 

Since 2015, we have issued several reports on GSA's unauthorized disclosures of 

personally identifiable information. For example, in a January 2015 report, Personally 

Identifiable Information Unprotected in GSA's Cloud Computing Environment, we found that 

personally identifiable information was accessible to GSA employees and contractors who did 

not have a need to know the information, and GSA's breach notifications to affected individuals 

were inadequate. We had similar findings in a September 2016 report, Audit of GSA's Response 

to the Personally Identifiable Information Breach of September 18, 2015, in which we found 

deficiencies in GSA's efforts to notify over 8,200 current and former employees of an 

unauthorized disclosure of personal data. For each of these reports, we have recommended, 

among other things, that GSA take appropriate measures to identify and inform all individuals 

affected by these unauthorized disclosures. While GSA has agreed with our recommendations, 

our implementation reviews, conducted to verify whether GSA has taken the necessary 

corrective actions to address our report findings, have consistently found that GSA is not timely 

or completely notifying all individuals affected by the release of this information. GSA must 

make notifications to affected individuals a priority. Such notifications should be made as 

"expeditiously as practicable, without unreasonable delay" in accordance with requirements 

from the Office of Management and Budget's, M-17-12, Preparing for and Responding to a 

Breach of Personally Identifiable Information. Such notifications are imperative to ensure that 

individuals know that their information was exposed so that they can take appropriate 

protective measures. 

3 
54 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 27 here 30939.027

Federal Real Property: 

Questions for the Record 

Submitted by Rep. Mark Meadows, Chairman 

Subcommittee on Government Operations 

Questions for Administrator Emily Murphy and Commissioner Dan Mathews: 

1. Please provide the Committee with the definitions of the following words as they relate to GSA 

real property management: 

a. Excess: 

The statutory definition for the term "excess property" can be found at 40 USC § 102(3). The Guidance 

for Real Property Inventory Reporting, known as the Federal Real Property Profile (FRPP) Data 

Dictionary, lists and defines the data elements agencies report to the FRPP. The status data element 

categories of report of excess (ROE) submitted, ROE accepted, determination to dispose, and cannot 

currently be disposed are all considered excess, as each category is an indication that the agency no longer 

needs the asset to support its mission. The definitions for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 are listed below. 

Report of Excess Submitted: Agency has submitted a ROE to GSA and the ROE is pending acceptance 

by GSA. For this category, the agency must submit the date the ROE was submitted to GSA in 6B. The 

universe of these assets will be reviewed in subsequent reporting periods. 

Report of Excess Accepted: Agency has received an acceptance of the ROE from the GSA Public 

Building Service (PBS) Disposal Office. For this category, the agency must submit the date the ROE was 

accepted by GSA in 6C. The universe of these assets will be reviewed in subsequent reporting periods. 

Determination to Dispose: Agency has made the final determination to remove the asset from the 

inventory pursuant to independent statutory authorities. This status category includes demolitions, 

regardless of authority; instances where the 

agency chooses to use its own statutory authority; or instances where the agency has not yet submitted a 

ROE to GSA. For this category, the agency must submit the date the agency made the determination to 

dispose in 6D. The universe of these assets will be reviewed in subsequent reporting periods. 

Cannot Currently be Disposed: Asset for which an agency has no long term need, but the asset "cannot 

currently be disposed" because of certain circumstances. See data element 6H. Agencies must pick one 

specific circumstance from among the following options in the drop down list (valid codes are in 

parentheses): 

• Environmental Remediation- Asset requires environmental remediation 

such as removal of pollution or contaminants from soil, groundwater, 

sediment, or surface water. 

• Diplomatic Restrictions -Host government does not provide its consent 

for the disposal of a property, as is usually required under diplomatic law 

or via direct treaty between the U.S. and the host country. 

• Title/Legal Disputes -Agency has to resolve disputes involving 

encumbrances such as liens, deed restrictions, encroachments, or licenses 

that restrict the ability to transfer title of the property. 

• Campus Location -Asset is located on a campus and/or behind a secure 
55 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 28 here 30939.028

b. Surplus: 

fence line that limits the ability to access or separate the asset from the 

rest of the entire installation. 

• Easements- Another entity has a nonpossessory legal right to use the 

asset for a specified purpose. 

• Protective Structures -Includes levies, breakwaters, or berms. 

• Other 

• Statutory/Regulatory Process -Agency has not yet completed processes 

resulting from a statutory/regulatory 

requirement and therefore cannot dispose of the asset. 

Consistent with the statutory definition found at 40 USC § I 02(1 0) ; accord 41 CFR § 102-75.1l60; 45 

CFR § l2a.l; 24 CFR § 581.1., surplus property means any excess real property not required by any 

federal landholding agency for its needs or the discharge of its responsibilities, as determined by the 

Administrator of GSA. Agencies with independent authority to dispose of assets may also declare assets 

as "surplus," depending on the processes prescribed in their statutory authorities. 

c. Underutilized: 

Underutilized means an entire property or portion thereof, with or without improvements, which is used 

only at irregular periods or intermittently by the accountable landholding agency for current program 

purposes of that agency, or which is used for current program purposes that can be satisfied with only a 

portion of the property (41 CFR § 102-75.50; accord41 CFR § 102-75.!160; 45 CFR § 12a.l; 24 CFR § 

581.1.). 

d. Unutilized: 

Unutilized property means an entire property or portion thereof, with or without improvements, not 

occupied for current program purposes for the accountable executive agency or occupied in caretaker 

status only (41 CFR § 102-75.45; accord 41 CFR § 102-75.1160; 45 CFR § 12a.l; 24 CFR § 581.1.). 

2. Please provide the total number of GSA-owned buildings and government-wide owned 

buildings that fall into the following categories: 

a. Excess 

For FY 2017, GSA reported 84 excess Federally-owned buildings to the FRPP. The government-wide 

total in the database was 4,998 excess Federally-owned buildings. It should be noted that this is very 

different from reporting the assets as excess under the Property Act through the report of Excess process. 

However, please be aware that agencies also report land and structure assets as excess. For FY 2017, 

GSA reported a combined total of 90 excess Federally-owned land, building, and structure assets to the 

FRPP. The government-wide combined total was 7, I 01 excess Federally-owned land, building, and 

structure assets. 

b. Surplus 

ForFY 2017, GSA reported zero surplus buildings to the FRPP. The government-wide total was 405 
56 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 29 here 30939.029

surplus buildings. 

However, please be aware that agencies also report land and structure assets as surplus. For FY 2017, 

GSA reported zero surplus land, building, and structure assets to the FRPP. The government-wide 

combined total was 693 surplus land, building, and structure assets. 

c. Underutilized 

For FY 2017 GSA reported 5 underutilized Federally-owned buildings to the FRPP. The governmentwide total was 22,875 underutilized Federally-owned buildings. 

However, please be aware that agencies also report underutilized buildings that are leased and otherwise 

managed'. ForFY 2017, GSA reported a combined total of5 underutilized owned, leased, and otherwise 

managed assets to the FRPP. The government-wide combined total was 25,902 underutilized owned, 

leased, and otherwise managed assets. 

d. Unutilized 

For FY 2017, GSA reported 69 unutilized Federally-owned buildings to the FRPP. The government-wide 

total was 2,922 unutilized Federally-owned buildings. 

Please be aware that agencies also report unutilized buildings that are leased and otherwise managed. For 

FY 2017, GSA reported a combined total of 69 unutilized owned, leased, and otherwise managed assets to 

the FRPP. The government-wide combined total was 3,048 unutilized owned, leased, and otherwise 

managed assets. 

3. If the definitions of excess, surplus, underutilized, and unutilized have changed in the past eight 

years, please provide: 

a. An analysis of the differences between the current definitions and the previous 

definitions. 

b. An explanation for the policy reasons for changing the definition. 

Changes in FY 2011 FRPP Data Dictionary 

The data element "Percent of Space Utilization;" was added, which was defined as: 

Provide the percentage of the space utilized in a building asset. Each building 

asset will report the whole digit percentage from 0% to I 00%. Decimal points 

will NOT be reported for this data element. For example, if the percent of space 

utilized in an asset is 94.76%, the user will report 95 as the percent of space 

utilized. This data element is REQUIRED for the following Building 

Predominant Use categories: Offices, Hospitals, Family Housing, Dormitories 

and Barracks, Warehouses and Laboratories. It is NOT to be reported for any 

structure assets, land assets, or remaining building uses. 

1 

Otherwise managed properties are state or foreign government-owned properties where a u.s. state or foreign government holds title to the 

real property, but rights for use have been granted to a Federal Government entity in an arrangement other than a leasehold. Otherwise 

managed properties also include those properties under Withdrawn Land or Museum Trust. 
57 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 30 here 30939.030

The data element was added in attempt to provide a numerical representation of the utilization of certain 

building assets. 

Changes in FY 2012 FRPP Data Dictionary 

The data element "Status," replaced the category "Excess" with multiple categories to show each of the 

steps in the disposal process. This change was made to accurately identify where the asset was in the 

disposal process. 

Report of Excess Submitted: Agency has submitted a report of excess (ROE) to GSA and is pending 

acceptance by GSA. For this category, the agency must submit the date the ROE was submitted to GSA in 

4b. The universe of these assets will be reviewed in subsequent reporting periods. 

Report of Excess Accepted: Agency has received an acceptance of the ROE from GSA Disposal Office. 

For this category, the agency must submit the date the ROE was accepted by GSA in 4c. The universe of 

these assets will be reviewed in subsequent reporting periods. 

Determination to Dispose: Agency with independent statutory authority to dispose of assets (and 

therefore will not submit a ROE to GSA) has made the final determination to remove the asset from the 

inventory. For this category, the agency must submit the date the agency made the determination to 

dispose in 4d. The universe of these assets will be reviewed in subsequent reporting periods. 

Cannot Currently be Disposed: Asset that has no long term need however it "cannot currently be 

disposed" due to certain circumstances, such as environmental remediation, historical status, etc. 

Changes in FY 2013 FRPP Data Dictionary 

The data element "Utilization," replaced the "Percent of Space Utilization" data element in an effort to 

align with existing statutory definitions. The "Percent of Space Utilization" data element resulted in 

inconsistent data due to the various methods agencies used to measure the utilization of space. GSA and 

FRPC aligned the "Utilization" data element with the existing definitions contained in the McKinney 

Vento Act. 

Unutilized property means an entire property or portion thereof, with or without improvements, not 

occupied for current program purposes for the accountable Executive agency or occupied in caretaker 

status only." 41 C.F.R. § 102-75.1160; accord 45 C.P.R.§ 12a.l; 24 C.F.R. § 581.1. 

Underutilized means an entire property or portion thereof, with or without improvements, which is used 

only at irregular periods or intermittently by the accountable landholding agency for current program 

purposes of that agency, or which is used for current program purposes that can be satisfied with only a 

portion ofthe property." 41 C.P.R.§ 102-75.1160; accord 45 C.F.R. § 12a.l; 24 C.F.R. § 581.1. 

Utilized means anything that is not defined as "unutilized" or "underutilized." 

Changes in FY 2014 FRPP Data Dictionary 

There were no changes in the definition of excess, surplus, underutilized, or unutilized in the PY 2014 

PRPP Data Dictionary. 

Changes in FY 2015 FRPP Data Dictionary 
58 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 31 here 30939.031

While the definitions of certain categories remained the same, GSA changed the category names to 

minimize confusion among stakeholders. The category "Active" was changed to "Current Mission 

Need," while the "Inactive" category was changed to "Future Mission Need." The names align with the 

definitions for each category. GSA changed certain FRPP status data element category names to "Current 

and Future Mission Need" to minimize confusion among stakeholders. There was a misconception that 

inactive was an unneeded property, despite the definition stating that it had a planned future need. 

GSA added a new status date element category titled "Surplus" for the FRPP. In previous reporting, 

assets were not identified as surplus. Since it was added, the definition for "Surplus" has remained 

constant. GSA added the "Surplus" category to the status FRPP data element to further differentiate the 

steps that a property takes during the disposal process. 

Changes in FY 2016 FRPP Data Dictionary 

Removed "ROE Submitted," "ROE Accepted," "Determination to Dispose," "Cannot Currently be 

Disposed," or "Surplus" as allowed status categories for land assets with a legal interest of"Withdrawn 

Land," which is a category of the "Legal Interest" data element which represents land withdrawn from 

public domain for another federal entity's specific use. At the end of the period, for which the land was 

withdrawn from the public domain, it reverts back to its original purpose of public domain land. 

Therefore, it cannot be declared excess or surplus. 

Changes in FY 2017 FRPP Data Dictionary 

The "Status" category of"Determination to Dispose" definition was edited to insert the following 

sentence. This status category includes demolitions, regardless of authority; instances where the agency 

chooses to use its own statutory authority; or instances where the agency has not yet submitted a ROE to 

GSA. The full definition is shown below: 

Agency has made the fmal determination to remove the asset from the inventory 

pursuant to independent statutory authorities. This status category includes 

demolitions, regardless of authority; instances where the agency chooses to use 

its own statutory authority; or instances where the agency has not yet submitted a 

ROE to GSA. For this category, the agency must submit the date the agency 

made the determination to dispose in 6D. The universe of these assets will be 

reviewed in subsequent reporting periods. 

The sentence was inserted to create consistent reporting of assets in which the agency intended to 

demolish the asset, whether under its own authority or by using GSA disposal authority. 

Definitions to explain the various reasons why an asset cannot currently be disposed were added to the 

"Status" data element "Cannot Currently be Disposed" category. The definitions provided further clarity 

to agencies: 

Environmental Remediation- Asset requires environmental remediation such 

as removal of pollution or contaminants from soil, groundwater, sediment, or 

surface water. 

Diplomatic Restrictions- Host goveroment does not provide its consent for the 

disposal of a property, as is usually required under diplomatic law or via direct 

treaty between the U.S. and the host country. 

Title! Legal Disputes- Agency has to resolve disputes involving encumbrances 

such as liens, deed restrictions, encroachments, or licenses that restrict the ability 
59 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 32 here 30939.032

to transfer title of the property. 

Campus Location- Asset is located on a campus and/or behind a secure fence 

line that limits the ability to access or separate the asset from the rest of the entire 

installation. 

Easements- Another entity has a nonpossessory legal right to use the asset for a 

specified purpose. 

Protective Structures Includes levies, breakwaters, or berms. 

Other- Statutory/regulatory process -Agency has not yet completed 

processes resulting from a statutory /regulatory requirement and therefore cannot 

dispose of the asset. 

4. Are the definitions of excess, surplus, underutilized and unutilized standard definitions across all 

government agencies? 

a. If not, please provide an analysis of the differences between GSA definition and the 

definition used by every agency. 

GSA annually publishes the Guidance for Real Property Inventory Reporting2

, known as the FRPP Data 

Dictionary. GSA has aligned the definitions for data elements to existing statutes or accepted industry 

standard in an effort to achieve consistency in reporting among agencies. Agencies are to use the 

definitions and reporting requirements contained in the document to report real property data to FRPP. 

It is the responsibility of each landholding agency to follow the requirements and definitions contained in 

the FRPP Data Dictionary. GSA annually conducts training and emphasizes the need for agencies to 

follow these reporting requirements. 

5. GSA assumptions about the value of the J. Edgar Hoover building and the land on which it sits 

were out of line with market reality. Given the complexities of a swap-exchange deal on a 

project as large as a new FBI headquarters building, what lessons has PBS learned that can be 

applied to future swap-exchanges? 

On December 7, 2017, GSA issued amended procedural guidance for real property exchanges, including 

"swap-construct" transactions. This amended guidance requires financial and business case analyses that 

fully quantify risk when contemplating an exchange transaction, and continuing to quantity risk 

throughout the life of the exchange transaction, if it is determined as a result of the aforementioned 

analyses to pursue an exchange. 

6. The Administration's Infrastructure Plan, released on February 12, 2018, seeks greater authority 

for the disposal of federal real property. As outlined, the request seems nearly identical to the 

authority Congress already granted in Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act (FAST A). What is 

the difference between FAST A and what the Administration is requesting in the infrastructure 

plan? 

While FAST A has provided GSA with some important tools to help drive the disposal of unneeded 

2 FRPP data dictionary can be accessed at gsa.gov/datadictlonary 
60 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 33 here 30939.033

Federal real property, the President's 'American Infrastructure Initiative' adds several additional 

provisions and incentives. 

F ASTA and the infrastructure proposal are similar in that they are both focused on streamlining the 

process to bring unneeded assets directly to market. Both initiatives authorize agencies to retain sales 

proceeds .. It is important to note, FAST A delays proceeds retention for the six-year period of the pilot. 

The President's infrastructure proposal contemplates full retention of the net proceed of sale upon 

enactment. The two differ on the treatment of the proceeds received. Under FAST A, net sales proceeds 

received by agencies are subject to annual authorization and appropriation. The Infrastructure Initiative 

proposes that net proceeds from sales be available to agencies immediately, without being subject to 

future authorization or appropriation. This would allow agencies to direct the equity from their unneeded 

assets toward mission critical facilities. 

An essential part of both FAST A and the President's infrastructure plan is the provision for funding 

efforts to identify, prepare, and divest of unneeded real property. FAST A authorized $42M to implement 

and execute disposals, to date, $10 million in funding has been - appropriated. The President's 

Infrastructure plan proposes expanding the allowable uses of the existing GSA disposal Fund, allowing 

GSA to provide the services necessary for identifying, preparing, and divesting federal properties. This 

amendment requires no appropriation. Further, the provision would allow GSA to recover costs from the 

gross proceeds prior to agency retention, thereby maintaining the corpus of the fund for continued 

divestitures. 

7. With FAST A authority already in place, the Administration can begin the "Disposition of 

Federal Real Property" portion by nominating Public Buildings Reform Board members. When 

will Public Buildings Reform Board nominees be submitted to Congress? 

The Administration is actively vetting candidates for the Public Buildings Reform Board. 

8. The Federal Real Property Management Reform Act of2016 (P.L. 114-318) codified the Federal 

Real Property Council. This law required the Federal Real Property Council to submit to 

Congress a real property management plan. This submission was required one year after 

enactment--which was December 16, 2017-and annually thereafter. When will the real property 

management plan be submitted to Congress? 

Section 623(e)(l) of the Federal Property Management Reform Act of2016 states: 

not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this subchapter, establish a real 

property management plan template, to be updated annually, which shall include 

performance measures, specific milestones, measurable savings, strategies, and 

Government-wide goals based on the goals established under section 524(a)(7) to reduce 

surplus property or to achieve better utilization ofunderutilized property, and evaluation 

criteria to determine the effectiveness of real property management. 

The FRPC prepared a real property management plan template, which was sent to agencies by the 

December 16, 2017 deadline. The agencies are using the template to prepare their annual real property 

management plans. 

9. Notwithstanding GSA validation and verification requests to agencies, what other steps does 
61 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 34 here 30939.034

GSA take to ensure data quality in the FRPP Public Data Set? 

GSA has taken aggressive steps to implement the Government Accountability Office's (GAO) recent 

recommendations to improve the quality and transparency of data submitted to the FRPP. GSA has not 

only made substantial technical enhancements to the FRPP system but has also created guidance, tools, 

and other resources to aid agencies in their use ofFRPP data to identify opportunities to reduce the 

government's footprint. As detailed below, these accomplishments mark significant progress toward 

addressing FRPP data quality and making FRPP data more transparent. 

Between2014 and 2017, GSA 

• automated data validation and verification tools within the FRPP; 

• migrated the FRPP to a new Information Technology (IT) platform; 

• required agency chief financial officers to submit a letter certifying the accuracy 

and completion of their agency's annual FRPP submissions; 

• launched two analytic tools that utilize FRPP data, allowing agencies to visualize 

their real property data through dashboards to identify potential errors; ; 

• improved and clarified specific data element definitions in the annual Guidance 

for Real Property Inventory Reporting; 

• surveyed Federal agencies on the methods they use to collect and report select 

data elements in order to identify best practices for data reporting; 

• developed data validation and verification guidance and associated tools; and 

• established statistically significant variance thresholds in the FRPP system to 

assist agencies in identifying possible errors in their data; 

• issued Agency-Level Federal Real Property Profile Data Quality Improvement 

Program guidance to assist agencies with developing processes to assess the 

quality of FRPP data, improve data quality, and track data quality improvements 

overtime. 

Each of these actions is described in more detail below. 

Automated Data Validation and Verification Tools in the FRPP 

Building on the data validation and verification tools added to the FRPP in 2014, GSA enhanced the 

FRPP in 2015 to notify an agency when the values of specific data elements in its submission are outside 

of specified numeric ranges. The notice alerts the agency of possible errors, giving the agency an 

opportunity to re-examine and correct the data before the December 15 deadline for FRPP submissions. 

In 2018, GSA will baseline the qualityofFY 2017 FRPP data in order to monitor and assess 

improvements in data quality, and focus on improving data elements ·as needed over time. This will 

enable GSA to demonstrate that FRPP data quality is improving from year to year. 

Migration of the FRPP to a New IT Platform 

In September 2015, GSA successfully migrated the FRPP to a new IT platform, replacing a legacy system 

that had been in place since 2004. The new system, known as FRPP MS, has been integrated with GSA's 

Data-to-Decisions (D2D.gov) enterprise data warehouse, which includes a robust suite of business 

intelligence tools and provides analytic capabilities specifically designed to support the analysis of large 

data sets. Agencies have had the ability to access tools in D2D to analyze their data since April 2016. 

FRPP Certification by Agency Chief Financial Officers 
62 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 35 here 30939.035

In 2015, GSA, in collaboration with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), began requiring Chief 

Financial Officers (CFO) Act agencies to submit to GSA and OMB each March a letter signed by their 

chief financial officer. The letter must state that the agency's submission to the FRPP is accurate and 

complete and outline the agency's data quality improvement processes. By requiring the letter, GSA and 

OMB have increased agencies' accountability for the accuracy of their data. 

Real Property Management Tool and tbe Asset Consolidation Tool 

GSA believes that visualized data, as provided by the Real Property Management Tool (RPMT) and the 

Asset Consolidation Tool (ACT), will force improvements in FRPP data quality. Both tools were 

developed for use by the Federal real property community and can be accessed from GSA's D2D.gov. As 

agencies recognize that FRPP data is being used to inform management analysis and decision-making, 

they will have greater incentive to improve the quality of their data. Visualizing the data through 

dashboards, maps, charts, and graphs enables agencies to spot data errors that may not be readily apparent 

in large database file. Improved data quality supports progress on real property initiatives to reduce the 

Federal Government's inventory. 

Launched by GSA on January 15,2016, the RPMTcombines FRPP and GSA occupancy agreement data 

to provide individualized analytic reports on each agency's portfolio. The RPMT provides analyses of 

expiring leases and GSA occupancy agreements (OAs) as well as potential cost avoidance opportunities 

from the disposal of underutilized and inactive assets. Agencies are also able to see Presidential 

Management Agenda (PMA) benchmarks such as rent per square foot, operating and maintenance costs 

per square foot, and square feet per person. 

The ACT, launched in June 2016, serves a similar function as the RMPT by combining FRPP, OA, and 

PMA data for an analysis of utilization rates. The ACT also allows agencies to make targeted searches for 

space that other agencies occupy in a given geographic radius. 

GSA released the latest versions ofRPMT and ACT tools in May 2017. Both tools now include FY 2016 

FRPP data and additional information that agencies can utilize to analyze their portfolios and find 

opportunities for consolidation, co-location and disposals. Improvements to the RPMT include easier 

navigation, a new page to help agencies see the anomalies present in their data, and additional dashboards 

for agencies that have OAs with GSA. Improvements to the ACT include a streamlined page showing 

opportunities for cost avoidance, operations and maintenance cost dashboards, and the ability to search 

Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Both tools also include tenant satisfaction scores for applicable buildings, 

and Smart Location Calculator scores for GSA-managed buildings and occupancy agreements. The Smart 

Location Calculator is a simple tool agencies can use to explore how workplace location affects worker 

commute travel. Indicators include worker commute mode-share, vehicle miles traveled, and workplace 

accessibility via public transit. 

Improvements and Clarifications to Data Elements 

GAO, in its report titled Improving Daia Transparency and Expanding the National Strategy Could Help 

Address Long-standing Challenges (GA0-16-275, April2016), highlighted inconsistencies in the 

methods agencies use to calculate and submit certain data elements to the FRPP. In December 2016, 

GSA, in collaboration with OMB and the Federal Real Property Council (FRPC), issued a memorandum 

that revised certain data elements to promote more accurate and consistent reporting by agencies. The 

revised data elements were "Repair Needs," "Replacement Value," and "Operations and Maintenance." 

Agencies are required to ensure that their annual FRPP reporting conforms to the new definitions no later 

than the FY 2018 reporting cycle. 
63 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 36 here 30939.036

FRPP Data Element Survey 

On March 31,2016, GAO Audit 16-275 recommended that GSA assess FRPP data reliability by 

determining how individual Federal agencies collect and report their data. 

In response, GSA surveyed agencies' methods for collecting and reporting data on select data elements: 

"Replacement Value," "Repair Needs," "Owned and/or Managed Operating and Maintenance Costs," 

"Lease Costs" (i.e., armual rent and operating and maintenance costs), "Status," and "Utilization". GSA 

received survey responses from 18 CFO Act agencies, and 6 non-CFO Act agencies, and convened an 

interagency working group to assess the survey results. In November 2017, GSA provided GAO a report 

summarizing the results. GSA's report also detailed recommendations for modifying certain FRPP 

reporting requirements, best practices agencies have used to report data, and limitations on the use of 

FRPP data due to known inconsistencies in agencies' reporting methods. 

Recommendations from the working group include: 

• Sharing the best practice from the Department of Energy's Condition Assessment 

Information System tool to determine the repair needs of an asset based on 

condition assessment. 

• Alerting agencies when the "Repair Needs" or "Replacement Value" data 

elements are the same from one reporting period to the next. Cost escalations 

would normally result in a change in these data elements from one year to the 

next. 

• Informing stakeholders that the "Replacement Value" data element has no 

correlation to an assets appraised or fair market value. 

GSA will collaborate with the FRPC to incorporate the working group's recommendations in upcoming 

FRPP submission guidance to agencies. 

Federal Real Property Profile Management System Data Validation and Verification Guidance 

In May 2016, GSA, in collaboration with OMB and the FRPC, issued Federal Real Property Profile 

Management System Data Validation and Verification Guidance, which established a mandatory data 

validation and verification (V & V) process for all executive branch agencies that submit FRPP data. The 

guidance sets forth additional requirements for agencies to follow as they review and resolve anomalies 

detected in their data before they submit it to the FRPP. GSA also developed an automated process to 

measure the improvement in data quality resulting from the guidance and its accompanying tools. OMB 

issued a Management Procedures Memorandum on January 28, 2016, that required agencies to implement 

the GSA guidance for FY 2016 FRPP reporting. 

The first round of the new V&V process concluded in October 2017. CFO Act agencies submitted a total 

of332,438 real property assets in FY 2016. There were a total of 13,257 anomalies. Of those anomalies 

1,004, or 7.57%, were errors that were corrected in the agencies' internal financial and asset management 

systems. 

On November I, 20 I 7, GSA, in collaboration with OMB, issued a new resource titled Agency-Level 

Federal Real Property Profile Data Quality Improvement Program: Guidance for Establishment and 

Maintenance. The guidance provides recommendations to agencies on how to develop and implement 

processes to assess the quality of their FRPP data, improve the quality of the data, and track the 

improvement of data quality over time. The steps outlined enable each agency to create or customize a 

data quality program appropriate to its operating environment. 
64 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 37 here 30939.037

Statistically Significant Variance Thresholds 

As an additional measure to improve FRPP data quality, GSA implemented for the FY 2017 reporting 

cycle an FRPP business validation rule that looks at differences between current year and prior year data 

for the following data elements: 

• Square Feet 

• Acres 

• Lease Annual Rent 

• Lease Annual Operations and Maintenance (O&M) costs 

• Owned and/otherwise managed O&M costs 

• Repair Needs 

• Replacement Value 

If there is a statistically significant variance in any of these figures (increase or decrease by two standard 

deviations from the mean), the FRPP will generate a warning that requires the agency to confmn data 

accuracy for that asset. For example, if an owned office building is reported as 750,000 square feet (SF) in 

the prior year and 100,000 SF in the current year, there is a statistically significant variance of 650,000 

SF. The agency will be prompted to confirm 100,000 SF in the FRPP. Data cannot be fully uploaded until 

the agency indicates that the current year figure is correct. 

While GSA has established this process for agencies to help identifY potential errors, the ultimate 

responsibility for the accuracy of FRPP data rests with the agency that has custody and control of the 

asset. GSA has no method to determine where the error in the data resides. The landholding agency must 

make that determination using the process GSA has established. 

10. Our own internal analysis of FRPP shows some latitude and longitude coordinates don't match 

the address reported. Does GSA conduct any data sampling to check submissions for accuracy? 

Yes, GSA has geospatially analyzed the agency-reported latitude and longitude values. The GSA 

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Center of Excellence (COE) has identified those coordinate 

latitude and longitude points reported to the FRPP for FY 2017 that are not located within the boundaries 

of a country, such as those that are in a body of water. 

The GIS COE has also used the latitude and longitude points to identifY mismatches between the agency 

submitted data elements for "Country," "State," "County," "City," "Zip code," and "Congressional 

District" and those values identified through the geospatial analysis. As an example, the agency reports 

an asset in Jamaica, but the latitude and longitude point shows the location to be in the Bahamas. 

The first corrective action is that, GSA will send the results of these mismatches to the agencies to correct 

errors. The agencies will be required to respond to GSA with the correct value or indicate that the latitude 

and longitude is correct, despite the real propertY asset being located in a body of water, such as a 

lighthouse or a navigational beacon. The agencies will also need to indicate which value is correct when 

a reported geographic data element differs from what the geospatial analysis determines the data element 

to be (i.e., the Jamaica Bahamas example described above). 

Starting with FY 2018 FRPP data, the process of agencies responding to GSA on these geospatial 
65 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 38 here 30939.038

mismatches will be automated in the FRPP. GSA will add the results of the GSA GIS COE geospatial 

analysis as additional FRPP data anomaly categories. Agencies will be required to resolve these 

anomalies within the FRPP by indicating that the anomaly contains correct data or incorrect data, which 

has been fixed in the agencies' internal systems. 

While GSA has established this process for agencies to help identifY potential errors, the ultimate 

responsibility for the accuracy of FRPP data rests with the agency that has custody and control of the 

asset. GSA has no method to determine where errors in the data may reside. The landholding agency 

must make that determination using the process GSA has established. It is important to note that certain 

assets within a given site may not correspond to individual addresses. Rather, some assets are reported as 

having a main location only and in these cases, individual coordinates are not assigned. This is often the 

result of national security concerns. 

While implementing corrective actions in the FRPP, using FY2017 data as baseline, GSA will develop a 

matrix to monitor, measure, and report progress in the data quality of the property address/latitude and 

longitude. 

11. What, if any, is the difference in total square footage of buildings between the FRPP 

Management System and the FRPP Public Data Set? 

For a building in the FRPP Public Data Set, there is no difference in the total square footage compared to 

its entry in the FRPP. 

Consistent with the requirements stated in the Federal Asset Sales and Transfer Act (FAST A), GSA 

surveyed agencies to identifY assets in the FRPP that should be: 

• Removed entirely for reasons of national security 

• Redacted per the Freedom oflnformation Act (FOIA) exemptions 

The agency with control and custody of each asset determined whether that asset would be removed for 

national security or redacted for a FOIA exemption. GSA did not withhold or redact any assets in its 

control or custody. 

Federal Acquisition Service: 

Questions for Administrator Murphy and Commissioner Thomas: 

12. On December 12,2017, the Modernizing Government Technology Act was enacted. GSA has a 

critical role to play in administering the centralized Technology Modernization Fund (TMF) to 

support IT modernization. 

a. What is GSA doing today in preparation for administering the centralized TMF? 

Effective March 5, 2018, GSA issued GSA Order #ADM 5440.717 establishing a TMF Program 

Management Office (PMO), which became operational upon receipt of funding for the TMF as a result of 

the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141). The order is publicly available online at: 

htiJ>s://www.gsa.gov/directives-librarv!changes-in-the-general-services-administration-5440717-adm. 
66 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 39 here 30939.039

b. Has OMB developed guidance to inform the decision-making process of the Board that 

is to consider and oversee the IT modernization projects supported by the TMF? 

On February 27,2018, OMB issued guidance M-18-12 on "Implementation of the Modernizing 

Government Technology Act," including the TMF. That guidance and other resources are publicly 

available online at: https://policy.cio.gov/modernizing-government-technology/. 

c. What activities do you see GSA performing to support the TMF and the Board? 

In accordance with the Modernizing Government Technology (MG1) Act, GSA plays a vital role in the 

administration of the TMF. As mentioned above, GSA has already established a PMO to support the 

Technology Modernization Board (Board) and the TMF. GSA is supporting the Board's core functions of 

prioritizing, evaluating, working proactively with agencies in refming, and making recommendations for 

funding ofTMF project proposals in alignment with the Board's established criteria. Once the Board 

recommends projects to be funded, GSA will establish a written agreement with the agency that includes 

the purpose for which the funds will be used, repayment terms, and an incremental funding transfer 

schedule that is tied to metric-based development milestones. In accordance with the statute, GSA 

continues supporting the TMF and Board after fund transfers to agencies by providing technical support, 

oversight, and monitoring of approved projects to promote efficiency and likelihood of success. 

d. What types of IT modernization projects do you see obtaining approval for seed money 

from the TMF? 

As outlined in the authorizing statute, IT Modernization proposals are to be evaluated by an independent 

seven-member board made up of Government experts that will recommend funding to the GSA 

Administrator with consultation from the Federal CIO Council and OMB Director. The Technology 

Modernization Board also establishes the criteria by which those proposals are evaluated. GSA would 

anticipate projects that meet OMB Guidance and the underlying statutory authority such as technologyrelated activities, to improve information technology, and to enhance cybersecurity across the Federal 

Government. 

e. How do we ensure the requested $210 million in seed money for the TMF is put to good 

use? 

Agencies must provide a sponsor from both the offices of the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and Chief 

Information Officer (CIO) in their applications, meaning that the proposal will be thoroughly vetted at the 

agency level before reaching the Board. Second, the members of the TMF, as armounced by OMB, 

possess impressive backgrounds and experience in the area of IT modernization, acquisition, 

cybersecurity, fmancial management, and many other key areas. Given this, the Board represents a 

qualified and informed group of various agency experts to provide recommendations for funding under 

the parameters of the law. Finally, as the MGT Act states, funding will be transferred to agencies "only 

on an incremental basis, tied to metric-based development milestones achieved by the agency through the 
67 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 40 here 30939.040

use of rapid, iterative, development processes." The GSA TMF PMO will provide support and assistance 

to the Board in tracking project progress. 

f. What aspects of the TMF make it different from other working capital funds? 

As outlined in H. Report 115-129, the TMF is viewed "as seed money to kick start modernization efforts 

at agencies." (H.Rept. 115-129, pg. 8). In accordance with authorizing language and OMB Guidance, the 

TMF has no year appropriations that makes distributions to agencies for selected projects and require 

agencies to repay the distributed amount. The TMF operates similar to a revolving fund that, when 

appropriately executed, will be consistently replenished through repayment generated from effective 

modernization programs. The TMF provides a new funding model for Federal technology modernization 

projects. Agencies submit project proposals for technology modernization projects to the Technology 

Modernization Board. The Board will evaluate and recommend for funding the proposals that show the 

strongest case for delivering on agency mission objectives and a strong likelihood of success. Approved 

projects will receive funds in an incremental manner, tied to specific project milestones and objectives, 

and will be regularly monitored by the Board for success. Agencies must reimburse TMF for any transfer 

ofTMF funds in accordance with the terms of a written agreement. This is a unique fund structure 

compared with standard working capital funds. 

In addition to these key differences, the TMF will also have governance controls that do not apply to 

standard working capital funds, specifically the oversight provided by the GSA TMF PMO and the Board. 

13. There has been a lot of change at GSA in terms of the organizations providing technology 

services. In 2014, GSA established 18F to provide IT consulting to agencies and then in 2016 

GSA consolidated several technology-related entities, including 18F under an organization 

called Technology Transformation Service. Now we hear the Administration is going to 

establish Centers of Excellence to support IT modernization activities government-wide. 

a. What is the current role of the 18F organization at GSA? 

!SF is an office within the General Services Administration that collaborates with other agencies to fix 

technical problems, build products, and improve how Government serves the public through technology. 

18F is part of the Technology Transformation Services portfolio that was brought into the Federal 

Acquisition Service (F AS) as of June 28, 2017. 

i. How many staff work for 18F? 

As of May 15,2018, 18F staff level is 109 full time equivalents (FTE). 

ii. Were most of these individuals hired under the two year Schedule A authority? 

As of May 15, 2018, approximately 90 percent of current hires were brought on board under the Schedule 

A authority. 

iii. If they were hired under the temporary hiring authority, how many of these 

individuals' terms will expire in 2018? 

For the remainder ofFYl8 there are 16 employees who will max-out their terms (i.e. complete 4 years). 
68 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 41 here 30939.041

Also, for the remainder of FY IS there are 23 employees who are eligible to extend their terms for another 

I to 2 years. 

b. What specifically will the Centers of Excellence be doing? 

The Centers of Excellence (CoEs) will provide agencies with consulting and engineering services to 

radically improve the way they design services and interact with the customers they serve. Beginning with 

the frrst lighthouse agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), each CoE will tackle distinct 

tasks (outlined in (i) below). Each CoE will begin with a plarming phase, developing a roadmap to 

successfully acquire and implement centralized, function-specific solutions, and acquisition vehicles 

management. They will also provide for documented and scalable best-practices that can be rapidly 

spread to, and adopted by, other agencies throughout the Government. 

i. Could you provide examples of the types of projects where the Centers of 

Excellence will be involved? 

IT Infrastructure Optimization - Assisting agencies with the assessment, development and 

implementation of computing infrastructure (i.e. network, storage, data center) optimization plans. 

Cloud Adoption - Performing application/system portfolio analysis, developing cloud migration 

recommendations, plarming and managing the migration execution. The goal is to assist agencies to 

accelerate cloud adoption. 

Customer Experience - Assisting agencies with the development and implementation of an optimal end 

to end experience for the customer. Implementation will include human-centered design and utilization 

of service design practices. 

Service Delivery Analytics - Providing the expertise and tools to define, instrument and analyze ultimate 

program outcomes, customer experiences and operational effectiveness. The aim is to ensure programs 

and services are designed and delivered in a way that optimizes impact while building trust and 

confidence in the public implementation, and includes a continuous improvement feedback cycle built 

into services delivered. 

Contact Center - Providing a suite of offerings to help agencies manage and enhance their customer 

contacts where they need assistance the most, be it with managing their contact center operations; 

building self-service tools; leveraging Robotic Process Automation (RP A) and emerging technologies; 

building internal business processes and systems to manage day-to-day performance; navigating available 

acquisition solutions; and/or learning contact center best practices. 

c. And what is the relationship between !SF and the Centers of Excellence? 

i. How are their missions distinct? 

ii. Are we duplicating activities with these two organizations? 

The purpose of the Centers of Excellence is to create a more modem and secure architecture for Federal 

IT systems by encouraging cross-agency collaboration, following industry best practices, and adopting the 

latest technologies. !SF is an integral part of this strategy, and will help support the CoE effort. !SF 

collaborates with other agencies to fix technical problems, build products, and improve how Government 
69 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 42 here 30939.042

serves the public through technology. The Centers of Excellence are focused on accelerating the 

modernization of IT infrastructure across Government through cloud adoption, IT infrastructure 

optimization, customer experience, service delivery analytics, and contact center support. 

ISF, and the larger Technology Transformation Services portfolio of which it is a part, is a significant 

talent pool for the Centers of Excellence. The Centers of Excellence are designed to rapidly scale 

expertise and lessons learned across agencies for assessment, strategy, planning, and acquisition. Over 

time as we work with additional agencies, we will continue to identizy avenues that allow GSA to better 

leverage our assets and expertise in support oflarge-scale, transformative, Government-wide efforts like 

IT modernization. In that vein, GSA recently completed an engagement for organizational design 

consulting services to help most effectively streamline the two organizations and their missions, as GSA 

anticipates that this action will continues to make TIS more agile and cost effective, and to ensure it is 

able to provide better service for our agency partners and the American people. 

d. What is GSA doing to recruit and retain technology experts to staff these organizations? 

Employer Branding: 18F has developed a strong brand via channels such as the 

ISF blog, !SF Newsletter and 18F Twitter Account. Because of this, there is a 

high level of awareness among technology professionals in the private sector of 

the work and impact of !SF. 

Talent Pipelines: Pipelines are created by TIS recruiters specifically sourcing 

candidates, as well as having TIS employees spread the word about TTS within 

their own personal networks. The TIS Talent Team then has informational 

conversations with potential candidates who are notified when positions are 

publicly posted. 

Candidate Experience: The Talent Team provides simplified details about the 

Government hiring process, which is vety different from the private sector. 

Expectations are set early on with candidates on how the process differs. 

Candidates are kept consistently up to date on their status throughout the hiring 

process. 

Beyond TIS-specific outreach, we're leveraging the larger GSA brand to reach 

technology experts in a broader setting. For instance, GSA is able to leverage 

the wider support of its Office of Human Resource Management (OHRM) in 

bringing the TTS message to a more diverse and skilled group of potential 

applicants. GSA OHRM is working closely with TTS to tailor recruiting efforts 

to reach the types of technology specialists that GSA requires to carry out these 

critical initiatives. 

14. Regarding Multiple Award Schedules, what is the cost, inclusive of personnel , systems, etc., to 

GSA to award and maintain a Multiple Award Schedule contract on an annual basis? 

The total cost of a MAS contract averages $16,420 per year. This number reflects the 14,768 MAS 

contracts and the $242,500,000 in total MAS operating costs. Importantly, the total cnst is not just 

reflective of the cost of bringing a vendor onto or maintaining a vendor on a Schedule, it also 

includes all of the direct program costs incurred by the MAS program (salaries, benefits, contractual 

services, travel, training, etc.) as well as management, IT systems, and overhead (HR, Finance, 

Legal, etc.) costs that are allocated to the Multiple Award Schedules program. 
70 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 43 here 30939.043

a. What is the total cost inclusive of personnel, systems, etc., to GSA to run the Multiple 

Award Schedules program on an annual basis? 

For Fiscal Year 2017, the total cost of operations was $242,500,000. This includes all of the costs that are 

allocated to the Multiple Award Schedules program such as direct program costs incurred by the MAS 

program (salaries, benefits, contractual services, travel, training, etc.) as well as management, IT systems, 

and overhead (HR, Finance, Legal, etc.) costs that are allocated to the Multiple Award Schedules 

program. 

b. What percentage of total sales under the Multiple Award Schedules run through GSA 

Advantage? 

In Fiscal Year (FY) 2017, $663,012,955 or 2% ofMAS sales were comprised of orders placed directly 

through GSA Advantage. However, agencies commonly review GSA Advantage for market research 

purposes prior to placing a MAS order. 

c. What is the total cost inclusive of personnel, systems, etc., to date to develop and 

maintain GSA Advantage? 

As of March 12,2018, the total cost to date of GSA Advantage since 2008 is approximately 

$214,770,000. This includes the contract IT support, software license and maintenance agreements, and 

other IT costs that were directly coded to GSA Advantage as well as the GSA IT support personnel costs 

that manage GSA Advantage. 

d. What is the total cost inclusive of personnel systems, etc. to date, to develop and 

maintain GSA Global Supply? 

As ofJanuary 31,2018, the total costto date of GSA Global Supply since 2007 is approximately 

$11,004,603,000. This number represents the total cost of operations for GSA Supply Chain 

Management. Included in total cost of operations is cost of goods and services sold, total operating 

expenses (all direct and indirect costs allocated to Supply Chain Management), and total 

provisions/reserves allocated to Supply Chain Management. 

e. How many IT systems does GSA currently use to support the multiple award schedules 

program? What are the total costs inclusive of personnel, systems, etc., to date to 

develop and maintain those systems? 

There are 13 core systems supporting the MAS program. Most have evolved as the MAS program has 

evolved; therefore individual costs vary per application. Providing a current perspective of application 

spend, the current (planned) and previous two fiscal years data follow: 

Fiscal Year Support - Contractor Support - Contractor FTEs 

Operation & Development, 

Maintenance Modernization, & 

Enhancements 

FY18 (planned) $21,200,000 $8,200,000 -3,000,000 
71 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 44 here 30939.044

FYI7 $20,500,000 $11,800,000 -3,000,000 

FYI6 $28,400,00 $11,700,000 -2,800,000 

Questions for Administrator Murphy: 

15. A January 2018 Report of the Section 809 Panel, created by the 2016 NOAA found commercial 

buying terms are confusing, poorly defined, or undefined altogether. The Panel recommended 

Congress and the FAR Council "revise definitions related to commercial buying to simplify their 

application and eliminate consistency."3 Do you support this recommendation? 

GSA plays a key role in promoting commercial item contracting across the Government and supports 

efforts to simplify, streamline, reduce duplication and increase competition in commercial item 

contracting. GSA supports the Section 809 Panel's recommendation to have consistent statutory 

definitions of commercial items and commercial-off-the-shelf items. GSA welcomes the opportunity to 

work with Congress and the FAR Council to ensure those consistent definitions allow the Government to 

take full advantage of the commercial market. 

16. The 809 panel also found the number of government-unique contract clauses that may be 

applicable to commercial contracts has expanded from 57 in 1995 to 165 today- threatening the 

simplicity and commercial-like terms and practices that were supposed to be a cornerstone of 

the federal government's commercial buying. The panel recommended Congress and the FAR 

Council "minimize government-unique terms applicable to commercial buying. "

4 Do you 

support this recommendation? 

GSA supports efforts to minimize Government-unique terms and conditions that serve as barriers to 

promoting and expanding the use of commercial item contracting. GSA believes in adopting more 

commercial terms and commercial-like procurement practices to attract cutting-edge companies in the 

rapidly evolving commercial marketplace in order that the Government may function at the speed of 

business. GSA also recognizes that, as stewards of taxpayer dollars, we must strive to ensure the effective 

and efficient use of Federal funds. GSA is already examining opportunities to eliminate Governmentunique terms and welcomes the opportunity to work with Congress and the FAR Council on this 

recommendation. 

3 Report of the Advisory Panel on Streamlining and Codifying Acquisition Regulation s, Vol I of 3, 

January 201 8, at 18 (809 Panel Report).# 4 809 Panel Report, at p. 32. 
72 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 45 here 30939.045

Questions for the Record 

Emily Murphy, Administrator, General Services Administration 

Submitted by Rep. Gerald E. Connolly, Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Government Operations 

1. What national security concerns did the General Services Administration (GSA) consider in the 

development of its proposal for a fully consolidated FBI headquarters? Were those concerns 

used to justi:f'y a fully consolidated headquarters? How are those concerns addressed in the new 

national consolidation plan? 

Security of the J. Edgar Hoover (JEH) facility as currently constructed, was and remains a concern that 

when combined with other operational factors justifies the need for a new FBI headquarters. For both 

the original consolidation plan and the FBI Headquarters Revised Nationally-Focused Consolidation 

Plan, GSA will comply with the ISC process for selecting and implementing appropriate and achievable 

security countermeasures. The countermeasures employed under the FBI Headquaters Revised 

Nationally-Focused Consolidation Plan with an urban-based headquarters will employ different security 

threat mitigation measures than those envisioned for a suburban location. The revised plan does address 

security threats in a manner commensurate with ISC requirements. The adjustment in security 

mitigation measures to accommodate an urban location include but are not limited to: construction 

systems; positioning of sensitive operations; and balancing risk probability with FBI operational 

benefits gained from the urban location. 

2. In August 2017, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report entitled, 

"Federal Real Property: Status of FBI Headquarters Consolidation and Issues Related to 

Funding Other Future Projects." The report found that the FBI headquarters "did not fully 

support the FBI's long-term security, space, and building condition requirements." Has GSA 

conducted an analysis that contradicts GAO's conclusion? If so, please provide that analysis to 

the Committee. 

GSA reviewed the 2011 and 2017 GAO reports. GSA believes that the project team's analysis, as 

detailed below, does not contradict GAO's conclusion. 

Details for each requirement are addressed as follows: 

Long-term security: The GAO report noted the "dispersion of staff in annexes created security 

challenges, particularly for at least nine annexes that were located in multi-tenant buildings, where some 

space was leased by the FBI and other space was leased by nonfederal tenants." These security 

challenges would be reduced/mitigated/eliminated by the revised approach because the staff currently 

located in these annexes would be relocated to either the new headquarters building or one of the FBIowned facilities in Quantico, VA; Clarksburg, WV; Pocatello, ID; and Huntsville, AL. FBI has 

represented to GSA that the new strategy consists of different sets of security risks that will require a 

revised approach. As FBI has stated, it requires a solution that is compatible with its mission and affords 

operational resiliency to keep pace with the evolving threats and changing technologies. 

Space: As noted in the GAO report, the current building does not meet FBI's space needs. The revised 

approach to demolish and redevelop the headquarters offers an opportunity to design a new 
73 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 46 here 30939.046

facility/building that would meet FBI's current and projected security, operational, and logistical 

requirements. 

Building Condition: In order to implement the new strategy, GSA will need to temporarily move FBI's 

JEH operations that will remain in the Washington, DC, area to either Federally-owned or leased swing 

space for the duration of the construction project. While the exact location for this swing space has yet to 

be identified, GSA's goal is to minimize FBI's tenancy in the existing JEH building. However, until 

personnel can be relocated into swing space, GSA will continue to perform the necessary investments to 

building systems to protect the health and safety of its occupants. 

3. Has GSA developed estimates for the cost of rental payments for swing space in its latest 

proposal for an FBI headquarters? If so, how were those estimates derived and what are they? 

Yes, GSA has estimated the costs for rental payments for swing space and has determined that they are 

offset by the elimination of operating expenses for the current FBI operations at JEH. The following is 

how the estimate was derived and how it is offset by JEH operating expenses: 

5,600 current JEH personnel less 1,300 moving into existing vacancies or out of 

state, leaves 4,300 personnel to be housed in swing space. 

730,000 rentable square feet (RSF)/635,000 usable square feet (USF) swing space 

needed, calculated at 170 RSF (I 48 USF) overall per person. The overall utilization 

rate is reduced because many special spaces, such as a cafeteria, firing range, and 

health center (campus plan was for a 6,619 USF health center, for example) will not 

be built. 

$36.5 million armual swing space rent calculated at 730,000 RSF X $50.00 per 

RSF (Washington, DC full service program rate). Actual cost could be reduced by 

utilizing vacancies in GSA and other Federal leases at lower rents. 

$42 million current annual JEH delegated operating cost, paid by FBI, is $5.5 million 

more than the estimated annual cost of swing space. 

This calculation does not include the cost of swing space build out, which is reflected in the $479 million 

'Temporary Swing Space-Design & Construction' cost in the FBI Headquarters Revised NationallyFocused Consolidation Plan. Swing space build out would include the construction of Sensitive 

Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIF) and other specialized components required by the FBI's 

mission needs. This option represents the most costly scenario of bringing unclassified space up to 

standards necessary for FBI operations. As stated above, GSA is working to identity space that the FBI 

can use in GSA and other Federal inventories, including locations that already have space suitable for 

classified operations, which would further reduce the cost of build out. 

4. Will forcing the FBI to move twice-out of the Hoover building into swing space, then moving 

back to the new Hoover site- impose an additional cost on taxpayers that are not included in 

GSA's estimates for rental costs? 

GSA's estimated cost of$479 million for fitting out and moving into swing space are shown on pages 8 

and I I and described as "Swing Space" and "Temporary Swing Space," respectively, in the FBI 
74 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 47 here 30939.047

Headquarters Revised Nationally-Focused Consolidation Plan. Moving out of the swing space and into 

the new facility is contained within the $923 million estimate on those same pages under "FBI Fit-Out." 

5. The FBI previously testified to Congress that a fully consolidated headquarters would result in 

a minimum of $44 million in savings for taxpayers. Did GSA conduct an estimate of the annual 

cost savings of a fully consolidated FBI headquarters and convey those potential savings to 

Members of Congress? If so, what was GSA's estimate and how do the annual savings for the 

new national consolidation plan compare? 

While GSA has not conducted separate analysis from the FBI relative to the project, studies consistently 

point to savings to taxpayers through consolidations versus remaining in leased space. 

6. In developing the latest headquarters proposal, did anyone at GSA have communications with 

anyone from outside GSA regarding the project, including but not limited to the White House, 

the Executive Office of the President, the Office of Management and Budget, state or local 

officials, or private sector entities? If so, with whom were these discussions, when did they 

occur, and what was their substance? 

As part of the budget process, the Administration prepares the President's budget submission in 

consultation with agencies. It is GSA's practice to discuss its anticipated budget requests with the Office 

of Management and Budget. Given the profile of this project and scope of the request, it would be 

customary for GSA to have communications with Administration officials on project decisions. 

7. Is the GSA Administrator or Public Buildings Service Commissioner aware of any 

conversations that members of the Administration had with the President of the United States or 

senior White House officials about the FBI headquarters consolidation project? What was the 

nature of those conversations? 

As noted above, it is customary for GSA to have engaged in discussion with members of the 

Administration. 

8. Commissioner Mathews testified that the FBI "changed their program requirements" and GSA 

"can meet the security requirements of the FBI." When and how was GSA informed that the 

FBI changed their program requirements in a manner that would allow the FBI to remain at the 

Hoover site? How were the FBI's program requirements altered from the original full 

consolidation project? 

In developing the FBI Headquarters Revised Nationally-Focused Consolidation Plan, the project team 

worked to evaluate the feasibility of all options, including the option to remain at JEH. As part of the 

process, the FBI assessed work functions that need to be in the Washington, DC, area, as well as those 

functions that could be relocated to other parts of the country in consolidated regioual hubs. As a result of 

that process, during a meeting on October 25, 2017, the concept of a reduced headcount was 

communicated by the FBI to Commissioner Mathews. In the late Fall/early Winter of 2017, the project 

team began to see that remaining at the JEH site was a feasible solution, given the reduced headcount 

requirement. 

By remaining on the JEH site, roughly 2,300 FBI staff currently assigned to headquarters operations will 

transition to other FBI-owned properties in Alabama, West Virginia, Idaho, and Virginia. This revised 
75 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 48 here 30939.048

strategy will provide enhanced mission resiliency and continuity of operations. It also strengthens the 

FBI's national posture and adds flexibility to support the evolving FBI mission. 

By reutilizing the JEH parcel, several program requirements change -- access to public transportation 

eliminates the need for large parking garages, the central utility plant and visitor center operations can 

continue to be located within the main operations building footprint, and the truck inspection facility 

could be maintained at its existing Cheverly, Virginia location. 
76 

Æ 


KING-6430 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 49 here 30939.049

Question for the Record 

Alan Thomas, Commissioner, General Services Administration, Federal Acquisition Service 

Submitted by Rep. Carolyn Maloney 

Subcommittee on Government Operations 

1. A provision of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 required the 

Administrator of GSA to establish a program for the procurement of commercial goods through 

online marketplaces. As GSA moves from the implementation phase to market research, what steps 

is GSA taking to ensure that there will be competition between the portal providers for these 

contracts? 

The Section 846legislation specifically calls on GSA to implement a program made up of"multiple 

contracts with multiple commercial e-commerce portal providers." In support of this, GSA has been 

actively meeting with stakeholders for the last several months to solicit feedback, understand their 

perspectives, and learn from industry best practices. This included a public meeting/listening session on 

January 9, 2018 with over 500 participants (in person and online) and over 250 pages of submitted 

comments. A unanimous theme was the need for a competitive, level playing field in the end solution. 

GSA intends to make robust competition a key tenet of our commercial e-commerce program. To that 

end, GSA has been actively engaging both portal providers and suppliers to gain a deeper understanding 

of the varied e-commerce business models that exist, including an 'e-procurement model' that has an 

integrator layer on top of multiple portal providers (akin to an aggregator model for travel websites) and 

will continue its market analysis in Phase II of this process. As part of our recommendations in an 

Implementation Plan to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in Phase I, we seek to expand the 

definition of 'commercial e-commerce portals' to include the potential for this type of integrator model 

which would allow for- and encourage - competition among multiple portal providers. 

Additionally, GSA is seeking legislative changes that will allow us to take a more modernized approach 

to existing competition requirements, as outlined in the required 90-day implementation report to 

Congress that GSA and OMB recently submitted. The requested statutory change would reflect that end 

users, for the first time, will be able to engage effectively in comparative shopping across a number of 

different sites. Equally important, this authority would allow GSA to create certainty and consistency in 

the application of streamlined procedures for the commercial e-commerce program, making it easier for 

the Government to create a more attractive market for sellers.