Federal Real Property: Government-wide Building-Disposal Data Generally Reliable, but Opportunities for Further Improvements Exist
Published: 2017-03-02T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Disposal of unneeded buildings—for example through demolition, sale, or transfer to other federal agencies—has the potential to save the government millions of dollars. To this end, OMB has developed policies to reduce space in federal buildings and identify buildings for disposal. Recent progress notwithstanding, GAO's body of work on real property has found limitations in the overall reliability of data in GSA's government-wide database. OMB has reported on the status of federal real property disposals for fiscal years 2014 and 2015.
GAO was asked to examine the reliability of the data used to report disposals and any efforts to improve the data. This report assesses (1) the reliability and reporting of government-wide disposal data for fiscal years 2014 and 2015, and (2) steps OMB, GSA, and three selected agencies have taken to improve disposal data. GAO analyzed the most recent FRPP data, agency documents, and interviewed OMB, GSA, and agency officials. GAO selected the Departments of Agriculture, Energy, and the Interior based on the highest numbers of disposed buildings.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: GAO's analysis showed that government-wide data were generally reliable for reporting on real property disposals for fiscal years 2014 and 2015.
The General Services Administration's (GSA) Federal Real Property Profile (FRPP) serves as the building inventory database for most of the largest federal agencies. FRPP's data on real property disposals were generally complete, reasonable, and internally consistent, based on GAO's guidance for assessing data reliability. For example, the disposal date, disposal method, and buildings' square footage data generally met these criteria.
The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) reporting of FRPP disposal data for fiscal years 2014 and 2015 was also generally reliable. Based on analysis of FRPP data, GAO was able to replicate OMB's reported numbers on building disposals, despite minor inconsistencies. GAO identified three minor inconsistencies in its analysis and OMB's reporting, all of which led to some over-reporting of building disposals. For example, the data showed 134 buildings as disposed of in multiple years. Given that these inconsistencies resulted in small differences in the number of buildings reported, GAO determined that the inconsistencies did not affect the overall reliability of government-wide reporting of disposal data.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends (1) that GSA implement a data validation procedure to prevent reporting a building as disposed of multiple times and (2) that OMB, in coordination with GSA, establish a procedure to verify that its reports include data as intended. GSA and OMB agreed with GAO's recommendations and identified steps to implement them.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The federal government is the largest real property owner in the United  States with a vast and complex inventory costing billions of dollars  annually to operate and maintain. As of September 30, 2015, this real  estate portfolio included approximately 240,000 federally owned buildings  that are under the custody and control of the 24 civilian and defense Chief  Financial Officer (CFO) Act agencies in the United States and U.S.  territories. In this time of fiscal constraint, the Administration and  Congress have taken an interest in the disposal of unneeded buildings  through demolition, sale, and transfer to other federal agencies that need  them. Such disposals have the potential to save the government and  taxpayers millions of dollars. In 2003, we added “Managing Federal Real  Property” to our High Risk List, in part due to long-standing challenges  federal agencies face in managing their real property, including disposal  of excess and underutilized properties and collecting and reporting  reliable real-property data. For example, in July 2014, we found that the  data supporting office and warehouse space reductions in fiscal years  2012 and 2013 were not reliable. Further, we testified in 2016 that the  unreliable data could result in a potential overstatement of the progress  made in reducing the federal government’s real property footprint. An  official from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) testified in  June 2015 and in September 2016 on government-wide building  disposals. The Reduce the Footprint policy calls for OMB to continue to  provide annual updates on federal real property disposals. In 2012, we  found that a lack of reliable data makes it difficult to accurately measure  the amount of excess and unneeded property. The General Services  Administration (GSA) has taken some important steps to improve the  capacity of the Federal Real Property Profile (FRPP) to allow agencies to  better record data; however, questions remain about the accuracy of data  collected and reported.
You asked us to examine the reliability of the data used to report  disposals and any efforts to improve these data. This report assesses (1)  the reliability of government-wide data and reporting on domestic,  federally owned buildings’ disposal data in fiscal years 2014 and 2015  and (2) steps OMB, GSA, and selected CFO Act agencies have taken to  improve disposal data.
To assess the reliability of government-wide reporting on domestic,  federally owned buildings’ disposal data reported in fiscal year 2014 and  fiscal year 2015, we examined the disposal date, disposal method,  square footage, and annual operations and maintenance (O&M) data  fields within the FRPP database to determine whether the data were  complete, within reasonable ranges, and internally consistent (e.g.,  federally owned buildings reported as disposed would not be listed as  disposed of through “lease termination”). We limited our scope to fiscal  years 2014 and 2015 to be consistent with the source data used in the  recent OMB testimonies. We compared our findings to data reliability  standards contained in Standards for Internal Control in the Federal  Government and our guidance for assessing the reliability of computer  processed data, as discussed later in the report. We limited our review to  selected disposal-related data fields, and as such, our results are not  generalizable to all FRPP data fields. To assess the reliability of OMB’s  reporting of domestic building disposals, we examined information  sources and methods GSA used to calculate the number of disposed  buildings, reductions in square footage, and savings in O&M for fiscal  years 2014 and 2015 and replicated the data OMB reported. We then  applied internal control standards to determine whether OMB  appropriately reflected the FRPP data in its June 2015 and September  2016 testimonies.
To assess steps OMB, GSA, and selected CFO Act agencies have taken  to improve the reliability of reported FRPP data since the fiscal year  2014’s reporting cycle, we interviewed OMB and GSA officials as well as  real property officials at a non-generalizable selection of three civilian  agencies—the United States Department of Agriculture (Agriculture), the  Department of Energy (Energy), and the Department of the Interior  (Interior)—with the highest numbers of disposed buildings during the  evaluation period. We reviewed guidance and documentation from the  selected agencies to understand their methods for collecting, reporting,  and validating real-property building disposals. Further, we reviewed  OMB and GSA guidance and documentation to determine recent steps  they have taken to improve FRPP data reliability. We also examined the  methods agencies used to dispose of their buildings and the types of  buildings agencies disposed of in fiscal year 2014 and fiscal year 2015  (see apps. I and II, respectively, for these analyses). Further information  on our scope and methodology can be found in app. III.
We conducted this performance audit from April 2016 to March 2017 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The federal government owns and leases hundreds of thousands of  buildings and permanent structures across the country that cost billions of  dollars annually to operate and maintain. Federally owned buildings range  from multi-story buildings located in urban centers to remotely located  storage facilities in national parks or national forests. Federally owned  buildings are used for offices, warehouses, schools, hospitals, housing,  data centers, and laboratories, among others uses. Our prior work has  found that when these types of buildings remain vacant, they may be  good candidates for disposal or re-use for another agency (see fig. 1).
Within the executive branch, OMB and GSA provide leadership in  managing federal real property.
As the chief management office for the executive branch, OMB is  responsible for overseeing how federal agencies devise, implement,  manage, and evaluate programs and policies.
OMB develops and provides direction, such as issuing policies and  memorandums, to federal agencies on real property management  matters.
OMB reports the progress of agencies’ efforts in freezing and  reducing the federal real property footprint.
GSA acquires, manages, and disposes of federally owned real  property for which it has custody and control. The Federal Property  and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended, provides GSA  the authority to dispose of property for most federal entities and  mandates the process for doing so.
GSA’s Office of Government-wide Policy is responsible for identifying,  evaluating, and promoting best practices to improve the efficiency of  management processes. In this policy role, GSA also provides  guidance for federal entities and publishes performance measures.
Established in 2004 in response to requirements in Executive Order  13327, FRPP is a single comprehensive database that contains  information on federal real property worldwide, including disposal  information, and is maintained by GSA. The 24 CFO Act agencies are  required to report their real property data on an annual basis.  Government decision makers—including Congress, OMB, and  agencies—can use FRPP data to understand the nature, use, and extent  of the federal real-property inventory. In its June 2015 and September  2016 testimonies to Congress on agencies’ progress in implementing  OMB’s Freeze the Footprint initiative, OMB used FRPP data to report on  domestic, federally owned building disposals.
Since 2012, OMB has undertaken several initiatives and issued guidance  to federal agencies to improve the management of federal real property  and address long-standing issues. In March 2015, OMB introduced the  National Strategy for Efficient Use of Real Property to improve federal  utilization of the real property portfolio. The National Strategy adopts a  policy framework intended to improve the cost effectiveness and  efficiency of the federal real-property portfolio: it aims to freeze federal  real-property growth and identifies policy actions to measure the cost and  utilization of real property assets and reduces the size of the federal real  property portfolio. In March 2015, OMB also issued the “Reduce the  Footprint” policy, which directed CFO Act agencies to establish targets for  the reduction of office and warehouse space and for the disposal of  federally owned buildings beginning in fiscal year 2016. Further, in  December 2016, real-property reform legislation was enacted that could  address some of the long-standing issues pertaining to excess and  underutilized property. For example, the Federal Asset Sales and  Transfer Act of 2016 established a commission to identify opportunities  for the federal government to reduce its inventory of civilian real property  and reduce its costs. In addition, the Federal Property Management  Reform Act of 2016 codified the Federal Real Property Council to ensure  efficient and effective real-property management while reducing costs to  the federal government. The act requires executive branch agencies to  annually submit to the Federal Real Property Council a report on all  excess and underutilized real property that is in the inventory of each  executive agency, among other things.
Our body of work on federal real property over the past 10 years has  found that FRPP data quality is limited and could be improved. We  previously reported that FRPP data can provide reliable background  information on the real property portfolio and that data agencies submit  match the data contained in the FRPP database. GSA employs a  number of data reliability measures within FRPP to help agencies report  reliable real-property data—for example, FRPP can flag some errors such  as numbers that are outside of a reasonable range (e.g., a negative  number for the operating costs), improperly formatted data, and blank  data elements. However, we previously found certain data within FRPP,  such as annual O&M costs, may be unreliable because agencies do not  report this data accurately and consistently even though federal real- property reporting guidance requires them to certify the data’s accuracy.  In March 2016, we reported on limitations in the usefulness of FRPP data  due to inconsistencies in collecting and reporting data across agencies,  and a lack of transparency into the limitations of the data. We  recommended that GSA, along with OMB and federal agencies, assess,  analyze, and identify any limitations in how agencies collect and report  FRPP data. GSA partially concurred with this recommendation and is  currently working to implement it, as described later in this report.
section_title: Government-wide Data Were Generally Reliable for Reporting on Real Property Disposals in Fiscal Years 2014 and 2015
paragraphs: Our analysis of FRPP found that disposal data were generally reliable for  domestic, federally owned buildings (hereafter referred to as “buildings”)  for fiscal years 2014 and 2015. While reliable data must be reasonably  complete and accurate and meet the intended purposes, this finding does  not mean the data are error-free. Errors are considered acceptable  when they are not substantial enough to cause a reasonable person,  aware of the errors, to doubt a finding, conclusion, or recommendation  based on the data. For example, as described below, we found a few  instances of buildings with square footage outside reasonable ranges;  however, we determined these errors did not have a substantial effect on  the overall reported disposal data. For the purposes of this report, we  determined that the different elements of disposal data in the FRPP  database (e.g., disposal date, disposal method, square feet, and annual  O&M costs) were generally complete, within reasonable ranges, and  internally consistent. Specifically, for fiscal years 2014 and 2015, we  found the following pertaining to the completeness, reasonableness, and  internal consistency of the data, based on our data reliability guidance:
Completeness of the data: All of the buildings reported as disposed of  included values for the disposal date, square feet, and annual O&M  cost data fields. Similarly, all of the buildings disposed of by sale had  a corresponding sale value reported.
Reasonableness of the data ranges: Nearly all of the data fields we  reviewed were within reasonable ranges. For instance, using a square  footage value of under 1 as a proxy for a likely error, we found 6 of  approximately 7,500 total disposed buildings in fiscal year 2014 to  have a reported square footage value of less than 1. In fiscal year  2015, we found 2 of nearly 4,800 buildings with reported square  footage values of less than 1. In addition, we did not find any O&M  data fields below zero. Of approximately 7,500 buildings reported  disposed of in fiscal year 2014, 134 had disposal dates outside of  fiscal year 2014, and all of the buildings reported in fiscal year 2015  had dates that fell within the fiscal year.
Internal consistency: Nearly all of the owned buildings’ disposal  records in our review included methods of disposal consistent with  common categories (e.g., sold, transferred, conveyed, or demolished)  and all of the leased buildings disposed of during the review period  were disposed of in ways consistent with leasing (e.g., lease  termination, lease expiration, other). However, we found a large  proportion of building disposals—nearly 50 percent—disposed of by  “other” means in fiscal year 2014. Selected agencies explained to us  that no other disposal categories applied to those properties in that  year and our analysis mostly concurred in these cases (see app. I for  more details on this analysis).
OMB’s reporting of FRPP data was also generally reliable. To gauge the  progress on the Freeze the Footprint initiative, OMB used FRPP data to  report on the overall progress of the disposal of federal real property.  OMB reported the number of disposed buildings along with the  associated square footage and annual O&M costs for fiscal years 2014  and 2015 in its June 2015 and September 2016 testimonies to Congress.  Beginning in fiscal year 2017, the Reduce the Footprint initiative calls for  OMB to report annually on progress agencies make toward meeting  annual disposal targets. Using FRPP data, we were able to replicate  OMB’s reported data, despite minor inconsistencies in reporting. We  found slightly lower numbers for the number of buildings, square feet, and  annual O&M costs for both fiscal years 2014 and 2015, ranging from 2 to  10 percent lower (see table 1). We traced the differences in our analysis  and the data OMB reported and we identified three minor inconsistencies,  all of which led to some over-reporting of building disposals; we discuss  this over-reporting in more detail later in this report.
First, OMB reported FRPP data that contained buildings with a  disposal date from another reporting year.
Second, OMB reported FRPP data that contained buildings disposed  of in multiple reporting years (i.e., counting a building more than  once).
Third, in fiscal year 2015, OMB reported FRPP data that contained  buildings other than those owned by the federal government.
Given that these inconsistencies resulted in minor differences in the  number of building disposals, we determined that they did not affect the  overall reliability of the government-wide disposal data.
section_title: Federal Agencies Have Taken Steps to Improve Government- wide Real Property Data and Additional Opportunities Exist to Improve Data and Reporting on Disposed Buildings
subsections: section_title: OMB, GSA, and Selected Agencies Have Taken Steps to Improve Reliability of Government- wide Real Property Data That Should Also Help Improve Disposal Data
paragraphs: Our work found that the federal government has demonstrated continued  commitment to improving the management of federal real property by  executing a number of reform efforts, many of which should improve  federal real property data, as described below. For example, in addition to  OMB’s National Strategy, which calls for data quality improvements and  identifies actions to reduce the size of the federal real-property portfolio,  OMB also issued a government-wide memo in January 2016 requiring all  CFO Act agencies to begin implementing standard data validation and  verification checks when submitting their annual FRPP data to GSA  beginning in fiscal year 2017. GSA also has taken steps intended to  improve real property data. These combined efforts should improve  government-wide data on building disposals.
In response to the January 2016 OMB memo, GSA issued its Federal  Real Property Data Validation and Verification Guidance in May 2016.  The data validation and verification (V&V) guidance establishes a third  step—called anomaly resolution—in the V&V process (see fig.2). In  anomaly resolution, agencies investigate whether the underlying data  flagged as anomalies are accurate or inaccurate and take action to  address them. For example, if the FRPP V&V process flags as an  anomaly an agency’s office building as 2 square feet in size, the  agency is required to investigate whether the underlying data is either  correct or incorrect. The agency’s CFO must then certify and  support that all identified anomalies are validated or corrected before  the next reporting cycle (October 15 of each year). Implementation of  the new V&V guidance and the anomaly resolution process began  with the December 2016 data submissions and should help to  improve the reliability of future data that agencies submit to FRPP.
In August 2016, GSA issued a detailed user guide for V&V tools  described in the May 2016 V&V guidance. GSA completed training  sessions and demonstrations with agency staff to further familiarize  them with the system in September 2016.
GSA is also working to help agencies report operating costs more  uniformly in response to our March 2016 recommendation to improve  the quality of data entered into FRPP. We have consistently found  that agencies report operating costs differently. For example, not all  agencies directly calculate O&M costs because some agencies do not  maintain data on costs for each specific building. For example, the  Coast Guard estimates O&M costs to be equal to 3 percent of the  estimated replacement value of the building. We also reported that  some agencies estimate operating costs for some buildings based on  their size and other attributes relative to a larger asset within the same  geographic footprint or facility. Similarly, during this review, we  found that two of the three selected agencies did not directly calculate  O&M costs before reporting them in FRPP. Specifically, we found that  Energy tracks maintenance costs at the asset level. Energy also  assigns most of its operating costs across its owned buildings for a  particular site based on hours of operations and gross square feet.  Interior officials told us that the agency does not track or assign O&M  costs at the individual building level (e.g., fueling station or security  station), because the work is typically completed for the entire, multi- building site (e.g., a research campus). Further, according to Interior  officials, splitting out the costs by individual buildings would not be  useful in managing the site and would place unnecessary burden on  real property managers. For example, they told us that local real- property managers do not track mowing costs for each of the  restrooms and security stations at a site—such as at Glacier National  Park. Rather, Interior’s real property system tracks costs for the entire  site depending on factors such as the size of the buildings.
GSA continues to respond to our March 2016 recommendation to  improve FRPP data quality by deploying an in-depth survey in June  2016 to better understand the methods CFO Act agencies used to  collect and prepare data for submission to the FRPP. This survey  focused on the following data elements: operating costs, lease costs,  repair needs, replacement value, status, and utilization. GSA selected  these data elements based both on recommendations from federal  agencies within the Federal Real Property Council and also on the  findings of our prior reports. In November 2016, GSA completed its  initial analysis of the FRPP data survey’s results, and officials stated  that their next step would be to form an inter-agency working group— comprised of GSA, OMB, and executive branch agencies that  contribute data to the FRPP—in 2017 to discuss each of the data  elements and devise an action plan to address the findings of the  survey. The working group is intended to review the survey results in  more detail and reach consensus on: 1) changes to the definitions  and requirements for these data elements in the FRPP data  dictionary; 2) limitations on the use of the data for cross-agency  analysis; and 3) best practices and methodologies for reporting these  data elements. In response to the survey, GSA issued a memo in  December 2016 to senior real-property officers of the Federal Real  Property Council that included revised definitions for repair needs,  replacement value, and annual O&M costs to improve the consistency  and quality of FRPP data within and among agencies. This memo  also requires CFO Act agencies to implement the revised definitions  no later than the December 2018 FRPP reporting cycle.
Officials from the three agencies we selected also told us that they have  taken steps—including updating their real property databases and  reporting guidance—to improve the reliability of their overall real-property  data.
Agriculture: Agriculture officials told us they modified their real- property management system in 2016 to align with GSA’s V&V  requirements to address data anomalies. In August 2016, Agriculture  also revised its real-property user guide, which describes the required  data elements for FRPP reporting. In September 2016, Agriculture  officials told us that they plan to hire contractors to further review the  department’s data reliability for fiscal year 2017.
Energy: In May 2016, Energy added GSA’s V&V requirements to its  existing V&V procedures. Energy officials told us they updated their  real-property management system to identify a number of common  anomalies. Although Energy generates anomaly reports at the  headquarters level before submitting data to FRPP, the real property  system update allows users to implement anomaly checks through a  new anomaly-reporting tool, which identifies issues with real property  data. For example, the anomaly-reporting tool flags outliers, such as  when the disposition year is a past fiscal year.
Interior: According to officials, Interior plans to work with the bureaus  to implement the V&V procedures. In November 2016, Interior  updated its internal FRPP guidance to incorporate GSA’s new data  V&V steps. Interior expects the bureaus to implement the new V&V  procedures for the fiscal year 2016 real-property data it submits and  address any anomalies in accordance with the guidance.
section_title: GSA and OMB Have Opportunities to Further Improve the Reliability and Reporting of Disposal Data by Addressing Minor Inconsistencies
paragraphs: In addition to improving government-wide real property data, GSA has  also taken steps to improve disposal data specifically. As described  above, we found disposal data and reporting to be generally reliable, with  three minor inconsistencies, one of which GSA has addressed.  Specifically, we found that GSA has addressed the issue wherein  agencies reported buildings with a disposal date from another reporting  year. For example, our analysis showed that approximately 2 percent of  buildings reported as disposed of in fiscal year 2014 were actually  disposed of in other years dating back to fiscal year 2001. These  buildings comprised 1.2-million square feet and included annual O&M  costs of $1.3 million of those reported in fiscal year 2014 (see table 1).  Since OMB’s June 2015 testimony, GSA added a data validation  procedure that prevents agencies from reporting buildings disposed of in  other years. This new procedure seems to have addressed the issue, as  we did not find any cases in the fiscal year 2015 data of buildings  disposed of in other years. In this respect, GSA has improved the  accuracy of the FRPP database.
Regarding the second inconsistency we identified wherein agencies can  report the same building disposed of multiple times, GSA intends to  address this issue. We found 132 buildings that were reported as  disposed of in fiscal years 2014 and 2015 that had already been reported  as disposed of in a previous reporting cycle. For the 2015 reporting year,  121 buildings reported as disposed of (see table 1) were also reported in  other fiscal years from 2011 through 2014. Our data reliability guidance  suggests that controls to the data entry process should be in place to  prevent duplicate reporting. When we asked about the cases in which  buildings were reported as disposed of multiple times, GSA officials told  us that currently, FRPP does not have a data validation procedure that  prevents agencies from reporting disposals in multiple reporting cycles.  An official also told us that the agencies’ own data V&V procedures may  not identify cases in which agency staff report buildings as disposed of  multiple times. In response, in December 2016, GSA officials asked  agencies to review their current-year submissions to ensure that disposed  buildings reported this cycle had not been reported as disposed of  previously. GSA officials told us that they intend to add a data validation  procedure to prevent agencies from reporting buildings as disposed of  multiple times. Finally, GSA officials said that they intend to conduct a  comprehensive review of all FRPP data-validation procedures. However,  they did not provide details on how they would accomplish specific plans  related to addressing the data validation procedure in light of several  other concurrent initiatives under way. As noted above, GSA has several  ongoing efforts to improve FRPP data reliability. Ensuring that a data  validation procedure is put in place is important because without this  control, building disposals can be overstated. As such, agencies might  make real property management decisions based on data that could be  more reliable.
We also found that OMB could further improve the reliability of its  reporting of federal real-property disposal data. OMB used FRPP data  differently in reporting fiscal year 2014 disposals than it used in reporting  fiscal year 2015 disposals; the result was less accurate reporting that  included some state-owned buildings and leased buildings. For fiscal year  2014, OMB requested information on domestic, federally owned buildings  disposed of in that year. In response, GSA conducted an analysis that  only included domestic, federally owned buildings. Our analysis of fiscal  year 2014 showed that OMB’s reporting was accurate in this respect (see  table 1). For fiscal year 2015, OMB used summarized real property data  from GSA’s FRPP website with slight modifications, excluding buildings  that were disposed of through transfer to other federal agencies, lease  expiration, and lease termination. However, this modified summary data  did not exclude 207 non-federally owned buildings reported among the  disposed buildings for fiscal year 2015 (see table 1). The data reported  would have been more reliable without the inclusion of these non-federal  buildings.
OMB staff stated this happened because they did not have a procedure in  place to verify with GSA, as they noted they should have, that the  summary data they used in fiscal year 2015 were suitable for the  purposes of reporting on the progress of reducing the federal footprint.  Federal standards for internal control state that agencies should have  procedures in place to help ensure actions are taken to address risks  such as the risk of reporting inaccurate information. Thus, by not having  a procedure in place to verify that the data OMB used were suitable for its  purposes, OMB included 207 non-federally owned buildings that it should  not have, and therefore its reporting of fiscal year 2015 disposals did not  precisely represent what it intended to measure. As the Reduce the  Footprint initiative calls for OMB to report annually on these data, it will be  important to ensure that Congress and other stakeholders receive the  most accurate data available.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: OMB and GSA face a complex task in reporting on and managing data  agencies submit given the diversity of their real property inventories,  which range from multistory buildings in urban centers to small, remotely  located storage facilities in national forests. Reliable data, including  building-disposal data, are critical to accurately gauge the federal  government’s progress in disposing of unneeded and excess federal real  property. OMB, GSA, and selected agencies have taken steps to address  data reliability and reporting challenges. The combined initiatives (1) of  OMB’s requirement for CFO Act agencies to implement standard data- validation and verification checks beginning in fiscal year 2017, (2) of  GSA’s updated guidance and the expanded capacity of the FRPP to allow  agencies to enter more complete disposal data, and (3) of selected  agencies’ development of new processes should lead to improved data  reliability. As these steps are relatively recent and have not been fully  implemented, it is too soon to assess progress and the effect, if any, on  federal real property data in general, and disposal data in particular.  Additional opportunities exist for OMB and GSA to address insufficient  controls which resulted in over-counting of domestic, federally owned  disposed buildings in fiscal years 2014 and 2015. Although we found that  the government-wide real property data were generally reliable, continued  improvements in data reliability could lead to more effective real-property  management decision making.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: We are making two recommendations, one to the Administrator of GSA  and one to the Director of OMB.
To improve the reliability of FRPP disposal data, we recommend that the  Administrator of GSA implement a data validation procedure to prevent  reporting the same building disposal multiple times.
To improve the accuracy of reporting on progress in reducing the  inventory of federal buildings, we recommend that the Director of OMB, in  coordination with the GSA Administrator, establish a procedure to verify  that the OMB’s reports include the intended data, such as, reporting  individual buildings only once and reporting only federally owned  buildings.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to OMB, GSA, and the Departments of  Agriculture, Energy, and the Interior for review and comment. OMB  provided oral comments and concurred with our recommendation to  establish a procedure to verify that OMB’s reports include the intended  data, such as, reporting individual buildings only once and reporting only  federally owned buildings. OMB stated that it plans to implement  procedures to ensure that subsequent data calls to GSA for FRPP data  include the intended data. OMB also provided technical comments, which  we incorporated where appropriate. We shared a written summary of the  oral comments with the principal OMB staff who agreed that the  information was accurate. GSA concurred with our recommendation to  implement a data validation procedure to prevent reporting the same  building’s disposal multiple times and provided actions and time frames  for completion. GSA stated that it will create a new business rule in FRPP  that will prevent agencies from reporting disposed buildings multiple  times. This validation will be incorporated in fiscal year 2017 and will be  active for the fiscal year 2017 reporting cycle and beyond. GSA’s official  written response is reprinted in appendix IV. The Departments of  Agriculture and Energy provided technical comments, which we  incorporated where appropriate. Interior did not have any comments on  the draft report.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Director of OMB, the Administrator of GSA, and the  Secretaries of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Department of  Energy, and the Department of the Interior. In addition, the report will be  available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-2834 or wised@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in  appendix V.
section_title: Appendix I: Buildings by Disposal Method, Fiscal Years 2014 and 2015
paragraphs: In fiscal year 2014, Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Act agencies reported  that they disposed of nearly 50 percent of their domestic, federally owned  buildings through “other” means (see table 2).
Because disposals by “other” means composed such a large percentage  of the total in fiscal year 2014, we asked officials at three selected civilian  agencies with some of the highest numbers of building disposals in that  year—the U.S. Department of Agriculture (Agriculture), Department of  Energy (Energy), and the Department of the Interior (Interior)—to  describe the disposals through “other” means. The officials explained  that, in most cases, they categorized these disposals as “other” because  existing categories did not apply. Some of these buildings reported as  disposed of by “other” means include portable trailers transferred from  real property to personal property prior to disposal, and buildings  transferred to state universities and Native American tribes. In fiscal year  2015, the Federal Real Property Profile (FRPP) included 7 new disposal  methods—such as loss due to deterioration or natural disaster—so that  agencies could use these categories instead of the “other” category.
section_title: Appendix II: Disposed Properties by Building Type in Fiscal Years 2014 and 2015
paragraphs: In our analysis of fiscal year 2014 and fiscal year 2015 building disposals,  we found that family housing represented the largest category of  disposed buildings and that half of the buildings disposed of in fiscal year  2015 were less than 1,710 square feet (see table 3).
section_title: Appendix III: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: Our objectives were to assess (1) the reliability of government-wide data  and reporting on domestic, federally owned buildings’ disposal data in  fiscal years 2014 and 2015 and (2) steps the Office of Management and  Budget (OMB), GSA, and selected CFO Act agencies have taken to  improve disposal data. We found the data to be sufficiently reliable for our  purposes. Because this review was limited to disposal-related data fields  in the FRPP, our results are not generalizable to other FRPP data fields.
Reliability and reporting of government-wide disposal data: To assess the  reliability of government-wide data and reporting on domestic, federally  owned buildings’ disposal data in fiscal years 2014 and 2015 we (1)  examined information sources and methods OMB used to report on the  number of buildings disposed of, square feet reduced, and O&M costs  avoided for fiscal years 2014 and 2015; (2) analyzed data from GSA’s  FRPP; (3) replicated the figures OMB used in its June 2015 and  September 2016 testimonies; and (4) reviewed the data underlying  OMB’s reported disposals to assess the extent that these data accurately  reflected the building disposals that were intended to be reported. In  addition, we interviewed officials from a non-generalizable selection of  three CFO Act agencies—the Departments of Agriculture, Energy, and  the Interior—to determine how they assess the reliability of their disposal  data. We sorted fiscal year 2014 FRPP data to determine the civilian  departments with the highest numbers of disposed buildings and the  highest O&M costs avoided. We selected these three agencies for review  based on the fact they were among the top four in at least two of these  categories. Because we used a judgmental selection methodology, our  findings are not generalizable to all federal agencies. We also analyzed  fiscal years 2014 and 2015 FRPP data to learn more about the disposal  methods used and the types of buildings disposed.
Before analyzing the FRPP disposal data, we met with GSA officials and  OMB staff to better understand how they analyzed and reported the  FRPP data for the period. They told us that OMB relied on GSA analysis  of FRPP data that included all federally owned buildings in the United  States and territories reported as disposed of by CFO Act agencies. We  also obtained FRPP datasets consisting of all civilian and defense  buildings (358,495 and 351,781 in fiscal years 2014 and 2015,  respectively), and using the “Real Property Unique Identifier” variable in  FRPP as our unit of analysis, we performed the following steps to get to  the base number of buildings, square feet, and annual O&M costs for our  analyses. These steps yielded 7,213 domestic, federally owned buildings  in fiscal year 2014 and 4,570 in fiscal year 2015.
We excluded all non-building asset records in FRPP such as land and  non-building structures such as antennae or navigational aids. This  exclusion left us with all civilian and defense building records.
We then removed all building records with a value in the “status  indicator” field other than “disposed,” leaving us with disposed of  building records.
We then removed all records of buildings disposed of that had a value  in the “country name” field other than the following, which left us with  domestic, disposed building records:
U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
We then removed records for buildings that had values in the “legal  interest indicator” field other than “owned.” This step left us with  domestic, federally owned disposed-buildings’ records.
We then removed records where the “reporting agency name” field  was not a CFO Act agency.
We then removed the buildings with disposal dates prior to or after the  fiscal year being reported. For instance, for the fiscal year 2014 data  set, we only included buildings with disposal dates ranging from  October 1, 2013 through September 30, 2014.
We then compared these remaining buildings against previous  inventories and removed any buildings that had been previously  reported as disposed.
To assess the reliability of the domestic, federally owned disposed  buildings’ data, we examined the disposal date, disposal method, square  feet, and annual O&M fields within the FRPP database to identify the  frequency of missing data, data anomalies, year-to-year inconsistencies,  and relational errors. Specifically, we conducted the following electronic  tests on the FRPP disposal data that OMB used to calculate the number  of buildings disposed, square footage reductions, and savings in O&M  and assessed the data to determine if they were within reasonable  ranges, were internally consistent (e.g., owned buildings that were  reported as disposed would not be disposed through “lease termination”),  and appeared complete:
Missing values in the “disposition method,” “disposal date,” “square  feet,” and “annual operating cost” data fields. We found zero cases of  missing values in the aforementioned data fields.
Data field values beyond what we considered reasonable:  “Square feet” less than 1. We found 6 buildings in the fiscal year  2014 data and 2 buildings in the fiscal year 2015 data with less  than 1 square foot.  “Annual operating and maintenance costs” less than zero. We  found zero cases of buildings with annual O&M costs less than  zero.  “Disposed date” outside of the fiscal year corresponding to the  report year (i.e., for reporting year 2014, disposal dates should fall  within fiscal year 2014). We found 134 buildings in the fiscal year  2014 data with disposal dates prior to fiscal year 2014. All  reported disposed buildings in the fiscal year 2015 data had a  disposal date within fiscal year 2015.
If the method of disposal is sale, then a disposal value is also  supposed to be reported. We tested to identify instances where  this was not the case. All buildings reported as disposed of by sale  included a disposal value.
If the ownership status of the building is leased, then the disposal  method should be “lease expiration,” “lease termination,” or  “other.” We tested the data to identify instances where this was  not the case. All leased buildings in our fiscal year 2014 and 2015  datasets were reported disposed of by either “lease expiration,”  “lease termination,” or “other.”
If the ownership status of the building is owned, then the disposal  method should not be lease expiration or lease termination. We  tested to identify instances where this was not the case. None of  the owned buildings in our fiscal year 2014 and 2015 datasets  were reported disposed of by either “lease expiration” or “lease  termination.”
If a building was reported as disposed of in a reporting year, the  building should not appear in FRPP in subsequent reporting  years. We tested to identify instances where this was not the case  with the fiscal year 2011 through 2015 data available to us. We  found 132 buildings reported as disposed of in the 2014 and 2015  reporting years (11 buildings and 121 buildings, respectively) that  had already been reported as disposed of in previous years. With  more years of data, we may have found additional cases.
In our analysis of the disposal methods used in fiscal year 2014 and  2015, we found 3,607 buildings in fiscal year 2014 that were disposed of  by “other” means or disposed of in a way that could not be categorized  (see app. I). We reviewed these disposals at three selected agencies  (Agriculture, Energy, and Interior) to understand how some of these  buildings were disposed. To avoid putting an administrative burden on the  agencies, we sent our selected agencies short lists of “other” building  disposals that were greater than 549 square feet and asked them to  provide a more detailed description of the disposal method. In addition to  analyzing these more detailed descriptions of “other” disposals, we  interviewed officials at these agencies to better understand their internal  processes for collecting and reporting disposal data.
To further verify disposal information, we attempted to reconcile disposed  buildings reported in the real property databases with those reported in  the agencies’ financial accounting systems at the three agencies we  reviewed. Internal Control Standards require appropriate documentation  of transactions in a manner that allows documentation to be readily  available for examination. The ability to reconcile an agency’s real  property and accounting databases would provide confidence as to the  reliability of the data. We found that, for various reasons, the agencies  were unable to easily reconcile individual disposed buildings in their real  property databases with their financial accounting systems. We did not  request the agencies to perform further analysis, and therefore, this is not  included in our report.
To assess the reliability of the disposal figures OMB reported based on  fiscal year 2014 and 2015 data, we first replicated the data OMB used in  its reporting and then compared them against the figures we arrived at  based on the criteria GSA officials and OMB staff provided to us  (as discussed above). Where we identified differences between our  analyses and OMB’s reporting of GSA data, we provided the differences  to both GSA and OMB for comment to ensure that our analysis was  correct. OMB and GSA officials concurred with the differences we found.
Steps taken to improve disposal data: To describe steps GSA, selected  CFO Act agencies, and OMB have taken to improve disposal data, we  reviewed GSA and OMB guidance related to improving the quality of  government-wide real property data; we interviewed GSA officials and  OMB staff to identify any steps taken to improve the quality of disposal  data; we interviewed officials at Agriculture, Energy, and Interior to  understand what actions, if any, they have taken to improve their real- property data quality since the fiscal year 2014 reporting cycle, and we  reviewed agency documents supporting recent efforts to improve the  collection, reporting, and validation of building-disposal data.
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the General Services Administration
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Amelia Shachoy (Assistant  Director), Tina Paek (Analyst-in-Charge), Russell Burnett, Justin Fisher,  Hannah Laufe, Steve Rabinowitz, Malika Rice, Minette Richardson, Amy  Rosewarne, and Dawn Simpson made key contributions to this report.