Federal Real Property: Status of FBI Headquarters Consolidation and Issues Related to Funding Other Future Projects
Released: 2017-08-02T00:00:00

Letter

Prior GSA and FBI Assessments Showed That FBI Headquarters Facilities Did Not Fully Support the FBI’s Long-Term Requirements

In November 2011, we reported that over the previous decade, the FBI and GSA conducted a number of studies to assess the Hoover Building and its other headquarters facilities’ strategic and mission needs. Through these studies, they determined the condition of the FBI’s current assets and identified gaps between current and needed capabilities, as well as studied a range of alternatives to meet the FBI’s requirements. According to these assessments, the FBI’s headquarters facilities did not fully support the FBI’s long-term security, space, and building condition requirements. Since our report, the assessment of the Hoover Building has not materially changed. For example:

Security: Since September 11, 2001, the FBI mission and workforce have expanded, and the FBI has outgrown the Hoover Building. As a result, the FBI also operates in annexes, including some located in the National Capital Region. During our 2011 review, FBI security officials told us that they have some security concerns—to varying degrees— about the Hoover Building and some of the headquarters annexes. In our report, we noted that the dispersion of staff in annexes created security challenges, particularly for at least nine annexes that were located in multitenant buildings, where some space was leased by the FBI and other space was leased by nonfederal tenants. While this arrangement did not automatically put FBI operations at risk, it heightened security concerns. In addition, in January 2017, we found that the FBI occupies space leased from foreign owners in at least six different locations, including one in Washington, D.C. Further, federal officials who assess foreign investments told us at that time that leasing space in foreign-owned buildings could present security risks, such as espionage and unauthorized cyber and physical access.

Space: In 2011, we reported that FBI and GSA studies showed that much of the Hoover building’s approximately 2.4 million gross square feet of space is unusable, and the remaining usable space is not designed to meet the needs of today’s FBI. Moreover, the Hoover Building’s original design is inefficient, according to GSA assessments, making it difficult to reconfigure space to promote staff collaboration. For example, in its fiscal year 2017 prospectus for the proposed FBI headquarters consolidation project, GSA noted that the Hoover Building was designed at a time when FBI operated differently, and it cannot be redeveloped to provide the necessary space to consolidate the FBI Headquarters components or to meet the agency’s current and projected operational requirements. As a result, the FBI reported facing several operational and logistical challenges. We similarly noted in our prior work in 2011 that space constraints at the Hoover Building and the resulting dispersion of staff sometimes prevented the FBI from physically locating certain types of analysts and specialists together, which in turn hampered collaboration and the performance of some classified work.

Building condition: In our 2011 report, we noted that the condition of the Hoover Building was deteriorating, and GSA assessments had identified significant recapitalization needs. At that time, we found that GSA had decided to limit investments in the Hoover Building to those necessary to protect health and safety and keep building systems functioning while GSA assessed the FBI’s facility needs. We found that this decision increased the potential for building system failures and disruption to the FBI’s operations. Given that the FBI would likely remain in the building for at least several more years, we recommended that GSA evaluate its strategy to minimize major repair and recapitalization investments and take action to address any facility condition issues that could put FBI operations at risk and lead to further deterioration of the building. In 2014, in response to our recommendation, GSA evaluated its strategy for the Hoover Building and determined it needed to complete some repairs to ensure safety and maintain tenancy in the building. For example, in 2014, GSA funded contracts to waterproof portions of the building’s mezzanine level to prevent water intrusion into the building and repair the concrete facade, small sections of which had cracked and fallen from the building.

In July 2017, GSA and FBI officials stated that they cancelled the procurement for the new FBI headquarters consolidation project, noting that the there was a lack of funding necessary to complete the procurement. GSA added that the cancellation of the procurement did not lessen the need for a new FBI headquarters, and that GSA and the FBI would continue to work together to address the space requirements of the FBI.

GSA Has Limited Successes in Completing Recent Swap Exchanges, but Has Plans to Improve the Process

In July 2014, we reported that the swap exchange approach can help GSA address the challenges of disposing of unneeded property and modernizing or replacing federal buildings. GSA officials told us that swap exchanges can help GSA facilitate construction projects given a growing need to modernize and replace federal properties, shrinking federal budgets, and challenges obtaining funding. Specifically, GSA officials noted that swap exchanges allow GSA to immediately apply the value of a federal property to be used in the exchange to construction needs, rather than attempting to obtain funds through the appropriations process. In our 2014 report, GSA officials stated that the exchanges can be attractive because the agency can get construction projects accomplished without having to request full upfront funding for them from Congress. In addition, because swap exchanges require developers or other property recipients to complete the agreed-upon GSA construction projects prior to the transfer of the title to the current property GSA is exchanging, federal agencies can continue to occupy the property during the construction process for the new project, eliminating the need for agencies to lease or acquire other space to occupy during the construction process.

GSA has limited experience in successfully completing swap exchange transactions and has cancelled several recently proposed swap exchanges. More specifically, in 2016 we reported that GSA had only completed transactions using the swap exchange authority for two small (under $10-million each) swap exchanges completed in Atlanta, Georgia, in 2001 and in San Antonio, Texas, in 2012. Furthermore, GSA has faced a number of obstacles in its use of this authority. For example, for our 2014 report, we reviewed five projects identified since August 2012 in which GSA solicited market interest in exchanging almost 8-million square feet in federal property for construction services or newly constructed assets. However, GSA chose not to pursue swap-exchanges in all five of these projects, including the proposed FBI headquarters consolidation project. For example, GSA officials told us that there was little or no market interest in potential swap exchanges in Baltimore, Maryland, and Miami, Florida, and that GSA chose to pursue different approaches. Respondents to the solicitations for these two GSA swap exchanges noted that GSA did not provide important details, including the amount of investment needed in the federal properties and GSA’s specific construction needs. In addition, from 2012 to 2015, GSA pursued a larger swap exchange potentially involving up to 5 federal properties located in the Federal Triangle South area of Washington, D.C., to finance construction at GSA headquarters and other federal properties. In 2013, GSA decided to focus on exchanging two buildings, the GSA Regional Office Building and the Cotton Annex, based on input from potential investors. On February 18, 2016, GSA decided to end its pursuit of the exchange, saying in a memorandum supporting this decision that private investor valuations for the two buildings fell short of the government’s estimated values.

After the discontinuation of the Federal Triangle swap exchange project, we reported in 2016 that GSA officials noted they planned to improve the swap exchange process, including the property appraisal process, outreach to stakeholders to identify potential project risks for future projects, and to the extent possible, mitigate such risks. However, we also reported that several factors may continue to limit the applicability of the agency’s approach. Specifically, the viability of swap exchanges may be affected by specific market factors, such as the availability of alternative properties. In addition, the specific valuation approach used by appraisers or potential investors may reduce the viability of the swap exchange. For example, in reviewing the proposed Federal Triangle project, we found in 2016 that the proposals from two of the investment firms valued the two federal buildings involved in the proposed swap substantially less than GSA’s appraised property value. In addition, swap exchanges can require developers to spend large sums on GSA’s construction needs before receiving title to the federal property used in the exchanges. We found in 2014 that GSA’s solicitations have not always specified these construction needs in sufficient detail. Consequently, developers may be unable to provide meaningful input, and GSA could miss swap exchange opportunities. In 2014, we recommended that GSA develop criteria for determining when to solicit market interest in a swap exchange. GSA agreed with the recommendation and has since updated its guidance to include these criteria.

In January 2017, GSA agreed to a swap exchange for the U.S. Department of Transportation Volpe Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts. After a competitive process, GSA selected the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) as its exchange partner for the existing Department of Transportation (DOT) facility. Per the agreement, MIT will construct a new DOT facility on a portion of a 14 acre site to which DOT has title and, in exchange, will receive title to the remaining portion of the site that will not be used by DOT, which is located near its main campus. GSA indicated that, once completed, the project will provide $750 million in value to the federal government in the form of the design and construction services and value-equalization funds from MIT.

Various Alternative Funding Mechanisms for Federal Property Exist

Our prior work has identified a number of alternative approaches to funding real property projects. In March 2014, we reported that upfront funding is the best way to ensure recognition of commitments made in budgeting decisions and to maintain fiscal controls. However, obtaining upfront funding for large acquisitions such as the Hoover Building replacement can be challenging. Congress has provided some agencies with specific authorities to use alternative funding mechanisms for the acquisition, renovation, or disposal of federal real property without full, upfront funding. Table 1 outlines selected funding mechanisms, and considerations for each mechanism we identified in our 2014 report. Some of these alternative mechanisms allow selected agencies to meet their real property needs by leveraging other authorized resources, such as retained fees or land swaps with a private sector partner. Funding mechanisms leverage both monetary resources, such as retained fees, and non-monetary resources, such as property exchanged in a land swap or space offered in an enhanced use lease. In some cases, the funding mechanism may function as a public-private partnership intended to further an agency’s mission by working with a partner to leverage resources. Some of these mechanisms allow the private sector to provide the project’s capital—at their cost of borrowing. The U.S. federal government’s cost of borrowing is lower than the private sector’s. When the private sector provides the project capital, the federal government later repays these higher private sector borrowing costs (e.g., in the form of lease payments). In some cases, factors such as lower labor costs or fewer requirements could potentially help balance the higher cost of borrowing, making partner financing less expensive. Our 2014 report also identifies budgetary options—within the bounds of the current unified budget—to meet real property needs while helping Congress and agencies make more prudent long-term decisions.

In 2014, we reported that projects with alternative funding mechanisms present multiple forms of risk that are shared between the agency and any partner or stakeholder. Further, we noted project decisions should reflect both the likely risk and the organization’s tolerance for risk. Incorporating risk assessment and management practices into decisions can help organizations recognize and prepare to manage explicit risks (e.g. financial and physical) and implicit risks (e.g. reputational). For example, clearly defined lease terms may help agencies manage risks of costs for unexpected building repairs. Further considerations we noted in our 2014 report include the availability of an appropriate partner—and that partners should bring complementary resources, skills, and financial capacities to the relationship—and management of the relationship with that partner.

While different funding mechanisms have been used as an alternative to obtaining upfront funding for federal real property projects, changes to the budgetary structure itself—within the bounds of the unified budget that encompasses the full scope of federal programs and transactions—may also help agencies meet their real property needs. Such alternatives may include changing existing or introducing new account structures to fund real property projects. Our previous work identified options for changes within the current discretionary budget structure and options on the mandatory side of the budget. Alternative budgetary structures may change budgetary incentives for agencies and therefore help Congress and agencies make more prudent long-term fiscal decisions.

Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and Members of the Committee, this concludes my prepared statement. I am happy to answer any questions you may have at this time.

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

If you or your staff members have any questions concerning this testimony, please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or wised@gao.gov. In addition, contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement. Individuals who made key contributions to this testimony are Mike Armes (Assistant Director), Colin Ashwood, Matt Cook, Joseph Cruz, Keith Cunningham, Alexandra Edwards, Carol Henn, Susan Irving, Hannah Laufe, Diana Maurer, John Mortin, Monique Nasrallah, Matt Voit, Michelle Weathers, and Elizabeth Wood.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.