Federal Real Property: Actions Needed to Improve How Agencies Manage Structures
Released: 2014-02-05T00:00:00

Letter

Background

In 2004, the President issued Executive Order 13327 establishing the FRPC, composed of senior federal real property managers, and representatives from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the General Services Administration (GSA), among others. The executive order required FRPC to work with GSA to establish and maintain a single, comprehensive database describing the nature, use, and extent of all real property under the custody and control of executive branch agencies, except when otherwise required for reasons of national security. To meet this requirement, GSA in coordination with FRPC established the FRPP and provides guidance to agencies about how to annually report real property under the custody and control of executive branch agencies in three categories: land, buildings, and structures.

Agencies are required to annually submit 23 separate data elements to FRPP for all of their structures. The data elements include basic inventory data (type, use, size, and location) and other elements (condition, replacement value, operating costs, congressional district, and historical status). Some of the FRPP data elements differ for structures as compared with the data for buildings or land. For example, for measures of size, which are standard square feet for buildings or acres for land, agencies should report a unit of measure based on the type of structure (such as linear feet for canals or lane miles or square yards for roads and bridges). The FRPC also made some changes to the fiscal year 2013 FRPP guidance related to how agencies collect and report data for structures. For example, the FRPP will no longer contain information on mission dependency, will add a new field for repair needs, and will automatically calculate the condition index using the replacement value field and the newly created repair needs field.

As we stated in the 2013 update to the High-Risk Series, although some progress has been made in obtaining data about federal real property, the government still continues to lack consistent, accurate, and useful data that could support strategic decision-making about federal real property. Internal control standards for federal executive branch agencies require that agencies have relevant, reliable, and timely information for decision- making and external-reporting purposes. OMB guidelines state that agencies should develop detailed guidance necessary for producing quality data. Among other things, OMB’s definition of quality ensures that accurate, reliable, and unbiased information is presented in an accurate, clear, complete, and unbiased manner. These guidelines state that agencies should treat information quality as integral to every step in the creation of that information, from creation, collection, maintenance, and dissemination. We have also found that consistency means that the data are sufficiently clear and well-defined to yield similar results in similar situations. The Government Accountability and Transparency Board, established in 2011 to provide strategic direction for enhancing transparency of federal spending data, found that lack of consistent data creates obstacles to transparency and accountability. In addition, it determined that consistent data promote more accurate and comparable data for improved reporting and decision-making. However, we also found in 2012 that collecting and analyzing data creates costs for federal agencies as they must direct time and staff resources to this task and emphasized the importance of limiting the number of measures to the vital few measures considered essential for producing data for decision- making.

Agencies Operate a Wide Variety of Structures, Including Structures Specific to Their Missions

In the fiscal year 2012 FRPP, federal agencies reported that they were responsible for over 480,000 structures. Of the nearly 176,000 structures that federal civilian agencies were responsible for, about 98 percent were owned by the federal government and about 2 percent were leased. The five agencies we selected for our review were responsible for 83 percent of civilian federal structures. The FRPP categorizes structures into 22 different types. The most commonly reported type was roads and bridges followed by recreational structures, which include outdoor recreational structures such as athletic fields and courts, stadiums, golf courses, and ski slopes.structures as reported by federal civilian agencies.

Inconsistent Approaches to Tracking Structures and Inaccurate Information May Undermine the Reliability of Nationwide Data on Structures

Agencies take different approaches to defining and inventorying structures making the aggregation of data in the FRPP’s database unreliable. Agencies we reviewed defined structures differently leading to inconsistencies as to what assets are included in the FRPP, including counting some building-like facilities as structures. We also found that the agencies we reviewed counted structures differently, provided inaccurate location information, and categorized their structures inconsistently, all of which limits the usefulness of their data on structures in the FRPP. Additionally, the agencies we reviewed submitted outdated or incorrect information for key data elements, such as the replacement value, annual operating costs, and condition. GSA officials that manage FRPP said that FRPC chose to provide flexibility in the reporting guidance to account for the wide diversity in federal structures, but the FRPP also aggregates the data as if they were comparable. Even if this data were useful, FRPC reports very little of what it collects from agencies and officials at GSA told us that there is low interest in and demand for information on structures, a situation that creates few incentives to improve data reliability. In addition, OMB officials stated that their focus in recent years has been primarily on buildings relative to structures. In prior reports, we have stressed the importance of limiting the number of elements to the vital few that are considered essential for producing data for decision making in light of the costs of collecting this data.

Agencies Define Structures Differently

Agencies we reviewed defined a structure differently when inventorying their assets. Differing definitions resulted in inconsistent data as different types of assets were being labeled as structures across agencies (see table 2). Two of the agencies we reviewed—USDA and DOE—did not develop a standard definition for a structure. OMB guidelines state that agencies should develop detailed guidance necessary for producing reliable, consistent data. GSA real property officials responsible for the FRPP stated that they, in coordination with FRPC, chose to give agencies the flexibility to define structures themselves and that FRPP guidance, therefore, does not define a structure.

For the agencies we reviewed, these different definitions led to the inconsistent identification of similar structures when aggregated across agencies, thereby reducing the reliability and accuracy of FRPP data on structures. For example, VA has created an “other” category that is different from buildings, land, and structures. This category includes monuments, statues, and flagpoles—items other agencies report as structures in FRPP. While this approach may be legitimate for VA purposes as long as it is applied consistently, it will not create consistent information government-wide when aggregated in FRPP. Because USDA and DOE did not define what constituted a structure, the categorization of structures may vary by installation, resulting in inconsistent information within the agencies. For example, officials at DOE’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) and the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Fort Ord National Monument classified the landscaping at a location as a structure in FRPP. Conversely, officials at DOE’s Argonne National Laboratory did not classify landscaping, such as a fountain in front of a building, as a structure but considered it part of the building. This approach resulted in variation within DOE at the installation level, as well as being inconsistent with the FRPP guidance, which instructs agencies to report landscaping as a structure under “All Other.”

Some facilities we visited were classified by some agencies as structures, even though they were similar to buildings (having features such as walls, roofs, doors, windows, and air-conditioning systems in some cases). Figure 2 shows some of these examples.

GSA officials also said that different approaches to defining structures are legitimate under the guidance, but agreed that best practices require a consistent agency-wide approach. However, as a starting point to ensure that all agencies have a similar understanding of what constitutes a structure, the FRPC should update the FRPP guidance to include such a definition. Until this action occurs, there will be the increased likelihood that agencies will continue to define structures differently, thus negatively affecting the reliability of the data being collected.

Agencies Count Structures Differently

We found that officials, across agencies we reviewed, also counted structures differently, undermining the accuracy of the number of structures when totaled nationwide. OMB guidelines state that agencies should develop detailed guidance necessary for producing reliable, consistent data.count structures, and GSA officials stated that agencies can use different approaches as long as they are consistently applied by those agencies. GSA officials that manage FRPP said that they recognize that flexibility in the guidance could result in differences in how agencies designate structures, thereby creating issues with how comparable the data are across agencies.

FRPP guidance does not instruct agencies on how to We found inconsistencies in how officials at different agencies for the sites we visited counted the same types of structures. For example, officials at the DOE sites we visited aggregated primary roads together into singular entries in the FRPP, while officials at the DOT sites we visited generally listed each road as separate entries. We also found that some officials at the agencies we visited separated features of a structure into multiple FRPP entries while other officials included all features as a one-structure entry. For example, at the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) sites we visited, officials manage large structures, such as power plants, dams, and canals, generally grouping various portions of the supporting infrastructure related to a main asset together into a single entry in the FRPP. Conversely, officials at the FAA sites we visited generally disaggregated the components of structures into multiple entries in the FRPP because the agency officials track their expenditures in multiple systems, and renovations sometimes result in additional entries. See figure 3 for an example of how agencies count structures differently.

We found inconsistencies within agencies when counting structures. For example, Interior officials at the sites we visited would both aggregate and disaggregate roads. Officials at the BLM site we visited and all four NPS sites we visited, listed each road separately, while officials at the BOR sites and one of the Interior’s U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) sites we visited sometimes included roads with related infrastructure, such as flood control dikes. Similarly, we found that officials at some of the sites we visited, such as the VA and DOE sites, included all the parts of a utility system—such as sewage and electrical systems and their components— into one entry, while officials at other sites, such as NPS’s Prince William Forest Park in Virginia separate out certain parts of utility systems into multiple entries. Officials from these agencies told us that the decision to aggregate or disaggregate structures in the FRPP is dependent on how the assets are being managed. For example, Interior officials said that it makes sense to combine a road with an asset if it is integral to and maintained along with that asset. However, this kind of variation undermines the reliability of both the aggregated agency and FRPP data.

We also found that structures without operation and maintenance costs may not even be included in some real property databases. For example, officials at USDA’s Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC) site said structures that existed before the creation of the FRPP do not appear in the database unless USDA has spent money to repair or replace them. As a result, USDA officials estimated that there were many more structures located at the BARC site, which is over 100 years old, than the 125 structures listed in the FRPP. However, FRPP guidance requires the inclusion of this information; the FRPP database is intended to be a comprehensive real property database of real property assets. Without guidance to ensure a common understanding, agencies will likely continue to count structures differently thus negatively affecting the reliability of the information being collected.

FRPP Is Not Reliable for Identifying or Determining the Location of Structures

Although all of the agencies we reviewed provided location information for their structures, we found that the location data for several of these structures were inaccurate, thereby limiting the usefulness of FRPP data. FRPP guidance requires that location data be included in the database, but allows agencies flexibility in terms of the specificity used to identify the location of structures. For example, agencies may use the street address or the longitude and latitude coordinates. However, the Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government and OMB guidance state that management should put in place control mechanisms and activities to enable it to enforce its directives and achieve results. In addition, GAO and OMB guidance state that one such result should be providing data that are consistent and reliable. At several sites we visited, local agency officials could not specify the structure using the data listed in the FRPP database. For example, we found at VA sites that the local officials could not confirm that the pieces of infrastructure they showed us related to the sites’ utility systems, such as the power distribution or water systems, were a part of the structure listed in the FRPP database. Even in instances where latitude and longitude coordinates were listed in the database, agencies’ officials had difficulties finding some structures. For example, local BOR officials at the San Luis Dam and Reservoir in California could not locate a recreational structure valued at about $96 million. Although there were specific coordinates listed in the FRPP for that structure, officials stated that there was nothing there that could be considered a recreational structure worth that amount. While local officials were unable to use the FRPP location information to identify this structure, headquarters agency officials explained that this structure includes a variety of recreation components, including roads and other amenities, located within that geographical area and that the latitude and longitude represented a specific point within that area, not a specific structure.

At some of the sites we visited, officials told us they had difficulties determining location for larger structures, such as canals, roads, airport runways, and irrigation systems, some of which can span several miles and even cross county and state lines. In these instances, agency officials told us they measure coordinates at one end or at the center of a structure, which does not accurately capture the structure’s location. For example, at one of the BOR sites we visited, officials said they measure the geographic coordinates at the beginning of canals that can span over 100 miles. Officials from two agencies we reviewed do not use geographic coordinates to identify structures’ locations and said measuring the coordinates is too challenging and that there was limited value for expending resources needed to measure coordinates for structures that are already known to the local facility managers at their sites. Instead, officials use a central address for the structures they manage, which could be a long distance from the actual structure. These challenges may result in inaccurate location data on structures in the FRPP.

Agencies Categorize Structures Differently

We found inconsistencies with how officials categorize structures that may limit the usefulness of the data. OMB guidelines state that agencies should develop detailed guidance necessary for producing reliable, consistent data. As stated above, FRPP guidance categorizes structures into 22 different types and includes brief descriptions of the types of structures for each category. The guidance allows similar structures to be categorized differently. For example, FRPP guidance describes three different categories for which dams could fit, such as power development and distribution, reclamation and irrigation, and flood control and navigation. This categorization means that these dams could be included in these FRPP categories along with other non-dam structures (such as power plants, canals, or docks). We found that five different dams in five locations, all of which served different purposes were categorized differently in the FRPP database (see fig. 4 below). This makes it even more difficult to make decisions based upon numbers of structures in the categories because structures comprise such varied assets, with some similar type assets, such as dams, reported in different categories.

Officials from sites we visited from three of the five agencies we reviewed told us that they have difficulty identifying the appropriate category for structures because the agencies’ structures vary and have unique characteristics. As a result, these agencies frequently use the FRPP catchall, “All Other,” category when their structures do not fit within the other 21 categories; civilian agencies used the “All Other” category 23,294 times in fiscal year 2012 elevating it to the third largest category, accounting for 13.2 percent of structures listed. For example, during our site visits, officials showed examples of structures that were categorized as “All Other” in the FRPP database, such as fences, sidewalks and paths, observation decks and platforms, lagoons, and signs. These structures are legitimately reported in the “All Other” category, but the FRPP database does not allow for further disaggregation limiting the usefulness of the category for identifying the type of the structure. GSA officials recognized that that the 22 categories of structures in the FRPP do not capture the wide variety of different structures agencies operate. However, the GSA officials said that because of a lack of detail as to what the agencies include in the “All Other” category, they are unsure of what category additions or changes they should make. These officials acknowledged that it would be difficult to develop a comprehensive list of categories. Wide use of the “All Other” category reduces the usefulness of FRPP for managing structures by limiting the amount of detail that the database can have.

Key Data Elements in FRPP for Structures Are Not Reliable

Key FRPP elements for structures—replacement value, annual operating costs, and condition—are not reliable because some of the data GSA submitted by agencies we reviewed are outdated or incorrect.officials said that while they have taken steps to improve data quality, they ultimately rely on the agencies, which are required to certify that the data they transmit to FRPP are complete and reliable. Specifically, GSA officials said that agency submissions are not altered in any way once submitted to FRPP, meaning that any inaccuracies originated at the agency level.

Replacement Value

FRPP guidance states that the intent is for agencies to define their own guidance and regulations for implementing the replacement value formula found in the guidance. It also states that GSA and DOD have published cost guidance that can be used by other agencies. Officials from DOT and local officials from one USDA site we visited told us they use the DOD’s Facilities Pricing Guide for estimating the replacement value for certain structures. achieve results. GAO and OMB guidance state that one such result should be providing data that are consistent and reliable. Without this guidance, agencies cannot ensure that they are collecting and reporting consistent and reliable data on their structures internally, data that are then submitted to FRPP. For example, officials told us that replacement values in the FRPP seemed too high or too low, and other officials told us the replacement value did not match or come close to matching the replacement value listed in agencies’ own property-management databases (see fig. 5). However, because local agency officials were often not the ones entering data into the agencies’ real property databases or entering the data into the FRPP database, they could not explain why there were differences between FRPP and their agency’s own property databases for these structures.

To calculate the replacement value for all structures annually as required by FRPP guidance, the agencies we reviewed reported using a number of different methods, including adjusting cost models designed for buildings to structures, escalating the original cost of constructing structures, and relying on estimates made by local officials and experts. While there are cost-estimating models available for calculating the replacement value of a building, there are no standard estimation methods available for all types of structures. Officials from Interior, VA, and DOE said that the lack of standard cost-estimating models for structures makes it more challenging and could introduce variation into the estimates as agencies develop their own models.

Although the agencies we reviewed identified annual operating costs for structures as required by FRPP guidance, we found that these costs were not always accurate, thereby reducing the consistency and reliability of FRPP data. As stated earlier, the Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government and OMB guidance state that management should put in place control mechanisms and activities to enable it to enforce its directives and achieve results. In addition, GAO and OMB guidance state that one such result should be providing data that are consistent and reliable. Officials from one USDA site we visited said that none of the annual operating costs listed in the FRPP are accurate because the calculation is based on a standard formula of 1 percent of the replacement value, which does not reflect the structures’ true costs. USDA officials agreed that their approach to calculating the operating costs did not produce accurate results at the individual structure level, but they said that USDA does not have the capacity to collect operating cost data for individual structures. Although FRPP guidance does not address the issue, GSA officials recognize that agencies must estimate the operating costs if they do not have the capacity to track operating costs for individual structures. We also found instances where local officials at sites we visited told us the annual operating costs listed in the FRPP are inaccurate. For example, officials at several of the sites we visited could not explain why some structures had zero operating costs listed in the FRPP or why some of the FRPP listed costs were higher compared to the amount of maintenance performed related to the structure. However, headquarters officials with VA said that structures listed as having zero operating costs, such as the committal shelter at the Quantico (VA) National Cemetery shown in Figure 6, are included in the operating costs under the associated building or land entries in FRPP.

Additionally, we found that some agencies reported the costs of structures operated and maintained by other entities. For example, officials at the BOR sites we visited in Arizona and California reported annual operating costs of $1.9 million and $3.8 million attributed to the Mark Wilmer Pumping Plant and the Delta-Mendota Canal, which includes the Tracy C.W. “Bill” Jones Pumping Plant. However, these two assets are fully managed and operated by state and district entities and are fully funded from the revenues generated from the sale of water and electricity. Interior officials told us these costs are to be reported because, as a term-limited management agreement, future responsibility for maintenance is still a federal liability, and the FRPP guidance instructs agencies to report annual operating costs for structures managed by other entities. However, the actual costs paid by the federal government on an annual basis may be overestimated in the FRPP, because according to local Interior officials, a portion of those costs are paid from revenues collected by the state and district entities. We also found that USDA reported the annual operating costs for a bullet trap on a weapons range located at BARC, but the bullet trap is fully maintained and operated by a separate federal entity. USDA officials said that they were following FRPP guidance as they understood it.

Officials from the agencies we reviewed also noted that it is often challenging to calculate annual operating costs for structures and that different approaches may be used for different structures within agencies. For example, agency officials at some sites we visited told us they use associated costs—such as labor, utilities, and maintenance—to report annual operating costs. However, officials from DOE and VA sites that we visited told us that these data can be difficult to calculate at the individual asset level. Instead, they apportion certain types of costs, such as for electricity, evenly across certain structures. Different approaches within agencies undermine the consistency and, consequently, the reliability of the operating-cost data for these agencies.

Condition Index

Although the agencies we reviewed reported the condition of their structures as required by FRPP guidance, the FRPP data on the condition of these structures were not always accurate. According to FRPP guidance, condition index is a general measure of the constructed asset’s condition and is calculated using the ratio of repair needs to the replacement value. We found numerous examples at the sites we visited where the listed FRPP condition did not match the observed condition of the structure. For example, we found a parking lot and a road at one FAA site that had a condition index listed as zero in the FRPP (which, according to FRPP guidance, represents the worst possible condition for the asset), and we found cooling towers at DOE’s LLNL that had a condition index listed as 100. However, we did not find these structures to be in the most critical or excellent conditions. Officials from Interior, VA, and DOE told us they will also sometimes submit zero-dollar repair needs to FRPP for some of their structures that they no longer use and may be ultimately disposed of, even though the structure may be in disrepair, because it allows the agencies to prioritize funds for other assets. However, this can result in the inaccurate reporting of the structure’s conditions in the FRPP because the condition index calculation relies on the amount of repair needs. For example, agency officials responsible for FRPP data at the FWS’s Don Edwards San Francisco National Wildlife Refuge calculated the condition index for a historic cannery as 100, which would indicate the best condition reportable. However, as shown in figure 7, the condition index of the structure does not match its true condition. Agency officials told us the reason the condition is listed as 100 is because they entered zero dollars needed for repair to free funds for other structures, as this structure is not open to the public and does not currently serve a purpose on the FWS property. Also, officials told us if there is no intent to repair or maintain a structure, there is no reason to spend limited resources to complete a comprehensive condition assessment. Officials from NPS’s Golden Gate National Recreation Area told us that a historic battery built for use during World War I and valued at almost $200 million, had about $450,000 in deferred maintenance, but we found its condition listed as 100 in the FRPP. According to officials at USDA’s BARC site, all of the listed conditions for the structures we viewed at the site were inaccurate. These officials could not explain why the condition index, calculated by an independent contractor, was the same for all but one of the structures, and they agreed these metrics were not reflective of the structures’ true conditions. As stated above, the FRPC has made changes for 2013 by having the FRPP automatically calculate the condition index using the formula stated above as well. While the formula has not changed, the FRPC has also revised FRPP guidance to require that agencies report all the repair needs, including the repairs agencies do not plan to make. OMB staff told us they hope this will prevent agencies from submitting inflated conditions.

Incentives to Improve FRPP Data on Structures Are Limited Due to Low Demand for and Utility of the Data

Even if data on federal structures were reliable, FRPC reports very little of what it collects from agencies. Internal control standards for federal executive branch agencies require that agencies have relevant information for decision-making and external-reporting purposes. For fiscal year 2012, public access to FRPP data are limited to a 23-page, high-level summary report for all 361,318 federal buildings, 485,866 federal structures, and about 44 million acres of federal land. The high- level summary report includes aggregated data on 5 of the 23 elements that agencies are required to submit. This raises questions about the importance of aggregating structures data government-wide. As stated earlier, in previous reports we have stressed the importance of limiting the number of elements to the vital few that are considered essential for producing data for decision making in light of the costs of collecting this data. This will help agencies focus their limited resources on ensuring that those vital elements are reliable. In addition, GSA and OMB officials said there is low interest in and demand for government-wide information specifically related to structures, resulting in little incentive to make improvements. They said the majority of requests for information from users of FRPP data—the administration, the Congress, and the public— are related to buildings, not structures, so they have focused their efforts at improving and more extensively evaluating FRPP data related to buildings. Based on conversations we had with OMB staff, FRPP building data may be of more interest than structures because buildings that are occupied by federal workers and visited by the public have safety, security, and resale factors that do not generally exist for structures.

Buildings also can have value to the private sector, making them targets for sale, while structures are less likely to have commercial value and (like some federally-owned buildings) could also be located inside a large federal land area. Figure 8 illustrates how some structures likely have no private-sector value.

While OMB staff acknowledged that the FRPP’s data on structures have reliability issues and that there is lower demand for information on structures compared to buildings, they also said that structures represent investments of taxpayer money and as such agencies should continue to track their structures because the data are valuable to agency officials. Agency officials consistently said that they would continue tracking their structures even if they did not submit it annually to the FRPP. However, some agencies might not track the same elements. For example, FAA officials said that the agency only tracks the congressional district of each of their structures because it is a required element in the FRPP guidance.

Agencies Face Similar Challenges in Maintaining, Securing, and Disposing of Structures as They Do for Buildings

We found that agencies generally face similar challenges in managing structures as they do in managing buildings. All agency officials we spoke with stated that most challenges centered on prioritizing resources to maintain structures, ensuring the safety and security of structures, and disposing of excess structures.

Prioritization of Resources for Maintaining Structures Is Difficult

Officials from all the agencies we spoke with stated that prioritizing resources is their primary challenge to managing structures. For example, Interior officials stated that their major challenge is to maintain Interior’s mission critical assets as the current funding levels are less than half of the minimum they consider necessary to sustain acceptable conditions. We have previously developed criteria for addressing real property maintenance backlogs based on National Academy of Sciences reports on maintenance and repair of federal facilities. Our criteria includes, among other things, setting priorities among the outcomes to be achieved from maintenance activities, identifying critical assets to invest in, and analyzing tradeoffs and optimizing results from competing investments in maintenance. Interior officials told us they provide department-wide guidance for capital investment strategies. Following this guidance, for example, NPS has developed an investment matrix that combines mission criticality and historic importance with the amount of deferred maintenance to determine which structures to invest in first. FAA officials in one FAA region are using their own unique database to determine the maintenance costs for structures to prevent failure of mission critical structures that support the national airspace. FAA is currently undertaking an agency-wide initiative to address their deferred maintenance needs for these structures.

Location and Condition of Some Structures Present Security and Safety Challenges

Agency officials at the sites we visited stated some security and safety challenges were related to the location and condition of structures for which they were responsible. One of the security concerns mentioned by some NPS and BLM officials was that some structures were spread out over the park or other federal land area making it challenging to ensure their security. For example, the NPS’ Golden Gate National Recreational Area has over 500 structures spread out over 60 miles around the San Francisco Bay area, and BLM’s Fort Ord National Monument has 67 structures spread out over 7,200 acres. NPS officials also mentioned that there are challenges in securing nationally significant structures in National Parks while encouraging the public to visit those structures and working to provide a favorable experience during their visit. Other structures present security and safety challenges different from buildings. NPS officials stated that some structures may be in rugged terrain, have multiple points of approach, all making security and safety more challenging than for buildings where security and safety features can be built in and access controlled more easily. The BOR’s 117-mile long Delta-Mendota Canal in California, which provides critical water resources to southern California, presents a security challenge due to its long length through sparsely populated areas as well as a safety challenge as parts of the canal are open to the public (see fig. 9). To mitigate the safety risk presented by the canal’s swiftly flowing waters, safety lines have been installed to help people climb out of the canal if they fall in.

Agencies Have Unneeded Structures, but Uniqueness, Location, and Resources Complicate Disposal

Federal agencies we reviewed have structures that they are not utilizing. However, agencies struggle to dispose of excess structures. In some cases, the agencies may just leave the obsolete structures. For example, many structures at the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service’s Beltsville research facility in Maryland are no longer used but remain in place on the 6,700 acre site. Figure 10 shows a water tower on the site that has been unused for years and that is slowly being recaptured by nature.

Conclusions

Federal agencies are required to report 23 separate elements for every one of their structures to FRPP every year, but the data have two types of reliability problems. First, at the most basic level, some of the data agencies submit on their structures are incorrect, undermining agencies’ ability to manage their structures and the reliability of the data in FRPP. Agencies must improve their data quality in accordance with OMB’s guidelines in order to document performance and support decision making. Second, even if agencies effectively apply the OMB guidance, the government-wide data will continue to face reliability problems because of the flexibility built into FRPP guidance on how agencies track key elements, such as defining and counting structures. FRPC chose not to establish a clear definition for structures, but a clear demarcation between buildings and structures would be useful for ensuring that FRPP’s data related to buildings are complete and that agencies do not use the flexibility they have in defining structures to include assets that are more appropriately considered buildings. Better defining structures alone, however, will not change the fact that reasonable differences in how agencies track their structures create inconsistencies when FRPP data are aggregated government-wide. For vital information, it would be worth the time, resources, and effort needed to harmonize agency approaches. However, while agencies need to track structures for their own purposes, it is unclear if it is necessary to aggregate the information government-wide. GSA and OMB officials said that demand for structures information is low, and FRPC only summarizes selected elements of the data annually, and most of those elements relate to buildings not structures.

Recommendations for Executive Action

To better ensure the quality of both the more detailed data that agencies collect on their structures and the summary information submitted in the FRPP, we recommend that the Director of OMB, in collaboration with FRPC, develop guidance to improve agencies’ internal controls to produce consistent, accurate, and reliable data on their structures.

To better ensure the quality of the data in FRPP and focus agency resources to consistently account for structures, we recommend that the Administrator of GSA, in collaboration with the FRPC, take the following two actions: Issue guidance to federal agencies clarifying the definition of structures. This clarification should ensure that building-like structures are identified as buildings.

Assess the feasibility of limiting the data elements agencies would be required to submit for structures submitted to the FRPP.

Agency Comments

We sent a copy of this report to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget; the Administrator of the General Services Administration; and the Secretaries of Agriculture, Energy, the Interior, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs for their review and comment. OMB generally agreed with our findings and recommendation and made technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. GSA agreed with our recommendations and provided its action plan for addressing the recommendations. GSA’s response is reprinted in appendix II. USDA, DOE, Interior, and VA provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. DOT did not have any comments on the report.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget; the Administrator of the General Services Administration; and the Secretaries of Agriculture, Energy, the Interior, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on GAO’s website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions, please contact me at (202) 512- 2834 or at wised@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Our objectives were to determine (1) the scale and scope of federally- owned or leased structures, (2) how federal agencies track and categorize federal structures, and (3) the extent to which the challenges the federal agencies face in managing buildings also apply to structures. To address these objectives, we reviewed pertinent laws, regulations, policies, and other documents related to federal real property management. The primary source of government-wide federal real property information is the Federal Real Property Council’s (FRPC) Federal Real Property Profile (FRPP). We reviewed guidance from the FRPC regarding structures, including the Guidance for Real Property Inventory Reporting for the FRPP. We obtained FRPP summary data from fiscal years 2010 and 2012, the most recent data available, for structures owned and operated by the federal government.

We recently reported that the FRPC has not followed data collection practices that would help them collect FRPP data in a way that is sufficiently consistent and accurate to make property management decisions. We recommended that GSA develop a plan to improve FRPP data. GSA agreed with the recommendation but has not yet finished implementing it. Nonetheless, we also found that the FRPP can be used in a general sense to track federal real property. As such, for this report and a similar report using FRPP data, we have determined that FRPP data were sufficiently reliable for limited purposes, such as: identifying agencies within our scope, selecting site visit locations, summarizing agency-level statistics for structures, and to compare against agency source data on structures for our selected agencies.

We identified five civilian real property-holding agencies for our review: the Departments of Agriculture (USDA), Energy (DOE), the Interior (Interior), Transportation (DOT), and Veterans Affairs (VA). On the basis of the latest FRPP summary data for federal structures available, these five agencies reported being responsible for approximately 83 percent of all federal civilian structures. We used the following criteria to select these agencies as reported to the FRPC for inclusion in the FRPP: number of structures, diversity in types of structures, and high replacement value and operations and maintenance costs. These agencies gave us a diverse array of structures to review, a high reported dollar value for replacement value (a reported combined $5.9 billion of operating costs per year) and annual operating costs and a mix of challenges, such as sensitive security or critical systems used in operating a large hospital. We excluded the Department of Defense (DOD) agencies because GAO has completed other engagements focused exclusively on DOD real property. We excluded the Department of State as most of its real property holdings, including structures, are outside of the United States. We excluded the Department of Homeland Security, an agency that is responsible for more structures than DOE or VA, from our agency selection as some structures could be security sensitive and we determined that our other selected agencies had a good representation of the different kinds of structures in the FRPP.

To determine to the scale and scope of federal structures, we obtained and analyzed FRPP data submissions and other real property data from the five selected agencies; interviewed real property officers at these agencies; visited sites where the agencies had structures; interviewed Office of Management and Budget and General Services Administration staff about the FRPP data for structures; and reviewed FRPC guidance and other documents related to the agencies’ real property data and the FRPP database. We obtained the agencies’ FRPP data submissions for structures for fiscal year 2012. In addition, for select data elements and for structures we saw during our site visits, we obtained real property data for structures from the source databases that each agency uses to generate its annual FRPP submissions. We obtained source system data to compare what was in the FRPP against the data that were in the agency’s own databases for those structures. As we have determined in prior reports on FRPP data, FRPP submissions can only be changed by the agency submitting the data. As a result, we believe that the FRPP submissions obtained from the agencies match the data contained in the FRPP database. In addition, for select data elements, we obtained real property data from the source databases that each agency uses to generate its annual FRPP submissions. We obtained source system data to get information on description, replacement value, operational costs, location, and condition of selected structures.

We posed questions to senior real property officers at the five agencies about their processes for collecting and calculating data for structures. To gather detailed examples of structures and to learn about the processes by which data on such properties are collected or calculated and then submitted to the FRPP database, we visited sites where the five agencies we selected had structures. We selected these sites using information from the agencies’ FRPP submissions. Using the most recent FRPP submissions we had at the time for each agency, we selected a non- probability sample of sites. Because this is a non-probability sample, observations made at these site visits do not support generalizations about other properties described in the FRPP database or about the characteristics or limitations of other agencies’ real property data for structures. Rather, the observations made during the site visits provided specific, detailed examples of issues that were described by agency officials regarding the way agencies collect and calculate data for structures. We focused on sites clustered around four cities: Washington, D.C.; Chicago, Illinois; Los Angeles, California; and San Francisco, California. This strategy afforded both geographic diversity and balance among our selected agencies while also accommodating time and resource constraints. In selecting sites and buildings in and around these four cities, we took into account the following factors:

We prioritized sites that had multiple selected agency sites where a high concentration of structures was present. This allowed us to see more properties in a limited amount of time.

We prioritized the selection of as many different types of structures (as defined in the FRPP) as possible.

We also selected sites with high replacement values, high operations and maintenance costs, exceptionally low replacement values or operations and maintenance costs, those reported to be in good and poor condition, and structures registered as historic.

We visited at least two sites for each selected agency across our four site-visit areas. In all, we selected 24 sites. Whereas we selected sites based in large part on the numbers and kinds of structures present, the structures we saw at each site depended on additional factors. At some sites, there were too many structures to see them all, given our limited time at each site. In those circumstances, we prioritized structures that were close to one another to see as many structures as we could in the time we had, those structures with high or exceptionally low reported replacement values or high operation and maintenance costs, and different structure types as classified by the agency in FRPP. At several sites, local real property officials identified other structures that we toured and analyzed.

Prior to each site visit, we analyzed the FRPP data submissions for the latest year available, and developed questions about the data submissions for local property managers. We also contacted the local property managers to answer those questions and to solidify the exact structures we would see at each location. During our site visits, we interviewed local property managers and compared what we observed at each structure with the FRPP data for that structure, and we took photographs of the structures. In addition to questions about individual properties, we questioned the local officials about the kind of data they collect on the properties, how they collect that data, and how that data differed from the FRPP data we had for the structures at the location.

To identify the challenges facing federal agencies in managing structures, we analyzed agency property management reports, strategic plans, and FRPP reports along with statements from agency officials both at agency headquarters and at sites we visited about their challenges. We compared these challenges to those we had identified in our reports about federal real-property management challenges for buildings to determine how similar the agency’s challenges for buildings were to those for managing structures.

We conducted this performance audit from January 2013 to January 2014 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Appendix II: Comments from the General Services Administration

Appendix III: Full Text for Figure 3 on How Agencies Aggregate and Disaggregate Structures in FRPP

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the named contact above, Keith Cunningham (Assistant Director), Melissa Bodeau, Anthony Costulas, Anne Doré, Kathleen Gilhooly, Greg Hanna, Robert Heilman, Joshua Ormond, Sara Ann Moessbauer, and Sandra Sokol made key contributions to this report.