BEP produces notes at the request of the Federal Reserve. Each year, the Federal Reserve determines how many currency notes are needed to meet the demand for currency. Federal Reserve and BEP officials then agree on a payment amount for note production, including costs associated with maintaining BEP’s facilities. The Federal Reserve’s payments are deposited into BEP’s revolving fund; the revolving fund is used for BEP’s operational expenses, including note production. According to Treasury officials, the revolving fund can pay for renovations and retrofitting of a production facility, but not for land purchase or new building construction. In 2016, the Federal Reserve paid around $660 million for note production. In order to cover all expenses associated with the Federal Reserve’s needs, including currency production, the Federal Reserve generates income primarily from the interest on their holdings of U.S. government securities, agency mortgage-backed securities, and agency debt acquired through open market operations. The Federal Reserve is required to transfer any surplus funds over $7.5 billion to the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury. Increases or decreases in operating costs or BEP’s currency production could affect these surpluses and subsequent transfers to the General Fund. Historically, the Federal Reserve has had significant surpluses. In 2016, the Federal Reserve transferred $92 billion to the General Fund. BEP’s Washington, D.C., facility consists of a 104-year old, multi-story, multi-wing Main Building and an 80-year old multi-story, multi-wing Annex Building (see fig. 1). The Main Building is the primary production building, and the Annex Building is used primarily for administrative functions. Both buildings qualify for historic designation and thus any alterations would be subject to certain requirements under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. In addition to these buildings, BEP leases a warehouse in Landover, Maryland, to store production supplies in part because the two Washington, D.C., buildings do not have the necessary infrastructure to accommodate shipments carried by large commercial trucks. BEP’s Fort Worth facility was built in order to ensure reliable currency production in the event of any disruption of operations at the D.C. facility. BEP was able to obtain donated land and a building in Fort Worth and therefore did not need to purchase land or construct a new facility. Specifically, in 1986, BEP accepted a proposal from the City of Fort Worth that included 100 acres of donated land and a donated building shell to be built to BEP’s specifications. BEP then used its revolving fund to pay for the building’s interior retrofitting, including a central energy plant and installation of currency presses. The Fort Worth facility began producing notes in December 1990 and was intended to produce around 25 percent of U.S. notes. According to BEP officials, as a result of increased demand for U.S. notes and production limitations associated with the D.C. facility, the Fort Worth facility has produced an increasingly large share of notes. In fiscal year 2016 the Fort Worth facility produced nearly 60 percent of notes, while the D.C. facility produced the remaining 40 percent. From 2010 through 2017, BEP contracted for various studies to investigate alternatives, costs, potential sites, and program requirements to ensure future currency production in the D.C. area (see table 1 for details of the studies). In BEP’s 2013 study and since then, the agency has focused on three alternatives: “Renovation”—a major renovation of the current facility “New build”—a new building in a different location that would house currency production and all administrative functions “Hybrid”—a new building in a different location that would house currency production, but having administrative functions in one of its current buildings According to BEP officials, the cost estimates in the 2013 study were an important factor in their preference for a new facility instead of a renovation. The 2013 study concluded that BEP should pursue the new build alternative because it was estimated to be the least costly option, could be completed in the shortest time frame, and promised the greatest efficiencies. The study found that the renovation alternative would be the most costly option and take the longest time to complete because it would require BEP to produce currency at its current location while it was being renovated. BEP officials told us this would require moving production equipment from the Main Building to the Annex during the renovation and back to the Main Building once it was renovated. According to GSA officials, renovations are often more costly than new construction. According to Federal Reserve officials, moving large, complex printing presses and machines from one building to another and then back again significantly expands the renovation’s timeframe, as time would be needed to test the machines to get them back into specification. The Federal Reserve further noted that some modern presses will not fit into the Main Building without significant structural alterations, which would add cost and time to a renovation. Following the release of the 2013 study, BEP proposed to the Secretary of Treasury, with the support of Treasury officials, that Treasury and BEP pursue the hybrid alternative as their first choice (see table 2 for details on BEP’s proposal). BEP officials told us that they, along with Treasury, selected the hybrid alternative even though the hybrid was more expensive than the new build alternative. According to BEP officials, the cost difference between the hybrid and new build was outweighed by the value of maintaining administrative functions in Washington, D.C., to facilitate the day-to-day decision-making process among BEP, Treasury, and Federal Reserve officials. According to Treasury officials, the ability for other Treasury employees to co-locate in the Main Building after the repurposing is completed would also provide long-term cost benefits to Treasury because Treasury could save on expensive lease agreements in downtown Washington, D.C. Further, Treasury officials noted that it is important that the Treasury Department maintain the Main Building as an asset because of its location and history, and Treasury officials prefer that BEP maintain some functions in the building. The 2017 study provided cost estimates of BEP’s and Treasury’s preferred hybrid option, as well as the renovation option that BEP officials said they would pursue if BEP does not receive the necessary legal authority to construct a new facility. The study estimated that the hybrid option would cost approximately $1.389 billion and that the renovation option would cost approximately $1.957 billion. Federal Reserve officials told us they concur with the 2013 study that a new facility is warranted, that a renovation of the existing facility would be more costly than a new facility, and a renovation would not provide the same degree of efficiency. Federal Reserve officials said that they prefer the new build alternative because the 2013 study identified this alternative as the least expensive option, and would provide a modern, efficient manufacturing process. These officials also told us that, whatever alternative BEP pursues, the Federal Reserve will be financially responsible —whether it is for a new building, a renovated building, or the continuation of the currency production process in the D.C. facility. BEP officials stated that they support a new building over a renovation because the new build would both be less expensive and have greater benefits than a renovation. Furthermore, BEP officials told us that while they prefer to remain in the D.C. area, they would approve of the construction of a new facility in a different location if necessary. However, BEP officials also told us that if BEP does not get the legal authority necessary to use its revolving fund to purchase land and build a new facility in 2018, BEP will pursue a renovation of the existing D.C. facility beginning at the end of 2018. As a federal facility, BEP must meet physical security standards established by the Interagency Security Committee (ISC). According to an assessment conducted by BEP’s Office of Security, the D.C. facility does not meet many of the necessary requirements for a facility of its security level. While certain security improvements, such as blast resistant windows or vehicle barriers, could be installed if the facility is renovated, other standards could only be addressed with a new facility. Specifically, the current buildings are located in an urban center surrounded by buildings (see fig. 1 above). As a result, according to the assessment, the facility does not have a secure perimeter because it lacks the required setback between the building and any point where an unscreened vehicle can travel or park. BEP officials said that even after a renovation, the facility would continue to have inadequate setback distance. According to the assessment, the facility’s designation as a historic building also limits BEP’s ability to make changes to the current facility to meet the necessary level of protection. For example, the facility’s placement on the historic registry limits BEP’s ability to make certain structural changes that could mitigate the building’s chances of progressively collapsing in the event of certain types of destructive attacks or actions. BEP’s Office of Security attributed certain security deficiencies to the facility’s limited setback distance and the buildings’ structure, and determined that the D.C. facility is at relatively high risk to threats such as an externally-placed portable explosive device. BEP aims to provide quality banknotes in an efficient, cost effective manner. However, BEP officials concluded that the layout of the D.C. facility makes production less efficient than the Fort Worth facility. According to BEP production data, from 2013 to 2016, manufacturing costs were higher at the D.C. facility for all comparable denominations. For example, in 2016, production costs of $1 and $20 notes were 23 percent and 7 percent higher, respectively, at the D.C. facility compared to the Fort Worth facility. Additionally, the D.C. facility employs more manufacturing personnel than Fort Worth, even though it produces fewer notes (see table 3). BEP officials attributed the difference in the costs to the D.C. facility’s multi-floor, multi-wing production layout. Specifically, in D.C., after notes are printed on one side, they are moved to another floor to dry for at least 72 hours, brought back to the original floor to be printed on the opposite side, and again moved to the other floor to dry. In Fort Worth, because the production occurs in one large room on one floor, these processes occur in adjacent spaces on the same floor. As a result, according to BEP, notes travel more than twice as far during production in the D.C. facility. According to BEP, Treasury, and Federal Reserve officials, a new production facility would offer greater efficiency gains than a renovated facility. According to BEP officials, maintaining production on one floor in an open space improves production efficiency. They added that a renovation of the D.C. facility could include tearing down some walls and raising ceilings, steps that could improve some production processes. However, they also noted that because the D.C. facility qualifies for a historic designation, according to BEP officials, a renovation could not alter the building’s shape. As a result, production would still occur on multiple levels and in separate wings if the facility were renovated. We have reported in the past that agencies faced challenges in rehabilitating and modernizing historic buildings for contemporary use because of their age, specific design characteristics, and their particular historical features. According to its Strategic Plan, BEP is committed to providing a safe and positive work environment for its employees. However, BEP officials said that manufacturing employees at the D.C. facility face greater injury risk than at the Fort Worth facility. According to BEP workers’ compensation claim data, approved workers’ compensation claims at the D.C. facility accounted for approximately 67 percent of BEP’s approved claims from fiscal year 2013 through fiscal year 2016, or 200 of 297 approved claims. BEP officials attributed the higher number of workers’ compensation claims in the D.C. facility to the relatively high number of employees needed to produce fewer notes (see table 3) and the increased opportunity for employee injury because production material must be transported farther and between floors. BEP officials estimated that approximately 65 to 70 percent of all worker injuries are related to materials handling. BEP officials noted that there is an estimated $196-million deferred- maintenance backlog at the D.C. facility. This backlog includes maintenance to the facility’s electrical and architectural systems. Even if BEP had taken care of these maintenance issues in the past, it would not negate the need for a renovation or a new facility. BEP officials noted that a renovation would reduce some safety concerns, such as upgrading the facility’s electrical systems and adding more fire-rated exits as required by Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations; however, a renovation would not be able to address the multi-floor production process that BEP officials attributed to employee injuries. According to BEP officials, it is important for BEP to maintain flexible currency production to respond to production needs that may change over time. Specifically, BEP officials said that a production facility should have the ability to adapt to changes in production equipment. Both BEP and Federal Reserve officials told us that the new equipment likely will be larger than current machinery. According to a representative from a leading currency printing equipment manufacturer from which BEP buys its printing equipment, future equipment is unlikely to decrease in size. BEP officials said that, while the D.C. facility could be renovated to accommodate larger equipment, it would not be possible to replicate the large, open production floor of the Fort Worth facility, which allows for simple installation of equipment. BEP officials told us that, unlike the current D.C. facility, a new production facility would be able to easily accommodate the printing equipment necessary for security features that BEP is currently developing for the next currency redesign. Flexibility is also an important factor when considering the future demand for currency. The demand for currency fluctuates, and recent changes in how the public makes purchases could affect the demand for currency. Some observers have noted that the increased use of new payment technologies—such as online banking and phone applications—as well as the rise in online purchases may lead to a substantially reduced demand for currency. In a few countries, such as Sweden, noncash transactions have become common and the demand for currency has fallen substantially. In the United States, there are several indications that currency demand will not substantially decline within the next decade. For example, the yearly number of U.S. currency notes in circulation increased by 43 percent from 2008 to 2016. In addition, the number of ATMs in the United States continues to grow, and a 2016 Federal Reserve study of consumer payment choice found that cash still accounted for 32 percent of all transactions, and more than 50 percent of transactions under $25. This continued strength in the demand of cash has several sources. Cash can be seen as a hedge against uncertainties, such as natural disasters or political or economic turmoil, and also has advantages related to privacy, anonymity, and personal data security. Moreover, according to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, approximately 25 percent of U.S. households have limited access to the products and services of the banking industry, and therefore, these “unbanked” and “underbanked” populations, who may not have many alternative means of payment, rely largely on cash. Federal Reserve and Treasury officials we spoke with do not believe that the use of cash in the U.S. will decline in any significant way over the next decade. In particular, the Federal Reserve predicts a continued rise in demand for cash over the next 10 years, despite the increased availability of noncash payment options, indicating that a new or renovated facility will still be required for currency production. According to BEP officials, a new production facility would better manage the ebbs and flows in the future demand for currency than a renovation of the current facility. Specifically, should production demand increase, a new production facility could be designed to easily scale to meet new production requirements. Conversely, should the demand for currency decline in the coming years or substantially decline in the future, unused space in a new facility could be partitioned off and be used for other purposes or by another Treasury agency. Capital investments in infrastructure can require significant resources to construct, operate, and maintain over the course of their life-cycle. Leading capital-planning practices can help agencies determine the resources needed to meet their mission, goals, and objectives and how to efficiently and effectively satisfy those needs throughout the capital decision-making process. As shown in table 4, we found that BEP’s capital investment decision-making process that resulted in its decision to pursue a new currency-production facility (as part of the previously described hybrid option) followed three applicable capital-planning leading practices and substantially followed the fourth. Needs assessment: BEP followed this leading practice, which calls for comprehensively assessing the resources needed as a basis for investment decisions. BEP conducted a facility condition assessment in 2004 that contributed to BEP’s effort to seek a new production facility, resulting in the studies from 2010-2017 discussed above. The assessment identified the current condition of the facility and the facility’s capabilities, including production inefficiencies that led BEP to begin a multi-year effort to determine its immediate and future infrastructure needs. BEP also determined in 2004 that the agency had almost $200 million in deferred maintenance needs. BEP officials told us that they consulted with Federal Reserve officials and concluded that it would not be prudent to spend substantial funds to address this deferred maintenance. For example, officials determined that it would not be prudent to replace the heating and plumbing systems while pursuing a new production facility. As a result, BEP deferred some maintenance items, such as replacing heating systems, which would not compromise safety and production. However, BEP officials said that they prioritized and maintained critical items, such as its cleaning and recycling systems, and implemented energy conservation initiatives to help reduce costs. As of October 2017, BEP’s deferred maintenance backlog was about $196 million. Alternatives evaluation: BEP substantially followed this leading practice, which calls for a determination of how best to bridge performance gaps by identifying and evaluating alternative approaches. As noted above, BEP first considered multiple alternatives on how to achieve its mission to efficiently produce banknotes. Further, BEP considered different methods to fund and obtain land and a shell for a new production facility (see table 5). To evaluate alternatives for the location of a new facility, a contractor identified, in 2015, potential construction sites in the D.C. area and compared each site to a set of criteria. However, BEP officials told us that they discounted locations outside the metropolitan D.C. area because they believed it would be costly to relocate employees or hire and train new manufacturing personnel to replace employees who do not relocate. BEP officials said that the few employees who relocated from the D.C. facility to the Fort Worth facility when it first opened were paid $50,000 each for their move. Based on these factors, BEP focused on a D.C-area location and did not conduct an analysis of the financial implications of building a new facility outside the D.C. area, where construction or other costs could be less expensive. Strategic linkage: BEP followed this leading practice, which stresses the importance of linking plans for capital asset investments both to an organization’s overall mission and to its strategic goals. In the 2014-2018 Strategic Plan, BEP noted that it would seek approval to proceed with the 2013 study’s recommendation to construct a new production facility. According to the strategic plan, a new production facility would help achieve BEP’s long-articulated strategic goal of being a printer of world- class currency notes, providing its customers and the public with superior products through excellence in manufacturing and technological innovation. Furthermore, Treasury concurred with BEP’s assessment and added its request for legal authority to purchase land and build a new facility in the fiscal year 2018 President’s Budget proposal. Long-term capital plan: BEP followed this leading practice, which calls for a capital plan that documents an agency’s decisions and describes its mission, planning process, and risk management, among other things. BEP completed all of the key activities associated with this practice. For example, in its fiscal year 2018 capital investment plan, BEP lays out the purpose, goals, and benefits of a new currency production facility. It also notes the implications of exposing currency production to vulnerabilities relating to potential facility systems failures and inefficiencies. A reliable cost estimate—a summation of individual cost elements—is critical to support the capital planning process by providing the basis for informed investment decision-making, realistic budget formulation and program resourcing, and accountability for results. BEP’s 2017 cost estimate includes a contractor-developed estimate of the cost for the construction of a new production plant and the repurposing of the Main Building for BEP’s administrative offices (the hybrid alternative) and a BEP-developed estimate of additional project costs, such as additional production equipment and real estate acquisition. We found this estimate partially met the four characteristics of a high-quality, reliable cost estimate (see table 6). In developing this estimate, BEP relied on GSA guidance that was available at the time. That guidance did not refer to leading practices for cost estimates that are identified in GAO’s Cost Guide. GSA has recently updated its guidance to refer to the leading practices in GAO’s Cost Guide, and BEP officials told us that they will follow this updated GSA guidance when developing any future cost estimates. Comprehensive: BEP’s 2017 cost estimate substantially met the comprehensive characteristic. For example, the estimate included most life-cycle cost components, defined the program and its current schedule and included a consistent work breakdown structure. However, the estimate did not include operating and sustainment costs or information regarding the ground rules and assumptions used to develop the costs. Well documented: BEP’s 2017 cost estimate partially met the well- documented characteristic. For example, the estimate documented the source data and the technical assumptions used for the construction costs, which were reviewed by GSA and BEP personnel. However, documentation for the contractor’s estimate and its sources for the factors used in the estimate did not include details to enable an outside cost analyst to replicate the work. According to BEP officials, the cost data are the contractor’s proprietary data. BEP officials also told us that sources for the factors used were based on subject matter expert opinion. Accurate: BEP’s cost estimate partially met the accurate characteristic. While we found minor rounding errors and no errors in the model build-up calculations and did not find any calculation or adjustment errors in the estimate, the estimate nonetheless did not provide information regarding the bias of the costs and the appropriateness of the estimating technique used. However, BEP did follow industry standards to develop contingency costs for a pre-design estimate for a program that has not yet been authorized. We also found that $515 million of the internal estimate (37 percent of the program’s total cost estimate) was based on undocumented subject matter opinion or escalated incorrectly from the 2013 study estimate. Further, BEP’s estimate did not use the same construction year mid-point as its contractor for the inflation assumptions. According to BEP officials, that lack is because BEP’s costs were projected based upon the contractor’s estimate of fiscal year 2022, while the production equipment was escalated to fiscal year 2021 because this is the projected year for purchasing equipment. The officials also acknowledged that this rationale, however, was not documented in the cost estimate. BEP clarified that the estimates did not explicitly state a confidence level because the estimate is in the pre-planning stage. They added that it is common in the design and construction industry that contingencies are applied to the estimate based on the completeness of design, and as the design progresses, these contingencies are reduced as more becomes known about the project. As there have not been actual costs yet, variances between planned and actual costs have not been documented, explained, and reviewed. Credible: BEP’s 2017 cost estimate partially met the credible characteristic. For example, BEP provided documentation showing that both BEP and GSA reviewed the contractor’s construction estimate and its technical assumptions. However, the estimate did not include a sensitivity analysis for the construction costs, a risk and uncertainty analysis, or cross-checks to see whether similar results could be obtained. A cross-check could include an independent cost estimate conducted by an outside group to determine whether other estimating methods would produce similar results, but BEP officials told us that no independent cost estimate was developed because this was too early in the project to do such a comparison and that the construction estimate was developed in response to a government contract statement of work to prepare a preliminary budget forecast for BEP. Rather, BEP relied on what it characterized as an extensive review by BEP management and GSA officials. The alternative that BEP pursues could have a financial effect on the federal government and ultimately taxpayers. Below, we discuss potential costs and potential savings associated with the disposition of the three buildings under the different scenarios based on our review of BEP documents and interviews with Treasury and GSA officials (see fig. 2). For example, Treasury, which has custody and control over the Main Building and the Annex, could experience costs if it needs to spend money to upgrade these buildings, but could also experience savings if it can repurpose the buildings or consolidate its employees into fewer buildings. GSA, which serves as the federal government’s primary real property and disposal agent, could incur costs for the marketing and disposal process, but could create savings for the government if it could repurpose or sell any vacated buildings. Proceeds from sales of Treasury- controlled facilities would benefit the federal government. While it is possible to identify some potential costs and benefits, it is too early to determine which costs or benefits may be realized or to attempt to quantify them. GSA and Treasury officials told us that the actions of other agencies or interested third parties (e.g., those potentially interested in purchasing the Annex) would affect the costs and cost-savings of any alternative. In addition, there are factors outside of the government’s control, such as timing and market conditions, that could affect costs and cost-savings. For example, changes in the Washington, D.C., real estate market could affect the opportunity to sell the Annex. Based on interviews with officials at GSA, Treasury, the Federal Reserve, and BEP, we have identified the following potential costs and savings for each building. Potential costs and savings associated with the Main Building: Both BEP and Treasury officials told us that the Main Building will remain under Treasury’s custody and control, regardless of which alternative BEP undertakes. Renovation: BEP would use its revolving fund to replace existing heating/cooling systems and windows in the Main Building with higher efficiency ones. Ideally, there would be some long-term cost savings because the new systems would be less costly to operate. However, BEP officials told us that a renovation may be more expensive than currently estimated because the Main Building is over 100 years old and there could be unforeseen expenses depending on what is found once walls and ceilings are removed. New build: Treasury would likely pay to renovate the Main Building once BEP vacates it because the Main building would remain under Treasury’s custody and control. The cost of this renovation could be partially offset by savings associated with co-locating other Treasury offices in the Main Building after the renovation is complete. For example, Treasury bureaus currently have 15 leased facilities with about 1.9-million square feet in the downtown D.C. area. The annual cost of these facilities is $91.7 million. While, not all of the employees currently in leased space could move into a renovated Main Building, the Main Building’s 530,000 square feet could provide opportunities to reduce leasing costs. However, because these potential renovations and staff moves are not likely to occur for several years, Treasury officials told us that they are not able to determine either the costs or benefits of moving Treasury staff to the Main Building. Hybrid: BEP’s revolving fund would pay for the renovation of one- third of the Main Building that would serve as BEP’s administrative office and a future visitors’ center. This step would leave the remaining two-thirds to be renovated to a “warm lit shell” to allow others to occupy the building. At this time, Treasury does not know what entity or account would pay for the renovation of the remaining two-thirds because, according to Treasury officials, they have not determined what the use of the balance of the Main Building would be, including what entity would fund any modifications needed for new occupants. If Treasury decided to use the Main Building for its own staff, then Treasury could fund the cost to convert to offices for other Treasury agencies. Under this scenario, there is both a cost to Treasury to renovate the space it plans to use as well as a savings in having Treasury staff vacate other leased space and move to a Treasury-controlled building. Potential costs and savings associated with Treasury’s Annex: The Annex could either remain for BEP’s administrative offices or could be declared excess and transferred to GSA for disposal. Renovation: BEP’s revolving fund would cover the cost of renovating the entire Annex as a “warm lit shell” and a more extensive renovation of the portion of the Annex that BEP would use first as temporary space for its currency printing equipment and then permanently for its administrative office. According to BEP officials, the Annex would be renovated to accommodate currency-printing lines that would be relocated from the Main Building in order for the Main Building to be renovated. Once the Main Building is renovated, the Annex would then be renovated to become administrative space for BEP. This process could be quite costly and take more time as the Annex would be renovated twice for different purposes. However, if the unused part of the Annex could be used by Treasury for other Treasury offices, there could be some cost savings to Treasury. According to BEP officials, while BEP would use its revolving fund to renovate the Annex to a “warm lit shell,” the agency that ultimately occupies the unused space would be responsible for the costs associated with repurposing that space for its own purposes. New build and Hybrid: BEP’s revolving fund would pay for any necessary environmental clean-up needed in order for the Annex to be declared as excess and transferred to GSA for disposal. GSA, as part of its mission, would incur costs such as marketing, conducting the disposition process, and concluding the property transfer. GSA’s disposal process can result in the building being transferred for use by another Federal agency, being sold to a local or state government via a negotiated sale, being conveyed to a public entity or eligible non- profit for public uses (e.g. homeless use), or being sold to a private party via a public sale. As the Annex is centrally located in Washington, D.C., the building could be attractive to potential developers. GSA recently sold another federal building near the Annex for over $30 million. GSA officials believe that there would be significant market interest in the Annex due to the Annex’s location and recent private development in the area. Treasury and GSA officials stated that proceeds from the sale of the Annex would be deposited into the Land and Water Conservation Fund to benefit the federal government. On the other hand, there is no guarantee that GSA would be able to sell the Annex: our previous work found that the most frequent method of disposal for federal buildings from fiscal years 2011 through 2015 was demolition (57 percent) rather than sale (14 percent). Federal buildings identified for disposal may not be suitable for sale for reasons such as their age, location, and condition, factors that often make demolition the preferred disposal method. The unique configuration of the Annex with its five wings, its age and condition, and historic-designation eligibility could deter some potential buyers. The future demand for the building, interest from private-sector buyers, and the general economic and real estate market are uncertain and can change quickly. If the Annex is not sold and remains on the government’s real property inventory, generally BEP or Treasury would be responsible for any annual maintenance costs for the building. Alternatively, the unsold Annex could be donated to a state or local government that would then be responsible for maintenance costs. Potential costs and savings associated with the leased warehouse: The warehouse is a GSA-leased property. Renovation: BEP would continue its annual leasing of the warehouse, which would still be needed to accommodate large trucks that cannot access the D.C. facility. The current lease costs approximately $3.4 million each year, and BEP recovers about $500,000 per year of these costs by permitting other Treasury components to use the building through interagency agreements. New build and Hybrid: If BEP discontinued its lease after a new facility is completed, it would save approximately $2.9 million per year. If BEP ended its lease prior to the end of the lease term, GSA would need to find another entity to occupy the warehouse for the remainder of the lease term. We provided copies of the draft report to the BEP, GSA, the Federal Reserve, and Treasury for review and comment. BEP coordinated with Treasury in providing comments. In these comments, reproduced in Appendix I, BEP emphasized the factors that led BEP to determine that a new facility is the preferred alternative for its currency production process and acknowledged our findings on those factors. BEP and the Federal Reserve also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. GSA did not provide comments. As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Director of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Chair of the Federal Reserve Board, and the Administrator of the General Services Administration. 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 about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or RectanusL@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 major contributions to this report are listed in appendix II. In addition to the individual named above, John W. Shumann (Assistant Director); Martha Chow (Analyst in Charge); Amy Abramowitz; Lacey Coppage; Delwen Jones; Jennifer Leotta; Josh Ormond; and Tomas Wind made key contributions to this report.

Summary: BEP, within Treasury, designs and produces U.S. currency notes at BEP's facilities in Washington, D.C., and Fort Worth, Texas. The Federal Reserve pays for BEP's operational expenses, including currency production. BEP is requesting legal authority to purchase land and construct a new production facility in the D.C. area. BEP officials told GAO that, if it does not receive the necessary legal authority for a new production facility, it will renovate the D.C. facility. GAO was asked to review BEP's facility planning process. This report: (1) describes the results of facility studies that BEP has funded and factors that led BEP to propose a new production facility, (2) examines the extent to which BEP's actions align with leading capital planning and cost estimating practices, and (3) describes other factors that could affect total federal costs of BEP's actions. GAO analyzed BEP documents and data from 2010-2017 on currency note production, visited both BEP production facilities, assessed BEP's actions against leading capital planning and cost estimating practices, and interviewed officials from BEP, GSA, the Federal Reserve, and Treasury. GAO provided the draft report to BEP, GSA, the Federal Reserve, and Treasury for review. BEP coordinated with Treasury in its comments. In the comments, reproduced in Appendix I, BEP emphasized the factors that led BEP to determine that a new facility is the preferred alternative. BEP and the Federal Reserve also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. GSA did not provide comments. The Bureau of Engraving and Printing's (BEP) studies and research determined that a new production facility would be less expensive and better address BEP's need for secure, efficient, and flexible currency production than a renovation of its Washington, D.C. facility. According to 2017 cost estimates, BEP's preferred option—a new production facility in the Washington, D.C., area and some renovated administrative space in its current D.C. facility—would cost approximately $1.4 billion, while a renovation of its current facility for both production and administrative functions would cost approximately $2.0 billion. A new facility similar to BEP's Texas facility could have a secure perimeter that meets federal building security standards. Such a perimeter is not possible with the current facility. A new facility could also house production on a single production floor to allow for a more efficient production process. BEP generally followed leading capital-planning practices, and its 2017 cost estimate of a new production facility partially met the characteristics of a reliable cost estimate. BEP's capital planning followed leading practices, for example, by including a needs assessment, a link to BEP's strategic plan, and a long-term capital plan. BEP's cost estimate partially followed leading practices, for example, by including most life-cycle cost components and documentation of the data used for the estimate. However, it did not include sufficient sensitivity analyses, which identify a range of costs-based on varying assumptions. BEP officials stated that they plan to follow the updated GSA guidance that includes GAO's cost-estimating leading practices when updating this early stage estimate. The ability to sell or repurpose any part of the current D.C. facility could affect the total federal costs of BEP's actions. According to officials from the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) and the General Services Administration (GSA), there could be savings if Treasury could consolidate staff or operations into the vacated facility. There could also be savings if the unneeded facility could be sold to a private buyer. However there would be costs to prepare the facility for use by other entities or if the unneeded facility does not sell. Agency officials said that it is too early to determine specific costs and savings.