DOD’s Real Property Management Program is governed by statute and DOD regulations, directives, and instructions that establish real property accountability and financial reporting requirements. These laws, regulations, directives, and instructions require DOD and the military departments to maintain a number of data elements about their facilities to help ensure efficient property management which, among other things, could help identify potential facility consolidation opportunities. Logistics and the Secretaries of the military departments. Specifically, the directive assigns overall responsibility and oversight of DOD real property to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, but assigns specific responsibilities for real property management to the Secretaries of the three military departments, including implementing policies and programs to acquire, manage, and dispose of real property. Accordingly, each of the military departments has developed its own procedures and guidance for managing its infrastructure. Some of the key guidance used by the military departments for managing real property includes Army Regulation 405-70; Naval Facilities Engineering Command P-78; and Air Force Policy Directive 32- 10. Military department guidance requires, among other things, that real property records be accurate and be managed efficiently and economically. It also requires the military departments to maintain a complete and accurate real property inventory with up-to-date information, to annually certify that the real property inventory has been reconciled, and to ensure that all real property holdings under the military departments’ control are being used to the maximum extent possible consistent with both peacetime and mobilization requirements. In managing the real property under their control, the Secretaries of the military departments are responsible for implementing real property policies and programs to, among other things, hold or make plans to obtain the land and facilities they need for their own missions and for other DOD components’ missions that are supported by the military departments’ real property. Additionally, the military departments are required to (1) budget for and financially manage so as to meet their own real property requirements; (2) establish and maintain accurate inventory to account for their land and facilities; and (3) maintain a program monitoring the use of real property to ensure that all holdings under their control are being used to the maximum extent possible consistent with both peacetime and mobilization requirements. Generally, the military departments rely on the installations to manage and monitor the utilization of facilities. According to OSD guidance, installations are required to conduct inventories for each real property asset every 5 years except for those real property assets designated as historic, which are to be reviewed and physically inventoried every 3 years. According to DOD Instruction 4165.70, the military departments’ real property administrators are accountable for maintaining a current inventory count of the military departments’ facilities and up-to-date information regarding, among other things, the status, condition, utilization, present value, and remaining useful life of each real property asset. Inventory counts and associated information should be current as of the last day of each fiscal year. In addition, DOD Instruction 4165.70 requires the DOD components to periodically review their real property holdings, both land and facilities, to identify unneeded and underutilized property. Underutilized property represents assets that are needed to meet current or projected defense requirements, but are not currently utilized to the maximum extent possible. Such assets can be considered for temporary use by other DOD entities, other federal agencies, state and local governments, or private entities which is also referred to as outgranting. DOD guidance establishes the types of agreements that are used to document the support that military installations provide to their tenants. See 40 U.S.C. § 102 (3) and Department of Defense Directive 4165.06, Real Property. external factors that may affect future disposal efforts. DOD concurred with this recommendation and stated that it would work with the military departments to continue to develop and implement the most effective and efficient methods to eliminate excess facilities and capacity, but did not provide any details or specific time frames for these efforts. GSA has key leadership responsibilities related to real property management for the federal government. First, GSA is authorized by law to acquire, manage, utilize, and dispose of real property for most federal agencies, a function that is commonly referred to as the landlord role. This function is performed by GSA’s Public Buildings Service; GSA has an inventory of about 9,000 government-owned or government-leased facilities. GSA is responsible for managing the life cycle of federally owned assets, including eventually disposing of such properties and entering into, renewing, and terminating contracts for leased properties. Second, in a government-wide policy role, GSA sets real property management policy for the federal government as a whole. GSA’s Office of Government-wide Policy is tasked, among other things, to identify, evaluate, and promote best practices to improve efficiency of management processes. In this policy role, GSA also supports the Federal Real Property Council by providing oversight guidance, publishing performance measures, and maintaining the Federal Real Property Profile (FRPP) database. Additionally, the Freeze the Footprint policy assigns GSA leadership responsibilities, directing GSA to consult with other agencies on promoting full implementation of the policy, including how to use technology and space management to consolidate, increase occupancy rates in facilities, and eliminate lease arrangements that are not cost or space effective. DOD and military department guidance identify the real estate instruments used to issue outgrants, and—depending on the type of non- DOD tenant and type of facility occupied—the appropriate instances in which to use each real estate instrument. The military installations can use a variety of real estate instruments to issue outgrants. Leases grant a nonfederal entity exclusive possession of real property for a specified term in return for rent or other consideration. For example, an installation may grant a lease for a credit union to build a branch office. Enhanced Use Leases (EUL) refer to more complex leases into which the military departments may enter. EULs generally provide for in-kind consideration, and some EULs involve complex agreements and long terms. For example, an EUL might provide for a 50-year lease of military land to a private developer that would be expected to construct office or other commercial buildings on the land and then rent the facilities to private-sector tenants for profit. Consideration refers to cash or in-kind payment by the lessee in exchange for the lease. In the context of DOD’s general leasing authority, payment in kind may take the form of maintenance, protection, alteration, improvement, or restoration of property or facilities, among other things. Licenses grant any entity the use of space at an installation for a specific purpose generally in return for rent or other in-kind consideration. For example, an installation may grant a license to a YMCA program for carrying out activities for youths. Permits are licenses granted to non-DOD federal agencies generally in return for reimbursement of direct and indirect costs, as required by DOD guidance. Examples of direct and indirect reimbursement for costs include utilities, maintenance, and other services. Easements grant any entity a right to use or pass over parcels of land in specific ways; for example, to install and run utility lines across an installation, or to build roads, streets, or railroad tracks. Officials at all seven of the installations that we visited reported selecting the appropriate real estate instrument based on the type of non-DOD entity occupying space at the installation, the type of facility, and the proposed use of the asset. The type of entity can include federal agencies other than DOD, state and local governments, and nongovernmental and private organizations, while the type of facility can include buildings, structures, and linear structures. Table 1 below illustrates the relationship that exists among the type of non-DOD entity, the type of real estate instrument, and the type of real property asset. All seven of the installations we visited had established outgrants with at least one non-DOD federal agency as well as with other DOD entities, state and local governments, and private organizations to varying degrees. For example, these installations had established leases with public school districts, credit unions, and nonprofit organizations and had easements with local utility companies and state transportation agencies. None of the installations we visited had any EULs in place with nonfederal entities. DOD and military department guidance also outline several types of support agreements that installations can use to document specific provisions of their agreements with tenant organizations. The support agreements used at the installations that we visited include the following: DD Form 1144: This form is used in instances where there is a need to document recurring reimbursable support that an installation provides to a federal agency, such as utilities, refuse disposal, and other services. Memorandums of Understanding: These document areas of general understanding that do not involve reimbursement, such as expiration dates and procedures to mediate disputes. Memorandums of Agreement: These document specific terms and responsibilities for a single reimbursable purchase, nonrecurring reimbursable support, or nonreimbursable support, and include financial provisions, such as billing and payment terms. While DOD and military service guidance provide the tools for installations to issue several types of outgrants, officials must first determine the viability and desirability of bringing a tenant onto the base. Prior to granting the use of space to a non-DOD entity, officials at the installations we visited reported considering several factors. These factors generally fit into three categories: (1) general factors, (2) mission-related factors, and (3) local factors. General factors include considerations related to the availability of space, mission-related factors take into account the effect that a proposed tenant would have on the ability of the installation to perform its mission, and local factors include unique circumstances that exist on a particular installation.