As a consequence of shifting space needs, federal agencies hold thousands of properties—particularly buildings—that they no longer need. Agencies are required to dispose of unneeded space and have a range of options for disposal, including transfer to another federal agency, demolition, sale, and conveyance to a state or local government or qualified nonprofit. GAO reports have consistently noted that efforts to dispose of unneeded and underutilized properties are hindered by statutory disposal requirements, the cost of preparing properties for disposal, conflicts with stakeholders, and a lack of accurate real property data. Identifying Unneeded Space

Agencies are required to continuously survey property under their control to identify any property that they no longer need to carry out their missions—excess property—and to "promptly" report that property as excess to the General Services Administration (GSA). Statutes pertaining to environmental remediation or historic preservation also add time to the process. Real Property Management and Oversight

In addition to the obstacles mentioned above, data about agency real property portfolios—which might be useful for congressional oversight—appear to be potentially inaccurate, and some government-wide data are accessible only to GSA. The quality of the FRPP data has also been questioned. Another GAO report reexamined weaknesses in FRPP data collection practices, noting that key data elements—such as buildings' maintenance needs and utilization rates—are not consistently and accurately captured in the database. Overreliance on Leasing

The government's ongoing "overreliance on costly leased space" is one of the primary reasons federal real property continues to be designated as a "high risk" issue by GAO. According to GAO, leasing space is typically more expensive than owning space over the same time period. The Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act of 2016 (FASTA, P.L. 114-287 ), by contrast, requires a more centralized process, whereby disposal decisions will be based on the recommendations of a newly created board rather than individual agencies. FASTA specifies nine principles that must be taken into account when establishing the criteria:
1. the extent to which a property could be sold, redeveloped, or outleased in a manner that would produce the best value; 2. the extent to which the operating and maintenance costs would be reduced through the consolidation, colocation, and reconfiguration of space; 3. the extent to which a property aligns with the current mission of the agency; 4. the extent to which the utilization rate is being maximized and is consistent with nongovernment standards; 5. the potential costs and savings over time; 6. the extent to which leasing long-term space would be reduced; 7. the extent to which there are opportunities to consolidate similar operations across or within agencies; 8. the economic impact on existing communities in the vicinity of the property; and 9. the extent to which energy consumption specifically would be reduced. A third perspective is added by the Public Buildings Reform Board, an independent body whose members may have expertise different than that of executive branch employees involved in developing the list of recommendations. If the OMB Director's philosophy emphasizes certain methods of disposition over others, for example, and a majority of the board favors a different approach, then that disagreement could potentially result in the OMB Director rejecting some of the board's recommendations and terminating the FASTA disposal process for a given year. The OMB Director works with GSA to develop an initial list of recommendations to the board and has the authority to approve or disapprove of the board's recommendations. At no time is Congress able to vote on any recommendations under FASTA. These exemptions may not necessarily result in fewer properties being conveyed to state and local governments and nonprofits. Disposal Costs

Federal agencies have argued that they are unable to dispose of many of their unneeded properties because they lack sufficient funding. It is not clear how these properties will be identified. Real Property Data

FASTA requires GSA to establish a publicly accessible real property database that may enhance oversight and policymaking. Given that repair needs are an obstacle to disposing of some properties, Congress may find it useful to have agency repair estimates reported for each building to help inform funding decisions. Concluding Observations

FASTA primarily addresses the disposal of unneeded properties, but its objectives include reducing the government's reliance on leased space.
Real property disposal is the process by which federal agencies identify and then transfer, donate, or sell real property they no longer need. Disposition is an important asset management function because the costs of maintaining unneeded properties can be substantial. Moreover, properties the government no longer needs may be used by state or local governments, nonprofits, or businesses to provide benefits to the public. Finally, the government loses potential revenue when it holds onto certain unneeded properties that might be sold for a profit.
Despite these drawbacks, federal agencies hold thousands of unneeded and underutilized properties. Agencies have argued that they are unable to dispose of these properties for several reasons. First, there are statutorily prescribed steps in the disposal process that can take months to complete. Second, properties may not be appealing to potential buyers or lessees if they require major repairs or environmental remediation—steps for which agencies lack funding to complete before bringing a property to market. Third, key stakeholders in the disposal process—including local governments, nonprofit organizations, and businesses—are often at odds over how to dispose of properties.
In addition, Congress may be limited in its capacity to conduct oversight of the disposal process because it currently lacks access to reliable, comprehensive real property data. The General Services Administration (GSA) maintains a database with information on most federal buildings, but those data are provided to Congress on a limited basis. Moreover, the quality of the information in the database has been questioned, in part because of inconsistent reporting of key data elements, such as how much space within a given building is unneeded. The lack of data may also hinder congressional oversight on the extent to which agencies enter into leases rather than purchase space. Leasing space is typically more expensive than owning, and the government's "overreliance on costly leased space" is one of the primary reasons federal real property is designated as a "high risk" issue by the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
The Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act of 2016 (P.L. 114-287) established a new, centralized process for disposing of unneeded space. Under FASTA, agencies are required to develop a list of disposal recommendations, which could include the sale, transfer, conveyance, consolidation, or outlease of any unneeded space, among other options. These recommendations are then to be submitted to the GSA Administrator and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and revision. The revised list of recommendations is then vetted by a newly established Public Buildings Reform Board, and returned to the OMB Director for final approval or disapproval.
FASTA may address some of the obstacles agencies face when disposing of unneeded space. Properties on the recommendation list are exempt from certain statutory requirements, such as screening for public benefit, and FASTA provides funding for agencies to implement the board's recommendations. The use of a board to make disposal decisions may also reduce the impact of stakeholder conflict. In addition, FASTA requires GSA to create a public database with information that may enhance congressional oversight.
There may be drawbacks to FASTA. The law does not provide Congress with an opportunity to vote for or against the list of recommendations, nor is Congress directly involved in the creation of the list. It is possible that philosophical differences between the board and the OMB Director could lead to an impasse that would effectively shut down the FASTA disposal process. The required database may not include some information that could be useful to Congress, such as the repair needs and condition of each building.