Districts and Divisions Did Not Maintain Effective Internal Controls over REMIS Data

Real estate officials in districts and divisions did not maintain effective  internal controls over REMIS disposal data. Officials in two districts, including  one district that made about 300 disposals accounting for over 34,000  acres of land during fiscal years 1996 through 2006, told us that the same  person who recorded land disposal data in REMIS was also the one who  checked that the data matched the real estate documentation, such as  deeds, titles, and transfer forms. Although the Corps’ policy requires division officials to provide the  oversight necessary to ensure that their constituent districts recorded  reliable real property data, officials we contacted in all three divisions did  not perform activities that would ensure the reliability of REMIS disposal  data. REMIS Disposal Module Did Not Follow a Best Practice That Protects Against Duplication and Redundancy

The REMIS disposal module—a software application that captures  disposal dates and other disposal information—did not follow a software  engineering best practice, commonly referred to as data normalization. For example, RESNC officials queried REMIS for a  compilation of specific real property information, including data on  disposals, for all districts. However, the results RESNC officials obtained  differed from the results obtained separately by district officials, who later  called on RESNC officials to clarify the query RESNC used for retrieving  real property data in REMIS on their district. Land Disposal Dates Were Missing or Sometimes Did Not Represent When the Disposal Took Place

Land disposal dates in REMIS were unreliable, since the vast majority of  them were missing, and when disposal dates were present, they sometimes  represented the date when district real estate officials entered the land  disposal into REMIS rather than the date when the disposal took place. The Corps’ real estate managers at headquarters could not explain the  reason for the large numbers of disposals in fiscal years 2005 and 2006,  which account for about 54,000 acres of land. Under the President’s Real Property Asset Management Initiative,  landholding agencies are accountable for meeting key milestones and  performance outcomes. The 2004 guidance  emphasized that users should enter data into the RD-82 screen if the  disposal generated revenue, but it was unclear whether users should also  enter the data in this screen for other types of disposals, such as transfers  to other federal agencies. However, the guidance did not  clearly indicate which data entry screen—RD-70 or RD-82—completed the  process of recording a land disposal. When RESNC issued the 2007 guidance, it did not update the REMIS data  entry screens to match the guidance—that is, it did not identify the  required data fields using the standard indicators. In addition, RESNC officials  provided introductory training to 3 of 32 districts that use REMIS in 2006  and 2007. With limited instructors and funding,  RESNC plans to train the New England District and at least one other  district in 2008. At  these conferences, presenters discussed technical changes to REMIS and  the business processes that some attendees considered too advanced—- particularly those who had not received introductory training, including  real estate officials in two districts we contacted. Unreliable land disposal data impair  the usefulness of REMIS as a record of current inventory, as a valid tool  for measuring progress toward the administration’s disposal goal, and as a  source of data that would be useful to Corps decision makers for  budgeting and strategic land management purposes. Recommendations for Executive Action

To improve the reliability of REMIS land disposal data for determining  how much land the Corps currently owns and for budgeting and strategic  land management purposes, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense  direct the Commanding General and Chief of Engineers of the U.S. Army  Corps of Engineers to take the following five actions:  implement effective internal controls, including segregation of duties and  review, over the REMIS land disposal process by incorporating such  control into the Corps’ real estate policies at those districts and divisions  identified in this report and others, where appropriate; implement the data normalization best practice in the REMIS database  with respect to disposal dates;   correct the disposal records that were created in REMIS as part of the  efforts to adjust the inventory; issue clear guidance for entering land disposal dates in the REMIS land  disposal process; and    provide and require introductory and periodic refresher training that  covers how to correctly enter land disposal dates in REMIS. Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and Methodology

Our objective was to determine whether the U.S. Army Corps of  Engineers’ (Corps) real property database—Real Estate Management  Information System (REMIS)—could provide reliable information on the  civil works land that the Corps disposed of from fiscal year 1996 through  fiscal year 2006, or on the civil works land the Corps owned as of  September 30, 2006.
Why GAO Did This Study

Unreliable real property data has been a long-standing problem for federal landholding agencies. Under the President's real property initiative, agencies are being held accountable for, among other things, improving accuracy of their real property inventory and disposing of unneeded property. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the fourth largest landholding agency, uses the Real Estate Management Information System (REMIS) for recording its civil works inventory. GAO was asked to determine whether REMIS could provide reliable information on the Corps' civil works land disposals from fiscal years 1996 through 2006. GAO's work involved comparison analyses of REMIS disposal data and other Corps reported disposal data, reviews of Corps' real property policies and guidance, and interviews with Corps officials at headquarters, three divisions, four districts, and the Real Estate Systems National Center (RESNC), which manages REMIS.

What GAO Found

REMIS did not provide reliable information on the Corps' civil works land disposals from fiscal years 1996 through 2006, or on the land that the Corps owned as of September 30, 2006. Unreliable land disposal data impair the usefulness of REMIS as a record of current inventory and as a source of data that would be useful for budgeting purposes and the strategic management of landholdings. The following contributed to problems with data reliability: The Corps did not maintain internal controls over REMIS disposal data. Corps policy held district real estate officials accountable for the reliability of REMIS data, but in two of four districts GAO contacted the individual recording land disposal data was also checking the data against documentation such as titles and transfer forms. Dividing data entry and data checking responsibilities is an essential internal control activity. Corps policy also required division real estate staff to ensure the reliability of REMIS data recorded by their constituent districts, but the three divisions GAO contacted did not review REMIS disposal data. The design of the REMIS disposal module, a software application that captures disposal data that users enter, did not follow a best practice, commonly referred to as data normalization. Data normalization organizes data according to rules designed to minimize duplication and redundancies. By not following this best practice, users querying REMIS faced the problem of retrieving inconsistent data. For example, when RESNC officials queried REMIS for specific real property information by district, RESNC officials obtained results that differed from those obtained by district officials. Land disposal dates in REMIS were missing or sometimes represented the date when district real estate officials entered the land disposal rather than when the disposal occurred. The vast majority, or about 89 percent, of all disposal records within REMIS did not have disposal dates. When the records contained dates, large numbers of disposals (accounting for about 54,000 acres) in fiscal years 2005 and 2006 had occurred as early as 1955. Guidance for processing land disposals in REMIS was unclear. For example, guidance issued in 2004 did not indicate whether some types of disposals, such as transfers to other federal agencies, required a disposal date. New disposal guidance issued in 2007 was also unclear because RESNC, which revised the guidance, did not revise the data entry screens in REMIS. As a result, the guidance and the data entry screens were inconsistent. While the guidance called for entering a disposal date, the REMIS data entry screens did not clearly indicate whether or where users should enter the date. RESNC provided limited REMIS training; 3 of 32 districts that use REMIS received introductory training in 2006 and 2007. RESNC plans to train the New England District and at least one other district in 2008. RESNC also sponsored conferences to update systems administrators and other users on key changes to REMIS, but conference presenters discussed aspects of REMIS that some attendees, including real estate officials from 2 of the districts GAO contacted, considered too advanced--especially for those who had never received introductory training.