As of April 30, 2010, GSA had obligated just over $4.0 billion. According to GSA officials, GSA remains on track to achieve its overall  Recovery Act obligation deadlines. GSA Makes Overall Information on Its Recovery Act Program Publicly Available but Has Not Provided Key Information about Its Projects to the Public

While GSA has provided information on the goals of its Recovery Act  program, the projects selected to receive Recovery Act funding, and its  own progress in obligating and expending Recovery Act funding, it has not  included details on the nature of the work being conducted on individual  projects or clearly identified or explained why it has added or removed  projects from its program in GSA’s project plan revisions. GSA Recovery Act Projects Are Likely to Vary Greatly in the Extent of Their Energy and Water Conservation Improvements

According to GSA officials, all buildings receiving Recovery Act funds are  expected to move toward becoming high-performance green buildings. To obtain more complete and reliable data, GSA is rolling out a new  centralized system for collecting data on Recovery Act projects’ energy  and water conservation performance. Similarly, an agency may need to hire additional staff in order to  respond to an emergency, which would unexpectedly increase energy use. GSA Identifies Risks to Its Program and Risk Mitigation Strategies, but Some Project-Level Risk Plans Are Not Complete

GSA has identified risks to its Recovery Act program and risk mitigation  strategies. GSA’s approach to risk management is generally consistent  with best practices we have developed. Although GSA has developed a systematic process for identifying and  planning for risks for its Recovery Act program, GSA officials said that to  address project-level risks, such as those we have previously discussed,  they rely on informal communication between headquarters and project  management staff in the regions. During our review, we found that 9 of  our 12 case study projects had not fully completed the required risk  planning documents. While GSA has made  progress in moving buildings modernized under the Recovery Act toward  high-performance green buildings, by not including criteria for reducing  transportation’s energy and environmental impacts for Recovery Act  projects, GSA’s minimum performance criteria for projects are not in  alignment with the definition of a high-performance green building called  for by the Recovery Act. To reduce the environmental and energy impacts of transportation  through site designs that support a full range of transportation choices for  users of buildings, revise the MPC to require that project managers  consider transportation-related improvements for Recovery Act projects,  as appropriate. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are  listed in appendix V.

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

To examine the steps the General Services Administration (GSA) has  taken to implement the program and make its Recovery Act projects  transparent to the public, we collected publicly available supporting  documentation, including GSA’s Recovery Act program plans, spending  plans, weekly financial activity reports, and recipient reported data on the  number of jobs created or retained and funded. To determine the extent to which GSA’s Recovery Act projects will help  the agency convert buildings to high-performance green buildings and  meet federal energy and water conservation requirements and goals from  statutes and executive orders, we compared GSA’s minimum performance  criteria with the elements of a high-performance green building as set  forth in the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007. To determine the extent to which GSA has taken steps to identify potential  risks to its Recovery Act program and and developed strategies to mitigate  those risks, we reviewed supporting documentation, including GSA’s risk  management plan, risk mitigation plan, assessments of identified risks and  mitigation strategies, and GSA’s project management guide for the Public  Buildings Service.
Why GAO Did This Study

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) provided the General Services Administration (GSA) with $5.55 billion to invest in federal buildings and promote economic recovery. This funding includes $4.5 billion to convert buildings to high-performance green buildings (HPGB), which seek to reduce energy and water use, among other goals. GAO was asked to address the (1) steps GSA has taken to implement the program and make its Recovery Act projects transparent to the public, (2) extent to which GSA's Recovery Act projects are helping the agency convert buildings to HPGB and addressing federal energy and water conservation requirements and goals, and (3) extent to which GSA has identified potential risks to its Recovery Act program and developed strategies to mitigate those risks. GAO reviewed GSA documents and relevant laws and executive orders, and interviewed GSA officials at headquarters and staff for 12 projects, which varied in type, size, and location.

What GAO Found

GSA has put an organizational structure in place to implement its Recovery Act program and, as of April 30, 2010, had obligated just over $4 billion of its $5.55 billion appropriation, and is on track to meet the act's obligation deadlines. GSA also has published information on its Recovery Act program, such as agencywide plans for spending funds and lists of projects, but this information does not identify the nature of the work being conducted or describe the 263 projects GSA has selected for Recovery Act funding. Without this information, the program is less than fully transparent--a key GSA Recovery Act goal--because the public cannot readily discern what individual projects entail or are expected to achieve with Recovery Act funding. GSA's Recovery Act projects will enhance energy and water conservation performance in the 263 projects to varying degrees. GSA has begun collecting the data it would need to measure the likely extent of improvement. GSA set minimum performance criteria for its projects, which include reducing energy use by 30 percent. The criteria do not, however, include reducing the energy and environmental impacts of transportation through building location and site design, although this is part of the statutory definition of a HPGB. Under the Recovery Act, GSA is to use this definition when converting existing buildings. According to GSA, some managers are designing transportation-related improvements into their projects. However, because it is not part of GSA's criteria, other managers may not be systematically considering such improvements. According to GSA, the agency has begun to roll out a new centralized data system to collect and report on specific information for Recovery Act projects' green improvements and performance. GSA has identified risks to its Recovery Act program, such as the risk that Recovery Act reporting is inaccurate or incomplete, and risk mitigation strategies. In addition, GSA's approach to risk management is generally consistent with best practices we have developed. However, GSA relies on informal communication to identify project-level risks and has not taken steps to ensure the completion of project-level risk planning documents required by GSA. GAO found that the required documents, which are intended to help plan for project-level risks, had not been fully completed for 9 of the 12 projects reviewed. Unidentified risks to GSA's Recovery Act projects could potentially limit GSA's ability to achieve Recovery Act goals.