Agency officials in the GSA regional and field offices also said that they had experienced more frequent and serious performance problems with contracted maintenance activities than with other types of activities. In general, the case files for the sample activities we reviewed provided evidence that GSA made efforts to oversee those activities and take appropriate corrective action when necessary. Thirty-nine of the sample activities (about 72 percent) continued to be delivered by the sector originally selected by the agency. No Clear Assessment of Whether GSA Realized Expected Savings

While GSA’s original decisions appeared to be sound, we could not conclusively demonstrate that they generated the estimated level of savings or improved the cost-effectiveness of GSA’s services. Private Sector Approaches Emphasized Use of Performance Measures and Benchmarking

To support its reinvention efforts, GSA collected information on private sector practices. This information indicated that real estate organizations commonly used performance measurement to evaluate their activities and to decide whether to contract out. Benchmarking and performance measures also assisted organizations in deciding which services to retain in-house or contract out. Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The objectives of this assignment were to review (1) the cost-effectiveness and performance of both in-house and contracted real property management services in GSA to determine whether its contracting decisions were sound and (2) evaluation approaches used by private sector real property management organizations to determine whether any practices could improve the oversight and evaluation of the effectiveness of GSA’s real property management services. The activity was contracted out (May 1993).
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed: (1) the cost-effectiveness and performance of the General Services Administration's (GSA) real property management services to determine whether GSA contracting decisions were sound; and (2) private sector real property management approaches to determine whether GSA management services could be improved.

What GAO Found

GAO found that: (1) cost, performance, and historical data showed that GSA decisions to retain property management services in-house or contract them out were sound; (2) in general, GSA retained and contracted-out activities at lower actual costs than estimated; (3) GSA continued to use the sector originally selected for about 72 percent of the sampled activities, since only 11 of the 54 activities had serious performance problems; (4) GSA experienced more frequent and serious performance problems with contracted maintenance activities than with other types of activities; (5) GSA oversight of the activities was generally sound and GSA took appropriate corrective actions when necessary; (6) although GSA contracting decisions appeared to be sound, GAO could not conclusively demonstrate that the selected alternatives generated the expected savings estimated; (7) private sector real estate management organizations commonly use such practices as performance measurement and benchmarking to manage and evaluate their operations and to decide whether to contract out certain services; (8) GSA could improve its oversight and evaluation of its services by adopting key private sector performance measures; and (9) GSA is still developing the specific performance measurements it will use after its reorganization.