	GSA Has Largely Met Its Lead-Agency Responsibilities and Has Begun Implementing the Act for Its Own Employees

		GSA Has Completed Most of Its Requirements for Government-wide Implementation and Is Drafting an Interagency Framework for Collaboration

GSA has identified the core competencies—knowledge, skills, and  abilities—and related training to meet the government-wide requirements  of the Act for federal and contract employees and has begun  implementing the requirements for its own personnel but has not yet  finalized compliance methods for contractors. In 2011, GSA began  working to create an approach for federal buildings personnel to use to  satisfy the Act’s requirements by demonstrating proficiency in the core  competencies. Selected Agencies Have Taken Some Action, but Overall Response to the Act Has Been Limited

Of the five agencies we reviewed—two, the Departments of Defense  (DOD) and Energy (DOE)—have taken some actions to respond to the  Act while three—the Departments of Justice (DOJ), the Interior (DOI), and  Veterans Affairs (VA)—have not yet determined how to respond. As a result, at this  time little is known about the numbers of federal and contractor  employees covered by the Act at these agencies or the status of their  compliance with the Act. Various Factors Have Contributed to Limited Implementation of the Act

We found that the pace of implementation has been limited by four factors  that make federal buildings personnel compliance with the Act’s  requirements essentially voluntary. Because the Act does not give any agency the authority  to enforce compliance of the Act government-wide, GSA sees its role  as advisory. For example, an official from GSA’s Office of  Government-wide Policy said that while GSA shares its internal  guidance and procedures informally with other agencies, GSA is not  authorized to issue official government-wide guidance on  implementation. We asked officials from the  Office of Personnel Management (OPM) why the agency has not  been involved in implementing the Act, and were given two reasons:  (1) the Act did not direct OPM to do so and (2) GSA did not request  OPM’s implementation assistance for any changes that would affect  policies administered under OPM’s authorities, such as the  management of government-wide position classifications. Agencies are not required to report progress. Agencies report having limited training and implementation  funds. However, according to federal internal control  standards, the management of an agency’s human capital is essential  to achieving results and is an important part of internal control. No interagency group has been created to ensure consistent  implementation of the Act across the government, a situation that has  resulted in a lack of coordinated implementation policy and guidance. We have  previously found that agencies can benefit from considering  government-wide reforms when planning their training and  development programs. Our  past work found that interagency groups are mechanisms that can be  used to develop policy, guide program implementation, and conduct  oversight and monitoring. GSA has taken steps to create such a  group, but this process is still in the development stage. Recommendation for Executive Action

We recommend that the Administrator of the General Services  Administration develop a legislative proposal to enhance accountability  for government-wide implementation of the Act. GSA should consider  including the following in its proposal: establishing authorities for a single agency to monitor and enforce  implementation of the Act; establishing agency responsibilities for reporting progress on  implementation of the Act; establishing agency responsibilities for assessing employee skill  levels related to the Act and identifying training that allows employees  to develop and retain skills required by the Act; and establishing an interagency group to further government-wide  collaboration on implementation of the Act. GSA stated it agreed with the report’s findings and that it  would work with the appropriate agencies to address these findings (see  app. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Our objective was to review the status of the implementation of the  Federal Buildings Personnel Training Act of 2010 (the Act). 3. To determine the progress GSA has made in responding to the provisions  of the Act, we reviewed the Act, congressional committee and  Congressional Budget Office reports, and GSA’s web sites and  documents—including GSA’s required annual update of its core  competencies and recommended curriculum, its www.fmi.gov web site,  and a report on the implementation of the Act by GSA’s Public Buildings  Service. Together with GSA, the agencies we selected occupy about  90 percent of federal real property gross square footage, according to the  2014 Federal Real Property Profile.
Why GAO Did This Study

The federal government's management of its real property holdings costs billions of dollars and has been on GAO's High Risk List since 2003. Some agencies lack the staff expertise needed to oversee building management activities. GAO was asked to report on the status of the implementation of the Act, which directed GSA to, among other things, consult with the training industry to identify core competencies for federal buildings personnel and required these personnel to demonstrate proficiency in these competencies.
This report examines (1) the progress GSA has made in implementing the Act's requirements, (2) the actions selected agencies have taken to respond to the Act, and (3) the factors that have affected implementation of the Act. To conduct this study, GAO reviewed the Act and agency documentation and studies. GAO also interviewed officials from GSA as well as DOD, DOE, DOI, DOJ, and VA. Together with GSA, the agencies GAO interviewed occupy about 90 percent of federal real property gross square footage.

What GAO Found

The General Services Administration (GSA) has largely met its lead-agency responsibilities for implementing the Federal Buildings Personnel Training Act of 2010 (the Act) government-wide. For example, it has identified core competencies and a recommended curriculum for federal buildings personnel. While not required by the Act, GSA has also drafted a charter for an interagency advisory board to help coordinate government-wide implementation and has developed software tools to assist agencies with compliance efforts. GSA is in the process of implementing the requirements for its own employees. GSA has identified affected personnel, directed them to inventory their qualifications, and assessed their skills. GSA must still align job descriptions and performance reviews with the Act's requirements and implement contractor compliance efforts.
Of the five selected agencies GAO reviewed, the Departments of Defense (DOD) and Energy (DOE) have taken some actions to respond to the Act, while the Departments of Justice (DOJ), Interior (DOI), and Veterans Affairs (VA) have not yet determined how to respond. For example, DOD is conducting a pilot program through its Defense Health Agency to align five positions with the core competency model GSA developed, while DOI's National Park Service has only discussed potential responses to the Act. As a result, little is known about the numbers of federal and contractor employees at these agencies covered by the Act or the status of their compliance with the Act.
The pace of implementation of the Act has been limited by at least four factors that make compliance essentially voluntary. First, the Act does not provide any agency with the authority to enforce compliance government-wide. According to GSA, it is not authorized to issue official government-wide guidance on implementation, and it has come to see its role as advisory. In addition, the Act does not provide an implementation role for the Office of Personnel Management, the agency generally responsible for government-wide personnel related issues. Second, agencies are not required to report the status of their employees' compliance with the Act, a circumstance that leaves agencies with little incentive to determine how many employees are affected or complying. Third, the Act did not provide funding for additional training, and according to agency officials, many other priorities compete for limited training resources. Fourth, no interagency group has been established that ensures consistent implementation of the Act government-wide. This gap has resulted in a lack of coordinated implementation policy and guidance. While GSA has taken steps to create such a group, this process is still in the development stage. Federal internal control standards emphasize that establishing good human capital policies and practices, including ensuring that personnel are properly trained, is critical for achieving results and improving organizational accountability. These standards also call for assessing the quality of performance over time. Such an assessment would include monitoring training practices. Further, prior GAO work has found that agencies can benefit from considering government-wide reforms when planning training programs and that the coordinated efforts of several agencies through interagency groups can help develop policy, guide program implementation, and conduct oversight and monitoring.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that GSA develop a legislative proposal to establish agency authorities and reporting responsibilities—as well as an interagency group—to enhance accountability for implementation of the Act. GSA stated that it agreed with the report's findings and would work with the appropriate agencies to address them.