	Unreliable Data Create Challenges for Managing Excess and Underutilized Property

Federal excess and underutilized property is an ongoing challenge facing  the government due in part to unreliable data. In June 2012, we found  that the FRPC did not ensure that key data elements—including buildings’  utilization, condition, annual operating costs, mission dependency, and  value—were defined and reported consistently and accurately. For  example, the FRPP data did not accurately describe the properties at 23  of the 26 locations we visited, often overstating the condition and annual  operating costs of buildings. 1). In our June 2012 report, we recommended that OMB, in consultation with  the FRPC, develop a national strategy for managing federal excess and  underutilized real property. We view such a strategy as a key step  needed to improve the federal government’s management of its real  property portfolio. Additionally, FRPP is not yet a useful tool for describing  the nature, use, and extent of excess and underutilized federal real  property. GSA developed an action plan for implementing GAO’s recommendations  and was scheduled to complete these changes by June 2013. We are in  the process of determining whether these actions improve FRPP  consistency and reliability. We plan to report our results as part of our  2015 high risk update. In January 2014, we found that incorrect and inconsistent  data on structures limit the value of the government-wide FRPP data the  government collects. We also  recommended that GSA, in coordination with the FRPC, clarify the  definition of structures and assess the feasibility of limiting the data  collected on structures submitted to the FRPP. OMB and GSA agreed  with the recommendations, and GSA provided an action plan in  December 2013 to implement them, but no timeframe was provided for  when the proposed actions would be completed. Agencies Do Not Apply Standard Definitions for Deferred Maintenance and Repair Needs

In a 2014 report, we found that civilian agencies followed most leading  practices in managing their facility maintenance and repair backlogs,  except for transparent reporting about the funding amounts agencies are  spending to maintain their assets and manage their backlogs. In addition, financial reporting requirements as well as  FRPP reporting guidance do not require a specific process for  determining deferred maintenance and repair backlogs, and agencies can  use their existing processes to do so. We recommended that OMB, in collaboration with agencies, collect and  report information on agencies’ costs for annual maintenance and repair  performed and funding spent to manage their existing backlogs. OMB  agreed with our recommendation, and along with FRPC, has taken  actions to improve management of deferred maintenance, including  working to refine FRPP data and develop performance measures that  reflect current federal real-property management priorities, but OMB has  not yet fully implemented our recommendation. GAO’s October 2013 review of the six selected agencies found several  problems that affected the reliability and transparency of the cost savings  data that the government reported in response to the June 2010  memorandum. For example, OMB did not require agencies to provide  detailed documentation of their reported savings or include specific  information about agencies’ reported savings on Performance.gov,  limiting transparency. Furthermore the memorandum and subsequent  guidance issued by OMB were not clear on the types of savings that  could be reported, particularly because the term “cost savings” was not  clearly defined. Agency officials stated that the memorandum broadened their  understanding of real property cost-savings opportunities. As such, we recommended that OMB establish clear and specific  standards to help ensure reliability and transparency in the reporting of  future real-property cost savings. We are in the process of determining the extent to  which OMB has implemented the recommendation and plan to report our  final results as part of our 2015 high risk update. Sustained progress is needed to address the conditions and persistent  challenges that make the area of federal real property management high  risk.
Why GAO Did This Study

The federal real property portfolio, comprising approximately 900,000 buildings and structures and worth billions of dollars, presents several key management challenges. GAO has designated federal real property management as a high risk issue since 2003 due to long-standing challenges including unreliable data on this property, excess and underutilized property, over-reliance on leasing, and challenges with security. Since then, the federal government has given high-level attention to reforming real property management and has made some progress. It established the FRPC, chaired by OMB, in 2004. The FRPC created the FRPP, which is intended to be a comprehensive database developed for describing the nature, use, and extent of all real property under the custody and control of executive branch agencies. The FRPP is managed by GSA and began collecting data in 2005. GAO's recent work has found, however, that data problems related to federal real property have continued.
This statement discusses data guidance and reliability issues GAO has found regarding federal civilian agencies' data on: (1) excess and underutilized property, (2) structures, (3) maintenance backlogs, and (4) cost saving estimates. It is based on previous GAO reports on federal real property issued from June 2012 through January 2014 and some updates on the status of recommendations made in those reports. To obtain these updates, GAO monitored agency actions taken and performed follow-up with agency officials.

What GAO Found

GAO found in 2012 that government-wide real property data were not sufficiently reliable to support sound management and decision making about excess and underutilized property. The Federal Real Property Council (FRPC) had not ensured that key data elements of the Federal Real Property Profile (FRPP) were defined and reported consistently and accurately. For example, FRPP data did not accurately describe the properties at 23 of the 26 locations GAO visited, often overstating the condition and annual operating costs of buildings. GAO recommended that the General Services Administration (GSA), in consultation with FRPC, develop a plan to improve the FRPP. Consequently, GSA developed an action plan and was scheduled to complete these changes by June 2013. GAO is determining whether these actions improve FRPP consistency and reliability and plans to report the results as part of GAO's 2015 high risk update.
In 2014, GAO found that incorrect and inconsistent data on federal structures such as roads, bridges, railroads, and utility systems, limited the value of the government-wide FRPP data. For example, agencies GAO reviewed defined structures differently leading to inconsistencies. GAO recommended that GSA, in coordination with FRPC, clarify the definition of structures and assess the feasibility of limiting the data on structures submitted to the FRPP. GSA provided an action plan in December 2013 to implement GAO's recommendations, but no timeframe was provided for when the proposed actions would be completed.
In a 2014 report, GAO found that civilian agencies followed most leading practices in managing their facility maintenance and repair backlogs, except for transparent reporting about the funding amounts agencies are spending to maintain their assets and manage their backlogs. Different agency financial reporting requirements as well as FRPP reporting guidance did not require a specific process for determining deferred maintenance and repair backlogs, and agencies could use their existing processes. Thus, GAO recommended that OMB, in collaboration with agencies, collect and report information on agencies' costs for annual maintenance and repair performed and funding spent to manage their existing backlogs. OMB and FRPC agencies have taken actions to improve management of deferred maintenance, including working to refine FRPP data, but have not yet fully implemented GAO's recommendation.
In a 2013 review of selected agencies' reporting of real property cost savings data, GAO identified several challenges that reduced the reliability and transparency of the data the government reported. For example, OMB did not require agencies to provide detailed documentation of their reported savings or include specific information about agencies' reported savings on Performance.gov, limiting transparency. Furthermore, guidance issued by OMB was not clear on the types of savings that could be reported, particularly because the term "cost savings" was not clearly defined. GAO recommended that OMB establish clear and specific standards to help ensure reliability and transparency in the reporting of future real-property cost savings. OMB generally agreed with the recommendation. GAO is determining the extent to which OMB has implemented it and GAO plans to report the results as part of GAO's 2015 high risk update.