According to GSA officials, the agency began implementing what would  become its smart buildings program around 2005 in response to  numerous federal policies aimed at improving federal building energy and  environmental management. These officials told us that the smart  buildings program includes two key technologies: advanced utility meters  and a computer software program known as “GSAlink.” According to GSA  officials, outfitting buildings with these technologies allows for more  precise monitoring of energy use and equipment operations in these  buildings, and was initially based on the use of advanced utility meters to  meet federal mandates. Limited Quantified Information Exists on the Costs and Benefits of Key Smart Buildings Program Technologies

		The Smart Buildings Program’s Installation Costs Are Affected by Building Characteristics and Can Be Difficult to Quantify

According to GSA officials, the approximate cost of equipping a building  with smart building technologies ranged from between about $48,000 to  $155,000. Further, according to GSA officials, accurately calculating smart building  implementation costs can be difficult because GSA typically installs key  technologies—that is, advanced meters and GSAlink—and makes  upgrades necessary to install GSAlink in selected buildings incrementally,  sometimes as part of other capital improvement projects. GSA Has Taken Steps toward Assessing Benefits of the Smart Buildings Program, but Efforts to Quantify Benefits Have Been Limited

GSA officials we interviewed at the central office, regional, and individual  building levels identified perceived operational benefits from implementing  the smart buildings program, including that it (1) enables them to identify  problems with building equipment or system operations more quickly and  more thoroughly and (2) allows for their greater oversight of operations  and maintenance services contractors relative to other GSA buildings. In addition, GSA’s service contractor developed an application within  GSAlink that automatically estimates the costs that would be avoided by  addressing each type of fault that GSAlink identifies. According to GSA  officials, these estimates are imprecise and do not reflect actual avoided  costs, which thereby precludes their use in quantifying program benefits. GSA Does Not Have Documented, Clearly Defined Performance Goals or Measures to Help It Manage the Smart Buildings Program

We have previously found that results-oriented organizations set  performance goals to clearly define desired program outcomes and  develop performance measures that are clearly linked to the performance  goals. However, GSA has not documented these  goals—for example, in the agency’s performance plan or in other program  documents. Further, because GSA has not clearly defined its verbally expressed  goals, it cannot demonstrate progress in achieving them. However, GSA  officials said that the agency cannot measure progress toward the stated  goal of improving tenant productivity and comfort because of the  subjective nature of individual tenant preferences, such as for office  temperatures. In addition, contrary to the leading practices we have identified in our  previous work, GSA has not developed performance measures for the  smart buildings program. However, GSA  lacks quality information that can be used to measure program  performance. Specifically,  because these building automation systems are connected to the  Internet, they provide a potential pathway for cyberattacks on GSA’s  network. According to our prior work, this connectivity could  compromise security, hamper GSA’s ability to carry out its mission, or  cause physical harm to GSA’s facilities or their occupants. GSA has taken several actions that are intended to help mitigate  cybersecurity challenges to its buildings, including those that affect the  smart buildings program:
GSA has instituted policies and procedures addressing cybersecurity  threats and known vulnerabilities in its building systems. GSA has since  implemented this recommendation. GSA Is Taking Actions That May Mitigate Challenges with Stakeholder Support

GSA faces smart building technology implementation challenges related  to the limited technological proficiency of or lack of buy-in from some GSA  building managers and operations and maintenance services contractors,  but the agency is taking steps that are intended to engage these  stakeholders and ensure they are learning to use the smart buildings  program’s technologies. However, without  documented, clearly defined goals, performance measures linked to  those goals, and quality information to measure progress, GSA is limited  in its ability to make informed decisions about the smart buildings  program’s current or future operations as it develops plans to enlarge the  program to serve a greater proportion of its buildings portfolio. Recommendations for Executive Action

We are making the following two recommendations to GSA:  The Administrator of the General Services Administration should establish  clearly defined goals and related performance measures for the smart  buildings program. (Recommendation 1)
The Administrator of the General Services Administration should identify  and develop data that can be used to measure progress in achieving the  smart buildings program’s goals.
Why GAO Did This Study

To help comply with federal policies aimed at improving federal building energy and environmental management, GSA has implemented a smart buildings program nationwide in federally owned buildings under its custody and control. Two key technologies included in the program are Internet-connected advanced utility meters and an analytical software application, GSAlink, which alerts staff to potential building system problems, such as equipment operating outside of normal hours.
GAO was asked to review GSA's smart buildings program. This report examines: (1) what is known about the costs and benefits of the program, (2) the extent to which GSA has developed performance goals and measures to help it manage the performance of the program, and (3) any challenges GSA faces in implementing the technologies used in the program and GSA's actions to mitigate those challenges. GAO reviewed relevant GSA documentation, interviewed officials at GSA's central and regional offices, and visited a sample of GSA smart buildings in San Francisco, California, and Washington, D.C. that were selected based on the high concentration of GSA smart buildings located in each city.

What GAO Found

Limited quantified information exists on the costs and benefits of the General Services Administration's (GSA) smart buildings program's key technologies. GSA officials stated that the approximate cost of equipping a building with these technologies ranged between about $48,000 to $155,000. However, they stated that accurately calculating installation costs is challenging because GSA typically installs these technologies in selected buildings incrementally and sometimes as part of other capital improvement projects. Additionally, GSA officials identified perceived operational benefits of the smart buildings program's key technologies, including that these technologies enable officials to more precisely identify building system problems and more closely monitor contractors. However, existing data on the smart buildings program are of limited usefulness in quantifying the program's benefits. For example, according to GSA officials, while data from an application within GSAlink that estimates avoided costs from addressing each fault that GSAlink identifies are useful for prioritizing maintenance actions, the imprecise estimates preclude their use as a measure of actual avoided costs in quantifying program benefits.
GSA does not have documented, clearly defined goals for the smart buildings program, nor has GSA developed performance measures that would allow it to assess the program's progress. These omissions are contrary to leading practices of results-oriented organizations identified in previous GAO work. GSA officials verbally described broad goals for the smart buildings program to GAO, but the agency has not documented these goals. Further, because GSA has not clearly defined its verbally expressed goals, it cannot demonstrate progress in achieving them. For example, GSA officials said that the agency cannot measure progress for the stated goal of improving tenant productivity and comfort because of the subjective nature of individual tenant preferences, such as for office temperatures. Additionally, GSA has not developed performance measures to assess the program, and GSA's lack of data that can be used to quantify benefits of the program impedes its ability to measure the success of the program. Without clearly defined goals, related performance measures, and data that can be used to measure its progress, GSA is limited in its ability to make informed decisions about the smart buildings program.
GSA faces challenges in implementing the smart buildings program and has taken steps to mitigate these challenges. Since smart building technologies are Internet-connected, they are potentially vulnerable to cyberattacks that could compromise security or cause harm to facilities or their occupants. GSA has taken actions intended to mitigate cybersecurity challenges, such as instituting policies to address threats and known vulnerabilities and moving Internet-connected building systems to GSA's secured network. Separately, according to GSA officials, GSA faces implementation challenges related to the limited technological proficiency of some GSA building managers and contractors or lack of buy-in from them. GSA is taking actions intended to address these challenges. For example, it has provided training to staff and contractors, and its central office monitors the extent to which staff address problems detected by the smart buildings program's key technologies.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that GSA establish clearly defined performance goals and related performance measures for the smart buildings program, and identify and develop data to measure progress. GSA concurred with GAO's recommendations.