[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROGRAM: IDENTIFYING RISK TO GSA FACILITIES

=======================================================================

(117-53)

REMOTE HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

__________

JUNE 22, 2022

__________

Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
transportation

______

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
49-422 PDF WASHINGTON : 2022

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon, Chair
SAM GRAVES, Missouri ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON,
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas District of Columbia
BOB GIBBS, Ohio EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida RICK LARSEN, Washington
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
JOHN KATKO, New York JOHN GARAMENDI, California
BRIAN BABIN, Texas HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana Georgia
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
MIKE BOST, Illinois DINA TITUS, Nevada
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
DOUG LaMALFA, California JARED HUFFMAN, California
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas JULIA BROWNLEY, California
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey
BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, MARK DeSAULNIER, California
Puerto Rico STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
PETE STAUBER, Minnesota ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland
TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey
DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota GREG STANTON, Arizona
JEFFERSON VAN DREW, New Jersey COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas
MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas, Vice Chair
TROY E. NEHLS, Texas JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
NANCY MACE, South Carolina CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, New York CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania
BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts
CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts
MICHELLE STEEL, California CAROLYN BOURDEAUX, Georgia
Vacancy KAIALI`I KAHELE, Hawaii
MARILYN STRICKLAND, Washington
NIKEMA WILLIAMS, Georgia
MARIE NEWMAN, Illinois
TROY A. CARTER, Louisiana
SHEILA CHERFILUS-McCORMICK,
Florida
------

Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and
Emergency Management

DINA TITUS, Nevada, Chair
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON,
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky District of Columbia
JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
Puerto Rico CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire, Vice
MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi Chair
BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida JOHN GARAMENDI, California
SAM GRAVES, Missouri (Ex Officio) TROY A. CARTER, Louisiana
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex
Officio)

CONTENTS

Page

Summary of Subject Matter........................................ v

STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Hon. Dina Titus, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Nevada, and Chair, Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
Buildings, and Emergency Management, opening statement......... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Daniel Webster, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Florida, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Economic
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management,
opening statement.............................................. 4
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, prepared statement............................. 19

WITNESSES

Nina Albert, Commissioner, Public Buildings Service, U.S. General
Services Administration, oral statement........................ 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7

APPENDIX

Questions to Nina Albert, Commissioner, Public Buildings Service,
U.S. General Services Administration, from:
Hon. Dina Titus.............................................. 21
Hon. Daniel Webster.......................................... 25
Attachment: Active Consolidation Activities Program
Projects
7-18-2022.............................................. 25
Attachment: U.S. General Services Administration Public
Buildings Service's Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act Spending Plan...................................... 30

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

June 16, 2022

SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER

TO: LMembers, Subcommittee on Economic Development,
Public Buildings, and Emergency Management
FROM: LStaff, Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
Buildings, and Emergency Management
RE: LHearing on ``Capital Investment Program:
Identifying Risk to GSA Facilities''
_______________________________________________________________________

PURPOSE

The Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings,
and Emergency Management will meet on Wednesday, June 22, 2022,
at 10:00 am EDT in 2167 Rayburn House Office Building and
virtually via Zoom to hold a hearing titled, ``Capital
Investment Program: Identifying Risk to GSA Facilities.'' At
the hearing, Members will receive testimony from the General
Services Administration's Public Buildings Commissioner.

BACKGROUND

The General Services Administration (GSA) provides
workspace for 1.2 million federal employees across more than 50
federal agencies.\1\ GSA's Public Building Service (PBS) owns
over 1,500 federal buildings.\2\ Approximately 53 percent of
PBS's portfolio is over 50 years old, and 28 percent is over 75
years old.\3\ GSA's PBS leases approximately 8,100 office
buildings, courthouses, land ports of entry, data processing
centers, laboratories, and specialized space around the country
for federal agencies.\4\ During the period from fiscal year
(FY) 2019 through FY 2023, 60 percent of PBS leases will
expire.\5\ GSA's PBS portfolio is projected to include 183.4
million square feet of owned space and 183.5 million square
feet of leased space in FY 2021.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46410.
\2\ https://www.gsa.gov/cdnstatic/
GSA%20FY%202021%20Congressional%20Justification.pdf.
\3\ https://www.gsa.gov/cdnstatic/
GSA%20FY%202021%20Congressional%20Justification.pdf.
\4\ https://www.gsa.gov/real-estate/gsa-properties.
\5\ https://www.gsa.gov/cdnstatic/
GSA%20FY%202021%20Congressional%20Justification.pdf.
\6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to GSA's 2022-2026 Strategic Plan,\7\ its
priorities include developing integrated and virtual workspace
solutions for agency tenants, moving tenants from leased to
federally owned GSA-controlled facilities, eliminating the
backlog of repairs and alterations, disposing of underutilized
facilities, investing in climate adaptation tools, and securing
the funding needed to maintain GSA-controlled facilities in a
state of good repair.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://www.gsa.gov/cdnstatic/GSA_Strategic_Plan_FY_2022_-
_2026_FINAL_508.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

GSA'S FEDERAL BUILDING PROCESS

The Administrator of General Services (Administrator) is
authorized by 40 U.S.C. 585 to enter into lease agreements (of
no more than 20 years) to secure space for federal agencies.\8\
GSA also acquires space through new construction or
purchase.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ https://www.gsa.gov/cdnstatic/LDG-CHAPTER_INTRODUCTION-FINAL_9-
30-11final_508C.pdf.
\9\ 40 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 3304, 3305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current prospectus threshold for leases and capital
projects is $3.375 million.\10\ If a lease or project cost is
above the prospectus level, GSA develops a prospectus pursuant
to 40 U.S.C. 3307 that includes details on the purpose, need,
size, and scope of the leased space or project.\11\ The
prospectus is submitted to the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works. Both committees must approve via
resolution each prospectus prior to GSA executing the
lease.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ https://www.gsa.gov/real-estate/design-and-construction/
annual-prospectus-thresholds.
\11\ 40 U.S.C. Sec. 3307.
\12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

GAO HIGH RISK REPORT

Federal real property management was first placed on GAO's
High Risk List in 2003.\13\ While GAO's 2021 High Risk report
found that the ``federal government could better manage its
real property, or real estate, portfolio by effectively
disposing of unneeded buildings, collecting reliable real
property data, and improving the security of federal
facilities,'' GAO noted that GSA has made progress in reducing
the number and costs of leases. ``GSA continued to demonstrate
leadership commitment in reducing costly leasing. As noted in
our 2019 High Risk Report, GSA initiated its Lease Cost
Avoidance Plan in 2018 to reduce leasing costs by a projected
$4.7 billion by fiscal year 2023. GSA continued to implement
its plan through several initiatives including (1) negotiating
more competitive leases with longer terms, (2) reducing the
size of leases, (3) moving leased tenants to federally owned
space, and (4) backfilling vacant leased space.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-119sp.pdf.
\14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

UNDERFUNDING OF THE FEDERAL BUILDINGS FUND

GSA's PBS and its activities are funded through GSA's
Federal Buildings Fund (FBF).\15\ GSA enters into occupancy
agreements with its federal agency tenants and charges
commercially equivalent rent.\16\ Those rents fund the FBF.\17\
In turn, the FBF funds the operations of PBS, new construction,
repairs and alterations, and payments for commercial leases.
The availability of funds in the FBF are subject to annual
appropriations.\18\ GSA has raised concerns that since Congress
has not made available in appropriations bills all rent
collections over the last ten years, ``GSA is collecting
commercially equivalent rent from its occupant agencies but is
precluded from reinvesting all of these funds in the aging
federal facilities occupied by those rent-paying agencies.''
\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 40 U.S.C. Sec. 592.
\16\ 40 U.S.C. Sec. 586.
\17\ 40 U.S.C. Sec. 592.
\18\ 40 U.S.C. Sec. 3307.
\19\ https://www.gsa.gov/cdnstatic/
02_FY_2022_CJ_FBF_Narrative_Final_2.pdf FBF-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since 2011, the amount of funds available in the FBF for
new construction, repairs, and alternations has decreased below
receipts received by GSA from its tenant agencies.\20\ In
addition, reductions, consolidations, and reconfigurations of
space to improve efficiency and decrease real estate costs
often require capital upfront.\21\ Given this, a number of
solutions have been proposed for alternative ways of funding
projects, including public-private partnerships, discounted
purchase options, and the creation of a new fund outside of
GSA's FBF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See appropriations acts beginning in FY2011.
\21\ See e.g., GSA's Consolidations Activities Program, Prospectus
No. PCA-0001-MU21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While GSA has the legal authorities to carry out public-
private partnerships and discounted purchase options, the
Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) interpretation of
budget scoring rules effectively prohibits GSA from using these
alternatives.\22\ Specifically, OMB's interpretation of the
scoring rules effectively require GSA to have the full amount
of budget authority for a project up front.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ OMB Circular A-11, Appendix B.
\23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL OFFICE SPACE TRENDS POST-COVID

Early in 2020, because of the COVID-19 pandemic, GSA began
consulting with key tenant agencies and the private sector to
identify the impacts and trends on federal office space which
GSA developed into its Workplace 2030 initiative.\24\ The
initiative examined the potential of increased teleworking
beyond COVID-19, the opportunities it may present to improve
efficiency and reduce space needs and costs, and the potential
savings to the taxpayer.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Workplace 2030: Envisioning the Future of Federal Work,
General Services Administration.
\25\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to GSA's FY23 Congressional Budget Justification,
``PBS will play a key role in the transformation of agency
space requirements, and the facilitation of the Federal
Government's transition to what is likely to be a smaller, less
costly real estate footprint. As agencies are evaluating how
they can most effectively deliver on their missions, GSA has an
opportunity to partner with its Federal Government occupant
agencies in the strategic planning of their future space needs.
Between FY 2023 and FY 2027, approximately 45 percent, or
82.9 million rentable square feet of leased space, will be
expiring across the country. Much of this space is larger than
necessary and prime for potential consolidation into a more
agile workspace that will reduce the Government's reliance on
more costly leased space.'' \26\ In 2021, GSA awarded contracts
to five coworking space companies, including WeWork,
LiquidSpace Deskpass, Expansive, and The Yard.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ https://www.gsa.gov/cdnstatic/
FY2023_CJ_FBF_Narrative_version2.pdf page 7.
\27\ See, GSA awards coworking space contract in bid to rethink
federal office space, Federal News Network, September 1, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DEFERRED MAINTENANCE LIABILITIES

GSA's FY 2023 budget request ``recognizes that GSA had a
$7.6 billion unavailable fund balance at the end of FY 2020 and
accumulated an additional $1.2 billion in FY 2021, for a total
of $8.8 billion. This fund balance has grown as a result of
$10.3 billion that could have been appropriated as New
Obligational Authority (NOA) to the FBF, but instead was used
to offset increases for other agencies over the last 10 years
due to limitations in the Financial Services and General
Government Appropriations Subcommittee's funding allocations.
This represents a trend in which GSA is collecting commercially
equivalent rent from its occupant agencies but is precluded
from reinvesting all of these funds in its aging federal
facilities occupied by those rent-paying agencies. This
underfunding relative to revenue generation is almost entirely
offset and absorbed through PBS's New Construction and Repairs
and Alterations programs. As such, there are dramatic
differences between what is needed and what is funded. Habitual
underfunding of needed reinvestments is the driving factor
behind PBS's growing deferred maintenance.'' \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ https://www.gsa.gov/cdnstatic/
FY2023_CJ_FBF_Narrative_version2.pdf page 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

GSA CLIMATE RESILIENCE STRATEGY

President Biden's Executive Order 14008, Tackling the
Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, directed federal agencies to
develop a climate resilience strategy.\29\ In response, GSA
published a Climate Change Risk Management Plan which
identifies GSA's vulnerabilities to climate change and
priorities for action.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ 86 FR 7619, pg. 7619-7633.
\30\ GSA. Climate Change Risk Management Plan. September 2021.
Available at: Climate Change Risk Management Plan (sustainability.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GSA guidelines require that it only lease properties
outside of floodplains to mitigate the risk posed to its
property.\31\ As floodplain maps are updated to account for
climate change, GSA anticipates the availability of suitable
leasing space will be restricted and rental costs more
expensive as a result.\32\ GSA will also incorporate updated
floodplain data into its Building Assessment Tool Survey to
ensure owned property has service life of thirty years at a
minimum.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Id.
\32\ Id.
\33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historic buildings within GSA's portfolio are vulnerable to
disaster risks.\34\ Historic buildings were constructed using
flood maps that do not reflect updates to 100-year and 500-year
flood risks.\35\ The age and architecture of the buildings
limit opportunities to make modifications that enhance
resilience.\36\ Additionally, GSA's repair backlog has left
properties within the federal real estate portfolio at greater
risk to extreme weather events.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Id.
\35\ GSA. Climate Change Risk Management Plan. September 2021.
Available at: Climate Change Risk Management Plan (sustainability.gov).
\36\ Id.
\37\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 15, 2022, the Committee approved authorization of
$60 million from the FBF for GSA to undertake climate
adaptation and natural disaster risk analyses and projects to
mitigate against risks to federal buildings. While some other
agencies with a large number of physical assets have done such
analyses and generated tools that help identify natural
disaster risks to its facilities and prioritize mitigation
efforts, GSA has not yet done so.\38\ In addition, agencies
such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency, produce data
through its National Risk Index for Natural Disasters that
could assist GSA in identifying risks to its assets.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ See, for example, Department of Defense, Climate Assessment
Tool.
\39\ See, https://www.fema.gov/flood-maps/products-tools/national-
risk-index.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

REAL PROPERTY DISPOSAL

The Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act of 2016 (P.L. 114-
287) established a new process for disposing of unneeded
federal space. FASTA created 6-year pilot authority to
streamline the disposal of certain unneeded properties. A
Public Buildings Reform Board (Board) was created to bring in
outside real estate experts to make recommendations on the sale
or redevelopment of federal real estate.\40\ While separate
from GSA, GSA provides a critical role in supporting the Board
activities and carrying out recommendations approved by OMB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See, H. Rept. 114-578, Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act of
2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

WITNESS LIST

LMs. Nina Albert, Commissioner, Public Buildings
Service, General Services Administration

CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROGRAM: IDENTIFYING RISK TO GSA FACILITIES

----------

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 22, 2022

House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public
Buildings, and Emergency Management,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m. in
room 2167 Rayburn House Office Building and via Zoom, Hon. Dina
Titus (Chair of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present in person: Ms. Titus and Mr. Webster of
Florida.
Members present remotely: Ms. Norton, Ms. Davids of Kansas,
Mrs. Napolitano, Ms. Van Duyne, and Mr. Gimenez.
Ms. Titus. The subcommittee will come to order.
I ask unanimous consent that the chair be authorized to
declare a recess at any time during this hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent that Members not on the
subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at
today's hearing and ask questions.
Without objection, so ordered.
As a reminder, please keep your microphones muted unless
speaking. Should I hear any inadvertent background noise, I
will request that the Member please mute their microphone.
To insert a document into the record, please have your
staff email it to DocumentsT&I@mail.house.gov.
This morning I would like to welcome everyone here to our
hearing and thank our witness, Ms. Nina Albert, for joining us
to discuss risks to the General Services Administration's real
estate portfolio.
We know the past 27 months have been overwhelming for
families, businesses, schools, and workers. While adapting to
remote work was challenging for many, its adaptation has been
widely considered a success, and it is prompting workers and
employers to reimagine how and where work gets done moving
forward.
How much office space will Federal agencies need? This is a
question particularly relevant to this subcommittee because we
authorize the acquisition of space for the GSA.
The GSA provides workspaces for 1.2 million Federal
employees in every State and Territory across more than 50
Federal agencies. Its Public Buildings Service owns over 1,500
Federal buildings and leases approximately 8,100 office
buildings, courthouses, land ports of entry, data processing
centers, laboratories, and other specialized space all around
the country. With 60 percent of Public Buildings Service leases
expiring in the next few years and agencies contemplating new
ways to do work, the Government needs to rethink its real
estate portfolio.
Currently, when agencies seek workspace, GSA considers the
amount of space needed, the type of space, the location, the
neighborhood amenities, disaster risks such as seismic safety
and fire protection, and, most of all, the price. That last
part, the price, is important because we need to be good
stewards of taxpayer dollars. That is why I introduced the
House companion to the BRIGHT Act, H.R. 7636, which would
direct the GSA to install cost-effective and energy-efficient
lighting in public buildings. This is a simple change that is
estimated to save millions in taxpayer dollars while also
making Federal buildings more sustainable.
As a result of the pandemic, GSA will also have to
reconsider resilience, sanitation, airflow, spatial planning,
and telework policies. This pivot will require GSA to consider
how the built environment can help the Government provide
better services, attract and retain employees, and protect
workers' health.
The built environment also needs to account for the
challenges and disasters we face as a result of climate change.
Approximately 53 percent of PBS's portfolio is over 50 years
old, and many of these buildings were constructed without
considering the extreme weather risk which are present today.
So, I am interested to learn more about how the GSA is managing
climate change risk and how this factors into the repair
backlog.
GSA also has other challenges which need to be addressed.
Persistent underfunding of the Federal Buildings Fund, outdated
and damaged facilities, underutilized buildings, frustrated
tenants, expensive short-term lease renewals, insufficient
funding for new construction, damage to buildings from extreme
weather events, and a slow prospectus approval process make it
extremely challenging for GSA to modernize and right-size its
portfolio.
That is quite a list of things to address, and we are
anxious to hear your response to them.
I am aware of GSA's frustrations with Congress preventing
full access to the revenues collected in the Federal Buildings
Fund. But let me point out that, since I became chair of this
subcommittee--thank you for your help, Mr. Webster, ranking
member--we have eliminated the multiyear backlog of
prospectuses, and we have already passed the fiscal year 2023
climate and resilience, consolidation, energy and water
conservation, fire protection and life safety, seismic
mitigation, conveying systems, fire alarm systems, and
judiciary capital security program prospectuses. Having passed
these prospectuses prior to the passage of the fiscal year 2023
appropriations bills means that the authorizers can now return
to regular order.
So, Commissioner Albert, I thank you for being with us and
for participating in today's discussion. You see we have a lot
of questions. We are grateful for your testimony, and we look
forward to hearing more about the risks facing GSA's real
estate portfolio, if I have left some out.
[Ms. Titus' prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Dina Titus, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Nevada, and Chair, Subcommittee on Economic
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management
I'd like to welcome everyone to today's hearing and thank our
witness, Ms. Nina Albert, for joining us to discuss risks to the
General Services Administration's real estate portfolio.
The past 27 months have been overwhelming for families, businesses,
schools, and workers. While adapting to remote work was challenging for
many, its adaptation has been widely considered a success, and is
prompting workers and employers to reimagine how and where work gets
done moving forward.
How much office space will federal agencies need? This question is
particularly relevant to this subcommittee because we authorize the
acquisition of space for the General Services Administration also known
as the GSA.
The GSA provides workspaces for 1.2 million federal employees, in
every state and territory, across more than 50 federal agencies. GSA's
Public Building Service owns over 1,500 federal buildings and leases
approximately 8,100 office buildings, courthouses, land ports of entry,
data processing centers, laboratories, and specialized space around the
country.
With sixty percent of Public Building Service leases expiring in
the next few years and agencies contemplating new ways of working, the
government needs to rethink its real estate portfolio.
Currently, when agencies seek workspace, GSA considers the amount
of space needed; the type of space; the location; the neighborhood
amenities; disaster risks such as seismic safety and fire protection;
and most of all, the price.
That last part is important because we need to be good stewards of
taxpayer dollars. That's why I introduced the House companion to the
BRIGHT Act (H.R. 7636) which would direct the GSA to install cost-
effective and energy-efficient lighting in public buildings, a simple
change that is estimated to save millions in taxpayer dollars and make
federal buildings more sustainable.
As a result of the pandemic, GSA will also have to reconsider
resilience, sanitation, air flow, spatial planning, and telework
policies. This pivot will require GSA to consider how the built
environment can help the government provide better services, attract
and retain employees, and protect workers' health.
The built environment also needs to account for the challenges and
disasters we face today as a result of climate change. Approximately 53
percent of PBS' portfolio is over 50 years old, and many of these
buildings were constructed without considering the extreme weather
risks which are present today. I am interested to learn more about how
the GSA is managing climate risks and how this factors into the repair
backlog.
GSA also has other challenges which need to be addressed.
Persistent underfunding of the Federal Buildings Fund, outdated and
damaged facilities, underutilized buildings, frustrated tenants,
expensive short-term lease renewals, insufficient funding for new
construction, damage to buildings from extreme weather events, and a
slow prospectus approval process make it extremely challenging for GSA
to modernize and right-size the portfolio.
I am aware of GSA's frustrations with Congress preventing full
access to the revenues collected into the Federal Buildings Fund, but
let me point out that since I became Chair of this subcommittee we have
eliminated the multi-year backlog of prospectuses and have already
passed the FY23 Climate and Resilience, Consolidation, Energy and Water
Conservation, Fire Protection and Life Safety, Seismic Mitigation,
Conveying systems, Fire Alarm Systems, and Judiciary Capital Security
Program prospectuses. Having passed these prospectuses before the
passage of the FY23 appropriations bills means that the authorizers
have returned to regular order.
Commissioner Albert, I thank you for being with us and for
participating in today's discussion. I am grateful for your testimony,
and I look forward to learning more about the risks facing GSA's real
estate portfolio.

Ms. Titus. I would now open it to Mr. Webster, our ranking
member, for his statement.
Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you, Chair. I want to thank
the GSA Public Buildings Commissioner for being here today.
It is good to see you. As a matter of fact, it is good to
see you in person.
Last week, the committee passed eight resolutions for
special emphasis programs and alterations that address
different risks for GSA's aging portfolio. As the committee
that oversees FEMA and disaster programs, we have a particular
interest in ensuring agencies like GSA understand the risks to
its facilities and are working with agencies like FEMA that
have robust risk data readily available.
FEMA has the National Risk Index, for example, which
factors in 18 natural hazards and expected annual losses. This
kind of data can help communities to make necessary hazardous
mitigation plans.
GSA also faces risk by holding onto properties that no
longer serve a need for the Federal Government. The Federal
Assets Sale and Transfer Act, FASTA, was passed with the intent
to not just simply streamline the disposal process, but to get
agencies to look more strategically at their assets. The goal
is to produce results that could include sales, redevelopments,
outleases, and other activities that make the most sense
financially and operationally.
To achieve significant changes, it takes the
administration, including GSA and OMB, working together with
Congress to get agencies to make better decisions about their
space and to take new developments into account, like the
increased telework posture and need for less space.
It also means alternative financial options should be on
the table, as well. It makes no sense for the taxpayer to
effectively pay for a building, sometimes many times over,
through a lease, only to have to pay fair market value in order
to own it.
GSA has the legal authorities to negotiate discounted
purchase options and enter into public-private partnerships,
but has not taken advantage of those authorities. GSA should
use these authorities, where appropriate, to facilitate the
right-sizing of the portfolio and reduce costs to the taxpayer.
I hope we can work together to address GSA's growing
deferred maintenance costs and ultimately reduce costs for the
taxpayer through strategic investment.
Thank you, Chair Titus, for the opportunity, and I look
forward to the testimony.
[Mr. Webster of Florida's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Hon. Daniel Webster, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Florida, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Economic
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management
I want to thank the General Services Administration's (GSA) Public
Buildings Commissioner for being here today.
Last week, the Committee passed eight resolutions for special
emphasis programs and alterations that addressed different risks for
GSA's aging portfolio. These resolutions tackled seismic mitigation,
fire alarms and life safety, judiciary security, and assessments on
building vulnerability to natural disasters.
As the committee that oversees FEMA and disaster programs, we have
a particular interest in ensuring agencies like GSA understand the
risks to its facilities and are working with agencies like FEMA that
have robust risk data readily available. FEMA has the National Risk
Index, for example, which factors in 18 natural hazards and expected
annual loss. This kind of data can help communities to make necessary
hazard mitigation plans.
GSA also faces risk by holding onto properties that no longer serve
a need for the federal government. The Federal Assets Sale and Transfer
Act (FASTA) was passed with the intent to not just simply streamline
the disposal process, but to get agencies to look more strategically at
their assets. The goal is to produce results that could include sales,
redevelopments, outleases, and other activities that make the most
sense financially and operationally.
To achieve significant changes, it takes the Administration,
including GSA and OMB, working together with Congress to get agencies
to make better decisions about their space and take new developments
into account, like the increased telework posture and need for less
space.
It also means alternative financing options should be on the table
as well. It makes no sense for the taxpayer to effectively pay for a
building, sometimes many times over, through a lease, only to then have
to pay fair market value to own it. GSA has the legal authorities to
negotiate discounted purchase options and enter into public private
partnerships but has not taken advantage of those authorities. GSA
should use these authorities where appropriate to facilitate the right-
sizing of the portfolio and reduce costs to the taxpayer.
I hope we can work together to address GSA's growing deferred
maintenance costs and ultimately reduce costs for the taxpayer through
strategic investment. I look forward to hearing from our witness today
on GSA's risk mitigation strategy and plans for the Capital Investment
Program.

Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Webster.
I would now like to welcome our witness, Ms. Nina Albert,
who is the Commissioner of the Public Buildings Service at the
GSA.
Thank you so much for being here today. We are looking
forward to hearing your testimony.
Without objection, our witness' full statement will be
included in the record.
Ms. Albert, the floor is yours.

TESTIMONY OF NINA ALBERT, COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC BUILDINGS
SERVICE, U.S. GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

Ms. Albert. Good morning, Chairwoman Titus, Ranking Member
Webster, and members of the subcommittee. My name is Nina
Albert, and I am the Commissioner of the Public Buildings
Service at the GSA.
I appreciate the committee's interest in GSA's Capital
Investment Program, and I look forward to sharing our outlook
on the opportunities and risks facing GSA's real estate
portfolio. I will describe the importance of properly
maintaining Federal facilities, the financial risk to the
Government if we do not address mounting deferred maintenance,
and the savings to taxpayers if we adequately fund GSA's
Capital Improvement Program.
By putting the right tools in place, GSA can address
deferred maintenance as well as modernize and optimize the real
estate portfolio. This vision includes key national goals, such
as providing accessible facilities to tens of millions of
members of the visiting public, to delivering flexible
workplace environments for Government employees, to ensuring
physical security and cybersecurity in Federal buildings, and
achieving a net-zero portfolio by 2045.
So, how do we advance all of these priorities? At the end
of the day, the solutions are relatively straightforward.
GSA seeks to work with Congress to receive full access to
the Federal Buildings Fund and to streamline the prospectus
process. Without Congress' support of GSA's full access to the
Federal Buildings Fund, much of the real estate in GSA's
control will continue to suffer the consequences of deferred
maintenance, the liabilities for which now equals $2.6 billion
per year. And that will compound if it is not addressed, and
GSA will continue to lease space out of necessity, which is not
the most cost-effective solution for the Government when we
know that there is a long-term need.
There are a number of potential options that would help
unlock the full value of rent and other collections in the FBF.
When I appeared before this subcommittee last November, Chair
DeFazio noted that the FBF funding issue was similar to funding
challenges around the availability of moneys that were being
deposited into the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund, which
Congress worked to resolve. I am eager to discuss potential
solutions with you in this regard.
By having full access to the FBF, GSA can consolidate
agencies into federally owned facilities to avoid lease costs,
we can reduce facility vulnerabilities due to extreme weather
events, and we can modernize federally owned buildings to meet
the evolving needs of agencies.
We also seek to work with the committee on streamlining the
prospectus process, because this would also improve efficiency
within GSA's capital investment and leasing programs. A GAO
report dated January 2022 recommended that GSA assess its
prospectus processes and communicate its findings to our
authorizing committees. I am pleased to be able to share our
findings with you today.
We evaluated the impact of adjusting the prospectus
threshold from the current $3.375 million to a $10 million
threshold. Even at the new threshold amount, roughly 60 percent
of current projects and 80 percent of major capital projects
would still be subject to the prospectus process and Congress'
review. Our preliminary estimate indicates, however, that we
could save $50 million per year in avoided lease costs and
costs in our capital repair program, as well as deliver our
program 23 months sooner.
GSA will also better be able to respond to emergency
circumstances, which is vital to enabling agencies to perform
their missions with minimal disruptions.
Finally, I want to emphasize that there has never been a
more important moment to make these improvements. On one hand,
after 10 years of deferred maintenance, the condition of
Federal buildings is of concern. On the other hand, based on
what agencies have learned over the past couple of years, GSA
needs to have more flexibility to respond to agencies as they
seek to modernize their mission delivery, update their customer
service models, and evolve workplace solutions. Gaining full
access to the Federal Buildings Fund and streamlining the
prospectus process are two primary means to providing the
flexibility that is needed to modernize and optimize the
Federal real estate portfolio.
Thank you again for the opportunity to share GSA's
perspective, and I welcome your questions this morning.
[Ms. Albert's prepared statement follows:]

Prepared Statement of Nina Albert, Commissioner, Public Buildings
Service, U.S. General Services Administration
Good morning, Chairwoman Titus, Ranking Member Webster, and Members
of the Subcommittee. My name is Nina Albert, and I am the Commissioner
of the Public Buildings Service (PBS) at the U.S. General Services
Administration (GSA). I appreciate the Committee's interest in GSA's
Capital Investment Program (CIP) and look forward to sharing our
outlook on the opportunities and risks facing GSA's real estate
portfolio. Today, I will describe the importance of constructing new
and maintaining existing Federal facilities for the safety of the
public and Federal employees; the financial risks to the government if
we do not address mounting deferred maintenance and other liabilities;
and the savings to taxpayers if we institute an adequately funded
capital construction program. GSA looks forward to partnering with the
Committee to develop and implement concrete solutions that mitigate
risk and reflect responsible government.
GSA oversees federally owned and leased facilities in more than
2,200 communities across the country where we manage customer service
centers, courthouses, offices, labs, land ports of entry, warehouses,
and other facilities. These facilities are visited annually by tens of
millions of members of the public, including veterans, Medicare and
Social Security beneficiaries, small business owners, victims of
disasters, plaintiffs and defendants, contractors, and others. That is
one of the reasons it is so critically important for GSA to make sure
these facilities are resilient, safe and accessible.
It is also critical because of the moment we find ourselves in. The
COVID-19 pandemic has set in place a once in a generation opportunity
for Federal agencies to rethink how they provide effective workplace
environments. The pandemic spotlighted the need for operational
resilience and ability to transform traditional offices into hybrid
offices capable of supporting both in-person and remote workers. Using
lessons learned through the pandemic and leveraging our experience with
mobile and hybrid work, there are likely to be opportunities to reduce
general office space--especially opportunities to consolidate from
leased into owned space, resulting in significant savings for the
taxpayers and increased use of the Federal portfolio.
Unfortunately, GSA's ability to seize this opportunity is hampered
by persistent underinvestment. Much of the federally owned portfolio in
GSA's control is suffering from the consequences of significant
deferred maintenance, driven by inadequate investment that is putting
the American people and government operations at risk. For example,
many federally owned GSA facilities have had persistent water
penetration from leaking roofs and windows, which if GSA could have
repaired when the problems were manageable, would have avoided what
have now become major liabilities. Other facilities, including many
U.S. courthouses, have outdated fire, life-safety and elevator systems,
which prevents or impedes the safe and reliable movement of judges,
jurors, families, and visitors. The poor conditions of these facilities
inhibit their tenant Federal agencies from performing their missions at
the levels of excellence the American taxpayer expects.
As a result, GSA requires mechanisms to ensure that GSA is able to
make the necessary investments into the federally owned portfolio both
now and in the future. Only through adequate and predictable funding
will GSA be able to both address existing problems and to modernize and
optimize the Federal portfolio. By replacing outdated and inefficient
systems with efficient, safe and modern technologies, and updating
federally owned buildings to deliver modern workplaces and spaces, GSA
can achieve taxpayer savings. The one-time infusion of $3.4 billion
investment in land ports of entry through the Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act (Public Law 117-58) is helping to significantly modernize
those facilities, but they are only a fraction of the Federal portfolio
that needs investment.
Financial Risks to the Government from Deferring CIP Investments
Delaying and deferring capital projects and investment needs only
increases their overall cost, through project cost increases, scope
changes, and the compounding expense of temporary repairs. Deferred
repair projects eventually become full replacement projects. Current
supply chain volatility and material cost increases only exacerbates
this trend. The most significant hurdle to timely project execution has
been lack of available and reliable funding to carry out the necessary
and desperately needed work. However, other procedural delays can also
slow progress. Together, both factors have added risks to the Federal
government.
Over the past twelve years, GSA's annual appropriation from the
Federal Buildings Fund (FBF) has averaged $980 million below annual
collections from customers. As a result, GSA's Capital Investment
Program (CIP), which supports repairs and renovations, acquisitions,
and new construction projects, has been consistently underfunded, with
most of those reductions occurring in the repair and alterations (R&A)
programs. This level of sustained underinvestment in maintaining
federally owned buildings has had a devastating effect on conditions in
hundreds of buildings. Since FY 2011, GSA's immediate annual
liabilities have doubled from $1.3 billion in FY 2011 to $2.6 billion
in FY 2021. The total 10-year reinvestment requirements within the
portfolio have also doubled from $4.7 billion in FY 2011 to $9.4
billion in FY 2021.
As an example of how delayed action increases costs, in GSA's FY
2023 budget request, eight projects that were included in the
President's Budget were projects that had been requested in previous
budgets. In fact, several of these have been submitted multiple times,
with some being submitted as far back FY 2015. In FY 2023, the combined
costs for these projects have increased by $122 million since they were
first requested in prior fiscal years and are likely to further
compound if they are unfunded this year and further delayed. Funding-
related project delays have an especially negative impact on multi-
phase, major modernizations. Funding delays for the Department of
Commerce's (DOC) headquarters renovation, which was submitted in FY
2003 and is only on phase 4 of 8, has prevented DOC from releasing back
to GSA approximately 200,000 usable square feet, and kept other
agencies in leased space. As a result, an opportunity to avoid
approximately $10 million in annual lease costs is currently being
forfeited. There are additional opportunities to reduce lease costs
through consolidation from private leases into federally owned space.
However, this is only possible if existing Federal buildings are in
satisfactory condition and are able to meet agency requirements.
Even when project funding becomes available, GSA often has to wait
to begin a project. The prospectus process, as outlined in Title 40,
adds significant time to routine repair projects and increases risk in
several ways. First, the size and scope of a repair project can
increase if a problem is not quickly addressed. Second, if a prospectus
approval ends up lagging significantly behind the expected time frame,
temporary or interim solutions may be needed while Committee action is
pending.
In January 2022, a review by the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) of GSA's prospectus process noted the many steps and considerable
length of time required to develop and approve project prospectuses.
GAO found that capital repair projects took an average of 23 months
from prospectus draft to prospectus approval. This timeframe applied
even for routine capital maintenance issues, such as roof repairs and
window replacements. As mentioned before, when repairs are delayed,
smaller repair projects can become full-scale replacements.
Additionally, forced measures such as lease extensions, temporary
repairs, or multiple tenant moves also add significant cost and
disruption to the affected agency. Approximately $20 million a year can
be saved in the Major Repairs and Alterations program by shortening the
prospectus timeline and increasing the speed that GSA is able to go to
the market with construction contracts.
Finally, I would like to call special attention to the risks posed
to GSA facilities from extreme weather events and other natural
disasters. Since 2017, 59 Federal facilities in the GSA portfolio have
been damaged by floods, hurricanes, and other weather events. We expect
the frequency of extreme weather events to only increase in the future.
While Congress has generally provided emergency appropriations to
repair many of these facilities, preventing damage in the first place
is almost always the more cost-effective alternative. There are
proactive measures that can be taken now to reduce facilities'
vulnerability to these events, thereby reducing the risk of damage.
Opportunities to Reduce Risk in GSA's Capital Investment Program
GSA sees a number of opportunities to reduce risk and save money
long-term. First and foremost, restoring full access to the revenues
collected into the FBF each year will provide GSA the resources needed
to address the maintenance backlog, to avoid lease costs through
consolidations of agencies into federally owned space, and to improve
the building inventory to meet the evolving needs of agencies and
visitors alike; this is no more than what any private sector landlord
would be able to do. With respect to the prospectus process,
streamlining the current process could reduce risks and also yield
significant savings. Finally, GSA can manage the financial and
operational risks from climate change and extreme weather events
through tailored adaptation measures which may include building-
hardening, relocation, and other preparedness and resiliency measures.
(1) Gaining Access to Annual FBF Revenues
There are a number of potential solutions that would help unlock
the full value of collections from the FBF. When I appeared before this
subcommittee last November, Chair DeFazio noted that the FBF funding
issue was similar to funding challenges around the availability of
monies that were being deposited into the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund
(HMTF), which Congress worked to resolve. We are eager to further
explore this idea with the Committee and others. One point worth noting
is that adopting a solution for the FBF similar to what was done for
the HMTF would preserve both the prospectus approval and annual
appropriations processes. These processes are important mechanisms to
allow Congress to provide input and oversight over investments into the
Federal portfolio.
(2) Streamlining the Prospectus Process
The January 2022 GAO report recommended that GSA assess its
prospectus processes and communicate its findings to its authorizing
committees to address any risks posed by the current process. GSA has
been conducting this assessment, and I am pleased to communicate some
of our findings to you today.
GSA believes setting a higher prospectus threshold for both capital
and leased projects would allow us to direct scarce resources to many
of the routine maintenance and repair projects of greatest need. Most
major projects would still be subject to the prospectus process.
Simultaneously, GSA could carry out many urgent projects that fall
between the current threshold of $3.375 million and a proposed
threshold of $10 million. Overall, roughly 60% of current projects, and
80% of major capital projects, that currently require prospectus
approval would still be subject to the prospectus process with a
threshold of $10 million. This change continues to provide for
Congressional oversight on major capital projects, while enhancing
GSA's stewardship function. The current threshold of $3.375 million
requires GSA to seek authority from Congress to execute low-cost
repairs to existing facilities that should be considered a part of
routine maintenance, such as window replacements and elevator repairs.
Additionally, GSA notes that the Department of Commerce index
referenced in 40 U.S.C. 3307 to adjust the threshold for annual cost
increases no longer exists. As such, GSA identified alternative data
sources and has included reference to the utilized indices in recent
Congressional notifications of prospectus threshold increases.
Overall, a streamlined prospectus process with a higher threshold
for authorization could provide significant benefits for taxpayers.
GSA's preliminary estimates for lease cost avoidance from a revised
prospectus threshold suggest that such an update might produce upwards
of $30 million in annual avoided costs. Similar levels of savings are
potentially available for capital repair projects as well. By going to
the market with construction proposals sooner, GSA's repair and
alterations program could save approximately $21 million annually.
Additionally, updating the prospectus statute would allow GSA to better
respond to unforeseen and emergent circumstances more efficiently,
which is vital to enabling agencies to perform their missions with
minimal disruptions.
(3) Mitigating Financial and Operational Risks from Disasters
As previously mentioned, GSA and Federal tenant agencies have
substantial financial exposure to associated risks from flooding,
hurricanes, tornadoes, and other significant climate-related events.
GSA would like to thank this Committee for its support of the budget
request's $60 million Climate and Resilience Special Emphasis Program
through the issuance of a prospectus resolution, allowing GSA to
conduct formal agency-wide vulnerability assessments to align with the
climate science from the latest National Climate Assessment; fortify
agency risk management efforts; and identify and execute the highest
priority projects across the country, such as critical building system
relocations, flood mitigation and storm water management, and building
filtration and ventilation projects. I deeply appreciate the
Committee's quick action on this prospectus, and ask for your continued
assistance in securing funding for this important work.
In conclusion, we are at an important inflection point in the
management of GSA's Federal real estate portfolio, with a unique
opportunity to modernize and optimize the Federal real estate
footprint. GSA is committed to meeting this moment. With more flexible
authorities, funding to improve resilience, and full access to the
annual revenues we collect from partner agencies, we can provide safe,
modern, and secure facilities for Federal customer agencies--while
supporting local economic activity and saving taxpayers significant
amounts of money over the long-term. I appreciate the opportunity to be
here with you today, and I look forward to working with the Committee
on these and other proposals to improve management of the Federal real
estate portfolio.

Ms. Titus. Thank you very much. We will now move on to
Members' questions. Each Member will be recognized for 5
minutes, and I will start by recognizing myself.
Earlier this year I introduced the House companion to the
BRIGHT Act. I mentioned that in my opening statement. That
BRIGHT Act has passed the Senate. And if the Senate can pass
anything, it is a miracle. So, that has been done. I wonder how
you feel about that, GSA, if you would support changing out the
light bulbs to be more cost effective and more energy efficient
in our public buildings.
Ms. Albert. We absolutely support any reforms and
improvements that provide us the flexibility to invest in
existing facilities, to dispose faster of underutilized
facilities, and to make the improvements needed to make sure
that our buildings are ready for the modern era. That includes
extreme weather events, unfortunately. That includes greater
levels of physical security. It includes technology investments
and improvements and access in our buildings, as well as,
obviously, modernizing workspaces.
So, we always appreciate and support when Congress makes
these investments and acknowledges that, while we take
buildings for granted--because we don't think about it until
there is an event that occurs that disrupts operations, that
impacts people's lives--we are always trying to safeguard
against those extraordinary events, and we do that by providing
a reliable and dedicated amount of funding to go ahead and make
those improvements on a day-to-day and year-to-year basis.
Ms. Titus. Thank you very much. I am glad to hear that. So,
maybe we can get that moving out of the House, as well.
You mentioned the weather conditions. That was going to be
my next question. We said 53 percent of your portfolio is over
50 years old; 28 percent is over 75 years old. And when many of
these buildings were constructed, it was during a time when the
flood maps weren't very accurate and didn't reflect the kind of
risk that we are facing today.
We have got 100-year floods and 500-year floods, and it is
not just flooding. Other things occur, too. But you are
vulnerable to a multitude of disasters. You are in great need
of repair. You have got a backlog. Can you talk to us a little
bit about how you address flood and sea level rise risks posed
to some of our existing buildings?
And are you collecting data on the assets, about how old
they are, what they need, what their problems are, that sort of
information? That would be helpful.
Ms. Albert. Yes. Thank you so much for this question. This
is of top concern for us.
Since 2017, we have had 59 buildings subject to some sort
of extreme weather damage. That includes floods. But of course,
it also includes tornadoes, hurricanes, other types of damage,
as well. So, being able to address and repair those facilities
so that workers and the visiting public can continue to have
access to those buildings is of concern to us. So, there are a
number of different things.
One is taking a proactive approach, making sure that we are
studying FEMA's--Mr. Webster mentioned the National Risk Index,
so, incorporating data that is being provided by other
agencies, and making sure that, as we make capital plans, that
we are anticipating and using that data so that those capital
investments allow us to secure that building for a long-term
future, irrespective of extreme weather events.
The other side of the coin, of course, is making sure that
we have the flexibility to repair buildings so they can get
back into service as quickly as possible, which is, again, why
I proposed this morning discussing with the committee full
access to the Federal Buildings Fund. And as I mentioned, even
by accelerating the prospectus process, we could be saving $50
million and be able to address emergency repair as needed.
There is a big opportunity here, as I mentioned, to be
proactive in our planning and looking at our portfolio across
the board, making sure that we understand what investments need
to be made when there is a risk presented to those facilities,
and then going ahead and making the investments necessary to
secure the safety of that facility over the long term.
Ms. Titus. When we talk about infrastructure, we hear a lot
about building back better. We don't want to just build back to
a status quo ante; we want to build in resilience for what may
come down the road. So, is that a part of your consideration as
you look at the inventory and try to repair some of this
damage?
Ms. Albert. Absolutely.
You mentioned the age of our buildings. There are two ways
that that predominantly affects us. Number one is the age of
the building system itself. It is at the end of its useful
life. When we modernize and put in efficient buildings, we are
now able to save, on average, 80 percent on the greenhouse gas
emissions, just based on a systems upgrade alone.
As it pertains to protecting against flood and other types
of damage like that, those are more significant capital
investments, and that is what the Climate and Resilience
Special Emphasis Program is for. And I want to thank the
committee for approving and moving that special emphasis
program forward.
Ms. Titus. Well, thank you very much. I now recognize Mr.
Webster for 5 minutes.
Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you, Chair.
Commissioner Albert, it looks like costs of items in every
area of life are going up. Inflation is there. And I am sure in
your arena, especially in infrastructure of buildings--plus, I
guess, land also is being affected by those costs--what are you
seeing? What are you doing? How are the costs impacting the
general operation of GSA, especially in the construction of new
projects?
Ms. Albert. Well, thank you for that question. Obviously,
this is of utmost interest and concern to the construction
industry and real estate industry at large.
From a building's operation perspective, we haven't seen
significant cost increases from that side. That is where our
buying power and the contracts that we have in place have set
prices, and we have been able to manage those costs pretty
well. Where we are seeing costs rise is around certain types of
materials, labor shortages in many cases. And in those cases,
we are looking at our portfolio of projects and having to make
adjustments. They can be sometimes scope changes, they can be a
different phasing plan to be able to deliver the project within
budget. And then it can also include, in more challenging
times, even removing certain projects off the plate, or waiting
until we are able to deliver them.
So, these are the tools that are available when we face
circumstances like this and are having to manage to a fixed
budget in an environment where there may be escalating costs.
What is incredibly important for any manager of a major
portfolio like ours is to have sustained and dedicated funding
year after year, because we can then plan to manage around
momentary cost changes. It is sort of a fundamental management
axiom for people who are managing major capital investments is
the longer we can have a 5-year or a 10-year capital
improvement plan, we can manage to the immediate market
circumstances. And that is, I think, a key part to this moment,
where everyone is trying to manage the specific cost increases
that we are seeing in the construction industry.
Mr. Webster of Florida. So, let's say, last case scenario,
you don't know exactly what to do. You are in the middle of
something, they are building it, and all of a sudden the costs
are going to be more. Do you have any ability to modify what is
being done?
Ms. Albert. We do. It depends on what the circumstance is.
As you know, GSA works very closely during the procurement
process with the contractor. We often try and negotiate a firm,
fixed price or a guaranteed maximum price. So, the projects
that are already underway are being planned according to the
budget that the contractors committed to.
When there are unusual circumstances, there are provisions
within our contracts that allow us to negotiate around whatever
that what we call force majeure event might be.
Mr. Webster of Florida. Yes. So, also in the area of
courthouses, there was a study 10 or 12 years ago about the
cost--the actual courthouses being larger than what was
approved. And that certainly costs more money than what we
have. What are you doing to make sure that what is approved,
what is talked about, what is voted on is what we are doing?
Ms. Albert. Well, we are working very closely with the
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and they have been a
fantastic partner. They are seeing the opportunity to modernize
their facilities as a result of what they have learned over the
last 2 years during the pandemic and how they know their future
workforce is going to use space.
So, the past 10 years have been a great collaboration. I
believe that we have worked very closely with the courts to
make sure that design standards are put in place and that the
budgets that are developed are current and also communicated.
There are changes that occur during the course of any project,
and we work closely on those scope changes with the courts to
make sure that they are being properly managed.
Mr. Webster of Florida. Thank you very much.
I yield back.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Webster. We will now go to the
other members of the committee, and I will recognize them for 5
minutes.
First, we have Ms. Van Duyne.
Ms. Van Duyne. Thank you very much. I appreciate everybody
being here today.
Most Americans are getting back to work, and that includes
getting back to work in the office. In his State of the Union,
President Biden said it is time for Americans to get back to
work and fill our great downtowns again. People working from
home can feel safe to begin to return to the office. We are
doing that here in the Federal Government. The vast majority of
Federal workers will once again work in person.
But from what we have heard from constituents, from what I
have seen--and it is constituents who are actually acting on,
working with our Government agencies--that really does not
appear to be the case.
I understand you can only speak on behalf of what the GSA
is doing right now. But as the Government landlord, you should
be leading by example. So, Ms. Albert, I am going to ask you.
How many GSA employees are back in the office full-time right
now?
Ms. Albert. I don't know the exact number to that.
GSA has always been a leader, and sort of on the leading
edge of hybrid work. We have been practicing in a hybrid
environment for over a decade. And so, as a result of the last
couple of years, we have been reevaluating which positions
qualify for remote work, which positions qualify for hybrid----
Ms. Van Duyne [interrupting]. So, of those positions, how
many are back in the office 5 days a week?
Ms. Albert. I am not sure that any are back in the office 5
days a week, but we are also not aiming for that outcome.
What we are really looking to do--and I would say that this
is true----
Ms. Van Duyne [interrupting]. So, how many days, on
average, per week are they at the office?
Ms. Albert. I don't know that I can provide an average. I
can tell you what I do, which is I am in the office between 3
and 4 days a week. And so is my supporting staff.
Ms. Van Duyne. What about other leadership in DC?
Ms. Albert. I would say that we are in a period of flux,
and this is across the country in private sector, as well.
There are very few organizations, private or public, that are
in the office 5 days a week.
Ms. Van Duyne. I could tell you our office is in the
office. Our staff is in the office, both in DC and in the
district, because that is where constituents call, that is
where constituents come for help.
But from a leadership perspective, this is your team. I
would hope that you would know how often that they are in the
office. This is a team that you are working directly with.
Ms. Albert. We are actually encouraging hybrid work so that
we can fully understand it, so that we can serve agencies that
are interested in engaging with hybrid, remote, or office-based
work as effectively as possible. This is an opportunity to----
Ms. Van Duyne [interrupting]. But can you just give me--and
I know that we use that term, but I don't know what hybrid
means. I mean, I know it is a mixture, but is it mostly at
home? Is it mostly in the office?
I know at HUD, I think it is like 1 day a pay period they
have to come back in the office. What is GSA doing?
Ms. Albert. GSA----
Ms. Van Duyne [interrupting]. Certainly, you have a policy.
It is not--it is just not a one-off, right?
Ms. Albert. No, it is not a one-off. We have actually been
systematically working through each position.
This is what best practices are, are to look at what is the
requirement of the position, and how should it be qualified.
Ms. Van Duyne. So, you are telling me at GSA right now you
don't have a standard, that is, each position is different on
how many days that they come to the office, each position?
There is no standard?
Ms. Albert. We have a standard by position. That is
correct.
Ms. Van Duyne. OK, and what does that range from?
Ms. Albert. It ranges from fully remote, hybrid, to onsite.
Ms. Van Duyne. OK, and then how many would you say are
fully remote, what percentage?
Ms. Albert. Six percent, I believe.
Ms. Van Duyne. OK, and then what is the others?
Ms. Albert. Let's see. Onsite is about--and please don't
quote me on these numbers, this is an estimate--onsite, fully
onsite, 5 days a week--those are our building managers and
people who provide onsite services, that is about 10 percent.
And the vast majority is in a hybrid mode. Hybrid means
anywhere from 1 day a week in the office to 4 days a week in
the office.
So, that is what the spread is. This is, again, very
typical. This is the norms of the private sector, as well as
public sector. We are all competing for qualified talent in the
future, and we know that the current generation, after
experiencing working from home for the last 2 years, as well as
future generations, are going to anticipate and need and want
flexible work styles.
Ms. Van Duyne. Yes, and I think flexible is one thing, but
going back to the office 1 day every 2 weeks is probably not
exactly what makes the best team work together.
But if GSA is in charge of Government office space,
wouldn't it be in your best interest to actually have the
office buildings filled again? I mean, otherwise, are we
looking at shrinking down that footprint? You are spending a
lot of rent on empty office space right now.
Ms. Albert. Well, right now, what I think the opportunity
is, is to have fewer buildings and better buildings. I think
that there is an opportunity to reevaluate our portfolio and
take those facilities that are underutilized, and put them to
better use by either offering----
Ms. Van Duyne [interrupting]. I hope we can do that soon. I
yield back my time. Thank you very much.
Ms. Titus. Thank you. I now recognize Mrs. Napolitano.
[Pause.]
Ms. Titus. Mrs. Napolitano?
Mrs. Napolitano. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Titus. Thank you.
Mrs. Napolitano. Commissioner Albert, two of GSA's
strategic plan priorities are developing virtual workspace
solutions and disposing of underutilized facilities. What
actions has the Public Buildings Service taken to address this?
Ms. Albert. Sure. Thank you so much for your question. We
are doing two things concurrently.
The first is, we are looking at our assets again. We are
scrubbing them completely and trying to determine which ones
are long-term strategic holds for the Federal Government that
we should continue to invest in, that we should properly
maintain, that we should upgrade and renovate to withstand
future climate events----
Mrs. Napolitano [interrupting]. Is there--pardon me. Is
there a list of priorities that you can share with the
committee so we know what you are working on and what has come
up as a priority for you?
Ms. Albert. Sure. I mean, the priority for us is to make
sure that we have a financially and environmentally sustainable
portfolio. That work incorporates disposition of underutilized
properties and reinvestment in assets that we know that we are
going to hang on to.
And there is a tremendous opportunity, and this is where we
are working with agencies to determine how they are going to be
using space in the future and making sure that, when there is
an opportunity to consolidate space, that we are doing that
and, ideally, when we have a Federal building available,
consolidating them into Federal space.
So, all of those activities take place concurrently. We are
working very actively. And, as you saw in our----
Mrs. Napolitano [interrupting]. Pardon me. Do you have a
report that would show what your priorities are?
Ms. Albert. Yes, actually. Well, we have a report that is
deliverable to Congress.
Mrs. Napolitano. I would like to see it----
Ms. Albert [interrupting]. Let's see. I think it would be
in September. And so, we look forward to sharing the results of
that report with you here shortly this fall.
Mrs. Napolitano. And the committee, would you please?
And then your testimony noted that delayed actions have
increased several projects' costs by $122 million and how these
delays to repair and maintenance impact your ability to make
GSA's portfolio more climate resistant.
Ms. Albert. I am sorry. Could I ask you to repeat the
question? Unfortunately, it was hard to hear.
Mrs. Napolitano. Delayed action has increased project costs
by $122 million. How do these delays in repairs and maintenance
impact GSA's ability to make its portfolio more climate
resistant?
Ms. Albert. OK. Thank you so much. What I think I
understood was that delays in project delivery can impact our
ability to make buildings more climate resistant. OK?
Mrs. Napolitano. Yes.
Ms. Albert. Well, any time that there is limited
flexibility in how we manage the portfolio, as well as delays
due to burdensome process, all of those delays compound our
ability to react quickly, whether or not there is an immediate
event that we need to respond to so that we can recover, or
whether or not we are planning in advance to make upgrades to a
building.
These are the fundamentals of what I hope to work with the
committee on in the near future. We need to have access to the
Federal Buildings Fund so that we can plan in advance, as well
as have the flexibility to invest when needed during times of
emergency, or even times of basic repair.
The acceleration or the improvements to the prospectus
process is also about addressing speed. The GAO report
estimated that the prospectus process in its current form takes
about 23 months. That is 2 years that a facility isn't repaired
when it could have been. That is 2 years that an agency is
delayed in getting into a leased space.
Mrs. Napolitano. What can you do to cut the redtape?
Ms. Albert. Well, this is what we would love to talk to you
about.
I think fundamentally, when GSA collects rent and other
proceeds, that populates the Federal Buildings Fund. Twelve
years ago, we used to have reliable access to the full amount
of rent that we collect. That is estimated today between $10
billion to $11 billion. We have been shortchanged by about $1
billion per year. And unfortunately, where that money is coming
from is from the Capital Improvement Program, almost
exclusively. The leasing----
Mrs. Napolitano [interrupting]. Why have you been
shortchanged?
Ms. Albert. That is just the fix that we are looking to
make in the Federal Buildings Fund, is to be able to get full
access year after year. That is why the Harbor Maintenance
Trust Fund example or model is of interest to us. That is how
that fix was made, so that the Army Corps of Engineers could
have access to the funds that it collected. We are seeking
something very similar.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, ma'am.
Ms. Albert. Thank you.
Ms. Titus. Thank you. I don't see anybody else to ask any
questions. Ms. Norton was going to try to come back, but she
hasn't.
Just a followup with that, and then I will see if Mr.
Webster wants to ask any more questions.
Where does that money go? How do the appropriators use
that? Or does it depend on the year?
Ms. Albert. It depends on the year. I don't have the full
history. In some cases it has been to make technology
investments, in other cases it has been for other things. So,
it has been a variable, depending on the past 10 to 12 years.
Ms. Titus. You want to ask any more questions?
Mr. Webster of Florida. I just want to say thank you for
appearing today. It has been good. I look forward to working
with you on many of these problems and also coming up with
solutions that will work for all. Thank you.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Webster.
I think we can look again at these problems that you
mentioned. I want to ask you a couple of questions.
I know that you don't directly oversee the VA, but that
sometimes you work with the VA, and they do a terrible job of
managing buildings. I think about the hospital that was near
Denver that went over budget so much and took so much longer,
and all that.
How is your working relationship with them?
Ms. Albert. Our relationship with the VA is good, and it
gets better and better. We work pretty closely with them on
both leasing actions that--we use our lease authority to
acquire outpatient clinics, for example, and they have been
talking to us about their interest in partnership around
construction practices.
GSA deploys all of the tools available in terms of
construction management. And so, we have a great depth of
knowledge in this space. And the VA has been talking to us
about that.
A lot of the different portfolios are fairly complex, and
we are really stepping into a place of becoming a partner for
different agencies, not only so that they can learn best
practices, but in many cases where maybe we can augment their
delivery of projects.
And so, that is the scope of what we are looking at right
now: bringing industry best practices to all of Government.
Ms. Titus. That is good. I am glad to hear that. I hope
they will listen.
One other quick question. What is happening about the FBI
building? We know that money is there. We know it is in
terrible shape. We know it has been a controversial decision.
Can you bring us up to date on that?
Ms. Albert. Sure. We recently briefed the committee on the
viability of the three previous sites that were identified.
Just to remind you, one was at Greenbelt Metro Station in
Maryland. Another one was at Landover, also in Maryland. And
then the third site is at the Franconia-Springfield Metro
Station in Virginia. So, we assessed those sites because they
were based on a significant consolidation previously, and they
are still available. We talked to each of the landowners of
those properties. All three sites continue to be viable.
What we are working on right now with the FBI, in
accordance with the President's fiscal year 2023 budget
request, is a consolidated suburban campus at 1 of those 3
sites where, at minimum, 7,500 employees would relocate to, but
also working on a 750- to 1,000-person presence here in
downtown Washington, DC, so that there can be proximity to the
Department of Justice and the White House.
We have had a very cooperative and positive set of
conversations. And what is going to happen next is looking at
site selection. So, how will we choose, and what are going to
be the criteria for choosing among those three sites?
Ms. Titus. Thank you. Will you keep us posted on that?
Ms. Albert. Absolutely. It is of utmost importance. And as
you may or may not know, my career was built as an economic
development and real estate professional in this region. And I
know how important this project is.
Ms. Titus. Thank you.
Ms. Van Duyne, are you still there? Is she gone?
Is Mrs. Napolitano still there?
[To Mr. Webster of Florida:] Well, all right, you are set?
Mr. Webster of Florida. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Titus. Well, thank you very much. It has been helpful.
You have laid out two major things we need to work with you on,
and we are happy to do that and willing to. It sounds like we
can make some improvements there.
So, that will conclude our hearing. I would like to again
thank you for your testimony. The comments were, as the script
says, very informative and helpful. But even more than that, we
appreciate your being here.
I ask unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing
remain open until such time as our witness provides answers to
any questions that may be submitted to her in writing.
I also ask unanimous consent that the record remain open
for 15 days for any additional comments and information
submitted by Members or the witness to be included in the
record of today's hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
The subcommittee now stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:46 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Submissions for the Record

----------

Prepared Statement of Hon. Sam Graves, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Missouri, and Ranking Member, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
Thank you, Chair Titus, and thank you to our witness, Commissioner
Albert, for being here today.
This Subcommittee has a long, bipartisan history of taking a
leading role in reforming federal real estate.
From pressing agencies to reduce their space footprint, to changing
how we dispose of unneeded real estate, we have saved the taxpayer
billions of dollars.
Now we must address the growing deferred maintenance costs in the
GSA portfolio, and the increased risk these buildings face.
The committee passed eight resolutions last week focused on
mitigating risk and the effects of an aging real estate portfolio, such
as addressing the fire safety system and establishing a system to look
closer at mitigating against natural disasters.
I look forward to hearing from the GSA Public Buildings
Commissioner today on GSA's efforts and plans to reduce risk to its
portfolio and save taxpayer dollars.
Thank you, Chair Titus. I yield back.

Appendix

----------

Questions from Hon. Dina Titus to Nina Albert, Commissioner, Public
Buildings Service, U.S. General Services Administration

Question 1. Earlier this year, I introduced the House companion to
the BRIGHT Act which passed the Senate. My bill would direct the GSA to
install the most life-cycle cost-effective and energy-efficient
lighting in public buildings which is estimated to save millions in
taxpayer dollars. Does the GSA support this bill as a means of saving
taxpayer dollars and maximizing energy efficiency?
Answer. In accordance with the Energy Act of 2020, Pub. L. No. 116-
260, 134 Stat. 1182, 2418, the U.S. General Services Administration
(GSA) supports implementing all life-cycle cost-effective energy
conservation measures, to the maximum extent practicable, using a
combination of appropriated dollars and alternative financing, when and
where appropriate. Lighting projects often have a high return on
investment and can contribute to the viability of alternatively
financed projects by supporting other energy conservation measures with
longer payback periods. GSA supports efforts to install high-efficiency
lighting, equipment and other energy and water conservation projects
that reduce operating costs and have beneficial environmental impacts.
Furthermore, GSA supports continued flexibility in the application of
BRIGHT Act investments to allow use of energy savings performance
contracts and utility energy service contracts in accordance with the
Energy Act of 2020.

Question 2. GSA's repair backlog has left many older properties at
risk to extreme weather events. How is GSA addressing flood and sea
level rise risks posed to existing buildings? Is GSA collecting data on
each asset's condition, age, maintenance costs, and susceptibility to
damage from extreme weather events? Is the GSA utilizing this data to
prioritize repairs or disposals? Does GSA use forward-looking climate
information and climate adaptation analyses in its decision-making
about potential investments, acquisitions, and disposals? What is GSA's
approach for investing in the highest priority climate-resilience
projects? Should the GSA build on this and update federal facility
location policies to include additional climate risks when siting
buildings and procuring leases? How is GSA addressing flood and sea
level rise risks posed to existing buildings?
Answer. GSA's real estate portfolio faces a number of risks,
including those from increasing extreme weather events. To address the
need to evaluate existing assets for their vulnerability to climate
events, GSA's fiscal year (FY) 2022 and FY 2023 budgets have requested
appropriations for the Climate and Resilience Special Emphasis program
to undertake the highest priority projects to mitigate unsafe building
conditions and to maintain operational continuity. This includes
appropriations for technical determinations of flood vulnerabilities
for buildings and sites that were already identified in a prior FY 2020
report to Congress, the estimation of flood mitigation project costs
and time frames for project execution. This Special Emphasis Program
includes modernization of internal guidance, systems and tools to
assist in location policies, as well as other measures for asset and
project management. GSA includes safeguarding assets and risk
management factors as part of its capital construction program reviews
and prioritization.
GSA uses the best available government information, such as FEMA's
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), which characterize flood risk due to
past incidents. GSA will also consider other flood risk information
that includes future flooding conditions that FEMA makes available. GSA
will also consider other flood risk information that includes future
flooding conditions that NOAA and other federal science agencies
finalize in the Climate Science Informed Approach (CISA) of Executive
Order 13690--Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (FFRMS). GSA also
collects data on each asset's condition, age and maintenance needs, but
it does not currently systematically collect data on an asset's
susceptibility to damage from extreme weather events and incremental
climate change. However, GSA does collect data on climate impacts
already made to existing buildings and incorporates current and
forward-looking climate information and analysis into new construction
and major repair and alteration prospectus projects. For capital
projects, climate adaptation measures are provided by GSA's licensed
architects, engineers and subject matter expert consultants using
forward-looking climate information from the latest National Climate
Assessment, which is the most comprehensive and authoritative source on
climate change and its impacts in the United States. Climate adaptation
measures may include nature-based solutions as appropriate to the
project.
Without full annual access to the revenues and collections
deposited into the Federal Buildings Fund (FBF), though, GSA will
remain unable to fully address these and other risks that face our
public buildings.

Question 3. The current FBI building on Pennsylvania Avenue is
obviously falling apart and no longer a modern headquarter consistent
with the level of security and utility of the other members of the
Intelligence Community. Given the pressing need, has GSA considered
using alternative financing mechanisms like lease purchase agreements
to complete the project in a timely fashion? Does GSA have enough funds
to procure a site and build the infrastructure for a new campus?
Answer. The Administration is committed to delivering a modern,
secure, and sustainable headquarters campus for the FBI that allows it
to accomplish its mission effectively. GSA and FBI collectively have
funding to acquire a site and complete a design but, at this time, full
construction funding has not been appropriated to deliver a new campus.
Historically, GSA has considered a range of alternatives to address
this pressing need, including lease purchase agreements. Given the
unique specifications of this Headquarters facility, a lease purchase
would require upfront funding for the full construction cost. We note,
that infrastructure needs are dependent on the site selected and the
design of the facility, neither of which has been completed. The
Administration is committed to submitting a funding request for this
project and looks forward to working with Congress to appropriate
adequate funding for this urgent need.

Question 4. The Biden Administration has announced ambitious
environmental and sustainability goals, including some that apply to
its leased real estate portfolio. To effectuate those goals, will GSA
give preference to greener buildings in its lease procurement process?
If so, will buildings that go beyond the minimum requirements of the
solicitation be given any advantages in procurement, financial or
otherwise?
Answer. There is no regulatory or statutory price preference for
greener buildings with lease procurements. In order for there to be a
price preference for greener buildings, similar to how there is a price
preference for historic buildings, the Federal Management Regulation
(FMR) would need to be updated to include greener buildings as a
criteria for a price preference with lease procurements.
In order for GSA to reach its sustainability goals when it comes to
lease procurements, GSA Office of Leasing is currently evaluating using
sustainability requirements as a possible award factor when conducting
Best Value Tradeoff (BVTO) source selection lease procurements. Also,
GSA is working closely with its stakeholders to fully implement
Executive Order 14057, which includes sustainability requirements for
lease procurements that will apply in FY2023 and net zero leasing
standards that will take effect in FY2030.
GSA is committed to acquiring sustainable leased space through its
application of statutory requirements, Federal mandates, and industry
standards. Federal mandates refer to Executive Orders as well federal
policies from agencies such as EPA and Dept of Energy. GSA's leasing
requirements include many building industry standards, such as those
related to HVAC (ASHRAE), lighting (Illuminating Engineering Society),
plumbing, and fire-life-safety. The Energy Independence and Security
Act of 2007 is the statute that requires, with limited exceptions, that
Federal agencies must not award a lease contract to a lessor for space
in a building that has not earned the ENERGY STAR label in the most
recent year. In addition, GSA has 60+ clauses in its lease contract
that include green standards related to sustainable products and
practices, as well as, site and environmental conditions that serve as
minimum, mandatory requirements.
Recently, the new Executive Order (E.O.) 14057 on Federal
Sustainability was issued on 12/8/21, with accompanying Implementing
Instructions finalized on 8/31/22. The E.O. includes additional
sustainability requirements for Leasing that apply in FY2023 and
beyond. Currently, work is underway to roll out requirements FY2023.
Next, The Administration will develop net zero leasing standards for
full implementation by 2030.
This list of green requirements for GSA leases, including the
Energy Star label, the 40+ clauses, and E.O. 14057 provisions, to
include net zero leasing standards, serve as an effective way to
achieve sustainability goals.

Question 5. For a decade, the Energy Independence and Security Act
(EISA) provided agencies with specific annual energy and water
efficiency goals. Unfortunately, these expired in FY2015. If revived,
how would such goals help drive continual progress on sustainability
throughout agencies including GSA? What are the risks of not having
stable, long-term goals for energy and water efficiency? How is GSA
working to help achieve the administration's net zero goals?
Answer. Energy and water goals, when coupled with: (i) consistent
funding for GSA's capital improvement budget, (ii) focused appropriated
funding, such as the Energy and Water Retrofit and Conservation
Measures Special Emphasis Program included in GSA's FY 2023 budget
request, and (iii) performance contracting, where appropriate, are keys
to developing and maintaining a high performing, sustainable real
estate portfolio.
The Energy Act of 2020 mandated that life-cycle cost-effective
energy and water conservation measures be implemented, with 50%
addressed using performance contracting. Executive Order 14057,
Catalyzing Clean Energy Industries and Jobs Through Federal
Sustainability (December 8, 2021), mandates that GSA: (1) establish
targets for FY 2030 energy use intensity and potable water use
intensity and (2) propose annual progress targets (based on benchmarked
performance analysis). These goals and milestones will be part of GSA's
analysis and planning to meet Executive Order 14057's 65% scope 1 and 2
greenhouse gas emissions reduction (from 2008 levels) by 2030 and net-
zero emissions building portfolio goals by 2045.
The combination of these statutory and executive order mandates is
driving progress on our portfolio sustainability and stewardship. In
the near term, GSA's lack of access to annual revenues and collections
in the FBF for capital investments to reduce our backlog of deferred
maintenance and make our buildings more energy efficient poses a
significant challenge to maintaining and improving our buildings'
sustainability performance.

Question 6. GSA has developed expertise in high performing
buildings, such as building strategies affecting health and wellness.
What is needed for GSA to apply this knowledge to enhance conditions
for health and productivity of the Federal workforce? What lessons have
you learned from Covid? What percentage of buildings in the portfolio
stayed fully occupied during Covid?
Answer. COVID-19 highlighted the importance of effective
communication and collaboration, especially in an environment where
research and guidelines are rapidly changing. GSA has learned several
lessons during this pandemic and, undoubtedly, there will be more
lessons learned in the future.
GSA quickly learned the value of constant communications
in keeping individuals informed and ensuring team members were working
together to keep facility occupants safe.
Weekly national team communications were established,
with additional meetings added when the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) and the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force guidance
changed, resulting in immediate calls to action for GSA and GSA
facilities managers. These included establishing protocols for:
+ COVID-19 cleaning and disinfecting.
+ Notification of facility occupants when COVID-19 incidents are
reported.
+ Communication templates to ensure consistency of messaging.
+ Employee COVID-19 contact tracing.
+ Modifying service contracts, as needed.
+ Implementing operational changes to heating, ventilation and
air conditioning (HVAC) systems as recommended by CDC and looking for
additional opportunities to improve those systems.
+ Enhancing collaboration with security partners, and ensuring
all policy, guidance and directives are synchronized.
This reinforced the importance of leveraging effective IT
systems:
+ Several years of work on software (cloud) and hardware (all
associates having laptops) enabled GSA to pivot almost overnight to
remote work, where possible, to continue delivering on our mission.
+ Workspace business apps and collaboration tools to adapt to
communication, tracking and reporting needs.
+ Continual review of effectiveness of the tools and enhancing
or developing additional tools, as needed.
+ Use of Robotic Process Automation to communicate with hundreds
of associates as CDC COVID-19 Community Levels change each week.

Many of these lessons were only able to be put into action
effectively due to the support Congress provided through CARES Act
resources to address enhanced cleaning standards, new contract
requirements and improvements to HVAC systems. GSA continues to
collaborate with government agencies, service providers and industry
leaders on best practices and technologies to enhance the health and
productivity of the Federal workforce. There may be more we can and
should do in the future to make our buildings more resilient and to
continue enhancing safety for all occupants.
Throughout the pandemic, most GSA-controlled facilities remained
open for Federal employees and contractors to conduct business.
However, the vast majority of occupant agencies allowed at least a
portion of their employees and contractors to work remotely at various
times and continue to do so as COVID-19 transmission rates remain at
high and medium levels throughout the Nation.

Question 7. How will gaining full access to the Federal Buildings
Fund reduce the backlog of repair and alteration projects? Would a fix
like the one enacted for the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund be
beneficial to GSA?
Answer. For more than a decade, GSA's major repair and alterations
budget within the Federal Buildings Fund (FBF) has been underfunded by
approximately $1 billion annually, or half of the annual repair and
alterations need, which is now increasing deferred maintenance across
GSA's real estate portfolio. A fix for the FBF like the one enacted for
the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund would be transformative for GSA, the
federal agencies we serve, and the public that relies on government
services and the assets that we are charged with maintaining. With
stable and consistent funding, we can make our public buildings more
modern, flexible, and resilient, which will allow us to seize the
opportunity presented by agencies rethinking their workspaces to: 1)
reduce the real estate footprint; 2) consolidate agencies; and 3)
rebalance from costly leases to federally owned space. Taken together,
massive savings are possible--on the order of billions of dollars per
year.
We can also make our facilities much more sustainable,
turbocharging our efforts to make all of our public buildings carbon
pollution-free by 2030, and net zero carbon by 2045. This will reduce
the cost of operating buildings, as well as drive smart and sustainable
improvements in the type of energy we buy off the grid.
Finally, gaining full access to the annual revenues and collections
in the FBF will allow us to properly maintain the public assets we
steward. Moreover, we would be able to address repairs in a much more
fiscally responsible manner, taking care of smaller issues before they
become bigger ones, and avoiding the consequences of continually
escalating costs. In FY 2023, for example, eight of the 17 major
repairs and alterations line item projects proposed in the President's
Budget were included in a previous budget request. Since those projects
were initially requested, costs have risen by $122 million.
GSA is deeply appreciative of the Committee's interest in ensuring
we have a safe, efficient, sustainable, and properly maintained real
estate portfolio to deliver effectively for the Federal workforce and
the American public. A fix for the FBF would be a game-changer for the
government and will save money for the American people.

Question 8. Where are the FY23 lease prospectuses? Is GSA going to
revalidate the square footage of prospectuses that we've passed or that
you have sent to us? With so many leases expiring, how will GSA make
new leasing decisions before the agencies have determined their long-
term leasing posture?
Answer. GSA typically submits lease prospectuses for each fiscal
year in the late summer and early fall, following its budget
submission. The FY 2023 lease prospectuses are currently being reviewed
within the Executive Branch and will be transmitted to this Committee
and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works later this
summer and early fall.
As part of its lease review process, GSA confirms that its
prospectus-level lease actions have an approved prospectus to support
the award of a lease. If a revalidation of the space needs requires a
new prospectus, GSA will work with the Committee to prepare amended
lease prospectuses.
GSA must continue to consider how a particular lease transaction
aligns with the portfolio strategies of the local market and the degree
of financial risk GSA is prepared to assume when entering into leases
on behalf of a customer agency. In some situations, GSA will make
practical use of shorter-term leasing authorities, such as renewal
options and strategic extensions, that will enable GSA to avoid long-
term commitments while agencies engage in the planning necessary to
understand their long-term needs. In other situations, GSA will make
practical use of longer-term leasing authorities that are appropriate
for those particular occupancies. In the near term, the Committee
should expect GSA to propose more shorter-term leases; we are engaged
with agencies now in planning for their long-term space needs and we
want to ensure we do not overcommit the government on requirements that
may change in the next few years. We hope to partner with the Committee
on what will be a challenging moment of transition, but ultimately one
that provides a huge opportunity to optimize the real estate footprint
and save taxpayers money.

Questions from Hon. Daniel Webster to Nina Albert, Commissioner, Public
Buildings Service, U.S. General Services Administration

Question 1. In your response to the Subcommittee on the current
plan for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) headquarters, you
specifically mentioned the goal is to have a consolidated headquarters
at one of three potential sites in either Maryland or Virginia; but to
also maintain a location in Washington, D.C., to ensure proximity to
the Department of Justice and the White House. During your verbal
response, you indicated, at a minimum, 7,500 employees would relocate
to the consolidated suburban campus, but that there would be a
continued 750 to 1,000-person presence in downtown Washington, D.C.
Please indicate if there is any overlap in those staffing levels and,
if so, how much (e.g., whether employees may be assigned to both
locations).
Answer. The FBI is currently updating its requirements, and re-
evaluating its lease inventory, staffing and mission needs for the
National Capital Region to maximize consolidation opportunities.
Although GSA has not received FBI's final consolidation analysis,
minimal overlap of the urban and suburban staffing levels and mission
activities is expected.

Question 2. The fiscal year (FY) 2023 Consolidation Activities
Program submitted to the Committee highlights 87 previously-funded
projects that will result in reducing space by 1.8 million square feet
and save taxpayers $163 million in annual lease cost avoidance. The
prospectus suggests these 87 projects are still underway, please
provide a timeline for their completion and the Subcommittee with a
list of those projects?
Answer. Previous appropriations to the FBF for the Consolidation
Activities Special Emphasis Program have funded 89 consolidation
projects. Of those 89 projects, 63 have been completed. The remaining
26 projects are still underway and have varying estimated completion
dates between now and August 2023.
When the remaining projects are completed, the program is estimated
to have reduced the federal footprint by approximately 1.8 million
usable square feet and generated more than $163,000,000 in annual
Government lease cost avoidance.
Active projects are included as an attachment (``Active
Consolidation Activities Program Projects 7-18-22'').
attachment

Active Consolidation Activities Program Projects 7-18-2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Name/
Region Program Name Location Public Law Status
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... Consolidation SSA O'Neil Federal FY2021, FY18 Active
Activities. Building Leased Revised
to Owned Expenditure Spend
Consolidation Plan #1--Spend
Project / Boston, plan Rev #3.
MA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2............................... Consolidation Leo O'Brien FY2019, 116-6 Active
Activities. Federal Building-- Major R&A Spend
Department of Plan.
Labor's
Occupational
Safety and Health
Administration
(OSHA)
Consolidation--Pr
oj VNY00090 /
Albany, NY.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2............................... Consolidation 201 Varick Street FY2015, FY 2015 PL Active
Activities. DHS/ICE Tenant 113-235.
Proj# VNY00070,
VNY00071 /
Manhattan, NY.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2............................... Consolidation Ted Weiss Federal FY2019, 116-6 Active
Activities. Building--The Major R&A Spend
U.S. Commodity Plan.
Futures Trading
Commission (CFTC)
consolidation
VNY00096 / New
York, NY.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2............................... Consolidation Jacob K. Javits FY2021, FY21 Major Active
Activities. Federal Building-- R&A Spend Plan PL
DOE Consolidation 116-260.
/ New York, NY.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3............................... Consolidation HUD Richmond FY2021, FY18 Active
Activities. Federal Building Revised
Leased to Owned Expenditure Spend
Consolidation Plan #1--Spend
Project / plan Rev #3.
Richmond, VA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4............................... Consolidation Claude Pepper FY2015, FY 2015 PL Active
Activities. Federal Building 113-235.
Proj# VFL00027
(FY15), VFL00051
(FY20)/Miami, FL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4............................... Consolidation Claude Pepper FY2020, FY2020 Active
Activities. Federal Building Major R&A Spend
Proj# VFL00027 Plan.
(FY15), VFL00051
(FY20)/Miami, FL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4............................... Consolidation Martin Luther King FY2018, 115-141... Active
Activities. Federal Building /
Atlanta, GA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5............................... Consolidation 536 S. Clark St. FY2018, 115-141... Active
Activities. Federal Building
(GAO
consolidation)
Proj# VIL00134 /
Chicago, IL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5............................... Consolidation Ralph H. Metcalfe FY2019, FY14-FY17 Active
Activities. Federal Building Revision 2
(CFTC) / Chicago, Expenditure Plan.
Illinois.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5............................... Consolidation HHS--Chicago, IL, FY2021, FY17-FY18 Active
Activities. John C. Revision
Kluczynski and Consolidation
Ralph H. Metcalfe Spend Plan HHS
Federal Buildings Consolidation.
Consolidation
Project. /
Chicago, Illinois.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5............................... Consolidation John C. Kluczynski FY2019, FY14-FY17 Active
Activities. Federal Building Revision 2
(IRS) / Chicago, Expenditure Plan.
Illinois.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5............................... Consolidation Kluczynski Federal FY2019, FY 2014, Active
Activities. Building (DOL 2015, and 2016
ETA, OA, & JC) Revised
Proj# VIL00128 / Expenditure Plan.
Chicago, IL.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7............................... Consolidation Employers CASU FY2015, FY 2015 PL Active
Activities. Bldg 1301 Young 113-235.
St Proj# VTX00278
(HHS Lease to
Lease
Consolidation) /
Dallas, TX.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8............................... Consolidation Denver Federal FY2019, FY 2014, Active
Activities. Center Building 2015, and 2016
40--(DOI, BLM) Revised
Proj# VCO00088 / Expenditure Plan.
Lakewood, CO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8............................... Consolidation Denver Federal FY2016, 114-113... Active
Activities. Center--(EPA)
Project# VCO00079
/ Denver, CO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8............................... Consolidation Denver Federal FY2019, FY 2014, Active
Activities. Center, Building 2015, and 2016
41 (DOI, OSM) Revised
Proj# VCO00097 / Expenditure Plan.
Lakewood, CO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9............................... Consolidation DOL Consolidation FY2020, PL 116-93 Active
Activities. 312 North Spring FY20 Major R&A
Street / Los Spend Plan.
Angeles, CA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9............................... Consolidation Ronald V. Dellums FY2019, FY14-FY17 Active
Activities. Federal Building Revision 2
and U.S. Expenditure Plan.
Courthouse (USDA)
Proj # VCA00260 /
Oakland, CA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9............................... Consolidation Ronald V. Dellums FY2019, 116-6 Active
Activities. Federal Building Major R&A Spend
and U.S. Plan.
Courthouse--Natio
nal Labor
Relations Board
(NLRB)
consolidation
proj # VCA00262;
VCA00263 /
Oakland, CA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.............................. Consolidation Anchorage Federal FY2019, 116-6 Active
Activities. Building--Departm Major R&A Spend
ent of Homeland Plan.
Security's
Immigration and
Customs
Enforcement (ICE)
consolidation
Proj VAK00019 /
Anchorage, AK.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.............................. Consolidation Historic Federal FY2019, FY 2014, Active
Activities. Office Building-- 2015, and 2016
DOL Proj# Revised
VWA00070 / Expenditure Plan.
Seattle, WA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.............................. Consolidation Historic Federal FY2019, FY 2014, Active
Activities. Office Building-- 2015, and 2016
HUD Proj# Revised
VWA00069 / Expenditure Plan.
Seattle, WA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.............................. Consolidation Mary E. Switzer FY2014, 113-76 Active
Activities. Building, 330 C Project ASIDs--
Street SW / VDC00125 and
Washington, DC. VDC00126.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.............................. Consolidation Mary E. Switzer FY2015, 113-235 Active
Activities. Building, 330 C Lower Levels
Street SW / Project ASIDs--
Washington, DC. VDC00160 and
VDC00161.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.............................. Consolidation Lyndon Baines FY2017, 115-31.... Active
Activities. Johnson Federal
Building Project#
VDC00204 /
Washington, DC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11.............................. Consolidation Theodore Roosevelt FY2017, FY17 spend Active
Activities. Federal Building plan.
(OPM/CIO)
Project# VDC00205/
Washington, DC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question 3. Many private sector companies are turning to flexible
office space providers to quickly reduce their footprint and lower
costs. What can GSA do to help the government better utilize this tool
and realize the value propositions for taxpayers and the federal
workforce?
Answer. GSA's Flexible Coworking Services Indefinite Delivery,
Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract has been awarded to five national
coworking vendors, four of which are small businesses. The vendors on
this IDIQ contract are DeskPass, LiquidSpace, Novel, The Yard, and
WeWork. This contract will allow federal agencies to occupy space on a
short-term, on demand basis to better manage and respond to their
changing workspace needs. Contracted coworking space is not intended to
be a long-term space solution for agencies, as it is not cost effective
over a long period of time, but can be used to address immediate or
temporary needs, or both, and provide space in locations where federal
space is not easily or readily available.

Question 4. Funding, as you pointed out in your testimony, has been
a challenge for the Federal Buildings Fund (FBF). Public private
partnerships (P3s) have effectively been used in the private sector and
by State and local governments as an alternative way to finance new,
updated and more efficient space. For example, P3s can be designed to
not only address the hurdle of upfront capital, but also ensure
buildings are managed, maintained and operated effectively. Do you
commit to working with the Committee on ways GSA could leverage P3s to
carry out its mission?
Answer. GSA is committed to working with the Committee to explore
all available avenues to make sure its buildings are managed,
maintained and operated as effectively as possible. In the past, GSA
has leveraged P3s, where possible, partnering with industry to invest
over $700 million in work to save energy, water and utility costs, and
is happy to consider further opportunities. While the use of P3s can
assist GSA in carrying out its mission, access to the full amount of
revenues and collections deposited in the FBF is the single best way we
can properly and effectively manage, maintain and operate our public
assets.

Question 5. While funding challenges may impact GSA's ability to
reconfigure and consolidate owned space, $5.67 billion is spent
annually for leased space.\1\ Improving space utilization and
negotiating good lease deals as leases expire creates an opportunity
for a significant amount of savings, yet in recent years we have seen
lease costs increase. Please provide written examples of what GSA is
doing to get ahead of lease expirations to reduce space and costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ FY2022 Consolidated Appropriations Act, P.L. 117-103.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answer. GSA continues to focus on improving space utilization,
negotiating below-market leases and replacing leases in a timely
manner. Between 2018 and 2021, GSA achieved more than $4 billion in
lease cost avoidance by proactively managing expiring leases,
consolidating leases into federally owned space, where available, and
negotiating below-market rents.
Congress could further facilitate GSA's ability to achieve this
lease cost avoidance target by updating GSA's prospectus thresholds. As
part of an internal review of the prospectus process in response to GAO
recommendations, GSA analyzed the effects that a higher prospectus
threshold would have on lease cost avoidance. From FY 2019 through FY
2022, for every dollar of rent we replaced, we generated about $2.38 of
Lease Cost Avoidance over the lease term. By increasing the prospectus
threshold to $10 million per year, GSA estimates that it could avoid
approximately $40 million in Lease Costs.
To improve space utilization, GSA engages tenant agencies well in
advance of lease expiration, gathers requirements through partnership
with our tenants and develops solutions that look to reduce rentable
square footage through innovative workplace solutions, consolidations
and space optimization. GSA has significantly increased its lease
replacement rate through improved business processes and incentivizing
the timely replacement through a robust performance management program.
In addition, GSA has provided its workforce with a number of tools,
such as the Automated Advanced Acquisition Program and the Requirements
Specific Acquisition Platform, which have expedited the lease
procurement process and reduced costly lease extensions by replacing
them in advance of their expiration date.
Reducing the Federal footprint continues to be a key strategy. GSA
has initiated several programs focused on controlling lease costs and
continues to deliver projects well below market. The Lease Cost
Avoidance program examines and promotes agency space reduction and
negotiating the best rates possible.

Question 5.a. Further, please denote how far in advance of lease
expiration does GSA begin working with the relevant tenant agency to
begin the process for replacing the lease.
Answer. GSA has a standard timeline to engage tenant agencies in
advance of when their lease is expiring. For leases, GSA generally
begins the process roughly 36 months prior to lease expiration. GSA
first looks at vacant federal space and vacant leased space prior to
posting an advertisement for new leased space to meet an agency's need
for space.

Question 5.b. Additionally, please provide the Subcommittee with
data on what percentage of GSA leases are expiring in the next 5 years.
Answer. As of 08/21/2022:

By count of leases:........................................ 48%
By rentable square feet expiring:.......................... 43%
By value:.................................................. 42%

Question 6. Land Ports of Entry (LPOEs) are critical assets
especially now given the crises at the ports and at the border. While
we receive prospectuses requesting Committee action on specific
projects or phases of projects, we generally do not receive information
on context. You mention in your written testimony the one-time infusion
of $3.4 billion in land ports of entry in the Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act (IIJA). Please provide the Subcommittee with a list of
current projects, phases completed and future phases of those funded by
IIJA as well as regular appropriations. Additionally, please provide
the Committee with its long-range plans for land ports of entry.
Answer. The IIJA Spend Plan, submitted to Congress on February 14,
2022, is attached (``IIJA LPOE Spend Plan'').
A summary of LPOE projects funded by the FBF, separate from the
IIJA or supplemented by it, is also attached (``LPOE FBF List'').
The most recent long-range plan for LPOEs from U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) is also attached (``CBP Five-Year Plan'').
[Editor's note: The attachments are included at the end of the
responses to the questions.]

Question 7. Recently, the judiciary updated its Courthouse Design
Guide. The design guide drives the Courts' official space requirements.
Was GSA included or consulted during this update? If so, please explain
this process and the GSA's perspective on the matter. If not, please
explain how the Subcommittee could assist to ensure GSA's role is
considered in this development.
Answer. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts solicited
feedback from GSA during the planning and development of the updated
Design Guide. GSA was afforded the opportunity to review a draft
revised Design Guide for comment. Ultimately, the Judicial Conference's
Committee on Space and Facilities reviewed all proposed changes and
prepared a revised and updated Design Guide for the Judicial
Conference's consideration.

Question 8. The Committee has jurisdiction over the Federal
Protective Service (FPS) in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
and building security. Since FPS was transferred from GSA to DHS, there
have been questions around whether there is adequate coordination to
address security issues. From GSA's perspective, has there been
improvements in coordination? Does GSA commit to working with the
Committee to ensure there is good coordination between FPS and GSA on
building security issues and identify areas that may need improvement
moving forward?
Answer. GSA is committed to its partnership with DHS-FPS and
working with both DHS-FPS the tenant agencies, and this Committee to
enhance the safety and security of the facilities under GSA's
jurisdiction, custody or control and the tenants occupying those
facilities. Coordination has improved in the recent past, and GSA's
goal is to make continued progress in mitigating security risks in
federal facilities under GSA's jurisdiction, custody or control.

Question 9. According to GSA testimony at prior hearings, over 50
percent of GSA's building portfolio is over 50 years old. Even if many
of these buildings are renovated, they are not designed to meet modern
office space needs. If more funding is available from FBF, how do we
ensure the funding is not simply going into renovating buildings that
ought to be sold instead?
Answer. GSA is the steward of 514 buildings that are listed in or
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and
has expertise in modernizing older facilities for modern day use and
has many examples of successful building modernization. GSA also
evaluates the financial viability for every building renovation project
that it proposes. As part of that evaluation, GSA compares the
estimated present value cost of renovating and maintaining an existing
building to the estimated present value cost of disposing of that
building and leasing or constructing a new building. Full access to the
annual revenues collected through rent and deposited in the FBF would
facilitate investment in these buildings to meet federal agencies'
space needs over the long term and pay for agencies to move out of
underutilized buildings to make buildings without long-term strategic
value to the government available for sale. GSA is committed to
divesting of assets it no longer needs and has disposed of 84
properties in the past 5 years with total net sales proceeds of $243
million. Avoided repair and alteration liabilities as a result of those
disposals totaled $122 million. We anticipate significant opportunities
to divest of unneeded assets in the years ahead and look forward to
partnering with Congress to complete those repositionings.

Question 10. Over the years, GSA and the Committee have used office
space or overall utilization rates as metrics to determine how
efficiently space is being used. However, these metrics rely heavily on
self-reporting by tenant agencies on the number of people assigned to a
building. In order for the Committee to best ensure scare taxpayer
dollars are used most effectively, more helpful numbers would be how
space is actually utilized. Has GSA taken any steps on methods of
determining actual utilization rates? Are there ways, including
legislation, that the Committee can assist GSA get this information
from its tenant agencies? If so, please provide.
Answer. Starting in FY 2020, GSA began piloting occupancy data
collection methodologies, initially starting with building badging,
building sensor and customer provided data. Later, in FY 2021, GSA
piloted cellular mobile data and, in FY 2022, initiated Wi-Fi network
pilots. Each of these efforts support agencies in the right type and
amount of space. Based on these efforts, GSA has direct access to daily
building occupancy data in a portion of its federally owned portfolio
where the tenant agency is in agreement, and works very closely with
customers to collect this data in prioritized federally owned assets
greater than 100,000 square feet in high cost markets, which has
resulted in a snapshot of occupancy for 44.5 million square feet.
Because this data proves so important to optimizing and modernizing
federal space, GSA will continue to work with its customers to
prioritize the collection of this information for agency use to inform
data-driven solutions to the future of work.

Question 11. The Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act (FASTA)
codified the Federal Real Property Profile (FRPP) which is a
comprehensive database on federal real estate assets managed by GSA.
While GSA met the deadline on implementation, the data reported by
agencies was uneven in terms of how certain exemptions, such as for
national security, were applied. Is GSA working to ensure more
consistency in how agencies report data? Is there data not included in
the FRPP that GSA believes would help in terms of overall property
management?
Answer. GSA has continued to work within the governance structure
of the Federal Real Property Council to adjust the FRPP reporting
requirements to improve the consistency and accuracy of data that
agencies report to the system, as well as what data is released to the
public as prescribed by FASTA.
attachments referenced in response to question 6 from hon. daniel
webster
U.S. General Services Administration--Public Buildings Service
Federal Buildings Fund
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act Spending Plan
This spending plan details how the U.S. General Services
Administration (GSA) will invest the $3.418 billion enacted by the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (the Act) on November 15, 2021,
to construct and acquire, and repair and alter land ports of entry
(LPOE) on both the northern and southern borders of the United States.
The spending plan consists of four categories consistent with the
provisions of the Act.\1\ In coordination with the Department of
Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection and Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration, GSA will be reviewing the scope and cost
of each project included in the spending plan and provide additional
details as part of the quarterly reporting requirements on obligations
and expenditures, by project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Provided further, That the Administrator of General Services
shall notify the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate quarterly on the obligations and
expenditures of the funds provided under this heading in this Act by
account of the Federal Buildings Fund: Provided further, That funds
made available under this heading in this Act for Federal Buildings
Fund activities may be transferred to, and merged with, other accounts
within the Federal Buildings Fund only to the extent necessary to meet
program requirements for such activities: Provided further, That the
General Services Administration will provide notice in advance to the
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the
Senate of any proposed transfers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Investment in LPOE modernization will improve deferred maintenance
and existing operating constraints, improve, and expand the throughput
of commercial traffic and the traveling public, facilitate the economic
development and sociodemographic growth in the border communities, and
benefit the American economy on the border and beyond. Through human-
centered and mission-focused design, targeted technology deployments,
and enhanced space utilization, CBP will be appropriately positioned to
respond to changing trends in international travel. This will result in
modern, resilient, and sustainable port infrastructure that strengthens
the Nation's supply chains, supports U.S. competitiveness by removing
bottlenecks, expedites commerce, and reduces the environmental impact
on neighboring communities.
Moreover, this investment in LPOEs will advance the climate
resilience and sustainability of the Nation's infrastructure. At
minimum, all of these projects will employ CEQ 2020 Guiding Principles
for Sustainable Federal Buildings, will achieve LEED Gold for Buildings
& SITES Silver certification for Sitework, and will achieve Net-Zero
Ready \2\ status. GSA's high-performance buildings result in industry-
leading savings in energy and water use and related reductions in
building operating expenses, as well as produce less waste and achieve
higher overall tenant satisfaction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Section 1.9 of PBS Facility Standards (P100) establishes the
baseline requirement for Net-Zero Ready. ``Designs must be Energy Net-
Zero ready on a source energy basis with onsite renewables that are
designated on the plan for future installation including pathways,
conduits, or other means of getting the power in the building.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GSA will undertake site acquisition (as required), design and
construction of facilities to increase efficiency, improve safety and
security for both commercial and non-commercial vehicular and
pedestrian traffic, and meet the current and future operational
requirements of the Federal inspection agencies. Many LPOEs are decades
old and in poor condition with inadequate space configuration. All work
will allow inspection agencies to better complete their missions and
facilitate the efficient movement of travel and trade.
Infrastructure paving work will improve port operations, eliminate
further degradation of traffic surfaces and minimize vehicle damage.
Purchase of several leased LPOEs will result in annual lease cost
avoidance and enable GSA to maintain the facilities more efficiently
and more cost effectively. The Department of Transportation-Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) projects will allow FMCSA
to better enforce safety regulations, conduct a sufficient number of
meaningful vehicle safety inspections, reduce commercial motor vehicle-
related fatalities and injuries, and ensure safety for all inspectors.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infrastructure Spending Plan /
Investment and Capital
Jobs Act Allocations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projects on the U.S. Department of $2,527,808,000 $2,527,808,000
Homeland Security-Customs and
Border Protection five-year plan...
Additional projects with completed $430,200,000 $430,200,000
feasibility studies................
LPOE Paving; LPOE Lease Purchases; $210,000,000 $210,000,000
Department of Transportation-
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration Requirements........
Program Contingency and Operational $250,000,000 $250,000,000
Support............................
-----------------------------------
Totals............................ $3,418,008,000 $3,418,008,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

GSA and Department of Homeland Security Five-Year Plan Projects

Calexico, CA.......................................... [$103,376,000 \3
\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The\\ spending plan allocates funding for construction of Phase IIB of
a two-phase project to reconfigure and expand the existing LPOE in
downtown Calexico, CA. Phase II has been divided into two sub-phases:
Phase IIA, funded in 2019, includes the remaining northbound non-
commercial lanes; expansion of the secondary inspection canopy; new
southbound non-commercial inspection islands, booths, canopies, and
concrete paving; an administration building; an employee parking
structure; and a vehicle seizure lot. Phase IIB includes a pedestrian
processing building with expanded northbound pedestrian inspection
stations, demolition of legacy facilities and significant earthwork.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Funding identified in this spend plan is an estimate that
aligns with the FY 2022 President's Budget construction request level.
Final spending is subject to change due to time and market conditions.
DHS Furniture, fixtures and equipment to be funded separately by the
agency.

San Luis I, AZ........................................ [$115,875,000 \2
\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The spending plan allocates funding for construction of Phase II of a
two-phase project to reconfigure and expand the existing LPOE in
downtown San Luis, AZ. Phase I was funded in fiscal year 2020. Phase II
includes construction of a new public facing building; a new pedestrian
processing building; buildout of the existing North Annex for families
and unaccompanied minors; the demolition and construction of a new main
building, kennels and seizure vault; and all associated site
development, infrastructure, support facilities, and parking.

International Falls, MN............................... [$249,629,000 \2
\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The spending plan allocates funding for site acquisition, design and
construction of facilities to modernize and expand the LPOE in
International Falls, MN. The project includes construction of a new
state-of-the-art facility that will increase efficiency, improve safety
and security for both commercial and non-commercial vehicular and
pedestrian traffic and meet the current and future operational
requirements of the Federal inspection agencies.

Alcan, AK............................................. [$187,509,000 \2
\]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The spending plan allocates funding for site acquisition, design and
construction to modernize the existing LPOE in Alcan, AK. Alcan is the
most isolated port of entry between the United States and Canada. The
existing location must function 24/7 as a self-contained community. In
addition to the inspection buildings, the complex includes residences,
a power plant and a community center. All of these components are
reaching the end of their functional use and will be replaced in a
newly constructed complex.

Sumas, WA
The spending plan allocates funding that includes expansion of the site
through land acquisition, new construction and major repairs and
alterations to enhance the LPOE's space capacity and create efficient
inbound and outbound operations.

Coburn Gore, ME
The spending plan allocates funding for a newly constructed facility on
an expanded site providing outfitted configured canopies, inspection
lanes and booths, a new outbound inspection lane, a modernized,
mission-capable main port building, and a hotel-style facility to
accommodate personnel and families at a remote LPOE.

Douglas, AZ (New commercial)
The spending plan allocates funding for construction of commercial
operations at a new LPOE west of the downtown area on a site to be
donated by the City of Douglas. The existing Raul Hector Castro (RHC)
facility serving the Douglas area, discussed in greater detail below,
serves both commercial and non-commercial traffic and is located
adjacent to downtown Douglas. The port processes large equipment and
hazardous materials for the local mining industry. The new commercial-
only crossing west of downtown will serve all commercial traffic that
currently uses the RHC LPOE.

El Paso (Bridge of the Americas), TX
The spending plan allocates funding for site acquisition, design and
construction of facilities to modernize and expand the Bridge of the
Americas (BOTA) LPOE in El Paso, TX. BOTA is one of four crossings in
El Paso. The port processes toll-free inbound and outbound commercial,
non-commercial and pedestrian traffic. As a result, the volume of
traffic is heavy with many travelers and commercial vehicles choosing
to enter and exit through this facility in lieu of paying a toll.

Brownsville (Gateway), TX
The spending plan allocates funding for site acquisition, design and
construction of a project that will expand processing capacity at
Brownsville (Gateway), TX. The project will address major facility
deficiencies, including site layout and building space capacity, and
provide more efficient processing area.

Calais (Ferry Point), ME
The spending plan allocates funding for the construction of a new LPOE
that will include reconfiguration of the historic main port building to
accommodate current port functions and add an outbound inspection lane.

Douglas (Raul Hector Castro), AZ
The spending plan allocates funding to modernize and expand processing
capacity at the Raul Hector Castro (RHC) LPOE. Commercial operations
currently being processed at the RHC LPOE will be relocated to a new
commercial LPOE west of downtown Douglas as described in greater detail
above. Construction at the RHC LPOE will begin after the new commercial
facility is completed.

Highgate Springs, VT
The spending plan allocates funding for the construction of a new LPOE
at Highgate Springs, VT. The ongoing construction of the A-35 highway
connecting to this crossing on the Canadian side adds urgency to expand
and modernize this LPOE. The project includes improving security at
secondary inspection, expanding bus processing and enclosing the
secondary inspection garages.

Alburg Springs, VT
The spending plan allocates funding for the construction of a new LPOE
that will include the replacement of the obsolete main port building
and the addition of an outbound inspection lane.

Beebe Plain, VT
The spending plan allocates funding for the construction of a new LPOE
that will include reconfiguration of the historic main port building to
accommodate current port functions. A new U.S. access road will secure
the movement of the occupants of 14 residences located on the American
side of the border.

Porthill, ID
The spending plan allocates funding for site acquisition and
construction of a new LPOE. This project will improve inbound and
outbound operation by optimizing traffic flow.

Dunseith, ND
The spending plan allocates funding for site acquisition, design and
construction of facilities to modernize and expand the LPOE in
Dunseith, ND.
__________
Additional Projects \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Projects with completed U.S. Customs and Border Protection/
General Services Administration feasibility studies as prioritized in
the ``American Jobs Plan Project List'' submitted to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations on May 28, 2021.

Fort Fairfield, ME
The spending plan allocates funding for the relocation of the roadway
to provide secure entry/exit to and from the United States at Fort
Fairfield, ME.

Grand Portage, MN
The spending plan allocates funding for the construction of a new LPOE
that will include replacement of the obsolete main port building.

Limestone, ME
The spending plan allocates funding for the construction of a new LPOE
that will include the replacement of the obsolete main port building
and the addition of a non-commercial secondary inspection building
adjacent to the new main building.

Lynden, WA
The spending plan allocates funding for the construction of a new LPOE
that will include the replacement of the obsolete main port building.

Norton, VT
The spending plan allocates funding to renovate, reconfigure and expand
the existing main port building.

Richford (Route 139), VT
The spending plan allocates funding to renovate and reconfigure the
existing port main building and construct a new employee vehicle garage
and non-commercial secondary inspection garage.

Rouses Point, NY
The spending plan allocates funding for the construction of a new LPOE
in proximity to the border to support port operations, Trusted Traveler
and rail inspections. The existing facility is located more than a half
mile from the border.

Trout River, NY
The spending plan allocates funding for the construction of a new LPOE
that will include the replacement of the obsolete main port building.

Blaine (Pacific Highway), WA
The spending plan allocates funding for the construction of additional
inspection lanes and the modernization of the primary inspection
booths.

Houlton, ME
The spending plan allocates funding to replace the aging building
systems at the existing LPOE in Houlton, ME.