Federal Real Property
Corps of Engineers Needs to Improve the Reliability of Its Real Property Disposal Data Gao ID: GAO-08-349 May 9, 2008Unreliable real property data has been a long-standing problem for federal landholding agencies. Under the President's real property initiative, agencies are being held accountable for, among other things, improving accuracy of their real property inventory and disposing of unneeded property. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), the fourth largest landholding agency, uses the Real Estate Management Information System (REMIS) for recording its civil works inventory. GAO was asked to determine whether REMIS could provide reliable information on the Corps' civil works land disposals from fiscal years 1996 through 2006. GAO's work involved comparison analyses of REMIS disposal data and other Corps reported disposal data, reviews of Corps' real property policies and guidance, and interviews with Corps officials at headquarters, three divisions, four districts, and the Real Estate Systems National Center (RESNC), which manages REMIS.
REMIS did not provide reliable information on the Corps' civil works land disposals from fiscal years 1996 through 2006, or on the land that the Corps owned as of September 30, 2006. Unreliable land disposal data impair the usefulness of REMIS as a record of current inventory and as a source of data that would be useful for budgeting purposes and the strategic management of landholdings. The following contributed to problems with data reliability: The Corps did not maintain internal controls over REMIS disposal data. Corps policy held district real estate officials accountable for the reliability of REMIS data, but in two of four districts GAO contacted the individual recording land disposal data was also checking the data against documentation such as titles and transfer forms. Dividing data entry and data checking responsibilities is an essential internal control activity. Corps policy also required division real estate staff to ensure the reliability of REMIS data recorded by their constituent districts, but the three divisions GAO contacted did not review REMIS disposal data. The design of the REMIS disposal module, a software application that captures disposal data that users enter, did not follow a best practice, commonly referred to as data normalization. Data normalization organizes data according to rules designed to minimize duplication and redundancies. By not following this best practice, users querying REMIS faced the problem of retrieving inconsistent data. For example, when RESNC officials queried REMIS for specific real property information by district, RESNC officials obtained results that differed from those obtained by district officials. Land disposal dates in REMIS were missing or sometimes represented the date when district real estate officials entered the land disposal rather than when the disposal occurred. The vast majority, or about 89 percent, of all disposal records within REMIS did not have disposal dates. When the records contained dates, large numbers of disposals (accounting for about 54,000 acres) in fiscal years 2005 and 2006 had occurred as early as 1955. Guidance for processing land disposals in REMIS was unclear. For example, guidance issued in 2004 did not indicate whether some types of disposals, such as transfers to other federal agencies, required a disposal date. New disposal guidance issued in 2007 was also unclear because RESNC, which revised the guidance, did not revise the data entry screens in REMIS. As a result, the guidance and the data entry screens were inconsistent. While the guidance called for entering a disposal date, the REMIS data entry screens did not clearly indicate whether or where users should enter the date. RESNC provided limited REMIS training; 3 of 32 districts that use REMIS received introductory training in 2006 and 2007. RESNC plans to train the New England District and at least one other district in 2008. RESNC also sponsored conferences to update systems administrators and other users on key changes to REMIS, but conference presenters discussed aspects of REMIS that some attendees, including real estate officials from 2 of the districts GAO contacted, considered too advanced--especially for those who had never received introductory training.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-08-349, Federal Real Property: Corps of Engineers Needs to Improve the Reliability of Its Real Property Disposal Data
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-349
entitled 'Federal Real Property: Corps of Engineers Needs to Improve
the Reliability of Its Real Property Disposal Data' which was released
on May 9, 2008.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Report to the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government
Information, Federal Services, and International Security, Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate:
May 2008:
Federal Real Property:
Corps of Engineers Needs to Improve the Reliability of Its Real
Property Disposal Data:
GAO-08-349:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-349, a report to the Subcommittee on Federal
Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and
International Security, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, U.S. Senate.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Unreliable real property data has been a long-standing problem for
federal landholding agencies. Under the President‘s real property
initiative, agencies are being held accountable for, among other
things, improving accuracy of their real property inventory and
disposing of unneeded property. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps), the fourth largest landholding agency, uses the Real Estate
Management Information System (REMIS) for recording its civil works
inventory. GAO was asked to determine whether REMIS could provide
reliable information on the Corps‘ civil works land disposals from
fiscal years 1996 through 2006. GAO‘s work involved comparison analyses
of REMIS disposal data and other Corps reported disposal data, reviews
of Corps‘ real property policies and guidance, and interviews with
Corps officials at headquarters, three divisions, four districts, and
the Real Estate Systems National Center (RESNC), which manages REMIS.
What GAO Found:
REMIS did not provide reliable information on the Corps‘ civil works
land disposals from fiscal years 1996 through 2006, or on the land that
the Corps owned as of September 30, 2006. Unreliable land disposal data
impair the usefulness of REMIS as a record of current inventory and as
a source of data that would be useful for budgeting purposes and the
strategic management of landholdings. The following contributed to
problems with data reliability:
* The Corps did not maintain internal controls over REMIS disposal
data. Corps policy held district real estate officials accountable for
the reliability of REMIS data, but in two of four districts GAO
contacted the individual recording land disposal data was also checking
the data against documentation such as titles and transfer forms.
Dividing data entry and data checking responsibilities is an essential
internal control activity. Corps policy also required division real
estate staff to ensure the reliability of REMIS data recorded by their
constituent districts, but the three divisions GAO contacted did not
review REMIS disposal data.
* The design of the REMIS disposal module, a software application that
captures disposal data that users enter, did not follow a best
practice, commonly referred to as data normalization. Data
normalization organizes data according to rules designed to minimize
duplication and redundancies. By not following this best practice,
users querying REMIS faced the problem of retrieving inconsistent data.
For example, when RESNC officials queried REMIS for specific real
property information by district, RESNC officials obtained results that
differed from those obtained by district officials.
* Land disposal dates in REMIS were missing or sometimes represented
the date when district real estate officials entered the land disposal
rather than when the disposal occurred. The vast majority, or about 89
percent, of all disposal records within REMIS did not have disposal
dates. When the records contained dates, large numbers of disposals
(accounting for about 54,000 acres) in fiscal years 2005 and 2006 had
occurred as early as 1955.
* Guidance for processing land disposals in REMIS was unclear. For
example, guidance issued in 2004 did not indicate whether some types of
disposals, such as transfers to other federal agencies, required a
disposal date. New disposal guidance issued in 2007 was also unclear
because RESNC, which revised the guidance, did not revise the data
entry screens in REMIS. As a result, the guidance and the data entry
screens were inconsistent. While the guidance called for entering a
disposal date, the REMIS data entry screens did not clearly indicate
whether or where users should enter the date.
* RESNC provided limited REMIS training; 3 of 32 districts that use
REMIS received introductory training in 2006 and 2007. RESNC plans to
train the New England District and at least one other district in 2008.
RESNC also sponsored conferences to update systems administrators and
other users on key changes to REMIS, but conference presenters
discussed aspects of REMIS that some attendees, including real estate
officials from 2 of the districts GAO contacted, considered too
advanced”especially for those who had never received introductory
training.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Department of Defense (DOD) direct the Corps to
improve the reliability of REMIS land disposal data, including
maintaining effective internal controls, implementing the data
normalization best practice in REMIS, clarifying guidance for
processing land disposals in REMIS, and providing REMIS training to
users. DOD agreed with GAO‘s recommendations.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-349]. For more
information, contact Terrell G. Dorn, (202) 512-2834, dornt@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
The Corps' Land Disposal Data from Fiscal Year 1996 through Fiscal Year
2006 Are Unreliable:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Figures:
Figure 1: The Bluestone Dam, West Virginia:
Figure 2: Number of Civil Works Land Disposals from Fiscal Year 1996
through Fiscal Year 2006:
Figure 3: The Process for Entering Land Disposal Data in REMIS Outlined
in the 2004 Guidance:
Figure 4: The Process for Entering Land Disposal Data in REMIS Outlined
in the 2007 Guidance:
Abbreviations:
Corps: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:
DOD: Department of Defense:
FMFIA: Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act of 1982:
GSA: General Services Administration:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
REMIS: Real Estate Management Information System:
RESNC: Real Estate Systems National Center:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
May 9, 2008:
The Honorable Tom Carper:
Chairman:
The Honorable Tom Coburn, M.D.
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information,
Federal Services, and International Security:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate:
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), an agency in the Department
of Defense (DOD), provides the nation with engineering services such as
planning, designing, building, and operating water resources projects.
It has a large and diverse portfolio of civil works real property--
which includes about 7.7 million acres of land--whose replacement
value, estimated at $217 billion, ranks the Corps as the fourth-largest
federal landholding agency.[Footnote 1] Civil works real property
includes hundreds of locks and dams, reservoirs, levees, hydropower
facilities, jetties, as well as millions of acres of land used for
flood control, recreation, and other purposes.[Footnote 2]
The federal government has long recognized the need for agencies to
track the federal property under their control. In 1983, Executive
Order 12411 required federal agencies, including the Corps, to maintain
inventories of their federal property. The Corps implemented this order
and, in 1992, replaced its existing system with its current Real Estate
Management Information System (REMIS). REMIS is a database for
recording and updating the Corps' inventory of real property,
maintaining historical records, helping decision makers develop future
disposal projections, and determining the total amount of civil works
land the Corps currently owns, among other things.[Footnote 3] In 2003,
the Corps established its Real Estate Systems National Center (RESNC)
to manage its real estate automated information systems, including
REMIS.
In 2003, we designated federal real property management as a high- risk
area for the federal government because federal agencies have faced
pervasive problems with unreliable real property data, excess and
underutilized real property, deteriorating facilities, and costly
leased space.[Footnote 4] In response to our designation of federal
real property management as a high-risk area, the administration
initiated several efforts intended to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of the federal government's real property management. In
2004, for example, the President issued Executive Order 13327, which
established the Federal Real Property Asset Management Initiative, or
real property initiative. The initiative is being used to hold agencies
accountable for, among other things, improving the accuracy of their
real property inventory and disposing of unneeded property. According
to this initiative, maintaining underused or unneeded federal property
is costly to the government, not only because agencies may incur
operating and maintenance costs, but also because they incur
opportunity costs for failing to sell or exchange underused or unneeded
properties for more appropriate uses. Under Executive Order 13327, the
Office of Budget and Management (OMB) was given the responsibility to,
among other things, review agencies' efforts to implement this order.
The executive order also established the interagency Federal Real
Property Council (Federal Council) to support reform. In December 2004,
the Federal Council published 10 guiding principles, which form the
strategic objectives for improving real property management. The
guiding principles include accurately inventorying and describing all
assets, as well as disposing of unneeded assets. In addition, the
Federal Council identified 24 data elements--including data on
disposal--that federal agencies must report annually for inclusion in
the governmentwide real property inventory database, called the Federal
Real Property Profile. The Federal Council and federal agencies will
use current and historical disposal data to help track and measure
federal agencies' progress toward strategically managing federal real
property and to estimate the costs of future disposals.
Through these efforts, agencies have, among other things, established
asset management plans, standardized data reporting, adopted
performance measures, and improved the accuracy of their real property
data. Having accurate, reliable real property data is important for
agencies to cost effectively manage the properties that they need and
to identify unneeded properties that they can dispose of and avoid
unnecessary costs to the government. Based on efforts and plans by the
Corps to enhance the accuracy of its real property profile, OMB
approved REMIS as a complete inventory and accurate profile of the
Corps' real property holdings in compliance with the Federal Council's
guidance. Although OMB relies on the quality assurance and quality
control processes performed by individual agencies for such approvals,
it also relies on agency Inspectors General, agency financial
statements, and our reviews to establish the validity of the data.
According to the Corps, REMIS has not been fully validated.
Improving the reliability of federal real property data and expediting
the disposal of federally owned land that does not meet the needs of
the federal government are priorities of this subcommittee.[Footnote 5]
Therefore, you asked us to provide information about the reliability of
the real property data the Corps uses to account for its large
portfolio. Specifically, our objective was to determine whether the
Corps' real property database, REMIS, could provide reliable
information on the civil works land that the Corps disposed of from
fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 2006, or on the civil works land
that the Corps owned as of September 30, 2006.
To address this objective, we reviewed documents that defined the
Corps' real property disposal process, electronic records, and
rationale for disposal decisions. These documents included the Corps'
real property policies and guidance, REMIS user/training manual, Asset
Management Plan, and Three Year Timeline--an action plan for
implementing the asset management plan and demonstrating that the Corps
is using real property inventory data for decision making. To gain a
more compete understanding of the Corps' real property disposal process
and management of this process, we contacted Corps headquarters
officials from the Offices of Real Estate, Corporate Information, and
the Chief Counsel. We also contacted RESNC officials and the contractor
that maintained REMIS and supported its users. We contacted 4 of the
Corps' 32 district offices--Baltimore, Maryland; Fort Worth, Texas; Los
Angeles, California; and Omaha, Nebraska--which maintain REMIS
databases from which detailed information could be obtained. We
selected these districts because their land disposals accounted for
about 82 percent of the acreage that the Corps disposed of from fiscal
year 1996 through fiscal year 2006, according to REMIS data. We also
contacted the three Corps divisions that oversee these districts--North
Atlantic, New York, New York; Northwestern, Portland, Oregon; and
Southwestern, Dallas, Texas. We spoke with responsible district and
division officials about the REMIS land disposal process, including
REMIS data entry, reviews, training, and oversight, among other things.
Additionally, we visited the Baltimore and Los Angeles Districts
because, according to Corps headquarters officials, officials in these
districts could provide insights into REMIS and its accuracy.
Specifically, the headquarters officials said that the officials in the
Baltimore District were very knowledgeable about the REMIS disposal
process while officials in the Los Angeles District had recently
completed an inventory of the district's entire real property holdings.
We took several steps to assess the reliability of REMIS disposal data,
although we did not have direct access to REMIS. At our request, the
Corps queried data on land disposals from the REMIS database to provide
us data, including the numbers of land tract disposal records and of
land tract disposal dates by district. To assess the reliability of
these data, we performed electronic testing to identify missing data,
dates outside the time frame of our request, and duplicates. Because
these data indicated that most land disposals occurred during fiscal
years 2005 and 2006, we focused on these fiscal years and had three
districts cross-check their land tract disposal data against their real
estate documentation. We also conducted limited cross- checking of
these data against disposal records at the Baltimore District office.
Based on this work, we found that the REMIS land disposal data were not
reliable because of inconsistencies among the disposal data files that
the Corps provided, a significant number of missing disposal dates, and
inaccurate current inventory data. Finally, we obtained the Corps'
policies, procedures, and guidance for processing land disposals in
REMIS and compared them with standards for internal control in the
federal government,[Footnote 6] as well as other control guidance
related to control activities, environment, and training.[Footnote 7]
We also spoke with Corps officials about how they interpreted and
implemented internal controls with respect to REMIS.
We conducted this performance audit from December 2006 to May 2008 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objective. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objective. Further details about our
objective, scope, and methodology appear in appendix I.
Results in Brief:
REMIS did not provide reliable information on the Corps' civil works
land disposals from fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 2006, or on
the land that the Corps owned as of September 30, 2006. Unreliable land
disposal data impair the usefulness of REMIS as a record of current
inventory and as a source of data that would be useful to Corps
decision makers for budgeting and strategic land management purposes.
The following contributed to problems with data reliability:
* District and division officials did not maintain effective internal
controls over REMIS disposal data. According to the Corps' policy,
district real estate officials are accountable for the reliability of
the real property data recorded while division officials provide the
oversight necessary to ensure that their constituent districts record
reliable data.[Footnote 8] Real estate officials in two districts told
us, however, that the person who recorded land disposal data into REMIS
was the same person responsible for checking that the REMIS data
matched the real estate documentation, such as deeds, titles, and
transfer forms. According to the standards for internal control in the
federal government, dividing the data entry and data checking
responsibilities between different people is an essential internal
control activity, referred to as segregation of duties. The three
divisions we contacted did not perform the reviews necessary to ensure
that their constituent districts recorded reliable REMIS disposal data.
Officials at one division cited prolonged staffing shortages as the
reason for not performing the reviews, while officials at another
division relied on verbal assurances from district officials that real
property data were reliable. Officials in a third division annually
reviewed the disposal files of their constituent districts, but their
reviews focused on financial aspects and compliance with applicable
statutes, among other things, rather than on the reliability of REMIS
disposal data.
* The design of the REMIS disposal module, a software application that
captures disposal data that users enter, did not follow a software
engineering best practice, commonly referred to as data normalization.
Data normalization is the process of organizing data in a database
according to rules designed to protect the data from duplication and
redundancy. Redundant data can create database problems, especially for
large databases such as REMIS. If users must enter disposal dates in
one place, then users must consistently enter disposal dates in all the
other places where these dates are stored within the database--a
process prone to errors. Since REMIS users could enter disposal dates
in more than one place in the database, and because the database was
not in normalized form, persons querying the database could potentially
retrieve inconsistent data given that disposal dates were not
consistently entered in all places. For example, when RESNC officials
queried REMIS for specific real property information by district, the
RESNC officials obtained results that differed from those obtained
separately by district officials. District officials subsequently
called on RESNC officials to clarify the query RESNC used for
retrieving the real property data in REMIS. In contrast, a database in
normalized form would allow any user to query REMIS for disposal
information and obtain the same result.
* REMIS land disposal dates were missing or the data sometimes
represented the date when district real estate officials entered the
land disposal in the database rather than when the disposal actually
occurred. The vast majority of all disposal records within REMIS did
not have a disposal date. Of about 30,700 total disposal records,
27,400 (89 percent) were missing disposal dates. When the records
contained dates, we found through our analysis of REMIS land disposal
data from fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 2006 that large numbers
of disposals recorded in fiscal years 2005 and 2006 (accounting for
about 54,000 acres of land) had occurred as early as 1955. Officials
from two districts consistently said that the large numbers of
disposals were not current disposals at all, but rather reflected
database adjustments to identify land that had been previously disposed
of. Corps officials lacked assurances that REMIS reflected the Corps
current inventory because they did not know whether all of the Corps'
32 districts had (1) entered data into REMIS on all of the land tracts
from their active civil works projects and (2) made adjustments to
REMIS to reflect land disposals that had occurred years ago.
Additionally, we found discrepancies between the REMIS land disposal
data that the Corps reported in its Three Year Timeline and in the
Federal Real Property Profile in fiscal year 2006. These discrepancies
raised concerns about the Corps' use of REMIS for budgeting and
strategic land management purposes.
* Guidance for processing land disposals in REMIS--one document issued
in 2004, then updated in 2006, and further revised in 2007--was
unclear. The 2004 guidance did not indicate whether some types of land
disposals, such as transfers to other federal agencies, required a
disposal date. The 2006 guidance incorporated new federal reporting
requirements and required a date for all disposals but did not tell
users how to complete the process for disposing of land in REMIS.
Finally, the 2007 guidance was inconsistent with data entry screens in
the REMIS disposal module. This inconsistency occurred because RESNC
did not revise the data entry screens to reflect the changes it had
made in the 2007 guidance. Consequently, the guidance required users to
enter the disposal date in a screen that indicated the date was
optional. At the same time, the guidance described as optional the use
of a second screen that indicated the disposal date was required.
* RESNC provided REMIS introductory training in 2006 and 2007 to 3 of
32 districts that had requested training for their new staff. With
limited instructors and funding, RESNC plans to train the New England
District and at least one other district in 2008. RESNC also sponsored
conferences to update systems administrators and other users on key
changes to the database, but conference presenters discussed aspects of
REMIS that some attendees, including real estate officials from 2
districts we contacted, considered too advanced--especially for those
who had never received introductory training. In addition, among REMIS
users within the 4 districts we contacted, about 24 have not received
introductory, hands-on training, while approximately 39 have received
the training. None of the daily REMIS users have received periodic
refresher training.
To improve the reliability of REMIS land disposal data, we recommend
that the Secretary of Defense direct the Commanding General and Chief
of Engineers of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to (1) implement
effective internal controls, (2) implement the data normalization best
practice in the REMIS database for disposal dates, (3) correct REMIS
disposal records, (4) issue clear guidance for entering land disposal
dates in the REMIS land disposal process, and (5) provide and require
introductory and periodic refresher training that covers how to
correctly enter land disposal dates in REMIS. DOD agreed with all the
recommendations made in this report.
Background:
The Corps began using REMIS, the official real property inventory
database, in 1992. The Corps modified REMIS several times over the
years to track real estate matters such as revenues from sales of real
property, property locations by congressional district, and properties
that are civil works. About 1,000 REMIS users located in 32 of the 38
Corps districts access the database through the Internet.[Footnote 9]
District users are responsible for collecting data from real estate
documents and entering data into REMIS.
The Corps established RESNC at its Mobile, Alabama, District office in
October 2003 to serve as the center for the Corps' real estate
automated information systems, including REMIS. Among other things,
RESNC officials serve as real estate subject matter experts, issue
guidance to process land disposals in REMIS, train district users, and
manage REMIS. RESNC also oversees a contractor who performs maintenance
on REMIS, runs database queries, helps REMIS users through a hotline,
and makes numerous changes to REMIS. Although the contractor did not
design the previous REMIS disposal module (a software application that
captures data entered into REMIS by a user), it redesigned the REMIS
disposal module to automatically provide the Corps' financial
management system with the amounts of disposed acreage, as well as to
automate other tasks when users completed the disposal process in
REMIS. The Corps implemented the redesigned module in October 2007.
Corps headquarters carries out the overall management of civil works
real property related to navigation, hydropower, recreation, and flood
control projects, among others.[Footnote 10] Figure 1 shows one of many
dams owned by the Corps.
Figure 1: The Bluestone Dam, West Virginia:
[See PDF for image]
Photograph of the Bluestone Dam.
Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
[End of figure]
Headquarters officials coordinate with eight civil works divisions and
38 districts around the country on matters that include developing
future funding requirements using real property data from REMIS. For
example, REMIS disposal data from past years are to allow Corps
managers to estimate future disposal costs. Besides the headquarters
team, real estate officials at each of the divisions oversee the civil
works projects and activities of their constituent districts. District
real estate chiefs, specialists, and systems administrators, among
other district officials, provide daily management of real property,
including land acquisition for new civil works projects, operations and
maintenance of existing projects, disposal of unneeded civil works
land, and recording of data on land acquisitions, disposals, and other
actions.
Executive Order 13327 of February 2004 required federal landholding
agencies, including the Corps, to determine what they own, what they
need, and what it costs to manage their real property; develop and
implement asset management plans; and dispose of unneeded properties.
The executive order established the interagency Federal Council to
develop the guidance necessary to implement the order and serve as a
clearinghouse for best practices, among other things. The Federal
Council developed and published in December 2004 Guidance for Improved
Asset Management that identified, defined, and listed 23 data elements
that federal agencies must report to the General Services
Administration (GSA) for the annual Federal Real Property Profile. In
August 2006, the Federal Council added disposal as the 24th data
element that federal agencies must report for the annual profile
beginning in fiscal year 2006. OMB, the Federal Council, and agencies
use disposal data to help track how much property that the federal
government has disposed of, measure the government's progress in
disposing of its unneeded property, and estimate the costs of future
disposals.
The Federal Council guidance specifically requires the Corps and other
federal landholding agencies to report, among other things, disposal
dates based on the type of disposal; that is, land sales should record
deed dates, land transfers between federal agencies should record the
dates of transfer letters, and public benefit conveyances to nonfederal
entities should record the date of the assignment letter to the
sponsoring agency and the subsequent date of the deed's transfer to the
grantee. In addition, the guidance requires the agencies to report the
disposal date in the fiscal year that the property exited the agency's
inventory. On the administration's agency scorecard for real property
management--established in fiscal year 2004 to measure each agency's
progress toward implementing Executive Order 13327--the Corps has
achieved a "yellow" status, indicating that it has made progress in
strategically managing real property by taking the following actions:
designating a senior real property officer who is held accountable for
the effective management of the Corps' real property; developing an OMB-
approved asset management plan;[Footnote 11] developing an OMB-approved
3-year time line;[Footnote 12] establishing some asset management
performance measures; completing and maintaining an inventory and
profile of the Corps' real property; and providing timely information
for inclusion into the annual Federal Real Property Profile.
The Corps' Land Disposal Data from Fiscal Year 1996 through Fiscal Year
2006 Are Unreliable:
REMIS did not provide reliable information on the Corps' civil works
land disposals from fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 2006, or on
the land that the Corps owned as of September 30, 2006, for several
reasons. These reasons include poorly maintained internal controls over
REMIS disposal data at various levels of the Corps' organization, a
database design that did not follow a software engineering best
practice, and land disposal dates that did not accurately indicate when
the disposal took place. In addition, unclear guidance for processing
land disposals in REMIS coupled with a limited user-training program
contributed to the unreliability of the disposal data. These unreliable
data impair the usefulness of REMIS as a record of current inventory
and as a source of data that would be useful to Corps decision makers
for budgeting and strategic land management purposes.
Districts and Divisions Did Not Maintain Effective Internal Controls
over REMIS Data:
Real estate officials in districts and divisions did not maintain
effective internal controls over REMIS disposal data. Maintaining
effective internal controls throughout an organization is an ongoing
effort that helps to detect and prevent errors in data, such as real
property data in REMIS. The standards for internal control in the
federal government provide the overall framework for federal managers
to establish and maintain effective internal control. Internal control
activities include assigning different people to check data from those
who record it--referred to as segregation of duties--recording
transactions in a timely manner, and reviewing the data for
reliability.
The Corps' policy requires real estate officials to be accountable for
the reliability (i.e., accuracy, completeness, and timeliness) of REMIS
data related to land located in their districts. Officials in two
districts, including one district that made about 300 disposals
accounting for over 34,000 acres of land during fiscal years 1996
through 2006,[Footnote 13] told us that the same person who recorded
land disposal data in REMIS was also the one who checked that the data
matched the real estate documentation, such as deeds, titles, and
transfer forms. Making one individual responsible for both recording
and checking data can contribute to errors. Corps officials in a third
district told us that they divided these responsibilities and provided
documentation of recent efforts to independently check the REMIS
disposal records against the real estate documentation.
In addition, some districts did not always record the disposal in REMIS
in a timely manner as the standards for internal control in the federal
government and the Corps' policy require. For example, when we compared
REMIS disposal dates against the dates when the Deputy Assistant
Secretary of the Army approved the disposals, we found instances in
which districts recorded land disposals more than 2 years after the
disposal transaction had occurred. One district, for instance, recorded
the disposal of a 3-acre land parcel near York, Pennsylvania, in March
2006. The disposal had occurred in February 2004--more than 2 years
earlier. Another district recorded a land disposal in Georgia as
November 2005, but the disposal occurred 16 months earlier.
Although the Corps' policy requires division officials to provide the
oversight necessary to ensure that their constituent districts recorded
reliable real property data, officials we contacted in all three
divisions did not perform activities that would ensure the reliability
of REMIS disposal data. The Northwestern Division, for example,
experienced prolonged staffing shortages that hindered it from
reviewing any disposal records. According to the division's Acting
Chief of Real Estate, a team consisting of a Chief of Real Estate and
four other real estate officials oversees the real property activities
of the division's five constituent districts--Kansas City, Omaha, Walla
Walla, Portland, and Seattle. Specifically, the four real estate
officials oversee (1) acquisitions, (2) appraisals, (3) recruiting, and
(4) management and disposal activities, respectively. However, because
the management and disposal position remained vacant for nearly 2
years, the division did not review any REMIS disposal data during that
period.[Footnote 14] Corps officials at headquarters confirmed in
December 2007 that the position remained vacant.
Officials in the North Atlantic Division also said they did not review
any REMIS disposal data from their five constituent districts (New
England, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Norfolk). They said
that during their annual visits to each of their districts, they
reviewed real estate documentation for completeness and compliance with
applicable statutes, but relied solely on verbal assurances from
district officials that they had accurately recorded all disposals in
REMIS. In the view of North Atlantic Division officials, Corps-wide
organizational changes have affected their reviewing practices.
Specifically, the Corps' strategic plan through 2012 called on the
divisions to establish multiple district support teams to provide
technical assistance to the districts, such as quality control and
assurance activities. However, the North Atlantic Division was only
provided sufficient staff for one team.[Footnote 15] Instead of
reviewing all district disposal records for completeness and accuracy,
as district officials once did, they now review only some of the
records. The officials acknowledged that this change could affect the
reliability of the disposal data, yet they believed that the DOD
Inspector General, the Army Audit Agency, or the Corps headquarters
auditors would identify and resolve any errors.
Officials in the Southwestern Division also visited their four
constituent districts (Little Rock, Tulsa, Fort Worth, and Galveston)
each year to review disposal records but did not review REMIS disposal
data. As part of their annual review, division officials requested that
each district complete a quality assurance questionnaire focusing on
financial aspects, compliance with statutes, and revenue collections,
among other things. The questionnaire included one question about
whether officials successfully completed civil works disposal
activities but did not include a question about the reliability of
REMIS disposal data. Essentially, the Southwestern Division relied on
assurances from district officials that they accurately entered all
disposals in REMIS. Obtaining assurances does not ensure REMIS data are
reliable; other internal control activities are necessary such as those
identified in the standards for internal control in the federal
government.[Footnote 16] The Corps policy does little to highlight
those other control activities, however. Instead, the policy places
oversight responsibilities on the divisions without detailing the
specific steps they should take to ensure REMIS disposal data are
reliable.
REMIS Disposal Module Did Not Follow a Best Practice That Protects
Against Duplication and Redundancy:
The REMIS disposal module--a software application that captures
disposal dates and other disposal information--did not follow a
software engineering best practice, commonly referred to as data
normalization. Data normalization is the process of organizing data in
a database according to rules designed to protect the data from
duplication and redundancy. Redundant data can create problems for
databases, such as REMIS. If users must enter disposal dates in one
place, then users must consistently enter disposal dates in all the
other places where these dates are stored within the database--a
process prone to errors.
Land disposal dates could be entered in more than one place in REMIS, a
design artifact that neither RESNC nor the REMIS contractor could
explain. Because REMIS's database design did not follow the best
practice, persons querying the database could potentially retrieve
inconsistent data given that disposal dates were not consistently
entered in all places. For example, RESNC officials queried REMIS for a
compilation of specific real property information, including data on
disposals, for all districts. However, the results RESNC officials
obtained differed from the results obtained separately by district
officials, who later called on RESNC officials to clarify the query
RESNC used for retrieving real property data in REMIS on their
district. This situation illustrates one of the problems users of the
nonnormalized database faced. The design of the REMIS disposal module,
which allowed users to enter disposal dates in multiple places,
required users to know the location of disposal data within the
database and how to write the query that would produce the desired
result. In contrast, REMIS in normalized form would allow any user to
query the database for disposal information and obtain the same result.
Although the REMIS contractor redesigned the REMIS disposal module to
automatically generate certain data, the redesigned disposal module
continues to capture disposal dates in two places within the database.
We discussed this matter with the Corps' Chief Information Officer, who
concurred that REMIS, with respect to land disposal dates, was not in a
normalized form.
Land Disposal Dates Were Missing or Sometimes Did Not Represent When
the Disposal Took Place:
Land disposal dates in REMIS were unreliable, since the vast majority
of them were missing, and when disposal dates were present, they
sometimes represented the date when district real estate officials
entered the land disposal into REMIS rather than the date when the
disposal took place. Our analysis found that unreliable land disposal
dates impair the usefulness of REMIS as a historical record for
researching past real estate transactions, as a record of current
inventory, and as a source of data for developing baselines and trend
data for budgeting and strategic management of land disposals.
We found that the vast majority of disposal records in REMIS did not
have a disposal date.[Footnote 17] To determine the extent to which
disposal dates were available for use in our analyses, we requested
from RESNC and the REMIS contractor a report containing the total
number of civil works land records listed in REMIS as disposed, as well
as the number of those records that were missing disposal dates. The
report showed that of the about 30,700 disposal records in REMIS,
27,400 (89 percent) were missing disposal dates.[Footnote 18] The
contractor reviewed our preliminary findings and agreed that the
missing dates were troublesome.
Figure 2 summarizes our analysis of the REMIS data RESNC provided to us
that contained disposal dates. The data show a small number of civil
works land disposals in fiscal years 1996 through 2004 followed by a
sharp increase in the numbers of disposals in fiscal years 2005 and
2006.
Figure 2: Number of Civil Works Land Disposals from Fiscal Year 1996
through Fiscal Year 2006:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the number of Civil Works
Land Disposals from fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 2006, as
follows:
Fiscal year: 1996;
Land disposals: 19.
Fiscal year: 1997;
Land disposals: 69.
Fiscal year: 1998;
Land disposals: 11.
Fiscal year: 1999;
Land disposals: 4.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Land disposals: 10.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Land disposals: 14.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Land disposals: 18.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Land disposals: 23.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Land disposals: 48.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Land disposals: 512.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Land disposals: 142.
Source: GAO presentation of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers data.
Note: Due to data reliability concerns discussed in this report, the
large increase in land disposals were due to corrections to the
inventory rather than actual disposals.
[End of figure]
The Corps' real estate managers at headquarters could not explain the
reason for the large numbers of disposals in fiscal years 2005 and
2006, which account for about 54,000 acres of land. However, officials
we contacted from two districts said that many of these disposals
represented corrections to the inventory rather than current disposals.
Specifically, all 265 land disposals (totaling about 33,000 acres of
land) that the Fort Worth District entered into REMIS in fiscal year
2005 were disposals that had occurred in 1975. The Fort Worth District
also entered 29 land disposals (totaling about 980 acres) in fiscal
year 2006--almost all of which, according to a district real estate
official, had occurred from about 1955 through 2003. Similarly, in the
Baltimore District, we compared data in REMIS against the real estate
documentation and found that at least 12 of 23 land disposals the
district had entered in fiscal years 2005 and 2006 (totaling about 137
acres) had occurred in the 1980s.
Corps officials explained that these adjustments to the REMIS disposal
data were necessary to complete a process that began in 1992 when the
Corps implemented REMIS. According to district officials, they began
entering land acquisition information into REMIS from real estate
documentation for their active civil works projects--even if some of
the land associated with these projects had already been disposed of--
and planned to make record adjustments that would identify previously
disposed land tracts. The Corps chose this method to maintain
consistency with the real estate documentation and to help reconcile
REMIS with the Corps' financial management system.[Footnote 19]
While we support consistency between REMIS and real estate
documentation, we are concerned that the Corps current inventory of
land tracts is not accurate, in part because the Corps lacks assurance
that its districts have updated REMIS to identify in its inventory all
of the disposed land tracts. Specifically, Corps officials told us that
they did not know whether all of the Corps' 32 districts have (1)
entered into REMIS all of the land tracts from their active civil works
projects and (2) made record adjustments to identify, as disposed, in
REMIS, all of the previously disposed land tracts. In August 1994, the
Corps gave the districts about a year to enter, among other things, the
land tracts data. Because the task was substantial--covering all real
estate documentation for many years--some districts utilized their
entire real estate staff to enter real property data into REMIS. Once
the staff entered these data, the districts were to begin identifying,
as disposed, land tracts in REMIS that had previously been disposed of.
However, according to RESNC officials, the districts have not made all
of these changes. Moreover, the DOD Inspector General reported in 2005
that districts were not entering new disposals of land tracts into
REMIS. In response, the Corps directed the districts to identify
disposals of land tracts that remained in REMIS and update the database
accordingly. As previously discussed, updating has continued.
Consequently, although the Corps is taking corrective action, its lack
of assurance that all of the disposed land tracts have been identified
as such in REMIS adds to the uncertainty regarding the accuracy of the
Corps' current inventory of land tracts within the database.
Recognizing that mistakes can occur when entering data into REMIS, the
Corps introduced a code in September 2006 that allows users to identify
administrative disposals and distinguish these disposals from actual
disposals. This code would be useful if, for example, a user had
entered the acreage of a land tract into REMIS by mistake and needed to
dispose of acreage without having the disposal reported to the Federal
Real Property Profile or any other disposal report. Hence, the new code
is a positive step toward improving the accuracy of REMIS data.
However, unless the Corps corrects past disposal records to reflect the
date of the actual disposal rather than the date of the record entry,
REMIS will have limited usefulness as a tool for the Corps to assess
its progress in disposing of land, consistent with the administration's
goals, as well as to understand disposal trends. As it stands, decision
makers using REMIS data cannot distinguish between disposal dates that
indicate when disposals were entered into REMIS and dates of disposals
that actually occurred from fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 2006.
Under the President's Real Property Asset Management Initiative,
landholding agencies are accountable for meeting key milestones and
performance outcomes. Accurate data describing the Corps' disposals are
essential to reporting its results, as well as the combined results of
other landholding agencies. For example, the administration has a
governmentwide goal for federal agencies, including the Corps, to
dispose of $9 billion in unneeded assets by 2009, for which federal
agencies reported disposing of about $4.5 billion since 2004. However,
the Corps' and the agencies' progress toward the goal is unclear,
because, as explained previously, the Corps' disposal data are not
accurate, and the reliability of disposal data in REMIS is unclear.
Furthermore, deficiencies in the Corps' disposal data mean that the
Corps lacks accurate baseline and annual data for tracking and
analyzing trends in disposals and identifying opportunities to improve
its performance. Finally, inaccurate disposal data limit the accuracy
of the Corps' and the government's valuations of their real property
assets, as well as the accuracy of any financial reports that include
these valuations.
Additionally, we found discrepancies in the land disposal data that the
Corps queried from REMIS and reported in its Three Year Timeline and
the Federal Real Property Profile in fiscal year 2006. The OMB-
approved Three Year Timeline of April 2007 highlighted, among other
things, the Corps' progress in disposing of unneeded real property. The
Three Year Timeline is an action plan that established the schedule for
achieving the Corps' real property goals identified in its Asset
Management Plan and analyzed the number of land disposals from 1996
through 2006 using REMIS disposal data. The data from past disposals
enabled the Corps' decision makers to make disposal-budget estimates by
calculating the average cost per disposal. We found the following two
key discrepancies:
* First, according to the Three Year Timeline, the Corps disposed of
184 land tracts in fiscal year 2006 and continued a trend of elevated
disposal numbers.[Footnote 20] This information contradicted what Corps
officials told us. They said that little, if any, land is available for
disposal because the Corps reduced its landholdings years ago in
response to several executive orders. Another official who works in the
office that manually tracks, verifies, and reports all Corps disposals
to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Army told us that the Corps'
land disposal numbers were down from previous years. Our analysis of
REMIS data identified 153 land disposals in fiscal year 2006, as shown
in figure 2. Since both these land disposal numbers were based on REMIS
data, the numbers should have agreed; however, they differed by 31, or
about 20 percent. This discrepancy indicated a data reliability problem
and raised questions about the Corps' disposal-budget estimates. If the
data overstated the actual number of disposals, then the Corps
underestimated the average cost per disposal. This could lead to
budgeting and staffing shortfalls in future years.
* Second, the Corps submitted 84 land disposals to GSA for the fiscal
year 2006 Federal Real Property Profile--a number much lower than
presented in the Three Year Timeline and in the data provided to
us.[Footnote 21] This number, however, did not accurately reflect how
many disposals occurred. We found that at least 8 of the 84 disposals,
or about 10 percent, had occurred in previous years and were
erroneously entered into REMIS in fiscal year 2006 when the Corps
adjusted inventory records. In addition, we learned that the Corps did
not include partial land tract disposals in its submission for the
profile. According to the REMIS contractor that assembled the
submission, partial land tract disposals--the disposal of a portion of
a land tract--were not included because conflicts would arise when the
submission contained both owned and disposed land tracts with the same
unique identifier numbers. To reconcile the differences among the 2006
Federal Real Property Profile, the Three Year Timeline, and the REMIS
data files provided to us, we obtained the REMIS data file that
contained the fiscal year 2006 partial land disposals. We identified 39
partial land tract disposals that could account for some, but not all,
of the differences among the three data files.
Unreliable land disposal dates impaired--and continue to impair--the
usefulness of REMIS as an accurate (1) expression of the Corps' current
inventory and (2) source of data for the Federal Real Property Profile.
If land disposal data in REMIS do not accurately reflect actual
disposals, the Corps risks overstating the amount of land it currently
holds, which could affect the land values reported in its annual
financial statements and could cause understatement of the amount of
land it actually disposed of in any year.
REMIS Disposal Guidance Was Unclear:
Guidance for processing land disposals in REMIS--one round of guidance
issued in 2004, then updated in 2006, and further revised in 2007--was
unclear. In April 2004, RESNC issued guidance that provided step-by-
step instructions for processing land disposals in REMIS but did not
require users to enter disposal dates. Figure 3 shows the process for
entering land disposal data into REMIS in 2004.
Figure 3: The Process for Entering Land Disposal Data in REMIS Outlined
in the 2004 Guidance:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is an illustration of the process for entering land
disposal data in REMIS outlined in the 2004 guidance. The following
information is depicted:
The RD-70 screen:
REMIS Data field entered: Disposal date;
Created the disposal record (screen indicates disposal date was not
required).
The RD-82 screen:
REMIS Data field entered: *Disposal date;
Screen used only when the disposal generated revenue, for example, if
the land was sold (screen indicates disposal date was required).
The RD-80 screen:
REMIS Data field entered: Disposal date;
Completed disposal and removed acreage from REMIS (screen indicates
disposal date was not required).
REMIS data field shown in all capital letters and/or with an asterisk
(the standard indicators) denote that the specified data are required.
Source: GAO and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
[End of figure]
Users entered data in three steps using the RD-70, the RD-82, and the
RD-80 data entry screens. First, users created a land disposal record
using the RD-70 screen and entered information identifying the land
being disposed of. Second, if the land disposal generated revenue,
users accessed the RD-82 screen to enter information about the disposal
method and date, among other things. The guidance required this
information, and the Corps used specially marked data fields to
identify it as required. Third, users completed the disposal record
after entering additional information, such as the amount of acreage
being disposed of, in the RD-80 screen.
REMIS data entry screens use standard indicators to denote required
data fields[Footnote 22]--all capital letters for the data field name,
an asterisk next to the field name, or both. In figure 3, for example,
the RD-82 screen uses both capital letters and an asterisk to indicate
that the disposal date is a required data field. While the RD-70 screen
had a field for the disposal date, it was not a required field for this
screen. The 2004 guidance emphasized that users should enter data into
the RD-82 screen if the disposal generated revenue, but it was unclear
whether users should also enter the data in this screen for other types
of disposals, such as transfers to other federal agencies. While both
the RD-70 and the RD-82 screens had disposal date fields, only the RD-
82 screen required the disposal date field.
RESNC officials updated the guidance in September 2006 after the
Federal Council decided that federal landholding agencies must report
disposals. However, the 2006 guidance did not emphasize the importance
of using specific disposal dates for different types of disposals. The
updated guidance reduced the land disposal process from three steps to
two (users entered data into the RD-70 and the RD-82 screens),
eliminated the RD-80 screen after incorporating its functions into the
RD-70 screen, and required the RD-82 screen for all disposals. However,
the guidance did not clearly indicate which data entry screen--RD-70 or
RD-82--completed the process of recording a land disposal. While both
screens included fields for disposal dates, each continued to store
data in a separate place within REMIS--a practice that resulted in a
nonnormalized database and the associated problems we previously
discussed. Having the disposal dates in both the RD-70 and the RD-82
screens illustrates the lack of data normalization.
RESNC issued a third round of guidance in August 2007 that described a
new REMIS disposal process. According to this guidance, users should
create a disposal record in the RD-70 screen (but not enter the
disposal date and quantity of land), continue to the RD-82 screen "if
desired," and return to the RD-70 screen to enter the disposal date and
the amount of land disposed as the final step in the REMIS disposal
process. Figure 4 shows the new process.
Figure 4: The Process for Entering Land Disposal Data in REMIS Outlined
in the 2007 Guidance:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is an illustration of the process for entering land
disposal data in REMIS outlined in the 2007 guidance. The following
information is depicted:
The RD-70 screen:
REMIS Data field entered: Disposal date;
Creates the disposal record (screen indicates disposal date was not
required).
The RD-82 screen:
REMIS Data field entered: *Disposal date;
Screen used only "if desired" (screen indicates disposal date was
required).
The RD-70 screen:
REMIS Data field entered: Disposal date;
Completes disposal when date and acres are entered and removes acreage
from REMIS (screen indicates disposal date was not required).
REMIS data field shown in all capital letters and/or with an asterisk
(the standard indicators) denote that the specified data are required.
Source: GAO and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
[End of figure]
When RESNC issued the 2007 guidance, it did not update the REMIS data
entry screens to match the guidance--that is, it did not identify the
required data fields using the standard indicators. This inconsistency
between the new guidance and the REMIS screens created the following
two opportunities for users to be confused:
* The 2007 guidance required users to enter disposal dates in the RD-70
screen, but the disposal date field in this screen lacked the standard
indicators used to identify a required data field. Recognizing that
users could be confused about whether they should enter the disposal
date into the RD-70 screen, RESNC officials said they are discussing
ways to resolve the confusion.
* The 2007 guidance instructed REMIS users to enter data in the RD-82
screen, "if desired." Although use of this screen was optional, it was
the only screen with a required data field for the disposal date,
identified by the standard indicators. According to officials in three
of the four districts we contacted, they used the RD-82 screen to enter
the disposal date. Moreover, real estate officials in all four
districts noted that the RD-82 screen is the only REMIS screen that
requires the disposal date. Conversely, RESNC officials told us that
they believe that other REMIS screens already collect the data captured
by the RD-82 screen. Consequently, RESNC officials are evaluating the
need for the RD-82 screen.
Unclear guidance affects the reliability of disposal data because it
could lead to differences in how users process disposals in REMIS.
Until the Corps develops clear and consistent REMIS guidance and
screens for processing land disposals, the reliability of future
disposal data could be at risk.
Limited Training Provided to REMIS Users and Systems Administrators:
Although RESNC officials view REMIS as a user-friendly database that
requires minimal training to use, we found data reliability issues
indicating that users may not be receiving the training necessary to
enter disposal data in a reliable manner. The standards for internal
control in the federal government state that federal managers should
demonstrate a commitment to the competence of their employees and
provide employees with the training they need to accomplish their
assigned duties. According to RESNC officials, REMIS users received
introductory training when the Corps implemented the database in 1992.
In addition, RESNC officials provided introductory training to 3 of 32
districts that use REMIS in 2006 and 2007. Specifically, they provided
training to the Kansas City District in 2006 and to the Norfolk and
Memphis Districts in 2007 upon requests from those districts for their
new staff. With limited instructors and funding, RESNC plans to train
the New England District and at least one other district in 2008.
To its credit, RESNC has sponsored two informational conferences since
2005 for the districts' systems administrators--those who maintain the
REMIS database for their respective districts--and other REMIS users.
At these conferences, presenters discussed technical changes to REMIS
and the business processes that some attendees considered too
advanced---particularly those who had not received introductory
training, including real estate officials in two districts we
contacted. In response to feedback from the 2007 conference, RESNC is
planning to offer hands-on training at the next conference in May 2008.
Nonetheless, we found gaps in training among REMIS users within the
four districts we contacted. Specifically,
* of the approximately 63 daily users of REMIS, about 24 have not
received introductory, hands-on training, while 39 have received the
training; and:
* none of the daily REMIS users have received periodic refresher
training.
The lack of introductory and periodic refresher training that includes
hand-on, computer-based training can hinder efforts to ensure that all
districts consistently process land disposals in REMIS. Introductory
training is particularly important for new employees, such as systems
administrators and other officials who enter information into the
database, because the disposal process in REMIS requires users to enter
specific data in multiple screens. Periodic refresher training is
equally important for experienced staff, especially because key aspects
of the land disposal process in REMIS have changed in recent years. We
are encouraged that the Corps is planning to expand the scope of
training at its next informational conference in May 2008.
Conclusions:
Having accurate, reliable real property data is important for agencies
to cost effectively manage the properties they need and to identify
unneeded properties that they can dispose of and avoid unnecessary
costs to the government. The Corps, like other federal landholding
agencies, must determine what real property it owns, what it needs, and
what it costs to manage its real property, as well as develop and
implement asset management plans and dispose of unneeded property. To
measure progress toward the administration's real property disposal
goal, OMB and the Federal Council are using disposal data to track how
much property federal agencies have disposed of and measure the
government's annual progress toward disposing of its unneeded property.
However, land disposal data in the Corps' real property database--
REMIS--are unreliable. Specifically, REMIS does not provide reliable
information on the Corps' civil works land disposals from fiscal year
1996 through fiscal year 2006, or on the land that the Corps owned as
of September 30, 2006. Problems contributing to unreliable REMIS land
disposal data included the lack of effective internal control, a
database design that did not follow a best practice and, therefore,
resulted in error-prone data, poor data entry practices that led to
missing disposal data and inaccurate disposal dates, unclear guidance
for processing land disposals in REMIS, and limited introductory and
refresher training in REMIS for all users of the database, including
new and experienced staff. In addition, 89 percent of all land disposal
records in REMIS were missing disposal dates, while many other land
disposal dates were inaccurate. Although the Corps is taking actions to
address some data deficiencies, such as implementing additional
training in some areas, these actions provide little assurance that
REMIS disposal data are reliable. Unreliable land disposal data impair
the usefulness of REMIS as a record of current inventory, as a valid
tool for measuring progress toward the administration's disposal goal,
and as a source of data that would be useful to Corps decision makers
for budgeting and strategic land management purposes.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To improve the reliability of REMIS land disposal data for determining
how much land the Corps currently owns and for budgeting and strategic
land management purposes, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Commanding General and Chief of Engineers of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers to take the following five actions:
* implement effective internal controls, including segregation of
duties and review, over the REMIS land disposal process by
incorporating such control into the Corps' real estate policies at
those districts and divisions identified in this report and others,
where appropriate;
* implement the data normalization best practice in the REMIS database
with respect to disposal dates;
* correct the disposal records that were created in REMIS as part of
the efforts to adjust the inventory;
* issue clear guidance for entering land disposal dates in the REMIS
land disposal process; and:
* provide and require introductory and periodic refresher training that
covers how to correctly enter land disposal dates in REMIS.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to DOD for review and comment. DOD
agreed with all five of our recommendations aimed at improving REMIS
land disposal data and outlined its planned actions to address the
recommendations. Specifically, DOD stated that the Corps is designing a
REMIS modernization program that, when implemented, is to have in place
internal controls, such as quality assurance and control processes,
segregation of duties, and inspection and review phases. In addition,
according to DOD, the Corps is planning to: (1) check the progress that
districts are making in updating historical disposal records; (2) issue
clearer guidance for entering disposal dates, as well as identifying
the required REMIS screens and data fields; and (3) provide annual
REMIS training to Corps districts. Further, DOD agreed with our
recommendation to normalize the database. To reduce the adverse affects
of the current database's design problem, DOD said that guidance is to
be updated, and special emphasis is to be placed on this module during
training. DOD indicated that the Corps would study and implement
methods to eliminate the redundant and cumbersome data entry that
causes the data normalization problem. However, updating guidance and
improving training does not address the fundamental problem we found
related to data normalization issues because this approach continues to
rely on people consistently entering disposal dates. The key to solving
the database problem will be the Corps' implementation of methods it
identifies to eliminate duplicate and redundant data entry. We
reprinted DOD's comments in appendix II. The Corps also provided
technical comments, which we incorporated, as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense, the
Commanding General and Chief of Engineers of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, and interested congressional committees. We also will make
copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will
be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202)
512-2834 or at dornt@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this report. Staff who made key contributions to this report
are listed in appendix III.
Signed by:
Terrell G. Dorn:
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and Methodology:
[End of section]
Our objective was to determine whether the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers' (Corps) real property database--Real Estate Management
Information System (REMIS)--could provide reliable information on the
civil works land that the Corps disposed of from fiscal year 1996
through fiscal year 2006, or on the civil works land the Corps owned as
of September 30, 2006.
To address this objective, we reviewed relevant federal laws and
executive orders related to the Corps' disposal of landholdings, as
well as its applicable real property policies, guidance, and user/
training manuals on the processing of civil works land disposals in
REMIS. We reviewed a number of our previous reports on real property
management, the Department of Defense Inspector General's work on the
Corps' real property inventory, and technical papers on database
normalization. We also reviewed and analyzed the Corps' Asset
Management Plan and Three Year Timeline--an action plan for
implementing the asset management plan and demonstrating the use of
real property inventory data for decision making--to determine the
extent to which the Corps used REMIS land disposal data. To gain a more
complete understanding of the Corps' disposal process and of REMIS from
fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 2006, we contacted Corps
headquarters officials from the Offices of Real Estate, Corporate
Information, and the Chief Counsel; Corps field officials from the Real
Estate Systems National Center in Mobile, Alabama, which manages REMIS;
and officials of the contractor that maintained REMIS and supported its
users. Also, Corps headquarters and field officials briefed us on the
Corps' land acquisition and disposal process, legal authorities,
applicable executive orders, disposal policies, Asset Management Plan,
Three Year Timeline, and the REMIS land disposal process.
To gain a better understanding of the REMIS land disposal process, we
contacted 4 of the Corps' 32 district offices--Baltimore, Maryland;
Fort Worth, Texas; Omaha, Nebraska; and Los Angeles, California--with
REMIS databases. We selected 3 of these 4 districts because their land
disposals accounted for about 82 percent of the acreage that the Corps
disposed of from fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 2006, according
to REMIS data. We selected the fourth district--Los Angeles--because it
had recently completed an inventory of its entire real property
holdings. We also contacted three Corps divisions--North Atlantic, New
York, New York; Northwestern, Portland, Oregon; and Southwestern,
Dallas, Texas--that oversee these districts. In each of these
districts, we contacted key district officials responsible for real
property management and REMIS. We also contacted the key officials who
were responsible for oversight of real property management and of REMIS
in these four districts. Additionally, we visited the Baltimore and Los
Angeles Districts because, according to Corps headquarters officials,
the officials in these districts could provide insights into REMIS and
its accuracy. Specifically, the headquarters officials said that the
officials in the Baltimore District were very knowledgeable about the
REMIS disposal process and that, as noted, officials in the Los Angeles
District had recently completed an inventory of the district's entire
real property holdings. At each location, we observed the REMIS
disposal process and reviewed the supporting documentation and
guidance.
To further address our objective, although we did not have direct
access to REMIS, we took several steps to assess the reliability of
REMIS disposal data. We contacted the REMIS contractor to gain a good
understanding of the REMIS database, the disposal data that it stores,
the manner districts input data into the database, and the districts'
ability to query the REMIS database. We requested and obtained from the
Corps' contractor data files of (1) REMIS land tract disposals from
fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 2006, (2) the Corps' fiscal year
2006 Federal Real Property Profile submission for land disposals, (3)
land disposals used for the Three Year Timeline for 1996 through 2006,
and (4) each district's current real property holdings in REMIS. These
data identified individual land tract disposals for each district,
including specific information about each disposal, such as the real
property identification number for each tract, date of disposal,
acreage, and type of disposal, among other things. To assess the
reliability of these REMIS data, we performed electronic testing to
identify missing data, dates outside the time frame of our request, and
duplicates. We obtained and reviewed the queries that the contractor
used to generate the data that we requested. We focused part of our
assessment on land disposals that occurred during fiscal years 2005 and
2006--the years, when according to the data, the bulk of land disposals
occurred--and specifically focused on the land disposal dates. We
compared the land disposal data files to identify inconsistencies among
the disposals. At the district level, we had the Baltimore, Fort Worth,
and Omaha Districts determine whether our REMIS land tract disposal
data files for these districts were accurate. Similarly, we had the
Baltimore and Los Angeles Districts determine whether our REMIS file
for their districts' real property holdings were accurate. Based on
this work, we found that the REMIS land disposal data were not reliable
because of inconsistencies among the disposal data files we analyzed, a
significant number of missing disposal dates, and inaccurate current
inventory data.
In addition, we assessed the Corps' internal controls over the
recording of land disposals in REMIS. We obtained the applicable Corps
policies, procedures, and guidance and compared them with standards for
internal control in the federal government and other control guidance
related to control activities, environment, and training. We also had
follow-up discussions with Corps officials about how internal controls
are interpreted and implemented. In assessing the adequacy of internal
controls, we used the criteria in GAO's Standards for Internal Control
in the Federal Government, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1], November 1999. These
standards, issued pursuant to the requirements of the Federal Managers'
Financial Integrity Act of 1982 (FMFIA), provided the overall framework
for establishing and maintaining internal control in the federal
government. Also pursuant to FMFIA, the Office of Management and Budget
issued Circular A-123, revised December 21, 2004, to provide the
specific requirements for assessing the reporting on internal controls.
Internal control standards and the definition of internal control in
Circular A-123 are based on GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the
Federal Government.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Department Of The Army:
Office Of The Assistant Secretary Of The Army:
Installations And Environment:
110 Army Pentagon:
Washington, DC 20310-0110:
April 14, 2008:
Mr. Terrell G. Dorn:
Director, Physical Infrastructure:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Dorn:
This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the GAO draft
report, "Federal Real Property: Corps of Engineers Needs to Improve the
Reliability of Its Real Property Disposal Data," dated March 14, 2008
(GAO Code 545050/GAO-08-349). The Department concurs with each of the
report's five specific recommendations. A more detailed comment for
each recommendation is provided as an enclosure.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Joseph F. Calcara:
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army:
(Installations and Housing):
OASA(I&E):
Enclosure:
GAO Draft Report - Dated March 14, 2008:
GAO CODE 545050/GAO-08-349:
"Federal Real Property: Corps of Engineers Needs to Improve the
Reliability of Its Real Property Disposal Data:"
Department Of Defense Comments To The Recommendations:
Recommendation 1: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Commanding General and Chief of Engineers of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers to implement effective internal control, including
segregation of duties and review, over the Real Estate Management
Information System (REMIS) land disposal process by incorporating such
control into the Corps' real estate policies at those districts and
divisions identified in this report and others, where appropriate.
DOD Response: Concur. In order to insure data quality and accuracy,
internal controls must be implemented at the District level and
monitored from Headquarters and Division levels. Headquarters U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers is designing a Real Estate Management Information
System modernization program which when implemented will, among other
things, put in place internal controls such as quality assurance and
quality control processes, segregation of duties and inspection and
review phases.
Recommendation 2: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Commanding General and Chief of Engineers of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers to implement the data normalization best practice in
the Real Estate Management Information System (REMIS) database with
respect to disposal dates.
DOD Response: Concur. The Real Estate Systems National Center (RESNC)
recognizes that the disposal process in REMIS may be unclear to users.
Guidance will be updated and disseminated to the users to reflect
clearer instructions regarding the disposal date to be entered, as well
as the mandatory screens/fields to be filled in. Also, special emphasis
will be placed on this module during training. In addition, methods
will be studied and implemented to reduce redundant and cumbersome data
entry.
Recommendation 3: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Commanding General and Chief of Engineers of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers to correct the disposal records that were created in
REMIS as part of the efforts to adjust the inventory.
DoD Response: Concur. Once the Real Estate Management Information
System (REMIS) was deployed in the early 1990's, Districts were
requested to load all civil and military project data, including
previous acquisitions and disposals, to reflect the entire history of
the project/installation. The loading process utilized simple screens
requiring a minimum amount of data. The initial data loading effort was
monumental and priority was placed on ensuring the accuracy of data
concerning active assets. The entry of data concerning historic
disposals was simplified and was viewed as a lower priority task. The
plan was to improve the accuracy of the historical disposal data
subsequent to the initial data load, subject to resources and manpower
availability. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Real Estate
Systems National Center (RESNC) is implementing a plan to check the
progress of updating the records by remotely inspecting the data and
conducting site assistance visits at Districts which are failing to
meet data entry goals. USACE concurs that updating the historic
disposal records should be accomplished, however, the ability to
quickly and completely update the historic records is limited by
current workload, available funding, manpower, and incomplete records.
Recommendation 4: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Commanding General and Chief of Engineers of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers to issue clear guidance for entering land disposal
dates in the land disposal process.
DoD Response: Concur. See response to Recommendation 2 above.
Recommendation 5: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Commanding General and Chief of Engineers of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers to provide and require introductory and periodic
refresher training that covers the correct recording of land disposal
dates in REMIS.
DoD Response: Concur. As part of the Real Estate Management Information
System (REMIS) program management plan, Real Estate Systems National
Center (RESNC), in conjunction with its operations and maintenance
contractors and a team of subject matter experts, will be providing
annual co-located training to the Districts. In addition, training will
be made available via team visits to those Districts that are unable to
send its employees to the annual sessions. The goal is to have provided
training to every District, either at an annual session or site visit,
by the end of FY10.
[End of enclosure]
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Terrell G. Dorn, (202) 512-2834, or dornt@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, Gerald P. Barnes (Assistant
Director), Lindsay M. Bach, Cherry M. Clipper, Melinda L. Cordero,
Elizabeth R. Eisenstadt, Colin Fallon, Kathleen A. Gilhooly, H. Brandon
Haller, Vondalee R. Hunt, Chris Martin, Steve Martinez, and Joshua H.
Ormond made key contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] General Services Administration, Fiscal Year 2006 Federal Real
Property Report: An Overview of the U.S. Federal Government's Real
Property Assets (Washington, D.C.: July 2007).
[2] The Corps' portfolio also includes military land, such as those
properties associated with Department of the Army military
installations, but we do not discuss military land in this report.
[3] This report discusses land owned by the federal government; i.e.,
land for which the United States holds fee simple title.
[4] High-risk areas are those that either have greater vulnerabilities
to waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement or major challenges
associated with their economy, efficiency, or effectiveness. See GAO,
High Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-119] (Washington, D.C.: January
2003).
[5] The Subcommittee Chairman and Ranking Member introduced S. 1667 in
June 2007.
[6] GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1]
(Washington, D.C.: November 1999). These standards, issued pursuant
to the requirements of the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act
of 1982 (FMFIA), provide the overall framework for establishing and
maintaining internal control in the federal government. OMB Circular
No. A-123 (Revised), Management's Responsibility for Internal Control,
dated December 21, 2004, incorporated the GAO internal control requirements.
[7] GAO: Internal Control Management and Evaluation Tool, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-01-1008G] (Washington, D.C.:
August 2001).
[8] Specifically, Engineering Circular 405-1-02, Project Inventory
Management, Accountability and Documentation, March 1, 2004, and
Engineering Circular 405-1-13, Validation Process and Historical Files,
December 30, 2003. These two documents are among many other Corps real
estate policies.
[9] The Corps has 38 districts under the purview of eight civil works
divisions. Thirty-two districts maintain real estate offices that
perform functions for the remaining 6 districts, whose real estate
portfolios are sufficiently small that they do not merit a real estate
office of their own.
[10] The headquarters senior real property management team includes the
Chief of Real Estate, a Senior Steering Committee, and a Chief of
Operations.
[11] An asset management plan lays out an agency's plan to promote the
efficient use of its real property assets by, among other things,
accurately inventorying and describing its assets, aligning its assets
with its mission, and disposing of unneeded assets.
[12] A 3-year time line is an action plan for implementing the asset
management plan and identifies the steps the agency will take to
demonstrate that decisions are regularly made using real property data.
The Corps' Three Year Timeline identified four areas that include
investments, operating costs, real property disposal, and compliance
with the federal real property requirements.
[13] According to REMIS disposal data.
[14] Officials explained that the management aspect of this position
included overseeing outgrants (i.e., special leases), revenue
collections, and permits.
[15] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2012, Aligning the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers for Success in the 21st Century, October 2003.
[16] For example, these control activities include accurate and
recording of transactions, as well as accountability of records.
[17] The disposal records consisted of individual land tracts that were
either fully or partially disposed. Partial land disposal involves only
a portion of a land tract. The Corps uses the term "tract" to identify
each separate land parcel requiring ownership documentation, usually a
title.
[18] While about 89 percent of the disposal records lacked dates, we
did not perform any analysis with respect to which land disposal
records were missing dates. The Corps noted that the design of the
original REMIS land disposal module did not contain a disposal date
field. As a result, numerous land disposals were entered without a
disposal date for a number of years. Nonetheless, this figure
represents the current condition of land disposal dates in REMIS.
[19] The DOD Inspector General and the U.S. Army Audit Agency conducted
numerous audits on the Corps' financial accounting system as it relates
to portions of balance sheet reporting for the Civil Works mission of
the Corps. In December 2005, the Corps indicated that it had corrected
the material deficiencies identified in the DOD Inspector General
financial audit reports and asserted its readiness for an external
auditor to audit its financial statements.
[20] In order to compare the Three Year Timeline data to our REMIS
files, we adjusted the time line data to fiscal year using the Corps'
source data.
[21] The Three Year Timeline data for fiscal year 2006 contained 184
disposals. The REMIS data we received from RESNC contained 153
disposals.
[22] Required data fields are those fields into which the user must
insert data in order to save the contents of the screen into REMIS.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
