VA Health Care
Overview of VA's Capital Asset Management Gao ID: GAO-09-686T June 9, 2009Through its Veterans Health Administration (VHA), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) operates one of the largest integrated health care systems in the country. In 1999, GAO reported that better management of VA's large inventory of aged capital assets could result in savings that could be used to enhance health care services for veterans. In response, VA initiated a process known as Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES). Through CARES, VA sought to determine the future resources needed to provide health care to our nation's veterans. This testimony describes (1) how CARES contributes to VHA's capital planning process, (2) the extent to which VA has implemented CARES decisions, and (3) the types of legal authorities that VA has to manage its real property and the extent to which VA has used these authorities. The testimony is based on GAO's body of work on VA's management of its capital assets, including GAO's 2007 report on VA's implementation of CARES (GAO-07-408).
The CARES process provides VA with a blueprint that drives VHA's capital planning efforts. As part of the CARES process, VA adapted a model to estimate demand for health care services and to determine the capacity of its current infrastructure to meet this demand. VA continues to use this model in its capital planning process. The CARES process resulted in capital alignment decisions intended to address gaps in services or infrastructure. These decisions serve as the foundation for VA's capital planning process. According to VA officials, all capital projects must be based on demand projections that use the planning model developed through CARES. VA has started implementing some CARES decisions, but does not centrally track their implementation or monitor the impact of their implementation on its mission. VA is in varying stages (e.g., planning or construction) of implementing 34 of the major capital projects that were identified in the CARES process and has completed 8 projects. Our past work found that, while VA had over 100 performance measures to monitor other agency programs and activities, these measures either did not directly link to the CARES goals or VA did not use them to centrally monitor the implementation and impact of CARES decisions. Without this information, VA could not readily assess the implementation status of CARES decisions, determine the impact of such decisions, or be held accountable for achieving the intended results of CARES. VA has recently created the CARES Implementation Working Group, which has identified performance measures for CARES and will monitor the implementation and impact of CARES decisions in the future. VA has a variety of legal authorities available, such as enhanced-use leases, sharing agreements, and others, to help it manage real property. However, legal restrictions and administrative- and budget-related disincentives associated with implementing some authorities affect VA's ability to dispose and reuse property in some locations. For example, legal restrictions limit VA's ability to dispose of and reuse property in West Los Angeles and Sepulveda. Despite these challenges, VA has used these legal authorities to help reduce underutilized space (i.e., space not used to full capacity). In 2008, we reported that VA reduced underutilized space in its buildings by approximately 64 percent from 15.4 million square feet in fiscal year 2005 to 5.6 million square feet in fiscal year 2007. While VA's use of various legal authorities likely contributed to VA's overall reduction of underutilized space since fiscal year 2005, VA does not track the overall effect of using these authorities on space reductions. Not having such information precludes VA from knowing what effect these authorities are having on reducing underutilized or vacant space or knowing which types of authorities have the greatest effect. According to VA officials, VA will institute a system in 2009 that will track square footage reductions at the building level.
GAO-09-686T, VA Health Care: Overview of VA's Capital Asset Management
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-686T
entitled 'VA Health Care: Overview of VA's Capital Asset Management'
which was released on June 9, 2009.
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.
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Health, Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT:
Tuesday, June 9, 2009:
VA Health Care:
Overview of VA's Capital Asset Management:
Statement of Mark L. Goldstein, Director:
Physical Infrastructure:
GAO-09-686T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-09-686T, a report to Subcommittee on Health,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Through its Veterans Health Administration (VHA), the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) operates one of the largest integrated health
care systems in the country. In 1999, GAO reported that better
management of VA‘s large inventory of aged capital assets could result
in savings that could be used to enhance health care services for
veterans. In response, VA initiated a process known as Capital Asset
Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES). Through CARES, VA sought to
determine the future resources needed to provide health care to our
nation‘s veterans.
This testimony describes (1) how CARES contributes to VHA‘s capital
planning process, (2) the extent to which VA has implemented CARES
decisions, and (3) the types of legal authorities that VA has to manage
its real property and the extent to which VA has used these
authorities. The testimony is based on GAO‘s body of work on VA‘s
management of its capital assets, including GAO‘s 2007 report on VA‘s
implementation of CARES (GAO-07-408).
What GAO Found:
The CARES process provides VA with a blueprint that drives VHA‘s
capital planning efforts. As part of the CARES process, VA adapted a
model to estimate demand for health care services and to determine the
capacity of its current infrastructure to meet this demand. VA
continues to use this model in its capital planning process. The CARES
process resulted in capital alignment decisions intended to address
gaps in services or infrastructure. These decisions serve as the
foundation for VA‘s capital planning process. According to VA
officials, all capital projects must be based on demand projections
that use the planning model developed through CARES.
VA has started implementing some CARES decisions, but does not
centrally track their implementation or monitor the impact of their
implementation on its mission. VA is in varying stages (e.g., planning
or construction) of implementing 34 of the major capital projects that
were identified in the CARES process and has completed 8 projects. Our
past work found that, while VA had over 100 performance measures to
monitor other agency programs and activities, these measures either did
not directly link to the CARES goals or VA did not use them to
centrally monitor the implementation and impact of CARES decisions.
Without this information, VA could not readily assess the
implementation status of CARES decisions, determine the impact of such
decisions, or be held accountable for achieving the intended results of
CARES. VA has recently created the CARES Implementation Working Group,
which has identified performance measures for CARES and will monitor
the implementation and impact of CARES decisions in the future.
VA has a variety of legal authorities available, such as enhanced-use
leases, sharing agreements, and others, to help it manage real
property. However, legal restrictions and administrative- and budget-
related disincentives associated with implementing some authorities
affect VA‘s ability to dispose and reuse property in some locations.
For example, legal restrictions limit VA‘s ability to dispose of and
reuse property in West Los Angeles and Sepulveda. Despite these
challenges, VA has used these legal authorities to help reduce
underutilized space (i.e., space not used to full capacity). In 2008,
we reported that VA reduced underutilized space in its buildings by
approximately 64 percent from 15.4 million square feet in fiscal year
2005 to 5.6 million square feet in fiscal year 2007. While VA‘s use of
various legal authorities likely contributed to VA‘s overall reduction
of underutilized space since fiscal year 2005, VA does not track the
overall effect of using these authorities on space reductions. Not
having such information precludes VA from knowing what effect these
authorities are having on reducing underutilized or vacant space or
knowing which types of authorities have the greatest effect. According
to VA officials, VA will institute a system in 2009 that will track
square footage reductions at the building level.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO is not making recommendations in this testimony, but has previously
made a number of recommendations regarding VA‘s capital asset
management. VA is at various stages of implementing those
recommendations.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-686T] or key
components. For more information, contact Mark L. Goldstein at (202)
512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
We appreciate the opportunity to testify on the Department of Veterans
Affairs' (VA) management of its capital assets. As you know, VA
operates one of the largest health care systems in the country. VA,
through its Veterans Health Administration (VHA), provided health care
to almost 5.5 million veterans in 2008.[Footnote 1] To support its
mission, VA has a large inventory of real property--including over 150
medical centers and over 900 outpatient and ambulatory care clinics.
However, many of VA's facilities were built more than 50 years ago and
are not well suited to providing accessible, high-quality, cost-
effective health care in the 21st century. In 1999, we reported that
with better management of its large, aged capital assets, VA could
significantly reduce the funding used to operate and maintain
underused, unneeded, or inefficient properties.[Footnote 2] We further
noted that the savings could be used to enhance health care services
for veterans. Thus, we recommended that VA develop market-based plans
for realigning its capital assets. In response, VA initiated a process
known as Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES)--a
comprehensive, long-range assessment of its health care system's
capital asset requirements. The CARES process included nine distinct
steps and required the time and expertise of many VA officials at the
departmental and network levels.[Footnote 3] (See table 1.)
Table 1: Steps of the CARES Process:
Step 1:
VA officials at the departmental and network level develop market areas
and submarkets as the planning units for analyzing veterans' needs.
Step 2:
VA officials at the departmental level conduct market analyses of
veterans' health care needs using standardized forecasts of enrollment
and service needs and actuarial data.
Step 3:
VA officials at the departmental level identify planning initiatives
that addressed apparent gaps between supply and demand in resources for
each market area.
Step 4:
VA officials at the Network level consider different alignment
alternatives and develop specific plans for individual markets that
addressed all the planning initiatives identified by VA officials at
the departmental level.
Step 5:
The Under Secretary of Health uses the market plans to prepare a Draft
National CARES Plan (DNCP) and recommendations.
Step 6:
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs appoints a commission composed of non-
VA executives to make recommendations to the Secretary to accept,
present alternatives to, or reject the recommendations contained in the
DNCP.
Step 7:
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs decides whether to accept, reject, or
modify the commission's recommendations concerning the DNCP.
Step 8:
Network officials implement the Secretary's decisions.
Step 9:
VA officials at the departmental level refine and incorporate CARES
planning initiatives into the annual strategic planning cycle.
Source: VA.
[End of table]
According to VA, the CARES process was a onetime major initiative.
However, its lasting result was to provide a set of tools and processes
that allow VA to continually determine the future resources needed to
provide health care to our nation's veterans. In May 2004, the
Secretary stated that implementing CARES decisions will require an
additional investment of approximately $1 billion per year for at least
the next 5 years, with substantial infrastructure investments then
continuing for the indefinite future, to modernize VA's aging
infrastructure. Although CARES will require substantial investment, the
Secretary noted that not proceeding with CARES would require funding to
maintain or renovate obsolete facilities and would leave VA with
numerous redundant, outmoded, or poorly located facilities. The
Secretary further stated that through the CARES process, VA had
developed more complete information about the demand for VA health care
and a more comprehensive assessment of its capital assets than it had
ever done before. The Secretary noted that this information, along with
the experience gained through conducting CARES, positioned VA to
continue to expand the accuracy and scope of its planning efforts.
In my statement today, I will discuss (1) how CARES contributes to
VHA's capital planning process, (2) the extent to which VA has
implemented CARES decisions, and (3) the types of legal authorities
that VA has to manage its real property and the extent to which VA has
used its authorities to reduce underutilized and vacant property. My
comments are based on our extensive body of work on VA's management of
its capital assets, including recent reviews of VA's implementation of
CARES and management of real property, as well as updated information
from VA officials.[Footnote 4]
Background:
Over the past decade, VA's system of health care for veterans has
undergone a dramatic transformation, shifting from predominantly
hospital-based care to primary reliance on outpatient care. As VA
increased its emphasis on outpatient care rather than inpatient care,
it was left with an increasingly obsolete infrastructure, including
many hospitals built or acquired more than 50 years ago in locations
that are sometimes far from where veterans live.
To address its obsolete infrastructure, VA initiated its CARES process-
-the first comprehensive, long-range assessment of its health care
system's capital asset requirements since 1981. CARES was designed to
assess the appropriate function, size, and location of VA facilities in
light of expected demand for VA inpatient and outpatient health care
services through fiscal year 2022. Through CARES, VA sought to enhance
outpatient and inpatient care, as well as special programs, such as
spinal cord injury, through the appropriate sizing, upgrading, and
locating of VA facilities. Table 2 lists key milestones of the CARES
process.
Table 2: Key CARES Milestones:
Date: February 2002;
Milestone: VA announced the results of a pilot CARES study;
Description: The pilot study assessed current and future use of health
care assets in the three markets of Network 12, which includes parts of
five states: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. It
resulted in decisions to realign health care services and renovate or
dispose of several buildings consistent with VA's mission and community
zoning issues.
Date: August 2003;
Milestone: VA Under Secretary for Health presented the DNCP;
Description: The Under Secretary's DNCP included recommendations about
health care services and capital assets in VA's remaining 74 markets.
These recommendations reflected input from managers of VA's health care
networks.
Date: February 2004;
Milestone: An independent CARES Commission issued recommendations;
Description: An independent 16-member commission appointed by the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs issued recommendations to the Secretary
based on its review of the DNCP and related documents and information
obtained through public hearings, site visits, public meetings, written
comments from veterans and other stakeholders, and consultations with
experts.
Date: May 2004;
Milestone: VA Secretary announces the CARES decisions;
Description: The Secretary based his decisions on a review of the CARES
Commission's recommendations.
Date: January 2005;
Milestone: CARES follow-up studies;
Description: VA awarded a contract for additional studies at 18 VA
facilities. These studies included evaluating outstanding health care
issues, developing capital plans, and determining the best use for
unneeded VA property consistent with VA's mission and community zoning
issues.
Date: May 2008;
Milestone: CARES follow-up studies;
Description: All 18 studies are completed.
Source: GAO analysis of VA data.
[End of table]
We have previously reported that a range of capital asset alignment
alternatives were considered throughout the CARES process, which
adheres to capital planning best practices.[Footnote 5] Moreover, there
was relatively consistent agreement among the DNCP prepared by VA, the
CARES Commission appointed by the VA Secretary to make alignment
recommendations, and the Secretary as to which were the best
alternatives to pursue. Although the Secretary tended to agree with the
CARES Commission's recommendations, the extent to which he agreed
varied by alignment alternative. In particular, the Secretary always
agreed with the commission's recommendations to build new facilities,
enter into enhanced use leases, and collaborate with the Department of
Defense and universities, but was less likely to agree with the CARES
Commission's recommendations to contract out or close facilities. The
decisions that emerged from the CARES process will result in an overall
expansion of VA's capital assets. According to VA officials, rather
than show that VA should downsize its capital asset portfolio, the
CARES process revealed service gaps and needed infrastructure
improvements. We also reported that a number of factors shaped and in
some cases limited the range of alternatives VA considered during the
CARES process. These factors included competing stakeholder interests;
facility condition and location; veterans' access to facilities;
established relationships between VA and health care partners, such as
DOD and university medical affiliates; and legal restrictions.
The challenge of misaligned infrastructure is not unique to VA. We
identified federal real property management as a high-risk area in
January 2003 because of the nationwide importance of this issue for all
federal agencies. We did this to highlight the need for broad-based
transformation in this area, which, if well implemented, will better
position federal agencies to achieve mission effectiveness and reduce
operating costs. But VA and other agencies face common challenges, such
as competing stakeholder interests in real property decisions. In VA's
case, this involves achieving consensus among such stakeholders as
veterans service organizations, affiliated medical schools, employee
unions, and communities. We have previously reported that competing
interests from local, state, and political stakeholders have often
impeded federal agencies' ability to make real property management
decisions. As a result of competing stakeholder interests, decisions
about real property often do not reflect the most cost-effective or
efficient alternative that is in the interest of the agency or the
government as a whole but instead reflect other priorities. In
particular, this situation often arises when the federal government
attempts to consolidate facilities or otherwise dispose of unneeded
assets.[Footnote 6]
CARES Process and Modeling Tools Drive VHA's Capital Planning Efforts:
Through the CARES process, VA gained the tools and information needed
to plan capital investments. As part of the CARES process, VA modified
an actuarial model that it used to project VA budgetary needs.
According to VA, the modifications enabled the model to produce 20-year
forecasts of the demand for services and provided for more accurate
assessments of veterans' reliance on VA services, capacity gaps, and
market penetration rates.[Footnote 7] The information provided by the
model allowed VA to identify service needs and infrastructure gaps, in
part by comparing the expected location of veterans and demand for
services in years 2012 through 2022 with the current location and
capacity of VA health care services within each network. In addition to
modifying the model, VA conducted facility condition assessments on all
of its real property holdings as part of the CARES process. These
assessments provided VA information about the condition of its
facilities, including their infrastructure needs. VA continues to use
the tools developed through CARES as part of its capital planning
process. For example, VA conducts facility condition assessments for
each real property holding every 3 years on a rotating basis. In
addition, VA uses the modified actuarial model to update its workload
projections each year, which are used to inform the annual capital
budget process.
The CARES process serves as the foundation for VHA's capital planning
efforts. The first step in VHA's capital budget process is for networks
to submit conceptual papers that identify capital projects that will
address service or infrastructure gaps identified in the CARES process.
[Footnote 8] The Capital Investment Panel, which consists of
representatives from each VA administration and staff offices, reviews,
scores, and ranks these papers. The Capital Investment Panel also
identifies the proposals that will be sent forward for additional
analysis and review, and may ultimately be included as part of VA's
budget request. According to VA officials, all capital projects must be
based on the CARES planning model to advance through VHA's capital
planning process. On the basis of CARES-identified infrastructure needs
and service gaps, VA identified more than 100 major capital projects in
37 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.[Footnote 9] In
addition to these projects, the CARES planning model identified service
needs and infrastructure gaps at other locations throughout the VA
system. The model is updated annually to reflect new information.
VHA's 5-year Capital Plan outlines CARES implementation and identifies
priority projects that will improve the environment of care at VA
medical facilities and ensure more effective operations by redirecting
resources from the maintenance of vacant and underutilized buildings to
investments in veterans' health care. In VA's fiscal year 2010 budget
submission, VA requested about $1.1 billion to fund 12 VHA major
construction projects and about $507 million for VHA minor construction
projects.
Some CARES Decisions Implemented, but Additional Information Needed to
Fully Assess Status and Impact of Decisions:
VA has begun implementing some CARES decisions. Specifically, VA is
currently in varying stages (e.g., planning or construction) of
implementing 34 of the major capital projects that were identified in
the CARES process. Eight major capital CARES projects are complete.
Although VA is moving forward with the implementation of some CARES
decisions, we previously reported that a number of VA officials and
stakeholders, including representatives from veteran service
organizations and local community groups, view the implementation
process as too lengthy and lacking transparency.[Footnote 10] For
instance, stakeholders in Big Spring, Texas, noted that it took almost
2 years for the Secretary to decide whether to close the facility.
During this period, there was a great deal of uncertainty about the
future of the facility. As a result, there were problems in attracting
and retaining staff at the facility, according to network and local VA
officials. We also previously reported that a number of stakeholders we
spoke with indicated that the implementation of CARES decisions has
been influenced by competing stakeholders' interests--thereby
undermining the process.[Footnote 11] In its February 2004 report, the
CARES Commission also noted that stakeholder and community pressure can
act as a barrier to change, by pressuring VA to maintain specific
services or facilities.
In 2007, we reported that VA does not use, or in some cases does not
have, performance measures to assess its progress in implementing CARES
or whether CARES is achieving the intended results. Performance
measures allow an agency to track its progress in achieving intended
results. Performance measures can also help inform management decision
making by, for example, indicating a need to redirect resources or
shift priorities. In addition, performance measures can be used by
stakeholders, such as veterans' service organizations or local
communities, to hold agencies accountable for results. Although VA has
over 100 performance measures to monitor other agency programs and
activities, these measures either do not directly link to the CARES
goals or VA does not use them to centrally monitor the implementation
and impact of CARES decisions.[Footnote 12] We also reported that VA
lacked critical data, including data on the cost of and timelines for
implementing CARES projects and the potential savings that can be
generated by realigning resources.
Given the importance of the CARES process, we previously recommended
that VA develop performance measures for CARES. Such measures would
allow VA officials to monitor the implementation and impact of CARES
decisions as well as allow stakeholders to hold VA accountable for
results. In responding to our recommendation, VA created the CARES
Implementation Monitoring Working Group. This working group has
identified performance measures for CARES and the group will monitor
the implementation and impact of CARES decisions.
VA Has A Variety of Legal Authorities to Manage Real Property, But Does
Not Track How Using Them Contributes to the Reduction in Underutilized
Property:
VA has a variety of legal authorities available to help it manage real
property. These authorities include enhanced-use leases (EUL), sharing
agreements, and outleases. (See table 2 for descriptions of these
authorities.) VA uses these authorities to help reduce underutilized
and vacant property. For example, in 2005, in Lakeside (Chicago),
Illinois, VA reduced its underutilized property at the medical center
by nearly 600,000 square feet by using its EUL authority with
Northwestern Memorial Hospital. VA also uses these authorities to
generate financial benefits. For example, the VA Greater Los Angeles
Healthcare System enters into a number of sharing agreements with the
film industry. VA officials told us that these agreements are typically
temporary arrangements--sometimes lasting a few days--during which film
production companies use VA facilities to shoot television or movie
scenes. According to VA officials, these agreements generate roughly $1
million to $2 million a year.
Table 3: Major Types of Authorities Available to VA:
Authority: Enhanced-use leases (EUL); 38 U.S.C. §§ 8161-8169;
Definition: VA leases underutilized or vacant property to a public or
private entity for up to 75 years if the agreement enhances the use of
the property or results in an improvement of services to veterans in
the network in which the property is located. The EUL shall be for fair
consideration, and lease payments may be monetary or be made for in-
kind consideration, such as construction, repair, or remodeling of
department facilities; providing office, storage, or other usable
space; or for services, programs, or facilities that enhance services
to veterans;
Proceeds: Proceeds generated from the EUL are used to pay for expenses
incurred by VA in connection with the EUL and can be used for any
expense incurred in the development of future EULs. Any remaining funds
are to be deposited in the VA Medical Care Collections Fund. At the
discretion of the VA Secretary, proceeds also may be deposited into
construction major project and construction minor project accounts to
be used for construction, alterations, and improvements of any medical
facility.
Authority: Sharing agreements; 38 U.S.C. §§ 8151-8153;
Definition: VA may enter into sharing agreements to provide the use of
VHA space (including parking, recreational facilities, and vacant land)
for the benefit of veterans or nonveterans in exchange for payment or
services if VA's resources would not be used to their maximum effective
capacity and would not adversely affect the care of veterans. Sharing
agreements do not convey an interest in real property and can be
entered into for up to 20 years, with the initial term not to exceed 5
years;
Proceeds: Proceeds generated from sharing agreements are to be credited
to the applicable department medical appropriation of the facility that
furnished the space.
Authority: Outlease; 38 U.S.C. § 8122; 38 U.S.C. § 2412;
Definition: VA's outlease-related authorities include the following:
Outlease: VA may lease real property to public or private interests
outside of VA for up to 3 years, or up to 10 years for a National
Cemetery Administration (NCA) property. Lease payments may be made for
maintenance, protection, or restoration of the property as part of the
consideration of the lease; License: Gives a nonfederal party
permission to enter upon and do a specific act or series of acts upon
the land without possessing or acquiring any estate therein. A license
can be revoked at any time; Permit: Gives another federal agency
permission to enter upon and do a specific act or series of acts upon
the land without possessing or acquiring any estate therein. The permit
can be revoked at any time;
Proceeds: Proceeds generated from outleases of VHA space, minus
expenses for maintenance, operation, and repair of buildings leased for
building quarters, are deposited into the Department of the Treasury as
miscellaneous receipts. Proceeds generated from outleases of NCA
property are to be deposited into the NCA Facilities Operation Fund and
are available for costs incurred by NCA for operations and maintenance
of NCA property. Proceeds generated from licenses and permits are
deposited into the Department of the Treasury.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
However, legal restrictions associated with implementing some
authorities affect VA's ability to dispose of and reuse property in
some locations. For example, legal restrictions limit VA's ability to
dispose of and reuse property in West Los Angeles and North Hills
(Sepulveda) California. The Cranston Act of 1988 precluded VA from
taking any action to dispose of 109 of 388 acres in the West Los
Angeles medical center and 46 acres of the Sepulveda ambulatory care
center.[Footnote 13] In 1991, when EUL authority was provided to VA, VA
was prohibited from entering into any EUL relating to the 109 acres at
West Los Angeles unless the lease was specifically authorized by law or
for a childcare center.[Footnote 14] The Consolidated Appropriations
Act of 2008 expanded the EUL restrictions to include the entire West
Los Angeles medical center.[Footnote 15] The Consolidated
Appropriations Act of 2008 also prohibits VA from declaring as excess
or otherwise taking action to exchange, trade, auction, transfer, or
otherwise dispose of any portion of the 388 acres within the VA West
Los Angeles medical center.
Budgetary and administrative disincentives associated with some of VA's
available authorities may also limit VA's ability to use these
authorities to reduce its inventory of underutilized and vacant
property. For example:
* VA cannot retain revenue that it obtains from outleases, revocable
licenses, or permits; such receipts must be deposited in the Department
of the Treasury.[Footnote 16] VA has said that, except for EUL
disposals, restrictions on retaining proceeds from disposal of
properties are a disincentive for VA to dispose of property.[Footnote
17]
* In 2004, VA was authorized until 2011 to transfer real property under
its jurisdiction or control and to retain the proceeds from the
transfer in a capital asset fund for property transfer costs, including
demolition, environmental remediation, and maintenance and repair
costs.[Footnote 18] In our previous work, we reported several
administrative and oversight challenges with using capital asset funds.
[Footnote 19] Moreover, VA officials told us that this authority has
significant limitations on the use of any funds generated by disposal.
For example, VA officials we spoke with reported that the capital asset
fund is too cumbersome to be used, and VA does not have immediate
access to the funds because they have to be reappropriated before VA
can use them.
* The maximum term for an outlease, according to VHA law, is 3 years;
according to VA officials, this time limit can discourage potential
lessees from investing in the property.
* Implementing an EUL agreement can take a long time. According to VA
officials, EULs are a relatively new tool, and every EUL is unique and
involves a learning process. In addition, VA officials commented that
the EUL process can be complicated. According to VA officials, the
average time it takes to implement an EUL can range generally from 9
months to 2 years. The officials noted that land due diligence
requirements (such as environmental and historic reviews), public
hearings, congressional notification, lease drafting, negotiation, and
other phases contribute to the length of the overall process. VA has
taken actions to reduce the time it takes to implement an EUL
agreement, but despite changes to streamline the EUL process, some
officials stated that it is still time consuming and cumbersome.
* VA can dispose of underutilized and vacant property under the
McKinney-Vento Act to other federal agencies and programs for the
homeless.[Footnote 20] However, VA officials stated that disposing of
property under the McKinney-Vento Act also can be time-consuming and
cumbersome.[Footnote 21] According to VA officials, the process can
average 2 years. Under this law, all properties that the Department of
Housing and Urban Development deems suitable for use by the homeless go
through a 60-day holding period, during which the property is
ineligible for disposal for any other purpose. Interested
representatives of the homeless submit to the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) a written notice of their intent to apply for a
property for homeless use during the 60-day holding period. After
applicants have given notice of their intent to apply, they have up to
90 days to submit their application to HHS, and HHS has the discretion
to extend the time frame if necessary. Once HHS has received an
application, it has 25 days to review, accept, or decline the
application. Furthermore, according to VA officials, VA may not receive
compensation from agreements entered into under the McKinney-Vento Act.
Despite these challenges, VA has used these legal authorities to help
reduce its inventory of unneeded space. In 2008, we reported that VA
reduced underutilized space (i.e., space not used to full capacity) in
its buildings by approximately 64 percent from 15.4 million square feet
in fiscal year 2005 to 5.6 million square feet in fiscal year 2007.
[Footnote 22] Although the number of vacant buildings decreased over
the period, the amount of vacant space remained relatively unchanged at
7.5 million square feet. We estimated VA spent $175 million in fiscal
year 2007 operating underutilized or vacant space at its medical
facilities.[Footnote 23]
While VA's use of various legal authorities, such as EULs and sharing
agreements, likely contributed to VA's overall reduction of
underutilized space since fiscal year 2005, VA does not track the
overall effect of using these authorities on its space reductions.
Without such information, VA does not know what effect these
authorities are having on its effort to reduce underutilized or vacant
space or which types of authorities have the greatest effect. We
concluded that further reductions in underutilized and vacant space
will largely depend on VA developing a better understanding of why
changes occurred and what impact these agreements had. Therefore, we
recommended in our 2008 report that VA track, monitor, and evaluate
square footage reductions and financial and nonfinancial benefits
resulting from new agreements at the building level by fiscal year in
order to better understand the usefulness of these authorities and
their overall effect on VA's inventory of underutilized and vacant
property from year to year.[Footnote 24] The officials said that
tracking financial benefits will require a real property cost
accounting system which VA is in the process of developing. According
to VA officials, VA will institute a system in June 2009 that will
track square footage reductions at the building level, but the system
will not track financial benefits at this level.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased
to respond to questions from you or other Members of the Subcommittee.
GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
For further information on this statement, please contact Mark L.
Goldstein at (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this statement. Individuals making key
contributions to this testimony were Nikki Clowers, Hazel Gumbs, Edward
Laughlin, Susan Michal-Smith, and John W. Shumann.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] VHA is primarily responsible for VA's health care delivery to the
veterans enrolled for VA health care services and operates the majority
of VA's capital assets.
[2] GAO, VA Health Care: Capital Asset Planning and Budgeting Need
Improvement, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/T-HEHS-99-83]
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 10, 1999).
[3] VA's health care delivery system is divided into 21 health care
delivery networks. For example, one network serves veterans in Alabama,
Georgia, and South Carolina.
[4] GAO, VA Health Care: Capital Asset Planning and Budgeting Need
Improvement, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/T-HEHS-99-83]
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 10, 1999); GAO, VA Health Care: VA Should
Better Monitor Implementation and Impact of Capital Asset Alignment
Decisions, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-408]
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 21, 2007); GAO, VA Health Care: Additional
Efforts to Better Assess Joint Ventures Needed, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-399] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 28,
2008); and GAO, Federal Real Property: Progress Made in Reducing
Unneeded Property, but VA Needs Better Information to Make Further
Reductions, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-939]
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 10, 2008). These performance audits and our
updated work were conducted in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
[5] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-408].
[6] GAO, High-Risk Series: Federal Real Property, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-122] (Washington, D.C.: January
2003) and GAO, Federal Real Property: Progress Made Toward Addressing
Problems, but Underlying Obstacles Continue to Hamper Reform,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-349] (Washington, D.C.:
April 2007).
[7] We did not evaluate the reliability of the model or its
projections.
[8] CARES conceptual papers are created at the network level and
provide a detailed description of the project, the problem the project
will address, and other relevant information.
[9] The term "major capital project" refers to a project for the
construction, alteration, or acquisition of a medical facility
involving a total expenditure of more than $10 million. (See 38 U.S.C.
§8104.) In contrast, a "minor capital project" refers to the
construction, alteration, or acquisition of a medical facility
involving a total expenditure of $10 million or less.
[10] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-408].
[11] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-408].
[12] Officials from the Office of Asset Enterprise Management told us
that they had information on the status of CARES projects that were
included in the 5-year capital plan, but that they did not track the
status of all CARES decisions.
[13] P.L. No. 100-322, Section 421(b)(2), 102 Stat. 487, 553 (1988).
[14] 38 U.S.C. § 8162(c).
[15] P.L. No. 110-161, Section 224(a), 121 Stat. 1844, 2272 (2007).
[16] 38 U.S.C. § 8122.
[17] 38 U.S.C. § 8164.
[18] 38 U.S.C. § 8118.
[19] GAO, Capital Financing: Potential Benefits of Capital Acquisition
Funds Can Be Achieved through Simpler Means, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-249] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 8,
2005).
[20] VA properties that are leased to another party under an EUL are
not considered to be unutilized or underutilized for purposes of the
McKinney-Vento Act (see 38 U.S.C. § 8162).
[21] We have reported elsewhere on this process. See GAO, Federal Real
Property: Most Public Benefit Conveyances Used as Intended, but
Opportunities Exist to Enhance Federal Oversight, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-511] (Washington, D.C.: June 21,
2006).
[22] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-939]. The
underutilized square footage numbers that we report are different from
those that VA reports. Our analysis only included underutilized square
feet, whereas when VA measures its rate of utilization, it adds
together underutilized square feet and overutilized square feet
(additional square feet needed at a facility).
[23] GAO developed this estimate because VA does not track the cost of
operating underutilized and vacant building space at the building level
and has not developed a reliable method for doing so.
[24] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-939].
[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 Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
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:
