Federal Energy Management
GSA's Recovery Act Program Is on Track, but Opportunities Exist to Improve Transparency, Performance Criteria, and Risk Management Gao ID: GAO-10-630 June 16, 2010The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) provided the General Services Administration (GSA) with $5.55 billion to invest in federal buildings and promote economic recovery. This funding includes $4.5 billion to convert buildings to high-performance green buildings (HPGB), which seek to reduce energy and water use, among other goals. GAO was asked to address the (1) steps GSA has taken to implement the program and make its Recovery Act projects transparent to the public, (2) extent to which GSA's Recovery Act projects are helping the agency convert buildings to HPGB and addressing federal energy and water conservation requirements and goals, and (3) extent to which GSA has identified potential risks to its Recovery Act program and developed strategies to mitigate those risks. GAO reviewed GSA documents and relevant laws and executive orders, and interviewed GSA officials at headquarters and staff for 12 projects, which varied in type, size, and location.
GSA has put an organizational structure in place to implement its Recovery Act program and, as of April 30, 2010, had obligated just over $4 billion of its $5.55 billion appropriation, and is on track to meet the act's obligation deadlines. GSA also has published information on its Recovery Act program, such as agencywide plans for spending funds and lists of projects, but this information does not identify the nature of the work being conducted or describe the 263 projects GSA has selected for Recovery Act funding. Without this information, the program is less than fully transparent--a key GSA Recovery Act goal--because the public cannot readily discern what individual projects entail or are expected to achieve with Recovery Act funding. GSA's Recovery Act projects will enhance energy and water conservation performance in the 263 projects to varying degrees. GSA has begun collecting the data it would need to measure the likely extent of improvement. GSA set minimum performance criteria for its projects, which include reducing energy use by 30 percent. The criteria do not, however, include reducing the energy and environmental impacts of transportation through building location and site design, although this is part of the statutory definition of a HPGB. Under the Recovery Act, GSA is to use this definition when converting existing buildings. According to GSA, some managers are designing transportation-related improvements into their projects. However, because it is not part of GSA's criteria, other managers may not be systematically considering such improvements. According to GSA, the agency has begun to roll out a new centralized data system to collect and report on specific information for Recovery Act projects' green improvements and performance. GSA has identified risks to its Recovery Act program, such as the risk that Recovery Act reporting is inaccurate or incomplete, and risk mitigation strategies. In addition, GSA's approach to risk management is generally consistent with best practices we have developed. However, GSA relies on informal communication to identify project-level risks and has not taken steps to ensure the completion of project-level risk planning documents required by GSA. GAO found that the required documents, which are intended to help plan for project-level risks, had not been fully completed for 9 of the 12 projects reviewed. Unidentified risks to GSA's Recovery Act projects could potentially limit GSA's ability to achieve Recovery Act goals.
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: Terrell G. Dorn Team: Government Accountability Office: Physical Infrastructure Phone: No phone on recordGAO-10-630, Federal Energy Management: GSA's Recovery Act Program Is on Track, but Opportunities Exist to Improve Transparency, Performance Criteria, and Risk Management
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-630
entitled 'Federal Energy Management: GSA's Recovery Act Program Is on
Track, but Opportunities Exist to Improve Transparency, Performance
Criteria, and Risk Management' which was released on June 16, 2010.
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.
Report to the Subcommittee on Financial Services and General
Government, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
June 2010:
Federal Energy Management:
GSA's Recovery Act Program Is on Track, but Opportunities Exist to
Improve Transparency, Performance Criteria, and Risk Management:
GAO-10-630:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-10-630, a report to the Subcommittee on Financial
Services and General Government, Committee on Appropriations, U.S.
Senate.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act)
provided the General Services Administration (GSA) with $5.55 billion
to invest in federal buildings and promote economic recovery. This
funding includes $4.5 billion to convert buildings to high-performance
green buildings (HPGB), which seek to reduce energy and water use,
among other goals.
GAO was asked to address the (1) steps GSA has taken to implement the
program and make its Recovery Act projects transparent to the public,
(2) extent to which GSA‘s Recovery Act projects are helping the agency
convert buildings to HPGB and addressing federal energy and water
conservation requirements and goals, and (3) extent to which GSA has
identified potential risks to its Recovery Act program and developed
strategies to mitigate those risks. GAO reviewed GSA documents and
relevant laws and executive orders, and interviewed GSA officials at
headquarters and staff for 12 projects, which varied in type, size,
and location.
What GAO Found:
GSA has put an organizational structure in place to implement its
Recovery Act program and, as of April 30, 2010, had obligated just
over $4 billion of its $5.55 billion appropriation, and is on track to
meet the act‘s obligation deadlines. GSA also has published
information on its Recovery Act program, such as agencywide plans for
spending funds and lists of projects, but this information does not
identify the nature of the work being conducted or describe the 263
projects GSA has selected for Recovery Act funding. Without this
information, the program is less than fully transparent”a key GSA
Recovery Act goal”because the public cannot readily discern what
individual projects entail or are expected to achieve with Recovery
Act funding.
Table: GSA Recovery Act Obligation Milestones and Deadlines:
Milestone:
Amount to be obligated: Not less than a total of $1 billion;
Time frame: August 1, 2009;
Amount obligated (cumulative): $1.1 billion.
Milestone:
Amount to be obligated: Not less than a total of $1.2 billion;
Time frame: September 7, 2009;
Amount obligated (cumulative): $1.3 billion.
Milestone:
Amount to be obligated: Not less than a total of $2 billion;
Time frame: December 31, 2009;
Amount obligated (cumulative): $2.1 billion.
Milestone:
Amount to be obligated: Not less than a total of $4 billion;
Time frame: March 31, 2010;
Amount obligated (cumulative): $4.0 billion.
Deadline:
Amount to be obligated: Not less than a total of $5 billion;
Time frame: September 30, 2010.
Deadline:
Amount to be obligated: Not less than a total of $5.55 billion;
Time frame: September 30, 2011.
Source: GAO analysis of GSA data.
[End of table]
GSA‘s Recovery Act projects will enhance energy and water conservation
performance in the 263 projects to varying degrees. GSA has begun
collecting the data it would need to measure the likely extent of
improvement. GSA set minimum performance criteria for its projects,
which include reducing energy use by 30 percent. The criteria do not,
however, include reducing the energy and environmental impacts of
transportation through building location and site design, although
this is part of the statutory definition of a HPGB. Under the Recovery
Act, GSA is to use this definition when converting existing buildings.
According to GSA, some managers are designing transportation-related
improvements into their projects. However, because it is not part of GSA
‘s criteria, other managers may not be systematically considering such
improvements. According to GSA, the agency has begun to roll out a new
centralized data system to collect and report on specific information
for Recovery Act projects‘ green improvements and performance.
GSA has identified risks to its Recovery Act program, such as the risk
that Recovery Act reporting is inaccurate or incomplete, and risk
mitigation strategies. In addition, GSA‘s approach to risk management
is generally consistent with best practices we have developed.
However, GSA relies on informal communication to identify project-
level risks and has not taken steps to ensure the completion of
project-level risk planning documents required by GSA. GAO found that
the required documents, which are intended to help plan for project-
level risks, had not been fully completed for 9 of the 12 projects
reviewed. Unidentified risks to GSA‘s Recovery Act projects could
potentially limit GSA‘s ability to achieve Recovery Act goals.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO is recommending that the GSA Administrator should make more
information publicly available on Recovery Act projects, include
transportation improvements in GSA‘s criteria for projects, and do
more to plan for project-level risks. On commenting on a draft of this
report, the GSA Administrator agreed with the recommendations.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-630] or key
components. For more information, contact Terrell Dorn at (202) 512-
2834 or dornt@gao.gov or Mark Gaffigan at (202) 512-3841 or
gaffiganm@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
GSA Has Processes to Manage Its Program and Meet Obligation Deadlines
but Has Not Provided Key Information about Its Projects to the Public:
Projects Could Result in Greener Buildings, but GSA's Data Are Not Yet
Available to Measure the Extent of Progress:
GSA Identifies Risks to Its Program and Risk Mitigation Strategies,
but Some Project-Level Risk Plans Are Not Complete:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: GSA's Minimum Performance Criteria for Recovery Act
Projects:
Appendix III: Descriptions for 12 Case Studies:
Appendix IV: Comments from the General Services Administration:
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: GSA's Recovery Act Program:
Table 2: GSA's Recovery Act Project Selection Criteria for Full and
Partial Building Modernizations:
Table 3: Elements of a High-Performance Green Building:
Table 4: Selected Federal Energy and Water Conservation Requirements
and Goals from Statutes and Executive Orders:
Table 5: GSA's Recovery Act Obligation Milestones and Deadlines:
Table 6: Revisions to GSA's Recovery Act Project Plan:
Table 7: Twelve GSA Recovery Act Projects That We Selected as Case
Studies:
Table 8: Fourteen Key Risks Identified for PBS's Recovery Act Program:
Table 9: Risk Management Best Practices Used to Assess GSA's Risk
Management Approach:
Figures:
Figure 1: Organization Chart for GSA's Program Management Office:
Figure 2: GSA's Recovery Act Zones and Regions:
Abbreviations:
ADA: Americans with Disabilities Act:
ASHRAE: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers:
CPP: comprehensive project plan:
EISA: Energy Independence and Security Act:
E.O.: executive order:
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency:
EPAct: Energy Policy Act:
FEMP: Federal Energy Management Program:
GSA: General Services Administration:
HPGB: high-performance green building:
HVAC: heating, ventilation, and air conditioning:
IPC: International Plumbing Code:
LCC: life-cycle costing:
LEED: Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design:
MOU: memorandum of understanding:
MPC: minimum performance criteria:
NIST: National Institute of Standards and Technology:
OFHPGB: Office of Federal High-Performance Green Buildings:
OIG: Office of Inspector General:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
PBS: Public Buildings Service:
PDRI: project development rating index:
PMO: Program Management Office:
PV: photovoltaic:
Recovery Act: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009:
Recovery.gov: www.recovery.gov:
SME: subject matter experts:
UPC: Uniform Plumbing Code:
USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
June 16, 2010:
The Honorable Richard J. Durbin:
Chairman:
The Honorable Susan M. Collins:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
In January 2003, we designated federal real property as a high-risk
area, in part because of deteriorating facilities and unreliable real
property data.[Footnote 1] In addition, in 2007, we reported that
addressing the needs of aging and deteriorating federal facilities
remains a problem for major real property-holding agencies, and that,
according to recent estimates, tens of billions of dollars will be
needed to repair or restore these assets.[Footnote 2] The American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act)[Footnote 3]
provided the General Services Administration (GSA) with $5.55 billion
to invest in federal buildings, create jobs, and promote economic
recovery. Of this $5.55 billion, over $1 billion is being used by GSA
for new federal buildings, courthouses, border stations, and land
ports of entry. Additionally, the Recovery Act provided that at least
$4.5 billion be used "for measures necessary to convert GSA facilities
to high-performance green buildings" as defined by section 401 of the
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA).[Footnote 4] High-
performance green buildings are designed to achieve a number of
environmental goals, including reducing energy, water, and material
resource use and the buildings' impact on the environment and on
building occupants, by means such as using recycled or nontoxic
products in the buildings.
The federal government is the nation's single largest energy consumer,
and federal buildings accounted for about 35 percent of the
government's total energy use in fiscal year 2009.[Footnote 5]
Converting federal facilities to high-performance green buildings
could help reduce the federal government's energy consumption and
bring federal buildings more in line with federal energy and water
conservation requirements and goals. Over the last several years, a
number of laws and executive orders have established new requirements
and direction for improving the energy and water conservation
performance of federal facilities. For example, in December 2007, EISA
established new requirements for reducing energy use at federal
buildings, reducing fossil fuel use for certain federal buildings, and
managing storm water runoff. GSA's Recovery Act funding, which is more
than three times greater than the agency's 2009 funding for new
construction and renovations, provides a unique opportunity for GSA to
address the deterioration of some of its aging buildings while also
improving their energy and water conservation performance. However, to
obligate this funding within the time frame required by the Recovery
Act,[Footnote 6] GSA will have to implement hundreds of projects
across the country at an accelerated pace.
Given the magnitude of GSA's Recovery Act program and the associated
time frame, you asked us to review GSA's plans and efforts related to
the use of Recovery Act funds. This report provides information and
analysis on (1) the steps GSA has taken to implement the program and
make its Recovery Act projects transparent to the public, (2) the
extent to which GSA's Recovery Act projects are helping the agency
convert buildings to high-performance green buildings and address
energy and water conservation requirements and goals, and (3) the
extent to which GSA has taken steps to identify potential risks to its
Recovery Act program and developed strategies to mitigate those risks.
To address these questions, we reviewed key documents describing GSA's
efforts to organize and implement the program, publicly available
information about GSA's Recovery Act program, the scope of GSA's
Recovery Act projects, and GSA's progress in obligating and spending
funds. We compared criteria GSA established for Recovery Act projects
with selected legislation and executive orders relevant to the energy
and water conservation performance of federal buildings. Also, we
interviewed GSA officials in headquarters and regional offices,
including project management staff for 12 full and partial building
modernization projects we selected as case studies using a judgmental
sample. Because the sample is judgmental, the information we obtained
from those projects cannot be generalized to all of GSA's Recovery Act
projects. Among the factors we considered in selecting the 12 projects
was whether GSA had identified them as being far enough along in the
design process to have information on their expected performance. In
addition, we used the projects' type, size, and geographic location as
selection criteria. We collected information from our 12 case studies
on their expected energy and water conservation performance. Finally,
we reviewed GSA's efforts to develop and implement a risk management
plan, compared those efforts with accepted risk management best
practices, and compared the project risk planning efforts from our 12
case studies with GSA policies and Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) guidance on project-level risk planning. See appendix I for a
more complete description of our scope and methodology.
We conducted this performance audit from June 2009 through June 2010
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 objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Background:
Of the $5.55 billion the Recovery Act provided to GSA's Federal
Buildings Fund,[Footnote 7] $750 million is being used by GSA for new
federal buildings and U.S. courthouses, $300 million is being used for
new border stations and land ports of entry, and $4.5 billion is being
used for measures necessary to convert existing GSA facilities to high-
performance green buildings.[Footnote 8] Overall, for its Recovery Act
program, GSA selected 263 projects in all 50 states, [Footnote 9] the
District of Columbia, and 2 U.S. territories. As shown in table 1,
GSA's Recovery Act projects fall into the following four main
categories: (1) new construction, (2) full and partial building
modernizations, (3) limited scope projects, and (4) small projects.
Table 1: GSA's Recovery Act Program:
Project category: New construction: Federal buildings and U.S.
courthouses;
Total projects: 11;
Recovery Act funding[A]: $750 million.
Project category: New construction: Border stations and land ports of
entry;
Total projects: 7;
Recovery Act funding[A]: $300 million.
Project category: Full and partial building modernizations: Full
building modernizations;
Total projects: 32;
Recovery Act funding[A]: $2.708 billion.
Project category: Full and partial building modernizations: Partial
building modernizations;
Total projects: 13;
Recovery Act funding[A]: $483 million.
Project category: Limited scope projects:
Total projects: 200;
Recovery Act funding[A]: $933 million.
Project category: Small projects[B]:
Total projects: [Empty];
Recovery Act funding[A]: $140 million.
Project category: Other[C]:
Total projects: [Empty];
Recovery Act funding[A]: $235 million.
Source: GAO analysis of GSA data.
Note: Data are based on GSA's original March 2010 project plan.
[A] Values may not add up to $5.55 billion because of rounding.
[B] GSA does not specifically identify the number of small projects in
its project plan. As of March 31, 2010, GSA had funded 140 small
projects.
[C] Other refers to funds provided for rental of space, building
operations, GSA's Office of Federal High-Performance Green Buildings,
and an apprenticeship program.
[End of table]
The following information describes the four main categories for GSA's
Recovery Act projects:
* New construction: Projects associated with building entirely new
structures or significant extensions to existing structures, including
the construction of new federal buildings and courthouses, as well as
border stations and land ports of entry.
* Full and partial building modernizations: Projects associated with
the replacement or upgrade of multiple building systems and components
(such as windows, roofs, and plumbing, electrical, and mechanical
systems), which are intended to significantly increase the usable life
of the buildings. Full modernizations are comprehensive renovations
that replace or restore nearly all the major systems in a building.
Partial modernizations are more limited and address one or a few
systems in the building.
* Limited scope projects: Projects associated with a single building
system--such as lighting or plumbing--that could include upgrading
existing systems or installing energy and environmental improvements,
such as installing energy-generating photovoltaic panels on the roof
of a building.
* Small projects: Limited scope projects whose costs are below the
prospectus level.[Footnote 10]
GSA officials told us that in selecting Recovery Act projects, they
gave priority to those projects that would help transform federal
buildings into high-performance green buildings and obligate funds
quickly. Obligating funds quickly was important because the Recovery
Act requires GSA to obligate $5 billion by September 30, 2010, and to
obligate the full Recovery Act funding amount, $5.55 billion, by
September 30, 2011. To reflect these priorities, GSA developed
selection criteria for full and partial building modernization
projects, which are presented in table 2 in descending order of
weight.[Footnote 11]
Table 2: GSA's Recovery Act Project Selection Criteria for Full and
Partial Building Modernizations:
Criterion: Helping transform federal buildings into high-performance
green buildings;
Description: Ability of a project to implement high-performance
features--such as energy conservation and renewable energy generation.
Criterion: Execution timing;
Description: Speed at which a contract for the project could be
awarded.
Criterion: Minimizing execution risk;
Description: Lower risk of facing schedule delays, such as a project
where design work had already been completed.
Criterion: Improving facility condition;
Description: Extent to which a project would improve the condition of
the asset by addressing identified repair needs.
Criterion: Improving asset utilization;
Description: Extent to which a project would increase asset
utilization by reducing vacant space or increasing the intensity of
asset use.
Criterion: Return on investment;
Description: Expected time it would take GSA to recover the cost of
the project through lower opportunity costs.
Criterion: Lease cost avoidance;
Description: Degree to which lease costs would be avoided by
completing the project.
Criterion: Historical significance;
Description: Extent to which a building has been recognized as having
historical significance.
Source: GAO analysis of GSA information.
Note: The execution timing and minimizing execution risk criteria were
given equal weight.
[End of table]
GSA scored projects in accordance with the relative priority it
assigned to each criterion and then ranked potential Recovery Act
projects on the basis of these results. GSA assigned the highest
priority to the first three criteria listed in table 2. The execution
timing and minimizing execution risk criteria are designed to identify
projects that could be started quickly, would create jobs as soon as
possible, and would also have a low risk of not being completed within
the Recovery Act's deadlines. Recovery Act funds must be spent no
later than 5 years after the end of the fiscal year in which the funds
are required to be obligated. Typically, the funds for a large
construction project are obligated throughout the life of the project,
and the 5-year limitation on expenditures generally does not apply to
funds made available to GSA for acquisition and construction.
Therefore, the Recovery Act's establishment of deadlines for
obligating and spending funds differs from the typical time frames for
GSA's construction projects.
Many of the projects GSA selected for new construction and full and
partial building modernizations had previously received partial
funding for design or for early project phases. For example, 41 of the
63 new construction and full and partial building modernization
projects had received funding from previous fiscal year
appropriations. GSA officials said that they used Recovery Act funding
to quickly start or expand construction on these projects, while also
identifying ways to incorporate energy savings or environmental
improvements into their design. Additionally, GSA funded cost
escalation for some ongoing projects--that is, projects that needed
additional funding to start or to complete construction. For example,
according to GSA officials, the renovation of the Thurgood Marshall
U.S. Courthouse in New York, a full building modernization, needed
Recovery Act funding to address an increase in cost after bids from
contractors came in higher than expected.
According to GSA officials, the other five criteria listed in table 2
are those GSA typically uses when selecting capital projects, such as
improving facility condition. In GSA's supplemental information to its
financial statements for fiscal year 2009, GSA reported an inventory
of capital repairs and alterations estimated to cost approximately
$5.0 billion. The buildings GSA selected for its Recovery Act program
account for about $3.7 billion of this estimate, but the Recovery Act
funding will not fully address the needs of each selected building,
since reducing GSA's capital repairs and alterations inventory was not
the intent of the Recovery Act, according to GSA officials. GSA
officials also stated that they will use Recovery Act funds for
projects or elements of projects that are not among the estimated
capital improvement needs, such as projects to incorporate high-
performance green building features. While improving facility
condition was one of GSA's selection criteria, making facilities
greener and obligating funds quickly received higher priority. GSA
officials estimated that Recovery Act projects will reduce the
agency's total capital repairs and alterations estimate by $1.5 to
$2.0 billion.
According to the Web site, [hyperlink, http://www.recovery.gov]
(Recovery.gov), the Recovery Act has three immediate goals: (1) create
new jobs and save existing ones, (2) spur economic activity and invest
in long-term growth, and (3) foster "unprecedented" levels of
accountability and transparency in government spending. In addition,
GSA's Recovery Act program plan states that GSA will maintain an
unprecedented level of openness and transparency in operations.
[Footnote 12] GSA has published information on its Recovery Act
program on both its own Recovery Act Web site[Footnote 13] and
Recovery.gov. The information includes the following documents:
* The Agencywide Recovery Plan details GSA's broad Recovery Act goals
for the entire agency, GSA programs funded by the Recovery Act,
contracting operations, and agency accountability efforts. The
agencywide plan also outlines the public benefits GSA expects from its
investments, such as job creation and environmental benefits.
* The Federal Buildings Fund Program Plan contains a summary of the
objectives and activities that GSA's Public Buildings Service (PBS)
[Footnote 14] plans to implement with the $5.55 billion in Recovery
Act funds. The plan also includes information on the projects'
selection, delivery schedule, and performance measures. Additionally,
the plan describes how GSA will address issues such as monitoring and
evaluation, transparency, and accountability for its Recovery Act
program.
* The PBS Project Plan details how GSA will spend its $5.55 billion in
Recovery Act funds. The project plan lists all of the GSA building
projects that will receive Recovery Act funds and, for each project,
includes the name, location (city and state), and estimated cost. GSA
has the ability to shift funds from one project to another but must
give the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations 15 days notice
before doing so. Agency officials stated that they will continue to
revise GSA's project plan in the future.
* The weekly financial and activity reports contain information on
GSA's Recovery Act weekly appropriations, obligations, and
disbursements, along with activities and planned actions.
* The Federal Buildings Fund Investments Map shows where GSA is
spending its Recovery Act funds and provides information on spending
to date, measured in obligations and expenditures, for individual
projects or states. GSA posted an interactive map on its Web site,
which graphically depicts its Recovery Act obligations and
expenditures by state and project.
* Recipient reporting guidance for registration and reporting offers
assistance for prime recipients of Recovery Act funds, who must
register with the government and report on how Recovery Act funds were
used. GSA posts its recipient reporting data on Recovery.gov, along
with other participating agencies.
GSA also reports frequently to OMB and congressional committees on
Recovery Act plans, progress, and accomplishments. For example, at the
request of OMB and the White House, GSA produced a 100 Days Report,
which updated current Recovery Act obligations and reported planned
obligations to the end of calendar year 2009. GSA also produces
monthly reports on obligations versus expenditures for the House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Since the 1970s, federal statutes and executive orders have
established and revised a number of requirements and goals for
changing the way federal agencies use or obtain energy. For example,
EISA established new energy management requirements and goals, such as
energy-efficiency performance standards for new buildings and major
renovations. In addition, EISA defined a high-performance green
building, which includes eight elements, as shown in table 3.
Table 3: Elements of a High-Performance Green Building:
Number: 1;
Element: Reduces energy, water, and material resource use.
Number: 2;
Element: Improves indoor environmental quality, including reducing
indoor pollution, improving thermal comfort, and improving lighting
and acoustic environments that affect occupant health and productivity.
Number: 3;
Element: Reduces negative impacts on the environment throughout the
life cycle of the building, including air and water pollution and
waste generation.
Number: 4;
Element: Increases the use of environmentally preferable products,
including biobased, recycled content, and nontoxic products with lower
life-cycle impacts.
Number: 5;
Element: Increases reuse and recycling opportunities.
Number: 6;
Element: Integrates systems in the building.
Number: 7;
Element: Reduces the environmental and energy impacts of
transportation through building location and site design that supports
a full range of transportation choices for users of the building.
Number: 8;
Element: Considers indoor and outdoor effects of the building on human
health and the environment, including improvements in worker
productivity, the life-cycle impacts of building materials and
operations, and other factors that the Director of GSA's Office of
Federal High-Performance Green Buildings considers to be appropriate.
Source: GAO analysis of EISA, 2007 (Pub. L. No. 110-140).
[End of table]
While the Recovery Act specifies that GSA should use Recovery Act
funds for measures necessary to convert GSA facilities to high-
performance green buildings, as defined in section 401 of EISA, GSA
also has to follow federal energy and water conservation requirements
and goals established in federal statutes and executive orders. The
federal energy and water conservation requirements and goals which we
refer to later in this report are summarized in table 4.
Table 4: Selected Federal Energy and Water Conservation Requirements
and Goals from Statutes and Executive Orders:
Statute or executive order: EISA 2007 Sec. 431 (12/19/2007);
Issue: Energy intensity reduction[A];
Building category: Federal buildings;
Energy and water conservation requirements and goals: Each agency
shall apply conservation measures to reduce energy consumption per
gross square foot of the federal buildings of the agency by 15 percent
by 2010 and 30 percent by 2015 compared with 2003.
Statute or executive order: EISA 2007 Sec. 433 (12/19/2007);
Issue: Fossil fuel energy reduction;
Building category: New federal buildings and federal buildings
undergoing major renovations;
Energy and water conservation requirements and goals: Reduce fossil
fuel-generated energy consumption by 55 percent by 2010 and 65 percent
by 2015 compared with 2003.
Statute or executive order: EISA 2007 Sec. 434 (12/19/2007);
Issue: Metering;
Building category: All buildings;
Energy and water conservation requirements and goals: Each agency
shall provide for equivalent metering of natural gas and steam by 2016.
Statute or executive order: EISA 2007 Sec. 438 (12/19/2007);
Issue: Storm water runoff;
Building category: Federal facility with a footprint that exceeds
5,000 square feet;
Energy and water conservation requirements and goals: Maintain or
restore, to the maximum extent technically feasible, the
predevelopment hydrology of the property with regard to the
temperature, rate, volume, and duration of flow.
Statute or executive order: EISA 2007 Sec. 523 (12/19/2007);
Issue: Solar hot water heaters;
Building category: New federal buildings or federal buildings
undergoing major renovations;
Energy and water conservation requirements and goals: Not less than 30
percent of the hot water demand must be met through the installation
and use of solar hot water heaters, provided such heaters are life-
cycle cost-effective.
Statute or executive order: E.O. 13423[B[(1/24/2007)] 07);
Issue: Water consumption intensity[C];
Building category: All buildings;
Energy and water conservation requirements and goals: Reduce the
agency's water consumption intensity by 2 percent annually through the
end of 2015 or 16 percent by 2015 compared with 2008.
Statute or executive order: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (8/8/2005);
Issue: Energy-efficiency performance standards;
Building category: New federal buildings;
Energy and water conservation requirements and goals: Achieve energy
consumption levels that are at least 30 percent below the levels
established in the standard established by the American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, if life-cycle
cost-effective.
Statute or executive order: Guiding principles[D[(12/1/2008)] 08);
Issue: Energy use reduction;
Building category: New construction;
Energy and water conservation requirements and goals: Reduce energy
use by 30 percent compared with 2007.
Statute or executive order: Guiding principles (12/1/2008);
Issue: Energy use reduction;
Building category: Major renovations;
Energy and water conservation requirements and goals: Reduce energy
use by 20 percent compared with 2003.
Statute or executive order: Guiding principles (12/1/2008);
Issue: Indoor potable water;
Building category: New construction and major renovations;
Energy and water conservation requirements and goals: Use a minimum of
20 percent less potable water than the indoor water use baseline
calculated for the building.
Statute or executive order: Guiding principles (12/1/2008);
Issue: Outdoor potable water;
Energy and water conservation requirements and goals: Building
category: New construction and major renovations;
Reduce outdoor potable water consumption by a minimum of 50 percent
over that consumed by conventional means, such as plant species.
Source: GAO analysis of EISA, 2007; the Energy Policy Act of 2005;
Executive Order 13423; and high-performance and sustainable buildings
guidance.
[A] Energy intensity is defined as energy consumption, measured in
British thermal units, per gross square foot.
[B] Executive Order 13514, issued in October 2009, strengthened this
water intensity consumption goal by extending the fiscal year-end date
to 2020. For example, the executive order says to "reduce potable
water consumption intensity by 2 percent annually through 2020 or 26
percent by 2020."
[C] Water consumption intensity is defined as gallons per gross square
foot of facility space.
[D] The Interagency Sustainability Working Group, as a subcommittee of
the Steering Committee established by Executive Order 13423, initiated
development of the guidance for the Guiding Principles for Federal
Leadership in High Performance and Sustainable Buildings to assist
agencies in meeting the high-performance and sustainable building
goals of Executive Order 13423.
[End of table]
GSA Has Processes to Manage Its Program and Meet Obligation Deadlines
but Has Not Provided Key Information about Its Projects to the Public:
GSA Has Processes in Place to Manage Its Program and Is on Track to
Meet Recovery Act Obligation Deadlines:
In March 2009, GSA created a national program management office (PMO)
to oversee its Recovery Act program and established interim obligation
milestones to help it achieve its Recovery Act obligation deadlines.
The PMO is supported by the Recovery Program Executive Steering
Committee headed by the PBS Deputy Commissioner. The Executive
Steering Committee has developed a nationwide program strategy and
priorities for the program. Figure 1 illustrates the organization of
the PMO. A program management recovery executive heads the PMO and is
supported by zone and regional recovery executives, who are
responsible for monitoring and reviewing the performance of Recovery
Act projects and managing risks at the regional level. In addition,
subject matter experts support the regional teams in delivering
projects, and two contractors are responsible for project tracking and
for reporting and communication. The PMO uses data from projects to
look for trends in cost and schedule performance for the program.
Figure 1: Organization Chart for GSA's Program Management Office:
[Refer to PDF for image: Organization Chart]
Top level:
Recovery Program Executive Steering Committee.
Second level, reporting to the Recovery Program Executive Steering
Committee:
Human Resources Support;
Recovery Executive;
Legal Support.
Third level, reporting to the Recovery Executive:
Chief of Staff;
- Program Analyst.
Fourth level, reporting to the Chief of Staff:
Director of Operations.
Fifth level, reporting to the Director of Operations:
Executive Assistant.
Sixth level, reporting to the Executive Assistant:
* Communications:
- Director;
- Program Analyst;
- Communications Support.
* Recovery Zone Executives:
- Zone A Executive;
- Zone B Executive;
- Zone C Executive;
* Recovery Zone Managers:
- Zone A Manager;
- Zone B Manager;
- Zone C Manager;
* Program Management:
- Support Services;
- Contract Support;
- Compliance/Risk Support;
* Subject Matter Experts (SME):
- Director;
- Sustainability SME;
- Energy SME;
- Preservation SME;
* Budget Reporting:
- Director;
- Program Analyst;
- Budget Reporting Support;
* Acquisition:
- Director;
- Acquisitions Support.
Regional Recovery Executives:
* Region 1 Executive;
* Region 2 Executive;
* Region 3 Executive;
* Region 4 Executive;
* Region 5 Executive;
* Region 6 Executive;
* Region 7 Executive;
* Region 8 Executive;
* Region 9 Executive;
* Region 10 Executive;
* Region 11 Executive.
Source: GAO presentation of GSA information.
[End of figure]
As shown in figure 2, GSA has grouped its 11 regions into three
Recovery Act zones.[Footnote 15] GSA officials stated that the
objectives of the zone structure are to create and foster the sharing
of ideas and resources and to provide project oversight. Also, the
zone structure provides a link between the project leadership and the
PMO. According to GSA officials, the PMO's efforts and success have
also contributed to improvements in GSA's other operations. For
example, GSA is reorganizing PBS's internal structure to create more
national coherence by having all 11 regions work together, as under
the Recovery Act zone structure, rather than independently.
Furthermore, GSA is realigning its Office of Design and Construction
[Footnote 16] to directly coordinate with the PMO, which will allow
the two offices to share ideas.
Figure 2: GSA's Recovery Act Zones and Regions:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated map of the U.S.]
Zone A:
Region 1: New England;
Region 2: Northeast and Caribbean;
Region 3: Mid-Atlantic;
Region 11: National Capital.
Zone B:
Region 4: Southeast;
Region 5: Great Lakes;
Region 6: The Heartland;
Region 7: Greater Southwest.
Zone C:
Region 8: Rocky Mountain;
Region 9: Pacific Rim;
Region 10: Northwest Arctic.
Sources: GSA; Map Resources (map).
[End of figure]
The PMO established interim milestones to help GSA achieve the two
Recovery Act obligation deadlines. As we have previously noted, the
Recovery Act requires GSA to obligate $5.0 billion by September 30,
2010, and to obligate the full Recovery Act funding amount, $5.55
billion, by September 30, 2011. Table 5 shows the four interim
milestones that the PMO set and the cumulative amount that GSA
obligated by each of the milestones. As of April 30, 2010, GSA had
obligated just over $4.0 billion. According to GSA officials, GSA
remains on track to achieve its overall Recovery Act obligation
deadlines.
Table 5: GSA's Recovery Act Obligation Milestones and Deadlines:
Milestone:
Amount to be obligated: Not less than a total of $1 billion;
Time frame: August 1, 2009;
Amount obligated (cumulative): $1.1 billion.
Milestone:
Amount to be obligated: Not less than a total of $1.2 billion;
Time frame: September 7, 2009;
Amount obligated (cumulative): $1.3 billion.
Milestone:
Amount to be obligated: Not less than a total of $2 billion;
Time frame: December 31, 2009;
Amount obligated (cumulative): $2.1 billion.
Milestone:
Amount to be obligated: Not less than a total of $4 billion;
Time frame: March 31, 2010;
Amount obligated (cumulative): $4.0 billion.
Deadline:
Amount to be obligated: Not less than a total of $5 billion;
Time frame: September 30, 2010.
Deadline:
Amount to be obligated: Not less than a total of $5.55 billion;
Time frame: September 30, 2011.
Source: GAO analysis of GSA data.
Note: Data for the amount obligated (cumulative) column are rounded.
[End of table]
According to GSA's Agencywide Recovery Plan, GSA's goal is to award 99
percent of Recovery Act dollars through competitive awards. GSA has
identified approximately 1 percent of Recovery Act funds that may be
awarded through other-than-fully-competitive means.[Footnote 17] To
help achieve this goal, GSA plans to add Recovery Act projects to
existing, competitively awarded contracts when they are within the
scope of work, award ceiling, and terms of the agreement. In March
2010, the GSA Office of Inspector General (OIG) reported that GSA
incorrectly executed the construction portion of the contract to which
a Recovery Act project was added--a federal courthouse in Austin,
Texas--and concluded that the award was not competitive.[Footnote 18]
PBS disagreed with the OIG's findings. GSA has awarded additional work
to this project using Recovery Act funding and considered it to be
competitively awarded because it considers the initial contract to
have been competitively awarded.[Footnote 19]
GSA's $5.55 billion in Recovery Act funding, which must be obligated
over 2 fiscal years, is over three times the agency's 2009 funding for
new construction and renovations. To address this increase in its
workload, GSA determined that it would need to add over 200 full-time-
equivalent personnel, including contracting officers. Additionally,
GSA officials said they have transferred experienced personnel from
other work to Recovery Act projects. GSA is also hiring temporary
federal personnel and contractors, both to address the increased
workload and to fill the gaps created by transferring experienced
staff to Recovery Act work. As of April 23, 2010, GSA had hired 96
full-time-equivalent personnel and 38 contractors, and it plans to
hire an estimated 68 additional personnel by the end of fiscal year
2010.
The Recovery Act requires recipients to report data on jobs funded
each calendar quarter. GSA established an outreach and call center to
assist recipients in meeting their reporting requirements. According
to GSA officials, 99.0 percent of GSA's prime recipients have reported
during the April 2010 reporting period, which represents 99.8 percent
of GSA's Recovery Act obligations for PBS. For the most recent
reporting period--January 1, 2010, to March 31, 2010,--GSA recipients
reported 2,847 jobs funded. GSA officials stated that the requirement
for recipient reporting, including jobs data, is a contractual
obligation, and if recipients do not report it is considered a breach
of contract.
The GSA OIG received $7 million from the Recovery Act for oversight
and audit of programs, grants, and projects. To promote accountability
and transparency on the use of Recovery Act funds, the Recovery
Accountability and Transparency Board worked with Federal Inspectors
General to establish a multiphased approach for reviewing agencies'
oversight of recipients' Recovery Act data. The first phase, conducted
before the start of the first recipient reporting cycle, provided a
snapshot of agencies' data review processes.[Footnote 20] The second
phase, conducted after the first reporting cycle ended, reviewed data
oversight at seven agencies, including GSA, by their respective OIG.
[Footnote 21] The GSA OIG is currently examining the effectiveness of
GSA's review process, comparing GSA and OMB guidance to determine
whether any conflict exists, and will issue a report no later than
June 2010. We did not evaluate recipient-reported data as part of this
review. However, we have reported on problems with data reported by
recipients of Recovery Act funds administered by federal agencies
generally, though not by GSA specifically. For example, in November
2009, we reported that although the job data reported by recipients
provided some insight into their use of Recovery Act funding, a range
of significant reporting and quality issues needed to be addressed.
[Footnote 22] In December 2009, OMB issued guidance to further improve
the quality of the data that Recovery Act recipients submit.[Footnote
23] Furthermore, in March 2010, we reported that while progress was
achieved in addressing some data quality and reporting issues
identified in the first round of recipient reporting, data errors,
reporting inconsistencies, and decisions made by some recipients not
to use the new job reporting guidance for the second round compromised
data quality and the ability to aggregate the data.[Footnote 24]
Overall, while significant issues remain, the second round of
reporting appears to have gone more smoothly as recipients have become
more familiar with the reporting system and requirements.
GSA Makes Overall Information on Its Recovery Act Program Publicly
Available but Has Not Provided Key Information about Its Projects to
the Public:
While GSA has provided information on the goals of its Recovery Act
program, the projects selected to receive Recovery Act funding, and
its own progress in obligating and expending Recovery Act funding, it
has not included details on the nature of the work being conducted on
individual projects or clearly identified or explained why it has
added or removed projects from its program in GSA's project plan
revisions. According to Recovery.gov, one of the goals of the Recovery
Act is to foster "unprecedented" levels of accountability and
transparency in government spending. In addition, GSA states in its
Federal Buildings Fund program plan that it will maintain an
unprecedented level of openness and transparency in operations. As we
have previously discussed, GSA posted information on its program
plans, project plan, funding activities, and recipient-reported data
on its Web site and Recovery.gov.
The lack of information on the nature of work being conducted on
individual projects and their expected outcomes makes it difficult for
the public to determine what improvements are being funded by the
Recovery Act, such as which building systems are being upgraded or
what types of building improvements are being made. Project scopes can
cover a range of activities, including improvements to lighting,
mechanical/electrical system upgrades, water use, roof repair, or
window work. Individual projects can also address multiple areas and
can be designed to achieve renewable energy targets. Such information
on the nature of the work being conducted, while not required, could
provide context for the public to understand how Recovery Act funds
are being used to meet these goals. GSA's project plan, which is
available on the agency's Web site and Recovery.gov, contains
information for each GSA Recovery Act project, such as its name,
location (city and state), and estimated cost. Descriptive information
about the projects is limited to their category--new construction,
full and partial building modernization, and limited scope.
Additionally, full and partial building modernizations are listed
together, without information on which project falls under which
category, thereby making it difficult to distinguish between the two
types. This distinction is important because a full building
modernization, which is a complete renovation of an entire building,
would be expected to incorporate more green features than a partial
building modernization. Moreover, without this distinction, the public
lacks context for evaluating GSA's efforts to convert existing federal
facilities to high-performance green buildings, as provided in the
Recovery Act.
OMB reviewed GSA's project plan, and on March 31, 2009, GSA submitted
the plan, with the list of selected projects, to the Senate and House
Committees on Appropriations as required by the Recovery Act. GSA
later published project plan revisions--dated November 2009, January
2010, and March 2010--which reflected adjustments to the original
project plan's allocations for existing projects. GSA officials said
they made these adjustments, in part, to take advantage of cost
savings that they realized when bids came in lower than expected,
partly because of current economic conditions.[Footnote 25] These
adjustments led to changes in the amounts of funds allocated for
certain project categories, primarily affecting small projects, as
shown in table 6.
Table 6: Revisions to GSA's Recovery Act Project Plan:
Project type: New construction: federal buildings and U.S. courthouses;
Allocations: Initial (March 2009): $733,703,000;
Allocations: Current (March 2010): $750,000,000;
Allocations: Change from initial: $16,297,000.
Project type: New construction: border stations and land ports of
entry;
Allocations: Initial (March 2009): $300,000,000;
Allocations: Current (March 2010): $300,000,000;
Allocations: Change from initial: 0.
Project type: Full and partial building modernizations;
Allocations: Initial (March 2009): $3,168,844,000;
Allocations: Current (March 2010): $3,191,463,000;
Allocations: Change from initial: $22,619,000.
Project type: Limited scope projects;
Allocations: Initial (March 2009): $806,877,000;
Allocations: Current (March 2010): $933,225,000;
Allocations: Change from initial: $126,348,000.
Project type: Small projects;
Allocations: Initial (March 2009): $298,576,000;
Allocations: Current (March 2010): $140,463,000;
Allocations: Change from initial: -$158,113,000.
Source: GAO analysis of GSA data.
[End of table]
While the revisions to GSA's project plan to date track the changes in
project cost estimates, they do not fully explain the addition or
removal of projects, nor do they address the lack of information on
project scope. For example, in the November 2009 revised project plan,
GSA states that it removed a project because it was no longer
appropriate to go forward. GSA did not clearly highlight or mention
which project it removed or the type of project. The removed project
can be identified only by looking through the entire list of all
Recovery Act projects and comparing the previous and new project cost
totals. In the January 2010 revision, GSA added nine new projects to
its program--one new construction project, two projects in the full
and partial building modernization category, and six limited scope
projects. These nine projects are expected to cost a total of
approximately $86 million, but the project plan did not clearly
highlight which projects were new additions to the plan. GSA has an
opportunity to further meet its Recovery Act transparency goals by
clearly identifying projects that have been added to or deleted from
its program.
Projects Could Result in Greener Buildings, but GSA's Data Are Not Yet
Available to Measure the Extent of Progress:
GSA has developed minimum performance criteria that will help it
convert buildings to high-performance green buildings and address
energy and water conservation requirements and goals, although these
criteria do not align completely with federal requirements. The
resulting modernized buildings will likely vary greatly in the extent
of their green improvements, for several reasons. Finally, GSA does
not yet have sufficient data on the progress of its Recovery Act
improvements, but it is implementing a system to track this.
GSA's Minimum Performance Criteria for Recovery Act Projects Align
with Federal Requirements, with Two Exceptions:
GSA has developed minimum performance criteria (MPC) to help ensure
that Recovery Act funding results in improvements to buildings' energy
and water conservation performance. The MPC are to be incorporated
into the project designs and cover the areas of energy, water, indoor
environmental quality, materials, and building design. The following
are examples of the MPC that are expected to be incorporated in GSA's
Recovery Act projects:
* install advanced meters that measure the building's consumption of
electricity, natural gas, steam, and other sources of energy;
* use high-efficiency water fixtures to help reduce water consumption;
* use occupancy sensors on lighting to help conserve energy in areas
of the building that are unoccupied; and:
* salvage, recycle, or reuse at least 50 percent of construction and
demolition waste generated on a project.
Each Recovery Act project is required to meet all MPC that are
applicable to its scope of work, unless it receives a waiver from the
Regional Recovery Executive and the PMO. Meeting the MPC for reducing
water consumption by 20 percent could be waived for projects that do
not include significant plumbing system upgrades, for example. As we
have noted previously, federal energy and water conservation
requirements and goals differ for different building categories.
Therefore, GSA has established two sets of MPC, one for new
construction and full building modernization projects and a second,
less stringent set for partial building modernizations and limited
scope projects. (Appendix II provides more detailed information on the
two sets of MPC.)
We found that both sets of MPC generally align with most of the
elements of a high-performance green building, as established by EISA,
and with key federal energy and water conservation requirements and
goals (see tables 3 and 4). However, the MPC do not address one
statutory high-performance green building element--to reduce the
environmental and energy impacts of transportation through building
location and site design. For example, a project could address this
element by installing the infrastructure necessary for alternative
fuel vehicles or giving priority parking to carpool and van-share
participants. According to GSA officials, they did not include this
element in the MPC because the MPC are based on the Guiding Principles
for Federal Leadership in High Performance and Sustainable Buildings,
[Footnote 26] which does not specifically address transportation. GSA
officials noted that a number of the GSA Recovery Act projects are
making transportation-related improvements as part of their efforts to
obtain a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver
rating.[Footnote 27] However, because the MPC do not require such
improvements, project managers may not be systematically determining
whether transportation-related improvements can be included in
projects, as they are for energy and water conservation improvements,
thereby missing opportunities to incorporate that high-performance
green building element. Furthermore, because GSA has not given
transportation-related improvements the MPC designation, GSA will not
be collecting data on those improvements that are being done as part
of Recovery Act projects.
We also found that the MPC are expected to contribute toward meeting
the federal conservation requirements and goals to reduce energy and
water intensity, although they do not explicitly address these
objectives. The MPC do not mention the specific percentages and dates
set out in law and executive order for reducing energy and water
intensity. GSA officials said that this is because the objectives
apply to GSA's building inventory as a whole, rather than to
individual buildings. Nevertheless, the officials stated that they
expect Recovery Act projects to contribute significantly toward
meeting the agency's inventorywide federal requirements and goals for
both energy and water. According to the officials, new construction
and full building modernization projects should exceed these
requirements and goals because they must meet other, more stringent,
MPC for energy and water conservation. For example, they explained,
the MPC require new construction and full modernization projects to
exceed ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007[Footnote 28] by 30 percent, which is
a higher energy conservation standard than the federal requirement to
decrease energy intensity by 3 percent per year. GSA officials said
they expect partial building modernizations and limited scope projects
to make a more modest contribution toward meeting these requirements
due to their reduced scope.
GSA Recovery Act Projects Are Likely to Vary Greatly in the Extent of
Their Energy and Water Conservation Improvements:
According to GSA officials, all buildings receiving Recovery Act funds
are expected to move toward becoming high-performance green buildings.
The officials stated they have not developed an exact number of
projects that could result in a high-performance green building
because the definition from EISA is too broad and is a relative
measure. For example, two projects that reduce water consumption by 1
percent and 10 percent, respectively, both meet the high-performance
green buildings element of reducing water usage. In addition, GSA
officials said that the high-performance green building criteria in
EISA can sometime be at odds. Applying high-performance green building
criteria by increasing the amount of space for tenants in an effort to
improve worker productivity, for example, can actually result in an
increase in the building's energy use as opposed to a decrease.
Consequently, GSA officials said that they developed the MPC in an
attempt to provide a better structure for gauging the expected energy
and water conservation performance of Recovery Act projects.
Furthermore, the buildings are likely to vary greatly in the extent of
their energy and water conservation improvements because of a variety
of factors. Some Recovery Act projects, for example, are broad in
scope and are being used to modernize multiple building systems--such
as electrical; water; and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
systems (HVAC)--while others are modernizing relatively few systems or
a specific component of a building. Additionally, existing
infrastructure may affect the extent of energy and environmental
improvements for certain buildings. For example, it will likely be
more difficult to make certain green improvements to historic federal
buildings because of the need to preserve features of the buildings,
such as historic windows or ornate wall coverings. Finally, some
projects were designed prior to the Recovery Act and may only have
included a small number of green improvements. To include more green
improvements at this juncture may mean that the projects would have to
undergo significant redesign. Finally, the number of green
improvements employed for a project may also be affected because of
unanticipated problems discovered during the modernization. The
discovery of asbestos on a project, for example, may result in the
need to shift project funds originally slated for green improvements
to asbestos abatement. In general, according to GSA officials, the new
construction and full modernization projects are expected to
significantly improve their energy and water conservation performance
and exceed some federal energy and water conservation requirements and
goals, especially those related to energy and water reduction.
Conversely, GSA officials expect smaller projects to have less
significant green improvements and to address only those federal
energy and water conservation requirements and goals that fall within
their scope of work. For example, a project primarily involving
plumbing upgrades might only address the federal water conservation
goal concerning reductions in water intensity.
The 12 GSA Recovery Act projects (8 full and 4 partial modernizations)
we examined differed significantly in their planned green
improvements. (Appendix III provides more detailed information on the
12 projects we examined.) For 3 of the projects, GSA is either
implementing or planning to implement a broad array of green
improvements that will touch on multiple systems throughout the
buildings. These full building modernizations will principally focus
on replacing older, less efficient mechanical, electrical, and
plumbing systems with newer, high-efficiency systems. While these
projects had already been receiving agency funding for some time,
Recovery Act funding, according to some project managers, has enabled
them to add features that will enhance buildings' energy and water
conservation performance. Many of these features were not originally
planned. Examples of full building modernization projects that are
expected to result in extensive improvements include the following:
* Edith Green-Wendell Wyatt Federal Building in Portland, Oregon. GSA
plans to transform the deteriorating 30-year-old federal building into
a high-performance green building by replacing the building's
electrical, plumbing, and HVAC systems. GSA also plans to upgrade the
building's life safety, mechanical, elevator, and security systems as
well as install photovoltaic panels and rain harvesting features on
the building's roof. The project management staff said that Recovery
Act funding gave them the opportunity to vacate the entire building
during the renovation, rather than proceeding two floors at a time, a
key decision that allowed them to expand the scope of the project and
add significant green improvements to the building. GSA is exploring
the option of adding wire mesh or a perforated metal screen up the
side of the building to shade the facade from the sun, thus helping to
reduce the amount of energy needed for cooling the building.
* Mary Switzer Building in Washington, D.C. GSA is also planning
extensive green improvements for the Switzer building. The project
includes new HVAC, plumbing, and emergency power systems; replacement
of aged plumbing; asbestos abatement; and restoration work performed
on the building's historic windows. According to project management
staff, the Recovery Act allowed them to accelerate the modernization
of the building by 1 year. It also allowed them to exceed some of the
MPC issued by GSA, including an estimated 55 percent reduction in
water use--above the 20 percent called for in the MPC for water use.
In addition, the project estimates that it will address 30 percent of
its hot water demand using solar hot water equipment. GSA also expects
that approximately 70 to 75 percent of all the materials from the
demolition phases of the project will be recycled.
In five of the full building modernization projects we examined, GSA
is planning to implement green improvements that are less extensive
but that still address major systems or building components. These
projects will generally focus on upgrades to current building
components, but some building systems will also be replaced. Two
projects contain historical elements that will have to be addressed as
well. Several of the project managers stated that many of the green
improvements slated for their projects would not have been funded
without the Recovery Act. Examples of these projects include the
following:
* John W. Peck Federal Building in Cincinnati, Ohio. The modernization
of the 44-year-old John W. Peck Federal Building in Cincinnati, Ohio,
includes extensive exterior upgrades, such as installing insulated,
dual-glass windows to decrease the heating and cooling loads for the
entire building. GSA estimates the improved windows alone will reduce
energy consumption for heating and cooling by about 24 percent
compared with the industry standard. The project also includes
extensive interior work that will save energy--for example, new
lighting fixtures and controls. The lighting improvements are expected
to reduce energy consumption for lighting by about 50 percent,
according to the project manager. This reduction would be significant
since lighting consumes about 30 percent of the building's energy.
* Birch Bayh U.S. Courthouse in Indianapolis, Indiana. The project
involves numerous system upgrades while preserving the historical
character of the 1905 courthouse. For example, the project will
upgrade the courthouse's HVAC system, where most of the air handling
units and associated controls and equipment will be replaced. This
change will allow the building managers to keep a more constant
temperature and humidity in the historic courtrooms, while conserving
energy in other areas of the building when they are not in use.
Another green improvement will be the installation of a vegetative
roof and a 10,000 gallon rainwater collection system. The system will
allow the building to meet the federal requirement for storm water
control, according to the project manager, and reduce indoor potable
water use by using the collected rainwater for toilets. The project
manager anticipates a 20 to 30 percent reduction in indoor potable
water use.
Finally, four partial modernization projects we examined plan to
implement relatively few green improvements. The focus of each project
was primarily to improve the efficiency of individual building
components, as opposed to replacing or upgrading an entire building
system. In general, project managers stated that these projects would
have been slow to receive funding or would probably not have received
funding at all if had it not been for the Recovery Act. Examples of
these projects include the following:
* Denver Federal Center in Lakewood, Colorado. The Lakewood project
will upgrade an approximately 70-year-old utility system that provides
both water and sewer services to the center. According to the project
manager, the current system leaks profusely. Since 2001, there have
been 90 water line breaks exceeding $1 million in repair costs. GSA
officials further stated that although the project is not specifically
building-related, it is an important project to GSA and its tenants
because the federal center houses approximately 6,000 federal
employees from 30 agencies. Failure of this system could force the
center to close, with associated lost wages of about $1.5 million per
day, according to the GSA manager for the project.
* 26 Federal Plaza in New York City. The project will address severe
water damage to the plaza's underground parking garage caused by leaks
in the plaza. The project's green improvements include photovoltaic
lighting and security cameras that will work with lower-intensity
lighting, a new chiller, and lighting controls on several floors of
the building.
Table 7 shows details of the 12 GSA Recovery Act projects we examined.
Table 7: Twelve GSA Recovery Act Projects That We Selected as Case
Studies:
Building: Edith Green-Wendell Wyatt Federal Building;
Location: Portland, OR;
Recovery Act funding: $133,098,000;
Year built: 1975;
Type of modernization: Full;
Historic elements: No;
Expected completion date: December 20, 2013.
Building: Prince Jonah Kuhio Kanaianaole Federal Building and U.S.
Courthouse;
Location: Honolulu, HI;
Recovery Act funding: $121,000,000;
Year built: 1977;
Type of modernization: Full;
Historic elements: No;
Expected completion date: December 30, 2014.
Building: G.T. Leland Federal Building;
Location: Houston, TX;
Recovery Act funding: $109,053,000;
Year built: 1983;
Type of modernization: Full;
Historic elements: No;
Expected completion date: May 15, 2014.
Building: Birch Bayh Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse;
Location: Indianapolis, IN;
Recovery Act funding: $73,994,000;
Year built: 1905;
Type of modernization: Full;
Historic elements: Yes;
Expected completion date: June 1, 2012.
Building: Mary Switzer Building;
Location: Washington, DC;
Recovery Act funding: $66,194,000;
Year built: 1940;
Type of modernization: Full;
Historic elements: Yes;
Expected completion date: December 15, 2011.
Building: Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse;
Location: New York, NY;
Recovery Act funding: $64,000,000;
Year built: 1936;
Type of modernization: Full;
Historic elements: Yes;
Expected completion date: October 30, 2011.
Building: Minton-Capehart Federal Building;
Location: Indianapolis, IN;
Recovery Act funding: $49,776,000;
Year built: 1974;
Type of modernization: Full;
Historic elements: No;
Expected completion date: April 1, 2012.
Building: John W. Peck Federal Building;
Location: Cincinnati, OH;
Recovery Act funding: $42,571,000;
Year built: 1964;
Type of modernization: Full;
Historic elements: No;
Expected completion date: September 1, 2011.
Building: Denver Federal Center Infrastructure;
Location: Lakewood, CO;
Recovery Act funding: $65,380,000;
Year built: Varies;
Type of modernization: Partial;
Historic elements: No;
Expected completion date: November 1, 2011.
Building: 26 Federal Plaza;
Location: New York, NY;
Recovery Act funding: $22,207,000;
Year built: 1968;
Type of modernization: Partial;
Historic elements: No;
Expected completion date: September 30, 2015.
Building: Federal building;
Location: Huntington, WV;
Recovery Act funding: $20,752,000;
Year built: 1958;
Type of modernization: Partial;
Historic elements: No;
Expected completion date: April 15, 2015.
Building: Federal building;
Location: Hilo, HI;
Recovery Act funding: $7,247,000;
Year built: 1917;
Type of modernization: Partial;
Historic elements: Yes;
Expected completion date: June 30, 2011.
Source: GAO analysis of GSA data.
[End of table]
GSA Does Not Have Sufficient Data to Measure Progress but Is Taking
Steps to Improve Data Collection:
In adhering to the MPC that include both high-performance green
building and energy and water conservation requirements and goals,
GSA's Recovery Act projects are making the buildings greener and
addressing the requirements and goals. However, GSA cannot measure the
extent of progress because it does not have sufficient data on
improvements resulting from the projects. In October 2009, GSA began
collecting energy and performance information on Recovery Act projects
through a "data call" that asked project managers to categorize the
status of each of a project's MPC as either "not started," "in
progress," "complete," "not applicable," or "waiver." However, GSA
officials said their guidance was not detailed enough to clearly
define the response categories, thereby making it difficult for
project managers to determine when each status should be selected. In
December 2009, GSA reported[Footnote 29] that the data collected
through this effort were, in some instances, incomplete and
unreliable. GSA concluded that it needed to revise future data calls
to gather more specific information on how projects would address
their MPCs and to facilitate the tracking and reporting of the data.
Furthermore, the data were limited to about 28 percent of the Recovery
Act projects because those were the only projects that had progressed
far enough to have such data. Several of the project managers from the
12 Recovery Act projects we examined reported problems in responding
to the data call. For example, two project managers stated that they
initially misinterpreted the appropriate response category for their
projects and consequently inadvertently completed the incorrect MPC
checklist. However, these mistakes were corrected in subsequent
updates to the MPC checklists for the projects.
To obtain more complete and reliable data, GSA is rolling out a new
centralized system for collecting data on Recovery Act projects'
energy and water conservation performance. GSA officials told us the
goals of the system are to (1) collect information on the MPC for each
project and to aggregate that information, thereby allowing GSA to
know the extent to which projects are collectively addressing MPC; (2)
provide subject matter experts with a means of reviewing projects'
progress in achieving the MPC and suggesting changes as appropriate;
and (3) generate customized reports upon request. GSA officials said
the agency began using the system in April 2010 and expects it to be
available online to all project managers soon.
According to GSA officials, the new system will include more detailed
information on each project's MPC, such as the types of green
improvements that will be installed, as well as supporting
documentation that demonstrates exactly how the MPC will be
accomplished. Moreover, the system will include supporting
documentation for cases in which a project was scheduled to meet a
MPC, like using renewable energy, but was unable to do so. Supporting
documentation could include such things as projections, calculations,
milestones, constraints, and associated cost-benefit analyses. GSA
officials cautioned, however, that energy and environmental
performance is difficult to project accurately and can be affected by
a number of variables beyond GSA's control, such as tenants' behavior
and changes in a tenant agency's mission. For example, GSA's estimate
of energy savings for a building could be based on a tenant's expected
13-hour workday, while the tenant's actual workday might be longer.
Similarly, an agency may need to hire additional staff in order to
respond to an emergency, which would unexpectedly increase energy use.
According to the GSA officials, a design-phase estimate that falls
within about 20 percent of actual performance would be considered
"pretty good." GSA officials stated that the system will be used to
track the progress of Recovery Act projects until their completion.
According to GSA officials, they have nearly finished developing
guidance for project staff who will use the system. GSA has also begun
to train staff, starting with those with new construction or full and
partial building modernization projects that are far enough along in
the design process to have information on how they will achieve the
MPC. To date, six project managers have been trained in using the
system, according to GSA officials. GSA plans to use a separate
training module for managers of limited-scope projects because less
information is required for them than for new construction and full
and partial building modernization projects. GSA officials have not
estimated when all project managers would be trained. However, these
officials said they expect to have preliminary or high-level data in
the system for all projects by the end of July 2010.
GSA Identifies Risks to Its Program and Risk Mitigation Strategies,
but Some Project-Level Risk Plans Are Not Complete:
GSA has identified risks to its Recovery Act program and risk
mitigation strategies. GSA's approach to risk management is generally
consistent with best practices we have developed.[Footnote 30] GSA
focuses on broad risks that could affect GSA's ability to address
objectives for the agency as a whole, such as ensuring program goals
are achieved and fraud, waste, and abuse are minimized; stimulating
the economy; and improving the environmental performance of federal
buildings. Broadly defined, risk management is a strategic process for
helping policymakers make decisions about assessing risk and typically
involves appraising and evaluating risks to a program or project and
selecting mitigation strategies. In April 2009, GSA developed a plan
to guide risk management efforts for agencywide risks to its Recovery
Act program and developed an initial inventory of those risks. In
March 2010, PMO developed a Recovery Risk Mitigation Plan specific to
PBS. This plan identified 48 risks to PBS's program, 14 of which were
considered key risks, shown in table 8.
Table 8: Fourteen Key Risks Identified for PBS's Recovery Act Program:
Project management:
Risk: Ineffective or untimely project selection;
Risk description: Recovery Act deadlines may not be met if project
selection is untimely.
Risk: Funds not used for authorized purposes;
Risk description: GSA may not fulfill the accountability objectives of
the Recovery Act and may lose the confidence of the public.
Risk: Untimely or inaccurate outlays;
Risk description: Projects may fail to meet job creation and
construction objectives in the expedited time frame.
Risk: Untimely or ineffective management of project contingencies;
Risk description: Cost overruns may occur, schedule delays may occur,
and contingency funding may not be used before the expiration of
Recovery Act funding.
Risk: Untimely or ineffective project management of savings;
Risk description: Savings may not be used before the expiration of
Recovery Act funding.
Risk: Inadequate, inefficient, or untimely project planning and design;
Risk description: Cost overruns may occur, schedule delays may occur,
and construction projects may not meet customer requirements.
Reporting:
Risk: Inaccurate and incomplete external Recovery Act reporting;
Risk description: Benefits of and use of Recovery Act funding may not
be fully tracked, may not be fully reported, or may not be transparent
to the public, or the perception of GSA or a GSA project may be
negatively affected.
Risk: Untimely external Recovery Act reporting;
Risk description: Benefits of and use of Recovery Act funding may not
be fully tracked, may not be fully reported, or may not be transparent
to the public, or the perception of GSA or a GSA project may be
negatively affected.
Risk: Incomplete, inaccurate, or untimely recipient reporting;
Risk description: Benefits of and use of Recovery Act funding may not
be transparent to the public.
High-performance green buildings:
Risk: Incorporation of performance requirements for green buildings in
Risk description: Recovery Act contracts;
Completed projects may not include green building elements.
Risk: Absence of green building elements in project design;
Risk description: Construction may not be executed with green building
elements.
Acquisitions:
Risk: Untimely contract awards;
Risk description: Recovery Act deadlines may not be met or schedule
delays may occur.
Risk: Incorporation of Recovery Act requirements into Recovery Act
contracts;
Risk description: Construction and management of construction may not
comply with Recovery Act requirements, including but not limited to
expedited time frames and recipient reporting.
Reimbursable work authorizations[A]:
Risk: Ineffective financial oversight of reimbursable work
authorizations;
Risk description: GSA and the customer agencies may face cost
overruns, project delays, and expiration of Recovery Act funding.
Source: GSA.
[A] The Reimbursable Work Authorization program allows GSA to capture
and bill the costs of altering, renovating, repairing, or providing
services in space managed by GSA over and above the costs of basic
operations financed through rent.
[End of table]
This plan also contains assessments of the likelihood and potential
impact of the key risks, identifies mitigation strategies, and
establishes mechanisms for monitoring the risks and mitigation
actions. The key risks are associated with areas such as financial
tracking and reporting, acquisitions, and project management. For
example, as indicated in table 8, GSA identified a risk that Recovery
Act funds could be used for unauthorized purposes, limiting GSA's
ability to meet Recovery Act accountability goals. To mitigate this
risk, GSA identified various internal processes, including national
and regional approval of a project's scope, multiple levels of review
of project expenditures, and a process for reviewing contractor
invoices to ensure services are valid and authorized. Agency officials
told us that internal auditors, as part of GSA's existing internal
audit program, will test the mitigation actions put in place for the
14 key risks. In addition, they plan to assess and update the key
risks on a monthly basis.
We assessed GSA's risk management approach against best practices that
we developed in the areas of strategic planning, risk assessment,
evaluation and selection of alternatives for addressing risks, and
implementation and monitoring of risk-mitigation strategies (see table
9).
Table 9: Risk Management Best Practices Used to Assess GSA's Risk
Management Approach:
Area: Strategic planning;
Best practices:
* Encourages the use of a strategic plan or risk planning documents to
address risk-related issues.
* Risk-based information informs efforts to align the agency's
activities, core processes, workforce, and other resources to support
its mission-related outcomes.
* Encourages monitoring of external factors and identification of
actions to reduce the impact of such factors.
* Encourages monitoring of internal factors and identification of
actions to reduce the impact of such factors.
Area: Risk assessment;
Best practices:
* Encourages the use of reliable information during the risk
assessment process.
* Requires documentation of the risk assessment process.
* Allows for updates of information.
* The result of the risk assessment is a quantitative or qualitative
characterization of the probability of an outcome that has a
consequence related to the agency's mission or the program.
Area: Alternative evaluation and management selection;
Best practices:
* Encourages that potential mitigation alternatives are assessed to
determine the extent to which the actions reduce risks.
* Considers benefits and costs when selecting alternative mitigation
strategies.
* Establishes a formal review and approval process for selecting from
alternative mitigation strategies.
* Encourages documentation to prove management decisions were reached
using risk-based information.
Area: Implementing and monitoring risk responses;
Best practices:
* Considers the communication of risk issues to stakeholders.[A].
* Requires ongoing monitoring and evaluation of mitigation strategies.
* Steps taken to identify and deal with risks affected by changing
circumstances or new information.
* Mitigation strategies include time frames and are implemented in a
timely fashion.
Source: Best practices developed by GAO.
[A] The best practices GAO developed identified risk communication as
a critical component in high-level risk management strategies that
involve communication to stakeholders. Monitoring may take place in
several time periods that involve frequent operational information for
management and broader, periodic evaluations.
[End of table]
We found that GSA's approach generally reflected the best practices in
all four areas noted in table 9. In the area of strategic planning,
GSA clearly identifies Recovery Act goals and objectives as well as
GSA program goals when considering potential risks to the program,
such as stimulating the economy by spending Recovery Act funds quickly
and improving the environmental performance of federal facilities. In
addition, in the area of assessing risks, GSA established a process
for documenting its assessment of risks that allows for updates and
results in a qualitative assessment of the likelihood and potential
impact of the risks on its Recovery Act goals and strategic
objectives. Also, for monitoring the implementation of risk responses,
GSA officials said the risk management team holds monthly meetings
with senior officials to review key risks, identify any new risks, and
ensure that proper controls are in place. However, there were areas
where GSA could improve its risk management efforts. For example, in
the area of evaluating and selecting alternatives for addressing
risks, GSA had limited information in its plan and other risk
management documents about its process for evaluating and selecting
alternative mitigation strategies. GSA officials said that many of the
mitigation strategies were put in place before the formal risk
assessment was completed as part of GSA's planning to implement the
program and during ongoing discussions about risks facing the program.
Therefore, a full analysis of potential risk mitigation alternatives
was not completed.
During our review of 12 Recovery Act case study projects, project
management staff told us about some of the key project-level risks
that could affect the success of the projects. Staff at 5 of the 12
case study projects we examined cited risks associated with the
accelerated timelines imposed by the Recovery Act. Project management
staff with whom we spoke at one case study said the tight timeline
imposed by the Recovery Act was the most serious risk to their
project. They said the project faces a challenge to complete all of
the work necessary to achieve its environmental and energy goals,
including completing a study of the building to identify potential
energy-reducing upgrades, working through the study recommendations
for upgrading the building with all of the stakeholders on the
project, and completing the additional design work related to the
selected upgrades. This study must be completed at an accelerated pace
to enable the additional work to be awarded and the associated funding
to be obligated within the Recovery Act's time frames. In addition, 8
of the 12 case study project staff with whom we spoke said that they
faced the more typical project risks associated with uncertainty about
aspects of a building that is slated to receive upgrades, such as the
degree of contamination with hazardous material, the absence of
building system and structural drawings, or questions about the
drawings' accuracy. For example, project management staff for one
project said that they had concerns about the accuracy of the as-built
drawings--the plans that detail the construction of the building and
other work performed on the building. These staff noted that if the
building needs more structural work than originally planned, the
project's cost could increase and less funding might be available for
green improvements to the building.
Although GSA has developed a systematic process for identifying and
planning for risks for its Recovery Act program, GSA officials said
that to address project-level risks, such as those we have previously
discussed, they rely on informal communication between headquarters
and project management staff in the regions. Specifically, regional
staff discuss project-level risks or challenges during weekly
telephone calls with the PMO. In addition, GSA officials said they
track whether projects are on budget and on schedule so they can
identify when projects are encountering problems. GSA officials said
that because so many projects are being implemented, it would be
difficult for GSA to systematically assess and respond to individual
project risks at the PMO level. In addition, because of the
accelerated pace necessary to implement the program within Recovery
Act deadlines and the additional responsibilities for regional staff
associated with Recovery Act funding, such as new reporting
requirements, GSA officials said they were reluctant to add new risk
management reporting requirements for project management staff.
GSA officials said they rely on project management staff in the
regions to manage project risks and complete risk planning documents
that are required by GSA's Project Management Guide for the Public
Buildings Service. The guide, issued by the PBS Office of the Chief
Architect, is GSA's road map for project management and details what
project management staff should do to manage risks at the project
level. The guide discusses two planning documents for projects, the
Comprehensive Project Plan (CPP) and the Project Definition Rating
Index (PDRI), both of which GSA project management staff identified as
related to risk planning. The guide says the CPP ensures efficient and
effective project delivery by articulating project goals and
implementation strategies and should be updated throughout a project
to evaluate the success of the plan to date and to adapt it to
changing circumstances. In addition, the guide says the PDRI provides
an objective evaluation of the project at various stages of its
development and its benefits include a more refined definition of the
scope of a project and an assessment of risk. Instructions for filling
out the PDRI say the tool should be updated during the development of
the project, from the preliminary stages to the start of construction.
Finally, OMB's Capital Programming Guide[Footnote 31] cites the need
for developing and documenting a systematic plan to address project
risk and calls for risk planning to continue throughout the life of
the project.
In September 2009, GSA's OIG found that the PMO was not requiring full
CPPs for Recovery Act projects and raised concerns about the adequacy
of risk planning at the project level. During our review, we found
that 9 of our 12 case study projects had not fully completed the
required risk planning documents. For example, for 1 project we
visited, the CPP had not been updated since before Recovery Act
funding was received and did not list Recovery Act funding in the
section detailing project funding sources. For 1 project we visited,
staff said that although they did not complete a PDRI, they
continually work to identify potential risks and develop risk
mitigation strategies as needed. Some of the project management staff
with whom we spoke for our 12 case studies said they have regular
meetings with regional management about their projects to discuss
potential risks or challenges facing the project. Staff from 1 project
that had not completed GSA's risk planning documents said they had
completed other documents that were similar.[Footnote 32] Finally,
some project staff told us that they considered the PDRI a requirement
for projects that go through GSA's normal project approval process,
but that GSA's Recovery Act-funded projects were unique and they did
not think it was required. GSA officials said that the PDRI is
typically completed during the approval process for prospectus-level
projects, but that Recovery Act projects did not go through this
process to get funding. However, GSA officials from the PMO said that
a CPP was required for all full and partial modernizations, adding
that Recovery Act projects should complete the risk planning documents
called for in the guide. In addition, project management staff in the
regions said that Recovery Act projects are being implemented at an
accelerated pace and that this presents challenges to the agency.
Finally, as we have previously mentioned, OMB's Capital Programming
Guide calls for risk planning at the project level. OMB's guide calls
for project managers to develop and document a systematic approach to
risk planning that continuously identifies, assesses, responds to, and
monitors project-level risks, adding that risk management is an
integral part of project management. It is important for GSA to ensure
that risk planning at the project-level meets the agency's standards,
as laid out in GSA's guide or other guidance, such as OMB's Capital
Programming Guide. GSA's reliance on informal communication channels
for overseeing project-level risks, without ensuring that project-
level risks are being identified and planned for, could result in some
vulnerabilities going unidentified and increase the potential for
risks to negatively affect GSA's program as projects move from
preliminary stages to construction.
Conclusions:
The Recovery Act has provided GSA with an unprecedented opportunity to
repair or restore aging, deteriorating federal buildings and, in so
doing, to enhance their energy and environmental performance. With
this opportunity comes a responsibility to be accountable for how the
funds are spent and to ensure that the projects are successful and the
buildings progress toward becoming high-performance green buildings.
GSA has the opportunity to enhance its accountability by making
publicly available information about the nature of work being
performed through its Recovery Act projects. In addition to knowing
which buildings are receiving funding, this will enable the public to
understand how Recovery Act funding is being used to improve GSA's
buildings. While GSA has made progress in moving buildings modernized
under the Recovery Act toward high-performance green buildings, by not
including criteria for reducing transportation's energy and
environmental impacts for Recovery Act projects, GSA's minimum
performance criteria for projects are not in alignment with the
definition of a high-performance green building called for by the
Recovery Act. GSA may also be missing opportunities to include
transportation-related improvements in the projects, where
appropriate, and to track those improvements. Finally, given the
accelerated pace at which many projects are being implemented, taking
steps to ensure that project management staff are systematically
addressing risks to the projects could decrease the potential for
risks to negatively affect GSA's program as projects move from
preliminary stages to construction.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We recommend that the GSA Administrator take the following three
actions:
* Consistent with GSA's Recovery Act transparency goal of providing
the public with an understanding of how its tax dollars are being
spent, make information on the nature of the work being conducted and
its expected outcome publicly available for each Recovery Act project.
* To reduce the environmental and energy impacts of transportation
through site designs that support a full range of transportation
choices for users of buildings, revise the MPC to require that project
managers consider transportation-related improvements for Recovery Act
projects, as appropriate.
* To ensure that steps are being taken to identify and plan for
project-level risks, require Recovery Act project management staff to
complete risk planning documents.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
The GSA Administrator provided written comments on a draft of this
report, which are reproduced in appendix IV. The Administrator agreed
with our recommendations and noted that GSA has begun to take action
to implement them. GSA officials also provided technical comments,
which we incorporated as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees, the GSA Administrator, and other interested parties. In
addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site
at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staffs have questions about this report, please contact
Terrell Dorn at (202) 512-2834 or dornt@gao.gov or Mark Gaffigan at
(202) 512-3841 or gaffiganm@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this
report are listed in appendix V.
Signed by:
Terrell G. Dorn:
Director, Physical Infrastructure:
Signed by:
Mark Gaffigan:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To examine the steps the General Services Administration (GSA) has
taken to implement the program and make its Recovery Act projects
transparent to the public, we collected publicly available supporting
documentation, including GSA's Recovery Act program plans, spending
plans, weekly financial activity reports, and recipient reported data
on the number of jobs created or retained and funded. In addition, we
collected documentation of GSA's hiring resources and competitive
contract awards. Furthermore, we collected information on individual
project scopes, master schedules, the factors considered when
selecting projects, and estimates of needed capital improvements in
buildings receiving Recovery Act funds. We also interviewed senior
staff from GSA's Recovery Act Program Management Office (PMO),
including the Recovery Executive, Directors, Zone Executives, Zone
Managers, and subject matter experts. In addition, we interviewed
senior staff from GSA's Office of Federal High-Performance Green
Buildings (OFHPGB). Specifically, we discussed GSA's goals for its
Recovery Act program, efforts to identify and select projects,
progress in meeting Recovery Act goals for obligating funds, and
efforts to collect data and report on the program. We also interviewed
and coordinated with officials from the GSA Office of Inspector
General and collected their reports identifying GSA's Recovery Act
implementation challenges and reviewing specific Recovery Act
projects. Furthermore, we collected a report examining the data
quality of recipient reported data for GSA and several other agencies,
which was the result of coordinated efforts of various Federal
Inspectors General and the Recovery Accountability and Transparency
Board.
To determine the extent to which GSA's Recovery Act projects will help
the agency convert buildings to high-performance green buildings and
meet federal energy and water conservation requirements and goals from
statutes and executive orders, we compared GSA's minimum performance
criteria with the elements of a high-performance green building as set
forth in the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007. We
also compared GSA's minimum performance criteria with federal energy
and water conservation requirements and goals from statutes and
executive orders. These include EISA, the Energy Policy Act of 2005,
Executive Orders 13423 and13514, and the Interagency Sustainability
Working Group's[Footnote 33] Guiding Principles for Sustainable New
Construction and Major Renovations. Also, we interviewed senior staff
and subject matter experts from the PMO and OFHPGB to determine what
information GSA was collecting with regards to energy and water
conservation performance and what type of system GSA used for
gathering this type of information. We interviewed senior staff and
subject matter experts from the PMO and OFHPGB. Furthermore, we
selected 12 GSA Recovery Act projects as case studies and collected
information on the types of improvements being made to help convert
the buildings to high-performance green buildings and the extent to
which the projects are expected to meet future energy and
environmental performance requirements. We selected 12 full and
partial modernizations--since GSA allocated the majority of its
Recovery Act funds to these project categories--on the basis of a
number of factors, including whether the project had been identified
by GSA as having information on its expected performance. In addition,
we selected a range of project types and sizes and projects from
various geographic locations. We did not select any projects from the
new construction, limited scope, or small project categories for our
case studies. Because the sample is judgmental, the information we
obtained from them cannot be generalized to all of GSA's Recovery Act
projects.
We visited 5 of our case study projects, including the following:
* 26 Federal Plaza, New York, New York;
* Birch Bayh U.S. Courthouse, Indianapolis, Indiana;
* Mary Switzer Building, Washington, D.C.;
* Minton-Capehart Federal Building, Indianapolis, Indiana; and:
* Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse, New York, New York.
At the remaining 7 case study projects, we spoke with senior staff
from the regions and project managers:
* Denver Federal Center Infrastructure, Lakewood, Colorado;
* Edith Green-Wyndell Wyatt Federal Building, Portland, Oregon;
* Federal Building, Huntington, West Virginia;
* Federal Building, Hilo, Hawaii;
* G.T. Leland Federal Building, Houston, Texas;
* John W. Peck Federal Building, Cincinnati, Ohio; and:
* Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalanianaole Federal Building Courthouse,
Honolulu, Hawaii.
To determine the extent to which GSA has taken steps to identify
potential risks to its Recovery Act program and developed strategies
to mitigate those risks, we reviewed supporting documentation,
including GSA's risk management plan, risk mitigation plan,
assessments of identified risks and mitigation strategies, and GSA's
project management guide for the Public Buildings Service. We also
assessed GSA's risk management documents against GAO-developed best
practices. Furthermore, we collected documentation of project-level
risk planning efforts from our case study projects and compared them
with the risk planning efforts called for in GSA's project management
guidance. In addition, we interviewed senior staff from the Office of
the Chief of Financial Officer and the PMO. Finally, we interviewed
managers from our 12 case study projects to discuss project-specific
risks and GSA's efforts to mitigate them.
We conducted this performance audit from June 2009 to June 2010 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 objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: GSA's Minimum Performance Criteria for Recovery Act
Projects:
Minimum Performance Criteria for New Construction and Full
Modernizations:
Criteria: Integrated design;
Elements:
* Use an integrated design process to establish performance goals for
sustainable design principles and develop a plan to ensure
implementation of high-performance green building goals throughout the
project;
* Hire a qualified, independent commissioning agent working for GSA at
the beginning of design;
* Include commissioning tailored to the size and complexity of the
project, including an experienced commissioning provider from the
project initiation through the project closeout.
Criteria: Energy;
Elements:
* Use Energy Star Target Finder to set an energy goal that achieves a
fossil-fuel reduction of 55 percent for 2010 design starts;
* Achieve at least 30 percent reduction in energy use compared with an
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning
Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 90.1-2007 baseline building;
* Install advanced meters. Include meters for electricity, natural
gas, steam, and water;
* Use Energy Star or Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP)-
designated Energy Efficient Products;
* Install solar thermal systems to meet at least 30 percent of the hot
water demand. If not life-cycle cost-effective, provide an engineering
study and letter of explanation signed by the Regional Recovery
Executive;
* Plan for on-site renewable energy systems (photovoltaic, wind,
geothermal, and solar thermal/hot water). If no on-site renewable
energy systems are included, provide a letter of explanation signed by
the Regional Recovery Executive;
* Assess the effects of solar heat gain based on site conditions and
building orientation;
* Provide a complete envelope design to include thermal breaks,
insulation, continuous air barriers, external sun control devices, and
green roof potential;
* Choose glazing systems, including frames, glass, films, and gasses
based on visual needs, elevation, orientation, heat loss, and solar
load;
* Cooling and heating plants will use a Life Cycle Cost (LCC)
methodology (e.g., National Institute of Standards and Technology
Handbook 135) for equipment selection to include lifetime operating
costs based on efficiency, reliability, and maintainability of
equipment;
* Evaluate the use of;
- variable frequency drives, high-efficiency chillers and boilers with
modular design for part load efficient operations in HVAC design;
- radiant space conditioning and thermal storage systems;
- natural ventilation;
- energy recovery ventilators to recover heat from exhaust to preheat
outdoor air;
- separate HVAC for 24x7 spaces; and;
- evaporative cooling (direct or indirect) strategies, in suitable
climates.
Criteria: Water;
Elements:
* Reduce indoor potable water use by at least 20 percent compared with
EPAct 1992, Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC) 2006, and International
Plumbing Code (IPC) 2006;
* Reduce outdoor potable water use for irrigation by at least 50
percent compared with conventional baseline for the building. Smart
controllers using evapotranspiration and weather data are required for
irrigation systems;
* Evaluate strategies to capture rainwater for nonpotable uses,
including flushing fixtures, cooling tower, and irrigation. Consider
harvesting condensation from all cooling coils for nonpotable use.
(See GSA Recovery Act Program Management Office Design Build Guidance
Criteria--Water Efficiency Requirements issued 5/29/2009);
* Evaluate alternative strategies to reduce cooling tower use of
potable water. Strategies include the use of captured rainwater and
HVAC condensate recovery;
* Manage the 95th percentile rain event on-site through infiltration,
reuse, or evapotranspiration. Strategies include permeable paving,
vegetated roofs, or other low-impact development techniques.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidance is under development;
* Where available, use EPA's WaterSense labeled products--faucets,
toilets, urinals, showerheads, and irrigation controls;
* Use high-efficiency fixtures in accordance with new GSA water
guidance;
Meter cooling tower water makeup.
Criteria: Indoor environmental quality;
Elements:
* Provide occupant lighting controls in accordance with new GSA
lighting specifications;
* Provide occupancy sensors;
* Provide daylight sensors for fixtures within 15 feet of windows;
* At a minimum, comply with ASHRAE Standard 55-2004 and ASHRAE
Standard 62.1-2007;
* Consider moisture control strategies to reduce risk for mold and
damaging moisture;
* Use demand control ventilation to control indoor air quality;
* Use low-emitting building materials;
* Follow Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors' National
Association Indoor Air Quality Guidelines for Occupied Buildings under
Construction;
* Flush out space for a minimum of 72 hours.
Criteria: Materials;
Elements:
* Select products with lesser or reduced effect on human health and
the environment. See [hyperlink, http://www.epa.gov/epp];
* Use products with recycled content according to the Comprehensive
Procurement Guidelines. See [hyperlink,
http://www.epa.gov/cpg/products];
* Use products with biobased content according to U.S. Department of
Agriculture's (USDA) BioPreferred program. See [hyperlink,
http://www.biopreferred.gov/DesignationltemList.aspx];
* Salvage, recycle, or reuse at least 50 percent of construction and
demolition waste generated on a project. Develop a construction waste
management plan to quantify material diversion goals and maximize the
materials to be salvaged, recycled, or reused;
* Eliminate the use of ozone-depleting compounds where alternative
environmentally preferable products are available.
Minimum Performance Criteria for Partial Modernizations and Limited
Scope Projects:
Criteria: Integrated design;
Elements:
* Use an integrated team to assess conditions, identify areas for
improvement, establish performance goals for sustainable design
principles, and develop a plan to ensure implementation of high-
performance green building objectives;
* Hire a qualified, independent commissioning agent working for GSA at
the beginning of design;
* Include commissioning tailored to the size and complexity of the
project, including an experienced commissioning provider from the
project initiation through 1 year after occupancy; or: Recommission
the building to determine performance improvement goals.
Criteria: Energy;
Elements:
* Target an Energy Star score of 80 or higher; and; Achieve at least
20 percent reduction in energy use from the 2003 baseline for the
building; or; Achieve at least 20 percent reduction in energy use
compared with an ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007 baseline building;
* Use Energy Star or FEMP-designated Energy Efficient Products;
* Consider renewable energy generation through photovoltaic, building
integrated photovoltaic, solar thermal, and building integrated wind
power, when life-cycle cost-effective;
* Evaluate lighting in office areas, stairwells, parking garages,
exterior parking lots, and mechanical spaces for redesign in
accordance with new GSA lighting specifications;
* HVAC retrofits must consider the use of:
- an LCC methodology (e.g., National Institute of Standards and
Technology Handbook 135) for cooling and heating plant equipment
selection to include lifetime operating costs based on efficiency,
reliability, and maintainability of equipment;
- variable frequency drives, high efficiency chillers and boilers with
modular design for part load efficient operations;
- radiant space conditioning and thermal storage systems;
- natural ventilation;
- energy recovery ventilators to recover heat from exhaust to preheat
outdoor air;
- separate HVAC systems for 24x7 spaces; and;
- evaporative cooling (direct or indirect) strategies, in suitable
climates.
Criteria: Water;
Elements:
* Reduce indoor potable water use by at least 20 percent from the 2003
baseline for the building; or; Reduce water use by 20 percent compared
with 120 percent of UPC 2006 or IPC 2006 for fixtures installed after
1994 or 160 percent for fixtures installed before 1994;
* Reduce outdoor potable water use for irrigation by at least 50
percent compared with conventional baseline or compared with 2003
measured baseline for the building. Smart controllers using
evapotranspiration and weather data are required for irrigation
systems;
* Consider harvesting condensation from cooling coils for nonpotable
use;
* Evaluate alternative strategies to reduce cooling tower use of
potable water. Strategies include increased cycles of concentration,
use of captured rainwater, and systems that treat the water for a
longer use without chemicals;
* Manage the 95th percentile rain event on-site through infiltration,
reuse or evapotranspiration. Strategies include permeable paving,
vegetated roofs or other low impact development techniques. EPA
guidance is under development;
* Where available, use EPA's WaterSense labeled products - faucets,
toilets, urinals, showerheads and irrigation controls;
* Consider fixture retrofits in accordance with new GSA water
guidance, including high-efficiency single or dual flush handles or
the installation of automatic flush valves;
* Meter cooling tower water makeup.
Criteria: Indoor environmental quality;
Elements:
* Provide occupant lighting controls in accordance with new GSA
lighting specifications; and; Provide occupancy sensors; and; Provide
daylight sensors for fixtures within 15 feet of windows;
* At a minimum, comply with ASHRAE Standard 55-2004 and ASHRAE
Standard 62.1-2007;
* Use demand control ventilation to enhance indoor air quality;
* Consider moisture control strategies to reduce risk for mold and
damaging moisture;
* Use low-emitting building materials.
Criteria: Materials;
Elements:
* Select products with lesser or reduced effect on human health and
the environment. See [hyperlink, http://www.epa.gov/epp];
* Use products with recycled content according to the Comprehensive
Procurement Guidelines. See [hyperlink,
http://www.epa.gov/cpg/products];
* Use products with bio-based content according to USDA's BioPreferred
program. See [hyperlink,
http://www.biopreferred.gov/DesignationltemList.aspx];
* Salvage, recycle or reuse at least 50 percent of construction and
demolition waste generated on the project. Develop a construction
waste management plan to quantify material diversion goals and
maximize the materials to be salvaged, recycled or reused;
* Eliminate the use of ozone depleting compounds where alternative
environmentally preferable products are available.
Source: GSA.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Descriptions for 12 Case Studies:
Case study: Edith Green - Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Portland, OR;
Project description: The 18-story building contains 510,659 gross
square feet, including 199 inside parking spaces, and houses
approximately 1,200 federal employees. A comprehensive modernization
is planned for the project;
Recovery Act funding scope of work: The modernization will include the
replacement and upgrades to building systems, including the exterior
façade, accessibility, life safety, mechanical, electrical, elevator,
and security.
Case study: Mary Switzer Washington, DC;
Project description: The overall objective of this project is to
provide a full building modernization of the Federal Building located
at 330 C Street, SW, in Washington, D.C. This two-phase major
modernization will replace all major building systems and includes
historic restoration;
Recovery Act funding scope of work: The American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) project comprises Phase II of the
modernization of the Mary E. Switzer building. Work items include new
HVAC systems, automatic sprinkler systems where not currently in
place, new emergency generator, new emergency power distribution
system, replacement of electric branch circuit wiring and selected
panel boards, replacement of aged plumbing equipment and piping, new
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)/Uniform Federal Accessibility
Standards water coolers, toilet room finish restoration and
modification, minor exterior repairs and lighting, selective asbestos
abatement, modifications to C and D Street lobbies, security
modifications, forced pressure (blast) resistance upgrades, and an
additional floor and new telecommunications backbone.
Case study: Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalanianaole Federal Building and U.S.
Courthouse Honolulu, HI;
Project description: The Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalanianaole Federal
Building and Courthouse consists of a nine-story and a five-story
concrete and glass complex built in 1977. A two-phased, full
modernization and renovation is scheduled for the building;
Recovery Act funding scope of work: ARRA funding will be used to fund
Phase I of the project, which includes design for both the courthouse
and federal building and construction for the courthouse. The
building's HVAC systems will be upgraded to meet required energy
performance standards, the building's plumbing and electrical systems
will be upgraded, the building will be renovated to meet ADA
requirements, the building's elevators will be improved, the
building's life safety systems will be improved, the building's
hazardous materials will be abated, and the interior spaces will be
altered to result in a more modern and efficient facility.
Case study: Birch Bayh Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse
Indianapolis, IN;
Project description: The proposed project is focused on transforming
the Federal Building into a high-performance green building through
upgrades to the building's infrastructure;
Recovery Act funding scope of work: The project includes upgrades to
the HVAC, plumbing, electrical service, and fire protection systems.
New energy-efficient lighting will be installed. The roof will be
replaced, and windows will be replaced or restored as needed,
resulting in energy savings. The HVAC improvements will result in
improved air quality, temperature control, and energy efficiency.
Case study: John W. Peck Federal Building Cincinnati, OH;
Project description: The project proposes to transform the building
into a high-performance green building through improvements to the
building envelope as well as interior upgrades to the building
infrastructure;
Recovery Act funding scope of work: The project includes window
replacements, energy-efficient HVAC and electrical system upgrades,
security enhancements, fire alarm system replacement, and sprinkler
protection improvements.
Case study: Minton-Capehart Federal Building Indianapolis, IN;
Project description: The Minton-Capehart Federal Building is a 636,000
gross square feet office building that was constructed in 1974. The
scope of this project includes upgrades to the HVAC system to align
with high-performance green building goals;
Recovery Act funding scope of work: The HVAC upgrades will improve air
quality and temperature control and will significantly reduce energy
consumption. This project will also provide a new fire alarm system,
sprinkler system installation and other fire protection improvements.
Lighting and ceiling in the building will be upgraded with energy-
efficient light fixtures and occupancy sensors. In addition,
electrical upgrades will be accomplished in support of the HVAC and
fire and life safety upgrades.
Case study: Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse New York, NY;
Project description: The project will upgrade the infrastructure of
the Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse and extend the useful life of
the asset. The project will also address life safety and accessibility
issues. The project is a two-phased modernization. Phase I work
includes bulk demolition and exterior facade work. Phase II work is
discussed in the next column;
Recovery Act funding scope of work: ARRA funding will be used for
Phase II work, which includes selective interior demolition and new
mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and architectural work associated
with the mechanical work.
Case study: G.T. Leland Federal Building Houston, TX;
Project description: The window system at the 22-story Leland Federal
Building has been leaking for several years. There are also air
infiltration issues, which make the facility expensive to heat and
cool. The modernization is two-phased and is intended to remedy those
issues and create a more comfortable environment for the building's
tenants. Major tenants of the building include the Internal Revenue
Service, U.S. Department of State, Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, and Social Security Administration;
Recovery Act funding scope of work: Phase I for the project will
include some or all of the following: replacing and upgrading the
window systems; improving and upgrading the outdoor plaza; installing
a new breezeway; making garage improvements, including a new elevator
from tunnel to breezeway; building exterior repairs and interior
upgrades to public spaces inclusive of finish, ceilings, lighting
fixtures, ADA upgrades, and first-floor upgrades; and will include an
option for significant improvements to the HVAC system. Phase II of
this project includes full HVAC modernization and advanced lighting
controls in the window zone of the building.
Case study: Federal Building Huntington, WV;
Project description: The Federal Building in Huntington is a seven-
story office building containing 94,307 usable square feet, 125,246
rentable square feet, and 138,588 gross square feet with no parking
spaces on a 1.33 acre lot. This seven-story building was constructed
in 1956 and is made of brick with a polished granite base. The ARRA
project for this building will reduce energy consumption;
Recovery Act funding scope of work: Work on the project will include
installing a new high-performance HVAC system, replacing windows,
facade replacement, and installing solar panels on the roof to
generate electricity.
Case study: Hilo Federal Building Hilo, HI;
Project description: The Hilo Federal Building and Post Office was
built in 1917 and is a two-story Classical Revival style building. The
building is scheduled to receive a partial modernization;
Recovery Act funding scope of work: Major work to be performed
includes a seismic upgrade. The building's plumbing and electrical
systems will be upgraded, the building will be altered to meet ADA
requirements; the building's security and life safety systems will be
improved; and the building's hazardous materials will be abated.
Case study: Denver Federal Center Infrastructure Lakewood, CO;
Project description: The Denver Federal Center in Lakewood, CO,
contains 52 buildings on a 670-acre site, housing 6,000 employees from
30 federal agencies. The utilities include 13.4 miles of underground
fire lines, 11.3 miles of domestic water and drain lines, 8.3 miles of
sanitary sewer lines, 25 miles of sidewalks, and 9 miles of roads. The
primary goal of the project is to provide a reliable utility
infrastructure to service tenant agencies for the next 50 years;
Recovery Act funding scope of work: Work on the project will include
replacement of the water systems and sanitary sewer lines, removal of
an inactive gauging station, installation of storm drainage, and
repair of site drainage.
Case study: 26 Federal Plaza (Plaza Repair) New York, NY;
Project description: This project will repair and upgrade the grand
plaza on the Lafayette Street side of 26 Federal Plaza above the
underground parking garage, which is leaking;
Recovery Act funding scope of work: Work on the project will include
waterproofing and replacing the plaza.
Source: GSA.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the General Services Administration:
U.S. General Services Administration:
GSA Administrator:
1800 F Street NW:
Washington, DC 20405-0002:
Telephone: (202) 501-0800:
Fax: (202) 219-1243:
[hyperlink, http://www.gsa.gov]:
June 9, 2010:
The Honorable Gene L. Dodaro:
Acting Comptroller General of the United States:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Dodaro:
The U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) appreciates the
opportunity to comment on the draft U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) report titled, Federal Energy Management: GSA's Recovery
Act Program Is on Track, but Opportunities Exist to Improve
Transparency, Performance Criteria, and Risk Management (GA0-10-630).
The report proposes the following three recommendations:
1. GSA make information on the scope of the work and the expected
outcome of each Recovery Act project publicly available;
2. GSA revise the Recovery Act Minimum Performance Criteria to require
project managers to consider transportation-related improvements for
Recovery Act projects as appropriate; and,
3. GSA require completed risk planning documents from Recovery Act
project management staff.
We are already taking appropriate action to implement these
recommendations. In addition, enclosed are technical comments that
update and clarify statements in the draft report.
Should you have any questions, please contact me or Mr. Robert A.
Peck, Commissioner, Public Buildings Service at (202) 501-1100. Staff
inquiries may be directed to Mr. William J. Guerin, Recovery
Executive, National Recovery Program Management Office, at (202) 219-
0837.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Martha Johnson:
Administrator:
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Terrell Dorn, (202) 512-2834 or dornt@gao.gov Mark Gaffigan, (202) 512-
3841 or gaffiganm@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contacts named above, Maria Edelstein, Assistant
Director; Karla Springer, Assistant Director; Daniel Cain; Elizabeth
Eisenstadt; Brandon Haller; John Johnson; Susan Michal-Smith; Ben
Shouse; and Adam Yu made significant contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] GAO, High-Risk Series: Federal Real Property, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-122] (Washington, D.C.: January
2003).
[2] 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.:
Apr. 13, 2007).
[3] Pub. L. No. 111-5, Div. A, Title V, 123 Stat. 115, 149-150 (2009).
[4] For a definition of a "high-performance green building," see the
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-140,
Title IV, 121 Stat. 1492, 1598-1599 (2007).
[5] According to a U.S. Department of Energy official, this
information is based on preliminary fiscal year 2009 data.
[6] The Recovery Act requires GSA to obligate $5 billion by September
30, 2010, and to obligate the full Recovery Act funding amount, $5.55
billion, by September 30, 2011.
[7] GSA's real property activities are financed through the Federal
Buildings Fund, a revolving fund that includes the rent federal
agencies pay for the space that GSA provides to them.
[8] According to EISA, the term "high-performance building" means a
building that integrates and optimizes on a life-cycle basis all major
high-performance attributes, including energy conservation,
environment, safety, security, durability, accessibility, cost-
benefit, productivity, sustainability, functionality, and operational
considerations. See Pub. L. No. 110-140, Title IV, 121 Stat. 1492,
1598 (2007). The term "high-performance green building" means a high-
performance building that, during its life cycle, as compared with
similar buildings, incorporates the eight elements listed in table 3.
[9] GSA will continue to make revisions to its project plan over time.
[10] Before Congress makes an appropriation, GSA submits to the Senate
Committee on Environment and Public Works and the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure detailed project descriptions,
called prospectuses, for authorization by these committees when the
proposed construction, alteration, or acquisition of a building to be
used as a public building exceeds a specified threshold. For fiscal
year 2009, the threshold for construction, alteration, and lease
projects was $2.66 million (see 40 U.S.C. § 3307).
[11] The execution timing and minimizing execution risk criteria were
given equal weight.
[12] We will soon publicly release a report on the extent to which
recipient reports on Recovery.gov, including reports related to GSA's
Federal Buildings Fund, provided a basic understanding of Recovery Act
spending and outcomes. See GAO, Recovery Act: Increasing the Public's
Understanding of What Funds Are Being Spent on and What Outcomes Are
Expected, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-581]
(Washington, D.C.: May 27, 2010).
[13] See the following Web address: [hyperlink,
http://www.gsa.gov/recovery] (last accessed on June 4, 2010).
[14] PBS is the landlord for the civilian federal government, acquires
space on behalf of the federal government through new construction and
leasing, and acts as a caretaker for federal properties across the
country. PBS is funded primarily through the Federal Buildings Fund,
which is supported by rent from federal customer agencies.
[15] Recovery Act Zone A includes GSA regions 1, 2, 3, and 11 (New
England, Northeast and Caribbean, Mid-Atlantic, and National Capital).
Recovery Act Zone B includes GSA regions 4, 5, 6, and 7 (Southeast,
Great Lakes, Heartland, and Greater Southwest). Recovery Act Zone C
includes GSA regions 8, 9, and 10 (Rocky Mountain, Pacific Rim, and
Northwest/Arctic).
[16] The Office of Design and Construction is responsible for
providing national leadership and policy direction in the areas of
architecture, engineering, urban development, construction services,
and project management.
[17] These were primarily for sole-source HUBZone or 8(a) awards.
[18] Specifically, the GSA OIG found that the contracting approach was
incorrectly executed and resulted in the construction portion of the
contract being awarded as an unpriced option for $102 million without
justification for using other than full and open competition.
According to PBS officials, the construction phase was not an unpriced
option and proper evaluation and competition occurred. See General
Services Administration, Office of Inspector General, Recovery Act
Report--Austin Courthouse Project Review of PBS's Major Construction
and Modernization Projects Funded by the American Reinvestment and
Recovery Act of 2009, A090172/P/R/R10001 (Washington, D.C.: March
2010).
[19] We did not evaluate the courthouse project in Austin, Texas, or
its contract as part of our review.
[20] Department of Health and Human Services, Summary of Inspectors
General Reports on Federal Agencies' Data-Quality Review Processes,
OIG Report No. A-09-10-01002 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 2009).
[21] U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Inspector General,
Recovery Act Data Quality: Errors in Recipients' Reports Obscure
Transparency (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 23, 2010).
[22] GAO, Recovery Act: Recipient Reported Jobs Data Provide Some
Insight into Use of Recovery Act Funding, but Data Quality and
Reporting Issues Need Attention, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-223] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 19,
2009).
[23] Office of Management and Budget, Updated Guidance on the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act--Data Quality, Non-Reporting Recipients,
and Reporting of Job Estimates, M-10-08 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 18,
2009).
[24] GAO, Recovery Act: One Year Later, States' and Localities' Uses
of Funds and Opportunities to Strengthen Accountability, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-437] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 3,
2010).
[25] GSA officials also stated that adjustments were made because they
changed how the $16 million operating budget for Recovery Act
activities was allocated. Specifically, the operating budget is now
its own line item. In the March 2009 project plan, the operating
budget was funded from the new construction category--resulting in GSA
allocating $734 million to new construction projects, instead of $750
million as stated by the Recovery Act. In the March 2010 project plan,
GSA fully funded the $750 million to new construction projects.
[26] The Guiding Principles for Federal Leadership in High Performance
and Sustainable Buildings emanated from a 2006 memorandum of
understanding (MOU) between 19 federal agencies. Under the MOU, the
signatory agencies committed to federal leadership in the design,
construction, and operation of high-performance and sustainable
buildings. A major component of the MOU is for agencies to develop
common strategies for planning, acquiring, siting, designing,
building, operating, and maintaining high-performance and sustainable
buildings.
[27] LEED is a third-party certification program and a national
benchmark for the design, construction, and operation of high-
performance green buildings, according to the U.S. Green Building
Council. LEED Silver is the second level on the four-tier rating
scale, followed by Gold and preceded by Platinum.
[28] ASHRAE 90.1-2007 is a standard developed by the American Society
of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. The purpose
of the standard is to provide minimum requirements for the energy
efficient design of buildings, except low-rise residential buildings.
[29] General Services Administration Public Building Service Recovery
PMO, Short-Term Report on High Performance Green Buildings (HPGB)
Initiatives for Recovery Act Projects (Washington, D.C.: December
2009).
[30] GAO developed these best practices to use in assessing risk
management practices in the absence of statutory or other
authoritative guidance. The best practices are based on existing
criteria for management, previous GAO reports, and external sources.
[31] Office of Management and Budget, Supplement to Circular No. A-11,
Part 7, Capital Programming Guide (Washington, D.C.: June 2006). The
guide provides a single, integrated capital programming process for
agencies to follow to ensure that capital assets successfully
contribute to the achievement of agency strategic goals and objectives.
[32] We did not assess whether these documents were sufficient for
identifying and addressing project-level risks.
[33] The Interagency Sustainability Working Group, as a subcommittee
of the Steering Committee established by Executive Order 13423,
initiated development of the guidance for the Guiding Principles for
Federal Leadership in High Performance and Sustainable Buildings to
assist agencies in meeting high performance and sustainable building
goals of the order.
[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:
