Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act:
November 16, 2022
Background and Implementation
Garrett Hatch
In 2016, Congress took action to address long-standing obstacles to the timely disposal of
Specialist in American
unneeded federal buildings, land, and structures. The Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act of
National Government
2016 (FASTA; P.L. 114-287) was designed to streamline and centralize the disposal process

through a six-year pilot program, wherein a newly formed Public Buildings Reform Board
(PBRB) recommends the disposal of unneeded real property in three rounds. In the initial round,

which is underway, FASTA requires the board to recommend a set of “high-value assets” to sell.
Proceeds from the sale of the high-value assets are to be used to cover the costs associated with the disposal of properties in
subsequent rounds. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) must approve the board’s recommendations for each
round before agencies may begin disposing of properties pursuant to those recommendations. FASTA disposals are subject to
a more limited set of statutory requirements than are disposals made through the traditional, decentralized disposal process.
The PBRB began operating in May 2019, when five members were sworn in—the minimum necessary for a quorum. The
board reviewed agency information and conducted its own research before submitting a list of 15 properties to sell in the
high-value asset round in October 2019. OMB rejected the PBRB’s initial submission on the grounds that the board had not
provided sufficient information regarding the feasibility of selling the selected properties. The board re-submitted its
recommendations—after removing three properties due to potential complications in selling them—with additional
information and obtained OMB’s approval in December 2019. OMB later withdrew its approval of one high-value asset, the
Seattle Federal Archive and Record Center, after tribal governments and other organizations in the area, supported by the
State of Washington and some Members of Congress, protested the decision to sell it. They argued that the board had not
consulted with them when making its decision to sell the facility and that closing the archives would relocate important
community records so far as to render them inaccessible for local researchers. Of the 11 high-value assets that were
ultimately brought to market, 10 have been sold for a total of more than $193 million. Concerns have been expressed that the
revenue generated during the high-value asset round will be insufficient to fund a significant number of transactions in
subsequent rounds.
When developing recommendations for the Round One disposals—the statutory designation for the round following the high-
value asset round—the PBRB expanded the scope of its consultations and conducted additional analyses on the risks and
benefits each recommendation entailed. The board submitted its Round One recommendations in December 2021, and OMB
rejected them in January 2022, citing a lack of information on project implementation costs and stakeholder outreach. The
board had 30 days to submit a revised list of recommendations, but due to the resignation of two members, it could no longer
meet the quorum necessary to conduct business. In July 2022, President Biden announced a new nominee for the PBRB who,
if approved by the Senate, would bring the board to four members—one short of a quorum.
The board identified several issues that may impede the success of FASTA. Among those, the board argued that the high-
value assets should have been sold by private brokers rather than through online public auctions hosted by the General
Services Administration (GSA). According to the board, brokers might have generated significantly more revenue for federal
properties than GSA did, in part because few potential buyers in the private sector know of GSA’s auction site. In addition,
the board found the government’s real property data to be so inaccurate and incomplete that its recommendations could not
be data-driven. The board stated that the success of FASTA depends, in part, on overcoming low-quality data.

Congressional Research Service

link to page 21 Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act: Background and Implementation

Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act (FASTA)
In an effort to address long-standing obstacles to the timely disposal of unneeded federal real
property, Congress passed the Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act of 2016 (FASTA, P.L. 114-
287). FASTA was designed to streamline and simplify real property disposal by establishing a
centralized—but temporary—process wherein a board of real property experts recommends
properties to be disposed of in three rounds. If the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
approves the recommendations for a given round, federal agencies must then dispose of the
properties. This report discusses the status of the board’s recommendations and agencies’ efforts
to implement them.
Background
As a consequence of changing space needs, federal agencies hold thousands of properties—
particularly buildings—they may no longer need. In FY2020, federal agencies owned 12,679
buildings that were vacant (unutilized) and another 3,023 that were partially empty
(underutilized).1 Agencies are required to dispose of their unutilized and underutilized space in a
timely and efficient manner, generally doing so through the disposition process managed by the
General Services Administration (GSA).
The steps to GSA’s disposal process are established by statute.2 GSA must first offer unneeded
space to other federal agencies,, then offer to convey it at no cost to state and local governments
and qualified non-profits for statutorily defined public purposes, then offer to sell the property to
those same governmental and non-profit entities for a wider range of purposes and, finally, put it
up for sale through a public auction. Additional information about the disposal process may be
found in Appendix.
The inability of agencies to dispose of unneeded space in a timely manner is one of the primary
reasons the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has included real property management on
its list of “high-risk” management issues since 2003.3 Agencies have argued that they have been
hampered by a lack of funding to prepare buildings for disposition and by the amount of time it
takes to complete each of the mandatory steps in the disposal process.4
FASTA was designed to centralize and streamline the disposal process. Rather than have each
landholding agency identify individual properties for disposal, an independent board is authorized
to recommend the disposal of dozens of properties in three distinct rounds. In addition, FASTA
provides a mechanism for funding the disposal costs of each round and exempts properties
selected by the board from some of the statutory steps in GSA’s disposal process.
Scope
FASTA applies to all federal executive branch agencies and wholly owned government
corporations, but Section 3 excludes several categories of properties, including properties on

1 U.S. General Services Administration, FY2020 Federal Real Property Profile Summary Data Set,
https://www.gsa.gov/policy-regulations/policy/real-property-policy/data-collection-and-reports/frpp-summary-report-
library.
2 40 U.S.C. §541 et seq.
3 GAO, Managing Federal Real Property, https://www.gao.gov/highrisk/managing-federal-real-property.
4 GAO, Federal Real Property: Additional Documentation of Decision Making Could Improve Transparency of New
Disposal Process, GAO-21-233, January 2021, pp. 6-9, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-233.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

1

Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act: Background and Implementation

military installations, most Coast Guard properties, and properties located outside the United
States operated or maintained by the Department of State or the U.S. Agency for International
Development. Properties controlled by Indian and Native Alaskan tribes, the U.S. Postal Service,
and the Tennessee Valley Authority are also excluded, as are properties used for certain federal
programs or power projects. The OMB director may also exclude properties for reasons of
national security.
Development of Recommendations
Agency Recommendations
The first step in disposing of unneeded properties under FASTA is for federal landholding
agencies to develop their own recommendations for reducing unused space and operating and
maintenance costs. Agencies are required to submit these recommendations to GSA and OMB not
later than 120 days after the start of each fiscal year, along with specific data on each of the
properties they own and lease.5 Agencies must report the following data for each property:
 age and condition,
 operating costs,
 history of capital expenditures,
 sustainability metrics,
 square footage, and
 the number of on-site federal employees.
Agency recommendations must categorize properties according to whether they should be sold,
transferred, exchanged, consolidated, relocated, redeveloped, reconfigured, or outleased—a range
of options referred to collectively as “realignment.” Agencies may also recommend properties be
declared excess or surplus if they have not already been so designated.
Review and Revision of Agency Recommendations
FASTA requires the GSA administrator and the OMB director to establish criteria for developing
recommendations, including utilization rate standards that apply to each category of space, such
as office space and warehouse space. In addition, FASTA specifies 10 factors GSA and OMB
must take into account when establishing the criteria:
1. the extent to which a property could be sold, redeveloped, or outleased in a
manner that would produce the best value;
2. the extent to which the operating and maintenance costs would be reduced
through the consolidation, colocation, and reconfiguration of space;
3. the extent to which a property aligns with the current mission of the agency;
4. the extent to which the utilization rate is being maximized and is consistent with
nongovernment standards;
5. the potential costs and savings over time;
6. the extent to which leasing long-term space would be reduced;

5 CRS was unable to identify comprehensive, publicly available data on which agencies met the 120-day deadline.
Congressional Research Service

2

Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act: Background and Implementation

7. the extent to which there are opportunities to consolidate similar operations
across or within agencies;
8. the economic impact on existing communities in the vicinity of the property;
9. the extent to which public access to agency services is maintained or enhanced;
and
10. the extent to which energy consumption specifically would be reduced.
FASTA established three rounds of disposals—the High-Value Asset (HVA) Round, Round One,
and Round Two. OMB and GSA must apply the criteria to the agency recommendations
developed in Round One and Round Two. The criteria were published on February 10, 2021, and
were used by OMB and GSA during the development of their Round One recommendations.6
Public Buildings Reform Board
The OMB director submits the list of revised recommendations to a newly established Public
Buildings Reform Board (PBRB). FASTA requires the board to have at least five members (the
threshold for a quorum) and as many as seven, including one member who serves as chairperson.
The President appoints the chairperson with the advice and consent of the Senate. The other
members are also appointed by the President but do not need Senate approval. In making
appointments to the board, the President is required to consult with the Speaker of the House of
Representatives regarding two members, the majority leader of the Senate regarding two
members, the House minority leader regarding one member, and the Senate minority leader
regarding one member. FASTA directs the President to ensure that the board includes members
with expertise in commercial real estate, space optimization and utilization, and community
development. Each board member serves a six-year term, and the board itself terminates six years
from the date a quorum of members was appointed.7
President Trump appointed five board members between May 1 and May 10, 2019: D. Talmage
Hocker, Mary Phillips, Nick J. Rahall, Angela Styles, and David L. Winstead.8 Two members
resigned in 2022—Angela Styles effective January 31 and Mary Phillips effective April 30—
leaving the board without a quorum and therefore unable to conduct business.9 On July 11, 2022,
President Biden nominated Jeffrey R. Gural to serve as the board’s chairperson.10 As of October
27, 2022, the Senate had not approved the nomination. The board is to terminate May 10, 2025.
The board is required to review the recommendations submitted by OMB, but is not bound by
them. The board is required to perform an independent review of agency inventories and it may
reject, accept, or modify OMB’s recommendations and add recommendations of its own. As part
of the review process, the board is required to develop an accounting system to help in evaluating
the costs and returns of various recommendations. The board has access to the same data that
agencies provided to OMB and GSA, and agencies are required to provide any additional

6 OMB, “Publication of Standards, Criteria, and Recommendations,” 86 Federal Register 8926, February 10, 2021,
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/02/10/2021-02695/publication-of-standards-criteria-and-
recommendations.
7 P.L. 115-437; 132 Stat. 5563.
8 Letter from PBRB members D. Talmage Hocker, Mary Phillips, Nick J. Rahall, Angela Styles, and David L.
Winstead, to OMB Acting Director Russell Vought, October 31, 2019, https://www.pbrb.gov/pbrb/files/2021/01/
PBRB-Official-Recommendations-to-OMB-10_31_2019.pdf.
9 Email to CRS from PBRB Senior Analyst Paul Walden, September 15, 2022.
10 The White House, “Nominations and Withdrawals Sent to the Senate,” July 11, 2022, https://www.whitehouse.gov/
briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/07/11/nominations-and-withdrawals-sent-to-the-senate-9/.
Congressional Research Service

3

Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act: Background and Implementation

information the board requests. In addition, the board may receive and review proposals
submitted by state and local officials and the private sector, which the board is required to
consider. The board has held seven public meetings while developing its HVA round and Round
One recommendations.11
FASTA required the board to submit a set of recommendations to OMB for each of the three
rounds. The recommendations for the HVA round had to consist of at least five federal properties
to sell that were not listed as excess or surplus, with a total estimated fair market value between
$500 million and $750 million.12 The board had to submit the HVA recommendations not more
than 180 days after the date the board reached a quorum—a deadline of November 6, 2019. The
board submitted its HVA recommendations on October 31, 2019.13 OMB rejected the initial
submission on November 27, 2019.14 Under FASTA, the board has 30 days to submit a revised set
of recommendations in cases where OMB disapproves the initial submission. The board
submitted a revised set of recommendations on December 27, 2019, which OMB approved on
January 24, 2020.15
The recommendations for Round One had to have a total of value of transactions—the estimated
proceeds and costs associated with executing board recommendations—of no more than $2.5
billion. The Round One recommendations had to be submitted no later than two years from the
date the board submitted its revised set of HVA recommendations—setting a deadline of
December 27, 2021. The board submitted its Round One recommendations, with a total value of
transactions below the $2.5 billion threshold, on December 27, 2021.16 OMB rejected these
recommendations on January 25, 2022.17 With the resignation of Angela Styles on January 31,
2022, the board lacked a quorum and was unable to resubmit a revised set of recommendations
within 30 days from the date of OMB’s disapproval. Round One therefore terminated.18
The recommendations for Round Two must have a total value of proceeds and costs of no more
than $4.75 billion. They must be submitted no earlier than three years from the date the board
submitted its Round One recommendations—a deadline of December 27, 2024. As the board has
not had a quorum since January 31, 2022, it has been unable to conduct official business toward
developing the Round Two recommendations.
Review by OMB
The OMB Director has 30 days to review each set of recommendations. If the director approves
all of the board’s recommendations, then he must submit a copy of the recommendations to
Congress along with a certification of his approval. If the director disapproves some or all of the
board’s recommendations, he must submit a report to Congress and the board identifying the
reasons for disapproval, and the board has 30 days to submit a revised list of recommendations to
the Director. If the Director approves all of the revised recommendations, he must submit a copy

11 PBRB, “Public Meetings,” https://www.pbrb.gov/upcoming-public-meetings/.
12 This provision identifies possible opportunities to generate revenue from properties that are being utilized by
agencies and therefore have not been declared excess or surplus. Given the relatively high market value of these
properties, it is possible the government could generate significant revenue from selling them, even after accounting for
the costs of relocating the federal employees who work there if that were required under the terms of the sale.
13 PBRB, “High Value Asset Round,” https://www.pbrb.gov/high-value-asset-round/.
14 PBRB, “High Value Asset Round.”
15 PBRB, “High Value Asset Round.”
16 PBRB, “First Round Submission,” https://www.pbrb.gov/first-round-submission/.
17 PBRB, “First Round Submission.”
18 GSA, “FASTA Frequently Asked Questions,” https://disposal.gsa.gov/s/fasta-faq.
Congressional Research Service

4

Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act: Background and Implementation

of the revised recommendations along with a certification of approval to Congress. If the Director
does not submit a report within 30 days of the receipt of the commission’s original or revised
recommendations, then the process terminates.
Implementation
Agencies must work in consultation with GSA and within their existing authorities to implement
board recommendations, although they may contract with real estate companies for assistance.
The OMB director has the authority to exclude a property from the board’s recommendations if
he determines that the property is suitable for use as a public park or recreation area by a state or
local government, although they have not used this authority. Federal agencies must begin
implementing an approved set of recommendations within two years from the date Congress
received them, and complete implementation within six years. After OMB approved the HVA
recommendations in 2020, the agencies began implementing them that same year.19
Certain sections of the U.S. Code that pertain to real property conveyances for public benefit
would not apply to FASTA recommendations. For example, properties recommended for disposal
do not have to be screened for no-cost transfer to state and local governments and qualified non-
profits.20 The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act still applies to properties that are
included in the approved set of recommendations. However, FASTA amends McKinney-Vento by
shortening the screening and application process for these properties.
FASTA requires the Comptroller General to monitor and review agencies’ implementation
activities and report to Congress his findings and recommendations.21 In addition, the act
precludes actions taken pursuant to recommendations from judicial review.
Environmental Considerations
If the board recommends the disposal of a property on which hazardous material was stored for
more than one year, known to have been released, or disposed of, federal agencies may agree to
transfer the deed of such property only under certain conditions. First, the deed must comply with
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensations, and Liability Act of 1980 (42
U.S.C. §9601 et seq.). Second, the head of the disposing agency must certify either that (1) the
cost of all environmental restoration, waste management, and other environmental compliance
activities that would otherwise be paid for by the disposing agency are equal to or greater than the
fair market value of the property; or (2) if such costs are lower than fair market value, the
recipient of the property agrees to pay the difference between fair market value and such costs.
If the agency head determines that the cost of compliance would exceed the property’s fair
market value, the agency may pay the recipient of the property the lesser of: (1) the amount by
which the costs incurred by the recipient for environmental compliance exceed fair market value,
or (2) the amount by which the costs that would have been incurred by the disposing agency
exceed fair market value.
The disposing agency must provide to the property recipient all of the information it possesses on
environmental restoration, waste management, and compliance activities.

19 GAO, Federal Real Property: Several Factors May Limit Efforts to Reduce Space under New Sale and Transfer
Process, GAO-22-105345, December 2021, p. 5, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-105345.
20 Section 14(e)(2) of FASTA exempts recommendations from Sections 550, 553, and 554 of Title 40 of the U.S. Code.
21 GAO, Federal Real Property: Several Factors, GAO, Federal Real Property: Additional Documentation.
Congressional Research Service

5

Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act: Background and Implementation

Funding
FASTA established both a salaries and expenses account to fund the board’s administrative and
personnel costs and an asset proceeds and space management fund (APSMF) to implement
recommended actions. Both accounts may receive funds from appropriations but the APSMF is
also authorized to receive the proceeds generated by the sale of real property pursuant to the
board’s recommendations. Through FY2022, the salaries and expenses account has been
appropriated approximately $12 million and the APSMF $50 million.22 In addition, GSA has
collected $193 million in revenue from the sale of HVAs, but those funds must be made available
through the appropriations process before they can be used to implement recommendations.23
Agency Retention of Net Proceeds
After the board terminates, federal agencies are authorized to retain the net proceeds from the
disposal of real property they control. Net proceeds may be used only for further disposal
activities and only as authorized in annual appropriations acts. Any net proceeds not expended for
disposal activities must be used for deficit reduction.
Real Property Database
FASTA requires the GSA administrator to establish and maintain a “single, comprehensive, and
descriptive” database of all real property under the control of federal agencies. The database must
include, for each property, its
 size in square feet and acreage;
 geographic location, including a physical address and description;
 relevance to the agency’s mission, presently and in the future;
 level of utilization, including whether it is excess, surplus, underutilized, or
unutilized, and the number of days it has been so designated;
 annual operating costs; and
 replacement value.
The database must permit users to search and sort properties, and download data. Once
operational, the database must be made available, at no cost, to federal agencies and the public.
To meet this requirement, GSA established the Federal Real Property Profile Management
System, which is publicly available and includes the information required by FASTA as well as
other data on agency portfolios.24

22 Email to CRS from Josh Dugan, GSA, October 14, 2022.
23 Ibid.
24 The Federal Real Property Profile Management System (FRPP MS) may be accessed at https://www.gsa.gov/policy-
regulations/policy/real-property-policy/asset-management/federal-real-property-profile-frpp/federal-real-property-
public-data-set.
Congressional Research Service

6

Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act: Background and Implementation

Implementation
High-Value Asset Recommendations
As the first step in identifying high-value properties for disposal, GSA solicited data and
recommendations from landholding agencies on April 14, 2017, November 30, 2017, and
December 7, 2018.25 GSA then eliminated properties excluded from FASTA, such as properties
on military installations or owned by the U.S. Postal Service.26 From the remaining 109,179
eligible properties, GSA identified 10,756 “priority assets,” each of which would be likely to
generate at least $1 million in sales proceeds.27 GSA further refined the list by assessing factors
such as building utilization rates and local real estate markets.28 Ultimately, GSA submitted a list
of 29 properties to the board.29 GSA’s analysis and recommendations drew primarily on data
from landholding agencies and the Federal Real Property Profile (FRPP).30
The board conducted its own analysis of FRPP data to identify additional high-value asset
candidates, although this step did not result in any new properties for consideration.31 Next, the
board gathered additional information from the landholding agencies that owned the properties on
the high-value candidate list.32 This information included:
 appraisals,
 zoning analyses,
 environmental conditions,
 historic preservation factors,
 property condition reports,
 relocation plans, and
 title documents.33
The board assessed the candidates using this information as well as the 10 factors identified in
Section 11 of FASTA.34 Further data were collected through meetings with landholding agencies
and visits to the properties.35 In addition, the board solicited input through four public meetings—

25 PBRB, High Value Assets Report: Key Findings and Recommendations Pursuant to the Federal Assets Sale and
Transfer Act of 2016, December 27, 2019, https://www.pbrb.gov/pbrb/files/2021/01/20191227-High-Value-Assets-
Report-as-Required-by-FASTA.pdf.
26 PBRB, High Value Assets Report.
27 PBRB, High Value Assets Report, p. 8.
28 PBRB, High Value Assets Report.
29 PBRB, High Value Assets Report.
30 PBRB, High Value Assets Report. Agencies report a wide range of information on their properties to GSA through
the FRPP. GSA then draws on the data in the FRPP—which is not accessible to the public—to populate the FRPP MS
with the data required by FASTA.
31 PBRB, High Value Assets Report, pp. 8-9.
32 PBRB, High Value Assets Report, p. 9.
33 PBRB, High Value Assets Report.
34 PBRB, High Value Assets Report, pp. 9-10.
35 PBRB, High Value Assets Report, 10.
Congressional Research Service

7

Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act: Background and Implementation

two in Washington, DC, one in Los Angeles, CA, and one in Denver, CO—and through
consultations with congressional, state, and municipal officials.36
The board ultimately placed each candidate property in one of three categories: suitable for
submission as an HVA, potentially suitable for future rounds, and not suitable for FASTA
disposal.37 It submitted its list of 14 HVAs, listed below, on October 31, 2019.38
1. Auburn Complex, Auburn, WA (GSA)
2. Sacramento Job Corp Center (excess land only), Sacramento, CA (Department of
Labor)
3. Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Pacific Grove, CA (Department of
Commerce)
4. Information Operations and Research Center (IORC) and Shelley-New Sweden
Park and Ride, Idaho Falls, ID (Department of Energy)
5. Edison Job Corp Center (excess land only), Edison, NJ (Department of Labor)
6. U.S. Geological Survey Menlo Park Campus, Menlo Park, CA (GSA)
7. Ronald Reagan Federal Building and Courthouse, Harrisburg, PA (GSA)
8. Robert A. Taft Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH (Department of Health and Human
Services)
9. Alice Hamilton Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH (Department of Health and Human
Services)
10. Federal Archive and Records Center, Seattle, WA (National Archives and
Records Administration [NARA])
11. Nike Site (excess land only), Gaithersburg, MD (Department of Commerce)
12. Chet Holifield Federal Building, Laguna Nigel, CA (GSA)
13. Denver Medical Center, Denver, CO (Department of Veterans Affairs)
14. WestEd, Los Alamitos, CA (Department of Education)
In a letter dated November 27, 2019, then-acting OMB Director Russell Vought notified the board
of his decision to disapprove the initial set of recommendations:39
The limited supporting information does not enable OMB to assess the feasibility of selling
the properties within FASTA’s required timeframe and does not support our responsibility
to ensure the risks to the government posed by the sale of the proposed properties are
acceptable to the taxpayer. OMB also requires a financial execution plan that demonstrates
that the high value projects identified by the Board can be completed with the Board’s
available funds.40
The PBRB resubmitted its HVA recommendations, along with the documentation requested by
OMB, on December 27, 2019.41 The revised list included 12 properties, all of which were
included in the initial set of recommendations. Two properties from the initial recommendations

36 PBRB, High Value Assets Report.
37 PBRB, High Value Assets Report.
38 PBRB, High Value Assets Report.
39 Letter from acting OMB Director Russell Vought to the PBRB, November 27, 2019, https://www.pbrb.gov/pbrb/
files/2021/01/OMB-Official-Response-to-PBRB-Recommendations-11_27_2019.pdf.
40 Ibid.
41 PBRB, High Value Assets Report.
Congressional Research Service

8

Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act: Background and Implementation

were not included in the revised submission: the Robert A. Taft and Alice Hamilton laboratories
in Cincinnati, OH. The board removed these properties after learning of potential delays in
construction of the facilities that would replace them.42 OMB approved the revised
recommendations on January 24, 2020.43 OMB subsequently removed its approval for the sale of
the Seattle Federal Archive and Record Center for reasons discussed below. The remaining 11
high-value properties are in various stages of the disposal process.
Seattle Federal Archive and Record Center
The Seattle archives facility holds a range of permanent records created by federal agencies and
courts in Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.44 Among the most commonly requested records
are those pertaining to Pacific Northwest Tribes and the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which
prohibited the immigration of Chinese laborers.45
The board noted that the facility, which was built in 1947, was not adequate for long-term storage
and that the landholding agency, NARA, had expressed its “willingness and desire to consolidate
operations at more modern NARA facilities.”46 By selling the Seattle archives property, the board
estimated that the government would avoid $356,753 in annual operating and maintenance costs
and $2,399,302 in deferred maintenance costs.47
Congressional Opposition to Sale
On the same day that OMB approved the revised recommendations, some Members of Congress
representing Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington sent a letter to OMB opposing the sale of
the Seattle archives.48 The letter stated that the archives house records that are “vital to a variety
of stakeholders in our states, including state agencies, universities, researchers, scientists, tribal
members, and students.”49 The letter further stated that the PBRB did not consult with key
stakeholders, including Native American and Alaska Native tribes in the region and congressional
delegations with an interest in the contents of the facility.50 The letter further questioned whether
the PBRB properly evaluated the potential negative consequences of relocating the archives, such
as the additional burden to researchers who would have to travel to California or Missouri and the
loss of employment for the archive staff in Seattle.51

42 GAO, Federal Real Property: Several Factors.
43 Letter from acting OMB Director Russell Vought to the Public Buildings Reform Board, January 24, 2020,
https://www.pbrb.gov/pbrb/files/2021/01/PBRB.pdf.
44 NARA, “National Archives at Seattle,” https://www.archives.gov/seattle.
45 NARA, “National Archives at Seattle.”
46 PBRB, High Value Assets Report.
47 PBRB, High Value Assets Report, p. A-69.
48 Letter from Sens. Lisa Murkowski, Maria Cantwell, Patty Murray, Dan Sullivan, Ron Wyden, Jeffrey Merkley,
James Risch, and Mike Crapo and Reps. Derek Kilmer, Suzan DelBene, Adam Smith, Denny Heck, Kim Schrier,
Pramila Jayapal, Jaime Herrera Beutler, and Rick Larsen to acting OMB Director Russell Vought, January 24, 2020,
https://www.cantwell.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/
Letter%20to%20OMB%20Director%20Vought%20re%20Seattle%20Archives.pdf.
49 Ibid., p. 1.
50 Ibid.
51 Ibid., pp. 1-3.
Congressional Research Service

9

Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act: Background and Implementation

Washington State Opposition to Sale
On February 25, 2020, the Attorney General of the State of Washington, Bob Ferguson, sent a
letter to the PBRB asking the board and OMB to “reconsider and reverse their decision to close
and sell the Federal Archives and Record Center” in Seattle.52 Ferguson argued that the decision
to close the facility was “illegal and made without consulting local, state, and tribal officials,” as
required by FASTA.53 Ferguson noted that among the records that would be relocated out of
Washington were documents related to the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War
II, historical tribal and treaty documents for 272 federally recognized tribes, and records related to
the Chinese Exclusion Act that Chinese-Americans have used to research their ancestry.54 The
letter concluded with Ferguson’s assertion that while he hoped to avoid litigation, he was
“preparing to take legal action to defend access to these important historical records and prevent
your agency’s decision from taking effect.”55
Washington State Lawsuit to Halt Sale
On January 4, 2021, Ferguson—along with 29 federally recognized tribes, Alaskan tribal entities,
the State of Oregon, and nine community organizations—filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington, against the federal government56 to halt the disposal of the
Seattle archives.57 The lawsuit claimed that the sale would violate FASTA and that the defendants
had failed to properly account for the importance of the archives to the Pacific Northwest region
and had “refused to consult or cooperate with local stakeholders, including tribal governments, in
making the decision to sell the property.” On February 16, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington granted a preliminary injunction to stop the sale of the Seattle
archives.58
Federal Legislation to Prohibit Sale
On March 25, 2021, Senator Patty Murray (WA) introduced legislation that would amend FASTA
to address tribal concerns about the sale of the Seattle archives.59 The bill would prohibit the sale
of any property under FASTA procedures where (1) the federal government failed to consult with
the appropriate tribal governments, or (2) the sale would hinder a tribe’s access to federal services
offered at the facility. On July 9, 2021, Representative Pramila Jayapal (WA) introduced identical

52 Letter from Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson to the PBRB, February 25, 2020, p. 1,
https://agportals3bucket.s3.amazonaws.com/uploadedfiles/Another/News/Press_Releases/
Ltr%20from%20AG%20Ferguson%20re%20Seattle%20Archives.pdf.
53 Ibid.
54 Ibid., pp. 3-6.
55 Ibid.
56 The defendants were NARA, OMB, PBRB, GSA.
57 Washington State Office of Attorney General, “AG Ferguson announces coalition lawsuit to save National
Archives,” press release, January 4, 2021, https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/ag-ferguson-announces-
coalition-lawsuit-save-national-archives.
58 Washington State Office of the Attorney General, Federal Litigation Summary, https://www.atg.wa.gov/federal-
litigation.
59 S. 981, the Assuring Regular Consultation to Have Indigenous Voices Effectively Solicited Act, was introduced by
Senator Murray (WA) on March 25, 2021, and referred to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. It
was co-sponsored by Sens. Cantwell (WA), Wyden (OR), Merkley (OR), and Murkowski (AK). No further action has
been taken on the bill.
Congressional Research Service

10

link to page 14 Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act: Background and Implementation

companion legislation (H.R. 4386).60 After committee referral, the House and Senate have not
taken further action on these bills.
OMB Withdraws Approval for Sale
On April 8, 2021, OMB sent a letter to the PBRB withdrawing its approval of the sale of the
Seattle archives. The letter stated that OMB reached this decision because “the process that led to
the decision to approve the sale of the Federal Archives and Record Center is contrary to this
Administration’s tribal consultation policy” which must be “meaningful and robust.”61 The letter
stated that any future efforts to sell the Seattle archives must be preceded by “meaningful and
robust tribal consultation” and comply with the tribal consultation procedures established in the
memorandum62 issued by President Biden on January 26, 2021.63
Status of High-Value Asset Sales
According to the PBRB, the 11 remaining HVAs are in various stages of disposal, and one
property—the IORC and Shelley-New Sweden Park and Ride—was sold in two separate
transactions.64 Of the 12 properties GSA has brought to market, including the split sale of the
IORC and Park and Ride in Idaho Falls:
 Ten properties have been sold for a total of $193,603,006,65 and
 Two properties have not been awarded for sale
Table 1 below provides the status of each property as of October 27, 2022.
Table 1. Status of High-Value Assets
Property
Sale Award Date
Sale Closing Date
Sale Amount
Auburn Complex (WA)
2/18/2022
5/19/2022
$80,000,000
Sacramento Job Corps
Center - land only (CA)
11/09/2021
1/10/2022
$12,300,000
Southwest Fisheries
Science Center (CA)
4/08/2022
6/6/2022
$4,800,000
Information Operations
and Research Center (ID)
2/18/2022
4/29/2022
$2,025,000

60 H.R. 4386, the Assuring Regular Consultation to Have Indigenous Voices Effectively Solicited Act, was introduced
by Representative Jayapal (WA) on July 9, 2021, and referred to the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure. It was co-sponsored by Reps. Young (AK), Bonamici (OR), Blumenauer (OR), DelBene (WA), Kilmer
(WA), Larsen (WA), Schrier (WA), Simpson (ID), Smith (WA), and Strickland (WA). No further action has been taken
on the bill.
61 Letter from Acting OMB Director Shalanda Young to the PBRB, April 8, 2021, https://pedersen.seattle.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2021/04/OMB-Letter-Withdrawing-Approval-for-Sale-of-Seattle-NARA-Building-04.08.2021.pdf.
62 The White House, “Memorandum on Tribal Consultation and Strengthening Nation-to-Nation Relationships,”
January 26, 2021, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/26/memorandum-on-tribal-
consultation-and-strengthening-nation-to-nation-relationships/.
63 Letter from Young to the PBRB.
64 Data provided to CRS in an email from PBRB Senior Analyst Paul Walden, May 26, 2022. Walden noted that GSA
provided the data to PBRB.
65 The PBRB data show that the IORC and Shelley-New Sweden Park and Ride, originally listed as a single property,
were sold in separate transactions. The IORC sold for $2,025,000 and the New Sweden Park and Ride sold for
$268,000, for a total of $2,293,000.
Congressional Research Service

11

Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act: Background and Implementation

Property
Sale Award Date
Sale Closing Date
Sale Amount
Shelley-New Sweden Park
and Ride (ID)
9/14/2021
10/14/2021
$268,000
Edison Job Corp Center -
land only (NJ)
9/27/2021
12/15/2021
$4,400,000
Menlo Park Campus (CA)
-
-
-
Reagan Federal Building
and Courthouse (PA)
12/02/2021
2/04/2022
$10,010,000
Nike Site - land only (MD)
11/29/2021
1/14/2022
$12,050,006
Chet Holifield Federal
Building (CA)
-
-
-
Denver Medical Center
(CO)
8/10/2022
9/23/2022
$41,250,000
WestEd (CA)
10/04/2021
12/06/2021
$26,500,000
Source: Data provided by PBRB, May 26, 2022, and GSA, September 28, 2022.
Notes: GSA sold the IORC and Shelley-New Sweden Park and Ride, originally listed as a single property, in
separate transactions, bringing the total number of properties for sale under the HVA round to 12.
Round One Recommendations
FASTA required the board to submit its Round One recommendations not later than two years
after it transmitted its HVA recommendations. (The law required three rounds of disposals: the
high-value round, Round One, and Round Two.) On December 27, 2021, the board met this
deadline and submitted its Round One recommendations to OMB.66 The recommendations were
part of a broader report that detailed the process by which the recommendations were developed
for that round.67
In the report, the board described “enhancements” it made in its Round One procedures, which
were based on feedback from OMB as well as its own observations. These enhancements
included:
 having earlier and more frequent engagement with OMB,
 increasing coordination with federal agencies,
 conducting additional stakeholder engagement,
 confirming the legally permitted and likely use of the property with the local
jurisdiction, and
 collaborating with GSA on the drafts of the reports for each round.68
The board also described the steps it took to refine its property screening and valuation methods,
including:

66 PBRB, First Round Report: Recommendations Pursuant to the Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act of 2016
(FASTA), December 27, 2021, https://www.pbrb.gov/files/2021/12/PUBLIC-VERSION-PBRB-First-Round-
Recommendations-to-OMB-12_27_2021-1-1.pdf.
67 PBRB, First Round Report.
68 PBRB, First Round Report, p. 10.
Congressional Research Service

12

Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act: Background and Implementation

 identifying new properties for analysis,
 reviewing recommendations with agency and other stakeholders,
 accounting for proceeds and long-term taxpayer returns,
 prioritizing the properties for additional due diligence and valuation, and
 documenting thoroughly the rationale for the status of each property viewed by
the board.69
According to the Round One report, the board’s initial step in identifying candidates for disposal
was to assess more than 400,000 properties in the FRPP.70 The board applied filters to eliminate
certain properties from consideration, such as assets exempt from FASTA, and then prioritized the
remaining properties based on their likelihood to meet FASTA’s goals, including generating
revenue and avoiding costs.71 Of the 414 properties that remained, agencies supported disposing
of 75, and of those, the board recommended 15 properties for disposal:72
1. Agricultural Research Service facility, Glenn Dale, MD (U.S. Department of
Agriculture)
2. Fort Worth Federal Center, Fort Worth, TX (GSA)
3. Gary Job Corps Parcel 4, San Marcos, TX (Department of Labor)
4. Goddard Space Flight Center Area 400, Greenbelt, MD (National Aeronautics
and Space Administration)
5. Gus J. Solomon Federal Courthouse, Portland, OR (GSA)
6. J. Will Robinson Federal Building, Provo, UT (GSA)
7. Jeffersonville National Processing Center, Jeffersonville, IN (GSA)
8. Mount Vernon Federal Building, Mount Vernon, IL (GSA)
9. Oklahoma City Property Management Depot, Oklahoma City, OK (GSA)
10. Racine Social Security Administration District Office, Racine, WI (GSA)
11. Richard B. Anderson Federal Building, Port Angeles, WA (GSA)
12. Rosa Parks Federal Building, San Antonio, TX (GSA)
13. San Antonio Federal Building West, San Antonio, TX (GSA)
14. White Oak Parcel K, Silver Spring, MD (GSA)
15. William L. Beatty Federal Building and Courthouse, Alton, IL (GSA)
The recommendations included a narrative that described “enhancements” in the recommendation
process that the board implemented after its experience with developing the HVA list.73 The
enhancements included “additional stakeholder engagement” and “earlier and more frequent
engagement with OMB.”74 The narrative also stated that the board had identified “approximately
two dozen additional properties for disposal or consolidation” but had deferred them to Round

69 PBRB, First Round Report.
70 PBRB, First Round Report, p. 11.
71 PBRB, First Round Report.
72 PBRB, First Round Report.
73 PBRB, First Round Report, p. 10.
74 PBRB, First Round Report.
Congressional Research Service

13

Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act: Background and Implementation

Two due to the amount of stakeholder coordination needed and the potential lack of funding
available to implement those recommendations.75
On January 26, 2022, OMB rejected the board’s Round One submission, citing a lack of
information on project implementation costs and stakeholder outreach.76 On February 24, 2022,
the board notified OMB that it could not resubmit a revised set of recommendations because it no
longer had five members—the minimum needed to meet FASTA’s quorum requirement.77 Two
members of PBRB, Angela Styles and Mary Phillips, resigned after the board submitted its
Round One recommendations.78 On July 11, 2022, President Biden nominated Jeffrey R. Gural to
be the chairperson.79 As of October 27, 2022, the Senate had not approved the nomination.
Implementation Issues
Some argue there are indications that the process through which FASTA properties are identified,
receive funding for disposal costs, and are sold has weaknesses that undermine the law’s
objectives. As discussed below, a lack of reliable data may hinder the selection of candidates for
disposal, and uncertainty over upfront funding for disposal costs may disincentivize agencies
from participating in FASTA. In addition, selling properties via online auction rather than with
the assistance of brokers may reduce the number of bidders and reduce the amount of revenue
generated.
Quality of Real Property Data
Federal landholding agencies and the board both used the FRPP extensively when developing
recommendations.80 The board and some agency officials determined that “there are extraordinary
issues with both data gaps and data integrity within the FRPP.”81 The board found that key data
elements were inaccurate and incomplete, such as utilization rates, operating and maintenance
expenses, and tenant headcounts.82 As a result, the board and some agency officials reported that
the “lack of available and reliable data made it difficult to identify and recommend high-value
real property disposal candidates”83 When the board initially evaluated the Auburn Complex as a
potential high value asset, for example, it used data from the FRPP which listed seven of the eight
warehouses on the property as “utilized.”84 Information from other sources contradicted the
FRPP, and it was eventually determined that all of the warehouses were vacant and “had been
vacant for some time.”85 The Auburn Complex was included in the board’s HVA

75 PBRB, First Round Report, p. 5.
76 Letter from Acting OMB Director Shalanda Young to the PBRB, January 26, 2022, https://www.pbrb.gov/files/2022/
02/OMB_letter012522.pdf.
77 Letter from the PBRB to OMB Acting Director Shalanda Young, February 24, 2022, https://www.pbrb.gov/files/
2022/02/OMB_First_Round_Response_PBRB-02252022.pdf.
78 Email to CRS from Paul Walden, Senior Analyst, PBRB, September 15, 2022.
79 The White House, “Nominations and Withdrawals Sent to the Senate.”
80 GAO, Federal Real Property: Additional Documentation, p. 16.
81 PBRB, High Value Assets Report, p. 13.
82 PBRB, High Value Assets Report, p. 15.
83 GAO, Federal Real Property: Additional Documentation, p. 27.
84 PBRB, High Value Assets Report, p. 15.
85 PBRB, High Value Assets Report, p. 15.
Congressional Research Service

14

Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act: Background and Implementation

recommendations86 and sold for $80 million, making it the largest FASTA disposal to date.87
Experiences such as this led the board to conclude that “decisions cannot be driven by data due to
lack of quality” and that the success of “future FASTA disposals and consolidations is contingent,
in part, on overcoming this challenge.”88
Funding Availability
FASTA was structured so that the net proceeds generated by the disposal of high-value properties
would be available to fund the disposal of properties in future rounds. This provision addresses a
common concern expressed by landholding agencies—that the lack of up-front funding to cover
the costs associated with disposal has hindered efforts to reduce the number of underutilized and
vacant properties in their portfolios.89 Disposal costs often include:
 historic preservation assessments,
 environmental assessments and remediation,
 marketing,
 sales transactions, and
 the relocation of federal employees.
Without dedicated funding, agencies that seek to dispose of a property generally divert funds
from other accounts to cover the costs, such as operations and maintenance or salaries and
expenses.90 FASTA’s authority to provide upfront funding has incentivized agencies to move
forward with disposals that they had previously deferred due to cost, such as the Nike Site
(Department of Commerce) and Menlo Park (Department of Commerce), both of which were
among the HVA recommendations.91
FASTA funding is not automatically available to cover disposal costs—Congress can consider
whether to provide access to those funds through the appropriations process. The board has
expressed concern about the implications of this process, noting that
because the timing of real estate projects rarely coincides with the federal budget and
annual appropriations process, there are uncertainties as to when and how much funding
will be available to use toward future upfront costs in subsequent rounds.92
These uncertainties could “dramatically affect the number and type of properties recommended”
in future rounds, potentially limiting recommendations that might have higher upfront costs, such
as consolidating properties.93 The lack of assured upfront funding may also reduce the incentive
for some agencies to participate in FASTA.94

86 GAO, Federal Real Property: Several Factors, p. 10.
87 Data provided to CRS in an email from PBRB Senior Analyst Paul Walden, May 26, 2022.
88 PBRB, High Value Assets Report, pp. 13-15.
89 GAO, Federal Real Property: Additional Documentation, p. 11.
90 GAO, Federal Real Property: Additional Documentation, p. 8.
91 GAO, Federal Real Property: Additional Documentation, p. 24.
92 GAO, Federal Real Property: Additional Documentation, p. 29.
93 GAO, Federal Real Property: Additional Documentation.
94 GAO, Federal Real Property: Additional Documentation.
Congressional Research Service

15

Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act: Background and Implementation

Through FY2022, the salaries and expenses account has been appropriated approximately $12
million and the APSMF $50 million.95
Sale by Auction
GSA has the authority to sell federal property with the assistance of a commercial broker. GSA
had considered using brokers under a strategy developed in 2020, when the board decided to sell
the HVAs as a single portfolio.96 GSA issued a “Sources Sought” notice to determine whether
there were “viable and qualified” real estate firms that could provide the required services.97
According to the notice, brokers would be required, among other things, “to generate significant
local, regional, national, and international interest” in the properties and ensure that sales
maximize proceeds to the government.98 When the board subsequently decided to sell the HVAs
individually rather than as a single portfolio, GSA opted not to use brokers and instead conducted
the sales on its auction site, GSA Auctions. Through GSA Auctions, bidders compete directly
with each other until the highest bid is unchallenged.99 If the bid is accepted, the winner must pay
for the property in full by the closing date.100
The board has argued that selling HVAs through GSA Auctions is “inappropriate” because “it is
unlikely to result in maximizing value for the federal government and for taxpayers.”101 In its
report on the high-value asset round, the board identified three reasons that auctions were “not
recommended” as a method of disposal:
1. The private sector is largely unaware of the Government’s auction platform, so the
largest companies and developers likely would not participate without extensive outreach.
2. GSA Auction process requires bidders to complete all due diligence up front, before they
know whether they have been selected as the purchaser or not. Many companies do not
want to take on those expenses before they have been selected, so either they choose not to
participate or submit a lower offer.
3. Using an auction platform creates certainty but it does not usually achieve highest and
best use in larger, more complex transactions.102
The board therefore recommended that GSA contract with a private brokerage firm to manage the
marketing and sale of FASTA properties in both the HVA round and in Round One.103 An
additional benefit of using brokers, the board noted, was that they had expertise in complex real
estate transactions—such as consolidation and redevelopment—that often have the potential to
“generate significant sales proceeds or realize significant cost avoidance.”104 The board identified

95 Email to CRS from Josh Dugan, GSA, October 14, 2022.
96 GAO, Federal Real Property: Additional Documentation, January 2021, p. 22.
97 GSA, Solicitation Number 47PB0020R0052, July 17, 2020, p. 1, https://govtribe.com/file/government-file/fasta-
high-value-asset-portfolio-sources-sought-notice-2020-07-17-dot-pdf#web-viewer.
98 GSA, Solicitation Number 47PB0020R0052, p. 3.
99 GAO, Federal Real Property: Several Factors, p. 5.
100 GSA, “GSA Auctions: FAQ—Real Estate,” https://gsaauctions.gov/html/static/faq.htm.
101 PBRB, High Value Assets Report, p. 16.
102 PBRB, High Value Assets Report, pp. 16-17.
103 PBRB, First Round Report, p. 15.
104 PBRB, First Round Report, p. 15.
Congressional Research Service

16

Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act: Background and Implementation

the use of auctions instead of brokers as a central reason “that the Federal disposal framework
urgently needs comprehensive reform.”105
Concluding Observations
At least one of the PBRB’s concerns about FASTA implementation may have implications
beyond the scope of the recommendations. The board consistently advocated for brokerage firms
to assist GSA with the sale of unneeded federal properties, arguing that the expertise and visibility
brokers provide would likely generate greater revenue than selling those same properties at
auction.106 Given that the government has 7,697 vacant buildings—a fraction of which would be
disposed of under FASTA—agencies will continue to face the choice of whether to sell a surplus
building by auction or broker in the future.107
There is limited data on real property sold through GSA Auctions, and no centralized data on the
extent to which federal agencies use brokers to sell unneeded real property. Obtaining data on
broker-based sales of federal property would be necessary to determine whether expanding the
use of brokerage firms would produce greater net proceeds for the government.
An increase in net proceeds would likely provide agencies with additional funding for disposing
of unneeded properties in the future. Section 20 of FASTA, which takes effect upon termination
of the board, is to permit agencies to retain the net proceeds that result from the disposal of any
excess property that they control. Agencies may use these proceeds to pay for the costs associated
with disposing of additional properties, including costs that GSA incurs while assisting the
agency with the disposal. In this way, the authority to retain net proceeds may partially address
agencies’ concern that they lack up front funding to prepare unneeded properties for disposal.

105 PBRB, High Value Assets Report, p. 16.
106 PBRB, High Value Assets Report, pp. A-5, A-11, A-16, A-21, and A-26.
107 GSA, FY2021 Federal Real Property Profile Summary Data Set.
Congressional Research Service

17

Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act: Background and Implementation

Appendix. Additional Background
As a consequence of changing space needs, federal agencies hold thousands of properties—
particularly buildings—they may no longer need. In FY2021, federal agencies owned 7,697
buildings that were vacant (unutilized), and another 2,265 that were partially empty
(underutilized).108 Agencies are required to dispose of unneeded space and have a range of
options for disposal, including transfer to another federal agency, demolition, sale, and
conveyance to a state or local government or qualified nonprofit. Federal agencies have indicated,
however, that their disposal efforts are often hampered by legal and budgetary disincentives.109
The inability of agencies to dispose of unneeded space in a timely manner is one of the primary
reasons GAO has included real property management on its high-risk list since 2003.110
Statutory Disposal Requirements
The steps in the real property disposal process are established by statute. Agencies must first offer
to transfer properties they do not need (excess properties) to other federal agencies, which
generally pay market value for excess properties.111 Unneeded properties that federal agencies do
not acquire (surplus properties) must then be offered to state and local governments, and qualified
nonprofits for use in accomplishing public purposes specified in statute, such as creating public
parks or providing services to the homeless.112 Agencies may convey surplus properties to state
and local governments and qualified nonprofits for public benefit at less than fair market value—
even at no cost.113 Surplus properties not conveyed for public benefit may be sold at fair market
value to state and local governments and qualified nonprofits for purposes beyond those specified
in statute as public benefits—so-called negotiated sales. Surplus properties not disposed of
through negotiated sales are offered for sale to the public at fair market value or are demolished
(or, in some cases abandoned) if the property could not be sold due to the condition or location of
the property.114
Agencies have argued that these statutory requirements slow down the disposition process,
compelling agencies to incur operating costs while the properties are being screened.115 For
example, real property officials have said that the McKinney-Vento Act (P.L. 100-77)—which
mandates that all surplus property be screened for homeless use—can extend the time it takes to
dispose of certain properties by months.116 Because public benefit conveyance requirements are
set in law, agencies do not have the authority to skip screening, even for surplus properties they
cannot convey. Real property experts with the Army, for example, told auditors they had
properties they believed could be disposed of only by demolition, due to their condition or

108 GSA, FY2021 Federal Real Property Profile Summary Data Set.
109 GAO, Federal Real Property: Additional Documentation, p. 8.
110 GAO, Managing Federal Real Property.
111 40 U.S.C. §541 et seq.
112 40 U.S.C. §541 et seq.
113 40 U.S.C. §541 et seq.
114 40 U.S.C. §541 et seq.
115 Some stakeholders argue there are benefits to these requirements as well, but that is not the focus of this report.
116 GAO, Federal Real Property: More Useful Information to Providers Could Improve the Homeless Assistance
Program, GAO-14-739, September 2014, p. 21, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-739.
Congressional Research Service

18

Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act: Background and Implementation

location, but that still had to be screened, thereby adding as much as six months to the disposal
process and requiring the Army to pay maintenance costs that could have been avoided.117
Disposal Costs
Unneeded buildings are often among the older properties in an agency’s portfolio. Agencies may
discover that some of these buildings require expensive repairs and renovations before they are
fully functional, meet health and safety standards, and comply with historic preservation
requirements. Similarly, agencies that wish to demolish vacant buildings face deconstruction and
cleanup costs that, at times, exceed the cost of maintaining the property—at least in the short
run—which may encourage real property managers to retain properties rather than dispose of
them.118 Federal agencies frequently cite the cost of complying with environmental regulations as
a major disincentive to disposal.119
Quality of Real Property Data120
At the start of each Congress, GAO releases a list of government operations that it deems “high
risk”—programs or activities with “serious weaknesses in areas that involve substantial resources
and provide critical services to the public.”121 Federal real property management has been
included on every high-risk list since 2003, due in large part to a lack of reliable data on federal
buildings, land, and structures.122 One GAO report concluded that FRPP data collection results in
agencies “making real property management decisions using unreliable data.”123

Author Information

Garrett Hatch

Specialist in American National Government

117 GAO, Federal Real Property: More Useful Information.
118 GAO, Federal Real Property: Progress Made Toward Addressing Problems, but Underlying Obstacles Continue to
Hamper Reform, GAO-07-349, April 13, 2007, pp. 40-41, https://www.gao.gov/assets/260/259410.pdf.
119 GAO, Federal Real Property: Progress Made.
120 For more information on real property data, see CRS Report R44286, Federal Real Property Data: Limitations and
Implications for Oversight, by Garrett Hatch.
121 GAO, “High Risk List,” https://www.gao.gov/high-risk-list.
122 GAO, “Managing Federal Real Property.”
123 GAO, Federal Real Property: Current Efforts, GAO Recommendations, and Proposed Legislation Could Address
Challenges, GAO-15-688T, June 16, 2015, p. 4, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-15-688t.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

19

Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act: Background and Implementation

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R47308 · VERSION 1 · NEW
20