House Panel Moves Property Management Bills While Jabbing GSA

The Obama administration’s longtime “reduce the federal footprint” effort to sell off excess properties came under fire at a House panel on Tuesday, followed a day later by committee approval of two bipartisan bills aimed at accelerating the process run by the General Services Administration.

The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee cleared the Public Buildings Reform and Savings Act (H.R. 4487), which would reorganize GSA by creating a Streamlined Leasing Pilot Program that “reduces the administrative red tape on most GSA leases and encourages space consolidations, improves accountability in the acquisition and construction of new federal space, ensures federal construction projects remain within or under budget, sets clear timeframes on authorized projects, and clarifies congressional oversight of property exchanges,” said a summary by the committee. The bill, sponsored by Public Buildings subcommittee chairman Lou Barletta, R-Pa., and several Democrats, would also seek to improve federal building security.

The Federal Asset Sale and Transfer Act of 2016 (H.R. 4465), introduced by Rep. Jeff Denham, R-Calif., full panel Chairman Bill Shuster, R-Pa., and several Democrats, would establish a Public Buildings Reform Board of members to identify opportunities to reduce the real property inventory and make recommendations for the sale of up to $8 billion worth of underutilized and vacant federal properties,” the committee said. It would also require GSA to create and publish a single, comprehensive database of all federal real properties, “including whether that property is excess, surplus, underutilized or unutilized to prevent a future stockpiling of unused and under-utilized property.”

Norman Dong, commissioner of the Public Buildings Service, told the panel that GSA is “disposing of excess properties far more aggressively than in the past,” and promised the committee it will be receiving more lease prospectuses. For the first time, Dong added, “GSA is developing a disposal pipeline that now allows us to be far more transparent about those assets that we have identified for potential disposal, exchange or outlease.”

The agency’s $759 million fiscal 2017 request for a new FBI headquarters, paired with $646 million for the current fiscal year, he said, should allow GSA to settle on one of the three current possible suburban sites and award a contract “by the end of the calendar year.”

That deal, however, comes with a plan to swap the valuable land under the existing FBI building on Pennsylvania Ave., with a private developer.

But Dong was challenged on the pace of that and several other projects, such as a planned swap of the Cotton Annex off the Washington National Mall; the litigation-stalled plan to move the Transportation Security Administration from Arlington, Va., to neighboring Alexandria; the filling of GSA’s own newly renovated headquarters; and a plan to rework the Energy Department’s headquarters on Independence Avenue.

GSA recently put out a statement saying it had “canceled the solicitation for the Cotton Annex and Regional Office Building exchange project to ensure we maximize the value of these assets. After going through a deliberate, open, and competitive process, the offers we received ultimately did not propose an adequate return on these assets,” which are now on the disposal list.

Those comments “are like nails on a chalkboard,” said Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., a former real estate professional. “This is what, our fourth hearing? Can we look forward to a real plan from GSA, which I know is under new leadership, to manage the portfolio?” The last “aggressive plan,” he added, took 40 years. “Can you commit in the next 30 days to a timeframe to liquidate” these properties strategically and report back to this committee?”

Absolutely, Dong said. “We are absolutely committed to move more aggressively,” he said, promising greater transparency and information sharing with the committee.

Dong was informally lobbied before the committee by two lawmakers with an interest in landing the site of the new FBI building. House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., presented a case for the Maryland sites in Greenbelt or Landover. “Prince George’s County offers a range of convenient and efficient transportation options for access to area airports, Metro, Amtrak and major highways, he said. Citing the importance of the FBI’s interagency work in cybersecurity, Hoyer noted that Maryland plays host to the U.S. Cyber Command at Fort Meade, the National Security Agency, the National Cyber Security Center of Excellence Headquarters at the National Institute of Standards, and the Defense Department’s Cyber Crime Center.

Not to be outdone, Rep. Barbara Comstock, R-Va., made the case for choosing the Virginia site in Springfield. “It is closer to Quantico” (site of the FBI Academy), the Pentagon, CIA, the National Counterterrorism Center and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, she said. Comstock cited a study that last year found that FBI employees commuting to Virginia would save three to four hours each month over estimates of commuting to Maryland.