OMB Presents Puzzling Real Property Findings to Congress

A recent document submitted to Congress by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) detailing more than 100 federal real property assets eligible and available for sale includes what appears to be inconsistency in reporting of “excess” versus “surplus” property.

In the case of several agencies, the OMB report cites more “surplus” than “excess” property – a seeming logical contradiction given that the Federal government’s definition of “surplus” is based on its definition of “excess.”

Section 408 of Public Law 109-396 (the Federal and District of Columbia Government Real Property Act of 2006) required OMB to submit a report to Congress by June 15, identifying all surplus and excess properties in the Federal real property portfolio. OMB also was to identify the most eligible Federal real property available for sale, and to describe development and implementation of data sharing procedures on excess and surplus assets among Executive Branch agencies.

According to the OMB, “agencies reported 18,393 excess assets with a replacement value of approximately $13.8 billion. Agencies also reported 3,409 assets as surplus with a replacement value of approximately $3.9 billion.”

OMB’s report to Congress was divided into the categories of reported “excess” and reported “surplus” assets. Among the findings, summarized on page 7 of the report:

• The Department of Health and Human Services declared 148 properties “excess,” but none could be reported under the legal definition of “surplus.”
• The Department of Commerce, the Drug Enforcement Agency, and the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, Justice, and Treasury – as well as the Environmental Protection Agency, National Science Foundation, Office of Personnel Management, and the Small Business Administration – declared that none of their real property assets were “excess” or “surplus”.
• The Department of the Air Force reported 869 “excess” assets and 1,589 “surplus” assets.
• GSA reported 32 “excess” assets and 53 “surplus” assets.
• NASA reported zero “excess” assets and nine “surplus” assets.

In footnotes, OMB provided the following explanation of the Federal government’s distinction between “excess” and “surplus” property.

• “Excess” property is defined as “any property under the control of any Federal agency not required for its needs and responsibilities as determined by the head thereof.”
• “Surplus” property is defined as “any property which has been declared excess by a particular Federal agency and which, after a survey of the needs of other Federal agencies, is determined by the Administrator of the General Services Administration to be no longer required by the Federal government as a whole.”

“I’m not clear, based on these definitions, how an agency can report more ‘surplus’ than ‘excess’ property,” said Kimberly Price, VISTA’s Legislative Affairs liaison.

“By these findings, the GSA suggests that some agencies – including the GSA itself – have even more unneeded property than the agencies themselves believe they require for mission fulfillment,” Price explained. “If the reported ‘surplus’ in real property is greater than the reported ‘excess,’ it seems to indicate a problem in reporting standards, disagreement as to mission criticality, or that data is not being analyzed according to accepted definitions.”

“If any of those is the case, this would cast some doubt on the validity and accuracy of the report – including the total amount of Federal real property that is eligible for disposal,” she continued. Media reports acknowledge that in subsequent public dialogue, OMB has attempted to clarify this apparent discrepancy but as presented, the report remains unclear.