Federal Property: Improved Monitoring, Oversight, and Data Would Help Understand Effects of Providing Property to Non-Federal Recipients

The federal government owns and manages over a trillion of dollars of property that is not real property, such as vehicles, computers, and office furniture. Federal agencies generally get rid of excess property through GSA's disposal process, which then allows entities such as other federal agencies, to obtain that property if they want. Some agencies have independent authorities that allow them to provide property to non-federal recipients, such as universities, before or during the GSA disposal process.

GAO was asked to review how federal agencies provide property to non-federal recipients. This report examines (1) how selected agencies manage unneeded and excess property provided to non-federal recipients and (2) what is known about benefits, effects, and data on property provided to these recipients. GAO analyzed GSA non-federal recipients' reports from fiscal years 2013 to 2017, the most current available at the start of our review, and selected three agencies—USDA, DOE, and DOL—to obtain variety on the methods used to provide property to non-federal recipients. GAO reviewed relevant processes and interviewed officials from GSA, selected agencies, and non-federal recipients.

GAO found the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Department of Energy (DOE), and Department of Labor (DOL) established a process for providing property to non-federal recipients but had limited insight into how these recipients used this property. Officials told GAO that some of the property was disposed of prematurely or not used at all. Such outcomes are inconsistent with agency policy. Whether these instances are widespread or uncommon is unknown due to a lack of consistent monitoring and oversight. For example, DOE officials said they were not monitoring property provided by one of their programs, because they thought the authorization had expired. Without consistent monitoring or oversight, agencies cannot be assured that property is being used as required or achieving intended objectives.

Selected agencies identified benefits of providing unneeded and excess property to non-federal recipients, but the larger effect of these efforts is unclear due to a lack of reported reliable data. Agency officials said providing property to these recipients saves costs and enhances their mission. However, other sources, including a General Services Administration (GSA) study, reported that using these authorities has reduced the amount of property that would otherwise be available to federal agencies or other recipients. While data on property provided to non-federal recipients are key to understanding the effects of the program, GAO found the government-wide data on property provided to non-federal recipients were unreliable. For example, GAO found that agencies reported incorrect authorities for transactions and underreported excess property provided to such recipients. GSA's current reporting tool and guidance are unclear on how agencies should report these items, and GSA does not have definite plans on what changes it will make to address these government-wide data issues. Until these changes are made, it will be hard to understand the scope of property provided to non-federal recipients and assess the effects on the federal government's disposal process, such as whether federal agencies and other recipients may be missing opportunities to obtain property.

GAO is making seven recommendations, including one to DOL and two apiece to USDA, DOE, and GSA concerning improving oversight, monitoring, and data quality for property provided to non-federal recipients. All four agencies agreed with the recommendations.

The federal government owns and manages property that is not  considered real property—from vehicles and aircraft, to computers and  office furniture, to firearms. In fiscal year 2018, federal agencies reported  holding nearly $1.7 trillion in these assets. Agencies are responsible for  acquiring and managing this property, including identifying when the  property is no longer needed for their mission. When that circumstance  happens, agencies generally declare the property as excess  and report  the property to the General Services Administration’s (GSA) online  property system, known as GSAXcess. Once in this system, the property  is made available to other federal agencies for their own use or for use by  an eligible non-federal recipient, such as a grantee (for example, public  agencies or non-profit organizations). Property not provided to another  federal agency or an eligible non-federal recipient becomes “surplus” and  then becomes available for transfer to state agencies (which can then  donate it to non-federal entities within their state), or sale to the general  public. In fiscal year 2017, federal agencies reported over $7 billion in excess property that was made available to federal agencies, non-federal  recipients, and for donation to state agencies.

Some agencies also have independent authorities that allow them to  directly provide specific types of property to certain non-federal recipients  instead of going through the GSA disposal process. For example, the  Department of Energy (DOE) provides energy-related laboratory  equipment to colleges and universities for educational programs.

We have previously reported on issues related to managing excess  property and providing property to non-federal recipients. In 2016, we  reported that the Department of Defense prioritized providing excess  property to non-federal recipients over potential federal recipients, and as  a result, federal agencies could be spending federal funds on property  that they might have been able to obtain for free through the disposal  process. More broadly, in 2018, we reported that selected federal  agencies did not have procedures in place to effectively manage, identify,  and dispose of excess property. In each of these reports we made a  recommendation, but agencies have not yet taken action to implement  them.

Due to congressional interest in how non-federal recipients obtain  property, you asked us to review how federal agencies distribute and  manage property provided to non-federal recipients, and the effect on  federal agencies and other stakeholders in the disposal process. This  report examines: how selected agencies manage unneeded and excess property  provided to non-federal recipients, and what is known about the benefits, effects, and reported data on  property provided to non-federal recipients.

To address how selected agencies manage unneeded and excess  property provided to non-federal recipients, we selected three agencies— the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), DOE, and the  Department of Labor (DOL). Using GSA data, we selected these  agencies to obtain variation in the amount of property they provided to  non-federal recipients in terms of original acquisition cost from fiscal year  2013 to fiscal year 2017, the most current data available at the start of our  review, as well as the methods agencies used to provide property to non- federal recipients. For each of these agencies, we interviewed  knowledgeable agency officials and reviewed their programs and policies  for providing property to non-federal recipients, and compared selected  agencies’ policies and practices to relevant property-management  regulations and federal internal control standards on monitoring and  oversight. Due to the decentralized nature of property management, our  findings are not generalizable, but illustrate how some federal agencies  provide property to non-federal recipients.

To assess what is known about the benefits, effects, and reported data on  property provided to non-federal recipients, we reviewed GSA’s property  management regulations, briefings, and a 2003 GSA property utilization  and donation study. In addition, we interviewed a wide range of  stakeholders to gain perspective on their experiences with providing,  obtaining, and reporting property provided to non-federal recipients,  including:

GSA: The Office of Government-wide Policy is responsible for  developing government-wide policies for the management and  disposal of property. The Office of Personal Property Management  helps federal agencies dispose of property no longer needed and  helps other federal agencies and state, local, and public organizations  acquire these items.

State agencies: State Agencies for Surplus Property are responsible  for providing government surplus property to non-federal entities. We  selected agencies from states that are geographically dispersed and  that obtain a large amount of surplus property from GSA. Specifically,  we selected 5 states (Arizona, California, Georgia, Illinois, and Texas)  because their state agency was a top 20 recipient of surplus property  in terms of original acquisition value during a given year from fiscal  year 2014 to fiscal year 2017, according to data provided by GSA on  surplus property donation.

Non-federal recipients: We selected 17 non-federal recipients in the  five states (above) that obtained property from USDA, DOE, or DOL.  We selected the recipients based on information provided to us by  USDA, DOE, and DOL on the non-federal recipients that obtained  property in those states between fiscal year 2013 and 2017.

We reviewed and analyzed data submitted through the GSA-reporting  tool that is used to create the Non-Federal Recipient Report, a report on  property furnished to non-federal recipients, from fiscal year 2013 to 2017  to understand the scope of unneeded and excess property agencies  provided to non-federal recipients through various independent  authorities, programs, and agreements. We determined during our  analysis that the data were not sufficiently reliable for reporting the  amount of property provided to non-federal recipients through authorities  and agency programs, as discussed in this report. For further details on  our methodology, including a complete list of stakeholders we  interviewed, see appendix I.

We conducted this performance audit from June 2018 to December 2019  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.

Generally, agencies dispose of their excess property through GSA’s  government-wide property disposal process. See figure 1. Disposal is  facilitated by GSA’s disposal system, known as GSAXcess. Once an  agency has determined that it no longer has an internal agency need for  its property during agency internal screening, it generally declares and  reports the property as excess. Subsequently, the agency places  information on the property in GSAXcess and then other federal agencies  can screen, request, and, if approved by GSA, obtain the excess property  for their own use or can then provide it to an authorized non-federal  recipient free of charge, minus transportation costs. If no federal agency  (for its own use or use by its eligible non-federal recipient) requests the  excess property from GSAXcess, it then becomes surplus to the federal  government, and a State Agency for Surplus Property can request it and  provide it to eligible non-federal entities in their state, such as local  governments and non-profits. Property not claimed by a State Agency  for Surplus Property can then be sold to the general public typically  through a GSA auction or an approved sales center. Finally, unsold  property may be abandoned and destroyed by the reporting agency.

Agencies can provide property to non-federal recipients in various ways.  Some agencies, such as USDA and DOE, have been granted their own  independent authorities that allow them to provide their unneeded or  excess property to eligible non-federal recipients, such as public entities  and colleges or universities. Eligible recipients are determined by  program requirements. Other agencies, such as DOL, predominately  provide excess property to non-federal recipients through a grant,  contract, or cooperative agreement. For our three selected agencies, we  focused on how USDA and DOE provided property to non-federal  recipients using their independent authorities and how DOL provided  property to non-federal recipients through contracts. Table 1 describes  these agencies’ programs that provide property to eligible non-federal  recipients. More detail on the independent authorities used by USDA and  DOE can be found in appendix II. Additional information about excess  property previously provided by DOL through cooperative agreements to  apprenticeship programs can be found in appendix III.

Agencies with independent authorities and programs differ in when they  are able to provide property to non-federal recipients. Such agencies can  allow eligible non-federal recipients, as determined by their agency’s  independent authority, to screen for and request unneeded property  during agency internal screening; in other words, before the property is  declared excess and available to other agencies and entities. For  example, USDA is authorized to provide certain equipment to its  contractors or recipients when doing so would further agricultural  research or teaching objectives. Currently, USDA allows eligible non- federal recipients to screen for all USDA unneeded property through an  USDA internal module in GSAXcess at the same time as its sub- agencies, and before the property is made available to federal agencies  in GSAXcess. If there is no demand for the property by an eligible non- federal recipient during internal screening, it is then made available in  GSAXcess, where other agencies screen for and request property for  their own use or for use by associated non-federal recipients.

Regardless of how agencies provide property to non-federal recipients,  they are required to annually report to GSA on property they provided.  GSA provides agencies with guidance to assist with their reporting  responsibilities, including:

GSA Bulletin Federal Management Regulation B-27: defines  terms and provides agencies guidance on using GSA’s Personal  Property reporting tool.

GSA Personal Property Reporting Tool (reporting tool): a  template used by federal agencies to report excess property provided  to non-federal recipients. The reporting tool has pre-determined drop- down menu items for agencies to select from when reporting property  provided to non-federal recipients, such as the authority used.

Technical Assistance and Guidance: GSA officials told us that they  provide training, technical assistance, and guidance through  webinars, email, and phone when agencies seek additional  information on reporting requirements.

GSA publishes the information reported by agencies in its annual Non- Federal Recipient Report, which includes information such as the agency,  non-federal recipient, authority used, and the original acquisition cost of  the property.

Selected Agencies Established Processes for Providing Property to Eligible Non-Federal Recipients but Lacked Insight into Property Use

Each Agency Established Regulations or Guidance to Govern the Process of Providing Property to Eligible Non-Federal Recipients

USDA, DOE, and DOL established agency regulations or guidance for  managing the disposition of property during the internal-screening  process and once it has been declared excess, including providing  property to non-federal recipients, as described below.

USDA has three separate Federal Excess Personal Property Program  handbooks specific to each sub-agency within USDA that manages  property provided to non-federal recipients under the Federal  Agriculture Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act, the Forest Service,  and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture‘s (NIFA) Federal  Excess Personal Property Programs. These handbooks describe the  process through which eligible non-federal recipients can screen (i.e.,  search for and select) for unneeded and excess property.  Specifically, USDA makes property available to non-federal recipients  for each of these programs during internal screening at the same time  that other USDA sub-agencies can screen the property.

DOE officials and guidance explained how its offices should dispose  of federal excess personal property, including when eligible non- federal recipients can screen for unneeded and excess property.  DOE makes property available to non-federal recipients after internal  agency screening once it is determined the property is not needed  within DOE. For DOE’s Economic Development Property Program,  DOE makes property available to the eligible Community Reuse  Organization by word of mouth or through a DOE excess email listing.  For the Math and Science Equipment Gift Program, the recipient is  made aware of property by word of mouth or as a result of a  subcontract that has ended with a university. For the Laboratory  Equipment Donation Program, DOE extracts energy-related property  from within the Energy Asset Disposal System and allows eligible  non-federal recipients to screen for that property on an external  website. During this screening period by non-federal recipients, if  property is requested and the request is approved by DOE, DOE then  transfers the property directly to the non-federal recipient.

DOL policy explains how Job Corps contractors may directly access  GSAXcess to obtain excess property. Specifically, it explains how  contractors can screen and obtain excess property when it is made  available to all federal agencies and other eligible non-federal  recipients, generally on a first-come, first-served basis.

Additionally, for USDA and DOE, if there is no demand for unneeded  property among eligible non-federal recipients, the property is then  declared as excess property and reported to GSA and becomes  available in GSAXcess where it is made available to all other federal  agencies and eligible non-federal entities.

Through the various programs at our selected agencies, officials reported  to us that they provided property with an original acquisition value of  between $0.4 and $33 million to non-federal recipients through their  agency-specific programs in fiscal year 2017, most of it through the  Forest Service’s Federal Excess Personal Property Program. (See table  2).

Each Agency Did Not Generally Know How Recipients Were Using Property

The three agencies we reviewed assigned various offices the  responsibility for monitoring property provided to non-federal recipients.  The program officials in charge of monitoring are to ensure, among other  things, that non-federal recipients use the property within a reasonable  period of time and for the purpose it was intended, according to agency  regulations and program requirements. See figure 2. Once property is  provided to a non-federal recipient some agencies retain title, or  ownership, of the property, while others pass ownership to the recipient.  For agencies disposing of property using the GSA-regulated disposal  process, GSA regulations require agencies to, among other things: (1)  ensure the use of excess personal property acquired for use by the non- federal recipient is authorized and complies with applicable federal  regulations and agency guidelines, (2) review and approve transfer  documents once property is requested by the non-federal recipient, and  (3) ensure the non-federal recipient does not place the property into  storage (i.e., stockpile) property and uses the property within a  reasonable time frame. Requirements in the authorizing legislation  govern USDA and DOE disposal when these agencies use their  independent authorities.

While monitoring responsibilities were assigned, these selected agencies  reported and we found that property provided to non-federal recipients  was sometimes disposed of prematurely, not used at all, or not used  within the required time frames. For example:

According to Office of Property and Fleet Management officials  responsible for property provided under the FAIR Act, they conducted  an unscheduled property compliance check at a non-federal recipient  location that revealed that a non-federal recipient (i.e., a school)  improperly sold property before USDA’s 1-year requirement to use the  property was met. As a result, the school was put on probation and  was required to send inventory reports to USDA on a regular basis.

An official from a state forestry department we spoke to reported  having obtained a large vehicle that was not used. Furthermore, this  official told us that due to a lack of indoor storage space the vehicle  was stored outside exposed to the elements and its condition  deteriorated over time.

According to Agricultural Research Service officials responsible for  property provided under the NIFA Federal Excess Personal Property  Program, they revoked the participation of a non-federal recipient (i.e.,  a college) that was unable to provide information on how or whether  property was being used.

Several Laboratory Equipment Donation Program recipients reported  instances where they did not report required information at the end of  the first year of use, according to program requirements. One  recipient told us that it never used several pieces of equipment it  received because they were in poor condition and put them in  storage, rather than disposing of the property.

Whether these instances are widespread or uncommon is unknown, due  to a lack of consistent monitoring at USDA, DOE, and DOL to determine  how and whether the property provided to non-federal recipients was  used.

USDA’s guidance from the Federal Excess Personal Property  Program handbook for the FAIR Act specifies that regular audits and  reviews of participating institutions are required to ensure property is  being used in support of research, educational, technical, and  scientific activities for related programs. Specifically, USDA requires  property that is obtained by an institution to be placed into use for the  purpose it was acquired within 1-year of receipt and to be used for 1- year thereafter. However, USDA Office of Property and Fleet  Management officials told us that due to a limited travel budget and  staff to conduct monitoring they relied on informal “spot checks” to  monitor property provided to non-federal recipients under the FAIR  Act.

DOE’s Office of Asset Management said it had discontinued  monitoring any excess property provided by the Economic  Development Property program to non-federal recipients. According to  DOE Office of Asset Management officials, they mistakenly believed  the Economic Development Property authority had expired, and thus  believed they were relieved of their monitoring responsibilities of the  property provided to non-federal recipients. According to officials, they  determined during the course of our review that the authority had not  expired, but stated DOE regulations currently do not reference  Economic Development Property. Officials stated that they did not  know when they had last monitored the program and were not  informed of its activities, even though between fiscal years 2013 and  2017, DOE reported to GSA’s Non-Federal Recipient Report that the  program provided over $154 million in property to non-federal  recipients. According to DOE Office of Asset Management officials,  they were unaware of the DOE sites that reported this data to GSA. In  addition, DOE has previously acknowledged monitoring concerns with  the program. Office of Asset Management officials told us they are  determining how use of this authority will continue in the future. As of  December 2019, DOE’s Office of Asset Management had not issued  any new guidance or clarifications on the program, or a time frame for  when such guidance or clarification might be issued.

DOE’s Office of Science told us it had not consistently monitored  property provided to Laboratory Equipment Donation Program  recipients to ensure that required information was reported at the end  of the first year, which is a requirement of the program. According to  three Laboratory Donation Equipment Program recipients we spoke  with, they had never provided information to DOE, and DOE had not  requested information on property they received. According to Office  of Science officials, they had not regularly contacted Laboratory  Donation Equipment Program recipients because the process for  doing so had been manual, and therefore was unsustainable and led  to poor record-keeping. In March 2019, Office of Science officials  established a new platform that will generate automatic email  notifications to non-federal recipients of Laboratory Equipment  Donation Program property within 11 months of receipt. DOE officials  told us that the new system started receiving applications in June  2019, and thus DOE will begin the automated notifications no later  than May 2020.

Within DOL, the National Property Officer for DOL’s Job Corps  Program retired in December 2018 and the position has not been  officially filled. In September 2019, DOL officials told us that the  National Property Officer’s responsibilities—which include periodically  reviewing policies, procedures, and excess property provided to Job  Corps centers—are temporarily being filled by another employee, in  addition to that employee’s other responsibilities. They do not expect  to hire a full-time National Property Officer before the end of calendar  year 2019. It is unclear to what extent monitoring activities have been  conducted within the National Office in the absence of a full-time  National Property Officer. We identified discrepancies between the  data provided to us by Job Corps Program officials on the excess  property provided to Job Corps centers, and the data maintained by  the Job Corps centers we visited. For example, we identified items  that had been provided to Job Corps centers that were not tracked in  DOL’s internal property-management system. According to DOL  officials, property under a certain dollar threshold is not tracked  internally, a practice that might account for the discrepancies.  However, we identified several items that were obtained by Job Corps  centers that were over the dollar threshold set by DOL. For example,  one Job Corps center we visited obtained two walk-through metal  detectors that exceeded the dollar threshold but are missing from  DOL’s Job Corps Program data.

Offices within our selected agencies also did not fully carry out their  oversight responsibilities. According to federal standards for internal  control, management should evaluate performance and hold individuals  accountable for their internal control responsibilities as well as internally  communicate the necessary quality information to achieve the entity’s  objectives. Specifically, effective oversight and communication with key  stakeholders are essential in ensuring that management is held  accountable for carrying out their internal control responsibilities and  meeting agency objectives. However, we found that the selected  agencies did not take steps, such as communicating information, to  ensure that the non-federal recipient programs were carried out in  accordance with the agency’s property management regulations or  program requirements, for various reasons:

At USDA, Office of Property and Fleet Management officials  acknowledged they have not consistently provided oversight of  personal property across USDA because it was not considered a  priority within the agency to do so. For example, until USDA  established an inventory-compliance metric, sub-agencies did not  regularly conduct required property inventories, and Office of Property  and Fleet Management officials lacked the ability to require them to do  so. As another example, officials said they requested that an office  within USDA reconcile its non-federal recipient reporting data and  make changes to the report to be provided to GSA. However, the  office did not respond to their request, and the Office of Property and  Fleet Management did not have the ability to enforce any corrective  actions not taken. These experiences signaled to the Office of  Property and Fleet Management that this area was not an agency  priority and limited the ability to conduct oversight. However, USDA’s  Office of Property and Fleet Management officials conceded that more  consistent and robust agency-wide oversight of property provided to  non-federal recipients would provide them with a better understanding  of the effectiveness of their property-management controls.

At DOE, communication problems have interfered with oversight. The  Office of Asset Management is responsible for communicating  information and providing guidance on the agency’s property  management regulations to ensure that program offices are carrying  out their property programs in accordance with those regulations.  However, according to Office of Science officials, they were unaware  that the Laboratory Equipment Donation Program was included in  DOE’s property management regulations, though they had seen  manuals about the program referenced in other DOE guidance.

In addition, according to Office of Science officials, in the absence of  information about the Economic Development Program in DOE  regulations, they were using DOE guidance that reflected DOE policy  to provide property to non-federal recipients. However, the guidance  used by Office of Science was discontinued in 2011 and, as  mentioned above, is currently under review, according to Office of  Asset Management officials. Office of Asset Management officials  stated that not having official guidance that can be communicated to  the sites about the use of this program is problematic and said they  recognized the need for improved guidance and communication  between the offices going forward.

In addition to these issues, we have reported in the past that managing  property in general has been a low priority for federal agencies.  Consistent with this report, officials from our three selected agencies  stated that it was not always cost-effective to prioritize the monitoring and  oversight of property programs for various reasons. Some also reported  that, given limited resources, they prioritized high-risk or high-dollar value  property that was still in the federal government’s possession rather than  low-risk or low-dollar valued property within or divested from federal  agency possession. We recognize that higher value property still being  used may require more robust monitoring. However, as described above,  there are good reasons to pay attention to whether the property provided  to non-federal recipients, such as schools and state foresters, is being  used according to regulations and guidance—not the least of which, it  collectively represents millions of dollars in federal resources. As we  described above, our three selected agencies alone provided about $76  million in property to non-federal recipients in fiscal year 2017.

Furthermore, agencies may consider the property low value, because  they are no longer using it, but if that property, for example an old fire  truck, keeps a federal or non-federal entity from purchasing expensive  new parts, then it is not as clear that the value of the property is actually  low. Finally, no matter the value of the property, agencies without  effective oversight of the authorities and programs they are responsible  for cannot be assured that they are adhering to federal regulations and  meeting program requirements, including whether property is being used  as intended or to its fullest extent.

Benefits of Property Were Reported by Agencies and Non- Federal Recipients but Effect on Government Is Unclear due to Lack of Reliable Data

Programs Reportedly Benefit Selected Agencies and Non-Federal Recipients but May Reduce Others Agencies’ Access to Property

Officials’ at the three agencies we reviewed told us that providing  unneeded or excess property to non-federal recipients was cost-effective  for them or the federal government. For example, DOE officials reported  that being able to dispose of property during internal screening helped  them dispose of property more quickly than they would be able to do  through GSAXcess and also reduced warehousing costs. USDA officials  told us that being able to provide property to non-federal recipients  potentially saves USDA on warehouse costs, but there are also likely  additional savings since many of their non-federal recipients also obtain  excess property from other federal agencies. DOL officials told us they  save on contracting costs, as the Job Corps centers are able to obtain  federal property for free, versus having to purchase similar property,  whose costs could be built into contracts with federal agencies and paid  for with federal funds.

Officials at our selected agencies told us that distributing unneeded and  excess property to non-federal recipients also enhances their mission.  For example, a USDA official told us a goal of the Federal Excess  Property Program under NIFA—as managed by the Agricultural Research  Service—was to provide property to non-federal recipients to establish  relationships between USDA and state agricultural schools and programs.  The official told us there is also increased value to USDA from the  partnerships in the program, including an increase in agricultural  experimental work and cooperative educational programs that assist  USDA. DOE Office of Science officials told us that providing the scientific  equipment through the Laboratory Equipment Donation Program  encourages colleges and universities to develop energy-related  programs. In addition, officials told us the program encourages future  scientists to potentially work for DOE in the future. DOL officials told us  that providing property to Job Corps center contractors helps DOL  provide job training for at-risk youth.

All 17 non-federal recipients we spoke with told us that federal property  received from the selected agencies was beneficial for their program or  department as well. For example, one DOE Laboratory Equipment  Donation Program recipient told us that the equipment received was used  to furnish a teaching laboratory, which the recipient would not have  otherwise been able to purchase due to a limited budget. A state forester  told us that property received from the Forest Service’s Federal Excess  Property Program (such as fire trucks, gloves, and electronics) has had a  real positive effect on rural fire departments because they would  otherwise have been unable to purchase these items due to limited  budgets. Officials from a DOL Job Corps center told us that the property  they obtained as excess from GSAXcess is a lifeline for their operations,  as they were able to obtain a lot of dorm and kitchen equipment to assist  with their operations. See figure 3 below for examples of equipment  obtained by non-federal recipients.

While the selected agencies and non-federal recipients report benefits,  the agency-specific disposal programs and agreements used at our  selected agencies and other agencies may not benefit all federal  agencies or even non-federal recipients. As we describe in more detail  later in this report, GSA does not have reliable data on the scope of  property provided to non-federal recipients across the federal  government. However, based on our discussions with GSA officials and  other stakeholders, as well as our review of 2003 property utilization and  donation study, when agencies use their independent authority, in some  instances, other stakeholders may not be eligible to acquire the  property.

First, non-federal recipients can obtain property at multiple points in the  disposal process, a factor that could mean potential recipients get several  chances to obtain property. For example, when agencies, such as USDA  and DOE, provide unneeded property to non-federal recipients, the  property does not enter GSAXcess. Additionally, other federal agencies  and State Agencies for Surplus Property may not be eligible recipients to  obtain unneeded property. According to the GSA property utilization and  donation study, the increase in laws providing agencies with independent  authority to give property to non-federal recipients has reduced the  remaining pool of assets that would have otherwise entered the  government-wide property disposal cycle. Additionally, when property  does enter GSAXcess, an agency may obtain the property and provide it  to a non-federal recipient. While GSA officials said they prioritize giving  the property to the federal agency that plans to use it for its own needs  over a federal agency that plans to provide it to a non-federal recipient,  GSA officials said they are not always aware of how federal agencies  plan to use the property. In this respect, a federal agency may acquire the  excess property for use by a non-federal recipient instead of a federal  agency acquiring the property for its own use. GSA officials also told us  that they did not have data on the amount of property that is provided to  non-federal recipients at the various points of the disposal process. Thus,  it is unknown how often non-federal recipients obtain excess property  from a federal agency, and whether or how often other recipients that  may want excess and surplus property are missing out on property.  Figure 4 illustrates the reduction in property that can occur when non- federal recipients obtain property at various points in the disposal cycle.

Second, because of the decentralized nature of disposal, some non- federal recipients could benefit more than others. For example, a rural fire  department eligible to receive property under the USDA Forest Service’s  Federal Excess Property Program could potentially obtain property: (1)  during USDA internal screening, (2) from USDA as excess, or (3) through  their State Agency for Surplus Property once the property is deemed  surplus to federal government. Officials from four out of five State  Agencies for Surplus Property told us that they have some recipients that  are eligible to receive property through multiple points in the disposal  process. In contrast, other non-federal entities, such as non-profit  groups, may only be able to obtain property through their State Agency  for Surplus Property because they are not eligible to receive property  under a federal agency-specific program. As a result, these non-federal  entities may have less property available to them and would have to pay  a fee to the State Agency for Surplus Property to obtain the property. In  addition, DOE and USDA officials said they do not advertise their agency- specific property programs, so a smaller pool of eligible recipients may be  competing for and benefiting from the property over those that are  unaware of those programs. For example, one Laboratory Equipment  Donation Program recipient told us he became aware of the program  through a previous mentor and would have not otherwise known about  the program because it is not advertised.

Government-Wide Data on How Federal Agencies Provided Property to Non- Federal Recipients Were Unreliable for Reporting Purposes

GSA’s reporting tool and accompanying bulletin are unclear, a lack of  clarity that resulted in inconsistent data on the number of non-federal  recipients obtaining property. As the reporting tool and bulletin serve as  the primary means for ensuring consistent information is collected on  non-federal recipients that are provided property, it is important that they  accurately convey the information agencies should report. However, we  found the following three issues made the data unreliable for reporting the  amount of property provided to non-federal recipients through authorities  and agency specific programs.

Wrong Disposal Authority and Program Reported

We found that agencies incorrectly reported the authorities and programs  used to provide excess property to non-federal recipients, making it  difficult to understand how many agencies are providing property to non- federal recipients or what authority they are using to do it. Our analysis of  the non-federal recipient reports found that during fiscal years 2013 to  2017, 16 agencies reported providing property to a non-federal recipient  through various types of authorities, including agency-specific  authorities. However, one of our selected agencies reported using  another agency’s independent authority or program to provide excess  property to a non-federal recipient. Specifically, in fiscal year 2016, we  found five instances where DOL reported using a DOD independent  authority. DOL and GSA officials told us these instances were likely the  result of data entry errors.

We also found that agencies reported information incorrectly under their  own programs. The full extent of such errors in unclear due to the  inconsistency and incompleteness of the data; however, we found clear  examples of reporting errors that agency officials confirmed. As  previously discussed, DOE reported providing $154 million in unneeded  property to non-federal recipients through the Economic Development  Property program, but DOE officials stated that they do not know if the  data were accurate or complete, in part, because the officials were not  aware the Economic Development Program existed and thus were not  conducting any oversight at the time. DOE officials told us that they are  taking steps to clarify when the Economic Development Property program  should be used in reporting, and anticipate that the correct reporting will  take place in fiscal year 2020 once clarification is complete.

These errors occur because GSA’s reporting tool is limited. Specifically,  the tool allows those who are inputting the information to select  authorities and programs that are not specific to their agencies, rather  than limiting options to the drop down menu of selections that actually are  appropriate. GSA Office of Government-wide Policy officials told us that  they provide a definition sheet, and offer training to each agency on how  to enter data, but they are not sure if agencies are using their guidance.  Even if those inputting data did refer to the sheet, GSA officials told us  that since these are agency-specific programs, they are not aware of all  the ways in which agencies are able to provide property to non-federal  recipients and that the reporting tool may not reflect all the current  authorities and programs used. A DOE official told us that the categories  are not mutually exclusive, a situation that is confusing and can lead to  inconsistent reporting even among offices within DOE. Because of this  data input issue, it makes it difficult to understand how many agencies are  providing property to non-federal recipients under these independent  authorities.

Lack of Clarity on Whether to Report Loaned Property

We found that agencies inconsistently reported loaned property provided  to non-federal recipients, resulting in inaccurate government-wide data on  the amount of loaned property. Our analysis of the data found that only  DOE, among all reporting agencies, reported providing loaned property  ($104 million) to non-federal recipients between fiscal year 2013 and  2017 to GSA’s Non-Federal Recipient Report. According to DOE’s  property guidance, all excess property, including loaned property  furnished to non-federal recipients should be reported. Conversely,  USDA and DOL officials told us that they did not believe loaned property  had to be reported, because title or government ownership of that  property remained with the federal government.

It is unclear based on GSA’s guidance and interviews with GSA officials  whether loaned property should be reported by agencies. GSA’s  guidance states that excess property furnished in any manner  whatsoever, including loaned property, should be reported. The reporting  tool seems to support the guidance, as it included loaned property in the  drop-down menu from which agencies could select the mechanism used  to provide property. However, GSA’s guidance does not specify the  circumstances in which loaned property should be reported and how it  may differ from property loaned under an agency-specific program. For  example, we found that USDA reported providing property to non-federal  recipients under its agency-specific Federal Excess Property Programs  when the title or ownership remained with the federal government, but did  not report providing any loaned property outside of its agency-specific  programs. GSA officials stated that there might be confusion among  some agencies about whether excess property loaned to non-federal  recipients needs to be reported when ownership remains with the federal  government. Because only one agency reported loaned property outside  of agency-specific programs, GSA guidance may not clearly specify  whether and how loaned property should be reported.

Property Provided to Non- Federal Recipients Was Underreported

We found inconsistencies in how property obtained by agencies in  GSAXcess on behalf of non-federal recipients was reported, leading to  underreporting of property provided to non-federal recipients. For  example, we found that DOL was not reporting property obtained in  GSAXcess for its Job Corps centers, because it believed that since this  property was obtained from GSAXcess, GSA should be reporting these  transactions. GSA officials told us DOL is responsible for reporting this  information. According to GSA’s bulletin, agencies are required to report  all of their transactions involving excess property provided to non-federal  recipients, but do not need to report items sold, transferred, or donated by  GSA on their behalf as part of the disposal process. Thus, there may be  confusion among agencies on whether property obtained in GSAXcess  should be reported by the agency or GSA. As a result, there could be  undercounting of property provided to non-federal recipients, as neither  DOL nor GSA is reporting the property.

GSA Office of Government-wide Policy officials told us that they realize  data reporting can be improved but do not have concrete plans in place to  do so. For example, GSA officials told us they have identified changes to  the reporting tool to make it more user-friendly and to address some of  the features that lead to reporting errors. GSA officials provided us with  documentation listing some changes they would like to make to the  reporting tool, including incorporating a range of data checks that will  trigger caution or error messages for inappropriate data entries, and to  generate agency system reminders to ensure data are turned in by each  agency. GSA officials told us they made some of these changes to the  fiscal year 2019 reporting tool. These changes represent a potential step  in the right direction. However, GSA has not established a plan with time  frames to implement further changes. Moreover, based on the  documentation provided to us, it is unclear whether the proposed  changes will address some of the limitations we identified including (1)  agencies’ reporting property under another agency’s program in the  reporting tool, (2) whether loaned property should be reported by  agencies, and (3) clarifying what property GSA is reporting on behalf of  agencies. According to federal standards for internal control, it is  important for management to periodically review policies, procedures, and  related control activities for continued relevance and effectiveness in  achieving the entity’s objectives or related risks. As we have shown, each  of these limitations obscure data that would be helpful in understanding  whether and to what extent property provided to non-federal recipients is  done so at a cost to the federal government.

Without addressing the limitations of the reporting tool and bulletin, it is  not clear that the non-federal recipients’ report data will be consistent  moving forward. Moreover, due to limited data, the implications of  providing property to non-federal recipients ahead of other recipients,  such as federal agencies and State Agencies for Surplus Property are  unknown. Without taking action to update the reporting tool and bulletin to  identify issues we found, it is unclear the extent to which GSA will be able  to improve the data collected in the Non-Federal Recipient Report.

By using GSA’s government-wide disposal process as well as  independent agency authorities, agencies have an opportunity to be good  stewards of government property by allowing others to reuse federal  property in lieu of purchasing new property. While there are benefits to  allowing agencies to provide property to non-federal recipients before  others receive it, there are also potential implications. In the past, we  have observed there is a government-wide lack of attention to  management of property other than real property, and we continue to find  that lack in this review. A full assessment of whether these efforts are  achieving the intended effects are impeded due to a lack of oversight,  monitoring, and accurate data about what types and amounts of property  are provided to non-federal recipients. Until USDA, DOE, and DOL direct  their offices to fulfill their oversight responsibilities, there may be an  ongoing lack of accountability for managing such programs. Furthermore,  lack of effective monitoring will continue to undermine any assurances to  agencies and Congress that this property is being used in a timely  manner, as intended, or to its fullest extent. Finally, given the large  amount of property managed and disposed of by the federal government  each year, the lack of reliable data makes it difficult to understand the  overall scope of property provided to non-federal recipients and the  implications for the government-wide disposal process.

We are making seven recommendations: two recommendations to USDA,  two recommendations to DOE, one recommendation to DOL, and two  recommendations to GSA.

The Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Office of Property and Fleet  Management to consistently monitor property provided to non-federal  recipients within 1 year of receipt, and to ensure property is being used  for its intended purpose 1 year after initial monitoring. (Recommendation  1)

The Secretary of Energy should direct the Office of Asset Management to  resume monitoring the Economic Development Property program,  including property provided to non-federal recipients. (Recommendation  2)

The Secretary of Labor should direct the Employment and Training  Administration to take steps, such as reconciling data between Job Corps  centers and the Job Corps National Office, to ensure that the entities  responsible for overseeing and monitoring the Job Corps Program have  accurate data on the excess property provided to non-federal recipients.  (Recommendation 3)

The Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Office of Property and Fleet  Management to establish clear processes to oversee property programs,  including excess property provided to non-federal recipients across the  agency. (Recommendation 4)

The Secretary of Energy should direct the Office of Asset Management to  update its regulations and guidance on programs that provide property to  non-federal recipients to ensure regulations are current and establish a  process to regularly communicate information about non-federal recipient  programs to DOE program offices. (Recommendation 5)

The GSA Administrator should direct the Office of Government-wide  Policy to revise the Personal Property Reporting Tool by updating the  authorities agencies can select. (Recommendation 6)

The GSA Administrator should direct the Office of Government-wide  Policy to document in what circumstances excess property loaned to non- federal recipients should be reported and what property GSA is reporting  on behalf of agencies, for example, by updating GSA guidance.  (Recommendation 7)

We provided a draft of this report to USDA, DOE, DOL, and GSA for  comment. Three agencies provided comments, which are reprinted in  appendixes IV through VI and summarized below. USDA informed us by  email that it had no comments and concurred with the recommendations.  DOE also provided technical comments, which we incorporated, as  appropriate.

In its written comments, DOE agreed with our recommendations and  stated that the Office of Asset Management will update the annual  property reporting requirements for Economic Development Property and  will also update DOE’s internal policies and provide property information  on DOE’s internal informational website.

In its written comments, DOL’s Employment and Training Administration  agreed with our recommendation and stated that it will take steps to  improve the accuracy of data on excess property provided to Job Corps  contractors and has recently taken actions to improve the monitoring and  oversight of Job Corps property. For example, the Employment and  Training Administration stated it is working closely with DOL’s Office of  the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management to develop a  new process for GSAXcess review and will formalize property reporting  requirements, processes, and roles and responsibilities in the next update  to its property management guidance.

In its written comments, GSA agreed with our recommendations and  stated that it already added relevant authorities to the Personal Property  Reporting Tool in July 2019. In addition, GSA stated it will continue to  contact agencies to ensure that all relevant authorities are included in the  reporting tool and will evaluate technical updates to the reporting tool to  ensure that agencies select an appropriate authority when reporting. Also,  GSA stated it will communicate with agencies to clarify any confusion  regarding reporting requirements for loaned property and is committed to  reviewing and updating relevant regulations and guidance, particularly in  terms of reporting property that agencies obtain via GSAXcess.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the GSA Administrator, Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of  Energy, Secretary of Labor, and other interested parties. In addition, the  report is available at no charge on the GAO website at  http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff members have any questions regarding this report,  please contact Lori Rectanus at (202) 512-2834 or rectanusl@gao.gov.  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public  Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to  this report are listed in appendix VII.

Our review focused on how federal agencies provide, manage, and report  on property provided to non-federal recipients. Our objectives were to  examine (1) how selected agencies manage unneeded and excess  property provided to non-federal recipients, and (2) what is known about  the benefits, effects, and reported data of providing property to non- federal recipients. To address both objectives, we reviewed applicable  federal statutes and regulations pertaining to property disposal, including  General Services Administration (GSA) property management  regulations, and agencies’ independent authorities for providing property  to non-federal recipients. We also reviewed GSA bulletins, briefings, and  a 2003 GSA property utilization and donation study to understand the  effects and requirements for providing and reporting property to non- federal recipients.

To assess how selected agencies manage unneeded and excess  property provided to non-federal recipients, we selected three agencies  and reviewed documentation and interviewed officials from the three  agencies—the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the  Department of Energy (DOE), and the Department of Labor (DOL). We  selected these agencies using information from GSA’s government-wide  Non-Federal Recipient Report that provides data on excess property  provided to non-federal recipients by agency, and reports from GSA’s  centralized property database (GSAXcess) on overall property disposed  of and obtained by federal agencies from fiscal year 2013 to 2017. After  reviewing those reports, we selected agencies based on: (1) the amount  of property provided to non-federal recipients in terms of original  acquisition cost, (2) the amount of property obtained through GSAXcess  in terms of original acquisition cost, (3) the number of independent  authorities reported being used by the agency to provide property to a  non-federal recipient, and (4) the amount of property provided to non-  federal recipients through a grant, contract, or cooperative agreement.  We selected these agencies based on these factors because we were  looking for agencies that provided a large amount of property to non- federal recipients through their independent authorities and programs, as  well as an agency that provided less property through the independent  authorities and programs, and more through grants, contracts, or  cooperative agreements.

We reviewed each selected agency’s policies and program guidance  describing disposal processes, including processes for providing  unneeded and excess property to non-federal recipients, and compared  the processes to relevant federal internal control standards on oversight  and monitoring. We interviewed agency property management officials  as well as agency program officials responsible for managing property  provided to non-federal recipients through agency programs, including  DOE’s Laboratory Equipment Donation Program, Economic Development  Property program, and Math and Science Equipment Gift Program and  three USDA Federal Excess Personal Property programs, including the  Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act program, the  Forest Service Federal Excess Property Program, and the National  Institute of Food and Agriculture Federal Excess Property Program to  gain a high-level understanding of the impetus of the agency-specific  disposal programs, and how those programs were managed.

For DOL, officials told us that they currently provided property to non- federal recipients through contracts with DOL Job Corps centers and had  previously provided property through cooperative agreements and  memorandums of understanding with apprenticeship programs, but these  agreements were canceled in 2016. Thus, we interviewed agency officials  knowledgeable about excess property obtained through GSAXcess and  provided through contracts to Job Corps Centers to understand how DOL  provided property to non-federal recipients. More detail on the  independent authorities used by agencies can be found in appendix II and  additional information about excess property DOL previously provided to  apprenticeship programs can be found in appendix III.

To assess what is known about the benefits, effects, and reported data on  providing property to non-federal recipients, we interviewed officials from  State Agencies for Surplus Property in Arizona, California, Georgia,  Illinois, and Texas to obtain their views on the GSA property disposal  process. We selected these states because their State Agency for  Surplus Property was a top 20 recipient of surplus property in terms of  original acquisition value during a given year from fiscal year 2014 to  fiscal year 2017, according to data provided by GSA on surplus property  donation. We also interviewed and obtained documentation from 17 non- federal recipients in those five states to understand how they used  unneeded and excess property provided by the USDA’s Forest Service  Federal Excess Property Program, the DOE’s Laboratory Equipment  Donation Program, and DOL’s Job Corps Program and how monitoring of  federal property occurred. We selected these non-federal recipients  because they obtained property from these three agencies through their  independent authorities or agency programs. Information we obtained  from these non-federal recipients is not generalizable to all non-federal  recipients of excess property. In addition, we interviewed knowledgeable  officials from GSA’s Office of Government-Wide Policy and Office of  Personal Property Management. See table 1 for a list of federal agencies,  non-federal recipients, and other stakeholders interviewed.

We also analyzed and summarized Non-Federal Recipient Report data  from fiscal year 2013 to 2017 to understand the scope of excess property  that agencies provided to non-federal recipients through various  programs and agreements. We used these years because this was the  most current data available to us at the time we started our review. To  assess the reliability of the Non-Federal Recipient Report data, we (1)  performed electronic testing for obvious errors in accuracy and  completeness; (2) reviewed GSA’s agency guidance on reporting  requirements; and (3) interviewed officials at our selected agencies to  discuss identified data errors. We found that information in the database  was not sufficiently reliable for reporting the amount of property provided  to non-federal recipients through independent authorities and programs.  As discussed in the report, we used some of the data to provide  illustrative examples of reporting errors and to develop recommendations  for improving or establishing management controls to help ensure data  quality.

Appendix II: Selected Agencies’ Independent Authorities

Appendix III: Provision of Excess Property through Department of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration

Background on Excess Property Provided to Apprenticeship Programs

For several decades, the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) Employment  and Training Administration (ETA) has provided excess property to  support apprenticeship training programs, according to DOL officials. For  about 15 years, the Office of Apprenticeship within ETA had agreements  with two apprenticeship programs—the International Union of Operating  Engineers (IUOE) and the International Training Institute for the Sheet  Metal Workers and Air Conditioning Industry (ITI) to support the training  of apprentices in the fields of heavy equipment operation and  maintenance and sheet metal fabrication and installation, respectively.  According to the most recent agreements, DOL’s objective was to  increase the number of women and minorities in apprenticeships.  According to IUOE staff, these agreements supported equipment needs  and hands-on training hours at 63 of 64 apprenticeship programs that  provide training for construction-industry jobs, and according to ITI staff,  property was obtained by its 150 training centers.

How Property Has Been Provided for Apprenticeship Program Use

Under GSA regulations, federal agencies, including DOL, can provide  excess property to their grantees, contractors, and cooperatives. DOL  executed cooperative agreements and memorandums of understanding  with IUOE and ITI to provide excess property to support their  apprenticeship training programs. According to DOL officials, the  cooperative agreements and memorandums of understanding served as  the legal instrument that laid out the relationship between ETA and the  apprenticeship programs and the terms and conditions for obtaining  excess property. The most recent memorandums of understanding  between ETA and the apprenticeship programs were signed in August  2015 and were set to expire on December 31, 2020.

IUOE and ITI representatives were provided access to view and request  federal excess property in GSAXcess, the General Services  Administration’s (GSA) government-wide, web-based system for  facilitating the disposal of excess property. As authorized by DOL, IUOE  and ITI representatives could screen property at the same time as other  federal agencies. Once property was requested, the request would be  reviewed and approved by DOL officials, certifying that the property  fulfilled a mission-need for the particular site requesting the property. If  GSA allocated the property to DOL, the federal agency disposing of the  property would transfer the property directly to the training program or  school that requested it; the particular training program or school was  required to pay any associated transportation costs. Once the property  was transferred, the training program or school was responsible for  maintaining the property, which remained under the ownership of DOL,  and IUOE and ITI were responsible for annually inventorying and  certifying the property in their possession. When the property was no  longer needed, it could be transferred to another site that needed the  equipment or was disposed of by DOL’s listing the property in GSAXcess.

Benefits and Challenges for Provision of Property to Apprenticeship Programs

There are no available data on the types or number of property that has  been historically provided for apprenticeship program use. There are,  however, data on what property is currently held by IUOE and ITI.  According to DOL, as of September 2019, IUOE had over 2500 pieces of  construction equipment and vehicles they obtained from GSAXcess  between 1979 and 2017, while ITI had over 2000 pieces of property  acquired from GSAXcess between 1999 and 2013. According to IUOE  and ITI staff, this property was useful to the sites that received it because  it provided training hours to apprentices and lead to cost savings, but  challenges were cited in disposing of property when it was no longer  needed.

Training hours: according to IUOE staff, the equipment they  obtained, while often dated, provided invaluable opportunities for  apprentices to receive training hours on equipment they might not  otherwise obtain. For example, according to IUOE staff, a training  center in Michigan obtained a used crane that could cost $1 million to  purchase new, and uses it at a dedicated area onsite to support  various types of disaster response training activities. According to ITI  staff, the property obtained by their schools included hand saws, drills,  computers, and furniture.

Cost savings: DOL officials and apprenticeship program staff said  that the ability to obtain equipment in this fashion lead to cost savings.  For example, according to IUOE staff, the property that was obtained  through GSAXcess was a key element to fulfilling equipment needs  for their programs, particularly for smaller programs that did not have  as many resources. However, these sites have other options to obtain  equipment, such as from the original equipment manufacturer or on  the market. In addition, according to IUOE staff at the Casa Grande  Training Center in Arizona, equipment obtained by the site was  primarily heavy equipment and rolling stock used to train apprentices  and saved the center money because they did not have to purchase  new equipment. See figure 5 for an example of excess equipment  obtained. ITI staff stated that the property they obtained to support the  training of apprentices in their schools allowed the schools to spend  funds on other program areas, rather than equipment.

Out-of-date equipment: Many IUOE sites continue to use the  equipment they obtained, but it is not all in working condition. For  example, Casa Grande has some equipment that is no longer in  working order and the site does not want to invest money to repair the  equipment, if it can no longer use it. According to ITI staff, they have  not obtained excess property from GSAXcess since 2013 and have  been unable to dispose of property received under prior agreements  with DOL that is no longer needed. For example, staff estimated that  about 90 percent of the equipment they obtained is now obsolete  (over 2,000 items) and they would like to dispose of it. At a school in  Miami, Florida, ITI had to purchase additional storage to store  obsolete property and classrooms were filled with obsolete  computers. ITI schools currently fulfill their equipment needs through  loans from ITI headquarters or through purchasing their own  equipment.

Recent Changes to the Apprenticeship Program and Potential Effects

In 2016, DOL made the determination that it would no longer provide  equipment to apprenticeship programs due to legal and policy concerns,  and according to DOL officials, they dissolved the agreements with IUOE  and ITI in October 2016. In August 2017, DOL sent letters to IUOE and  ITI stating that DOL would no longer continue to furnish excess property  to non-federal entities. In cancelling these agreements, the department  said it no longer wanted to retain ownership of the equipment, nor did it  have a mechanism to allow IUOE and ITI to retain the property.  However, recently DOL has received independent authority to provide  property to the apprenticeship programs. Specifically, in its fiscal year  2018 appropriations, DOL received independent statutory authority to  provide up to $2 million in excess property to apprenticeship programs for  purposes of training apprentices in those programs through grants,  cooperative agreements, contracts, or other arrangements. DOL did not  provide excess property to these programs during fiscal year 2018.

In its fiscal year 2019 appropriations, DOL was again authorized to  provide up to $2 million in excess property. According to DOL officials,  they planned to use the authority to transfer ownership of property  already in IUOE’s and ITI’s possession that the programs would like to  keep in support of its apprenticeship training programs. In April and May  2019, DOL officials sent letters to IUOE and ITI requesting that the  apprenticeship programs take steps to verify property currently in their  possession. In addition, IUOE and ITI were required to identify property  for which they would like to obtain ownership from DOL and provided  instructions for applying the fair market value to this property. In  September 2019, DOL approved the transfer of ownership of 96 items at  a fair market value of about $1.7 million IUOE wished to retain and 75  items with a fair market value of about $216,000 ITI wished to retain, for a  total of $1.9 million in the aggregate. For property that IUOE and ITI did  not want to keep, including obsolete items discussed above, DOL is in the  process of disposing of it using GSAXcess, according to DOL officials.

DOL officials told us that DOL does not plan to transfer any additional  property to apprenticeship training programs in the future because the  authority provided in the fiscal year 2019 appropriations expired at the  end of the fiscal year.

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Energy

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Labor

Appendix VI: Comments from the General Services Administration

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact above, the following staff made key  contributions in this report: Aisha Cabrer; Lacey Coppage; Nancy Lueke  (Assistant Director); Joshua Ormond; Nitin Rao (Analyst-in-Charge); Amy  Rosewarne; Kelly Rubin; Atiya Siddiqi; and Crystal Wesco.

Federal agencies said they had about $1.7 trillion in property (e.g., vehicles, lab equipment, and computers) in FY18. GSA’s process for disposing of unwanted property offers it to federal agencies first, but some agencies are allowed to give the property directly to non-federal recipients—such as universities.

The Departments of Agriculture, Energy, and Labor didn’t always know how non-federal recipients used the property, and GSA had unreliable data on the amounts of property disposed of this way.

Our recommendations are to improve data on non-federal recipients and to help agencies ensure that federal property is being used as intended.