Defense Real Property: DOD Needs to Take Additional Actions to Improve Management of Its Inventory Data

DOD manages a portfolio of real property assets that as of fiscal year 2016 reportedly included about 568,000 facilities with a combined plant replacement value of about $1 trillion and 27.2 million acres of land. DOD requires the military services and Washington Headquarters Services to collect and maintain information about each of the assets in their inventories to assist the department with management decision making.

In May 2017, the House Armed Services Committee, Subcommittee on Readiness, asked GAO to review DOD's management and use of its real property data. This report evaluates (1) how accurately and completely RPAD reflects DOD's real property assets, (2) DOD's processes to ensure accuracy and completeness in recording and reporting real property data, and (3) DOD's actions to ensure it has addressed risks that may affect the use of real property information for managing its assets. GAO analyzed the RPAD and military services' data for fiscal years 2014-2016; reviewed documentation; conducted site visits; and interviewed DOD officials.

GAO found that the Department of Defense's (DOD) Real Property Assets Database (RPAD) contained inaccurate data and lacked completeness, although certain data that GAO reviewed had improved their accuracy since fiscal year 2014. RPAD is a department-wide database of real property data annually compiled by the Office of the Secretary of Defense from the inventories of the military services and DOD's Washington Headquarters Services, which manages real property in the National Capital region. DOD uses RPAD to report on DOD's real property to Congress and other federal agencies, such as the Office of Management and Budget and the General Services Administration to assist in managing federal real property.

DOD has weaknesses in its processes for recording and reporting real property data that have led to inaccurate and incomplete information. GAO and others found military services have not consistently recorded real property transactions (i.e., acquisition of, change to, and disposal of a real property asset) and physical inventories of assets. GAO also found that the military services have not corrected identified discrepancies in their data systems, such as missing entries for utilization and facility condition and overdue asset reviews. GAO reviewed records of 120 facilities with identified discrepancies in fiscal year 2015 RPAD data and compared them to the records in the respective data system in 2017 and found that 61 discrepancies remained. The military services had corrected the data in the remaining 59 reviewed facilities in their data systems. DOD's efforts to prepare for an upcoming financial audit have helped identify issues and improve accuracy of some data. However, if DOD does not require the military services to fully monitor recording processes and implement corrective actions to resolve data discrepancies, the department will continue to have incomplete and inaccurate real property data and unreliable RPAD information.

DOD has not addressed three risks that can adversely affect its ability to use its information to manage its real property. Specifically, DOD (1) has unfilled real property positions limiting its capacity to manage its data, (2) lacks a department-wide approach to improving its data quality, and (3) has not identified how it will complete implementation of an effort to improve access to data. These risks exist, in part, because DOD has not developed a strategy that identifies and addresses risks with accompanying time frames and performance metrics. If DOD does not develop a strategy that identifies and addresses risks to data quality and information accessibility, DOD may miss the opportunity to reasonably ensure that the information needed for effective decision making by DOD, Congress, and other federal agencies is available to meet real property accountability and reporting objectives.

GAO is making six recommendations to improve DOD's real property data, including fully monitoring recording processes; developing and implementing corrective actions for identified data discrepancies; and developing a strategy to address risks associated with data quality and information accessibility. DOD concurred or partially concurred with all draft recommendations. In response, GAO agreed to combine two recommendations.

The Department of Defense (DOD) manages a portfolio of real property  assets that reportedly included about 568,000 facilities with a combined  plant replacement value of about $1 trillion and nearly 27.2 million acres  of land in fiscal year 2016. In January 2018, the Under Secretary of  Defense (Comptroller) testified that reform efforts within DOD, such as  those occurring in real property management, were dependent upon  accurate data and that not having accurate data complicates those  efforts. Each of the military services and DOD’s Washington  Headquarters Services (WHS) maintains its own data systems that  include information about each of the real property assets. The information collected and maintained in these systems includes whether  an asset is owned or leased, its size, and for certain types, the asset’s  value, percentage of space utilized, and condition, among other  characteristics.

DOD annually compiles this information into a consolidated database,  called the Real Property Assets Database (RPAD), which represents the  data at the end of the fiscal year. DOD uses RPAD to report to the  General Services Administration’s Federal Real Property Profile  Management System, which is a database of real property under the  custody and control of executive branch agencies. The military services  and WHS are to collect and maintain information on each of their real  property assets to report in annual financial statements. Furthermore, the  military services and WHS must manage their portfolios of real property  assets in part to identify their needs for sustainment, restoration, and  modernization of their facilities.

For more than 20 years, we have identified opportunities for DOD to  improve the quality of the information that it collects on its real property to  better inform decision making about these assets. For example, in 1997,  we added DOD’s defense support infrastructure to our list of high-risk  areas in the federal government—due in part to long standing challenges  it faces in managing its infrastructure—to include the need to improve the  quality of its information in its inventory data systems. In our most recent  High Risk Update in February 2017, we reported that DOD had shown  some improvement in the accuracy and completeness of real property  data, but needed to fully implement its planned actions to help the  department assess its goals and efforts, among other things. Further, we  identified the collection of reliable real property data to support decision  making as a long-standing challenge that federal agencies, including  DOD, continue to face.

Further, our prior work on DOD’s real property information on RPAD  reported accuracy and completeness issues with the data compiled from  the military services’ data systems. DOD has begun to implement actions  in response to our recommendations but has not fully completed the  corrective actions. For example, in June 2016 we reported that the  military services had not yet fully implemented a department-wide  process to standardize facility condition assessments and rates. The  Navy and the Air Force have since adopted a standardized process, and  Army installation management officials stated they sought funding  through 2021 to implement the standardized process at all Army  installations. In addition, in September 2011, we reported that DOD’s  RPAD for fiscal year 2010 reported data on the percentage of space  utilized for fewer than half of DOD’s total inventory of facilities, and that  much of the data were outdated and did not reflect the true usage of the  structures. Since then, DOD provided guidance for measuring,  maintaining, and reporting utilization consistently throughout DOD, as we  recommended. As the guidance is implemented, DOD will fully address  our recommendation and officials expect improvement in the accuracy  and completeness of utilization data.

In May 2017, the House Armed Services Committee, Subcommittee on  Readiness, requested that we evaluate the progress that the Office of the  Secretary of Defense (OSD) and the military services have made toward  maintaining complete and accurate inventories of their real property  assets and toward using real property inventory data to make sound  decisions regarding defense support infrastructure management. For this  report, we evaluated the extent to which (1) RPAD accurately and  completely reflects DOD’s real property assets; (2) DOD has processes to  help ensure the accuracy and completeness in recording and reporting  real property data; and (3) DOD has addressed the risks that may affect  use of real property information for managing its assets.

For all objectives, we reviewed DOD’s policies, procedures, and other  documents related to real property management and accountability. We  also conducted site visits to 12 installations (3 from each military  service). We selected the non-generalizable sample of installations  based on criteria that considered (1) four U.S. geographic regions, (2)  geographic distance between each installation, and (3) variation in the  range of tests of the fiscal year 2015 RPAD data in a number of data  elements for entries that did not comply with DOD’s requirements for  inventory information. In this report, we use discrepancies to refer to data  entries that do not comply with DOD’s requirements for inventory  information as well as entries in two or more data sets that should match  but do not. During these visits, we interviewed real property officials at  each location and obtained documentary and testimonial evidence related  to differences in existing and inventoried real property and processes to  ensure accuracy and completeness in real property data. We also  observed and collected data on specific facilities to compare to  information recorded in the data system of the military services and  RPAD. We selected a non-generalizable sample of 120 facilities (10 at  each site) for current record review in the military services’ data systems.  The selections were based on variation of discrepancies among five data  elements within RPAD and variation in facility type (building, structure,  and linear structure). We also observed some of these facilities to  compare to the information that was recorded in the data systems. These data only represent the facilities selected and are not representative of all  facilities at all installations. We also interviewed officials from the Office of  the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and  Environment, Washington Headquarters Services, the Air Force, the  Army, the Navy, and the Marine Corps.

For objective one, we obtained end-of-year data sets of real property  information from three sources: (1) OSD’s compiled RPAD, (2)  submissions to OSD from the military services and WHS, and (3) military  services’ inventories, which we refer to as the three types of data sets.  We obtained the most recently available full year data for 3 years—fiscal  years 2014 through 2016. We used RPAD data to conduct tests related  to accuracy among five data elements for facilities for fiscal years 2014  through 2016 to identify the extent to which entries comply with DOD’s  inventory requirements, such as entries that were missing, out of range,  or overdue, and compared each year’s results to identify changes in the  magnitude of those discrepancies. We selected these five data  elements because they are among the most frequently used by decision  makers. These tests of compliance with the inventory requirements  identify a number of discrepancies that may exist in the five data  elements. Because our tests were limited to five data elements, our  results are not generalizable. Additional testing would be necessary to  determine the full extent that discrepancies and other inaccuracies exist  in all of the data elements.

Next, we assessed documentary evidence and obtained testimonial  statements about completeness issues with RPAD and we compared the  number of facilities and their reported total plant replacement value in  each of the three data sets for fiscal years 2014 through 2016 to describe  any differences between the data sets that should have been identical.

We assessed the reliability of the data from the three types of data sets  through interviews, review of related documentation, and data testing,  and found those data sufficiently reliable to describe issues related to the  accuracy and completeness of the RPAD.

For objective two, we reviewed relevant DOD documents and conducted  interviews with officials at OSD, WHS, and the military services to obtain  information and identify any challenges that DOD had identified with the  processes. We also obtained documentary evidence related to inventory  testing, data monitoring through testing, and reporting of real property  since fiscal year 2014. We compared this testimonial and documentary  evidence to DOD and military services’ policies and procedures and  federal internal control standards.

For our third objective, we evaluated actions taken by DOD to enhance  how it uses real property data since fiscal year 2014 and to identify any  risks that may affect how DOD can use this information. We reviewed  documentation including OSD and military service actions to improve data  quality, workforce plans for real property, and data requests from various  users across the department. This included reviewing documents related  to OSD’s planned expansion of a business information platform to include  required real property inventory information. Additionally, we conducted  interviews with officials from OSD to determine what actions they have  taken to enhance how they use department-wide information on real  property and risks to the department’s ability to use real property data.  We interviewed military service officials at installation management  offices and real property offices during our site visits at 12 installations to  identify specific actions they have taken to help ensure they can use real  property information and any risks related to using that information. We  assessed the information collected in documentation and interviews  against guidance on risk management from DOD and the Office of  Management and Budget.

We conducted this performance audit from May 2017 to November 2018  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.

Roles and Responsibilities for DOD Real Property

The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment has  overall responsibility and oversight for DOD’s real property and provides  overarching guidance and procedures for real property management.  The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and  Environment, assists with developing policy and guidance for real  property inventory and serves as the focal point for all matters related to  the inventory of real property assets. The military services and WHS are  responsible for implementing policies, programs, and procedures in  accordance with OSD’s guidance to maintain an accurate and complete  real property inventory. They are also responsible for ensuring that real  property requirements are being met when other DOD components, such  as defense agencies and DOD field activities, utilize real property under  their jurisdiction. The defense agencies and DOD field activities are  responsible for confirming that all real property assets that they occupy,  operate, or maintain are contained within the real property inventory and  for reconciling any real property data, when needed, with their supporting  military service or WHS.

Real property inventory data are used at the installation, military service,  and OSD levels for the recording, planning, managing, and reporting of  DOD real property assets, as shown in figure 1.

Installation level. Real property officials are to record transactions to  document new acquisitions, changes to existing facilities, and disposals  and to collect information—including physical characteristics, space  usage, and facility condition—on the real property at each installation.  Officials are to enter this information into corresponding military service or  WHS real property data systems. Installation officials stated they use  real property information for a variety of purposes such as prioritizing  facilities for sustainment and restoration projects, preparing installation  master plans, and conducting fire and safety planning.

Service level. Military service headquarters and WHS use inventory  information to oversee and manage their real property needs across their  installations. For example, according to officials, these data inform how  they use property to support their missions and to budget for required  sustainment, restoration, or construction of real property. In addition, this  information is used to account for real property asset holdings that are  included in financial statements prepared to meet federal financial  reporting requirements.

OSD level. OSD requires that the military services and WHS submit their  real property inventories to be compiled into a department-wide data  set—RPAD. The OSD focal point is responsible for providing  information from the RPAD to assist various OSD offices with  responsibilities for budget and mission planning. For example, the  information is used in budgeting for sustainment of facilities. Additionally,  OSD offices use the information in mission planning for certain DOD  components—defense agencies, DOD field activities, and U.S. Special  Operations Command—and for certain types of facilities, including  sustainable buildings, historic property, and ranges. Moreover, OSD uses  this information to meet reporting requirements outside of DOD. These  include reports to Congress on the utilization of DOD’s facilities. All  executive branch federal agencies are required to annually submit real  property data to the General Services Administration to compile into the  Federal Real Property Profile. DOD also reports information to the Office  of Management and Budget on disposals and square footage of certain  types of purposes to meet report requirements for the National Strategy  for the Efficient Use of Real Property.

OSD provides annual guidance that gives specific requirements for  content and format for the military services’ RPAD submissions, including  data elements and any associated business rules. For fiscal year 2016,  OSD required 216 data elements to be maintained in RPAD and provided  a data dictionary, called the Real Property Information Model, which  defines these elements. OSD also has a process to verify and validate  the data the military services and WHS submitted annually to the RPAD  that includes OSD using a verification and validation tool to determine  whether each data element has an entry that is in the correct format and  complies with established business rules. When data anomalies are  discovered with the data, OSD provides the data back to the submitting  organization for review and correction as necessary. The military services  and WHS certify annually that the real property information submitted to  OSD accurately reflects each of their inventories.

Some key real property data elements are significant for planning and  reporting on real property assets:

Operational status. A code used to identify the current operational  status of the real property asset, such as whether the site location of  the asset is active, the existence of the asset, and the usage of the  asset.

Asset review. A date used to document any type of review of an  asset. DOD requires that each facility be physically inventoried on a  cycle—every 5 years for non-historic facilities and every 3 years for  historic facilities.

Plant replacement value. A calculation of the cost to replace the  current physical plant (facilities and supporting infrastructure) using  today’s construction costs (labor and materials) and standards  (methodologies and codes).

Utilization rate. A percentage (on a scale 0 to 150) used to represent  the extent to which a real property asset is used by the primary user  for the current program based on its design purpose. DOD has not  established cutoff points to determine unutilized, underutilized, and  utilized real property. However, according to OSD officials, DOD  considers a utilization rate of 101 to 150 as over utilized, meaning an  asset’s available space is not sufficient to meet the primary user’s  space requirement.

Facility condition. A measure of a facility’s physical condition that is  expressed as a percentage (on a scale of 0 to 100). Factors used to  calculate the facility condition include the facility’s estimated deferred  maintenance and repair costs and the facility’s plant replacement  value. DOD guidance states a condition of 0 to 59 is failing; 60 to 79 is  poor; 80 to 89 is fair; and 90 to 100 is good.

Figure 2 displays these real property data elements.

DOD has undertaken several financial management improvement  initiatives over the years to address deficiencies in business systems,  processes, and controls through its Financial Improvement and Audit  Readiness (FIAR) Plan. The FIAR Plan guidance includes 40 of the  data elements required to be reported to OSD and maintained in RPAD  within the scope of the effort. As part of the department’s FIAR effort,  each of the military services developed individual plans to prepare their  management processes, such as their accountability systems and  procedures for real property, which would be tested during financial audit.  The military services’ real property efforts to prepare for financial audit  have included developing manuals, monitoring activities such as testing  of the implementation of real property procedures, and implementation of  corrective actions to address identified deficiencies in the processes and  procedures.

DOD’s Real Property Asset Database Contained Inaccurate Data and Lacked Completeness, Although Certain Data We Reviewed Improved

DOD’s RPAD has data quality issues specific to accuracy of certain data  elements and completeness of the dataset, although certain data we  reviewed improved since fiscal year 2014. Accuracy of data elements and  completeness of RPAD are important to OSD, other federal agencies,  and Congress because they use this information to determine facility  sustainment funding and to understand DOD’s utilization of its real  property as a means to identify potential excess property for disposal,  among other things.

Accuracy of Certain Data in RPAD Improved but Other Data Did Not Comply with Information Requirements

We found that accuracy of certain data in the selected set of key data  elements we reviewed improved while other data contained discrepancies  that resulted in inaccuracies in RPAD for fiscal years 2014 through 2016.  For some data we reviewed, the magnitude of such discrepancies  decreased while others increased from fiscal year 2014 to fiscal year  2016. Specifically, we found:

Operational status. For operational status codes that are not an  active status, such as an asset that was determined to be excess or  surplus, or disposed, OSD’s business rules require a corresponding  date that documents when the status was determined or when a  disposal was completed. If the corresponding date is not provided,  then the operational status cannot be verified as correct. Our analysis  of operational status from fiscal year 2014 through fiscal year 2016  found improvements in data on surplus and disposed facilities. The  percentage of surplus and disposed facilities without a valid date  improved from 37.5 percent to 0 percent and 3.3 percent to 0.3  percent, respectively. However, the percentage of excess facilities  without a valid date increased from 22.7 percent to 47.9 percent.

Asset review date. All facilities are required to have a date that  documents a physical inventory; these reviews are to be conducted at  least every 5 years, unless a historic asset. The percentage of  facilities with a review date older than 5 years improved from 34.1  percent in fiscal year 2014 to 22.1 percent in fiscal year 2016. RPAD  in fiscal year 2016 indicated that 143,420 facilities had a physical  inventory date that was older than 5 years, which suggests that the  information for these facilities may not be accurate because the  information has not been updated within the required time frame.  According to real property installation officials, overdue dates can  occur because the physical inventory was either not conducted or the  information from the physical inventory was not entered into the  military services’ data systems. The percentage of facilities with a  missing review date increased from 3.4 percent in fiscal year 2014 to  7.2 percent in fiscal year 2016.

Plant replacement value. All facilities are required to have a plant  replacement value not less than zero, meaning it cannot be a negative  number. For all 3 fiscal years, none of the facilities had a negative  plant replacement value and missing entries were an insignificant  number. The business rules allow for values of zero though these  entries may potentially create problems for other data elements that  use plant replacement value as part of their calculation. For example,  plant replacement value is a denominator in the formula used to  calculate facility condition index. If a plant replacement value is zero,  the facility condition index cannot be determined. The percentage of  facilities with a plant replacement value of zero declined from 3.4  percent in fiscal year 2014 to 2.3 percent in fiscal year 2016.

Utilization rate. All facilities are required to have a utilization rate  from 0 to 150. The percentage of facilities missing a utilization rate  improved from 23.3 percent in fiscal year 2014 to 2.4 percent in fiscal  year 2015 before increasing to 14.4 percent in fiscal year 2016. As  such, in fiscal year 2016, about 93,600 facilities did not have an  indication of the utilization and this information was not available to  users of RPAD.

Facility condition index. All facilities are required to have a facility  condition from 0 to 100. The percentage of facilities that had missing  facility condition entries increased from 0.5 percent in fiscal year 2014  to 5.6 percent in fiscal year 2016.

Figure 3 displays our analysis of discrepancies between the information  requirements and data entries in RPAD.

RPAD Was Incomplete as It Did Not Include All of DOD’s Existing Real Property Assets

RPAD did not include all of DOD’s existing real property assets in fiscal  years 2014 through 2016, resulting in an incomplete data set.  Specifically, we found (1) the military services have not recorded all  assets that existed and reflected previously disposed facilities that no  longer existed as active in their respective data systems, (2) the military  services did not report all assets in the RPAD submission to OSD that  were recorded in each military service’s data system, and (3) OSD did not  include all assets reported by the military services in RPAD, as shown in  figure 4.

We and others found instances of facilities that existed that the military  services did not record in their data systems and of disposed facilities that  no longer existed but were still reflected as active in RPAD. During our 12  site visits, officials at two installations stated that there were real property  assets on their installations that were not recorded in their real property  data system at the time of our visit. For example, real property officials at  an Army installation identified over 2,000 existing assets—primarily linear  structures—that were not in the inventory. Real property officials at a  Marine Corps installation acknowledged that they were aware of assets  that were not recorded in the data system but did not know the quantity of  these. The officials stated they were in the process of reconciling the real  property inventory with the assets in existence on the installation. In May  2018, Marine Corps Headquarters officials stated they plan to send real  property officials to this location from other installations to assist with  entering identified assets into the inventory. With the additional support,  the officials expect the reconciliation to be completed in fiscal year 2019,  3 years earlier than initially planned.

Moreover, in our review of 120 facilities during site visits, we found that 6  of the facilities had been disposed of but were recorded as active in the  fiscal year 2015 RPAD data of the Air Force and Army. For example, all  four of the Army’s disposals occurred previous to fiscal year 2015 but  were not entered into the data system until fiscal year 2016. The changes  were made and reflected in the inventory submission for fiscal year 2016.  Also, one of the Air Force’s assets, fencing, had been disposed of years  ago with the housing project that it enclosed, but was not included in the  original disposal documentation. The real property installation officials  had identified this omission when reviewing the list of assets that we  selected for our review and began documenting the disposal prior to our  site visit.

DOD reported in its 2017 Agency Financial Report that material  weaknesses in its internal controls over real property resulted in, among  other things, that the department could not substantiate that all existing  assets were recorded in the military services data systems. Similar to  our site visit results, the Navy Office of Financial Operations also reported  in June 2017 that 15 of 650 real property assets tested from a non- generalizable sample were reported to have been disposed of, but were  not recorded as disposed of or removed from the Navy’s data system.

Additionally, we found RPAD did not include some facilities that were in  the military services’ data systems. The number and total plant  replacement value across these three data sets should be identical, but  were not in each of the 3 years that we reviewed. This means information  on the excluded real property was not available to users of RPAD or to  the Federal Real Property Profile. Specifically,

The military services did not report all facilities in their data  systems to OSD for inclusion into RPAD. Our analysis found the  Army, Navy, and Marine Corps did not report to OSD between  approximately 40,900 facilities (6.1 percent) and 103,600 facilities  (15.9 percent) of the facilities included in their data systems in fiscal  years 2014 through 2016. If all of these facilities still existed during  those years, these unreported facilities had a total plant replacement  value that ranged from $12.8 billion to $56.5 billion during the 3 fiscal  years. We could not include the Air Force in this analysis because it  was not able to provide its end-of-year real property inventory for  fiscal years 2014 through 2016. Air Force officials stated that their  contractor did not archive copies of the end-of-year real property  inventory for these years but would begin to do so for fiscal year 2017.

OSD did not include all facilities reported by the military services  and WHS in RPAD. Additionally, our analysis showed that the  number of facilities OSD did not include in RPAD ranged from about  3,300 facilities (0.5 percent) to 19,400 facilities (2.6 percent) of the  facilities reported by the military services and WHS in fiscal years  2014 through 2016. If all of these facilities still existed during those  years, the total plant replacement value of the unreported facilities  ranged from $3.4 billion to $21.6 billion.

OSD and military service officials agreed that accuracy and completeness  issues with real property have been a long standing issue, but stated  recent audit efforts associated with FIAR should result in some  improvements of the data. For example, military service installations  officials stated that they are working to reconcile differences between  existing real property and information in their data systems to include  adding existing assets that are not in the data system and correcting  information on disposed assets. Moreover, military service officials stated  that they have emphasized conducting timely physical inventories and  require installations to report on the currency of their physical inventories.  According to officials, when reporting real property to OSD and when  OSD consolidates this information into RPAD, assets with significant  errors in their records are excluded to improve the accuracy of the  information in the data set. The officials explained as the accuracy of the  data improves through physical inventories, fewer assets will be excluded  in the reporting process, which will improve completeness of RPAD.

However, as we describe further in this report, the audit efforts will not  correct all identified accuracy and completeness issues.

Deficiencies Exist in DOD’s Processes for Recording and Reporting Real Property Data

DOD’s processes for recording and reporting real property data have  deficiencies that contribute to inaccuracies and incompleteness in the  RPAD data. Specifically, we identified inconsistencies in the military  services’ recording of real property transactions and physical inventories  of assets. In addition, we found the military services have not corrected  identified discrepancies in their real property data reported to OSD in the  annual RPAD submissions.

DOD Has Processes for Recording and Reporting Real Property Data

According to a DOD instruction, OSD must establish, issue, and maintain  data requirements for DOD’s real property inventory. As such, DOD  requires that the military services maintain an accurate and complete  record of their real property, regardless of the organization using or  funding the real property. The real property accountable officers at each  installation must implement processes to ensure that all real property  transactions are auditable and that information recorded, including  physical inspections, is accurate, complete and retained in accordance  with applicable laws and regulations. OSD also requires that the military  services report their real property data for RPAD following OSD  requirements and that they utilize OSD’s verification and validation tool to  identify discrepancies between data entries and DOD’s real property  information requirements.

OSD and the military services have developed some procedures to  implement these policies. For example, OSD established an annual  reporting process, to include defining the specific content and format for  the submission of information. Moreover, the military services have  developed written procedures that clarify how specific transactions should  be conducted. For example, the Marine Corps has developed detailed  guidance on control processes for appropriately documenting disposed  assets. The Navy has developed procedures for conducting physical  inventories. The Army has defined roles and responsibilities for  accounting for real property, including changes to facility function (i.e.,  category code). Lastly, the Air Force has developed overall policies and  procedures for accounting for real property that defines the roles and  responsibilities of accountable officials.

Military Services Did Not Consistently Record Real Property Data

The processes for recording real property information include  documenting and entering into the data system when transactions— acquisition of, change to, and disposal of a real property asset—or  physical inventories occur. To document a transaction or physical  inventory, real property installation officials are expected to complete the  required supporting records. According to Standards for Internal Control  in the Federal Government, appropriately designed control activities could  include requiring documentation should be completed within a reasonable  time frame after the event occurs. Then, the officials are to promptly  enter the updated information into the real property data system.

DOD also requires a review of each real property asset record, including  a physical inventory of each real property asset every 5 years for non- historic assets or every 3 years for historic assets. Physical inventories  help ensure current and accurate information on assets are reflected in  the military services’ data systems. Furthermore, the Standards for  Internal Control in the Federal Government require agencies to design  control activities to achieve objectives, to monitor activities, and to  remediate identified deficiencies on a timely basis. Such activities could  include appropriately documenting and accurately and timely recording  transactions, and implementing procedures to help ensure that processes  are monitored and evaluated for deficiencies on an ongoing basis,  corrective actions are determined for any identified deficiencies, and these actions are completed and documented to correct deficiencies on a  timely basis.

We and the military services identified that transactions were not being  consistently documented with required supporting records or entered into  the military services’ data systems within reasonable time frames.  Specifically, during our site visits to 12 military services’ installations,  officials at 5 installations stated that they were experiencing delays with  documenting and entering into the data system some transactions.  According to the officials, this occurred due to challenges with obtaining  required information from contractors, heavy workloads, and staff  shortages.

Moreover, the military services found through testing in 2017 that they did  not consistently document transactions with required supporting records  or enter real property transactions into the data system. The military  services conducted these tests as part of their preparation for financial  statement audits to identify deficiencies in the recording of real property  transactions. The military services were then to develop corrective  action plans and remedy any identified deficiencies prior to the  department’s audit of the fiscal year 2018 financial statements.  Specifically,

The Air Force conducted tests in March 2017 and reported that of 271  assets tested, 171 did not have appropriate supporting records. The  Air Force also reported in a separate test of 27 assets that 17 of these  were not timely or accurately recorded.

The Army conducted tests in October 2017 and reported that more  than half of the assets selected did not pass its testing for one or more  of the 9 key data elements associated with plant replacement value.  Lack of adequate supporting records was the most common reason  for test failure.

The Navy conducted tests in October 2017 and identified  documentation issues or key elements that were not timely or  accurately entered into its data system for 11 out of 58 assets  tested.

The Marine Corps conducted tests in July 2017 and identified  documentation issues or key elements that were not timely or  accurately entered into its data system for 20 of 55 assets tested.

We and the military services have identified that real property installation  officials do not consistently document or enter physical inventory  information into the military services’ data systems.

We found during our site visits to 12 military service installations that for  21 facilities out of 106 facilities tested, real property installation officials  had not entered physical inventory information in the military services’  data system within the last 5 years. The 21 facilities we reviewed  included 16 from the Air Force (with 2 reflected as being last inventoried  in January 1934 or October 1992), 4 from the Army, and 1 from the  Marine Corps (which showed as being been last inventoried in November  2003).

The military services also identified similar inconsistencies with recording  physical inventories in testing of their real property assets as part of their  preparation for financial statement audits:

The Air Force conducted tests in March 2017 and reported that  installation officials, for 89 out of 281 assets tested, did not have  complete supporting records or did not timely provide the most recent  physical inventory checklist that reconciled with the Air Force’s data  system.

The Army conducted tests in September 2016 and reported 1 of the 5  installations tested did not have adequate supporting records for asset  changes identified in physical inventories.

The Navy conducted tests in June 2017, and reported 5,918 of the  34,104 assets tested had not had a physical inventory for more than 5  years. Furthermore, in October 2017, the Navy reported that 9 of 41  assets it tested did not have supporting records that the inventory was  performed per DOD requirements for timeliness.

The Marine Corps had an external auditor conduct tests in September  2017 and reported that installation officials could not support the last  physical inventory performed for 83 of 998 assets tested.

The military services did not fully monitor recording processes on an  ongoing basis, including evaluating whether or the extent to which  activities are being carried out and remediating any identified  deficiencies. We found that this occurred in part due to the military  services not being required to conduct ongoing monitoring of the  processes used for recording real property transactions and physical  inventories. According to military service officials, they conduct monitoring  of recording and have begun developing corrective action plans as part of  the recent audit readiness effort that are based on the Financial  Improvement and Audit Readiness Guidance. However, this guidance  aimed principally at improving financial reporting addresses 40 of the 216  data elements required to be maintained in RPAD. DOD has not  determined to what extent the remaining data elements are a priority for  other management purposes beyond financial reporting. Accordingly, the  remaining 176 data elements, or approximately 80 percent, are not  required to be monitored. For example, the recording of RPAD-required  data elements for dates that support an operational status of excess,  surplus, and disposed or document when a facility was built are not  included in current monitoring efforts. The monitoring of the recording of  only about 20 percent of the required data elements in RPAD results in  inaccurate and incomplete data not being systemically evaluated and  corrective actions not being taken to resolve the issues. Unless the  military services are required to monitor on an ongoing basis the  processes used for recording all required real property information, DOD  will continue to have data quality issues related to accuracy and  completeness in the military services’ data systems that will be reflected  in RPAD.

Military Services Have Not Corrected Identified Discrepancies Reported in Their RPAD Submissions

The military services have not corrected identified discrepancies in their  real property data reported to OSD in the annual RPAD submissions.  OSD provided the military services with a verification and validation tool  to identify data that does not comply with information requirements.  Specifically, from fiscal years 2014 through 2016, the military services  used OSD’s verification and validation tool to identify discrepancies and  submitted reports summarizing the results to OSD, but have not corrected  all discrepancies identified by the tool. According to real property  installation officials, they have not been directed by headquarters to  correct discrepancies in their data systems that were identified in their  annual RPAD submission. Our review of 120 assets during the 12  installation site visits confirmed that 61 assets with discrepancies in five  key data elements tested in the fiscal year 2015 RPAD data set continued  to have these discrepancies in 2017.

Based on our analysis, the military services have not corrected identified  discrepancies in part because OSD’s guidance for annual RPAD  reporting does not define which data elements were most significant to  the department’s decision making and should be a priority for correction.  Furthermore, we found that the guidance does not require the military  services to develop and implement corrective action plans to remediate  discrepancies in significant data elements in their data systems that are  identified by OSD’s verification and validation tool. According to OSD and  military service officials, identifying significant data elements could assist  with streamlining and prioritization of efforts to improve data quality. In  addition, OSD officials agreed that requiring the services to develop and  implement corrective action plans would benefit data quality, but stated  there are challenges with the verification and validation tool that would  need to be addressed to leverage its full potential. By OSD not defining  significant data elements and coordinating corrective action plans to  remediate discrepancies, the military services may continue to submit  information with discrepancies from year to year in some data elements  and will miss an opportunity to improve the accuracy of inventory data.

DOD Has Not Addressed Risks to Its Ability to Use Information to Manage Its Real Property

DOD has not addressed three risks—unfilled real property positions to  manage its data, lack of a department-wide approach to improving data  quality, and a limited plan for the implementation of its expanded data  platform—that diminish its ability to use real property information to  manage its real property.

We found that DOD has not addressed how it will overcome unfilled real  property positions throughout the department, which poses a risk to data  quality. For example, real property installation officials at 10 of 12  installations we visited told us that they had unfilled real property  positions, including real property accountable officers, engineers, realty  specialists, planners, and space management analysts. Real property  installation officials told us that their unfilled real property positions  contributed to workload backlogs and prevented them from sufficiently  maintaining their real property data. The Army, Marine Corps, and Navy  completed various workforce plans that found they did not have a  sufficiently sized workforce to adequately maintain their real property  data:

Army: In March 2015, the Army completed a workforce analysis that  found current authorized manning documents are short 223 real  property positions of the total 495 positions required to perform these  functions, which include real property accountable officers and realty  specialists.

Marine Corps: In August 2016, the Marine Corps identified that it had  an immediate need for 20 real property accountable officer positions  to effectively maintain its real property data. According to Marine  Corps officials, they have since filled 19 of the 20 positions.

Navy: For its fiscal year 2018 planning, the Navy identified a need for  63 real property positions—ranging from real property accountable  officers to geospatial specialists—to meet real property requirements.

The Air Force has not identified the workforce it needs to maintain quality  data on its real property, but Air Force officials told us in May 2018, that  they are beginning efforts to better understand their workforce needs.

OSD and military service officials stated that they continually face  challenges due to unfilled real property positions. However, they do not  expect to fill all of their authorized positions because senior leadership  has prioritized staffing at other offices and military service officials stated  that they face challenges in finding qualified applicants for open positions.  Despite the recognized needs, DOD has not outlined how it plans to  overcome challenges related to its unfilled real property positions.  According to an OSD official, OSD cannot direct the military services to fill  their real property positions; however, OSD has not coordinated with the  military services to identify opportunities to overcome unfilled positions.  Potential opportunities may include using available staff more efficiently  or evaluating opportunities to better address how they will manage  unfilled positions.

Lack of a Department-wide Approach to Improving Data Quality

Absent a department-wide approach to improving data at various levels  within DOD, military service headquarters have individually initiated  actions to improve data quality for certain data elements. These efforts  are largely uncoordinated and result in inconsistent approaches to  address similar data quality risks and may contribute to inefficient use of  resources and accuracy issues in the real property data. For example,  military service headquarters officials told us they have taken action to  improve data quality when they do not receive specific guidance from  OSD, including communicating priorities to installations and developing  contracts to improve select data elements. We found instances where the  military services took different actions to improve their information on  utilization rates prior to OSD issuing a memorandum to have a  standardized approach to determine this information. For example, the  Army developed a database to record space authorization information for  each asset. The Marine Corps used a contract to obtain space utilization  information at certain installations. Moreover, a Marine Corps  headquarters official stated in some cases that after Marine Corps  headquarters implemented its own policy and provided guidance to the  installations to fill a gap that OSD issued guidance with a different  approach. The official stated that the Marine Corps had spent financial  resources on a contract to improve a data element that they later had to  categorize in a different way due to OSD guidance. Also, real property  installation officials at a Marine Corps installation stated that their  headquarters had made large-scale changes to the records of their  housing assets due to a new approach to determine specific data  elements for those assets, which resulted in inaccuracies. Officials noted  that headquarters later retracted that approach and restored the records.

In addition, we observed in our review of real property records during the  site visits that real property installation officials did not apply the same  criteria for determining an asset’s operational status for the codes of  disposed, closed, and nonfunctional that resulted in inaccuracies. Navy  regional command officials provided written guidance and a decision  support tool for determining appropriate codes for operational status to  help improve accuracy within this data element. However, according to  real property installation officials, the Air Force and Army did not have  similar guidance. OSD and military service officials agreed that better  coordination among OSD and the military services would assist their  effort to improve data quality.

Limited Plan for Implementation of OSD’s Expanded Data Platform

OSD has not fully identified how it will complete implementation of a new  module for real property within its expanded data platform, known as the  Data Analytics and Integration Support platform, and DOD faces a risk to  information accessibility as it may not fully realize the anticipated benefits  of the effort. OSD currently uses the platform for generating unique  identification numbers for its real property assets and as a dashboard for  tools related to military construction planning. However, OSD has neither  outlined how it will accomplish its stated objectives and goals for  expansion of this platform as OSD’s new data system for real property, nor has it set time frames for the expansion. In September 2017, OSD  modified its contract for updating the Data Analytics and Integration  Support platform, but that contract does not specify when full  implementation of the expansion to include a new module for real  property will occur.

OSD is planning to expand the use of the Data Analytics and Integration  Support platform to make it a near real-time, department-wide information  source of required real property information accessible to a greater  number of users who manage real property. If implemented, this  expanded platform would replace DOD’s annual data call to the military  services for end-of-year real property information to compile into the  RPAD. Further, the expanded platform would interface daily with the  military service data systems. This would provide near real-time  information to users for the department-wide management of DOD’s real  property. According to OSD officials, users could also access real  property information themselves and run their own data analyses when  OSD expands this platform to replace the annual data call to the military  services. Figure 5 displays a comparison of RPAD to the proposed  expansion of the Data Analytics and Integration Support platform.

OSD officials told us that the military services will need to ensure their  data systems can fully interface with the Data Analytics and  Implementation Support platform for full integration to occur. Specifically,  the officials stated that the Army’s data system can fully interface with  OSD’s expanded platform, but the Navy wants to test how its data system  would interface with the platform before it can fully connect. In addition,  officials noted that the Air Force’s current data system is the least  compatible with OSD’s expanded data platform because it is currently  working to design and implement a new data system for real property.  OSD and Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy officials noted that they are  aware the military service data systems are not fully integrated with  OSD’s expanded data platform.

Guidance from DOD and the Office of Management and Budget note that  risk management is integral to effective program management. The  Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states  management should define objectives clearly such as through specific  and measurable terms that allow for the assessment of performance  toward achieving those objectives and that management should identify,  analyze, and respond to risks related to achieving defined objectives.  The office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations,  and Environment is responsible for providing the guidance and  procedures for implementing real property management policy, including  ensuring the information is available to determine if an asset is used  effectively. One way an organization can manage risk is by developing a  risk management strategy that identifies risks to program objectives, and  includes time frames and performance metrics for addressing those risks.

DOD has taken some actions that when fully implemented should result in  some improvements to select data elements and the potential to enhance  information accessibility. However, in part, DOD’s weaknesses with  quality information on real property and accessibility to this information  continue to exist because DOD has not developed a strategy that  identifies and addresses risks, such as those previously described, and  includes time frames and performance metrics. OSD and military service  officials agreed that a strategy for addressing risks would help the  department to further its effort to improve the quality and accessibility of  the information. Developing and implementing such a strategy would allow the department to take key steps toward improving its information  for managing its real property. Without a strategy for improving the quality  of the data and information used to manage its real property, DOD,  Congress, the Office of Management and Budget, and the General  Services Administration will not have information needed for effective  decision making and do not have reasonable assurance that risks to data  quality and information accessibility are being managed appropriately.  Specifically, information would be limited in decision making related to  improving space management at installations, to adequately sustaining  DOD’s real property assets, and to accurately generating financial  statements.

DOD’s efforts to reform its real property management is complicated by  not having quality data on its large inventory of assets—over 568,000  facilities with an estimated combined plant replacement value of about $1  trillion. An accurate and complete inventory of its assets is essential for  DOD to make informed management decisions about its real property.  The department has taken action to improve data quality of some data  elements through financial improvement and audit readiness efforts.  However, deficiencies in the processes for recording and reporting real  property data continue to lead to inaccurate and incomplete information.  The military services do not require monitoring of the recording of all  required real property information, to include evaluating on an ongoing  basis whether or to what extent these activities are carried out and  remediating any identified deficiencies. In addition, OSD has not defined  which data elements were significant to the department’s decision making  and which should be a priority for correction. Also, the military services do  not have plans to correct the discrepancies in significant data elements in  their data systems that are identified by OSD’s verification and validation  tool. Without taking actions to address these deficiencies, DOD will  continue to have inaccurate and incomplete real property data and  unreliable information in RPAD.

DOD also has not developed a strategy that establishes time frames and  performance metrics to address risks to data quality and information  accessibility. Specifically, DOD faces risks related to unfilled real property  positions, a lack of a department-wide approach to improving data, and a  limited plan for implementation of OSD’s expanded data platform. Without  a strategy to address these risks, DOD is missing an opportunity to  ensure that the information needed for effective decision making, such as  budget decisions and oversight by Congress, is available to meet real  property accountability and reporting objectives and to avoid inefficient  and potentially costly workarounds, such as additional data calls to  installations.

We are making a total of 6 recommendations to the Department of  Defense:  The Secretary of the Army should require monitoring of its processes  used for recording all required real property information—to include  evaluating on an ongoing basis whether or to what extent these activities  are being carried out—and remediating any identified deficiencies.  (Recommendation 1)

The Secretary of the Navy should require monitoring of Navy and Marine  Corps processes used for recording all required real property  information—to include evaluating on an ongoing basis whether or to  what extent these activities are being carried out—and remediating any  identified deficiencies. (Recommendation 2)

The Secretary of the Air Force should require monitoring of its processes  used for recording all required real property information—to include  evaluating on an ongoing basis whether or to what extent these activities  are being carried out—and remediating any identified deficiencies.  (Recommendation 3)

The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Undersecretary of  Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, in collaboration with the military  services, defines and documents which data elements within the RPAD  submissions are most significant for decision-making. (Recommendation  4)

The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Undersecretary of  Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, in collaboration with the military  services, coordinates on corrective action plans to remediate  discrepancies in significant data elements in its real property data system  that are identified by OSD’s verification and validation tool.  (Recommendation 5)

The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Undersecretary of  Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, in collaboration with the military  services, develops a strategy that identifies and addresses risks to data  quality and information accessibility. At a minimum, this strategy should  establish time frames and performance metrics for addressing risks  related to (1) unfilled real property positions, (2) a lack of a department- wide approach to improving its data, and (3) implementation of OSD’s  expanded data platform. (Recommendation 6)

We provided a draft of this report to DOD for comment. In written  comments, DOD concurred with four recommendations and partially  concurred with three recommendations. DOD’s comments are  summarized below. DOD also provided technical comments, which we  incorporated as appropriate.

In written comments, DOD stated that Recommendations 2 and 3 should  be combined to more appropriately align with authority and responsibility  of the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps as a single Military Department  and DOD concurred with the combination of the two recommendations.  Based on these comments, we combined the draft recommendations for  separate actions by the Secretary of the Navy and the Commandant of  the Marine Corps into one recommendation. In our final report, the action  is addressed to the Secretary of the Navy in Recommendation 2 and our  total number of recommendations is decreased to six.

DOD partially concurred with our recommendation that the  Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment collaborate  with the military services to develop a strategy that identifies and  addresses risks to data quality and information accessibility  (Recommendation 6). We recommended that the strategy, at a minimum,  include timeframes and performance metrics for addressing risks and  include other specific information. However, DOD stated that it plans to  collaborate with the military services on separate service strategies that  reflect each military service’s operating environment. We continue to  believe that DOD would benefit from one department-wide strategy to  improve data quality and information accessibility. For example, we found  that the military services’ efforts to improve data quality have been largely  uncoordinated and had led to inconsistent approaches, which may have  contributed to data inaccuracies. Further, we found that OSD has not fully  identified how it will complete implementation of a data platform  expansion to include real property information and may not realize the  anticipated benefits of the effort. The platform is an effort managed by  OSD and would benefit from a single DOD strategy addressing key points  noted in our recommendation. Accordingly, we believe our  recommendation remains warranted.

DOD’s comments are reprinted in their entirety in appendix II.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees and to the Secretary of Defense; the Under Secretary of  Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment; the Under Secretary of Defense  (Comptroller); and Secretaries of the Departments of Air Force, Army,  and Navy, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, and the Director of  Washington Headquarters Services. In addition, the report is available at  no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  Brian J. Lepore at (202) 512-4523 or leporeb@gao.gov or William J.  Cordrey at (404) 679-1873 or cordreyw@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs are listed on the last  page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report  are listed in appendix III.

For the military services and Washington Headquarters Services’ real  property inventories, DOD requires that the data elements shown below  in table 1 be validated through a physical inventory of each real property  asset. Physical inventories are to be performed every 5 years or every 3  years for historic assets.

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contacts named above, Gina Hoffman (Assistant  Director), Paul Kinney (Assistant Director), Susan Langley (Analyst-in- Charge), Scott Bruckner, Vincent Buquicchio, Josh Edelman, Chad  Hinsch, Brad Johnson, Amie Lesser, Carol Petersen, Sam Portnow,  Richard Powelson, Michael Silver, and John Yee made key contributions  to this report.

DOD Financial Management: The Navy Needs to Improve Internal  Control Over Its Buildings, GAO-18-289. Washington, D.C.: May 10,  2018.

High-Risk Series: Progress on Many High-Risk Areas, While Substantial  Efforts Needed on Others, GAO-17-317. Washington, D.C.: February 15,  2017.

Defense Facility Condition: Revised Guidance Needed to Improve  Oversight of Assessments and Ratings, GAO-16-662. Washington, D.C.:  June 23, 2016.

DOD Financial Management: Greater Visibility Needed to Better Assess  Audit Readiness for Property, Plant, and Equipment, GAO-16-383.  Washington, D.C.: May 26, 2016.

Defense Infrastructure: More Accurate Data Would Allow DOD to Improve  the Tracking, Management, and Security of Its Leased Facilities,   GAO-16-101. Washington, D.C.: March 15, 2016.

Underutilized Facilities: DOD and GSA Information Sharing May Enhance  Opportunities to Use Space at Military Installations, GAO-15-346.  Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2015.

Defense Infrastructure: DOD Needs to Improve Its Efforts to Identify  Unutilized and Underutilized Facilities, GAO-14-538. Washington, D.C.:  September 8, 2014.

Defense Infrastructure: Army Brigade Combat Team Inactivations  Informed by Analyses, but Actions Needed to Improve Stationing  Process, GAO-14-76. Washington, D.C.: December 11, 2013.

Federal Real Property: Greater Transparency and Strategic Focus  Needed for High-Value GSA Leases, GAO-13-744. Washington, D.C.:  September 19, 2013.

Military Bases: Opportunities Exist to Improve Future Base Realignment  and Closure Rounds, GAO-13-149. Washington, D.C.: March 7, 2013.

Military Base Realignments and Closures: Updated Costs and Savings  Estimates from BRAC 2005, GAO-12-709R. Washington, D.C.: June 29,  2012.

Excess Facilities: DOD Needs More Complete Information and a Strategy  to Guide Its Future Disposal Efforts, GAO-11-814. Washington, D.C.:  September 19, 2011.

Defense Infrastructure: The Enhanced Use Lease Program Requires  Management Attention, GAO-11-574. Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2011.

Federal Real Property: Progress Made on Planning and Data, but  Unneeded Owned and Leased Facilities Remain, GAO-11-520T.  Washington, D.C.: April 6, 2011.

Military Base Realignment and Closures: DOD Is Taking Steps to Mitigate  Challenges but Is Not Fully Reporting Some Additional Costs,   GAO-10-725R. Washington, D.C.: July 21, 2010.

Defense Infrastructure: Continued Management Attention Is Needed to  Support Installation Facilities and Operations, GAO-08-502. Washington,  D.C.: April 24, 2008.

Federal Real Property: Progress Made Toward Addressing Problems, but  Underlying Obstacles Continue to Hamper Reform, GAO-07-349.  Washington, D.C.: April 13, 2007.

Defense Infrastructure: Issues Need to Be Addressed in Managing and  Funding Base Operations and Facilities Support, GAO-05-556.  Washington, D.C.: June 15, 2005.

Defense Infrastructure: Changes in Funding Priorities and Strategic  Planning Needed to Improve the Condition of Military Facilities,  GAO-03-274. Washington, D.C.: February 19, 2003.

Defense Infrastructure: Military Services Lack Reliable Data on Historic  Properties, GAO-01-437. Washington, D.C.: April 6, 2001.

Military Infrastructure: Real Property Management Needs Improvement,  GAO/NSIAD-99-100. Washington, D.C.: September 7, 1999.