Detailed Information on the
General Services Administration - Personal Property Management Assessment

Program Code 10001158
Program Title General Services Administration - Personal Property Management
Department Name General Services Admin
Agency/Bureau Name General Services Administration, activities
Program Type(s) Direct Federal Program
Assessment Year 2005
Assessment Rating Moderately Effective
Assessment Section Scores
Section Score
Program Purpose & Design 80%
Strategic Planning 88%
Program Management 100%
Program Results/Accountability 58%
Program Funding Level
(in millions)
FY2007 $30
FY2008 $39
FY2009 $40

Ongoing Program Improvement Plans

Year Began Improvement Plan Status Comments

Developing and implementing an independent evaluation process that assesses, on a regular basis, the full scope of this program's activities in carrying out its mission.

Action taken, but not completed Milestones include: (1) IG conducted initial survey of U & D program - completed 6/1/2008; (2) IG developing and presenting audit objectives - completing 7/31/2008; and (3) IG completing audit 5/1/2009. The Sales portion of the program is transitioning into a Sales Center under the Federal Asset Sales e-gov initiative. It is thus best to postpone an independent evaluation of the Sales portion of the program until FY09.

Personal Property will streamline the disposal process by implementing electronic approvals. The requirements are being developed and the process is planned to be implemented by December 2008.

Action taken, but not completed Implementing an electronic approval process will result in internal efficiencies; provide an audit trail for the disposal process; and ultimately increase customer satisfaction. Milestones include: (1) Develop systems requirements (7/1/08); (2) Requirements in programming (8/1/08); (3) System changes and process in testing (12/1/08); and (4) Process implemented (Phase I, donation customers) (12/1/8).

Completed Program Improvement Plans

Year Began Improvement Plan Status Comments

Working with OGP and NASASP to identify any additional performance measures that should be added to the SASP agreements. 1. Meet with OGP to update progress made to date on SASP performance measures. 2. Advise NASASP that OGP will work with them on finalizing measures. 3. Support OGP in discussion of measures at NASASP mid-winter meeting. A review of the legislative history of the program and Congress' expectations regarding the role of the SASPs in the overall personal property donation program established neither FAS no OGP have any policy requirements or authorities to measure SASP performance as stated in the recommendation. Therefore, OGP and Property, in collaboration with Legal Council agree that the recommendation is not feasible and will not institute or enforce any performance measures related to the activities of the SASPs.


Program Performance Measures

Term Type  
Annual Efficiency

Measure: Operating cost per $100 of business volume

Explanation:Operating cost for Property Management (FBP) divided by FBP business volume divided by $100

Year Target Actual
2001 N/A $34.26
2002 N/A $27.92
2003 $31.00 $33.94
2004 $33.76 $24.88
2005 $22.95 $15.23
2006 $22.00 $18.77
2007 $21.50 $8.10
2008 $21.00
2009 $21.00
2010 $21.00
2011 $21.00
2012 $21.00
Long-term/Annual Efficiency

Measure: Direct cost of Sales Program as a percentage of revenue

Explanation:Direct costs divided by revenue. Direct cost exclude allocations; revenue is Property's revenue.

Year Target Actual
2001 Benchmark 72.4%
2002 74.3% 52.2%
2003 60.6% 54.8%
2004 57.6% 47.9%
2005 47.0% 34.7%
2006 46.0% 47.5%
2007 45.0% 20.1%
2008 44%
2009 44%
2010 44%
2011 44%
2012 44%
Long-term/Annual Outcome

Measure: External Customer Satisfaction survey score

Explanation:Percentage of customer customers responding favorably on survey. Program scored to American Customer Satisfaction Index

Year Target Actual
2001 Benchmark 67.4
2002 68.0 73.3
2003 76.2 75.3
2004 77.0 75.6
2005 78.0 74.6
2006 79.0 82.3
2007 79.0 75.1
2008 75.55
2009 75.55
2010 75.55
2011 75.55
2012 75.55
Long-term/Annual Outcome

Measure: Cycle time for full disposal process (days)

Explanation:The time to dispose of excess property, from receipt to disposition.

Year Target Actual
2001 Benchmark 132 days
2002 87 days 99 days
2003 87 days 83 days
2004 76 days 72 days
2005 77 days 56 days
2006 76 days 52 days
2007 55 days 49.4 days
2008 55 days
2009 54 days
2010 53.5 days
2011 53 days
2012 52.5 days

Questions/Answers (Detailed Assessment)

Section 1 - Program Purpose & Design
Number Question Answer Score

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The purpose of this program is to ensure the timely, effective and efficient disposition of the Federal Government's excess and surplus personal property, yielding the greatest return on investment to the taxpayer. This includes ensuring that excess and surplus property is made available for maximum reuse thus minimizing public expenditure for new procurements.

Evidence: Title 40 U.S. Code

YES 20%

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: There is a continuing requirement to dispose of Federally owned personal property, as well as a continuing need for Federal and State agencies to reuse available excess and surplus property thereby reducing expenditures on new property.

Evidence: Title 40 U.S. Code; 1976 Report of the House Committee on Government Operations on Distribution of Federal Surplus Property to State and Local Organizations; 2003 Federal Asset Sales - Personal Property Utilization and Donation Study.

YES 20%

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: The program was originally authorized by Congress as the sole authority for managing transfer and reutilization of excess Federal property and for donating Federal surplus personal property to State and local governments and other eligible recipients. In recent years, Congress has enacted laws that have given certain other Federal agencies the authority to donate their own excess and surplus personal property to their own eligible recipients. This fragmentation of disposal authorities works against the effective oversight of the overall disposal program and the balancing of competing needs for excess and surplus federal property. All federal agencies have the authority to determine how they sell surplus federal property after they have completed the reutilization and donation process managed by GSA.

Evidence: Title 40 U.S. Code.

NO 0%

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: FSS has operational control of the property disposal program. FSS implements the overall disposal policy, written by OGP, to provide disposal support to all other agencies and enable transfers of excess property and donation and sale of surplus property. FSS works closely with OGP to recommend policy changes to improve operational programs and implements changes as directed by OGP. FSS and OGP have made significant strides since the first PART two years ago to strengthen their overall relationship with one another and more clearly identify their respective roles and responsibilities.

Evidence: Title 40 U.S. Code; FORM Analysis; FMR 102.36; GSA Delegation of Authority Manual

YES 20%

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: The Property Management Program has two major customer groups which are potential beneficiaries: Federal agencies for which it provides disposal support and Federal and State agencies which are recipients of transfers and donations of excess and surplus property. Regional program staff provide assistance to both customer groups in processing disposal actions and assisting in searching for and acquiring property.

Evidence: Action and Priority Plan 2005; FMR 102.36, Disposition of Excess Personal Property; FMR 102.37, Donation of Surplus Personal Property. Reports of Excess Property Transfers and Surplus Property Donations to SASPs.

YES 20%
Section 1 - Program Purpose & Design Score 80%
Section 2 - Strategic Planning
Number Question Answer Score

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: Property management has established two long term measures: (1) Cycle time for disposal process (days). This measure addresses the principal concern of customer agencies, i.e., how long they have to hold unneeded property until the property leaves their custody. Reducing the disposal cycle time allows agencies to reduce their warehousing costs and all other costs associated with tracking and managing unneeded property. Since agencies generally hold property until it is transferred or sold, cycle time for disposal is a composite of cycle times calculated individually for U & D and Sales. (2) Direct cost of Sales Program as a percent of revenue. This measure tracks the efficiency of the FSS program staff in controlling direct programs costs relative to the sales revenue generated. These two major long-term measures, along with other FSS performance scorecard measures such as customer satisfaction, are the most relevant ways to measure long-term program performance. As part of the Federal Asset Sales e-gov initiative, OGP and FSS will work with the affected agencies to develop additional "best value" measures for personal property sales activities.

Evidence: FY 2005 Congressional Justification. FSS and FBP Scorecards; FSS/GPRA FY 04 Performance Plan; Cycle time composite

YES 12%

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: Personal Property Management has projected targets for both their long term measures out to 2010--reduce cycle time for the disposal process for Federal Agencies to 73.5 days and reduce direct cost as percent of revenue to 43%. These are very ambitious targets considering the already remarkable results in both these measures the past three years.

Evidence: FY 2005 Congressional Justification; FSS/GPRA FY 04 Performance Plan;

YES 12%

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: FSS has several annual performance measures and targets that are aligned with the five GSA strategic goals.

Evidence: Guide to the FSS Performance Measurement System; FSS & FBP Scorecard

YES 13%

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: Baselines are generally set using the previous years actuals. Annual stretch targets are set using the same methodology as used in setting long-term targets. Many factors qualitative and quantitative are taken into consideration, including historical data, trend information, current performances, and forecasted business data.

Evidence: Guide to the FSS Performance Measurement System; FBP Scorecard

YES 13%

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: The State Agencies for Surplus Property (SASPs) are the main partners that work with FSS, in the donation aspect of the disposal program. In this regard, the SASPs do not currently contribute directly to the measures generally used to measure support we provide to federal agencies. They do, however, directly support the acquistion cost avoidance measure and provide savings to taxpayers at both state and local levels. We have established two measures to directly address the SASP contribution and commitment to the annual and long term goals of the donation program: increase in the number of active donee recipients and cost savings for donees. FSS and OGP will review the legislative history of this program to clarify Congress' expectations regarding the role of the SASPs in the overall personal property donation program. FSS and OGP will also work with NASASP to determine whether additional performance measures are needed and what they should be.

Evidence: SASP Agreement

YES 12%

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Although independent assessments of this program, or elements of this program, have been conducted from time to time, GSA has not scheduled any regular reviews of this program. The most recent independent review of the Utilization and Donation (U&D) component of this program began in FY 2003 as part of the Federal Asset Sales (FAS) E-Gov initiative. The report made recommendations for incremental improvements to the U&D program and "breakthrough" recommendations which could affect overall asset management within the Government and have resultant benefits for U&D. FSS will propose that an external party, probably the GSA Office of the Inspector General, include both the Utilization and Donation program and the Sales program on its FY 2006 Audit Plan and at 3 to 5 year intervals thereafter.

Evidence: U & D Study

NO 0%

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: The budget presentation for this program recognizes its two funding sources: the Operating Expense account which uses direct appropriations and agency reimbursements to fund the utilization and donation activity; and the General Supply Fund which supports the sales program. All of the program measures and targets associated with this program are discussed under the General Supply Fund. Funding for the utilization and donation activity of the program, whose performance is reported under the GSF, is discussed under the Operating Expenses account. FSS has corrected the deficiency in the manner of budget presentation OMB identified in the 2003 PART.

Evidence: FY 2005 & 2006 Congressional Justification

YES 13%

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: When this program was first assessed in 2003, FSS had just begun to implement its performance assessment process using the current performance measures and goals. At the time, there was some concern whether these measures were sufficient to assess the value of the program to customer agencies and the efficiency with which the program was operated. Experience with these measures has shown them to be useful and they have been incorportated into GSA's annual Strategic Assessment and quarterly Performance Management processes. FSS is also very engaged in GSA's efforts to develop long-term, outcome-oriented performance measures.

Evidence: Guide to the FSS Performance Measurement System; FBP Scorecard; FSS/GPRA FY 04 Performance Plan

YES 13%
Section 2 - Strategic Planning Score 88%
Section 3 - Program Management
Number Question Answer Score

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: FSS' senior management meets quarterly to review performance data. A Performance Measurement System tracks monthly progress in meeting the targets established for each performance goal and outcome measure. Performance data is also used monthly by program managers overseeing the Personal Property Management program to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the Program. Property Management also conducts meetings with the Leadership Board, which consists of national and regional directors, at least semiannually to assess performance and initiate changes to improve performance. State Agences for Surplus Property, partners in the donation program, report performance data quarterly on the 3040 report or its electronic equivalent in GSAXcess.

Evidence: FBP 2004 & 2005 Scorecard, Program Management and Liaison in the Regions; Guide to the FSS Performance Measurement System; GSA Form 3040-State Agency Monthly Donation Report of Surplus Personal Property

YES 14%

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: Managers are held accountable through the annual performance review process, which is directly tied to the Program's Performance Plan and Scorecard; i.e., the Program's measures are the manager's measures. SASP, under PART definition, are considered program partners. To the extent possible, GSA holds SASPs accountable for their operations via state reviews and can hold SASPs accountable by deferring them from eligibility to acquire property for donation. However, FSS only has authority to hold SASPs accountable for maintaining operations in accordance with their GSA approved State Plan of Operations. 40 USC and 41 CFR 102-37 address requirements for State Plans and there is currently no provision there for any performance related information. As discussed in the Explanation for Question 2.5, OGP and FSS will work with NASASP to develop additonal performance measures for SASPs, if needed. If new measures are needed, guidance for developing State plans and related reported requirements will be changed accordingly.

Evidence: Guide to the FSS Performance Measurement System; 40 USC 549, 41 CFR 102-37

YES 14%

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: All of the Personal Property Management Program funds are obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose. It is an inherent part of the GSA accounting system requirements, that obligations be established prior to processing payments for goods and services. This ensures that payments correspond to their intended purpose.

Evidence: FY 04 GSA Consolidated Annual Financial Statements. GSA Accounting Classifications Handbook.

YES 15%

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: The Property Program shows three program-specific efficiency measures and targets in its performance scorecard: operating cost per $100 business volume, cycle time for the full disposal process, and direct cost as a percent of revenue for the sales program, which fits the classic OMB definition of an efficiency measure. Specifically, the U&D program does not yet have efficiency measures but will be working with OGP and OMB in development of governmentwide property measures. FSS is evaluating the feasiblility of using "dollar value per U & D transaction".

Evidence: Guide to the FSS Performance Measurement System; FBP Scorecard

YES 14%

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: Property Management staff participate in various inter-Governmental committees and coordinate with other agencies regarding issues and plans for property management programs. Examples of this collaboration at the Federal level include the InterAgency Committee for Property Management, the DoD Disposal Policy Working Group, and the DoD Demil Policy Working Group; and on the State level, the National Association of State Agencies for Surplus Property (NASASP) and the Users and Screeners Association (USA). Property Management associates also assist other agencies in review of their operational and procedural handbooks, provide comments and recommendations to GSA's Office of Governmentwide Policy (OGP) in the development of property management regulations, and provide additional support to OGP on other Property Management policy initiatives.

Evidence: Examples of recent collaboration include working with DLA and DRMS, as well as customer organizations, to re-implement a period for last minute transfers and donations prior to sales action. We are currently working with 2 major departments for consideration of implementation of AAMS to improve their internal screening programs. Regular meetings with NASASP and USA-FEPP. (see Collaboration)

YES 14%

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: GSA has had clean audit opinions for the past 15 years and no material weaknesses have been identified in the program. In addition, GSA's financial systems meet statutory requirements and are integrated with its performance system. Procedures are in place to minimize erroneous payments and provide financial information accurately and timely.

Evidence: GSA's FY 04 Annual Performance and Accountability Reports

YES 15%

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: Performance and program issues are addressed by the Property Leadership Board at scheduled semiannual meetings or during teleconferences convened to address specific issues. Where performance issues are identified, Property Management implements corrective action through modification of processes. The Property Management Restructuring Plan was a major fundamental step to correct program and financial management deficiencies??and an example of Leadership Board management system success.

Evidence: Program Management and Liaison in the Regions; GSA Order-Sales Consolidation; Regional Center of Expertise Memo

YES 14%
Section 3 - Program Management Score 100%
Section 4 - Program Results/Accountability
Number Question Answer Score

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: Property Management has aggressively pursued meeting the annual performance measures that work towards the long term performance goals. In FY 04, Property Management achieved most of its major annual performance measures.

Evidence: FSS/GPRA FY04 Performance Plan


Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: The program exceeded three of the four major performance targets in FY 2004.

Evidence: FSS and FBP Scorecards.


Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: In the past three years, Property Management has made significant efficiency gains through operational and system adjustments to the program. FSS decreased the disposal cycle time from 132 days in 2001 to 72 days in 2004. During that same period, FSS reduced the direct cost of the disposal program as a percentage of revenue from 85.7% to 47.9%

Evidence: FY 05 Score Card

YES 25%

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: We are not aware of any other Federal activity that offers full personal property disposal service to all other Federal agencies.

Evidence: N/A

NA  %

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: The only independent assessment of the Personal Property Management program was the review of the Utilization and Donation (U&D) component of this program begun in FY 2003 as part of the Federal Asset Sales (FAS) E-Gov initiative. This study included a sweeping review of the state of U&D across the Federal government, with significant concentration on the FSS' U&D program. The report identified several shortcomings in the program including low excess property reutilization rates due to the fragmentation of statutory donation authorities and the lack of adequate data for policy makers to make informed U&D and other disposal decisions.

Evidence: U & D Study

NO 0%
Section 4 - Program Results/Accountability Score 58%

Last updated: 09062008.2005SPR