To direct the Administrator of General Services to submit a report to Congress on the state of the real estate portfolio of the Public Building Service, and for other purposes.
Introduced December 4, 2025 · Last action March 25, 2026
Plain English Summary
This bill requires the General Services Administration (GSA) to submit an annual report to Congress by January 31st each year detailing the status of its real estate portfolio, including information about leases, buildings owned, construction projects, financial performance, and plans for relocating federal agencies. The report mandates transparency on how the GSA manages federal office space and property disposals.
Who benefits
House and Senate committees overseeing federal property management and infrastructure gain transparency into GSA real estate operations; federal agencies receiving relocation assistance can better plan space needs; members of Congress obtain detailed data for oversight and budgeting purposes; the GSA Administrator gains clearer directives for annual reporting.
Who pays / loses
GSA staff and contractors will bear administrative costs to compile and produce the detailed annual reports; federal agencies occupying GSA space face potential disruption from relocations triggered by property disposals or lease terminations; private landlords leasing space to the federal government may lose tenants if the GSA consolidates or relocates operations.
Funding & Lobbying Interests
This bill imposes a reporting requirement with no direct fiscal appropriation. The financial interests that typically benefit from federal real estate transparency legislation include: commercial real estate firms and property management contractors (who gain visibility into federal leasing trends and relocation opportunities), federal workforce unions (who gain advance notice of potential agency moves), and consulting firms specializing in federal facility management. The bill creates administrative work for the GSA and House/Senate committee staff, indirectly benefiting government contractors hired to conduct analysis or support reporting.
Political Impact
Affected Groups
Federal employees currently housed in GSA-managed space face potential relocation disruption; members of Congress on Transportation and Infrastructure and Environment and Public Works committees gain detailed oversight data; commercial landlords with federal government tenants are affected by lease termination and non-renewal decisions; federal agencies dependent on GSA real estate services must develop relocation plans and fund moves.
Political Subtext
Proponents frame this as basic government accountability—Congress should know how a major asset portfolio is managed. Critics might argue the reporting burden increases GSA administrative costs and diverts resources from actual property management. The non-partisan value lies in transparency: detailed real estate data allows Congress to identify underutilized federal properties, track deferred maintenance costs, and evaluate whether federal leasing decisions are cost-effective. No major partisan divide exists on this type of procedural oversight, though conservatives typically support reducing federal real estate footprint and liberals may focus on ensuring relocation plans protect worker interests.
Real-World Stakes
If passed, Congress and the public gain annual visibility into the GSA's $5+ billion annual real estate budget and portfolio of hundreds of millions of square feet. Federal agencies will be forced to develop and execute detailed relocation plans, which may reduce operational disruptions compared to ad-hoc moves. The reporting requirement enables Congress to identify surplus federal properties for disposal or consolidation, potentially reducing taxpayer costs for underutilized space. However, mandatory relocation reporting could slow decision-making if agencies must justify moves in detail. Similar GSA transparency initiatives (such as the Real Property Asset Database public portal launched under prior administrations) have enabled some oversight but have been inconsistently detailed. The bill imposes no specific performance targets or spending caps, so impact depends entirely on how Congress uses the data provided.
What's Inside This Bill
Non-obvious provisions not apparent from the headline summary.
Undefined 'Financial Performance' Reporting Threshold
The bill requires reporting on 'financial performance' of the real estate portfolio but does not define what metrics, loss thresholds, or accounting standards GSA must use, potentially allowing GSA to exclude properties below a certain cost or depreciation level from detailed reporting.
AffectsCongressional oversight and taxpayers who may not receive complete visibility into underperforming or money-losing federal properties if GSA uses narrow definitions of 'financial performance.'
No Penalty Provision for Late or Incomplete Reports
The bill mandates reports by January 31st annually but contains no enforcement mechanism, penalty, or consequence for GSA failing to submit reports on time or providing incomplete information.
AffectsCongress and the public, who have no legal recourse if GSA delays or withholds the required transparency information.
Undefined Scope of 'Construction Projects'
The bill requires reporting on 'construction projects' but does not specify whether this includes only major renovations, all projects above a certain cost threshold, or minor facility improvements, leaving discretion to GSA.
AffectsCongress and auditors who may receive selective reporting on federal construction spending if GSA narrowly interprets which projects qualify for inclusion.
No Requirement for Comparative Analysis or Benchmarking
The bill mandates reporting on status and plans but does not require GSA to compare its performance against private sector benchmarks, previous years, or federal best practices, limiting the usefulness of the data.
AffectsCongress and taxpayers seeking to evaluate whether GSA is managing federal real estate efficiently relative to market standards.
Sponsor
Co-sponsors (1)
RRep. Perry, Scott [R-PA-10]
Vote Record
No recorded votes.
Campaign Finance — Primary Sponsor
Top contributing industries
Other$81,614
Healthcare$7,730
Law$7,600
Finance$5,150
Retail$3,300
501(c)(4) disclosure: Contributions from 501(c)(4) "dark money" organizations are not required to be publicly disclosed and are not reflected in the figures above. Data sourced from FEC public disclosure filings.
Community Discussion
Share this bill
Sign in to join the discussion.
No comments yet. Be the first.