In our last blog post, we identified challenges to the Freeze the Footprint policy that is not unique to individual agencies. In this installment, we discuss the first of three major challenges and potential solutions to these issues.
The first step in complying with the Freeze the Footprint directive is establishing an accurate baseline – the total usable square feet (USF) in an agency’s space inventory. This baseline becomes the starting point for space reduction strategies. It is also the number used to determine the total reduction target (for example, a 3% space reduction strategy on a total baseline of 500,000 USF results in a target for an agency to reduce its space by 15,000 USF).
However, the first challenge in this process is dealing with the projects in the pipeline for an agency. These pipeline projects have already been approved, have received funding, or are already under construction before the Freeze the Footprint policy. As they are completed, increases in space from expansion projects or even new buildings will add to the agency’s footprint, making achieving its reduction target more difficult.
One way to handle this increase is to exempt all projects in the pipeline as of the baseline date at the end of fiscal year 2012. Under this approach, projects in the pipeline as of this date are exempt from being counted as space increases. This option requires the agency to carefully track its projects and record the resulting exempt space increases as each is completed. This is a realistic approach to establishing a stable baseline.
Another approach for pipeline projects amid Freeze the Footprint is to include or exclude projects based on factors such as Congressional approval or size. Using this criterion, new buildings or major renovation projects that Congress has approved would be excluded from the baseline.
However, in this approach, it is important to offset the exempt increases from the project with the resulting decreases in space when an agency moves into the completed space and closes or reduces its space in other locations. Thus, while an agency would not be “penalized” for increasing its space for a Congressionally approved project, it does not receive “credit” for decreasing its space in other locations because of the new project.
As we have illustrated, many issues must be considered when developing an accurate baseline and accounting for projects already underway that would affect this baseline. Regardless of the chosen method, applying a consistent approach and accurately accounting for these space changes are critical.
Our next blog post will examine the issue of space re-measurements by GSA and how these can affect an agency’s baseline and their Freeze the Footprint compliance.