COST of Relocations Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Subramanyam, Suhas [D-VA-10]
- Committees
- Oversight and Government Reform Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Mar 27, 2025
Bottom line
The COST of Relocations Act establishes new procedural requirements for federal agencies to justify and report on major employee relocations, enhancing congressional oversight and public transparency.
What it actually does
This bill mandates that federal agencies conduct a comprehensive benefit-cost analysis before carrying out significant employee relocations. It requires agencies to submit a detailed report of this analysis to their respective Offices of Inspector General (OIGs), which must then review the report and submit their own findings to Congress. The bill defines 'covered relocations' as those affecting more than the lesser of 5 percent or 100 employees, aiming to increase transparency and accountability in such moves.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill will bring much-needed transparency and accountability to federal agency relocation decisions, preventing arbitrary or poorly justified moves that can disrupt agency missions, negatively impact employees, and waste taxpayer money. They contend that a rigorous benefit-cost analysis, coupled with OIG review and congressional reporting, will ensure that relocations are strategically sound and fiscally responsible.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the extensive analysis and reporting requirements could create undue bureaucratic burdens and significantly slow down necessary agency reorganizations or relocations. They may contend that agencies already have processes in place for such decisions and that adding more layers of review could hinder operational flexibility and responsiveness, potentially impacting mission effectiveness.
The bill is concise and can be read quickly. The time given for analysis allows for a thorough understanding of its procedural implications and potential impacts.
Section 2(a)
Mandatory Benefit-Cost Analysis for Covered Relocations
This provision prohibits federal agencies from undertaking a 'covered relocation' without first conducting a benefit-cost analysis. The agency must submit a detailed, unredacted report of this analysis to its Office of Inspector General (OIG). Following this, the OIG must review the report and submit its own findings to relevant congressional committees before the relocation can proceed.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision ensures that significant federal employee relocations are not undertaken lightly, but are instead based on sound economic principles and transparent justifications, leading to better outcomes for agencies, employees, and taxpayers.
Critics contend
Critics may argue that this provision introduces unnecessary bureaucracy and delays into essential agency management decisions, potentially hindering the agility and efficiency of federal operations.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the desire for greater accountability and transparency in government operations against the potential for increased administrative burden and slower decision-making for federal agencies.
Section 2(b)
Requirements for Benefit-Cost Analysis and Report Contents
This section specifies that the benefit-cost analysis must align with the principles of OMB Circular A-4 (as of September 17, 2003). The agency's report must include, among other things, anticipated outcomes, metrics for success, a detailed employee engagement plan, a list of stakeholders, a comprehensive strategy with staffing and financial needs, a risk assessment and mitigation plan, and an analysis of the relocation's effect on the agency's mission. The report, excluding proprietary information, must also be made publicly available.
Section 2(c)
Inspector General Report to Congress
Within 90 days of receiving an agency's relocation report, the agency's OIG must submit its own report to specific congressional committees. This OIG report must include detailed descriptions of the data used in the agency's analysis, the conclusions drawn, and a comprehensive assessment of the agency's adherence to OMB Circular A-4. Crucially, it must also determine if the agency's adherence is sufficient to justify the use of federal funds for the relocation and, if applicable, assess the comparison of real estate options for moves involving the National Capital Region.
Defines 'covered relocation' as an administrative redelegation or move involving more than the lesser of 5 percent or 100 employees of a Federal agency moving outside their commuting area or under another agency's jurisdiction.
Section 2(e)(2)
Why it matters:Defining key terms in a dedicated section is standard legislative practice for clarity and precision, rather than an attempt to obscure.
Case for: Supporters would argue that setting clear thresholds ensures that only significant, impactful relocations are subjected to the rigorous benefit-cost analysis, preventing undue burden on agencies for minor administrative adjustments.
Case against: Critics might contend that the threshold of 'the lesser of 5 percent or 100 employees' could still allow substantial relocations affecting dozens of employees to proceed without the mandated oversight, if the agency is very large. They might argue for a lower threshold or a different metric to capture more moves.
Estimated impact: This definition directly determines which federal agency relocations will be subject to the new oversight requirements, significantly impacting the scope of the bill's application.
Mandates that the benefit-cost analysis be conducted consistent with OMB Circular A-4, as in effect on September 17, 2003, and requires the OIG to assess adherence to this specific guidance.
Section 2(b)(1) and 2(c)(3)(A)
Why it matters:Referencing existing guidance is standard legislative practice to avoid re-writing established methodologies and to ensure consistency with prior executive branch directives. Specifying a date ensures a fixed standard.
Case for: Proponents would argue that using a specific, established version of OMB Circular A-4 provides a clear, consistent, and well-understood framework for conducting benefit-cost analyses, ensuring methodological rigor and comparability across different agency relocations.
Case against: Critics might argue that mandating an older version of OMB Circular A-4 (from 2003) could prevent agencies from utilizing more modern economic and social science principles or updated guidance that may have evolved since that date, potentially leading to less accurate or relevant analyses.
Estimated impact: This provision dictates the methodological foundation for all required benefit-cost analyses, directly influencing the quality and scope of the economic evaluations performed by federal agencies.