The COST of Relocations Act mandates a formal benefit-cost analysis for certain federal relocations before agencies submit them to the Office of Management and Budget or other reviewing bodies. It defines a relocation as an administrative redelegation of function or a move that involves more than the lesser of 5 percent or 100 employees, or both, outside the commuting area or under another agency’s jurisdiction.
The analysis must be prepared under the guidance of OMB Circular A-4 (as of September 17, 2003) and must include a detailed set of components, including outcomes, metrics, stakeholder engagement plans, and a comprehensive implementation strategy.
The act also requires the agency to provide an unredacted benefit-cost report to its Inspector General for review, and for the IG to submit to Congress a report detailing the findings. The submitted analysis must be published publicly in a form that redacts proprietary information, while preserving transparency about the relocation’s rationale, expected effects, and alignment with the agency’s mission.
Finally, the act preserves existing relocation requirements and does not repeal or reduce other applicable laws.
At a Glance
What It Does
Before a relocation is submitted for review, the bill requires a benefit-cost analysis, an IG review, and a public-facing report. It also imposes specific contents for the analysis and requires adherence to existing OMB guidance.
Who It Affects
Federal agencies planning relocations, their inspectors general, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congress’s oversight committees; employees whose positions may relocate; and the public through transparent reporting.
Why It Matters
It creates a formal, data-driven process for evaluating relocations, improves transparency and accountability, and gives Congress detailed oversight tools to assess how relocations affect agency missions and operations.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill creates a formal requirement for a benefit-cost analysis whenever a federal relocation is contemplated. A relocation is defined narrowly to cover administrative redelegations and moves that affect at least 5 percent or 100 employees, whichever is smaller, outside the current commuting area or under different agency jurisdiction.
Agencies must complete the analysis before submitting the relocation for review to the Office of Management and Budget or other reviewing entities and must provide an unredacted report to the agency’s Inspector General.
The analysis must follow established economic guidance (OMB Circular A-4 as it existed in 2003) and include a quantified description of expected outcomes, a clear explanation of how those outcomes will be achieved, and metrics to measure success. It must also include a detailed employee engagement plan, a list of stakeholders, a timeline of stakeholder engagement, and a comprehensive implementation strategy covering staffing, funding needs, milestones, risk assessment, and risk mitigation.
The bill requires publication of the report in a form that redacts proprietary information and confidential data.Within 90 days of submission, the agency’s Inspector General must provide Congress with a report detailing the data used in the analysis, the conclusions drawn, and an assessment of how well the relocation complied with the guidance in OMB Circular A-4, plus a review of real estate options if the relocation involves moving from the National Capital Region. The act preserves all other applicable relocation requirements and does not abrogate existing law.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill creates a definition for covered relocations to trigger the benefit-cost analysis: moves or redelegations affecting more than the lesser of 5 percent or 100 employees outside the commuting area or under another agency.
Affected agencies must conduct a benefit-cost analysis consistent with OMB Circular A-4 guidance (as of 2003) before submitting relocation plans for review.
The agency must provide an unredacted report to its Inspector General, who then reviews it and reports findings to Congress.
Publicly available reports must exclude proprietary or confidential information to protect sensitive data.
A 90-day window after submission is set for the Inspector General to deliver a comprehensive review to specified congressional committees.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title and purpose
Section 1 designates the act as the COST of Relocations Act (Congressional Oversight to Secure Transparency of Relocations Act). It sets the purpose of requiring benefit-cost analyses for relocations of federal positions and establishes the framework for oversight, reporting, and transparency.
Relocation trigger and pre-submission requirements
This subsection defines when a relocation becomes a ‘covered relocation’ and requires the agency to complete a benefit-cost analysis before any submission to the Office of Management and Budget or other reviewing entity. It also requires an unredacted report to the agency’s Inspector General for review.
Contents of the benefit-cost analysis
The analysis must include (i) anticipated outcomes and improvements quantified where practicable; (ii) explanations of how outcomes will be realized; (iii) metrics to measure success; (iv) a detailed employee engagement plan; (v) a list of stakeholders and a timeline of engagements; (vi) an assessment of effects on affected and destination holders; (vii) a comprehensive relocation implementation plan with staffing, funding, milestones, and accountability; (viii) a risk and mitigation plan; (ix) analysis of impact on the agency’s mission; and (x) short- and long-term effects on the agency’s mission.
Inspector General report to Congress
Within 90 days after submission of the analysis, the agency’s IG must provide Congress with a report detailing data used, conclusions drawn, and an assessment of adherence to OMB Circular A-4 guidance. It also analyzes real estate options if the relocation involves the National Capital Region.
Non-abrogation
Nothing in this Act supersedes or reduces any other legal requirements applicable to a relocation. Existing laws remain in full effect.
Definitions
Key terms are defined: administrative redelegation of function; covered relocation; employee; Federal agency; and National Capital Region, along with how these terms apply to reach the relocation threshold and reporting.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Senate and House oversight committees gain access to structured, data-backed relocation analyses, enabling more informed oversight decisions.
- Agency leadership receives a clear, multi-part framework for planning relocations and measuring success.
- Office of Inspector General staffs gain a defined role and time frame to review analyses and report findings to Congress.
- Federal employees whose positions are relocated receive formal engagement plans and risk management considerations.
- The public and taxpayers benefit from public-facing, redacted reports that increase governmental transparency.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal agencies must allocate resources to prepare comprehensive benefit-cost analyses, increasing compliance overhead.
- IG offices bear additional workload to review analyses and compile congressional reports.
- OMB coordination and review introduce extra administrative responsibilities for agencies and oversight bodies.
- Agency information systems may need enhancements to support stakeholder engagement documentation and milestone tracking.
- Public reporting obligations require careful data handling to balance transparency with confidentiality.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing rigorous, externally verifiable evaluation of relocations with the risk that extensive analysis and reporting could slow or complicate necessary agency moves.
The bill imposes a rigorous, data-driven framework for evaluating relocations, requiring detailed analyses, stakeholder engagement plans, and explicit implementation strategies. While this strengthens transparency and accountability, it also imposes significant administrative overhead and potential delays as agencies gather data, consult stakeholders, and align with historical guidance.
Publication of reports (with redactions) improves public visibility into relocation decisions but raises practical questions about data sensitivity and the resources needed for consistent redaction across diverse relocations. Successful implementation depends on consistent data availability, robust internal controls, and clear delineation of responsibilities across agencies and IGs.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.