SB22, the SWAMP Act, requires the Administrator of General Services to create a competitive bidding process for relocating the headquarters of Executive agencies. It defines what counts as an Executive agency and enumerates several exclusions (notably certain DoD components, DOE, DHS, State, ODNI, and CIA).
It also prohibits headquarters from being located in the Washington metropolitan area, with limited exceptions for agencies already based there at enactment. The bill sets rules for how relocations can be proposed or solicited, and it ties the process to economic and security considerations.
It also allows offsetting relocation costs with proceeds from the sale of federal buildings or land and explicitly states that no extra funding is authorized for these relocations.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill defines Executive agencies (with several exclusions) and establishes a GSA-led competitive bidding process to relocate their headquarters. It also prohibits new HQ locations in the Washington metropolitan area except for existing HQs at enactment, and sets conditions for any further movement.
Who It Affects
Federal agencies subject to relocation, state and local governments that may bid, and the General Services Administration responsible for administering the process.
Why It Matters
It formalizes geographic dispersion of federal HQs, introduces competitive selection criteria (economic impact, expertise, and national security considerations), and creates a mechanism to offset relocation costs through asset sales—potentially reshaping where federal work sits and how it is funded.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The SWAMP Act creates a formal, market-driven process to relocate the headquarters of Executive agencies. It starts by defining what qualifies as an Executive agency and listing notable exclusions from relocation (such as major DoD components and intelligence agencies).
It then blocks any new headquarters from being placed in the Washington, DC metro area, with a limited carveout for agencies already located there at the time of enactment. The core of the bill is the competitive bidding framework the GSA must establish within a year: States and their political subdivisions can propose relocations, the public must have notice and a chance to comment, and a state or subdivision’s bid will be judged based on economic impact, relevant expertise, and national security implications.
The act also allows the use of sale proceeds from federal property to offset relocation costs and specifies that no new funding is provided for these activities. Finally, for any HQ that remains in the DC area after enactment, the bill prohibits new construction or major renovations, prohibits lease renewals, and bans new lease entries, tightening the transition away from the region.
The combination of a bidding-based relocation and funding offsets aims to reduce costs while broadening the geographic distribution of federal administrative power. The bill focuses on administrative realities and does not attempt to forecast political outcomes or passage timelines; it provides concrete mechanisms that could change where and how federal agencies operate.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill defines Executive agencies and lists exclusions (e.g.
DoD components, DOE, DHS, State, ODNI, CIA).
The headquarters may not be located in the Washington metropolitan area, with an enactment-time exception for those already there.
A GSA-led competitive relocation process must be established within 1 year, allowing State bids and detailing selection criteria.
Offsets may come from the sale of federal property or land; no new federal funds are authorized.
HQs that remain in DC post-enactment face limits on construction, lease renewals, and new leases.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions for agencies and HQs
Section 2(a) defines what counts as an Executive agency and lists critical exclusions (including major DoD components, DOE, DHS, State, ODNI, and CIA). It also defines what constitutes a headquarters and clarifies scope for oversight, ensuring the relocation framework targets the right set of entities without disrupting security- or mission-critical operations.
Prohibition on DC-area HQs
Section 2(b) bars the headquarters of Executive agencies from being located in the Washington metropolitan area, subject to an explicit exception for agencies already headquartered there at the time of enactment. This creates a geographic constraint that drives the relocation process and creates a baseline for future bids.
Competitive bidding for relocation
Section 2(c) requires the GSA Administrator to establish a competitive relocation process within one year. It allows agency heads to request a solicitation or for the Administrator to issue one, with bid submissions from States and political subdivisions, public notice, and a structured evaluation framework based on economic impact, relevant expertise, and national security considerations.
Rule of construction
Section 2(d) clarifies that nothing in the act prevents Maryland or Virginia subdivisions outside the DC area from submitting proposals, ensuring the process remains open to nearby eligible jurisdictions and that the competitive dynamic includes cross-border participation.
Offset provision
Section 2(e) authorizes using proceeds from the sale of federal buildings or land to offset relocation costs, aligning potential savings with project funding and reducing the need for new appropriations.
Funding and appropriations
Section 2(f) states that the Administrator must carry out the act with funds already available to the GSA and that no additional appropriations are authorized, setting a strict budgetary boundary to the relocation effort.
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
- State governments and local economic development offices in winning bid states, which could gain jobs and investment from relocated HQs.
- Local workforces and suppliers in the winning states, benefiting from new employment opportunities and demand for services.
- The General Services Administration and federal procurement professionals, who gain a formal, publishable relocation process with clear criteria.
- Contractors, developers, and professional services firms that bid on relocation projects and related infrastructure.
- Federal agencies that move HQs may achieve better alignment with regional talent pools and potential cost efficiencies.
Who Bears the Cost
- Washington DC metro area municipalities and businesses that rely on a large federal footprint may face reduced demand and shifting employment patterns.
- Federal employees and contractors who relocate may incur moving costs, disruption, and adjustment challenges.
- Owners and operators of DC-area facilities may see vacancy-related revenue impacts as HQs depart.
- Taxpayers could bear the short-term costs of relocation if offsets do not fully cover expenses or if bid outcomes lead to higher-than-expected relocation costs.
- Bidders whose proposals are not selected may incur bid preparation costs without award.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
Balancing cost containment and efficiency with national security and mission continuity, while achieving geographic dispersion without creating operational risk or undue burdens on relocating personnel.
The SWAMP Act introduces real policy tensions around the geographic dispersion of federal power, cost controls, and national security considerations. While the offset mechanism offers a way to fund relocations without new appropriations, the actual cost savings depend on property transactions and the efficiency of the bidding process.
There is also a potential tension between the desire for regional economic benefits and the need to maintain mission-critical proximity to security or operational hubs, given the exclusions for key agencies and the DC-area constraints. The act’s reliance on a competitive process raises questions about bid fairness, the sufficiency of evaluation criteria, and how quickly the resulting relocations can be implemented without disrupting agency missions.
Finally, the interplay with existing federal labor, environmental, and infrastructure requirements could complicate implementation and create uneven impacts across states and localities.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.