State audit finds OMES relying on flawed inventory and leaving office space underused; LOFT urges stronger oversight

A legislative audit released to the Loft Oversight Committee concluded the Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) is meeting minimum statutory reporting obligations but is not exercising the full scope of its authority and relies on flawed, self‑reported inventory data, the auditors said.

Rebecca Hobbs, presenting LOFT’s findings, told the committee that LOFT reviewed office space in Oklahoma City and Tulsa and identified multiple data quality problems in OMES’ real property report, including unmappable addresses, entries showing zero square feet, and some entries recording 200% utilization. “OMES is not exercising its full statutory authority in managing state property and relies on flawed data for decision making and planning,” Hobbs said during the committee hearing.

LOFT said it used a benchmark of 216 square feet per employee (based on a GAO 180‑sq‑ft standard adjusted for common areas) to estimate building capacity and then compared capacity to assigned FTEs and daily badge‑swipe attendance. The audit found OMES‑owned buildings had an average reported utilization of about 34%, agency‑owned buildings in LOFT’s sample averaged roughly 32%, and a sample of privately leased locations averaged about 51% utilization. Using those measures, LOFT estimated more than 2 million square feet of combined “waste” across evaluated properties and calculated potential annual rent savings in the tens of millions of dollars if agencies occupying private leases could be relocated into underused state space.

LOFT also highlighted process weaknesses: OMES generally accepts agency‑submitted inventory data without comprehensive verification, the space‑request form allows manual overrides that inflate requested square footage, and not all agencies provide badge‑swipe or attendance data that would enable accurate daily utilization measures.

OMES officials acknowledged data limitations but disputed the implication that the agency has abdicated its duties. Mark Wood, director of OMES, told the committee OMES meets its statutory reporting obligations and that space allocation is not a “one‑size‑fits‑all” calculation. OMES staff said they routinely advise agencies, consider program‑specific needs (for example, customer‑facing spaces, courtrooms and public transportation requirements), and reconcile space requests with agencies rather than strictly enforcing one allocation figure.

Bonnie Campo, OMES chief administrative officer, and Carrie Carmen, Capital Assets Management, said limited staffing constrains the agency’s ability to validate every inventory entry in person. OMES committed to follow up on specific data errors LOFT identified and to take audit recommendations under advisement.

Auditors pressed that statutory language gives OMES broad custody and control of state real property and that the agency’s limited exercise of that control has measurable budgetary consequences. LOFT cited examples in which agencies reduced footprints (Department of Transportation, Department of Human Services and the Medical Marijuana Authority) and realized combined annual savings the audit estimated at roughly $23 million in one set of examples.

LOFT recommended that OMES exert the full scope of its statutory authority, integrate verification methods (including badge‑swipe and Workday data where feasible), amend administrative rules to set a consistent space allocation standard, require agencies to certify inventory accuracy, and submit analyses to the Long Range Capital Planning Commission showing which private leases could be eliminated through relocation into state‑owned space.

LOFT estimated private leases cost Oklahoma between about $18.5 million and $34.8 million annually in the datasets it reviewed, with a likely excess premium of roughly $16.1 million per year compared with OMES‑managed space, and potential annual savings of about $28.8 million if existing state buildings were maximally utilized.

Committee members asked for follow‑up data, including lists of agencies with erroneous inventory entries and more detail on vacant versus underutilized space. LOFT committed to a follow‑up report in approximately one year to measure changes. OMES said it would review LOFT’s recommendations internally and provide additional information to the committee.

The committee’s discussion mixed technical questions about methodology (LOFT’s use of a 216 sq ft benchmark and reliance on badge‑swipe samples) with policy questions about statutory enforcement and agency autonomy. Several lawmakers suggested statutory clarifications or certification requirements to improve data quality; LOFT said those policy changes would reduce the need to add FTEs for verification if agencies were required to certify their information.

The committee did not take immediate action on the report’s recommendations but heard OMES’ commitment to review and respond. LOFT’s report and the hearing transcript form the basis for additional oversight work the committee said it expects to pursue.