New 'COST of Relocations Act' Mandates Strict Cost-Benefit Analysis for Federal Job Moves Over 100 Employees

Ever felt like the government moves jobs or entire offices around without anyone really checking the math? This new proposal, the Congressional Oversight to Secure Transparency of Relocations Act (or the COST of Relocations Act), aims to change that by requiring a mandatory, deep-dive cost-benefit analysis (CBA) before federal agencies can pull the trigger on a major job move.

The Trigger: When the Feds Have to Show Their Work

This bill doesn’t apply to every single job transfer. It kicks in when an agency plans a “covered relocation.” That means moving jobs outside the employees' normal commuting area, or transferring them to a different federal agency, if the change affects more than 100 employees or 5% of the component’s staff. Think of it as the government's version of a major corporate restructuring—it needs serious justification. If the agency hits that threshold, they can’t proceed until they produce a CBA that strictly follows the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-4 guidance, specifically the version from 2003. This is the government saying, 'You must use the old-school, standard economic playbook, no exceptions,' which adds significant rigor to the process.

More Paperwork, More Transparency

For those of us footing the bill—the taxpayers—this is a win for accountability. The agency’s report has to be exhaustive. It must detail the expected financial benefits, explain how the move will achieve those benefits, and lay out a full strategy for implementation, including a timeline and risk assessment. Crucially, the agency must also explain how the move impacts the people they serve in both the old and new locations. For example, if the USDA moves a research lab, the report must analyze how farmers in the original region will access that expertise compared to farmers in the new region. After creating this detailed report, the agency must make a public version available, ensuring we can see the logic (and the numbers) behind the decision.

The Inspector General Becomes the Referee

Here’s where the check and balance comes in: the agency can’t just grade its own homework. They have to submit the full, unedited CBA to their own Office of Inspector General (OIG). The OIG then acts as the referee, reviewing the data, the methodology, and whether the agency actually followed that strict 2003 OMB guidance. Within 90 days, the OIG sends its own findings directly to specific committees in the House and Senate. This mandatory OIG review and report to Congress is designed to prevent moves based on political whim rather than sound financial and operational planning. It means every major federal relocation decision gets a second, independent set of eyes before it moves forward.

The Trade-Off: Efficiency vs. Scrutiny

While this bill adds welcome oversight, it also adds administrative friction. Agencies planning a major move—which might be genuinely needed to cut costs or improve service delivery—will face a mandatory delay of at least 90 days while the OIG conducts its review. For the agency, this means significantly more paperwork and time spent justifying the move, which could slow down necessary operational changes. However, for the affected federal employees and the public, this process guarantees that relocation plans are thoroughly vetted, stakeholder engagement is documented, and the financial justification is solid. It’s a classic trade-off: sacrificing some speed and flexibility for greater transparency and accountability in how federal resources are spent.