SB 102, the “ROOMIE Act,” would require federal agencies to adopt in-person work policies for most employees and to ensure that a substantial share of their office space is actually occupied. Within 120 days of enactment, each agency would have to revise its policies so that at least 80 percent of employees work in person Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays, and so that at least 60 percent of usable office space in agency-controlled federal civilian property is occupied by employees. If an agency cannot meet the space requirement with its own workforce, it must submit an occupancy plan to Congress and the General Services Administration explaining how it will reach the target, including by sharing space with employees from other federal agencies.
The bill also directs the Comptroller General to report on implementation after the policy deadline. Its stated purpose is to address underused federal buildings, citing GAO and other reports about low occupancy rates, high real estate costs, and health risks in underutilized buildings. The findings specifically reference the National Capital Region, where the federal government owns or leases large amounts of property, and note concerns about vacant or lightly used buildings and the expense of maintaining them.
If agencies fail to comply, the bill would trigger real estate consequences. For federally owned or controlled property, the agency or GSA would have to sell the property. For leased property, the agency or GSA would have to terminate the lease early if possible, or otherwise not renew it. In effect, the bill would tie workforce attendance requirements directly to federal property utilization and disposal decisions, potentially affecting agency workplace policies, leasing practices, and the federal real estate portfolio.
The available context shows no recorded votes or committee debate, so there is no formal legislative record of support or opposition in the materials provided. Based on the bill text, the measure appears to be framed as a government efficiency and cost-saving proposal, with an emphasis on maximizing use of office space and reducing underused federal assets. The overall tone of the bill is directive and reform-oriented rather than incremental.
The main point of contention implied by the bill is the mandate itself: it would impose a broad in-person work requirement across federal agencies and could force property sales or lease terminations if occupancy targets are not met. That could raise concerns for agencies with mission-specific telework needs, workforce flexibility issues, labor relations, and the practical feasibility of consolidating staff into shared space. Supporters would likely focus on efficiency, accountability, and reducing waste, while critics would likely question whether a uniform occupancy mandate is appropriate for all agencies and whether it could disrupt operations.
The bill would amend federal agency workplace and property management practices by requiring agencies to adopt in-person work policies and meet minimum office occupancy thresholds. It would also create a reporting and enforcement framework involving the Office of Personnel Management, the General Services Administration, and the Comptroller General. Agencies that cannot meet the occupancy standards would have to prepare occupancy plans or face disposal, lease termination, or nonrenewal of federal civilian real property. The practical effect would be to pressure agencies to increase on-site staffing and reduce underused office space, with downstream impacts on federal leasing, building sales, and interagency space sharing.
The bill’s stated rationale is strongly pro-efficiency and pro-occupancy, reflecting concern about underused federal buildings and wasted real estate costs. The findings suggest a favorable view of returning employees to the office and consolidating federal space. Because there are no committee transcripts or votes in the provided materials, there is no documented legislative debate to show opposition or amendment activity, but the structure of the bill indicates a policy preference for stricter in-person work requirements and more aggressive management of federal property.
The likely contention centers on whether Congress should mandate a uniform in-person work standard for all federal agencies and tie that standard to real estate consequences. Potential critics may argue that some agencies need telework flexibility for recruitment, retention, mission performance, or geographic dispersion, and that a one-size-fits-all 80 percent in-person rule may not fit all functions. Others may question the feasibility and cost of forcing 60 percent occupancy in existing buildings, especially where space layouts, security requirements, or workforce distribution make consolidation difficult. Supporters, by contrast, are likely to emphasize accountability, cost savings, and the need to dispose of underused federal property.