Menu Close

The table below shows the cash flows under the Federal Capital Revolving Fund proposal included in the Administration’s 2020 Budget and the scoring for budget enforcement purposes, assuming approval of a $1.5 billion GSA project.  (If you prefer to see a chart of the cash flows instead of a table, click here.)  The steps are as follows:

Year 1 Scoring:
1. FCRF pays $1.5 billion to GSA1,5001,500
2. GSA records $1.5 billion collection from FCRF-1,500-1,500
3. GSA records $1.5 billion BA for construction1,5001,500
4. GSA makes $100 million repayment to FCRF100100
5. FCRF records $100 million collection from GSA-100-100
6. Subtotal, Year 1 1001,4001,500
Years 2-15 Scoring:
7. GSA makes annual repayments to FCRF1,4001,400
8. FCRF records annual collections from GSA-1,400-1,400
9. Subtotal, Years 2-151,400-1,4000
10. Total Budget Impact, Years 1-151,50001,500


  1. In year 1, the Fund would be used to finance federally-owned, non-defense capital projects with a minimum $250 million price tag only if an appropriations Act approves the project and appropriates the first required annual repayment of the financing.  In this example, the Fund would transfer $1.5 billion to GSA. This payment would be classified as mandatory pursuant to rules included in the legislative proposal. 
  2. GSA would collect the $1.5 billion payment from the Fund, which would be classified as mandatory.  The payment and the collection net to zero and therefore have no PAYGO impact.
  3. GSA would spend the $1.5 billion to pay for the capital project.  The spending would be scored with a zero cost because the spending was already scored and included in the baseline when the Fund was capitalized by the initial $10 billion appropriation or when repayments were deposited into the Fund.
  4. GSA would use $100 million of its discretionary appropriations to make the first of 15 repayments to the Fund. The appropriation would score against the non-defense discretionary cap.
  5. The Fund would record $100 million of collections from GSA, which the legislation requires to be scored as mandatory collections.
  6. At the end of the first year, the budget would have recorded the entire cost of the $1.5 billion capital project.  Of that amount, $100 million of the project cost would be scored against the non-defense discretionary cap (the first annual repayment), and the remaining $1.4 billion would be scored as mandatory.
  7. In years 2-15, GSA would continue to use discretionary appropriations to make $1.4 billion of repayments to the revolving fund, which would score against the discretionary caps.  Scoring rules included in the legislation would help to ensure that the discretionary caps would be charged for the required repayments even if future appropriations Acts failed to provide the necessary funding.
  8. In years 2-15, the Fund would record $1.4 billion of collections from GSA, which the legislation requires to be scored as mandatory with no PAYGO impact.  These repayments stay in the Fund and are available to finance the $1.5 billion of capital projects.
  9. The total effect of the scoring for years 2-14 is to shift $1.4 billion of the project cost from the mandatory ledger to the discretionary ledger.
  10. To summarize, per the scoring rules included in the legislation, the full up-front cost of the project initially is recorded in the budget as mandatory, but by the end of the 15th year, the total project cost is shifted to discretionary.