Limitations in the Air Force's Proposed Housing Plan for Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany
Gao ID: GAO-06-736R May 19, 2006The Air Force plans to construct 233 military housing units on Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany at a cost of $131.3 million spread over fiscal years 2006-2008, and to fund 270 build-to-lease units nearby at an annual cost of $32,888 per unit over 20 years. The Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2006 directed the Secretary of the Air Force to submit to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a report containing a housing plan for Spangdahlem. The House Conference Report accompanying H.R. 2528 stipulated that the report must include a complete cost-benefit analysis of available housing options to include build-to-lease housing, and that none of the funds appropriated for family housing at Spangdahlem--nearly $45.4 million--may be obligated until the Secretary of the Air Force certified to the Appropriations Committees that the report had been completed and received the Committees' response or a 30-day period has elapsed after the Committees receive such report. In response to the mandate, the Air Force issued a report in January 2006 that compared its proposed plan with four other housing options that included a combination of traditional military construction, build-to-lease housing, and replacement of existing housing units to meet its housing requirements at Spangdahlem. In the report, the Air Force recommended implementation of its proposed plan and release of the military construction appropriations for fiscal year 2006. The Air Force also concluded that, depending on the results of its efforts to explore cooperative ventures with the local German government and communities and the potential for a larger build-to-lease program, the scope of its military construction projects for future years may need to be adjusted. The Air Force also stated it would provide a status report regarding these adjustments to Congress within 365 days of the Appropriations Committees' release of the fiscal year 2006 military construction appropriation. Specifically, the Air Force proposed to report on the results of the cooperative ventures, number of housing units procured in the fiscal year 2006 military construction project, and proposed adjustments in the scope of the fiscal years 2007 and 2008 military construction projects. In February 2006, the Appropriations Committees released nearly $45.4 million in fiscal year 2006 military construction budget authority for 79 housing units at Spangdahlem. During our ongoing review of the Department of Defense's (DOD) comprehensive overseas master plans, we met with Air Force officials and visited family housing units at Spangdahlem and the base's Bitburg Annex. We briefed Congress on the results of our site visits on February 27, 2006. Subsequently, on March 1, 2006, Congress requested that we review the assumptions and methodologies used in the Air Force's report issued in January 2006. This report responds to that request.
Although there is no basis to question whether the Air Force needs to upgrade its housing at Spangdahlem, key assumptions and methodology used in the Air Force report on housing plans for Spangdahlem, in some instances, were based on dated and incorrect information. As a result, there is uncertainty as to how many housing units are needed and which method--traditional military construction, build to lease, or other methods--is the most appropriate means to meet the housing requirement given costs and other considerations. The Air Force has recognized that there may be a need to adjust the scope of the military construction projects proposed for future years, and is in the process of updating its information and reassessing the mix of housing methods. Nevertheless, we identified several weaknesses in its 2006 report that the Air Force should address before it issues a status report to the Appropriations Committees. Air Force officials stated that they relied on a 2003 housing requirements and market analysis as the foundation to determine the need for family housing in the Air Force's 2006 Spangdahlem housing report. Although the 2003 analysis concluded that no additional family housing construction was needed, according to Air Force officials the analysis did not take into consideration the inadequate condition of some existing housing units and was based on outdated information, such as demographic data almost 2 decades old. Officials said that they also used other sources of information to develop the housing requirements identified in their 2006 report. While we reviewed these sources, we made no assessment of their suitability in determining the housing requirements. In the House Conference Report to H.R. 2528, the conferees urged the Air Force to consider all options to address the housing needs, and stated specifically that build-to-lease housing has the potential to provide quality housing quickly to the families at Spangdahlem, while also providing a more cost-effective and flexible option to the United States. Although the Air Force plans to use off-base, build-to-lease housing to meet over half of its requirements for new family housing in Spangdahlem, it did not recommend a larger number of build-to-lease units because it assumed that local conditions existed that limited support for such projects. As a result of its assumption, the Air Force may have underestimated the number of build-to-lease opportunities and overestimated the need for military construction funding or vice versa. We found that the Air Force did not follow Office of Management and Budget (OMB), DOD, and Air Force guidance on performing life-cycle cost analysis in two instances--when it used an incorrect discount rate to calculate the present value of the costs and benefits of the Air Force's proposed plan and four housing alternatives, and when it incorrectly calculated the remaining worth of the housing units funded with military construction appropriations after 20 years. However, our recalculations based on OMB, DOD, and Air Force guidance did not result in a significant variance from the Air Force's analysis, in that the estimated life-cycle costs of both analyses fell between the other alternatives. As a result, there is little, based on our recalculations of the life-cycle costs, to support a change in the Air Force's selected proposal, especially given the risk assessment criteria the Air Force assigned to compare the housing options. Nevertheless, the Air Force should use the correct discount rate and remaining worth of the housing in its analysis of the housing options presented in its upcoming status report to the Appropriations Committees.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Brian J. Lepore Team: Government Accountability Office: Defense Capabilities and Management Phone: (202) 512-5581GAO-06-736R, Limitations in the Air Force's Proposed Housing Plan for Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-736R
entitled 'Limitations in the Air Force's Proposed Housing Plan for
Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany' which was released on May 19, 2006.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
May 19, 2006:
The Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison:
Chair:
Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans' Affairs, and
Related Agencies:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
Dear Senator Hutchison:
Subject: Limitations in the Air Force's Proposed Housing Plan for
Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany:
The Air Force plans to construct 233 military housing units on
Spangdahlem Air Base,[Footnote 1] Germany at a cost of $131.3 million
spread over fiscal years 2006-2008, and to fund 270 build-to-lease
units nearby at an annual cost of $32,888 per unit over 20 years. The
Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act for
fiscal year 2006 directed the Secretary of the Air Force to submit to
the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a report
containing a housing plan for Spangdahlem[Footnote 2]. The House
Conference Report accompanying H.R. 2528 stipulated that the report
must include a complete cost-benefit analysis of available housing
options to include build-to-lease housing[Footnote 3], and that none of
the funds appropriated for family housing at Spangdahlem--nearly $45.4
million--may be obligated until the Secretary of the Air Force
certified to the Appropriations Committees that the report had been
completed and received the Committees' response or a 30-day period has
elapsed after the Committees receive such report[Footnote 4]. In
response to the mandate, the Air Force issued a report in January 2006
that compared its proposed plan with four other housing
options[Footnote 5] that included a combination of traditional military
construction, build-to-lease housing, and replacement of existing
housing units to meet its housing requirements at Spangdahlem[Footnote
6]. In the report, the Air Force recommended implementation of its
proposed plan and release of the military construction appropriations
for fiscal year 2006. The Air Force also concluded that, depending on
the results of its efforts to explore cooperative ventures with the
local German government and communities and the potential for a larger
build-to-lease program, the scope of its military construction projects
for future years may need to be adjusted. The Air Force also stated it
would provide a status report regarding these adjustments to Congress
within 365 days of the Appropriations Committees' release of the fiscal
year 2006 military construction appropriation. Specifically, the Air
Force proposed to report on the results of the cooperative ventures,
number of housing units procured in the fiscal year 2006 military
construction project, and proposed adjustments in the scope of the
fiscal years 2007 and 2008 military construction projects. In February
2006, the Appropriations Committees released nearly $45.4 million in
fiscal year 2006 military construction budget authority for 79 housing
units at Spangdahlem.
As you know, during our ongoing review of the Department of Defense's
(DOD) comprehensive overseas master plans,[Footnote 7] we met with Air
Force officials and visited family housing units at Spangdahlem and the
base's Bitburg Annex. We briefed your office on the results of our site
visits on February 27, 2006. Subsequently, on March 1, 2006, you
requested that we review the assumptions and methodologies used in the
Air Force's report issued in January 2006. This report responds to your
request.
To meet our objective, we made extensive use of information gleaned
from our site visits of Spangdahlem and the Bitburg Annex in December
2005. We also interviewed officials of the Office of the Secretary of
Defense; U.S. European Command; U.S. Air Force Europe; Air Force
Headquarters Civil Engineer Directorate; and Parsons Corporation--the
contractor that conducted analyses for the Air Force's report. We
reviewed and evaluated the housing requirements and market analysis the
Air Force used in preparing its housing report and interviewed Air
Force officials regarding the data and assumptions they used in
preparing their analysis. We analyzed the Air Force's efforts in
considering build-to-lease opportunities by interviewing Air Force
officials and reviewing correspondence to and from the German
government involving limitations and possible cost sharing for these
initiatives. We also compared the assumptions, methods, and economic
cost analyses used to develop the Air Force's proposed plan and
alternatives with the guidance contained in Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), DOD, and Air Force instructions and manuals. We also
worked with Air Force officials to assess whether their economic cost
analysis was based on this guidance. We determined that our data were
sufficiently reliable for our purposes.
We conducted our review from March through May 2006 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
Although there is no basis to question whether the Air Force needs to
upgrade its housing at Spangdahlem, key assumptions and methodology
used in the Air Force report on housing plans for Spangdahlem, in some
instances, were based on dated and incorrect information. As a result,
there is uncertainty as to how many housing units are needed and which
method--traditional military construction, build to lease, or other
methods--is the most appropriate means to meet the housing requirement
given costs and other considerations. The Air Force has recognized that
there may be a need to adjust the scope of the military construction
projects proposed for future years, and is in the process of updating
its information and reassessing the mix of housing methods.
Nevertheless, we identified the following weaknesses in its 2006 report
that the Air Force should address before it issues a status report to
the Appropriations Committees. Specifically:
Air Force officials stated that they relied on a 2003 housing
requirements and market analysis[Footnote 8] as the foundation to
determine the need for family housing in the Air Force's 2006
Spangdahlem housing report. Although the 2003 analysis concluded that
no additional family housing construction was needed, according to Air
Force officials the analysis did not take into consideration the
inadequate condition of some existing housing units and was based on
outdated information, such as demographic data almost 2 decades old.
Officials said that they also used other sources of information to
develop the housing requirements identified in their 2006 report. While
we reviewed these sources, we made no assessment of their suitability
in determining the housing requirements. At the same time, we are
concerned that the Air Force report may have overestimated the number
of new housing units needed because it did not take into account other
information indicating that a new highway had recently opened up access
to more villages, increasing opportunities for off-base housing. Air
Force officials said that this information will be contained in a new
housing requirements and market analysis to be issued in July 2006, but
they did not expect it to significantly change their housing
requirements. However, we believe that the Air Force may not fully know
the amount or mix of housing needed until it recalculates its on-base
housing requirements using this and other new information.
In the House Conference Report to H.R. 2528, the conferees urged the
Air Force to consider all options to address the housing needs, and
stated specifically that build-to-lease housing has the potential to
provide quality housing quickly to the families at Spangdahlem, while
also providing a more cost-effective and flexible option to the United
States. Although the Air Force plans to use off-base, build-to-lease
housing to meet over half of its requirements for new family housing in
Spangdahlem, it did not recommend a larger number of build-to-lease
units because it assumed that local conditions existed that limited
support for such projects. For example, Air Force officials assumed,
based upon limited discussions with state and local German officials,
that local developers considered the projects too financially risky to
undertake, without officially testing the market. As a result of its
assumption, the Air Force may have underestimated the number of build-
to-lease opportunities and overestimated the need for military
construction funding or vice versa. Information the Air Force received
from German officials after publishing its report suggests that some
limitations may no longer exist, that additional build-to-lease
opportunities may exist, and that military construction needed under
the Air Force proposed plan could differ from that previously planned.
For example, a concern that large, U.S.-style developments were not in
keeping with the culture of the region is being addressed by
designating small residential zones for appropriately 50-60 units near
the air base that can be planned, developed, and offered as the U.S.
need increases.[Footnote 9] Accordingly, to determine local interest in
build-to-lease developments, the Air Force plans to provide a
requirements document for 364 build-to-lease units to the German
government by June 2006 and expects a final build-to-lease agreement to
be complete in February 2007.[Footnote 10] Until the Air Force tests
its original assumptions about build-to-lease developments and
completes all assessments of available housing off base, Congress will
not be in a position to know whether the Air Force's planned allocation
of new family housing units in Spangdahlem between build-to-lease and
military construction units is fully justified or to what extent other
amounts may be required depending on the availability of military
construction funding.
We found that the Air Force did not follow OMB, DOD, and Air Force
guidance on performing life-cycle cost analysis in two instances--when
it used an incorrect discount rate to calculate the present value of
the costs and benefits of the Air Force's proposed plan and four
housing alternatives, and when it incorrectly calculated the remaining
worth of the housing units funded with military construction
appropriations after 20 years. However, our recalculations based on
OMB, DOD, and Air Force guidance did not result in a significant
variance from the Air Force's analysis, in that the estimated life-
cycle costs of both analyses fell between the other alternatives. As a
result, there is little, based on our recalculations of the life-cycle
costs, to support a change in the Air Force's selected proposal,
especially given the risk assessment criteria the Air Force assigned to
compare the housing options. Nevertheless, the Air Force should use the
correct discount rate and remaining worth of the housing in its
analysis of the housing options presented in its upcoming status report
to the Appropriations Committees.
We are making recommendations to the Secretary of the Air Force to
ensure that the Air Force's upcoming status report to the
Appropriations Committees includes an analysis of available housing
options that is based upon the most currently available data and sound
assumptions and methodology, including (1) the new housing requirements
and market analysis scheduled to be completed in July 2006 and (2)
calculations of life-cycle costs in accordance with government guidance
on the use of discount rates and how to calculate the remaining worth
of housing. In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD
concurred with our recommendations. We discuss DOD's comments and our
evaluation of them later in this report.
Background:
Spangdahlem is an enduring installation designed to ensure a strong
presence in the European theater and to facilitate close cooperation
with North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies and currently has a
total population of 12,014 servicemembers, civilians, contractors, and
dependents. Historically, the air base has hosted a fighter-aircraft
mission; however, its mission was enhanced by the closure of Rhein-Main
Air Base in December 2005 when a portion of its airlift mission was
moved to Spangdahlem. Spangdahlem is currently comprised of a main base
and four annexes, which are geographically separated from the main base
by 7 to 15 miles.[Footnote 11] The Air Force plans to consolidate all
activities, such as base support and family housing, at Spangdahlem and
close the four annexes. According to Air Force officials, the plan
would provide operational efficiencies and reduce the exposure of U.S.
service members and their families traveling on roads between the
annexes and Spangdahlem. According to Air Force officials, they
recorded a total of 196 accidents on the road between the Bitburg Annex
and Spangdahlem in 2004 and 2005.
Legislative Reporting Requirement:
The Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act
for fiscal year 2006 directed the Secretary of the Air Force to submit
to the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress a report
containing a housing plan for Spangdahlem.[Footnote 12] In the House
Conference Report accompanying H.R. 2528,[Footnote 13] the conferees
noted the current need for housing at Spangdahlem and provided funding
for such purpose. The conferees urged the Air Force to consider all
options to address the housing need at Spangdahlem and stated that
build-to-lease housing has the potential to provide quality housing
quickly to the families at Spangdahlem, while also providing a more
cost-effective and flexible option to the United States. In the
Statement of Managers accompanying the Conference Report for H.R. 2528,
the conferees directed the Air Force to report the results of a
complete cost-benefit analysis of all available housing options at
Spangdahlem, including build to lease, and that the analysis should
include but not be limited to the cost per housing unit of each option
and evidence of efforts made to lower such cost.
The Conference Report also stated that none of the funds appropriated
for family housing at Spangdahlem--nearly $45.4 million--may be
obligated until the Secretary of the Air Force certified to the
Committees on Appropriations that the report had been completed and
received the Committees' response or a 30-day period has elapsed after
the Committees receive such report. These military construction funds
were released to the Air Force in February 2006.
Air Force's Proposed Plan and Alternatives:
The Air Force's January 2006 report to both Appropriations Committees
includes a proposed housing plan and four alternatives for Spangdahlem
representing a combination of traditional military construction,
replacement of existing housing units, and build to lease. This report
also provides an overview on Spangdahlem's mission, the Air Force
housing strategy, and coordination efforts involving cost sharing with
the German government. The Air Force's proposed plan calls for military
construction of 233 family housing units at Spangdahlem at a total cost
of $131.3 million spread over fiscal years 2006-2008, using housing
units at Bitburg Annex as temporary living quarters (but eventually
closing them), and obtaining 270 build-to-lease units at an annual cost
of $32,888 per unit for 20 years in the communities surrounding
Spangdahlem. The Air Force anticipates that it would take 5 to 6 years
from the start of the fiscal year 2006 military construction to fully
implement the proposed plan. The report also offers four other
alternative ways to meet the projected housing needs of servicemembers
stationed at Spangdahlem.
Alternative 1 provides for military construction of 139 family housing
units at Spangdahlem in fiscal years 2006-2007, using family housing
units at Bitburg Annex as temporary living quarters (but eventually
closing them), and obtaining 364 build-to-lease units.
Alternative 2 provides for no military construction at Spangdahlem and
obtaining 503 build-to-lease units.
Alternative 3 provides for military construction of 164 family housing
units at Spangdahlem over fiscal years 2006-2008, and replacing 339
housing units at Bitburg Annex.
Alternative 4 provides for military construction of 503 family housing
units at Spangdahlem and using family housing units at Bitburg Annex as
temporary living quarters (but eventually closing them).
Table 1 shows the quantities and sources of proposed housing units as
well as the life-cycle costs as projected and reported by the Air Force
for its proposed plan and four alternatives. All of the housing options
include continued use of 134 units the Air Force considers adequate on
Spangdahlem and 200 units currently leased in German communities near
Spangdahlem.
Table 1: Quantities and Sources of Housing Units and the Air Force's
Estimated Life-cycle Costs for Its Proposed Plan and Four Alternatives:
Sources: Fiscal year 2006 military construction;
Proposed plan: 79;
Alternative 1: 79;
Alternative 2: [Empty];
Alternative 3: 79;
Alternative 4: 79.
Sources: Fiscal year 2007 military construction;
Proposed plan: 60;
Alternative 1: 60;
Alternative 2: [Empty];
Alternative 3: 60;
Alternative 4: 60.
Sources: Fiscal year 2008 military construction;
Proposed plan: 94;
Alternative 1: [Empty];
Alternative 2: [Empty];
Alternative 3: 25;
Alternative 4: 364.
Sources: Build to lease;
Proposed plan: 270;
Alternative 1: 364;
Alternative 2: 503;
Alternative 3: [Empty];
Alternative 4: [Empty].
Sources: Replace existing Bitburg Annex housing[A];
Proposed plan: [Empty];
Alternative 1: [Empty];
Alternative 2: [Empty];
Alternative 3: 339;
Alternative 4: [Empty].
Sources: Use existing Spangdahlem housing;
Proposed plan: 134;
Alternative 1: 134;
Alternative 2: 134;
Alternative 3: 134;
Alternative 4: 134.
Sources: Renew existing leases;
Proposed plan: 200;
Alternative 1: 200;
Alternative 2: 200;
Alternative 3: 200;
Alternative 4: 200.
Sources: Total housing units;
Proposed plan: 837;
Alternative 1: 837;
Alternative 2: 837;
Alternative 3: 837;
Alternative 4: 837.
Sources: Total life-cycle costs[B];
Proposed plan: $228,437;
Alternative 1: $253,560;
Alternative 2: $287,034;
Alternative 3: $154,276;
Alternative 4: $135,688.
Source: Air Force.
[A] This alternative also includes the costs to construct front gate
improvements, a fire station, and demolition of 715 existing,
inadequate housing units located at Bitburg.
[B] Total life-cycle costs are in fiscal year 2005 dollars in thousands
using the Air Force's 3.5 percent nominal discount rate.
[End of table]
In its January 2006 report to both Appropriations Committees, the Air
Force recommended implementation of the proposed plan. In addition, the
Air Force committed to executing the fiscal year 2006 military
construction project for 79 housing units and, since it considered
traditional military construction appropriations as the most cost-
effective solution, it also included military construction projects for
fiscal years 2007 and 2008. Because more military construction over
these proposed levels will require utilization of additional contiguous
tracts of land from the German government, the Air Force also
recommended pursuit of 270 build-to-lease units. In addition, the
primary benefits of using build to lease, according to Air Force
officials, are that it provides service members housing faster and
requires less up-front appropriations than traditional military
construction. Given current budget limitations, these officials believe
that housing options requiring less up-front funds may be more
acceptable to DOD and Congress despite their greater life-cycle costs
than options with lower life-cycle costs but greater up-front funding
requirements, such as those that rely primarily on traditional military
construction appropriations.
At the same time, Air Force also reported it will continue to explore
cooperative ventures with the German State of Rheinland-Pfalz and local
communities, and a larger build-to-lease program to meet its housing
requirements. Depending on the results of these efforts, the Air Force
concluded that the scope of future years' military construction
projects may be adjusted. The Air Force also proposed to provide a
status report and report these adjustments to Congress within 365 days
of the Appropriations Committees' release of the fiscal year 2006
military construction funds appropriated for Spangdahlem family
housing. Specifically, the Air Force proposed to report on the (1)
realized savings from cooperation with the State of Rheinland-Pfalz or
the success of its proposed build-to-lease program, (2) number of
housing units procured in the fiscal year 2006 military construction
project, and (3) proposed adjustments in the scope of the fiscal years
2007 and 2008 military construction projects to meet its housing
requirements. The Air Force concluded by stating that it was committed
to reassessing its housing requirements and adjusting its strategy to
provide the most cost-efficient housing investment solution at
Spangdahlem.
Air Force May Have Overestimated Requirements:
While the Air Force relied on a housing requirements and market
analysis that concluded no additional family housing construction was
needed at Spangdahlem to develop its 2006 housing report, it also used
other sources of information for this analysis but overlooked other
information that may also affect on-base housing requirements. We are
concerned that the Air Force may have overestimated the number of new
housing units needed on base in its 2006 report because it did not take
into account information showing that a new highway had recently opened
up, which has created access to more villages and subsequently more
rental housing and potentially more build-to-lease locations. Air Force
officials said that this information will be contained in a new housing
requirements and market analysis to be issued in July 2006, but that
they did not expect it to significantly change their housing
requirements. However, we believe that the Air Force may not fully know
the amount or mix of housing needed until it recalculates its on-base
housing requirements using this new information.
Air Force Selectively Relied on Housing Requirements and Market
Analysis:
Although Air Force officials say that they relied on its 2003 housing
requirements and market analysis to estimate the total family housing
requirement for Spangdahlem, they used other sources of information for
their analysis. A key finding in the housing requirements and market
analysis, which concluded that no additional family housing
construction was needed, does not support the Air Force's current
request for military construction. However, Air Force officials said
the 2003 housing requirements and market analysis did not take into
consideration the inadequate condition of some existing housing units
in the Spangdahlem area. Thus, they believe the number of surplus
family housing units identified in the 2003 analysis did not represent
an accurate depiction of the amount of family housing available for
military personnel and their dependents. Air Force officials also used
data provided in another document completed in June 2005 called the
housing community profile, which provided an assessment of housing
conditions and improvements required to meet Air Force standards, to
support the Air Force's proposed housing plan and alternatives.
Air Force officials recognized that, in some instances, the 2003-2008
analysis reflected dated information, and the Air Force used additional
sources of information to develop its housing requirement. Although Air
Force officials said they used the most current information available
when they prepared the 2003 housing requirements and market analysis,
in some cases they used information that was almost 20 years old.
Specifically, in its assessment of the ability of the private sector to
potentially house military families, the 2003 analysis used data
collected by the German national census of 1987 as a reference for the
amount of suitable rental housing in the community around Spangdahlem.
The Air Force also relied on more current housing data, on-site
surveys, and interviews with local experts in the real estate market
and base personnel. While we reviewed these added sources, we did not
make an assessment of their suitability in determining the housing
requirement.
Updated Analysis Could Change Overall Military Family Housing
Requirement:
The Air Force plans to complete another housing requirements and market
analysis for Spangdahlem in July 2006 using more current data, which
could change--increase or decrease--the overall military family housing
requirement.[Footnote 14] Our prior work, and that of the DOD inspector
general, has emphasized the importance of determining the availability
of off-base housing for military families in communities surrounding
military installations to prevent overstated government housing
requirements.[Footnote 15] The Air Force may have overestimated the
number of new housing units needed in its plan because it did not take
into account areas near Spangdahlem that may be able to support build-
to-lease opportunities. In a letter to the German government dated
March 2006, an Air Force official said the results of the new housing
requirements and market analysis this summer would incorporate factors
such as a new highway that has created access to more villages and
subsequently more rentals and potential construction locations for
build-to-lease units. Air Force officials acknowledge that this updated
analysis may reduce the overall family housing requirements at
Spangdahlem by taking into account these newly accessible areas that
may provide additional rental units and be able to support build-to-
lease housing. Air Force officials said, however, that they did not
expect this information to significantly change their housing
requirements. Until the Air Force reevaluates its housing requirements
based upon more current information in its new housing requirements and
market analysis, it may not fully know the amount or mix of housing
needed at Spangdahlem.
Some Limitations in Build-to-Lease Housing May Have Been Overcome and
Additional Opportunities May Now Exist:
Information the Air Force received after publishing its report suggests
that some previous limitations in build-to-lease housing near
Spangdahlem may have been overcome and, consequently, additional build-
to-lease opportunities may exist. The Air Force considered build-to-
lease housing as a significant source of off-base housing under its
proposed plan and under two alternatives, but at the time the Air Force
wrote its report, Air Force officials stated that they did not
recommend pursuing larger numbers of build-to-lease housing units
because of local conditions that limited support for such projects. The
Air Force has received information since publishing its report
suggesting that these limitations may no longer exist, that additional
build-to-lease opportunities may exist, and that military construction
needed under the Air Force proposed plan may be less than stated. To
test its original assumptions about local interest in build-to-lease
developments near Spangdahlem, the Air Force plans to provide a
requirements document for 364 build-to-lease units to the German
government by June 2006 and expects a final agreement to be complete in
February 2007.
Air Force Information Indicated Limitations on Numbers of Build-to-
Lease:
At the time of the Air Force's 2006 report, Air Force officials said
that information indicated there were limitations to pursuing greater
numbers of build-to-lease units than those proposed in the Air Force
plan. Air Force officials cited meetings with representatives of the
State of Rheinland-Pfalz and local communities where these
representatives expressed various concerns. Air Force officials
considered the primary challenge for a build-to-lease proposal at
Spangdahlem to be the ability of local developers to acquire loans from
banks to pay for construction of the housing units, because the
projects were considered too financially risky to undertake. According
to Air Force officials, the military services, by statute,[Footnote 16]
are limited to leasing family housing units for a maximum of 10 years,
which may not provide sufficient time for developers to recoup their
investment. Further, the State of Rheinland-Pfalz was reluctant to
guarantee lease payments beyond 10 years because of concerns that the
Air Force might close Spangdahlem at some time in the near future. Air
Force officials stated that, at the Army's Grafenwoehr Garrison in
Germany, the Army addressed this limitation by obtaining local German
government commitment to guarantee an additional 10-year lease period,
thus providing a 20-year leasing agreement for the developers of build-
to-lease housing projects. At Spangdahlem, the State of Rheinland-Pfalz
has been reluctant to provide the same type of commitment for build-to-
lease housing because Rheinland-Pfalz officials believe there is not a
secondary market of German citizens in the area who could lease the
large number of build-to-lease units that could be available at the end
of the 10-year lease period.
Discussions in December 2005 between Air Force officials and
representatives of the State of Rheinland-Pfalz and local communities
also yielded concerns regarding a lack of public infrastructure to
create more than 270 private units in a short period of time. In
addition, local officials expressed concerns that large, U.S.-style
developments were not in keeping with the culture of the region. In its
report to Congress, the Air Force acknowledged the difficultly of this
situation and stated that it does not want to pursue a large amount of
build-to-lease units, because the result could be little or no family
housing if the limitations they identified cause build-to-lease plans
to fail due to low investor confidence in the long-term future of the
air base coupled with a questionable secondary market if the base was
closed or its mission significantly reduced. This could force military
families to live in inadequate existing housing and consequently
require additional military construction funds at a later date.
Some Build-to-Lease Limitations May No Longer Exist and Some Military
Construction Funds May Not Be Necessary:
Some limitations to build-to-lease developments may no longer exist or
may have been mitigated by recent events. Air Force officials have
stated that the release of fiscal year 2006 military construction funds
for family housing units at Spangdahlem provided assurance to the
German private market that the U.S. government was committed to
maintaining a presence in the area and that the State of Rheinland-
Pfalz is now more likely to provide lease guarantees. As a result, the
Air Force has accelerated its efforts to pursue cooperative ventures
with the State of Rheinland-Pfalz and local villages for a build-to-
lease program.
Recent correspondence between the Air Force and the German government
suggests that additional build-to-lease opportunities may exist and
that some military construction funds requested under the Air Force
proposed plan may not be necessary. From January through March 2006,
the Air Force and the German government discussed progress toward
attaining additional built-to-lease units in the Spangdahlem area. A
January 2006 letter to the Air Force from an official of the State of
Rheinland-Phalz discussed overcoming their concern that U.S.-style
developments were not in keeping with the culture of the region by
designating small residential zones for appropriately 50-60 units near
the air base that can be planned, developed, and offered as the U.S.
need increases. The letter also discussed overcoming the concerns of
local developers that the projects were too financially risky by
providing financial grants to assist developers by reducing their total
cost liability. Another letter from the Air Force to the State of
Rheinland-Phalz predicted that the results of a new housing requirement
and market analysis will recognize access to more villages, rental
units, and potential housing construction locations. This should reduce
the overall military family housing requirement, which may reduce local
concerns about the size and obtrusiveness of off-base build-to-lease
efforts.
The Air Force plans to test the local market interest in build-to-lease
developments through the German government starting with the Air
Force's requirements document for 364 build-to-lease units in June 2006
and expects a final build-to-lease agreement to be complete in February
2007--an action that could provide a more complete picture of the
potential use of build-to-lease units. Air Force officials said that if
this effort is successful, the fiscal year 2008 military construction
requirement for 94 family housing units may no longer be required.
However, the Air Force is not in a sound position to fully know the
amount or mix of housing needed until it has received the results of
the build-to-lease proposal and other new information. The Air Force
proposes to report any adjustments in its upcoming status report to the
Appropriations Committees. Until the Air Force tests its original
assumptions about local interest in build-to-lease developments and
completes all assessments of available housing off base, Congress will
not be in a sound position to know whether the Air Force's planned
allocation of new family housing units in Spangdahlem between build-to-
lease and military construction units is fully justified.
Air Force Did Not Always Follow Guidance in Its Life-cycle Cost
Analysis of Housing Options:
The economic analysis the Air Force used in estimating the life-cycle
costs of its proposed plan and four alternatives presented in its
Spangdahlem housing report did not follow applicable guidance from OMB,
DOD, and Air Force in two instances. The Air Force varied from the
guidance in (1) using a discount rate of 3.5 percent to calculate the
present value of expected costs, and (2) calculating the remaining
worth of the housing units funded with military construction
appropriations at an estimated replacement value. On the basis of the
applicable guidance, we adjusted the Air Force's calculations by (1)
using a discount rate of 5.2 percent to calculate the present value of
expected costs, and (2) depreciating the housing units constructed with
military construction appropriations to calculate the remaining worth
of the housing at the end of the period of analysis. (We describe the
details of the Air Force's and our calculations in enclosure I of this
report.)
However, as shown in table 2, our recalculations did not result in a
significant variance from the Air Force's analysis.[Footnote 17] Like
the Air Force's life-cycle cost estimate ($228.4 million), our adjusted
life-cycle cost ($225.6 million) of the Air Force's proposed plan falls
between the life-cycle costs of other four housing alternatives and the
difference between the life-cycle cost estimates for the proposed plan
was only -1.3 percent. As a result, there is little, based on our
recalculations of the life-cycle costs for the current housing options,
to support a change in the Air Force's selected proposal, especially
given the risk assessment criteria the Air Force assigned to compare
the housing options. Nevertheless, the Air Force should use the correct
discount rate and remaining worth of the housing in its analysis of the
housing options presented in its upcoming status report to the
Appropriations Committees.
Table 2: Comparison of Air Force Reported Life-cycle Costs with GAO
Adjusted Life-cycle Costs for the Proposed Plan and Four Alternatives:
Proposed plan;
Air Force life-cycle costs: $228,437;
Adjusted life-cycle costs: $225,557;
Difference: -$2,880;
Percentage difference: -01.3%.
Alternative 1;
Air Force life-cycle costs: 253,560;
Adjusted life-cycle costs: $237,614;
Difference: -$15,946;
Percentage difference: -06.3%.
Alternative 2;
Air Force life-cycle costs: 287,034;
Adjusted life-cycle costs: $245,113;
Difference: -$41,921;
Percentage difference: -14.6%.
Alternative 3;
Air Force life-cycle costs: 154,276;
Adjusted life-cycle costs: $150,910;
Difference: -$3,366;
Percentage difference: -2.2%.
Alternative 4;
Air Force life-cycle costs: 135,688;
Adjusted life-cycle costs: $163,646;
Difference: +$27,958;
Percentage difference: +20.6%.
Source: Air Force and GAO.
Notes:Fiscal year 2005 dollars in thousands.
The life-cycle costs to retain 134 housing units at Spangdahlem and to
continue to lease 200 units in the local community are common to all
five options and, consequently, are not included.
[End of table]
Air Force officials stated that the Air Force would not change its
conclusions and recommendation supporting the proposed housing plan
based on our recalculations, because the Air Force also relied on its
established criteria to measure the benefits and risk of each housing
option. The benefits criteria considered whether each option supported
construction of government-owned housing; provided flexible funding and
execution; consolidated operations at Spangdahlem and returned land and
facilities to the German government; leveraged cost sharing with the
German government; or capitalized on build-to-lease housing. The risk
criteria considered whether each option kept military construction
investment below, over, or at the current program level;[Footnote 18]
included 270 or more units in a build-to-lease program; or provided no
U.S. military construction investment resulting in a lack of private
developer confidence in investing in build-to-lease housing for
Spangdahlem. For example, as shown in table 3, the Air Force concluded
that its proposed plan represented the best-case scenario in that the
plan provides for a large number of benefits while the risks were low.
On the other hand, according to the Air Force, alternative 4 provides
for the worst-case scenario in that, while the alternative supports the
goal of consolidating operations at Spangdahlem, the risk is considered
high due to the overreliance on U.S. government funding for all housing
construction. In addition, this alternative requires the German
government to acquire land adjacent to Spangdahlem, which increases
risks due to the potential difficulties and delays in acquiring the
land from private owners.[Footnote 19] Based on the results of the
benefits and risk analysis, Air Force officials believe our
recalculations by themselves would not have caused the Air Force to
change the overall conclusions and recommendation in its report to
Congress. We have no basis to challenge the Air Force's position
regarding its risk assessment.
Table 3: Air Force Reported Benefit and Risk for the Proposed Plan and
Four Alternatives:
Proposed plan;
Benefit: High;
Risk: Low.
Alternative 1;
Benefit: High;
Risk: Moderate.
Alternative 2;
Benefit: High;
Risk: High.
Alternative 3;
Benefit: Low;
Risk: High.
Alternative 4;
Benefit: Moderate;
Risk: High.
Source: Air Force.
[End of table]
Conclusions:
The Air Force 2006 report to the Appropriations Committees provided an
assessment of housing options that was not always based on current
information, and did not follow the government guidance on cost-benefit
analysis methodology. Although we found no basis to question whether
the Air Force needs to upgrade its housing at Spangdahlem, there is
uncertainty over how many housing units are needed and which housing
method--traditional military construction, build to lease, or other
methods--is the most appropriate means to meet its housing
requirements. Consequently, we believe, as the Air Force concluded in
its 2006 report, that there may be a need to adjust the scope of the
military construction projects proposed for the future. While the Air
Force specified that the results of its efforts to explore cooperative
ventures and develop a larger build-to-lease program are needed to make
these adjustments in its upcoming status report to the Appropriations
Committees, it did not identify other factors, such as its new
Spangdahlem housing requirements and market analysis, it planned to
consider in making these adjustments. Until the Air Force fully
explores cooperative ventures and a larger build-to-lease program, as
well as the results of its new housing requirements and market
analysis--all of which the Air Force expects to be completed later in
2006 or early 2007--the Air Force and Congress will not be in a sound
position to know the full potential for build-to-lease housing near
Spangdahlem and the need for military construction in fiscal years 2007
and 2008. Until then, there is a possibility of overestimating or
underestimating the number of housing units needed to be built on base
with military construction appropriations.
While Air Force did not fully follow OMB, DOD, and Air Force guidance
on performing life-cycle cost analysis, our recalculations based on the
guidance did not result in a significant variance from the Air Force's
analysis, in that the estimated life-cycle costs of both analyses fell
between the other alternatives. As a result, there is little based on
our recalculations of the existing life-cycle costs using current
information to support a change in the Air Force's selected proposal in
its 2006 report or the Air Force's reliance on its established criteria
to measure the benefits and risk of each housing option. Nevertheless,
since there may be a need to adjust the scope of the military
construction projects proposed for fiscal years 2007 and 2008 and the
other housing methods presented in its upcoming status report, the Air
Force cannot accurately calculate and objectively assess the costs and
benefits of different housing options unless it follows OMB guidance on
the use of discount rates and with DOD and Air Force guidance on the
use of depreciation to calculate the remaining worth of housing.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We recommend that the Secretary of the Air Force take the following two
actions and reflect the results of these actions in its upcoming status
report to the Appropriations Committees.
Because of the uncertainty associated with which factors the Air Force
plans to consider when it adjusts the scope of the military
construction projects proposed for fiscal years 2007-2008, the
Secretary should include, at a minimum, the results of its new housing
requirements and market analysis for Spangdahlem (scheduled to be
completed in July 2006) in making the required adjustments.
To ensure that the status report is based upon sound economic
assumptions and methods, the Secretary should calculate life-cycle
costs in accordance with OMB guidance on the use of discount rates and
in accordance with DOD and Air Force guidance on the use of
depreciation to calculate the remaining worth of housing.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
In written comments on a draft of this report, the Assistant Deputy
Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental, Safety, and Occupational
Health) agreed with our recommendations. However, the Assistant Deputy
Under Secretary commented that DOD expects the implementation of our
recommendations would have minimal effect on the outcome of the Air
Force's analysis and would not significantly change the recommended
course of action. We are reluctant to agree with this expectation since
many of the key data needed to base such a conclusion will not be known
until later this year. For example, the results of the new Spangdahlem
housing requirements and market analysis due to be completed this
summer would incorporate factors such as a new highway that has created
access to more villages and subsequently more rentals and potential
construction locations for build-to-lease units. This updated analysis
has the potential to reduce the overall family housing requirements at
Spangdahlem by taking into account these newly accessible areas that
may provide additional rental units and be able to support build-to-
lease housing. We believe that until the Air Force has sufficient time
to assess the results of its efforts to further explore cooperative
ventures and develop a larger build-to-lease program, as well as the
results of its new housing requirements and market analysis, DOD will
not be in a sound position to know the full potential for build-to-
lease housing and more rental housing near Spangdahlem, and the need
for military construction funding in fiscal years 2007 and 2008. As a
result, we continue to believe, as the Air Force concluded in its 2006
report, that there may be a need to adjust the scope of the proposed
military construction projects because of the uncertainty over how many
housing units are needed and which housing method--traditional military
construction, build to lease, or other methods--is the most appropriate
means to meet its housing requirements.
In addition, the Assistant Deputy Under Secretary's comments outlined
what DOD believed were three deficiencies of our draft report. However,
in its comments DOD misquoted our draft report and made incorrect
conclusions as discussed below:
First, DOD stated that our report "supports the Air Force's selected
proposal, especially given the risk assessment criteria the Air Force
assigned to compare the housing options." In addition, DOD concluded
that this quote should have been the primary focus of our audit and
reflected in the results and conclusions sections of our report.
However, we actually reported that "As a result, there is little, based
on our recalculations of the life-cycle costs for the current housing
options, to support a change in the Air Force's selected proposal,
especially given the risk assessment criteria the Air Force assigned to
compare the housing options." By misquoting our report, DOD failed to
recognize that our statement referred to our recalculations of the life-
cycle costs using then currently available information for the housing
options identified in the Air Force's January 2006 report. As discussed
above, there may be a need for the Air Force to adjust the housing
options in its upcoming status report based on the results of its
efforts to further explore cooperative ventures and develop a larger
build-to-lease program, as well as the results of its new Spangdahlem
housing requirements and market analysis. While we appreciate DOD's
view that our recalculations of the life-cycle costs should be the
primary focus of our report, we believe that DOD should recognize that
we completed this review in response to a request from the Chair of the
Senate Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans' Affairs, and
Related Agencies, who asked that we review all the key assumptions and
methodologies the Air Force used to develop its January 2006 report,
and that the life-cycle costs analysis was only one aspect of our
review, not the primary focus. Accordingly, we have made no change to
our report.
Second, DOD commented that our draft report stated the 2003 housing
requirements and market analysis did not take into consideration the
inadequate condition of some existing housing units and that we
reported the Air Force substituted other sources of information for its
2003 housing requirements and market analysis. Actually, our draft
report stated that "Although the 2003 analysis concluded that no
additional family housing construction was needed, according to Air
Force officials, the analysis did not take into consideration the
inadequate condition of some existing housing units and was based on
outdated information, such as demographic data almost 2 decades old.
Therefore, officials say, they substituted other sources of information
to develop the housing requirements used in their 2006 report." By
using the term "substituted" in this case and other instances in our
draft report, we were attempting to reconcile the differences between
the Air Force 2003 market analysis' conclusion that no additional
family housing construction was needed and its 2006 report's conclusion
that additional housing construction was needed at Spangdahlem. We were
also trying to explain that the Air Force used other sources of
information along with the 2003 market analysis to determine the
housing requirements identified in its 2006 report. Because we continue
to believe that it is important to reconcile the differences between
the conclusions of the 2003 market analysis and 2006 report, we did not
change our report in this respect. However, we revised our report to
eliminate the use of "substituted" as DOD suggested. Further, our draft
report did not state that the 2005 housing community profile was done
to complete the Air Force's January 2006 report as DOD stated in its
written comments. Accordingly, we made no change to our report in that
regard.
Third, DOD expressed concern that our draft report stated that the Air
Force had "limited discussions with state and local German officials"
and DOD noted instead that there had been numerous discussions. DOD
also noted that the Air Force cannot issue a request for proposals to
test the level of interest by local developers in build-to-lease
projects and that German government will conduct the acquisition
process in this instance for the Air Force. With respect to DOD's first
concern, we actually reported that "Air Force officials assumed, based
upon limited discussions with state and local German officials, that
local developers considered the projects too financially risky to
undertake, without officially testing the market [through] a request
for proposals." Our use of "limited" in this instance was based
primarily on both: (1) the Air Force 2006 report's description of only
one meeting with state government of Rheinland-Pfalz representatives
where Air Force and German officials discussed options involving the
German government cooperation including cost-sharing, road repair, and
loan guarantees; and (2) that the Air Force had not yet tested the
local market by having the German government issue a request for
proposals. We continue to believe our use of limited in this instance
is proper. In addition, the statement in our report that the Air Force
planned to issue a request for proposal was based on the documentation
Air Force officials provided to us, which states that the "USAFE [U.S.
Air Force Europe] plans to test the market through a Request for
Proposal (RFP) for 364 units." This documentation did not state, nor
did Air Force officials mention, that the German government would
actually issue the request for proposals. Nevertheless, as DOD
suggested, we revised this report to reflect that the German government
would conduct the acquisition process in this instance for the Air
Force.
The Assistant Deputy Under Secretary's comments are reprinted in their
entirety in enclosure II. DOD also provided technical clarifications,
which we incorporated as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to other interested congressional
committees; the Secretaries of Defense and the Air Force; and the
Director, OMB. We will also make copies available to others upon
request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on
GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov. The GAO staff members who made
key contributions to this report are listed in enclosure III.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please call
me at (202) 512-5581 or email at holmanb@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Barry W. Holman, Director:
Defense Capabilities and Management:
[End of Section]
Enclosure 1:
Description of Both Air Force's and Our Calculations of Life-cycle
Costs:
The economic analysis the Air Force used in estimating the life-cycle
costs presented in its Spangdahlem housing report varied from
applicable Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Department of Defense
(DOD), and Air Force guidance in (1) using a discount rate of 3.5
percent to calculate the present value of expected costs, and (2)
calculating the remaining worth of the housing units funded with
military construction appropriations at an estimated replacement value
at the end of the period of analysis--in this case 20 years. Using Air
Force data, we recomputed the life-cycle costs based on the applicable
guidance by (1) using the correct discount rate of 5.2 percent, and (2)
depreciating the housing units constructed with military construction
appropriations to calculate the remaining worth of the housing.
Air Force's Economic Analysis and Key Assumptions:
The Air Force used a variety of data sources and analytical steps to
estimate the life-cycle costs of its proposed plan and the four other
housing alternatives for Spangdahlem.
First, the construction costs of the family housing units were derived
from the cost estimates contained on DD form 1391 for projects where
they existed,[Footnote 20] and from DOD's family housing cost model,
which contains estimates of construction costs. To compute the present
value of these construction costs in fiscal year 2005 dollars, the Air
Force used a 3.5 percent nominal discount rate. Air Force officials
said the 3.5 percent discount rate was selected automatically from a
Web-based program model that is available for public use in making net
present value calculations.
Second, to follow DOD guidance on economic analysis,[Footnote 21] the
Air Force offset the costs of the military construction projects by
their remaining worth, which the guidance and the Air Force's report
call residual value, of the family housing units at the end of the
period of analysis. The guidance specifically states that residual
value should be calculated for alternatives that have assets
(buildings, equipment, structures, etc.) that will still have a useful
value at the end of the period of analysis. It is important to note
here that the term "residual value" used in the Air Force's analysis
should not be confused with the residual value terminology also
commonly used overseas to describe an amount a host nation would pay
the United States for improvements made to property when it is returned
to the host nation. In no instances do Air Force officials believe the
United States would receive the amount of residual value used in its
economic cost analysis if the housing were to be returned to Germany
sometime in the future. Although Air Force guidance further states that
residual value amounts are normally calculated using a straight line
depreciation method[Footnote 22] of the started value over the
project's economic life,[Footnote 23] the Air Force did not depreciate
the value of housing in its economic cost analysis. Instead, Air Force
officials assumed that the Air Force would fully fund the sustainment
of the housing necessary to cover expenses of all recurring maintenance
costs as well as major repairs (e.g., replacing the roof or repairing
the air conditioning) and, consequently, they concluded these units
would not depreciate in value. However, it is important to note that
historically the Air Force has not fully funded sustainment of its
facilities. For example, we have reported that hundreds of millions of
dollars designated for sustainment continues to be redesignated by the
services to pay for base operations support services and other programs
and priorities, and that amounts spent on facilities sustainment have
fallen short of what is needed to halt the deterioration of
facilities.[Footnote 24]
Third, on the basis of historical data on actual operation and
maintenance costs for family housing, the Air Force estimated that it
would incur $4,900 in annual operation and maintenance costs. To
compute the present value of these construction costs in fiscal year
2005 dollars, the Air Force used the Web-based program model to inflate
the $4,900 estimate 2.5 percent per year and adjusted for the time
value of money by 3.5 percent.
Fourth, using historical cost data for build-to-lease agreements, the
Air Force estimated that the annual cost of the build-to-lease housing
was $32,888 per unit. To compute the present value of these costs in
fiscal year 2005 dollars, the Air Force used the Web-based program
model to inflate the $32,888 estimate 2.5 percent per year and adjusted
this figure for the time value of money by 3.5 percent.
As shown in table 4, the estimated life-cycle cost ($228.4 million) of
the Air Force's proposed plan falls between the life-cycle costs of
other four housing alternatives, which range from $135.7 million to
$287 million.
Table 4: Air Force Life-cycle Costs for Its Proposed Plan and Four
Alternatives:
Fiscal year 2005 dollars in thousands:
Military construction:
New family housing at Spangdahlem;
Proposed plan: $126,205[A];
Alternative 1: $80,769;
Alternative 2: [Empty];
Alternative 3: $96,097;
Alternative 4: $210,146.
Demolition at Spangdahlem;
Proposed plan: [Empty];
Alternative 1: [Empty];
Alternative 2: $2,755;
Alternative 3: [Empty];
Alternative 4: [Empty].
Replace Bitburg Annex housing[B];
Proposed plan: [Empty];
Alternative 1: [Empty];
Alternative 2: [Empty];
Alternative 3: $128,140;
Alternative 4: [Empty].
Subtotal (total military construction);
Proposed plan: $126,205;
Alternative 1: $80,769;
Alternative 2: $2,755;
Alternative 3: $224,237;
Alternative 4: $210,146.
Less residual value;
Proposed plan: (69,982);
Alternative 1: ($44,634);
Alternative 2: [Empty];
Alternative 3: ($112,316);
Alternative 4: ($116,813).
Subtotal (military construction less residual value);
Proposed plan: $56,223;
Alternative 1: $36,135;
Alternative 2: $2,755;
Alternative 3: $111,921;
Alternative 4: $93,333.
Operation and maintenance;
Proposed plan: 19,620;
Alternative 1: $11,704;
Alternative 2: [Empty];
Alternative 3: $42,355;
Alternative 4: $42,355.
Build to lease;
Proposed plan: $152,595;
Alternative 1: $205,721;
Alternative 2: $284,279;
Alternative 3: [Empty];
Alternative 4: [Empty].
Total life-cycle costs;
Proposed plan: $228,437;
Alternative 1: $253,560;
Alternative 2: $287,034;
Alternative 3: $154,276;
Alternative 4: $135,688.
Source: Air Force.
Notes:Totals may not add due to rounding.
The life-cycle costs to retain 134 housing units at Spangdahlem and to
continue to rent 200 units in the local community are common to all
five options and, consequently, are not included in this table.
[A] $131.3 million in original military construction costs for fiscal
years 2006-2008 presented in fiscal year 2005 dollars.
[B] This alternative also includes the costs to construct front gate
improvements, a fire station, and demolition of 715 existing,
inadequate housing units located at Bitburg.
[End of table]
Although military construction and build-to-lease programs are
typically analyzed on a 40-year basis, the Air Force used a 20-year
time frame to generate the life-cycle costs of each of the housing
options shown in table 4. According to Air Force guidance, the time
frame for the economic cost-analysis period used to compare various
alternatives is normally the construction period plus the shortest of
the known economic life of the different alternatives[Footnote 25]. In
this instance, according to Air Force officials, the initial lease
period for housing units is not to exceed 10 years with a 10-year
renewal option[Footnote 26]. Air Force officials also said to go beyond
20 years in its analysis would create several challenges because of the
lack of information on the costs of build-to-lease units since the
lease would have to be renegotiated and housing built with military
construction appropriations would have to be renovated, which would
require adjustments in its cost estimates for the different housing
options. Consequently, the Air Force chose to use a 20-year time frame
in its economic costs analysis, as we did when we adjusted the Air
Force's life-cycle costs analysis.
Our Adjusted Life-cycle Cost Analysis:
We recalculated the life-cycle costs of the Air Force's proposed plan
and the four alternatives after making two adjustments to better follow
OMB, DOD, and Air Force guidance. (See our adjusted life-cycle costs in
table 5.) First, we used a 5.2 percent discount rate to calculate the
present value of the expected military construction costs, annual
operation and maintenance costs, and annual build-to-lease housing
costs. OMB guidance on economic cost analysis, such as those performed
by the Air Force, provides specific guidance on the discount rates to
be used in evaluating federal programs whose benefits and costs are
distributed over time.[Footnote 27] DOD's instruction on economic
analysis decision making states that the estimate of the discount rate
for use in economic analysis shall be issued annually in accordance
with OMB guidance and the data shall be based on estimates of real and
nominal borrowing rates provided by OMB.[Footnote 28] Air Force
guidance on military construction and family housing economic analysis
also requires an economic analysis to use discount rates provided by
OMB.[Footnote 29] For fiscal year 2005--the base year of the Air Force
study--OMB guidance requires that 5.2 percent be used for a 20-year
period by federal agencies as the nominal discount rate for their
economic cost analyses.[Footnote 30] Second, to follow Air Force
guidance, we depreciated the housing units constructed with military
construction appropriations using a straight line method to calculate
the residual value of the housing at the end of the period of analysis.
Air Force guidance states that residual value is normally calculated
using a straight line depreciation method.
Table 5: Adjusted Life-cycle Costs for the Air Force's Proposed Plan
and Four Alternatives:
Fiscal year 2005 dollars in thousands:
Military construction:
New family housing at Spangdahlem;
Proposed plan: $118,620[A];
Alternative 1: $77,124;
Alternative 2: [Empty];
Alternative 3: $91,123;
Alternative 4: $195,280.
Demolition at Spangdahlem;
Proposed plan: [Empty];
Alternative 1: [Empty];
Alternative 2: $2,662;
Alternative 3: [Empty];
Alternative 4: [Empty].
Replace Bitburg Annex housing[B];
Proposed plan: [Empty];
Alternative 1: [Empty];
Alternative 2: [Empty];
Alternative 3: $89,554;
Alternative 4: [Empty].
Subtotal (total military construction);
Proposed plan: $118,620;
Alternative 1: $77,124;
Alternative 2: $2,662;
Alternative 3: $180,677;
Alternative 4: $195,280.
Less residual value;
Proposed plan: ($39,979);
Alternative 1: ($24,943);
Alternative 2: [Empty];
Alternative 3: ($65,890);
Alternative 4: ($67,757).
Subtotal (military construction less residual value);
Proposed plan: $78,641;
Alternative 1: $52,181;
Alternative 2: $2,662;
Alternative 3: $114,787;
Alternative 4: $127,523.
Operations and maintenance;
Proposed plan: $16,773;
Alternative 1: $9,982;
Alternative 2: [Empty];
Alternative 3: $36,123;
Alternative 4: $36,123.
Build to lease;
Proposed plan: $130,143;
Alternative 1: $175,451;
Alternative 2: $242,451;
Alternative 3: [Empty];
Alternative 4: [Empty].
Total life-cycle costs;
Proposed plan: $225,557;
Alternative 1: $237,614;
Alternative 2: $245,113;
Alternative 3: $150,910;
Alternative 4: $163,646.
Source: Based on Air Force data.
Notes:The life-cycle costs to retain 134 housing units at Spangdahlem
and to continue to rent 200 units in the local community are common to
all five options and, consequently, are not included in this table.
[A] $131.3 million in original military construction costs for fiscal
years 2006-2008 presented in fiscal year 2005 dollars.
[B] This alternative also includes the costs to construct front gate
improvements, a fire station, and demolition of 715 existing,
inadequate housing units located at Bitburg.
[End of table]
Comments from the Department of Defense:
Acquisition, Technology And Logistics:
Office Of The Under Secretary Of Defense:
9000 Defense Pentagon Washington, DC 20301-9000:
May 12 2006:
Mr. Barry Holman:
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr Holman,
This is the Department of Defense (DOD) response to the GAO draft
report, GAO-06-736R, "Limitations in the Air Force's Proposed Housing
Plan for Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany," dated May 9, 2006 (GAO Code
350835).
Thank you for allowing us to comment on your draft report. We concur
with the GAO recommendations that the Air Force update the Housing
Requirements and Market Analysis (HRMA) and correct assumptions in the
life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA) prior to its next status report to the
Appropriations Committees. However, we expect these revisions will have
a minimal effect on the outcome of the Air Force's analysis and will
not significantly change the recommended course of action. Our comments
below outline what we believe are three specific deficiencies of the
report. We will provide our technical comments under separate cover.
First, the report concludes that it "supports the Air Force's selected
proposal, especially given the risk assessment criteria the Air Force
assigned to compare the housing options." This should be the primary
focus of the GAO audit, reflected in the results and conclusions
sections of the report. The AF's proposal is based upon the fact that a
MILCON solution is more cost-effective than the build-to-lease (BTL)
solution. This was proven by the average MILCON cost per unit of
$338,357 in comparison to the average BTL cost per unit of $565,167.
The only finding from the GAO report was an incorrect discount rate and
present value costs. Revising these assumptions will continue to
support the AF's recommended solution.
Second, the report says that the "HRMA did not take into consideration
the inadequate condition of some existing housing units." It further
says that the AF "substituted other sources of information to develop
the housing requirements used in their 2006 report." The "other
sources" refers to the Housing Community Profile (HCP). The HCP was not
completed as a "substitution for this information" as stated on page
12, but an integral part of the Housing programming process. Our
process has four major steps. First, the HRMA determines the on-base
housing requirement. Second, the HCP determines the condition of the
existing housing, calculates the cost effectiveness of renovation vs.
replacement, and develops a funding strategy for accomplishing the
housing requirement. Third, the Family Housing Master Plan (FHMP) takes
each individual base HCP and uses business rules to build the AF
program. Finally, the FHMP is developed into DD 1391s and is submitted
to the Congress through the POM process. The report's assertion that
the HCP was done to complete the report is inaccurate.
Third, the report states that "limited discussions with state and local
German officials" were conducted. To the contrary, there have been
numerous discussions with the German officials before and during the
Spangdahlem Report to Congress. For example, General Hobbins (COMUSAFE)
personally met with Minister Bruch (State Secretary, German State of
Rheinland-Pfalz) and has highlighted the recent Rheinland-Pfalz
commitments to loan guarantees and stressed the importance of the FY07
project in continued progress of the BTL/private investment. This shows
a high level of commitment and has personal involvement from the
Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Air Force on Spangdahlem Housing.
Also, the Air Force cannot issue a request for proposal; it must be
issued by BlMA (Bundesanstalt fur Immobilienaufgaben - German
Government Real Estate). BIMA now has a draft of AF's requirements
document and awaits the official accommodation request so they can
begin the acquisition process.
Because of the importance of the FY07 project in signaling commitment
to Spangdahlem housing, support for the FY07 project at Spangdahlem AB
remains critical. Any deferral may directly impact the Air Force's
ability to realize the maximum number of build to lease units and cause
their Spangdahlem airmen to remain in inadequate quarters indefinitely.
If you have any questions regarding the attached report please contact
me at (703) 602-3669.
Signed by:
Alex A. Beehler:
Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense:
(Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health):
GAO DRAFT REPORT - DATED May 9, 2006 GAO CODE 350835/GAO-06-736R:
"MILITARY HOUSING: Limitations in the Air Force's Proposed Housing Plan
for Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany"
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE COMMENTS TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS:
GAO RECOMMENDATION 1: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of the Air
Force include, at a minimum, the results of its new housing
requirements and market analysis (HRMA) for Spangdahlem in making the
required adjustments. (Page 21/GAO Draft Report):
DOD RESPONSE TO GAO RECOMMENDATION 1:
We concur with adjusting the Spangdahlem housing program as a result of
the 2006 HRMA and the success of BTL.
GAO RECOMMENDATION 2: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of the Air
Force calculate life-cycle costs in accordance with Office of
Management and Budget guidance on the use of discount rates and in
accordance with DOD and Air Force guidance on the use of depreciation
to calculate the remaining worth of housing. (Page 21/GAO Draft
Report):
DOD RESPONSE TO GAO RECOMMENDATION 2:
We concur with updating the report with the correct discount rate and
depreciation value with the understanding that the resulting report
will not fundamentally change the ranking of the alternatives nor the
Air Force's position on the proposed option being the most viable
alternative.
[End of Section]
Enclosure III:
GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgements:
GAO Contact:
Barry W. Holman, (202) 512-5581 (holmanb@gao.gov):
Acknowledgements:
In addition to the person named above, Nelsie Alcoser, Susan Ditto,
Mark Little, Charles Perdue, Gary Phillips, and Roger Tomlinson also
made major contributions to this report.
(350835):
FOOTNOTES
[1] Hereafter referred to simply as Spangdahlem.
[2] Pub. L. No. 109-114, § 130 (2005).
[3] According to Air Force officials, the primary benefits of using
build to lease are that it provides housing quicker and requires less
up-front appropriations from the United States than the traditional
military construction method. Under a build-to-lease agreement, the
United States contracts with a developer to construct housing for a
specified number of units for use by military personnel under a fixed
lease term, such as 10 years, with renewal options for additional
periods of time. A developer builds the housing with no U.S. government
funds and the only investment by the United States is a commitment to
lease the housing from the developer once the housing is built.
[4] H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 109-305, at 34 (2005).
[5] The Air Force's proposed plan and four housing alternatives are
described on pages 6 and 7 of this report.
[6] Air Force, Report to the Committee on Appropriations of Both Houses
of Congress on A Housing Plan for Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany
(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 25, 2006).
[7] Senate Report 108-82 on the Military Construction Appropriations
Bill, 2004 directed GAO to monitor the infrastructure master plans
developed and implemented for the overseas regional commands and to
provide the congressional defense committees with annual assessment
reports.
[8] Parsons Corporation, Housing Requirements and Market Analysis 2003
- 2008: Spangdahlem Air Base Germany (Oct. 6, 2003).
[9] According to DOD, the 50-60 unit limitation levied by the German
government limits the ability for large-scale development and
encourages multiple, small developers that will increase the complexity
and risk of the build-to-lease projects.
[10] According to DOD, the German government real estate office
(Bundesanstalt für Immobilienaufgaben) will conduct the acquisition
process in this instance for the Air Force.
[11] The annexes are Bitburg, Oberweis, Zemmer, and Sulm.
[12] Pub. L. No. 109-114, § 130 (2005).
[13] H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 109-305, at 34 (2005).
[14] Housing requirements and market analyses are routinely updated
every 4 years to determine whether housing requirements in an area have
changed. The upcoming analysis at Spangdahlem will cover the 2008-2013
time frame.
[15] GAO, Military Housing: Management Improvements Needed As the Pace
of Privatization Quickens, GAO-02-624 (Washington, D.C.: June 21,
2002).
[16] Section 2828 (d) (1) of Title 10, United States Code provides that
"Leases of housing units in foreign countries under subsection (c) for
assignment as family housing may be for any period not in excess of 10
years, or 15 years in the case of leases in Korea, and the costs of
such leases for any year may be paid out of annual appropriations for
that year."
[17] More complete data on the potential for build-to-lease housing and
the number of available rental units in the local communities near
Spangdahlem, which will affect life-cycle costs, will not be available
until the Air Force analyzes the results of its solicitation for
proposals about build-to-lease housing and updates its housing
requirements and market analysis later in 2006.
[18] The Air Force assigned a higher level of risk to options in which
the U.S.-funded military construction exceeded the current program
because an increase in up-front funding requirements was expected to be
less acceptable to DOD and Congress than the current level.
[19] According to the Air Force, the acquisition of additional land
will occur at no cost to the U.S. government and ownership will
ultimately remain with the German government.
[20] DD form 1391 is used by DOD to submit requirements and
justifications in support of funding requests for military construction
to Congress.
[21] DOD Instruction 7041.3, Economic Analysis for Decision Making
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 7, 1995).
[22] Straight line depreciation is a method of calculating the
depreciation of an asset which assumes the asset will lose an equal
amount of value each year. The annual depreciation is calculated by
subtracting the salvage value of the asset from the purchase price, and
then dividing this number by the estimated useful life of the asset.
[23] Air Force Manual 32-1089, Air Force Military Construction and
Family Housing Economic Analysis Guide (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 1,
1996).
[24] GAO, Defense Infrastructure: Issues Need to Be Addressed in
Managing and Funding Base Operations and Facilities Support, GAO-05-556
(Washington, D.C.: June 15, 2005), and Defense Infrastructure: Changes
in Funding Priorities and Strategic Planning Needed to Improve the
Condition of Military Facilities, GAO-03-274 (Washington, D.C.: Feb.
19, 2003).
[25] Air Force Manual 32-1089.
[26] 10 U.S.C. 2828 § (d) (1).
[27] OMB Circular A-94, Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost
Analysis of Federal Programs, (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 29, 1992). The
circular states that the standard criterion for deciding whether a
government program can be justified on economic principles is the net
present value, which is calculated by assigning monetary values to
benefits and costs, discounting future benefits and costs using an
appropriate discount rate, and subtracting the sum total of discounted
costs from the sum total of discounted benefits.
[28] DOD Instruction 7041.3.
[29] Air Force Manual 32-1089.
[30] OMB Circular No. A-94, App. C, Discount Rates for Cost-
Effectiveness, Lease Purchase, and Related Analyses (Washington, D.C.:
Jan. 5, 2006). The 5.2 percent rate is available in a table of past
years discount rates from Appendix C of Circular No. A-94.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
