Defense Infrastructure
Challenges Increase Risks for Providing Timely Infrastructure Support for Army Installations Expecting Substantial Personnel Growth Gao ID: GAO-07-1007 September 13, 2007The Army expects significant personnel growth, more than 50 percent in some cases, at 18 domestic bases through 2011 because of the effect of implementing base realignment and closure (BRAC), overseas force rebasing, and force modularity actions. This growth creates the need for additional support infrastructure at these bases and in nearby communities. Military construction costs of over $17 billion are expected for new personnel, and communities will incur infrastructure costs as well. GAO prepared this report under the Comptroller General's authority to conduct evaluations on his own initiative. It addresses (1) the challenges and associated risks the Army faces in providing for timely infrastructure support at its gaining installations and (2) how communities are planning and funding for infrastructure to support incoming personnel and their families. GAO analyzed personnel restationing numbers, discussed planning efforts with Army and community officials, and visited nine of the larger gaining bases and nearby communities.
The Army has developed plans to accommodate the growth of about 154,000 personnel at its domestic bases, but it faces several complex implementation challenges that risk late provision of needed infrastructure to adequately support incoming personnel. First, Army plans continue to evolve, and Army headquarters and each of the nine gaining bases we visited were relying on different numbers of personnel movements and were not fully aware of the causes for the variances. For example, Fort Benning officials expected more than 6,000 additional soldiers and military students than Army headquarters planned. Because consistency in the relocation numbers is important for properly determining not only base infrastructure support needs but those of nearby communities as well, inconsistent numbers could lead to an improperly sized facilities' infrastructure. Second, the Army faces challenges in synchronizing personnel movements with planned newly constructed on-base infrastructure improvements. Any significant delays in implementing planned actions could place the Army at risk of not meeting BRAC statutory deadlines. Third, competing priorities could lead the Army to redirect resources planned for needed infrastructure improvements and operations to such priorities as current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as has happened in the past. However, such redirection of resources could undermine the Army's ability to complete infrastructure improvements in time to support personnel movements and to meet planned timelines. Fourth, the Army Corps of Engineers, the primary construction agent for the Army, must manage an unprecedented volume of construction, implement a new construction strategy designed to save construction costs and time, and complete infrastructure improvements within available resources and planned timelines. The Army recognizes these challenges and is refining its implementation plans to overcome these challenges. While communities surrounding growth bases GAO visited have generally proactively planned for anticipated growth, they have been hindered in fully identifying additional infrastructure requirements and associated costs by the evolving nature of the Army's plans and different interpretations of the plans. For example, while Army officials at Fort Benning, Georgia, project an influx of about 10,000 school-age children, the Department of Defense's (DOD) November 2006 figures project only about 600. At the time of our review, these disparities remained unresolved. Communities surrounding growth bases have their own unique infrastructure improvement needs, such as schools, housing, or transportation, based on (1) the number of personnel to actually move to the nearby base, (2) the community's current capacity in its area(s) of need, and (3) the community's own capacity to finance additional infrastructure requirements and the availability of federal or state assistance to finance these needs. Some communities had already sought federal and state assistance to help finance construction efforts at the time of GAO's review even though the evolving nature of the Army's planning prevented the communities from having reasonable assurance that they knew the full scope of their infrastructure requirements.
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: Team: Phone:GAO-07-1007, Defense Infrastructure: Challenges Increase Risks for Providing Timely Infrastructure Support for Army Installations Expecting Substantial Personnel Growth
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-1007
entitled 'Defense Infrastructure: Challenges Increase Risks for
Providing Timely Infrastructure Support for Army Installations
Expecting Substantial Personnel Growth' which was released on September
13, 2007.
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.
Report to Congressional Addressees:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
September 2007:
Defense Infrastructure:
Challenges Increase Risks for Providing Timely Infrastructure Support
for Army Installations Expecting Substantial Personnel Growth:
Defense Infrastructure:
GAO-07-1007:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-1007, a report to congressional addressees.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Army expects significant personnel growth, more than 50 percent in
some cases, at 18 domestic bases through 2011 because of the effect of
implementing base realignment and closure (BRAC), overseas force
rebasing, and force modularity actions. This growth creates the need
for additional support infrastructure at these bases and in nearby
communities. Military construction costs of over $17 billion are
expected for new personnel, and communities will incur infrastructure
costs as well.
GAO prepared this report under the Comptroller General‘s authority to
conduct evaluations on his own initiative. It addresses (1) the
challenges and associated risks the Army faces in providing for timely
infrastructure support at its gaining installations and (2) how
communities are planning and funding for infrastructure to support
incoming personnel and their families. GAO analyzed personnel
restationing numbers, discussed planning efforts with Army and
community officials, and visited nine of the larger gaining bases and
nearby communities.
What GAO Found:
The Army has developed plans to accommodate the growth of about 154,000
personnel at its domestic bases, but it faces several complex
implementation challenges that risk late provision of needed
infrastructure to adequately support incoming personnel. First, Army
plans continue to evolve, and Army headquarters and each of the nine
gaining bases we visited were relying on different numbers of personnel
movements and were not fully aware of the causes for the variances. For
example, Fort Benning officials expected more than 6,000 additional
soldiers and military students than Army headquarters planned. Because
consistency in the relocation numbers is important for properly
determining not only base infrastructure support needs but those of
nearby communities as well, inconsistent numbers could lead to an
improperly sized facilities‘ infrastructure. Second, the Army faces
challenges in synchronizing personnel movements with planned newly
constructed on-base infrastructure improvements. Any significant delays
in implementing planned actions could place the Army at risk of not
meeting BRAC statutory deadlines. Third, competing priorities could
lead the Army to redirect resources planned for needed infrastructure
improvements and operations to such priorities as current operations in
Iraq and Afghanistan, as has happened in the past. However, such
redirection of resources could undermine the Army‘s ability to complete
infrastructure improvements in time to support personnel movements and
to meet planned timelines. Fourth, the Army Corps of Engineers, the
primary construction agent for the Army, must manage an unprecedented
volume of construction, implement a new construction strategy designed
to save construction costs and time, and complete infrastructure
improvements within available resources and planned timelines. The Army
recognizes these challenges and is refining its implementation plans to
overcome these challenges.
While communities surrounding growth bases GAO visited have generally
proactively planned for anticipated growth, they have been hindered in
fully identifying additional infrastructure requirements and associated
costs by the evolving nature of the Army‘s plans and different
interpretations of the plans. For example, while Army officials at Fort
Benning, Georgia, project an influx of about 10,000 school-age
children, DOD‘s November 2006 figures project only about 600. At the
time of our review, these disparities remained unresolved. Communities
surrounding growth bases have their own unique infrastructure
improvement needs, such as schools, housing, or transportation, based
on (1) the number of personnel to actually move to the nearby base, (2)
the community‘s current capacity in its area(s) of need, and (3) the
community‘s own capacity to finance additional infrastructure
requirements and the availability of federal or state assistance to
finance these needs. Some communities had already sought federal and
state assistance to help finance construction efforts at the time of
GAO‘s review even though the evolving nature of the Army‘s planning
prevented the communities from having reasonable assurance that they
knew the full scope of their infrastructure requirements.
What GAO Recommends:
To better facilitate infrastructure planning, GAO recommends that DOD
determine the causes for the variances in restationing numbers and
ensure that agreement is reached within the Army on these numbers. DOD
partially concurred with both recommendations.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1007].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Brian J. Lepore at (202)
512-4523 or leporeb@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
The Army Has Developed Plans but Faces Complex Implementation
Challenges:
Communities Have Efforts Under Way to Address Anticipated Army Growth,
but Planning and Funding Challenges Remain:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: Army Installations Expecting Net Gains of at Least 2,000
Personnel for Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011Because of BRAC, Overseas
Rebasing, Modularity, and Other Miscellaneous Restationing Actions (as
of March 2007):
Table 2: Planned Facilities Construction Costs for the 18 Army Domestic
Installations Expecting Net Gains in Personnel of at Least 2,000
Because of BRAC, Overseas Rebasing, Modularity, and Other Miscellaneous
Restationing Actions for Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011:
Table 3: Comparison of Army Headquarters and Installation Expected
Personnel Restationing Numbers at Selected Installations for Fiscal
Years 2006 through 2011 (as of March 2007):
Table 4: Comparison of Army Headquarters and Training and Doctrine
Command Proposed and Approved Personnel Reduction Numbers for the
Army's Centers of Excellence:
Table 5: OEA Army Growth-Related Grant Awards for Fiscal Years 2006 and
2007:
Figures:
Figure 1: Locations of 18 Army Installations Expecting Net Gains of at
Least 2,000 Personnel for Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011Because of
BRAC, Overseas Rebasing, Modularity, and Other Miscellaneous
Restationing Actions:
Figure 2: Panoramic View of Relocatable Buildings at Fort Bliss, Texas:
Figure 3: Closer View of Relocatable Buildings at Fort Bliss, Texas:
Abbreviations:
ASIP: Army Stationing Installation Plan:
BRAC: base realignment and closure:
DOD: Department of Defense:
OEA: Office of Economic Adjustment:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
September 13, 2007:
Congressional Addressees:
The Army is implementing extensive worldwide transformation initiatives
to enhance U.S. national security while conducting operations in
Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. These initiatives are expected to
lead to significantly increased military and civilian populations on
certain domestic installations by 2011. Because of the combined effect
of implementing base realignment and closure (BRAC); overseas force
redeployments back to the United States under the Global Defense
Posture Realignment, known as overseas rebasing; and a major Army force
reorganization, known as force modularity, the Army expects to relocate
over 150,000 personnel and increase 18 base populations by about
136,000.[Footnote 1] Department of Defense (DOD) estimates that
military construction costs will exceed $17 billion through fiscal year
2011 at these 18 bases, and surrounding communities will likely incur
costs to provide adequate schools, transportation, and other
infrastructure improvements. These figures do not include personnel
increases and added infrastructure costs as a result of Army actions to
increase its active end strength authorization by 65,000 soldiers.
Furthermore, family members and non-mission-related defense
contractors, whose numbers are not included in the relocation figures
cited above, will also relocate to areas surrounding these bases, thus
fueling increased civilian infrastructure needs. Compounding the
challenges of moving so many personnel is the statutory requirement to
complete BRAC closures and realignments by September 15, 2011.[Footnote
2] The Army expects to continue modularity-related moves beyond 2011.
Senior Army officials consider appropriate infrastructure support as
integral to maintaining operational readiness and quality of life for
soldiers, DOD civilians, and their families.
This report is one in a series that addresses emerging issues
associated with the implementation of the BRAC 2005 round, overseas
rebasing, and force modularity initiatives. Because of the broad
implications these initiatives have on the infrastructure support at
the Army's domestic installations and surrounding communities and
widespread congressional interest in this subject, we prepared this
report under the authority of the Comptroller General to conduct
evaluations on his own initiative.[Footnote 3] We are reporting the
results to you in order to facilitate your oversight of the Army's
efforts to address infrastructure needs as a result of the expected
growth. Our objectives were to (1) identify the challenges and risks
the Army faces in providing adequate infrastructure when needed at its
major gaining bases and (2) describe surrounding communities' plans and
funding for needed infrastructure to support incoming personnel and
their families.
To achieve our objectives, we analyzed data on the expected number and
timing of military and civilian personnel arrivals and departures at
gaining installations and military construction plans and funding to
support these moves. We also discussed implementation, funding, and
personnel movement plans with officials from various Army
organizations, including the Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for
Installation Management, the Installation Management Command and its
four regional offices, the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for
Operations and Plans, and the Army Corps of Engineers. We also
discussed implementation challenges with installation officials at nine
domestic bases expecting significant personnel growth and with local
leaders in communities surrounding these bases. To address the
surrounding communities' plans for needed schools, housing,
transportation, and other infrastructure, we reviewed documents on
community growth impacts and actions to address these impacts and data
on financial grants provided by DOD's Office of Economic Adjustment
(OEA) to communities surrounding the growth bases. We also met with
community leaders and discussed their plans to meet DOD-prompted needs
and with OEA officials to identify their interagency community impact
assistance efforts with other federal agencies, such as the Departments
of Transportation and Education.
We conducted our work from March 2006 through July 2007 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. Business plans
intended to direct the implementation of the BRAC recommendations
affecting the gaining bases were in draft at the time of our review. In
addition, other information the Army provided us was preliminary and
subject to change. Nonetheless, Army officials told us that the
information constituted their current plans at the time of our review
and should be considered an approximation of projected personnel
movement and funding. Similarly, because surrounding communities' plans
depend on the Army's plans, community planning information is also
considered preliminary and subject to change. Although we found some
discrepancies in the Army's information, we concluded that, overall, it
was sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. A more
detailed description of our scope and methodology is included in
appendix I.
Results in Brief:
The Army has developed plans to accommodate growth of about 154,000
personnel at its domestic bases as a result of BRAC 2005, overseas
rebasing, and force modularity actions, but it faces several complex
challenges to the implementation of those plans and risks late
provision of needed infrastructure to adequately support arriving
personnel. First, some of the Army plans continue to evolve,
particularly because the numbers continually change. Moreover, Army
headquarters and the gaining bases we visited were relying on different
numbers of personnel movements based on their understanding of the
plans at the time of our review. For example, Fort Benning officials
expected more than 6,000 additional soldiers and military students and
trainees than Army headquarters planned to relocate there at the time
of our review; however, officials could not fully determine the reasons
for these discrepancies. Because consistency in the relocation numbers
is important for properly determining not only base infrastructure
support needs but also those of nearby communities, inconsistent
numbers could lead to improperly sized facilities or overbuilding.
Second, the Army faces certain complexities in synchronizing personnel
movements with newly constructed on-base infrastructure improvements.
Any significant delays in implementing planned actions could place the
Army at risk of not meeting the statutory deadline for completing BRAC
actions. Third, competing priorities could lead the Army to redirect
resources planned for needed infrastructure improvements and operations
to such priorities as current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, as
has happened in the past. However, such redirection of resources could
undermine the Army's ability to complete infrastructure improvements in
time to support personnel movements by the statutory or planned
deadlines in 2011. Fourth, the Army Corps of Engineers, the primary
construction agent for the Army, must manage an unprecedented volume of
construction, implement a new construction strategy expected to save
construction costs and time, and effectively manage construction to
complete infrastructure improvements within available resources and
planned timelines, with special attention paid to the statutory
September 15, 2011, deadline for completing BRAC closures and
realignments. The Army recognizes these challenges and is refining its
infrastructure implementation and funding plans to overcome these
challenges.
While communities surrounding growth installations we visited have
generally proactively planned for anticipated growth, they have been
hindered from fully identifying additional infrastructure requirements
and associated costs by the evolving nature of the Army's plans and
different interpretations of the plans. For example, while Army
officials at Fort Benning, Georgia, project an influx of about 10,000
school-age children, DOD's November 2006 figures project only about
600. At the time of our review, these disparities remained unresolved.
Communities surrounding growth bases have unique infrastructure
improvement needs, such as schools, housing, or transportation, based
on (1) the number of personnel to actually move to the nearby base, (2)
the community's current capacity in its area(s) of need, and (3) the
community's own capacity to finance additional infrastructure
requirements and the availability of federal or state assistance to
finance these needs. Some communities had already sought federal and
state assistance to help finance construction efforts at the time of
our review even though the evolving nature of the Army's planning
prevented the communities from having reasonable assurance that they
knew the full scope of their infrastructure requirements.
To better facilitate infrastructure planning, we are making
recommendations to the Secretary of Defense to direct the Secretary of
the Army to (1) determine why there are differences between
headquarters and gaining bases with respect to the number of arriving
and departing personnel and (2) ensure that Army headquarters and
gaining bases are collaborating to agree on Army personnel movement
plans so that base commanders and surrounding communities can
effectively plan for expected growth. This collaboration to reach
agreement should continue as expected personnel movement actions are
revised over time.
In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD partially concurred with
both of our recommendations. It concurred with the findings of each
recommendation but said that the Army had determined the cause of data
differences and had already taken corrective actions. While the Army
has taken some steps to produce compatible data between the
headquarters and installation level, these corrective actions have not
been fully effective. Following receipt of DOD's comments on our draft
report in late August 2007, we contacted several of the bases we
visited during our review and found that there were still some
significant, long-standing problems with the variances in the data
being used by the installations and headquarters. While the data
differences have improved at some locations, other locations had data
differences that exceeded 1,000 personnel and officials said that they
had serious concerns with the headquarters data. Because disconnects
still exist, we believe that our recommendations remain valid.
Background:
BRAC, overseas rebasing, and Army modularity are all expected to
generate significant personnel movements among numerous bases within
the United States and from certain overseas locations back to the
United States. Four primary organizations--the Army's Office of the
Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management, the Army Corps of
Engineers, OEA, and the President's Economic Adjustment Committee--are
responsible for planning, managing construction, and assisting local
communities affected by these moves.
Three Major Initiatives Are to Generate Significant Personnel
Movements:
First, DOD has undergone four BRAC rounds since 1988 and is
implementing its fifth round, known as BRAC 2005, which was authorized
by Congress in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2002.[Footnote 4] The BRAC Commission recommendations were accepted by
the President and Congress and became effective on November 9, 2005. In
accordance with BRAC statutory authority, DOD must complete closures
and realignments by September 15, 2011. BRAC 2005's key goals were to
(1) transform DOD by more closely aligning its infrastructure with
defense strategy, (2) enhance joint operations, and (3) reduce excess
infrastructure and produce savings. Traditionally, DOD relied on BRAC
primarily to reduce excess property and save money since property that
has been disposed of is no longer maintained by DOD. Conversely, due in
part to the addition of the transformation and joint operations goals
to BRAC 2005, this round led to more than twice the number of actions
in all previous rounds combined, 837 distinct actions in all. These
BRAC actions incorporate many of the more than 50,000 Army personnel
expected to return from overseas locations to the United States as part
of DOD's overseas rebasing initiative discussed below.
Second, in August 2004, the President announced plans for sweeping
changes to the number and locations of DOD's overseas-based facilities.
Known as the Global Defense Posture Realignment, DOD plans to realign
its overseas basing structure over a 6-to 8-year period from the legacy
Cold War posture to one that would more effectively support current
allies and strategies and address emerging threats. Under the overseas
rebasing effort, the 50,000 Army personnel plus another 20,000 other
defense personnel and about 100,000 family members are to relocate from
overseas locations--primarily in Europe and Korea--to bases in the
United States. Although some of these personnel have already relocated,
many were still overseas at the time of our review. Army plans call for
overseas relocations to the United States to be completed prior to
September 15, 2011.
Third, similar to BRAC and overseas rebasing actions, implementation of
Army force modularity will add to the personnel growth at some bases.
The Army's modular transformation has been referred to as the largest
Army reorganization in 50 years and affects the active Army, Army
National Guard, and U.S. Army Reserve. The foundation for the modular
force is the creation of brigade combat teams that while somewhat
smaller than existing brigades, are expected to be more agile and
deployable and better able to meet combatant commander requirements.
Successful implementation of this initiative requires the movement of
personnel across various units, new facilities and equipment, a
different mix of skills and occupational specialties, and significant
changes in doctrine and training. The Army began the modularity
initiative in 2004 and expects to finish most associated
reorganizations by 2011, but expects that some reorganizations will
occur after 2011.
As a result of the three initiatives and certain other restationing
moves, the Army expects a net gain of about 154,000 personnel at its
domestic gaining bases from fiscal years 2006 through fiscal year 2011.
These gains include active and reserve soldiers, military students and
trainees, civilians, and mission contractors but do not include family
members and non-mission-related contractors.[Footnote 5] Our analysis
of March 2007 Army data on personnel restationing actions indicates
that 18 domestic installations, as shown in table 1, are likely to
experience a net gain of at least 2,000 military and civilian personnel
for fiscal years 2006 through 2011 because of BRAC 2005, overseas
rebasing, modularity, and other miscellaneous restationing actions.
Personnel gains at individual locations are projected to range from 7
percent to 111 percent.
Table 1: Army Installations Expecting Net Gains of at Least 2,000
Personnel for Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011Because of BRAC, Overseas
Rebasing, Modularity, and Other Miscellaneous Restationing Actions (as
of March 2007):
Installation: Fort Belvoir, VA;
FY 2006 beginning population: 21,437;
Estimated FY 2011 population: 45,332;
Estimated net gain in population: 23,895;
Percentage of population increase: 111.
Installation: Fort Bliss, TX;
FY 2006 beginning population: 20,130;
Estimated FY 2011 population: 38,063;
Estimated net gain in population: 17,933;
Percentage of population increase: 89.
Installation: Fort Bragg, NC;
FY 2006 beginning population: 57,352;
Estimated FY 2011 population: 69,136;
Estimated net gain in population: 11,784;
Percentage of population increase: 21.
Installation: Fort Lewis, WA;
FY 2006 beginning population: 36,147;
Estimated FY 2011 population: 47,110;
Estimated net gain in population: 10,963;
Percentage of population increase: 30.
Installation: Fort Sam Houston, TX;
FY 2006 beginning population: 24,819;
Estimated FY 2011 population: 34,980;
Estimated net gain in population: 10,161;
Percentage of population increase: 41.
Installation: Fort Benning, GA;
FY 2006 beginning population: 40,592;
Estimated FY 2011 population: 50,487;
Estimated net gain in population: 9,895;
Percentage of population increase: 24.
Installation: Fort Riley, KS;
FY 2006 beginning population: 15,188;
Estimated FY 2011 population: 24,608;
Estimated net gain in population: 9,420;
Percentage of population increase: 62.
Installation: Fort Lee, VA;
FY 2006 beginning population: 13,495;
Estimated FY 2011 population: 20,645;
Estimated net gain in population: 7,150;
Percentage of population increase: 53.
Installation: Fort Meade, MD;
FY 2006 beginning population: 35,504;
Estimated FY 2011 population: 41,915;
Estimated net gain in population: 6,411;
Percentage of population increase: 18.
Installation: Fort Carson, CO;
FY 2006 beginning population: 24,066;
Estimated FY 2011 population: 29,756;
Estimated net gain in population: 5,690;
Percentage of population increase: 24.
Installation: Fort Sill, OK;
FY 2006 beginning population: 26,499;
Estimated FY 2011 population: 31,136;
Estimated net gain in population: 4,637;
Percentage of population increase: 17.
Installation: Schofield Barracks, HI;
FY 2006 beginning population: 20,907;
Estimated FY 2011 population: 24,393;
Estimated net gain in population: 3,486;
Percentage of population increase: 17.
Installation: Redstone Arsenal, AL;
FY 2006 beginning population: 26,210;
Estimated FY 2011 population: 29,268;
Estimated net gain in population: 3,058;
Percentage of population increase: 12.
Installation: Fort Shafter, HI;
FY 2006 beginning population: 11,004;
Estimated FY 2011 population: 13,892;
Estimated net gain in population: 2,888;
Percentage of population increase: 26.
Installation: Fort Dix, NJ;
FY 2006 beginning population: 7,279;
Estimated FY 2011 population: 9,777;
Estimated net gain in population: 2,498;
Percentage of population increase: 34.
Installation: National Training Center and Fort Irwin, CA;
FY 2006 beginning population: 12,652;
Estimated FY 2011 population: 14,920;
Estimated net gain in population: 2,268;
Percentage of population increase: 18.
Installation: Fort Stewart and Hunter Army Airfield, GA;
FY 2006 beginning population: 28,322;
Estimated FY 2011 population: 30,400;
Estimated net gain in population: 2,078;
Percentage of population increase: 7.
Installation: Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD;
FY 2006 beginning population: 17,623;
Estimated FY 2011 population: 19,694;
Estimated net gain in population: 2,071;
Percentage of population increase: 12.
Installation: Total;
FY 2006 beginning population: 439,226;
Estimated FY 2011 population: 575,512;
Estimated net gain in population: 136,286;
Percentage of population increase: 31.
Source: GAO analysis of Army headquarters-level data.
Notes: Personnel growth consists of Army military (active and reserve),
military students and trainees and civilians, non-Army military and
civilians, and mission contractors. Figures do not include family
members and non-mission-related contractors and expected increases that
may occur as a result of plans to increase the Army's active end
strength authorization by 65,000 personnel.
[End of table]
As also shown in table 1, while the overall net gain in personnel at
these installations averages 31 percent, Forts Belvoir, Bliss, Lee, and
Riley are expected to experience a 53 percent or more growth rate. The
expected personnel net gains at these 18 installations account for
nearly 90 percent of the total expected personnel net gains across all
Army domestic installations through 2011. Figure 1 shows the locations
of the 18 installations.
Figure 1: Locations of 18 Army Installations Expecting Net Gains of at
Least 2,000 Personnel for Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011Because of
BRAC, Overseas Rebasing, Modularity, and Other Miscellaneous
Restationing Actions:
[See PDF for image]
Source: U.S. Army.
[End of figure]
accommodating the expected large increase of personnel at these 18 Army
locations over the next several years requires the expenditure of
significant military construction funds for required facilities.
Although the Army also will have procurement, operations and
maintenance, and other associated cost increases at these bases because
of the personnel increases, the scope of this report focuses on
military construction funding. Our analysis of DOD data, as shown in
table 2, indicates that DOD is planning to spend over $17 billion to
construct facilities at these locations through the fiscal year 2011
time frame.
Table 2: Planned Facilities Construction Costs for the 18 Army Domestic
Installations Expecting Net Gains in Personnel of at Least 2,000
Because of BRAC, Overseas Rebasing, Modularity, and Other Miscellaneous
Restationing Actions for Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011:
Dollars in millions.
Army BRAC[A];
FY2006: $506;
FY2007: $1,962;
FY2008: $2,007;
FY2009: $1,615;
FY2010: $1,126;
FY2011: $0;
Total dollars: $7,215;
Percentage of total dollars: 42.
Non-Army BRAC[B];
FY2006: 46;
FY2007: 295;
FY2008: 1,678;
FY2009: 1,843;
FY2010: 698;
FY2011: 38;
Total dollars: $4,598;
Percentage of total dollars: 27.
Army modularity[C];
FY2006: 31;
FY2007: 169;
FY2008: 247;
FY2009: 361;
FY2010: 468;
FY2011: 725;
Total dollars: $1,999;
Percentage of total dollars: 12.
Subtotal of the three initiatives;
FY2006: $583;
FY2007: $2,426;
FY2008: $3,932;
FY2009: $3,819;
FY2010: $2,292;
FY2011: $763;
Total dollars: $13,812;
Percentage of total dollars: 81.
Other Army military construction[D];
FY2006: 580;
FY2007: 496;
FY2008: 414;
FY2009: 355;
FY2010: 223;
FY2011: 1,137;
Total dollars: $3,205;
Percentage of total dollars: 19.
Total;
FY2006: $1,163;
FY2007: $2,922;
FY2008: $4,346;
FY2009: $4,174;
FY2010: $2,515;
FY2011: $1,900;
Total dollars: $17,017;
Percentage of total dollars: 100.
Source: GAO analysis of Army, Air Force, Navy, and defensewide agencies
and activities budget data.
Note: Figures may not add precisely because of rounding.
[A] Includes overseas basing relocations included in BRAC 2005 actions.
[B] Includes planned expenditures by the departments of the Navy and
Air Force as well as defense agencies and activities.
[C] Modularity funds presented are for permanent facilities only.
Modularity funds were also expended in fiscal years 2004 and 2005 and
plans exist to fund additional infrastructure in fiscal years 2012 and
2013.
[D] These amounts are military construction projects not part of BRAC
or modularity that are planned by the Army during the years indicated.
Amounts do not include any funds that may be necessary as a result of
Army plans to increase the active force authorization by 65,000
personnel.
[End of table]
Also shown in table 2, the overwhelming majority, over 80 percent, of
the planned construction expenditures at these Army installations are
attributable to BRAC, overseas rebasing, and modularity actions.
Moreover, as shown in the table, other military services or defense
agencies and activities are planning to expend about $4.6 billion for
constructing BRAC facilities they expect to use at these Army
installations. For example, several defense agencies are expecting to
spend more than $2.6 billion in facility construction at Fort Belvoir,
Virginia, while the Air Force plans to spend in excess of $600 million
for facilities to house medical training personnel and students at Fort
Sam Houston, Texas.
Four Organizations Are Primarily Responsible for Managing These
Personnel Moves and Assisting Communities:
The following four organizations are to manage personnel moves
associated with BRAC, overseas rebasing, or Army modularity and to
assist local communities affected by the movements:
* The Army's Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation
Management provides policy guidance and program management on all
matters relating to the management and funding of Army installations
worldwide and to ensure the availability of installation services and
facilities. To accomplish its mission, the office coordinates with
other key Army headquarters organizations, including the Office of the
Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans and the Army Budget
Office, to respond to operational requirements and resource
availability in providing for installation infrastructure. To assist in
this role, the Installation Management Command provides needed
installation services and facilities, including construction, family
care, food management, environmental programs, well-being, logistics,
public works, and installation funding to support readiness and mission
execution.
* The Army Corps of Engineers is the Army's construction agent and is
charged with contracting for infrastructure construction for the Army.
The Corps also manages the construction process, including supervision
and inspection as facilities construction progresses. It also functions
as the construction agent for selected Air Force construction projects
and fulfills a role as an agent for a civil works construction program
involving flood control, water supply, hydroelectric power generation,
navigation, recreation, wetlands regulation, and resource protection.
* OEA is a field activity within the Office of the Secretary of Defense
that assists states and communities by providing technical and
financial assistance in planning and carrying out adjustment strategies
in response to defense actions. Much of that assistance in the past had
been directed toward communities that lost military and civilian
personnel because of the closure or major realignment of a base.
Conversely, because the 2005 BRAC round, overseas rebasing, and Army
modularity have created significant growth at many bases, OEA has
assisted affected communities with growth planning.
* The President's Economic Adjustment Committee was established under
Executive Order 12788 and comprises 22 federal agencies that are to
facilitate the organization, planning, and execution of community-based
defense adjustment strategies. The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
(Installations and Environment) chairs the committee, and the
Secretaries of Labor and Commerce serve as Vice Chairmen. The Committee
Chair has testified that the committee will likely conduct team visits
to better understand local community adjustment challenges and to more
capably address potential needs for federal assistance.
The Army Has Developed Plans but Faces Complex Implementation
Challenges:
The Army has developed plans to accommodate growth of about 154,000
personnel at its domestic bases as a result of BRAC 2005, overseas
rebasing, and force modularity actions, but it faces several complex
challenges to the implementation of those plans and risks late
provision of needed infrastructure to adequately support arriving
personnel. First, Army plans are still evolving, and officials at the
gaining bases we visited did not agree with Army headquarters on
personnel movements at their bases. Second, the synchronization of
personnel movements across installations with the planned
infrastructure construction is difficult because any unforeseen delays
or disruptions in providing for necessary facilities can adversely
affect synchronization plans. Third, competing resource demands could
lead to redirection of resources that would have been used for
infrastructure improvements to other priorities, as has happened in the
past. Fourth, the Army Corps of Engineers may be at risk of not
finishing all needed infrastructure projects within new cost and
timeline goals because of the unprecedented volume of required
construction.
Expected Personnel Movement Numbers Differ between Army Headquarters
and Some Gaining Bases:
Expected personnel movement numbers differ between Army headquarters
and the bases where these people will move, thus affecting whether
adequate infrastructure will be in place when personnel arrive. As of
March 2007, the nine gaining bases we visited were expecting different
numbers of personnel arrivals and departures than those generated by
the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans. Table
3 provides examples of these variances at six of these bases, five of
which are planning for more personnel movement than Army headquarters'
plans while one base expects slightly less.[Footnote 6] While the other
three bases we visited had personnel movement numbers that also
differed from the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans'
numbers, the data were not as easily comparable as those presented in
table 3.
Table 3: Comparison of Army Headquarters and Installation Expected
Personnel Restationing Numbers at Selected Installations for Fiscal
Years 2006 through 2011 (as of March 2007):
Installation: Fort Benning, GA;
Personnel category: Military;
Expected personnel restationing numbers: Headquarters: 1,127;
Expected personnel restationing numbers: Installation: 3,846;
Expected personnel restationing numbers: Difference: 2,719.
Installation: Fort Benning, GA;
Personnel category: Student;
Expected personnel restationing numbers: Headquarters: 5,347;
Expected personnel restationing numbers: Installation: 8,757;
Expected personnel restationing numbers: Difference: 3,410.
Installation: Fort Bliss, TX;
Personnel category: Military;
Expected personnel restationing numbers: Headquarters: 19,468;
Expected personnel restationing numbers: Installation: 20,979;
Expected personnel restationing numbers: Difference: 1,511.
Installation: Fort Carson, CO;
Personnel category: Military;
Expected personnel restationing numbers: Headquarters: 5,394;
Expected personnel restationing numbers: Installation: 5,209;
Expected personnel restationing numbers: Difference: (185).
Installation: Fort Lee, VA;
Personnel category: Military;
Expected personnel restationing numbers: Headquarters: 1,065;
Expected personnel restationing numbers: Installation: 1,717;
Expected personnel restationing numbers: Difference: 652.
Installation: Fort Lee, VA;
Personnel category: Student;
Expected personnel restationing numbers: Headquarters: 4,444;
Expected personnel restationing numbers: Installation: 6,494;
Expected personnel restationing numbers: Difference: 2,050.
Installation: Fort Riley, KS;
Personnel category: Military;
Expected personnel restationing numbers: Headquarters: 7,907;
Expected personnel restationing numbers: Installation: 8,490;
Expected personnel restationing numbers: Difference: 583.
Installation: Fort Sill, OK;
Personnel category: Military;
Expected personnel restationing numbers: Headquarters: 2,235;
Expected personnel restationing numbers: Installation: 2,761;
Expected personnel restationing numbers: Difference: 526.
Installation: Fort Sill, OK;
Personnel category: Student;
Expected personnel restationing numbers: Headquarters: 1,754;
Expected personnel restationing numbers: Installation: 4,357;
Expected personnel restationing numbers: Difference: 2,603.
Source: GAO analysis of Army data.
Note: Only certain personnel categories are displayed in the table.
[End of table]
The examples in table 3 are not necessarily representative of all Army
growth locations and all categories of arriving personnel, but they
nonetheless could lead to unnecessary infrastructure improvements on
some bases and inadequate improvements on others. Army headquarters
officials explained that they program military construction funds based
on their numbers while base-level officials and surrounding communities
rely more on the base-level numbers for planning purposes. While we
recognize that the numbers of personnel moving to Army growth
installations will fluctuate, officials could fully explain the reasons
for discrepancies as large as those shown in table 3, and inconsistent
numbers can lead to under-or overbuilding by the base and the
surrounding communities.
Expected personnel movements also can vary based on doctrinal changes
that consequently lead to changes in operational unit sizes and
organizational structures. For example, BRAC 2005 recommended the
creation of certain Army training centers of excellence that
consequently require consolidation of some training staff and
facilities in certain locations.One such planned center of excellence-
-the Army Maneuver Center at Fort Benning, Georgia--is to be created
through the consolidation of the Armor School and Center (currently
located at Fort Knox, Kentucky) with the Infantry School and Center at
Fort Benning. This consolidation is expected to lead to personnel
movements from Fort Knox to Fort Benning. However, because the
organizational framework for the centers of excellence had not been
fully defined at the time of our review and was therefore still
evolving, Army's headquarters and Training and Doctrine Command
officials still had not reached agreement on the number of people to be
assigned to each center. Thus, gaining base officials, such as those at
Fort Benning, could not fully plan for incoming personnel movements
based on the center's personnel numbers and associated personnel
reductions until the final personnel numbers were approved. Table 4
shows the wide disparity in the proposed personnel reduction numbers
and those ultimately approved by the Vice Chief of Staff for the Army
in March 2007.
Table 4: Comparison of Army Headquarters and Training and Doctrine
Command Proposed and Approved Personnel Reduction Numbers for the
Army's Centers of Excellence:
Training center of excellence: Maneuver - Fort Benning, GA;
Personnel reduction numbers: Headquarters- proposed: 1,661;
Personnel reduction numbers: Training and Doctrine Command-proposed and
approved[A]: 635;
Personnel reduction numbers: Difference: 1,026.
Training center of excellence: Net Fires - Fort Sill, OK;
Personnel reduction numbers: Headquarters- proposed: 293;
Personnel reduction numbers: Training and Doctrine Command-proposed and
approved[A]: 300;
Personnel reduction numbers: Difference: (7).
Training center of excellence: Combat Service Support - Fort Lee, VA;
Personnel reduction numbers: Headquarters-proposed: 666;
Personnel reduction numbers: Training and Doctrine Command-proposed and
approved[A]: 220;
Personnel reduction numbers: Difference: 446.
Training center of excellence: Remaining centers;
Personnel reduction numbers: Headquarters-proposed: 286;
Personnel reduction numbers: Training and Doctrine Command- proposed
and approved[A]: 324;
Personnel reduction numbers: Difference: (38).
Total;
Personnel reduction numbers: Headquarters-proposed: 2,906;
Personnel reduction numbers: Training and Doctrine Command-proposed and
approved[A]: 1,479;
Personnel reduction numbers: Difference: 1,427.
Source: GAO analysis of Army data.
[A] The Vice Chief of Staff for the Army approved the numbers in March
2007.
[End of table]
Military planners and base operations and community officials require
accurate personnel arrival information to ensure that they can
effectively plan for and fund infrastructure improvements to provide
adequate facilities for the new arrivals. To the extent that personnel
numbers are inaccurate, the Army and the surrounding community could
either plan for too much or too little space to meet infrastructure
requirements.
Army Faces Challenges in Synchronizing Personnel Restationing Plans
with Planned Construction of Facilities:
Synchronizing personnel movements with the completion of infrastructure
needed to accommodate newly arriving personnel at gaining bases
presents difficult challenges that must be overcome to ensure that
facilities are ready when relocated personnel arrive. These challenges
include developing plans to account for (1) the complexities inherent
in coordinating the expected large number of individual movements
prompted by BRAC, overseas rebasing, and modularity and (2) the need to
manage interdependent BRAC actions affecting individual bases.
Moreover, delays in constructing needed infrastructure, for reasons
such as environmental assessments on gaining bases, can force delays in
carrying out the personnel movements. Given the compressed time frames
for completing construction of facilities and subsequently relocating
personnel, any significant delays of BRAC actions could place the Army
at risk of not completing personnel moves at some locations and not
meeting the September 15, 2011, statutory deadline.
The Army faces a key challenge stemming from the sheer number of
synchronized actions that must take place to successfully complete
certain personnel movements. In congressional testimony, the Assistant
Secretary of the Army (Installations and Environment) stated that the
Army has to complete more than 1,300 discrete actions to successfully
implement BRAC recommendations. For example, 14 separate BRAC
recommendations involving 59 separate DOD organizations impact Fort
Belvoir, Virginia, which is expected to gain nearly 24,000 personnel by
September 15, 2011. Among the personnel moving to Fort Belvoir will be
about 15,000 expected to arrive as late as August 2011 as the result of
the closure of the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C.,
to staff a newly constructed hospital, the collocation of various
defense agencies and activities from leased space off base, and several
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency moves. These moves all depend
on the completion of new construction at Fort Belvoir, much of which is
expected to be completed only shortly before or at the same time as the
relocations. For example, current plans call for construction to be
complete in September 2011 for the collocation of about 9,000 personnel
from various defense agencies and activities at the base. However, at
the time of our review, the Army had not made a final decision whether
to obtain General Services Administration land it owns near rail and
transit stations in Springfield, Virginia, where the Army would move
these personnel. If this process delays these moves, it could
jeopardize meeting the statutory deadline.
The Army also has to overcome the challenge to planned synchronization
from the interdependence of various BRAC recommendations. For example,
the BRAC recommendation to close Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, includes
the planned relocation of some personnel into renovated facilities at
the Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. However, the designated
receiving facilities at Aberdeen cannot be renovated until the military
organization currently occupying those facilities--the Ordnance Center
and School--relocates. The school, however, cannot relocate--an action
associated with another BRAC recommendation--until new space is
provided at Fort Lee, Virginia. According to Army officials, the
Ordnance Center and School is expected to move to Fort Lee in July
2009, and some personnel from Fort Monmouth are expected to move into
the renovated space at Aberdeen in June 2011. Any delay could
jeopardize these moves and meeting the September 15, 2011, deadline.
Another key synchronization challenge is the need to complete required
environmental assessments, conduct any needed environmental cleanup,
and undertake endangered species protection before construction
commences. For example, construction of the new Maneuver Center of
Excellence at Fort Benning, Georgia, could be delayed because the
installation is required to account for endangered species protection
actions in its construction plans. While the Army initially expected to
complete the relevant environmental impact statement by the end of
fiscal year 2007, it has revised its expected completion date by about
3 months. Base officials said that this delay will not affect current
construction schedules. However, if any further delays materialize,
both needed construction and arrival of Armor School and Center
personnel from Fort Knox could be delayed. Army officials also told us
that other regulatory environmental requirements must be complied with,
including certain studies, consultations, and permitting, before
various construction projects can commence and any delays could
undermine the synchronization schedule of construction and personnel
movements that must be completed before the deadline.
Synchronization difficulties have already arisen in the Army's BRAC
2005 plans, and the Army consequently delayed scheduled personnel
movements in at least the following three instances because facilities
were not expected to be ready at the gaining bases when needed:
* Fort Benning, Georgia: Officials delayed the start-up of the Maneuver
Center of Excellence by a year or more from their initial plans for it
to begin operations in fiscal year 2009.
* Fort Bliss, Texas: The 1ST Armored Division's planned move from
Germany was moved from fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 2010 to fiscal
years 2010 and 2011. Similarly, a 1ST Armored Division brigade
relocation has been rescheduled from fiscal year 2007 to fiscal year
2008.
* Fort Sill, Oklahoma: The Net Fires Center of Excellence is to begin
operations in fiscal years 2009 instead of fiscal year 2008 as
originally planned.
To the extent that delays occur as implementation proceeds, the Army
faces an increased risk that it may not complete all closures and
realignments by the statutory deadline.
The Army is now emphasizing the need to have adequate permanent
facilities in place when personnel arrive because utilizing temporary
facilities, often referred to as relocatables, adds to the facilities'
cost in the long term as permanent facilities are to eventually replace
the relocatables. Army officials have told us that because of
congressional concerns regarding the possible use of temporary
facilities to meet requirements for 2005 BRAC round and overseas
rebasing actions, they do not plan to use relocatable facilities for
these moves, even though they would serve as an interim measure for
providing needed infrastructure.[Footnote 7] Nonetheless, in the recent
past the Army has relied on temporary facilities to accommodate troops
for operational reasons when no permanent facilities were available, as
evidenced by the Army's modularity initiative and facilities
construction in Iraq and Afghanistan. Army data indicate that more than
7 million square feet of relocatables have been used to accommodate
modular force conversions at a cost of nearly $1 billion since 2004 at
domestic bases. Figures 2 and 3 show relocatables in place at Fort
Bliss to accommodate the arrival of the 1ST Cavalry Division in 2006.
Figure 2: Panoramic View of Relocatable Buildings at Fort Bliss, Texas:
[See PDF for image]
Source: U.S. Army.
[End of figure]
Figure 3: Closer View of Relocatable Buildings at Fort Bliss, Texas:
[See PDF for image]
Source: U.S. Army.
[End of figure]
Competing Priorities Could Lead to Redirection of Funding from
Infrastructure to Other Priorities:
Competing priorities could lead to the redirection of funds planned for
infrastructure construction or improvement to other priorities and
consequently lead to delays in preparing facilities for newly arriving
personnel at gaining bases. In September 2006, the Chief of Staff of
the Army negotiated directly with the Office of Management and Budget
for an increase in the Army's total fiscal year 2008 budget rather than
the usual practice of providing its budget request to the Secretary of
Defense. The Army Chief of Staff took this step because he perceived a
shortfall of nearly $25 billion in the Army's fiscal year 2008 budget.
However, as a result of the negotiations, the Army received $7 billion
more than that originally supported by the Secretary of Defense, but
still $18 billion less than the amount the Chief of Staff believed was
required to fund all priorities.
The Army projects the cost of BRAC implementation to be about $17.6
billion of which military construction is projected to account for
about $13.1 billion.[Footnote 8] The Army plans to fund the $17.6
billion from a variety of sources. First, to help finance portions of
the Army's BRAC 2005 implementation costs, DOD will provide BRAC
funding of almost $7 billion. Second, DOD also will provide funding for
overseas rebasing, which will supply the Army with about $2.6 billion
to fund these redeployment actions to the United States. Together,
these amounts will provide the Army about $9.5 billion. Thus, the Army
will need about another $8.1 billion to finance BRAC 2005
implementation of about $17.6 billion. To address the shortfall, at the
time of our review, the Army planned to rely heavily on funding
programmed for certain projects outside the BRAC accountthe Military
Construction Army Accountthrough 2011 and to move these targeted
projects further into the future.
While the Army has identified sources for the funds to implement BRAC
2005, competing priorities could prompt future redirection of funds
away from BRAC or other construction. Operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan; support for new weapons systems, including the Future
Combat System; costs to implement modularity; plans to increase the
Army's active force structure by 65,000 personnel; and other
initiatives all will compete for funds with BRAC 2005 and other
infrastructure construction priorities. Moreover, cost growth in any of
these priorities could increase the pressure to redirect funds. For
example, in March 2007, we reported that the Army's projected cost for
the Future Combat System had increased by almost 80 percent from $91.4
billion to $163.7 billion. We also reported that the Office of the
Secretary of Defense's independent estimates of the acquisition cost of
the system were higher and ranged from $203 billion to $234
billion.[Footnote 9]
As we have previously reported, concerns have remained regarding the
adequacy of funding allocated to maintain DOD infrastructure and
support other installation operating needs. Furthermore, underfunding,
including the deterioration of facilities and its negative effects on
the quality of life for those living and working at affected
installations and on their ability to accomplish their mission
activities, further affects military operations.[Footnote 10] This has
been particularly prevalent in the Army and in 2004 was exacerbated
because varying amounts were redirected from facilities accounts to
help pay for the Global War on Terrorism. At the end of fiscal year
2004, Army installations received additional funds to help offset these
shortfalls, but the timing made it difficult for the installations to
execute these funds. Our visits to various gaining bases revealed that
the adequacy of operations and maintenance funds to operate bases
continues to be an issue. The Army has had to take steps in each of the
last 3 years, affecting facilities accounts, to help fund the war. We
are continuing to conduct work in this area and have recently initiated
a review looking at the sustainment and operation of DOD facilities.
Because of expected budgetary pressures and competing priorities, and
to limit short-term construction costs, the Army plans to delay
construction of certain quality of life facilities at some gaining
installations. Quality of life facilities include child development and
youth centers, physical fitness centers, chapels, on-post shopping and
convenience areas, and athletic fields. BRAC recommendations do not
require specific construction projects, and thus the Army has chosen to
defer some quality of life facilities beyond 2011. Specifically, at the
nine Army growth installations we visited, the BRAC requirement for
quality of life facilities has an estimated value of about $739
million. However, if only certain quality of life facilities are
included, then the requirement drops to about $472 million.[Footnote
11] Nonetheless, the Army planned to fund only about $76 million using
BRAC funds and about another $122 million using military construction
funds through 2011. As a consequence, for example, at Fort Carson,
Colorado, officials requested that two child care centers be
constructed before most incoming personnel arrived in 2009. However,
the Army has budgeted funding for the two centers in 2011. Moreover,
the Army has not budgeted for any quality of life projects at Forts
Belvoir and Lee, Virginia, through 2011 despite installation
requirements for these facilities.
Installation officials we spoke with were confident that their bases
could accommodate the new personnel even without all required quality
of life facilities and believed that the surrounding communities would
be able to accommodate some base personnel's child care and other
quality of life needs. Meanwhile, military family advocates believe
that not funding quality of life facilities could jeopardize military
readiness by distracting deployed soldiers who may be concerned that
their families are not being taken care of.
Army Corps of Engineers Is at Risk of Not Meeting Construction Costs
and Timing Goals:
To meet the expected large volume and costs of facilities construction
associated with BRAC and the concurrent implementation of overseas
rebasing and modularity, most of which must be completed by the end of
fiscal year 2011, the Army Corps of Engineers has developed a strategy,
known as military construction transformation, intended to reduce (1)
construction costs by 15 percent and (2) construction time by 30
percent. Through its transformation strategy, the Corps intends to
change how it executes construction projects by:
* standardizing facility designs and processes,
* expanding the use of manufactured building solutions,[Footnote 12]
* executing military construction as a continuous building program and
not just a collection of individual projects, and:
* emphasizing commercial rather than government building standards and
base master planning.
The Army approved the strategy on February 1, 2006, and the established
eight centers to simplify the contracting and construction processes
for certain types of facilities as a step in its goal to reduce
construction costs and time. By 2008, the Corps expects that each
center will establish baseline requirements for common facilities to
reduce construction costs and time frames on the theory that
contractors can build to the same design faster and cheaper once they
have experience with the design. The Fort Worth, Texas, district is to
standardize enlisted barracks' construction; the Savannah, Georgia,
district is to standardize brigade operations complexes; and the
Louisville, Kentucky, district is to standardize operational readiness
training complexes. A further cost-saving element of the strategy is to
reduce the cost of support facilities, such as utility connections,
paved parking and walkways, storm drains, information technology
connections, and antiterrorism and force protection measures. According
to officials, these costs usually range from 25 to 30 percent of the
construction cost when government construction standards are used.
In addition to common designs, the strategy encourages contractors to
use manufactured buildings with flexibility to use any of five
construction types rather than requiring only noncombustible, concrete
and steel type I or II construction.[Footnote 13] Corps officials said
that this approach provides not only greater flexibility in the design
and construction of military projects but also flexibility to respond
to fluctuating material prices. They also noted that using materials
other than concrete and steel makes it easier to renovate, reuse, and
reconfigure a facility when appropriate. These officials believe that
the changes would not significantly reduce the useful life of
facilities.
Recognizing that its construction strategy constitutes a critical
operational change, the Army Corps of Engineers is testing its new
approach on projects at five locations. A Corps official told us that
11 projects awarded at the pilot locations during fiscal year 2006 all
were bid under the price set by the Corps thus achieving up to a 17
percent savings. Further, these projects were all awarded without scope
reductions. Corps officials also told us that the contractors for these
projects are expected to complete them in from 440 to 540 days as
compared with the normal completion time of about 720 days. In
addition, we were told that the Corps hopes to have completed the pilot
testing and developed regional contracts for the standardized facility
types so that they can be used in the fiscal year 2008 military
construction program. According to Corps officials, these contracts
will help streamline the construction process because a task order can
be issued against an already existing contract when needed. Despite the
early positive results, however, Corps officials acknowledge that their
strategy has not been tested in high-demand conditions, such as those
that will occur because of the much larger construction budgets and
extensive construction plans during fiscal years 2008 through 2010.
With respect to implementing this transformational construction
strategy, building materials cost and labor wage rates that exceed
rates used in the construction budget process could lead to
unexpectedly costly building projects. In recent years, the actual rate
of construction inflation has exceeded the federal government's
inflation rate, which the Corps is required to use in budgeting for its
construction projects. While this variance, which was as high as 6.1
percentage points in fiscal year 2004, has diminished over time, the
actual rate of construction inflation continues to exceed the Corps'
budgeted rate. Because the Corps uses government inflation rates to
develop its cost estimates and budget for construction in any given
year, any variance in actual inflation from those rates has an impact
on the cost of construction projects.[Footnote 14] Army Corps of
Engineers officials told us that to the extent that the actual rate of
inflation continues to exceed the budgeted rate as implementation
proceeds and construction material costs are higher than anticipated,
they would either have to redirect funding from other sources to
provide for construction projects or resort to a reduction in the scope
of some construction projects. We note, however, that this trend may
not necessarily continue into the future, depending on the economics
surrounding the construction industry.
Finally, the Corps is expected to manage an unprecedented volume of
construction through 2011, with some regions expecting to far exceed
their normal construction capacity. For example, the Fort Worth, Texas,
district is to manage about $2.5 billion in construction work at Fort
Bliss. Corps officials said that this amount would place them at their
maximum capacity of about $400 million in construction work annually
managed by that district, and they must also manage $2 billion in
construction in the San Antonio, Texas, area. Similarly, at Fort
Benning, Georgia, the Corps' military construction budget will increase
from about $50 million per year to more than $300 million annually over
the next 3 years. These costs do not include the costs of the Corps'
civil works program, which would include construction programs such as
recovering from the impacts of Hurricane Katrina. Corps headquarters
officials have said that they will bring in assistance from other Corps
districts, hire outside help if specific districts are unable to meet
the demand without such help, or both thus potentially adding
additional cost to the projects.
Communities Have Efforts Under Way to Address Anticipated Army Growth,
but Planning and Funding Challenges Remain:
Communities surrounding growing Army installations have acted to
address school, housing, transportation, and other infrastructure
needs, but each community's actions are unique because demands vary by
location. These communities are in the process of identifying and
obtaining funding sources to finance these additional infrastructure
requirements, and they have several ways to finance these needs,
including seeking federal assistance. Nonetheless, given the evolving
nature of the Army's growth projections, these communities have
generally been hindered in their ability to identify all of the costs
for implementing infrastructure expansion. DOD's OEA is assisting
communities with their growth planning efforts, but OEA does not
provide funding for facilities' construction projects.
Communities Have Generally Been Proactive in Planning and Implementing
Actions for Growth:
Communities we visited have been planning for a significant anticipated
increase in DOD personnel and family members from BRAC, overseas
rebasing, and modularity implementation. These communities' schools,
housing, transportation, and other infrastructure needs depend on the
number of new personnel to be assigned to their local bases. However,
the Army's plans for relocating its personnel and families were
evolving at the time of our review. Consequently, communities cannot
fully determine their requirements because of changing Army plans,
although some communities had begun planning anyway. Some went further
and undertook new construction even before the Army had decided which
bases would grow and by how much. For example, some communities in the
Forts Benning, Bliss, and Riley areas expanded medical facilities in
anticipation of DOD and community growth unrelated to DOD. Similarly,
through a pre-BRAC 2005 partnership between Fort Bliss and the City of
El Paso, an inland desalination plant is under construction on the
installation that is to be operated by the City of El Paso. Community
officials also told us that they are increasing the capacity and
accreditation of child care facilities to help accommodate relocating
families' needs.
At the time of our review, base commanders' representatives and
affected communities' officials at locations we visited were regularly
collaborating to manage community growth. In addition to housing,
schools, and transportation needs, community officials were planning
new water and sewage systems projects to accommodate growth. For
example, the community bordering Fort Sill has identified $14.7 million
in water and sewer projects and is seeking state and federal financial
assistance to finance the projects. State-level or regional task forces
have also been formed in some states to assist communities surrounding
bases in managing the growth. Communities surrounding Army
installations in Georgia, Texas, Kansas, Maryland, and Virginia have
organized such task forces to help identify and address off-base
infrastructure needs from a regional viewpoint. Members of these
planning groups include elected or appointed representatives from the
state, local, and county levels and representatives from local
businesses, school districts, and the private sector.
Local officials in some of the communities we visited also said that
the arrival of defense personnel and family members is expected to
occur later than initially projected, thus giving them more time to
plan for and complete new construction. At the same time, some
communities' officials were concerned that Army plans could change and
that their nearby bases might not grow as much as first thought, but
they would not find out until after new construction had been started
or completed.
Communities Have Developed Plans and Taken Other Actions to Improve
Schools, Housing, and Transportation:
The communities we visited have been actively planning and have
initiated a number of actions to accommodate the anticipated increased
need for schools, housing, and transportation. Some communities have
taken steps to address school needs by funding school construction
requirements, while others are seeking federal assistance. To help
accommodate increased housing demands, communities have constructed or
developed plans for constructing additional housing units. Some
communities already have transportation projects under way or planned,
while other communities have identified needed projects but lack the
funding to make these road expansions and are seeking state and federal
assistance.
Community Plans and Actions for Accommodating Anticipated Increase in
Student Enrollments:
Some school systems in communities surrounding gaining Army
installations plan to expand their facilities to accommodate the
anticipated increase in school enrollments, although such planning is
hampered by evolving Army base growth plans. While the Office of the
Secretary of Defense estimates that Army actions will lead to the
transfer of about 50,000 school children into school districts
surrounding gaining installations, fluctuating Army numbers hamper
communities' planning.
For example, Fort Benning officials projected that student enrollment
would increase by about 10,000 through fiscal year 2011 as compared to
a November 2006 DOD report that estimates 600. A number of reasons
accounted for the variances, including differences in the scope (e.g.,
defense personnel versus defense and nondefense personnel) of the
projected arrivals and assumptions underlying the projections for
family dependents related to those arriving personnel. At the time of
our review, these disparities remained unresolved. There are a number
of installations, in addition to Fort Benning, for which base
projections differ from those generated by the Army. Forts Benning and
Riley officials told us that they have been in direct contact with the
units that will be moving to the bases and consequently believe that
their own estimates more accurately reflect impending growth than those
by Army headquarters. As a result, Forts Benning and Riley officials
are relying on their own estimates and communicating them to local
officials for use in their school construction planning.
Financing school construction is a key challenge confronting officials
in communities surrounding growth bases, and these officials have
adopted a variety of strategies. For example, Forts Bliss and Riley
area school systems have passed bonds to expand their schools'
capacity. The community surrounding Fort Bliss approved bonds totaling
over $600 million for school construction intended to serve an
increased student population of about 14,900. In addition, one
community surrounding Fort Riley passed a $33 million school bond to
finance a new 1,100-student middle school, a new 400-student elementary
school, and the expansion of existing elementary schools. Another
school system near Fort Riley decided to keep a school open that was to
close. In addition to bonds, some school systems are seeking federal
assistance. For example, local officials in the community adjacent to
Fort Benning estimate that they need about $321 million to support
incoming students and are seeking federal assistance. Moreover, the
school systems near Forts Benning, Bliss, Carson, Lee, Riley, and Sill
have formed the Seven Rivers National Coalition and were subsequently
joined by the school systems near the Aberdeen Proving Ground; Forts
Bragg, Knox, Leonard Wood, and Meade; and the Redstone Arsenal. The
coalition has petitioned for construction funding from DOD, the
Department of Education, and Congress and believes that it needs about
$2 billion to support incoming students. However, DOD's position has
been to provide planning assistance through OEA to communities affected
in prior BRAC rounds but not construction financing. Similarly, the
Department of Education indicated that no funding is available.
In addition to construction funds, school districts will also need
additional operating funds to run the new schools. Congress provided $7
million in fiscal year 2006 to help operate school systems affected by
DOD transfers, and DOD distributed the money to 26 school systems in 14
states. School systems having a 20 percent enrollment of military or
DOD civilian dependent children[Footnote 15] are eligible for this
assistance if this population has increased or decreased by 5 percent,
or by 250 students, and the increase or decrease is the result of DOD
transfers. For fiscal year 2007, Congress provided $8 million.
Community Plans and Actions for Accommodating Increased Housing
Demands:
To accommodate the anticipated demand for housing in communities
surrounding gaining bases, residential developers and community
planners are planning and constructing new housing. For example,
officials from the communities surrounding Fort Riley, a multicounty
area with fewer than 150,000 people, project that they will need from
8,000 to 9,000 additional housing units to accommodate the increase in
personnel and family members relocating to the area. These off-base
housing units are in addition to the 400 new on-base homes being added
to the existing base inventory of 3,114. Developers in the communities
surrounding Fort Riley had also already started construction or had
construction plans for about 6,000 new units.
Also, the Department of Agriculture's housing loan program dedicated
$25 million in fiscal year 2006 for loan assistance to personnel
relocating to the Fort Riley area. Under this program, approved lenders
provide qualifying low-and middle-income rural residents with home
financing options, including no-down-payment loans to create
homeownership opportunities. In December 2005, the department opened an
office at Fort Riley to assist these potential homebuyers with off-post
housing needs. The department also plans to establish a similar
partnership at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and to provide similar
assistance to potential homebuyers relocating there.
In contrast to the rural environment at Fort Riley, Fort Bliss is near
El Paso, Texas, with a metropolitan population of about 750,000. El
Paso community officials told us that they are not as concerned about
housing because they believe that their market is large enough to
absorb the influx of new personnel. At the same time, according to an
Army official, a recently completed draft housing market analysis for
Fort Bliss identified an additional on-base housing requirement of
about 3,370 to be paid for using housing privatization funding if this
requirement is approved and funding is provided.
Community Plans and Actions for Accommodating Increased Traffic and
Insufficient Road Capacity:
Restationing of defense personnel at some gaining bases is likely to
prompt new transportation infrastructure construction in communities
surrounding the bases. Some state and local governments had already
begun planning for or started construction projects at the time of our
review. For instance, according to community officials, projects
already started or planned to be started are expected to cost (1) $60
million in the Fort Riley area, (2) $45 million in the Fort Carson
area, and (3) $150 million in the Fort Bliss area. Also, Fort Sill
community representatives said that they have identified road expansion
projects totaling approximately $25 million, and because of limited
local funding, they are seeking state and federal financing assistance.
At the same time, community officials at Forts Lee and Sam Houston told
us that their respective state departments of transportation are
examining plans for road expansion projects near these installations.
Transportation needs and funding will also be a concern in large
metropolitan areas surrounding gaining installations because of both
rapid growth being experienced apart from DOD-prompted growth and the
influx of personnel onto gaining bases. For example, at Fort Belvoir,
Virginia, personnel increases are expected to exceed 20,000 and this
anticipated growth will further burden an already congested northern
Virginia transportation system. A working group that includes
representatives from the Army, the Virginia Department of
Transportation, Fairfax County, and the Federal Highway Administration
has been established to review the transportation impacts of the Fort
Belvoir realignment. A preliminary list of transportation projects
around Fort Belvoir totaling about $663 million has been identified as
necessary to help accommodate the expected increase in traffic.
Although representatives from the local, state, and federal governments
recognize that transportation system improvements are needed, no
funding sources or commitments had been identified at the time of our
review for projects totaling approximately $458 million of the total of
$663 million. To help facilitate some of these specific road
construction projects surrounding Fort Belvoir, the John Warner
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 included a
provision allowing the Army to enter into a special agreement with the
State of Virginia for certain land conveyance and road construction
around Fort Belvoir. The Defense Access Road Program is a potential
source for helping to pay for public highway improvements.[Footnote 16]
Recent developments could affect proposed transportation projects and
the timing of the move to Fort Belvoir because, at the time of our
review, the Army was making a decision whether to obtain land owned by
the General Services Administration near rail and transit stations in
the Springfield, Virginia, area where it would move approximately 9,000
personnel.
The Office of Economic Adjustment Is Assisting Communities:
In prior BRAC rounds, OEA, part of the Office of the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment), has provided
technical and financial planning assistance but not construction funds
to communities through its grants. According to an OEA official, in the
prior four BRAC rounds, OEA assisted over 100 communities. In our
January 2005 report on the status of the prior BRAC rounds, we reported
that OEA, the Department of Labor, the Economic Development
Administration within the Department of Commerce, and the Federal
Aviation Administration provided nearly $2 billion in assistance
through fiscal year 2004 to communities and individuals for base reuse
planning, airport planning, job training, infrastructure improvements,
and community economic development, and these agencies are slated to
perform similar roles for the 2005 BRAC round.[Footnote 17]
DOD sponsored a BRAC conference in May 2006 attended by state, local,
and federal agencies and BRAC-affected communities to discuss BRAC
impacts, including growth. The conference provided an opportunity for
communities to discuss issues with officials from OEA and other federal
entities that are part of the President's Economic Adjustment
Committee, which helps communities plan for and prepare for growth. In
assisting communities with their growth plans, during fiscal year 2006,
OEA awarded growth-related grants[Footnote 18] totaling approximately
$3.2 million to seven communities surrounding Army installations, and
as of April 30, 2007, has awarded 11 fiscal year 2007 Army growth-
related grants totaling approximately $8.8 million to 10 communities
surrounding Army installations and to the State of Kansas. Table 5
provides a listing of these OEA Army growth-related grants by fiscal
year and amount.
Table 5: OEA Army Growth-Related Grant Awards for Fiscal Years 2006 and
2007:
Growth location: Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD;
FY 2006 grant award: $287,438;
FY 2007 grant award (as of April 30, 2007): $1,414,650.
Growth location: Fort Belvoir, VA;
FY 2006 grant award: 0;
FY 2007 grant award (as of April 30, 2007): 1,542,568.
Growth location: Fort Benning, GA;
FY 2006 grant award: 486,542;
FY 2007 grant award (as of April 30, 2007): 0.
Growth location: Fort Bliss, TX;
FY 2006 grant award: 0;
FY 2007 grant award (as of April 30, 2007): 936,500.
Growth location: Fort Bragg, NC;
FY 2006 grant award: 0;
FY 2007 grant award (as of April 30, 2007): 1,049,387.
Growth location: Fort Carson, CO;
FY 2006 grant award: 517,830;
FY 2007 grant award (as of April 30, 2007): 0.
Growth location: Fort Drum, NY;
FY 2006 grant award: 737,579;
FY 2007 grant award (as of April 30, 2007): 0.
Growth location: Fort Knox, KY;
FY 2006 grant award: 0;
FY 2007 grant award (as of April 30, 2007): 565,867.
Growth location: Fort Lee, VA;
FY 2006 grant award: 289,379;
FY 2007 grant award (as of April 30, 2007): 13,950.
Growth location: Fort Meade, MD;
FY 2006 grant award: 0;
FY 2007 grant award (as of April 30, 2007): 1,447,630.
Growth location: Fort Riley, KS;
FY 2006 grant award: 763,700;
FY 2007 grant award (as of April 30, 2007): 36,000.
Growth location: Fort Sam Houston, TX;
FY 2006 grant award: 0;
FY 2007 grant award (as of April 30, 2007): 931,709.
Growth location: Fort Sill, OK;
FY 2006 grant award: 109,580;
FY 2007 grant award (as of April 30, 2007): 635,026.
Growth location: State of Kansas;
FY 2006 grant award: 0;
FY 2007 grant award (as of April 30, 2007): 180,054.
Growth location: Total;
FY 2006 grant award: $3,192,048;
FY 2007 grant award (as of April 30, 2007): $8,753,341.
Source: Office of Economic Adjustment, DOD.
[End of table]
We are continuing to examine the combined effect of BRAC, overseas
rebasing, and Army modularity on communities surrounding military
installations as a result of language in the House Committee on
Appropriations report accompanying the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act 2007. We expect to provide the results of that work
in the spring of 2008.
Conclusions:
Continuing Army operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the war on
terror and evolving BRAC 2005, overseas rebasing, and force modularity
plans have resulted in fluctuating and uncertain personnel restationing
plans. Knowing how many Army personnel and dependents will move to a
given base and their arrival dates is fundamental to the base's and
surrounding community's abilities to plan for and provide adequate on-
and off-base schools, housing, transportation, and other
infrastructure. However, as of March 2007, several of the Army's
largest gaining bases and Army headquarters-level offices had yet to
agree as to the number of arriving and departing personnel because
officials were unaware of the specific causes of the variances in their
estimates. For their part, communities surrounding gaining bases
generally relied on their local base officials for personnel arrival
and departure numbers, which in effect, can be translated into the
communities' off-base infrastructure requirements. However, without
knowing whether the local base or Army headquarters-level officials'
plans have accurate information about growth plans, these communities
are not well positioned to plan for and provide adequate schools,
housing, transportation, and other infrastructure.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To better facilitate infrastructure planning, we recommend that the
Secretary of Defense direct the Secretary of the Army to (1) determine
why there are differences between headquarters and gaining bases with
respect to the number of arriving and departing personnel and (2)
ensure that Army headquarters and base officials are collaborating to
agree on Army personnel movement plans so that base commanders and
surrounding communities can effectively plan for expected growth. This
collaboration to reach agreement should continue as expected personnel
movement actions are revised over time.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD partially concurred with
both of our recommendations. With regard to the first recommendation,
DOD concurred with our findings but said that the Army had determined
the cause of differences between the headquarters and gaining bases'
numbers of arriving and departing personnel. As a result, the Army said
that in January 2007 it had taken corrective action by establishing the
Army Stationing Installation Plan (ASIP) as the single, unified source
of installation planning population data to be used Army-wide. However,
the information in our report was based on March 2007 ASIP data, which
continued to show that all of the nine installations we visited were
using different numbers than headquarters was using.
With regard to the second recommendation, DOD also concurred with our
findings but said that the Army had already taken corrective action
without the need of direction from the Secretary of Defense. The Army
stated that in May 2007 it issued guidance that allowed installations
to plan for anticipated unit moves that may not be reflected in the
ASIP and to discuss these plans with local communities as long as they
are appropriately qualified as predecisional and subject to change.
Army officials also stated that in June 2007, they would ensure that
installations forward all population issues, stationing issues, or both
to Department of the Army headquarters for resolution. Following
receipt of DOD's comments on our draft report in late August 2007, we
contacted several of the bases we visited during our review and found
that there were still some significant, long-standing problems with the
variances in the data being used by the installations and headquarters.
In some cases the magnitude of the differences has been reduced, but
there are still several cases in which the differences exceed 1,000
personnel. For example, we were told that Fort Bliss still expects more
than 1,000 military personnel than are currently projected by
headquarters. To the Army's credit, most of the officials we spoke with
at the installation level said the data were improving, with one
location reporting that its data were very close to that of the
headquarters. However, officials at six of the seven installations we
contacted still said that they had serious concerns with the
headquarters data.
Because disconnects still exist, we believe that our recommendations
remain valid and that the Secretary of Defense should act upon both of
our recommendations.
We are sending copies of this report to other interested congressional
committees; the Secretaries of Defense and the Army; and the Director,
Office of Management and Budget. 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 [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-4523 or at leporeb@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions
to this report are listed in appendix III.
Signed by:
Brian J. Lepore, Director:
Defense Capabilities and Management:
List of Congressional Addressees:
The Honorable Carl Levin:
Chairman:
The Honorable John McCain:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye:
Chairman:
The Honorable Ted Stevens:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Defense:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Tim Johnson:
Chairman:
The Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related
Agencies:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Ike Skelton:
Chairman:
The Honorable Duncan L. Hunter:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable John P. Murtha, Jr.:
Chairman:
The Honorable C. W. Bill Young:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Defense:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Chet Edwards:
Chairman:
The Honorable Roger F. Wicker:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related
Agencies:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Tom Davis:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:
House of Representatives:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To determine the challenges and associated risks the Army faces in
providing for timely infrastructure support at its major gaining bases
because of the combined effects of implementing the 2005 round of base
realignment and closures (BRAC), overseas rebasing, and Army force
modularity actions, we analyzed infrastructure-related planning
documentation and discussed planning and related funding efforts with
officials from various Army headquarters-level offices, four regional
Installation Management Command offices, and nine installations. We
visited Fort Carson, Colorado; Fort Benning, Georgia; Fort Riley,
Kansas; Fort Meade, Maryland; Fort Sill, Oklahoma; Fort Bliss and Fort
Sam Houston, Texas; and Fort Belvoir and Fort Lee, Virginia, because
preliminary data indicated large influxes of military and civilian
personnel through fiscal year 2011 at these nine installations.
Because Army implementation plans were evolving as we conducted our
work, we periodically updated the information we collected as the Army
refined its plans. In examining the plans and identifying challenges
that could place the Army at risk of not providing the necessary
infrastructure to accommodate incoming personnel in a timely manner, we
focused our efforts on key elements of the planning process, including
planned personnel restationing actions and synchronization of multiple
actions affecting particular installations, infrastructure requirements
to include quality of life facilities, and military construction plans
and expected costs. At the installation level, we collected and
analyzed data on the estimated number of personnel arrivals and
departures by fiscal year, along with installation- developed military
construction requirements. We also analyzed installation-developed
requirements for quality of life facilities at the nine Army growth
bases we visited and compared these requirements to Army funding plans
for fiscal years 2006 through 2011. We also met with Army Corps of
Engineers' officials and discussed the challenges they face in
providing an unprecedented volume of military construction across the
country at gaining installations within allotted costs and time frames.
Although we did not validate military construction requirements, the
Army Audit Agency was validating the requirements at the time of our
review for selected Army BRAC 2005 military construction projects. We
also sought views from officials from the installations we visited as
to the challenges they faced in planning for and funding their
personnel growth requirements and their ability to fully fund
continuing base operations and support and maintenance activities as
the installations expand. At the Army headquarters level, we collected
personnel restationing movement data and discussed overall
infrastructure implementation plans for the expected growth
installations. We further discussed the Army's efforts to fully fund
necessary infrastructure in the face of recognized overall funding
challenges across the Army's programs.
To determine how communities surrounding the Army's gaining bases were
planning for and funding the necessary infrastructure to support
incoming personnel and their families, we contacted community leaders
during our installation visits and discussed their relationships with
installation officials and steps they were taking to address community
infrastructure issues as a result of expected increased defense-driven
personnel growth and non-Department of Defense (DOD) growth in their
communities. While we focused most of our efforts on such areas as the
availability of housing, schools, and transportation to accommodate the
expected growth, we also learned of other areas of concern, including
the adequacy of utilities. We collected and analyzed available relevant
community planning documents relating to growth impacts and specific
strategies and actions for addressing these impacts. Because the
federal government has a role in providing financial, technical, and
other assistance to communities affected by defense actions, we
discussed with community officials to what extent they were seeking
federal assistance in addressing growth issues. We further discussed
community growth issues with officials from the Office of Economic
Adjustment (OEA), an organization within DOD that provides technical
assistance and financial assistance in the form of grants to eligible
communities affected by defense actions. We also attended the May 2006
DOD-sponsored BRAC conference to learn about the ramifications of DOD
growth on communities and the federal support and assistance available
to these communities. We further collected and analyzed OEA grant data
already provided to affected growth communities and discussed in
general with OEA officials the activities of other federal agencies
that are included in the President's Economic Adjustment Committee, a
committee of 22 federal agencies that have varying roles in providing
assistance to communities adversely affected by defense activities. We
did not conduct work at those other federal agencies.
In addition to representatives of the nine domestic Army gaining
installations we visited and nearby community leaders, we contacted the
following organizations during our review:
* Office of the Secretary of Defense:
- Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and
Environment), BRAC Office, Arlington, Virginia:
- Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Military
Community and Family Policy, Arlington, Virginia:
- OEA, Arlington, Virginia:
* Army:
- Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management, Arlington,
Virginia:
- Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans, Arlington, Virginia:
- Installation Management Command Headquarters, Arlington, Virginia:
- Installation Management Command, Northeast Region, Hampton, Virginia:
- Installation Management Command, Northwest Region, Rock Island,
Illinois:
- Installation Management Command, Southeast Region, Atlanta, Georgia:
- Installation Management Command, Southwest Region, San Antonio,
Texas:
- Army Corps of Engineers Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
- Training and Doctrine Command, Hampton, Virginia:
- Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command, Newport News,
Virginia:
Our analysis was complicated by the evolving nature of the Army's
infrastructure implementation plans, which continued to change
throughout our review. Business plans intended to direct the
implementation of the BRAC recommendations affecting the gaining bases
were in draft at the time of our review. Army officials said that the
information they provided to us and that we present in our report
represented their current plans at the time of our review and should be
considered an approximation of their projected restationing and funding
actions because these plans are subject to change. Consequently,
civilian planning for providing infrastructure was subject to change
based on changes in the Army's plans. Although we found some
discrepancies in the Army's data, we concluded that, overall, they were
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. We conducted our
review from March 2006 through July 2007 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Office Of The Under Secretary Of Defense:
3000 Defense Pentagon:
Washington, Dc 20301-3000:
August 28, 2007:
Acquisition, Technology And Logistics:
Mr. Brian Lepore
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Lepore:
This is the Department of Defense (DOD) response to the GAO draft
report, GAO- 07-1007, `Defense Infrastructure: Challenges Increase
Risks for Providing Timely Infrastructure Support for Army
Installations Expecting Substantial Personnel Growth,' dated July 26,
2007 (GAO Code 350838). Specific comments are provided at the enclosure.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Philip W. Grone:
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense:
(Installations and Environment):
Enclosure:
As stated:
GAO Draft Report - Dated July 26, 2007 GAO Code 350838/GAO-07-1007:
"Defense Infrastructure: Challenges Increase Risks for Providing Timely
Infrastructure Support for Army Installations Expecting Substantial
Personnel Growth"
Department Of Defense Comments To The Recommendations:
Recommendation 1: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Secretary of the Army to determine why there are differences
between headquarters and gaining bases with respect to the number of
arriving and departing personnel.
DOD Response: Partially concur. While the Department of Defense concurs
with the findings, the Department of the Army has already determined
the cause and taken corrective action without the need for direction
from the Secretary of Defense. Differences in population projections
developed as a result of installations generating their own estimates
using locally- developed ratios and formulas, lacking specific
direction from Department of the Army headquarters. In January 2007,
Department of the Army headquarters recognized this situation and took
corrective action by establishing the Army Stationing Installation Plan
(ASIP) as the single, unified source of installation planning
population data to be used Army-wide.
Recommendation 2: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Secretary of the Army to ensure that Army headquarters and
base officials are collaborating to agree on Army personnel movement
plans so that base commanders and surrounding communities can
effectively plan for expected growth. This collaboration to reach
agreement should continue as expected personnel movement actions are
revised over time.
DOD Response: Partially concur. While the Department of Defense concurs
with the findings, the Department of the Army has already taken action
without the need for direction from the Secretary of Defense. In May
2007, the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management on the
Army headquarters staff issued guidance on installation population
reporting to enhance the consistency and effectiveness of installation
planning efforts. The guidance allows installations to plan for
anticipated unit moves (not yet reflected in the ASIP) and discuss
these plans with local communities as long as they are appropriately
qualified as pre-decisional and subject to change. Also, installations
were given the opportunity to request approval to use a locally-based
school age population planning ratio to better reflect anticipated
local conditions in lieu of using the standard DoD-wide ratio. In
addition, the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management
established an agreement with the Army Installation Management Command
in June 2007 to ensure that installations forward all population and/or
stationing issues to Department of the Army headquarters for
resolution.
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Brian J. Lepore, (202) 512-4523 or leporeb@gao.gov:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Barry W. Holman, Director
(retired); James R. Reifsnyder, Assistant Director; Nelsie S. Alcocer;
Grace A. Coleman; Nancy T. Lively; Richard W. Meeks; David F. Nielson;
and Roger L. Tomlinson made major contributions to this report.
Related GAO Products:
Military Base Realignments and Closures: Plan Needed to Monitor
Challenges for Completing More Than 100 Armed Forces Reserve Centers.
GAO-07-1040. Washington, D.C.: September 13, 2007.
Military Base Realignments and Closures: Observations Related to the
2005 Round. GAO-07-1230R. Washington D.C.: September 06, 2007.
Military Base Closures: Projected Savings from Fleet Readiness Centers
Likely Overstated and Actions Needed to Track Actual Savings and
Overcome Certain Challenges. GAO-07-304. Washington, D.C.: June 29,
2007.
Military Base Closures: Management Strategy Needed to Mitigate
Challenges and Improve Communication to Help Ensure Timely
Implementation of Air National Guard Recommendations. GAO-07-641.
Washington, D.C.: May 16, 2007.
Defense Acquisitions: Future Combat System Risks Underscore the
Importance of Oversight. GAO-07-672T. Washington, D.C.: March 27, 2007.
Military Base Closures: Opportunities Exist to Improve Environmental
Cleanup Cost Reporting and to Expedite Transfer of Unneeded Property.
GAO-07-166. Washington, D.C.: January 30, 2007.
Defense Management: Comprehensive Strategy and Annual Reporting Are
Needed to Measure Progress and Costs of DOD's Global Posture
Restructuring. GAO-06-852. Washington, D.C.: September 13, 2006.
Defense Infrastructure: DOD's Overseas Infrastructure Master Plans
Continue to Evolve. GAO-06-913R. Washington, D.C.: August 22, 2006.
[End of section]
Force Structure: Capabilities and Cost of Army Modular Force Remain
Uncertain. GAO-06-548T. Washington, D.C.: April 4, 2006.
Force Structure: Actions Needed to Improve Estimates and Oversight of
Costs for Transforming Army to a Modular Force. GAO-05-926. Washington,
D.C.: September 29, 2005.
Military Bases: Analysis of DOD's 2005 Selection Process and
Recommendations for Base Closures and Realignments. GAO-05-785.
Washington, D.C.: July 1, 2005.
Defense Infrastructure: Opportunities Exist to Improve Future
Comprehensive Master Plans for Changing U.S. Defense Infrastructure
Overseas. GAO-05-680R. Washington, D.C.: June 27, 2005.
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.
Military Base Closures: Updated Status of Prior Base Realignments and
Closures. GAO-05-138. Washington, D.C.: January 13, 2005.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] These 18 installations are those where the expected net personnel
increase exceeds 2,000 over the period fiscal years 2006 through 2011,
based on March 2007 data. The 18 installations account for nearly 90
percent of the expected total net increase of about 154,000 personnel
across all domestic Army gaining bases.
[2] Pub. L. No. 101-510, Title XXIX, as amended by Pub. L. No. 107-107,
Title XXX (2001).
[3] 31 U.S.C. 717.
[4] Pub. L. No. 107-107, Title XXX (2001).
[5] This excludes personnel gains resulting from the Army's plans to
increase its active end strength authorization by 65,000.
[6] These installations are some of the Army's largest growth bases and
were selected for our analyses primarily because data were readily
available for comparison purposes.
[7] S. Rep. No. 110-77, at 585 (2007), and H.R. Rep. No. 109-89, at 443
(2005).
[8] The initial estimate for the BRAC implementation costs increased by
over 50 percent from $11.6 billion to $17.6 billion. Included in this
figure is more than $1 billion provided by the Army to the TRICARE
Management Activity to construct a new hospital at Fort Belvoir,
Virginia, and necessary infrastructure at the National Naval Medical
Center, Maryland, to provide services formerly provided by the Walter
Reed Army Medical Center, which is slated for closure.
[9] GAO, Defense Acquisitions: Future Combat System Risks Underscore
the Importance of Oversight, GAO-07-672T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 27,
2007).
[10] 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).
[11] These quality of life facilities include only child and youth
centers, physical fitness centers, religious facilities, and soldier
and family support centers.
[12] This is another name for modular building methods where sections,
or modules, of a building are constructed either on-site or off-site
and then transported to the building site where the modules are
assembled to construct a building.
[13] The types of construction are based on fire combustibility ratings
with type I being the least combustible.
[14] The House Committee on Armed Services has directed the Secretary
of Defense to submit an analysis of these construction cost inflation
differences by February 1, 2008. H.R. Rep. No. 110-146, at 520 (2007)
(Conf. Rep.)
[15] School districts with 20 percent enrollment of military or DOD
civilian dependent children are eligible to receive DOD supplemental
impact aid funding that has been provided since 1991. For fiscal years
2006 and 2007, Congress provided $30 million for DOD supplemental
impact aid.
[16] The Defense Access Road Program provides the legal means for DOD
to pay for public highway improvements to mitigate an unusual impact of
a defense activity, such as a significant increase in personnel at a
military base. Military construction funds are specifically budgeted,
authorized, and appropriated for these projects.
[17] GAO, Military Base Closures: Updated Status of Prior Base
Realignments and Closures, GAO-05-138 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 13,
2005).
[18] None of these grants help underwrite construction.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
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 GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "Subscribe to Updates."
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: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Susan Becker, Acting Manager, Beckers@gao.gov (202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
