prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 1.

Report 1: The federal government owns roughly 640 million acres, more than a quarter of the land in the United States  These lands are heavily concentrated in 12 western states (including Alaska), where t he federal government owns roughly half of the overall land area  Four federal agencies—the National Park Service (NPS), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and Bureau of Land Management (BLM), all in the Department of the Interior (DOI), and the U S  Forest Service (FS) in the Department of Agriculture—administer about 95% of those lands  No single law provides authority for these four agencies to acquire and/or disposal of lands  Rather, Congress provided various acquisition and disposal authorities through laws enacted over more than a century  This report describes the primary authorities of the four agencies  The extent to which each of the agencies has authority to acquire and dispose of land, and the nature of the authorities, varies considerably  Some of the agencies have relatively broad authority to acquire and/or dispose of land  Most notably, the BLM has relatively broad authority for both acquisitions and disposals  By contrast, the NPS has no general authority to acquire land to create new park units or to dispose of park lands  The extent of the acquisition and disposal authorities for the FS and the FWS are not nearly as broad as the BLM's but not nearly as restrictive as the NPS's  The FS authority to acquire lands is mostly limited to lands within or contiguous to the boundaries of a national forest  The agency has various authorities to dispose of land, but they are relatively constrained and infrequently used  The FWS has various authorities to acquire lands but no general authority to dispose of its lands  The acquisition authorities differ as to the circumstances in which they apply, and the disposal authorities likewise differ as to their purposes  Thus, where a specific acquisition or disposal by an agency is contemplated, the particular authority at issue should be consulted  In general, the acquisition authorities are designed to allow federal agencies to acquire lands that could be viewed as benefitting from federal management  Among other circumstances, acquisition might be authorized to bring inholdings or lands adjacent to federal lands into federal ownership to improve or simplify management of federal lands  Acquisitions also might be authorized to conserve species, protect natural and cultural resources, and increase opportunities for recreation  The disposal authorities generally are designed to allow federal agencies to dispose of land that is no longer required for a federal purpose, might be inefficient to manage, or might be chiefly valuable for another purpose  For instance, disposal might be authorized to allow lands to be used for agriculture, community development, mineral extraction, or educational purposes  Agencies also acquire and dispose of federal land in exchanges  Exchanges are not discussed separately in this report, as often the authorities to acquire and dispose of lands also apply to land exchange  However, there are provisions of law particularly applicable to exchanges  The exchange authorities for the NPS and the FWS are relatively narrow  The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA; 43 U S C  §§1701-1781) provides broader exchange authority and is the main authority governing exchanges by the BLM and the FS  Congress often faces questions on the adequacy of existing acquisition and disposal authorities; the nature, extent, and location of their use; the extent of federal land ownership overall; and the sources and levels of land acquisition funds, among other issues  The suitability of the acquisition and disposal authorities, and the extent and circumstances of their use by the agencies, forms the backdrop for congressional consideration of measures to establish, modify, or eliminate the use of authorities  With regard to the establishment of new authorities, for instance, some 115 th Congress proposals would authorize states to exchange land grant parcels for federal lands  Other measures would authorize the BLM and FS to convey small tracts to adjacent landowners and to govern the use of proceeds from these conveyances  Proposals to modify authorities include measures in the 115 th Congress to reauthorize and amend BLM authority to sell or exchange land under the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA; 43 U S C  §§2301 et seq ), as well as bills to amend the Small Tracts Act (16 U S C  §521e) regarding the type and value of FS lands that can be disposed of and the use of related proceeds  Among the provisions to eliminate the use of authorities are those to prevent the disposal of federal land under the General Mining Law of 1872, which have been contained in annual Interior appropriations laws since FY1995  In addition, Congress frequently considers legislation authorizing and governing the acquisition or disposal of specific parcels  For example, Title XXX of P L  113-291 contained various provisions to authorize the acquisition and/or disposal of land  Congress may consider such legislation to provide an agency with acquisition or disposal authority in a particular instance because it is lacking  In other cases, Congress directs a particular acquisition or disposal to facilitate the action  For instance, the legislation may seek to direct an acquisition based on Congress's assessment of public needs and priorities  It may expedite the process for acquiring a parcel of land, such as by limiting the assessments and evaluations that ordinarily would be required under law  The legislation also might authorize actions not ordinarily permitted, such as the conveyance of land at reduced or no cost rather than at fair market value  Congress also addresses acquisition and disposal policy in the context of deliberations on the role and goals of the federal government in owning and managing land generally  The extent to which the federal government should own land remains controversial  Many westerners contend that there is excessive federal influence over their lives and economies and that the federal government should divest itself of many lands  Many others support the policy of retaining lands in federal ownership on behalf of the public and sometimes advocate adding more lands to enhance protection  Recent Congresses considered diverse bills pertaining to the extent of federal land ownership  Among others, 115 th Congress measures would authorize or direct the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to offer to sell a certain percentage of land in each of several fiscal years  Other bills provide that where a land management agency acquires land, an equal number of acres is to be offered for sale  Another set of issues pertains to the sources and levels of funds for land acquisition  The principal financing mechanism for federal land acquisition is discretionary appropriations under the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)  Provisions of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (LWCF Act; 54 U S C  §§200301 et seq ) had provided for $900 million in specified revenues to be deposited in the LWCF annually  These provisions expired September 30, 2018  Each year, Congress determines the level of appropriations from the LWCF for federal land acquisition  Total appropriations for land acquisition and the amount provided to each of the federal land management agencies have varied substantially since the program's origin in 1965  In the 115 th Congress, some measures propose permanent reauthorization of the LWCF and/or mandatory appropriations at the authorized level  Advocates of such bills typically seek stable, predictable funding to promote a strong federal role in acquiring and managing sensitive resources  Other measures would direct a portion of funding to particular purposes, such as acquisitions in areas with restricted access for fishing, hunting, and other types of recreation  Still other proposals would allow LWCF to be used for a broader array of purposes, including nonacquisition purposes, due to concerns about the extent of federal land ownership and the availability of funding for other federal activities  Additional sources of funding are available for some agencies or under certain authorities  For instance, the FWS has a mandatory source of funds for land acquisition through the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, as discussed below  As another example, the BLM also has mandatory spending authorities that allow the agency to keep the proceeds of land sales and use these proceeds for subsequent acquisitions and other purposes  These authorities are discussed below  The application of mandatory spending authorities, including the uses of the proceeds, has been the subject of congressional debate  As noted above, various laws authorizing and governing specific land acquisitions have been enacted  In addition, the four federal land management agencies have different standing authorities for acquiring lands  In general, all four agencies are authorized to accept land as gifts and bequests  In addition, each generally is authorized to use eminent domain —taking private property, through condemnation, for public use—while compensating the landowner  However, this practice is controversial, and it is rarely used by the land management agencies  The primary land acquisition authorities are described below for each of the four federal land management agencies  In general, the agencies are presented in the order of the breadth of their authorities, with the NPS (the narrowest authorities) first and the BLM (the broadest authorities) last  The NPS does not have standing authority to acquire lands for new or existing units of the National Park System, except in limited circumstances  Rather, most units have been created by Congress, and the law creating a park unit typically includes specific authority for the NPS to acquire nonfederal inholdings within the identified boundaries of that park  The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to make certain boundary adjustments of park units for "proper preservation, protection, interpretation, or management" and to acquire the nonfederal lands within the adjusted boundary, under specified provisions and conditions (54 U S C  §100506(c))  Some of these conditions have been interpreted to apply particularly to boundary adjustments requiring land purchases, as opposed to those in which added lands are acquired by donation, transfer, or exchange  The President has authority to create national monuments on federal lands under the Antiquities Act of 1906 (54 U S C  §§320301 et seq )  In total, 158 monuments have been created by presidential proclamation  Most are managed by the NPS, but some are managed by the BLM and other agencies  Under law, the Secretary of the Interior and the NPS have responsibilities related to the potential acquisition of lands for the National Park System  Among other requirements, the Secretary is directed "to investigate, study, and continually monitor the welfare of" areas that could potentially be added to the system and to report to Congress on possible additions (54 U S C  §100507)  Furthermore, the general management plan for each unit is to include potential changes to the boundaries of the unit and the reasons for such changes (54 U S C  §100502)  The Secretary also is to conduct a "systematic and comprehensive review of certain aspects of the National Park System" and to submit a related report to Congress at least every three years (54 U S C  §100505(a)) that includes a list of all authorized but unacquired lands within the boundaries of park units and a priority listing of these unacquired parcels (54 U S C  §100505(c))  The Secretary of Agriculture has various authorities to acquire lands for the National Forest System (NFS)  The NFS consists of 284 units covering 232 4 million acres of federal and nonfederal land, including national forests, national grasslands, purchase units, land utilization projects, and other areas  Today, only an act of Congress can create new NFS units, but the Secretary may acquire lands within or contiguous to the proclaimed exterior boundaries of an NFS unit  The NFS contains substantial acreage of nonfederal lands within the proclaimed boundaries of the system, particularly in the east, where national forests were established after extensive settlement  NFS units in the Eastern and Southern Regions average about 46% nonfederal land within their boundaries, while Western Region NFS units average about 10%  The FS has very limited regulatory authority over the uses of the 39 5 million acres of nonfederal land within the NFS  The FS's primary land acquisition authority is the Weeks Act of 1911 (16 U S C  §515), which was used to acquire many of the lands that became the eastern national forests  The Weeks Act authority continues to be the agency's primary authority to acquire lands; however, acquisitions are now limited to lands within (or adjacent to) established NFS unit boundaries  The Weeks Act also authorizes the Secretary to modify the NFS unit boundary as needed to encompass new acquisitions  Other laws authorize the FS to acquire lands for the national forests, typically in specific areas or for specific purposes  For example, Section 205 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA; P L  94-579 ) authorizes the acquisition of access corridors—including easements—to national forests across nonfederal lands (43 U S C  §1715(a))  Another example is the Act of August 3, 1956 (7 U S C  §428(a)), which authorizes the FS to acquire lands without any geographical limitations but does require a provision be made in a specific appropriation or other law  Another law authorizes proceeds from certain land sales or exchanges to be used for acquisitions, including for administrative sites and enhancement of recreational access  However, the acquisitions are limited to the state in which FS previously conveyed NFS land under specific disposal authorities, as discussed later in this report  Several other acquisition authorities apply to specific national forests, such as the Act of June 11, 1940, which authorizes the purchase of lands within the Angeles National Forest in California  In addition, the Secretary of Agriculture and the secretary of a military department that has lands within or adjacent to proclaimed NFS land may interchange lands, without reimbursement or transfer of funds  Many of the acquisition authorities also allow the FS to accept donations of land as specified  Within the NFS, the Secretary of Agriculture also is authorized to acquire privately owned lands within or adjacent to designated wilderness areas (16 U S C  §1134(c)), Wild and Scenic River corridors (16 U S C  §1277), and certain segments of designated National Trails (16 U S C  §1244), as specified by the law creating the trail  Lands may be added to the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) in a number of ways, including through congressional and administrative actions and donations  A principal FWS land acquisition authority is the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (MBCA; 16 U S C  §§715 et seq )  This act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to recommend areas "necessary for the conservation of migratory birds" to the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, after consulting with the relevant governor (or state agency) and appropriate local government officials (16 U S C  §715a and §715c)  In addition, the state in which the purchase is located must have consented to the acquisition by law (16 U S C  §715f and §715k-5)  The Secretary may then purchase or rent areas or interests therein approved by the commission and acquire by gift or devise any area or interest therein (16 U S C  §715d)  The MBCA authority is used frequently because of the availability of funding through the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund (MBCF, 16 U S C  §718d)  The MBCF is supported by multiple sources of funding, including three major sources: the sale of hunting and conservation stamps (commonly known as duck stamps); import duties on arms and ammunition; and a portion of certain refuge entrance fees  MBCF funds are permanently appropriated to the extent of receipts and, after paying certain administrative costs, may be used for the "location, ascertainment, and acquisition of suitable areas for migratory bird refuges    " (16 U S C  §718d(b))  The predictability of funding and permanent authority for use makes the MBCF, and thus the MBCA, particularly important for FWS land acquisition and unique among the four agencies  Other laws provide general authority to expand the NWRS, including the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934 (16 U S C  §§661-667a), the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U S C  §§742a et seq ), and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U S C  §§1531-1544)  The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U S C  §§668dd-668ee) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to acquire land or interests therein through donated funds or exchange (16 U S C  §668dd(b))  Further, FLPMA authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to withdraw lands from the public domain for creating or adding to refuges (which would be an interagency transfer), although withdrawals exceeding 5,000 acres are subject to congressional approval (43 U S C  §1714(c))  In contrast to NPS and FS land acquisition, where the lands generally must be within the boundaries of established units, the FWS can acquire new lands to create a new refuge or to expand an existing one under the general FWS authorities cited above, as well as under certain other laws  Some national wildlife refuge (NWR) units have been created by specific acts of Congress, such as Protection Island NWR (WA) and Bayou Sauvage Urban NWR (LA) (16 U S C  §668dd note)  Units also can be created by executive order; for example, the Midway Atoll NWR was created by President Clinton in Executive Order 13022  The BLM has broad, general authority to acquire lands, principally under Section 205 of FLPMA  Specifically, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to acquire, by purchase, exchange, donation, or use of eminent domain, lands or interests therein (43 U S C  §1715(a))  The BLM acquires land or interests in land, including inholdings, for a variety of reasons  These include to protect natural and cultural resources, to increase opportunities for public access and recreation, and to improve management of lands  As noted above, various laws directing the disposal of particular lands sometimes have been enacted  In addition, the four federal land management agencies have different standing authorities for disposing of lands  The specific disposal authorities are discussed below for each of the four agencies in the order of their apparent breadth, with the NPS (the narrowest authorities) first and the BLM (the broadest authorities) last  The NPS does not have general authority to dispose of National Park System lands  Units and lands of the Park System that were established by acts of Congress can be disposed of only by acts of Congress  Preservation of park units is a management goal and provisions of law limit the power of the Secretary of the Interior to dispose of land in changing park boundaries  Although the Secretary can, under specified conditions, make boundary changes that concurrently add and remove land within the boundary, minor boundary revisions solely to remove NPS acreage can be made only by Congress  Also, the Secretary can acquire by exchange lands that are adjacent to a boundary revision, but the Secretary cannot dispose of NPS land to do so (54 U S C  §100506(c))  Presidents have modified the boundaries of national monuments established by previous presidential proclamations, in some cases reducing the size of the monument  However, no president has terminated a monument established by proclamation  The FWS does not have general authority to dispose of its lands  With certain exceptions, wildlife refuge lands administered by the FWS can be disposed only by an act of Congress (16 U S C  §§668dd(a)(5) and (6))  For refuge lands reserved from the public domain, FLPMA prohibits the Secretary of the Interior from modifying or revoking any withdrawal which added lands to the NWRS (43 U S C  §1714(j))  For acquired lands, disposal is allowed only if: (1) the disposal is part of an authorized land exchange (16 U S C  §§668dd(a)(6) and (b)(3)); or (2) the Secretary determines the lands are no longer needed and the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission approves the disposal (16 U S C  §668dd(a)(5))  In the latter case, the disposal must recover the acquisition cost or be at the fair market value (whichever is higher), and the receipts must be deposited in the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund  The Secretary of Agriculture has numerous authorities to convey lands within proclaimed NFS boundaries out of federal ownership—through sale or exchange—although previous, broader authorities have been modified or revoked  Many of the authorities put constraints on land disposal, such as applying only to a specific geographical area or to the disposal of particular administrative properties or facilities  Many of the authorities are used in conjunction with FLPMA and other federal law and as such may place requirements on the sale or exchange of land  This includes obtaining at least fair market value for the sale of federal lands; requiring that nonfederal land exchanged for federal land be in the same state; and requiring exchanged lands to be of equal value, although value may be partially equalized with a cash payment (43 U S C  §1716)  The General Exchange Act of 1922 (16 U S C  §485) authorizes the exchange of NFS land or timber that was reserved from the public domain if the Secretary determines it will be in the public interest  The nonfederal land must be within the same state and within the exterior boundary of a national forest, and it must be chiefly valuable for national forest purposes, among other provisions  The Weeks Act of 1911 allows for similar exchanges for acquired NFS lands (16 U S C  §516)  The 1983 Small Tracts Act authorizes the Secretary to dispose of NFS land by sale or exchange, generally up to certain specified acreage limits  The disposal may be To improve management efficiencies where NFS lands are interspersed with nonfederal mineral rights owners, or if the Secretary determines the parcels to be inaccessible, physically isolated from other federal land, or to have lost national forest character (40 acres maximum); To relieve encroachments including due to erroneous surveys, or encroachments by a permanent habitable improvement if there is no evidence that the encroachment was intentional or due to negligence (10 acres maximum); To dispose of unneeded federal rights-of-way substantially surrounded by nonfederal lands (no specified acreage limitation); and If the parcel is used as a cemetery, landfill, or sewage plant pursuant to a special use authorization for the use and occupancy of NFS land (no specified acreage limitation) (16 U S C  §521e)  The conveyance must be determined to be in the public interest and the tracts may not be valued at more than $500,000  The land can be disposed of for cash, lands, interests in land (such as an easement), or any combination thereof for at least the value of the land being sold or exchanged (16 U S C  §521d) plus "all reasonable costs of administration, survey, and appraisal incidental to such conveyance" (16 U S C  §521f)  In some cases, the proceeds may be used for specified land acquisition purposes  The 1958 Townsites Act authorizes the Secretary to transfer up to 640 acres of NFS land adjacent to communities in Alaska or the 11 western states for townsites, if the "indigenous community objectives     outweigh the public objectives and values which would be served by maintaining such tract in Federal ownership" (16 U S C  §478a)  Public notice of the application for such transfer is required, and upon a "satisfactory showing of need," the Secretary may offer the land to a local governmental entity at "not less than the fair market value " The Education Land Grant Act, also known as the Sisk Act (16 U S C  §479a), authorizes the Secretary to transfer up to 80 acres of NFS land for a nominal cost upon written application of a public school district  It provides for reversion of the title to the federal government if the lands are not used for the educational purposes for which they were acquired  There are a few other specific authorities that allow for the disposal of NFS lands  For example, the 1911 Weeks Act authorizes the disposal of NFS lands that are "chiefly valuable for agriculture" but were acquired inadvertently or otherwise, if agricultural use will not injure the forests or streamflows and the lands are not needed for public purposes  The lands can be sold as homesteads in parcels of up to 80 acres (16 U S C  §519)  The Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of 1937 (7 U S C  §§1010-1012) also authorizes the disposal of lands acquired under its authority, although the FS has adopted regulations stating that the Bankhead-Jones lands comprising the national grasslands will be held permanently (36 C F R  §213 1(b))  The BLM can dispose of land under several authorities  They include (1) exchanges and sales under FLPMA, (2) sales or exchanges under the FLTFA, (3) transfers to other governmental units or nonprofit entities for public purposes, (4) patents under the General Mining Law of 1872, and (5) geographically limited sale authorities  With regard to exchanges under FLPMA, the exchanges must serve the public interest, and the federal and nonfederal lands in the exchange must be located in the same state and be of equal value (with cash equalization payments possible), among other requirements (43 U S C  §1716)  With regard to sales under FLPMA, the BLM is authorized to sell certain tracts of public land that are identified through the land-use planning process  Such tracts must meet specific criteria (43 U S C  §1713(a)): (1) such tract because of its location or other characteristics is difficult and uneconomic to manage as part of the public lands, and is not suitable for management by another Federal department or agency; or (2) such tract was acquired for a specific purpose and the tract is no longer required for that or any other Federal purpose; or (3) disposal of such tract will serve important public objectives, including but not limited to, expansion of communities and economic development, which cannot be achieved prudently or feasibly on land other than public land and which outweigh other public objectives and values, including, but not limited to, recreation and scenic values, which would be served by maintaining such tract in Federal ownership  The size of the tracts for sale is determined by "the land use capabilities and development requirements " Proposals to sell tracts of more than 2,500 acres first must be submitted to Congress and can be disapproved by Congress  Lands may not be sold at less than their fair market value  They generally must be sold through competitive bidding, although modified competition and noncompetitive sales are allowed  FLTFA provides for the sale or exchange of BLM lands identified for disposal under BLM land- use plans  The law create s a separate Treasury account for most of the proceeds (96%) from the sale or exchange, and it provide s for the use of those funds by the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture  The Secretaries may acquire nonfederal lands, specifically inholdings , lands adjacent to federal lands that contain exceptional resources , and areas adjacent to inaccessible lands that are open to recreation  Up to 20% of the funds in the account may be used for administrative costs, and at least 80% of the funds for acquisition are to be in the state in which the funds are generated   The Recreation and Public Purposes Act (43 U S C  §869) authorizes the Secretary, upon application by a qualified applicant, to dispose of any public lands to a State, Territory, county, municipality, or other State, Territorial, or Federal instrumentality or political subdivision for any public purposes, or to a nonprofit corporation or nonprofit association for any recreational or any public purpose consistent with its articles of incorporation or other creating authority  The lands can be sold or leased, and the act specifies conditions, qualifications, and acreage limitations for transfer  The price of the land depends on the type of entity that will receive it, for instance, whether a state government or a nonprofit organization  The price also depends on the intended use of the land, with some sales and leases made at no cost  Although the BLM can dispose of lands through patents under the General Mining Law of 1872, since FY1995 a series of annual moratoria on issuing mineral patents has been enacted into law  These moratoria, contained in the annual Interior appropriations laws, have effectively prevented this means of federal land disposal  Specifically, the Mining Law allows access to and development of hardrock minerals on federal lands that have not been withdrawn from entry  With evidence of valuable minerals and sufficient developmental effort, the Mining Law allows mining claims to be patented, with full title (of surface and mineral rights) transferred to the claimant upon payment of the appropriate fee  Nonmineral lands used for associated milling or other processing operations can also be patented (30 U S C  §42)  Patented lands may be used for purposes other than mineral development  The BLM also has geographically limited land sale authorities  The program with the largest revenue stream has been the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, which allows the Secretary of the Interior to sell or exchange certain lands around Las Vegas  The BLM and the local government unit jointly decide on the lands to be offered for sale or exchange  In general, 85% of the proceeds are deposited into a special account, and are available to the Secretary of the Interior for land acquisition in Nevada and other purposes in the state, such as certain capital improvements and development of parks, trails, and natural areas  The other 15% of the proceeds are for state or local purposes, specifically the State of Nevada General Education Fund (5%) and the Southern Nevada Water Authority (10%)  Other provisions of law similarly provide for BLM land sales in particular areas (mostly in Nevada), with specific allocations of the proceeds  Further, the BLM continues to dispose of land in Alaska as required by law, such as through transfers to the state of Alaska and to Alaska native corporations  A total of about 150 million acres in Alaska will be transferred from federal to state and private ownership  


Report 2: DOD’s MILCON appropriations are used to fund the acquisition, construction, installation, and equipping of temporary or permanent public works, military installations, facilities, and real property needed to support U S  military forces in the United States and overseas  As with other DOD activities, no funds may be appropriated in any fiscal year or obligated or expended for MILCON activities unless such funds have been specifically authorized by law  Each year, the National Defense Authorization Act authorizes amounts to be appropriated in each of the 18 programmatic MILCON appropriations accounts  Individual or conference committee reports accompanying each fiscal year’s National Defense Authorization Act provide specific congressional direction on authorized funding levels designated for specific construction projects supported by the various MILCON accounts  Similarly, conference committee reports or explanatory statements accompanying each fiscal year’s appropriations acts establish appropriated funding levels for MILCON projects  The process through which the active component requests funding for construction projects is supported by DOD’s Form 1391 Military Construction Project Data (Form 1391)  The Form 1391 is to be used to support each project proposed for inclusion in the MILCON appropriations request submitted concurrently with all other DOD appropriations requests annually  The forms are to be used for both new projects as well as urgent unforeseen projects  The Form 1391 describes the scope, total project costs, and estimates of specific project elements  Costs associated with other project elements such as contingency and supervision, inspection, and design are also to be captured and included in the total requested amount  Finally, the Form 1391 is to include a description of the proposed construction and a requirements statement indicating what requirement the project provides  Project budget estimates are initially developed at the installation level and are provided to the next responsible level for review, validation, refinement, prioritization, and approval  Administrative support is to be provided when requested across the departments, but ultimately the installation is the originator and the primary responsible entity in developing the completed Form 1391  MILCON appropriations are generally available for obligation for 5 fiscal years, at which time the appropriation expires  For 5 years after they expire, appropriations are available for limited purposes, such as liquidating obligations made during the period of availability or adjusting contract costs  After these 5 years, any remaining unexpended amounts, whether obligated or unobligated, are canceled and returned to the U S  Treasury  Once funds are returned to the U S  Treasury, they are no longer available for any purposes  DOD obligates its appropriations throughout the period in which the appropriation is available  An “unobligated balance” is the difference between the total appropriation amount and total obligations made against the appropriated amounts  An “unexpended balance” is the total of obligated but unliquidated and unobligated amounts  According to DOD officials, available but unobligated amounts no longer needed may be either rescinded by Congress or reprogrammed to other MILCON projects that the active component identifies as needing additional funding  Reprogrammed amounts may be used to fund other projects where there are shortfalls; for projects authorized by Congress but not specifically funded through the appropriations process; for emergency projects, such as for facilities destroyed by fires  DOD’s flexibility to reprogram without congressional approval is limited by the amount to be reprogrammed to a particular project  DOD’s Financial Management Regulation requires prior congressional approval for a reprogramming that would result in an increase exceeding 25 percent of a project’s authorized base amount or $2 million, whichever is less  Prior approval is not required when established costs or project-related thresholds are not reached  According to DOD officials, reprogrammings requiring congressional approval are called “above-threshold reprogrammings” and those that do not are called “below-threshold reprogrammings ” DOD designates construction agents for the military departments and defense agencies with primary responsibility for developing and refining MILCON proposals and cost estimates, and to manage the design and construction of projects  Typically, the Army Corps of Engineers is the construction agent for Army MILCON-funded projects and the Naval Facilities Engineering Command is the construction agent for Navy and Marine Corps MILCON-funded projects  Either of those DOD entities can be the construction agent for the defense agencies and activities, such as for the Missile Defense Agency or Defense Education Activity, with the approval of the military department having jurisdiction of the real property facility  However, both the Army and the Navy may use each other’s construction agent if it is in the interest of efficiency and cost- effectiveness or when otherwise considered appropriate  The Air Force may use either the Army Corps of Engineers or Naval Facilities Engineering Command for its projects  Additionally, the Air Force Civil Engineer Center, although not a designated construction agent, reviews and approves requirements for Air Force MILCON cost estimates, and in some cases may design and construct Air Force projects where both the Air Force and the commander of the assigned construction agent agree that it is the most efficient, expeditious, and cost-effective means to complete the project  Within DOD there are two levels of military construction guidance: the Unified Facilities Criteria and component-level guidance  The Unified Facilities Criteria are overarching, DOD-wide technical manuals and standards used for planning, design, construction, restoration, and maintenance of DOD facility projects  The Unified Facilities Criteria was designed to standardize and streamline the process for developing, maintaining, and disseminating criteria in support of MILCON  The Unified Facilities Criteria contains guidance describing methods, procedures, and formats for the preparation of construction cost estimates and construction contract modification estimates, among other types of guidance  The Unified Facilities Criteria is to be used to the greatest extent possible by all the DOD regardless of funding source  In addition to the Unified Facilities Criteria, the military departments and agencies have also developed their own internal guidance on MILCON, providing further direction on conducting activities such as cost analysis and determining facility requirements  We developed the GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Developing and Managing Capital Program Costs (Cost Guide) to assist federal agencies in developing reliable cost estimates and also as a tool for evaluating existing cost estimating procedures  To develop the Cost Guide, our cost experts assessed measures applied by cost estimating organizations throughout the federal government and industry and considered best practices for the development of reliable cost estimates  While the Cost Guide has a focus on developing cost estimates in the context of government acquisition programs, it outlines best practices that are generally applicable to cost estimation in a variety of circumstances  These best practices can be used to assess (1) the specific project cost estimates an agency develops to determine whether they meet the four characteristics—comprehensive, well-documented, accurate, and credible—for being reliable and (2) an agency’s cost estimating guidance and procedures to see how well they incorporate all the steps needed for producing a high-quality cost estimate  Figure 1 shows the four characteristics and associated best practices for each that define a reliable cost estimate and table 1 shows the 12 steps identified in the Cost Guide that, if followed correctly, should result in high-quality cost estimates that management can use for making informed decisions  During fiscal years 2005 through 2016, Congress appropriated about $66 billion in MILCON funds to the active component and, as of September 30, 2016, the active component had obligated all but about $5 1 billion and expended all but about $11 billion of those funds  Of the $5 1 billion that remains unobligated, about $4 6 billion was unexpired and available for new obligations (i e , from fiscal year 2013 through 2016 appropriations)  Table 2 shows the active component’s combined MILCON appropriations, obligations, and unexpended funds from fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 2016  In general, during the early first few years of a MILCON appropriation available for 5 years, it is often likely that most of the funds will remain unobligated  For example, as shown in table 2 above, of the nearly $3 9 billion appropriated for military construction for the active component from the fiscal year 2016-2020 appropriation, only about $1 1 billion had been obligated as of September 30, 2016  This is not surprising given the time that it takes to award, obligate and disburse funds for projects  Ultimately, though, as an appropriation nears its expiration date, all or nearly all of the amounts have generally been obligated  In fact, as shown in table 2, for each MILCON appropriation received by the active component prior to fiscal year 2013 (fiscal years 2005 through 2012), less than 2 percent of each year’s appropriation was unexpended as of September 30, 2016  In appendix II, we provide additional analysis of the active component’s unexpended and unobligated balances, by appropriation year and by military department  Although ultimately, the active component obligates and expends most of its MILCON appropriations, the active component can experience a wide range of differences between initial cost estimates and final costs during the execution of individual MILCON projects, resulting in savings or shortfalls depending on the project  For example, we found that from fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2016, the active component achieved about $4 2 billion in MILCON project savings as a result, for example, of canceled projects, projects with lower than expected contractor bids, or the use of less expensive building materials  In appendix III, we provide additional analysis of the active component’s estimated initial costs and the contract award amounts that were funded by MILCON appropriations for fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2016  The active component reprogrammed about $1 6 billion in MILCON appropriations to fund shortfalls caused by emergency projects, projects that were authorized but did not receive specific appropriations, and projects needing additional funding in fiscal years 2010 through 2016  Of this amount, the Army reprogrammed about $789 million of about $14 billion in appropriated MILCON funds; the Navy, about $535 million of about $14 billion in appropriated MILCON funds; and the Air Force, about $295 million of about $7 billion in appropriated MILCON funds  Table 3 shows the number and amounts of above-threshold reprogrammings by the active component for fiscal years 2010 through 2016  As seen in table 3, for any given year there are typically hundreds of millions of dollars reprogrammed  There are generally multiple active or canceled projects that result in cost savings, which may be used to fund authorized but not specifically funded projects  Below are three examples where the active component funded MILCON projects with amounts reprogrammed from other projects: Repair Shop at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam: This is an Air Force project to construct a pacific air resiliency low observable/corrosion control/composite repair shop in Guam  It is an authorized project that did not receive specific funding during the appropriation process but was fully funded by reprogrammed cost savings from active construction projects  Congress authorized $34 4 million for the repair shop in fiscal year 2015; however, no funds were specifically appropriated for the project  According to Air Force officials, since this was their top unfunded military construction priority, they used $34 4 million in savings achieved from other projects to construct the repair shop  Table 4 lists the three projects whose MILCON funds were reprogrammed for the repair shop at Andersen Air Force Base in Guam  Training Facility at the Naval Air Station at Mayport, Florida: This is a Navy project to construct a littoral combat ship training facility in Florida  It is a specifically funded project requiring additional funds that received reprogrammed amounts from a canceled project  In fiscal year 2014, the initial cost as listed on the Form 1391 was estimated to be $20 5 million, but project costs increased by 41 percent to an estimated $28 9 million, according to a fiscal year 2016 reprogramming request to Congress  As detailed in the reprogramming request, the Navy attributed the increased cost to underestimated mission simulator and communication line requirements  To fund the increased costs, the Navy used $8 3 million in savings from a canceled project to complete the facility  Table 5 lists the canceled project that resulted in funds being reprogrammed for the training facility at Mayport  Barracks at Presidio of Monterey, California: This is an Army project to construct a trainee barracks in California  It is a specifically funded project in need of additional funds that received reprogrammed amounts from active and canceled construction projects  In fiscal year 2011, the initial cost for the project as listed on the Form 1391 was estimated to be $63 million, but project costs increased by 51 percent to $95 million, according to a fiscal year 2015 reprogramming request to Congress  As detailed in the reprogramming request, the Army attributed the increased costs to a 3-year delay in construction and the need to move the project to a small, steep-terrain site  The reprogramming request further noted that the delay in construction was due to the discovery at the proposed construction site of a seismic fault and a plant that is an endangered species  To fund the increased costs, the Army sought to reprogram funds from the savings achieved from the active and canceled projects  Table 6 lists the projects that generated the reprogrammed funds used for the barracks at Presidio  Our analyses of the cost estimates for three selected projects shows that the cost estimates were not reliable, and DOD’s cost estimating guidance does not fully incorporate all the steps needed for producing reliable estimates  We examined the cost estimates of three high-value military construction projects and noted that the initial cost estimates increased for all three projects, with cost estimates for two of the projects increasing by over 30 percent and the other, by about 7 percent  Specifically: Strategic Command Operations Building, Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska  The project to construct a nuclear, space, and network command and control operations building for the command at Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska, increased from an initial cost estimate in fiscal year 2012 of $564 million to $601 million in fiscal year 2014 (or a 7-percent increase)  According to a fiscal year 2014 reprogramming request to Congress, the Air Force attributed the increased cost to the fact that the project team did not appreciate the full scope, complexity, and risk of such an information technology- intensive project  These cost issues are similar to challenges we have reported on for other information technology-intensive MILCON projects  The Air Force is the project owner and the Army Corps of Engineers is the construction agent for this project  Command Headquarters and Cyberspace Operations Building, Fort Meade, Maryland  The project to construct a command headquarters and cyberspace operations building with sensitive compartmented information facility in Fort Meade, Maryland, increased from an initial cost estimate in fiscal year 2013 of $84 million to $110 million in fiscal year 2015 (or a 31-percent increase)  As detailed in the fiscal year 2015 reprogramming request, the Navy attributed the increased cost to higher than expected construction costs due to increased demand on the labor workforce in the Washington, D C /Baltimore area and underestimated electrical power requirements  The Navy is the project owner and the Army Corps of Engineers is the construction agent for this project  Elementary School Camp Foster, Japan  The project to replace an elementary school at Camp Foster, Japan increased from an initial cost estimate in fiscal year 2012 of $79 million to $107 million in fiscal year 2014 (or a 35-percent increase)  As detailed on the fiscal year 2014 reprogramming request, the Department of Defense Education Activity attributed the increased cost to the volatile construction climate in Japan caused by natural disasters; Japanese government policies, economic stimulus, and reform; and the planned developments for the 2020 Tokyo Olympic Games  Although this project is not owned by any of the military departments, it is being managed by the Army Corps of Engineers in its role as a DOD construction agent through which it plays an important role in the development of the construction cost estimate  The Department of Defense Education Activity is the project owner and the Army Corps of Engineers is the construction agent  To determine the reliability of the cost estimates for these three selected projects, we assessed the cost estimates against the best practices for developing a reliable estimate in our Cost Guide  As previously discussed, the Cost Guide defines the four characteristics— comprehensive, well documented, accurate, and credible—of a reliable cost estimate and the associated best practices related to each characteristic  In conducting these assessments, we examined both the Form 1391 estimate (i e , the estimate used to develop the budget) and the independent government estimate i e , (the estimate used to award the contract) for each project  Our analysis of the cost estimates for the three selected projects shows that the cost estimators did not follow all the best practices listed for each of the four characteristics  As a result, none of the characteristics were fully or substantially met  To be reliable, a cost estimate must substantially or fully meet each of the four characteristics  As the Cost Guide states, if any of the characteristics are not met, minimally met, or partially met, then the cost estimate does not fully reflect the characteristics of a high-quality estimate and cannot be considered reliable  Table 7 provides the results of our assessment of the cost estimates for each of the three selected projects  The Cost Guide also identifies 12 steps that, when incorporated into an agency’s cost estimating procedures and guidance, are more likely to result in reliable and valid cost estimates  However, our analysis of DOD’s department-wide cost estimating guidance—the Unified Facilities Criteria—found that the criteria did not include all of these 12 steps  The Unified Facilities Criteria incorporates some of the 12 steps to some degree, but not others, and as a result DOD is at a greater risk of developing estimates that are not reliable  Table 8 provides our assessment of the extent to which DOD’s Unified Facilities Criteria incorporates the 12 steps needed to develop a high-quality, reliable cost estimate  Each of the military departments is required to follow the Unified Facilities Criteria to the greatest extent possible when designing and constructing facilities  However, as shown by the table above, there are shortcomings in these criteria when compared with our Cost Guide  Despite these shortcomings, the military departments have gone beyond the Unified Facilities Criteria and developed their own guidance that more closely aligns with our Cost Guide  For example, for both the “determining the estimating structure” and “obtain the data” steps, we found that all three military departments had developed their own guidance that more closely aligned with the 12 steps than the Unified Criteria did

ground_truth: The federal government owns roughly 640 million acres, heavily concentrated in 12 western states. Four agencies—the National Park Service (NPS), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the Department of the Interior, and the U.S. Forest Service (FS) in the Department of Agriculture—administer about 95% of those lands. The extent to which each of these four federal agencies have authority to acquire and dispose of land varies considerably. The BLM has relatively broad authority for both acquisitions and disposals under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA). The agency also has other authorities for disposing of land, including two laws that allow the agency to retain the proceeds for subsequent land acquisition, among other purposes, and a law that allows transfers to governmental units and other entities for public purposes. By contrast, the NPS has no general authority to acquire land to create new park units or to dispose of park lands. The FS authority to acquire lands is mostly limited to lands within or contiguous to the boundaries of a national forest. The agency has various authorities to dispose of land, but they are relatively constrained and infrequently used. The FWS has various authorities to acquire lands but no general authority to dispose of its lands. The agency frequently uses acquisition authority under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 because of the availability of funding through the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund. The nature of the acquisition and disposal authorities of the four federal agencies also varies. In general, the acquisition authorities are designed to allow the four agencies to bring into federal ownership lands that many contend could benefit from federal management. Disposal authorities generally are designed to allow agencies to convey land that is no longer needed for a federal purpose or that might be chiefly valuable for another purpose. Some of the authorities specify particular circumstances where they can be used, such as the conveyance of FS land for educational purposes and the disposal of BLM land for recreation and public purposes. Congress often faces questions on the adequacy of existing acquisition and disposal authorities; the nature, extent, and location of their use; and the extent of federal land ownership overall. The current acquisition and disposal authorities form the backdrop for consideration of measures to establish, modify, or eliminate authorities, or to provide for the acquisition or disposal of particular lands. In some cases, Congress enacts bills to provide authority to acquire or dispose of particular parcels where no standing authority exists and, in other cases, to direct or facilitate land transactions. Congress also addresses acquisition and disposal policy in the context of debates on the role and goals of the federal government in owning and managing land generally, and it has considered broader measures to dispose of lands or to promote acquisition. Other issues for Congress pertain to the sources and levels of funds for land acquisition. The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is the primary source of funding for land acquisition. Congress has considered diverse measures related to the LWCF, such as legislation to make LWCF funding permanent and bills to direct LWCF monies to additional, nonacquisition purposes. Additionally, the FWS has the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, an account with mandatory spending authority supported by revenue from three sources. The BLM also has mandatory spending authorities that allow the proceeds from land sales to be used for land acquisition, among other purposes.

prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 2.



Report 2:  In addition, some military departments are also making improvements to their cost estimating processes, but these improvements have not been fully implemented yet  For example, the Air Force Civil Engineer Center is implementing a cost estimate improvement plan to include the training of nearly 700 airmen and has conducted a study that directly ties the 12 steps in the Cost Guide to the associated tasks to be completed by the Air Force cost estimator to meet each individual step  However, the actions contained in the cost improvement plan have not been fully implemented and still remain in the concept phase  Similarly, although the Army Corps of Engineers is investigating expanding the use the of cost and schedule risk analysis—which could align with the best practices in the Cost Guide—that the Army currently conducts for selected civil work construction projects to its high-cost military construction projects, the Army has not formally required the use of these tools  In appendix IV, we describe the guidance the military departments have developed beyond the Unified Facilities Criteria  The Cost Guide is designed to establish a consistent methodology that is based on best practices and that can be used across the federal government for developing, managing, and evaluating capital program cost estimates  Air Force and Army Corps of Engineers officials noted that there may be instances in which following all the 12 steps of the Cost Guide for every MILCON project would not be appropriate to the risk level of the project  For example, it may not be realistic or to the military departments’ benefit for the military departments to conduct a sensitivity and uncertainty analysis or develop an independent cost estimate for all the construction projects they initiate every year, especially for low-cost projects  We agree that it may not be suitable to fully apply all 12 of the cost estimating steps in the Cost Guide to all MILCON projects  However, incorporating the 12 steps into the Unified Facilities Criteria would establish consistency across DOD in the cost estimating process by ensuring that, for each MILCON project, each step in the Cost Guide would at least be considered  Furthermore, DOD could choose to establish thresholds—based on, for example, the dollar values of the projects—to guide the services in implementing the 12 steps for the most valuable projects  Skipping or not considering any step of the 12-step cost estimating process, especially for high-value projects such as those in our case studies, increases the risk that cost estimates may use improper assumptions, lack appropriate definition, or be otherwise unreliable  Without improving the Unified Facilities Criteria with respect to cost estimating processes, DOD and the services will not be positioned well to provide reliable cost estimates to DOD and congressional decision- makers  Each year DOD receives billions of dollars in MILCON appropriations to use for projects in the United States and overseas  The quality of project cost estimates are of great importance since those estimates are the basis for DOD’s requests for appropriations  While DOD’s policy is that MILCON cost estimates be prepared as accurately as possible in order to reflect the full cost of constructing DOD facilities, DOD’s Unified Facilities Criteria—the department’s primary construction criteria for developing cost estimates—does not fully incorporate all of the steps needed for producing reliable cost estimates  Until DOD incorporates the 12 steps of high-quality, reliable cost estimating into this department-wide construction criteria, DOD and congressional decision-makers may not have reliable estimates to inform their decisions regarding appropriations and the oversight of projects  We are making one recommendation to DOD: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and the Environment work with DOD’s construction agents, military departments, and other offices to improve DOD’s MILCON cost estimating guidance (i e , DOD’s Unified Facilities Criteria) by fully incorporating all the steps needed for developing high- quality reliable cost estimates  (Recommendation 1) We provided a draft of this report to DOD  In written comments, which are reprinted in their entirety in appendix VI, DOD partially concurred with our recommendation  DOD also provided technical comments that have been incorporated into the report as appropriate  DOD partially concurred with our recommendation to improve its cost estimating guidance by fully incorporating all 12 steps needed for developing high-quality, reliable estimates  DOD stated that it did not believe that it is suitable to fully apply all 12 steps to any construction project due to characteristics of the military construction program that DOD believes differ from those of major system or weapon acquisition programs  However, DOD also stated that it concurred with the intent and general applicability of the twelve steps to military construction and that DOD cost estimating guidance lacks specificity in several of these areas  DOD acknowledged that expanding its cost guidance to more fully incorporate these steps would benefit the military construction program, and that it is planning to address this by revising its cost guidance during Fiscal Year 2019  In our report, we recognize that it may not be appropriate to fully apply all 12 steps to each construction project  For example, it may not be realistic or to the military departments’ benefit to conduct a sensitivity and uncertainty analysis or develop an independent cost estimate for all the construction projects they initiate every year, especially for low-cost projects  Accordingly, we did not recommend that DOD fully apply all 12 steps to each construction project, but rather that it fully incorporate the 12 steps into the Unified Facilities Criteria so that, at least, each step is considered for each project  DOD could then choose to establish thresholds—based on, for example, the dollar values of the projects—to determine for which the 12 steps should be fully applied or other circumstances in which some steps might not be applicable  We believe DOD’s planned revisions will meet the general intent of our recommendation  We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees; the Secretary of Defense, the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force  In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff has any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-4523 or 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 VI  To examine the active component’s military construction (MILCON) obligations and expended balances, we reviewed MILCON appropriations found in appropriations acts, including accompanying explanatory statements and conference committee reports from fiscal year 2005 through 2016  Further, we analyzed the obligation and disbursement data of the active component‘s MILCON accounts, appropriation status reports, bid savings reports, as well as annual reports from the U S  Department of the Treasury  We also collected and compared project data from each of the active component on projects that had been initiated and completed during fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2016  Specifically, we compared the initial estimate as shown on the Form 1391—the form DOD uses to submit requirements and justifications in support of its funding requests to Congress—with the contract award amount and analyzed any differences between the two  To examine the amount of MILCON reprogramming during fiscal years 2010 and 2016 by the active component, we reviewed DOD’s requests to Congress to reprogram MILCON funds from one project to another  We calculated the total number of times such requests were made and the dollar amounts for fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2016  We selected this time frame because the reprogramming requests were readily available from DOD  In addition, we judgmentally selected three projects from this same time frame and reviewed accompanying Forms 1391 and the reprogramming requests associated with the projects to illustrate instances in which savings from one MILCON project funded another project  We collected and analyzed data for fiscal years 2005 through 2016 on the active component MILCON appropriations, obligations, and disbursements and we collected reprogramming data for fiscal years 2010 through 2016  We assessed the reliability of the data by interviewing knowledgeable officials about the data and the steps that they had taken to verify the data’s accuracy  We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for our objectives  To determine the extent to which DOD’s MILCON cost estimates are reliable and DOD’s guidance for producing estimates fully incorporates all of the steps needed for developing reliable estimates, we compared the process for developing three selected projects with the characteristics and best practices for developing a reliable estimate identified in GAO’s Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Developing and Managing Capital Program Costs (the Cost Guide)  This guide is a compilation of cost estimating best practices drawn from across industry and federal government  We selected our projects from the universe of projects that we reasonably expected could have begun execution (i e , projects initiated during fiscal years 2012-2014); projects that were underway, but not substantially completed (i e , between 10- and 75- percent complete); and projects that constituted a significant financial investment (i e , projects with appropriations of $75 million or greater)  Ultimately, of 690 total projects we identified DOD-wide, 13 met these criteria and, from this sample, we selected the 3 projects included in this report: (1) the construction of a replacement elementary school at Camp Foster, Japan; (2) the construction of a Strategic Command operations building at Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska; and (3) the construction of a Marine Corps command headquarters and cyberspace operations building in Fort Meade, Maryland  In conducting the assessments for these three selected projects, we examined the processes used to develop both the Form 1391 estimate (i e the form DOD uses to submit project-level requirements and justifications in support of its MILCON funding requests to Congress ) and the independent government estimate (i e , the estimate used to award the contract) to determine whether the project cost estimates had the characteristics of a high-quality and reliable cost estimate, as defined in the Cost Guide  These projects are not intended to be a projectable sample, but to illustrate how cost estimates are assessed against best practices  Although the Camp Foster project is not owned by any of the active component, the construction and planning of the project is being led by the Army Corps of Engineers in its capacity as a DOD construction agent and, as such, we decided to include it in our review  Additionally, we reviewed DOD’s Unified Facilities Criteria and the active component’s respective guidance related to MILCON cost estimating and compared them with the steps needed for developing reliable estimates identified in the Cost Guide  We also interviewed military project cost estimators and active component construction agents to discuss the requirements and guidance they follow in preparing, documenting, and reviewing project cost estimates  Table 9 details the documents we reviewed for our cost estimating assessments  We conducted this performance audit from January 2016 to March 2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  In this appendix we provide the supporting details on the active component’s unobligated and unexpended balances of military construction (MILCON) appropriations for fiscal years 2005 through 2016  We include details on unobligated and unexpended balances by appropriation year and include individual tables for each military department of the active component  Overall, the active component had high obligation and expenditure rates associated with MILCON appropriations that have expired or been canceled  The Army, the Air Force, and the Navy consistently expended over 90 percent of amounts appropriated in fiscal years 2005 through 2011  This appendix also provides supporting details on the active component’s execution of MILCON appropriations for fiscal years 2010 through 2016  Using Department of Defense (DOD) data, we identified two groups of MILCON projects: congressionally directed and other  “Congressionally directed” projects are those MILCON projects specifically identified in an appropriation act, explanatory statement, and/or committee reports accompanying the appropriation act for a specific fiscal year  “Other” projects refer to congressionally directed MILCON projects identified in an appropriation act, explanatory statement, and/or conference committee reports in a previous fiscal year  Overall, the active component obligated about 89 percent of its fiscal years 2010 through 2012 appropriations for congressionally directed projects whose appropriations expired on September 30, 2017  Tables 10 through 12 present detailed information on unexpended and unobligated balances for each military department of the active component’s MILCON appropriation for fiscal years 2005 through 2016, as reported by DOD as of September 30, 2016  Table 10 shows that for fiscal years 2005 through 2012, the Army expended almost all of its MILCON appropriations  Specifically, with the exception of fiscal year 2012, the Army expended at least 90 percent of its appropriations received each fiscal year for 2005 through 2011  Unexpended rates for amounts appropriated for fiscal years 2014 through 2016 vary and unobligated amounts for these years remain available for new obligations  Table 11 shows that, for fiscal years 2005 through 2013, the Air Force expended almost all of its MILCON appropriations  Specifically, the Air Force expended at least 95 percent of its appropriations received each year for fiscal years 2005 through 2011 and also in fiscal year 2013  Unexpended rates for amounts appropriated for fiscal years 2014 through 2016 vary and unobligated amounts for these years remain available for new obligations  Table 12 shows that for fiscal years 2005 through 2012, the Navy expended almost all of its MILCON appropriations  Specifically, the Navy expended at least 90 percent of its appropriations received each fiscal year for 2005 through 2011  Unexpended rates for amounts appropriated for fiscal years 2014 through 2016 vary and unobligated amounts for these years remain available for new obligations  Tables 13 through 15 provide detailed information on budget execution for each active duty military department’s MILCON appropriation for “congressionally directed” and “other” MILCON projects for fiscal years 2010 through 2016, as reported by DOD as of September 30, 2016  Table13 shows the obligations made by the Army for MILCON appropriations for fiscal years 2010 through 2016  We analyzed the obligations made during these appropriations’ period of availability for congressionally directed and other MILCON projects  For fiscal year 2010, using data in the table, we found that about 97 2 percent of obligations were for congressionally directed projects and 2 8 percent were for other projects, as discussed above  In fiscal year 2011, about 94 percent of obligations were for congressionally directed projects and 4 2 percent were for other projects; and in fiscal year 2012, about 86 5 percent of obligations were for congressionally directed projects and 7 2 percent were for other projects  Table 14 shows the obligations made by the Air Force for MILCON appropriations for fiscal years 2010 through 2016  We analyzed the obligations made during these appropriations’ period of availability for congressionally directed and other MILCON projects  For fiscal year 2010, using the data listed in the table, we found that 90 5 percent of obligations were for congressionally directed projects and 7 3 percent were for other projects, as discussed above  In fiscal year 2011, about 84 3 percent of obligations were for congressionally directed projects and 12 9 percent were for other projects; and in fiscal year 2012, about 87 5 percent of obligations were for congressionally directed projects and 9 0 percent were for other projects  Table 15 shows the obligations made by the Navy for MILCON appropriations for fiscal years 2010 through 2016  We analyzed the obligations made during these appropriations’ period of availability for congressionally directed and other MILCON projects  For fiscal year 2010, using data in the table, we found that 84 7 percent of obligations were for congressionally directed projects and 15 0 percent were for other projects, as discussed above  In fiscal year 2011, about 87 7 percent of obligations were for congressionally directed projects and 11 8 percent were for other projects; and in fiscal year 2012, about 85 5 percent of obligations were for congressionally directed projects and 13 4 percent for other projects  This appendix provides information on our analysis of DOD’s estimated initial costs and contract award amounts of projects that had been initiated and completed during fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2016 by the active component  An official from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment told us that, to determine whether initial cost estimates were over- or underestimated, a comparison between initial Form 1391 estimates and contract award amounts would be a valid approach since contract award amounts are, in general, estimates of the same requirements identified on a Form 1391  The official also noted that supervision, inspection, overhead, and contingency costs included on a Form 1391 are not included in contract award amounts, which could create differences between the Form 1391 cost estimates and contract award prices  Because of this, we excluded the supervision, inspection, overhead, and contingency costs from the Form 1391 estimates in the table below to eliminate those differences  Form 1391 cost estimates may also vary from contract award amounts for reasons such as changes in project size or scope, changes in project characteristics, unexpectedly high or low contractor bids, or differences in expected building material costs, among other things  A negative percent change from the Form 1391 estimate to the contract award amount indicates the estimated project cost was overestimated and a positive percent change indicates the project was underestimated  We did not determine the precise reasons for any differences between estimated costs and contract award amounts  Table 16 lists information on 414 completed projects funded with military construction (MILCON) appropriations during fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2016 sorted by largest percentage overestimated to largest percentage underestimated  The military departments of the active component have gone beyond the Unified Facilities Criteria and developed their own guidance for military construction (MILCON) that more closely aligns with the 12 steps needed for developing high-quality, reliable estimates  Table 17 describes the guidance developed by the military departments to align with those steps  In addition to the contact named above, Maria Storts, Assistant Director; Bonita Anderson; Shawn Arbogast; Ronald Bergman; Brian Bothwell; Robert Brown; Farrah Graham; Mae Jones; Jennifer Leotta; Amie Lesser; Felicia Lopez; Carol Petersen; Vikki Porter; Steve Pruitt; and Karen Richey made key contributions to this report 
Report 2:  Large firms may have the resources to hire consultants and lawyers to guide implementation and compliance; it may be harder and costlier for small and mid-sized enterprises to comply, possibly deterring them from entering the EU market and creating a de facto trade barrier  Since the GDPR went into effect on May 25, 2018, some U S  businesses, including some newspaper websites and digital advertising firms, have opted to exit the EU market given the complexities of complying with the GDPR and the threat of potential enforcement actions  European Data Protection Authorities (DPAs) have received a range of GDPR complaints and initiated several GDPR enforcement actions in the fall of 2018  In January 2019, the French DPA issued the largest penalty to date for a data privacy breach  The agency imposed a €50 million (approximately $57 million) fine on Google for the "lack of transparency" regarding how the search engine processes user data  Analysts contend that the high fine may set a benchmark and signal for future enforcement, raising concerns among some firms doing business in the EU  Under the GDPR, a few options exist to transfer personal data in or out of the EU and ensure that privacy is maintained  1  An organization may use specific Binding Corporate Rules (BCRs) or Model Contracts approved by the EU; 2  An organization may comply with domestic privacy regimes of a country that has obtained a mutual adequacy decision from the EU, which means that the EU has deemed that a country's laws and regulations provide an adequate level of data protection; currently, fewer than 15 jurisdictions are deemed adequate by the EU; or 3  A U S -based organization may enroll in the bilateral U S -EU Privacy Shield program for transatlantic transfer of personal data  The GDPR legal text seems to envision a fourth way, such as a certification scheme to transfer data, that the EU has yet to elaborate  A certification option(s) could create a less burdensome means of compliance for U S  and other non-EU organizations to transfer personal data to or from the EU in the future  This could be an opportunity for the United States to work with the EU on creating a common system, perhaps even setting a global standard  Some experts contend that the GDPR may effectively set new global data privacy standards, since many companies and organizations are striving for GDPR compliance to avoid being shut out of the EU market, fined, or otherwise penalized, or in case other countries introduce rules that imitate the GDPR  The EU is actively promoting the GDPR and some countries, such as Argentina, are imitating all or parts of the GDPR in their own privacy regulatory and legislative efforts or as part of broader trade negotiations with the EU  In general, the EU does not include cross-border data flows or privacy in free trade agreements  However, alongside trade negotiations with Japan, the EU and Japan agreed to recognize each other's data protection systems as "equivalent," allowing for the free flow of data between the EU and Japan and serving as a first step in adopting an adequacy decision  Under the agreement, Japan committed to implementing additional measures to address the handling of the personal data of EU persons on top of Japan's own privacy regime  China's trade and internet policies reflect state direction and industrial policy, limiting the free flow of information and individual privacy  For example, the requirement for all internet traffic to pass through a national firewall can impede the cross-border transmission of data  China's 2015 counterterrorism law requires telecommunications operators and internet service providers to provide assistance to the government, which could include sharing individuals' data  Citing national security concerns, China's Internet Sovereignty policies, Cybersecurity Law, and Personal Information Security Specification impose strict requirements on companies, such as storing data domestically; limiting the ability to access, use, or transfer data internationally; and mandating security assessments that provide Chinese authorities access to proprietary information  In 2014, China announced a new social credit system, a centralized big-data-enabled system for monitoring and shaping businesses' and citizens' behavior that serves as a self-enforcing regulatory mechanism  According to the government, China aims to make individuals more "sincere" and "trustworthy," while obtaining reliable data on the creditworthiness of businesses and individuals  An individual's score would determine the level of government services and opportunities he or she could receive  China seeks to have all its citizens subject to the social credit system by 2020, forcing some U S  businesses who do business in China, such as airlines, to participate  As of 2018, multiple government agencies and financial institutions contribute data to the platform  Pilot projects are underway in some provinces to apply various rewards and punishments in response to data collected  The lack of control an individual may have and the exposure of what some consider private data is controversial among observers in and out of China  Some countries, such as Vietnam, are following China's approach in creating cybersecurity policies that limit data flows and require local data storage and possible access by government authorities  Some U S  firms and other multinational companies are considering exiting the Vietnamese market rather than complying, while some analysts suggest that Vietnam's law may not be in compliance with its recent commitments in trade agreements (see below)  India has also cited security as the rationale for its draft Personal Data Protection Bill, which would establish broad data localization requirements and limit cross-border transfer of some data  Unlike the EU, these countries do not specify mechanisms to allow for cross-border data flows  U S  officials have raised concerns with both Vietnam's and India's localization requirements  The EU's emphasis on privacy protection and China's focus on national security (and the countries that emulate their policies) have led these countries to create data-focused policies that restrict international trade and commerce  The United States has traditionally sought a balanced approach between trade, privacy, and security  U S  data flow policy priorities are articulated in USTR's Digital 2 Dozen report, first developed under the Obama Administration, and the White House's 2017 National Security Strategy  Both Administrations emphasize the need for protection of privacy, the free flow of data across borders, and an interoperable internet  These documents establish the U S  position that the free flow of data is not inconsistent with privacy protection  Recent free trade agreements translate the U S  position into binding international commitments  The United States has taken a data-specific approach to regulating data privacy, with laws protecting specific information, such as healthcare or financial data  The FTC enforces consumer protection laws and requires that consumers be notified of and consent to how their data will be used, but the FTC does not have the mandate or resources to enforce broad online privacy protections  There is growing interest among some Members of Congress and in the Administration for a more holistic U S  data privacy policy  The United States has played an important role in international discussions on privacy and data flows, such as in the OECD, G-20, and APEC, and has included provisions on these subjects in recent free trade agreements  Congress noted the importance of digital trade and the internet as a trading platform in setting the current U S  trade negotiating objectives in the June 2015 Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) legislation ( P L  114-26 )  TPA includes a specific principal U S  trade negotiating objective on "digital trade in goods and services and cross-border data flows " According to TPA, a trade agreement should ensure that governments "refrain from implementing trade-related measures that impede digital trade in goods and services, restrict cross-border data flows, or require local storage or processing of data " However, TPA also recognizes that sometimes measures are necessary to achieve legitimate policy objectives and aims for such regulations to be the least trade restrictive, nondiscriminatory, and transparent  Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans‐Pacific Partnership (CPTPP /TPP-11 )   The CPTPP is a recently concluded trade agreement among 11 Asia-Pacific countries  The CPTPP is based on the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement negotiated by the Obama Administration and from which President Trump withdrew the United States in January 2017  The electronic commerce chapter in TPP, left unchanged in CPTPP, contains the strongest binding trade agreement commitments on digital trade in force globally  CPTPP includes provisions on cross-border data flows and personal information protection  The text specifically states that the parties "shall allow the cross-border transfer of information " The agreement allows restrictive measures for legitimate public policy purposes if they are not discriminatory or disguised trade barriers  The agreement also prohibits localization requirements for computing facilities, with similar exceptions  On privacy, the CPTPP requires parties to have a legal framework in place to protect personal information and to have consumer protection laws that cover online commerce  It encourages interoperability between data privacy regimes and encourages cooperation between consumer protection authorities  United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA)  The released text for the proposed USMCA aims to revise and update the trilateral North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and illustrates the Trump Administration's approach  The USMCA chapter 19 on digital trade includes articles on consumer protection, personal information protection, cross-border transfer of information by electronic means, and cybersecurity, among other topics  Building on the TPP, the agreement seeks to balance the legitimate objectives by requiring parties to have a legal framework to protect personal information, have consumer protection laws for online commercial activities, and not prohibit or restrict cross-border transfer of information  While the agreement does not prescribe specific rules or measures that a party must take to protect privacy, it goes further than the TPP (or CPTPP) provisions and provides guidance to inform a country's privacy regime  In particular, the USMCA explicitly refers to the APEC Privacy Framework and OECD Guidelines as relevant and identifies key principles  In general, the proposed USMCA requires that parties not restrict cross-border data flows  Governments are allowed to do so to achieve a legitimate public policy objective (e g , privacy, national security), provided the measure is not arbitrary, discriminatory, a disguised trade barrier, or greater than necessary to achieve the particular objective  In this way, the parties seek to balance the free flow of data for commerce and communication with protecting privacy and security  The agreement specifically states that the parties may take different legal approaches to protect personal data and also recognizes APEC CBPR as a "valid mechanism to facilitate cross-border information transfer while protecting personal information " The agreement aims to increase cooperation between the United States, Mexico, and Canada on a number of digital trade issues, including exchanging information on personal information protection and enforcement experiences; strengthening collaboration on cybersecurity issues; and promoting the APEC CBPR and global interoperability of national privacy regimes  The governments also commit to encourage private-sector self-regulation models and promote cooperation to enforce privacy laws  While the agreement is only between three parties, the provisions are written broadly to encompass global efforts  Some stakeholders look at USMCA as the basis for potential future trade agreements (such as with the UK)  Cross-border data flows will likely be a key issue in future U S -EU trade negotiations  The United States has articulated a clear position on data privacy in trade agreements; however, there is no single U S  data privacy policy  Nevertheless, the Trump Administration is seeking to define an overarching U S  policy on data privacy  The Trump Administration's ongoing three-track process is being managed by the Department of Commerce (Commerce) in consultation with the White House  Different bureaus in Commerce are tasked with different aspects of the process, as follows  1  The National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST) is developing a privacy framework  Similar to its cybersecurity framework, NIST aims to create a voluntary framework as a tool for organizations to adopt to identify, assess, manage, and communicate about privacy risks  By classifying specific privacy outcomes and potential approaches, the framework is intended to enable organizations to create and adapt privacy strategies, innovate, and manage privacy risks within diverse environments  As part of its transparent approach, NIST is currently consulting with public- and private-sector stakeholders through various forms of outreach to collect feedback and aims to have a draft framework before the end of 2019  2  The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) is developing a set of privacy principles to guide a domestic legal and policy approach  The NITA sought public comment on a proposed set of "user-centric privacy outcomes" and a set of high-level goals  3  The International Trade Administration (ITA) engages with foreign governments and international organizations such as APEC  ITA is focusing on the international interoperability aspects of potential U S  privacy policy  ITA's role is to ensure that the NIST and NTIA approaches are consistent with U S  international policy objectives, including TPA, and principles, such as the OECD framework and APEC CBPRs  Like the EU and China, Commerce is seeking input through a public- and private-sector consultation process  However, unlike the EU or China, Commerce is expecting to create a voluntary privacy framework  Some observers question whether the Commerce approach is sufficient to result in strong privacy protections if it is not backed up by congressional action and federal legislation  Some suggest that Congress could lead a whole-of-government approach through new federal legislation  In the 115 th Congress, then-House Committee on Energy and Commerce Ranking Member Frank Pallone, Jr  requested that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) examine issues related to federal oversight of internet privacy  The January 2019 GAO report concluded that now is "an appropriate time for Congress to consider comprehensive Internet privacy " GAO stated that "Congress should consider developing comprehensive legislation on Internet privacy that would enhance consumer protections and provide flexibility to address a rapidly evolving Internet environment  Issues that should be considered include what authorities agencies should have in order to oversee Internet privacy, including appropriate rulemaking authority " Recognizing the importance of protecting open data flows amid growing concerns about online privacy, some stakeholders seek to influence U S  policies on these issues  In addition to submitting comments in response to NTIA and NIST requests and participating in their forums, multiple organizations issued their own sets of principles or guidelines, some referencing the EU GDPR  The U S  Chamber of Commerce has also published model privacy legislation for Congress to consider  Though they vary in emphasis, these proposals share common themes: transparency on what data is being collected and how it is being used; user control, including the ability to opt out of sharing at least some information and to access and correct personal data collected; data security measures, like data breach notification requirements; and enforcement by the FTC; FTC commissioners also voiced support for the agency as the appropriate federal enforcer for consumer privacy  But these groups also differ in some areas, such as whether, or to what extent, to include certain aspects included in the GDPR, such as the right to deletion (so-called "right to be forgotten"), requirements for data minimization, or extraterritorial reach  There is not consensus on whether the FTC should be given rule-making authority or additional resources, the enforcement role of states, or if an independent data protection commission is needed similar to EU DPAs  Consistent with U S  trade policy, industry groups generally point out the need to be flexible, encourage private-sector innovation, establish sector- and technology-neutral rules, create international interoperability between privacy regimes, and facilitate cross-border data flows  Private-sector stakeholders generally want to avoid what they regard as overregulation or high compliance burdens  These groups emphasize risk management and a harm-based approach, which they state keeps an organization's costs proportional to the consumer harm prevented  On the other hand, some consumer advocates point to a need for baseline obligations to protect against discrimination, disinformation, or other harm  In general, consumer advocates believe that any comprehensive federal privacy policy should complement, and not supplant, sector-specific privacy legislation or state-level legislation  Finding a global consensus on how to balance open data flows and privacy protection may be key to maintaining trust in the digital environment and advancing international trade  One study found that over 120 countries have laws related to personal data protection  Divergent national privacy approaches raise the costs of doing business and make it harder for governments to collaborate and share data, whether for scientific research, defense, or law enforcement  A system for global interoperability in a least trade-restrictive and nondiscriminatory way between different national systems could help minimize costs and allow entities in different jurisdictions with varying online privacy regimes to share data via cross-border data flows  Such a system could help avoid fragmentation of the internet between European, Chinese, and American spheres, a danger that some analysts have warned against  For example, Figure 2 suggests the potential of an interoperability system that allows data to flow freely between GDPR- and CBPR-certified economies  The OECD guidelines, G-20 principles, APEC CBPR, CPTPP, and USMCA provisions demonstrate an evolving understanding on how to balance cross-border data flows, security, and privacy, to create interoperable policies that can be tailored by countries and avoid fragmentation or the potential exclusion of other countries or regulatory systems  The various trade agreements and initiatives with differing sets of parties may ultimately pave the way for a broader multilateral understanding and eventually lead to more enforceable binding commitments founded on the key WTO principles of nondiscrimination, least trade restrictiveness, and transparency  Congress may consider the trade-related aspects of data flows in trade agreements, including through close examination of these provisions during the congressional debate and consideration of legislation to implement the proposed USMCA  Issues include whether the agreements make progress in meeting TPA's related trade negotiating objectives and if the provisions strike the appropriate balance among public policy objectives  In addition, USTR's specific trade negotiating objectives for future agreements with the EU and Japan include establishing rules to protect cross-border data flows  These future trade negotiations present challenges and provide opportunities for Congress to further engage USTR on the issues and to conduct oversight  Congress may further consider how best to achieve broader consensus on data flows and privacy at the global level  Congress could, for example, conduct additional oversight of current best practice approaches (e g , OECD, APEC) or ongoing negotiations in the WTO on e-commerce to create rules through plurilateral or multilateral agreements  Congress may consider endorsing certain of these efforts to influence international discussions and the engagement of other countries  Congress may want to examine the potential challenges and implications of building a system of interoperability between APEC, CBPR, and the EU GDPR  Related issues are the extent to which the EU is establishing its system as a potential de facto global approach through its trade agreements and other mechanisms, and how U S  and other trade agreements may ultimately provide approaches that could be adopted more globally  Congress may seek to better understand the economic impact of data flows and privacy regimes in other countries related to U S  access to other markets and the extent to which barriers are being put in place that may discriminate against U S  exporters  Congress may examine the lack of reciprocal treatment and limits on U S  firms' access to some foreign markets  Congress may consider the implications of not having a comprehensive national data privacy policy  Will the EU GDPR and China cybersecurity policies become the global norms that other countries follow in the absence of a clear U S  alternative? Congress may enact comprehensive privacy legislation  In considering such action, Congress could investigate and conduct oversight of the Administration's ongoing privacy efforts, including requesting briefings and updates on the NTIA, NIST, and ITA initiatives to provide congressional feedback and direction and ensure they are aligned with U S  trade objectives  Congress may also seek input from other federal agencies  In deliberating a comprehensive U S  policy on personal data privacy, Congress may review the GAO report's findings and conclusions  Congress may also weigh several factors, including: How can U S  trade and domestic policy achieve the appropriate balance to encourage cross-border commerce, economic growth, and innovation, while safeguarding individual privacy and national security? How would a new privacy regime affect U S  consumers and businesses, including large multinationals who must comply with different national privacy regimes and small- and medium-sized enterprises with limited resources and technology expertise? Do U S  agencies have the needed tools to accurately assess the size and scope of cross-border data flows to help analyze the economic impact of different privacy policies, or measure the costs of trade barriers? How should an evolving U S  privacy regime align with U S  trade policy objectives and evolving international standards, such as the OECD Guidelines for privacy and cybersecurity, and should U S  policymakers prioritize interoperability with other international privacy frameworks to avoid further fragmentation of global markets and so-called balkanization of the internet? In addition, there are a host of other policy considerations not directly related to trade 

ground_truth: Between fiscal years 2005 and 2016, Congress annually appropriated between $2.5 to $9.6 billion in MILCON funding for the active component of the U.S. military to use for projects worldwide. Reliable project construction cost estimates are of great importance, since those estimates drive these appropriations. House Report 114-537 accompanying a proposed bill authorizing national defense activities for fiscal year 2017 included a provision for GAO to report on DOD's MILCON cost estimating. This report examines the extent to which (1) the active component obligated and expended the MILCON appropriations received during fiscal years 2005-2016, (2) the active component reprogrammed MILCON appropriations during fiscal years 2010 through 2016, and (3) DOD's MILCON cost estimates are reliable for selected projects and DOD's guidance for developing estimates fully incorporates the steps needed for developing reliable estimates. GAO analyzed the active components' MILCON execution data and reviewed DOD's guidance for cost estimating and compared it with the best practices identified in GAO's Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide . During fiscal years 2005 through 2016, Congress appropriated about $66 billion in military construction funds (MILCON) to the active duty Army, Navy, and Air Force (referred to as the active component) for projects. As of September 30, 2016, the active component had obligated all but about $5.1 billion and expended all but about $11 billion of those funds. Of the $5.1 billion remaining unobligated, about $4.6 billion was still available to be obligated because MILCON appropriations are generally available for new obligations for 5 years. According to Department of Defense (DOD) officials, available but unobligated amounts no longer needed may be either taken back by Congress or reprogrammed to other MILCON projects that the active component identifies as needing additional funding. During fiscal years 2010 through 2016, the active component reprogrammed about $1.6 billion in MILCON appropriations to fund emergency projects, projects that were authorized but did not receive specific appropriations, and projects needing additional funding. Of this amount, the Army reprogrammed about $789 million; the Navy, about $535 million; and the Air Force, about $295 million. DOD's guidance does not fully incorporate the steps needed for developing reliable estimates and the estimates for three projects that GAO reviewed were not reliable. Specifically, two of the three high-value projects GAO examined experienced a more than 30-percent increase from the initial cost estimates submitted to Congress. GAO determined that DOD cost estimators did not follow all the best practices associated with the four characteristics—comprehensive, well-documented, accurate, and credible—of a reliable estimate for these projects. GAO's Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide identifies 12 steps that, if used, are more likely to result in reliable and valid cost estimates. However, as shown below, DOD's construction guidance—the Unified Facilities Criteria—does not include all of these steps. Until DOD incorporates these steps, DOD and congressional decision-makers may not have reliable estimates to inform their decisions regarding appropriations and the oversight of projects. GAO recommends that DOD ensure that its cost estimating guidance fully incorporate the steps needed for developing reliable cost estimates. DOD partially concurred with GAO's recommendation and stated that it will issue revised cost guidance in fiscal year 2019 that more fully incorporates those steps that would benefit the military construction program.