EUROPEAN 

REASSURANCE 

INITIATIVE

DOD Needs to 

Prioritize Posture 

Initiatives and Plan for 

and Report Their 

Future Cost

Report to Congressional Committees

December 2017

GAO-18-128

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-18-128, a report to 

congressional committees

December 2017

EUROPEAN REASSURANCE INITIATIVE

DOD Needs to Prioritize Posture Initiatives and Plan 

for and Report their Future Cost

What GAO Found

Since 2014, the Department of Defense (DOD) has expanded the European 

Reassurance Initiative’s (ERI) objectives, increased its funding, and planned 

enhancements to European posture. DOD expanded ERI’s objectives from the 

short-term reassurance of allies and partners to include deterring Russian 

aggression in the long term and developing the capacity to field a credible 

combined force should deterrence fail. With respect to funding, DOD will have 

requested approximately $4.5 billion for ERI’s posture enhancements through 

the end of fiscal year 2017 (about $3.2 billion for fiscal year 2017 alone), and in 

July 2016 EUCOM identified funding needs for future posture initiatives. The 

expansion of ERI’s objectives has contributed to DOD’s enhancing its posture in 

Europe. Specifically, DOD has increased the size and duration of Army combat 

unit deployments, planned to preposition Army equipment in Eastern Europe, 

added new enduring locations (e.g., locations that DOD expects to access and 

use to support U.S. security interests for the foreseeable future), improved 

infrastructure, and negotiated new agreements with European nations. As of 

April 2017, DOD was considering further force enhancements under ERI as part 

of the department’s ERI budget request. DOD also was reviewing whether new 

enduring locations to support ERI were needed and was considering other 

improvements to existing infrastructure. 

DOD’s process for planning ERI has not established priorities among posture 

initiatives funded under ERI relative to those in its base budget, nor estimated 

long-term sustainment costs for some posture initiatives funded under ERI, nor 

communicated future costs to Congress. ERI is being planned using a separate 

process from DOD’s established processes and is funded from DOD’s overseas 

contingency operations (OCO) appropriations. GAO found several weaknesses:

• Lack of prioritization: DOD establishes priorities among ERI posture 

initiatives but has not evaluated them against base budget initiatives using its 

posture management process. As a result, DOD lacks an understanding of 

the relative importance of ERI initiatives and may be investing in projects that 

it will not continue should OCO funding become unavailable.

• Lack of sustainment costs: EUCOM and the military services have not fully 

estimated the long-term costs to sustain equipment and construction funded 

under ERI. Based on DOD’s approach for calculating rough order 

sustainment costs, GAO determined that these costs could be substantial. 

DOD officials said that GAO correctly applied DOD’s approach for estimating 

sustainment costs, but noted that actual costs may be lower, because the 

military services may not fully fund sustainment. In the absence of 

comprehensive estimates, DOD has been limited in its ability to assess 

affordability and plan for future costs.

• Not communicating future costs: DOD limits Congress’s visibility into the 

resources needed to implement ERI and achieve its objectives because it 

does not include future costs in its ERI budget request.

This is a public version of a classified report issued in August 2017. Information 

on specific posture planning, guidance, and budget estimates that DOD deemed 

to be classified have been omitted from this report.

View GAO-18-128. For more information, 

contact John H. Pendleton at (404) 679-1816 

or pendletonj@gao.gov

Why GAO Did This Study

In response to Russia’s annexation of 

Crimea in March 2014, the President 

announced the ERI, to reassure allies 

in Europe of U.S. commitment to their 

security. This initiative has been 

funded using OCO appropriations, 

which Congress provides in addition to

DOD’s base budget appropriations. 

The Joint Explanatory Statement 

accompanying the Continuing 

Appropriations and Military 

Construction, Veterans Affairs, and 

Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 

2017, included a provision for GAO to 

review matters related to ERI. In this 

report, we (1) describe changes in 

ERI’s objectives, funding under ERI, 

and DOD’s posture in Europe since 

2014 and (2) evaluate the extent to 

which DOD’s planning processes for 

posture initiatives funded under ERI 

prioritize those initiatives, estimate 

their long-term costs, and 

communicate their estimated costs to 

Congress. GAO analyzed DOD 

strategy documentation, budget and 

cost analysis guidance, budget 

justification materials, and cost and 

obligations data. GAO also interviewed 

knowledgeable officials within the 

Office of the Secretary of Defense, 

U.S. European Command, the military 

services, and the State Department.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOD prioritize 

ERI posture initiatives against 

initiatives in its base budget, develop 

cost estimates for sustaining initiatives, 

and communicate future costs to 

Congress. DOD partially concurred 

with GAO’s recommendations. GAO 

continues to believe that these 

recommendations are warranted.
Page i GAO-18-128 European Reassurance Initiative

Letter 1

Background 5

DOD Has Expanded ERI’s Objectives and Funding, Contributing 

to Enhancements in Its Posture in Europe 9

DOD Does Not Prioritize Posture Initiatives Funded Under ERI 

against Those in Its Base Budget, Estimate Their Sustainment 

Costs, or Communicate Future Costs to Congress 11

Conclusions 20

Recommendations for Executive Action 21

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 21

Appendix I Unspecified Minor Military Construction and Facilities Maintenance 

and Repair Projects Funded under the European Reassurance 

Initiative in Fiscal Years 2015 through 2017 25

Appendix II DOD Comments 42

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 44

Tables

Table 1: The Department of Defense’s (DOD) European 

Reassurance Initiative (ERI) Lines of Effort 8

Table 2: Major Military Construction and Minor Military 

Construction and Facilities Maintenance and Repair 

Funded Under the European Reassurance Initiative, by 

Military Service (Programmed or Obligated Fiscal Years 

2015 through 2017) 13

Table 3: Army Unspecified Minor Military Construction and 

Facilities Maintenance and Repair Projects Programmed 

or Obligated as of February 2017 (dollars in thousands) 26

Table 4: Air Force Unspecified Minor Military Construction and 

Facilities Maintenance and Repair Projects Programmed 

or Obligated as of February 2017 (dollars in thousands) 38

Contents
Page ii GAO-18-128 European Reassurance Initiative

Figures

Figure 1: U.S. European Command’s Area of Responsibility 6

Figure 2: Armored Brigade Combat Team Soldiers Conduct LiveFire and React-to-Fire Exercise in Latvia (April 2017) 10

Abbreviations

DOD Department of Defense

ERI European Reassurance Initiative

EUCOM U.S. European Command

NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization

OCO Overseas Contingency Operation

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-18-128 European Reassurance Initiative

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

December 8, 2017

Congressional Committees

In response to Russia’s annexation of Crimea in March 2014, President 

Obama announced the European Reassurance Initiative (ERI), an effort 

intended to reassure allies and partners of U.S. commitment to their 

security.1 From fiscal year 2015 through fiscal year 2017, the Department 

of Defense (DOD) identified $5.2 billion in funding for ERI as part of its 

overseas contingency operation (OCO) budget requests.2 Most of this 

funding would be used to enhance posture—forces, footprint (locations 

and infrastructure), and host nation agreements—in Europe by funding 

increases in military presence, improving infrastructure, and 

prepositioning equipment. In July 2016, U.S. European Command 

(EUCOM) submitted to DOD a prioritized list of requirements and funding 

estimates for additional posture initiatives, which DOD was considering 

for its budget submission at the time of our review.

DOD has requested and used OCO-designated appropriations for ERI 

initiatives. Congress provides OCO-designated appropriations to DOD in 

addition to appropriations for DOD’s base budget, generally to fund 

ongoing military operations.3 DOD officials said that DOD has requested 

OCO funds for ERI out of concerns about funding efforts to respond to 

Russian aggression without reallocating resources from other priorities in 

its base budget.

 1

The Conference Report accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2017 used the terminology “European Deterrence Initiative” in place of “European 

Reassurance Initiative.” See, e.g., H.R. Rep. No. 114-840, at 1193, 1218, 1219 (2016). 

Since we completed our review DOD has been working to implement this change. We 

have not updated this report to reflect this change.

2

DOD officials noted that the department received $175 million in transfer funds in fiscal 

year 2015 for ERI, to provide support to the Baltics and Ukraine. Additionally, prior to 

enactment of fiscal year 2015 ERI funding, the department took several steps to reassure 

allies and partners in Europe. For example, officials said that DOD augmented the air, 

ground, and naval presence in the region and funded these efforts out of the military 

services’ base budgets. 

3

Overseas contingency operation funding is additional funding that is generally intended to 

support DOD’s ongoing contingency operations. This includes small, medium, or largescale military operations, including support for peacekeeping operations, major 

humanitarian assistance efforts, noncombatant evacuation operations, and international 

disaster relief efforts.

Letter
Page 2 GAO-18-128 European Reassurance Initiative

Since 2007, we have reported on issues associated with funding from the 

OCO budget, including the level of transparency, accuracy, and reliability 

of DOD’s OCO budget requests and efforts to transition enduring costs 

from the OCO budget to the base budget.4 In January 2017, we reported 

that DOD had developed an initial estimate of costs being funded by the 

OCO budget that are likely to endure beyond current operations, such as 

ERI, but it had not finalized or reported its estimate outside of the 

department.5 We recommended that DOD develop a complete and 

reliable estimate of DOD’s enduring OCO costs—which would include 

those for ERI—and report those costs in concert with the department’s 

future budget requests. DOD generally concurred with our 

recommendations but said that until there is relief from statutory 

budgetary caps established in legislation, it will continue to need OCO 

funding. As of May 2017, the department has not implemented our 

recommendations.

Given the evolving security environment in Europe and the growth of the 

funding request for ERI, the Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying 

the Continuing Appropriations and Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, 

and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017, included a provision for 

us to examine matters related to ERI.6 In this report, we (1) describe 

changes in ERI’s objectives, funding under ERI, and DOD’s posture in 

Europe since 2014 and (2) evaluate the extent to which DOD’s planning 

processes for posture initiatives funded under ERI prioritize those 

initiatives, estimate their long-term costs, and communicate their 

projected costs to Congress. This is a public version of a classified report 

that we issued in August 2017.7 DOD deemed some of the information in 

 4

GAO, Global War on Terrorism: DOD Needs to Take Action to Encourage Fiscal 

Discipline and Optimize the Use of Tools Intended to Improve GWOT Cost Reporting, 

GAO-08-68, (Washington D.C.: Nov. 6, 2007); GAO, Global War on Terrorism: DOD 

Needs to More Accurately Capture and Report the Costs of Operation Iraqi Freedom and 

Operation Enduring Freedom, GAO-09-302, (Washington, D.C.: March 17, 2009); GAO, 

Defense Headquarters: Guidance Needed to Transition U.S. Central Command’s Cost to 

the Base Budget, GAO-14-440 (Washington D.C.: June 9, 2014).

5

GAO, Overseas Contingency Operations: OMB and DOD Should Revise the Criteria for 

Determining Eligible Costs and Identify the Costs Likely to Endure Long Term, GAO-17-68

(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 18, 2017).

6

162 Cong. Rec. S5989-90 (daily ed. Sept. 22, 2016).

7

GAO, European Reassurance Initiative: DOD Needs to Prioritize Posture Initiatives and 

Plan for and Report Their Future Cost, GAO-17-539C (Washington, D.C.: August 2017) 

(S//NF).
Page 3 GAO-18-128 European Reassurance Initiative

our August 2017 report to be classified; classified information must be 

protected from loss, compromise, or inadvertent disclosure. Therefore this 

report omits classified information about specific posture planning, 

guidance, and budget estimates. Although the information provided in this 

report is more limited, the report addresses the same objectives as the 

classified report and uses the same methodology.

For objective one, we analyzed White House, DOD, and EUCOM 

documentation. To determine how ERI’s objectives changed from 

calendar year 2014 through 2017 we reviewed White House and EUCOM 

fact sheets, DOD budget submissions, and EUCOM documentation. 

Additionally, we identified changes in DOD’s priorities in Europe by 

reviewing the National Defense Strategy and guidance issued by the 

Office of the Secretary of Defense as well as other documentation to 

determine how ERI’s expanded objectives supported the U.S. strategy 

toward Russia.8 We also reviewed DOD and EUCOM posture planning 

documentation to determine how DOD plans to change European posture 

in support of ERI’s objectives.

For objective two, we compared DOD’s planning process to criteria from 

its posture planning guidance and budget development guidance as well 

as relevant best practices pertaining to cost estimation, accounting

standards, and internal controls.9 We reviewed DOD’s ERI budget 

justification materials for fiscal years 2015 through 2017, slides presented 

to the Deputy’s Management Action Group in December 2015 and 

October 2016, and other documentation to assess the extent to which 

 8

The National Defense Strategy is reflected in DOD’s 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance 

and the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (which builds upon the 2012 Defense 

Strategic Guidance), among other publications. See DOD, Sustaining U.S. Global 

Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense (January 2012); and DOD, Quadrennial 

Defense Review (Mar. 4, 2014). We also reviewed several strategy documents and 

planning guidance prepared by the Joint Staff and the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

9

Among the criteria we reviewed were DOD Directive 7045.14, The Planning, 

Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) Process (Jan. 25, 2013); DOD 

Instruction 7041.03, Economic Analysis for Decision-making (Sept. 9, 2015); DOD 

Instruction 3000.12, Management of U.S. Global Defense Posture (GDP) (May 6, 2016); 

GAO, Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Developing and 

Managing Capital Program Costs, GA0-09-3SP (Washington D.C.: Mar. 2, 2009). Federal 

Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB), Handbook for Federal Accounting 

Standards and Other Pronouncements, as Amended, June 30, 2015. GAO, Standards for 

Internal Control in the Federal Government, GA0-14-704, (Washington D.C.: September 

2014).
Page 4 GAO-18-128 European Reassurance Initiative

DOD prioritized its posture initiatives.10 We assessed whether DOD 

estimated and planned for the sustainment of these initiatives by 

reviewing EUCOM and military service documentation and cost data 

related to ERI major military construction and prepositioned equipment. 

We did not assess the military services’ cost estimation methodologies, 

because our objective was to determine whether future costs had been 

considered as part of DOD’s planning processes. We calculated the 

potential sustainment costs for major military construction by using DOD’s 

rough order-of-magnitude estimation approach for such costs.11 We 

assessed whether DOD has communicated its resource requirements to 

Congress for posture initiatives funded under ERI by reviewing DOD’s 

budget justification submissions for fiscal years 2015 through 2017. We 

also summarized the funding under ERI that has been programmed or 

obligated for minor construction and repair projects by collecting cost data 

for these projects in fiscal years 2015 through 2017 from U.S. Army 

Europe and U.S. Air Force Europe.12

In conducting our work, we spoke to officials from the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, Department of the Army, 

Department of the Air Force, Department of the Navy, United States 

 10The Deputy’s Management Action Group is the primary civilian-military management 

forum that supports the Secretary of Defense, and addresses top Departmental issues 

that have resource, management, and broad strategic and/or policy implications.

11National Defense Authorization Acts list named construction projects for specific 

purposes and locations, which are referred to as specified or major military construction 

projects. We calculated sustainment costs by using DOD’s rough order of magnitude 

estimation approach, which multiplies the total cost of major military construction projects 

by 2.25 percent to estimate annual sustainment costs. We did not assess DOD’s 

approach for estimating sustainment costs.

12Generally, minor construction projects are projects that are not named in National 

Defense Authorization Acts, but rather are funded as unspecified minor construction. 

Additionally, DOD can complete projects for facilities maintenance and repair using its 

operation and maintenance accounts. In this report, we refer to these collectively as 

“minor construction and repair projects.” The data reflect the amount reported by U.S. 

Army Europe and U.S. Air Force Europe as obligated for each project in fiscal years 2015 

and 2016 and the programmed amount for each project in fiscal year 2017. The 

programmed amount listed for minor construction projects in fiscal year 2017 may differ 

from the amount eventually obligated for the projects. We assessed the reliability of data 

provided to us by U.S. Army Europe and U.S. Air Force Europe by reviewing 

documentation associated with relevant data management systems and interviewing 

military service officials and we determined that these data were sufficiently reliable for our 

purposes. For detailed information on minor construction and repair projects for ERI see 

appendix I.
Page 5 GAO-18-128 European Reassurance Initiative

Marine Corps, EUCOM and its service component commands, and the 

State Department.

We conducted this performance audit from June 2016 through December

2017 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.

Global defense posture is an enabler of U.S. defense activities and 

military operations overseas and is a central means of defining and 

communicating U.S. strategic interests to allies, partners, and 

adversaries. It is driven by a hierarchy of national-level and DOD-specific 

guidance, which includes the National Defense Strategy and the National 

Military Strategy. Under DOD Instruction 3000.12, global defense posture 

includes three elements:13

• Forces: forward stationed or rotationally deployed forces, U.S. 

military capabilities, equipment, and units (assigned or allocated).

• Footprint: networks of U.S. foreign and overseas locations, 

infrastructure, facilities, land, and prepositioned equipment.

• Agreements: treaties and access, transit, support, and statusprotection agreements and arrangements with allies and partners that 

set the terms regarding the U.S. military’s presence within the territory 

of the host country.

EUCOM is one of six geographic combatant commands and is 

responsible for missions in all of Europe, large portions of Asia, parts of 

the Middle East, and the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans (see figure 1). 

EUCOM evaluates the adequacy of posture in Europe to support relevant 

plans and achieve military objectives. EUCOM shares responsibility with 

the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Office of the Secretary of 

 13DOD Instruction 3000.12, Management of U.S. Global Defense Posture (GDP) (May 6, 

2016).

Background
Page 6 GAO-18-128 European Reassurance Initiative

Defense for U.S. military relations with allies and partners in Europe and 

the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

Figure 1: U.S. European Command’s Area of Responsibility

The number of U.S. military sites located in EUCOM’s area of 

responsibility and the number of military personnel assigned to Europe 

have decreased substantially since the end of the Cold War, and two 

heavy combat brigades had been deactivated by the end of fiscal year 

2014. As of May 2016, EUCOM supported one airborne infantry brigade 

and one Stryker brigade, as well as approximately 62,000 military 

personnel across approximately 250 sites.
Page 7 GAO-18-128 European Reassurance Initiative

Since 2009, we have reported on issues related to DOD’s efforts to 

estimate and report on the total cost of its global defense posture. In 

2009, we identified weaknesses in DOD’s approach for adjusting its 

global defense posture and recommended, among other things, that DOD 

issue guidance for estimating total costs for global defense posture and 

modify its annual report to Congress to include the total cost to complete 

each planned posture initiative.14 In February 2011, we reported that 

EUCOM lacked comprehensive cost data in a key posture planning 

document and that therefore decision makers lacked critical information 

that they needed to make fully informed posture decisions.15 We 

recommended that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff revise the 

Joint Staff’s posture planning guidance to include direction on how the 

combatant commands should analyze costs and benefits when 

considering changes to posture and to require that posture plans include 

comprehensive cost estimates. DOD agreed with the recommendations in 

both reports and subsequently took steps to implement them.

In June 2012, we reported that DOD did not fully understand the cost 

implications of two posture initiatives in Europe—including its decision to 

return two heavy brigades from Europe to the United States—and that 

key posture planning documents did not completely and consistently 

include cost data.16 We recommended that DOD fully estimate the cost 

implications of these two initiatives, clarify components’ roles and 

responsibilities for estimating costs, and develop a standard reporting 

format for cost data. DOD generally agreed with our recommendations 

and has taken steps to implement two of them.17

 14 GAO, Force Structure: Actions Needed to Improve DOD’s Ability to Manage, Assess 

and Report on Global Defense Posture Initiatives, GAO-09-706R (Washington D.C.: July 

2009).

15GAO, Defense Management: Additional Cost Information and Stakeholder Input Needed 

to Assess Military Posture in Europe, GAO-11-131 (Washington D.C.: Feb. 3, 2011).

16GAO, Force Structure: Improved Cost Information and Analysis Needed to Guide 

Overseas Military Posture Decisions, GAO-12-711 (Washington D.C.: June 6, 2012).

17DOD implemented our recommendations that it evaluate the costs associated with 

removing two heavy armored brigades from Europe and that it clarify components’ roles 

and responsibilities for estimating costs and develop a standard reporting format for cost 

data in the combatant commands’ posture plans. It did not implement our 

recommendation that it assess the costs associated with plans to modify naval forces in 

Europe. See GAO-12-711.
Page 8 GAO-18-128 European Reassurance Initiative

Following the President’s June 2014 announcement of ERI, EUCOM 

identified five lines of effort that it would pursue under ERI, as described 

in table 1.

Table 1: The Department of Defense’s (DOD) European Reassurance Initiative (ERI) Lines of Effort 

Line of Effort Description

Increased Military Presence Increasing U.S. military forces in Europe through rotations of ground, air, and maritime units.

Improved Infrastructure Pursuing, subject to final agreement with host nations, selective infrastructure improvements that 

expand the flexibility of U.S. allies and partners when responding to a conflict.

Enhanced Prepositioning Prepositioning stocks of equipment in Europe.

Building Partner Capacity Providing partner countries with the capability and capacity to defend themselves and enabling their 

participation as full operational partners against threatening actors.

Additional Exercises and 

Training

Participating more extensively in exercises and training with allies and partner countries.

Source: DOD Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Justification Materials | GAO-18-128

Three of ERI’s lines of effort are expected to enhance DOD’s posture in 

Europe. For example, DOD is using ERI to increase the forces present in 

Europe by rotating an armored brigade combat team and elements of a 

combat aviation brigade to Europe every nine months.18 DOD also plans 

to enhance its footprint in Europe by using ERI funding to make 

infrastructure improvements and establish locations for prepositioned 

equipment. Finally, in order to implement ERI’s lines of effort and support 

U.S. activities, DOD is partnering with the State Department to negotiate 

host nation agreements that, among other things, establish protections for 

U.S. military personnel and provide DOD the authority to improve host 

nation installations and infrastructure. DOD is also supporting additional 

exercises and training to improve interoperability with partner countries 

while providing them with the capability and capacity to defend 

themselves, but these efforts are not expected to affect DOD’s long-term 

posture in Europe.

 18Army officials told us that the Army is not rotating one of the combat aviation brigade’s 

battalions because there is already one of these units forward stationed in Europe. 
Page 9 GAO-18-128 European Reassurance Initiative

Since 2014, DOD has expanded ERI’s objectives, increased its funding, 

and planned enhancements to posture in Europe. In fiscal years 2015 

and 2016, ERI’s objective was to provide short-term reassurance to allies, 

and the initiative had little funding for long-term enhancements to posture. 

DOD focused its efforts on bolstering the security and capacity of NATO 

allies and partners by funding training, conducting exercises, and 

temporarily rotating Army and Air Force units to Eastern Europe. In fiscal 

year 2017, DOD expanded ERI’s objectives to include deterring Russian 

aggression in the long term and developing the capacity to field a credible 

combined force should deterrence fail.

Recognizing that ERI’s expanded objectives would require DOD to alter 

its posture in Europe, DOD has requested increased ERI funding. DOD 

will have requested approximately $4.5 billion in ERI funding for posture 

enhancements through the end of fiscal year 2017; about $3.2 billion of 

this was requested for use in fiscal years 2017. During the time of our 

review, EUCOM had identified a need for additional funding over the next 

several years for additional posture enhancements in Europe. Specific 

details about EUCOM’s future posture plans and funding requirements 

were omitted because they are classified.

DOD has requested increased funding to support planned enhancements 

to all three posture elements—forces, footprint, and agreements—in 

Europe:

• Force deployments to Eastern Europe: In fiscal years 2015 and 

2016, the Army deployed armored brigade combat teams to Eastern 

Europe to provide short-term reassurance to allies and partners, 

which DOD officials said included Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and 

Poland, among other countries. These short-duration deployments 

were intermittent and focused on demonstrating U.S. commitment to 

allies and partners. Additionally, the Air Force deployed air units on 4-

month rotations to help protect allies’ and partners’ air space. In the 

fiscal year 2017 budget justification materials provided to Congress, 

as ERI’s objectives expanded, DOD requested funding to retain Air 

Force fighter units in Europe. It also began deploying a rotational 

armored brigade combat team so that one such brigade would be 

present in Europe at all times (see figure 2). The first deployment, in 

January 2017, included approximately 4,000 personnel, 90 Abrams 

tanks, 90 Bradley Infantry fighting vehicles, and 112 supporting 

vehicles. Additionally, DOD began procuring and prepositioning 

equipment for two planned armored brigades in Europe, one of which 

will include modernized tanks, as an additional deterrent. According to 

DOD Has Expanded 

ERI’s Objectives and 

Funding, Contributing 

to Enhancements in 

Its Posture in Europe
Page 10 GAO-18-128 European Reassurance Initiative

Army officials, these force enhancements in Europe give the Army the 

ability to quickly deploy a substantial ground force in the event of a 

conflict. As of April 2017, DOD was still evaluating force 

enhancements in Europe as part of its fiscal year 2018 budget 

submission. Specific details were omitted because they are classified.

Figure 2: Armored Brigade Combat Team Soldiers Conduct Live-Fire and React-toFire Exercise in Latvia (April 2017)

• New locations and improvements to infrastructure: Since ERI was 

announced in 2014, DOD has established new enduring locations in 

Europe. An enduring location is designated by DOD and is a 

geographic site that DOD expects to access and use to support U.S. 

security interests for the foreseeable future. During our review, DOD 

had not yet determined whether additional enduring locations would 

be needed to support ERI.

In addition to establishing new enduring locations, DOD plans to improve 

installations and infrastructure. From fiscal years 2015 through 2017,

DOD requested funding in its budget justification submissions to 

Congress for major military construction projects in nine European 

countries and to improve support infrastructure—such as roads, 
Page 11 GAO-18-128 European Reassurance Initiative

railheads, and airbasing—at these locations.19 Major military construction 

projects are those projects specified in National Defense Authorization 

Acts. During the time of our review, DOD was considering addition 

improvements to existing infrastructure, specific details of which are 

classified. According to DOD and State Department officials, DOD is also 

working with U.S. allies and partners to determine what infrastructure 

improvements to roads, railroads, and bridges need to occur outside 

enduring locations to allow rapid response to a conflict.

• New host nation agreements: Since ERI was announced, DOD and 

the State Department have completed host nation agreements with 

six European nations in support of ERI efforts:

• Romania, Bulgaria, and Poland, implementing previous 

agreements, in order to facilitate U.S. construction on installations 

and areas in the host country (June and July 2015 and June 

2016).

• Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, providing an overarching 

framework for protections for U.S. personnel and U.S. access to 

installations in host nations (January 2017).

DOD is using a separate process instead of its established posture 

planning process to plan for ERI’s posture initiatives because of the 

emergent nature of ERI requirements and their having been funded 

through the OCO budget. DOD has established global defense posture 

management and base budget development processes that plan for 

posture initiatives and collectively support the department’s efforts to 

establish priorities, evaluate resource requirements, and develop strategy 

and policy. As a result of its not using its established processes, DOD is 

not prioritizing posture initiatives funded under ERI against posture 

initiatives funded through its base budget, estimating these initiatives’

long-term sustainment costs, or communicating their future costs to 

Congress.

 19DOD began major military construction projects in Bulgaria, Estonia, Germany, Iceland, 

Italy, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, and Romania. 

DOD Does Not 

Prioritize Posture 

Initiatives Funded 

Under ERI against 

Those in Its Base 

Budget, Estimate 

Their Sustainment 

Costs, or 

Communicate Future 

Costs to Congress
Page 12 GAO-18-128 European Reassurance Initiative

DOD is planning ERI posture initiatives outside of its established 

processes and is funding these enduring initiatives—including rotational 

deployments and infrastructure projects—out of its OCO budget. We have 

previously identified risks associated with DOD’s practice of completing 

construction projects outside of its established processes. For example, in 

September 2016 we reported that DOD had not issued implementing 

guidance to establish a formal process for reevaluating ongoing 

contingency construction projects when missions change and that as a 

result DOD risked completing unnecessary construction projects.20 We 

also found that DOD lacked visibility into the amount of funding it was 

spending on operations and maintenance-funded construction projects in 

U.S. Central Command and that this increased financial risk and 

duplication risk for the department.21

Like U.S. Central Command, EUCOM is using DOD’s OCO budget to 

fund construction projects and is planning those projects outside of its 

established processes. Based on our analysis, DOD plans to spend 

approximately $503 million from fiscal year 2015 through the end of fiscal 

year 2017 on ERI-related construction projects—about $279 million for 

major military construction projects and $224 million for minor military 

construction and facilities maintenance and repair projects (hereafter, 

minor construction and repair), as shown in table 2.22

 20GAO, Defense Infrastructure: Actions Needed to Enhance Oversight of Construction 

Projects Supporting Military Contingency Operations, GAO-16-406, (Washington D.C.: 

Sept. 8, 2016).

21We recommended that DOD take steps to improve its awareness of how much 

operation and maintenance funding was being used for contingency construction and 

develop guidance for the review and verification of contingency construction projects, 

among other things. DOD did not concur with our recommendation that it track the 

universe and cost of contingency construction projects resourced with operation and 

maintenance funding and partially concurred with our recommendation that it issue new 

implementing guidance for review and verification of projects. DOD had not taken steps to 

address these recommendations as of May 2017. GAO, Defense Infrastructure: Actions 

Needed to Enhance Oversight of Construction Projects Supporting Military Contingency 

Operations, GAO-16-406, (Washington D.C.: Sept. 8, 2016).

22For detailed information on minor construction and repair projects funded under ERI, 

see appendix I. 

DOD is Not Using Its 

Established Processes to 

Plan for and Fund ERI 

Posture Initiatives
Page 13 GAO-18-128 European Reassurance Initiative

Table 2: Major Military Construction and Minor Military Construction and Facilities 

Maintenance and Repair Funded Under the European Reassurance Initiative, by 

Military Service (Programmed or Obligated Fiscal Years 2015 through 2017)a

Military Service

Major Military Construction 

(thousands of dollars)

Minor Construction and Repair 

(thousands of dollars)

Army 55,900 157,078

Navy 21,400 0

Air Force 201,390 66,951

Marine Corps 0 0

Total 278,690 224,029

Source: GAO Analysis. | GAO-18-128

a

The amount identified for minor construction and repair projects in fiscal years 2015 and 2016 is the 

obligated amount for each project, as reported by U.S. Army Europe; the amount identified for minor 

construction and repair projects in fiscal year 2017 is the programmed amount for each project. The 

amount identified for major military construction projects was calculated using construction cost data 

provided by the services.

Note: Major military construction projects are those projects specified in National Defense 

Authorization Acts. Major military construction projects are generally funded using appropriations 

available for multiple years, and obligations and expenditures for these projects may occur after fiscal 

year 2017. “Minor construction projects” are unspecified minor military construction projects, which 

are projects for which the cost does not exceed certain dollar limits and the projects are not included 

in the budget request as specific line items. Cost data are current as of February 2017, and 

obligations are as reported by U.S. Air Force Europe and U.S. Army Europe. For detailed information 

on minor construction and repair projects funded under ERI, see appendix I.

DOD has established global defense posture management and base 

budget development processes that plan for posture initiatives and 

collectively support the department’s efforts to establish priorities, 

evaluate resource requirements, and develop strategy and policy. 

According to DOD Instruction 3000.12, DOD’s global defense posture 

processes apply to DOD forces, footprint, and agreements that support 

joint and combined global operations and plans in foreign countries. 

According to the instruction, DOD’s components use these processes to 

address planning for global defense posture, resource requirements, and 

policy development, among other things. Further, it states that these 

processes are overseen by an executive council that provides 

recommendations, inputs, and expertise on global defense posture to key 

national strategy products.23 DOD’s Planning, Programming, Budgeting, 

and Execution Process serves as the annual resource allocation process 

for DOD and is intended to enable DOD to align resources to prioritized 

capabilities; balance necessary warfighting capabilities with risk, 

 23See DOD Instruction 3000.12, Management of U.S. Global Defense Posture (GDP), 

para.1.2 (May 6, 2016).
Page 14 GAO-18-128 European Reassurance Initiative

affordability, and effectiveness; and provide mechanisms for making and 

implementing fiscally sound decisions in support of the national security 

strategy and the national defense strategy.24

DOD is using a separate and evolving process to plan ERI’s posture 

initiatives—rather than following its established processes—because ERI 

is being funded through DOD’s OCO budget. According to officials from 

the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Cost Assessment and Program 

Evaluation, the department has recognized that the short-term planning 

process used to develop DOD’s OCO budget can create problems when 

it is used to plan for enduring initiatives. As a result, DOD has developed 

a separate process to plan for ERI.

As part of the fiscal year 2018 planning process, EUCOM provided a 

prioritized list of potential requirements and an estimate of its annual 

costs by appropriation account to the Director for Cost Assessment and 

Program Evaluation. According to officials from the Office of the Secretary 

of Defense, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, DOD completed 

its review and provided recommendations to DOD’s senior leaders for 

approval in October 2016 and final decisions were made within DOD in 

April 2017.25 The specific criteria by which DOD assessed EUCOM’s 

potential requirements are classified.

DOD is requesting funds for ERI’s posture initiatives as part of its OCO 

budget, which is generally intended to be short-term funding for ongoing 

contingency operations. In February 2009, the Office of Management and 

Budget, in collaboration with DOD, issued criteria to assist in determining 

whether funding properly belonged in DOD’s base budget or in its OCO 

budget. These criteria were updated in September 2010 and currently 

indicate that funding requests should be for specific geographic areas 

where combat or direct combat support operations occur (such as Iraq 

and Afghanistan).26 Further, budget items must meet other criteria. For 

example, OCO funding requests may be for constructing facilities and 

 24See DOD Directive 7045.14, The Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution 

(PPBE) Process, paras. 4.a, 4.d(2), (3) (Jan. 25, 2013).

25Specifically, the proposal was reviewed by the Deputy’s Management Action Group, 

which is the primary civilian-military management forum that supports the Secretary of 

Defense, and addresses top departmental issues that have resource management and 

broad strategic or policy implications.

26The guidance indicates that other geographic areas not specifically identified may be 

included on a case-by-case basis. 
Page 15 GAO-18-128 European Reassurance Initiative

infrastructure in the theater of operations in direct support of combat 

operations. In these cases, the level of construction should be the 

minimum needed to meet operational requirements, and construction 

completed at enduring locations must be tied to surge operations or major 

changes in operational requirements.

In January 2017, we reported that DOD did not apply the OCO criteria to 

ERI prior to deciding to budget for its requirements using its OCO budget. 

We recommended that DOD, in consultation with the Office of 

Management and Budget, reevaluate and revise the criteria for 

determining what can be included in OCO budget requests.27 DOD 

concurred with our recommendation and noted that it plans to propose 

revised OCO criteria. As of May 2017, the department has not 

implemented our recommendation.

DOD’s planning for ERI’s posture initiatives does not establish priorities 

for ERI initiatives relative to those in the base budget, estimate long-term 

sustainment costs for some posture initiatives funded under ERI, or 

communicate future ERI costs to Congress.

When planning ERI’s posture initiatives, DOD establishes priorities 

among ERI’s initiatives but does not review posture initiatives funded 

under ERI relative to those funded in the military services’ base budgets. 

DOD’s posture management process is intended to establish priorities 

among global posture elements and is overseen by a Global Posture 

Executive Council.28 According to DOD Instruction 3000.12, the Executive 

Council is responsible for reviewing, prioritizing, and endorsing across the 

combatant commands key posture elements such as military construction 

 27GAO-17-68.

28The Global Posture Executive Council consists of representatives from the military 

services, the combatant commands, the Joint Staff, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, 

the State Department, the National Security Council staff, and other stakeholders as 

required.

DOD Does Not Prioritize 

ERI Initiatives against 

Those in Its Base Budget, 

Estimate Long-Term 

Sustainment Costs, or 

Communicate Future 

Costs to Congress

DOD Does Not Review and 

Prioritize Posture Initiatives 

Funded Under ERI Relative to 

Those in Its Base Budget
Page 16 GAO-18-128 European Reassurance Initiative

projects and international agreements. The Executive Council’s 

endorsements inform the military services’ budget deliberations.29

For the fiscal year 2017 ERI budget, EUCOM requested funding for 

several posture initiatives, including the continuous, rotational deployment 

of an armored brigade combat team and the establishment of 

prepositioned equipment in Europe.30 Officials representing the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Policy and the Director, Cost Assessment and 

Program Evaluation said that as part of its planning process for ERI the 

Deputy’s Management Action Group evaluated and prioritized posture 

initiatives funded under ERI. However, DOD could not provide 

documentation that it had established priorities relative to posture 

initiatives funded through the base budget. Further, the Global Posture 

Executive Council did not review or prioritize posture initiatives funded 

under ERI relative to posture initiatives funded through DOD’s base 

budget. Similarly, as DOD prepared the fiscal year 2018 ERI budget 

request, the Global Posture Executive Council did not prioritize EUCOM’s 

proposed ERI posture initiatives relative to initiatives funded through 

DOD’s base budget. More detailed information about these proposals, 

and their potential funding requirements, are classified.

According to officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Policy and the Joint Staff, DOD did not prioritize posture initiatives 

funded under ERI against base-budget funded posture initiatives, 

because ERI is funded through DOD’s OCO budget—which does not 

directly affect the services’ base budgets. However, because it does not 

prioritize ERI initiatives against other initiatives funded through the base 

budget, DOD lacks an understanding of the relative importance of 

initiatives funded under ERI and may begin investing in projects that it 

would not support in the absence of funding from DOD’s OCO budget. 

For example, Army officials noted that if funding were to become 

unavailable in DOD’s OCO budget, the Army is unsure how initiatives 

funded under ERI would rank in importance relative to other posture 

initiatives funded in its base budget. Consequently, the Army would be 

forced to make critical—and potentially costly—decisions quickly and 

 29See generally DOD Instruction 3000.12, Management of U.S. Global Defense Posture 

(GDP) (May 6, 2016).

30In addition, EUCOM requested persistent deployment of an Army combat aviation 

brigade and funding to retain Air Force fighter aircraft in Europe that DOD had initially 

planned to remove. These initiatives were all included in DOD’s fiscal year 2017 

congressional budget justification documentation.
Page 17 GAO-18-128 European Reassurance Initiative

without a clear idea of which posture initiatives were most important to the 

department.

In planning for posture initiatives funded under ERI, EUCOM and the 

military services have not fully estimated the long-term sustainment costs 

of ERI’s posture initiatives to establish prepositioned equipment and 

construct new facilities. DOD’s global defense posture guidance indicates 

that, when evaluating potential changes to posture, the combatant 

commands should work with the military services to estimate the full cost 

of planned posture initiatives, including sustainment costs.31 DOD’s 

guidance on economic analysis also notes the importance of 

understanding both the size and timing of costs.32 Finally, our prior work 

has demonstrated that comprehensive cost estimates of current and 

future resource requirements are critical to making funding decisions and 

assessing program affordability.33

DOD leadership emphasized throughout the fiscal year 2018 budget 

review process that the services would need to fund ERI posture 

sustainment costs through their respective base budgets, but DOD did 

not direct the services and EUCOM to estimate these costs as they would 

have under their established processes. Officials from the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation said 

that DOD leadership emphasized that the military services would need to 

fund all future sustainment costs for ERI projects from their base budgets.

Based on DOD’s approach for calculating rough order sustainment costs, 

we determined that ERI sustainment costs for prepositioned equipment 

and construction could be substantial.34 Army and Air Force officials said 

that they were working to identify and incorporate these costs into future 

base budget submissions. DOD officials said that we correctly applied 

DOD’s approach for estimating sustainment costs, but noted that actual 

costs may be lower than the estimated costs, because the military 

 31DOD Instruction 3000.12, Management of U.S. Global Defense Posture (GDP), paras. 

4.6.a(5), 6.2.c(5)(b) (May 6, 2016). 

32See DOD Instruction 7041.03, Economic Analysis for Decision-making, encl. 2, para.1 

(Sept. 9, 2015).

33Affordability is the degree to which funding requirements fit within the agency’s overall 

portfolio plan. 

34DOD’s rough order of magnitude estimation approach multiplies the total cost of major 

military construction projects by 2.25 percent to estimate annual sustainment costs.

DOD Does Not Estimate LongTerm Sustainment Costs for 

Some Posture Initiatives 

Funded Under ERI
Page 18 GAO-18-128 European Reassurance Initiative

services may not fully fund sustainment. Additionally, officials said that 

EUCOM is trying to negotiate burden sharing agreements with host 

nations; however, it is unclear whether these negotiations will be 

successful or how any resulting agreements would affect DOD’s future 

costs.

Without comprehensive estimates of the sustainment costs for the 

prepositioned equipment and major military construction projects in 

Europe, DOD decision makers have been limited in their ability to 

evaluate the affordability of these initiatives. Further, in the absence of 

these estimates, the services have been limited in their ability to plan for 

costs in future budgets, because they have an incomplete understanding 

of the magnitude of those costs and of when they are likely to be incurred.

The funding plan that DOD submits to Congress for ERI does not contain 

information about ERI’s future costs. This is in contrast to the way DOD 

submits its funding plan for its base budget, where DOD provides 

Congress with cost projections over a 5-year period, by appropriation, 

leaving Congress with a better understanding of how and when to

allocate resources.35 In reviewing the fiscal year 2018 ERI request, the 

Director for Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation assessed future 

costs associated with posture initiatives funded under ERI. We previously 

reported that DOD was not developing enduring requirements funded 

through its OCO budget as part of its budget and programming process.36

Officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) 

and the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Cost Assessment and 

Program Evaluation told us that DOD has not been required to provide 

estimates for future OCO costs for ERI to Congress previously. An official 

from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) told us 

that DOD does not plan to provide these future costs to Congress along 

with its fiscal year 2018 ERI budget submission.

Additionally, in preparing its posture requirements, EUCOM did not 

identify assumptions regarding host nation and NATO burden sharing. 

For example, officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense 

 35The Secretary of Defense submits annually to Congress, at or about the time the 

President’s budget is submitted, a future-years defense program reflecting the estimated 

expenditures and proposed appropriations included in that budget. The future-years 

defense program is to cover the fiscal year for which the budget is submitted and at least 

four succeeding years. See 10 U.S.C. § 221.

36GAO-17-68.

DOD Does Not Communicate 

to Congress the Future Costs 

of Enduring ERI Activities 

Funded through OCO
Page 19 GAO-18-128 European Reassurance Initiative

for Policy said that DOD has submitted a request to the NATO Security 

Investment Programmé for $200 million in funding to build a facility in 

Poland to store Army equipment. Officials told us that, as a result, this 

construction project was identified as a lesser priority in EUCOM’s fiscal 

year 2018 request for funding. A senior Army officer told us that 

completion of a facility in Poland was critical to its plans in Europe. 

Officials from the U.S. Mission to NATO told us that as of July 2016 

NATO had approved funding to complete preliminary architectural and 

engineering design for this project. Officials expect additional funding will 

be made available in July 2017 to complete final design and site 

preparation and the full cost of the project will be approved in early 2019. 

However, these officials noted that additional funding beyond what has 

been approved by NATO may be required to meet U.S.-specific 

requirements. Similarly, EUCOM officials said that they are working to 

identify opportunities to defray future costs through host nation 

contributions, but it is unclear how much funding—if any—host nations 

will provide moving forward.

Congress has expressed interest in knowing the future costs of enduring 

activities being funded through DOD’s OCO budget. The Senate 

Appropriations Committee’s report accompanying a bill for DOD’s fiscal 

year 2015 appropriations stated that the committee does not have an 

understanding of enduring activities funded by the OCO budget. The 

committee further noted that there is a potential for risk in continuing to 

fund non-contingency-related activities through the OCO budget.37 Both 

GAO’s and other federal standards emphasize that agencies should 

provide complete and reliable information on the costs of programs 

 37See S. Rep. No. 113-211, at 275 (2014).The Joint Explanatory Statement 

accompanying the Continuing Appropriations and Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, 

and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017, expressed concern that DOD has not 

outlined a comprehensive plan for military construction requirements to support ERI. It 

directed DOD, when it submits the fiscal year 2018 budget request, to provide the 

appropriations committees with a comprehensive plan for military construction 

requirements associated with ERI through the fiscal year 2018 future years defense 

program. 162 Cong. Rec. S5990 (daily ed. Sept. 22, 2016). 
Page 20 GAO-18-128 European Reassurance Initiative

externally, so that decision makers can make informed decisions when 

allocating resources.38

DOD has not provided Congress projections of future costs for posture 

initiatives funded under ERI because it is reviewing those requirements 

outside of its budget and programming processes, and DOD officials said 

that the department is not required to provide this information. As a result, 

DOD is limiting congressional visibility into the resources needed to 

achieve ERI’s objectives. If DOD does not provide Congress with 

projections of the future costs of posture initiatives funded under ERI and 

information on its assumptions pertaining to host nation support and 

burden sharing, it will continue to impede congressional visibility into the 

resources that are needed to fully implement these initiatives.

Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the subsequent threat of further 

aggression led DOD to establish and later expand ERI’s objectives and 

enhance posture in Europe to support a new U.S. strategy toward Russia. 

DOD has requested funding for these enhancements using its OCO 

budget; however, the processes DOD uses to develop its OCO budget 

were not designed to plan for and fund long-term, enduring initiatives 

such as ERI. By following a separate planning process when funding ERI 

with OCO, DOD is taking on risk by not reviewing and prioritizing ERI 

posture plans against other posture initiatives, estimating the costs for 

sustaining ERI initiatives, and providing Congress with estimates of ERI’s 

future costs. DOD risks making decisions that lack a strategic vision in 

comparison to other DOD priorities and may fund initiatives that cannot 

be sustained over the long term. Furthermore, Congress is likely to face 

challenges in assessing DOD’s estimated costs for ERI and the 

affordability of initiatives funded under ERI over the long term.

 38Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government emphasizes using complete 

information to make decisions and then communicating such information externally. The 

Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board Handbook of Federal Accounting 

Standards and Other Pronouncements, as Amended, also requires agencies to provide 

reliable information on the full costs of their federal programs aimed at assisting 

congressional and executive decision makers in allocating federal resources and making 

decisions to improve operating economy and efficiencies. GAO-14-704G. Federal 

Accounting Standards Advisory Board, FASAB Handbook of Federal Accounting 

Standards and Other Pronouncements, as Amended, June 30, 2015.

Conclusions
Page 21 GAO-18-128 European Reassurance Initiative

To better ensure that DOD can target resources to its most critical 

initiatives and establish priorities across its base budget and overseas 

contingency operations budget, we recommend that the Secretary of 

Defense prioritize posture initiatives under ERI relative to those funded in 

its base budget as part of its established posture-planning processes.

(Recommendation 1)

To better enable decision makers to evaluate the full long-term costs of 

posture initiatives under ERI, we recommend that the Secretary of 

Defense direct EUCOM and the military services to develop estimates for 

the sustainment costs of prepositioned equipment and other infrastructure 

projects under ERI and ensure that the services plan for these long-term 

costs in future budgets. (Recommendation 2)

To support congressional decision making, we recommend that the 

Secretary of Defense provide to Congress, along with the department’s 

annual budget submission, estimates of the future costs for posture 

initiatives funded under ERI and other enduring costs that include 

assumptions such as those pertaining to the level of host nation support 

and burden sharing. (Recommendation 3)

We provided a draft of the classified report to DOD for review and 

comment. DOD partially concurred with all three of our recommendations, 

and we have reproduced DOD’s comments on the classified report in 

appendix II. DOD also provided technical comments, which we 

incorporated as appropriate.

DOD partially concurred with our first recommendation to use its 

established posture-planning processes to prioritize ERI’s posture 

initiatives relative to those funded in DOD’s base budget. In its comments, 

DOD stated that it will continue to prioritize the negotiation of international 

agreements supporting ERI through the Global Posture Executive 

Council, and that an on-going Strategic Review will inform ERI and guide 

both EUCOM and the services in their program planning efforts. These 

are positive steps. DOD also stated it will adjudicate its ERI-funded force 

requirements through its global force management process, adding that it 

will continue to resource OCO funds for ERI requirements until there is a 

sufficient increase in DOD’s base budget to do so. However, we continue 

to believe, as noted in our report, that DOD could improve its planning for 

posture initiatives funded under ERI, whether or not they are funded 

through OCO, by using DOD’s established posture planning processes. 

Although DOD’s global force management process directly affects 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Page 22 GAO-18-128 European Reassurance Initiative

overseas military posture in the near term, this process is not designed to 

evaluate long-term posture priorities. If DOD does not prioritize the forces 

and infrastructure projects funded under ERI against those funded using 

the military services’ base budgets, it will continue to lack an 

understanding of the relative importance of the posture initiatives funded 

under ERI. Without such an understanding, DOD increases the risk that 

the services will need to make critical and potentially costly decisions 

without a clear idea of which posture initiatives are most critical to the 

department.

DOD partially concurred with our second recommendation that EUCOM 

and the military services develop estimates for future sustainment costs 

and plan for these costs in future budgets. In its comments, DOD stated 

that its components will continue to estimate the sustainment costs for 

prepositioned stocks and other infrastructure projects during DOD’s 

annual program and budget review process. DOD also commented that 

without additional topline base budget funding, some portion of the 

associated sustainment costs will need to be financed with OCO funds. 

However, as we noted in our report, neither the Army nor the Air Force 

has fully estimated these potentially significant future costs, nor had either 

service incorporated them into their future budgets. Using OCO funds 

would mark a departure from DOD leadership’s emphasis that the 

services would need to fund ERI posture sustainment costs through their 

respective base budgets. Additionally, not developing robust estimates for 

sustaining these initiatives could increase long-term fiscal risk for the 

department if DOD shifts more ERI-associated enduring costs into its 

OCO budget. In the absence of robust cost estimates and deliberate 

planning to address those costs in future budgets, DOD will continue to 

be limited in its ability to evaluate the affordability of posture initiatives 

funded under ERI, and the military services may not plan adequate 

funding to sustain posture investments in Europe.

DOD partially concurred with our third recommendation, to provide 

Congress with estimates of the future costs for posture initiatives funded 

under ERI and information on any underlying assumptions, such as those 

pertaining to the level of host nation support and burden sharing. In its 

comments, DOD stated that it does not currently prepare a formal 5-year 

Future Years Defense Program for OCO-related costs. Moreover, DOD 

commented that it factors in host nation support and burden sharing when 

preparing budget estimates for Congress. However, DOD does not state 

whether it will begin to provide Congress future estimates and any 

underlying assumptions with its budget submission. It is critical that DOD 

increase congressional visibility into ERI’s future costs and its underlying 
Page 23 GAO-18-128 European Reassurance Initiative

assumptions to facilitate congressional oversight and reasonably ensure 

that initiatives can be sustained over the long-term.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees, the Secretary of Defense, and the Commander, U.S. 

European Command. In addition, the report is available at no charge on 

the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (404) 679-1816 or pendletonj@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 major contributions to 

this report are listed in Appendix III.

John. H. Pendleton, Director

Defense Capabilities and Management
Page 24 GAO-18-128 European Reassurance Initiative

List of Committees

The Honorable Thad Cochran

Chairman

The Honorable Richard Durbin

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Defense

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Jerry Moran

Chairman

The Honorable Brian Schatz

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, 

 and Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Kay Granger

Chairwoman

The Honorable Peter J. Visclosky

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Defense

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

The Honorable Charlie Dent

Chairman

The Honorable Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, 

 and Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives
Appendix I: Unspecified Minor Military 

Construction and Facilities Maintenance and 

Repair Projects Funded under the European 

Reassurance Initiative in Fiscal Years 2015 

through 2017

Page 25 GAO-18-128 European Reassurance Initiative

The Army and Air Force identified approximately $224 million in 

unspecified minor military construction and facilities maintenance and 

repair projects (hereafter, minor construction and repair) that were 

programmed or obligated for the European Reassurance Initiative (ERI) in 

fiscal years 2015 through 2017.1 This includes $157 million for minor 

construction and repair projects identified by the Army and nearly $67 

million for minor construction and repair projects identified by the Air 

Force. According to U.S. European Command officials, Navy and Marine 

Corps construction projects funded under ERI were either major military 

construction or exercise-related construction projects. The tables below 

do not include Navy and Marine Corps exercise-related construction 

projects. Using the data provided by the military services, we compiled 

the programmed and obligated funding for these minor construction and 

repair projects by fiscal year, country, location, and project name in tables 

3 and 4.2 The information in these tables was provided by U.S. Army 

Europe and U.S. Air Force Europe in response to our request for a list of 

minor military construction and repair projects. The data provided did not 

identify the appropriations used for each project. Accordingly, we have 

not conducted a review to examine whether funds were appropriately 

used for a given project.

 1

Generally, unspecified minor military construction refers to construction projects for which 

the cost does not exceed certain dollar limits and the projects are not included in the 

budget request as specific line items. Cost thresholds for unspecified minor military 

construction are provided in section 2805 of Title 10, U.S. Code.

2

The amount identified for minor construction and repair projects in fiscal years 2015 and 

2016 is the obligated amount for each project, as provided by U.S. Army Europe and U.S. 

Air Force Europe. Funding amounts for minor construction and repair projects identified in 

fiscal year 2017 had not yet been obligated and, as a result, the programmed amount is 

used in this summary. According to U.S. European Command officials, Navy and Marine 

Corps construction projects funded under ERI were identified either as major military 

construction or exercise-related construction projects.

Appendix I: Unspecified Minor Military Construction and Facilities Maintenance and 

Repair Projects Funded under the European 

Reassurance Initiative in Fiscal Years 2015 

through 2017
Appendix I: Unspecified Minor Military 

Construction and Facilities Maintenance and 

Repair Projects Funded under the European 

Reassurance Initiative in Fiscal Years 2015 

through 2017

Page 26 GAO-18-128 European Reassurance Initiative

Table 3: Army Unspecified Minor Military Construction and Facilities Maintenance 

and Repair Projects Programmed or Obligated as of February 2017 (dollars in 

thousands)a

Fiscal Year

Country/Location/Project 2015 2016 2017

Bulgaria

Novo Selo

1000m Automated Sniper Range 0 972 0

1500m Machine Gun Range 0 326 0

25m Zero Range 0 53 0

300m Automated Record Fire Range 0 742 0

350m Moving Target 0 0 75

Ammunition Holding Area 0 980 0

Aviation Operations Facility 116 0 0

Aviation Parking Apron 646 0 0

Aviation Target Positions 0 710 0

Aviation Target Positions Extension 0 0 622

Boresight Screening and Harmonization 0 342 0

Forward Area Rearm/Refuel Point 0 115 0

HAZMAT Storage Building 0 66 0

Live Fire Shoot House 0 312 0

Marash River Bridge Repair 295 0 0

Motor Pool / Bays 336 0 0

Motor Pool Hardstand 1,625 0 0

Multi-purpose Warehouse 416 0 0

Non-Standard Gunnery Lanes 0 1,500 0

Novo Selo IDS 0 325 0

Range Control Building 226 0 0

Range Road & Bridge 836 0 0

Range Road Improvements 5,532 220 0

Range Tower 0 135 0

Rappel Tower 266 0 0

Target Warehouse 476 0 0

Tracked Vehicle Target Positions 0 587 0

Tracked Vehicle Target Positions Extension 0 0 610

UAV Strip 965 0 0

Urban Assault Course 0 426 0

Urban Breaching Range 0 357 0
Appendix I: Unspecified Minor Military 

Construction and Facilities Maintenance and 

Repair Projects Funded under the European 

Reassurance Initiative in Fiscal Years 2015 

through 2017

Page 27 GAO-18-128 European Reassurance Initiative

Fiscal Year

Country/Location/Project 2015 2016 2017

Wheeled Vehicle Target Positions 0 615 0

Wheeled Vehicle Target Positions Extension 0 0 328

Subtotal Novo Selo 11,735 8,783 1,635

Total Bulgaria 11,735 8,783 1,635

Estonia

Tapa

1000m Automated Sniper Range 400 0 0

1500m Machine Gun Range 0 688 0

300m Automated Record Fire Range 100 0 0

Alternate Railhead Upgrade 650 0 0

Ammunition Breakdown Building (CPQC) 25 0 0

Ammunition Breakdown Building (Demo) 25 0 0

Ammunition Breakdown Building (Sniper) 25 0 0

Ammunition Holding Area 0 825 0

Classroom/AAR Building (Sniper) 125 0 0

Combat Pistol Qualification Course 100 0 0

Employee Parking Area 165 0 0

Fuel Point Renovation 400 0 0

Live Fire Shoot House 0 405 0

Maintenance Building 828 0 0

Motor Pool Hardstand 975 0 0

Motor Pool Maintenance Bays 600 0 0

Multi-purpose Building K-Span (Gym) 0 94 0

Multi-purpose Building K-Span (Storage) 0 94 0

New Vehicle Storage Building 990 0 0

Non-Standard Gunnery Lanes (Course 

Roads)

0 605 0

Railhead Loading and Staging Area 876 0 0

Railhead Marshalling Area 900 0 0

Range Operations/Storage Building 125 0 0

Range Operations/Tower (300M) 75 0 0

Range Operations/Tower (Sniper) 75 0 0

Range Road improvements 0 55 0

Refurbish Vehicle Storage Building 1,089 0 0

Security Improvements 545 0 0

Urban Assault Course 0 942 0
Appendix I: Unspecified Minor Military 

Construction and Facilities Maintenance and 

Repair Projects Funded under the European 

Reassurance Initiative in Fiscal Years 2015 

through 2017

Page 28 GAO-18-128 European Reassurance Initiative

Fiscal Year

Country/Location/Project 2015 2016 2017

Wash Rack 400 0 0

Subtotal Tapa 9,493 3,707 0

Total Estonia 9,493 3,707 0

Hungary

Varpalota

LSA Site Prep 0 0 100

Subtotal Varpalota 0 0 100

Total Hungary 0 0 100

Latvia

Adazi

1000m Automated Sniper Range 586 0 0

1500m Machine Gun Range 900 0 0

25m Zero Range 33 0 0

300m Automated Record Fire Range 186 0 0

350m Moving Target 0 0 75

Ammunition Breakdown Building 0 50 0

Ammunition Breakdown Building (300m 

ARF)

73 0 0

Ammunition Breakdown Building (IPBC) 73 0 0

Ammunition Breakdown Building 

(Sniper/MG)

73 0 0

Ammunition Holding Area 906 0 0

Ammunition Loading Dock 0 65 0

ARMAG and 150 KW Generator Area 78 0 0

Aviation Target Positions 0 524 0

Boresight Screening and Harmonization 629 0 0

Classroom/AAR Building (300m ARF) 0 194 0

Classroom/AAR Building (IPBC) 0 194 0

Classroom/AAR Building (NSLF) 0 194 0

Classroom/AAR Building (Sniper/MG) 0 194 0

Combat Pistol Qualification Course 0 58 0

Containerized Latrines 27 0 0

Exterior Security Measures 198 0 0

Forward Area Rearm/Refuel Point 0 187 0

Fuel Point 609 0 0

Fuel Point 234 0 0

GARKALNE Railhead Site 0 670 0
Appendix I: Unspecified Minor Military 

Construction and Facilities Maintenance and 

Repair Projects Funded under the European 

Reassurance Initiative in Fiscal Years 2015 

through 2017

Page 29 GAO-18-128 European Reassurance Initiative

Fiscal Year

Country/Location/Project 2015 2016 2017

Gravel Motor Pool 279 0 0

Infantry Platoon Battle Course 669 0 0

Interior Road Network 875 0 0

Live Fire Shoot House 0 694 0

LSA Site Prep 0 0 150

Motor Pool Hardstand 902 0 0

Multi-purpose Cover Area (Sniper/MG) 0 61 0

Multi-purpose Covered Area (300m ARF) 0 61 0

Multi-purpose Covered Area (IPBC) 0 61 0

Multi-purpose Covered Area (NSLF) 0 61 0

Multi-purpose Covered Area (UAC) 0 61 0

Parts Warehouse 680 0 0

Range Operations Tower (ARF) 106 0 0

Range Operations Tower (IPBC) 107 0 0

Range Operations Tower (Sniper/MG) 106 0 0

Range Operations/Storage Building 0 190 0

Range Operations/Storage Building (ARF) 140 0 0

Range Operations/Storage Building (IPBC) 269 0 0

Range Operations/Storage Building 

(Sniper/MG)

269 0 0

Range Operations/Storage Building (UAC) 269 0 0

Range Operations/Tower (Heavy) 0 157 0

Repair Tank Trail 0 667 0

Target Warehouse 900 0 0

Test Track 682 0 0

Tracked and Oversized Maintenance Facility 902 0 0

Tracked Vehicle Maintenance Facility 597 0 0

Tracked Vehicle Storage Facility 1,000 0 0

Tracked Vehicle Target Positions 0 702 0

Urban Assault Course 244 0 0

Urban Breaching Range 0 400 0

Wheeled Vehicle Maintenance Facility 607 0 0

Wheeled Vehicle Storage Facility 1,500 0 0

Wheeled Vehicle Target Positions 0 931 0

Subtotal Adazi 15,708 6,375 225

Lielvarde
Appendix I: Unspecified Minor Military 

Construction and Facilities Maintenance and 

Repair Projects Funded under the European 

Reassurance Initiative in Fiscal Years 2015 

through 2017

Page 30 GAO-18-128 European Reassurance Initiative

Fiscal Year

Country/Location/Project 2015 2016 2017

Aircraft Rinse System 0 0 400

Ammunition Holding Area 906 0 0

Aviation Maintenance LAMS 901 0 0

Battalion HQs Building 0 0 430

HAZMAT Storage Building 75 0 0

LSA Site Prep 0 0 150

Parking Apron (CH-47) 0 0 200

Parking Apron (UH-60) 0 0 775

Taxiway 0 0 710

Vehicle Maintenance Building 0 0 600

Vehicle Parking Area 0 0 510

Subtotal Lielvarde 1,882 0 3,775

Total Latvia 17,590 6,375 4,000

Lithuania

Mumaiciai

ARMAG 0 79 0

CRSP Yard 0 277 0

Exterior Security Measures 0 738 0

Interior Road Network 0 751 0

Machine Shop and Vehicle Maint. 0 755 0

Maintenance Facility 0 113 0

Tracked Vehicle Maintenance Facility 0 746 0

Subtotal Mumaiciai 0 3,459 0

Pabrade

350m Moving Target 0 0 75

Ammunition Holding Area 905 0 0

Aviation Target Positions 971 0 0

Boresight Screening and Harmonization 629 0 0

Forward Area Rearm/Refuel Point 0 174 0

Fuel Point 466 0 0

Fuel Point Road 389 0 0

Maintenance Bays 589 0 0

Motor Pool Hardstand 899 0 0

Range Operations/Control Tower (L) 360 0 0

Range Operations/Storage Building 255 0 0

Target Warehouse 899 0 0
Appendix I: Unspecified Minor Military 

Construction and Facilities Maintenance and 

Repair Projects Funded under the European 

Reassurance Initiative in Fiscal Years 2015 

through 2017

Page 31 GAO-18-128 European Reassurance Initiative

Fiscal Year

Country/Location/Project 2015 2016 2017

Tracked Vehicle Target Positions 986 0 0

Wash Rack 151 0 0

Subtotal Pabrade 7,499 174 75

Rukla

1000m Automated Sniper Range 645 0 0

1500m Machine Gun Range 585 0 0

300m Automated Record Fire Range 186 0 0

Ammunition Breakdown Building 210 0 0

Combat Pistol Qualification Course 92 0 0

Fuel Point 390 0 0

LSA Site Prep 0 0 100

Maintenance Bays 589 0 0

Motor Pool Hardstand 900 0 0

Parts Warehouse 673 0 0

Rail Loading Ramps/Parking 0 0 195

Railhead Marshalling Area 0 540 0

Range Operations/Storage Building(180m2) 268 0 0

Range Operations/Storage Building(240m2) 331 0 0

Range Tower (Small) 236 0 0

Target Warehouse 899 0 0

Wash Rack 151 0 0

Subtotal Rukla 6,155 540 295

Total Lithuania 13,654 4,173 370

Poland

Boleslawiec

Barracks Renovations 0 0 500

LSA Site Prep 0 0 200

Motor Pool Hardstand 0 0 851

Tracked Vehicle Maintenance Facility 0 0 840

Subtotal Boleslawiec 0 0 2,391

Drawsko Pomorskie

1000m Automated Sniper Range 316 0 0

1500m Machine Gun Range 382 0 0

25m Zero Range 17 0 0

300m Automated Record Fire Range 154 0 0

350m Moving Target 0 0 275
Appendix I: Unspecified Minor Military 

Construction and Facilities Maintenance and 

Repair Projects Funded under the European 

Reassurance Initiative in Fiscal Years 2015 

through 2017

Page 32 GAO-18-128 European Reassurance Initiative

Fiscal Year

Country/Location/Project 2015 2016 2017

Ammunition Breakdown Building (1500m 

MG)

30 0 0

Ammunition Breakdown Building (300m 

ARF)

30 0 0

Ammunition Breakdown Building (Live Fire) 30 0 0

Ammunition Holding Area 946 0 0

Ammunition Loading Dock 101 0 0

Aviation Target Positions 328 0 0

Boresight Screening and Harmonization 343 0 0

Classroom/AAR Building (1500m MG) 91 0 0

Classroom/AAR Building (300m ARF) 91 0 0

Classroom/AAR Building (Boresight) 91 0 0

Classroom/AAR Building (Live Fire) 91 0 0

Classroom/AAR Building (NSLF) 91 0 0

Combat Pistol Qualification Course 72 0 0

Fuel Point 418 0 0

Live Fire Shoot House 390 0 0

Motor Pool Hardstand 860 0 0

MOUT Integration Training Site 271 0 0

Multi-purpose Covered Area (1500m MG) 43 0 0

Multi-purpose Covered Area (300m ARF) 43 0 0

Multi-purpose Covered Area (Boresight) 43 0 0

Multi-purpose Covered Area (Live Fire) 43 0 0

Multi-purpose Covered Area (NSLF) 43 0 0

Parts Warehouse 382 0 0

Range Operations/Storage Building (1500m 

MG)

91 0 0

Range Operations/Storage Building (300m 

ARF)

91 0 0

Range Operations/Storage Building 

(Boresight)

91 0 0

Range Operations/Storage Building (Live

Fire)

91 0 0

Range Operations/Storage Building (NSLF) 91 0 0

Range Tower (1500m MG) 112 0 0

Range Tower (300m ARF) 112 0 0

Target Warehouse 651 0 0

Tracked Vehicle Maintenance Facility 593 0 0
Appendix I: Unspecified Minor Military 

Construction and Facilities Maintenance and 

Repair Projects Funded under the European 

Reassurance Initiative in Fiscal Years 2015 

through 2017

Page 33 GAO-18-128 European Reassurance Initiative

Fiscal Year

Country/Location/Project 2015 2016 2017

Tracked Vehicle Target Positions 610 0 0

Trail Improvement 29 0 0

Wash Rack 325 0 0

Wheeled Vehicle Maintenance Facility 589 0 0

Wheeled Vehicle Target Positions 622 0 0

Subtotal Drawsko Pomorskie 9,838 0 275

Orzysz

350m Moving Target 0 0 275

Additional EFP Projects 0 0 500

Subtotal Orzysz 0 0 775

Powidz

Aircraft Rinse System 0 0 664

Battalion HQs Building 0 0 430

LSA Site Prep 0 0 200

Parking Apron (CH-47) 0 0 725

Parking Apron (UH-60) 0 0 893

Taxiway Expansion 0 0 716

Subtotal Powidz 0 0 3,628

Skwierzyna

ARMAG 0 75 0

Barracks Renovations 0 0 500

Containerized Latrines 0 65 0

Dry Goods Storage 0 702 0

Exterior Security Measures 0 932 0

Fuel Point 0 330 0

Hardstand 0 268 0

Interior Road Network 0 609 0

LSA Site Prep 0 0 150

Tracked and Oversized Maintenance Facility 0 949 0

Tracked Vehicle Storage Facility 0 900 0

Wash Rack 0 330 0

Wheeled Vehicle Maintenance Facility 0 633 0

Wheeled Vehicle Storage Facility 0 900 0

Subtotal Skwierzyna 0 6,692 650

Swietoszow

Barracks Renovations 0 0 500
Appendix I: Unspecified Minor Military 

Construction and Facilities Maintenance and 

Repair Projects Funded under the European 

Reassurance Initiative in Fiscal Years 2015 

through 2017

Page 34 GAO-18-128 European Reassurance Initiative

Fiscal Year

Country/Location/Project 2015 2016 2017

LSA Site Prep 0 0 150

Motor Pool Hardstand 0 0 851

Tracked Vehicle Maintenance Facility 0 0 840

Subtotal Swietoszow 0 0 2,341

Zagan

350m Moving Target 0 0 275

Ammunition Holding Area 0 0 750

Aviation Target Positions 0 0 868

Barracks Renovations 0 0 500

LSA Site Prep 0 0 250

Motor Pool Hardstand 0 0 851

Railhead Improvements 0 0 750

Tracked Vehicle Maintenance Facility 0 0 840

Tracked Vehicle Target Positions 0 0 935

Wheeled Vehicle Target Positions 0 0 982

Subtotal Zagan 0 0 7,001

Total Poland 9,838 6,692 17,061

Romania

Babadag

1000m Automated Sniper Range 0 750 0

1500m Machine Gun Range 0 449 0

300m Automated Record Fire Range 0 693 0

Ammunition Breakdown Building (1500m 

MG)

0 20 0

Ammunition Breakdown Building (300m 

ARF)

0 20 0

Ammunition Breakdown Building (CPQC) 0 20 0

Ammunition Breakdown Building (Sniper) 0 20 0

Combat Pistol Qualification Course 0 216 0

Range Operations/Tower (1500m 

MG/Sniper)

0 28 0

Range Operations/Tower (ARF) 0 28 0

Range Operations/Tower (CQPC) 0 28 0

Subtotal Babadag 0 2,273 0

Cincu

1500m Machine Gun Range 0 671 0

300m Automated Record Fire Range 368 0 0
Appendix I: Unspecified Minor Military 

Construction and Facilities Maintenance and 

Repair Projects Funded under the European 

Reassurance Initiative in Fiscal Years 2015 

through 2017

Page 35 GAO-18-128 European Reassurance Initiative

Fiscal Year

Country/Location/Project 2015 2016 2017

350m Moving Target 0 0 75

Ammunition Breakdown Building (300m ARF) 0 28 0

Ammunition Breakdown Building (CPQC) 46 0 0

Ammunition Holding Area 0 0 900

Aviation Target Positions 0 0 328

Classroom/AAR Building 0 592 0

Combat Pistol Qualification Course 200 0 0

Fuel Point 407 0 0

Live Fire Shoot House 0 507 0

Motor Pool Hardstand 519 0 0

Motor Pool/Bays 0 0 737

Multi-purpose Cover Area (Sniper/MG) 0 44 0

Multi-purpose Covered Area (25m Zero) 0 44 0

Multi-purpose Covered Area (300m ARF) 0 44 0

Multi-purpose Covered Area (CPQC) 0 44 0

Multi-purpose Covered Area (Rappel Tower) 0 44 0

Multi-purpose Covered Area (Urban

Breaching)

0 44 0

Railhead Endramp (Viola) 0 0 750

Range Control Building 254 0 0

Range Operations/Storage Building (1500m 

MG/Sniper)

0 72 0

Range Operations/Storage Building (300m

ARF)

74 0 0

Range Road Improvements 0 825 0

Range Road Improvements 1 6,091 0 0

Range Road Improvements 2 948 0 0

Rappel Tower 292 0 0

TADDS Warehouse 314 0 0

Target Warehouse 411 0 0

Tracked Vehicle Target Positions 0 0 610

Urban Assault Course 304 0 0

Urban Breaching Range 0 28 0

Wastewater Treatment System 843 0 0

Wheeled Vehicle Target Positions 0 0 622

Subtotal Cincu 11,071 2,988 4,022

Mihail Kogalniceanu
Appendix I: Unspecified Minor Military 

Construction and Facilities Maintenance and 

Repair Projects Funded under the European 

Reassurance Initiative in Fiscal Years 2015 

through 2017

Page 36 GAO-18-128 European Reassurance Initiative

Fiscal Year

Country/Location/Project 2015 2016 2017

25m Zero Range 0 332 0

Aircraft Rinse System 0 0 400

Ammunition Breakdown Building 0 64 0

Aviation Maintenance LAMS 990 0 0

Back Perimeter Road Realignment 0 50 0

Barracks Laundry Facility 430 0 0

Battalion Classroom 0 430 0

Battalion HQs Building 0 510 0

Bulk Fuel Tank Commissioning 0 178 0

Classroom/AAR Building 324 0 0

Company HQs Building 0 733 0

DFAC Cold and Dry Storage 0 519 0

Fence for LSA to Motor Pool 0 35 0

FOS SSA Warehouse 0 812 0

HAZMAT Storage Building 0 69 0

Indoor Dry Goods Storage Facility 0 333 0

Infrastructure 0 678 0

Interior Lighting-Phase II 0 75 0

Interior Road Upgrades 0 219 0

Latrines 0 370 0

M1/M2 Calibration Range 0 0 100

Maintenance Area Fencing 0 75 0

Maintenance Bays 709 0 0

Mihail Kogalniceanu Berm Demo Rental 

Equipment

0 117 0

Mihail Kogalniceanu IDS 240 0 0

Motor Pool Hardstand 843 865 0

Motor Pool Hardstand 818 0 0

Motor Pool Security Measures 0 128 0

Multi-purpose Warehouse 246 0 0

Parking Apron (CH-47) 0 0 200

Parking Apron (UH-60) 0 0 775

PAX Terminal Construction 0 51 0

PFOS Interior Safety and Road Lights 479 0 0

Railhead Marshalling Area 0 314 0

Range Operations/Storage Building 380 0 0
Appendix I: Unspecified Minor Military 

Construction and Facilities Maintenance and 

Repair Projects Funded under the European 

Reassurance Initiative in Fiscal Years 2015 

through 2017

Page 37 GAO-18-128 European Reassurance Initiative

Fiscal Year

Country/Location/Project 2015 2016 2017

Resurface Pax Terminal Parking Lot 0 0 30

Tracked Vehicle Maintenance Facility 0 820 0

Wash Rack 283 0 0

Wheeled Vehicle Maintenance Facility 0 708 0

Subtotal Mihail Kogalniceanu 5,742 8,487 1,505

Smardan

350m Moving Target 0 0 75

Ammunition Holding Area 0 0 900

Aviation Target Positions 0 0 328

Barracks Renovations 0 0 1,600

LSA Site Prep 0 0 150

Motor Pool Hardstand 0 0 900

Tracked Vehicle Maintenance Facility 0 0 600

Tracked Vehicle Target Positions 0 0 610

Wheeled Vehicle Target Positions 0 0 622

Subtotal Smardan 0 0 5,785

Total Romania 16,813 13,747 11,312

Total Army 79,123 43,478 34,478

Source: U.S. Army Europe | GAO-18-128

a

The amount identified for minor construction and repair projects in fiscal years 2015 and 2016 is the 

obligated amount for each project, as provided by U.S. Army Europe; the amount identified for minor 

construction and repair projects in fiscal year 2017 is the programmed amount for each project.

Note: The information in this table was provided by U.S. Army Europe in response to our request for a 

list of minor military construction and repair projects under ERI. The data provided did not identify the 

appropriations used for each project. Accordingly, we have not conducted a review to examine 

whether funds were appropriately used for a given project.
Appendix I: Unspecified Minor Military 

Construction and Facilities Maintenance and 

Repair Projects Funded under the European 

Reassurance Initiative in Fiscal Years 2015 

through 2017

Page 38 GAO-18-128 European Reassurance Initiative

Table 4: Air Force Unspecified Minor Military Construction and Facilities 

Maintenance and Repair Projects Programmed or Obligated as of February 2017

(dollars in thousands)a

Fiscal Year

Country/Location/Project 2015 2016 2017

Bulgaria

Graf Ignatievo

Construct Maintenance Operations Center 348 0 0

Repair Fuel Storage Access Road 544 0 0

Repair Taxiways 0 2,371 0

Subtotal Graf Ignatievo 892 2,371 0

Total Bulgaria 892 2,371 0

Estonia

Amari

Install BAK-14 0 1,189 0

Joint Sealing 158 0 0

Repair MSA Road 846 0 0

Subtotal Amari 1,004 1,189 0

Total Estonia 1,004 1,189 0

Germany

Spangdahlem

F/A 22 Squad Ops - Repair BLDG 108 & 

109

0 0 2,500

Upgrade Munition Storage Doors 0 0 860

Subtotal Spangdahlem 0 0 3,360

Total Germany 0 0 3,360

Italy

Camp Darby

Construct/Repair Blocking/Bracing Fab Fac 730 0 0

Construct/Repair Blocking/Bracing Fab Fac 

(Additional)

0 80 0

Install Street Lighting for ASA 0 92 0

Pave 10 AGM Aprons 0 762 0

Pave 9 AGM Aprons 0 597 0

Repair Exterior Lighting, Tombolo Dock 0 90 0

Repair Joint Stuffing Pad 0 191 0

Repair Multicube FAC 3073 Lightning 

Protection

0 25 0
Appendix I: Unspecified Minor Military 

Construction and Facilities Maintenance and 

Repair Projects Funded under the European 

Reassurance Initiative in Fiscal Years 2015 

through 2017

Page 39 GAO-18-128 European Reassurance Initiative

Fiscal Year

Country/Location/Project 2015 2016 2017

Repair/ Upgrade AGM Access Roads, 

Northwest ASA

0 77 0

Repair/ Upgrade AGM Access Roads, 

Southwest ASA

0 104 0

Repair/Widen Bassetto Rd 857 0 0

Repair/Widen Mancino Rd North 853 0 0

Subtotal Camp Darby 2,440 2,018 0

Total Italy 2,440 2,018 0

Latvia

Lielvarde

Construct MHE Storage Area 677 0 0

Renovate Dorm 0 1,485 0

Renovate MSA 0 1,205 0

Repair MSA Road 0 1,145 0

Subtotal Lielvarde 677 3,835 0

Total Latvia 677 3,835 0

Lithuania

Siauliai

Construct Additional Crash Fire Rescue Rd 0 408 0

Construct Ground Equip. Maint. Hangar 0 882 0

Construct Perimeter Road 0 2,575 0

Construct Vehicle Maintenance Hangar 0 495 0

Install Area Security Lighting 0 598 0

Install BAK-14 0 175 0

Renovate Engine Run-up Area 0 1,314 0

Renovate Historical Aircraft Maintenance 

Hangar

0 1,734 0

Repair Helicopter Staging Area 0 1,569 0

Repair QRA Munitions Storage Building 0 825 0

Repair Ramp Space at Maintenance Hangar 754 0 0

Repair Spartan (C-27) Aircraft Shelter 0 1,589 0

Repair Taxiway to C-27 Ramp 1,628 0 0

Subtotal Siauliai 2,382 12,164 0

Total Lithuania 2,382 12,164 0

Poland

Lask

Repaint Airfield 70 0 0
Appendix I: Unspecified Minor Military 

Construction and Facilities Maintenance and 

Repair Projects Funded under the European 

Reassurance Initiative in Fiscal Years 2015 

through 2017

Page 40 GAO-18-128 European Reassurance Initiative

Fiscal Year

Country/Location/Project 2015 2016 2017

Subtotal Lask 70 0 0

Total Poland 70 0 0

Romania

Campia Turzii

Construct Perimeter Road 0 763 0

Install Arresting System (BAK-12) 0 1,672 0

Repair Runway/Taxiway 4,880 0 0

Repair Trim Pad 0 0 1,100

Upgrade/Repair Airfield Lighting 0 0 2,100

Subtotal Campia Turzii 4,880 2,435 3,200

Total Romania 4,880 2,435 3,200

United Kingdom

Fairford

Install Airfield Perimeter Lighting (FAC 

5001)

0 0 650

Repair Air Traffic Control Tower (BLDG 

1107)

280 0 0

Repair Concrete Hardstands 0 0 6,113

Repair Contingency Dormitory BLDG 552 2,711 0 0

Repair Contingency Flightcrew Dormitory 

BLDG 551

1,797 0 0

Replace Flightline Security Lighting South 

West Loop

0 0 500

Subtotal Fairford 4,788 0 7,263

Welford

LPS Able Row Muns Open Pads RAF 

Welford [Phases 1- 3]

2,100 0 0

Repair Able Row Roads & Pads Phase 2 0 1,400 0

Repair Roads (Main Base Access and 

Warehoue)

746 0 0

Repair Tacan Standby Power BLDG 1143 208 0 0

Repair Water Dist System MSA [Phase 4] 0 1,023 0

Repl Base Water Supply Borehole 2 (BLDG 

350)

647 0 0

Repl Flat Roofs to Facilities (BLDGS 478, 

490, & 1143)

587 0 0

Replace Muns Storage BLDGS LPS 480 0 0

Rpr Able Row Roads &Pads RAF Welford 

[Phases 3-7]

4,792 0 0
Appendix I: Unspecified Minor Military 

Construction and Facilities Maintenance and 

Repair Projects Funded under the European 

Reassurance Initiative in Fiscal Years 2015 

through 2017

Page 41 GAO-18-128 European Reassurance Initiative

Fiscal Year

Country/Location/Project 2015 2016 2017

Subtotal Welford 9,560 2,423 0

Total United Kingdom 14,348 2,423 7,263

Total Air Force 26,694 26,435 13,823

Source: U.S. Air Force Europe | GAO-18-128

a

The amount identified for minor construction and repair projects in fiscal years 2015 and 2016 is the 

obligated amount for each project, as provided by U.S. Air Force Europe; the amount identified for 

minor construction and repair projects in fiscal year 2017 is the programmed amount for each project.

Note: The information in this table was provided by U.S. Air Force Europe in response to our request 

for a list of minor military construction and repair projects under ERI. The data provided did not 

identify the appropriations used for each project. Accordingly, we have not conducted a review to 

examine whether these funds were appropriately used for a given project.
Appendix II: DOD Comments

Page 42 GAO-18-128 European Reassurance Initiative

Appendix II: DOD Comments
Appendix II: DOD Comments

Page 43 GAO-18-128 European Reassurance Initiative
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 44 GAO-18-128 European Reassurance Initiative

John H. Pendleton, (404) 679-1816, or pendletonj@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Kevin O’Neill, Assistant Director; 

Alex Winograd, Analyst-in-Charge; Scott Bruckner, Adrianne Cline, Martin 

De Alteriis, Joanne Landesman, Jennifer Leotta, Carol Petersen, Michael 

Shaughnessy, and Jena Sinkfield all made key contributions to this 

report.

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(102308)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative 

arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the 

federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public 

funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to http://www.gao.gov

and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering 

information is posted on GAO’s website, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Orice Williams Brown, Managing Director, WilliamsO@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, 

Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison

Please Print on Recycled Paper.