United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

September 1998 NAVY

INFRASTRUCTURE

Site Selection Process

for the Northeast

Regional Command

Contained Weaknesses

GAO/NSIAD-98-230

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

National Security and

International Affairs Division

B-280127 

September 28, 1998

The Honorable John H. Chafee

The Honorable Christopher J. Dodd

The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman

United States Senate

The Honorable Sam Gejdenson

House of Representatives

The Navy is in the process of establishing a new command to oversee base

operations support functions for its shore installations in the northeast

region. The command would expand upon the responsibilities of the naval

northeast regional coordinator currently located at Naval Submarine Base

(NSB) New London in Groton, Connecticut. The Commander Submarine

Group Two, in New London, has dual responsibility as both the

operational commander and the Northeast Regional Coordinator of

selected base support functions in the region. In December 1997, the

Commander in Chief, U.S. Atlantic Fleet (CINCLANTFLT), recommended that

the new command be headquartered at the Naval Weapons Station (NWS)

Earle in Colts Neck, New Jersey.

As you requested, we examined the Navy’s process for developing that

recommendation. You also asked that we review the extent to which the

Navy fully evaluated the costs and implications of establishing the

command at NWS Earle versus NSB New London or the Naval Undersea

Warfare Center located at Newport, Rhode Island. Specifically, this report

addresses (1) the extent to which the Navy followed its criteria for

establishing shore activities and the extent to which it fully analyzed

prospective costs of the three sites and (2) location and infrastructure

factors that would affect costs and operations of the new command at

each of the three locations. This report also addresses other questions,

uncertainties, and concerns that exist regarding the NWS Earle location.

Background As part of a Navy-wide infrastructure cost reduction initiative, the Navy is

restructuring its shore establishment by consolidating installation

management functions in areas where significant concentrations of Navy

activities exist, such as San Diego, California, Jacksonville, Florida,

and—for purposes of this report—the northeastern area of the United

States. This initiative seeks to reduce management and support

redundancies and duplications of effort and to eliminate unnecessary

Page 1 GAO/NSIAD-98-230 Navy Infrastructure
B-280127 

overhead. In doing so, a single commander is given responsibility for the

management and oversight of naval shore installations within a specific

geographic region.1

 Other responsibilities will include providing base

support services to Navy operating forces and other naval activities and

tenant commands, as well as managing the funding associated with these

services. According to officials at NSB New London, total base support

funding for the Northeast region is estimated to be between $165 million

and $185 million in fiscal year 1999. Creation of a separate command to

manage and oversee base support functions at Navy shore installations is

expected to provide a more dedicated and expanded regionwide focus on

those activities in an effort to reduce overhead costs and achieve

increased efficiencies totaling millions of dollars. The establishment of the

Northeast command will complete a total of 13 regional naval

coordinators worldwide.

In recommending the establishment of the new command, CINCLANTFLT is

seeking to relieve the Commander, Submarine Group Two, an operational

commander at NSB New London, of the nonoperational duties associated

with the regional coordinator role. Establishing a separate command

headed by a flag rank officer (admiral) to oversee northeastern shore

installations would be consistent with other CINCLANTFLT regional

commands that exist in Norfolk, Virginia, and Jacksonville, Florida.

According to Navy officials, these regional commands will support Navy

efforts to eliminate redundant management structures, reduce

infrastructure costs, and foster regional service delivery of installation

management support. CINCLANTFLT officials estimated that the staff of the

command would consist of a flag rank commanding officer, 27 other

military personnel, and 27 civilian employees. The existing regional

coordination staff at NSB New London consists of 9 military and 15 civilian

personnel.

CINCLANTFLT’s recommendation to establish the new command at NWS Earle

is pending approval by the Chief of Naval Operations and the Secretary of

the Navy.

Results in Brief Weaknesses exist in the Navy’s process for selecting the location for the

headquarters for its new northeast regional command. Specifically,

1

Each regional command within the United States is aligned with one or more of 10 existing Federal

Districts. Under this arrangement, the Commander, Navy Region Northeast, will be responsible for

coordinating various base support functions at naval shore installations within Federal Districts I and

II, which include the states of New Jersey and New York and all states northeast of New York.

Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-98-230 Navy Infrastructure
B-280127 

• In selecting NWS Earle, it is not clear to what extent the Navy followed its

own criteria for the establishment, disestablishment, or modification of

shore activities or fully assessed the comparative costs of establishing and

operating the new headquarters at all sites it had indicated were under

consideration. The costs to establish the command at NWS Earle may be

greater than the Navy estimated.

• The NWS Earle site has some basic operational limitations compared with

at least two other sites, including NSB New London and Newport. These

limitations relate to facilities’ infrastructure to support the new command

and increased travel time and costs associated with operating from NWS

Earle.

• The Navy stated that it needs a flag rank command closer to New York

City to attain certain operational benefits. While this need may be

appropriate, questions exist about (1) how often the need to visit New

York City arises, (2) whether the NWS Earle location provides a significant

reduction in travel time compared with travel from the current location at

NSB New London, and (3) whether it is desirable to separate the new

command from other centralized support activities located at NSB New

London.

Uncertainty Regarding

Navy’s Adherence to

Site Selection Criteria

and Assessment of

Costs Associated With

Competing Locations

In reviewing CINCLANTFLT’s recommendation of NWS Earle for the new

command headquarters, we could not be certain to what extent the Navy

had fully considered its stated criteria to evaluate or compare alternate

sites because documentation to support the Navy’s decision was limited.

Additionally, costs associated with relocating regional coordination

functions and staff from NSB New London to NWS Earle and operating from

that site may be greater than those estimated by the Navy.

Comparative Analysis of

Alternative Sites Was

Lacking

Navy Instruction 5450.169D, regarding the establishment,

disestablishment, or modification of Navy shore activities, states that

several factors should be considered, including whether (1) an activity is

currently performing the mission or an existing activity in the same

geographical area can assume the mission, (2) an existing activity of the

same type can perform the mission, and (3) the need for the activity is

sufficient to offset the cost of establishing a separate activity. Additionally,

between October 1997 and March 1998, the Navy stated in correspondence

with senators and congressmen from Connecticut and Rhode Island that

several factors were being considered in selecting a location for the

command. These factors included the availability of office space,

Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-98-230 Navy Infrastructure
B-280127 

communications, and suitable family housing; proximity to the regional

offices of other federal government agencies; access to transportation;

operational and military support; relocation and alteration costs; and rent

costs.

Navy officials told us that they considered the criteria stated in the Navy

instruction and in their congressional correspondence in evaluating and

comparing alternate sites. However, we are concerned as to the extent of

this analysis. While Navy guidance does not specifically direct the

preparation of cost comparisons for prospective sites, it does suggest that

the Navy seek economy and efficiency in establishing new activities,

which would suggest the need to compare costs among prospective sites.

CINCLANTFLT officials told us that the site selection process began with their

gathering some estimated cost data for prospective sites with the intent of

performing a cost comparison. However, they were informed early in the

process that CINCLANTFLT had already decided to locate the new command

at NWS Earle because that was the desired location. Consequently,

according to these officials, no further data were developed to estimate

and compare the costs associated with establishing the command at sites

other than NWS Earle.

Our review of available documentation and discussions with Navy officials

indicate that CINCLANTFLT’s recommendation to establish the Commander,

Navy Region Northeast, at NWS Earle was based primarily on placing the

command in closer proximity to New York City. CINCLANTFLT’s decision

paper, referred to as a Fact and Justification Sheet, cited a number of

needs and benefits of such a placement, focusing primarily on the need for

Navy flag rank representation in the New York-New Jersey area.

Specifically, the justification highlighted activities such as the importance

of acting as the resident Navy spokesperson; interacting on the Navy’s

behalf with major corporations, labor unions, and other organizations

associated with maritime commerce; and serving as the Navy’s official

representative for major events such as visiting foreign dignitaries.

Cost Estimates for

Establishing the Command

at NWS Earle May Be

Understated

CINCLANTFLT did perform analyses sufficient to estimate the cost to

establish the command at NWS Earle at $1.89 million. We did not, however,

independently verify these cost estimates. CINCLANTFLT’s analyses included

cost estimates for renovation of flag and officer office space, displacement

of the current occupants of this office space; moving office furniture,

supplies, and equipment; civilian and military permanent change of station

costs; civilian severance pay for those who do not relocate; and a

Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-98-230 Navy Infrastructure
B-280127 

recurring increase in travel expenses due to the location of NWS Earle in

relation to its subordinate commands (see table 1). Detailed cost estimates

to establish the command were not documented for other potential sites.

Table 1: Estimated Costs Associated

With Establishing the Command at

NWS Earle

Cost type Amount

Office space renovations $75,000

Displacement of current occupants 225,000

Moving: Furniture, equipment, and supplies 75,000

Civilian moving expenses 1,300,000

Military moving expenses 40,000

Civilian severance pay 100,000

Recurring travel expense increases 75,000

Total $1,890,000

Source: CINCLANTFLT’s Cost Estimates Stated in its December 1997 Fact and Justification

Sheet.

CINCLANTFLT’s Fact and Justification Sheet acknowledges that no monetary

or manpower savings have been identified with relocating the

Commander, Navy Region Northeast, to NWS Earle. Our analysis shows

potential for the Navy’s one-time cost estimates to be understated. For

example:

• CINCLANTFLT officials estimated it would cost approximately $75,000 to

renovate office space to accommodate the commander and his/her staff.

However, officials at NWS Earle stated that this renovation cost estimate

could increase to as much as $130,000 if the decision were made to install

central versus window air conditioning.

• While CINCLANTFLT estimated that travel expenses would increase by about

$75,000 per year for travel to other subordinate commands, other

information indicates this estimate may be understated. Officials at NSB

New London, where the core staff for the new command are currently

stationed, provided their analysis that suggested that these costs could

increase by about $100,000 to $200,000 annually. We did not independently

verify this analysis. However, establishing the command at NWS Earle will

result in the command being located in the southern most area of the

region, making it relatively less accessible to other installations in the

region than from its current location at NSB New London or from Newport.

For example, travel from NWS Earle to other areas of the region would

require greater use of air travel than from NSB New London or Newport

where cars and car pools are more readily used to reach other facilities.

Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-98-230 Navy Infrastructure
B-280127 

Figure 1 shows the approximate locations of Navy concentration areas in

the northeast region.

Figure 1: Proximity of Naval Concentration Areas in the Navy’s Northeast Regiona

Naval Air Station Brunswick

Brunswick, Maine

Portsmouth Naval Shipyard

Portsmouth, New Hampshire

Naval Centers

Newport, Rhode Island

Naval Submarine Base New London

Groton, Connecticut

Naval Weapons Station Earle

Colts Neck, New Jersey

New York City

aThere are a number of other naval activities in the region not shown in figure 1, including the

Naval Air Station at Keflavik, Iceland, and the Joint Maritime Facility in St. Mawgan, United

Kingdom. A complete list of major naval bases and commands in this region is presented in

appendix I.

• CINCLANTFLT’s Fact and Justification Sheet also does not reflect cost

estimates for renovating the on-base housing at NWS Earle to accommodate

the flag officer. According to NWS Earle officials, it would cost at least

$20,000 to renovate the proposed admiral’s quarters to meet the Navy

housing standards for flag officer quarters if the admiral chose to live on

base.

• The Navy’s cost estimates do not include the civilian personnel payroll

increase that will occur as a result of this move. Due to the location of NWS

Earle, each civilian employee would be entitled to a salary increase to

reflect the locality pay for that area. Based on the U.S. Office of Personnel

Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-98-230 Navy Infrastructure
B-280127 

Management 1998 General Schedule, locality pay rates are 9.76 percent

and 9.13 percent, for NWS Earle and NSB New London, respectively. Locality

pay rates for Newport are 5.4 percent by comparison.

Various Operating

Factors Raise Issues

About Whether NWS

Earle Is the Optimal

Location for the New

Headquarters

In examining mission and support requirements of the new command, we

found that the NWS Earle location raises two basic operational limitations

when compared to the current location at NSB New London or the facilities

at Newport. These limitations relate to increased travel time and costs

associated with operating from that location and the adequacy of existing

facility infrastructure to support the new headquarters relative to at least

the NSB New London and Newport locations.

Staff Travel Time and

Costs Could Be Greater

Operating From NWS Earle

According to CINCLANTFLT’s Fact and Justification Sheet, the proposed

mission of the Commander, Navy Region Northeast, would primarily

involve management and oversight of the widely dispersed naval shore

activities in the northeast region. CINCLANTFLT officials expect that travel

expenses would increase over what they would be in a more central

location. According to NSB New London officials, the mission requires

frequent travel to and from the naval activities within the region (see fig. 1

and app. I). Because NWS Earle is located in the southern most part of the

northeast region, these officials stated that there would likely be a greater

reliance on travel by air than by car where several persons could travel

together at less cost.

NWS Earle Has

Limited Infrastructure

to Support the

Commander, Navy

Region Northeast

Our review of factors such as office space, housing, and

conference/training facilities at the sites we visited shows that NWS Earle

has the least existing infrastructure to support the new command’s

requirements. We observed that the available infrastructure at NWS Earle is

primarily suited to support its mission of receiving, storing, and

distributing naval ordnance and has limited office, conference, and

classroom space. As stated previously, placing the new command at NWS

Earle would require the displacing and relocating of existing command

staff and renovating of other space to accommodate their relocation.

Conversely, at NSB New London, the Navy would not incur any major

renovation costs beyond the purchase and installation of additional office

modular furniture to accommodate the increased number of staff. We

observed that the current headquarters building for the regional

coordinator staff at NSB New London has sufficient vacant space on the

Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-98-230 Navy Infrastructure
B-280127 

first and third floors to accommodate the proposed expansion. Even if the

Navy decides that the Commander, Navy Region Northeast, and the

Commander, Submarine Group Two, would not occupy the same building,

officials at NSB New London identified four other buildings on base that

could accommodate the Commander, Navy Region Northeast. We also

found that the Navy facilities and infrastructure at Newport would be

adequate to support the command without major renovation costs.

Additionally, NWS Earle does not have sufficient officer housing quarters

available to accommodate an admiral and additional staff officers. The

proposed staffing of the new command includes 17 officers, including the

commanding officer, whereas the on-base family housing at NWS Earle

includes 38 officer housing units of which only 2 were vacant as of

August 1998 because they were being renovated. Furthermore, according

to officials at NWS Earle, none of these officer housing units meets the

standards for a flag officer. Although renovations could be made to

improve some officer housing units, officials at NWS Earle stated that it is

more likely the admiral and his senior staff would choose to reside in

quarters available to them at the Fort Monmouth Army Base, about 6 miles

away. This latter option is already the housing of choice for some

command staff officers currently stationed at NWS Earle. Conversely, at

both NSB New London and Newport, there is sufficient housing space to

accommodate the proposed command’s military staff. We observed that

both of these bases have housing areas with sufficient space to

accommodate both the numbers and grade levels of the command’s

military staff.

As part of the regional coordination mission involving management and

oversight of naval shore activities in the region, the command hosts

frequent conferences and training seminars for personnel from other naval

installations throughout the region. For example, during fiscal year 1998,

about 20 to 50 personnel at a time attended training courses and

conferences at NSB New London that related to regional activities such as

the Navy’s commercial activities program, casualty assistance calls,

information technology, facilities engineering, family advocacy and family

services, and regional security. Officials at NWS Earle stated that the

command building there would not include adequate conference and

training facilities to accommodate these activities. We observed, for

example, that the current command building at NWS Earle that would be

used to house the new command has one conference room, which has

sufficient space for a maximum of about 15 to 20 participants. Conversely,

we observed that the facilities occupied by the regional coordinator staff

Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-98-230 Navy Infrastructure
B-280127 

at NSB New London currently have several large conference rooms and

several other smaller meeting facilities that are sufficient to accommodate

expanded requirements. Similarly, we observed that the building at

Newport that would be used for the new regional command has sufficient

conference and meeting rooms to accommodate the command’s

anticipated requirements.

Other Questions

Regarding

Justification for the

NWS Earle Site

Selection

While the CINCLANTFLT justification was based primarily on NWS Earle’s

proximity to New York City, the desire for a flag rank officer at that

location, and several other public relations-related factors, the high

priority given to these criteria appears questionable when compared to the

command’s core mission responsibilities.

CINCLANTFLT’s Fact and Justification Sheet states that (1) NWS Earle is the

only primary homeport for Navy ships on the East Coast without a flag

officer and (2) there is a need for Navy flag officer representation in the

New York-New Jersey area to act as the resident Navy spokesperson and

to interact on the Navy’s behalf with major corporations, labor unions,

other organizations associated with maritime commerce, and publishing

and media concerns. It also states that the regional commander would

serve as the official Navy representative for major events, visiting foreign

dignitaries, and U.S. Navy and foreign ship port visits. The regional

commander would serve on numerous area special purpose councils and

respond to requirements for support functions and services in the New

York City area arising from the large population and the Navy’s recruiting

efforts in the area. Furthermore, the justification sheet states that there is

a requirement for essential support functions and services such as major

casualty assistance calls programs, extensive regional public affairs

information services, and a large community service program in the New

York-New Jersey area.

While each of the justification points highlighted in the justification sheet

has merit, available data indicate that these functions differ significantly

from the command’s core responsibilities. These core responsibilities are

more related to managing installation support services at the Navy’s bases

and commands in the region and other important functions highlighted in

the command’s draft Mission, Functions and Tasks Statement, such as

providing primary resource support, management control, and technical

support of assigned shore activities.

Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-98-230 Navy Infrastructure
B-280127 

In addition, according to regional coordination officials at NSB New

London, flag presence has been required in the New York City area only on

an average of about once every 2 months. CINCLANTFLT officials stated that

flag presence has been requested in the New York City area more often,

but they were unable to provide documentation to quantify their position.

Nevertheless, in terms of increased proximity to New York City, NWS Earle

is approximately 1-1/2 hours away by automobile. NSB New London is

about 2 hours from New York City by automobile and is more centrally

located in the northeast region. Therefore, it is not clear that NWS Earle

provides a geographic advantage over other locations.

Officials at NSB New London stated that they are performing many of the

functions proposed for the new command. In this regard, CINCLANTFLT

officially designated the Commander, Submarine Group Two, at NSB New

London as the Naval Northeast Regional Coordinator in 1994. Some of the

regional functions that NSB New London staff have been performing

consist of facilities management, regional environmental coordination,

disaster preparedness, casualty assistance coordination, family advocacy

programs, regional security, and coordination of regional port visits.

Additionally, NSB New London staff have recently begun a number of

regional projects, including public affairs office consolidation; housing

studies; supply coalition; and a Joint Inter-service Regional Support

Group, which encompasses support for military facilities in Connecticut,

Rhode Island, and Massachusetts. The establishment of a separate

Commander, Navy Region Northeast, will also expand the responsibilities

of the regional coordinator to include, for example, managing the funds for

the base operations support functions at the naval shore installations in

the region.

As previously noted, while the Navy has emphasized the establishment of a

new command to oversee base support operations in the region, officials

at NSB New London stated that they are currently responsible for many of

the functions proposed for the new command. According to these officials,

moving the command to NWS Earle could temporarily disrupt the core base

operations functions already established if, as these officials suggest,

many of the current employees choose not to relocate to NWS Earle.

Moreover, we noted that by moving the new command away from NSB New

London, the Navy would be separating the command from other regional

activities currently located at NSB New London, including the Regional

Supply Coalition and the Regional Emergency Command Center.

Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-98-230 Navy Infrastructure
B-280127 

Conclusions We recognize that site selection decisions are ultimately a management

prerogative based upon weighing relevant factors. At the same time, where

policy guidance or other stipulated criteria are established to facilitate

decision-making, we believe it is important for decisionmakers to ensure

that such guidance and criteria are followed and documented to support

the basis for their decisions. It is not clear, however, to what extent

CINCLANTFLT’s site selection process was conducted in accordance with

Navy guidance and other stipulated criteria regarding the current site

selection recommendation. Further, the justification cited for

recommending NWS Earle over the current location at NSB New London, or

other locations, appears to have a number of weaknesses in the cost

estimates that were made and consideration of nonmonetary benefits such

as infrastructure deficiencies at NWS Earle and command travel time gains.

Recommendation We recommend that the Secretary of Defense require the Secretary of the

Navy to review and more fully assess the prospective headquarters

location for the Commander, Navy Region Northeast, against the Navy’s

decision-making criteria, taking into consideration issues and questions

raised in this report.

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

In written comments on a draft of this report, the Navy concurred with our

recommendation and stated that it will review and reconsider all pertinent

facts, including the issues and questions raised in this report, and that

CINCLANTFLT will then resubmit a fact and justification package on the

establishment of a Northeast Region Commander.

The Navy also stated that, CINCLANTFLT did follow its published guidance on

establishment of shore activities. It also noted that, although cost is an

important consideration, it is not the only factor evaluated in the

decision-making process. We agree that cost is not the only factor. Our

review of available documentation and discussions with Navy officials

have indicated that the recommendation to select NWS Earle was based

primarily on placing the command in closer proximity to New York City.

Less attention was given to other fundamental factors such as operational

effectiveness, costs, and core mission responsibilities. Our draft report

raised questions about the extent to which the Navy had followed its own

criteria regarding the establishment of shore activities since we could not

be certain to what extent the Navy met its stipulated requirements because

the Navy had limited documentation to support its analyses. We modified

Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-98-230 Navy Infrastructure
B-280127 

our report to clarify this issue. The full text of the Navy’s comments from

the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations is presented in appendix II.

Scope and

Methodology

To assess the process the Navy used for recommending a site for the

Commander, Navy Region Northeast, we reviewed available cost estimate

data gathered by staff within the office of the CINCLANTFLT. We did not,

however, independently verify the Navy’s cost estimates. We also reviewed

and analyzed CINCLANTFLT’s (1) Fact and Justification Sheet for the

recommendation that the command relocate to NWS Earle, New Jersey;

(2) facilities data gathered during the decision-making process; (3) Navy

Instruction 5450.169D regarding the establishment of shore activities;

(4) Instruction 5450.94 regarding the proposed mission, functions, and

tasks statement for the Commander, Navy Region Northeast; and (5) other

related documentation.

We visited and interviewed officials at the Commander, Submarine Group

Two, at the NSB New London in Groton, Connecticut, who are currently

responsible for regional coordination among CINCLANTFLT activities in the

northeast region. We compared the current mission and staffing of the

regional coordination office to the proposed mission, functions, and tasks

statement for the Commander, Navy Region Northeast. We discussed with

these officials the facilities, infrastructure, and base support available to

accommodate the new command.

We also visited and interviewed officials at NWS Earle, New Jersey, and the

naval base at Newport, Rhode Island, to determine how the command

would be accommodated if relocated to these locations. We selected these

bases for our review because NWS Earle is the base that CINCLANTFLT has

recommended as the site for the Commander, Navy Region Northeast, and

the naval facilities at Newport are centrally located within the northeast

region. We discussed with these officials the facilities, infrastructure, and

base support available to accommodate the new command.

We met with senior CINCLANTFLT officials on several occasions to brief

them on the results of our work. We have incorporated their comments, as

appropriate, to enhance the technical accuracy and completeness of our

report.

We conducted our review from April to August 1998 in accordance with

generally accepted government auditing standards.

Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-98-230 Navy Infrastructure
B-280127 

We are sending copies of this report to the Chairmen and Ranking

Minority Members of the Senate Committees on Armed Services and on

Appropriations and the House Committees on National Security and on

Appropriations; the Director, Office of Management and Budget; and the

Secretaries of Defense and the Navy. Copies will also be made available to

others upon request.

Please contact me on (202) 512-8412 if you or your staff have any

questions concerning this report. Major contributors to this report are

listed in appendix III.

David R. Warren, Director

Defense Management Issues

Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-98-230 Navy Infrastructure
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Major Naval Bases

and Commands in the

Navy’s Northeast

Region

16

Appendix II 

Comments From the

Department of

Defense

17

Appendix III 

Major Contributors to

This Report

19

Table Table 1: Estimated Costs Associated with Establishing the

Command at NWS Earle

5

Figure Figure 1: Proximity of Naval concentration areas in the Navy’s

Northeast Region

6

Abbreviations

CINCLANTFLT Commander in Chief, U.S. Atlantic Fleet

DOD Department of Defense

GAO General Accounting Office

NSB Naval Submarine Base

NWS Naval Weapons Station

Page 14 GAO/NSIAD-98-230 Navy Infrastructure
Page 15 GAO/NSIAD-98-230 Navy Infrastructure
Appendix I 

Major Naval Bases and Commands in the

Navy’s Northeast Region

Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station

Cutler, Maine

Naval Security Group Activity

Winter Harbor, Maine

Supervisor, Shipbuilding

Bath Iron Works

Bath, Maine

Naval Air Station Brunswicka

Brunswick, Maine

Portsmouth Naval Shipyarda

Portsmouth, New Hampshire

Nuclear Power Training Unit

Ballston Spa, New York

Naval Education and Training Center a

Naval Undersea Warfare Center a

Naval Weapons Centera

Newport, Rhode Island

Naval Submarine Base New Londona

Groton, Connecticut

Naval Weapons Station Earlea

Colts Neck, New Jersey

Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst

Lakehurst, New Jersey

Naval Air Station Keflavik

Keflavik, Iceland

Joint Maritime Facility

St Mawgan, United Kingdom

aDesignated as Fleet Concentration Areas in the Navy’s Northeast Region.

Page 16 GAO/NSIAD-98-230 Navy Infrastructure
Appendix II 

Comments From the Department of Defense

Page 17 GAO/NSIAD-98-230 Navy Infrastructure
Appendix II 

Comments From the Department of Defense

Now on p. 11.

Page 18 GAO/NSIAD-98-230 Navy Infrastructure
Appendix III 

Major Contributors to This Report

National Security and

International Affairs

Division, Washington,

D.C.

Barry W. Holman, Associate Director

William W. Crocker III, Assistant Director

Norfolk Field Office David A. Schmitt, Evaluator-in-Charge

John R. Beauchamp, Evaluator

Patricia F. Blowe, Evaluator

(709336) Page 19 GAO/NSIAD-98-230 Navy Infrastructure
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100