```
                                                                 
Defense Infrastructure: Most Recruit Training Barracks Have	 
Significant Deficiencies (13-JUN-02, GAO-02-786).		 
                                                                 
The Department of Defense reports that is has been faced with	 
difficulties adequately maintaining its facilities to meet	 
mission requirements. Facilities have been aging and		 
deteriorating as funds needed to sustain and recapitalize the	 
facilities have fallen short of requirements. GAO's review of the
services' condition assessments in conjunction with visits to the
basic training locations showed that most barracks were in need  
of significant repair, although some barracks were in better	 
condition than others. GAO found that the exteriors of each	 
service's barracks were generally in good condition and presented
an acceptable appearance, but the barracks' infrastructure often 
had persistent repair problems because of inadequate maintenance.
The services' approaches to recapitalize their recruit barracks  
vary and are influenced by their overall priorities to improve	 
all facilities. Although the Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps	 
are addressing many of their recapitalization need in the	 
near-term, most of the Army's plans are longer-term.		 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-02-786 					        
    ACCNO:   A03580						        
  TITLE:     Defense Infrastructure: Most Recruit Training Barracks   
Have Significant Deficiencies					 
     DATE:   06/13/2002 
  SUBJECT:   Facility maintenance				 
	     Military facilities				 
	     Facility repairs					 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-02-786
     
A

Report to Congressional Committees

June 2002 DEFENSE INFRASTRUCTURE Most Recruit Training Barracks Have
Significant Deficiencies

GAO- 02- 786

Letter 1 Results in Brief 1 Background 3 Most Recruit Training Barracks Have

Significant or Major Deficiencies 6 Military Services Have Different
Approaches for Barracks?

Recapitalization 15 Agency Comments 17 Scope and Methodology 18

Appendixes

Appendix I: Recruit Basic Training Locations 21

Appendix II: C- Rating Comparisons at Basic Training Locations 22 Tables
Table 1: Recuit Barracks- Number, Average Age, and Training Load 4

Table 2: Recruit Barracks Rating Assessments and Typical Deficiencies 7
Table 3: Recapitalization Plans for Recruit Barracks 15

Figures Figure 1: Views of Recruit Barracks 5 Figure 2: Shower Ceiling
Damage at Fort Jackson Recruit

Barracks 11 Figure 3: Leaking Drain Pipe at Ft. Knox Recruit Barracks 12
Figure 4: Inoperable Bath Fixtures at Parris Island Recruit

Barracks 12 Figure 5: Renovated Recruit Barracks? Bath at Lackland Air Force

Base 14 Figure 6: Renovated Showers at Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San

Diego 14 Figure 7: Recruit Barracks under Construction at Great Lakes

Naval Training Center 16 Figure 8: Basic Training Installations 21 Figure 9:
Basic Training Installation C- Ratings by Facility Class for

Fiscal Year 2001 22

Tables Table 1: Recuit Barracks- Number, Average Age, and Training Load 4
Table 2: Recruit Barracks Rating Assessments and Typical

Deficiencies 7 Table 3: Recapitalization Plans for Recruit Barracks 15

Figures Figure 1: Views of Recruit Barracks 5 Figure 2: Shower Ceiling
Damage at Fort Jackson Recruit

Barracks 11 Figure 3: Leaking Drain Pipe at Ft. Knox Recruit Barracks 12
Figure 4: Inoperable Bath Fixtures at Parris Island Recruit

Barracks 12 Figure 5: Renovated Recruit Barracks? Bath at Lackland Air Force

Base 14 Figure 6: Renovated Showers at Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San

Diego 14 Figure 7: Recruit Barracks under Construction at Great Lakes

Naval Training Center 16 Figure 8: Basic Training Installations 21 Figure 9:
Basic Training Installation C- Ratings by Facility Class for

Fiscal Year 2001 22

Letter

June 13, 2002 Congressional Committees Over the last decade the Department
of Defense (DOD) reports that it has been faced with the major challenge of
adequately maintaining its facilities to meet its mission requirements. Over
time, facilities have been aging and deteriorating as funds needed to
sustain and recapitalize the facilities have

fallen short of reported requirements. 1 In response to a requirement in the
conference report accompanying the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal
Year 2002, we reviewed the physical condition of barracks used to house
military recruits attending basic training during their first 6 to 12 weeks
of military service. Our overall objectives were to determine (1) the
physical condition of the services? training barracks for recruits and (2)
whether the

services have plans to recapitalize these facilities. In performing our
work, we visited all ten locations where the military services conduct basic
training- five in the Army, three in the Marine Corps, and one each in the
Navy and the Air Force (see app. I).

This is one of several reviews we currently have underway examining various
aspects of facility conditions in DOD. We are also reviewing the physical
condition and recapitalization plans for all active force facilities in
DOD?s inventory. And, we recently initiated a similar review for the reserve
components? facilities.

Results in Brief Our review of the services? condition assessments in
conjunction with visits to the basic training locations showed that, to
varying degrees, most

barracks were in need of significant repair, although some barracks were in
better condition than others. We found that the exteriors of each service?s
barracks were generally in good condition and presented an acceptable
appearance, but the barracks? infrastructure often had repair problems that
had persisted over time primarily because of inadequate maintenance. In
general, we found that the physical condition of the Air Force?s and Marine

Corps? San Diego barracks were among the best we observed, while the Army?s
and Navy?s barracks in general and the Marine Corps? barracks at

1 The term ?sustain? refers to efforts required to keep a facility at its
current physical condition using operation and maintenance funds.
?Recapitalize? refers to efforts to improve condition or replace a facility
with new construction, using either operation and maintenance or military
construction funds.

Parris Island, South Carolina, were among the worst. The Army, with the
greatest number of barracks, had the most problems. The most prevalent
problems across the services included a lack of or inadequate heating and
air conditioning, inadequate ventilation (particularly in bathing areas),
and

plumbing- related (e. g., leaks and clogged drains) deficiencies. Base
officials told us that, although these deficiencies had an adverse impact on
the quality of life for recruits and were a burden on trainers, they were
able to accomplish their overall training mission. The services? approaches
to recapitalize their recruit barracks vary and are

influenced by their overall priorities to improve all facilities. While the
Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps are addressing many of their
recapitalization needs in the near- term, most of the Army?s plans are
longer- term. The Navy has the most ambitious recruit barracks
recapitalization approach in the near- term. The Navy has recently
constructed 1 new barracks and intends to construct an additional 15 new
replacement barracks by 2009 at an estimated cost of about $570 million. The
Army?s recruit barracks recapitalization efforts are longer- term because of

competing higher near- term priorities, such as renovating or replacing
bachelor living quarters for its enlisted personnel. While it expects to
spend over $1.7 billion in renovating and constructing new barracks over the
next 20 years, most of the work is not expected to be funded until after
2008. The Marine Corps has a more limited recruit barracks recapitalization
program with most of its efforts focused on renovating, rather than
replacing, its existing barracks in the near- term. The Air Force has no
near- term plans to construct new recruit barracks, opting instead to
continue ongoing renovations of its barracks.

We are continuing to examine facility conditions, assessments, and
recapitalization plans as part of our broader ongoing work on the physical
condition and maintenance of all Department facilities. Accordingly, we are
not making any recommendations at this time pending completion of that
broader body of work. In commenting on a draft of this report, the
Department concurred with our findings.

Background Basic training is the initial training provided to military
recruits upon entering service into one of the military services. While the
program and

length of instruction varies somewhat among the services, the intent of the
training is to transform male and female recruits from civilians into
military service members. Basic training typically consists of physical
conditioning; learning the military service?s core values, history and
tradition; weapons qualification; instilling discipline; and nuclear,
biological, and chemical protection training along with other training
needed for initial entry into the services. The training varies in length-
typically 6.4 weeks in the Air Force, 9 weeks in the Army and Navy, and 12
weeks in the Marine Corps. Following completion of basic training, recruits
attend advanced individual

training to further enhance skills in particular areas of interest (military
occupational specialties). 2 Upon arriving at a basic training location,
recruits are processed and are

generally housed for several days in reception barracks pending their
assignment to a training unit and their primary barracks for the duration of
the basic training period. For the most part, the housing accommodations
within existing barracks are typically the same, regardless of male or

female occupancy. DOD standards dictate space requirements of 72 square feet
of living space per recruit, but the actual space provided is often less
than that for the services, particularly during the summer months when a
surge of incoming recruits usually occurs. In the Navy and Air Force, male
and female recruits are housed on different floors in the buildings. In the

Army, Fort Jackson and Fort Leonard Wood are the only locations where both
male and female recruits undergo basic training, and they are housed
separately in the same buildings, sometimes on the same floor. In the Marine
Corps, all female recruits receive basic training at Parris Island, and they
are housed in separate barracks.

2 For the purposes of this report, we have included in basic training the
Army?s One Station Unit Training, which combines basic training and advanced
individual training into one continuous course.

While the barracks across the services differ in design, capacity, and age,
it is common for the barracks to have 2 or 3 floors with central bathing
areas and several ?open bays? housing from 50 to 88 recruits each in bunk
beds. 3 Some of the barracks, such as the Army?s ?starships? 4 and the Air
Force

barracks, are large facilities that house over 1,000 recruits. Others,
especially those constructed in the 1950s and early 1960s, are smaller with
recruit capacities of about 240 or less. Table 1 provides an overall

summary of the number and age of the military services? recruit barracks,
along with the number of recruits trained in fiscal year 2001. As shown in
the table, the Army has the largest number of barracks- over 60 percent of
the total across the services- and trains nearly one- half of the recruits
entering the military.

Table 1: Recuit Barracks- Number, Average Age, and Training Load Number of
barracks

Average age of Number of recruits trained Service Location Reception a
Primary a barracks (in years) in FY 2001

Army Fort Benning, Ga. 1 8 20 28,134 Fort Jackson, S. C. 5 17 30 34,667 Fort
Knox, Ky. 4 25 43 12, 085 Fort Leonard Wood, Mo. 3 36 36 21, 497 Fort Sill,
Okla. 5 4 26 13,780 Navy Great Lakes, Ill. 1 15 38 51,160 Marine Corps
Parris Island, S. C. 1 23 34 20, 129

San Diego, Calif. 1 5 29 18,729 Camp Pendleton, Calif. b 0 6 39 Included in
San Diego numbers Air Force Lackland Air Force Base, Tex. 1 7 32 40, 642

Source: DOD data. a Reception barracks normally house incoming recruits
undergoing in- processing for up to several days,

while primary barracks are used to house recruits during basic training. b
About 4 weeks (consisting of weapons qualification and field training
exercises) of the Marine Corps

12- week basic training course at San Diego is conducted at Camp Pendleton
because of training space limitations at its San Diego location.

3 The Air Force?s use of bunk beds usually only occurs during the summer
surge period. 4 The Army?s ?starships? barracks normally have 3 stories and
five separate wings. The first floor is used for operations and training,
and the second and third floors are used for housing up to 1,100 recruits.

The Army also uses temporary barracks, referred to as ?relocatables,? to
accommodate recruits at locations where capacity is an issue. Figure 1
depicts an exterior view of recruit barracks at Lackland Air Force Base,
Texas, an ?open bay? living space at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot at

Parris Island, South Carolina, and an Army temporary (relocatable) barracks
at Fort Sill, Oklahoma.

Figure 1: Views of Recruit Barracks

Source: Air Force and GAO photographs.

Until recently, DOD had no readiness reporting system in place for its
defense installations and facilities. In fiscal year 2000, DOD reported to
the Congress for the first time on installation readiness as an integral
element of its overall Defense Readiness Reporting System. At the core of
the system is a rating classification, typically referred to as a ?C?
rating. The C-

rating process is intended to provide an overall assessment that considers
condition and capacity for each of nine facility classes (e. g., ?operations
and training,? and ?community and housing?) on a military installation.
Recruit training barracks fall within the community- and- housing facility
class. The definitions for the C- ratings are as follows:

 C- 1- only minor facility deficiencies with negligible impact on
capability to perform missions;

 C- 2- some deficiencies with limited impact on capability to perform
missions;

 C- 3- significant facility deficiencies that prevent performing some
missions; and

 C- 4- major facility deficiencies that preclude satisfactory mission
accomplishment.

Each service has the latitude to develop its own processes in establishing
C- ratings for its facilities. The services? systems for assessing the
condition of facilities are: the Army?s Installation Status Report; the Air
Force?s Installations? Readiness Report; the Navy?s Installation Readiness
Reporting System; and the Marine Corps? Commanding Officer?s Readiness

Reporting System. These systems generally provide aggregate assessments of
the physical condition of facilities based on periodic facility inspections.
The Department subsequently aggregates the services? reports and submits an
overall assessment for each facility class to the Congress in the
Department?s Quarterly Readiness Report.

Most Recruit Training The majority of the services? basic training
installations had given their

Barracks Have recruit barracks a C- 3 rating, indicating they have
significant deficiencies.

Despite the acceptable outward appearance and generally good condition
Significant or Major of most barracks? exteriors, our visits to the training
locations confirmed

Deficiencies that most barracks had significant (C- 3) or major (C- 4)
deficiencies

requiring repair or facility replacement. Our site visits confirmed the
existence of significant deficiencies, but we also noted some apparent
inconsistencies in service ratings of their facilities? condition.
Conditions varied by location. Among barracks in poor conditions, we
observed a number of typical heating and air conditioning, ventilation, and
plumbingrelated deficiencies that formed the basis of the services? ratings
for their barracks. Base officials told us that, although these deficiencies
had an

adverse impact on the quality of life for recruits and were a burden on
trainers, they were able to accomplish their overall training mission. At
the same time, we noted recent improvements had been made to some recruit
barracks at various locations.

Condition of Barracks We observed that, overall, the services? recruit
training barracks had Varies by Location

significant or major deficiencies, but that conditions of individual
barracks vary by location. In general, we observed that the Army?s, Navy?s,
and Marine Corps? Parris Island barracks were in the worst physical
condition. Table 2 shows the services? overall rating assessments for the
recruit

barracks by specific location and the typical deficiencies in those barracks
that form the basis of the ratings. Table 2: Recruit Barracks Rating
Assessments and Typical Deficiencies

Barracks C- rating a Military Service Location FY 2001 Typical deficiencies

Army Fort Benning, Ga. C3 Inadequate heating and air conditioning; sewer
drainage problems; inadequate ventilation; roof leaks

Fort Jackson, S. C. C3 Inadequate air conditioning; hot water problems;
inadequate ventilation; no sprinkler systems in some barracks; asbestos;
mold Fort Knox, Ky. C3 Roof and pipe leaks; inadequate ventilation; mold;
asbestos tiles

deteriorating; inoperable windows; clogged drains Fort Leonard Wood, Mo. C4
Inadequate heat and air conditioning; poor ventilation; mold;

inadequate electrical systems; inadequate number of showers/ bath fixtures
Fort Sill, Okla. C3 Inadequate air conditioning; poor bath ventilation; roof
leaks; shower

leaks; clogged sinks and toilets Navy Great Lakes, Ill. C4 No air
conditioning; poor heating control; poor bath ventilation;

exterior structure deterioration; asbestos; lead paint; water leaks;
inadequate water pressure

Marine Corps Parris Island, S. C. C2 Inadequate air conditioning; mold; poor
ventilation in bath areas; roof leaks; no sprinkler systems; broken bath
fixtures

San Diego, Calif. C3 Excessive noise from airport; some clogged drains Camp
Pendleton, Calif. C3 Plumbing deficiencies; roof leaks Air Force Lackland
Air Force Base,

C3 Soil expansion under buildings causing floor deterioration; corrosion
Tex. of underground pipes; some mildew Source: DOD and GAO analysis of DOD
data. a The C- rating represents a composite rating for all recruit barracks
at each location. The condition of individual barracks may vary.

With the exception of Parris Island, all locations reported either C- 3 or
C- 4 ratings for their barracks. These ratings are relatively consistent
with the ratings of other facilities within the DOD inventory. Recent
defense data 5 show that nearly 70 percent of all DOD facilities are rated
C- 3 or C- 4.

Further, as shown in appendix 2, the C- ratings for recruit training
barracks are not materially different from the ratings of other facilities
at the training locations we visited.

The C- ratings depicted in table 2 show the overall condition of the recruit
barracks at a specific location, but the condition of any one building
within a service and at a specific location could differ from the overall
rating. The Army, with the greatest number of barracks, had the most
problems. For the most part, the Army?s barracks were in overall poor
condition across its training locations, but some, such as a recently
renovated barracks at Fort Jackson and a newly constructed reception
barracks at Fort Leonard Wood, were in better condition. Similarly, the Navy
barracks, with the exception of a newly constructed reception barracks in
2001, were in a similar degraded condition because the Navy, having decided
to replace all

of its barracks, had limited its maintenance expenditures on these
facilities in recent years. Of the Marine Corps locations, Parris Island had
many barracks in poor condition, the exception being a recently constructed
female barracks. The barracks at San Diego and Camp Pendleton were

generally in much better shape. The Air Force?s barracks, particularly five
of eight barracks that had recently been renovated, were in generally better
condition than the barracks at most locations we visited. Our visits to the
basic training locations confirmed that most of the

barracks had significant or major deficiencies, but we found some apparent
inconsistencies in the application of C- ratings to describe the condition
of the barracks. For example, as a group, the barracks at the Marine Corps
Recruit Depot, Parris Island, were the highest rated- C2- among all the
services? training barracks. The various conditions we observed, however,
suggested that they were among the barracks with the worst physical
condition we had seen. Marine Corps officials acknowledged that,

although they had completed a recent inspection of the barracks and had
identified significant deficiencies, the updated data had not yet been
entered into the ratings database. As a result, the rating was based on
outdated data. On the other hand, the barracks at the Marine Corps Recruit

5 Department of Defense, Defense Installations 2001: The Framework for
Readiness in the 21 st Century (Washington, D. C.: Aug. 2001).

Depot, San Diego, were rated C- 3, primarily due to noise from the San Diego
airport that is next to the depot. Otherwise, our observations indicated
that these barracks appeared to be in much better physical condition than
those at Parris Island because they were renovating the San

Diego barracks. After we completed our work, the Marine Corps revised its
Parris Island and San Diego barracks? ratings to C- 4 and C- 2,
respectively, in its fiscal year 2002 report. The Air Force barracks were
rated C- 3, but we observed them to be among those barracks in better
physical condition and in significantly better condition than the Army
barracks that were rated C3. And the Navy?s C- 4 rating for its barracks was
borne out by our visits. Similar to the Marine Corps Parris Island and the
Army barracks, we found in general that the Navy barracks were in the worst
physical condition.

In our discussions with service officials, we learned that the services use
different methodologies to arrive at their C- ratings. For example, except
the Army, the services use engineers to periodically inspect facility
condition and identify needed repair projects. The Army uses building
occupants to perform its inspections using a standard inspection form.
Further, except the Army, the services consider the magnitude of needed
repair costs for the barracks at the training locations in determining the
facilities? C- ratings. While these methodological differences may produce

inconsistencies in C- ratings across the services, we did not specifically
review the impact the differences may have on the ratings in this
assignment. Instead, we are continuing to examine consistency issues
regarding service- wide facility- condition ratings as part of our broader
ongoing work on the physical condition and maintenance of all DOD
facilities.

Most Barracks Have Several Our visits to all 10 locations where the military
services conduct basic

Typical Deficiencies training confirm that most barracks have many of the
same types of

deficiencies that are shown in table 2. The most prevalent problems included
a lack of or inadequate heating and air conditioning, inadequate ventilation
(particularly in bathing areas), and plumbing- related deficiencies.

Inadequate heating or air conditioning in recruit barracks was a common
problem at most locations. The Navy?s barracks at Great Lakes, for example,
had no air conditioning, and base officials told us that it becomes very
uncomfortable at times, especially in the summer months when the barracks
are filled with recruits who have just returned from training exercises.
During our visit, the temperature inside several of the barracks

we toured ran above 90 degrees with little or no air circulation. Base
officials also told us that the excessive heat created an uncomfortable
sleeping situation for the recruits. At the Marine Corps Recruit Depot at
Parris Island, several barracks that had been previously retrofitted to
include air conditioning had continual cooling problems because of
improperly sized equipment and ductwork. Further, we were told by base

officials that a high incidence of respiratory problems affected recruits
housed in these barracks (as well as in some barracks at other locations),
and the officials suspected mold spores and other contaminants arising from
the filtration system and ductwork as a primary cause. At the time of our
visit, the Marine Corps was investigating the health implications arising
from the air- conditioning system. And, during our tour of a barracks at
Fort Sill, Army personnel told us that the air conditioning had been
inoperable in one wing of the building for about 2 years.

Inadequate ventilation in recruit barracks, especially in central bathing
areas that were often subject to overcrowding and heavy use, was another
common problem across the services. Many of the central baths in the
barracks either had no exhaust fans or had undersized units that were
inadequate to expel moisture arising from shower use. As a result, mildew
formation and damage to the bath ceilings, as shown in figure 2, were
common. In barracks that had undergone renovation, however, additional
ventilation had been installed to alleviate the problems.

Figure 2: Shower Ceiling Damage at Fort Jackson Recruit Barracks

Source: GAO photograph.

Plumbing deficiencies were also a common problem in the barracks across the
services. Base officials told us that plumbing problems- including broken
and clogged toilets and urinals, inoperable showers, pipe leaks, and slow or
clogged drainpipes and sinks- were recurring problems that often awaited
repairs due to maintenance- funding shortages. As shown in

figures 3 and 4, we observed leaking drainpipes and broken or clogged bath
fixtures in many of the barracks we visited. In regard to the broken
fixtures, training officials told us that the problems had exacerbated an
undesirable situation that already existed in the barracks- a shortage of

fixtures and showers to adequately accommodate the demands of recruit
training. These officials told us that because of the inadequate bath
facilities for the high number of recruits, they often had to perform

?workarounds?- such as establishing time limits for recruits taking showers-
in order to minimize, but not eliminate, adverse effects on training time.

Figure 3: Leaking Drain Pipe at Ft. Knox Recruit Barracks

Source: GAO photograph.

Figure 4: Inoperable Bath Fixtures at Parris Island Recruit Barracks

Source: GAO photograph.

Base officials at most of the locations we visited attributed the
deteriorated condition of the recruit barracks to recurring inadequate
maintenance, which they ascribed to funding shortages that had occurred over
the last 10 years. Without adequate maintenance, facilities tend to
deteriorate more rapidly. In many cases that officials cited, they were
focusing on emergency repairs and not performing routine preventative
maintenance. Our analysis of cost data generated by DOD?s facility
sustainment model 6 showed, for example, that Fort Knox required about $38
million in fiscal

year 2002 to sustain its base facilities. However, base officials told us
they received about $10 million, or 26 percent, of the required funding.
Officials at other Army basic training sites also told us that they receive
less funding, typically 30 to 40 percent, than what they considered was
required to sustain their facilities. Army officials told us that, over
time, the

maintenance funding shortfalls at their training bases have been caused
primarily by the migration of funding from maintenance accounts to support
other priorities, such as the training mission.

Some Improvements Have While most barracks across the services had
significant deficiencies, others

Been Made were in better condition, primarily because they had recently been
constructed or renovated. Those barracks that we observed to be in better

condition were scattered throughout the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps
locations. Even at those locations where some barracks were in very poor
condition, we occasionally observed other barracks in much better condition.
For example, at Parris Island, the Marine Corps recently

completed construction of a new female recruit barracks. At Fort Jackson,
the Army repaired windows, plumbing, and roofs in several ?starship?
barracks and similar repairs were underway in two other starships.

Figures 5 and 6 show renovated bath areas at Lackland Air Force Base in
Texas and the Marine Corps Recruit Depot at San Diego.

6 The facility sustainment model, using standard facility- specific cost
factors, generates an annual funding requirement to sustain a particular
type of facility. We did not validate this model.

Figure 5: Renovated Recruit Barracks? Bath at Lackland Air Force Base

Source: Air Force photograph.

Figure 6: Renovated Showers at Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego

Source: GAO photograph.

Military Services Have The services? approaches to recapitalize their
recruit barracks vary and are

Different Approaches influenced by their overall priorities to improve all
facilities. The Marine

Corps and Air Force are focusing primarily on renovating existing facilities
for Barracks?

while the Navy plans to construct all new recruit barracks. The Army also
Recapitalization

expects to renovate and construct recruit barracks, but the majority of the
funding needed to support these efforts is not expected to be programmed and
available until after 2008 because of the priority placed on improving
bachelor enlisted quarters. Table 3 summarizes the services?
recapitalization plans.

Table 3: Recapitalization Plans for Recruit Barracks

Dollars in millions

Estimated Military Service funding Synopsis of plan

Navy $570 Construct 16 new barracks by 2009; 1 reception barracks is
completed, and 2 other barracks are under construction

Army 1, 733 Renovate existing barracks at Forts Benning and Sill and
construct new barracks at Forts Jackson and Leonard Wood through 2007; most
funding planned for the long- term (2009- 2025)

Marine Corps 56 Renovate existing barracks and construct 2 new barracks Air
Force 89 Renovate existing barracks and convert additional facility for
recruit use by 2006

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.

The Navy has placed a high priority on replacing its 16 recruit barracks by
fiscal year 2009 at an estimated cost of $570 million using military
construction funds. 7 The Navy recently completed a new recruit reception
barracks, and the Congress has approved funding for four additional
barracks. Two barracks are under construction with occupancy expected later
this year (see fig. 7), and the contract for 2 more barracks was awarded in
May 2002. The Navy has requested funds for another 2 barracks

in its fiscal year 2003 military construction budget submission and plans to
request funds for the remaining 9 barracks in fiscal years 2004 through
2007. The Navy expects construction on the last barracks to be completed by
2009. Navy officials told us that other high- priority Navy- wide efforts 7
The Navy estimates spending an additional $149 million at the Naval Training
Center, Great Lakes, for other facilities, such as a physical fitness
center, that support the basic training mission.

(e. g., providing quality bachelor enlisted quarters and housing for sailors
while ships are in homeport) could affect the Navy?s recapitalization
efforts for recruit barracks.

Figure 7: Recruit Barracks under Construction at Great Lakes Naval Training
Center

Source: GAO photograph.

The Army projects an estimated $1.7 billion will be needed to renovate or
replace much of its recruit training barracks, but most of the work is
longterm over the next 20 years, primarily because renovating and replacing
bachelor enlisted quarters has been a higher priority in the near- term.
Through fiscal year 2003, the Army expects to spend about $154 million for

2 new barracks- 1 each at Fort Jackson and Fort Leonard Wood. Army officials
stated that barracks at these locations were given priority over other
locations because of capacity shortfalls at these installations. After
fiscal year 2003, the Army estimates spending nearly $1.6 billion in
military construction funds to recapitalize other recruit barracks- about
$359 million to renovate existing barracks at several locations and about
$1.2 billion to build new barracks at all locations, except Fort Sill. Only
Forts Jackson and Leonard Wood are expected to receive funding for new
barracks through fiscal year 2007. Further, the Army does not expect to
begin much additional work until after 2008, when it expects to complete the
renovation or replacement of bachelor enlisted quarters. As a result,

Army officials stated that the remaining required funding for recruit
barracks would most likely be requested between 2009 and 2025.

The Marine Corps has a more limited recruit barracks recapitalization
program, primarily because it has placed a high priority on renovating or
replacing bachelor enlisted quarters in the near- term. The three recruit
training installations plan to renovate their existing recruit barracks and
construct two additional barracks at Parris Island and San Diego. The Marine
Corps expects to spend about $40 million in operation and maintenance funds
to renovate existing barracks at its training locations by fiscal year 2004.
The renovations include replacing the bath and shower facilities, replacing
hot water and heating and air conditioning systems, and upgrading the
electrical systems. The Marine Corps also expects to spend at least $16
million in military construction for the new barracks by fiscal year 2009.

The Air Force has placed a high priority on renovating, rather than
replacing its recruit barracks in the near- term. It expects to spend about
$89 million- primarily operation and maintenance funds- to renovate its
existing barracks and convert another facility for use as a recruit
barracks. As of April 2002, the Air Force had renovated 5 of its existing 8
barracks

and expected to complete the remaining renovations by 2006. The renovations
include upgrading heating, ventilation, and air- conditioning systems as
well as installing new windows and improving the central baths. Due to
expected increases in the number of recruits, the Air Force has also
identified an additional building to be renovated for use as a recruit
barracks. The Air Force intends to complete this renovation in fiscal year
2003. Officials at Lackland Air Force Base stated they are currently
drafting a new base master plan, which identifies the need to build new

recruit barracks starting around 2012. Agency Comments We requested comments
on a draft of this report from the Secretary of

Defense. An official from the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense (Installations & Environment) orally concurred with the information
in our report and provided technical comments that we incorporated as
appropriate.

Scope and We performed our work at the Office of the Secretary of Defense
and the

Methodology headquarters of each military service. We also visited each
military

installation that conducts recruit basic training- Fort Jackson, South
Carolina; Fort Benning, Georgia; Fort Knox, Kentucky; Fort Leonard Wood,
Missouri; Fort Sill Oklahoma; Great Lakes Naval Training Center, Illinois;
Lackland Air Force Base, Texas; Marine Corps Recruit Deport, Parris Island,
South Carolina; Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego, California; and Camp
Pendleton, California. In discussing recruit barracks, we included barracks
used to house recruits attending the Army?s One Station Unit Training. This
training, which is conducted at select basic training locations for recruits
interested in specific military occupational

specialties, combines basic training with advanced individual training into
one continuous course.

To assess the physical condition of recruit barracks, we reviewed the fiscal
year 2000 and 2001 installation readiness reports and supporting
documentation for the ten installations that conduct basic training. We also
toured several barracks at each installation and photographed

conditions of the barracks. Finally, we interviewed officials at the
services? headquarters and each installation regarding the process used to
inspect facilities, collect information to support the condition rating, and
the underlying reasons for the current condition of the facilities.

To determine the services? plans to sustain and recapitalize recruit
barracks, we reviewed the services? plans for renovating its existing
barracks and constructing new barracks. In addition, we interviewed
officials in the headquarters of each service responsible for managing
installations and programming operation and maintenance and military

construction funds. We conducted our work from March through May 2002 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of Defense, the
Army, the Navy, and the Air Force; the Commandant of the Marine Corps; and
the Director, Office and Management and Budget. In addition, the report will
available at no charge on GAO?s Web site at www. gao. gov and to others upon
request.

Please contact me on (202) 512- 8412 if you or your staff have any questions
regarding this report. Key contributors to this report were Michael Kennedy,
James Reifsnyder, Richard Meeks, Laura Talbott, and R. K. Wild.

Barry Holman, Director Defense Capabilities and Management

List of Congressional Committees The Honorable Carl Levin Chairman The
Honorable John Warner Ranking Member Committee on Armed Services United
States Senate

The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye Chairman The Honorable Ted Stevens Ranking
Member Subcommittee on Defense Committee on Appropriations United States
Senate

The Honorable Bob Stump Chairman The Honorable Ike Skelton Ranking Member
Committee on Armed Services House of Representatives

The Honorable Jerry Lewis Chairman The Honorable John P. Murtha Ranking
Member Subcommittee on Defense Committee on Appropriations House of
Representatives

Appendi Appendi xes x I

Recruit Basic Training Locations The military services conduct recruit basic
training at ten installations in the United States. The Army has the most
locations- five, with Fort Jackson, South Carolina, training the most Army
recruits. The Marine Corps conducts its training at two primary locations-
Parris Island, South Carolina on the east coast and San Diego in the west.
Further, about 4 weeks (consisting of weapons qualification and field
training exercises) of the Marine Corps? 12- week basic training course at
San Diego is conducted at Camp Pendleton because of training space
limitations at its San Diego

location. The Navy and Air Force conduct their basic training at one
location each- Great Lakes, Illinois, and Lackland Air Force Base in San
Antonio, Texas, respectively.

Figure 8: Basic Training Installations

Source: DOD.

C- Rating Comparisons at Basic Training

Appendi x II

Locations Under DOD?s installation readiness reporting system, military
installation facilities are grouped into nine separate facility classes.
Recruit barracks are part of the ?community and housing? facility class.
Figure 9 depicts the fiscal year 2001 C- ratings for each of the nine
facility classes, as well as for the recruit barracks component of the
?community and housing? facility class, at each basic training location.

Figure 9: Basic Training Installation C- Ratings by Facility Class for
Fiscal Year 2001

Source: DOD data.

(350169)

a

GAO United States General Accounting Office

Page i GAO- 02- 786 Defense Infrastructure

Contents

Contents

Page ii GAO- 02- 786 Defense Infrastructure

Page 1 GAO- 02- 786 Defense Infrastructure United States General Accounting
Office

Washington, D. C. 20548 Page 1 GAO- 02- 786 Defense Infrastructure

A

Page 2 GAO- 02- 786 Defense Infrastructure

Page 3 GAO- 02- 786 Defense Infrastructure

Page 4 GAO- 02- 786 Defense Infrastructure

Page 5 GAO- 02- 786 Defense Infrastructure

Page 6 GAO- 02- 786 Defense Infrastructure

Page 7 GAO- 02- 786 Defense Infrastructure

Page 8 GAO- 02- 786 Defense Infrastructure

Page 9 GAO- 02- 786 Defense Infrastructure

Page 10 GAO- 02- 786 Defense Infrastructure

Page 11 GAO- 02- 786 Defense Infrastructure

Page 12 GAO- 02- 786 Defense Infrastructure

Page 13 GAO- 02- 786 Defense Infrastructure

Page 14 GAO- 02- 786 Defense Infrastructure

Page 15 GAO- 02- 786 Defense Infrastructure

Page 16 GAO- 02- 786 Defense Infrastructure

Page 17 GAO- 02- 786 Defense Infrastructure

Page 18 GAO- 02- 786 Defense Infrastructure

Page 19 GAO- 02- 786 Defense Infrastructure

Page 20 GAO- 02- 786 Defense Infrastructure

Page 21 GAO- 02- 786 Defense Infrastructure

Appendix I

Page 22 GAO- 02- 786 Defense Infrastructure

Appendix II

GAO?s Mission The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve

the performance and accountability of the federal government for the
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal
programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other
assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO?s commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is
through the Internet. GAO?s Web site (www. gao. gov) contains abstracts and
fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of
older products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate
documents using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in
their entirety, including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ?Today?s Reports,? on its Web
site daily. The list contains links to the full- text document files. To
have GAO e- mail this

list to you every afternoon, go to www. gao. gov and select ?Subscribe to
daily E- mail alert for newly released products? under the GAO Reports
heading.

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to
the Superintendent of Documents. GAO

also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a
single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:

U. S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D. C.
20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512- 6000 TDD: (202) 512- 2537 Fax: (202)
512- 6061

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

Contact: Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E- mail: fraudnet@
gao. gov Automated answering system: (800) 424- 5454 or (202) 512- 7470

Public Affairs Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov (202)
512- 4800 U. S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149

Washington, D. C. 20548

United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548- 0001

Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Service Requested Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid GAO Permit No. GI00
*** End of document. ***
```