DEFENSE 

INFRASTRUCTURE

Action Needed to 

Increase the 

Reliability of 

Construction Cost 

Estimates

Report to Congressional Committees

March 2018

GAO-18-101

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-18-101, a report to 

congressional committees

March 2018

DEFENSE INFRASTRUCTURE

Action Needed to Increase the Reliability of 

Construction Cost Estimates

What GAO Found

During fiscal years 2005 through 2016, Congress appropriated about $66 billion 

in military construction funds (MILCON) to the active duty Army, Navy, and Air 

Force (referred to as the active component) for projects. As of September 30, 

2016, the active component had obligated all but about $5.1 billion and 

expended all but about $11 billion of those funds. Of the $5.1 billion remaining 

unobligated, about $4.6 billion was still available to be obligated because 

MILCON appropriations are generally available for new obligations for 5 years. 

According to Department of Defense (DOD) officials, available but unobligated 

amounts no longer needed may be either taken back by Congress or 

reprogrammed to other MILCON projects that the active component identifies as 

needing additional funding. 

During fiscal years 2010 through 2016, the active component reprogrammed 

about $1.6 billion in MILCON appropriations to fund emergency projects, projects 

that were authorized but did not receive specific appropriations, and projects 

needing additional funding. Of this amount, the Army reprogrammed about $789 

million; the Navy, about $535 million; and the Air Force, about $295 million.

DOD’s guidance does not fully incorporate the steps needed for developing 

reliable estimates and the estimates for three projects that GAO reviewed were 

not reliable. Specifically, two of the three high-value projects GAO examined 

experienced a more than 30-percent increase from the initial cost estimates 

submitted to Congress. GAO determined that DOD cost estimators did not follow 

all the best practices associated with the four characteristics—comprehensive, 

well-documented, accurate, and credible—of a reliable estimate for these 

projects. GAO’s Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide identifies 12 steps that, 

if used, are more likely to result in reliable and valid cost estimates. However, as 

shown below, DOD’s construction guidance—the Unified Facilities Criteria—

does not include all of these steps. Until DOD incorporates these steps, DOD 

and congressional decision-makers may not have reliable estimates to inform 

their decisions regarding appropriations and the oversight of projects.

GAO Assessment of DOD’s Unified Facilities Criteria

Step Assessment Step Assessment

1 Define estimate’s purpose Partially met 7 Develop the point estimate 

and compare with an 

independent estimate

Substantially 

met

2 Develop the estimating 

plan

Partially met 8 Conduct a sensitivity analysis Minimally met

3 Define the program 

characteristics

Substantially 

met

9 Conduct a risk analysis Partially met

4 Determine the estimating 

structure

Partially met 10 Document the estimate Partially met

5 Identify ground rules and 

assumptions

Minimally met 11 Present estimate to 

management

Not met

6 Obtain the data Partially met 12 Update the estimate Partially met

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense (DOD) data and documentation. | GAO-18-101

View GAO-18-101. For more information, 

contact Brian J. Lepore at (202) 512-4523 or 

leporeb@gao.gov.

Why GAO Did This Study

Between fiscal years 2005 and 2016, 

Congress annually appropriated 

between $2.5 to $9.6 billion in MILCON 

funding for the active component of the 

U.S. military to use for projects 

worldwide. Reliable project 

construction cost estimates are of 

great importance, since those 

estimates drive these appropriations. 

House Report 114-537 accompanying 

a proposed bill authorizing national 

defense activities for fiscal year 2017 

included a provision for GAO to report 

on DOD’s MILCON cost estimating. 

This report examines the extent to 

which (1) the active component 

obligated and expended the MILCON 

appropriations received during fiscal 

years 2005-2016, (2) the active 

component reprogrammed MILCON 

appropriations during fiscal years 2010 

through 2016, and (3) DOD’s MILCON 

cost estimates are reliable for selected 

projects and DOD’s guidance for 

developing estimates fully incorporates 

the steps needed for developing 

reliable estimates. GAO analyzed the 

active components’ MILCON execution 

data and reviewed DOD’s guidance for

cost estimating and compared it with 

the best practices identified in GAO’s 

Cost Estimating and Assessment 

Guide.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOD ensure 

that its cost estimating guidance fully 

incorporate the steps needed for 

developing reliable cost estimates.

DOD partially concurred with GAO’s 

recommendation and stated that it will 

issue revised cost guidance in fiscal 

year 2019 that more fully incorporates 

those steps that would benefit the 

military construction program.
Page i GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

Letter 1

Background 5

The Active Component Obligated and Expended Most of Its 

Military Construction Appropriations Received during Fiscal 

Years 2005 through 2016 10

The Active Component Reprogrammed Hundreds of Millions of 

Dollars in Military Construction Appropriations in Fiscal Years 

2010-2016 12

DOD’s Cost Estimates for Selected Construction Projects Were 

Not Reliable and DOD’s Guidance Does Not Fully Incorporate 

the Steps Needed for Developing Reliable Estimates 16

Conclusions 25

Recommendation for Executive Action 25

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 26

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 29

Appendix II Active Component’s Unobligated, Unexpended Balances, and 

Execution of Military Construction Appropriations, Fiscal Years 

2005 through 2016 34

Appendix III Comparison of Completed Military Construction Projects’ Initial Cost 

Estimates with Contract Award Amounts, Fiscal Years 2010 through 

2016 46

Appendix IV Military Department Guidance for Developing Military Construction 

Cost Estimates 72

Appendix V Comments from the Department of Defense 75

Appendix VI GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 77

Contents
Page ii GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

Tables

Table 1: Twelve Steps for Producing High-Quality Cost Estimates 10

Table 2: DOD Active Component’s Military Construction 

Appropriations, Obligations, and Unexpended Funds, 

Fiscal Years 2005 through 2016 11

Table 3: Number and Funding Amount of the DOD Active 

Component’s Military Construction Projects Requiring an 

Above-Threshold Reprogramming, Fiscal Years 2010 

through 2016 13

Table 4: Three Projects with MILCON Funding That Was 

Reprogrammed for the Repair Shop at Andersen Air 

Force Base, Guam 14

Table 5: Canceled Project with Military Construction (MILCON) 

Funding That Was Reprogrammed for the Training Facility 

at the Naval Air Station at Mayport, Florida 15

Table 6: Projects with Military Construction (MILCON) Funding 

That Was Reprogrammed for the Barracks at Presidio of 

Monterey, California 16

Table 7: Summary of Our Assessment of the Cost Estimates for 

Three Selected Projects 18

Table 8: Our Assessment of the Department of Defense’s Unified 

Facilities Criteria 21

Table 9: Documents Reviewed for Cost Estimating Assessments 31

Table 10: Army Military Construction Appropriations, Obligations, 

and Unexpended Balances, Fiscal Years 2005 through 

2016 36

Table 11: Air Force Military Construction Appropriations, 

Obligations, and Unexpended Balances, Fiscal Years 

2005 through 2016 39

Table 12: Navy Military Construction Appropriations, Obligations, 

and Unexpended Balances, Fiscal Years 2005 through 

2016 42

Table 13: Budget Execution Analysis of Army Military Construction 

Projects, Fiscal Years 2010-2016, as of September 30, 

2016 44

Table 14: Budget Execution Analysis of Air Force Military 

Construction Projects for Fiscal Years 2010-2016, as of 

September 30, 2016 45

Table 15: Budget Execution Analysis of Navy Military Construction 

Projects, Fiscal Years 2010-2016, as of September 30, 

2016 45
Page iii GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

Table 16: Comparison of Completed MILCON Projects’ Initial Cost 

Estimates with Contract Award Amounts, Fiscal Years 

2010 through 2016 47

Table 17: Military Department Guidance on Military Construction 

(MILCON) Cost Estimating 72

Figure

Figure 1: Four Characteristics of a Reliable Cost Estimate and 

Associated Best Practices 9

Abbreviations

DOD Department of Defense

MILCON Military Construction

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-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

March 27, 2018

Congressional Committees

In fiscal year 2016, Congress appropriated $3.9 billion in military 

construction (MILCON) funding for the active component1 of the U.S. 

armed forces to use for projects2 in the United States and overseas. The 

Department of Defense (DOD) receives a MILCON appropriation annually 

and uses it for the planning, design, and construction of facilities 

worldwide. To use these appropriations for specific projects, DOD 

submits proposals and cost estimates for approval by stakeholders 

including Congress and the Secretary of Defense. DOD guidance states 

that DOD must prepare the cost estimates as accurately as possible to 

reflect the budgetary cost of providing facilities.3 However, DOD regularly 

experiences differences between initial cost estimates and final costs 

which, in some instances, necessitate changes to project schedules and 

budgets or requests for additional funding from Congress in order to 

award construction contracts and complete projects. Some differences 

between initial estimates and final costs for MILCON projects can be 

attributed to factors outside of DOD’s control, such as unforeseen 

environmental and site conditions. However, some projects have raised 

congressional concerns regarding the quality of DOD’s MILCON cost 

estimating practices.

Obtaining approval and funding for MILCON projects requires DOD to 

annually submit requirements and justifications in support of its funding 

requests to Congress. After congressional decision-makers approve 

projects and appropriate MILCON amounts, DOD may award contracts 

 1

The Armed Forces of the United States comprise both an active and reserve component. 

The active component includes the active duty forces of the Army, the Navy, the Marine 

Corps, the Air Force, and the Coast Guard. The reserve component includes the Army 

National Guard of the United States, the Army Reserve, the Navy Reserve, the Marine 

Corps Reserve, the Air National Guard, the Air Force Reserve, and the Coast Guard 

Reserve. Our review is focused on the active duty Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air 

Force and we use “active component” to describe these organizations collectively.

2

MILCON projects can include any construction, development, conversion, or extension of 

any kind to a military installation, whether to satisfy temporary or permanent requirements 

and can range in complexity from buildings such as barracks and maintenance buildings 

to infrastructure such as runways and utility systems.

3

Unified Facilities Criteria 3-730-01, Programming Cost Estimates for Military Construction 

(June 6, 2011), (incorporating change 1, March 2017).

Letter
Page 2 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

and obligate and disburse funds for projects.4 DOD designates 

construction agents for the military departments and defense agencies 

with the primary responsibility for developing and refining these proposals 

and cost estimates and for managing the design and construction of 

projects.5 If amounts designated for a specific construction project are 

unobligated and remain available at the project’s completion, the amounts 

are considered savings and may be reprogrammed. Reprogrammed 

amounts may be used to fund other projects where there are shortfalls, 

projects authorized by Congress but not specifically funded through the 

appropriations process, and emergency projects, such as facilities 

destroyed by fires.

House Report 114-537 accompanying a proposed bill authorizing national 

defense activities for fiscal year 2017 included a provision for us to review 

and report on DOD’s MILCON cost estimating and project management 

processes. We examined the extent to which (1) the active component 

obligated and expended the MILCON appropriations received during 

fiscal years 2005-2016, (2) the active component reprogrammed MILCON 

appropriations during fiscal years 2010 through 2016, and (3) DOD’s 

MILCON cost estimates for select projects are reliable and DOD’s 

guidance for developing estimates fully incorporates the steps needed for 

developing reliable estimates.

For our first objective, we reviewed MILCON appropriations and 

congressional designated amounts for projects included in appropriation 

acts and accompanying explanatory statements, committee reports, and 

conference reports accompanying the appropriations acts for fiscal year 

2005 through fiscal year 2016 because these data were available 

electronically. Further, we analyzed the obligation and disbursement data 

of the active component’s MILCON accounts using appropriation status 

by fiscal year program and subaccount reports, bid savings reports, and 

 4

“Obligations” are incurred when an agency places an order, signs a contract, awards a 

grant, purchases a service, or takes other actions that require the government to make 

payments to the public or from one government account to another. “Disbursements” are 

amounts paid by cash or cash equivalent during a fiscal year to liquidate obligations.

5

DOD “construction agents” are defined as the Corps of Engineers, the Naval Facilities 

Engineering Command, or such other approved DOD activity assigned the design or 

construction execution responsibilities associated with the military construction program. 

DOD Directive 4270.5, Military Construction (Feb. 12, 2005) assigns specific construction 

agents to be used by the services both within the United States and at facilities abroad.
Page 3 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

annual reports from the U.S. Department of the Treasury.6 We also 

collected and compared project data from each of the military 

departments on projects that had been initiated and completed during 

fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2016, including the initial project 

estimate submitted on Form 1391 (i.e., the form DOD uses to submit 

project-level requirements and justifications in support of its MILCON 

funding requests to Congress) and the contract award amount and 

analyzed any differences between the two.

For our second objective, we reviewed DOD’s requests to Congress for 

prior approval to move MILCON funds from one project to another within 

a MILCON appropriation account, known as “reprogramming.” We 

calculated the total number of times such requests were made and for 

what dollar amounts for fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2016. 

Furthermore, we selected one project from each military department from 

this same time frame and reviewed the accompanying Form 1391 and the 

reprogramming requests associated with the projects to illustrate how 

savings from one MILCON project may provide funds for another project. 

For both our first and second objectives, we assessed the reliability of the 

data by interviewing knowledgeable officials about the data and the steps 

that they had taken to verify the data’s accuracy. We determined that the 

data were sufficiently reliable for our objectives.

For the third objective, we compared the process for developing the cost 

estimate for three selected projects with the characteristics and best 

practices for developing a reliable cost estimate as identified in our Cost 

Estimating and Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Developing and 

Managing Capital Program Costs (the Cost Guide).7 This guide is a 

compilation of cost estimating best practices drawn from across industry 

and federal government. We selected our projects from the universe of 

 6

DOD appropriation status by fiscal year program and subaccount reports, known as 1002 

reports, are submitted monthly to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service and 

contain appropriation, obligation and expenditure data throughout each account’s 

unexpired and expired availability periods. Bid savings reports are quarterly 1002 reports 

on military construction bid savings achieved on previously appropriated MILCON 

projects. DOD submits the savings reports to Congress and includes its intended use of 

these savings. The U.S. Department of the Treasury issues an annual report called the 

Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances of the United States 

Government. This report is recognized as the official publication of receipts and outlays 

with which all other reports containing similar data must be in agreement.

7

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

Managing Capital Program Costs, GAO-09-3SP (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2, 2009).
Page 4 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

projects that we reasonably expected could have begun execution (i.e., 

projects initiated during fiscal years 2012-2014); projects that were 

underway, but not substantially completed (i.e., between 10- and 75-

percent complete); and projects that constituted a significant financial 

investment (i.e., projects with appropriations of $75 million or greater). 

Ultimately, of the 690 total projects we identified DOD-wide, 13 met these 

criteria. From the 13 projects, we judgmentally selected 3: (1) the 

construction of a replacement elementary school at Marine Corps Camp 

Foster, Japan; (2) the construction of a Strategic Command operations 

building at Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska; and (3) the construction of a 

Marine Corps command headquarters and cyberspace operations 

building in Fort Meade, Maryland. These projects are not intended to 

constitute a projectable sample, but rather are intended to provide indepth information about how cost estimates are developed, compared 

with best practices, across the active component.

In conducting the assessments for these three projects, we examined the 

processes used to develop both the Form 1391 estimate and the 

independent government estimate (i.e., the estimate used to award the 

contract) to determine whether the project cost estimates reflected the 

characteristics of a high-quality and reliable cost estimate, as defined in 

the Cost Guide. We also reviewed DOD’s Unified Facilities Criteria and 

the military departments’ respective guidance related to MILCON cost 

estimating and compared them with the steps needed for developing 

reliable cost estimates identified in Cost Guide. We interviewed officials 

and military project cost estimators at headquarters and at the Air Force’s 

Engineering Division, and we also interviewed DOD’s construction agents 

to discuss DOD’s cost-estimating requirements and the guidance they 

follow in preparing, documenting, and reviewing project cost estimates. 

We provide further details on our scope and methodology in appendix I.

We conducted this performance audit from January 2016 to March 2018 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Page 5 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

DOD’s MILCON appropriations are used to fund the acquisition, 

construction, installation, and equipping of temporary or permanent public 

works, military installations, facilities, and real property needed to support 

U.S. military forces in the United States and overseas. As with other DOD 

activities, no funds may be appropriated in any fiscal year or obligated or 

expended for MILCON activities unless such funds have been specifically 

authorized by law.8 Each year, the National Defense Authorization Act 

authorizes amounts to be appropriated in each of the 18 programmatic 

MILCON appropriations accounts.9 Individual or conference committee 

reports accompanying each fiscal year’s National Defense Authorization 

Act provide specific congressional direction on authorized funding levels 

designated for specific construction projects supported by the various 

MILCON accounts. Similarly, conference committee reports or 

explanatory statements accompanying each fiscal year’s appropriations 

acts establish appropriated funding levels for MILCON projects.

The process through which the active component requests funding for 

construction projects is supported by DOD’s Form 1391 Military 

Construction Project Data (Form 1391). The Form 1391 is to be used to 

support each project proposed for inclusion in the MILCON appropriations 

request submitted concurrently with all other DOD appropriations 

requests annually. The forms are to be used for both new projects as well 

as urgent unforeseen projects. The Form 1391 describes the scope, total 

project costs, and estimates of specific project elements. Costs 

associated with other project elements such as contingency and 

 8

Section 114 of title 10 of the U.S. Code establishes that no funds may be appropriated, 

obligated, or expended for the use of any armed force unless funds have been specifically 

authorized by law.

9

Eighteen programmatic MILCON appropriations are made annually in the Military 

Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Acts. Each 

service—the Army, the Navy and the Marine Corps, and the Air Force— receives a 

MILCON appropriation, as does the Air National Guard, the Army National Guard, and the 

Reserves. The Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Air Force also receive MILCON 

appropriations for expenses related to the operation and maintenance of family housing. 

Construction-related expenses of activities and agencies of the Department of Defense 

other than the military departments are provided for through the Military Construction, 

Defense-wide and Family Housing Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide 

appropriations. Finally, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) Security 

Investment Program, the Defense Base Closure Account, and DOD’s Family Housing 

Improvement Fund also receive MILCON appropriations.

Background

MILCON Appropriation 

and Obligation Process
Page 6 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

supervision, inspection, and design are also to be captured and included 

in the total requested amount. Finally, the Form 1391 is to include a 

description of the proposed construction and a requirements statement 

indicating what requirement the project provides. Project budget 

estimates are initially developed at the installation level and are provided 

to the next responsible level for review, validation, refinement, 

prioritization, and approval. Administrative support is to be provided when 

requested across the departments, but ultimately the installation is the 

originator and the primary responsible entity in developing the completed 

Form 1391.

MILCON appropriations are generally available for obligation for 5 fiscal 

years, at which time the appropriation expires. For 5 years after they 

expire, appropriations are available for limited purposes, such as 

liquidating obligations made during the period of availability or adjusting 

contract costs. After these 5 years, any remaining unexpended amounts, 

whether obligated or unobligated, are canceled and returned to the U.S. 

Treasury. Once funds are returned to the U.S. Treasury, they are no 

longer available for any purposes.

DOD obligates its appropriations throughout the period in which the 

appropriation is available. An “unobligated balance” is the difference 

between the total appropriation amount and total obligations made 

against the appropriated amounts. An “unexpended balance” is the total 

of obligated but unliquidated and unobligated amounts.10 According to 

DOD officials, available but unobligated amounts no longer needed may 

be either rescinded by Congress or reprogrammed to other MILCON 

projects that the active component identifies as needing additional 

funding. Reprogrammed amounts may be used to fund other projects 

where there are shortfalls; for projects authorized by Congress but not 

specifically funded through the appropriations process; for emergency 

projects, such as for facilities destroyed by fires. DOD’s flexibility to 

reprogram without congressional approval is limited by the amount to be 

reprogrammed to a particular project. DOD’s Financial Management 

Regulation requires prior congressional approval for a reprogramming 

that would result in an increase exceeding 25 percent of a project’s 

authorized base amount or $2 million, whichever is less.11 Prior approval 

 10Unliquidated obligations are those obligations for which payment has not been made 

through the issuance of checks or cash disbursements, or electronic funds transfers.

11DOD 7000.14-R, Financial Management Regulation (March 2011).
Page 7 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

is not required when established costs or project-related thresholds are 

not reached.12 According to DOD officials, reprogrammings requiring 

congressional approval are called “above-threshold reprogrammings” and 

those that do not are called “below-threshold reprogrammings.”

DOD designates construction agents for the military departments and 

defense agencies with primary responsibility for developing and refining 

MILCON proposals and cost estimates, and to manage the design and 

construction of projects. Typically, the Army Corps of Engineers is the 

construction agent for Army MILCON-funded projects and the Naval 

Facilities Engineering Command is the construction agent for Navy and 

Marine Corps MILCON-funded projects. Either of those DOD entities can 

be the construction agent for the defense agencies and activities, such as 

for the Missile Defense Agency or Defense Education Activity, with the 

approval of the military department having jurisdiction of the real property 

facility. However, both the Army and the Navy may use each other’s 

construction agent if it is in the interest of efficiency and costeffectiveness or when otherwise considered appropriate. The Air Force 

may use either the Army Corps of Engineers or Naval Facilities 

Engineering Command for its projects. Additionally, the Air Force Civil 

Engineer Center, although not a designated construction agent, reviews 

and approves requirements for Air Force MILCON cost estimates, and in 

some cases may design and construct Air Force projects where both the 

Air Force and the commander of the assigned construction agent agree 

that it is the most efficient, expeditious, and cost-effective means to 

complete the project.

Within DOD there are two levels of military construction guidance: the 

Unified Facilities Criteria and component-level guidance. The Unified 

Facilities Criteria are overarching, DOD-wide technical manuals and 

standards used for planning, design, construction, restoration, and 

maintenance of DOD facility projects. The Unified Facilities Criteria was 

designed to standardize and streamline the process for developing, 

maintaining, and disseminating criteria in support of MILCON. The Unified 

Facilities Criteria contains guidance describing methods, procedures, and 

formats for the preparation of construction cost estimates and 

 12Criteria triggering a requirement of prior approval also include project-related criteria, 

such as reprogramming for any emergency construction project or any restoration of 

damaged or destroyed facilities carried out under specific statutory authorities. 

DOD Construction Agents

DOD Guidance for 

MILCON
Page 8 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

construction contract modification estimates, among other types of 

guidance. The Unified Facilities Criteria is to be used to the greatest 

extent possible by all the DOD regardless of funding source. In addition to 

the Unified Facilities Criteria, the military departments and agencies have 

also developed their own internal guidance on MILCON, providing further 

direction on conducting activities such as cost analysis and determining 

facility requirements.

We developed the GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide: Best 

Practices for Developing and Managing Capital Program Costs (Cost 

Guide) to assist federal agencies in developing reliable cost estimates 

and also as a tool for evaluating existing cost estimating procedures. 13

To develop the Cost Guide, our cost experts assessed measures applied 

by cost estimating organizations throughout the federal government and 

industry and considered best practices for the development of reliable 

cost estimates. While the Cost Guide has a focus on developing cost 

estimates in the context of government acquisition programs, it outlines 

best practices that are generally applicable to cost estimation in a variety 

of circumstances. These best practices can be used to assess (1) the 

specific project cost estimates an agency develops to determine whether 

they meet the four characteristics—comprehensive, well-documented, 

accurate, and credible—for being reliable and (2) an agency’s cost 

estimating guidance and procedures to see how well they incorporate all 

the steps needed for producing a high-quality cost estimate. Figure 1 

shows the four characteristics and associated best practices for each that 

define a reliable cost estimate and table 1 shows the 12 steps identified in 

the Cost Guide that, if followed correctly, should result in high-quality cost 

estimates that management can use for making informed decisions.

 13GAO-09-3SP.

Our Cost Assessment 

Model
Page 9 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

Figure 1: Four Characteristics of a Reliable Cost Estimate and Associated Best Practices
Page 10 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

Table 1: Twelve Steps for Producing High-Quality Cost Estimates

1. Define estimate’s purpose

2. Develop the estimating plan

3. Define the program characteristics

4. Determine the estimating structure

5. Identify ground rules and assumptions

6. Obtain the data

7. Develop the point estimate and 

compare to an independent estimate

8. Conduct a sensitivity analysis

9. Conduct a risk analysis

10. Document the estimate

11. Present estimate to Management

12. Update the estimate to reflect actual 

cost and changes

Source: GAO. | GAO-18-101

During fiscal years 2005 through 2016, Congress appropriated about $66 

billion in MILCON funds to the active component14 and, as of September 

30, 2016, the active component had obligated all but about $5.1 billion 

and expended all but about $11 billion of those funds. Of the $5.1 billion 

that remains unobligated, about $4.6 billion was unexpired and available 

for new obligations (i.e., from fiscal year 2013 through 2016 

appropriations).15 Table 2 shows the active component’s combined 

MILCON appropriations, obligations, and unexpended funds from fiscal 

year 2005 through fiscal year 2016.

 14We use the “active component” to describe the active duty forces of the Army, the Navy, 

the Marine Corps, and the Air Force.

15Amounts appropriated in fiscal year 2013 expired on September 30, 2017.

The Active 

Component Obligated 

and Expended Most 

of Its Military 

Construction 

Appropriations 

Received during 

Fiscal Years 2005

through 2016
Page 11 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

Table 2: DOD Active Component’s Military Construction Appropriations, Obligations, and Unexpended Funds, Fiscal Years 

2005 through 2016

Dollars in millions

Unexpended funds

Fiscal 

years of 

availabilitya

Total 

appropriation

as of 9/30/2016b

(dollars)

Total 

canceled 

as of 

9/30/16

(dollars)

Disbursed 

as of 

9/30/2016d

(dollars)

Net 

obligations 

as of 

9/30/2016

(dollars)

Transferred 

out as of 

fiscal year 

2016f

(dollars)

Unobligated 

as of 

9/30/2016

(dollars)

Unliquidated 

obligations as 

of 9/30/2016

(dollars)

Total 

unexpended 

as of

9/30/2016

(dollars)

Unexpended 

rate 

(percentage)

2016-2020 3,893.6 c 142.6 1,123.4 0.0 2,770.2g 980.8 3,751.0 96.3

2015-2019 2,499.6 c 569.7 1,662.0 62.1 775.4g 1,092.3 1,929.9 77.2

2014-2018 3,847.5 c 2,147.2 3,158.6 65.5 623.4g 1,011.4 1,700.3 44.2

2013-2017 3,510.6 c 2,400.4 2,987.5 70.9 452.2 587.1 1,110.2 31.6

2012-2016 6,311.4 c 5,337.9 6,055.6 88.1 167.7 717.7 973.6 15.4

2011-2015 7,905.3 c 7,334.7 7,792.8 36.7 75.8 458.0 570.6 7.2

2010-2014 7,852.9 c 7,696.3 7,798.5 34.1 20.5 102.0 156.6 2.0

2009-2013 9,580.2 c 9,288.1 9,316.9 45.2 218.14 28.8 292.2 3.0

2008-2012 7,806.1 c 7,686.1 e 81.8 e e 120.0 1.3

2007-2011 4,292.2 1.2 4,208.6 e 78.4 e e 79.6 1.9

2006-2010 4,647.5 8.1 4,587.8 e 48.4 e e 56.5 1.3

2005-2009 3,9324.4 3.2 3,890.1 e 34.6 e e 37.8 1.1

Total 66,079.3 12.5 55,289.3 47,587.8 645.9 5,135.0 4,985.0 10,778.4 16.3

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Treasury and Department of Defense data, as of September 30, 2016. | GAO-18-101

Notes: Numbers may not total due to rounding.

a

”Fiscal years of availability” refers to the period that military construction amounts appropriated in 

each fiscal year from 2005 through 2016 are available for new obligations for 5 fiscal years.

b

Includes the appropriated amount, net funds transferred into and amounts rescinded from the 

account as authorized by statute.

c

Not applicable because these amounts are not yet canceled. They either remain available for new 

obligations or are in the 5-year expired period and are available only for limited purposes.

d

”Disbursements” are amounts paid by cash or cash equivalen, during the fiscal year to liquidate 

obligations.

e

Not applicable because the amounts have been canceled and are no longer available for any 

purpose.

f

”Transfer” is the shifting of all or part of the budget authority in one appropriation or fund account to 

another. DOD may transfer budget authority only as specifically authorized by statute.

g

Amount remaining available for new obligation.

In general, during the early first few years of a MILCON appropriation 

available for 5 years, it is often likely that most of the funds will remain 

unobligated. For example, as shown in table 2 above, of the nearly $3.9 

billion appropriated for military construction for the active component from 
Page 12 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

the fiscal year 2016-2020 appropriation, only about $1.1 billion had been 

obligated as of September 30, 2016. This is not surprising given the time 

that it takes to award, obligate and disburse funds for projects. Ultimately, 

though, as an appropriation nears its expiration date, all or nearly all of 

the amounts have generally been obligated. In fact, as shown in table 2, 

for each MILCON appropriation received by the active component prior to 

fiscal year 2013 (fiscal years 2005 through 2012), less than 2 percent of 

each year’s appropriation was unexpended as of September 30, 2016. In 

appendix II, we provide additional analysis of the active component’s 

unexpended and unobligated balances, by appropriation year and by 

military department.

Although ultimately, the active component obligates and expends most of 

its MILCON appropriations, the active component can experience a wide 

range of differences between initial cost estimates and final costs during 

the execution of individual MILCON projects, resulting in savings or 

shortfalls depending on the project. For example, we found that from 

fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2016, the active component achieved 

about $4.2 billion in MILCON project savings as a result, for example, of 

canceled projects, projects with lower than expected contractor bids, or 

the use of less expensive building materials. In appendix III, we provide 

additional analysis of the active component’s estimated initial costs and 

the contract award amounts that were funded by MILCON appropriations 

for fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2016.

The active component reprogrammed about $1.6 billion in MILCON 

appropriations to fund shortfalls caused by emergency projects, projects 

that were authorized but did not receive specific appropriations, and 

projects needing additional funding in fiscal years 2010 through 2016. Of 

this amount, the Army reprogrammed about $789 million of about $14 

billion in appropriated MILCON funds; the Navy, about $535 million of 

about $14 billion in appropriated MILCON funds; and the Air Force, about 

$295 million of about $7 billion in appropriated MILCON funds. Table 3 

shows the number and amounts of above-threshold reprogrammings by 

the active component for fiscal years 2010 through 2016.

The Active 

Component 

Reprogrammed 

Hundreds of Millions 

of Dollars in Military 

Construction 

Appropriations in 

Fiscal Years 2010-

2016
Page 13 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

Table 3: Number and Funding Amount of the DOD Active Component’s Military 

Construction Projects Requiring an Above-Threshold Reprogramming, Fiscal Years 

2010 through 2016

Dollars in thousands

Fiscal 

year Military department

Number of 

projects 

Amount 

reprogrammed

(dollars)

2016 Army 16 217,250

2016 Navy 7 83,449

2016 Air Force 0 0

2016 Combined active component 23 300,699

2015 Army 9 79,155

2015 Navy 11 108,551

2015 Air Force 5 50,505

2015 Combined active component 25 238,211

2014 Army 7 59,330

2014 Navy 4 135,261

2014 Air Force 10 124,029

2014 Combined active component 21 318,620

2013 Army 10 72,302

2013 Navy 4 98,548

2013 Air Force 6 50,869

2013 Combined active component 20 221,719

2012 Army 10 237,969

2012 Navy 3 61,170

2012 Air Force 8 26,832

2012 Combined active component 21 325,971

2011 Army 10 70,754

2011 Navy 5 47,838

2011 Air Force 1 3,000

2011 Combined active component 16 121,592

2010 Army 9 52,101

2010 Navy 0 0

2010 Air Force 3 39,610

2010 Combined active component 12 91,711

Total Army 71 788,861

Total Navy 34 534,817
Page 14 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

Fiscal 

year Military department

Number of 

projects 

Amount 

reprogrammed

(dollars)

Total Air Force 33 294,845

Total combined active component 138 1,618,523

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense information. | GAO-18-101

As seen in table 3, for any given year there are typically hundreds of 

millions of dollars reprogrammed. There are generally multiple active or 

canceled projects that result in cost savings, which may be used to fund 

authorized but not specifically funded projects. Below are three examples 

where the active component funded MILCON projects with amounts 

reprogrammed from other projects:

• Repair Shop at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam: This is an Air 

Force project to construct a pacific air resiliency low 

observable/corrosion control/composite repair shop in Guam. It is an 

authorized project that did not receive specific funding during the 

appropriation process but was fully funded by reprogrammed cost 

savings from active construction projects. Congress authorized $34.4 

million for the repair shop in fiscal year 2015; however, no funds were 

specifically appropriated for the project. According to Air Force 

officials, since this was their top unfunded military construction 

priority, they used $34.4 million in savings achieved from other 

projects to construct the repair shop. Table 4 lists the three projects 

whose MILCON funds were reprogrammed for the repair shop at 

Andersen Air Force Base in Guam.

Table 4: Three Projects with MILCON Funding That Was Reprogrammed for the Repair Shop at Andersen Air Force Base, 

Guam

Dollars in thousands

Projects from which funds were 

reprogrammed Location

Fiscal 

year 

Appropriated 

amount

Current estimated 

cost of project

(dollars)

Amount reprogrammed 

to fund repair shop

(dollars)

Maintenance Hangar and Squadron 

Operations Center

Andersen Air Force 

Base, Guam

2014 132,600 109,950 23,300

Tactical Missile Maintenance Facility Andersen Air Force 

Base, Guam

2014 10,530 8,030 2,500

Strike Fuel Systems Maintenance 

Hangar 

Andersen Air Force 

Base, Guam

2015 64,000 37,736 8,600

Total 34,400

Source: Department of Defense fiscal year 2015 MILCON reprogramming request to Congress, dated May 21, 2015. | GAO-18-101
Page 15 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

• Training Facility at the Naval Air Station at Mayport, Florida: This 

is a Navy project to construct a littoral combat ship training facility in 

Florida. It is a specifically funded project requiring additional funds 

that received reprogrammed amounts from a canceled project. In 

fiscal year 2014, the initial cost as listed on the Form 1391 was 

estimated to be $20.5 million, but project costs increased by 41 

percent to an estimated $28.9 million, according to a fiscal year 2016 

reprogramming request to Congress. As detailed in the 

reprogramming request, the Navy attributed the increased cost to 

underestimated mission simulator and communication line 

requirements. To fund the increased costs, the Navy used $8.3 million 

in savings from a canceled project to complete the facility. Table 5 

lists the canceled project that resulted in funds being reprogrammed 

for the training facility at Mayport.

Table 5: Canceled Project with Military Construction (MILCON) Funding That Was Reprogrammed for the Training Facility at 

the Naval Air Station at Mayport, Florida

Dollars in thousands

Project from which 

funds were 

reprogrammed Location

Fiscal 

year 

Appropriated 

amount

(dollars)

Current estimated 

cost of project

(dollars)

Amount reprogrammed to 

fund training facility

(dollars)

Transmission Line Naval Station Pearl 

Harbor, Hawaii

2014 30,100 0a 8,330

Source: Department of Defense fiscal year 2016 MILCON reprogramming request to Congress, dated August 15, 2016. | GAO-18-101

a

This project was canceled and funds from the project were also used to fund projects at Naval Air 

Station Fallon, Nevada, and Naval Air Station Whidbey, Washington.

• Barracks at Presidio of Monterey, California: This is an Army 

project to construct a trainee barracks in California. It is a specifically 

funded project in need of additional funds that received 

reprogrammed amounts from active and canceled construction 

projects. In fiscal year 2011, the initial cost for the project as listed on 

the Form 1391 was estimated to be $63 million, but project costs 

increased by 51 percent to $95 million, according to a fiscal year 2015 

reprogramming request to Congress. As detailed in the 

reprogramming request, the Army attributed the increased costs to a 

3-year delay in construction and the need to move the project to a 

small, steep-terrain site. The reprogramming request further noted 

that the delay in construction was due to the discovery at the 

proposed construction site of a seismic fault and a plant that is an 

endangered species. To fund the increased costs, the Army sought to 

reprogram funds from the savings achieved from the active and 

canceled projects. Table 6 lists the projects that generated the 

reprogrammed funds used for the barracks at Presidio.
Page 16 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

Table 6: Projects with Military Construction (MILCON) Funding That Was Reprogrammed for the Barracks at Presidio of

Monterey, California

Dollars in thousands

Projects from which 

funds were 

reprogrammed Location

Fiscal 

year 

Appropriated 

amount

(dollars)

Current estimated 

cost of project 

(dollars)

Amount reprogrammed 

to fund Monterey 

project (dollars)

Collective Training 

Range

Fort A.P. Hill, 

Virginia

2011 64,870 64,135 735

Battalion Complex Fort Drum, New 

York

2011 45,378 44,055 1,323

Barracks Schofield Barracks, 

Hawaii

2011 73,804 71,423 1,550

Barracks White Sands 

Missile Range, New 

Mexico

2011 28,942 0a 28,942

Total 32,550

Source: DOD’s fiscal year 2015 MILCON reprogramming request to Congress, dated April 3, 2015. | GAO-18-101

a

This project was canceled.

Our analyses of the cost estimates for three selected projects shows that 

the cost estimates were not reliable, and DOD’s cost estimating guidance 

does not fully incorporate all the steps needed for producing reliable 

estimates. We examined the cost estimates of three high-value military 

construction projects and noted that the initial cost estimates increased 

for all three projects, with cost estimates for two of the projects increasing 

by over 30 percent and the other, by about 7 percent. Specifically:

• Strategic Command Operations Building, Offutt Air Force Base, 

Nebraska.16 The project to construct a nuclear, space, and network 

command and control operations building for the command at Offutt 

Air Force Base, Nebraska, increased from an initial cost estimate in 

fiscal year 2012 of $564 million to $601 million in fiscal year 2014 (or 

a 7-percent increase). According to a fiscal year 2014 reprogramming 

request to Congress, the Air Force attributed the increased cost to the 

fact that the project team did not appreciate the full scope, complexity, 

and risk of such an information technology- intensive project. These 

cost issues are similar to challenges we have reported on for other 

 16The Strategic Command is one of nine U.S. commands within DOD. Headquartered at 

Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska, the Strategic Command is responsible for space 

operations; global missile defense; and global command, control, communications, 

computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance.

DOD’s Cost 

Estimates for 

Selected Construction 

Projects Were Not 

Reliable and DOD’s 

Guidance Does Not 

Fully Incorporate the 

Steps Needed for 

Developing Reliable 

Estimates
Page 17 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

information technology-intensive MILCON projects.17 The Air Force is 

the project owner and the Army Corps of Engineers is the construction 

agent for this project.

• Command Headquarters and Cyberspace Operations Building, 

Fort Meade, Maryland. The project to construct a command 

headquarters and cyberspace operations building with sensitive 

compartmented information facility in Fort Meade, Maryland, 

increased from an initial cost estimate in fiscal year 2013 of $84 

million to $110 million in fiscal year 2015 (or a 31-percent increase). 

As detailed in the fiscal year 2015 reprogramming request, the Navy 

attributed the increased cost to higher than expected construction 

costs due to increased demand on the labor workforce in the 

Washington, D.C./Baltimore area and underestimated electrical power 

requirements. The Navy is the project owner and the Army Corps of 

Engineers is the construction agent for this project.

• Elementary School Camp Foster, Japan. The project to replace an 

elementary school at Camp Foster, Japan increased from an initial 

cost estimate in fiscal year 2012 of $79 million to $107 million in fiscal 

year 2014 (or a 35-percent increase). As detailed on the fiscal year 

2014 reprogramming request, the Department of Defense Education 

Activity attributed the increased cost to the volatile construction 

climate in Japan caused by natural disasters; Japanese government 

policies, economic stimulus, and reform; and the planned 

developments for the 2020 Tokyo Olympic Games. Although this 

project is not owned by any of the military departments, it is being 

managed by the Army Corps of Engineers in its role as a DOD 

construction agent through which it plays an important role in the 

development of the construction cost estimate. The Department of 

Defense Education Activity is the project owner and the Army Corps 

of Engineers is the construction agent.

To determine the reliability of the cost estimates for these three selected 

projects, we assessed the cost estimates against the best practices for 

developing a reliable estimate in our Cost Guide. As previously 

discussed, the Cost Guide defines the four characteristics—

comprehensive, well documented, accurate, and credible—of a reliable 

cost estimate and the associated best practices related to each 

characteristic. In conducting these assessments, we examined both the 

Form 1391 estimate (i.e., the estimate used to develop the budget) and 

 17GAO, Military Bases: Opportunities Exist to Improve Future Base Realignment and 

Closure Rounds, GAO-13-149 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 7, 2013).
Page 18 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

the independent government estimate i.e., (the estimate used to award 

the contract) for each project. Our analysis of the cost estimates for the 

three selected projects shows that the cost estimators did not follow all 

the best practices listed for each of the four characteristics. As a result, 

none of the characteristics were fully or substantially met. To be reliable, 

a cost estimate must substantially or fully meet each of the four 

characteristics. As the Cost Guide states, if any of the characteristics are 

not met, minimally met, or partially met, then the cost estimate does not 

fully reflect the characteristics of a high-quality estimate and cannot be 

considered reliable. Table 7 provides the results of our assessment of the 

cost estimates for each of the three selected projects.

Table 7: Summary of Our Assessment of the Cost Estimates for Three Selected Projects

Project Characteristic Assessment and examples of best practices incorporated

Strategic Command 

Operations Building, Offutt 

Air Force Base, Nebraska

Comprehensive Substantially met

Although both the Form 1391 and independent government estimate 

contained high-level cost estimates for primary facilities, supporting 

facilities, contingency, supervision, and inspection and overhead, neither 

estimate included operations and maintenance costs. Officials stated that 

operations and maintenance costs are not included because they are the 

responsibility of the military department that will be using the facility. 

Additionally, while the cost estimate contained extensive detail describing 

many work breakdown structure elements, it did not specifically identify 

ground rules and assumption risks and trace them to specific work 

breakdown structure elements. 

Well Documented Partially met

Although the independent government estimate contained the quantity, unit 

of measure, and buildup of costs by work breakdown structure elements, 

the cost estimate documentation did not capture the source data in writing, 

did not describe the methodology used to derive work breakdown structure 

elements’ costs, and did not describe the estimate in a narrative. 

Additionally, the documentation did not include any evidence that the 

estimate was reviewed and accepted by management above the level of the 

cost engineering branch.

Accurate Partially met

The independent government estimate contained a detailed list of costs by 

work breakdown structure and the engineering build up technique was used 

appropriately. However, we could not determine whether the estimate had 

been properly adjusted for inflation because the cost estimate 

documentation does not discuss inflation. Further, we could not determine 

whether the estimate was unbiased because a formal risk and uncertainty 

analysis was not performed. Instead, a standard 5-percent contingency 

factor was applied to the project. 
Page 19 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

Project Characteristic Assessment and examples of best practices incorporated

Credible Minimally met

No formal risk and uncertainty analysis was performed as part of the 

independent government estimate or the Form 1391 estimate. Instead, the 

Air Force used a 5-percent contingency factor. Additionally, there is no 

evidence in the Form 1391 or the government estimate that major cost 

elements were cross-checked to see whether the results were similar. 

Finally, while officials said that they used cost estimating software to make 

pricing changes and examine sensitivity impacts to the cost estimate, they 

told us that they did not document the process and deleted the what-if 

scenarios that they developed. 

Command Headquarters 

and Cyberspace 

Operations Building, Fort 

Meade, Maryland

Comprehensive Partially met

While the independent government estimate contained extensive detail 

describing many work breakdown structure elements, life-cycle costs were 

not included as part of the project’s estimate. Additionally, while the ground 

rules and assumptions provided to us were prepared prior to the 

development of the independent government estimate, they were completed 

after the submission and approval of the Form 1391 estimate, which is the 

estimate used to establish the project’s budget. Finally, ground rules and 

assumptions were provided in the government estimate for the overall 

estimate, but were not tied to specific work breakdown structure elements.

Well Documented Partially met

The Form 1391 was signed and approved by management; however, while 

Navy officials stated that they reviewed and validated the independent 

government estimate, there is no evidence of that review. Additionally, while 

there was a description of the costs and some ground rules and 

assumptions included in both the Form 1391 estimate and the independent 

government estimate, there were no data included as part of the estimates’ 

documentation, descriptions of data normalization, or data reliability 

assessments.

Accurate Partially met

No quantifiable cost risk or uncertainty analysis was conducted for either the 

Form 1391 or independent government estimate. Instead, the Navy used a 

5-percent contingency factor to account for risk, thereby preventing an 

assessment of any potential bias (positive or negative) that was included in 

the estimates. Additionally, the Navy did not provide an Excel model to us 

for either the Form 1391 or government estimate. As a result, we could not 

confirm that there were no errors made while applying inflation. Finally, 

while the Form, 1391 and independent government estimate were updated 

prior to the contract’s award, the Navy did not compare actual costs with 

estimated costs or perform variance analysis.

Credible Minimally met

No formal risk and uncertainty analysis was performed as part of the 

independent government estimate or the Form 1391 estimate. Instead, the 

Navy used a 5-percent contingency factor. Navy officials stated that they 

perform cross-checks as part of the estimating process. However, there was 

no evidence of cross-checks having been performed for either estimate. 
Page 20 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

Project Characteristic Assessment and examples of best practices incorporated

Elementary School Camp 

Foster, Japan 

Comprehensive Substantially met

Although the Form 1391 cost estimate, the independent government 

estimate and the military construction (MILCON) project are well-defined, 

neither estimate accounts for the operations and maintenance costs 

associated with the building that are impacted by the decisions made during

design and construction. According to Department of Defense education 

officials, it is MILCON cost estimating policy to include only nominal values 

for operation and maintenance costs as these costs are the responsibility of 

the command that will be using the building.

Well Documented Partially met

The documentation created for the Form 1391 and independent government 

estimate contain a description of the requirements used to estimate the 

square footage of the MILCON project and of the buildings to be included 

for demolition. However, there is no formal documentation that ties together 

the estimates, the data, and the ground rules and assumptions for the 

estimates.

Accurate Partially met

The Department of Defense education activity used relevant historical data 

that were available at the time the Form 1391 and independent government 

estimates were developed and variances between planned and actual costs 

were documented, explained, and reviewed. However, although the 

independent government estimating model was provided, the Form 1391 

estimating model was not. As a result, we could not confirm the accuracy of 

the Form 1391 estimate without thoroughly investigating how that cost 

model was constructed. Furthermore, an uncertainty analysis was not 

performed. Instead the Department of Defense Education Activity used 

contingency factors to account for risk, thereby preventing an assessment 

of any potential bias (positive or negative) that was included in the 

estimates. 

Credible Minimally met

No formal sensitivity and uncertainty analysis was performed for the Form 

1391 or independent government cost estimate. Instead the Department of 

Defense Education Activity relied on standard contingency factors. While 

the Department of Defense Education Activity examined the estimate for 

cost drivers as part of the value engineering report process, there is no 

evidence in the Form 1391 or independent government estimate that major 

cost elements were cross-checked to see whether the results were similar. 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense data and documentation. | GAO-18-101

The Cost Guide also identifies 12 steps that, when incorporated into an 

agency’s cost estimating procedures and guidance, are more likely to 

result in reliable and valid cost estimates. However, our analysis of DOD’s 

department-wide cost estimating guidance—the Unified Facilities 

Criteria—found that the criteria did not include all of these 12 steps. The 

Unified Facilities Criteria incorporates some of the 12 steps to some 

degree, but not others, and as a result DOD is at a greater risk of 

developing estimates that are not reliable. Table 8 provides our 
Page 21 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

assessment of the extent to which DOD’s Unified Facilities Criteria 

incorporates the 12 steps needed to develop a high-quality, reliable cost 

estimate.

Table 8: Our Assessment of the Department of Defense’s Unified Facilities Criteria

Step Assessment of Unified Facilities Criteria

1. Define estimate’s purpose Partially met

According to our Cost Guide, the purpose of a cost estimate is determined by its intended 

use and its intended use determines its scope and detail. To determine an estimate’s 

scope, cost analysts must identify the customer’s needs. Without understanding the 

estimate’s purpose and scope, the estimate may not reflect the context to meet the 

customer’s needs.

The Unified Facilities Criteria Programming Cost Estimates for Military Construction

(Programming Cost Estimates) and Handbook: Construction Cost Estimating (Handbook) 

lists and defines different types of estimates and their intended use. However, it is difficult 

to determine when each estimate should be used and what scope and detail should be 

included because the criteria use inconsistent terminology to describe the estimating 

phases, categories, and types.

2. Develop the estimating plan Partially met

According to our Cost Guide, an analytic approach to cost estimates typically entails a 

written estimating plan detailing a master schedule of specific tasks, responsible parties, 

and time frames. Without adequate time to develop a competent estimate, the team may 

be unable to deliver a product of sufficiently high quality.

The Unified Facilities Criteria Handbook states that the responsibility of estimates falls to 

the cost engineering office and that, if it is necessary to contract cost estimating services, 

these services will be provided by competent firms experienced in cost engineering. 

However, it does not discuss developing an estimating plan that addresses time frames 

regarding the development and documentation of a construction cost estimate.

3. Define the program characteristics Substantially met

According to our Cost Guide, key to developing a credible estimate is having an adequate 

understanding of the acquisition program—the acquisition strategy, technical definition, 

characteristics, system design features, and technologies. This usually takes form in a 

technical baseline. A technical baseline should include a description of the program, define 

the requirements, and document the underlying technical and program assumptions

necessary to develop a cost estimate and update changes as they occur.

Consistent with our Cost Guide, the Unified Facilities Criteria Handbook addresses many 

parts of a technical baseline. For example, it states that the project narrative included in the

estimate should describe the assumptions made during the preparation of the estimate and 

the project requirements that must be performed in sufficient detail to give a clear 

understanding of the scope of work. The Handbook also provides details regarding the 

approval process for revised estimates.
Page 22 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

Step Assessment of Unified Facilities Criteria

4. Determine the estimating structure Partially met

According to our Cost Guide, a work breakdown structure is the cornerstone of every 

program because it defines in detail the work necessary to accomplish a program’s 

objectives. For example, a typical work breakdown structure reflects the requirements, 

what must be accomplished to develop a program, details common elements (the 

necessary support functions for constructing a facility), and provides a basis for identifying 

resources and tasks for developing a program cost estimate.

The Unified Facilities Criteria Handbook states that a work breakdown structure is required 

and provides a top level example of a construction work breakdown structure. However, 

the work breakdown structure detailed in the Handbook does not list any work breakdown 

structure common elements, such as program management.

5. Identify ground rules and 

assumptions

Minimally met

According to our Cost Guide, cost estimates are typically based on limited information and 

therefore need to be bound by the constraints that make estimating possible. These 

constraints are usually made in the form of assumptions. It is imperative that cost 

estimators document all assumptions well and test them for risk to portray the effects of 

any assumptions changing, so that management fully understands the conditions the 

estimate was based on. Such documentation and analysis provides management with an 

invaluable perspective on its decision. Additionally, cost estimators must ensure that 

assumptions are not arbitrary, that they are founded on expert judgments rendered by 

experienced program and technical personnel.

While the Unified Facilities Criteria Handbook and the Department of Defense Facilities 

Pricing Guide identifies some assumptions, the Handbook does not discuss testing the 

assumptions for risks or point out that assumptions should be developed by cost estimators 

with input from the technical community.

6. Obtain the data Partially met

According to our Cost Guide, without sufficient knowledge about the source and reliability 

of the data, the cost estimator cannot know with any confidence whether the data collected 

can be used directly or need to be modified.

The Unified Facilities Criteria places an emphasis on the DOD pricing guide as a source of 

data but does not discuss the process used to develop the data, any data limitations, or 

how the data were normalized. Without an explanation in policy, estimators may not have 

knowledge about the source and reliability of the data and may underestimate costs. 

7. Develop the point estimate and 

compare with an independent 

estimate

Substantially met

According to our Cost Guide, step 7 pulls all the information together to develop the point 

estimate—the best guess at the estimate given the underlying data. This includes the 

estimate’s format, methodology, and validation process.

Consistent with our Cost Guide, the Unified Facilities Criteria Handbook provides details 

regarding many of the activities of developing a point estimate, such as an estimate’s 

format, cost methodologies, estimate validation, and a checklist for what an estimate 

should include to inform the review process. However, the Handbook does not state that an 

independent cost estimate should be developed to validate the point estimate.
Page 23 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

Step Assessment of Unified Facilities Criteria

8. Conduct a sensitivity analysis Minimally met

According to our Cost Guide, without sensitivity analysis that reveals how the cost estimate 

is affected by a change in a single assumption, the cost estimator will not fully understand 

which variable most affects the cost estimate.

The Unified Facilities Criteria discusses a few aspects of a sensitivity analysis but skips 

many steps identified by the Cost Guide. For example, the Unified Facilities Criteria’s 

Programming Cost Estimates for Military Construction identifies unique site sensitive 

conditions and develops factors to determine a cost impact resulting from those conditions, 

but does not discuss how to analyze cost impacts due to any changes in assumptions.

9. Conduct a risk analysis Partially met

According to our Cost Guide, quantitative risk and uncertainty analysis provide a way to 

assess the variability in the point estimate. Having a range of costs around a point estimate 

is more useful to decision makers because it conveys the level of confidence in achieving 

the most likely cost and also informs them on cost, schedule, and technical risks.

The Unified Facilities Criteria’s Programming Cost Estimates for Military Construction 

provides information regarding the application of contingency factors that provide a range 

of cost around the point estimate, but does not provide a description of risk analysis that 

would result in a quantified risk assessment that would identify a level of confidence 

associated with the estimate.

10. Document the estimate Partially met

According to our Cost Guide, documentation provides total recall of the estimate’s detail so 

that the estimate can be replicated by someone unfamiliar with the program. It also serves 

as a reference to support future estimates. Documenting the cost estimate makes available 

a written justification showing how it was developed and aiding in updating it as key 

assumptions change and more information becomes available. According to the Cost 

Guide, some of the things that should be documented include, program inputs, estimating 

method by work breakdown structure cost element, sensitivity analysis, risk and uncertainty 

analysis, management approval, and updates to the estimate.

The Unified Facilities Criteria Handbook highlights the importance of documentation and 

provides details regarding different categories of support documentation that should be 

included as part of the cost estimate. However, the guidance does not discuss 

documenting an estimate’s sensitivity, conducting risk/uncertainty analyses, updating the 

estimate to reflect actual costs or any technical changes, or obtaining management 

approval.

11. Present estimate to management Not met

According to our Cost Guide, providing a briefing to management about how the estimate 

was constructed—including the specific details about the program’s technical 

characteristics, assumptions, data, cost estimating methodologies, data, sensitivity, risk, 

and uncertainty—is necessary for management to have confidence that the estimate is 

accurate, complete, and high in quality. Furthermore, a cost estimate is not considered 

valid until management has approved it. The briefing should be clear and complete so that 

those who are unfamiliar with it can easily comprehend the competence that underlies the 

estimate results.

The Unified Facilities Criteria does not discuss what information should be included as part 

of a briefing to management.
Page 24 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

Step Assessment of Unified Facilities Criteria

12. Update the estimate to reflect actual 

cost and changes

Partially met

According to our Cost Guide, cost estimates must be updated whenever requirements 

change and the results should be reconciled and recorded against the old estimate 

baseline. The documented comparison between the current estimate (updated with actual 

costs) and the old estimate, allows the cost estimator to determine the level of variance 

between the two estimates. In other words, it allows estimators to see how well they are 

estimating and how the program is changing over time.

The Unified Facilities Criteria Handbook discusses different updates to the estimate during 

the design process and the involvement of the cost engineering group during the contract 

modification process; however, the Handbook does not discuss updating the estimate to 

reflect actual costs or documenting reasons for any variances.

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense data and documentation. | GAO-18-101

Each of the military departments is required to follow the Unified Facilities 

Criteria to the greatest extent possible when designing and constructing 

facilities. However, as shown by the table above, there are shortcomings 

in these criteria when compared with our Cost Guide. Despite these 

shortcomings, the military departments have gone beyond the Unified 

Facilities Criteria and developed their own guidance that more closely 

aligns with our Cost Guide. For example, for both the “determining the 

estimating structure” and “obtain the data” steps, we found that all three 

military departments had developed their own guidance that more closely 

aligned with the 12 steps than the Unified Criteria did. In addition, some 

military departments are also making improvements to their cost 

estimating processes, but these improvements have not been fully 

implemented yet. For example, the Air Force Civil Engineer Center is 

implementing a cost estimate improvement plan to include the training of 

nearly 700 airmen and has conducted a study that directly ties the 12 

steps in the Cost Guide to the associated tasks to be completed by the 

Air Force cost estimator to meet each individual step. However, the 

actions contained in the cost improvement plan have not been fully 

implemented and still remain in the concept phase. Similarly, although the 

Army Corps of Engineers is investigating expanding the use the of cost 

and schedule risk analysis—which could align with the best practices in 

the Cost Guide—that the Army currently conducts for selected civil work 

construction projects to its high-cost military construction projects, the 

Army has not formally required the use of these tools. In appendix IV, we 

describe the guidance the military departments have developed beyond 

the Unified Facilities Criteria.

The Cost Guide is designed to establish a consistent methodology that is 

based on best practices and that can be used across the federal 

government for developing, managing, and evaluating capital program 

cost estimates. Air Force and Army Corps of Engineers officials noted 
Page 25 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

that there may be instances in which following all the 12 steps of the Cost 

Guide for every MILCON project would not be appropriate to the risk level 

of the project. For example, it may not be realistic or to the military 

departments’ benefit for the military departments to conduct a sensitivity 

and uncertainty analysis or develop an independent cost estimate for all 

the construction projects they initiate every year, especially for low-cost 

projects. We agree that it may not be suitable to fully apply all 12 of the 

cost estimating steps in the Cost Guide to all MILCON projects. However, 

incorporating the 12 steps into the Unified Facilities Criteria would 

establish consistency across DOD in the cost estimating process by 

ensuring that, for each MILCON project, each step in the Cost Guide 

would at least be considered. Furthermore, DOD could choose to 

establish thresholds—based on, for example, the dollar values of the 

projects—to guide the services in implementing the 12 steps for the most 

valuable projects. Skipping or not considering any step of the 12-step cost 

estimating process, especially for high-value projects such as those in our 

case studies, increases the risk that cost estimates may use improper 

assumptions, lack appropriate definition, or be otherwise unreliable. 

Without improving the Unified Facilities Criteria with respect to cost 

estimating processes, DOD and the services will not be positioned well to 

provide reliable cost estimates to DOD and congressional decisionmakers.

Each year DOD receives billions of dollars in MILCON appropriations to 

use for projects in the United States and overseas. The quality of project 

cost estimates are of great importance since those estimates are the 

basis for DOD’s requests for appropriations. While DOD’s policy is that 

MILCON cost estimates be prepared as accurately as possible in order to 

reflect the full cost of constructing DOD facilities, DOD’s Unified Facilities 

Criteria—the department’s primary construction criteria for developing 

cost estimates—does not fully incorporate all of the steps needed for 

producing reliable cost estimates. Until DOD incorporates the 12 steps of 

high-quality, reliable cost estimating into this department-wide 

construction criteria, DOD and congressional decision-makers may not 

have reliable estimates to inform their decisions regarding appropriations 

and the oversight of projects.

We are making one recommendation to DOD:

The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Assistant Secretary of 

Defense for Energy, Installations, and the Environment work with DOD’s 

Conclusions

Recommendation for 

Executive Action
Page 26 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

construction agents, military departments, and other offices to improve 

DOD’s MILCON cost estimating guidance (i.e., DOD’s Unified Facilities 

Criteria) by fully incorporating all the steps needed for developing highquality reliable cost estimates. (Recommendation 1)

We provided a draft of this report to DOD. In written comments, which are 

reprinted in their entirety in appendix VI, DOD partially concurred with our 

recommendation. DOD also provided technical comments that have 

been incorporated into the report as appropriate.

DOD partially concurred with our recommendation to improve its cost 

estimating guidance by fully incorporating all 12 steps needed for 

developing high-quality, reliable estimates. DOD stated that it did not 

believe that it is suitable to fully apply all 12 steps to any construction 

project due to characteristics of the military construction program that 

DOD believes differ from those of major system or weapon acquisition 

programs. However, DOD also stated that it concurred with the intent and 

general applicability of the twelve steps to military construction and that 

DOD cost estimating guidance lacks specificity in several of these areas. 

DOD acknowledged that expanding its cost guidance to more fully 

incorporate these steps would benefit the military construction program, 

and that it is planning to address this by revising its cost guidance during 

Fiscal Year 2019. 

In our report, we recognize that it may not be appropriate to fully apply all 

12 steps to each construction project. For example, it may not be realistic 

or to the military departments’ benefit to conduct a sensitivity and 

uncertainty analysis or develop an independent cost estimate for all the 

construction projects they initiate every year, especially for low-cost 

projects. Accordingly, we did not recommend that DOD fully apply all 12 

steps to each construction project, but rather that it fully incorporate the 

12 steps into the Unified Facilities Criteria so that, at least, each step is 

considered for each project. DOD could then choose to establish 

thresholds—based on, for example, the dollar values of the projects—to 

determine for which the 12 steps should be fully applied or other 

circumstances in which some steps might not be applicable. We believe 

DOD’s planned revisions will meet the general intent of our 

recommendation. 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Page 27 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees; the Secretary of Defense, the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, 

and Air Force. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO 

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

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

at (202) 512-4523 or leporeb@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are 

listed in appendix VI.

Brian J. Lepore

Director

Defense Capabilities and Management
Page 28 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

List of Committees

The Honorable John McCain

Chairman

The Honorable Jack Reed

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

The Honorable Mac Thornberry

Chairman

The Honorable Adam Smith

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

House of Representatives

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 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: Scope and Methodology

Page 29 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

To examine the active component’s military construction (MILCON) 

obligations and expended balances, we reviewed MILCON appropriations 

found in appropriations acts, including accompanying explanatory 

statements and conference committee reports from fiscal year 2005 

through 2016. Further, we analyzed the obligation and disbursement data 

of the active component‘s MILCON accounts, appropriation status 

reports, bid savings reports, as well as annual reports from the U.S. 

Department of the Treasury. We also collected and compared project 

data from each of the active component on projects that had been 

initiated and completed during fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2016. 

Specifically, we compared the initial estimate as shown on the Form 

1391—the form DOD uses to submit requirements and justifications in 

support of its funding requests to Congress—with the contract award 

amount and analyzed any differences between the two.

To examine the amount of MILCON reprogramming during fiscal years 

2010 and 2016 by the active component, we reviewed DOD’s requests to 

Congress to reprogram MILCON funds from one project to another. We 

calculated the total number of times such requests were made and the 

dollar amounts for fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2016. We selected 

this time frame because the reprogramming requests were readily 

available from DOD. In addition, we judgmentally selected three projects 

from this same time frame and reviewed accompanying Forms 1391 and 

the reprogramming requests associated with the projects to illustrate 

instances in which savings from one MILCON project funded another 

project. We collected and analyzed data for fiscal years 2005 through 

2016 on the active component MILCON appropriations, obligations, and 

disbursements and we collected reprogramming data for fiscal years 

2010 through 2016. We assessed the reliability of the data by interviewing 

knowledgeable officials about the data and the steps that they had taken 

to verify the data’s accuracy. We determined that the data were 

sufficiently reliable for our objectives.

To determine the extent to which DOD’s MILCON cost estimates are 

reliable and DOD’s guidance for producing estimates fully incorporates all 

of the steps needed for developing reliable estimates, we compared the 

process for developing three selected projects with the characteristics 

and best practices for developing a reliable estimate identified in GAO’s 

Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Developing

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 30 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

and Managing Capital Program Costs (the Cost Guide).1 This guide is a 

compilation of cost estimating best practices drawn from across industry 

and federal government. We selected our projects from the universe of 

projects that we reasonably expected could have begun execution (i.e., 

projects initiated during fiscal years 2012-2014); projects that were 

underway, but not substantially completed (i.e., between 10- and 75-

percent complete); and projects that constituted a significant financial 

investment (i.e., projects with appropriations of $75 million or greater). 

Ultimately, of 690 total projects we identified DOD-wide, 13 met these 

criteria and, from this sample, we selected the 3 projects included in this 

report: (1) the construction of a replacement elementary school at Camp 

Foster, Japan; (2) the construction of a Strategic Command operations 

building at Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska; and (3) the construction of a 

Marine Corps command headquarters and cyberspace operations 

building in Fort Meade, Maryland.

In conducting the assessments for these three selected projects, we 

examined the processes used to develop both the Form 1391 estimate 

(i.e the form DOD uses to submit project-level requirements and 

justifications in support of its MILCON funding requests to Congress ) and 

the independent government estimate (i.e., the estimate used to award 

the contract) to determine whether the project cost estimates had the 

characteristics of a high-quality and reliable cost estimate, as defined in 

the Cost Guide. These projects are not intended to be a projectable 

sample, but to illustrate how cost estimates are assessed against best 

practices. Although the Camp Foster project is not owned by any of the 

active component, the construction and planning of the project is being 

led by the Army Corps of Engineers in its capacity as a DOD construction 

agent and, as such, we decided to include it in our review. Additionally, 

we reviewed DOD’s Unified Facilities Criteria and the active component’s 

respective guidance related to MILCON cost estimating and compared 

them with the steps needed for developing reliable estimates identified in 

the Cost Guide. We also interviewed military project cost estimators and 

active component construction agents to discuss the requirements and 

guidance they follow in preparing, documenting, and reviewing project 

cost estimates. Table 9 details the documents we reviewed for our cost 

estimating assessments.

 1

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

Managing Capital Program Costs, GAO-09-3SP (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2, 2009).
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 31 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

Table 9: Documents Reviewed for Cost Estimating Assessments

Subject Document

Offutt Air Force Base Project • Form 1391

• Independent Government Estimate

• Kirk Associates Opinion of Construction Cost

• After Action Review Cost Estimating for the 

Strategic Command Replacement Facility

• Line Item Pricing Schedule and Option Items

Fort Meade Project • Form 1391

• Independent Government Estimate

• Unified Facilities Guide Specifications

• Authorized Scope of Work Certification 

Memorandum

• Revised Concept Drawings

• Design Build Request for Proposal

• Appendix LL: Amendments

• Appendix D: Architectural Space Program and 

Room Data Sheets

• Program Management Plan: National Security 

Agency Construction Program

Camp Foster Project • Form 1391

• Independent Government Estimate

• Cost Estimate Review Checklist

• Education Facilities Specifications: Outdoor 

Spaces

• Education Facilities Specifications: Food Service

• Supplemental Statement of Work for Preparation 

of Final Design Documents

• Work Breakdown Structure

• Value Engineering Study
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 32 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

Subject Document

Unified Facilities Criteria • Unified Facilities Criteria 3-710-01A, Code 3 

Design with Parametric Estimating (March 1, 

2005)

• Unified Facilities Criteria 3-730-01, Programming 

Cost Estimates for Military Construction (June 6, 

2011) (Change 1, March 2017)

• Unified Facilities Criteria 3-740-05, Handbook: 

Construction Cost Estimating (Nov. 8, 2010) 

(Change 1, June 2011)

• Unified Facilities Criteria 4-010-05, Sensitive 

Compartmented Information Facilities Planning, 

Design, and Construction (Feb. 1, 2013) 

(Change 1, Oct. 2013)

• Unified Facilities Criteria 4-610-01, 

Administration Facilities (May 6, 2008) (Change 

2, May 2014)

• DOD MIL-STD-3007F, Standard Practice for 

Unified Facilities Criteria and Unified Facilities 

Guide Specifications (Dec. 13, 2006)

• Unified Facilities Criteria 1-300-08, Criteria For 

Transfer and Acceptance of DOD Real Property

(April 16, 2009) (Change 2, Aug. 2011)

• Unified Facilities Criteria 3-701-01, DOD 

Facilities Pricing Guide (March 2011) (Change 

10, May 2016)

Army • Army Regulation 415-15, Army Military 

Construction and Nonappropriated-Funded 

Construction Program Development and 

Execution (June 12, 2006)

• Army Regulation 420-1, Army Facilities 

Management (Aug. 24, 2012)

• Army Corps of Engineers Engineer Regulation 

1110-3-1300, Military Programs Cost 

Engineering (Aug. 26, 1999)

• Army Corps of Engineers Engineering Regulation 

1110-1-1300, Cost Engineering Policy and 

General Requirements (March 26, 1993)

• DOD MIL-STD-881C, Standard Practice Work 

Breakdown Structures for Defense Materiel Items

(Oct. 3, 2011)

• Army Corps of Engineers Memorandum, 

Procurement Instruction Letter (PIL) 2012-03 

Requirements for Development, Review and 

Approval of Independent Government Estimates

(Jan. 10, 2012)
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 33 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

Subject Document

Air Force • Air Force Instruction 32-1021, Planning and 

Programming Military Construction (MILCON) 

Projects (Feb. 25, 2016)

• Air Force Instruction 65-501, Economic Analysis 

Aug. 29, 2011) (Guidance memorandum update, 

March 14, 2017)

• Air Force Manual 32-1084, Facility Requirements

(Feb. 26, 2016)

• Air Force Memorandum, Air Force Sustainable 

Design and Development (SDD) Implementing 

Guidance (June 2, 2011)

• Air Force Presentation, Finalization of the Air 

Force Cost Estimating Improvement Program

(August 10, 2016)

• Air Force, Guide to Cost Estimate Preparation, 

Review, and Validation (June 12, 2015)

Navy • Naval Facilities Engineering Command 

(NAVFAC), Cost Engineering Policy and 

Procedures Interim Guidance 2017-2019 (Jan. 

20, 2017)

• Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5223.2A, 

Department of the Navy Cost Analysis (Dec. 3, 

2012)

• NAVFAC, Building Cost Index (Change 10 May 

25, 2016)

Source: Department of Defense documents. | GAO-18-101

We conducted this performance audit from January 2016 to March 2018 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: Active Component’s Unobligated, 

Unexpended Balances, and Execution of 

Military Construction Appropriations, Fiscal 

Years 2005 through 2016

Page 34 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

In this appendix we provide the supporting details on the active 

component’s unobligated and unexpended balances of military 

construction (MILCON) appropriations for fiscal years 2005 through 

2016.1 We include details on unobligated and unexpended balances by 

appropriation year and include individual tables for each military 

department of the active component. Overall, the active component had 

high obligation and expenditure rates associated with MILCON 

appropriations that have expired or been canceled.2 The Army, the Air 

Force, and the Navy consistently expended over 90 percent of amounts 

appropriated in fiscal years 2005 through 2011.

This appendix also provides supporting details on the active component’s 

execution of MILCON appropriations for fiscal years 2010 through 2016. 

Using Department of Defense (DOD) data, we identified two groups of 

MILCON projects: congressionally directed and other. “Congressionally 

directed” projects are those MILCON projects specifically identified in an 

appropriation act, explanatory statement, and/or committee reports 

accompanying the appropriation act for a specific fiscal year. “Other” 

projects refer to congressionally directed MILCON projects identified in an 

appropriation act, explanatory statement, and/or conference committee 

reports in a previous fiscal year. Overall, the active component obligated 

about 89 percent of its fiscal years 2010 through 2012 appropriations for 

congressionally directed projects whose appropriations expired on 

September 30, 2017.3

Tables 10 through 12 present detailed information on unexpended and 

unobligated balances for each military department of the active 

component’s MILCON appropriation for fiscal years 2005 through 2016, 

as reported by DOD as of September 30, 2016.

 1

Fiscal year 2013 appropriations expired September 30, 2017; however, final data were 

not available at the time of this audit. 

2

“Unexpended balances” are the total of obligated but unliquidated and unobligated 

amounts. Time-limited appropriations such as military construction (MILCON) amounts 

expire at the end of the fiscal year for which they were appropriated. Unexpended 

balances are available for 5 years after expiration for limited purposes such as liquidating 

obligations incurred during the fiscal year of availability. After the 5-year period has 

elapsed, all obligated and unobligated balances are canceled, the expired account is 

closed, and all remaining funds are returned to the general fund of the U.S. Treasury.

3

Fiscal year 2013 appropriations expired September 30, 2017, but final execution data 

were not available at the time of this audit.

Appendix II: Active Component’s Unobligated, 

Unexpended Balances, and Execution of 

Military Construction Appropriations, Fiscal 

Years 2005 through 2016

Unobligated and 

Unexpended Balances
Appendix II: Active Component’s Unobligated, 

Unexpended Balances, and Execution of 

Military Construction Appropriations, Fiscal 

Years 2005 through 2016

Page 35 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

Table 10 shows that for fiscal years 2005 through 2012, the Army 

expended almost all of its MILCON appropriations. Specifically, with the 

exception of fiscal year 2012, the Army expended at least 90 percent of 

its appropriations received each fiscal year for 2005 through 2011. 

Unexpended rates for amounts appropriated for fiscal years 2014 through 

2016 vary and unobligated amounts for these years remain available for 

new obligations.

Army
Appendix II: Active Component’s Unobligated, Unexpended 

Balances, and Execution of Military Construction 

Appropriations, Fiscal Years 2005 through 2016

Page 36 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

Table 10: Army Military Construction Appropriations, Obligations, and Unexpended Balances, Fiscal Years 2005 through 2016

Dollars in millions

Unexpended funds

Fiscal years of 

availabilitya

Total 

appropriation as 

of 9/30/2016b 

(dollars)

Total 

canceled as 

of 9/30/16c 

(dollars)

Disbursed as 

of 9/30/2016d 

(dollars)

Net 

obligations 

as of 

9/30/2016 

(dollars)

Transferred 

out as of fiscal 

year 2016f 

(dollars)

Unobligated 

as of 

9/30/2016g 

(dollars)

Unliquidated 

obligations 

as of 

9/30/2016 

(dollars)

Total 

unexpended 

as of 

9/30/2016 

(dollars)

Unexpended 

rate 

(percentage)

2016-2020 756.4 c 46.0 143.4 0.0 613.0 97.4 710.4 93.9

2015-2019 651.1 c 138.2 328.9 59.6 262.6 190.7 512.9 78.8

2014-2018 1,173.1 c 716.5 999.3 61.6 112.2 282.8 456.7 38.9

2013-2017 1,749.4 c 1,102.2 1,446.3 67.3 235.8 344.1 647.2 37.0

2012-2016 3,013.8 c 2,515.1 2,824.1 67.3 122.5 309.0 498.7 16.5

2011-2015 3,590.8 c 3,365.8 3,525.3 17.5 48.0 159.5 224.9 6.3

2010-2014 3,157.4 c 3,125.8 3,149.3 4.1 4.1 23.4 31.6 1.0

2009-2013 5,059.5 c 4,832.9 4,836.3 28.4 194.9 3.3 226.6 4.5

2008-2012 4,338.2 c 4,263.2 e 36.8 e e 75.0 1.7

2007-2011 2,039.4 2.9 1,976.3 e 60.2 e e 63.1 3.1

2006-2010 1,679.0 0.0 1,675.3 e 3.7 e e 3.7 0.2

2005-2009 1,992.9 0.8 1,982.2 e 10.0 e e 10.7 0.5

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Treasury and Department of Defense data. Data reported as of September 30, 2016. | GAO-18-101

Notes: Numbers may not total due to rounding.

a

Range of fiscal years is the period of availability for MILCON amounts appropriated in each fiscal year from 2005 

through 2016. MILCON appropriations are available for new obligations for 5 fiscal years.

b

Includes the appropriated amount, net funds transferred into and amounts rescinded from the account as 

authorized by statute.

c

Obligations are not applicable here because any amounts remaining are in the 5-year expired phase during which 

they remain available for limited purposes.

d

Disbursements are amounts paid by cash or a cash equivalent during the fiscal year to liquidate obligations.
Appendix II: Active Component’s Unobligated, Unexpended 

Balances, and Execution of Military Construction 

Appropriations, Fiscal Years 2005 through 2016

Page 37 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

e

Not applicable because the amounts have been canceled and are no longer available for any purpose.

f

”Transfer” is the shifting of all or part of the budget authority from one appropriation or fund account to another. 

DOD may transfer budget authority only as specifically authorized by statute.

g

This amount remains available for obligation.
Appendix II: Active Component’s Unobligated, 

Unexpended Balances, and Execution of 

Military Construction Appropriations, Fiscal 

Years 2005 through 2016

Page 38 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

Table 11 shows that, for fiscal years 2005 through 2013, the Air Force 

expended almost all of its MILCON appropriations. Specifically, the Air 

Force expended at least 95 percent of its appropriations received each 

year for fiscal years 2005 through 2011 and also in fiscal year 2013. 

Unexpended rates for amounts appropriated for fiscal years 2014 through 

2016 vary and unobligated amounts for these years remain available for 

new obligations.

Air Force
Appendix II: Active Component’s Unobligated, Unexpended 

Balances, and Execution of Military Construction 

Appropriations, Fiscal Years 2005 through 2016

Page 39 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

Table 11: Air Force Military Construction Appropriations, Obligations, and Unexpended Balances, Fiscal Years 2005 through 2016

Dollars in millions

Unexpended funds

Fiscal years of 

availabilitya

Total 

appropriation 

as of 9/30/2016b 

(dollars)

Total 

canceled as 

of 9/30/16c 

(dollars)

Disbursed as 

of 9/30/2016d 

(dollars)

Net 

obligations as 

of 9/30/2016 

(dollars)

Transfer-red 

out as of fiscal 

year 2016f 

(dollars)

Unobligated 

as of 

9/30/2016g 

(dollars)

Unliquidated 

obligations as 

of 9/30/2016 

(dollars)

Total 

unexpended as 

of 9/30/2016 

(dollars)

Unexpended 

rate 

(percentage)

2016-2020 1,416.0 c 40.5 433.7 0.0 982.3 393.2 1,375.5 97.1

2015-2019 825.9 c 227.1 633.5 0.0 192.4 406.4 598.9 72.5

2014-2018 1,040.3 c 726.2 952.4 0.0 87.9 226.1 314.1 30.2

2013-2017 295.0 c 285.6 289.9 0.0 5.1 4.3 9.4 3.2

2012-2016 1,219.6 c 1,057.6 1,176.5 16.7 26.5 118.9 162.0 13.3

2011-2015 1,071.7 c 1,020.4 1,041.4 18.1 12.2 21.0 51.3 4.8

2010-2014 1,268.1 c 1,216.6 1,230.2 28.4 9.5 13.5 51.4 4.1

2009-2013 1,107.7 c 1,080.4 1,085.5 15.9 6.3 5.1 27.3 2.5

2008-2012 1,186.9 c 1,159.7 e 24.0 e e 27.1 2.3

2007-2011 1,105.9 1.2 1,089.9 e 14.8 e e 16.1 1.5

2006-2010 1,469.4 8.1 1,423.3 e 38.0 e e 46.1 3.1

2005-2009 897.3 3.2 871.5 e 22.6 e e 25.8 2.9

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Treasury and Department of Defense data. Data reported as of September 30, 2016. | GAO-18-101

Notes: Numbers may not total due to rounding.

a

Range of fiscal years is the period of availability for MILCON amounts appropriated in each fiscal year from 2005 

through 2016. MILCON appropriations are available for new obligations for 5 fiscal years.

b

Includes the appropriated amount and net funds transferred into and amounts rescinded from the account as 

authorized by statute.

c

Obligations are not applicable here because any amounts remaining are in the 5-year expired phase during which 

they remain available for limited purposes.

d

Disbursements are amounts paid by cash or cash equivalent during the fiscal year to liquidate obligations.
Appendix II: Active Component’s Unobligated, Unexpended 

Balances, and Execution of Military Construction 

Appropriations, Fiscal Years 2005 through 2016

Page 40 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

e

Not applicable because the amounts have been canceled and are no longer available for any purpose unless 

Congress agrees to a reprogramming.

f

Transfer is the shifting of all or part of the budget authority in one appropriation or fund account to another. DOD 

may transfer budget authority only as specifically authorized by law.

g

This amount remains available for obligation.
Appendix II: Active Component’s Unobligated, 

Unexpended Balances, and Execution of 

Military Construction Appropriations, Fiscal 

Years 2005 through 2016

Page 41 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

Table 12 shows that for fiscal years 2005 through 2012, the Navy 

expended almost all of its MILCON appropriations. Specifically, the Navy 

expended at least 90 percent of its appropriations received each fiscal 

year for 2005 through 2011. Unexpended rates for amounts appropriated 

for fiscal years 2014 through 2016 vary and unobligated amounts for 

these years remain available for new obligations.

Navy
Appendix II: Active Component’s Unobligated, Unexpended 

Balances, and Execution of Military Construction 

Appropriations, Fiscal Years 2005 through 2016

Page 42 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

Table 12: Navy Military Construction Appropriations, Obligations, and Unexpended Balances, Fiscal Years 2005 through 2016

Dollars in millions

Unexpended funds

Fiscal years of 

availabilitya

Total 

appropriation as 

of 9/30/2016b 

(dollars)

Total 

canceled as 

of 9/30/16c 

(dollars)

Disbursed 

as of 

9/30/2016d 

(dollars)

Net obligations 

as of 9/30/2016 

(dollars)

Transfer-red 

out as of 

fiscal year 

2016f (dollars)

Unobligated 

as of 

9/30/2016g 

(dollars)

Unliquidated 

obligations as 

of 9/30/2016 

(dollars)

Total 

unexpended as 

of 9/30/2016 

(dollars)

Unexpended 

rate 

(percentage)

2016-2020 1,721.2 c 56.1 546.3 0.0 1,174.9 490.2 1,665.2 96.7

2015-2019 1,022.6 c 204.5 699.7 2.5 320.4 495.2 818.1 80.0

2014-2018 1,634.1 c 704.4 1,206.9 3.8 423.3 502.4 929.6 56.9

2013-2017 1,466.3 c 1,012.6 1,251.4 3.6 211.3 238.8 453.6 30.9

2012-2016 2,078.0 c 1,765.1 2,055.0 4.2 18.7 289.9 312.9 15.1

2011-2015 3,242.9 c 2,948.5 3,226.1 1.1 15.6 277.6 294.4 9.1

2010-2014 3,427.4 c 3,353.8 3,418.8 1.7 6.9 65.0 73.6 2.1

2009-2013 3,413.0 c 3,374.7 3,395.1 0.9 17.0 20.4 38.3 1.1

2008-2012 2,281.0 c 2,263.1 e 21.0 e e 17.9 0.8

2007-2011 1,146.9 1.1 1,142.5 e 3.3 e e 4.4 0.4

2006-2010 1,499.1 3.2 1,489.1 e 6.8 e e 10.0 0.7

2005-2009 1,042.1 3.7 1,036.4 e 2.0 e e 5.7 0.6

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Treasury and Department of Defense data. Data reported as of September 30, 2016. | GAO-18-101

Notes: Numbers may not total due to rounding.

a

Range of fiscal years is the period of availability for MILCON amounts appropriated in each fiscal year from 2005 

through 2016. MILCON appropriations are available for new obligations for 5 fiscal years.

b

Includes the appropriated amount, net funds transferred into and amounts rescinded from the account as 

authorized by statute.

c

Obligations are not applicable here because any amounts remaining are in the 5-year expired phase during which 

they remain available for limited purposes.

d

Disbursements are amounts paid by cash or a cash equivalent during the fiscal year to liquidate obligations.

e

Not applicable because the amounts have been canceled and are no longer available for any purpose.
Appendix II: Active Component’s Unobligated, Unexpended 

Balances, and Execution of Military Construction 

Appropriations, Fiscal Years 2005 through 2016

Page 43 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

f

Transfer is the shifting of all or part of the budget authority in one appropriation or fund account to another account. 

DOD may transfer budget authority only as specifically authorized by law.

g

This amount remains available for obligation.
Appendix II: Active Component’s Unobligated, 

Unexpended Balances, and Execution of 

Military Construction Appropriations, Fiscal 

Years 2005 through 2016

Page 44 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

Tables 13 through 15 provide detailed information on budget execution 

for each active duty military department’s MILCON appropriation for 

“congressionally directed” and “other” MILCON projects for fiscal years 

2010 through 2016, as reported by DOD as of September 30, 2016.

Table13 shows the obligations made by the Army for MILCON 

appropriations for fiscal years 2010 through 2016. We analyzed the 

obligations made during these appropriations’ period of availability for 

congressionally directed and other MILCON projects. For fiscal year 

2010, using data in the table, we found that about 97.2 percent of 

obligations were for congressionally directed projects and 2.8 percent 

were for other projects, as discussed above. In fiscal year 2011, about 94 

percent of obligations were for congressionally directed projects and 4.2 

percent were for other projects; and in fiscal year 2012, about 86.5 

percent of obligations were for congressionally directed projects and 7.2 

percent were for other projects.

Table 13: Budget Execution Analysis of Army Military Construction Projects, Fiscal Years 2010-2016, as of September 30, 

2016

Dollars in millions

Fiscal years of 

availability

2010-

2014

2011-

2015

2012-

2016

2013-

2017

2014-

2018

2015-

2019

2016-

2020

Total appropriateda 3,157 3,591 3,014 1,749 1,173 651 756

Obligations for congressionally 

directed projects

3,062 3,374 2,608 1,422 971 311 45

Obligations for other MILCON 

projects

87.2 151 216 24 29 18 98

Total obligated 3,149 3,525 2,824 1,446 1,000 329 143

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Treasury and Department of Defense data. Data reported as of September 30, 2016. | GAO-18-101

Notes: Numbers may not total due to rounding.

a

Includes the appropriated amount, net funds transferred into and amounts rescinded from the 

account as authorized by statute.

Table 14 shows the obligations made by the Air Force for MILCON 

appropriations for fiscal years 2010 through 2016. We analyzed the 

obligations made during these appropriations’ period of availability for 

congressionally directed and other MILCON projects. For fiscal year 

2010, using the data listed in the table, we found that 90.5 percent of 

obligations were for congressionally directed projects and 7.3 percent 

were for other projects, as discussed above. In fiscal year 2011, about 

84.3 percent of obligations were for congressionally directed projects and 

12.9 percent were for other projects; and in fiscal year 2012, about 87.5 

percent of obligations were for congressionally directed projects and 9.0 

percent were for other projects.

Execution of Military 

Construction 

Appropriations

Army

Air Force
Appendix II: Active Component’s Unobligated, 

Unexpended Balances, and Execution of 

Military Construction Appropriations, Fiscal 

Years 2005 through 2016

Page 45 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

Table 14: Budget Execution Analysis of Air Force Military Construction Projects for Fiscal Years 2010-2016, as of September 

30, 2016

Dollars in millions

Fiscal years of 

availability

2010-

2014

2011-

2015

2012-

2016

2013-

2017

2014-

2018

2015-

2019

2016-

2020

Total appropriateda 1,268 1,072 1,220 295 1,040 826 1,416

Obligations for congressionally 

directed projects

1,147 904 1067 273 923 637 384

Obligations for “other” MILCON 

projects

92 138 110 17 29 -4b 50

Total obligated 1,239 1,042 1,177 290 952 633 434

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Treasury and Department of Defense data. Data reported as of September 30, 2016. | GAO-18-101

Notes: Numbers may not total due to rounding.

a

Includes the appropriated amount, net funds transferred into and amounts rescinded from the 

account as authorized by statute.

b

Negative amount is the result of a foreign currency fluctuation transaction of $7.3 million.

Table 15 shows the obligations made by the Navy for MILCON 

appropriations for fiscal years 2010 through 2016. We analyzed the 

obligations made during these appropriations’ period of availability for 

congressionally directed and other MILCON projects. For fiscal year 

2010, using data in the table, we found that 84.7 percent of obligations 

were for congressionally directed projects and 15.0 percent were for other 

projects, as discussed above. In fiscal year 2011, about 87.7 percent of 

obligations were for congressionally directed projects and 11.8 percent 

were for other projects; and in fiscal year 2012, about 85.5 percent of 

obligations were for congressionally directed projects and 13.4 percent for 

other projects.

Table 15: Budget Execution Analysis of Navy Military Construction Projects, Fiscal Years 2010-2016, as of September 30, 2016 

Dollars in millions

Fiscal years of 

availability

2010-

2014

2011-

2015

2012-

2016

2013-

2017

2014-

2018

2015-

2019

2016-

2020

Total appropriateda 3,427 3,243 2,078 1,466 1,634 1,023 1,721

Obligations for congressionally 

directed projects

2,904 2,844 1,776 1,162 1,114 651 517

Obligations for other MILCON 

projects

515 382 279 89.2 93 49 30

Total obligated 3,419 3,226 2,055 1,251 1,207 700 547

Source: GAO analysis of U.S. Treasury and Department of Defense data. Data reported as of September 30, 2016. | GAO-18-101

Notes: Numbers may not total due to rounding.

a

Includes the appropriated amount and net funds transferred into and amounts rescinded from the 

account as directed by statute.

Navy
Appendix III: Comparison of Completed 

Military Construction Projects’ Initial Cost 

Estimates with Contract Award Amounts, 

Fiscal Years 2010 through 2016

Page 46 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

This appendix provides information on our analysis of DOD’s estimated 

initial costs and contract award amounts of projects that had been 

initiated and completed during fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2016 

by the active component. An official from the Office of the Assistant 

Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment told us 

that, to determine whether initial cost estimates were over- or 

underestimated, a comparison between initial Form 1391 estimates and 

contract award amounts would be a valid approach since contract award 

amounts are, in general, estimates of the same requirements identified on 

a Form 1391. The official also noted that supervision, inspection, 

overhead, and contingency costs included on a Form 1391 are not 

included in contract award amounts, which could create differences 

between the Form 1391 cost estimates and contract award 

prices. Because of this, we excluded the supervision, inspection, 

overhead, and contingency costs from the Form 1391 estimates in the 

table below to eliminate those differences. Form 1391 cost estimates may 

also vary from contract award amounts for reasons such as changes in 

project size or scope, changes in project characteristics, unexpectedly 

high or low contractor bids, or differences in expected building material 

costs, among other things. A negative percent change from the Form 

1391 estimate to the contract award amount indicates the estimated 

project cost was overestimated and a positive percent change indicates 

the project was underestimated. We did not determine the precise 

reasons for any differences between estimated costs and contract award 

amounts. Table 16 lists information on 414 completed projects funded 

with military construction (MILCON) appropriations during fiscal year 2010 

through fiscal year 2016 sorted by largest percentage overestimated to 

largest percentage underestimated.

Appendix III: Comparison of Completed 

Military Construction Projects’ Initial Cost 

Estimates with Contract Award Amounts, 

Fiscal Years 2010 through 2016
Appendix III: Comparison of Completed 

Military Construction Projects’ Initial Cost 

Estimates with Contract Award Amounts, 

Fiscal Years 2010 through 2016

Page 47 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

Table 16: Comparison of Completed MILCON Projects’ Initial Cost Estimates with Contract Award Amounts, Fiscal Years 2010 

through 2016 

Dollars in thousands

Fiscal 

year Service State/country Installation Project title Project number

Form 1391 

cost 

estimatea

(dollars)

Contract 

award 

amount

(dollars)

Percent 

change from 

Form 1391 

cost estimate 

to contract 

award amount

2010 Army Utah Dugway 

Proving 

Ground

Water Treatment 

Systems

55206 22,240 7,052 -68

2011 Army Washington Fort Lewis Rappelling Training 

Area

72089 4,730 1,598 -66

2011 Army Kansas Fort Riley Automated 

Qualification 

Training Range

65460 13,388 4,697 -65

2010 Air 

Force

Afghanistan Bagram Air 

Base

Passenger 

Terminal

ATUH100101 19,473 7,067 -64

2010 Army Colorado Fort Carson, 

Colorado

Brigade Complex 65362 62,406 25,514 -59

2010 Army North 

Carolina

Sunny Point 

Military 

Ocean 

Terminal

Towers 61562 3,534 1,480 -58

2010 Army Florida Eglin Air 

Force Base

Non-Standard 

Small Arms Range

65694 3,082 1,328 -57

2010 Army Florida Eglin Air 

Force Base

Indoor Firing Range 65212 8,028 3,679 -54

2011 Army Kentucky Fort 

Campbell

Rappelling Training 

Area

67040 5,063 2,350 -54

2010 Army Afghanistan Bagram Air 

Base

Fuel System, 

Phase 6

69398 10,699 5,002 -53

2010 Army Alaska Fort 

Wainwright

Railhead Complex 61503 23,412 10,962 -53

2010 Army Hawaii Schofield 

Barracks

Vehicle 

Maintenance Shop

55281 32,460 15,366 -53

2011 Army Kentucky Fort 

Campbell

Urban Assault 

Course

71713 2,980 1,414 -53

2010 Army Missouri Fort Leonard 

Wood

Automated-Aided 

Instruction Facility

54253 24,240 11,599 -52

2010 Army Florida Eglin Air 

Force Base

Live Fire Exercise 

Breach Facility

65693 4,473 2,185 -51

2011 Air 

Force

Florida Patrick Air 

Force Base

Air Force Technical 

Applications 

Center, Increment 1

SXHT053001 142,927 70,619 -51
Appendix III: Comparison of Completed 

Military Construction Projects’ Initial Cost 

Estimates with Contract Award Amounts, 

Fiscal Years 2010 through 2016

Page 48 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

Fiscal 

year Service State/country Installation Project title Project number

Form 1391 

cost 

estimatea

(dollars)

Contract 

award 

amount

(dollars)

Percent 

change from 

Form 1391 

cost estimate 

to contract 

award amount

2012 Army California Fort Irwin Infantry Squad 

Battle Course

71707 6,772 3,388 -50

2011 Navy North 

Carolina

Camp 

Lejeune

Armory P1323 11,070 5,941 -46

2010 Navy Virginia Norfolk Naval 

Station

E-2D Trainer 

Facility

P016 10,617 5,737 -46

2011 Army Georgia Fort Benning Vehicle 

Maintenance Shop

63799 48,180 26,041 -46

2011 Army Missouri Fort Leonard 

Wood

Training Barracks 69267 17,331 9,457 -45

2012 Army Georgia Fort Benning Training Barracks 

Complex, Phase 3

69745 20,275 11,091 -45

2011 Army Kentucky Fort Knox Access Corridor 

Improvements

70261 5,365 2,976 -45

2010 Army Georgia Fort Benning Combined Arms 

Collective Training 

Facility

62207 9,670 5,436 -44

2010 Army Georgia Fort Stewart Warrior in 

Transition Complex

69391 43,932 24,822 -43

2010 Army Florida Eglin Air 

Force Base

Basic 10M - 25M 

Firing Range (Zero)

65706 2,738 1,552 -43

2010 Air 

Force

New Mexico Kirtland Air 

Force Base

Hc-130J Simulator 

Facility

MHMV083112 7,835 4,450 -43

2012 Army Kentucky Fort 

Campbell

Scout/Recce 

Gunnery Range

71703 16,211 9,236 -43

2010 Army Kansas Fort Riley Igloo Storage, 

Installation

64570 6,533 3,724 -43

2012 Air 

Force

Nevada Nellis Air 

Force Base

F-35 Age Facility RKMF103001 19,441 11,097 -43

2010 Army Colorado Fort Carson, 

Colorado

Commissary 72258 32,077 18,715 -42

2010 Army Florida Eglin Air 

Force Base

Live Fire Exercise 

Shoothouse

65691 7,183 4,213 -41

2011 Army Hawaii Tripler Army 

Medical 

Center

Barracks 67258 25,479 14,980 -41

2010 Air 

Force

Italy Sigonella 

Naval Air 

Station

Global Hawk 

Aircraft 

Maintenance And 

Operations 

Complex

USAFE073006 27,930 16,487 -41
Appendix III: Comparison of Completed 

Military Construction Projects’ Initial Cost 

Estimates with Contract Award Amounts, 

Fiscal Years 2010 through 2016

Page 49 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

Fiscal 

year Service State/country Installation Project title Project number

Form 1391 

cost 

estimatea

(dollars)

Contract 

award 

amount

(dollars)

Percent 

change from 

Form 1391 

cost estimate 

to contract 

award amount

2010 Air 

Force

Florida MacDill Air 

Force Base

Child Development 

Center

NVZR073723 6,308 3,733 -41

2011 Air 

Force

Alaska Elmendorf Air 

Force Base

F-22 Adal Weapons 

Release Systems 

Shop 

FXSB073012 9,399 5,608 -40

2010 Air 

Force

Colorado U.S. Air 

Force 

Academy

Addition to Cadet 

Fitness Center

XQPZ104004 15,849 9,512 -40

2012 Army Hawaii Fort Shafter Child Development 

Center

64967 15,854 9,573 -40

2011 Air 

Force

New Mexico Kirtland Air 

Force Base

Armament Shop MHMV053114A 5,844 3,548 -39

2010 Army New York Fort Drum Barracks 64522 51,488 31,303 -39

2011 Army Virginia Fort Lee Automated 

Qualification 

Training Range

60449 6,960 4,237 -39

2010 Army Florida Eglin Air 

Force Base

Automated 

Qualification 

Training Range

65701 10,828 6,638 -39

2010 Air 

Force

Arizona DavisMonthan Air 

Force Base

Hc-130J Rescue 

Squadron 

Operations Facility

FBNV103002 7,853 4,868 -38

2011 Army Virginia Fort A.P. Hill Light Demolition 

Range

65790 3,710 2,308 -38

2010 Army Virginia Fort A.P. Hill Training Aids 

Center

68779 8,238 5,148 -38

2010 Army Arizona Fort 

Huachuca

UAV ER/MPER/MP 62363 13,790 8,618 -38

2010 Army North 

Carolina

Fort Bragg Simulations Center 20347 45,395 28,720 -37

2011 Navy Washington Kitsap Naval 

Base

Waterfront 

Restricted Area 

Emergency Power

P910 22,533 14,316 -36

2011 Air 

Force

Colorado Peterson Air 

Force Base

Raiders Space 

Control Facility

TDKA093005 22,434 14,284 -36

2010 Navy North 

Carolina

Camp 

Lejeune 

(Hadnot 

Point)

Physical Fitness 

Center

P1160 35,960 22,908 -36
Appendix III: Comparison of Completed 

Military Construction Projects’ Initial Cost 

Estimates with Contract Award Amounts, 

Fiscal Years 2010 through 2016

Page 50 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

Fiscal 

year Service State/country Installation Project title Project number

Form 1391 

cost 

estimatea

(dollars)

Contract 

award 

amount

(dollars)

Percent 

change from 

Form 1391 

cost estimate 

to contract 

award amount

2010 Air 

Force

Arizona DavisMonthan Air 

Force Base

Hc-130J Simulator 

Facility

FBNV103001 7,595 4,852 -36

2011 Navy Virginia Norfolk Naval 

Station

Piers 9 And 10 

Upgrades for 

Building 1000

P828 2,160 1,396 -35

2010 Air 

Force

Wyoming F.E. Warren 

Air Force 

Base

Add/Alter Missile 

Service Complex

GHLN053010 8,148 5,273 -35

2012 Air 

Force

Utah Hill Air Force 

Base

F-22 System 

Support Facility

KRSM123011R 14,753 9,598 -35

2010 Army Virginia Fort A.P. Hill Field Training Area 67973 8,068 5,252 -35

2010 Army Georgia Fort Benning Warrior in 

Transition Complex

69999 48,348 31,496 -35

2010 Air 

Force

Florida MacDill Air 

Force Base

Central Command 

Commandant 

Facility

NVZR103704R1 13,782 9,028 -34

2010 Air 

Force

Qatar Al Udeid Air 

Base

Blatchford-Preston 

Complex 

ALUA073006A 54,057 35,759 -34

2012 Army Kentucky Fort 

Campbell

Unmanned Aerial 

Vehicle 

Maintenance 

Hangar

69501 61,057 40,397 -34

2010 Army Hawaii Schofield 

Barracks

Vehicle 

Maintenance Shop

55274 56,988 37,872 -34

2012 Army Kentucky Fort Knox Automated Infantry 

Platoon Battle 

Course

64823 6,300 4,197 -33

2010 Army Hawaii Schofield 

Barracks

Warrior in 

Transition Barracks

69521 49,090 32,745 -33

2011 Air 

Force

Nevada Creech Air 

Force Base

UAS Airfield 

Fire/Crash Rescue 

Station

LKTC113102 10,591 7,091 -33

2011 Air 

Force

Florida Eglin Air 

Force Base

F-35 Fuel Cell 

Maintenance 

Hangar

FTFA073908 10,351 6,957 -33

2010 Navy North 

Carolina

Cherry Point 

Marine Corps 

Air Station

Emergency Medical 

Services/Fire 

Vehicle Facility

P141 9,590 6,460 -33
Appendix III: Comparison of Completed 

Military Construction Projects’ Initial Cost 

Estimates with Contract Award Amounts, 

Fiscal Years 2010 through 2016

Page 51 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

Fiscal 

year Service State/country Installation Project title Project number

Form 1391 

cost 

estimatea

(dollars)

Contract 

award 

amount

(dollars)

Percent 

change from 

Form 1391 

cost estimate 

to contract 

award amount

2010 Army Texas Fort Hood Automated 

Multipurpose 

Machine Gun 

Range

71692 6,034 4,070 -33

2012 Army Korea Camp Henry Barracks Complex 76235 42,484 28,682 -32

2010 Army Alaska Fort 

Richardson

Warrior in 

Transition Complex

71540 39,058 26,452 -32

2011 Army South 

Carolina

Fort Jackson Trainee Barracks 73299 25,011 16,984 -32

2012 Army California Fort Irwin Qualification 

Training Range

70517 14,051 9,599 -32

2010 Air 

Force

New Mexico Kirtland Air 

Force Base

Mc-130J Simulator 

Facility

MHMV073110 7,239 4,946 -32

2010 Air 

Force

Texas Goodfellow 

Air Force 

Base

Joint Intel Technical 

Training Facility, 

Phase 1

JCGU053000 16,584 11,387 -31

2010 Air 

Force

Texas Lackland Air 

Force Base

Recruit Dormitory 2, 

Phase 2

MPLS083737R2 69,405 47,773 -31

2010 Air 

Force

Arizona DavisMonthan Air 

Force Base

Dormitory FBNV073004 18,020 12,544 -30

2011 Air 

Force

Arizona DavisMonthan Air 

Force Base

HC-130J Parts 

Store

FBNV103005 7,416 5,195 -30

2010 Air 

Force

Florida Macdill Air 

Force Base

Dormitory NVZR063708 14,394 10,095 -30

2012 Air 

Force

Guam Andersen Air 

Force Base

Combat 

Communications 

Combat Support

SAKW101001 8,815 6,212 -30

2011 Air 

Force

United 

Kingdom

Royal Air 

Force 

Mildenhall

Extend Taxiway 

Alpha

QFQE063007 13,983 9,900 -29

2011 Army Texas Fort Hood Battalion Complex 71462 35,597 25,269 -29

2010 Army Georgia Fort Benning Battle Lab 65250 26,654 19,000 -29

2011 Army Kansas Fort Riley Known Distance 

Range

65171 6,527 4,654 -29

2011 Army Georgia Fort Gordon Training Aids 

Center

70307 3,761 2,696 -28

2012 Air 

Force

Korea Osan Air 

Base

Dormitory SMYU123002 20,634 14,839 -28

2011 Army New York Fort Drum Battalion Complex 67045 55,517 40,139 -28
Appendix III: Comparison of Completed 

Military Construction Projects’ Initial Cost 

Estimates with Contract Award Amounts, 

Fiscal Years 2010 through 2016

Page 52 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

Fiscal 

year Service State/country Installation Project title Project number

Form 1391 

cost 

estimatea

(dollars)

Contract 

award 

amount

(dollars)

Percent 

change from 

Form 1391 

cost estimate 

to contract 

award amount

2011 Air 

Force

New Mexico Cannon Air 

Force Base

UAS Squadron Ops 

Facility

CZQZ093004 18,149 13,126 -28

2010 Army Texas Fort Bliss Brigade Staging 

Area Complex

61588 13,448 9,760 -27

2010 Army Georgia Fort Gillem Forensic Lab 66011 9,646 7,034 -27

2013 Army Kentucky Fort Knox Automated Infantry 

Squad Battle 

Course

05924 5,365 3,918 -27

2011 Air 

Force

Nevada Nellis Air 

Force Base

F-35 Flight 

Simulator Facility

RKMF103007 11,860 8,725 -26

2011 Army New York Fort Drum Training Aids 

Center

14456 16,847 12,412 -26

2010 Army Texas Fort Bliss Vehicle 

Maintenance Shop

55361 14,490 10,689 -26

2010 Air 

Force

Colorado Peterson Air 

Force Base

National Security 

Space Institute

TDKA074036B 17,910 13,234 -26

2011 Army North 

Carolina

Fort Bragg Vehicle 

Maintenance Shop

67107 25,664 18,964 -26

2010 Army Missouri Fort Leonard 

Wood

Wheeled Vehicle 

Drivers Course

69663 15,691 11,599 -26

2010 Navy Florida Mayport 

Naval Station

Channel Dredging P187 41,993 31,174 -26

2010 Army North 

Carolina

Fort Bragg Vehicle 

Maintenance Shop

20807 15,784 11,795 -25

2011 Air 

Force

Texas Lackland Air 

Force Base

Recruit Dormitory, 

Phase 3

MPLS083737R3 61,315 45,885 -25

2010 Army Texas Fort Bliss Digital Multipurpose 

Range Complex

63879 40,636 30,442 -25

2012 Air 

Force

Nevada Nellis Air 

Force Base

F-35 Add/Alter 

Engine Shop

RKMF103010 2,492 1,867 -25

2010 Army Texas Fort Bliss Simulation Center 72169 20,397 15,282 -25

2011 Air 

Force

Colorado Buckley Air 

Force Base

Security Forces 

Operations Facility

CRWU073004 10,994 8,274 -25

2012 Air 

Force

Virginia Joint Base 

LangleyEustis

Advanced 

Individual Training 

Barracks Complex, 

Phase 2

WACC120007 45,062 33,915 -25

2013 Army Kentucky Fort 

Campbell

Live Fire Exercise 

Shoothouse

71712 3,423 2,581 -25
Appendix III: Comparison of Completed 

Military Construction Projects’ Initial Cost 

Estimates with Contract Award Amounts, 

Fiscal Years 2010 through 2016

Page 53 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

Fiscal 

year Service State/country Installation Project title Project number

Form 1391 

cost 

estimatea

(dollars)

Contract 

award 

amount

(dollars)

Percent 

change from 

Form 1391 

cost estimate 

to contract 

award amount

2011 Army Texas Fort Bliss Company 

Operations 

Facilities

72149 16,571 12,510 -25

2011 Army Alabama Fort Rucker Aviation 

Component 

Maintenance Shop

60463 26,109 19,713 -24

2012 Air 

Force

Guam Andersen Air 

Force Base

Red Horse 

Cantonment 

Operations Facility

SAKW059101 12,567 9,491 -24

2011 Air 

Force

Florida Hurlburt Field Base Logistics 

Facility

FTEV043016 21,663 16,386 -24

2012 Army Germany Grafenwoehr Convoy Live Fire 

Range

65129 4,473 3,407 -24

2012 Army Korea Camp Carroll Barracks 72650 36,221 27,593 -24

2011 Army Georgia Fort Stewart Training Aids 

Center

72190 6,349 4,837 -24

2011 Air 

Force

New Mexico Holloman Air 

Force Base

UAS Maintenance 

Hangar

KWRD093013 13,454 10,254 -24

2010 Air 

Force

Hawaii Wheeler Aaf Air Support 

Operations Center 

Complex

YVEW083003 13,424 10,260 -24

2010 Army Washington Fort Lewis Modified Record 

Fire Range

66531 3,678 2,815 -23

2013 Army Georgia Fort Stewart Automated Combat 

Pistol Qualification 

Course

67019 3,281 2,515 -23

2010 Army Japan Okinawa Training Aids 

Center

71118 5,370 4,129 -23

2010 Air 

Force

Florida Eglin Air 

Force Base

Construct Dormitory FTFA053025 9,907 7,635 -23

2011 Army Kentucky Fort 

Campbell

Vehicle 

Maintenance Shop

64295 14,108 10,907 -23

2012 Air 

Force

Arizona DavisMonthan Air 

Force Base

EC-130H 

Simulator/Training 

Operations

FBNV103006P1 18,551 14,348 -23

2011 Air 

Force

Nevada Nellis Air 

Force Base

F-35 Maintenance 

Hangar

RKMF093004 25,910 20,049 -23

2011 Army North 

Carolina

Fort Bragg Student Barracks 73930 16,434 12,754 -22

2013 Navy North 

Carolina

Camp 

Lejeune

Base Access And 

Road, Phase 3

P1384 36,854 28,666 -22
Appendix III: Comparison of Completed 

Military Construction Projects’ Initial Cost 

Estimates with Contract Award Amounts, 

Fiscal Years 2010 through 2016

Page 54 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

Fiscal 

year Service State/country Installation Project title Project number

Form 1391 

cost 

estimatea

(dollars)

Contract 

award 

amount

(dollars)

Percent 

change from 

Form 1391 

cost estimate 

to contract 

award amount

2011 Army Kentucky Fort 

Campbell

Brigade Complex 58511 60,925 47,497 -22

2010 Army North 

Carolina

Fort Bragg Vehicle 

Maintenance Shop

16992 17,548 13,745 -22

2011 Army Georgia Fort Stewart Automated 

Multipurpose 

Machine Gun 

Range

72188 8,223 6,458 -21

2011 Air 

Force

Italy Aviano Air 

Base

Air Support 

Operations 

Squadron Facility

ASHE083011 9,122 7,174 -21

2011 Army Kansas Fort Riley Battalion Complex, 

Phase 1

65714 28,373 22,328 -21

2010 Army California Fort Irwin MOUT Assault 

Course, Phase 4

64645 8,581 6,755 -21

2011 Air 

Force

Italy Aviano Air 

Base

Dormitory (144 

Room)

ASHE123000 17,150 13,505 -21

2012 Air 

Force

Guam Andersen Air 

Force Base

Combat 

Communications 

Transmission 

System

SAKW091002 5,024 3,960 -21

2010 Army Japan Sagamihara Training Aids 

Center

71117 5,324 4,239 -20

2012 Air 

Force

Kansas Fort Riley Air Support 

Operations Center

HACC123302 6,876 5,475 -20

2011 Army Florida Eglin Air 

Force Base

Chapel 71492 6,267 4,992 -20

2010 Army Georgia Fort Benning Dining Facility 69151 13,485 10,777 -20

2010 Air 

Force

Idaho Mountain 

Home Air 

Force Base

Logistics Readiness 

Center

QYZH013005R3 18,396 14,730 -20

2011 Army Kentucky Fort 

Campbell

Company 

Operations 

Facilities

60155 22,969 18,397 -20

2010 Air 

Force

Virginia Langley Air 

Force Base

West and LaSalle 

Gates Force 

Protection/Access

MUHJ053008 8,969 7,186 -20

2010 Army North 

Carolina

Fort Bragg Transient Training 

Barracks Complex

65876 14,969 12,005 -20
Appendix III: Comparison of Completed 

Military Construction Projects’ Initial Cost 

Estimates with Contract Award Amounts, 

Fiscal Years 2010 through 2016

Page 55 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

Fiscal 

year Service State/country Installation Project title Project number

Form 1391 

cost 

estimatea

(dollars)

Contract 

award 

amount

(dollars)

Percent 

change from 

Form 1391 

cost estimate 

to contract 

award amount

2014 Air 

Force

Arizona Luke Air 

Force Base

F-35 Squadron 

Operations/Aircraft 

Maintenance Unit 

#3

NUEX093011 19,344 15,514 -20

2010 Navy North 

Carolina

Camp 

Lejeune

Military Police 

Working Dog 

Kennel - Relocation

P1304 7,570 6,073 -20

2010 Army Texas Fort Hood Vehicle 

Maintenance Shop

22772 20,952 16,830 -20

2010 Navy Hawaii Pearl Hair 

Base

Missile Magazines 

(5), West Loch

P182 20,177 16,224 -20

2010 Air 

Force

California Travis Air 

Force Base

Construct Kc-10 

Cargo Load 

Training Facility

XDAT083002 6,213 4,999 -20

2011 Army Kansas Fort Riley Automated Infantry 

Squad Battle 

Course

71696 3,711 2,988 -19

2010 Army Arkansas Pine Bluff 

Arsenal

Fuse and Detonator 

Magazine, Depot 

Level

67106 22,808 18,457 -19

2010 Air 

Force

Texas Lackland Air 

Force Base

Basic Military 

Training Satellite 

Classroom/Dining 

Facility

MPLS083737S1 29,016 23,484 -19

2010 Air 

Force

Guam Andersen Air 

Force Base

Electrical 

Infrastructure

AJJY336449 30,258 24,520 -19

2014 Air 

Force

Nevada Nellis Air 

Force Base

Add RPA Weapons 

School Facility

RKMF113005 18,406 14,923 -19

2010 Army South 

Carolina

Fort Jackson Advanced Skills 

Trainee Barracks

31354 29,341 23,793 -19

2010 Army Florida Eglin Air 

Force Base

Anti-Armor, 

Tracking and Live 

Fire Range

65700 3,063 2,490 -19

2011 Army Virginia Fort Eustis Warrior in 

Transition Complex

71539 16,071 13,074 -19

2010 Air 

Force

Oklahoma Tinker Air 

Force Base

Building 3001 

Hangar Door

WWYK083003A 11,747 9,560 -19

2010 Navy Florida Pensacola 

Naval Air 

Station

Corry A School 

Bachelor Enlisted 

Quarters 

P724 20,760 16,930 -18

2010 Army Korea Camp 

Humphreys

Fire Stations 60783 11,879 9,688 -18
Appendix III: Comparison of Completed 

Military Construction Projects’ Initial Cost 

Estimates with Contract Award Amounts, 

Fiscal Years 2010 through 2016

Page 56 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

Fiscal 

year Service State/country Installation Project title Project number

Form 1391 

cost 

estimatea

(dollars)

Contract 

award 

amount

(dollars)

Percent 

change from 

Form 1391 

cost estimate 

to contract 

award amount

2011 Air 

Force

Florida Hurlburt Field Adal Special 

Operations School 

Facility

FTEV023013 5,560 4,536 -18

2012 Army Kansas Forbes Air 

Field

Deployment 

Support Facility

59148 4,747 3,901 -18

2011 Air 

Force

New York Fort Drum 20th Air Support 

Operations 

Squadron Complex

WACC073020 18,486 15,197 -18

2010 Army Florida Eglin Air 

Force Base

Urban Assault 

Course

65698 2,424 1,993 -18

2011 Army Colorado Fort Carson Brigade Complex 67137 50,620 41,670 -18

2011 Air 

Force

New Jersey McGuire Air 

Force Base

Dormitory (120 Rm) PTFL083003 16,682 13,772 -17

2012 Army Alabama Fort Rucker Combat Readiness 

Center

65429 10,533 8,698 -17

2012 Army South 

Carolina

Fort Jackson Trainee Barracks 

Complex, Phase 2

62955 53,599 44,267 -17

2011 Army Alabama Fort Rucker Training Aids 

Center

70234 4,208 3,485 -17

2011 Air 

Force

Virginia Langley Air 

Force Base

F-22 Hangar Bay MUHJ063017 7,961 6,595 -17

2010 Army Texas Fort Sam 

Houston

General Instruction 

Building

64221 8,104 6,721 -17

2010 Army Florida Eglin Air 

Force Base

Light Demolition 

Range

65705 2,192 1,819 -17

2011 Army Honduras Soto Cano Air 

Base

Barracks 61383 18,243 15,147 -17

2011 Air 

Force

Nevada Nellis Air 

Force Base

F-35 Test 

Evaluation 

Squadron Facility

RKMF103002 7,119 5,912 -17

2012 Army Kentucky Fort 

Campbell

Vehicle 

Maintenance 

Facility

18646 14,630 12,241 -16

2010 Air 

Force

California Vandenberg 

Air Force 

Base

Child Development 

Center

XUMU003000 11,678 9,777 -16

2013 Army Kentucky Fort 

Campbell

Unmanned Ariel 

Vehicle Complex

76239 20,284 16,983 -16

2011 Air 

Force

Alabama Maxwell Air 

Force Base

Adal Air University 

Library

PNQS983126 12,130 10,211 -16
Appendix III: Comparison of Completed 

Military Construction Projects’ Initial Cost 

Estimates with Contract Award Amounts, 

Fiscal Years 2010 through 2016

Page 57 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

Fiscal 

year Service State/country Installation Project title Project number

Form 1391 

cost 

estimatea

(dollars)

Contract 

award 

amount

(dollars)

Percent 

change from 

Form 1391 

cost estimate 

to contract 

award amount

2011 Army Virginia Fort Lee Company 

Operations Facility

73298 4,452 3,750 -16

2011 Army North 

Carolina

Fort Bragg Brigade Complex 53555 45,400 38,249 -16

2012 Air 

Force

Texas Joint Base 

San Antonio

Advanced 

Individual Training 

Barracks

MPLS11473JB 41,301 34,889 -16

2010 Air 

Force

Texas Dyess Air 

Force Base

C-130J Hangar FNWZ100006 4,050 3,422 -16

2014 Air 

Force

Nevada Nellis Air 

Force Base

F-35 Parts Store RKMF103006 8,240 6,974 -15

2010 Navy Florida Whiting Field T-88 Joint Primary 

Aircraft Training 

System Operations 

Paraloft Facility

P273 3,730 3,168 -15

2012 Air 

Force

North 

Carolina

Pope Air 

Force Base

C-130 Flight 

Simulator

TMKH083003 5,450 4,630 -15

2010 Air 

Force

Germany Spangdahlem 

Air Base

Fitness Center VYHK043100 21,022 17,881 -15

2011 Navy Florida Blount Island 

Marine Corps 

Support 

Facility

Consolidated 

Warehouse Facility

P022 15,610 13,295 -15

2012 Air 

Force

Arizona Luke Air 

Force Base

F-35 Squad 

Operations

AETC120011 16,146 13,766 -15

2010 Air 

Force

Guam Andersen Air 

Force Base

NW Field ATFP 

Perimeter Fence 

and Road

SAKW103002 4,280 3,650 -15

2010 Army Texas Fort Bliss Fire and Military 

Police Stations

64608 14,712 12,566 -15

2011 Air 

Force

South 

Carolina

Charleston 

Air Force 

Base

Civil Engineer 

Complex, Phase 1

DKFX913001P1 13,615 11,649 -14

2011 Army Texas Fort Hood Company 

Operations 

Facilities

71465 3,894 3,338 -14

2011 Air 

Force

North Dakota Minot Air 

Force Base

Control Tower/Base 

Operations Facility

QJVF012002 16,912 14,560 -14

2011 Army Missouri Fort Leonard 

Wood

Transient Advanced 

Trainee Barracks, 

Phase 2

68721 26,618 22,933 -14
Appendix III: Comparison of Completed 

Military Construction Projects’ Initial Cost 

Estimates with Contract Award Amounts, 

Fiscal Years 2010 through 2016

Page 58 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

Fiscal 

year Service State/country Installation Project title Project number

Form 1391 

cost 

estimatea

(dollars)

Contract 

award 

amount

(dollars)

Percent 

change from 

Form 1391 

cost estimate 

to contract 

award amount

2011 Army North 

Carolina

Fort Bragg Company 

Operations 

Facilities

65204 11,435 9,878 -14

2013 Navy Virginia Yorktown

Naval 

Weapons 

Station

Supply Warehouse 

Facility

P987 8,079 6,987 -14

2011 Army Virginia Fort A.P. Hill Known Distance 

Range

65792 3,441 2,979 -13

2011 Air 

Force

Florida Hurlburt Field Add to Visiting 

Quarters 

FTEV023010 4,054 3,516 -13

2011 Army Texas Fort Bliss THAAD Battery 

Complex

74635 15,607 13,550 -13

2010 Army Texas Fort Bliss Aircraft Fuel 

Storage

64639 9,709 8,434 -13

2011 Air 

Force

Andersen Air 

Force Base

Guam Strike South 

Ramp Utilities, 

Phase 1

AJJY336509 10,999 9,582 -13

2012 Army Kentucky Fort 

Campbell

Barracks Complex 72684 58,405 50,996 -13

2011 Air 

Force

New Mexico Kirtland Air 

Force Base

H/Mc-130 Fuel 

System 

Maintenance 

Facility

MHMV083114 12,792 11,178 -13

2012 Air 

Force

Texas Joint Base 

San Antonio

Recruit Dormitory 4, 

Phase 4

MPLS083737R4 57,720 50,529 -12

2010 Army Texas Fort Bliss Scout Gunnery 

Complex

72165 15,485 13,562 -12

2013 Army Georgia Fort Gordon Modified Record 

Fire Range

61498 3,599 3,164 -12

2012 Navy North 

Carolina

Camp 

Lejeune

Base Entry Point 

And Road

P1383 72,988 64,235 -12

2011 Air 

Force

Nevada Nellis Air 

Force Base

F-35 422 Flight 

Test 

Instrumentation 

Facility

RKMF103008 1,710 1,508 -12

2011 Air 

Force

New Mexico Kirtland Air 

Force Base

Aerial Delivery 

Facility Addition

MHMV083118 3,439 3,036 -12

2012 Air 

Force

New Mexico Holloman Air 

Force Base

F-16 Parallel 

Taxiway 07/25

KWRD083007 7,185 6,349 -12
Appendix III: Comparison of Completed 

Military Construction Projects’ Initial Cost 

Estimates with Contract Award Amounts, 

Fiscal Years 2010 through 2016

Page 59 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

Fiscal 

year Service State/country Installation Project title Project number

Form 1391 

cost 

estimatea

(dollars)

Contract 

award 

amount

(dollars)

Percent 

change from 

Form 1391 

cost estimate 

to contract 

award amount

2012 Air 

Force

Arizona Luke Air 

Force Base

F-35 Aircraft 

Maintenance Unit

AETC120010 5,404 4,781 -12

2012 Army Kentucky Fort 

Campbell

Vehicle 

Maintenance 

Facility

64297 36,239 32,080 -11

2010 Army Korea Camp 

Humphreys

Vehicle 

Maintenance Shop

56656 16,899 14,981 -11

2011 Army Virginia Fort Lee Training Aids 

Center

71114 5,291 4,700 -11

2014 Army North 

Carolina

Fort Bragg Command And 

Control Facility

69624 5,312 4,720 -11

2011 Army Missouri Fort Leonard 

Wood

Information 

Systems Facility

64520 14,154 12,605 -11

2011 Air 

Force

Germany Ramstein Air 

Base

Construct C-130J 

Flight Simulator 

Facility

TYFR123063 7,870 7,024 -11

2012 Air 

Force

Nevada Nellis Air 

Force Base

Communications 

Network Control 

Center

RKMF103003 10,449 9,327 -11

2013 Air 

Force

Arkansas Little Rock Air 

Force Base

C-130J Fuel 

Systems 

Maintenance 

Hangar

NKAK103006 23,226 20,869 -10

2010 Army Texas Fort Bliss Light Demolition 

Range

72167 2,153 1,935 -10

2011 Air 

Force

Texas Lackland Air 

Force Base

Satellite 

Classroom/Dining 

Facility Number 2

MPLS083737S2 28,847 26,018 -10

2010 Air 

Force

Ohio WrightPatterson Air 

Force Base

Information 

Technology 

Complex, Phase 1

ZHTV053204 24,351 21,970 -10

2013 Army Texas Fort Hood Unmanned Aerial 

Vehicle Complex

80113 19,374 17,485 -10

2010 Navy South 

Carolina

Beaufort Widebody Aircraft 

Fuel Lane

P441 1,150 1,038 -10

2010 Army Korea Camp 

Humphreys

Vehicle 

Maintenance Shop

58399 15,955 14,432 -10

2012 Army North 

Carolina

Fort Bragg Non-Commissioned 

Officer Academy

43335 38,272 34,647 -9
Appendix III: Comparison of Completed 

Military Construction Projects’ Initial Cost 

Estimates with Contract Award Amounts, 

Fiscal Years 2010 through 2016

Page 60 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

Fiscal 

year Service State/country Installation Project title Project number

Form 1391 

cost 

estimatea

(dollars)

Contract 

award 

amount

(dollars)

Percent 

change from 

Form 1391 

cost estimate 

to contract 

award amount

2010 Air 

Force

New Mexico Cannon Air 

Force Base

Consolidated 

Communication 

Facility

CZQZ063002 13,582 12,305 -9

2011 Air 

Force

Guam Andersen Air 

Force Base

Combat 

Communications 

Operations Facility

SAKW123002 8,317 7,548 -9

2011 Air 

Force

Guam Andersen Air 

Force Base

Red Horse 

Headquarters/Engin

eering Facility

SAKW091006 7,201 6,538 -9

2012 Air 

Force

North Dakota Minot Air 

Force Base

Dormitory QJVF092001 19,565 17,775 -9

2012 Air 

Force

Guam Andersen Air 

Force Base

Guam Strike 

Conventional 

Munitions 

Maintenance

AJJY123011 10,530 9,586 -9

2011 Army Colorado Fort Carson Automated Sniper 

Field Fire Range

41917 3,288 2,998 -9

2013 Navy Florida Jacksonville 

Naval Air 

Station

Mission Control 

Complex

P655 19,880 18,180 -9

2011 Air 

Force

Wyoming Camp 

Guernsey

Nuclear/Space 

Security Tactics 

Training Center

AFSPC053012 4,203 3,854 -8

2011 Army Alabama Fort Rucker Aviation 

Maintenance 

Facility

60459 32,242 29,576 -8

2012 Air 

Force

California Travis Air 

Force Base

Dormitory XDAT083003 20,132 18,492 -8

2010 Air 

Force

Guam Andersen Air 

Force Base

Field Combat 

Support Vehicle 

Maintenance 

Facility

SAKW059100 14,078 12,960 -8

2012 Air 

Force

New Mexico Cannon Air 

Force Base

Dormitory CZQZ123001 13,529 12,463 -8

2011 Army Florida Miami-Dade 

County 

(Homestead 

Air Reserve 

Base)

Command and 

Control Facility

61533 37,448 34,554 -8

2013 Air 

Force

New Mexico Holloman Air 

Force Base

Maintenance 

Hangar

KWRD123004 22,284 20,620 -7
Appendix III: Comparison of Completed 

Military Construction Projects’ Initial Cost 

Estimates with Contract Award Amounts, 

Fiscal Years 2010 through 2016

Page 61 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

Fiscal 

year Service State/country Installation Project title Project number

Form 1391 

cost 

estimatea

(dollars)

Contract 

award 

amount

(dollars)

Percent 

change from 

Form 1391 

cost estimate 

to contract 

award amount

2011 Army Kentucky Fort 

Campbell

Unit Operations 

Facilities

64298 23,868 22,114 -7

2010 Air 

Force

Guam Andersen Air 

Force Base

Commando Warrior 

Operations Facility

SAKW053006 3,766 3,490 -7

2010 Air 

Force

Texas Goodfellow 

Air Force 

Base

Student Dormitory JCGU083001 12,614 11,692 -7

2012 Air 

Force

Washington Fairchild Air 

Force Base

SERE Force 

Support, Phase 2

GJKZ920012P2 12,625 11,724 -7

2011 Army New York Fort Drum Transient Training 

Barracks 

57712 49,982 46,428 -7

2011 Air 

Force

New Jersey McGuire Air 

Force Base

Base 

Operations/Comma

nd Post Facility 

PTFL063000 7,220 6,714 -7

2011 Air 

Force

Germany Vilseck Air Support 

Operations 

Squadron Complex

VILS093001 11,536 10,734 -7

2010 Army Colorado Fort Carson, 

Colorado

Scout/Recce 

Gunnery Complex

72172 14,397 13,414 -7

2010 Air 

Force

Ohio WrightPatterson Air 

Force Base

Conversion for 

Advanced Power 

Thermal Research 

Lab

ZHTV063301 19,162 17,884 -7

2012 Air 

Force

New Mexico Kirtland Air 

Force Base

Sustainment Center MHMV093108 22,611 21,110 -7

2012 Army Kentucky Fort Knox Battalion Complex 65293 43,760 40,887 -7

2011 Army Alaska Fort 

Richardson

Multipurpose 

Machine Gun 

Range

73811 10,990 10,272 -7

2010 Army Texas Fort Bliss Known Distance 

Range

72163 4,302 4,022 -7

2011 Army Texas Fort Bliss Vehicle Bridge

Overpass

64604 7,882 7,377 -6

2012 Air 

Force

New Mexico Holloman Air 

Force Base

F-16 Academic 

Facility

KWRD113005 5,315 4,990 -6

2010 Air 

Force

New Mexico Holloman Air 

Force Base

F-22A Consolidated 

Munitions 

Maintenance

KWRD083003 4,990 4,690 -6

2011 Army Georgia Fort Stewart General Instruction 

Building

71125 7,441 6,998 -6
Appendix III: Comparison of Completed 

Military Construction Projects’ Initial Cost 

Estimates with Contract Award Amounts, 

Fiscal Years 2010 through 2016

Page 62 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

Fiscal 

year Service State/country Installation Project title Project number

Form 1391 

cost 

estimatea

(dollars)

Contract 

award 

amount

(dollars)

Percent 

change from 

Form 1391 

cost estimate 

to contract 

award amount

2010 Air 

Force

Arkansas Little Rock Air 

Force Base

C-130 Flight 

Simulator Addition

NKAK103003 5,181 4,886 -6

2011 Army Louisiana Fort Polk Barracks 60130 25,787 24,390 -5

2013 Army Oklahoma Fort Sill Modified Record 

Fire Range

67037 4,395 4,160 -5

2011 Army Virginia Fort A.P. Hill MOUT Collective 

Training Facility

65726 58,646 55,547 -5

2012 Air 

Force

Guam Andersen Air 

Force Base

Air Freight Terminal 

Complex

AJJY983202 31,679 30,047 -5

2010 Army Texas Fort Bliss Automated 

Multipurpose 

Machine Gun 

Range

72164 6,202 5,890 -5

2014 Air 

Force

Nevada Nellis Air 

Force Base

F-35 Fuel Cell 

Hangar

RKMF103009 8,485 8,066 -5

2010 Army Afghanistan Bagram Air 

Base

Aviation Support 

Facility

72095 2,318 2,210 -5

2011 Army Missouri Fort Leonard 

Wood

Brigade 

Headquarters

72055 11,070 10,563 -5

2010 Army Kansas Fort Riley Advanced Waste 

Water Treatment 

Plant

64568 25,466 24,306 -5

2012 Army Kentucky Fort 

Campbell

Physical Fitness 

Facility

65147 16,955 16,199 -4

2011 Navy Hawaii Pearl Harbor 

Naval Station 

Center For Disaster 

Management/Huma

nitarian Assistance

P056 8,220 7,857 -4

2011 Army North 

Carolina

Fort Bragg Staging Area 

Complex

57836 13,185 12,615 -4

2011 Air 

Force

New Mexico Holloman Air 

Force Base

UAS Maintenance 

Hangar

KWRD093016 20,370 19,498 -4

2010 Navy Florida Eglin Air 

Force Base

Bachelor Enlisted 

Quarters, EOD 

School, Phase 2

P925 23,777 22,769 -4

2010 Army Georgia Fort Stewart Automated Sniper 

Field Fire Range

67027 3,085 2,961 -4

2010 Air 

Force

Turkey Incirlik Air 

Base

Consolidated 

Community Center

LJYC003006 8,211 7,881 -4

2010 Army Colorado Fort Carson Railroad Tracks 65616 12,601 12,095 -4

2011 Army Texas Fort Bliss Indoor Swimming 

Pool

57434 14,155 13,606 -4
Appendix III: Comparison of Completed 

Military Construction Projects’ Initial Cost 

Estimates with Contract Award Amounts, 

Fiscal Years 2010 through 2016

Page 63 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

Fiscal 

year Service State/country Installation Project title Project number

Form 1391 

cost 

estimatea

(dollars)

Contract 

award 

amount

(dollars)

Percent 

change from 

Form 1391 

cost estimate 

to contract 

award amount

2010 Army Hawaii Schofield 

Barracks

Warrior in 

Transition Complex

71553 27,364 26,340 -4

2010 Air 

Force

Arizona DavisMonthan Air 

Force Base

Hc-130J 

Infrastructure

FBNV103003 4,309 4,150 -4

2012 Air 

Force

New Mexico Holloman Air 

Force Base

Child Development 

Center

KWRD013003 10,212 9,844 -4

2012 Air 

Force

Missouri Whiteman Air 

Force Base

WSA Security 

Control Facility

YWHG071005 4,326 4,173 -4

2010 Air 

Force

Germany Ramstein Air 

Base

Contingency 

Response Group 

Command

TYFR0530402 20,744 20,023 -3

2010 Air 

Force

Utah Hill Air Force 

Base

F-22A Radar Cross 

Section Testing 

Facility

KRSM043003 19,050 18,401 -3

2011 Army South 

Carolina

Fort Jackson Training Aids 

Center

71119 15,523 15,000 -3

2012 Air 

Force

New Mexico Holloman Air 

Force Base

F-16 Training 

Facility

KWRD113010 3,739 3,614 -3

2011 Army South 

Carolina

Fort Jackson Trainee Barracks 

Complex 3, Phase 

1

53794 41,832 40,499 -3

2010 Air 

Force

Florida Hurlburt Field Refueling Vehicle 

Maintenance 

Facility

FTEV043000 1,982 1,920 -3

2011 Air 

Force

Louisiana Barksdale Air 

Force Base

Weapons Load 

Crew Training 

Facility

AWUB025502 16,408 15,903 -3

2011 Army Maryland Aberdeen 

Proving 

Ground

Automotive 

Technology 

Evaluation Facility, 

Phase 2

66918 13,236 12,847 -3

2011 Army Afghanistan Bagram Air 

Base

Entry Control Point 71606 6,673 6,491 -3

2012 Air 

Force

North Dakota Minot Air 

Force Base

B - 52 3-Bay 

Conventional 

Munitions 

Maintenance

QJVF092010 10,746 10,490 -2

2011 Air 

Force

Texas Lackland Air 

Force Base

One-Company Fire 

Station

MPLS116414JB 4,962 4,845 -2

2011 Air 

Force

New Mexico Cannon Air 

Force Base

Dormitory CZQZ073005 12,697 12,413 -2
Appendix III: Comparison of Completed 

Military Construction Projects’ Initial Cost 

Estimates with Contract Award Amounts, 

Fiscal Years 2010 through 2016

Page 64 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

Fiscal 

year Service State/country Installation Project title Project number

Form 1391 

cost 

estimatea

(dollars)

Contract 

award 

amount

(dollars)

Percent 

change from 

Form 1391 

cost estimate 

to contract 

award amount

2014 Air 

Force

Arizona Luke Air 

Force Base

F-35 Field Training 

Detachment

NUEX093007 4,806 4,700 -2

2012 Air 

Force

Washington Fairchild Air 

Force Base

Wing Headquarters GJKZ860009 12,213 11,957 -2

2011 Air 

Force

Korea Kunsan Air 

Base

DMT Flight 

Simulator Facility

MLWR093183 6,703 6,568 -2

2011 Air 

Force

Arizona DavisMonthan Air 

Force Base

HC-130 Age 

Maintenance 

Facility

FBNV113007 4,161 4,078 -2

2010 Army Alaska Fort

Richardson

Airborne 

Sustainment 

Training Complex

62835 5,458 5,356 -2

2010 Navy California Camp 

Pendleton

Expansion of 

Southern Region 

Tertiary Treatment 

Plant 

P1041 52,070 51,114 -2

2012 Navy California Camp 

Pendleton

Armory, 1st Marine 

Division

P532 11,396 11,201 -2

2012 Army South 

Carolina

Fort Jackson Modified Record 

Fire Range

67022 4,451 4,375 -2

2011 Air 

Force

Arizona DavisMonthan Air 

Force Base

Hangar FBNV063501 22,648 22,282 -2

2011 Army Washington Fort Lewis Barracks Complex 55198 36,548 35,958 -2

2013 Air 

Force

Georgia Fort Stewart Air Support 

Operations Center 

ACC123184 6,561 6,458 -2

2011 Army North 

Carolina

Fort Bragg Dining Facility 74987 10,160 10,010 -1

2013 Air 

Force

Utah Hill Air Force 

Base

F-35 Modular 

Storage Magazines

KRSM103030 2,055 2,028 -1

2014 Air 

Force

Kentucky Fort 

Campbell

19th Air Support 

Operations 

Squadron 

Expansion

ACC123183 7,210 7,143 -1

2010 Air 

Force

North Dakota Minot Air 

Force Base

Missile Procedures 

Training Operations

QJVF962007R2 9,010 8,930 -1

2012 Air 

Force

Guam Andersen Air 

Force Base

Guam Strike Clear 

Water Rinse Facility

AJJY123009 6,798 6,739 -1

2010 Air 

Force

Alaska Elmendorf Air 

Force Base

F-22 Weapons 

Load Training 

Facility

FXSB073022 11,302 11,231 -1
Appendix III: Comparison of Completed 

Military Construction Projects’ Initial Cost 

Estimates with Contract Award Amounts, 

Fiscal Years 2010 through 2016

Page 65 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

Fiscal 

year Service State/country Installation Project title Project number

Form 1391 

cost 

estimatea

(dollars)

Contract 

award 

amount

(dollars)

Percent 

change from 

Form 1391 

cost estimate 

to contract 

award amount

2010 Air 

Force

Alaska Elmendorf Air 

Force Base

F-22 Weapons 

Load Training 

Facility

FXSB073022 11,302 11,231 -1

2011 Army Kansas Fort 

Leavenworth

Vehicle 

Maintenance Shop

73808 6,446 6,418 0

2010 Navy Hawaii Pearl Hair 

Base

Asia Pacific Center 

for Security Studies 

Conference and 

Technology 

Learning Center

P004 11,475 11,432 0

2011 Air 

Force

Alaska Elmendorf Air 

Force Base

Add/Alter Training 

Facility

FXSB123201 4,248 4,237 0

2011 Navy North 

Carolina

Camp 

Lejeune

Maintenance/Ops 

Complex - 2nd 

Anglico

P1240 32,650 32,625 0

2012 Army Oklahoma Fort Sill Battle Command 

Training Center

64815 20,726 20,720 0

2015 Air 

Force

Guam Joint Region 

Marianas

Red Horse 

Logistics Facility

SAKW059006 2,842 2,842 0

2010 Army Afghanistan Bagram Air 

Base

Fuel System, 

Phase 7

69403 4,446 4,447 0

2013 Air 

Force

Florida Tyndall Air 

Force Base

F–22 Hangar For 

Low 

Observable/Compo

site

XLWU103002 13,285 13,299 0

2013 Navy Washington Whidbey 

Island Naval 

Air Station

Ea-18G Flight 

Simulator Facility

P245 5,672 5,679 0

2011 Air 

Force

Oklahoma Tinker Air 

Force Base

Upgrade Building 

3001 Infrastructure, 

Phase 3

WWYK083003B 12,667 12,687 0

2013 Air 

Force

Georgia Moody Air 

Force Base

Hc-130J Simulator 

Facility

QSEU103008 7,675 7,692 0

2011 Air 

Force

Colorado Air Force 

Academy

Center for 

Character and 

Leadership 

Development

XQPZ084017 24,870 24,996 1

2011 Air 

Force

District of 

Columbia

Bolling Air 

Force Base

Joint Air Defense 

Operations Center

BXUR105000 11,893 11,978 1

2010 Army New York Fort Drum Water System 

Expansion

59247 5,840 5,883 1
Appendix III: Comparison of Completed 

Military Construction Projects’ Initial Cost 

Estimates with Contract Award Amounts, 

Fiscal Years 2010 through 2016

Page 66 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

Fiscal 

year Service State/country Installation Project title Project number

Form 1391 

cost 

estimatea

(dollars)

Contract 

award 

amount

(dollars)

Percent 

change from 

Form 1391 

cost estimate 

to contract 

award amount

2011 Navy California San Diego 

Naval Base

Berthing Pier 12 

Replacement and 

Dredging, Phase 1

P327 98,064 99,133 1

2011 Navy Florida Blount Island 

Marine Corps 

Support 

Facility

Washrack Expansion P023 8,770 8,878 1

2011 Army Texas Fort Bliss Digital Multipurpose 

Training Range

72182 20,249 20,521 1

2010 Army South 

Carolina

Fort Jackson Infiltration Course 72369 1,731 1,757 2

2011 Air 

Force

Delaware Dover Air 

Force Base

C-5M/C-17 

Maintenance Training 

Facility, Phase 2

FJXT113001 2,906 2,952 2

2013 Army Georgia Fort Gordon Multipurpose Machine 

Gun Range

67017 6,357 6,483 2

2011 Army Texas Fort Bliss Scout Gunnery 

Complex

72179 14,015 14,298 2

2010 Air 

Force

Nevada Creech Air 

Force Base

Unmanned Aerial 

System Security 

Updates

LKTC093111 2,434 2,489 2

2011 Army New York Fort Drum Aircraft Fuel Storage 

Complex

62580 13,071 13,411 3

2012 Air 

Force

California Vandenberg 

Air Force Base

Education Center XUMU033002 12,838 13,185 3

2011 Army North Carolina Fort Bragg Brigade Complex 64340 22,969 23,598 3

2012 Army Kentucky Fort Campbell Barracks 73541 20,845 21,465 3

2014 Air 

Force

New Mexico Cannon Air 

Force Base

Airmen And Family 

Readiness Center

CZQZ013004 4,954 5,102 3

2011 Army Texas Fort Bliss Squad Defense 

Range

72184 2,718 2,804 3

2012 Army Texas Fort Bliss Water Well, Potable 74845 2,170 2,248 4

2010 Army North Carolina Fort Bragg Company Operations 

Facility

65202 2,980 3,089 4

2010 Air 

Force

Oklahoma Altus Air Force 

Base

Repair Taxiways AGGN983005P2 18,295 19,033 4

2011 Army Missouri Fort Leonard 

Wood

General Instruction 

Building/Tech Escort 

Addition

65009 6,350 6,616 4

2013 Navy South 

Carolina

Beaufort Simulated LHD Flight 

Deck

P456 11,657 12,191 5
Appendix III: Comparison of Completed 

Military Construction Projects’ Initial Cost 

Estimates with Contract Award Amounts, 

Fiscal Years 2010 through 2016

Page 67 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

Fiscal 

year Service State/country Installation Project title Project number

Form 1391 

cost 

estimatea

(dollars)

Contract 

award 

amount

(dollars)

Percent 

change from 

Form 1391 

cost estimate 

to contract 

award amount

2011 Air 

Force

Guam Andersen Air 

Force Base

Guam Strike Ops 

Group & Tanker Task 

Force Renovation

AJJY113007 8,221 8,627 5

2010 Navy California Twenty-nine 

Palms

Laydown Site Work, 

North Mainside

P171 19,590 20,560 5

2010 Air 

Force

Colorado Peterson Air 

Force Base

C-130 Squad 

Operations/Aircraft 

Maintenance Unit 

TDKA109005 4,710 4,946 5

2011 Navy North Carolina Camp Lejeune Bachelors Quarters -

Courthouse Bay

P1251 38,290 40,237 5

2011 Army Maryland Fort Meade Indoor Firing Range 65793 6,885 7,241 5

2013 Air 

Force

North Dakota Minot Air Force 

Base

B-52 Add/Alter 

Munitions Age Facility

QJVF092011 4,161 4,377 5

2012 Air 

Force

North Dakota Minot Air Force 

Base

B-52 Two-Bay Phase 

Maintenance Dock

QJVF092012 30,523 32,123 5

2010 Army Florida Eglin Air Force 

Base

Hand Grenade 

Qualification Course

65697 1,243 1,309 5

2012 Army Colorado Fort Carson Aircraft Loading Area 77319 30,186 31,792 5

2010 Army Georgia Fort Benning Training Area Tank 

Trails

65557 8,724 9,201 5

2011 Navy California Coronado 

Naval Base

Rotary Hangar P750 60,740 64,064 5

2011 Army Georgia Fort Stewart Modified Record Fire 

Range

67166 3,389 3,576 6

2015 Air 

Force

Guam Joint Region 

Marianas

PRTC- Combat 

Communication 

Infrastructure Facility

SAKW113008 3,397 3,586 6

2010 Army Arizona Fort Huachuca Battalion 

Headquarters UAV

66441 5,459 5,769 6

2010 Army Washington Fort Lewis Live Fire Exercise 

Shoothouse

41842 2,285 2,415 6

2010 Air 

Force

Alaska Clear Air Force 

Station

Power Plant Facility DXEB043001 21,733 23,009 6

2011 Navy California San Diego 

Naval Base

Bachelor Enlisted 

Quarters, Homeport 

Ashore

P405 68,142 72,294 6

2010 Air 

Force

Alaska Elmendorf Air 

Force Base

Red Flag Alaska 

Add/Alter Operations 

Center

FXSB103009 2,777 2,947 6

2014 Air 

Force

Nevada Nellis Air Force 

Base

F-35 Alt Mission 

Equipment Storage

RKMF103005 4,521 4,830 7
Appendix III: Comparison of Completed 

Military Construction Projects’ Initial Cost 

Estimates with Contract Award Amounts, 

Fiscal Years 2010 through 2016

Page 68 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

Fiscal 

year Service State/country Installation Project title Project number

Form 1391 

cost 

estimatea

(dollars)

Contract 

award 

amount

(dollars)

Percent 

change from 

Form 1391 

cost estimate 

to contract 

award amount

2011 Army Washington Fort 

Lewis/Yakima

Sniper Field Fire 

Range

65386 3,379 3,611 7

2011 Army Texas Fort Bliss Urban Assault Course 63880 2,540 2,720 7

2013 Air 

Force

Utah Hill Air Force 

Base

F-35 Add/Alter 

Building 118 For 

Flight Simulator

KRSM113028 3,595 3,879 8

2011 Army Texas Fort Hood Convoy Live Fire 66532 2,900 3,132 8

2011 Navy California Camp 

Pendleton

BEQ-13 Area P1113 38,774 41,889 8

2013 Army Washington Yakima 

Training 

Center

Convoy Live Fire 

Range

67545 4,609 4,991 8

2013 Army Texas Fort Hood Modified Record Fire 

Range

67020 3,780 4,095 8

2011 Army Kentucky Fort Campbell Automated Sniper 

Field Fire Range

67015 1,373 1,496 9

2012 Air 

Force

Arizona Davis-Monthan 

Air Force Base

HC-130J Joint Use 

Fuel Cell

FBNV123002 11,339 12,361 9

2011 Air 

Force

Texas Lackland Air 

Force Base

Recruit/Family Inprocessing and 

Information Center

MPLS093737V 19,706 21,500 9

2011 Army Germany Grafenwoehr Barracks 69613 16,776 18,352 9

2010 Army Oklahoma Fort Sill Automated Infantry 

Squad Battle Course

62398 3,134 3,431 9

2010 Army Florida Eglin Air Force 

Base

Grenade Launcher 

Range

65695 1,428 1,567 10

2012 Army Georgia Fort Gordon Hand Grenade 

Familiarization Range

71705 1,317 1,450 10

2010 Army Washington Fort Lewis Animal Building 63513 2,751 3,029 10

2011 Army North Carolina Fort Bragg Vehicle Maintenance 

Shop

73947 6,800 7,491 10

2010 Army Georgia Fort Benning Fire and Movement 

Range

65034 2,505 2,763 10

2011 Army Georgia Fort Stewart Automated Infantry 

Platoon Battle Course

72189 5,618 6,200 10

2012 Air 

Force

Greenland Thule Air Base Dormitory WWCX103033 25,192 27,936 11

2010 Navy Guam Andersen Air 

Force Base

North Ramp Parking, 

Phase 1

P101 79,957 88,798 11

2010 Army Texas Fort Hood Urban Assault Course 57130 2,140 2,378 11
Appendix III: Comparison of Completed 

Military Construction Projects’ Initial Cost 

Estimates with Contract Award Amounts, 

Fiscal Years 2010 through 2016

Page 69 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

Fiscal 

year Service State/country Installation Project title Project number

Form 1391 

cost 

estimatea

(dollars)

Contract 

award 

amount

(dollars)

Percent 

change from 

Form 1391 

cost estimate 

to contract 

award amount

2011 Army Texas Joint Base San 

Antonio

Training Aids Center 71116 5,622 6,318 12

2012 Army Washington Joint Base 

LewisMcChord

Air Support 

Operations Facilities

60344 6,678 7,512 12

2010 Army Texas Fort Bliss Automated Sniper 

Field Fire Range

72161 3,850 4,355 13

2010 Army South 

Carolina

Fort Jackson Modified Record Fire 

Range

59507 3,241 3,672 13

2012 Army Louisiana Fort Polk Multipurpose Machine 

Gun Range

67033 7,488 8,493 13

2012 Air 

Force

New Mexico Cannon Air 

Force Base

Addition/Alter 

Wastewater 

Treatment Plant

CZQZ133001 6,845 7,787 14

2011 Army Oklahoma McAlester 

Army 

Ammunition 

Plant

Igloo Storage, Depot 

Level

53389 2,724 3,110 14

2015 Air 

Force

Kansas McConnell Air 

Force Base

KC-46A Alter Taxiway 

Foxtrot

PRQE155124 4,960 5,679 15

2010 Navy Washington Naval Air 

Station Everret

Joint Personnel 

Recovery Agency 

Specialized Sere 

Training

P702 11,497 13,266 15

2010 Air 

Force

North Dakota Minot Air Force 

Base

Munitions Trailer 

Storage Facility MHU196

QJVF102002 1,351 1,562 16

2010 Army Kansas Fort Riley Land Vehicle Fueling 

Activity

68792 3,366 3,896 16

2012 Army Virginia Joint Base 

Langley-Eustis

Aviation Training 

Facility

59005 23,868 27,698 16

2010 Army Oklahoma McAlester 

Army 

Ammunition 

Plant

General Purpose 

Storage Building

66545 10,147 11,779 16

2011 Army Virginia Fort A.P. Hill Indoor Firing Range 65789 5,617 6,572 17

2010 Navy Florida Blount Island 

Marine Corps 

Support 

Facility

Port Operations 

Facility

P006 3,400 3,982 17

2013 Navy California Camp 

Pendleton

Mv22 Aviation 

Simulator Building

P113 3,739 4,380 17
Appendix III: Comparison of Completed 

Military Construction Projects’ Initial Cost 

Estimates with Contract Award Amounts, 

Fiscal Years 2010 through 2016

Page 70 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

Fiscal 

year Service State/country Installation Project title Project number

Form 1391 

cost 

estimatea

(dollars)

Contract 

award 

amount

(dollars)

Percent 

change from 

Form 1391 

cost estimate 

to contract 

award amount

2010 Air 

Force

Texas Lackland Air 

Force Base

Evasion, Conduct 

After Capture Training

MPLS083005 4,396 5,160 17

2014 Air 

Force

New Mexico Cannon Air 

Force Base

Satellite Dining 

Facility

CZQZ073023A 5,960 7,001 17

2010 Navy Texas Corpus Christi 

Naval Air 

Station

Operational Facilities 

for T-6

P437 17,874 21,037 18

2011 Army Texas Fort Bliss Transient Training 

Complex

65941 28,420 33,875 19

2010 Air 

Force

Florida Hurlburt Field Electrical Distribution 

Substation

FTEV053005 7,489 8,979 20

2011 Army Afghanistan Bagram Air 

Base

Eastside Electrical 

Distribution

71605 9,121 10,944 20

2011 Army Texas Fort Hood Urban Assault Course 71706 2,229 2,689 21

2011 Air 

Force

Texas Dyess Air 

Force Base

C-130J Flight 

Simulator Activity

FNWZ103010 3,677 4,464 21

2011 Army Texas Fort Bliss Heavy Sniper Range 72181 3,162 3,843 22

2011 Army Texas Fort Hood Live Fire Exercise 

Shoothouse

57134 1,900 2,323 22

2010 Army Texas Fort Bliss Automated Infantry 

Platoon Battle Course

72168 6,331 7,817 23

2011 Army Texas Fort Bliss Automated 

Multipurpose Machine 

Gun Range

72178 6,056 7,493 24

2010 Air 

Force

Maryland Andrews Air 

Force Base

Replace Munitions 

Storage Area

AJXF063009 8,370 10,465 25

2011 Army Washington Fort Lewis Barracks 64457 42,861 58,751 37

2010 Army New York Fort Drum Warrior in Transition 

Complex

70979 19,434 26,691 37

2010 Army Missouri Fort Leonard 

Wood

Warrior in Transition 

Complex

71543 17,597 28,796 64

2012 Army New York Fort Drum Ammunition Supply 

Point

58005 5,196 9,362 80

2010 Army Oklahoma Fort Sill Warrior in Transition 

Complex

71538 19,469 35,812 84

2012 Army Germany Vilseck Barracks 69615 18,320 35,338 93

2010 Army Virginia Fort A.P. Hill Automated Infantry 

Platoon Battle Course

67011 4,405 9,197 109

2012 Army New York Fort Drum Chapel 61235 6,919 15,203 120
Appendix III: Comparison of Completed 

Military Construction Projects’ Initial Cost 

Estimates with Contract Award Amounts, 

Fiscal Years 2010 through 2016

Page 71 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

Fiscal 

year Service State/country Installation Project title Project number

Form 1391 

cost 

estimatea

(dollars)

Contract 

award 

amount

(dollars)

Percent 

change from 

Form 1391 

cost estimate 

to contract 

award amount

2010 Army Colorado Fort Carson, 

Colorado

Modified Record Fire 

Range

72170 4,005 10,435 161

2011 Army New York West Point 

Military 

Academy

Urban Assault Course 65166 1,552 4,465 188

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense information. | GAO-18-101

Notes: Numbers may not total due to rounding. No projects were initiated and completed in fiscal year 

2016 at the time of our review.

a

The Form 1391 estimate excludes costs for supervision, inspection, and overhead as well as 

contingency costs since those costs are not included in the contract award amount.
Appendix IV: Military Department Guidance for 

Developing Military Construction Cost 

Estimates

Page 72 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

The military departments of the active component have gone beyond the 

Unified Facilities Criteria and developed their own guidance for military 

construction (MILCON) that more closely aligns with the 12 steps needed 

for developing high-quality, reliable estimates. Table 17 describes the 

guidance developed by the military departments to align with those steps.

Table 17: Military Department Guidance on Military Construction (MILCON) Cost Estimating

Step Military department guidance

1. Define estimate’s purpose The Air Force’s Planning and Programming Military Construction Projects identifies cost 

estimates as part of project development, which is one of the most important actions in 

MILCON programming.

The Naval Facilities Engineering Command’s Cost Engineering Policy and Procedures 

Interim Guidance 2017-2019 identifies various types of estimates for the purpose of Form 

1391 documentation. The guidance also specifies that a basis of cost estimate is required 

for all projects to be submitted with the cost estimate. 

2. Develop the estimating plan None

3. Define the program characteristics The Army Corps of Engineers’ Cost Engineering Policy and General Requirements states 

that the development of cost estimates should include a total life cycle cost analysis.

The Air Force’s Planning and Military Construction Projects instruction states that 

installations should identify facility needs 3 to 5 years in the future and determine which 

needs cannot be met with existing facilities. It also provides a source that defines typical 

requirements for a given facility type. 

4. Determine the estimating structure The Army Corps of Engineers’ Cost Engineering Policy and General Requirements 

defines the work breakdown structure as a product-oriented hierarchy of the project scope 

of work that provides a system for organizing the estimate in a logical manner. It also 

states that cost estimates will be prepared in a professional manner in accordance with 

the work breakdown structure as described in specific cost engineering regulations for 

civil works, military, and environmental restoration programs.

The Air Force Facility Requirements manual provides information regarding what facilities 

and technical considerations should be accounted for regarding different classes of 

facilities.

Naval Facilities Engineering Command’s Cost Engineering Policy and Procedures Interim 

Guidance 2017-2019 provides a reference to several standardized estimating structures.

Moreover, the guidance provides an example of a work breakdown structure and stresses 

the importance of standardization to promote consistency.

5. Identify ground rules and 

assumptions

The Army Corps of Engineers’ Cost Engineering Policy and General Requirements states 

that estimates should include design assumptions and the proposed construction 

processes so that future design changes or construction modifications can be analyzed 

for cost impacts. Further, the Army Corps of Engineers’ guidance states that the basis for 

cost estimates must be thoroughly explained and address specific issues such as design 

assumptions and site conditions.

Naval Facilities Engineering Command’s Cost Engineering Policy and Procedures Interim 

Guidance 2017-2019 specifies that a schedule should be developed in conjunction with 

the cost estimate and provides a list of ground rules and assumptions that should be 

included in the estimate file.

Appendix IV: Military Department Guidance 

for Developing Military Construction Cost 

Estimates
Appendix IV: Military Department Guidance for 

Developing Military Construction Cost 

Estimates

Page 73 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

Step Military department guidance

6. Obtain the data The Army Corps of Engineers’ Military Programs Cost Engineering states that in the 

absence of the latest design data, empirical cost data from parametric cost models, local 

historical cost, or empirical cost data from commercial sources may be used. The 

guidance also details how the data from an estimate should also be stored in databases.

The Air Force’s Planning and Programming Military Construction Projects states that cost 

estimates must be consistent with the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s pricing guide or 

be fully justified with historical cost data.

The Naval Facilities Engineering Command’s Cost Engineering Policy and Procedures 

Interim Guidance 2017-2019 discusses the use of various estimating tools, such as MII, 

which interfaces with support modules and databases used by the Tri-Service Cost 

Engineering community.

7. Develop the point estimate and 

compare with an independent 

estimate

The Army Corps of Engineers’ Military Programs Cost Engineering guidance states that 

final design control estimates will be prepared as if the government were bidding in 

competition with experienced contractors. The guidance also directs that all construction 

cost estimates be based upon the latest design data.

The Air Force’s Planning and Programming Military Construction Projects states that cost 

estimates must be closely scrutinized to ensure that they are consistent with the Office of 

the Secretary of Defense’s pricing guide or fully justified with historical cost data. The 

guidance further states that the estimate should account for unique requirements, 

contingency, and supervision, inspection, and overhead costs. 

8. Conduct a sensitivity analysis The Navy’s Cost Engineering Policy and Procedures Interim Guidance 2017-2019 

provides additional detail regarding a sensitivity analysis. For example, the guidance sets 

a threshold for the development of a formal cost and schedule risk analysis and discusses 

areas of high-risk concern that should be identified as key risk drivers.

9. Conduct a risk analysis The Naval Facilities Engineering Command’s Cost Engineering Policy and Procedures 

Interim Guidance 2017-2019 includes an entire section on the development of a joint cost 

and schedule risk assessment including a recommended threshold for when to apply the 

assessment to military construction projects, two recommended methods to develop the 

assessment, inputs and outputs for the assessment, and the identification of software to 

develop the assessment.

10. Document the estimate The Army Corps of Engineers’ Cost Engineering Policy and General Requirements states 

that one of the primary responsibilities of the District Command, through the cost 

engineering element, is to maintain complete documentation of project cost changes. 

Further, the project management team depends on the cost engineer for a complete, 

accurate, and well-documented construction cost estimate.

The Air Force’s Planning and Programming Military Construction Projects provides a list 

of documents necessary to be included in MILCON project files as part of the MILCON 

process. A list of suggested source documentation for the scope and quantity of primary 

and supporting facilities, the unit cost, and the sustainability and energy measures is also 

provided.

Naval Facilities Engineering Command’s Cost Engineering Policy and Procedures Interim 

Guidance 2017-2019 discusses which estimating software is to be used for different 

classes of estimates.
Appendix IV: Military Department Guidance for 

Developing Military Construction Cost 

Estimates

Page 74 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

Step Military department guidance

11. Present estimate to management The Army Corps of Engineers’ Cost Engineering Policy and General Requirements states 

that all cost estimates shall be reviewed internally, approved, and signed by the chief of 

the cost engineering element before release or submission to higher authority.

During interviews, officials discussed the Cost Estimate Improvement Plan, which will 

include improvements to the reviewer and approval process of MILCON cost estimates. 

However, this plan has not yet been implemented.

Navy officials stated that the management approval process for project budget cost 

estimates is embedded in the Form 1391 planning and programming process. While this 

explanation does show that the estimates go through many management reviews prior to 

submission to Congress, nowhere in the Navy MILCON policy and guidance is there a 

discussion regarding what should be included in the brief to management except for Form 

1391 to ensure that management understands how the assumptions used can impact the 

cost estimate developed.

12. Update the estimate The Army Corps of Engineers’ Military Programs Cost Engineering directs that cost data 

will be prepared and submitted for the Historical Analysis Generator database. The stored 

cost data are available to all Army Corps of Engineers elements. Moreover, the Army 

Corps of Engineers’ Cost Engineering Policy and General Requirements states that the 

development and maintenance of historical cost databases are essential to ensure 

accuracy and reliability of cost estimates and that these databases should be based upon 

the latest approved work breakdown structure specific to each program to ensure 

uniformity and consistency of cost data.

The Naval Facilities Engineering Command’s Cost Engineering Policy and Procedures 

Interim Guidance 2017-2019 provides four classes of detailed government construction 

cost estimates to be developed at various phases of design completion for the project. 

Additionally, the policy states that the estimate detail for each submittal shall be 

commensurate with the level of design required for that submittal.

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Defense information. | GAO-18-101.
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 75 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Defense
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 76 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 77 GAO-18-101 Defense Infrastructure

Brian J. Lepore, (202) 512-4523 or leporeb@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Maria Storts, Assistant Director; 

Bonita Anderson; Shawn Arbogast; Ronald Bergman; Brian Bothwell; 

Robert Brown; Farrah Graham; Mae Jones; Jennifer Leotta; Amie Lesser; 

Felicia Lopez; Carol Petersen; Vikki Porter; Steve Pruitt; and Karen 

Richey made key contributions to this report.

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(100487)
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 (https://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 https://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, https://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 https://www.gao.gov.

Contact:

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

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.