United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Committees

March 1998 CIVIL MILITARY

PROGRAMS

Stronger Oversight of

the Innovative

Readiness Training

Program Needed for

Better Compliance

GAO/NSIAD-98-84

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

National Security and

International Affairs Division

B-279103 

March 12, 1998

Congressional Committees

This report responds to the requirement in section 595 in the National

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (P.L. 105-85, Nov. 18,

1997) that we review the Department of Defense’s (DOD) training projects

that support nondefense activities. DOD conducts these civil military

projects under its Innovative Readiness Training (IRT) Program, as

authorized by 10 U.S.C. 2012 . Specifically, we reviewed (1) the extent,

nature, and cost of civil military projects; (2) the consistency of DOD’s

guidance on the IRT Program with statutory requirements; (3) the

conformity of selected projects to statutory requirements, especially those

dealing with military training; and (4) the effectiveness of the Office of the

Secretary of Defense’s (OSD) and service secretaries’ oversight of such

projects.

Background Legislation enacted in 1992 authorized a Civil-Military Cooperative Action

Program under which DOD was permitted to use the armed forces’ skills

and resources to assist civilian efforts to meet domestic needs by

participating in projects and activities that would benefit the community.1

One of the objectives of the program was to enhance individual and unit

training and morale in the armed forces through meaningful community

involvement. While the statute required DOD to ensure that it provided the

assistance in a manner consistent with the military mission of the units

involved, the statute did not require an assessment of the training value of

providing the assistance. In 1996, legislation repealed the program and

replaced it with the current IRT Program.2

Like the prior statute, the current legislation (10 U.S.C. 2012) authorizes

units or members of the armed forces to provide support and services to

nondefense organizations.3

 The law also requires that assistance be

incidental to military training, not adversely affect the quality of training,

1

Public Law 102-484, div. A, title X, sec. 1081(b)(1), Oct. 23, 1992.

2

Public Law 104-106, div. A, title V, sec. 571(a)(1), Feb. 10, 1996.

3

Eligible non-DOD organizations and activities are defined as (a) any federal, regional, state, or local

governmental entity; (b) youth and charitable organizations specified in section 508 of title 32; and 

(c) any other entity approved by the Secretary of Defense on a case-by-case basis (10 U.S.C. 2012(e)).

The earlier Civil-Military Cooperative Action Program did not specify any group of entities as eligible

for assistance. The statute authorizing the program referred instead to authorized use of armed forces’

resources “to assist civilian efforts to meet the domestic needs of the United States” (10 U.S.C. 410

(1994) (repealed 1996)).

Page 1 GAO/NSIAD-98-84 Civil Military
B-279103 

and not result in a significant increase in the cost of the training; unit’s

assistance meet valid unit training requirements; and individual members’

assistance be directly related to their specific military specialties.

Moreover, as was required under the prior program, DOD officials must

coordinate with civilian officials to ensure that DOD assistance meets a

valid community need and does not duplicate other available public

services. Finally, the statute states that assistance may be provided only if

it is requested by a responsible official of the organization that needs the

assistance and it is not reasonably available from a commercial entity. See

appendix I for a complete version of the provisions of 10 U.S.C. 2012.

To administer the IRT Program, DOD issued a specific directive to guide

military organizations entering into projects with civilian organizations

and established specific processes to ensure that projects conform to

statutory requirements. Although the Assistant Secretary of Defense for

Reserve Affairs is responsible for monitoring the program, military

organizations exercise a high degree of autonomy in making decisions to

enter into projects. Military organizations use operations and maintenance

and pay and allowances appropriations to fund IRT projects and need apply

to OSD only if they require supplemental IRT funding. In fiscal year 1997,

Congress appropriated $16 million in such funding for the program.

We selected six IRT projects of varying sizes and activities to determine

their conformance with statutory requirements. These projects consist of

three road-building projects (Operation Alaskan Road on Annette Island,

Alaska; Navajo Nation Building Project between Sawmill and Fort

Defiance, Arizona; and Operation Good Neighbor near Gallup, New

Mexico); one medical project (MIRT 97 - Adams County, Ohio); one

project to place excess combat vehicles off the shore of New Jersey to

build artificial reefs (Operation REEFEX 97), and one project to

reconstruct a basketball court (Operation Crescent City 97 in Louisiana).

Results in Brief DOD does not know the full extent and nature of the Innovative Readiness

Training Program because some project information is not consistently

compiled and reported. Furthermore, although DOD knows the amount of

supplemental funds spent on the program, it does not know the full cost of

the program because the services and components do not capture those

costs, which are absorbed from their own appropriations. Available

records indicate that at least 129 projects were conducted in fiscal 

year 1997 and that most of these were engineering, infrastructure, or

medical projects.

Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-98-84 Civil Military
B-279103 

The DOD directive for civil military projects is consistent with the statutory

requirements for such projects. Specifically, it reiterates the statutory

requirements and provides further delineation of how the projects are to

be selected and implemented. The directive does not, however, provide

any additional guidance for military organizations to use in meeting the

statutory requirement that the provision of assistance not result in a

significant increase in the cost of training.

The six projects we reviewed generally met the statutory requirements.

For example, the benefiting organizations were eligible for the assistance

and the provision of assistance did not interfere with units’ or individuals’

military functions. However, while the statute requires that individuals

providing assistance perform tasks directly related to their military

specialties, we found that in two cases some individuals’ tasks were not

directly related to their specialties. Thus, it appeared that the goal of

completing a project took priority over the goal of providing valid military

training. In addition, we could not determine whether the assistance had

resulted in a significant increase in the cost of training for any of the six

projects because DOD has established no basis for making such a

determination.

OSD has provided limited and inconsistent oversight of Innovative

Readiness Training projects and the delivery of support and services under

them. For the most part, OSD limited oversight to those projects that

received supplemental program funding. Even for those projects, OSD did

not always follow its own processes for ensuring that statutory

requirements for civil military projects were met and did not have

procedures in place to ensure that military organizations were not

providing assistance that significantly increased training costs. The service

secretaries have not established any additional formal oversight

procedures.

Full Extent, Nature,

and Cost of Program

Are Not Known

DOD officials do not know the full extent of the IRT Program. Despite OSD’s

expectation that military organizations would file after-action reports on

each of their civil military projects, these reports have not been

consistently filed. Some service and component command officials told us

that they did not require after-action reports for IRT projects that did not

receive supplemental funding. Officials of organizations that required

reporting of all projects stated that even they might not be aware of small

projects conducted at a local level.

Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-98-84 Civil Military
B-279103 

Using available service and OSD records for fiscal year 1997, we found that

most of the projects were engineering, infrastructure, or medical in nature.

At least 129 IRT projects were conducted in at least 35 states and the

District of Columbia, and all active, reserve, and National Guard

components of each of the services participated in the projects. The scope

of these projects varied from activities conducted in 1 day by a few

participants from a single unit to joint multiyear operations with hundreds

of participants. Because we were unable to determine the full extent of IRT

projects, we could not characterize the nature of all the projects.

Although OSD officials told us they had obligated approximately

$15.6 million of the $16 million Congress appropriated specifically for the

IRT Program in fiscal year 1997, DOD does not capture those costs that the

services and their components absorbed from their own pay and

allowances and operations and maintenance accounts. As a result, we

could not determine total program costs. Supplemental IRT funding spent

on the six projects we reviewed amounted to at least $4.6 million. Project

officials told us that service and component contributions to these

projects were at least $3.6 million. We could not determine their total cost

because we had to rely on project participants’ memories of the types of

costs incurred and, in many cases, their estimates of the expenses. The

projects and their costs are discussed in more detail in appendix II.

Program Guidance Is

Consistent With

Statutory

Requirements

The legislation requires the Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations

governing the provision of assistance under the IRT Program. In response

to this requirement, DOD issued Directive 1100.20, “Support and Services

for Eligible Organizations and Activities Outside the Department of

Defense.” This directive controls the implementation and administration of

the program. Although the directive meets the legislation’s requirements,

DOD could improve the directive by addressing how it will implement the

statutory requirement that the provision of assistance not result in a

significant increase in the cost of training.

DOD has implemented the IRT Program through its directive, much of which

restates in nearly identical language the statutory provisions governing the

program. It provides, in some instances, additional guidance on how DOD is

to implement the program, as shown in the following two examples.

Under 10 U.S.C. 2012(f), the Secretary of Defense is required to prescribe

regulations that include procedures to ensure that assistance is provided

along with, rather than separate from, civilian efforts and meets a valid

Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-98-84 Civil Military
B-279103 

civil or community need. To meet this requirement, the directive

encourages the establishment of advisory councils composed of various

public, private, business, and civic sector representatives. The directive

states that if an advisory council does not exist in the area in which

assistance is to be provided, responsible DOD commanders or other

officials are to consult and coordinate, to the maximum extent practicable,

with the same types of individuals who would serve on the councils.

The statute requires that civil military program assistance be provided only

if the assistance is not reasonably available from a commercial entity. The

directive states that in determining reasonable availability, DOD may also

take into account whether the requesting organization or activity would be

able, financially or otherwise, to address the specific civic or community

need.

Additional guidance could help organizations implement the statutory

requirement that assistance not result in a significant increase in the cost

of training. DOD’s directive repeats the language of the statute but does not

explain what constitutes an increase in costs for training or a “significant

increase.” DOD currently does not assess whether undertaking an IRT

project will significantly increase the cost of training. Guidance on this

point would provide a basis for assessing whether participating military

organizations were complying with the requirements.

The directive calls on the service secretaries to ensure that commanders

of units or personnel participating in IRT activities determine that the

assistance provided is consistent with valid unit training requirements or

related to the specific military specialty of participating personnel. Service

officials told us that they were drafting guidelines but did not know when

they might be complete.

Statutory

Requirements for

Selected Projects

Were Generally Met

The six projects we reviewed as case studies were generally conducted

within the statutory requirements. For example, the benefiting

organizations were eligible for the assistance, and the provision of

assistance did not interfere with units’ or individuals’ military functions.

While the statute requires that individuals providing assistance perform

tasks directly related to their military specialties, on two of the projects

we reviewed, some individuals’ tasks were not directly related to their

specialties. Thus, it appeared that the goal of completing a project

sometimes took priority over the goal of providing valid military training.

In addition, we were unable to determine whether providing the assistance

Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-98-84 Civil Military
B-279103 

had resulted in a significant increase in the cost of training for any of the

six projects because DOD has established no basis for making such a

determination.

The extent to which five of the projects conformed with each statutory

requirement is summarized in table 1. OSD approved the sixth project

(Operation Crescent City), which was sponsored by the Marine Corps

Reserve, for supplemental IRT funding and the Marine Corps conducted

project planning. Marine Corps officials subsequently canceled the project

when they failed to reach an agreement with the community that would

allow them to ensure that statutory provisions would be met. For example,

according to these officials, there was no written request letter, no

agreement on who would provide services the Marine Corps unit did not

have the skills to provide, and no agreement on who would pay for those

aspects of the project that had no training value.

Table 1: Conformance of Selected IRT Projects With Statutory Requirements

Requirement

Operation

Alaskan Road

Navajo Nation

Building Project

Operation Good

Neighbor

MIRT 97 - Adams

County

Operation

REEFEX 97

General

Organization eligible Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Requested by responsible

official

Yes Yes Yes Yes Not documented

Assistance not reasonably

available from a commercial

source

Yes Yes Not

documented

Yes Not

documented

No interference with military

function

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Training

Accomplished valid unit

training

Yes Yes Not applicablea Yes Not applicablea

Individuals’ tasks directly

related to specialties

Not in all casesb Yes Not in all cases Yes Yes

No adverse impact on training

quality

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

No significant increase in cost

of training

Unable to

determine

Unable to

determine

Unable to

determine

Unable to

determine

Unable to

determine

Assistance incidental to training Not entirely Yes Not entirely Yes Yes

aThese projects were conducted not by units, but by groups of individuals from various units.

bWhen project involved unit training, these individuals were not members of the unit.

Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-98-84 Civil Military
B-279103 

The following paragraphs provide additional information on the

conformance of the five projects to statutory requirements.

Conformance With General

Requirements

We found that the benefiting organizations for all five projects met the

eligibility criteria established in the statute. Furthermore, a written request

for assistance existed for four of the five projects. Officials of the fifth

project—Operation REEFEX 97—told us that there was no written request

for assistance for that project. In addition, officials of Operation Good

Neighbor and of Operation REEFEX 97 told us that certifications of

noncompetition with the private sector had not been provided for those

projects. DOD collects these certifications to establish that assistance is not

reasonably available from commercial sources, as required by the statute.

The officials from Operation Good Neighbor told us they had attempted to

get community officials to provide a certification before starting the

project but had been unsuccessful. They said they had contacted OSD

officials and were told to continue the project, in spite of not having a

certification. Officials of Operation REEFEX 97 told us they did not know

why there was no certification for their project.

The statute requires that the assistance not interfere with a unit’s or

members’ ability to perform their military functions. Officials of each of

the five projects told us that no need for them to perform their military

functions had arisen during work on the projects. They said that had such

a need arisen, performance of their military functions would have been

their priority.

Conformance With

Training Requirements

On the three projects with unit participation, the work of the participating

units was directly related to their mission-essential task lists and was

therefore considered valid unit training. We found, however, that on two

projects, some individuals’ tasks were not directly related to their

specialties.

For Operation Alaskan Road, Marine Corps officials determined that the

assigned combat engineering unit would need to be augmented to

accomplish its part of the project in the time allotted. As a result, 25

refuelers from a bulk fuel company were trained in combat engineering

skills and used to augment the 125-person combat engineering company.

Marine Corps officials acknowledged the bulk refuelers’ duties for this

project were not related to their military specialties. Also, Marine Corps

officials told us that many tasks the combat engineers were required to

Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-98-84 Civil Military
B-279103 

perform involved skills not found in the individual training skills manual

for the combat engineer (for example, plumbing rough-in work, masonry,

quarrying operations, and finished wood frame carpentry).

For Operation Good Neighbor, 7 of the 25 Navy Reserve Seabees

performing road construction had military specialties unrelated to the

tasks they performed. For example, Seabees with the military specialties

of construction welder, carpenter/mason, and utilitiesman were used as

heavy equipment operators. In addition, three of the five Seabees who

built ramps for the handicapped had military specialties unrelated to the

tasks they performed. The Seabees’ military specialties were surveyor and

heavy equipment operator, but they were used as carpenters/masons.

The statute requires that the assistance have no adverse impact on training

quality. Most of the individuals involved in each of our five projects were

participating in valid training for their units or performing tasks in their

military specialties. Officials told us that for the individuals not performing

tasks in their military specialties, participation did not interfere with any

other training opportunities.

The statute requires that the assistance provided not result in a significant

increase in the cost of training. This determination was not made for any

of the five projects. Also, DOD has provided military organizations neither

an explanation of what constitutes an increase in costs for training nor a

definition of a “significant increase.”

The statute requires that the assistance provided be incidental to training,

but on two projects, the assistance provided was not entirely incidental to

the training. As discussed previously, some of the individuals used in

Operation Alaskan Road and Operation Good Neighbor had military

specialties that were unrelated to the tasks needed for the projects.

Consequently, it appeared the goal of completing the projects took priority

over the goal of providing valid military training.

Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-98-84 Civil Military
B-279103 

OSD and Service

Secretary Oversight of

IRT Projects Is

Limited and

Inconsistent

OSD has provided limited and inconsistent oversight of IRT projects and the

delivery of support and services under them.4

 For the most part, oversight

is limited to those projects that receive supplemental IRT Program funding.

Even within those projects, OSD did not always follow its own processes

for ensuring the statutory requirements for civil military projects were met

and did not have procedures in place to ensure that military organizations

were meeting the statutory requirement not to provide assistance that

results in a significant increase in training costs. The service secretaries

have not established any additional oversight requirements.

The process for projects that receive supplemental IRT funding involves an

application that the sponsoring service or component submits to OSD, a

memorandum of agreement (MOA) between OSD and the sponsor once OSD

approves the application, and an after-action report. In its guidance for

submission of requests for supplemental funding for 1997 IRT projects, OSD

specified a format for application submissions. The information required

includes the name of the requesting civilian organization and other

contributing organizations, certification of noncompetition, training

requirements or objectives to be met, and estimated funding requirements.

However, the application does not require a certification that each

proposed project does not result in a significant increase in the cost of

training.

For approved applications, OSD and the sponsor sign an MOA that specifies

the amount of supplemental IRT funding allotted to the project and

requirements to be met before the funds can be spent. An MOA may cover

one or several projects that the same service or component is sponsoring.

OSD officials told us that, under their policy, if the sponsor has more than

one approved project, the sponsor determines the amount of supplemental

IRT funds to distribute to each of its approved projects. The sponsor is

responsible for ensuring that the requirements in the MOA are met.

The MOA also requires military organizations to submit after-action reports

that include, for example, the number of personnel participating in the

project and an accounting of funds used to support the project. Copies of

after-action reports are to be provided to OSD.

Using documentation that OSD provided for fiscal year 1997 projects, we

found that the process was not always followed because (1) sometimes

4

Although Congress has legislated that no funds can be expended for an office within OSD with an

exclusive or principal mission of providing centralized direction of activities under this program, OSD

is not precluded from conducting oversight of projects (P.L. 104-106, div. A, title V, sec. 574, Feb. 10,

1996).

Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-98-84 Civil Military
B-279103 

applications were not submitted, (2) MOAs were not always executed, and

(3) after-action reports were not always prepared. Additionally, we found

cases in which MOAs were executed and supplemental IRT funds were used

without the sponsor having met the requirements of the MOA. In one case,

OSD had funded a project without any part of the process having been

followed. OSD officials told us that they funded the project near the end of

the fiscal year when it became apparent that not all of the supplemental

IRT funding that had been obligated would be spent. They said that to avoid

losing the funds at the end of the fiscal year, they had orally directed the

transfer of funds from one Marine Corps component to another to fund

this project and had not required an application, had not issued an MOA,

and had not required an after-action report. The officials told us they had

no paperwork relating to the project. Moreover, we found that, in some

cases, sponsoring organizations, such as service components or joint

organizations, had not determined that IRT projects did not result in

significant increases in the cost of training because they believed this was

part of OSD’ s process for approving supplemental funding for projects. OSD,

on the other hand, told us this determination was the responsibility of the

sponsoring organizations.

OSD officials told us that they did not require the submission of

applications and the issuance of MOAs for projects that required no

supplemental IRT funding but that the DOD directive for the program

requires submission of after-action reports for all IRT projects. However,

the directive provides no designated time frame for providing the reports,

and we found that they were not always submitted. Some service and

component officials told us that after-action reports were not required if

supplemental IRT funding was not used. Given the differing interpretations

of the DOD requirement regarding after-action reports, clarifications to the

directive could result in more consistent submission of the reports.

Conclusions and

Recommendations

While Congress authorized the IRT Program to permit the use of the armed

forces to meet civilian needs, it established specific requirements to

ensure, among other things, that individual projects do not adversely

affect military training or significantly increase the cost of training. To

ensure that these requirements are met, stronger adherence to oversight

procedures already in place, modifications to those procedures, and more

specific guidance on determining training cost implications are needed.

Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-98-84 Civil Military
B-279103 

We therefore recommend that the Secretary of Defense take action to

manage the program to comply with the oversight procedures that have

been established. Specifically, we recommend that

• when projects require supplemental IRT funding, sponsors have submitted

applications with the required information and OSD and the sponsoring

organizations have developed MOAs and

• DOD’s directive be clarified to explicitly require the preparation and

submission of after-action reports within a designated time frame for all

projects, not just those requiring supplemental IRT funding.

We also recommend that the Secretary of Defense establish guidance for

making cost determinations for joint projects and directing the service

secretaries to define what constitutes an increase in the cost of training

and what represents a “significant increase” in training costs associated

with IRT projects.

In addition, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense modify OSD

program oversight procedures to ensure that a determination has been

made as to whether an increase in training costs is significant.

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD partially concurred with

our findings and concurred with our recommendations. DOD characterized

our position as advocating greater centralized control to improve program

performance. DOD also noted that the Fiscal Year 1996 National Defense

Authorization Act, Section 574, discouraged centralized DOD management

of activities allowed under 10 U.S.C. 2012 and that, in response to that

legislation, DOD has gradually reduced the level of centralized oversight

and instructed the services to provide instructions to implement the

program. Once the services issue these instructions, DOD stated a

decentralized approach can work more effectively.

While the legislation does not permit centralized direction of activities

under the IRT Program, it does not preclude DOD from conducting

oversight. We do not advocate greater centralized control but rather better

oversight to improve conformance with statutory requirements. For

example, we recommended stronger adherence to oversight procedures

already in place, modifications to those procedures, and more specific

guidance on determining training cost implications. We continue to believe

that such oversight is necessary and prudent to ensure compliance with

the program’s statutory requirements.

Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-98-84 Civil Military
B-279103 

DOD also stated that it has fully accounted for resources specifically

authorized and appropriated in fiscal year 1997 to fund IRT projects and

that the services are responsible for IRT related costs funded from service

resources. While DOD stated a separate system may be required to capture

total costs, it emphasized that the benefits and costs of implementing such

a system should be weighed against the value and size of the IRT Program.

We note that the legislation requires DOD to ensure that assistance

provided under the IRT Program does not result in a significant increase in

the cost of training. Because of this requirement, we believe that

maintaining information on project costs is important.

Scope and

Methodology

To assess the nature, extent, and cost of the support and services DOD has

provided under 10 U.S.C. 2012, we interviewed OSD and service officials

and examined pertinent documents. We aimed at identifying the

organization of the program and the types and scale of projects conducted

through the program.

To ascertain whether the regulations and procedures were consistent with

the requirements of section 2012, we compared available OSD and service

regulations to the requirements of section 2012 and examined the

procedures used to identify, plan, implement, and report on the projects

we used as case studies and compared those procedures with the

requirements of section 2012.

Because much of the program is decentralized and the universe of projects

was not well defined, we used a case study methodology to examine those

parts of the program for which no centralized source of information

existed. The projects we examined were judgmentally selected from

among those projects approved for supplemental funding from the section

2012 program. Our selections included several different types of projects;

collectively, these projects included participants from each military

service and each of their components. Other project selection factors

included scale (size and duration) and geographic location.

For each project, we obtained information on the level of support and

services provided from OSD, the involved services, and local commanders.

We then compared the types of support and services with the project

criteria set forth in the law to determine whether the project conformed to

statutory requirements, particularly those dealing with military training.

Because our case studies do not represent a valid statistical random

sample, our findings cannot be projected to the entire program. However,

Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-98-84 Civil Military
B-279103 

we believe our case studies provide insights into how the program is being

carried out and monitored.

To evaluate the OSD’s and service secretaries’ oversight of such civil

military projects, we interviewed IRT officials within OSD and each of the

services and examined pertinent documents to determine how the

oversight role was implemented. We also reviewed the legislative history

of section 2012 to ascertain where statutory responsibility for overseeing

such projects rested. In addition, we examined the available policies and

procedures to ascertain how DOD expected the projects to be monitored.

We conducted our review between September 1997 and January 1998 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

We are sending copies of this report to other appropriate congressional

committees; the Secretaries of Defense, the Army, the Navy, and the Air

Force; the Commandant, Marine Corps; and the Director, Office of

Management and Budget. Copies will also be made available to others on

request.

Please call me at (202) 512-5140 if you or your staff have any questions

concerning this report. Major contributors to this report are listed in

appendix IV.

Mark E. Gebicke

Director, Military Operations and

 Capabilities Issues

Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-98-84 Civil Military
B-279103 

List of Congressional Committees

The Honorable Strom Thurmond

Chairman

The Honorable Carl Levin

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

The Honorable Ted Stevens

Chairman

The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Defense

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Floyd Spence

Chairman

The Honorable Ike Skelton

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on National Security

House of Representatives

The Honorable C. W. Bill Young

Chairman

The Honorable John P. Murtha

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on National Security

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

Page 14 GAO/NSIAD-98-84 Civil Military
Page 15 GAO/NSIAD-98-84 Civil Military
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Statutory

Requirements for

Innovative Readiness

Training Program

18

Support and Services for Eligible Organizations and Activities

Outside Department of Defense

18

Appendix II 

Results of Case

Studies

21

Operation Alaskan Road 21

Navajo Nation Building Project 22

Operation Good Neighbor 23

Mirt 97 - Adams County 25

Operation REEFEX 97 25

Operation Crescent City 97 27

Appendix III 

Comments From the

Department of

Defense

28

Appendix IV 

Major Contributors to

This Report

31

Table Table 1: Conformance of Selected IRT Projects with Statutory

Requirements

6

Abbreviations

DOD Department of Defense

IRT Innovative Readiness Training

LCU landing craft utility

MOA memorandum of agreement

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

Page 16 GAO/NSIAD-98-84 Civil Military
Page 17 GAO/NSIAD-98-84 Civil Military
Appendix I 

Statutory Requirements for Innovative

Readiness Training Program

The following provisions are stated, verbatim, in 10 U.S.C. 2012.

Support and Services

for Eligible

Organizations and

Activities Outside

Department of

Defense

(a) Authority to provide services and support.—Under regulations

prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military

department may in accordance with this section authorize units or

individual members of the armed forces under that Secretary’s jurisdiction

to provide support and services to non-Department of Defense

organizations and activities specified in subsection (e), but only if—

(1) such assistance is authorized by a provision of law (other than this

section); or

(2) the provision of such assistance is incidental to military training.

(b) Scope of covered activities subject to section.—This section does not—

(1) apply to the provision by the Secretary concerned, under regulations

prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, of customary community relations

and public affairs activities conducted in accordance with Department of

Defense policy; or

(2) prohibit the Secretary concerned from encouraging members of the

armed forces under the Secretary’s jurisdiction to provide volunteer

support for community relations activities under regulations prescribed by

the Secretary of Defense.

(c) Requirement for specific request.—Assistance under subsection (a)

may only be provided if—

(1) the assistance is requested by a responsible official of the organization

to which the assistance is to be provided; and

(2) the assistance is not reasonably available from a commercial entity or

(if so available) the official submitting the request for assistance certifies

that the commercial entity that would otherwise provide such services has

agreed to the provision of such services by the armed forces.

(d) Relationship to military training.—(1) Assistance under subsection (a)

may only be provided if the following requirements are met:

(A) The provision of such assistance—

(i) in the case of assistance by a unit, will accomplish valid unit training

requirements; and

(ii) in the case of assistance by an individual member, will involve tasks

directly related to the specific military occupational specialty of the

member.

(B) The provision of such assistance will not adversely affect the quality of

training or otherwise interfere with the ability of a member or unit of the

armed forces to perform the military functions of the member or unit.

(C) The provision of such assistance will not result in a significant

increase in the cost of the training.

Page 18 GAO/NSIAD-98-84 Civil Military
Appendix I 

Statutory Requirements for Innovative

Readiness Training Program

(2) Subparagraph (A)(i) of paragraph (1) does not apply in a case in which

the assistance to be provided consists primarily of military manpower and

the total amount of such assistance in the case of a particular project does

not exceed 100 man-hours.

(e) Eligible entities.—The following organizations and activities are

eligible for assistance under this section:

(1) Any Federal, regional, State, or local governmental entity.

(2) Youth and charitable organizations specified in section 508 of title 32.

(3) Any other entity as may be approved by the Secretary of Defense on a

case-by-case basis.

(f) Regulations.—The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations

governing the provision of assistance under this section. The regulations

shall include the following:

(1) Rules governing the types of assistance that may be provided.

(2) Procedures governing the delivery of assistance that ensure, to the

maximum extent practicable, that such assistance is provided in

conjunction with, rather than separate from, civilian efforts.

(3) Procedures for appropriate coordination with civilian officials to

ensure that the assistance—

(A) meets a valid need; and

(B) does not duplicate other available public services.

(4) Procedures to ensure that Department of Defense resources are not

applied exclusively to the program receiving the assistance.

(g) Advisory councils.—(1) The Secretary of Defense shall encourage the

establishment of advisory councils at regional, State, and local levels, as

appropriate, in order to obtain recommendations and guidance concerning

assistance under this section from persons who are knowledgeable about

regional, State, and local conditions and needs.

(2) The advisory councils should include officials from relevant military

organizations, representatives of appropriate local, State, and Federal

agencies, representatives of civic and social service organizations,

business representatives, and labor representatives.

(3) The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) shall not apply to

such councils.

(h) Construction of provision.—Nothing in this section shall be construed

as authorizing—

(1) the use of the armed forces for civilian law enforcement purposes or

for response to natural or manmade disasters; or

(2) the use of Department of Defense personnel or resources for any

program, project, or activity that is prohibited by law.

Page 19 GAO/NSIAD-98-84 Civil Military
Appendix I 

Statutory Requirements for Innovative

Readiness Training Program

(Added Pub.L. 104-106, Div. A, Title V, § 572(a), Feb. 10, 1996, 

110 Stat. 353.)

Page 20 GAO/NSIAD-98-84 Civil Military
Appendix II 

Results of Case Studies

The following provides specific information on each of the six projects we

used for case studies.

Operation Alaskan

Road

Operation Alaskan Road, requested by the Metlakatla Indian community, is

a multiyear engineering project sponsored by the Pacific Command and

coordinated by the Alaskan Command. Members of the Missouri and

Alaska National Guard were tasked to assist in the planning efforts. Phase

one of the project, conducted in fiscal year 1997, involved over 

850 members of the active forces of each of the military services. About 

70 members of the Army and Air National Guard and the Army and Marine

Corps Reserves also participated. During fiscal year 1997, the project was

organized and planned and a base camp was constructed. The camp is to

be used to house the military personnel who are expected to build a

14-mile road on Annette Island in Alaska over the next 5 years. The road

will connect the town of Metlakatla with a remote section of the island

that is much closer to the site of a proposed ferry terminal. The

community believes that the proposed additional ferry access will allow

more medical, educational, and commercial opportunities for the

approximately 1,600 residents of Metlakatla.

In fiscal year 1997, about 150 Marines spent 57 days on the island

constructing a 300-person base camp to be used in the future by U.S.

military personnel constructing the road. The base camp consists of 

38 buildings, including berthing barracks, a mess hall, and shower and

restroom facilities. The Marines invested over 63,000 hours of labor to

construct the buildings, which are designed to last about 5 years. Unit

officials stated that this project provided their personnel with many

training opportunities, such as ship-to-shore landing, horizontal

engineering, and vertical construction.

Marine Corps officials told us the Alaskan deployment was good training

for the engineer support company that participated. We found, however,

that some individuals performed tasks unrelated to their military

specialties, raising questions about whether the assistance provided was

incidental to training. Specifically, because the company did not have

enough combat engineers to complete the project in the allotted time, 

25 Marines from a bulk fuel company, who were untrained in combat

engineering skills, augmented the combat engineers. Therefore, a

significant amount of time (about 2 months prior to deployment and more

time on-site) was spent teaching basic combat engineering skills to the

bulk refuelers. Also, Marine Corps officials told us that many tasks the

Page 21 GAO/NSIAD-98-84 Civil Military
Appendix II 

Results of Case Studies

combat engineers were required to perform involved skills not found in

the individual training skills manual for the combat engineer. Some

examples included plumbing rough-in work, masonry, quarrying

operations, and finished wood frame carpentry.

Two Navy troop transport ships carried the Marines on two separate trips

from San Diego, California, to Annette Island. The trips took a total of 23

days and involved more than 650 Navy personnel. In Alaska, a Navy

landing craft utility (LCU) transported personnel and supplies between the

island and the mainland. Twenty five LCU personnel were assigned in

support of this project. This project fit the unit’s mission of ship-to-shore

movement of combat troops and equipment and provided the unit the

opportunity to train for and prove the capability of LCUs to perform

operations for extended periods while unsupported by a ship or parent

command. During the 8-week operation, the craft made daily trips to

Annette Island and surrounding areas.

The total Department of Defense (DOD) cost for Operation Alaskan Road in

fiscal year 1997 is not known, but it was at least $5.1 million. Innovative

Readiness Training (IRT) funds spent on the project were about

$2.1 million and paid for such expenses as supplies and equipment, some

of the fuel (ground and ship), building materials, and commercial

transportation. Additional service and component contributions were at

least $3 million. These included pay and allowances for most personnel

working on the project, some travel and per diem costs, and some

contracting costs. Project officials were not able to determine all costs,

however. For example, the amount did not include payments for staff

management oversight and some flights for personnel and supplies.

In addition to DOD, many organizations have been involved in the project,

including the Metlakatla Indian community, the Bureau of Indian Affairs,

the Coast Guard, the Federal Highway Administration, and the Alaska

Department of Transportation and Public Facilities.

Navajo Nation

Building Project

The Navajo Nation Building Project, conducted for the benefit of the

Navajo Nation, is a multiyear engineering project that began in fiscal 

year 1995 and is sponsored by the Army National Guard. During fiscal 

year 1997, participants began reconstructing Blue Canyon Road between

Sawmill, Arizona, and Fort Defiance, Arizona. About 420 Army National

Guard members from several states participated in the project, expending

about 32,400 days (about 2,400 days for engineers and about 30,000 days

Page 22 GAO/NSIAD-98-84 Civil Military
Appendix II 

Results of Case Studies

for administrative and logistical support). Most of these participated with

their units during their annual training. The units provided administrative

and logistical support; conducted rock quarry operations; regraded 9 miles

of road; installed shoulders, ditches, and drainage structures; applied a

gravel surface along 6 miles of road; and provided security. The Navajo

Nation Council reported that the reconstructed Blue Canyon Road will

provide people residing in the area with an all-weather road that is

passable during inclement weather.

The total DOD cost to fund this project is not known, but it was at least

$2.3 million. This amount included about $1.9 million in supplemental IRT

funds that paid for expenses exceeding the amounts units budgeted for

annual training. These expenses included pay and allowances and travel

and per diem for some participants, transportation of soldiers and

equipment, and the rental of equipment at the project site. Service and

component contributions of at least $423,000 were used for pay and

allowances and some per diem for participants on annual training. Service

officials were unable to provide the amount spent for military airlift used

to transport some soldiers to the project site.

In addition to DOD, the communities of Sawmill and Fort Defiance, the

Navajo Nation, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian Health Services, the

U.S. Forest Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Arizona

and New Mexico State Historic Preservation Offices made contributions to

the project.

Operation Good

Neighbor

Operation Good Neighbor was an engineering project sponsored by the Air

Force Reserve for the benefit of the Navajo Nation. During fiscal 

year 1997, the project to reconstruct roads near Gallup, New Mexico, was

planned and reconstruction activities begun. About 38 Air Force and Navy

reservists and active duty Air Force personnel participated.

Project officials told us that the certification of noncompetition with the

private sector had not been provided for this project. They said that they

had been unsuccessful in their attempts to get community officials to meet

the requirement before starting the project. As a result, they had contacted

Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) officials and were told to continue

the project, without the certification.

The Naval Reserve Seabees tasked to do the reconstruction over a 30-day

period were able to work on only 2 of the 35 miles of originally planned

Page 23 GAO/NSIAD-98-84 Civil Military
Appendix II 

Results of Case Studies

road reconstruction due to delays in obtaining environmental clearances.

They completed the 2 miles in 2 days. The project was then shifted to the

partially reconstructed Blue Canyon Road project between Sawmill,

Arizona, and Fort Defiance, Arizona. The Army National Guard had started

this road reconstruction as an IRT project earlier in the summer and had

obtained all the required clearances. The Seabees regraded 11 miles of

road, graveled 1.5 miles, and installed culverts where needed. The Navajo

Nation Council reported that the reconstructed Blue Canyon Road will

provide people residing in the area with an all-weather road that is

passable during inclement weather.

Because additional IRT funds were available, the project was expanded to

include building handicap ramps. Air Force Reserve officials told us they

had been aware of the need for ramps and took advantage of the available

funding to build them. Five Navy Reserve Seabees spent 10 days to

construct 14 ramps at the homes of disabled Native Americans. They were

supported by three Air Force personnel (two active duty and one

reservist). Four of the eight participants (all of the Air Force personnel

and one Seabee) had been involved in the road construction effort and

stayed on to build the ramps. The other four participants were additional

Seabees who joined the effort.

On this project, 25 Seabees from several Naval Reserve units

reconstructed the road. Seven of them had military specialties unrelated to

the road construction tasks they performed. In addition, three of the five

Seabees who constructed the ramps for the handicapped had military

specialties unrelated to their tasks.

The total DOD cost for Operation Good Neighbor in fiscal year 1997 is not

known, but it was at least $230,000 (over $28,000 of which was spent

during the ramp-building portion of the project). Supplemental IRT funds

spent on the project were at least $203,000 and were used for such

expenses as military pay and allowances, equipment rental, supplies, and

fuel. Additional service contributions were at least $27,000 and included

some pay and allowances. The officials were not able to determine all

costs, however. For example, the amount did not include the cost of

military airlift.

In addition to DOD, many organizations have contributed to the project,

including the Navajo Nation, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Southwest

Indian Foundation, and the Western Health Foundation.

Page 24 GAO/NSIAD-98-84 Civil Military
Appendix II 

Results of Case Studies

Mirt 97 - Adams

County

MIRT 97 - Adams County was a medical project conducted over a 4-day

period in fiscal year 1997 by approximately 120 medical personnel from

the Ohio Army National Guard. The National Guard Bureau sponsored the

project, and the Ohio Army National Guard planned and coordinated it.

This project involved providing medical services such as immunizations,

pediatric wellness clinics, dental evaluations, vision and blood testing,

physical examinations, and referrals to about 500 people from a medically

underserved community located in the Appalachian region of Ohio. Adams

County, which was designated by the U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services in the Federal Register as having a primary medical care

health professional shortage in 1997, was selected as the participating

county by the Ohio Department of Health.

This project was completed over 2 weekends, with approximately 

60 medical personnel participating each weekend. Medical personnel

screened about 165 people the first weekend and about 335 the second

weekend. Unit and individual training tasks were accomplished, either

partially or totally, during this project. Unit training tasks accomplished

included deploying a medical company to a new operating site,

establishing an area of operations, performing health service support

operations, and redeploying to the units’ home stations. Individual tasks

accomplished included taking vital signs, administering medication,

collecting specimens, and providing dental care.

The total DOD cost of this project is not known, but it was at least $41,400.

Supplemental IRT funds used on the project were approximately $8,800 and

were used to pay for meals, lodging, supplies, and equipment rental. Ohio

Army National Guard contributions were at least $32,600. This amount

included fuel and some pay and allowances for project participants.

Project officials were unable to provide all costs. For example, the amount

does not include the cost of some of the initial project planning meetings.

In addition to DOD, a number of state and local organizations were involved

in the project, including the Ohio Department of Health, the Ohio Family

and Children First Initiative - Office of the Governor of Ohio, and the

Adams County Family and Children First Council.

Operation REEFEX 97 Operation REEFEX is a multiyear engineering/infrastructure project that

has been ongoing since the early 1990s. Project officials told us the 1997

project, conducted for New Jersey, involved creating artificial reefs by

placing excess and obsolete combat vehicles, which were demilitarized

Page 25 GAO/NSIAD-98-84 Civil Military
Appendix II 

Results of Case Studies

and cleaned, at designated offshore areas. In fiscal year 1997, the Army

National Guard sponsored the project and dropped 85 obsolete combat

vehicles off the coast of New Jersey over a 7-day period. There was no

documentation of a request or a certification of noncompetition for this

project. The New Jersey Army National Guard coordinated the project and

hired a civilian to manage it. About 100 military personnel from the New

Jersey Army National Guard (about 45 participants), the Navy Reserve

(about 37 participants), the Air Force Reserve (6 participants), and the

Coast Guard (about 18 participants) carried out the project. Most of these

participants were in inactive duty training status. In addition, the Guard

hired seven civilians to demilitarize the vehicles.

New Jersey Army National Guard truck operators used military vehicles to

transport the demilitarized vehicles to a holding area for temporary

storage and subsequently transported the vehicles to the barge loading

site. Once the vehicles were aboard a commercial barge, military

personnel from the New Jersey Army National Guard, Navy Reserve cargo

handling personnel, and Air Force Reserve air transportation specialists

secured the vehicles to the barge. A commercial tug then moved the barge

to the designated locations and the vehicles were released into the ocean.

Coast Guard crews and personnel from a Navy Reserve inshore boat unit

provided water transportation to and from the reef site for the work crews

and provided security during the water transportation of the vehicles. Unit

officials stated that participation in this project provided their personnel

with valuable hands-on training in, for example, transporting vehicles, onand off-loading vehicles, and securing vehicles for movement.

The total DOD cost for Operation REEFEX 97 is not known, but it is at least

$584,000. Supplemental IRT funds spent for the project in fiscal year 1997

were approximately $399,000. These funds were used to pay the eight

civilians hired in support of the project and to pay for supplies and

equipment needed to demilitarize vehicles; contracted services such as

meals, hotels, and equipment repairs; building rental and maintenance; and

some costs for commercial tug and barge rental, fuel, and military pay and

allowances. Service and component contributions were at least $185,000

and primarily consisted of pay and allowances for some of the personnel

working on the project. Program officials were not able to provide the

total cost of service and component contributions. For example, the

amount did not include the cost of some fuel and of operating some

military vehicles and boats.

Page 26 GAO/NSIAD-98-84 Civil Military
Appendix II 

Results of Case Studies

In addition to DOD, many organizations were involved in the project,

including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the New Jersey

Department of Environmental Protection, the New Jersey State Fish and

Game Office, and the Artificial Reef Association.

Operation Crescent

City 97

The Marine Corps Reserve sponsored and planned Operation Crescent

City 97, which was to have involved the demolition and reconstruction of a

basketball court. The Reserve planned the project, and OSD approved

supplemental IRT funding for it. However, according to Reserve officials

the project was canceled the day before work was to have begun because

they and the community failed to reach an agreement that would allow

them to meet some of the statutory requirements. For example, there was

no written request letter; no agreement on who would provide services

unrelated to the Marine Corps unit’s mission-essential tasks, such as

security of the construction equipment; and no agreement on who would

pay for certain aspects of the project that had no training value, such as

the removal and disposal of the demolished materials.

Had this project proceeded as planned, 13 Marines from an engineering

support battalion would have participated on the project for a period of 

15 days. Their participation was expected to fulfill annual training

requirements. When the project was canceled, alternate training was

arranged at a military base, where the Marines accomplished a variety of

construction projects in support of base facilities, such as concrete pad

construction, wood frame construction, and roofing work.

The total cost of planning this project is not known. A total of about $4,400

in supplemental IRT funds was spent, but Marine Corps Reserve officials

said they could not provide the service contribution.

Page 27 GAO/NSIAD-98-84 Civil Military
Appendix III 

Comments From the Department of Defense

Page 28 GAO/NSIAD-98-84 Civil Military
Appendix III 

Comments From the Department of Defense

Page 29 GAO/NSIAD-98-84 Civil Military
Appendix III 

Comments From the Department of Defense

Page 30 GAO/NSIAD-98-84 Civil Military
Appendix IV 

Major Contributors to This Report

National Security and

International Affairs

Division, Washington,

D.C.

Carol Schuster, Associate Director

William Solis, Assistant Director

Office of the General

Counsel, Washington,

D.C.

Maureen A. Murphy, Senior Attorney

Norfolk Field Office Janet Keller, Evaluator in Charge

Sharon Reid, Site Senior

Henry Arzadon, Evaluator

Linda Koetter, Evaluator

(703219) Page 31 GAO/NSIAD-98-84 Civil Military
Ordering Information

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

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

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

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

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

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

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

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

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

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

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

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

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

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

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

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

info@www.gao.gov

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

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100