GAO 

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Committees

DEFENSE 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

DOD Needs to 

Improve Oversight of 

Relocatable Facilities 

and Develop a 

Strategy for Managing 

Their Use across the 

Military Services 

June 2009 

GAO-09-585 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

June 2009

DEFENSE INFRASTRUCTURE 

DOD Needs to Improve Oversight of Relocatable 

Facilities and Develop a Strategy for Managing Their 

Highlights of GAO-09-585, a report to Use across the Military Services

congressional committees 

The concurrent implementation of 

several major Department of 

Defense (DOD) force structure and 

infrastructure initiatives has 

stressed the ability of traditional 

military construction to provide 

enough permanent living and 

working space for servicemembers 

and other DOD personnel. As a 

result, the services are using some 

movable—or relocatable—facilities 

as barracks, administrative offices, 

medical facilities, dining halls, and 

equipment maintenance facilities to 

meet short-term needs. 

In Senate Report 110-77, the Senate 

Committee on Armed Services 

directed GAO to review the subject. 

This report assesses the extent to 

which (1) the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense (OSD) is 

providing oversight of the services’ 

use of relocatable facilities to meet 

physical infrastructure needs, and 

(2) DOD has a strategy for 

managing such facilities. GAO 

assessed data reported to OSD on 

relocatable use and cost as well as 

visited seven defense installations 

selected from those identified as 

having a sizeable number of 

relocatable facilities. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making recommendations 

to improve OSD’s oversight and 

management of the services’ use of 

relocatable facilities by clarifying 

its definition of these facilities, 

developing a mechanism for 

collecting data on them, and 

developing a strategy for using, 

disposing of, and redistributing 

them. DOD generally agreed with 

GAO’s recommendations. 

Although DOD considers the use of relocatable facilities a temporary measure 

to meet short-term physical infrastructure needs, the Office of the Secretary of 

Defense (OSD) is not providing effective oversight of the number or cost of its 

relocatable facilities. OSD officials told GAO in March 2008 that they did not 

have information about how many relocatable facilities were being used, how 

many defense installations had them, or how much it has cost to acquire them. 

Subsequently, the military services reported to OSD that they have acquired 

over 4,000 relocatable facilities at an estimated cost of about $1.5 billion over 

a 5-year period. However, GAO’s assessment of these data showed that the 

data were inaccurate and incomplete. At six of the seven installations visited, 

GAO found discrepancies between the number of relocatable facilities located 

on those installations and the numbers that the services had reported to OSD. 

For instance, at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, installation officials told GAO 

the installation had about 170 relocatable facilities, which is about 80 more 

than the Marine Corps headquarters reported to OSD. Such discrepancies 

occurred in part because OSD has not provided the services with a clear 

definition of relocatable facilities. In addition, OSD lacks a mechanism for 

collecting and maintaining reliable data on these facilities. A clear, ongoing 

requirement for OSD to collect and maintain consistent data on relocatable 

facilities would better enable it to manage the use of these facilities to provide 

working and living space for military personnel. 

OSD has not developed a comprehensive strategy for managing relocatable 

facilities departmentwide. Although the military services plan to replace 

many of their relocatable facilities with permanent construction, some 

officials GAO spoke with expressed skepticism that the planned replacement 

funds will become available. In addition, GAO found that these facilities at 

many installations have been in use longer than the 3 years DOD’s guidance 

states it normally expects. Furthermore, some Army officials told GAO that 

due to several force structure and infrastructure initiatives, it expects that the 

influx of more military personnel at some installations could exacerbate the 

shortage of facilities, which could mean more relocatable facilities might be 

needed. Meanwhile, some DOD installations may be planning to acquire new 

relocatable facilities at market cost at the same time that other installations 

are disposing of them. Although the Army is moving in the direction of 

centralizing its management of relocatable facilities, none of the other military 

service headquarters told GAO they have initiated similar efforts. Because 

OSD does not have a comprehensive DOD-wide strategy for managing the use 

of relocatable facilities—including the transfer of relocatables from one 

location to another—the services could unnecessarily spend DOD funds by 

simultaneously acquiring new facilities at some locations while auctioning off 

or incurring costs to store or demolish similar facilities at other locations. 

View GAO-09-585 or key components. 

For more information, contact Brian J. Lepore 

at (202) 512-4523 or leporeb@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-09-585 

Contents 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2 

Background 5 

OSD Does Not Have Complete Oversight of the Services’ Use of 

Relocatable Facilities to Meet Infrastructure Needs 11 

OSD Does Not Have a Strategy for Managing the Use and Disposal 

of Relocatable Facilities 17 

Conclusions 23 

Recommendations for Executive Action 24 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 24 

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 28 

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Defense 30 

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 32 

 

Figures 

Figure 1: Examples of Various Relocatable Facilities in Use at 

Seven Military Installations GAO Visited 7 

Figure 2: Pictures of Sprung Shelter Relocatable Facilities at Two 

Military Installations 15 

Figure 3: Pictures of Relocatable Facilities Arriving and Being 

Installed at a Defense Installation 21 

Figure 4: A Relocatable Facility Consisting of 33 Trailers at Eglin 

Air Force Base, Florida 22 

 Defense Infrastructure 
Abbreviations 

DOD Department of Defense 

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense 

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 ii GAO-09-585 Defense Infrastructure
Page 1 GAO-09-585 

 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

 

June 12, 2009 

Congressional Committees 

The Department of Defense’s (DOD) concurrent implementation of several 

major force structure and infrastructure initiatives has stressed the 

traditional military construction processes to provide needed living and 

working space for servicemembers and other DOD personnel. These 

initiatives—such as the continued transformation of the Army’s force 

structure from an organization based on divisions to more rapidly 

deployable, combat brigade–based units; the implementation of about 

800 Base Realignment and Closure actions by 2011; the planned increase 

in the active-duty end strength of the Army and the Marine Corps by a 

combined 92,000 military members; and the planned drawdown of troops 

from Iraq—will place new and changing demands on DOD’s capability to 

provide sufficient living and working space at many installations by the 

time these initiatives and actions are expected to be completed. The 

military services, in response to current shortages in physical 

infrastructure, are using a large number of movable—or relocatable—

facilities as barracks, administrative offices, medical facilities, dining halls, 

and equipment maintenance facilities. Such relocatable facilities can 

consist of a single trailer, or a set of trailers assembled together to form a 

larger, modular-type structure. 

In Senate Report 110-77, the Senate Armed Services Committee expressed 

concern about DOD’s use and cost of temporary facilities and the 

possibility that such facilities would eventually be considered an 

acceptable working or living standard.1

 The committee directed the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to report in 

July 2008 to the congressional defense committees on the use of such 

facilities within DOD. The committee also directed us to analyze and 

report on the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s (OSD) report within 

90 days of the OSD report issuance. However, as of May 2009, OSD had not 

issued its report to the congressional defense committees; therefore we 

have not evaluated OSD’s report. The committee also stipulated that we 

may conduct independent research and make independent findings and 

recommendations. Accordingly, this report discusses DOD’s use of 

relocatable facilities to meet its physical infrastructure needs. Specifically, 

1

S. Rep. No. 110-77 (2007), 585-586. 

 Defense Infrastructure 
 

we assessed the extent to which (1) OSD is providing oversight of the 

military services’ use of relocatable facilities to meet physical 

infrastructure needs, and (2) DOD has a strategy for managing such 

facilities. 

To address these objectives, we reviewed DOD and military service 

guidance on the use of relocatable facilities; obtained and reviewed 

inventory and cost data on relocatable facilities from each of the military 

services, which they reported to OSD for use in its pending report; and 

interviewed OSD and service headquarters officials responsible for 

overseeing the use of relocatable facilities. To gain insight into the 

numbers, costs, and disposal plans for relocatable facilities at the 

installation level, we visited seven installations, mostly focusing on the 

Army and the Marine Corps installations because the data they reported to 

OSD showed more extensive use of relocatable facilities than the Navy 

and the Air Force reported. We selected these installations to visit from 

those identified by service headquarters officials as having a sizable 

number of relocatable facilities. The Senate committee report limited 

DOD’s review by excluding nonpermanent or temporary facilities used 

overseas at forward operating sites or cooperative security locations, thus 

we did not include the services’ use of relocatable facilities at overseas 

locations. Our analysis of the seven installation visits cannot be 

generalized to other military installations. At each installation we visited, 

we compared installation data on the number and cost of relocatable 

facilities with similar data provided by each service headquarters to OSD 

and discussed any discrepancies identified. We also visited the Army 

Installation Management Command–West, Texas, to discuss the Army’s 

use of relocatable facilities. We conducted this performance audit from 

February 2008 to June 2009, 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. A 

more detailed description of our scope and methodology is included in 

appendix I of this report. 

Although DOD considers the use of relocatable facilities a temporary 

measure to meet short-term physical infrastructure needs, OSD has not 

provided effective oversight of the number or cost of its inventory of 

relocatable facilities across the military services. In March 2008, OSD 

officials told us that they did not have information about how many 

Results in Brief 

Page 2 GAO-09-585 Defense Infrastructure
 

relocatable facilities were being used, how many defense installations had 

them, or how much it has cost to acquire them. Subsequently, OSD began 

to collect that information from the military services in response to 

direction from the Senate Armed Services Committee. The services 

responded with data indicating that DOD has procured or leased over 

4,000 relocatable facilities over a 5-year period.2

 However, our assessment 

of these data showed some inaccuracies and indications that the data are 

incomplete. At six of the seven installations we visited, we found 

discrepancies between the number of relocatable facilities located on 

those installations and the numbers that the military services had reported 

to OSD. For instance, during our visit to Fort Bliss, Texas, installation 

officials showed us over 100 relocatable facilities that had not been 

included in the Army headquarters data provided to OSD. Similarly, during 

our visit to Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, installation officials told us that 

the installation had about 170 relocatable facilities, which is about 80 more 

than Marine Corps headquarters reported to OSD. Such discrepancies 

occur in part because OSD has not provided the services with a clear 

definition of relocatable facilities. Officials we spoke with at Navy 

headquarters, for example, expressed confusion about whether structures 

like equipment sheds and rain shelters should be counted as relocatable 

facilities. In addition, OSD lacks a mechanism for collecting and 

maintaining reliable data on the number and costs of these facilities on an 

ongoing basis. Although the services reported to OSD data indicating that 

DOD has spent about $1.5 billion over 5 years to acquire relocatable 

facilities, some service officials told us that collecting accurate cost data 

was difficult given that cost records were not always available. For 

example, at the Marine Corps and Air Force installations we visited, 

officials told us that their cost data were incomplete. A clear, ongoing 

requirement for the services to collect and maintain consistent data on the 

number and cost of relocatable facilities would better enable OSD to 

manage the military services’ use of relocatable facilities to provide 

working and living space for military personnel. Thus, we are 

recommending that OSD clarify the definition of a relocatable facility and 

develop a mechanism for collecting and maintaining consistent and 

reliable data on the number and costs of such facilities across the military 

services. 

 

2

On May 16, 2008, OSD requested each service provide information on the number and cost 

of its relocatable facilities acquired over the past 5 years. OSD did not specify which 5-year 

period. Service officials from the Army and Navy noted that they reported data on calendar 

years 2003-2007 in their response; Air Force officials reported data on calendar years 

2004-2008; and Marine Corps officials told us they reported data on fiscal years 2004-2008. 

Page 3 GAO-09-585 Defense Infrastructure
 

OSD has not developed a comprehensive strategy for ensuring sound 

management of relocatable facilities departmentwide. DOD Instruction 

4165.56 states that relocatable facilities may be used when these facilities 

constitute the most feasible and economical means of satisfying an interim 

facility requirement, which is defined in this instruction as a short-term, 

normally 3 years or less, requirement to meet urgent or peak facilities 

requirements. Although the military services plan to replace many of their 

relocatable facilities with permanent construction and some funds have 

been programmed to do so in fiscal years 2010 to 2013, some officials we 

spoke with across DOD expressed skepticism that the planned 

replacement funds will become available. For example, Navy officials at 

Little Creek Naval Amphibious Base, Virginia, told us that funds are 

planned for 2012 to begin permanent construction to replace some of the 

installation’s current stock of relocatable facilities; however, the officials 

expect its relocatable facilities to be in use well beyond 2014, since these 

facilities are being used for administrative buildings, which officials told 

us historically do not compete well for military construction 

appropriations. In addition, we found that these facilities at many 

installations have already been in use for longer than 3 years. The Army 

recently issued guidance indicating that it normally expects its relocatable 

facilities to be used for no more than 6 years, and officials at Fort Bliss, 

Texas, told us that about 550 of its nearly 600 relocatables, which are 

already more than 3 years old, will be used until at least 2014 for new 

incoming missions due to shortages of permanent facilities. Furthermore, 

some Army officials told us that, if the proposed drawdown of troops from 

Iraq occurs as planned—on top of DOD’s implementation of other force 

structure initiatives—the influx of more military personnel could 

exacerbate the shortage of facilities already stressing some installations, 

which consequently could mean more relocatable facilities might be 

needed. Additionally, OSD does not have a strategy to manage the disposal 

or relocation of those facilities once they are no longer needed in their 

current location. For instance, Army officials at Fort Drum, New York, 

which has about 140 relocatable facilities, told us that once their 

installation no longer needs those facilities, they plan to disassemble and 

store the buildings on base, whereas Army officials at Fort Bliss, Texas, 

which has about 600 relocatables, told us that they plan to auction off as 

many of their relocatable buildings as possible when they are no longer 

needed. Meanwhile, some other DOD installations may be planning to 

acquire new relocatable facilities at market cost at the same time that 

installations are disposing of them. Although the Army is moving in the 

direction of centralizing its management of these facilities, none of the 

other service headquarters told us they have initiated similar efforts. 

Without a comprehensive DOD-wide strategy for effectively managing the 

Page 4 GAO-09-585 Defense Infrastructure
 

use of relocatable facilities—including the transfer of relocatables from 

one location to another across the services—the services could 

unnecessarily spend DOD funds by simultaneously acquiring new facilities 

at some locations while auctioning off or incurring costs to store or 

demolish similar facilities at other locations. We are recommending that 

OSD develop a strategic DOD-wide view for managing the use, disposal, 

and redistribution of relocatable facilities across all the services. 

In written comments to a draft of this report, DOD fully agreed with two of 

our three recommendations and agreed to take action. While DOD’s 

written comments indicated partial agreement with another 

recommendation, based on its response and our subsequent follow-up 

discussion with an OSD official, we believe DOD’s planned action meets 

the intent of our recommendation. DOD’s comments are reprinted in 

appendix II of this report. Also, DOD provided one technical comment on 

a draft of this report, which we incorporated as appropriate. 

According to DOD, a relocatable facility is a building designed to be 

readily moved, erected, disassembled, stored, and reused.3

 In classifying 

buildings as relocatable, the estimated costs for average building 

disassembly, repackaging, and nonrecoverable building components, 

including typical foundations, may not exceed 20 percent of the building 

acquisition cost. DOD has stated that these facilities may be used when 

they constitute the most feasible and economical means of satisfying an 

interim facility requirement, which they have defined as a short-term, 

normally 3 years or less, requirement due to transitory peak military 

missions, deployments, military contingency operations, disaster relief; 

or urgent requirements, pending approval and construction of facilities 

through normal military construction programs.4

 Such facilities can 

consist of a single trailer, or a set of trailers assembled together to form a 

larger, modular-type structure. The military services acquire relocatable 

facilities by either buying or leasing them, depending on the results of an 

economic analysis to determine the most economical approach. 

Background 

 

3

DOD Instruction 4165.56, “Relocatable Buildings” (Apr. 13, 1988). 

4

DOD guidance further states that in addition to the use of relocatable buildings for interim 

facility requirements, relocatable buildings may also be used instead of conventional, 

permanent construction when the duration of the requirement is uncertain. 

Page 5 GAO-09-585 Defense Infrastructure
 

In response to OSD’s request for data on the military services’ use of 

relocatable facilities over the past 5 years,5

 the services reported that they 

have bought or leased over 4,000 relocatable facilities and have spent 

about $1.5 billion to acquire them. According to these data, the Army and 

the Marine Corps have relied on relocatable facilities the most, reporting 

to OSD that they have about 2,800 and 800 of these facilities respectively. 

The Navy and the Air Force reported to OSD that they have about 400 and 

200 relocatables respectively. Typically, the military services are using 

relocatable facilities as barracks, administrative offices, medical facilities, 

dining halls, and equipment maintenance facilities. Some relocatable 

facilities we saw during our installation visits are shown in figure 1. 

 

5

See footnote 2. 

Page 6 GAO-09-585 Defense Infrastructure
 

Figure 1: Examples of Various Relocatable Facilities in Use at Seven Military Installations GAO Visited 

Barracks at Fort Bliss, Texas.

Barracks for about 600 soldiers at Fort Drum, New York.

Barracks at Fort Hood, Texas.

Training management space at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida. Counseling center at Camp Pendleton, California.

Administrative space for about 60 people at Naval Amphibious Base

Little Creek, Virginia.

Administrative space at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina.

Source: GAO.

Source: GAO.

Source: GAO.

Source: DOD.

Source: GAO.

Source: GAO.

Source: GAO.

Oversight and Guidance The Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and 

Environment issues guidance on relocatable facilities. DOD last issued 

guidance on relocatable buildings in 1988. According to that guidance, 

unlike other nonpermanent buildings, relocatable facilities are to be 

accounted for as personal property rather than real property, unless these 

Page 7 GAO-09-585 Defense Infrastructure
 

facilities are authorized for procurement using construction procedures, in 

which case the buildings should be accounted for as real property.6

Additionally, the guidance states that in classifying a building as 

relocatable, it must meet a requirement known as the “20 percent rule.” 

This rule generally means the estimated costs for disassembling the 

building and repackaging it for storage or reuse, among other cost 

considerations, may not exceed 20 percent of the cost to acquire the 

facility. Generally, relocatable facilities are acquired as personal property 

using procurement or operation and maintenance appropriations. If other 

buildings do not meet the 20 percent rule, they are acquired as real 

property with military construction or with operation and maintenance 

appropriations. 

In addition to DOD’s guidance, each of the military services have also 

developed specific guidance to govern the management, acquisition, and 

disposition of relocatable facilities. For example, to provide more specific 

guidance on funding relocatables, the Army has issued its own amplifying 

guidance. This guidance follows DOD Instruction 4165.56 that states that 

relocatable buildings procured and accounted for in a particular manner 

are considered personal property. The Army used the funding limits for 

procurement of equipment when it outlined the funds to be used for 

relocatable facility acquisition in both an Army regulation and interim 

policy for relocatable buildings.7

 If the cost to buy or lease relocatables is 

under $250,000, the Army is to use funds from its Operation and 

Maintenance appropriations, however if the cost is $250,000 or more, it is 

to use funds from its Other Procurement, Army, appropriation. In contrast, 

if the Army is acquiring other buildings, meaning real property, it generally 

 

6

DOD Instruction 4165.56, “Relocatable Buildings.” 

7

Army Regulation 420-1, “Army Facilities Management” (Feb. 12, 2008); and Army 

Memorandum, “Interim Policy Change on Relocatable Buildings for Paragraphs 6-13 

through 6-17 in AR 420-1, Army Facilities Management” (Feb. 19, 2008). 

Page 8 GAO-09-585 Defense Infrastructure
 

uses funds from its Military Construction appropriations for projects over 

$750,000.8

Committee Interest on 

Relocatable Facilities 

In addition to the committee interest that led to our review,9

 other 

congressional committees have previously expressed interest in DOD’s use 

of relocatable facilities, specifically within the Department of the Army. 

For example: 

• In 2005, the Senate Armed Services Committee10 expressed concern that 

the Army had not included funds to sustain or replace trailers with 

permanent facilities, among other issues. 

• Also in 2005, the House Armed Services Committee11 noted that it was 

troubled by the Army’s reliance on temporary facilities to support its 

modularity initiative and the Army’s failure to budget for permanent 

 

8

There are two authorities available to DOD to use operation and maintenance funds to 

carry out military construction projects. Section 2805(c) of Title 10, U.S. Code, permits 

DOD to use operation and maintenance funds to carry out an unspecified minor military 

construction project costing not more than $750,000, or up to $1,500,000 in the case of a 

project intended solely to correct a deficiency that threatens life, health, or safety. DOD 

also possesses temporary, limited authority to obligate up to $200,000,000 (and under 

certain circumstances, up to $500,000,000) of operation and maintenance funds in a fiscal 

year to carry out construction projects that meet a specified set of conditions. Pub. L. No. 

108-136, § 2808(a) (2003), as amended by Pub. L. No. 108-375, § 2810 (2004); Pub. L. No. 

109-163, § 2809 (2006); Pub. L. No 109-364, § 2802 (2006); Pub. L. No. 110-181, § 2801 (2008); 

and Pub. L. No. 110-417, § 2812 (2008). 

9

S. Rep. No. 110-77 (2007), 585-586, directed the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to report to the congressional defense committees 

on the use of temporary facilities within DOD. Specifically, the Under Secretary was 

required to report on (1) a list of the acquisition or leasing actions of temporary facilities in 

each service over the past 5 years; (2) amounts spent on temporary facilities in the 

following categories: (a) operation and maintenance funding obligated in service contracts; 

(b) operation and maintenance funding obligated solely for nonpermanent, temporary 

facility construction or procurement; (c) operation and maintenance funding obligated for 

leases of nonpermanent, temporary facilities; and (d) procurement funding spent to 

procure nonpermanent, temporary facilities; (3) the plan for the construction of permanent 

facilities to replace each temporary facility acquired or leased in the DOD inventory to 

include project title, planned budget year, and estimated cost; and (4) the number of 

nonpermanent, temporary facilities previously leased by the department or the military 

services that were later purchased, and the costs associated with these arrangements. 

Although these reporting requirements do not specifically state relocatable facilities, OSD 

told us it plans to report data on relocatables given that the questions are mostly relevant 

to only relocatable facilities. 

10S. Rep. No. 109-69 (2005), 434. 

11H.R. Rep. No. 109-89 (2005), 443-4. 

Page 9 GAO-09-585 Defense Infrastructure
 

construction to replace temporary facilities. The House Armed Services 

Committee further directed the Army to report on several issues related to 

the use and replacement of temporary facilities, and the Army provided its 

report in March 2006.12

More recently, the House Armed Services Committee directed OSD to 

submit to the defense committees by March 1, 2009, the department’s plan 

to replace relocatable buildings with permanent facilities by fiscal year 

2015.13 OSD officials told us they planned on providing these committees 

with this report as well as the report directed by the Senate Armed 

Services Committee that was due in July 2008, although they had not yet 

done so as of May 2009. To develop these reports, OSD requested that the 

military services provide data, and the services generally did the following 

in response to OSD’s data request: 

• Army headquarters officials stated that the Army updated its information 

on relocatable facilities in March 2008 by requesting data from its 

installations. Officials noted that these data were compared to data in the 

Army’s real property database to supplement its completeness. The Army 

provided its data to OSD in the summer of 2008. 

• Navy headquarters officials stated that the Navy used its database on 

facilities to obtain information on the number of relocatable facilities it is 

using. The Navy then provided these data to each of its 13 regions to 

review and supplement with data not contained in the database. The Navy 

provided its data to OSD during the summer of 2008. 

• Marine Corps headquarters requested data from its major commands, 

citing that it was the responsibility of its commands to obtain data on 

relocatable facility use. The Marine Corps provided its data to OSD in the 

fall of 2008. 

• Air Force headquarters requested the civil engineer for each of its major 

commands, who in turn tasked the civil engineer for each Air Force 

installation, to provide data on relocatable facility use. The Air Force 

provided its data to OSD in the summer of 2008. 

 

12Department of the Army, Report to Congress on Permanent Facilities for new Army 

unit (For Official Use Only) (March 2006). 

13H.R. Rep. No. 110-652 (2008), 476-7. 

Page 10 GAO-09-585 Defense Infrastructure
 

OSD Does Not Have 

Complete Oversight 

of the Services’ Use of 

Relocatable Facilities 

to Meet Infrastructure 

Needs 

Although military services are relying on relocatable facilities to meet 

shortages in their physical infrastructure needs, OSD lacks oversight over 

how many of these facilities are being used on defense installations and 

how much DOD has spent on such facilities. Neither OSD nor the services 

have a complete or accurate accounting of the number or cost of 

relocatable facilities because OSD has not issued clear guidance on how 

the military services should define relocatable facilities, and it lacks a 

mechanism for collecting and maintaining consistent use and cost data 

across the services. 

OSD Does Not Fully Know 

How Many Relocatable 

Facilities the Services Are 

Using to Meet Physical 

Infrastructure Needs 

OSD does not have accurate and complete data on the number of 

relocatable facilities that the services are using to meet current shortages 

in their physical infrastructure needs. Although the military services 

recently reported to OSD that they have bought or leased over 4,000 

relocatable facilities over a 5-year period, our assessment of the data 

uncovered many discrepancies. At six of the seven installations we visited, 

including locations representing each of the military services, we found 

discrepancies between the number of relocatable facilities located on 

those installations and the number that the service headquarters had 

reported to OSD. For instance: 

• At Fort Bliss, Texas, officials showed us over 100 relocatable facilities 

located on the installation that were not included in Army’s data provided 

to OSD on relocatable facilities. Army headquarters did not know about 

these facilities until shortly prior to our visit. 

• At Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, officials told us that the installation had 

about 170 relocatable facilities, which was about 80 more than Marine 

Corps headquarters had reported to OSD. Marine Corps headquarters 

officials told us they had no way to reconcile the discrepancies and 

suggested we ask the Marine Corps Forces Command, which was tasked 

to collect inventory data on relocatable facilities for its installations. Those 

officials stated that there is a lot of subjectivity in the definitions of 

relocatable facilities, which is contributing to data discrepancies. 

• At Camp Pendleton, California, officials told us they only had 2 relocatable 

facilities; however, Marine Corps headquarters reported to OSD that the 

installation had a total of 330 relocatables and other nonpermanent 

facilities. Marine Corps headquarters officials told us there is confusion as 

to how many relocatable facilities are actually at Camp Pendleton. Based 

on our audit work, we believe there are several factors contributing to the 

data discrepancies. First, Marine Corps headquarters included both 

relocatable facilities as well as other nonpermanent facilities in their 

numbers in response to OSD’s data request. Second, Marine Corps 

Page 11 GAO-09-585 Defense Infrastructure
 

headquarters also included future requirements for these facilities at Camp 

Pendleton even before obtaining the relocatable facilities. Third, Camp 

Pendleton officials told us they changed the property classification on 

their relocatable facilities from personal property to real property based 

on communications from Marine Corps headquarters officials. Camp 

Pendleton officials told us they properly classified these facilities although 

Marine Corps headquarters officials told us the reclassification was not 

correct. As of April 2009, Camp Pendleton officials told us their data had 

not changed. 

• At Fort Hood, Texas, we found over 25 facilities that appeared to us to be 

relocatable facilities but were not accounted for as such. After our review 

of the installation’s facility records, Fort Hood officials agreed that the 

facilities we had questioned should have been included in its count of 

relocatable facilities. 

• We found other instances of data discrepancies at two other installations 

we visited. Although these discrepancies were minor, they nonetheless 

still represent an inaccurate count. At Naval Amphibious Base Little 

Creek, Virginia, officials told us that they had three fewer relocatable 

facilities than the data reported to OSD showed. Also, at Eglin Air Force 

Base, Florida, service officials told us they had two fewer relocatable 

facilities than the data reported to OSD showed, citing that one facility 

was counted twice and one facility was no longer at the installation. 

Similar data discrepancies in the number of relocatable facilities on some 

Army installations were also reported on by the Army Audit Agency.14 At 

the request of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Management 

and Comptroller), the Army Audit Agency recently conducted a review on 

the Army’s management of its relocatable facilities and reported on its use 

at five Army installations—Fort Bragg, North Carolina; Fort Drum, New 

York; Fort Huachuca, Arizona; Fort Riley, Kansas; and Fort Stewart, 

Georgia. The Army Audit Agency reported that it found discrepancies in 

the inventory of relocatable facilities at all five installations it reviewed. 

For example, the Army Audit Agency reported that Fort Bragg actually had 

 

14The Army Audit Agency issued six separate reports on relocatable facilities—one for each 

of the five installations audited along with a summary report. These reports are: U.S. Army 

Audit Agency, Management of Relocatable Facilities Fort Bragg, North Carolina, A-2008-

0292-ALO (Alexandria, Va., Sept. 30, 2008); Management of Relocatable Facilities Fort 

Drum, New York, A-2008-0268-ALO (Alexandria, Va., Sept. 29, 2008); Management of 

Relocatable Facilities Fort Huachuca, Arizona, A-2008-0268-ALO (Alexandria, Va., Sept. 

29, 2008); Management of Relocatable Facilities Fort Riley, Kansas, A-2008-0235-ALO 

(Alexandria, Va., Sept. 2, 2008); Management of Relocatable Facilities Fort Stewart and 

Hunter Army Airfield, Georgia, A-2008-0236-ALO (Alexandria, Va., Sept. 2, 2008); and 

Management of Relocatable Facilities, A-2009-0065-ALO (Alexandria, Va., Mar. 4, 2009). 

Page 12 GAO-09-585 Defense Infrastructure
 

about 20 more relocatable facilities than what was recorded in Army’s 

database. As a result, the Army Audit Agency reported that Fort Bragg had 

lost visibility and accountability for relocatable facilities that could result 

in incorrect decisions on the management of these facilities. 

In addition, both the Army and the Marine Corps—two of the military 

services that rely on relocatable facilities the most, according to data these 

services provided to OSD—told us there might be relocatables located at 

their installations that they do not know about. For example, Army 

officials told us they do not know if Army National Guard installations and 

readiness centers have relocatable facilities given that the Army National 

Guard manages its own facility needs and Army headquarters does not 

have readily available data on such use. In addition, Army officials said 

that some tenants on an installation might be using relocatable facilities 

that have not been accounted for at the host installation. These officials 

told us that tenants, like DOD’s Domestic Dependent Elementary and 

Secondary School system, could be using relocatable facilities on an 

installation that the installation might not be aware of, which also presents 

challenges in maintaining a complete and accurate inventory of these 

facilities. Also, Army officials told us that they do not know the extent to 

which relocatable facilities might be on Army training ranges given the 

millions of acres of land in the ranges and that an accurate count would be 

difficult to verify. Moreover, Marine Corps headquarters officials told us 

they were not sure if their inventory count of relocatable facilities was 

complete since they do not routinely maintain data on relocatables at the 

headquarters level. 

Furthermore, Navy headquarters told us its data provided to OSD did not 

include all of its relocatable facilities located at its installations. For 

example, Navy officials told us they did not collect and report data on 

relocatable facilities from four of its major commands—Naval Air Systems 

Command; Naval Sea Systems Command; Space and Naval Warfare 

Systems Command; and the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery—a lthough 

the Navy estimated that these four commands had about 200 relocatable 

facilities. Navy officials told us they did not collect and report data on 

relocatables for these four Navy commands because OSD was 

independently seeking the data. However, OSD officials told us they did 

not request data specifically from these Navy commands and that its 

expectation was that each service would collect its own data covering the 

entire service. Also, Navy officials told us they could not verify their data 

collection on relocatables by major command because all of the collected 

data was accidentally lost when a computer failed and that the Navy does 

not routinely maintain data on relocatables at the headquarters level. 

Page 13 GAO-09-585 Defense Infrastructure
 

Air Force officials, on the other hand, told us it does routinely collect data 

on relocatable facilities at the headquarters level for inclusion in its annual 

report;15 however, the Air Force last reported on the use of relocatable 

facilities in fiscal year 2006 and has not issued its annual reports on its 

usage in fiscal years 2007 or 2008. 

Also, some service officials expressed confusion about whether other 

types of facilities should be included in their count of relocatables. For 

example, some officials asked us if certain types of structures, such as 

equipment sheds and rain shelters, should be counted as relocatable 

facilities. We also found that the Air Force does not count a certain type of 

facility called Sprung shelters—which are generally a rigid frame structure 

covered by heavy tension fabric—as relocatable facilities if it buys them, 

but will count them if it leases them. On the other hand, the other three 

military services count these facilities as relocatables depending on the 

proper application of the relocatable definition.16 DOD’s instruction on 

relocatable buildings does not address these structures.17 Two examples of 

Sprung shelters are shown in figure 2. 

 

15Department of the Air Force Memorandum, Annual Comprehensive Temporary Use 

Facilities Report (Feb. 8, 2007). 

16DOD Instruction 4165.56, “Relocatable Buildings,” states that in classifying a building as 

relocatable, the estimated costs for disassembling the building and repackaging it for 

storage or reuse, among other cost considerations, may not exceed 20 percent of the cost 

to acquire the facility. 

17DOD Instruction 4165.56, “Relocatable Buildings.” 

Page 14 GAO-09-585 Defense Infrastructure
 

Figure 2: Pictures of Sprung Shelter Relocatable Facilities at Two Military Installations 

Source: GAO. Source: GAO.

Sprung shelter relocatable facilities used as administrative and training management space at Fort Hood, Texas, and

a dining facility at Fort Bliss, Texas. 

OSD does not have adequate oversight over the military services’ use of 

relocatable facilities to meet its physical infrastructure shortages based on 

our observations on the difficulty some of the services had to collect data 

on these facilities and our assessment that these data are inaccurate and 

incomplete. DOD’s Instruction 4165.56 on relocatable facilities prescribes 

policies and procedures for the acquisition and use of these facilities; 

however, officials with the Navy and the Marine Corps headquarters and 

several officials at installations we visited told us OSD’s guidance on 

defining relocatable facilities was confusing to distinguish relocatables 

from other types of nonpermanent facilities because the definition of these 

types of facilities was not clear. This distinction is important because DOD 

generally considers relocatable facilities to be personal property—like 

vehicles and other equipment—which is acquired using either 

procurement or operation and maintenance appropriations—whereas 

other types of buildings, including temporary buildings, are considered 

real property, which are funded mostly through military construction 

appropriations and, in some cases, operation and maintenance 

appropriations. Furthermore, without a clear definition of relocatable 

facilities, DOD will not be able to reliably determine the extent to which 

the services are relying on these facilities to meet shortages in needed 

facilities. 

Page 15 GAO-09-585 Defense Infrastructure
 

Although some of the services’ headquarters have begun to capture the 

cost of acquiring relocatable facilities, based on our analysis we believe 

these data are not reliable and the total cost of relocatable facilities 

acquired by the military services is uncertain. According to cost data we 

obtained from the services, DOD estimates it has spent about $1.5 billion 

over a 5-year period18 to acquire relocatable facilities, yet service officials 

told us that because the number of relocatable facilities was uncertain, 

then the associated cost to acquire these facilities was also uncertain. 

Also, some service officials told us that collecting acquisition cost data 

was difficult given that reliable records on these costs were not always 

available and that maintaining information on these costs had not been a 

priority. For example, Navy and Marine Corps headquarters told us that 

they did not maintain any cost information on relocatable facilities, 

although they told us cost information on relocatables should be readily 

available at the installation. However, during our visit to Camp Lejeune, 

North Carolina, and Little Creek Naval Amphibious Base, Virginia, officials 

at both installations told us that their cost data to acquire relocatable 

facilities were incomplete. Marine Corps officials at Camp Lejeune told us 

that they did not retain cost information on their relocatable facilities prior 

to March, 2007, thus they could not provide acquisition cost data covering 

the last 5 years as requested by OSD. Likewise, Navy officials at Little 

Creek Naval Amphibious Base told us that their cost data on relocatable 

facilities were their best estimates given that they did not maintain the 

contracts for all of their leased relocatable facilities. 

OSD Does Not Fully Know 

How Much the Services 

Have Spent to Acquire 

Relocatable Facilities 

Army officials stated that although the service updated its cost data for 

their relocatable facilities in March 2008, the data are not complete for all 

installations. According to these officials, the cost information reported 

represents the best available data. 

The Air Force, in response to direction from the Secretary of the Air 

Force, is to produce an annual report that captures the costs of acquiring 

relocatable facilities; however, the most recently completed annual report 

was for 2006. Air Force officials noted that a 2007 report was never 

officially completed, and as of February 2009, it had not begun to gather 

the data needed for the 2008 report. The officials told us they were 

relatively unconcerned about the size or cost of their inventory of 

relocatable facilities compared to other physical infrastructure issues, 

given the low use of relocatables located on their installations. 

 

18See footnote 2. 

Page 16 GAO-09-585 Defense Infrastructure
 

OSD does not have adequate oversight over the military services’ use or 

cost to acquire relocatable facilities although it sets policy and develops 

overarching instructions on relocatable use. As a result, OSD’s limited 

oversight over the military services’ use of relocatable facilities has 

hindered its ability to respond to congressional requests for such 

information. For example, OSD was expected to issue its report in 

response to direction from the Senate Armed Services Committee in July 

2008; however, it had not yet done so by May 2009. When we talked to 

OSD officials in March 2008, these officials told us they did not have 

information about how many relocatable facilities were being used, how 

many defense installations had them, nor how much it had cost to acquire 

them. OSD requested information from each of the military services but 

OSD officials told us they had experienced some data-collection problems. 

Despite receiving information from the services, our work has shown that 

OSD still does not have reliable information given a number of identified 

discrepancies among the installations, service headquarters, and 

information provided to OSD on relocatable facilities numbers and 

associated acquisition cost. DOD’s guidance states that DOD-owned 

equipment and other accountable property, such as relocatable facilities, 

should be properly inventoried, records should reflect current status, and 

documentation should be maintained to permit validation of information 

such as the purchase cost.19 Although the military services provided data 

in response to OSD’s request indicating they had acquired over 4,00

relocatable facilities over a 5-year period recently, it will be difficult for 

OSD to know the extent the services are relying on these facilities because 

it lacks a mechanism for collecting and maintaining such information as 

required by its own guidance. 

0 

 

OSD does not have a strategy for managing the military services’ use and 

disposal of relocatable facilities, even though many of these facilities most 

likely will be used for longer than the 3 years that is normally expected for 

relocatables. In the absence of such a strategy, the services are at risk of 

managing these facilities in an inefficient manner. 

Limited Oversight of 

Relocatable Facilities 

Hindered OSD’s Ability to 

Respond to Congressional 

Request for Information 

OSD Does Not Have a 

Strategy for Managing 

the Use and Disposal 

of Relocatable 

Facilities 

19DOD Instruction 5000.64, “Accountability and Management of DOD-Owned Equipment 

and Other Accountable Property” (Nov. 2, 2006). 

Page 17 GAO-09-585 Defense Infrastructure
 

Recognizing that the services would prefer to use permanent buildings to 

meet their infrastructure needs, some relocatable facilities could remain in 

use for many years. According to DOD guidance, the military services are 

expected to use relocatable facilities when they constitute the most 

feasible and economical means of satisfying an interim facility 

requirement, which is a short-term—normally 3 years or less—

requirement for facilities in order to meet urgent or peak facilities 

requirements.20 However, we found that relocatable facilities at many 

installations have already been in use for longer than 3 years. The Army 

recently issued guidance indicating that it normally expects its relocatable 

facilities to be used for no more than 6 years, and officials at Fort Bliss, 

Texas, told us that about 550 of its nearly 600 relocatables, which are 

already more than 3 years old, will be used at least 5 more years until 2014 

to meet new incoming missions due to the lack of permanent facilities. 

Similarly, Marine Corps headquarters officials noted that rapid growth, 

changes in missions, and reorganizations have created new facility 

requirements that outstrip the Marine Corps’ ability to meet the 

requirements through permanent construction. Thus, the Marine Corps 

continues to look to the use of relocatable facilities as the only available 

option to meet the needs. The officials stated that most likely relocatable 

facilities will be used at many installations for longer than 3 years. 

Military Services Expect to 

Use Relocatable Facilities 

Longer than Called for by 

DOD Guidance 

Services Plan to Replace 

Relocatable Facilities with 

Permanent Buildings, but 

Could Face Management 

Challenges 

Although the services plan to eventually replace many of their relocatable 

facilities with permanent buildings, and military construction funds have 

been programmed to do so in fiscal years 2010 to 2013, some service 

officials expressed skepticism that the planned replacement funds will 

become available, potentially further prolonging the need for relocatables. 

Even if planned military construction funds are appropriated in the later 

years, some of these relocatable facilities will have been in use beyond the 

normal amount of time as indicated in DOD’s instruction. For example: 

• Navy officials at Little Creek Naval Amphibious Base, Virginia, told us that 

they expect to obtain funding in fiscal year 2012 to begin permanent 

construction to replace some of the installation’s relocatable facilities. 

However, for many of their relocatable facilities, they said they might not 

receive funding until fiscal year 2014. Once funding is received, the 

 

20DOD Instruction 4165.56, “Relocatable Buildings,” § 3.1. Section 4.2 of the instruction 

further states that in addition to the use of relocatable buildings for interim facility 

requirements, relocatable buildings may also be used instead of conventional, permanent 

construction when the duration of the requirement is uncertain. 

Page 18 GAO-09-585 Defense Infrastructure
 

officials told us it generally takes about 2 years to build a permanent 

facility. Thus these relocatable facilities, acquired in November 2004, will 

be approximately 12 years old when replaced. Furthermore, these officials 

also expect some existing relocatable facilities to be used beyond 2014 

because they are being used as administrative buildings, which the 

officials told us have not competed well historically for military 

construction appropriations within DOD. 

• Army officials at Fort Bliss, Texas, told us they are currently using about 

550 relocatable facilities to house a combat brigade pending permanent 

construction to replace these facilities. The officials said they plan to use 

these facilities, which were acquired in 2006, until at least 2014, at which 

time these facilities will be approximately 9 years old. 

• Air Force officials at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, provided us 

information that shows 27 of their 36 relocatables are currently over 5 

years old. In fact, 3 of these facilities were acquired in March 1984, making 

them 25 years old. The officials noted that these facilities were scheduled 

to be replaced in 2009; however, they said the facilities will continue to be 

used for administrative purposes to support a training range. 

Of the military services, the Army and the Marine Corps are the most 

affected by the implementation of DOD’s force structure and 

infrastructure initiatives and will be challenged the most to find ways to 

meet their physical infrastructure needs in the short term. With the recent 

passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,21 DOD 

plans to spend about $7 billion in funds on numerous infrastructure 

projects, among other items and activities, which in turn, holds the 

possibility that certain funded projects could lessen the need to rely on 

relocatable facilities at certain installations although it still might be too 

early to quantify such effects. On the other hand, other recent decisions 

could increase the use of relocatables. For example, officials at Fort Bliss, 

Texas; Fort Drum, New York; and at Army Installation Management 

Command–West, Texas, told us that, if the proposed drawdown of troops 

from Iraq occurs as planned—on top of DOD’s other force structure 

initiatives—the influx of more military personnel could exacerbate the 

shortage of facilities at these and other installations. Meeting these facility 

needs could result in an increased use of relocatable facilities and the 

continued use of these facilities for longer than normally called for by 

DOD guidance. 

 

21Pub. L. No. 111-5 (2009). 

Page 19 GAO-09-585 Defense Infrastructure
 

Army officials told us that installation commanders generally consider 

relocatables to be the property of their installations. Thus, even though 

plans exist to replace relocatable facilities with permanent construction, 

some installation commanders might be resistant to transferring their 

relocatables to another installation that needs them or even to disposing of 

them once the planned permanent buildings have been constructed, in 

case they are subsequently needed again. Although the Army has not yet 

redistributed any relocatables from one location to another, Army officials 

told us that they are in the process of trying to redistribute some 

relocatable facilities from Fort Irwin, California—an installation in which 

the Army believes it no longer needs its relocatable facilities—to Fort Sill, 

Oklahoma—an installation that currently needs relocatable facilities to 

address some of its facility space shortages. Although the Army plans to 

centralize its management of these facilities, neither the other service 

headquarters nor OSD have similar plans. Without a DOD strategy for 

managing relocatables that includes the redistribution of relocatables from 

one location to another when needed and when appropriate, installations 

with unneeded relocatables could unnecessarily spend defense funds 

disposing of facilities while another installation that needs them is 

spending defense funds to acquire them. 

When appropriate to dispose of relocatable facilities, neither OSD nor the 

services have completed disposal strategies nor budgeting for the cost 

involved to remove these facilities. Officials told us relocatable facilities 

used today are often not facilities that can be easily towed away or sold at 

on-site auctions, such as would be true with single trailers with attached 

wheels. Rather, some installation officials told us that disposing of these 

facilities by auctioning them off in the local community might be more 

challenging than what is currently expected given these facilities normally 

arrive on flat-bed trucks and are either largely preassembled or assembled 

at the installation, as shown in figure 3. 

Page 20 GAO-09-585 Defense Infrastructure
 

Figure 3: Pictures of Relocatable Facilities Arriving and Being Installed at a Defense Installation 

Source: DOD. Source: DOD.

For example, officials at Fort Bliss, Texas, told us they expect to incur 

costs to dispose of or demolish their relocatable facilities, citing doubts 

that enough of their facilities could be auctioned off in the local 

community given the large quantities (about 600) of relocatable facilities at 

the installation. Officials at Fort Hood expressed similar views regarding 

the salvage value of the relocatable facilities at their installation, given the 

large quantities (nearly 300) of relocatable facilities that will need to be 

disposed of. Officials at Fort Drum, New York, told us that once their 

installation no longer needs its relocatable facilities (about 140), they plan 

to disassemble them and store the facilities on base, which officials said 

will likely incur cost to do. 

Furthermore, the numbers of relocatable facilities for DOD to eventually 

dispose of could be more challenging given the actual size of some of 

these relocatable facilities. DOD currently counts as relocatables multiple 

trailers, which can be joined together, as one facility. For example, 

according to Air Force data, a facility at MacDill Air Force Base in Florida 

is actually made up of 72 trailers. We saw a similar situation at Little Creek 

Naval Amphibious Base, Virginia, in which officials there counted 146 

trailers, many of which were connected to one another, as 23 relocatable 

facilities. Also, at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, one relocatable facility—

representing about 35,000 square feet of space—was actually comprised of 

33 individual trailers, as shown in figure 4. 

Page 21 GAO-09-585 Defense Infrastructure
 

Figure 4: A Relocatable Facility Consisting of 33 Trailers at Eglin Air Force Base, 

Florida 

Source: GAO.

DOD’s guidance states that relocatable facilities accounted for as personal 

property, upon becoming excess to DOD, shall be redistributed or 

disposed of.22 However, OSD has not effectively communicated guidance 

on how the services are to manage its reliance on relocatable facilities 

because OSD does not have a strategy to manage the use, disposal, and 

redistribution of these facilities across all the services, including projected 

costs. Our prior work has shown that management control should be 

designed to provide reasonable assurance against unauthorized 

acquisition, use, or disposition of an agency’s assets.23 One way to 

accomplish this is an adequate means of communicating with and 

obtaining information from stakeholders that may have an effect on the 

agency achieving its goals. Collectively, OSD has a unique set of challenges 

in managing its current inventory of over 4,000 relocatable facilities; 

however, without a strategy that includes provisions for the disposal of 

relocatable facilities, including projected costs, some relocatable facilities 

could remain in place for years to come. Without a comprehensive DOD 

strategy for managing relocatables—including the transfer of relocatables 

 

22DOD Instruction 4165.56, “Relocatable Buildings,” § 5.3.1. 

23GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999). 

Page 22 GAO-09-585 Defense Infrastructure
 

from one location to another—a military service could unnecessarily 

spend funds by simultaneously acquiring new facilities while another 

military service is incurring costs to store or demolish similar facilities. 

In addition, if this strategy does not include a consistent, common 

measure for estimating disposal costs based on size of the facility, DOD 

might not be planning for this expense in the most accurate and efficient 

way possible. 

The pace of growth at some installations is exceeding the ability of 

traditional military construction to provide permanent facilities. Without a 

complete and accurate accounting of how many relocatable facilities DOD 

actually has or how much it spent to acquire them; DOD will continue to 

have a limited ability to oversee and manage the steps the services are 

taking in response to personnel growth at some installations. Until OSD 

develops clear guidance for the services to follow on what it expects to 

count as a relocatable facility, along with an expectation for the services 

to provide a complete and accurate accounting of them, OSD and 

Congress will continue to have incomplete information on the extent to 

which these relocatable facilities are being used on defense installations as 

interim solutions to facility infrastructure shortages. In addition, without a 

mechanism to accurately record and monitor its inventory of relocatable 

facilities, along with its cost to acquire them, OSD will not have reliable 

data for making effective choices on funding decisions. 

Conclusions 

Similar to DOD’s experience with World War II–era wooden buildings, 

which were expected to be in use no more than 5 years, but of which many 

are still in use today, DOD’s use of relocatable facilities could outlast the 

services’ current expectations, especially in an increasingly competitive 

budget environment that could delay needed military construction funds 

beyond current expectations. In addition to the cost of acquiring 

relocatable facilities, DOD is likely to incur costs to store, dispose of, or 

relocate them. Without a comprehensive strategy to effectively manage the 

services’ use of relocatable facilities, DOD may be unprepared to reliably 

budget for these costs. Finally, without a more strategic DOD-wide view of 

the services’ plans to acquire and dispose of relocatable facilities, OSD 

may not be in a position to coordinate or to ensure the services transfer 

used relocatables from one location to another when appropriate, in lieu 

of acquiring new relocatable facilities at one location needing them, 

thereby avoiding waste. 

Page 23 GAO-09-585 Defense Infrastructure
 

To improve OSD’s oversight and management of the military services’ use 

of relocatable facilities, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense 

direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and 

Logistics to take the following three actions: 

• clarify its guidance on the definition of relocatable facilities; 

• develop a mechanism for collecting and maintaining complete and reliable 

data on the number of relocatable facilities used by the military services 

and on the costs of acquiring them once OSD clarifies the guidance on the 

definition of relocatable facilities; and 

• develop and implement a strategy to help effectively manage the use, 

disposal, and redistribution of relocatable facilities across all the services 

when redistribution is appropriate, including projected costs. 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

In written comments to a draft of this report, the Deputy Under Secretary 

of Defense (Installations and Environment) fully agreed with two of our 

three recommendation and stated it would take actions to implement 

them. The Deputy Under Secretary partially agreed with our 

recommendation that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

Technology and Logistics develop and implement a strategy to help 

effectively manage the use, disposal, and redistribution of relocatable 

facilities across all the services when redistribution is appropriate, 

including projected costs, citing that the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Acquisition, Technology and Logistics should not be involved in 

implementation but rather should promulgate policy and monitor 

implementation on the use, disposal, and redistribution of relocatable 

facilities across all the services when redistribution is appropriate. 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

In a follow-up discussion with an OSD official regarding DOD’s written 

response to a draft of this report, the official noted that OSD will 

promulgate policy, which includes directing the military services to 

redistribute relocatable facilities across the services when redistribution is 

appropriate, and will monitor implementation on the use, disposal, and 

redistribution of relocatable facilities across all services when 

redistribution is appropriate. As such, we believe DOD’s planned action 

meets the intent of our recommendation. DOD’s comments are reprinted 

in their entirety in appendix II. Also, DOD provided one technical 

comment on a draft of this report, which we incorporated as appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 

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

Page 24 GAO-09-585 Defense Infrastructure
 

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

Office of Management and Budget. In addition, the report will be available 

at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

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

contact me on (202) 512-4523 or by e-mail at leporeb@gao.gov. Contact 

points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs are on 

the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to 

Brian J. Lepore, Director 

this report are listed in appendix III. 

Defense Capabilities and Management 

Page 25 GAO-09-585 Defense Infrastructure
 

List of Committees 

The Honorable Carl Levin 

Chairman 

The Honorable John McCain 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Armed Services 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye 

Chairman 

The Honorable Thad Cochran 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Defense 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Tim Johnson 

Chairman 

The Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related 

 Agencies 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Ike Skelton 

Chairman 

The Honorable Howard P. “Buck” McKeon 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Armed Services 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable John P. Murtha, Jr. 

Chairman 

The Honorable C.W. Bill Young 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Defense 

Committee on Appropriations 

House of Representatives 

Page 26 GAO-09-585 Defense Infrastructure
 

The Honorable Chet Edwards 

Chairman 

The Honorable Zach Wamp 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related 

 Agencies 

Committee on Appropriations 

House of Representatives 

Page 27 GAO-09-585 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

To determine the extent to which the Office of the Secretary of Defense 

(OSD) is providing oversight of the military services’ use of relocatable 

facilities to meet physical infrastructure needs, we reviewed Department 

of Defense (DOD) guidance on the authorization, acquisition, use, and 

disposition of relocatable facilities and the military services’ policies and 

procedures that implement DOD’s guidance. We obtained and reviewed 

inventory and cost data on relocatable facilities as reported to OSD by 

each military service. Although service headquarters officials stated that 

their data reflected information collected from their installations, we 

found that the data were not reliable because they were not always 

complete and accurate. Examples of the data reliability issues are included 

in this report. To gain insight into the numbers, costs, and disposal plans 

for relocatable facilities at the installation level, we visited seven defense 

installations. We selected installations to visit from those identified by 

service headquarters’ officials as having a sizable number of relocatable 

facilities. We focused mostly on Army and Marine Corps installations 

because they use relocatable facilities to a greater extent than the Navy 

and the Air Force. Specifically, we visited Fort Hood and Fort Bliss in 

Texas; Fort Drum in New York; Naval Amphibious Base Little Creek in 

Virginia; Eglin Air Force Base in Florida; Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune 

in North Carolina; and Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton in California. 

At each installation we visited, we obtained data on the number and cost 

of purchasing or leasing relocatable facilities. We compared the 

installation’s inventory of relocatable facilities to the numbers the service 

headquarters reported to OSD and documented and discussed any 

discrepancies with installation and service headquarters officials. Our 

analysis of the seven installation visits cannot be generalized to other 

military installations. We also visited the Army Installation Management 

Command–West in Texas to discuss the Army’s relocatable facilities. 

Furthermore, we interviewed OSD and military service headquarters 

officials managing relocatable facilities to discuss the primary reasons for 

acquiring and using relocatable facilities, the process used to acquire 

them, and plans for their disposal. The Senate committee report limited 

DOD’s review by excluding nonpermanent or temporary facilities used 

overseas at forward operating sites or cooperative security locations, thus 

we did not include the services’ use of relocatable facilities at overseas 

locations. Also, we did not include the use of trailers by construction 

contractors or associated with any ongoing construction projects at 

defense installations. 

To determine the extent to which DOD has a comprehensive strategy for 

managing relocatable facilities, we interviewed OSD and military service 

officials to discuss whether they have a plan to track whether relocatable 

Page 28 GAO-09-585 Defense Infrastructure 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

facilities are used for time periods that exceed DOD’s or the service’s 

length of use criteria, the implications of using relocatable facilities longer 

than called for in the guidance, and any issues regarding the disposal of 

relocatable facilities. At the installations we visited, we obtained 

information on the relocatable facilities that were in use longer than called 

for in DOD guidance and ascertained the reasons why. We also discussed 

with installation officials their plans for replacing relocatables with 

permanent buildings and the potential for costs to dispose of relocatable 

facilities. 

We conducted this performance audit from February 2008 to June 2009, 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 29 GAO-09-585 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix II: Comments from the Department Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense 

of Defense 

Page 30 GAO-09-585 Defense Infrastructure 
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Defense 

Page 31 GAO-09-585 Defense Infrastructure
Appendix III: GAO

A

 Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 32 GAO-09-585 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Brian J. Lepore, (202) 512-4523 or leporeb@gao.gov

In addition to the individual named above, Laura Talbott, Assistant 

Director; Leslie Bharadwaja; Susan Ditto; Mary Jo LaCasse; Katherine 

Lenane; Clara Mejstrik; Charles Perdue; and Sharon Reid made key 

contributions to this report. 

 Defense Infrastructure 

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(351177) 
GAO’s Mission 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 Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone 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 Web site, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

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

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

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

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

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

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

Washington, DC 20548 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

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

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

Washington, DC 20548 

Public Affairs 

Please Print on Recycled Paper