United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

November 13, 2009 

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 Ike Skelton 

Chairman 

The Honorable Howard McKeon 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Armed Services 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable John P. Murtha 

Chairman 

The Honorable C. W. Bill Young 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Defense 

Committee on Appropriations 

House of Representatives

Subject: Military Base Realignments and Closures: Estimated Costs Have Increased 

While Savings Estimates Have Decreased Since Fiscal Year 2009

The Department of Defense’s (DOD) cost estimates to implement recommendations from 

the most recent Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round have steadily increased 

each budget year since 2005. This BRAC round is the fifth such round undertaken by 

DOD since 1988 and, by our assessment, it is the biggest, most complex, and costliest 

BRAC round ever. With this round, DOD plans to execute hundreds of BRAC actions 

affecting over 800 defense locations and relocate over 123,000 personnel. Before it can 

realize savings from BRAC, DOD must first invest billions of dollars in facility 

 GAO-10-98R Military Base Realignments and Closures 
construction, renovation, and other up-front expenses. To implement BRAC 2005, DOD 

plans to spend nearly $35 billion—an unprecedented amount, given that it has spent only 

about $25 billion to implement the four previous BRAC rounds combined.1

 

At the outset of BRAC 2005, the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) indicated its 

intent to reshape DOD’s installations and realign DOD forces to meet defense needs for 

the next 20 years. Moreover, both DOD and the BRAC Commissionreported that their 

primary consideration in making recommendations for the BRAC 2005 round was 

military value.2 As such, instead of base closures, many of the BRAC 2005 

recommendations involve complex realignments, such as designating where military 

forces returning to the United States from overseas bases would be located; establishing 

joint military medical centers; creating joint bases; and reconfiguring the defense supply, 

storage, and distribution network. The BRAC statute requires DOD to implement all 

BRAC 2005 recommendations by September 15, 2011.3

 

Although DOD used military value selection criteria as the highest priority in developing 

BRAC recommendations, anticipated savings resulting from implementing the 

recommendations remained an important consideration in justifying the need for the 

2005 BRAC round. In 2001 testimony before Congress, the Secretary of Defense stated 

that another BRAC round would generate recurring savings the department could use for 

other defense programs. However, we have reported since 2005 that DOD does not 

regularly review savings estimates to ensure that the estimates continue to represent the 

most likely outcomes for anticipated savings.4

 

The House Armed Services Committee report accompanying the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 directed the Comptroller General to monitor the 

implementation of recommendations for the 2005 round of closures and realignments of 

military installations made pursuant to section 2914 of the Defense Base Closure and 

Realignment Act of 1990.5 

This report is in response to that congressional report 

mandate. A list of GAO’s prior work related to military base closures and realignments 

since the Secretary of Defense submitted his proposed BRAC actions to the BRAC 

Commission for review in May 2005 can be found at the end of this report. For this 

 

1

 This dollar amount is based on DOD’s fiscal year 2010 budget submission to Congress to pay for continuing 

implementation of recommendations from prior BRAC rounds (BRAC 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995). This amount does 

not include other costs associated with BRAC, such as costs to complete environmental cleanup at BRAC bases in 

future years and costs incurred by other DOD and federal agencies to provide assistance to communities and 

individuals impacted by BRAC. DOD’s budget submission is reported in current dollars (i.e., it includes projected 

inflation). 

2

 The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 directed DOD to consider military value as the primary 

consideration in the BRAC 2005 round. Pub. L. No. 107-107, section 3002 (2001). 

3

 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Pub. L. No. 101-510, Title XXIX (1990), as amended by the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-107, Title XXX (2001). 

4

 GAO, Military Base Closures: Updated Status of Prior Base Realignments and Closures, GAO-05-138 (Washington, 

D.C.: Jan. 13, 2005). 

5

H.R. Rep. No. 110-146, at 514 (2007). 

 2 GAO-10-98R Military Base Realignments and Closures 
report, our objectives were to evaluate (1) changes in BRAC estimated costs from DOD’s 

fiscal year 2009 budget submission to Congress to the fiscal year 2010 budget submission 

and identify factors that caused these cost estimates to change, and (2) changes in 

projected BRAC savings estimates from the fiscal year 2009 budget submission to the 

fiscal year 2010 budget submission. 

Scope and Methodology 

To evaluate changes in BRAC estimated costs from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2010, 

we analyzed DOD’s BRAC budget submission for fiscal years 2009 and 2010, noting 

BRAC recommendations that had the largest changes in estimated costs, obtained 

business plans for those recommendations, and discussed with the military services and 

defense agencies responsible for implementation the reasons for the changes. We used 

DOD’s BRAC budget submission in making cost comparisons because these budget 

submissions form the basis on which DOD seeks appropriations from Congress. Further, 

to evaluate changes in projected annual recurring savings from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal 

year 2010, we used data OSD provided to us for estimated savings in fiscal year 2012—

the year after OSD expects all recommendations to be completed—because these data 

more fully captured these expected savings. To assess the 20-year savings estimates, we 

calculated these estimates using data in DOD’s fiscal year 2010 BRAC budget submission 

to Congress by applying the same formulas and assumptions as the BRAC Commission 

used in 2005 to calculate these savings for comparison. Although the Office of 

Management and Budget would prescribe the use of slightly different assumptions to 

calculate these estimates today, we used the factors and assumptions used by the BRAC 

Commission for consistency. Finally, we used our calculations to determine which 

BRAC recommendations DOD expects to cost the most and save the most both annually 

and over a 20-year period. We determined that the data used were sufficiently reliable 

for the purposes of making costs and savings comparisons for BRAC recommendations. 

We conducted this performance audit from May 2009 to November 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. 

Summary 

Our review of DOD’s fiscal year 2010 BRAC budget indicates that DOD plans to spend 

more to implement BRAC 2005 recommendations compared to last year’s BRAC budget. 

DOD’s estimated one-time costs to implement this BRAC round increased by almost 

$2.5 billion from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2010, bringing the total implementation 

cost estimate for this BRAC round to $34.9 billion. To place this increase in perspective, 

in September 2005, the BRAC Commission estimated that it would cost DOD about 

$21 billion over the 6-year implementation period whereas this estimate is now about 

 3 GAO-10-98R Military Base Realignments and Closures 
$35 billion—an increase of nearly 67 percent.6

 Our analysis shows that over 80 percent 

of the estimated $2.5 billion in cost increases are associated with 10 recommendations. 

Military construction costs accounted for the majority of the increase, although other 

factors such as information technology requirements also contributed to some of the 

expected cost increases.

After DOD implements all of the BRAC 2005 recommendations, which the department is 

required to do by the statutory deadline of September 2011, our analysis of DOD’s fiscal 

year 2010 budget estimates shows that net annual recurring savings for fiscal year 2012 

and beyond will have decreased by almost $94 million to about $3.9 billion, compared to 

DOD’s estimates in fiscal year 2009. As we have previously reported, we believe DOD’s 

net annual recurring savings estimates may be overstated because they include dollar 

savings from eliminating military personnel positions without corresponding decreases 

in end-strength. DOD disagrees with our position. The $3.9 billion estimate is calculated 

using DOD’s method, which we nonetheless believe overstates savings. However, we 

included these estimates for consistency. Our calculations also show that BRAC savings 

DOD expects to generate over a 20-year period from 2006 through 2025 have declined to 

$10.9 billion in constant fiscal year 2005 dollars, compared to $13.7 billion that we 

reported based on the previous year’s BRAC budget.7 To place this decrease in 

perspective, in September 2005 the BRAC Commission estimated that DOD would save 

about $36 billion—nearly 70 percent more—over the same 20-year period. 

We provided DOD with a draft copy of this report to obtain agency comments. DOD 

concurred with the findings of our report and these comments are reprinted at the end 

of this report. 

Estimated BRAC One-Time Costs Continue to Increase 

Our analysis of DOD’s fiscal year 2010 BRAC budget shows that DOD plans to spend 

more to implement its BRAC recommendations compared to last year’s BRAC budget. 

DOD’s estimate of one-time costs to implement 2005 BRAC recommendations increased 

by about $2.5 billion, to a total estimated cost of $34.9 billion compared to $32.4 billion 

DOD estimated in its fiscal year 2009 budget as shown in table 1. The current cost 

estimate of $34.9 billion represents an increase of nearly 67 percent from the September 

2005 BRAC Commission estimate of $21 billion. 

 

6 The 67 percent figure is slightly inflated because the September 2005 cost estimate was in fiscal year 2005 dollars, 

while the latest cost estimate is in current dollars, which includes inflation. 

7

 The 20-year savings estimates, calculated on a 20-year net present value basis, are in constant fiscal year 2005 dollars 

(i.e., excludes projected inflation), to be consistent with DOD and the BRAC Commission’s methodology and reporting 

of this estimate. Net present value is a financial calculation that accounts for the time value of money by determining 

the present value of future savings minus up-front investment costs over a specific period of time. Determining net 

present value is important because it illustrates both the up-front investment costs and long-term savings in a single 

amount. In the context of BRAC implementation, net present value is calculated for a 20-year period from 2006 

through 2025. 

 4 GAO-10-98R Military Base Realignments and Closures 
Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.

Table 1: Comparison of One-Time BRAC Implementation Costs by Military Services and 

Defense Agencies, Fiscal Year 2009 to Fiscal Year 2010 

Dollars in millions 

Military services and defense 

agencies 

Fiscal year 2009 

cost estimate

Fiscal year 2010 

cost estimate 

Net cost increase

Tricare Management Activity $2,269 $3,357 $1,088

Army 17,335 18,213 878

Washington Headquarters Services 1,085 1,379 294

National Geospatial-Intelligence 

Agency 2,329 2,476 147

All other DOD agencies funding 

BRAC 2,198 2,341 142

Navy 3,291 3,372 81

Air Force 3,926 3,784 (142)

Total costs $32,433 $34,922 $2,488

Notes: Amounts are in current dollars (i.e., includes projected inflation). 

Totals may not equal the sum of the numbers in each column, due to rounding. 

Our analysis of DOD military service and defense agencies show that Tricare 

Management Activity had the largest cost increase from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 

2010, an increase of nearly 48 percent or almost $1.09 billion. Tricare Management 

Activity is contributing to the funding of five BRAC recommendations involving the 

clinical aspects of the BRAC recommendations put forth by DOD’s medical joint cross 

service group, such as the realignment of Walter Reed Army Medical Center to include 

the construction of a new community hospital and a dental clinic at Fort Belvoir, 

Virginia, and the expansion of the National Naval Medical Center at Bethesda, Maryland. 

Further, table 1 shows that the Army portion of BRAC spending increased by 

$878 million or about 5 percent. The Army plans to spend the most on BRAC 

implementation compared to other defense services and agencies. The Air Force is the 

only military service that anticipates spending less to implement BRAC 2005 

recommendations compared to its estimates in the fiscal year 2009 budget. 

Estimated cost increases to implement the 2005 BRAC round can be attributed primarily 

to 10 BRAC recommendations in which increases in expected construction costs were 

the primary cost driver. Our analysis shows that, of the 182 BRAC recommendations 

made in the 2005 round, 10 of those recommendations account for 83 percent, or about 

$2 billion, of the nearly $2.5 billion increase in estimated one-time costs from fiscal year 

2009 to fiscal year 2010. Table 2 shows the estimated cost and the net cost increase to 

implement each of those 10 recommendations, according to the BRAC budgets for fiscal 

years 2009 and 2010. 

 5 GAO-10-98R Military Base Realignments and Closures 
Source: GAO analysis of DOD data. 

Table 2: BRAC Recommendations with the Largest Increases in One-Time Estimated Costs from 

Fiscal Year 2009 to Fiscal Year 2010

Dollars in millions

Fiscal year 2009 

cost estimate

Fiscal year 2010 

cost estimate 

Net cost 

increase

Recommendation 

Realign Walter Reed Army Medical Center to 

Bethesda National Naval Medical Center, MD 

and to Fort Belvoir, VA $1,640a $2,418 $779

Realign Army Maneuver Training to Fort 

Benning, GA 1,509 1,763 254

Co-locate miscellaneous OSD, defense agency, 

and field activity leased locations in the National 

Capital Region 1,194 1440 245

Close Fort Monmouth, NJ 1,595 1,751 156

Establish San Antonio Regional Medical Center 

and realign enlisted medical training to Fort 

Sam Houston, TX 1,724 1,876 152

Realign to establish Combat Service Support 

Center at Fort Lee, VA 1,270 1,418 148

Relocate medical command headquarters in the 

National Capital Region 43 161 118

Close National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency 

leased locations and realign others at Fort 

Belvoir, VA 2,441 2554 113

Close Fort Gillem, GA 101 160 59

Relocate Army headquarters and field operating 

activities in the National Capital Region 444 490 47

Total one-time estimated costs from the 

BRAC recommendations listed above $11,961 $14,031 $2,071

Total one-time estimated costs for all 

recommendations $32,433 $34,922 $2,488

Percentage of increase in one-time costs 

from recommendations listed above of all 

recommendations 83%

Notes: Amounts are in current dollars (i.e., includes projected inflation). 

Totals may not equal the sum of the numbers in each column, due to rounding. 

a

This amount does not include an additional $416 million already received as part of the fiscal year 2008 

supplemental appropriations act and approximately $263 million that was appropriated as part of the fiscal 

year 2009 supplemental appropriations act to help expedite medical facility construction at National Naval 

Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland, and Fort Belvoir, Virginia. 

 

Military construction costs account for most of the estimated increase in costs to 

implement 7 of the 10 recommendations shown in table 2. Other factors, such as 

operation and maintenance costs also contributed to some increases from fiscal year 

 6 GAO-10-98R Military Base Realignments and Closures 
2009 to fiscal year 2010. We found that estimated costs for those 10 recommendations 

increased due to the following reasons. 

• Realign Walter Reed Army Medical Center to Bethesda National Naval 

Medical Center, Maryland and to Fort Belvoir, Virginia. One-time 

implementation costs increased by $779 million from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal 

year 2010, a 48 percent increase, mostly due to higher estimated construction 

costs. These cost increases include about $263 million in funding provided as part 

of the supplemental appropriations act for fiscal year 2009 to help expedite 

medical facility construction at Fort Belvoir and Bethesda. Also, Tricare 

Management Activity officials told us that other reasons for cost increases include 

higher anticipated costs for moving and purchasing of equipment, which fall in the 

operation and maintenance cost category. 

• Realign Army Maneuver Training to Fort Benning, Georgia. One-time 

implementation costs increased by $254 million from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal 

year 2010, a 17 percent increase. The majority of this increase in one-time 

implementation costs was in military construction costs for five new projects 

totaling about $164 million that were added to build new training infrastructure 

to establish the Maneuver Center at Fort Benning. 

• Co-locate miscellaneous OSD, defense agency, and field activity leased 

locations in the National Capital Region. One-time implementation costs 

increased $245 million from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2010, a 21 percent 

increase. While some cost categories decreased, Army officials told us that the 

net cost increase was realized mostly in military construction associated with the 

decision to acquire land and construct a new office building at the Mark Center 

Office Complex, Alexandria, Virginia, about 10 miles away from Fort Belvoir. 

• Close Fort Monmouth, New Jersey. One-time implementation costs increased 

$156 million from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2010, a 10 percent increase. Our 

analysis shows that about $70 million of the cost increase was attributed to 

military construction costs at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, for 

constructing and renovating facilities for the Command, Control, 

Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance 

Center of Excellence for Communications and Electronics Laboratories. Army 

officials told us that they decided to construct more new buildings in lieu of 

renovating older buildings at Aberdeen, and they anticipate higher costs in various 

operation and maintenance activities such as facility closures at Fort Monmouth 

and the movement of personnel to Aberdeen. 

• Establish San Antonio Regional Medical Center and realign enlisted 

medical training to Fort Sam Houston, Texas. One-time implementation 

costs increased $152 million from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2010, an 8 percent 

increase. According to Tricare Management Activity officials, the majority of this 

increase is associated with the San Antonio Regional Medical Center 

($113 million) and will pay for various operation and maintenance activities such 

as moving people and equipping the medical center. 

 7 GAO-10-98R Military Base Realignments and Closures 
• Realign to establish Combat Service Support Center at Fort Lee, Virginia. 

One-time implementation costs increased $148 million from fiscal year 2009 to 

fiscal year 2010, a 12 percent increase. While other cost elements decreased, 

facility construction costs drove the majority of the expected cost increase at 

Fort Lee. 

• Relocate medical command headquarters in the National Capital Region. 

One-time implementation costs increased $118 million from fiscal year 2009 to 

fiscal year 2010, a 272 percent increase. Tricare Management Activity officials 

told us that it will now cost more to lease workspace for a higher number of 

personnel expected to move. These officials also told us that additional funds 

were needed to comply with anti-terrorism force protection requirements and to 

outfit the workspace of the leased space, as well as to move personnel. 

• Close National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency leased locations and 

realign others at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. One-time implementation costs 

increased $113 million from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2010, a 5 percent 

increase. All of this expected cost increase is to respond to more information 

technology requirements at the agency including hardware, software, installation, 

testing, and operations to consolidate these leased locations to one location at 

Fort Belvoir. 

• Close Fort Gillem, Georgia. One-time implementation costs increased 

$59 million from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2010, a 58 percent increase. This 

increase is mostly due to military construction, such as the construction of a new 

Army Reserve Equipment Concentration Site at Fort Benning, Georgia, and 

various operation and maintenance activities. 

• Relocate Army headquarters and field operating activities in the National 

Capital Region. One-time implementation costs increased $47 million from 

fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2010, an 11 percent increase. While this increase 

was offset by expected decreasing costs in other categories, the majority of this 

cost increase is due to the additional constructing and renovating of facilities for 

the movement of the Army Installation Management Command Headquarters to 

Fort Sam Houston, Texas, and the movement of the Army Security Assistance 

Command Headquarters to Redstone Arsenal, Alabama. 

DOD’s latest BRAC budget also shows that overall estimated construction costs to 

implement BRAC 2005 recommendations increased by nearly $1.9 billion compared to 

last year’s BRAC budget. However, Army officials told us that many construction 

contracts were awarded when the construction market was still strong, and construction 

bids came in higher than expected. However, as table 3 shows, some decreases occurred 

in other cost categories, particularly operations and maintenance. 

 8 GAO-10-98R Military Base Realignments and Closures 
Source: GAO analysis of DOD data. 

Table 3: Comparison of BRAC Cost Categories from Fiscal Year 2009 to Fiscal Year 2010

Dollars in millions

BRAC cost category 

Fiscal year 2009 

cost estimate

Fiscal year 2010 

cost estimate 

Net cost 

increase

Military construction $22,765 $24,629 $1,864

Other and miscellaneousa2,009 2,887 877

Operations and maintenance 7,134 6,885 (249)

Environmental 525 521 (4)

Total costs $32,433 $34,922 $2,488

Note: Totals may not equal the sum of the numbers in each column, due to rounding. 

a

The other cost category includes items such as information technology while miscellaneous costs 

includes various items such as military personnel permanent change of station, homeowners assistance 

program, one-time costs funded outside the BRAC account, and other DOD-made funding adjustments. 

In addition, our analysis of DOD’s fiscal year 2010 budget estimates indicates that the 

planned implementation of 29 recommendations (or about 16 percent of the total 

182 recommendations) is expected to account for about 72 percent of all the one-time 

costs needed to implement BRAC 2005. (See enclosure I for a listing of these 

recommendations from the 2005 BRAC round that DOD expects to cost the most.) 

Estimated BRAC Savings Have Decreased

Our comparison of DOD’s fiscal year 2010 budget data to fiscal year 2009 budget data 

shows that BRAC estimated net annual recurring savings continue to decrease. Further, 

BRAC savings expected over a 20-year period ending in 2025 have also decreased. 

Estimated Net Annual Recurring Savings Have Decreased

Our analysis of DOD’s fiscal year 2010 budget data shows that DOD’s estimates of the net 

annual recurring savings that the department expects to realize after all of the 2005 

BRAC recommendations have been implemented decreased by almost $94 million 

compared to the fiscal year 2009 BRAC budget, to about $3.9 billion.8

 As we have 

previously reported, we and the BRAC Commission believe that DOD’s net annual 

recurring savings estimates are overstated because they include savings from eliminating 

military personnel positions without corresponding decreases in end-strength. DOD 

disagrees with our position. Savings for eliminating military personnel positions as 

defined by DOD’s approach account for nearly half of the total estimated annual 

recurring savings of $3.9 billion using data from DOD’s fiscal year 2010 BRAC budget. 

 

8

 Net annual recurring savings comparisons are based on the Office of the Secretary of Defense projections for fiscal 

year 2012 and beyond. 

 9 GAO-10-98R Military Base Realignments and Closures 
In contrast, the BRAC Commission estimated in September 2005 that the current BRAC 

round would result in net annual recurring savings of about $4.2 billion. 

The largest decrease in net annual recurring savings since fiscal year 2009 is a reduction 

of about $68 million annually to relocate certain medical command headquarters to a 

single, contiguous site in the Washington, D.C. area. According to DOD’s budget data for 

fiscal year 2010, this recommendation is now expected to result in a net cost of nearly 

$1 million per year rather than a savings. A Tricare Management Activity official, who 

has responsibility for managing the implementation of this recommendation, told us that 

the decision to lease a facility in the Washington, D.C. area, instead of building or 

renovating an existing facility, primarily contributed to the decrease in expected net 

savings. 

The largest increase in estimated net annual recurring savings since fiscal year 2009 is an 

increase of about $16 million to realign supply, storage, and distribution functions from 

the military services to the Defense Logistics Agency. These estimated savings increased 

from about $152 million in the fiscal year 2009 budget to $168 million in the fiscal year 

2010 budget. Although annual recurring savings estimates increased using DOD’s data 

from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2010, we reported in July 2009 that certain BRAC 

actions related to parts of this recommendation contain unrealistic savings estimates.9

 

For example, the Defense Logistics Agency actions for consolidating supply, storage, and 

distribution functions at 13 military service depot maintenance locations involve 

practices that count some savings that we believe are not attributable to BRAC actions. 

DOD concurred with our recommendation to update its savings estimates. Further, OSD 

BRAC officials told us that they do not expect to begin to accrue the full amount of net 

annual recurring savings until 2012 because, as we reported in January 2009, many of the 

2005 BRAC recommendations are not scheduled to be completed until close to the 

September 15, 2011, deadline.10 

In addition, our analysis of the 2005 BRAC round, based on DOD’s fiscal year 2010 

budget estimates, indicates that relatively few recommendations are responsible for a 

majority of the expected savings. Specifically, we determined that the planned 

implementation of 24 recommendations (or about 13 percent) is expected to account for 

about 80 percent of the expected net annual recurring savings. (See enclosure II for a list 

of the BRAC recommendations expected to save the most annually.) 

 

9

 GAO, Military Base Realignments and Closures: DOD Needs to Update Savings Estimates and Continue to Address 

Challenges in Consolidating Supply-Related Functions at Depot Maintenance Locations, GAO-09-703 (Washington, 

D.C.: July 9, 2009). 

10 GAO, Military Base Realignments and Closures: DOD Faces Challenges in Implementing Recommendations on 

Time and Is Not Consistently Updating Savings Estimates, GAO-09-217 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 30, 2009). 

 10 GAO-10-98R Military Base Realignments and Closures 
20-Year Savings Have Decreased, and It Will Take Longer for DOD to Recoup Up-Front 

Costs

Given that the BRAC budget shows that DOD expects to spend more and save less 

compared to last year’s budget, the projected savings over 20 years have also decreased. 

Our calculations show that the 20-year savings anticipated from the 2005 BRAC round 

have declined by $2.8 billion to about $10.9 billion, compared to the $13.7 billion that we 

estimated based on fiscal year 2009 budget data.11 In addition, our analysis shows that 

the number of BRAC recommendations that are expected to achieve no net savings at all 

over the 20-year period has continued to increase. Based on our analysis, 76 out of 182 

recommendations are now expected to result in no net savings over 20 years, compared 

to 74 we identified using DOD’s fiscal year 2009 budget data, and 30 estimated by the 

BRAC Commission in 2005. OSD BRAC officials told us that despite producing fewer 

savings than anticipated, the department expects that the implementation of this BRAC 

round will produce capabilities that will enhance military value in addition to enhanced 

defense operations and management. Also, our analysis of the fiscal year 2010 BRAC 

budget shows that DOD will not recoup its up-front costs to implement BRAC 

recommendations until 2018—5 years later than the BRAC Commission’s estimates 

indicated that payback would be achieved as shown in figure 1. 

Figure 1: Time to Recoup BRAC Costs 

 

11 The 20-year savings over the period of 2006 through 2025 are expressed in fiscal year 2005 dollars. 

 11 GAO-10-98R Military Base Realignments and Closures 
Further, we determined that 29 BRAC recommendations (about 16 percent) account for 

about 85 percent of the expected savings over 20 years. (See enclosure III for a listing of 

these recommendations.) 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft copy of this report to DOD for review and comment. In response, 

DOD concurred with the findings of our report, and stated that the report accurately 

characterizes the cost growth that has occurred from the fiscal year 2009 President's 

Budget to the fiscal year 2010 President's Budget. However, DOD noted that as it has 

stated previously, even though the BRAC 2005 round is costing more and savings are less 

than originally estimated in 2005, implementation of these recommendations is an 

important element of the department's ongoing effort to reshape its infrastructure to 

respond to global challenges. DOD also provided technical comments, which we 

incorporated as appropriate. DOD’s written comments are reprinted in enclosure IV. 

We are sending copies of this correspondence to interested congressional committees; 

the Secretary of Defense; the secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force; 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 

that made major contributions to this report include Laura Talbott, Assistant Director; 

Vijay Barnabas; John Beauchamp; Susan Ditto; Brandon Jones; Gregory Marchand; and 

Charles Perdue. 

Brian J. Lepore, Director 

Defense Capabilities and Management 

 12 GAO-10-98R Military Base Realignments and Closures 
Enclosure I: BRAC Recommendations DOD Expects to Cost the Most 

Table 4 lists individual base realignment and closure (BRAC) recommendations that the 

Department of Defense (DOD) expects to cost the most to implement based on its fiscal 

year 2010 budget submission to Congress. DOD expects 29 recommendations 

(16 percent) to generate about 72 percent of the one-time cost to implement BRAC 

recommendations during fiscal years 2006 through September 15, 2011. 

Table 4: BRAC Recommendations DOD Expects to Cost the Most to Implement 

 (Fiscal Years 2006 through 2011)

Current year dollars in millions 

Recommendation One-time cost estimates

Realign Operational Army (Integrated Global Presence and 

Basing Strategy) $2,988 

Close National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency leased locations 

and realign others at Fort Belvoir, VA 2,554 

Realign Walter Reed Army Medical Center to Bethesda National 

Naval Medical Center, MD and to Fort Belvoir, VA 2,418 

Establish San Antonio Regional Medical Center and realign 

enlisted medical training to Fort Sam Houston, TX 1,876 

Realign Maneuver Training to Fort Benning, GA 1,763 

Close Fort Monmouth, NJ 1,751 

Co-locate miscellaneous OSD, defense agency, and field activity 

leased locations 1,440 

Realign to establish Combat Service Support Center at 

Fort Lee, VA 1,418 

Close Fort McPherson, GA 806 

Realign Fort Hood, TX 623 

Consolidate Defense Information Systems Agency at 

Fort Meade, MD 602 

Close Brooks City-Base, TX 596 

Realign supply, storage, and distribution management 530 

Reserve Component Transformation, TX 528 

Relocate Army headquarters and field operating activities 491 

Co-locate military department investigation agencies with DOD 

Counterintelligence and Security Agency at Marine Corps Base 

Quantico, VA 478 

Realign to create a Naval Integrated Weapons and Armaments 

Research, Development, and Acquisition, Test and Evaluation 

Center mostly at Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, CA 407 

 13 GAO-10-98R Military Base Realignments and Closures 
Source: GAO analysis based on DOD’s fiscal year 2010 budget data. 

Table 4 (continued)

Current year dollars in millions

Recommendation One-time cost estimates

Consolidate/co-locate active and reserve personnel and 

recruiting centers for Army and Air Force 390 

Co-locate missile and space defense agencies at Redstone 

Arsenal, AL 387 

Consolidate depot level reparable procurement management 369 

Realign Fort Bragg, NC 357 

Close Fort Monroe, VA 319 

Consolidate Defense Finance and Accounting Service 316 

Close Naval Air Station Brunswick, ME 308 

Close Naval Air Station Willow Grove, PA and realign Cambria 

Regional Airport, Johnstown, PA 299 

Realign to relocate Air Defense Artillery Center and School at 

Fort Sill, OK 275 

Realign defense research service-led laboratories at multiple 

locations 273 

Reserve Component Transformation, OK 268 

Realign to create joint centers of excellence for chemical, 

biological, and medical research and development and 

acquisition 254 

Total one-time estimated costs from the recommendations 

listed above $25,084

Total one-time estimated costs from all recommendations $34,922

Percentage of one-time costs from recommendations listed 

above of all recommendations 72%

Note: Totals may not equal the sum of the numbers in each column, due to rounding. 

 14 GAO-10-98R Military Base Realignments and Closures 
Enclosure II: BRAC Recommendations DOD Expects to Save the Most Annually 

Table 5 lists individual base realignment and closure (BRAC) recommendations that the 

Department of Defense (DOD) expects to save the most annually after it has 

implemented the recommendations based on its fiscal year 2010 budget submission. 

DOD expects 24 recommendations (13 percent) to generate 80 percent of the net annual 

recurring savings. 

Table 5: BRAC Recommendations DOD Expects to Save the Most Annually 

Current year dollars in millions

Recommendation Net annual recurring savingsa

Realign to establish fleet readiness centers $304 

Realign Cannon Air Force Base, NMb 260 

Consolidate Defense Finance and Accounting Service 250 

Realign Pope Air Force Base, NC 212 

Realign Walter Reed Army Medical Center to Bethesda 

National Naval Medical Center, MD and to Fort Belvoir, VA 172 

Consolidate/co-locate active and reserve personnel and 

recruiting centers for Army and Air Force 170 

Realign supply, storage, and distribution management 168 

Consolidate depot level reparable procurement management 159 

Close Fort Monmouth, NJ 154 

Realign to establish Combat Service Support Center at 

Fort Lee, VA 148 

Realign Maneuver Training to Fort Benning, GA 133 

Establish San Antonio Regional Medical Center and realign 

enlisted medical training to Fort Sam Houston, TX 104 

Close Naval Air Station Brunswick, ME 100 

Consolidate Transportation Command components at Scott Air 

Force Base, IL 97 

Close Fort McPherson, GA 94 

Close Brooks City-Base, TX 92 

Realign by converting medical inpatient services to clinics at 

various installations 91 

Co-locate miscellaneous OSD, defense agency, and field 

activity leased locations 72 

Close Naval Station Ingleside, TX and realign Naval Air Station 

Corpus Christi, TX 69 

Realign to create a Naval Integrated Weapons and Armaments 

Research, Development, and Acquisition, Test and Evaluation 

Center mostly at Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, CA 68 

 15 GAO-10-98R Military Base Realignments and Closures 
Table 5 (continued) 

Current year dollars in millions

Recommendation Net annual recurring savingsa

Source: GAO analysis based on DOD data. 

Close Fort Monroe, VA 65 

Close National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency leased locations 

and realign others at Fort Belvoir, VA 57 

Realign to relocate Air Defense Artillery Center and School at 

Fort Sill, OK 50 

Close Naval Air Station Willow Grove, PA and realign Cambria 

Regional Airport, Johnstown, PA 46 

Total net annual recurring savings from the 

recommendations listed above $3,135

Total net annual recurring savings from all 

recommendations $3,907

Percentage of net annual recurring savings from 

recommendations listed above of all recommendations 80%

Note: Totals may not equal the sum of the numbers in each column, due to rounding. 

a

Data provided by DOD for fiscal year 2012 expected savings. 

b

In May 2005, DOD proposed closing Cannon AFB, New Mexico. In September 2005, the BRAC 

Commission stated that Cannon could remain open if DOD identified a new mission for the base. 

Subsequently, the Air Force announced in June 2006 that Cannon will remain open because it plans to 

activate a new mission at the base. The Air Force BRAC Office said it claimed these savings because 

the decision to reallocate Air Force resources and mission to Cannon was made after the BRAC 

recommendation was approved and was therefore, a non-BRAC programmatic decision. 

 16 GAO-10-98R Military Base Realignments and Closures 
Enclosure III: BRAC Recommendations DOD Expects to Save the Most Over a 

20-year Period

Table 6 lists individual base realignment and closure (BRAC) recommendations that the 

Department of Defense (DOD) expects to save the most over a 20-year period. DOD 

expects 29 recommendations (16 percent) to generate more than 85 percent of the 

20-year savings using fiscal year 2010 BRAC budget data. 

Table 6: BRAC Recommendations DOD Expects to Save the Most Over a 20-Year Period 

(Fiscal Years 2006 through 2025)

Constant fiscal year 2005 dollars in millions

Recommendation 20-year net present valuea 

Realign to establish fleet readiness centers $3,326 

Realign Cannon Air Force Base, NMb 2,801 

Consolidate Defense Finance and Accounting Service 2,416 

Realign Pope Air Force Base, NC 2,355 

Consolidate/co-locate active and reserve personnel and 

recruiting centers for Army and Air Force 1,405 

Realign supply, storage, and distribution management 1,380 

Consolidate depot level reparable procurement management 1,378 

Consolidate Transportation Command components at Scott Air 

Force Base, IL 896 

Realign by converting medical inpatient services to clinics at 

various installations 839 

Close Naval Air Station Brunswick, ME 706 

Close Naval Station Ingleside, TX and realign Naval Air Station 

Corpus Christi, TX 473 

Close Naval Station Pascagoula, MS 459 

Realign commodity management privatization 416 

Close Brooks City-Base, TX 408 

Close Naval Air Station Atlanta, GA 352 

Close Fort Monroe, VA 300 

Realign to consolidate maritime command, control, 

communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and 

reconnaissance, research, development, and acquisition, test 

and evaluation functions at multiple locations 299 

Realign to create a Naval Integrated Weapons and Armaments 

Research, Development, and Acquisition, Test and Evaluation 

Center mostly at Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, CA 296 

Realign Army Reserve Command and Control - Northeast 272 

Co-locate miscellaneous Army leased locations 263 

Realign Mountain Home Air Force Base, ID 262 

Establish joint bases at multiple locations 254 

Close Fort McPherson, GA 249 

 17 GAO-10-98R Military Base Realignments and Closures 
Table 6 (continued) 

Constant fiscal year 2005 dollars in millions

Recommendation 20-year net present valuea

Source: GAO analysis based on DOD data. 

Close Fort Gillem, GA 239 

Realign to establish Combat Service Support Center at 

Fort Lee, VA 235 

Realign to relocate Air Defense Artillery Center and School 

at Fort Sill, OK 221 

Close U.S. Army Garrison Michigan at Selfridge 212 

Realign defense research service-led laboratories at multiple 

locations 208 

Close Navy Reserve Centers 192 

Total savings from the recommendations listed above $23,111

Total savings from only recommendations that accrue a net 

savings after 20 years $27,174

Percentage of savings from recommendations listed above 

of all recommendations that accrue a net savings after 20 

years 85%

Note: Totals may not equal the sum of the numbers in each column, due to rounding. 

a

In the context of BRAC, net present value is the total one-time costs minus the total net savings that 

DOD expects to incur from fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 2025 to project 20-year savings at a 2.8 

percent discount rate. We used data provided by DOD for fiscal year 2012 expected savings. 

b

In May 2005, DOD proposed closing Cannon AFB, New Mexico. In September 2005, the BRAC 

Commission stated that Cannon could remain open if DOD identified a new mission for the base. 

Subsequently, the Air Force announced in June 2006 that Cannon will remain open because it plans to 

activate a new mission at the base. The Air Force BRAC Office said it claimed these savings because 

the decision to reallocate Air Force resources and mission to Cannon was made after the BRAC 

recommendation was approved and was therefore, a non-BRAC programmatic decision. 

 18 GAO-10-98R Military Base Realignments and Closures 
Enclosure IV: Comments from the Department of Defense 

 19 GAO-10-98R Military Base Realignments and Closures 
Related GAO Products

Military Base Realignments and Closures: Transportation Impact of Personnel 

Increases Will Be Significant, but Long-Term Costs Are Uncertain and Direct Federal 

Support Is Limited. GAO-09-750. Washington, D.C.: September 9, 2009. 

Military Base Realignments and Closures: DOD Needs to Update Savings Estimates 

and Continue to Address Challenges in Consolidating Supply-Related Functions at 

Depot Maintenance Locations. GAO-09-703. Washington, D.C.: July 9, 2009. 

Defense Infrastructure: DOD Needs to Periodically Review Support Standards and 

Costs at Joint Bases and Better Inform Congress of Facility Sustainment Funding 

Uses. 

GAO-09-336. Washington, D.C.: March 30, 2009. 

Military Base Realignments and Closures: DOD Faces Challenges in Implementing 

Recommendations on Time and Is Not Consistently Updating Savings Estimates. 

GAO-09-217. Washington, D.C.: January 30, 2009. 

Military Base Realignments and Closures: Army Is Developing Plans to Transfer 

Functions from Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, to Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, 

but Challenges Remain. GAO-08-1010R. Washington, D.C.: August 13, 2008. 

Defense Infrastructure: High-Level Leadership Needed to Help Communities Address 

Challenges Caused by DOD-Related Growth. GAO-08-665. Washington, D.C.: June 17, 

2008. 

Defense Infrastructure: DOD Funding for Infrastructure and Road Improvements 

Surrounding Growth Installations. GAO-08-602R. Washington, D.C.: April 1, 2008. 

Defense Infrastructure: Army and Marine Corps Grow the Force Construction Projects 

Generally Support the Initiative. GAO-08-375. Washington, D.C.: March 6, 2008. 

Military Base Realignments and Closures: Higher Costs and Lower Savings Projected 

for Implementing Two Key Supply-Related BRAC Recommendations. GAO-08-315. 

Washington, D.C.: March 5, 2008. 

Defense Infrastructure: Realignment of Air Force Special Operations Command Units 

to Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico. GAO-08-244R. Washington, D.C.: January 18, 

2008. 

Military Base Realignments and Closures: Estimated Costs Have Increased and 

Estimated Savings Have Decreased. GAO-08-341T. Washington, D.C.: December 12, 

2007. 

Military Base Realignments and Closures: Cost Estimates Have Increased and Are 

Likely to Continue to Evolve. GAO-08-159. Washington, D.C.: December 11, 2007. 

Military Base Realignments and Closures: Impact of Terminating, Relocating, or 

Outsourcing the Services of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. GAO-08-20. 

Washington, D.C.: November 9, 2007. 

 20 GAO-10-98R Military Base Realignments and Closures 
 21 GAO-10-98R Military Base Realignments and Closures 

Military Base Realignments and Closures: Transfer of Supply, Storage, and 

Distribution Functions from Military Services to Defense Logistics Agency. GAO-08-

121R. Washington, D.C.: October 26, 2007. 

Defense Infrastructure: Challenges Increase Risks for Providing Timely Infrastructure 

Support for Army Installations Expecting Substantial Personnel Growth. GAO-07-1007. 

Washington, D.C.: September 13, 2007. 

Military Base Realignments and Closures: Plan Needed to Monitor Challenges for 

Completing More Than 100 Armed Forces Reserve Centers. GAO-07-1040. Washington, 

D.C.: September 13, 2007. 

Military Base Realignments and Closures: Observations Related to the 2005 Round. 

GAO-07-1203R. Washington, D.C.: September 6, 2007. 

Military Base Closures: Projected Savings from Fleet Readiness Centers Are Likely 

Overstated and Actions Needed to Track Actual Savings and Overcome Certain 

Challenges. GAO-07-304. Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2007. 

Military Base Closures: Management Strategy Needed to Mitigate Challenges and 

Improve Communication to Help Ensure Timely Implementation of Air National 

Guard Recommendations. GAO-07-641. Washington, D.C.: May 16, 2007. 

Military Base Closures: Opportunities Exist to Improve Environmental Cleanup Cost 

Reporting and to Expedite Transfer of Unneeded Property. GAO-07-166. Washington, 

D.C.: January 30, 2007. 

Military Bases: Observations on DOD’s 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Selection 

Process and Recommendations. GAO-05-905. Washington, D.C.: July 18, 2005. 

Military Bases: Analysis of DOD’s 2005 Selection Process and Recommendations for 

Base Closures and Realignments. GAO-05-785. Washington, D.C.: July 1, 2005. 

(351358) 
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. 
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and GAO’s Mission 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 Obtaining Copies of is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

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

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, Testimony go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

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: To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 Congressional U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Relations Washington, DC 20548 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 Public Affairs U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548