Military Bases: DOD Has Processes to Comply with Statutory Requirements for Closing or Realigning Installations
Published: 2013-06-27T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: DOD may be required to meet specific statutory requirements before closing or realigning installations that are authorized to employ 300 or more DOD civilians. In light of these requirements, DOD has historically used the BRAC process for closing or realigning bases that are above statutory thresholds. However, in March 2012, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment) testified that because of fiscal and strategic imperatives, in the absence of an additional BRAC round, DOD may be forced to use its existing authorities to begin to realign and close bases. Subsequently, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 mandated GAO to review the processes that DOD uses to close and realign military installations outside of the BRAC process. This report describes the extent to which DOD has processes in place to implement installation closures and realignments within the United States, and the extent to which DOD has implemented closures and realignments outside of the BRAC process.
To conduct its work, GAO examined DOD's approach to implementing basing actions and interviewed DOD officials to identify how their approach ensures compliance with 10 U.S.C. 2687.
GAO is not making any recommendations in this report. In commenting on this report DOD stated the report, in general, explains the processes it follows to comply with requirements for closing or realigning installations outside of a congressionally authorized BRAC process.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Department of Defense (DOD) and the military services have processes to meet statutory requirements for base closures and realignments, and use these processes hundreds of times each year to make basing decisions outside of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process. These processes provide guidance for all types of basing actions, including, but not limited to base closures and realignments. For example, basing decisions can include actions such as reductions in force, disestablishments, renaming a command, and other organization changes. Generally, each service's basing decision process uses similar criteria, scope, and methodologies to determine where to locate its force structure, and each process is documented in established guidance. Each service's process requires a series of analyses, such as analysis of capability and capacity, cost estimates, and environmental considerations. Additionally, each service basing decision process includes legal reviews and an evaluation of the effect on civilian personnel. According to service officials, these reviews provide them data to determine whether a closure or realignment is above thresholds established in section 2687 of Title 10, U.S. Code (hereafter 10 U.S.C. 2687), and therefore subject to additional evaluations and congressional notification. Specific statutory thresholds include:
closure of any installation with 300 or more direct-hire DOD civilian authorized positions (this includes all authorized positions, regardless of whether they are vacant or filled); and
realignment of any installation with 300 or more direct-hire DOD civilian authorized positions (vacant or filled), if the realignment will reduce the installation by 1,000 or more civilian positions, or 50 percent or more of the total civilian authorized positions.
DOD has conducted closures or realignments that have either fallen below the thresholds of 10 U.S.C. 2687 or were authorized by the BRAC process, according to DOD officials. For example, the January 2011 disestablishment of Joint Forces Command was a basing decision that, according to DOD, reduced civilian personnel and eliminated functions at multiple installations, but did not require evaluations and congressional notification pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2687. Specifically, one of the installations affected by the disestablishment of Joint Forces Command was Naval Support Activity Norfolk, Virginia--the installation where Joint Forces Command was headquartered. Naval Support Activity Norfolk had approximately 3,200 civilian personnel at the time of the disestablishment, of which 1,058 (about 33 percent) were Joint Forces Command personnel. According to DOD, a significant number of Joint Forces Command functions and positions were eliminated through a reduction in force--an action that is not subject to 10 U.S.C. 2687--and the remainder were part of a realignment of Naval Support Activity Norfolk that fell below the statutory thresholds of 1,000 authorized civilian personnel or 50 percent of the total civilian personnel authorized to be employed at the installation. Officials also told us they do not anticipate any future closures or realignments pursuant to this statute, citing BRAC as the preferred method for implementing basing actions that are above statutory thresholds.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The military services’ decisions about where to base their force structure  in the United States can have significant strategic, socioeconomic, and  cost implications for the Department of Defense (DOD) and affected  communities. In 1977, Congress passed legislation requiring DOD to  meet specific requirements before closing or realigning installations that  are authorized to employ a certain number of DOD civilians. These  statutory requirements, found at section 2687 of title 10, U.S. Code  (hereafter 10 U.S.C. § 2687), have, according to DOD officials,  constrained their ability to close or realign installations exceeding the  civilian personnel thresholds. DOD has instead used the Base  Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process since its enactment for these  purposes. In March 2012, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense  (Installations and Environment) testified that because of fiscal and  strategic imperatives, in the absence of congressional authorization for an  additional BRAC round, DOD may be “forced to use its existing  authorities to begin to realign and close bases.” Subsequently, in the  National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, Congress  mandated GAO to review the processes that DOD uses to make  decisions relating to closures and realignments at military installations,  including closures and realignments occurring both above and below the  threshold levels specified in 10 U.S.C. § 2687. This report describes the  extent to which DOD has processes in place to implement installation  closures and realignments within the United States, and the extent to  which DOD has implemented closures and realignments outside of the  BRAC process. For a copy of the full language of 10 U.S.C. § 2687, see  appendix I.
The scope of our work was to provide a description of the processes used  by DOD in making decisions to close or realign military installations within  the United States (50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S.  territories), pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 2687. To determine the extent to  which DOD has processes in place for closing and realigning military  installations outside of the BRAC process, we identified and examined  current DOD processes for implementing basing actions. To determine  whether the services’ processes include steps to ensure compliance with  the requirements of 10 U.S.C. § 2687, we reviewed documents and  discussed the processes with officials in the Office of the Secretary of  Defense (OSD) and each of the services to identify when and where in  the processes’ closures and realignments are reviewed for compliance  with the statute. Furthermore, we met with attorneys from the Office of  General Counsel in OSD and each of the services to discuss their  interpretations of the statute and how these interpretations may affect  DOD’s ability to ensure consistent compliance with 10 U.S.C. § 2687. To  describe the extent to which each service has closed or realigned  installations pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 2687, we met with officials and  reviewed data from each of the services related to all basing actions  affecting civilian personnel during fiscal years 2009 through 2012.  Additionally, because some requirements in 10 U.S.C. § 2687 were  enacted as recently as January 2013, and may not yet be reflected in the  services’ processes, for these requirements we reviewed the steps DOD  is taking to update its processes to ensure compliance with the new  requirements.
We conducted this performance audit from November 2012 to June 2013  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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: In the early 1960s, the Secretary of Defense, at the President’s direction,  developed and implemented a base closure program, with minimal  consultation with Congress. This program resulted in hundreds of base  closures and realignments, including closure of more than 60 major  bases. Subsequently, in 1977, Congress enacted 10 U.S.C. § 2687 to  establish procedures that DOD must generally follow when closing or  realigning a military installation, in the United States or its territories,  where 500 or more civilian personnel were authorized to be employed. In  1978, Congress amended the law by lowering the threshold to 300 or  more civilian personnel. In the years following the passage of 10 U.S.C.  § 2687, DOD’s attempts to close major installations in the United States  did not succeed. Consequently, in 1988 the Secretary of Defense  chartered the first BRAC Commission to review and recommend bases  for realignment and closure. In 1990, Congress revised the BRAC  process, which has, as amended, governed subsequent rounds of  realignments and closures in 1991, 1993, 1995, and 2005. Most recently,  in its proposed budget for fiscal year 2014, DOD requested authorization  for an additional BRAC round.
In the absence of authorization to carry out the BRAC process,  installation closures and realignments that are subject to the requirements  in 10 U.S.C. § 2687 include the  closure of any installation with 300 or more direct-hire permanent  DOD civilian authorized positions (this includes all authorized  positions, regardless of whether they are vacant or filled); and  realignment of any installation with 300 or more direct-hire permanent  DOD civilian authorized positions (vacant or filled), if the realignment  will involve a reduction by (1) 1,000 or more civilian positions, or (2)  50 percent or more of the total civilian authorized positions.
Statutory requirements for closures or realignments exceeding these  thresholds generally include, but are not limited to, congressional  committee notification by the Secretary of Defense or military department  Secretary of the proposed closure or realignment as part of its annual  request for authorization of appropriations, and an evaluation of the fiscal,  local economic, budgetary, environmental, strategic, and operational  consequences of the closure or realignment. Additionally, in January  2013, 10 U.S.C. § 2687 was amended so as to prohibit closures and  realignments at installations with fewer than 300 authorized DOD civilian  personnel for 5 years after the date on which a decision is made to  reduce the civilian personnel below 300. Figure 1 provides a general overview of the requirements in 10 U.S.C. § 2687.
Table 1 provides a summary of the definitions of key terms included in the  statute and DOD’s interpretation of these terms.
section_title: DOD Has Processes in Place for Making All Basing Decisions, Including Those Related to 10 U.S.C. § 2687, and Uses Them Hundreds of Time Per Year
paragraphs: DOD and the military services have processes in place to meet statutory  requirements for basing decisions, and according to DOD officials they  use these processes to make hundreds of basing decisions each year  that are not subject to 10 U.S.C. § 2687. For example, in addition to  closures and realignments, basing decisions can include actions such as  reductions in force, disestablishments, changes to mission statements,  and other organization changes. According to DOD officials, since the  1977 enactment of 10 U.S.C. § 2687, the department has not closed or  realigned any installation pursuant to the procedures set out in 10 U.S.C.  § 2687. All closures or realignments since 1977 have either fallen below  the thresholds of 10 U.S.C. § 2687 or were undertaken with a statutorily  authorized BRAC process. They also told us they do not anticipate that  closures or realignments pursuant to this statute will take place in the  near future, citing BRAC as the preferred method for implementing basing  actions that are above statutory thresholds.
subsections: section_title: DOD Has Processes in Place for Making Basing Decisions That Comply with 10 U.S.C. § 2687
paragraphs: Each military service has its own processes for evaluating and  implementing basing decisions, including proposals to close or realign  installations outside of the BRAC process. Generally, the services’  basing decision processes use similar criteria, scope, and methodologies  to determine where to locate the services’ force structure, and each  process is documented in established guidance. Each service’s process  requires a series of analyses, such as analysis of capability and capacity,  cost estimates, and environmental considerations. For example, the  Army’s process includes publishing a comprehensive strategy, developing  feasible alternatives, ensuring that the documentation of alternatives  addresses all known costs, informing interested parties of actions, and  obtaining decisions and clearance from Army headquarters to announce  and execute any actions. Examples of criteria used by Army planners  when developing feasible stationing alternatives include operational  considerations, budget impact, facilities impact, and environmental  impact. Similarly, the Air Force has a centralized basing process that  includes the use of quantitative criteria in basing decisions such as  mission imperatives, environmental effects, costs, and logistic support.
Each service’s process also provides for a review of how decisions may  affect civilian personnel. According to service officials, this review  provides them with data to determine whether the basing action is above  or below 10 U.S.C. § 2687 thresholds. Table 2 describes each military  service’s guidance and the requirements to evaluate any effect on civilian  personnel.
In addition to the requirement to provide data on the effect on civilian  personnel, each service’s basing decision process includes legal reviews  of basing decisions, which, according to service officials, occur at multiple  stages throughout the process and ensure compliance with 10 U.S.C. §  2687 as well as all other applicable laws and policies. Service attorneys  told us that during reviews of basing actions, if compliance questions  arise there is coordination with OSD attorneys to ensure decisions are  consistent across the services and comply with all applicable laws. For  example, according to officials, service and OSD attorneys are currently  discussing how to interpret a provision added to 10 U.S.C. § 2687 in  January 2013 that states that no action may be taken to close or realign a  military installation within 5 years after the date on which a decision is  made to reduce the authorized civilian personnel at that installation below  300. On the basis of our interviews with service and OSD attorneys, there  are variations in how to interpret this provision. In the view of OSD and Air  Force officials, the new provision is retrospective—that is, any closure or  realignment occurring after January 2013 would need to be evaluated to  determine whether a service had taken action to reduce civilian positions  below the threshold during the previous 5 years. Conversely, Army, Navy,  and Marine Corps officials interpret the statute as prospective—that is, if  any installation after January 2013 reduces its civilians below 300, DOD  is prohibited from closing or realigning that installation for the next 5  years. At the time of our review OSD officials said that they were  informally discussing the statute with the services as it relates to  proposed realignments and closures; however, OSD officials stated that  they have no immediate plans to issue clarifying guidance and stated that  generally they play a minimal role in determining how the services  manage their organizational needs through basing actions.
section_title: DOD Makes Hundreds of Basing Decisions Annually
paragraphs: While 10 U.S.C. § 2687 establishes congressional notification and  waiting-period requirements that DOD must meet when implementing  closures or certain realignments, DOD may close or realign installations  without being subject to those requirements if the proposed action falls  below specific thresholds. Specifically, closures and realignments that  trigger congressional notification and waiting include any:  closure of any installation with 300 or more direct-hire permanent  DOD civilian authorized positions (this includes all authorized  positions, regardless of whether they are vacant or filled); or  realignment of any installation with 300 or more direct-hire permanent  DOD civilian authorized positions (vacant or filled), if the realignment  will involve a reduction by (1) 1,000 or more civilian positions, or (2)  50 percent or more of the total civilian authorized positions.
According to service officials, they undertake hundreds of basing actions  each year that do not trigger the requirements in 10 U.S.C. § 2687  because either they do not exceed the thresholds established in the  statute, or the action does not qualify as a realignment as defined by the  statue. During discussions with OSD and the military services, officials  provided some examples of recent realignments that DOD determined  were not subject to 10 U.S.C. § 2687. Below we describe three of these  examples, which were selected because they demonstrate typical basing  actions that are not subject to 10 U.S.C. § 2687.
The January 2011 disestablishment of Joint Forces Command led to  approved basing decisions that, according to DOD, reduced civilian  personnel and eliminated functions at multiple installations, but did not  exceed the personnel threshold of 10 U.S.C. § 2687, which would have  triggered the congressional notification and evaluation process. For  example, one of the installations affected by the disestablishment of Joint  Forces Command was Naval Support Activity Norfolk, Virginia—the  installation where Joint Forces Command was headquartered. Naval  Support Activity Norfolk, according to DOD documents, had  approximately 3,200 civilian personnel at the time of the disestablishment,  of which 1,058 (about 33 percent) were Joint Forces Command  personnel. According to DOD, a significant number of Joint Forces  Command functions and positions were eliminated through a reduction in  force—an action that is not subject to 10 U.S.C. § 2687—and the  remainder were part of a realignment of Naval Support Activity Norfolk,  which fell below the statutory thresholds of 1,000 authorized civilian  personnel or 50 percent of the total civilian personnel authorized to be  employed at the installation.
The April 2012 relocation of the Army Intermodal Distribution Platform  Management Office from the Tobyhanna Army Depot in Pennsylvania to  the Scott Air Force Base in Illinois is another example of an approved  basing decision that, according to DOD, did not exceed the personnel  thresholds in 10 U.S.C. § 2687. This example demonstrates what the  services characterize as a typical realignment. In this example, the Army  made a decision—on the basis of an Army Audit Agency report—to  relocate the Army Intermodal Distribution Platform Management Office  and 14 of its authorized civilian positions from Tobyhanna Army Depot to  Scott Air Force Base. At the time, Tobyhanna was authorized to employ  over 5,000 civilian personnel, making it potentially subject to compliance  with the procedures of 10 U.S.C. § 2687. Additionally, this action would  both reduce and relocate functions and civilian personnel positions,  thereby meeting the definition of realignment established in 10 U.S.C. §  2687. However, because only 14 civilian authorizations (less than 1  percent of the total positions at the installation) were eliminated from  Tobyhanna as a result of this action, and therefore did not exceed the 10  U.S.C. § 2687 threshold, the Army was not required to conduct  evaluations and submit congressional notifications pursuant to 10 U.S.C.  § 2687.
The October 2011 disestablishment of the Center for Naval Engineering  in Norfolk, Virginia, and the consolidation of its mission at the Surface  Warfare Officers School Command in Newport, Rhode Island, is another  example of an approved basing decision that, according to DOD, did not  exceed the thresholds in 10 U.S.C. § 2687. This example demonstrates a  realignment involving few authorized civilian personnel positions. As a  result, the Navy disestablished the Center for Naval Engineering in  Norfolk and seven civilian authorized positions were reduced. These  authorizations accounted for less than 1 percent of the over 13,000  authorized civilian positions at Norfolk, and therefore did not exceed the  10 U.S.C. § 2687 threshold.
In discussing examples of basing actions, DOD officials stated that  determining the total number of DOD civilian authorized positions at an  installation can be challenging. Specifically, because each service  maintains personnel data in different data systems, and because multiple  services can be tenants at a single installation, it can be difficult to  determine the total number of DOD authorized civilian positions.  According to service officials, generally the service initiating the  realignment will request the tenant organizations to provide the service  with the total number of authorized civilian personnel located at the  installation in question. For example, according to an OSD attorney,  obtaining civilian personnel data for the Joint Forces Command  disestablishment was an arduous process because the services and  organizations within the services each have various systems and  processes maintaining the necessary data. While collecting these data for  Joint Forces Command was not easy, according to the OSD attorney  responsible for reviewing the decision, she nonetheless was able to  collect the necessary civilian personnel data to ensure compliance with  10 U.S.C. § 2687.
Further, we found that the services use caution when considering a  basing action at an installation where the total number of personnel falls  close to the 300-position threshold. For example, in February 2012, the  Air Force considered a proposal to close the Air Reserve Station in  Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. According to an Air Force attorney, the Air  Force determined that there were approximately 280 DOD authorized  civilian positions at the Air Reserve Station, some of which were vacant.  Because this number was close to the threshold established in 10 U.S.C.  § 2687, additional steps were taken to ensure that the proposed closure  would comply with the law. Specifically, in addition to the total number of  authorized civilian positions, officials also determined the number of  civilian over-hires at the installation and included these in their count of  authorized civilian personnel. While Air Force analysis determined that  the overall number of authorized civilian personnel, including over-hires,  was still fewer than 300, Air Force officials ultimately decided not to close  the Air Reserve Station in Pittsburgh. Instead, according to officials, the  Air Force plans on using the Air Reserve Station to house additional  aircraft.
While these examples did not exceed the threshold requiring evaluations  and congressional notification under 10 U.S.C. § 2687, DOD and the  services have established requirements for congressional notification of  planned basing actions. For example, the Marine Corps’ process states  that its Office of Legislative Affairs should keep Congress advised as  appropriate of all changes associated with reorganizations. The Army’s  guidance provides that some members of Congress receive notice of  approved basing actions before they are announced to the public, and in  cases that DOD deems to be politically sensitive, members of Congress  may be informed about a basing study that is being initiated at the time of  the study’s initiation. Additionally, a 2011 DOD instruction requires notice  to Congress of decisions that, among other things, include the release of  50 or more civilian employees from federal employment during a fiscal  year at an installation, facility, or activity; a closure or reduction in  workforce at an installation that may be expected to be of interest to  members of Congress and the public; or the realignment of 50 or more  civilian employees outside of the local commuting area.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to DOD for comment. In its written  comments, reproduced in appendix II, DOD stated this report, in general,  explains the processes it follows to comply with requirements for closing  or realigning installations outside of a congressionally authorized BRAC  process. DOD also provided some technical comments. In response, we  made editorial changes to specific sections of the report for clarity.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees; the Secretary of Defense; the Secretaries of the Army, Navy,  and Air Force and Commandant of the Marine Corps; and the Director,  Office of Management and Budget. In addition, the report is available at  no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-4523 or leporeb@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last  page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report  are listed in appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: 10 U.S.C. § 2687
paragraphs: (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no action may be taken to  effect or implement—  (1) the closure of any military installation at which at least 300 civilian  personnel are authorized to be employed;  (2) any realignment with respect to any military installation referred to  in paragraph   (1) involving a reduction by more than 1,000, or by more than 50  percent, in the number of civilian personnel authorized to be  employed at such military installation at the time the Secretary of  Defense or the Secretary of the military department concerned notifies  the Congress under subsection (b) of the Secretary’s plan to close or  realign such installation; or  (3) any construction, conversion, or rehabilitation at any military facility  other than a military installation referred to in clause (1) or (2) which  will or may be required as a result of the relocation of civilian  personnel to such facility by reason of any closure or realignment to  which clause (1) or (2) applies, unless and until the provisions of  subsection (b) are complied with.  (b) No action described in subsection (a) with respect to the closure of, or  a realignment with respect to, any military installation referred to in such  subsection may be taken unless and until—  (1) the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of the military  department concerned notifies the Committee on Armed Services of  the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of  Representatives, as part of an annual request for authorization of  appropriations to such Committees, of the proposed closing or  realignment and submits with the notification—  (A) an evaluation of the fiscal, local economic, budgetary,  environmental, strategic, and operational consequences of such  closure or realignment; and  (B) the criteria used to consider and recommend military  installations for such closure or realignment, which shall include  at a minimum consideration of—  (i) the ability of the infrastructure (including transportation infrastructure)  of both the existing and receiving communities to support forces,  missions, and personnel as a result of such closure or realignment; and  (ii) the costs associated with community transportation infrastructure  improvements as part of the evaluation of cost savings or return on  investment of such closure or realignment; and  (2) a period of 30 legislative days or 60 calendar days, whichever is  longer, expires following the day on which the notice and evaluation  referred to in clause (1) have been submitted to such committees, during  which period no irrevocable action may be taken to effect or implement  the decision.  (c) No action described in subsection (a) with respect to the closure of, or  realignment with respect to, any military installation referred to in such  subsection may be taken within five years after the date on which a  decision is made to reduce the civilian personnel thresholds below the  levels prescribed in such subsection.  (d)This section shall not apply to the closure of a military installation, or a  realignment with respect to a military installation, if the President certifies  to the Congress that such closure or realignment must be implemented  for reasons of national security or a military emergency.  (e)(1) After the expiration of the period of time provided for in subsection  (b)(2) with respect to the closure or realignment of a military installation,  funds which would otherwise be available to the Secretary to effect the  closure or realignment of that installation may be used by him for such  purpose.  (2) Nothing in this section restricts the authority of the Secretary to  obtain architectural and engineering services under section 2807 of this  title.  (f) If the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of the military department  concerned determines, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act  of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), that a significant transportation impact  will occur as a result of an action described in subsection (a), the action  may not be taken unless and until the Secretary of Defense or the  Secretary of the military department concerned—  (1) analyzes the adequacy of transportation infrastructure at and in  the vicinity of each military installation that would be impacted by the  action;  (2) concludes consultation with the Secretary of Transportation with  regard to such impact;  (3) analyzes the impact of the action on local businesses,  neighborhoods, and local governments; and  (4) includes in the notification required by subsection (b)(1) a  description of how the Secretary intends to remediate the significant  transportation impact.  (g) In this section:  (1) The term “military installation” means a base, camp, post, station,  yard, center, homeport facility for any ship, or other activity under the  jurisdiction of the Department of Defense, including any leased  facility, which is located within any of the several States, the District  of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, American Samoa,  the Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana  Islands, or Guam. Such term does not include any facility used  primarily for civil works, rivers and harbors projects, or flood control  projects.  (2) The term “civilian personnel” means direct-hire, permanent  civilian employees of the Department of Defense.  (3) The term “realignment” includes any action which both reduces  and relocates functions and civilian personnel positions, but does not  include a reduction in force resulting from workload adjustments,  reduced personnel or funding levels, skill imbalances, or other similar  causes.  (4) The term “legislative day” means a day on which either House of  Congress is in session.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Harold Reich (Assistant Director),  Greg Marchand, Stephanie Moriarty, Richard Powelson, Tida Reveley,  Kelly Rubin, and Amie Steele made key contributions to this report.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Defense Infrastructure: DOD’s Excess Capacity Estimating Methods  Have Limitations. GAO-13-535. Washington, D.C.: June 20, 2013.
Military Bases: Opportunities Exist to Improve Future Base Realignment  and Closure Rounds. GAO-13-149. Washington, D.C.: March 7, 2013.
DOD Joint Bases: Management Improvements Needed to Achieve  Greater Efficiencies. GAO-13-134. Washington, D.C.: November 15,  2012.
Military Base Realignments and Closures: The National Geospatial- Intelligence Agency’s Technology Center Construction Project.  GAO-12-770R. Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2012.
Military Base Realignments and Closures: Updated Costs and Savings  Estimates from BRAC 2005. GAO-12-709R. Washington, D.C.: June 29,  2012.
Military Base Realignments and Closures: Key Factors Contributing to  BRAC 2005 Results. GAO-12-513T. Washington, D.C.: March 8, 2012.
Excess Facilities: DOD Needs More Complete Information and a Strategy  to Guide Its Future Disposal Efforts. GAO-11-814. Washington, D.C.:  September 19, 2011.
Military Base Realignments and Closures: Review of the Iowa and Milan  Army Ammunition Plants. GAO-11-488R. Washington, D.C.: April 1,  2011.
GAO’s 2011 High-Risk Series: An Update. GAO-11-394T. Washington,  D.C.: February 17, 2011.
Defense Infrastructure: High-Level Federal Interagency Coordination Is  Warranted to Address Transportation Needs beyond the Scope of the  Defense Access Roads Program. GAO-11-165. Washington, D.C.:  January 26, 2011.
Military Base Realignments and Closures: DOD Is Taking Steps to  Mitigate Challenges but Is Not Fully Reporting Some Additional Costs.  GAO-10-725R. Washington, D.C.: July 21, 2010.
Defense Infrastructure: Army Needs to Improve Its Facility Planning  Systems to Better Support Installations Experiencing Significant Growth.  GAO-10-602. Washington, D.C.: June 24, 2010.
Military Base Realignments and Closures: Estimated Costs Have  Increased While Savings Estimates Have Decreased Since Fiscal Year  2009. GAO-10-98R. Washington, D.C.: November 13, 2009.
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.
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.
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  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.
Military Base Closures: Observations on Prior and Current BRAC  Rounds. GAO-05-614. Washington, D.C.: May 3, 2005.
Military Base Closures: Assessment of DOD’s 2004 Report on the Need  for a Base Realignment and Closure Round. GAO-04-760. Washington,  D.C.: May 17, 2004.
Military Bases: Review of DOD’s 1998 Report on Base Realignment and  Closure. GAO/NSIAD-99-17. Washington, D.C.: November 13, 1998.