Military Bases: DOD Should Address Challenges with Communication and Mission Changes to Improve Future Base Realignment and Closure Rounds
Released: 2018-04-16T00:00:00

Letter

Background

BRAC 2005 Goals

The Secretary of Defense established goals for BRAC 2005 in a November 2002 memorandum issuing initial guidance for BRAC 2005 and again in a March 2004 report to Congress certifying the need for a BRAC round. Specifically, the Secretary reported that the BRAC 2005 round would be used to (1) dispose of excess facilities, (2) promote force transformation, and (3) enhance jointness. Although DOD did not specifically define these three goals, we have generally described them in prior reports as follows.

Dispose of excess facilities: Eliminating unneeded infrastructure to achieve savings.

Promote force transformation: Correlating base infrastructure to the force structure and defense strategy. In the late 1990s, DOD embarked on a major effort to transform its business processes, human capital, and military capabilities. Transformation is also seen as a process intended to provide continuous improvements to military capabilities. For example, the Army used the BRAC process to transform the Army’s force structure from an organization based on divisions to more rapidly deployable, brigade-based units and to accommodate rebasing of overseas units.

Enhance jointness: Improving joint utilization to meet current and future threats. According to DOD, “joint” connotes activities, operations, and organizations, among others, in which elements of two or more military departments participate.

BRAC Phases

Congress established clear time frames in the BRAC statute for many of the milestones involved with base realignments and closures. The BRAC 2005 process took 10 years from authorization through implementation. Congress authorized the BRAC 2005 round on December 28, 2001. The BRAC Commission submitted its recommendations to the President in 2005 and the round ended on September 15, 2011—6 years from the date the President submitted his certification of approval of the recommendations to Congress. The statute allows environmental cleanup and property caretaker and transfer actions associated with BRAC sites to exceed the 6-year time limit and does not set a deadline for the completion of these activities. Figure 1 displays the three phases of the BRAC 2005 round—analysis, implementation, and disposal—and key events involving Congress, DOD, and the BRAC Commission.

During the analysis phase, DOD developed selection criteria, created a force structure plan and infrastructure inventory, collected and analyzed data, and proposed recommendations for base realignments and closures. The BRAC statute authorizing the BRAC 2005 round directed DOD to propose and adopt selection criteria to develop and evaluate candidate recommendations, with military value as the primary consideration. The BRAC statute also required DOD to develop a force structure plan based on an assessment of probable threats to national security during a 20-year period beginning with fiscal year 2005. Based on the statute’s requirements, the selection criteria were adopted as final in February 2004, and the force structure plan was provided to Congress in March 2004.

To help inform its decision-making process during the analysis phase, the three military departments and the seven joint cross-service groups collected capacity and military value data that were certified as accurate by senior leaders. In testimony before the BRAC Commission in May 2005, the Secretary of Defense said that DOD collected approximately 25 million pieces of data as part of the BRAC 2005 process. Given the extensive volume of requested data, we noted in July 2005 that the data- collection process was lengthy and required significant efforts to help ensure data accuracy, particularly from joint cross-service groups that were attempting to obtain common data across multiple military components. We reported that, in some cases, coordinating data requests, clarifying questions and answers, controlling database entries, and other issues led to delays in the data-driven analysis DOD originally envisioned. As time progressed, however, these groups reported that they obtained the needed data, for the most part, to inform and support their scenarios. We ultimately reported that DOD’s process for conducting its analysis was generally logical, reasoned, and well documented.

After taking these plans and accompanying analyses into consideration, the Secretary of Defense was then required to certify whether DOD should close or realign military installations. The BRAC Commission assessed DOD’s closure and realignment recommendations for consistency with the eight selection criteria and DOD’s Force Structure Plan. Ultimately, the BRAC Commission accepted over 86 percent of DOD’s proposed internal recommendations; rejected, modified, or added additional recommendations; and adjusted some costs of BRAC recommendations.

Implementation Phase

After the BRAC Commission released its recommendations, and the recommendations became binding, the implementation phase started. During this phase, which started on November 9, 2005, and continued to September 15, 2011 (as required by the statute authorizing BRAC), DOD took steps to implement the BRAC Commission’s 198 recommendations. Also during this phase, the military departments were responsible for completing environmental impact studies to determine how to enact the BRAC Commission’s relevant recommendations. The military departments implemented their respective recommendations to close and realign installations, establish joint bases, and construct new facilities.

The large number and variety of BRAC actions resulted in DOD requiring BRAC oversight mechanisms to improve accountability for implementation. The BRAC 2005 round had more individual actions (813) than the four prior rounds combined (387). Thus, in the BRAC 2005 round, the Office of the Secretary of Defense for the first time required the military departments to develop business plans to better inform the Office of the Secretary of Defense of the status of implementation and financial details for each of the BRAC 2005 recommendations. These business plans included: (1) information such as a listing of all actions needed to implement each recommendation, (2) schedules for personnel relocations between installations, and (3) updated cost and savings estimates by DOD based on current information. This approach permitted senior-level intervention if warranted to ensure completion of the BRAC recommendations by the statutory completion date.

Disposal Phase

The disposal phase began soon after the BRAC recommendations became binding and has continued to today. During the disposal phase, DOD’s policy was to act in an expeditious manner to dispose of closed properties. Such disposal actions included transferring the property to other DOD components and federal agencies, homeless-assistance providers, or local communities for the purposes of job generation, among other actions. In doing so, DOD has incurred caretaker and environmental cleanup costs. For example, DOD reported to Congress that, as of September 2016, the military departments had spent $735 million on environmental cleanup associated with BRAC 2005 sites, and had $482 million left to spend on BRAC 2005 sites. Overall, the military departments reported that they had disposed of 59,499 acres and still needed to dispose of 30,239 acres from BRAC 2005 as of September 30, 2016.

DOD Components Generally Did Not Measure the Achievement of BRAC 2005 Goals

ASD (EI&E), the military services, and 25 of the 26 military units or organizations we met with did not measure the achievement of the BRAC 2005 goals—reducing excess infrastructure, transforming the military, and promoting jointness. Specifically, a senior ASD (EI&E) official stated that no performance measures existed to evaluate the achievement of goals and the office did not create baselines to measure performance. Air Force officials stated that they did not measure the achievement of goals but that it would have been helpful to have metrics to measure success, especially as DOD had requested from Congress another BRAC round. Army officials similarly stated it did not measure the achievement of goals, noting that measuring excess capacity would have been important to help DOD get authorization for another BRAC round. Navy and Marine Corps officials said that they did not track performance measures or otherwise measure the achievement of the BRAC 2005 goals. Moreover, 25 of the 26 military units or organizations we met with stated that they did not measure the achievement of BRAC 2005 goals. The one exception in our selected sample was the command at Joint Base Charleston, which stated that it measured jointness through common output or performance-level standards for installation support, as required for installations affected by the BRAC 2005 recommendation on joint basing. By measuring jointness, officials were able to identify that the base met 86 percent of its common output level standards in the second quarter of fiscal year 2017, and it has identified recommendations to improve on those standards not met.

Instead of measuring the achievement of BRAC 2005 goals, officials with ASD (EI&E) and the military departments stated that they tracked completion of the BRAC recommendations by the statutory deadline of September 2011 and measured the cost savings associated with the recommendations. Senior ASD (EI&E) officials stated that the primary measure of success was completing the recommendations as detailed by the implementation actions documented in the business plans. In addition, officials from the Army, Navy, and Air Force stated that they measured the savings produced as a result of BRAC 2005. For example, Army officials stated that closing bases in BRAC 2005 significantly reduced base operations support costs, such as by eliminating costs for trash collection, utilities, and information technology services. However, tracking completion of the recommendations and measuring savings did not enable the department to determine the success of the BRAC round in achieving its goals. For example, tracking completion of the recommendations establishing joint training centers did not give DOD insight into whether the military departments achieved the jointness goal by conducting more joint activities or operations. Similarly, measuring savings did not allow DOD to know whether it achieved the goal of reducing excess infrastructure, and in reviewing DOD’s data we found that the department ultimately did not have the needed data to calculate excess infrastructure disposed of during BRAC 2005. Key practices on monitoring performance and results highlight the importance of using performance measures to track an agency’s progress and performance, and stress that performance measures should include a baseline and target; should be objective, measurable, and quantifiable; and should include a time frame. The Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government emphasizes that an agency’s management should track major agency achievements and compare these to the agencies’ plans, goals, and objectives.

During BRAC 2005, DOD was not required to identify appropriate measures of effectiveness and track achievement of its goals. As a result, in March 2013, we recommended that, in the event of any future BRAC round, DOD identify appropriate measures of effectiveness and develop a plan to demonstrate the extent to which the department achieved the results intended from the implementation of the BRAC round. DOD did not concur with our recommendation, stating that military value should be the key driver for BRAC. However, we noted at the time that our recommendation does not undermine DOD’s reliance on military value as the primary selection criteria for DOD’s base realignment and closure candidate recommendations, and DOD can still prioritize military value while identifying measures that help determine whether DOD achieved the military value that it seeks. As of October 2017, DOD officials stated that no action to implement our recommendation is expected.

We continue to believe that, if any future BRAC round is authorized, the department would benefit from measuring its achievement of goals. Further, this information would assist Congress in assessing the outcomes of any future BRAC rounds. Given that DOD did not concur with our 2013 recommendation and does not plan to act upon it, DOD is not currently required to identify appropriate measures of effectiveness and track achievement of its BRAC goals in future rounds. Without a requirement to identify and measure the achievement of goals for a BRAC round, DOD cannot demonstrate to Congress whether the implementation of any future BRAC round will improve efficiency and effectiveness or otherwise have the effect that the department says its proposed recommendations will achieve. If Congress would like to increase its oversight for any future BRAC round, requiring DOD to identify appropriate measures of effectiveness and track achievement of its goals would provide it with improved visibility over the expected outcomes.

DOD Has Addressed Many but Not All Prior GAO Recommendations on BRAC 2005 and Has Further Opportunities to Improve Communications and Monitoring in Any Future BRAC Round

DOD has implemented 33 of the 65 prior recommendations that we identified in our work since 2004, and it has the opportunity to address additional challenges regarding communications and monitoring to improve any future BRAC round. Specifically, for the BRAC analysis phase, DOD implemented 1 of 12 recommendations, and it has agreed to implement another 7 recommendations should Congress authorize any future BRAC round. Additionally, we found that DOD can improve its communications during the analysis phase. For the implementation phase, DOD implemented 28 of 39 recommendations, and it has agreed to implement another 3 recommendations. Further, we found it can improve monitoring of mission-related changes. For the disposal phase, DOD implemented 4 of 14 recommendations, and it has agreed to implement another 8 recommendations.

DOD Plans to Address Some Prior GAO Recommendations about BRAC’s Analysis Phase, but Can Improve Communication during Data Collection

DOD Plans to Address Some Prior GAO Recommendations If Congress Authorizes a Future BRAC Round

Of the 12 recommendations we made from 2004 to 2016 to help DOD improve the BRAC analysis phase, DOD generally agreed with 6 of them and, as of October 2017, DOD had implemented 1. Specifically, DOD implemented our May 2004 recommendation to provide a more detailed discussion on assumptions used in its May 2005 report on BRAC recommendations. In addition, DOD stated it would address seven recommendations—the other five recommendations it agreed with and two it had previously nonconcurred with—affecting BRAC’s analysis phase in the event of any future BRAC round. These recommendations included better estimating information technology costs and improving ways of describing and entering cost data. DOD reported that the department is awaiting authorization of a future BRAC round prior to implementing these recommendations. Appendix III provides more information on our recommendations, DOD’s response, and DOD’s actions to date concerning the BRAC analysis phase.

DOD Officials Cited Challenges with Communications during Data Collection

DOD officials cited an additional challenge with communications during the BRAC 2005 analysis phase. Specifically, some military organizations we met with stated that they could not communicate to BRAC decision makers information outside of the data-collection process, which ultimately hindered analysis. For example:

Officials from the Army Human Resources Command in Fort Knox, Kentucky, said that facilities data submitted during the data-collection process did not convey a complete picture of excess capacity at the installation, and officials at Fort Knox were unable to share the appropriate context or details because nondisclosure agreements prevented communication. Specifically, they stated that the data showed an overall estimate of Fort Knox’s excess capacity, but the data did not detail that the excess was not contiguous but rather based on space at 40 buildings spread throughout the installation. The officials stated that there was no way to communicate to decision makers during the data collection process that the facilities were ill- suited for relocating the Human Resources Command and would require significant renovation costs to host the command’s information technology infrastructure. The officials said that, because the needed details on the facility data were not communicated, the relocation moved forward without full consideration of alternatives for using better-suited excess space at other locations that would not require significant costs to renovate. As a result, the Army ultimately constructed a new headquarters building for the Human Resources Command at Fort Knox and DOD spent approximately $55 million more than estimated to complete this action.

Officials at the Naval Consolidated Brig Charleston, South Carolina, told us that the lack of communication outside of the data-collection process resulted in decision makers not taking into account declining numbers of prisoners, leading to the construction of a new, oversized building in which to house prisoners. The officials said that the decision makers analyzing the facilities data did not consider the current correctional population; rather, the decision makers considered a correctional model based on the type of military fielded in World War II and the Korean and Vietnam wars—a force comprised of conscripted personnel that served longer tours and had higher correctional needs. Further, the officials said the decision makers did not consider that, in the 2000 to 2005 period, DOD increased the use of administrative separations from military service rather than incarcerate service members convicted of offenses, such as drug- related crimes or unauthorized absence, further reducing correctional needs. The officials said they did not have a mechanism to communicate this information outside of the data-collection process when decision makers were analyzing the facilities data. As a result, the BRAC Commission recommendation added 680 beds throughout the corrections system, increasing the Navy’s total confinement capacity to 1,200 posttrial beds. Specifically at Naval Consolidated Brig Charleston, the BRAC recommendation added 80 beds at a cost of approximately $10 million. However, the facility already had excess capacity prior to the 2005 BRAC recommendation, and its excess capacity further increased after adding 80 beds (see fig. 2).

Air National Guard officials said that the lack of communication outside of the data-collection process in the BRAC analysis phase meant that they could not identify the specific location of excess facilities. Specifically, they said the facilities data showed that Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska, had sufficient preexisting space to accept units relocating from Kulis Air Guard Station, Alaska, a base slated for closure. However, without communicating with base officials, Air National Guard officials did not know that the space was not contiguous. As a result, officials stated that DOD ultimately needed to complete additional military construction to move the mission from Kulis Air Guard Station. The BRAC Commission increased the Air Force’s initial cost estimate by approximately $66 million in additional funds to implement the BRAC recommendation.

U.S. Army Central officials stated that there was no communication outside of the data-collection process to allow DOD to fully consider workforce recruitment-related issues in deciding to move the U.S. Army Central headquarters to Shaw Air Force Base, South Carolina. While other criteria, such as military value, enhancing jointness, and enabling business process transformation, were considered in developing the recommendation, the officials stated that they were unable to communicate concerns regarding civilian hiring and military transfers. The officials said that since the headquarters’ move to Shaw Air Force Base from Fort McPherson, Georgia, they have had difficulties recruiting civilian employees, such as information technology personnel, to their facility because of its location. They also said that it has been harder to encourage Army personnel to move to Shaw Air Force Base due to a perception that there is a lack of promotional opportunities at an Army organization on an Air Force base. As a result, U.S. Army Central officials said morale surveys have indicated that these workforce issues have negatively affected mission accomplishment.

The military departments and organizations we met with said that these concerns regarding the BRAC 2005 analysis phase were because DOD did not establish clear and consistent communications throughout different levels of authority in the department during data collection. According to Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, management should use relevant data from reliable sources and process these data into quality information that is complete and accurate. Further, management should communicate quality information down, across, up, and around reporting lines to all levels of the department.

Given the unclear and inconsistent communications in the department during data collection, DOD decision makers had data that may have been outdated or incomplete. Additionally, the outdated and incomplete data hindered the BRAC 2005 analysis and contributed to additional costs and recruitment problems at some locations affected by BRAC 2005, as previously discussed. Officials stated that clear and consistent communications would have improved the flow of information between on-the-ground personnel and decision makers and could have better informed the BRAC decision-making process. For example, Army officials said that nondisclosure agreements hindered their ability to call personnel at some installations to confirm details about buildings and facilities in question. The Air Force’s Lessons Learned: BRAC 2005 report stated that site surveys could have communicated additional detail and generated more specific requirements than those generated in an automated software tool that the Air Force used for BRAC-related analysis. Navy officials said that, with limited communication, there were shortfalls in the decision-making process. Overall, officials from ASD (EI&E) and the military departments agreed that communication could be improved in the analysis phase of any future BRAC round. They also cited improved technology, such as geographic information system software and a new base stationing tool, as well as an increase in the amount of data collected as factors that may mitigate any effects of reduced communication if Congress authorizes any future BRAC round. Without taking steps to establish clear and consistent communication throughout the department during data collection, DOD risks collecting outdated and incomplete data in any future BRAC rounds that may hinder its analysis and the achievement of its stated goals for BRAC.

DOD Has Addressed the Majority of Prior GAO Recommendations Affecting the BRAC Implementation Phase but Can Improve Monitoring

DOD Has Implemented 28 of 39 Recommendations to Address Challenges

To improve the implementation phase of the BRAC 2005 round, we made 39 recommendations between 2005 and 2016. DOD generally agreed with 32 and did not concur with 7 recommendations. As of October 2017, DOD had implemented 28 of these recommendations. DOD stated that it does not plan on implementing 8 of the recommendations, and action on 3 of the recommendations is pending. Our previous recommendations relate to issues including providing guidance for consolidating training, refining cost and performance data, and periodic reviews of installation- support standards, among others. Appendix IV provides more information on our recommendations, DOD’s response, and DOD’s actions to date concerning the BRAC implementation phase.

DOD Officials Cited Challenges with Monitoring Mission-Related Changes during Implementation

DOD officials identified challenges related to monitoring mission-related changes during the implementation of the BRAC 2005 recommendations, specifically when unforeseen circumstances developed that affected units’ ability to carry out their missions following implementation or added difficulties to fulfilling the intent of the recommendation. For example:

During the implementation process, a final environmental impact statement at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, contributed to the decision that only a portion of the initial proposed aircraft and operations would be established to fulfill the Joint Strike Fighter Initial Joint Training Site recommendation. Marine Corps officials stated that as a result of this environmental impact statement and the subsequent limitations, the Marine Corps decided to eventually move its training from Eglin Air Force Base to Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort, South Carolina. Despite these limitations, the Air Force constructed infrastructure for the Marine Corps’ use at Eglin Air Force Base in order to fulfill the minimum legal requirements of the recommendation. Specifically, the BRAC 2005 recommendation realigned the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps portions of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Initial Joint Training Site to Eglin Air Force Base. The Air Force’s goal and the initial proposal for the Joint Strike Fighter Initial Joint Training Site at Eglin Air Force Base was to accommodate 107 F-35 aircraft, with three Air Force squadrons of 24 F-35 aircraft each, one Navy squadron with 15 F-35 aircraft, and one Marine Corps squadron of 20 F-35 aircraft. In 2008, after the implementation phase began, DOD completed an environmental impact statement for the proposed implementation of the BRAC recommendations at Eglin Air Force Base. Based on the environmental impact statement and other factors, a final decision was issued in February 2009, stating that the Air Force would only implement a portion of the proposed actions for the recommendation, with a limit of 59 F-35 aircraft and reduced planned flight operations due to potential noise impacts, among other factors. This decision stated that the subsequent operational limitations would not be practical for use on a long-term basis but would remain in place until a supplemental environmental impact statement could be completed. After the final supplemental environmental impact statement was released, in June 2014 DOD decided to continue the limited operations established in the February 2009 decision.

Marine Corps officials stated that, as a result of the February 2009 decision, the Marine Corps decided that it would eventually move its F-35 aircraft from Eglin Air Force Base to Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort. According to Marine Corps officials, by September 2009 the Marine Corps had developed a concept to prepare Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort to host its F-35 aircraft. A September 2010 draft supplemental environmental impact statement included updated operational data and found that the Marine Corps total airfield operations at Eglin Air Force Base would be reduced by 30.7 percent from the proposals first assessed in the 2008 final environmental impact statement. However, to abide by the BRAC recommendation, Marine Corps officials stated that the Marine Corps temporarily established an F-35 training squadron at Eglin Air Force Base in April 2010. Using fiscal year 2010 military construction funding, DOD spent approximately $27.7 million to create a landing field for use by the new Marine Corps F-35 training squadron mission at Eglin Air Force Base. Marine Corps officials stated that this construction occurred during the same period as the decision to relocate the F-35 training squadron to Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort. However, ASD (EI&E) officials stated that they did not know about this mission- related change, adding that they expected any change to be reported from the units to the responsible military department through the chain of command. However, the military departments did not have guidance to report in the business plans to ASD (EI&E) these mission- related changes during implementation; without this guidance, the changes related to the Marine Corps F-35 mission were not relayed to ASD (EI&E) through the Air Force. Officials from the Joint Strike Fighter training program at Eglin Air Force Base stated that this construction was finished in June 2012 and that it was never used by the Marine Corps. In February 2014, the Marine Corps F-35 training squadron left Eglin Air Force Base and was established at Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort. The Marine Corps does not plan on returning any F-35 aircraft from Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort to Eglin Air Force Base for joint training activities.

Additionally, officials from the Armed Forces Chaplaincy Center stated that studies undertaken during the implementation phase determined that it would be difficult to fulfill the intent of a recommendation creating a joint center for religious training and education, yet the recommendation was implemented and included new construction with significantly greater costs than initial estimates. The BRAC 2005 recommendation consolidated Army, Navy, and Air Force religious training and education at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, establishing a Joint Center of Excellence for Religious Training and Education. Prior to the construction of facilities to accommodate this recommendation, the Interservice Training Review Organization conducted a study published in November 2006 that assessed the resource requirements and costs of consolidating and colocating the joint chaplaincy training at Fort Jackson. This study identified limitations in the feasibility of consolidating a joint training mission for the chaplains, including differences within the services’ training schedules and the limited availability of specific administrative requirements for each service, as well as limited instructors and curriculum development personnel. Despite the results of this study, in 2008 an approximately $11.5 million construction project began to build facilities for the Joint Center of Excellence for Religious Training and Education. However, ASD (EI&E) officials stated that they did not know about the results of the study. The military departments did not have guidance to report these mission-related changes, which ultimately were not relayed from the units to ASD (EI&E). Officials from the Armed Forces Chaplaincy Center stated that following the start of construction to accommodate the recommendation, the services completed additional studies in 2008 and 2011 that further identified limitations to the feasibility of joint training for the services’ chaplains. Overall, the services discovered that 95 percent of the religious training could not be conducted jointly. Moreover, the military departments have faced additional impediments to their respective missions for religious training and education. For example, the Army stated it could not house its junior soldiers alongside the senior Air Force chaplaincy students, and both the Navy and Air Force had to transport their chaplains to other nearby bases to receive service- specific training. Due to these challenges, officials from the Armed Forces Chaplaincy Center stated that the Air Force chaplains left Fort Jackson and returned to Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama, in 2017, and the Navy has also discussed leaving Fort Jackson and returning to Naval Station Newport, Rhode Island.

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government emphasizes the importance of monitoring the changes an entity faces so that the entity’s internal controls can remain aligned with changing objectives, environment, laws, resources, and risks. During the implementation phase of BRAC 2005, DOD did not have specific guidance for the military services to monitor mission-related changes that added difficulties to fulfilling the intent of BRAC recommendations. The Office of the Secretary of Defense required BRAC recommendation business plans to be submitted every 6 months and include information such as a listing of all actions needed to implement each recommendation, schedules for personnel movements between installations, updated cost and savings estimates based on better and updated information, and implementation completion time frames. In addition, in November 2008, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment) issued a memorandum requiring the military departments and certain defense agencies to present periodic status briefings to the Office of the Secretary of Defense on implementation progress and to identify any significant issues impacting the ability to implement BRAC recommendations by the September 15, 2011, statutory deadline. The 6-month business plan updates and the memorandum on periodic briefings focused primarily on changes affecting the ability to fully implement the BRAC recommendations and on meeting the statutory deadline, but they did not provide specific guidance to inform ASD (EI&E) of mission-related changes that arose from unforeseen challenges during the implementation phase.

According to a senior official with ASD (EI&E), if the organization responsible for a business plan identified a need to change the plan to fulfill the legal obligation of the recommendation by the statutory deadline, ASD (EI&E) reviewed any proposed changes through meetings with stakeholders involved in implementation. According to this official, the office typically only got involved with the implementation if the business plan was substantively out of line with the intent of the recommendation or if there was a dispute between two DOD organizations, such as two military departments. The official stated that any installation-level concerns had to be raised to the attention of ASD (EI&E) through the responsible military department’s chain of command. If a mission-related change was not raised through the military department’s chain of command, then ASD (EI&E) officials were not always aware of the details of such changes. ASD (EI&E) officials acknowledged that they did not know about all mission-related changes during implementation, such as with the Joint Strike Fighter recommendations, and they stated that there was no explicit guidance informing the military departments to report challenges and mission-related changes to ASD (EI&E). Senior officials from ASD (EI&E) stated that additional guidance would be appropriate in the event of any future BRAC round. This lack of specific guidance to monitor and report mission-related changes that arose during BRAC 2005 implementation ultimately resulted in inefficient use of space and extra costs for DOD. Without providing specific guidance to monitor and report mission-related changes that require significant changes to the recommendation business plans, DOD will not be able to effectively monitor the efficient use of space and the costs associated with implementing any future BRAC recommendations. Furthermore, DOD may not be able to effectively make adjustments in its plans to ensure that the department achieves its overall goals in any future BRAC rounds.

DOD Has Addressed Some Prior Recommendations Related to the BRAC Disposal Phase and Plans to Address More Recommendations If Congress Authorizes a Future BRAC Round

Of the 14 recommendations we made from 2007 to 2017 to help DOD address challenges affecting BRAC’s disposal phase, DOD generally agreed with 12 of them. As of October 2017, DOD had implemented 4 of the recommendations, with actions on 8 others pending. Our previous recommendations relate to three primary issues: guidance for communities managing the effects of the reduction or growth of DOD installations, the environmental cleanup process for closed properties, and the process for reusing closed properties for homeless assistance. Appendix V provides more information on our recommendations, DOD’s response, and DOD’s actions to date concerning the BRAC disposal phase.

During our review, we identified an additional example of challenges in the disposal phase related to the environmental cleanup process. Specifically, officials representing Portsmouth, Rhode Island, stated that the city had issues with the environmental cleanup process resulting from BRAC 2005 changes at Naval Station Newport, Rhode Island. According to the site’s environmental impact statement, the land Portsmouth is to receive is contaminated and requires cleanup prior to transfer, and officials from the community stated that the Navy has not provided them with a clear understanding of a time frame for the environmental cleanup process needed to transfer the property. However, a senior official from the Navy stated that uncertainties in available funds and unforeseen environmental obstacles are common and prevent the Navy from projecting specific estimates for environmental cleanup time frames. The officials representing Portsmouth stated that, due to the lack of information from the Navy on a projected time frame for cleaning and transferring the property, representatives in the community have begun to discuss not wanting to take over the land and letting the Navy hold a public sale. We had previously recommended in January 2017 that DOD create a repository or method to record and share lessons learned about how various locations have successfully addressed environmental cleanup challenges. DOD concurred and actions are pending.

Moreover, during our review we identified additional examples of challenges in the disposal phase related to the homeless assistance program. For example, officials representing the community of Wilmington, North Carolina, stated that they had issues with the homeless-assistance process regarding a closed Armed Forces Reserve Center. According to the officials, they did not know that there were legal alternatives to providing on-base property for homeless assistance. Wilmington officials stated that the city would have been willing to construct a homeless-assistance facility in a nonbase location, and use the closed property for a different purpose, which would have expedited the overall redevelopment process. According to the officials, the organization that took over the property for homeless-assistance purposes lacks the financial means to complete the entire project plan, and as of July 2017 it remains unfinished. We had previously recommended that DOD and the Department of Housing and Urban Development—which, with DOD, develops the implementing regulations for the BRAC homeless-assistance process—include information on legal alternatives to providing on-base property to expedite the redevelopment process, but DOD did not concur and stated no action is expected. Additionally, officials from New Haven, Connecticut, stated that the process of finding land suitable for a homeless assistance provider and converting an Army Reserve Center into a police academy took an undesirably long amount of time to complete. The officials stated that the process of preparing its redevelopment plan and transferring the property from DOD to the community lasted roughly 5 years from 2008 to 2013, and they suggested streamlining or expediting this process.

As a result of these types of delays, many properties have not yet been transferred from DOD to the communities, and undisposed properties continue to increase caretaker costs. As of September 30, 2016, DOD had received approximately $172 million in payments for transfers, and it had spent approximately $275 million for caretaker costs of buildings and land prior to transferring property on closed installations during BRAC 2005. Implementing our prior recommendations related to the BRAC environmental cleanup and homeless-assistance process could help DOD expedite the disposal of unneeded and costly BRAC property, reduce its continuing fiscal exposure stemming from continuing to hold these properties, and ultimately improve the effectiveness of the disposal phase.

Conclusions

DOD has long faced challenges in reducing unneeded infrastructure, and on five different occasions DOD has used the BRAC process to reduce excess capacity and better match needed infrastructure to the force structure and to support military missions. In addition to using BRAC to reduce excess capacity, DOD also sought to promote jointness across the military departments and realign installations in the 2005 round, making the round the biggest, costliest, and most complex ever. While DOD finished its implementation of BRAC 2005 in September 2011 and continues to prepare some remaining sites for disposal, it did not measure whether and to what extent it achieved the round’s goals of reducing excess infrastructure, transforming the military, and promoting jointness. Because it did not measure whether the BRAC actions achieved these goals, DOD cannot demonstrate whether the military departments have improved their efficiency or effectiveness as a result of the BRAC 2005 actions. In October 2017, DOD officials stated the department does not plan to take action on our March 2013 recommendation to measure goals for any future BRAC round. Congress can take steps to improve its oversight of any future BRAC round, specifically by requiring DOD to identify and track appropriate measures of effectiveness. Congress would have enhanced information to make decisions about approving any future BRAC rounds, while DOD would be in a stronger position to demonstrate the benefits it achieves relative to the up-front implementation costs incurred for holding any future BRAC rounds.

In addition, challenges in the analysis, implementation, and disposal phases of BRAC 2005 led to unintended consequences, such as increases in costs, workforce recruitment issues, and delayed disposal of closed properties. Limited or restricted communications throughout different levels of authority in the department during data collection hampered the ability of decision makers to receive as much relevant information as possible during BRAC 2005. If Congress authorizes any future BRAC round, ASD (EI&E) can encourage clear and consistent communication throughout DOD during the analysis phase, thereby helping personnel to address any potential problems that may arise. In addition, without specific guidance to monitor mission-related changes during the BRAC implementation phase, DOD did not fulfill the intent of some recommendations and spent millions of dollars to build infrastructure that was ultimately unused or underutilized. This lack of specific guidance meant that ASD (EI&E) was not aware of all mission- related changes. By instituting improvements to the analysis, implementation, and disposal phases in any future BRAC round, DOD could better inform decision making, better ensure that its infrastructure meets the needs of its force structure, and better position itself to gain congressional approval for additional rounds of BRAC in the future.

Matter for Congressional Consideration

Congress should consider, in any future BRAC authorization, a requirement for DOD to identify appropriate measures of effectiveness and to track the achievement of its goals. (Matter for Consideration 1)

Recommendations for Executive Action

We are making the following two recommendations to the Secretary of Defense.

In the event of any future BRAC round, the Secretary of Defense should ensure that ASD (EI&E) and the military departments take steps to establish clear and consistent communications throughout the department during data collection. (Recommendation 1)

In the event of any future BRAC round, the Secretary of Defense should ensure that ASD (EI&E) provides specific guidance for the military departments to monitor and report on mission-related changes that require significant changes to the recommendation business plans. (Recommendation 2)

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to DOD. In written comments, DOD objected to our matter for congressional consideration and concurred with both recommendations. DOD’s comments are summarized below and reprinted in their entirety in appendix VI. DOD also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.

DOD objected to our matter for congressional consideration that Congress should consider, in any future BRAC authorization, a requirement for DOD to identify appropriate measures of effectiveness and to track the achievement of its goals. DOD stated that, as advised by BRAC counsel, it believes this requirement would subvert the statutory requirement that military value be the priority consideration. However, as we noted when we originally directed this recommendation to the department in March 2013, our recommendation does not undermine DOD’s reliance on military value as the primary selection criteria for DOD’s BRAC candidate recommendations, and DOD can still prioritize military value while identifying measures that help determine whether DOD achieved the military value that it seeks. Congress enacting a requirement for DOD to identify appropriate measures of effectiveness and to track the achievement of its goals, alongside the requirement to prioritize military value, would address DOD’s concern about subverting a statutory requirement related to military value. Moreover, the department will likely have a better understanding of whether it achieved its intended results while still continuing to enhance military value.

DOD concurred with our first recommendation that, in the event of any future BRAC round, the Secretary of Defense should ensure that ASD (EI&E) and the military departments take steps to establish clear and consistent communications throughout the department during data collection. In its letter, however, DOD stated it did not agree with our assertion that the perceptions of lower-level personnel are necessarily indicative of the process as a whole. We disagree with DOD’s statement that we relied on the perceptions of lower-level personnel. We obtained perceptions from senior personnel in the various military organizations deemed by DOD leadership to be the most knowledgeable. We then corroborated these perceptions with those from senior officials from the military departments, along with evidence obtained from the Air Force and Army lessons-learned reports. Moreover, DOD stated that the ability to gather data was not limited by the nondisclosure agreements or an inability to communicate with those participating in the BRAC process. While DOD concurred with our recommendation, we continue to believe it should consider the perceptions obtained from knowledgeable personnel that data gathering was limited by nondisclosure agreements or an inability to communicate throughout different levels of authority in the department during data collection.

DOD also concurred with our second recommendation that, in the event of any future BRAC round, the Secretary of Defense should ensure that ASD (EI&E) provides specific guidance for the military departments to monitor and report on mission-related changes that require significant changes to the recommendation business plans. In its letter, DOD stated it would continue to provide guidance, as it did in the 2005 BRAC round, to encourage resolution at the lowest possible level, with Office of the Secretary of Defense involvement limited to review and approval of any necessary changes to the business plans. However, as we reported, if a mission-related change was not raised through the military department’s chain of command, ASD (EI&E) officials stated that they were not always aware of the details of such changes, hence the need for our recommendation. By providing specific guidance to monitor and report mission-related changes that require significant changes to the recommendation business plans, DOD may be able to more effectively make adjustments in its plans to ensure that the department achieves its overall goals in any future BRAC rounds.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 15 days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate congressional committees; the Secretary of Defense; the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force; and the Commandant of the Marine Corps. In addition, the report will be 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 VII.

Appendix I: Selected Local Economic Data for Communities Affected by the 2005 BRAC Round Closures

Selected economic indicators for the 20 communities surrounding the 23 Department of Defense (DOD) installations closed in the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round vary compared to national averages. In our analysis, we used annual unemployment and real per capita income growth rates compiled by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis as broad indicators of the economic health of those communities where installation closures occurred. Our analyses of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics annual unemployment data for 2016, the most recent data available, showed that 11 of the 20 closure communities had unemployment rates at or below the national average of 4.9 percent for the period from January through December 2016. Another seven communities had unemployment rates that were higher than the national average but at or below 6.0 percent. Only two communities had unemployment rates above 8.0 percent (see fig. 3). Of the 20 closure communities, Portland-South Portland, Maine (Naval Air Station Brunswick) had the lowest unemployment rate at 3.0 percent and Yukon-Koyukuk, Alaska (Galena Forward Operating Location) had the highest rate at 17.2 percent.

We also used per capita income data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis between 2006 and 2016 to calculate annualized growth rates and found that 11 of the 20 closure communities had annualized real per capita income growth rates that were higher than the national average of 1.0 percent (see fig. 4). The other 9 communities had rates that were below the national average. Of the 20 communities affected, Yukon- Koyukuk, Alaska (Galena Forward Operating Location) had the highest annualized growth rate at 4.6 percent and Gulfport-Biloxi-Pascagoula, Mississippi (Mississippi Army Ammunition Plant and Naval Station Pascagoula) had the lowest rate at -0.1 percent.

Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The objectives of our review were to assess the extent that the Department of Defense (DOD) (1) measured the achievement of goals for reducing excess infrastructure, transforming the military, and promoting jointness for the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round and (2) implemented prior GAO recommendations and addressed any additional challenges faced in BRAC 2005 to improve performance for any future BRAC round. In addition, we describe how current economic indicators for the communities surrounding the 23 closed bases in BRAC 2005 compare to national averages.

For all objectives, we reviewed the 2005 BRAC Commission’s September 2005 report to the President, policy memorandums, and guidance on conducting BRAC 2005. We also reviewed other relevant documentation such as supporting BRAC analyses prepared by the military services or units related to the development of BRAC 2005 recommendations. We interviewed officials with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment; the Army; the Navy; the Air Force; the Marine Corps; the U.S. Army Reserve Command; and the National Guard Bureau. We also conducted site visits to Connecticut, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and South Carolina. We met with 26 military units or organizations, such as Air Force wings and Army and Navy installations’ Departments of Public Works, and 12 communities involved with BRAC 2005 recommendations. These interviews provide examples of any challenges faced by each individual party, but information obtained is not generalizable to all parties involved in the BRAC process. We selected locations for site visits based on ensuring geographic diversity and a mix of types of BRAC recommendations (closures, transformation, or jointness), and having at least one installation from or community associated with each military department.

To assess the extent that DOD measured the achievement of goals for reducing excess infrastructure, transforming the military, and promoting jointness for BRAC 2005, we met with officials to discuss measurement of goals and requested any related documentation. We compared DOD’s efforts to Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, which emphasizes that an agency’s management should track major agency achievements and compare these to the agencies’ plans, goals, and objectives. We also tried to calculate the excess infrastructure disposed of during BRAC 2005; however, DOD’s data were incomplete. Specifically, in reviewing the square footage and plant replacement value data from DOD’s Cost of Base Realignment Actions model, we found that data from several bases were not included. Additionally, a senior official with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment stated the data provided were not the most current data used during BRAC 2005 and the office did not have access to the complete data. We also tried to corroborate the square footage and plant replacement value data from the Cost of Base Realignment Actions model to DOD’s 2005 Base Structure Report, but we found the data to be incomparable. As such, we determined that the incomplete and outdated data were not sufficiently reliable to calculate the excess infrastructure disposed of during BRAC 2005.

To assess the extent that DOD implemented prior GAO recommendations on BRAC 2005 and addressed any additional challenges faced in BRAC 2005 to improve performance for any future BRAC round, we reviewed our prior reports and testimonies on BRAC 2005 to identify recommendations made and determined whether those recommendations applied to the analysis, implementation, or disposal phase of BRAC 2005. We then identified whether DOD implemented recommendations we made by discussing the status of recommendations with agency officials and obtaining copies of agency documents supporting the recommendations’ implementation. We also met with officials to identify what challenges, if any, continue to be faced and what opportunities exist to improve the analysis, implementation, and disposal phases for any future BRAC round. For the analysis phase, we reviewed military service lessons-learned documents. For the implementation phase, we reviewed business plans supporting the implementation of the BRAC 2005 recommendations and other applicable documentation, such as a workforce planning study and an environmental impact statement affecting the implementation of some recommendations. For the disposal phase, we analyzed DOD’s caretaker costs for closed bases that it has not yet transferred. We compared information about challenges in the analysis, implementation, and disposal phases to criteria for communications, monitoring, and risk assessments in Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government.

To describe how current economic indicators for the communities surrounding the 23 closed bases in BRAC 2005 compare to national averages, we collected economic indicator data on the communities surrounding closed bases from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Bureau of Economic Analysis in order to compare them with national averages. To identify the communities surrounding closed bases, we focused our review on the 23 major DOD installations closed in the BRAC 2005 round and their surrounding communities. For BRAC 2005, DOD defined major installation closures as those that had a plant replacement value exceeding $100 million. We used information from our 2013 report, which identified the major closure installations. We then defined the “community” surrounding each major installation by (1) identifying the economic area in DOD’s Base Closure and Realignment Report, which linked a metropolitan statistical area, a metropolitan division, or a micropolitan statistical area to each installation, and then (2) updating those economic areas based on the most current statistical areas or divisions, as appropriate. Because DOD’s BRAC report did not identify the census area for the Galena Forward Operating Location in Alaska or the Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach Detachment in Concord, California, we identified the town of Galena as within the Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area and the city of Concord in the Oakland-Hayward-Berkeley, CA Metropolitan Division, and our analyses used the economic data for these areas. See table 1 for a list of the major DOD installations closed in BRAC 2005 and their corresponding economic areas.

To compare the economic indicator data of the communities surrounding the 23 major DOD installations closed in the BRAC 2005 round to U.S. national averages, we collected and analyzed calendar year 2016 unemployment data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and calendar year 2006 through 2016 per capita income growth data, along with data on inflation, from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis which we used to calculate annualized real per capita income growth rates. Calendar year 2016 was the most current year for which local area data were available from these databases. We assessed the reliability of these data by reviewing U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis documentation regarding the methods used by each agency in producing their data and found the data to be sufficiently reliable to report 2016 annual unemployment rates and 2006 through 2016 real per capita income growth. We used unemployment and annualized real per capita income growth rates as key performance indicators because (1) DOD used these measures in its community economic impact analysis during the BRAC location selection process and (2) economists commonly use these measures in assessing the economic health of an area over time. While our assessment provides an overall picture of how these communities compare with the national averages, it does not isolate the condition, or the changes in that condition, that may be attributed to a specific BRAC action.

We conducted this performance audit from April 2017 to March 2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Appendix III: GAO Reviews Related to the BRAC 2005 Analysis Phase, Related Recommendations, and DOD Actions

To improve the analysis phase of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round, we made 12 recommendations between 2004 and 2016. The Department of Defense (DOD) fully concurred with 4, partially concurred with 2, and did not concur with 6 recommendations. It implemented 1 of the 12 recommendations (see table 2). According to DOD officials, DOD will be unable to take actions on 7 recommendations unless Congress authorizes any future BRAC round.

Appendix IV: GAO Reviews Related to the BRAC 2005 Implementation Phase, Related Recommendations, and DOD Actions

To improve the implementation phase of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round, we made 39 recommendations between 2005 and 2016. The Department of Defense (DOD) fully concurred with 17, partially concurred with 15, and did not concur with 7 recommendations. DOD implemented 28 of them (see table 3).

Appendix V: GAO Reviews Related to the BRAC 2005 Disposal Phase, Related Recommendations, and DOD Actions

To improve the disposal phase of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round, we made 14 recommendations between 2007 and 2017. The Department of Defense (DOD) fully concurred with 7, partially concurred with 5, and did not concur with 2 recommendations. DOD implemented 4 of them with 8 recommendations pending further action (see table 4). According to DOD officials, DOD will be unable to take actions on 5 of the 8 pending recommendations until another BRAC round is authorized.

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of Defense

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Gina Hoffman (Assistant Director), Tracy Barnes, Irina Bukharin, Timothy Carr, Amie Lesser, John Mingus, Kevin Newak, Carol Petersen, Richard Powelson, Clarice Ransom, Jodie Sandel, Eric Schwab, Michael Silver, and Ardith Spence made key contributions to this report.

Related GAO Products

High-Risk Series: Progress on Many High-Risk Areas, While Substantial Efforts Needed on Others. GAO-17-317. Washington, D.C.: February 15, 2017.

Military Base Realignments and Closures: DOD Has Improved Environmental Cleanup Reporting but Should Obtain and Share More Information. GAO-17-151. Washington, D.C.: January 19, 2017.

Military Base Realignments and Closures: More Guidance and Information Needed to Take Advantage of Opportunities to Consolidate Training. GAO-16-45. Washington, D.C.: February 18, 2016.

Military Base Realignments and Closures: Process for Reusing Property for Homeless Assistance Needs Improvements. GAO-15-274. Washington, D.C.: March 16, 2015.

DOD Joint Bases: Implementation Challenges Demonstrate Need to Reevaluate the Program. GAO-14-577. Washington, D.C.: September 19, 2014.

Defense Health Care Reform: Actions Needed to Help Realize Potential Cost Savings from Medical Education and Training. GAO-14-630. Washington, D.C: July 31, 2014.

Defense Infrastructure: DOD’s Excess Capacity Estimating Methods Have Limitations. GAO-13-535. Washington, D.C.: June 20, 2013.

Defense Infrastructure: Communities Need Additional Guidance and Information to Improve Their Ability to Adjust to DOD Installation Closure or Growth. GAO-13-436. Washington, D.C.: May 14, 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.

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.