DOD Joint Bases: Implementation Challenges Demonstrate Need to Reevaluate the Program
Released: 2014-09-19T00:00:00

Letter

Background

Establishment of Joint Bases

DOD consolidated 26 service-specific stand-alone installations into 12 joint bases to take advantage of opportunities for efficiencies.1 for a list of joint bases, their locations, and the identification of which military service is the supporting component that delivers installation support.

Figure 1 is an interactive map that depicts the locations of the 11 joint bases and Joint Region Marianas. The map (see interactive instructions) also features individual maps of each of the joint bases and joint region. See appendix V for the printed version of each map.

Implementation of Joint Basing

In January 2008, OSD issued guidance to implement the joint basing initiative. The guidance established a comprehensive framework to consolidate installation-support functions while meeting mission requirements. It also created a Joint Management Oversight Structure to establish the lines of authority for handling disputes and directed the transfer of installation-support authority and real property to the supporting component. Further, the guidance requires that the military services at each joint base enter into a memorandum of agreement to define the relationships between the components; to detail the transfer of real property and funding to the supporting component; and to require the establishment of the Joint Base Partnership Council, which is a group consisting of representation from the major supported component(s) and the tenants on the base. The council’s role includes helping at the joint base level to resolve any disputes that arise between the supporting and supported components. The agreements generally require the Joint Base Partnership Council to annually review any financial effects from the agreements, and to triennially review each agreement.

OSD guidance requires that each joint base have a Joint Base Commander from the supporting component, and a Deputy Joint Base Commander who is generally from the supported component.

The Joint Base Commander has the authority and responsibility for effectively using available resources for planning, organizing, directing, coordinating, and controlling the delivery of installation support as detailed in each joint base’s memorandum of agreement.

Additionally, OSD guidance required that all civilian authorizations providing installation support from the supported component will become part of the supporting component, under the supporting components’ civilian personnel management system. Some joint bases incorporated military positions from the supported component into the joint base structure. These positions generally were identified in the agreements for each joint base and now perform installation-support duties for the Joint Base Commander.

Installation-Support Functions

DOD’s 2008 guidance originally identified and defined 47 common installation-support functions to be aligned under the authority of the Joint Base Commander, subject to certain exceptions. According to OSD officials, individual installation-support functions have been reviewed on a case-by-case basis and removed from the list. We reviewed 42 installation-support functions as part of our survey; see table 2 for a list of those functions.

Joint Base Officials Have Reported Varying Levels of Progress in Consolidating Functions, but Cited Limited Opportunities and Challenges from Consolidation Efforts

Joint base officials reported varying levels of progress in consolidating installation-support functions, several limitations that inhibited consolidation, and challenges resulting from consolidation efforts that created inefficiencies and inequities. DOD guidance outlined more than 40 specific, common installation-support functions at joint bases to be aligned under the authority of the Joint Base Commander, unless the According to relevant memorandums of agreement provide otherwise.key federal practices for consolidation, federal agencies need to plan to monitor and to evaluate their efforts to identify areas for improvement. Overall, we found that the 11 joint bases had reported partially consolidating 80 percent of the functions for which the joint base commander had some responsibility, but the extent of consolidation varied from one joint base to another and among the various installation- support functions. Our analysis of information gathered from the survey and interviews showed that the joint bases reported having limited opportunities to consolidate some functions, such as those unique to a single military service’s mission (e.g. airfield operations and port services) and those managed by a military service’s headquarters such as legal- support services. Furthermore, joint base officials reported several challenges resulting from consolidation, such as multiple military service inspections and employees being disadvantaged in competing for promotion opportunities, resulting from service-specific personnel policies. DOD has not comprehensively evaluated installation-support functions to determine whether they are all still appropriate for consolidation. Also, DOD has not taken steps to address any inefficiencies and inequities arising from consolidation, or assessed any actions that can be taken to facilitate consolidation and address any negative effects in these circumstances. Without a comprehensive evaluation of the suitability of installation-support functions for consolidation—and without guidance to address any negative consequences that emerge from consolidation—individual joint bases will still be expected to merge support functions, which may result in ongoing inefficiencies and inequities.

Joint Base Officials Reported Varying Levels of Progress in Consolidating Installation- Support Functions

Joint base officials whom we surveyed and interviewed reported variations in the extent to which installation-support functions were consolidated. None of the 11 joint bases we surveyed or the Joint Region Marianas reported that they have consolidated all installation support functions identified in DOD’s 2008 Joint Basing Implementation Guidance. DOD’s guidance identified and defined more than 40 specific installation-support functions to be aligned under the authority of the Joint Base Commander, unless the relevant agreement provides otherwise. In written comments to our 2012 report on joint basing and during the course of this review, OSD reaffirmed its expectations that Joint Base Commanders are to merge their management structures, operating procedures, financial systems, and staffs to consolidate installation- support functions.

For the 11 joint bases that we surveyed, our analysis indicated that of the potential 462 installation-support functional areas (42 common functions at each of the 11 joint bases) to be transferred to the supporting component, Joint Base Commanders had some responsibility for 438, or about 95 percent, of those support functions. Our analysis showed that the joint bases reported that they have at least partially consolidated 350 (about 80 percent) of the 438 installation-support functional areas for which the joint base commander had some responsibility. About 4 percent of the installation-support functions that are included in the 80 percent were consolidated prior to joint basing via agreements between the military services. According to our analysis, most instances of consolidation prior to joint basing (16 out of 18) occurred at Joint Base Andrews-Naval Air Facility Washington. Figure 2 illustrates the status of consolidation based on our analysis of survey responses and other supporting documentation.

Consolidation varied greatly by location among the 11 joint bases.example, our analysis of survey responses and other supporting documentation showed that Joint Base Langley-Eustis had reported some level of consolidation in 52 percent of its functions, whereas three other joint bases had some consolidation in approximately 90 percent or more of the functions. Figure 3 illustrates the status of consolidation for each installation based on our analysis of survey responses and other supporting documentation.

Joint Base Officials Reported Limited Opportunities to Consolidate Some Support Functions and Workforces

Joint base officials reported that there were limited opportunities to consolidate some installation-support functions, and that the workforces used by the military services to provide support services—as well as geography—can affect consolidation efforts. The officials stated that they may not be able to fully consolidate some functions because these functions are unique to one military service’s mission or the function is mainly managed by a military service’s headquarters. Also, joint base officials stated that limited opportunities exist to consolidate workforces because of the differences in the original types of workforces—military, civilian, and contractor—that were in place prior to joint basing. As part of our review, we are reporting our analyses of responses to our survey questions and examples provided during interviews with joint base and military service officials. We did not independently assess the extent to which consolidation occurred as identified by survey respondents and by officials during interviews.

Our survey and interview data showed the support functions that provided the least amount of opportunity for consolidation generally are unique to a single military service’s mission, or are mainly managed by a military service headquarters, including those that have the need to follow military service-specific requirements and procedures.

Support functions unique to military service mission. Our analysis of survey results and other supporting documentation, as illustrated in figure 4, showed that installation-support functions reported to be consolidated at the fewest joint bases tended to have military service-specific or mission-specific characteristics. According to officials, these functions offered limited opportunities to consolidate because they were unique to the missions of the individual military services. In most instances, these functions either did not transfer to the supporting component as part of joint basing because the function was considered to be mission-related rather than part of installation support or did not have a counterpart in the other military service. For example:

Port services. We found that one, or 25 percent, of the four joint bases that have a port and included port services as part of the joint base commander’s responsibility had reported consolidating this function. The one base that did consolidate was a location where the Navy was a supported component and did not have an operational mission. The three bases that did not consolidate were locations where there was only one service with the function (so there was not a need to consolidate).

Small-arms range management. We found that three, or 38 percent, of the eight joint bases where the joint base commander had responsibility for small-arms range management had reported consolidating this function. For all three of the joint bases that had consolidated this function, this function tended to be installation support rather than directly tied to a mission requirement. Officials for the other five joint bases that did not consolidate this function reported that they had not done so because the Army was exempt at four of the bases from consolidating this function and there was only one service with this function at the other base (so there was not a need to consolidate).

Airfield operations. We found that four, or 44 percent, of the nine joint bases where the joint base commander had some responsibility for airfield operations had reported consolidating this function. The Air Force was the supporting component for three of the joint bases while the Navy was supporting for the other one. Officials for the other five joint bases reported that they had not consolidated this function because the Air Force had variances to consolidating the function at two of the bases and there was only one service with this function at the other three bases (so there was not a need to consolidate).

Support functions managed by military service headquarters. Our analyses of survey results and other supporting documentation found some functions were limited in the amount of overlapping activities that could be consolidated because the functions remained largely managed by a military service headquarters, or officials executing these functions were required to follow specific military service requirements or procedures. In our survey, 45 percent of 438 joint base officials reported that their consolidation efforts had been hindered by military service- specific requirements, practices, or policies. For example: Information technology system management. Joint base officials reported that opportunities to merge or consolidate information technology systems were limited since the military services operate separate information technology systems with distinct email and operational requirements, as well as maintain service-specific databases. According to our analysis, 34 percent of 438 functional area respondents stated that they had not merged or consolidated information technology systems. DOD has two department-wide initiatives underway to standardize some information technology and services, called the Joint Information Environment and Enterprise Email service. As DOD implements these initiatives, opportunities for further consolidation may emerge.

Advisory services. Joint base officials reported that Equal Opportunity Employment services offered limited opportunities for consolidation beyond the intake of complaints. According to officials whom we interviewed, equal opportunity complaints are filed against specific military department Secretaries, and the formal grievance of any complaint must follow the procedures of the particular military department where the individual filing the complaint either works or serves. For instance, these officials told us that an employee of the supported component, such as a service member or civilian (a position that did not transfer to the supporting component as part of the installation-support workforce), would submit a complaint through the local equal opportunity office, which is part of the supporting component. However, these officials also indicated that the grievance would then transfer back to the supported component since it must follow that service’s procedures. Therefore, in the officials’ opinions, responsibility for equal opportunity may not have been suitable for transfer in joint basing.

Legal support services. Joint base officials indicated that the level of consolidation for this installation-support function is very limited, even though nine of the 11 joint bases reported consolidating some portion of the function. Joint base officials reported that each service must adhere to the Uniform Code of Military Justice for courts-martial and nonjudicial punishment, but the ways in which each service carries out military justice are substantially different. For example, according to these officials, it would be very difficult for Air Force personnel to conduct an Army court-martial or nonjudicial punishment and vice versa. As a result, in the opinion of these officials, this aspect of the legal support services cannot be further consolidated at the joint bases.

Officials from Joint Region Marianas were not part of our survey, but we interviewed them to discuss their efforts to consolidate support services. Officials indicated that some functions were easier to consolidate than others, and they stated that they have made some progress. However, the officials reported that at times conflicting service practices have also hindered their efforts. For example, the officials stated that they have not been able to fully consolidate the chaplain services function because of differences in how religious programs are managed by the Navy and Air Force. The Navy requires that tithes and offerings be sent to charitable organizations, whereas the Air Force allows tithes and offerings to be reinvested in chapel facilities.

Our survey also showed that 59 of 438 respondents (13 percent)—in comments about functions for which the joint base commander had some responsibility—reported that there were additional opportunities to consolidate installation-support functions that have not been pursued. The respondents who reported additional opportunities to consolidate provided a varied range of response details. Of those respondents who provided detailed responses, we found the following examples. Officials from one joint base stated that additional consolidation could occur in the pest-control function by expanding in-house capabilities and eliminating contract services, but did not elaborate as to why further consolidation had not been pursued at the time of the survey. In another example, officials from a different joint base stated that additional consolidation could occur in the pavement-clearance function by analyzing the function and selecting the most cost-effective method between in-house and contract work, as it would allow for completely centralized management of resources. Furthermore, we asked survey respondents if they had any additional comments pertaining to the consolidation of their installation- support functions. Our survey results showed that 70 out of 438 respondents (16 percent) provided comments. Generally, the comments mirrored the issues raised throughout this report. For example, some reported that certain support functions offered limited opportunities for consolidation because of geography and others cited differences in military service policies and procedures that hindered consolidation efforts.

We also found that, according to survey responses, in some instances workforces used by the military services to provide installation-support services prior to joint basing limited opportunities to consolidate some installation-support functions. The military services can differ in which workforce—military, civilian, or contractor—they employ to provide installation support. In our survey, we asked to what extent, if any, differences in installation-support workforces caused hindrances to consolidation. In our survey results, 182 of 438 respondents (approximately 42 percent) reported that differences in workforces used by the individual military services hindered their ability to consolidate installation-support functions. Figure 5 illustrates the percent of functions in which officials reported hindrances in consolidating due to differences in workforces.

The seven joint bases with the highest percent of functions reporting significant or moderate consolidation hindrances because of differences in workforces are listed in table 3.

In interviews and written responses to our survey, Air Force officials stated that they may use a mix of military and civilian personnel to provide a specific installation-support function, whereas the Army may have outsourced the provision of the same support function to contractors. Also, we found in interviews and in written responses to our survey that the Navy at times, used a regionalized civilian workforce to provide some installation-support services for stand-alone Navy bases in the region. In the survey’s written responses, we also found examples in which respondents stated that some consolidation efforts were hindered by the types of workforces used. For example,

Officials at Air Force-led Joint Base Charleston reported that consolidation efforts have been limited by personnel shortfalls in the procurement services function. Prior to joint basing, the Navy provided much of the procurement services for Naval Weapons Station Charleston, through regional service centers rather than at the installation. For this reason, according to these officials, no local civilian workforce transferred to the Air Force. The joint base received approval to hire more Air Force civilians to carry out the function. However, many of the approved positions were eventually cut in 2012 as part of the military departments’ response to the DOD effort to cap the number of civilian positions department-wide.

Officials at Air Force-led Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson reported that they have not been able to consolidate the facility-sustainment function because of how the Army and Air Force provided installation support prior to joint basing. The Army outsourced delivery of this function to contractors at Fort Richardson, whereas the Air Force provided this function in-house at Elmendorf Air Force Base. According to the officials, the Air Force will likely maintain the contracts for the Richardson side of the base because of insufficient military and civilian manpower available to insource the function. These officials reported that, at the same time, the Air Force will continue to provide the function in-house for the Elmendorf side of the base as there is currently no authorization to conduct public-private competitions, which are required before contracting out for functions currently performed by DOD civilians.

Officials at Air Force-led Joint Base Langley-Eustis reported that they had not been able to consolidate the utilities function because of privatization of some support services. The Army privatized water, wastewater, electricity, and natural gas on the Fort Eustis side of the base. These officials stated that because of privatization, when responsibility for the utilities function transferred to the joint base, the joint base officials could not consolidate the Fort Eustis side with the in-house provision of utility services that occurred on the Langley Air Force Base side of the base.

In our survey, we also asked joint base officials about other hindrances to consolidation. Our content analysis of survey data showed that the most- often cited hindrance was geography, with 111 out of 438 respondents (25 percent) citing geography as a hindrance. The five joint bases with the highest percent of functions in which officials that cited geography as a hindrance are listed in table 4.

According to respondents from Joint Base Langley-Eustis, opportunities to consolidate support functions, such as information technology services management, real property management and engineering services functions are limited because of the geographical separation between Langley Air Force Base and Fort Eustis—approximately 18 miles. In addition, some bases that may share some common fence line can also be hindered by geography. For example, officials at Joint Base Lewis- McChord stated that Fort Lewis and McChord Air Force Base entrances are separated by about 5 miles of interstate highway. Having to navigate the interstate to travel between the two entrances can be a problem because of traffic according to officials at both locations. The Army has proposed constructing a gate on the joint base between the two locations, but has not completed this action. In addition, McChord Airfield is separated from the rest of the joint base by a public road, making it necessary to clear security a second time when traveling from the base to the airfield.

Although cited to a much lesser extent than geography, 28 of the 438 respondents reported that personnel shortages (6 percent) and 19 of the 438 respondents reported budget or funding limitations (4 percent) hindered consolidation efforts. For example, officials from Joint Base Charleston reported that the base does not have enough personnel to adequately provide services in the pest-control function, and that a workforce study is needed to determine the appropriate size of the function. In another example, officials from Joint Base McGuire-Dix- Lakehurst reported that current fiscal limitations as well as a hiring freeze have, in part, hindered the base’s ability to consolidate the real property management and engineering services function.

OSD officials stated that there is currently not a process to evaluate installation-support functions on a regular basis (annually or otherwise) and that they have not systematically identified common limitations to consolidation and what actions, if any, can be taken to address such limitations. We found DOD has eliminated—on a case-by-case basis— three installation-support functions from consolidation from the original list of 47, but has not similarly comprehensively evaluated whether the remaining functions are still suitable for consolidation. As noted above, joint base officials have identified limited opportunities to consolidate some areas of installation support. Furthermore, DOD has not systematically identified how consolidation can be limited by, for example, different types of workforces used to provide installation-support services or geography, and what actions, if any, could potentially help facilitate consolidation in these situations or any others that may be identified. Our prior work on federal agency consolidation efforts found that consolidation initiatives can be immensely complex, politically charged, and costly and are not quick, easy, or automatic ways of producing desired change. In addition, key federal practices for consolidation state that federal agencies need to plan to evaluate and monitor efforts to identify areas for improvement. Further, reporting on consolidation activities can help key decision makers within the agencies to obtain feedback for improving OSD and military service both policy and operational effectiveness.officials discussed that their approach to date has been to give the program time to mature but said they now believe a review would be beneficial because some functions may not easily be consolidated and there may be common limitations to consolidation that can be addressed through policy improvements. However, they did not elaborate as to when they would conduct such a review or provide specifics on how they planned to do so. Without comprehensively evaluating whether installation-support functions are still suitable for consolidation and without identifying and addressing limitations reported by the joint bases, such as those related to workforces and geography, DOD may not be able to fully consolidate all installation-support functions.

Officials Reported Challenges in Consolidation Efforts That Resulted in Inefficiencies or Inequities

Joint base officials whom we surveyed and interviewed reported that at times consolidation of installation-support functions created challenges resulting in unintentional inefficiencies or inequities. According to key federal practices for consolidation, federal agencies need to evaluate their efforts to identify areas for improvement, and obtain feedback for improving both policy and operational effectiveness.

Our analysis identified that of the 350 out of 438 responses about functions that were partially consolidated, 224 officials (64 percent) reported challenges resulting from consolidation. See figure 6 for a breakout of the responses of the functions in which officials reported some challenges with consolidation.

Our analyses of interview and written survey responses found instances in which respondents stated that some challenges resulting from consolidation resulted in inefficiencies. For example:

Multiple inspections. Officials whom we interviewed as well as those who provided written survey responses reported that some functions were subject to multiple inspections. For example, officials at Navy-led Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam reported that Air Force officials continue to inspect emergency management exercises although the Navy, as the lead component, is responsible for emergency management on the base and carries out similar inspections. In addition, officials at Army-led Joint Base Lewis-McChord reported confusion among Air Force military units about whether they had to follow Air Force or Army environmental requirements, practices, and policies while conducting inspections. Furthermore, officials whom we interviewed at Joint Base Lewis-McChord stated that both the Army and the Air Force are inspecting the joint base’s child development centers, though the Army, as the lead component, is responsible for managing the centers, including inspections. However, Air Force officials stated they are also conducting their own inspections because of their concern that the centers meet Air Force standards of service for providing child care, even though joint bases have agreed to provide a common level of service for installation-support functions.

Multiple Data Requirements. Officials at Air Force-led Joint Base Langley-Eustis reported that staff from the physical-security function must use two distinct systems for processing personnel-security investigations—one for Army personnel and one for Air Force personnel—because of differences in the systems. In another example, Army-led Joint Base Lewis-McChord reported that the lack of transferring personnel files locally between the Army and Air Force has caused the Army to rebuild employee files and submit criminal background checks more than once for staff in the children and youth- services function, potentially wasting funds by recreating what already exists.

Our analysis of interview information found instances in which respondents stated that challenges resulting from consolidation also resulted in inequities. For example:

Limited promotion opportunities. According to joint base officials, in some instances the transfer of civilian personnel from one military service to another may have created inequities, in that civilians transferring from another military department may have lost some benefits of seniority, which may have disadvantaged them in competing for promotion opportunities. For example, former Army civilian employees at the Air Force-led Joint Base San Antonio reported limited career opportunities because their total service time as DOD employees was not recognized by the Air Force, and their job classifications, in some cases, were downgraded when their positions were transferred to the joint base. The former Army employees reported that the military departments do not credit years of employment from another department. As a result, they cannot compete for promotions or other Air Force positions that may require a minimum number of years of service as eligibility criteria for promotion. In addition, joint base officials whom we interviewed commented that they believe military service practices of preferentially hiring internal applicants in response to DOD’s civilian hiring freeze have prevented these former Army employees from qualifying or being competitive for vacant Army positions because they are now Air Force employees.

Limited training opportunities. According to joint base officials, consolidation has resulted in differences in training for some installation-support personnel. For example, Air Force officials at the Army-led Joint Base Lewis-McChord reported that consolidation has eliminated some training opportunities for uniformed airmen, and expressed concern that airmen at Joint Base Lewis-McChord are not receiving training comparable to that which they would receive if they were stationed at a stand-alone Air Force installation. This situation is primarily because of the consolidation of installation-support functions under Army processes—which are largely civilian and contractor driven—whereas at a stand-alone Air Force base many installation-support functions are performed by airmen.

We found that neither OSD nor the military services have addressed these consolidation challenges that may have resulted in inefficiencies and inequities. Specifically, feedback on inefficiencies and inequities have not been incorporated into policy improvements, such as additional guidance, to help the joint bases resolve confusion about which service- specific guidance should be followed to avoid challenges such as multiple inspections, multiple data requirements, and concerns about limited promotion and training opportunities. Our survey results identified that about 59 percent of respondents stated that they did not think additional guidance from OSD or the military services would improve the level of consolidation of their installation-support functions. However, officials from the joint bases, military service headquarters, and OSD stated in interviews that additional guidance is necessary to address consolidation challenges.

OSD and military service officials stated that they have not comprehensively identified the extent to which the joint bases have consolidated installation-support functions, including any common challenges associated with consolidation that may have resulted in negative consequences as described above. OSD and military service officials stated that their approach to date has been to give the program time to mature but said they now believe policy actions may be needed to help address challenges resulting from consolidation. Without having comprehensively identified any common challenges associated with consolidation, OSD is unlikely to develop policy solutions, such as guidance, to assist the joint bases in addressing them. In one instance in which joint base officials identified a common challenge associated with consolidation—multiple inspections related to installation support—OSD officials acknowledged the issue and stated that they were taking action to address it. Joint base officials stated in interviews that they have raised concerns at OSD’s annual joint base program-management meetings about which service-specific guidance to follow when conducting inspections of installation-support functions on joint bases. OSD officials told us that while a policy solution is not currently available to resolve this issue, they are working to update a DOD instruction for inspections that will address the issue at joint bases. However, in the absence of policy solutions, such as additional guidance to mitigate other common challenges resulting from consolidation efforts, including multiple data requirements for installation-support functions and concerns about limited promotion and training opportunities for installation-support staff, joint bases may be unable to avoid or reduce any inefficiencies and inequities resulting from consolidating installation-support functions.

Joint Basing Has Produced Some Benefits, but Officials Reported They Are Unable to Achieve Greater Efficiencies and Potential Cost Savings without Additional Direction

results of their collaborative efforts. Further, key federal practices state that agencies can improve efficiency by reexamining programs and related processes or organizational structures to determine whether they effectively and efficiently achieve the mission. Without a collaborative evaluation of the joint basing program to determine if the stated goals of the program are still appropriate and subsequent direction to include the monitoring and evaluation of the achievement of program goals, it will be difficult for DOD to determine the extent to which the joint basing initiative is achieving its intended goals.

Joint Bases Have Reported Some Progress and Benefits in Addressing Joint Basing Goals

Joint base officials reported that they have made some progress in achieving greater efficiencies and cost savings, which are the goals of the joint base program, as well as attained additional benefits. In our November 2012 report, we found that DOD does not have a fully developed method for accurately collecting information on cost savings and efficiencies achieved specifically as a result of joint basing. As a result, to gain insight into the degree to which DOD has gained efficiencies and cost savings, our survey asked respondents to identify the extent to which they have (1) reduced redundant funded positions; (2) reduced redundant contracts or increased contract efficiencies; and (3) merged or consolidated redundant procedures.

Reduced Redundant Funded Positions

Our analysis of survey responses and other supporting documentation showed that 53 of 438 respondents (12 percent) stated that they were able to reduce redundant funded positions (excluding contractors) related to joint basing. Figure 7 illustrates our analysis.

Our analysis of survey data indicated that joint bases experienced reductions in funded positions, which respondents attributed to efforts to reduce redundancy. For example, officials from Joint Base Little Creek- Fort Story reported that the base was able to reduce four staff positions in the morale, welfare, and recreation function because they were redundant. In another example, officials from Joint Base Anacostia- Bolling reported that base was able to reduce two positions in the physical security function. In other instances, the respondents did not attribute reductions to joint basing, but rather attributed them to other reasons, such as service-level programmatic decisions. For instance, officials from Joint Base Charleston noted that a housing manager retired shortly after the joint base’s establishment, and the Air Force abolished the position because of personnel cuts unrelated to joint basing.

Many of the respondents who reported no reductions did not provide detailed explanations. Of those who provided a reason for no reduction, many reported there were no redundancies in installation-support positions or there was an increased workload requiring extra positions. For instance, officials from Joint Base Andrews-Naval Air Facility Washington reported that the refuse collection and disposal function was consolidated prior to joint basing, so no positions were available to consolidate. In another example, officials from Joint Base McGuire-Dix- Lakehurst reported an increased workload in the facilities sustainment function because of aging facilities and a lack of funding, making consolidation unlikely to result in fewer personnel. Also, officials from Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson reported that no redundant positions were reduced in the physical security function because of no decrease in workload following consolidation.

Joint base officials whom we interviewed provided some reasons for why the reduction of redundant funded positions was limited. For example, officials from Joint Base Langley-Eustis told us that it would have been difficult to consolidate the functions of the two former bases because of differences in the mix of personnel who provided installation support. They said that at Fort Eustis the Army had transitioned almost entirely to private contracts for installation support, and had eliminated most of its related civilian workforce. Therefore, in their view, there were no opportunities to reduce redundant funded positions. In another example, officials from Joint Base Lewis-McChord said the Air Force transferred few civilian positions to the Army, the supporting component, because prior to joint basing the Air Force used uniformed airmen to provide installation-support services at McChord Air Force Base.

Reduced Redundant Contracts or Increased Contract Efficiencies

Our analysis of survey responses and other supporting documentation showed that 111 of 438 respondents (25 percent) stated that they had a reduction of redundant contracts or increased contract efficiencies related to joint basing. Figure 8 illustrates our analysis.

Officials from Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst reported that they were able to consolidate eight separate telephone contracts in the information technology services management function into a single contract for the joint base, which they reported saved about $650,000. In another example, officials from Joint Base Charleston reported that two custodial contracts existed—one for the Air Force and one for the Navy—and that these contracts have been combined into a single joint base contract, which according to the officials, resulted in efficiencies in contract administration by eliminating the need for multiple contract administrators. In a third example, officials from Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall reported the consolidation of contracts for facility fire and alarm inspection and maintenance in the fire and emergency services function—from three to one. In another example, officials from Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling reported that they were able to eliminate a contract in the public affairs function that was used to provide the supported component’s base newspaper prior to joint basing.

Many of the respondents who reported no reductions or no increased efficiencies did not provide a detailed explanation. Of those who provided a reason for no reduction or increased efficiencies, the reasons included simply that there were no redundant contracts. In other instances an installation-support function was not provided via contract, so consolidation was not applicable. For example, officials from Joint Base Andrews-Naval Air Facility Washington reported there were no reductions in the small-arms range management function because there were no contracts were in place for the function— it is handled by military and civilian personnel.

Joint base officials whom we interviewed provided some reasons for why reduction of redundant contracts or achieving greater contract efficiencies was limited. For example, officials from Joint Base San Antonio stated that federal contracting preferences complicate the task of consolidating all custodial services under a single contract. Officials from Joint Base Langley Eustis cited geography as a factor affecting the bases’ ability to reduce redundant contracts. They told us the distance between Langley Air Force Base and Fort Eustis is approximately 18 miles, and thereby would likely increase a contract’s cost because of a wider area of required service.

Merged or Consolidated Redundant Procedures

Our analysis of survey responses and other supporting documentation showed that 105 out of 438 respondents (24 percent) stated they were able to merge or consolidate redundant procedures related to joint basing. Figure 9 illustrates our analysis.

Officials from Joint Base Charleston reported that the base reduced the work of two newspapers and separate news coverage into one newspaper and website. In another example, officials from Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam reported that the base eliminated Air Force procedures for grounds maintenance, which is part of the grounds maintenance and landscaping function, in favor of standardizing the procedures under the Navy, the supporting component. In another example, officials from Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst reported that requirements processing for base telephone services under the information technology services management function were consolidated from three offices into one.

Of those respondents who provided a reason for no merger or consolidation of redundant procedures, a frequently cited reason was that there were no redundant procedures to merge or consolidate. For example, officials from Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling reported that there were no redundant procedures in the custodial services, emergency management, and facility sustainment functions. In another instance, officials from Joint Base Andrews-Naval Air Facility Washington reported no redundant procedures in the emergency management function because the Navy did not have an emergency management function prior to consolidation. In another example, officials from Joint Base McGuire- Dix-Lakehurst reported no merger or consolidation of redundant procedures in the emergency management function because there was not an emergency management function at Fort Dix or Naval Engineering Station Lakehurst.

Additional Consolidation Benefits

In our analysis of 350 of 438 survey responses in which officials stated they had consolidated functions, 213 of 350 respondents (61 percent) reported benefits from consolidation of support functions. Figure 10 illustrates our analysis.

Our analysis of survey data found that benefits included improvements in the delivery of installation-support services and the sharing of information and practices across military services. Respondents reported that as a result of some of these improvements, they believe customer satisfaction increased. Also, in many instances functional area officials reported increased efficiencies, but did not elaborate as to what the efficiencies were or how they were achieved. The following examples are specific to joint bases, and illustrate that, according to base officials, DOD’s current approach to joint basing has produced some benefits.

Improved service delivery. Officials from Air Force-led Joint Base Langley-Eustis reported that the fire chiefs at Fort Eustis are satisfied with the increased performance of maintenance services on firefighting vehicles as the Air Force maintains vehicles at a much higher level than the levels provided by the Army prior to joint basing. In another example, officials from Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam reported that the base’s intramural sports program is larger, providing more games and better competition, which service members enjoy. Improved information sharing. Officials from Joint Base Charleston reported that a primary benefit in the family housing function is the ability to share best practices between two privatization deals—one used by the Air Force and one used by the Navy prior to joint basing—to better service the local community. In another example, officials from Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson reported that consolidation has provided soldiers and airmen with the opportunity to work and operate in a nondeployed joint environment as part of the law enforcement patrols function, which has allowed for a better understanding of each military service’s mission. In a third example, officials from Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall reported that consolidation of the physical security function helped increase awareness of activities affecting the base’s control point because of access and information that was not previously available to the individual bases prior to joint basing.

Joint base officials whom we interviewed also reported some benefits from consolidating installation-support functions and additional benefits from working closely with other military services. For example, Air Force officials at the Army-led Joint Base Lewis-McChord told us they were able to save approximately $280,000 per month in training fees by leveraging their joint base relationship with the Army to use local Army facilities in Washington State for Air Force training flights. Prior to the establishment of the joint base, the Air Force used its own facilities farther away in Arizona for these flights. In an additional example, Army officials at the Air Force-led Joint Base San Antonio said the Air Force adopted the Army Family Action Plan, which the Army operated for soldiers and their families at Fort Sam Houston, to expand the process, which allows service members to submit concerns about quality of life issues to the base command staff to all service members residing in the joint base area. In another example from Joint Base San Antonio, an Air Force official stated that the base was able to take advantage of in-house Air Force welding expertise to repair damage to the main gate of the Fort Sam Houston area of Joint Base San Antonio rather than contract for the maintenance, which would have been done prior to joint basing and this resulted in quicker repairs and avoidance of contract fees.

In our interviews with officials from Joint Region Marianas, officials indicated that they had been able to take some actions to gain efficiencies, such as reducing from five to one the number of cell-phone contracts used to provide cell phones to military and civilian personnel.

They also pointed out that they are in the process of evaluating approaches to consolidate housing to provide better visibility to service members on Guam regarding available housing options on the island. According to the officials, this effort will result in reducing the need for duplicative housing managers.

Lack of Direction Has Hindered Joint Base Progress in Achieving Goals

Joint base and military service officials whom we interviewed said OSD has not provided them with direction on how to achieve greater efficiencies and cost savings as the goals of joint basing, including reporting requirements and milestones. OSD officials told us that they have not collaborated with the military services to evaluate whether the goals of achieving greater efficiencies and generating cost savings are still appropriate. According to key federal practices, when federal organizations collaborate they can define common outcomes, establish strategies, and develop mechanisms to monitor, evaluate and report the results of their collaborative efforts. Moreover, key change management practices state that it is essential that top government and agency leaders are committed to consolidation and play a lead role in executing it by setting the direction, pace, and tone as well as providing a clear, consistent rationale for doing so. These practices also state that establishing implementation goals and milestone dates, and tracking progress toward those goals helps agency officials pinpoint performance shortfalls and suggest midcourse corrections, including any needed adjustments to the organization’s future goals and milestones. Further, key federal practices state that agencies can improve efficiency by reexamining programs and related processes or organizational structures to determine whether they effectively and efficiently achieve the mission.

OSD officials whom we interviewed indicated that they have not evaluated the joint basing program to determine whether it is meeting the goals of the 2005 BRAC Commission recommendation or if the goals of achieving greater efficiencies and generating cost savings are still appropriate for the program today and looking forward. In written comments to our 2012 report on joint basing, OSD stated that DOD’s approach to joint basing was to be patient with obtaining savings and efficiencies, maintaining that joint basing was a relatively new initiative and implementation issues were still being resolved. The officials reaffirmed they were taking this approach during the course of our review. According to the Secretary of Defense’s justification for joint basing reproduced in the 2005 BRAC Commission Report, joint basing would allow DOD to take advantage of opportunities to reduce duplication of efforts. DOD stated that the resulting reduction of overall manpower and facilities requirements would help generate savings by paring unnecessary management personnel and achieving greater efficiencies through economies of scale. However, as we found in prior work, OSD did not have a developed method for accurately collecting information on costs, savings, and efficiencies achieved specifically from joint basing, and had not developed a plan to guide joint bases in achieving cost savings and efficiencies. Therefore, it is difficult to ascertain the progress that joint bases have made in achieving the goals for joint basing.

When asked about any challenges associated with consolidation of installation-support functions, some survey respondents reported that consolidation increased the need for additional resources in their functional area. For example, Joint Base Charleston officials reported that the size of the joint base and the diversity of missions have greatly increased the need for additional resources for restoration and modernization of facilities and has also resulted in decreased customer satisfaction. In another example, Joint Base Little Creek-Fort Story officials reported that an increase of unaccompanied housing facilities was not met with a staff increase to help support the additional facilities. Also, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam officials reported that the requirements for the physical security function increased following the joint base’s establishment, but no additional personnel were gained, thus increasing staff workload. However, OSD officials whom we interviewed told us respondents may have attributed the consolidation of functions as driving an increased need for resources, when other factors may have been the reason. For instance, the OSD officials stated that higher performance standards for installation support at joint bases may have caused an increase in workload. Although OSD has provided joint bases with a memo that acknowledges a reduced funding environment and encourages Joint Base Commanders to ensure that mission partners continue to collaboratively determine priorities for applying resources, OSD officials told us that they have not modified the goals for the joint base program in light of the current fiscal environment. They stated that joint bases have been designed to look for efficiencies and cost savings in providing installation support, and are therefore better positioned than other installations to withstand budget cuts and operate with lower budgeted resources.

Our survey data showed that some progress had been made in the joint bases’ ability to reduce redundant funded positions; reduce redundant contracts or find contract efficiencies; and merge or consolidate redundant procedures to gain efficiencies and produce cost savings. According to joint base and military service officials whom we interviewed, the joint bases would benefit from more direction on how to pursue initiatives in a systematic way to achieve these goals or to report on the achievement of these goals. The officials said OSD has left it up to individual joint base leadership to determine how to manage and operate the joint bases, including the extent to which they pursue efficiencies. As a result, joint base and military service headquarters officials whom we interviewed stated that in an environment when priority is placed on getting the mission done with fewer resources, the investment of resources to pursue initiatives or conduct studies to determine the feasibility of efforts to cut redundancies and gain efficiencies has not always been a priority. The officials said that without more direction, the extent to which joint basing commanders pursued these types of initiatives was left to their discretion. Furthermore, the officials noted the degree to which joint bases looked for opportunities to gain efficiencies and cost savings depended on the commitment of the officials involved as well as the level of support and commitment they received from their service headquarters, rather than guided by overarching goals, plans, milestones, and reporting requirements.

OSD officials stated that they had not conducted a mid-program review for joint basing and believe this type of review is a good management practice and may be beneficial at this stage in the joint basing program, in part because of concerns about the lack of understanding regarding the goals for the program as well as direction on how to achieve such goals. However, the officials noted that they do not yet have detailed plans for such a review. Without a collaborative evaluation of the joint basing program by OSD and the military services to determine if the stated goals of the program are still appropriate and continue to be priorities for DOD—and without clear communication on any revised goals and additional direction on how to achieve such goals, including reporting requirements and milestones—it will be difficult for DOD to demonstrate that the joint basing program has effectively and efficiently achieved its goals.

Conclusions

DOD’s 11 joint bases and one joint region have been fully operational since 2010, yet progress to consolidate installation-support functions at the 11 we surveyed varied by location as well as support function. According to survey respondents, some functions offer limited, if any, opportunities for consolidation, including those that are primarily military service, mission-specific—such as managing a small-arms range—and those that must adhere to military service-specific policy and procedures such as legal support services. DOD has eliminated some functions from consolidation on a case-by-case basis, but has not comprehensively reviewed the entire list of functions to determine whether additional functions should be removed from consolidation. Moreover, joint base officials have reported challenges from consolidation of installation- support functions, such as multiple inspections and limited civilian personnel promotion opportunities. OSD has not taken steps to address the challenges that, according to joint base officials, have resulted in inefficiencies and inequities. Without a comprehensive evaluation of the suitability of installation-support functions for consolidation and guidance to address any identified challenges that emerged from consolidation, individual joint bases may experience inefficiencies and inequities in consolidating these functions.

Furthermore, DOD has not yet demonstrated that merging 26 bases to consolidate installation-support functions into 12 joint bases has yielded the results it forecast when it proposed this initiative to the 2005 BRAC Commission as a means to reduce duplication of efforts that would in turn generate cost savings and increase efficiencies. The joint base officials, in their responses to survey questions and during interviews, did not report significant achievements in reaching these goals. DOD has data that indicate the joint bases are obligating less funding than they would have obligated as stand-alone bases, but it is not clear to what extent these savings are attributable to the consolidation of installation support functions. Furthermore, it is not clear to what extent savings and efficiencies are still the goals of this program. Joint base officials indicated that they are unclear to what extent these goals are still appropriate and to what extent they are required to pursue additional opportunities to meet these goals. DOD has not collaborated with the military services to reevaluate whether the goals of joint basing are still appropriate or provided direction to the joint bases for meeting program goals, including milestones and reporting requirements for the achievement of these goals. As a result, joint base commanders are responsible for determining to what extent they will pursue initiatives to reduce redundancy and achieve potential cost savings or efficiencies, and the extent to which such initiatives have been pursued varies by joint base. Key practices from efficiency initiatives state that a primary approach an agency can take to determine whether a program is effectively and efficiently achieving its goals is to periodically reexamine it. Furthermore, key change management practices state that it is essential for top leadership to set the direction, pace, and tone of organizational change. Until DOD evaluates its current approach to joint basing and determines whether the stated goals of the program are still appropriate and continue to be priorities—and without direction provided to the joint bases to pursue the goals and report on the ability to meet these goals—it will be difficult for DOD to determine whether the joint basing program is meeting its purpose.

Matter for Congressional Consideration

To help ensure DOD’s approach to joint basing achieves the goals as outlined by DOD in its justification for the 2005 BRAC recommendation and leverages additional opportunities to reduce duplication of effort that could in turn generate cost savings and increased efficiencies, Congress should consider directing the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment), in collaboration with the military services and joint bases, to evaluate the purpose of the program and determine whether the current goals, as stated in the 2005 BRAC Commission recommendation, are still appropriate, or whether goals should be revised; communicate these goals to the military services and joint bases, and adjust program activities accordingly; provide direction to the joint bases on requirements for meeting program goals, including determining reporting requirements and milestones; and determine any next steps for joint basing, including whether to expand it to other installations.

Recommendations for Executive Action

To assist the joint bases in achieving additional opportunities to consolidate installation-support functions, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment), in coordination with the military services and joint bases, to take the following two actions:

Evaluate the 44 support functions identified in DOD’s guidance for joint base implementation to determine which functions are still suitable for consolidation. Subsequently, identify and make any changes that are appropriate to address limitations reported by the joint bases in consolidating installation-support functions, such as limitations related to workforces and geography.

Take policy actions, as appropriate—such as issuing additional guidance—to address any challenges resulting in inefficiencies and inequities regarding efforts to consolidate installation-support functions including, at a minimum, those identified in this report.

To ensure DOD’s approach to joint basing aligns with the intent of the 2005 BRAC recommendation and DOD’s current position on the intent of joint basing, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment), in collaboration with the military services and joint bases, to take the following two actions:

Evaluate the purpose of the program and determine whether DOD’s current goals of achieving greater efficiencies and generating cost savings for the joint basing program, as stated in the 2005 BRAC Commission recommendation, are still appropriate or whether goals should be revised, and communicate these goals to the military services and joint bases and then adjust program activities accordingly.

Subsequent to the evaluation above, provide direction to joint bases on their requirements for meeting the joint base program’s goals. DOD’s leadership should work with the military services to determine what reporting requirements and milestones should be put in place to increase support and commitment for the program’s goals.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to DOD for review and comment. In its written comments, DOD concurred with one of the four recommendations, partially concurred with one, and did not concur with two. Given DOD’s disagreement with the two recommendations, we have added a matter for congressional consideration to this report. Further details are discussed below. DOD’s comments are summarized below and reprinted in their entirety in appendix VI. In addition, DOD provided technical comments that have been incorporated as appropriate.

In its comments, DOD stated that the department and GAO have fundamentally different approaches in viewing how DOD should manage the 12 joint bases, and noted that the report’s recommendations imply that the joint bases are OSD-run entities that should be addressed through new DOD policies. DOD stated that it believes that although joint bases involve added complexities from crossing traditional service lines, they are ultimately service-run bases similar to all other installations. Additionally, DOD noted that the military departments already have the responsibility, as well as sufficient authority and incentives, to deliver effective and efficient installation support across all their installations, including joint bases. We believe that the report reflects an understanding that the joint base management structure consists of shared responsibility and authority between OSD and the military departments to manage the joint base program. This point is highlighted by the fact that we designed our audit work, including our survey and interviews, to focus on the perspectives of joint base and military service officials. Nonetheless, the Joint Basing Implementation Guidance assigns responsibilities to the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisitions, Technology, and Logistics to establish overarching guidance, procedures, and policy, in coordination with appropriate OSD organizations, and to mediate any support agreement disputes between the components that are not resolved by the Joint Management Oversight Structure. We also cited an example in the report where OSD indicated that it was working to issue policy to resolve military service inconsistencies, identifying that OSD is providing such oversight. Furthermore, DOD provided an example of OSD’s involvement in the management and oversight of the joint bases in its written comments on the report, citing a Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installation and Environment policy memo on the subject of joint bases and the supply, storage, and distribution of munitions. As a result, we continue to view the management of the joint bases as a shared responsibility between OSD and the services, and believe the recommendations directed to both are appropriate.

DOD concurred with the first recommendation to evaluate the 44 installation-support functions identified in DOD’s guidance for joint base implementation to determine which functions are still suitable for consolidation, and to subsequently identify and make any changes that are appropriate to address limitations, such as workforce policies and geography, reported by the joint bases in consolidating the support functions. DOD also stated that it had already removed some installation- support functions from joint basing because they were not compelled for inclusion as part of the BRAC recommendation, and otherwise did not offer opportunities for savings or consolidation. We acknowledge in the report that OSD has reviewed individual installation-support functions on a case-by-case basis, and has removed three from the original list of 47 functions to be consolidated. However, during the course of our review, and as stated in the report, OSD officials told us that there was no process in place to evaluate the remaining 44 installation-support functions on a regular basis. We discussed this with military service and OSD officials in early April 2014. In its letter, DOD stated that in April 2014, the Senior Joint Base Working Group principals tasked their staffs to identify which installation support functions and performance standards were not providing value to the joint bases’ various military missions, and to explore whether these functions and standards should continue to be included in joint basing. DOD did not provide time frames for completing such actions. If implemented as intended, these actions should meet the intent of the recommendation.

DOD partially concurred with the second recommendation to take policy actions, as appropriate, such as issuing additional guidance, to address challenges resulting in inefficiencies and inequities in consolidating installation-support functions. DOD stated that it is mindful of challenges in implementing and operating joint bases, and agreed that policy actions can address some challenges. However, DOD stated that it does not agree that these challenges require OSD-level policies, citing instead the existing responsibilities and authorities already assigned to the military departments and the Joint Management Oversight Structure. We recognize the responsibilities and authorities of the military departments. Accordingly, the recommendation is for OSD, in coordination with the military services and joint bases, to take policy actions to help address any challenges resulting in efficiencies and inequities from consolidation of installation-support functions at the joint bases. As stated in the report, and noted above, the Joint Basing Implementation Guidance assigns responsibilities to OSD to mediate any support agreement disputes between the components that are not resolved by the Joint Management Oversight Structure. We also describe the responses of joint base officials to our survey questions about any need for additional guidance from OSD and the military services, as well as the interview statements from joint base, military service headquarters, and OSD officials, who all stated that there is a need for such guidance. The report also includes an example of a challenge that required action from OSD to help resolve: OSD issued guidance in May 2014 that was based on a concern raised more than 2 years earlier in February 2012 to resolve contradictions in military service- level guidance, which had created certain duplicative service-level inspections on joint bases. DOD also stated in its letter that its Joint Management Oversight Structure is the process by which the military departments can formally request OSD assistance to change joint or DOD policies. However, joint base officials expressed frustration about the lack of progress and slowness of OSD and the Joint Management Oversight Structure process to address challenges resulting from consolidation, particularly regarding issues where the military departments are unable to identify solutions on their own. Further, some survey respondents and officials we interviewed at the joint bases and military service headquarters stated that they wanted additional guidance from OSD or the military services, or both, to resolve contradictions between service-level policy where needed or, in some cases, to provide clearer direction. As a result, we continue to believe that the recommendation is valid and should be implemented.

DOD did not concur with the third recommendation that OSD, in collaboration with the military services, evaluate the purpose of the program and determine whether DOD’s current goals of achieving greater efficiencies and generating cost savings for the joint basing program, as stated in the 2005 BRAC Commission recommendation, are still appropriate or should be revised, and to communicate these goals to the military services and joint bases and then to adjust program activities accordingly. DOD stated in its comments that the goal of joint basing remains to increase the efficiency of delivering installation support at the 12 joint bases as described in the BRAC Commission’s recommendation number 146. However, as noted in the report, OSD has not evaluated the joint basing program to determine this or whether the goals are appropriate for the program today and looking forward.

Further, DOD stated in its written comments that the 12 joint bases have generated savings. Specifically, DOD stated that the joint bases had obligated $255 million less in fiscal year 2012 compared to what these previously stand-alone bases would have obligated, and did so with 1,600 fewer personnel. While we agree that DOD’s estimates show that the joint bases are obligating less, these reductions in obligations cannot be attributed solely to the consolidation of installation-support functions at the joint bases, as OSD acknowledges. We discussed these estimates with OSD officials in July 2014 after we received their agency comments on a draft of this report where these numbers were included. OSD officials explained that their methodology for calculating savings from joint bases consists of comparing the joint bases’ current fiscal year obligations with a baseline amount—the cost to provide installation support at the 26 previously stand-alone installations that constitute the joint bases—which is updated every fiscal year to reflect changes in mission requirements and inflation, among other factors. However, this approach is unable to distinguish savings from efficiencies obtained through consolidation of installation-support services at the joint bases or from other factors that also contributed to lower obligations. For instance, OSD officials said fiscal year 2012 savings were also attributable to factors such as the military departments’ response to DOD’s efforts to cap the number of civilian positions. In addition, DOD stated in its letter that the joint bases’ fiscal year 2013 obligations were $830 million less than if they were still separate installations. DOD stated that this was a combination of savings and reduced expenditures caused by the Budget Control Act and fiscal year 2013’s sequestration actions, as well as from joint basing. However, OSD cannot determine how much of the $830 million in reduced obligations in fiscal year 2013 is attributable to budget cuts or efficiencies gained through the consolidation of installation support functions at the joint bases. Further, OSD cannot explain how sequestration-driven budget cuts have led to joint basing efficiencies.

Also, as stated in the report, joint base officials told us they are unclear to what extent achieving greater efficiencies and cost savings are still appropriate for the goals of joint basing, and to what extent they are required to pursue additional opportunities beyond the consolidation of installation-support functions in the joint base memorandums of agreement to achieve these goals. Joint base and military service headquarters officials said that in an environment when priority is placed on getting the mission done with fewer resources, the investment of resources to pursue initiatives or conduct studies to determine the feasibility of efforts to cut redundancies and gain efficiencies has not always been a priority. We believe that the continued confusion at the joint bases over the goals of the program, as well as cost savings estimates that reflect uncertainty as to the extent consolidation of installation-support functions drives savings as compared to simply cutting the budget, indicate a continuing need to review the goals of the program and communicate them to the military services and joint bases, as recommended.

DOD did not concur with the fourth recommendation that OSD, in collaboration with the military services, provide direction to joint bases on their requirements for meeting the joint base program’s goals and work with the military services to determine reporting requirements and milestones to be put in place to increase support and commitment for the program’s goals. In its comments, DOD stated that the joint bases have been fully operational since October 2010 and have proven they can deliver measurable and tangible savings across the installation-support portfolio. As such, DOD stated that it does not believe OSD should establish program milestones. However, DOD’s assertion that the joint bases have proven they can deliver tangible savings is based on a method of calculating savings that cannot distinguish savings attributable to consolidation of installation-support functions at the joint bases from savings attributable to other factors, including sequestration-driven budget cuts, as noted above.

DOD further stated that it does not agree OSD should provide additional direction towards meeting the program’s goals because the joint base commanders and military departments are in the best position to balance efficiency with effectiveness and that directing additional consolidations circumvents their ability to make these decisions. In addition, DOD stated that establishing milestones implies joint bases are still in an implementation phase, and noted that OSD has transitioned from managing joint base implementation to a steady-state oversight role.

The report does not call for OSD to make additional consolidations; rather, the recommendation states that OSD, in collaboration with the military services, should provide additional direction to the joint bases on how to achieve the goals of the program. Moreover, we agree that the military services are in the best position to balance efficiency with effectiveness when managing and operating installations, which is one reason we sent our survey to the joint bases to solicit their views. However, as stated in the report and noted above, joint base and military service headquarters officials told us that in an environment when priority is placed on getting the mission done with fewer resources, the investment of resources to pursue initiatives or conduct studies to determine the feasibility of efforts to cut redundancies and gain efficiencies has not always been a priority. As such, the officials indicated that the degree to which joint bases looked for opportunities to gain efficiencies and cost savings depended on the commitment of the officials involved as well as the level of support and commitment they received from their service headquarters, because overarching goals, plans, milestones, and reporting requirements have not been established.

Without OSD establishing goals and milestones to be achieved across the joint bases, there is a risk that emphasis or priority will not be given to this pursuit.

Furthermore, DOD stated that it advocates treating joint bases no differently than other Army, Navy, and Air Force installations, and noted the only unique quality of joint bases is the sizeable joint presence they support. Although DOD indicated that joint bases are similar to all other installations, as stated in the report, 64 percent of survey respondents reported challenges stemming from consolidation of installation-support functions—consolidations unlikely to occur on stand-alone installations. Moreover, joint bases are required to meet certain different installation- support standards that are, at times, higher than those on a stand-alone installation. Meeting these standards can require additional resources or prioritization that other installations may not face. DOD did not explain how joint bases can have support standards and challenges that are unique to joint basing while still being considered the same as all other installations. Given (1) that joint bases face unique challenges, and (2) that joint base and military service officials said it is unclear as to the extent initial joint basing goals are still appropriate as well as the extent they are required to pursue cost savings and efficiencies, additional direction would help joint bases better understand the current and ongoing goals of joint basing. Therefore, we believe the recommendation is still warranted.

For the reasons cited above, we continue to believe that OSD should collaborate with the military services, especially in light of OSD’s assertions that joint bases have generated savings, to (1) evaluate the purpose of the program and determine whether the current goals, as stated in the 2005 BRAC Commission recommendation, are still appropriate; (2) communicate the goals to the military services and joint bases, and then adjust program activities accordingly; (3) provide direction to the joint bases on requirements for meeting program goals, including reporting requirements and milestones; and (4) determine any next steps for joint basing, including whether to expand it to other installations. If joint basing may result in savings, particularly at the level that OSD asserts, then DOD may want to consider expanding joint basing to other installations. Further, key change management practices state that it is essential that top government and agency leaders are committed to consolidation and play a lead role in executing it by setting the direction, pace, and tone as well as providing a clear and consistent rationale for doing so. These practices also state that establishing implementation goals and milestone dates, and tracking progress toward those goals, helps agency officials pinpoint performance shortfalls and suggest midcourse corrections, including any needed adjustments to the organization’s future goals and milestones. Consequently, and given DOD’s disagreement with our recommendations that OSD collaborate with the military services and joint bases to evaluate the purpose of the program and determine whether DOD’s current goals of achieving greater efficiencies and generating cost savings for the joint basing program are still appropriate and subsequently provide direction to joint bases on their requirements for meeting the joint base program’s goals, we have added a matter for congressional consideration to this report. Our intent is to help ensure DOD’s approach to joint basing achieves the goals as outlined by DOD in its justification for the 2005 BRAC recommendation and leverages additional opportunities to reduce duplication of effort that could in turn generate cost savings and increase efficiencies.

We will send copies 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 Office of Management and Budget; and appropriate congressional committees. 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: Scope and Methodology

For this review, we conducted site visits at a nongeneralizable sample of four joint bases: one Navy led, one Army led, and two Air Force led. We selected these bases to ensure representation from each of the military services, and to include bases that share and do not share a physical boundary. Information collected during these site visits provided insight about initiatives undertaken and outcomes experienced at these locations. We also obtained and analyzed documents and conducted interviews, as described later in this section. Furthermore, we conducted a web-based survey of 11 of the 12 joint bases. Our web-based survey did not include Joint Region Marianas because it is a joint region rather than a joint base, and is subject to different expectations for the consolidation of installation-support, but we interviewed officials from Joint Region Marianas. Those surveyed at the 11 joint bases included representatives affiliated with 462 installation-support functional areas (42 each at each of the joint bases) as well as the 11 Joint Base Commanders (or their designated representative), and we obtained a response rate of 100 percent.

To conduct our web-based survey, we sent to each joint base the electronic links to 43 questionnaires, one questionnaire for each of the 42 installation-support functions identified for consolidation per the Department of Defense’s (DOD) Joint Base Implementation Guidance and one questionnaire asking a single open-ended question to capture additional comments from each Joint Base Commander. In consultation with DOD we excluded two installation-support functions from the survey (facilities new footprint and real property leases) because DOD officials indicated that they did not have performance management data and survey participants may not be able to fully respond to the questions. For the list of installation-support functions that we included in our survey, see table 5 below. The survey contained 16 main questions and several follow-up questions. It was designed to obtain information, using closed- and open-ended responses, about progress in consolidating functions, factors that hinder consolidation, and outcomes from consolidation such as any benefits, challenges, or reductions in duplication (defined as reductions in redundancy) in three areas—personnel other than contractors, base operating contracts, and procedures and policies. The survey also asked about the need for additional or modified guidance from one or more of the military services or Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and if there were any additional opportunities to consolidate that had not yet been implemented. See appendix II for a copy of the survey questions.

To administer the survey, we provided unique survey log-in information for each function to the Joint Base Commander’s office. That office was then responsible for disseminating the information to the appropriate lead service component’s subject-matter expert for each of the functional areas. While the survey was provided to the lead component’s subject- matter expert, each base had the opportunity to incorporate views and comments from the supported component(s). For joint bases that did not have a given function (e.g., port operations), the joint base representative simply indicated that the function did not exist and no further questions were asked or answered.

Our analysis of the survey responses included descriptive statistics from closed-ended responses and content analysis of open-ended responses. We reviewed the closed-ended responses to ensure accuracy of information for six key survey questions: (Q2) “Is any part of this support function currently the responsibility of the Joint Base Commander?”, and (Q3) “Since your joint base established the terms of the Joint Base Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), has any part of this support function been consolidated?”, and questions 9 through 12 (see Appendix II for the complete wording of these questions). For these questions, we compared the closed-ended response to the open-ended elaborations to ensure that the closed-ended response accurately represented the respondent’s meaning. When there was a mismatch we also checked the base’s MOA and supplemental Joint Base Implementation Guidance, if applicable. In some cases, we modified the closed-ended response to match the response in the open-ended elaboration or the MOA (e.g., if a respondent answered “yes” to the closed-ended question about the function being consolidated but then clearly indicated in the elaboration space “this function has not been consolidated”). For example, these cases related to changing: (1) “no” responses to “not applicable” when a function was not present at the joint base; (2) “not applicable” responses to “no” when the Joint Base Implementation Guidance excepted the installation-support function in some instances from being transferred to the Joint Base Commander; and (3) “no” responses to “yes” when the installation- support function had been consolidated prior to joint basing. Inconsistent responses were identified through a content analysis of the open-ended survey questions, in which two GAO analysts independently reviewed the responses and coded them into several categories, such as “consolidated prior to joint basing”, “reports no reduction”, and “reductions but not directly related to joint basing.”

When the coding was completed, both analysts reviewed every code made by the other analyst and indicated whether they agreed or disagreed with the code. Then, the analysts met to discuss their coding determinations and reached agreement on any differences. Because we made changes to the closed-ended survey responses for the key questions above based on our analysis of the open-ended responses and the base MOAs, the results for those questions are not the raw survey responses; they are the combined result of the original survey responses and our analyses of those survey responses. We have worded the results in our report carefully to accurately represent that fact. Additionally, two analysts independently summarized the responses to open-ended questions that were not elaborations of closed-ended questions (e.g., Question 6 regarding other factors that might have hindered the ability of the base to consolidate a function) through the same content analysis process described above. We believe the data analyzed are sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.

We sent e-mail notifications to base points of contact beginning on January 13, 2014. We then sent a cover e-mail with the log-in information for the questionnaire beginning on January 14, 2014, and asked the bases to complete the questionnaire within one month. To encourage respondents to complete the questionnaire, we sent e-mail message reminders and log-in information approximately two weeks, three weeks, and five weeks after the initial questionnaire was sent; we also extended the deadline for completion. We also sent customized emails and made follow-up phone calls to the base points of contact to maximize the response rate from all functions and to clarify responses for key individual questions. We closed the survey on March 19, 2014. We achieved a 100 percent response rate from all base functions and commanders.

To minimize errors that might occur from respondents interpreting our questions differently than we intended, we pretested the questionnaire with knowledgeable representatives from four joint bases.pretests, we asked the officials to complete the questionnaire as we observed the process and noted potential problems (two sessions were conducted in-person and by phone, two were conducted only by phone).

During these We then discussed the questions and instructions with the officials to check whether (1) the questions and instructions were clear and unambiguous, (2) the terms used were accurate, (3) the questionnaire was unbiased, (4) the questionnaire did not place an undue burden on the officials completing it, and (5) to identify potential solutions to any problems identified. We also submitted the questionnaire for review by an independent GAO survey specialist, OSD officials, and senior staff from one additional joint base. We modified the questionnaire based on feedback from the pretests and reviews, as appropriate.

Because we collected data from every joint base rather than a sample of bases, there was no sampling error. However, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For example, differences in how a particular question is interpreted, the sources of information available to respondents, how the responses were processed and analyzed, or the types of people who do not respond can influence the accuracy of the survey results. We took steps in the development of the survey, the data collection, and the data analysis to minimize these nonsampling errors and to help ensure the accuracy of the answers that were obtained. For example, a social science survey specialist designed the questionnaire, in collaboration with GAO staff with subject-matter expertise. Then, as noted earlier, the draft questionnaire was pretested to ensure that questions were relevant, clearly stated, and easy to comprehend. The questionnaire was also reviewed by external experts and an additional GAO survey specialist. From these pretests and reviews, we made revisions as necessary to reduce the likelihood of nonresponse and reporting errors on our questions. Our analysts answered respondent questions and resolved difficulties that respondents had in answering our questions. We examined the survey results and performed computer analyses to identify inconsistencies and other indications of error and addressed such issues. A second, independent analyst checked the accuracy of all computer analyses to minimize the likelihood of errors in data processing. To obtain additional narrative and supporting context, survey respondents were given multiple opportunities to provide additional open-ended comments throughout our survey. Data were electronically exported from the web survey software into a statistical program for analyses. No manual data entry was performed, thereby removing an additional potential source of error. We examined the survey results and performed computer analyses to identify inconsistencies and other indications of error (e.g., open-ended responses conflicting with closed-ended responses), and addressed such issues as necessary.

To determine the extent to which officials have reported consolidating their installation-support functions, we reviewed DOD’s 2008 Joint Basing Implementation Guidance to identify DOD’s expectations for consolidation. Next, we analyzed data obtained through the survey and information from interviews with officials from the Joint Region Marianas and the joint bases and compared the results of our analysis to DOD’s expectations for consolidation. To determine why consolidation had or had not occurred as intended and to identify any reported factors that have hindered consolidation and challenges that have resulted from consolidation efforts, we analyzed information obtained through our survey and interviewed joint base officials. We evaluated DOD’s efforts to address reported hindrances to consolidation and challenges that have resulted from consolidation efforts with key federal practices for consolidation identified in our prior work on federal agency consolidation efforts. We did not independently assess the extent to which consolidation occurred as identified by survey respondents and by officials during interviews.

To determine the extent to which officials have reported meeting the goals of joint basing to achieve greater efficiencies and cost savings as stated in the 2005 BRAC recommendation, we reviewed documents and guidance from OSD, the military services, and individual joint bases. We reviewed survey results and information collected from interviews and compared them to key federal practices for consolidation of management functions and to key practices agencies can take to improve efficiency as identified in our prior work. federal practices for consolidation, such as establishing implementation goals and milestone dates, and tracking progress toward those goals.

GAO-06-15 and GAO-11-908. officials; members of the Joint Base Working Group that represents the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps headquarters; as well as officials from the Army Installation Management Command, the Air Force Civil Engineer Center, and the Naval Installations Command. We also interviewed officials at the following locations:

Air Force Air Education and Training Command, Texas

Air Force Air Mobility Command, Illinois

Navy Region Naval District Washington; Washington, District of Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling, Washington, District of Columbia Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Virginia Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington Joint Base San Antonio, Texas Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story, Virginia Joint Region Marianas, Guam

Navy Region Hawaii U.S. Pacific Air Forces, Hawaii We conducted this performance audit from July 2013 to September 2014 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 II: Survey on Consolidation of Joint Base Operations

The questions that we asked in our survey on consolidation of joint base operations are shown below. The percents in parentheses indicate the percent of the functional area respondents who chose that particular answer or that our analysis of open-ended responses and other supporting documentation for the joint bases indicated were the correct answers. The number in parentheses next to a closed-ended question (e.g., “N=462”) indicates the number of respondents who were eligible to answer that question and is the denominator of the percents reported for that question. See Appendix I for details of the analyses that led to the results reported here.

SECTION 1: Functional Area

[When a respondent for a specific functional area logged on, the name of the functional area was displayed along with the definition of the function taken from the May 2013 Cost and Performance Visibility Framework Handbook. When the Joint Base Commander’s office logged on, the following question was displayed.] If the Joint Base Commander or his/her representative has any comments about this questionnaire or about your joint base’s consolidation of installation-support functions, please type them in the box below.

SECTION 2: Function Responsibility

2. Is ANY part of this support function currently the responsibility of the Joint Base Commander (JBC)? Check only one answer. (N=462)

Yes (94.8%) No (1.9%) N/A - this base does not have this function (3.2%)

SECTION 3: Consolidation of Installation-Support Function

3. Since your joint base established the terms of the Joint Base Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), has ANY part of this support function been consolidated? Check only one answer. (N=438)

Yes (75.8%) No (19.4%) Not applicable (4.1% ) Don’t know (.2%) Blank (.5%)

Please explain your answer in the box below. 4. How much, if at all, did the preexisting model of providing this support function (e.g., military personnel, civilian personnel, contract personnel) hinder the ability of your joint base to consolidate this support function? Check only one answer. (N=438)

Significantly (15.8%) Moderately (14.6%) Slightly (11.2%) Not at all (47.9%) Not applicable (6.4%) Don’t know (3.4%) Blank (.7%)

Please explain your answer in the box below.

Please explain your answer in the box below. 5. How much, if at all, do military service-specific requirements, practices, or policies hinder the ability to consolidate this support function? Check only one answer. (N=438)

Significantly (17.8%) Moderately (11.9%) Slightly (15.5 %) Not at all (46.1 %) Not applicable (6.4%) Don’t know (1.6 %) Blank responses (.7%) 6. What other factors, if any, have hindered the ability of your joint base to consolidate this support function (e.g., geography, use of contractors, impact to mission, etc.)? 7. Have there been any benefits resulting from the consolidation of this support function (e.g., adoption of streamlined practices, increased efficiency, increased customer satisfaction, etc.)? Check only one answer. (N=350)

Yes (60.9%) No (34.0%) Don’t know (4.9%) Blank (.3%)

Please describe the benefit(s) in the box below. 8. Have there been any challenges resulting from the consolidation of this support function (e.g., increased burden on staff, decreased efficiency, decreased customer satisfaction, etc.)? Check only one answer. (N=350)

Yes (64.0%) No (33.1%) Don’t know (2.9%)

Please describe the challenge(s) in the box below. 9. Since your joint base established the terms of the Joint Base MOA, has there been ANY reduction of redundant funded positions—excluding contractors—(i.e., authorized positions that were determined to be duplicative or unnecessary after transfer of total obligation authority, because they included the similar roles and responsibilities) required to perform this support function? Check only one answer. (N=438)

Yes (12.1%) No (40.4%) Not applicable (40.6%) Don’t know (6.4%) Blank (.5%) 9.a. Please describe the reduction(s) and the reason for the reduction(s) in the box below. 9.b. How many redundant authorized positions have been eliminated? 9.c. Please explain in the box below. 10. Since your joint base established the terms of the Joint Base MOA, has there been ANY reduction of redundant contracts or any increased contract efficiencies (i.e., contracts for the provision of the same support service that were determined to be duplicative, or where consolidation of the contract resulted in improvements, for example, leveraging economies of scale) used to perform this support function? Check only one answer. (N=438)

Yes (25.3%) No (24.4%) Not applicable (43.8%)

Don’t know (5.9%) Blank (.5%) 10.a. Please describe the reduction(s) or efficiencies in the box below. 10.b. How many redundant contracts, if any, have been eliminated? 10.c. Please explain in the box below. 11. Since your joint base established the terms of the Joint Base MOA, has there been ANY merger or consolidation of Information Technology (IT) systems related to performing this support function (e.g., networks, databases, etc.)? Check only one answer. (N=438)

Yes (25.3%) No (34.2%) Not applicable (32.4%) Don’t know (7.5%) Blank (.5%) 11.a. Please describe the merger/consolidation(s) in the box below. 11.b. Please explain in the box below. 12. Since your joint base established the terms of the Joint Base MOA, has there been ANY merger or consolidation of redundant procedures (i.e., procedures that were determined to be duplicative or unnecessary) used to perform this support function? Check only one answer. (N=438)

Yes (24.0%) No (25.6%) Not applicable (44.5%) Don’t know (5.5%) Blank (.5%) 12.a. Please describe the merger/consolidation(s) in the box below. 12.b. Please explain in the box below. 13. Are there specific areas where additional or modified guidance from one or more of the military services would improve the consolidation of this function? Check only one answer. (N=438)

Yes (26.3%) No (60.3%) Don’t know or no opinion (12.8%) Blank (.7%)

Please describe the change(s) in the box below. 14. Are there specific areas where additional or modified guidance from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) would improve the consolidation of this function? Check only one answer. (N=438)

Yes (26.7%) No (58.2%) Don’t know or no opinion (14.2%) Blank (.9%)

Please describe the change(s) in the box below. 15. If there are any additional opportunities to consolidate this installation-support function that have not yet been implemented, please describe them in the box below. 16. If you have any additional comments related to the consolidation of this support function since your joint base established the terms of the Joint Base MOA, please type them in the box below.

Appendix III: BRAC Commission Recommendation on Joint Basing (Including Elements of DOD’s Recommendation to the Commission)

Appendix III: BRAC Commission Recommendation on Joint Basing (Including Elements of DOD’s Recommendation to the Commission)

Appendix IV: Status of Reported Consolidation at Each of the 11 Joint Bases

Legend:  = Some part of the function is consolidated;  = no part of the function is consolidated; n/a = Joint base does not have the function or the function was not the joint base commander’s responsibility.

Missing or unknown data.

Appendix V: Locations of Joint Bases

This appendix contains information presented in figure 1 in a noninteractive format.

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, Laura Durland, Assistant Director; Chaneé Gaskin, Susan Langley, Amanda Manning, Joshua Margraf, Stephanie Moriarty, Richard Powelson, Tida Reveley, Michael Silver, Amie Steele, Sarah Veale, and Michael Willems made key contributions to this report.

Related GAO Products

DOD Joint Bases: Management Needed to Achieve Greater Efficiencies. GAO-13-134. Washington, D.C.: November 15, 2012.

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.

High-Risk Series: An Update. GAO-11-278. Washington, D.C.: February 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 Are Likely Overstated and Actions Needed to Track Actual Savings and Overcome Certain Challenges. GAO-07-304. Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2007.

Military Base Closures: Management Strategy Needed to Mitigate Challenges and Improve Communication to Help Ensure Timely Implementation of Air National Guard Recommendations. GAO-07-641. Washington, D.C.: May 16, 2007.

Military Base Closures: Opportunities Exist to Improve Environmental Cleanup Cost Reporting and to Expedite Transfer of Unneeded Property. GAO-07-166. Washington, D.C.: January 30, 2007.

Military Bases: Observations on DOD’s 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Selection Process and Recommendations. GAO-05-905. Washington, D.C.: July 18, 2005.

Military Bases: Analysis of DOD’s 2005 Selection Process and Recommendations for Base Closures and Realignments. GAO-05-785. Washington, D.C.: July 1, 2005.

Military Base Closures: Observations on Prior and Current BRAC Rounds. GAO-05-614. Washington, D.C.: May 3, 2005.

Military Base Closures: Updated Status of Prior Base Realignments and Closures. GAO-05-138. Washington, D.C.: January 13, 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 Base Closures: Observations on Preparations for the Upcoming Base Realignment and Closure Round. GAO-04-558T. Washington, D.C.: March 25, 2004.