The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 extended the authority of the 1990 BRAC legislation, with some modifications, to authorize an additional BRAC round in 2005. Under section 2912 of the 1990 Act and as part of its fiscal year 2005 budget submission, DOD was required to submit a 20-year force structure plan, an infrastructure inventory, and a certification that additional closures and realignments were needed and that annual net savings would be achieved for each military department by fiscal year 2011. The force structure plan was to be based on assessments by the Secretary of Defense of the probable threats to national security between fiscal years 2005 and 2025. Furthermore, the plan was to be based on the probable end strengths and major military force units (land divisions, carrier and other major combatant vessels, and air wings) needed to meet these threats. DOD was also required to prepare a comprehensive inventory of military installations worldwide that indicated the number and type of facilities in the active and reserve forces of each military department. Using the force structure plan and the infrastructure inventory, the Secretary of Defense’s submission to Congress was required to address (1) the inventory necessary to support the force structure, (2) the categories of excess infrastructure and infrastructure capacity, and (3) an economic analysis of the effect of the closure or realignment of military installations to reduce excess capacity. In analyzing the infrastructure requirements, DOD was to consider the continuing need for and availability of military installations outside the United States and any efficiency that may be gained from joint tenancy by more than one branch of the Armed Forces on military bases. On the basis of the force structure plan, the infrastructure inventory and the economic analysis, the Secretary was required to certify whether the need existed for further closures and realignments and, if so, that an additional round would result in annual net savings for each military department, beginning not later than 2011. Collectively, these requirements were to be addressed in a report to Congress at the time it submitted its fiscal year 2005 budget justification documentation. The legislation also stipulated that if the certifications were provided in DOD’s report to Congress, we were to evaluate the force structure plan, infrastructure inventory, and the final selection criteria, and the need for an additional BRAC round. We were required to issue a report not later than 60 days after DOD submitted its report to Congress. Section 2913 of the 1990 Act, as amended, also required the Secretary of Defense to publish in the Federal Register the selection criteria for use in the BRAC 2005 round and to provide an opportunity for public comment. The legislation required that military value be the primary criteria for making recommendations to close or realign military installations, and directed inclusion of a number of considerations in formulating the selection criteria. The proposed selection criteria were published on December 23, 2003, with a public comment period ending January 30, 2004. The final criteria were published on February 12, 2004. We were also required by the legislation to evaluate the final selection criteria as part of our overall assessment of DOD’s reporting on BRAC issues in 2004. This is in keeping with GAO’s longstanding role as an independent, objective observer of the BRAC process. Legislation authorizing the 2005 round continued the previous legislative requirement, applicable to earlier BRAC rounds that we review the Secretary’s recommendations and selection process; it requires us to report to the congressional defense committees no later than July 1, 2005, 45 days after the last date by which the Secretary must transmit to the congressional defense committees and the BRAC Commission his recommendations for closures and realignments. To make an informed and timely assessment, we have consistently operated in a real-time setting and have had access to significant portions of the process as it has evolved, thus affording the department an opportunity to address any concerns we raised on a timely basis. From our vantage point, we are looking to see to what extent DOD follows a clear, transparent, consistently applied process, where we can see a logical flow between DOD’s analysis and its decision making. DOD’s report to Congress generally addressed all of the requirements in section 2912 of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, as amended, and separately complied with the requirements in section 2913 for adopting selection criteria to guide BRAC decision making. In some instances, according to DOD officials there were limitations in the data provided in DOD’s Section 2912 report in order to avoid preempting or prejudging the ongoing analytical process for the 2005 BRAC round. Table 1 details the legislative requirements for DOD’s Section 2912 report, indicates the pages in DOD’s report where the issues are addressed, and provides our observations on the extent to which DOD provided the information required by each subsection in the legislation. Likewise, as discussed in a subsequent section, DOD also complied with the requirements of Section 2913 in adapting its selection criteria for the 2005 BRAC round. While DOD’s worldwide military installation inventory, 20-year force structure plan, and selection criteria are all important in setting a framework for the BRAC process, the latter two figure prominently in guiding BRAC analyses for the 2005 round. Although DOD provided a worldwide inventory of installations and facilities for each military department as required by the legislation, it exceeds the needs of the 2005 BRAC process, which focuses on domestic bases. Further, to the extent one looks to the inventory as providing a total accounting of DOD facilities worldwide, it should be noted that the inventory lacks completeness in that not all overseas installations and associated facilities where U.S. forces are deployed are included—primarily because some are considered temporary in nature. The unclassified portion of the force structure plan, extending through 2009, has more of a macro-level focus reflecting limited change across the military services, even though the services have a number of initiatives under way that could affect force structure and infrastructure requirements. Nevertheless, DOD’s ongoing BRAC analysis will need to consider the impact of such changes on infrastructure requirements. The department’s final selection criteria, although incorporating legislatively directed language, essentially follows a framework similar to that employed in prior BRAC rounds. The full analytical sufficiency of the criteria will best be assessed through their application, as DOD completes its data collection and analysis for the 2005 round. As required by the legislation, DOD provided a worldwide inventory of installations, which included the number and type of facilities in the active and reserve forces. While the inventory provides a detailed listing of facilities, it extends beyond the needs of the 2005 BRAC round with its focus on domestic installations. At the same time, it has some limitations in terms of a complete inventory for use beyond BRAC because it does not include all overseas installations. For example, the inventory omits various installations and associated facilities located in parts of the Middle East, such as Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kuwait. DOD and military service officials told us that these installations are considered temporary or classified in support of contingency operations, and are not included in the database used to generate the inventory. This limitation should not impact the conduct of the 2005 BRAC round since the focus is on domestic bases, and DOD has identified the domestic bases in the database to assess in the BRAC 2005 round. The inventory of installations and facilities was derived from DOD’s Facilities Assessment Database, which is updated annually from the military services’ real property databases. Because of time constraints, we performed only limited work on the accuracy of the inventory. Contractors who maintain the Facilities Assessment Database told us that since 1998 they have validated and verified facility data annually by performing data queries—such as verifying the size of buildings or the year a facility was acquired or built—to identify anomalies in the data. Contractor officials stated the queries have been successful in correcting erroneous data reported by the services and that the quality of the data has improved since 1998. As with prior BRAC rounds, DOD has provided Congress with a force structure plan that will guide or inform BRAC decisions in 2005, except legislation authorizing the 2005 BRAC round required development of a 20-year plan instead of a 6-year plan required in prior rounds. DOD’s Section 2912 report contains the unclassified portion of DOD’s 20-year plan extending through fiscal year 2009; the remaining years of the plan are addressed in a classified annex to the report. The unclassified report provides more of a macro-level focus (e.g., number of Army divisions) reflecting limited changes across the military services, even though the services have a number of initiatives under way that could affect force structure and infrastructure requirements, and which will need to be considered by DOD as it performs its 2005 round analyses. DOD has the option of modifying its force structure plan, as needed, with its fiscal year 2006 budget submission which would be expected prior to its issuance of BRAC recommendations. Table 2 summarizes DOD’s force structure plans at the macro-level through 2009 by service force units and by end strength. It depicts limited changes in force units and end strength for active and reserve components of most services. Exceptions include the Navy, which expects to reduce personnel but increase the number of ships in its inventory, and the Air Force, which plans a slight increase in reserve personnel end strength. While the Army showed no force structure changes through 2009, Army officials told us that they have a number of initiatives under way that may affect the force structure and related infrastructure requirements. Specifically, the Army is restructuring the way it organizes its forces to achieve greater flexibility by increasing the number of brigade combat teams from 33 to 43 or more. To achieve these goals while maintaining global commitments, the Army has been authorized by the Secretary of Defense to temporarily increase its end strength by 30,000 personnel through fiscal year 2007. Congress is considering legislation to permanently authorize this increase.