The Air Force, which already provides private sleeping  rooms, plans to eliminate its barracks deficit and replace its worst  barracks by fiscal year 2009. DOD and the Military Services Have Not Determined the Feasibility of Barracks Privatization

While the services have considered barracks privatization over the past  several years, they have not yet initiated pilot project proposals to  determine the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of private sector financing,  ownership, operation, and maintenance of military barracks. According to  DOD officials, barracks privatization involves unique challenges compared  to family housing privatization. These challenges range from the  potentially higher amount of appropriated funds needed to secure a  privatization contract (as a result of the services’ requirement that  unmarried junior members live in barracks) to the differences in where  private developers and the military prefer barracks to be located. Recently, each service has independently given  increased attention to developing project proposals, with the Navy hoping  to do so by the end of 2003. Opportunities Exist to Make Better Use of Existing Barracks

The services could minimize housing costs by ensuring full use of existing  barracks space. Had  these members been assigned to the barracks, the Air Force potentially  could have reduced its annual housing allowance costs by about   $20 million. First, widespread  adoption of residential construction practices in building government- owned barracks has been hampered because of concerns about barracks  durability and unanswered questions about the ability of wood-frame  barracks to meet all antiterrorism force protection requirements. Second, lenient  barracks utilization guidance—which in some cases does not require full  use of existing government-owned barracks before authorizing housing  allowances for junior members to live off base—and limited enforcement  of existing guidance have led in some cases to the routine acceptance of  less than maximum use of barracks and the payment of housing  allowances when vacancies exist. To examine opportunities for reducing costs through adoption of  residential construction practices for barracks construction, we reviewed  Army studies and analyses in this area. Appendix III: Details on Cost Differences in Barracks Built with Residential and Traditional Construction Practices

Compared to traditional steel frame, concrete, and cement block  construction, Army analyses show that use of residential construction can  reduce typical barracks construction costs by 23 percent or more. Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Defense
Why GAO Did This Study

Each year, the Department of Defense (DOD) spends billions of dollars to house unmarried junior enlisted servicemembers, primarily in military barracks. Over the next several years, the Army, Navy, and Air Force plan to spend about $6 billion to eliminate barracks with multi-person bathroom facilities and provide private sleeping rooms for all permanent party members. Given the cost of the program, GAO looked at (1) the status of efforts to examine the potential for private sector financing, ownership, operation, and maintenance of military barracks; (2) the opportunity to reduce the construction costs of barracks through widespread use of residential construction practices; and (3) whether opportunities exist to make better use of existing barracks.

What GAO Found

GAO found three areas where DOD could potentially reduce costs in its unmarried servicemember housing program. DOD and the services have not determined whether "privatization," or private sector financing, ownership, operation, and maintenance of military barracks is feasible and cost-effective. Barracks privatization involves a number of unique challenges ranging from the funding of privatization contracts to the location of privatized barracks. Recently, each service has independently given increased attention to developing privatization proposals. A collaborative, rather than independent, approach could minimize duplication and optimize lessons learned. DOD could reduce the construction costs of government-owned barracks through the widespread use of residential construction practices rather than traditional steel frame, concrete, and cement block. The Army estimated that residential type construction could reduce barracks construction costs by 23 percent or more. However, concerns about barracks durability and unanswered engineering questions have prevented widespread use of these practices. DOD's full use of required existing barracks space could reduce the cost of housing allowances paid to unmarried junior members to live off base in local communities. GAO found that the services have authorized housing allowances for unmarried members to live off base even when existing barracks space was available. This occurred because of lenient barracks utilization guidance, which in some cases does not require full use of existing barracks, and possible noncompliance with guidance. The Air Force could have potentially reduced annual housing allowances by about $20 million in fiscal year 2002 by fully using available barracks space.