Based on tools used to analyze the military value of installations  as part of the Base Realignment and Closure process, the Army  developed a military value analysis model to support stationing decisions  for six new BCTs that were established as part of the 2007 Grow the  Army initiative, and has adapted that model for use in a number of other   The Army’s military value  brigade stationing decisions since that time.analysis model was developed by the Center for Army Analysis, which  reports to the Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Programs, and is a decision  analysis tool that is designed to rank-order installations based on  attributes that the Army has identified as being operationally important to  the type of unit in question for each stationing decision. The Army’s BCT Stationing Decision Was Informed by Quantitative and Qualitative Analyses and Included an Effort to Obtain Community Input, Which May Provide Benefits for Future Stationing Decisions

The Army’s BCT stationing decision regarding the installations at which to  inactivate BCTs was informed by a number of quantitative and qualitative  analyses, including a military value analysis of installations, an  environmental assessment, and a qualitative analysis of different  stationing options. An Army Force  Management official said that he is currently developing proposed  guidelines for when community listening sessions should be proposed for  consideration by Army senior leaders in making stationing decisions, but  was uncertain how such guidelines would be incorporated into the  stationing process and related guidance. Principles for effective  stakeholder participation have shown that effective stakeholder  involvement includes actively soliciting stakeholder input from those  potentially affected by a decision, involving stakeholders early and  throughout the decision-making process, and fostering responsive,  interactive communication between stakeholders and decision makers. Incorporating this type of communication with external stakeholders into  its stationing process could help to ensure that the Army takes into  account the views of external stakeholders and lead to potentially greater  buy-in from local communities for Army stationing decisions. While the Army has taken  steps to validate the model, it has not yet formalized the use of the  military value analysis model within its stationing process by establishing  guidance related to the use of the model, including guidance related to  when the model should be used for stationing decisions or the processes  through which key aspects of the model are reviewed, updated, and  approved for each use of the model, and data collected and validated. The Army Has Taken Steps to Validate the Model, but Has Not Established Consistent Formal Processes and Guidance Related to How the Model Is Reviewed, Updated, and Approved for Each Use

The Army has taken steps to ensure the validity of the military value  analysis model and its results, but has not established consistent formal  processes to guide how (a) the attributes of the model should be  reviewed and selected for use in the model, (b) attribute definitions should  be reviewed to determine if they are still relevant for a particular decision  and updated, and (c) data should be collected and validated. The Army  also lacks guidance related to the level of input or approval that is  necessary for changes to key elements of the model, and how non- contiguous training areas should be treated within the model. Internal  control standards state that control activities, such as consistent  processes or policies, can help to ensure that actions to mitigate risks are  carried out. The official  additionally said that there was potential for growth at certain installations  resulting from the BCT inactivation and subsequent reorganization. Conclusions

The Army recognizes that its decision to meet part of its planned active  component force reductions through the inactivation of 10 BCTs currently  stationed in the United States, coupled with the reorganization of the  remaining BCTs in the continental United States, will have strategic,  operational, and cost implications. For instance, without formalizing the military value analysis  model in its stationing process guidance or as part of other guidance,  including when it should be used and how it should be considered within  the stationing process, the transparency of the model’s role in stationing  decisions may be limited. To better ensure the Army military value analysis model’s analytical rigor  and credibility, minimize risk, and further enhance the transparency of the  process used to make stationing decisions, we recommend that the  Secretary of the Army direct the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and  Plans, in coordination with the Center for Army Analysis, to take the  following four actions to formalize the model as part of its stationing  process:
Develop and implement guidance that establishes the circumstances  the model should be used in stationing decisions and update  stationing regulations or related documents accordingly;  key elements of the model or changes to the model require input  or approval from Army leaders, such as through the use of a  general officer steering committee; and, non-contiguous training areas should be considered within the  model that are specific to the stationing decision under  consideration and communicate those policies to subject matter  experts. The Army concurred with our recommendation to develop and implement  guidance related to when community listening sessions or other similar  efforts to obtain community input should be conducted as part of the  Army’s process for making future stationing decisions. To evaluate the extent to which the Army has established guidance and  processes related to the use of the military value analysis model as a part  of its stationing decisions, including the recent BCT decision, we  examined the Army’s stationing guidance, stationing report to Congress,  and reports and briefings that documented previous uses of the model.
Why GAO Did This Study

As part of its plan to reduce its active duty force by 80,000 personnel by 2017, the Army will be inactivating 10 BCTs currently stationed in the United States and reorganizing the remaining BCTs. The Army conducted analyses of different stationing options, which included the use of its military value analysis model to compare installations based on their ability to support BCTs. GAO was asked to review the decision making process the Army used for its BCT stationing decision, including its military value analysis model. This report (1) describes the analyses the Army conducted to make its BCT decision and (2) evaluates the extent to which the Army has established guidance and processes related to the use of the military value analysis model as a part of its stationing decisions. GAO reviewed the Army's stationing guidance, current and previous versions of the military value analysis model, documents on the BCT decision, and spoke with cognizant officials.

What GAO Found

To make decisions regarding the installations at which to inactivate 10 Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) and reorganize others, the Army conducted quantitative and qualitative analyses and obtained community input. Specifically, in 2012 the Army established a BCT Reorganization Operational Planning Team to assess factors such as strategic considerations, military construction costs, and environmental and socioeconomic impacts, among others, and develop stationing options for decision makers. The Army also considered other factors, or attributes--such as training ranges, geographic distribution, and proximity to embarkation points--in its military value analysis model. In addition, the Army conducted community input sessions at installations with 5,000 or more military and civilian personnel, including the 15 under consideration for inactivation of a BCT. Several Army officials said that the sessions were valuable and could serve as a tool for future stationing decisions. However, the Army's stationing regulation does not include guidance on obtaining community input beyond what may be required in the context of environmental analysis. An Army official said that he is developing proposed guidelines for when such input should be considered, but was uncertain how they will be incorporated into formal guidance. Effective stakeholder involvement includes actively soliciting ongoing stakeholder input and fostering communication between stakeholders and decision makers. Incorporating this type of communication with external stakeholders into its stationing guidance for future decisions could lead to potentially greater buy-in from local communities for Army stationing decisions.
The Army expects to continue using its military value analysis model for major stationing decisions and has taken steps to validate the model, but has not established guidance and consistent formal processes related to its use, including when the model should be used or how it should be reviewed, updated, and approved. Standards for internal control state that control activities, such as established and consistent processes or policies, can help to ensure actions to mitigate risks are carried out. Army officials said that the model has generally been used for large-impact stationing decisions and may not be appropriate for minor decisions. However, the Army's stationing regulation does not discuss the model or provide guidance on the circumstances when the model should be used. Also, the Army has not established consistent processes for reviewing and updating attributes and attribute definitions within the model or for collecting and validating data, nor has it established guidance related to the level of input or approval required for changes to the model or how geographically distant training areas should be treated in the model. For instance, subject matter experts noted that the definitions of a couple of attributes should be updated or reviewed, but GAO found that there is no consistent process in place for addressing such issues. Army officials told GAO that the attributes and weighting of the attributes within the model may also change depending on the type of stationing decision, but there is no guidance on when revisions should be approved by Army leaders. Without consistent formal processes for updating and reviewing the model and data used, and guidance related to the level of approval required for changes to the model, the Army risks potential decline in the rigor and consistency of the model over time.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends the Army develop and implement guidance related to when community input should be obtained for stationing decisions, and related to the use of its military value analysis model, such as when it should be used, the level of approval required for changes to the model, and how certain training areas should be considered, as well as processes for updating and reviewing the model. The Army concurred with GAOs recommendations and explained how they will be implemented.