Reported Disruptions of DOD-Owned Utility Systems Cause a Range of Financial and Operational Impacts

Respondents to our survey of DOD-owned utility systems identified 4,393  instances of utility disruptions caused by the failure of DOD-owned  equipment for fiscal years 2009 through 2015, and the results of our  survey and interviews with DOD installation officials indicated that these  disruptions have caused a range of financial and operational impacts. Several factors contributed to the equipment failures that lead to  disruptions to DOD-owned utility systems, such as the utility equipment  operating beyond its intended life. In addition, 270  disruptions were on natural gas utility systems and 343 were on  wastewater systems. According to installation officials, some utility systems are experiencing or  are at risk of experiencing disruptions because the equipment is operating  beyond its intended life. These  respondents reported experiencing a total of over $29 million in financial  impacts for fiscal years 2009 through 2015 (see table 4). For example, an official from Joint  Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey, provided an example of a  moderate operational impact. According to our survey responses, 151 out of 364 survey respondents  reported that they did not have information on utility disruptions for any  fiscal year from 2009 through 2015. An overarching reason we found for disruption information not being  available is that the services vary in the extent to which each has issued  guidance to collect and retain utility disruption information at the  installation level. However, we found that some of the Army installations did not  consistently have information about disruptions. The Navy’s guidance, if  implemented as directed, may help installations track utility disruption  information and thus enable them to make sound decisions. On the other  hand, installation-level utility system owners and managers who do not  have access to information about disruptions may not have the  information they need to make informed decisions or to compete  effectively for limited repair funds. DOD Is Implementing a Standardized Condition Assessment Process to Improve Data Reliability, but It Could Result in Differences in the Facility Condition Index across the Services DOD Is Implementing a Standardized Condition Assessment Process to Improve Data Reliability

DOD is currently implementing a standardized condition assessment  process to improve the data reliability of its facility condition data. Further, the military services are  allowed to customize certain settings within the process which could  result in differences in the FCI across the services. Without taking steps  to ensure that the services’ condition standards for the utilities module  and other modules will provide the department with comparable and  reliable FCI data, the SMS utilities module, currently under development,  may not provide DOD information that is comparable across the  department’s facilities. The Air Force  and Marine Corps do not have a service-wide requirement to collect and  report utility disruption data. Without taking steps to ensure that the services’ condition  standards for the utilities module will provide the department with  comparable and reliable FCI data, the SMS utilities module, currently  under development, may not provide DOD information that is comparable  across the department’s facilities. Recommendations for Executive Action

To improve the information that DOD, military service officials, and  installation-level utility system owners and maintainers need to make  maintenance or other investment decisions, we recommend that the  Secretary of Defense take the following three actions:
Direct the Secretary of the Army to take steps to implement existing  guidance so that disruption information is consistently available at the  installation level;
Direct the Secretary of the Air Force to issue guidance to the  installations to require the collection and retention of disruption; and
Direct the Commandant of the Marine Corps to issue guidance to the  installations to require the collection and retention of disruption  information. To provide DOD with more consistent information about the condition of  DOD-owned utility systems as DOD continues to develop the SMS  module for utility systems, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense  direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and  Environment, in coordination with the military services, take actions to  govern the consistent use of condition standards of utility systems to be  assessed using the SMS utilities module, and if applicable, for other  facilities assessed using other SMS modules. To assess the extent to which owners and managers of DOD-owned  utility systems have information about disruptions caused by equipment  failures, we included a question in our survey regarding the availability of  information on disruptions from fiscal year 2009 through 2015 and a  question about the usefulness of disruption information in managing utility  systems.
Why GAO Did This Study

DOD installations rely on utilities, such as electricity, to accomplish their missions and disruptions can hamper military operations. Senate Report 114-49 included a provision for GAO to report on DOD-owned utility disruptions. This report (1) describes the number, causes and impacts of utility disruptions caused by the failure of DOD-owned utility infrastructure for fiscal years 2009 through 2015; (2) assesses the extent to which owners and managers of DOD-owned systems have access to utility disruption information; and (3) assesses the extent to which the implementation of a standardized facility condition assessment process provides DOD consistent information about its utility systems.
GAO surveyed a representative group of 453 DOD-owned electric, water, wastewater, and natural gas utility systems, evaluated DOD policies and reports, interviewed officials, and conducted interviews with several survey respondents who experienced the most disruptions.

What GAO Found

Based on GAO's survey of Department of Defense (DOD) owned utility systems, there were 4,393 instances of utility disruptions caused by equipment failure for fiscal years 2009 through 2015 and the results of our survey and interviews with DOD installation officials indicated that these disruptions have caused a range of financial and operational impacts. Survey respondents identified several factors that contributed to equipment failures that led to disruptions, such as equipment operating beyond its intended life; poor equipment condition; and equipment not being properly maintained. Survey respondents reported over $29 million in financial impacts for fiscal years 2009 through 2015. Installation officials reported experiencing operational impacts such as a week-long shut down of operations at an Army facility on Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, New Jersey.
Information about utility disruptions is not consistently available to DOD utility owners and managers at the installation level. Specifically, 151 out of 364 survey respondents stated that they did not have information on utility disruptions for any fiscal year from 2009 through 2015. An overarching reason GAO found for disruption information not being available is that the services vary in the extent to which each has issued guidance to collect and retain utility disruption information at the installation level. The Army has some guidance to report utility disruptions, but we found that some installations did not consistently have this information available. The Air Force and Marine Corps do not have current guidance directing the installations to track utility disruption information. The Navy issued new guidance in 2015 which, if implemented as directed, may improve the collection of utility disruption information. According to installation and headquarters officials, there are benefits to collecting utility disruption information since it can be used to identify repairs and to prioritize funding for those repairs. However, without guidance directing installations to collect information about all types of utility disruptions, service officials may not have the information needed to make informed decisions or to compete effectively for limited repair funds.
DOD's implementation of the Sustainment Management System (SMS), a software tool to conduct standardized condition assessments, may not provide it with comparable and reliable facility condition index (FCI) data -- a metric used to make strategic investment decisions. In 2013, to improve the reliability of FCI data, DOD directed the services to use SMS which standardizes the way the services conduct condition assessments and calculate the FCI. According to officials, the SMS module for utility systems is still in development, but modules for other facilities, such as buildings, are complete and in use. While the SMS process is intended to provide DOD with credible FCI data, GAO found the process could result in differences in the FCI because the services are able to customize settings, called condition standards, within the process. Variation among the condition standards could result in facilities having differences in the FCI although the assessed physical conditions of the facilities are the same. As a result, the FCI data would not be comparable. Without taking steps to ensure that the services' condition standards for the utilities module, which is under development, will provide the department with comparable and reliable FCI data, the SMS utilities module may not provide DOD information that is comparable across the department.

What GAO Recommends

To improve utility system information, GAO is recommending that the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps take steps or provide guidance to consistently collect disruption information, and that while the SMS utilities module is under development, DOD take steps to ensure that the services apply condition standards consistently. DOD concurred with the recommendations to collect disruption data and partially concurred with the other recommendation stating that it would determine if further consistent condition standards are needed.