An important element of the Defense Reform Initiative is that the Secretary has established a Defense Management Council to serve, in effect, as DOD’s internal board of directors. Reducing the cost of excess infrastructure activities is critical to maintaining high levels of military capabilities and adequately maintaining needed facilities infrastructure. Infrastructure Initiatives Face Significant Challenges

The DRI report identifies a range of facility infrastructure initiatives designed to revitalize some facilities; eliminate excess structures; and consolidate, restructure, and regionalize many support agencies and activities. Questions exist about the costs and savings associated with the new initiative, as well as concerns about the extent to which this new program will be able to address the full range of military housing needs. Privatization Is Off to a Slow Start

The housing privatization initiative clearly offers a powerful new tool to help address DOD’s housing problem. However, our ongoing review of the initiative has shown that the initiative is off to a slow start and may not achieve the desired results within the expected time frame. Demolition of Excess Facilities Is an Option for Reducing Excess Infrastructure

In May 1997, we reported that opportunities existed for DOD components to use demolition as an option for eliminating old, excess buildings that are relatively costly to maintain and can be a drain on declining O&M funding. As with the reengineering initiatives, most of these initiatives have been going on for several years but still face implementation challenges. It has also been developing regional maintenance business plans, including initiatives and estimates of savings to be achieved. However, our work suggested that the military services have not taken sufficient advantage of potential opportunities to achieve significant savings in base operating support costs through greater reliance on larger-scale interservicing arrangements. Once these criteria are approved, which is expected by May 1998, DFAS plans to take from 3 to 6 months to further study its infrastructure needs and select the sites that will be closed. Key elements of the BRAC legislation that DOD and BRAC commission officials said contributed to the success of prior rounds included (1) the establishment of an independent commission and nomination of commissioners by the President, in consultation with the congressional leadership; (2) the development of clearly articulated, published criteria for decision making; (3) use of data certified as to its accuracy; (4) the requirement that the President and the Congress accept or reject in their entirety the lists of closures adopted by the BRAC commission; and (5) the creation of tight time frames to force the process to reach decisions in a timely manner. Existing Plans Have Important Limitations

Our May 1997 report on demolition noted that planning by the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the services for facilities maintenance and repair, including revitalization of facilities infrastructure, was limited.Those plans that did exist were not focused on long-term comprehensive strategies for facilities revitalization, replacement, and maintenance, and they were not tied to measurable goals to be accomplished over specified time frames or linked to funding. The need for improved planning for facilities infrastructure is also underscored by the requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act. Related GAO Products

Defense Management: Challenges Facing DOD in Implementing Defense Reform Initiatives (GAO/T-NSIAD/AIMD-98-122, Mar.
Why GAO Did This Study

GAO discussed selected Defense Reform Initiatives pertaining to facilities infrastructure, focusing on the: (1) need for infrastructure reform; (2) significant challenges the Department of Defense (DOD) faces in implementing its infrastructure initiatives and achieving significant savings in the short term; and (3) need to integrate these initiatives into an overall facilities infrastructure plan.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) infrastructure reform within DOD is an extremely difficult task but one that is very much needed; (2) therefore, GAO strongly supports the need to further reduce excess support infrastructure, as well as the need for improved planning to address remaining infrastructure needs; (3) GAO's work continues to show that significant opportunities remain to further streamline operations, consolidate functions, eliminate duplication of effort, and improve efficiency; (4) GAO is concerned about DOD's ability to achieve the expected level of savings and questions whether many of the initiatives can overcome significant challenges and be implemented in a timely, efficient, and effective manner; (5) GAO's work relating to various defense reform initiatives shows that estimated savings often are not as great as first estimated and that the initiatives often take much longer than expected to be achieved; (6) the following are some key points GAO believes Congress and DOD should take into consideration as they assess expected results of the Defense Reform Initiative Report initiatives involving facilities infrastructure: (a) the military housing privatization initiative offers a powerful new tool to help address the military's housing problem, however, implementation is off to a slow start and it is unclear whether the initiative will result in overall budget savings; (b) demolition can be a viable option for reducing excess structures and operating costs on military basis, however, while this program recently has received increased emphasis within DOD, the availability of funding, against other competing priorities in a constrained budget environment, could affect implementation over time; (c) despite their potential, most of the initiatives to consolidate, restructure, and regionalize many of its support agencies have been going on for several years and still face implementation challenges; and (d) while GAO believes there are significant savings from prior base realignment and closure rounds, questions continue to exist about the magnitude of savings; (7) the Secretary of Defense's identification of the need to shed excess infrastructure as a key component of the Defense Reform Initiatives has brought high-level attention to this area; (8) however, the services currently lack comprehensive long-range plans to guide them in reducing excess infrastructure and better managing remaining assets; and (9) the need for such planning is underscored by the requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act.