Because the Army believed that the changes it made to its facility  acquisition and building practices under its transformation strategy would  result in lower construction costs and shorter building timelines, the Army  established goals to reduce its military construction costs by 15 percent  and facility construction timelines by 30 percent beginning in fiscal year  2007. The Army Did Not Measure the Achievement of Goals to Reduce Military Construction Costs and Timelines

Because the Army did not measure the achievement of its goals to reduce  military construction costs and timelines, the Army did not know to what  extent the goals were met nor whether its military construction  transformation strategy resulted in actual reductions in facility costs. Our  review of selected project information showed that the Army did reduce  the estimated cost of some facility construction projects and shortened  building timelines during fiscal years 2007 through 2009, but it did not  meet its overall stated goals. Although the Army discontinued these  numerical goals in 2010, Army officials believed its efforts to transform its  military construction acquisition and building practices were successful in  dampening the escalation of Army facilities’ costs and would continue to  help ensure cost-effective and timely facilities in future years. As shown in table 2, we found that the Army’s average lapsed  time for this timeline measure was reduced by about 11 percent during  fiscal years 2007 through 2009—an improvement, but less than the Army’s  30 percent goal. Army officials stated that they were pleased that average building  timelines had been reduced even if the 30 percent goal was not achieved. However, the Army did not have substantial  quantitative information or analyses to support its view on lower life-cycle  costs. The Navy and the Air Force generally disagreed with the Army’s views on  the benefits from expanded use of wood materials and modular building  methods. 3). Conflicts Exist between Antiterrorism Building Standards and Sustainable Goals, but the Services Consider the Conflicts to Be Manageable

Although there are areas of conflict when designing facilities that meet  both antiterrorism construction standards and sustainable design goals,  military service officials stated that the conflicts are considered to be  manageable and not a significant obstacle to the design and construction  of new facilities. Service officials noted, however, that achieving higher  levels of sustainability in future construction projects while still meeting  the antiterrorism standards would further increase initial facility costs and  create additional design challenges. According to the planners, 80 of the  90 projects (89 percent) required no special steps or workarounds to meet  both antiterrorism standards and sustainable design goals. Conclusions

Although the Army appears to have achieved some savings in initial  construction costs by expanding the use of wood materials for some  permanent facilities, the military services had little quantitative  information on whether the use of wood materials and modular building  methods will also result in lower long-term costs compared to the  traditional use of steel, concrete, and masonry materials and on-site  building methods. Unless the services perform additional study and  analysis to determine the relative merits and long-term economic impacts  from the use of alternative construction materials and methods, DOD will  not know whether the use of wood materials and modular building  methods will result in the most economical long-term building solution or  whether DOD’s unified facilities criteria, or other military construction  program guidance, needs to be changed so that new facilities are  constructed with materials and methods that meet requirements at the  lowest cost over the long term. To evaluate the merits and economic impacts from the Army’s expanded  use of wood materials and modular building methods for permanent  facilities, we interviewed Office of the Secretary of Defense, Army, Navy,  and Air Force officials and reviewed related documentation, policies, and  construction guidance on the use of construction materials and building  methods for military facilities. To review potential conflicts between antiterrorism construction  standards and sustainable design goals and the costs to incorporate the  standards and goals in new facilities, we reviewed applicable Department  of Defense (DOD) policies, guidance, goals, and costs related to  incorporating antiterrorism construction standards and sustainable design  goals in new military facilities. We selected projects for  review from a list of all Army, Navy, and Air Force military construction  projects approved during fiscal years 2007 through 2009.
Why GAO Did This Study

To meet the challenges associated with a threefold increase in the Army's military construction program between fiscal years 2005 and 2009, the Army adopted numerous changes, including the expanded use of wood materials and modular building methods, designed to reduce building costs and timelines for new facilities. With the changes, the Army set goals to reduce building costs by 15 percent and timelines by 30 percent. The Army, Navy, and Air Force have also faced challenges associated with incorporating both antiterrorism construction standards and sustainable design ("green") goals into new facilities. GAO was asked to (1) assess the Army's progress in meeting its goals, (2) evaluate the merits from the Army's expanded use of wood materials and modular building methods, and (3) examine potential conflicts between antiterrorism construction standards and sustainable design goals. GAO reviewed relevant documentation, interviewed cognizant service officials, analyzed selected construction project data, and visited five Army installations to review facilities built with alternative materials and methods.

What GAO Found

The Army set goals to reduce its estimated construction costs by 15 percent and building timelines by 30 percent, but it did not monitor goal achievement and thus did not know to what extent the goals had been met or whether changes made to its military construction program resulted in actual reductions in facility costs. GAO's review of selected project information showed that the Army did reduce the estimated cost of some facility construction projects and shortened building timelines during fiscal years 2007 through 2009, but it did not meet its overall stated goals. For example, GAO found that the average building timeline for one key measurement (design start to ready for occupancy) was reduced by about 11 percent--an improvement, but less than the 30 percent goal. The Army discontinued the numerical goals in fiscal year 2010, and Army officials stated that, although the specific goals might not have been achieved, they believed that the Army's efforts were successful in dampening the escalation of Army facilities' costs and would continue to help ensure cost-effective and timely facilities in future years. The Army appears to have achieved some savings in selected construction projects by expanding the use of wood materials and modular construction methods for some of its facilities, but GAO found little quantitative data on whether the use of these materials and methods will result in savings over the long term compared to the traditional use of steel, concrete, and masonry materials and on-site building methods. Without long-term or life-cycle analyses that consider not only initial construction costs but also possible differences in facility service lives and annual operating and maintenance costs between the construction alternatives, it is not clear that the Army's expanded use of wood materials and modular building methods will achieve the Army's intended purpose of reduced facility costs over the long term. The Navy and the Air Force generally disagreed with the Army's view and believed that the use of wood materials and modular construction will result in facilities with shorter service lives and higher life-cycle costs. However, none of the services had the analyses to support its views. Without additional study and analysis, DOD will not know whether military construction program guidance needs to be changed to ensure that facilities are constructed with materials and methods that meet needs at the lowest cost over the long term. Conflicts between antiterrorism building standards and sustainable design goals exist, but military service officials stated that the conflicts are considered to be manageable. GAO's review of 90 Army, Navy, and Air Force military construction projects, approved during fiscal years 2007 through 2009, showed that although incorporating the standards and the goals in new facilities added to construction costs, 80 of the projects required no special steps or workarounds to meet both the standards and the goals. However, service officials noted that achieving higher levels of sustainability in future construction projects while still meeting the antiterrorism standards would further increase initial facility costs and create additional design challenges.