However, instead of decreasing, support costs at the joint bases are  expected to increase primarily because past funding for installation  support has been insufficient to provide support at the levels called for by  either existing or the new common service standards, and in some  instances the military services’ approach to implementing joint basing will  result in additional administrative costs and the loss of some existing  installation support efficiencies. In the long term, DOD officials stated that  the increased installation support costs might be at least partially offset as  best practices and new operational efficiencies are identified and adopted  over time. After working  with the military services to develop and obtain concurrence with the new  definitions and standards, OSD issued guidance that defined 47 installation  support functions—such as installation security services, custodial  services, and child care programs—and provided 267 standards to help  define the level of service that each joint base is to provide in each area. According to DOD, the new standards represented the service levels  needed to fully meet installation mission, facility, and personnel needs in  view of existing OSD and military service policies, guidance, and practices;  commercial industry standards; guidance from other federal agencies; or  military judgment. Facilities sustainment, which DOD had previously defined, includes  the maintenance and repair activities necessary to prevent  deterioration, maintain safety, and keep facilities in good working  order over their service lives. Military Services Have Not Fully Funded Installation Support in the Past

A key reason that installation support costs at the joint bases are expected  to increase is that OSD has required that the joint bases deliver installation  support in accordance with the 267 new support standards, even though  the military services have not previously funded installation support in the  amounts needed to meet each of the standards. In total during fiscal years 2005 through 2008, the military  services did not budget funds to meet about $2.3 billion (9 percent) of  their total facility sustainment requirements. Military Services Have Used Some Budgeted Sustainment Funds for Other Purposes

The military services have further exacerbated the sustainment funding  issue by using some of the budgeted sustainment funds for other purposes. According to information provided by the Army, the Navy, the Air Force,  and the Marine Corps, the services used about $2.6 billion (14 percent) of  the funds budgeted for sustainment for other purposes during fiscal years  2006 through 2008. However, even though the  officials stated that these projects were needed and other funds to pay for  the projects were not available, the consequence was that additional  sustainment requirements went unmet. According to DOD, needed  sustainment work that is not performed may eventually result in damaged  facilities, shortened facility service lives, and increased future costs for  facility restoration. Although many facilities at the installations we visited were in good  condition, some facilities had fallen into disrepair because funds were not  available to pay for all needed sustainment work. Conclusions

While DOD has made a comprehensive effort to ensure consistent delivery  of installation support at the planned joint bases, the estimates of potential  savings will likely continue to decline and it is unclear whether joint  basing will result in any actual savings. Recommendations for Executive Action

To address the expected increased installation support costs from joint  basing implementation and the use of budgeted facility sustainment funds  for purposes other than sustainment, we recommend that the Secretary of  Defense direct the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and  Environment) to take the following four actions:    Periodically review the installation support standards as experience is  gained with delivering installation support at the joint bases and make  adjustments, if needed, to ensure that each standard reflects the level  of service necessary to meet installation requirements as economically  as possible. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in   appendix V.

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

To evaluate the Department of Defense’s (DOD) efforts and expected  costs to deliver installation support at the planned joint bases, we  reviewed the justification supporting the 2005 Defense Base Closure and  Realignment (BRAC) Commission’s recommendation that DOD establish   12 joint bases and examined DOD’s implementation plans, guidance, and  cost estimates associated with the delivery of installation support at the  planned joint bases. Specifically, we reviewed DOD’s facility sustainment  requirements for fiscal years 2005 through 2008, as determined by DOD’s  facilities sustainment model; reviewed DOD’s installation strategic plans  to identify DOD’s goals for facility sustainment budgeting; obtained OSD  and military service information for fiscal years 2005 through 2008 that  showed the amounts budgeted for sustainment, spent on sustainment, and  budgeted for sustainment but spent for other purposes; and compared the  amounts budgeted and spent to the corresponding requirements and goals.
Why GAO Did This Study

The 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission recommended that the Department of Defense (DOD) establish 12 joint bases by consolidating the management and support of 26 separate installations, potentially saving $2.3 billion over 20 years. In response to a direction from the House Armed Services Committee report accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, GAO evaluated DOD's (1) efforts and expected costs to deliver installation support at joint bases and (2) funding for facility sustainment, which includes the maintenance and repair activities necessary to keep facilities in good working order, at all installations. GAO compared new support standards with the current support levels, visited nine installations that will become four joint bases, and compared facility sustainment funding levels with requirements and goals.

What GAO Found

DOD has made a comprehensive effort to ensure consistent delivery of installation support at the planned joint bases, but the cost of installation support is expected to increase rather than decrease as forecasted by the 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission. In January 2008, DOD began issuing joint base implementation guidance that for the first time established a set of common definitions and standards for installation support. The guidance defined 47 installation support areas (e.g., airfield operations, grounds maintenance, custodial services, and child and youth programs) and provided 267 standards to define the expected level of service in each area. DOD officials stated that the standards represented the service levels needed to meet mission and personnel requirements in view of DOD policies and guidance, commercial standards, other federal agency guidance, or in some cases, military judgment. However, contrary to the expectations of the commission, for two primary reasons installation support costs at the joint bases are expected to increase above the cost of support provided by the separate installations before consolidation. First, DOD has required the joint bases to deliver installation support in accordance with the new standards even though the military services have not previously funded installation support in the amounts needed to meet each of the standards. GAO's comparison of 40 selected standards to the service levels currently provided at the nine installations it visited showed that on average service levels would have to increase to meet the standards in about 27 percent of the areas compared. Second, in some instances the services' approach to implementing joint basing will result in additional administrative costs and the loss of some existing installation support efficiencies. Although DOD officials stated that the increased support costs at the joint bases might be at least partially offset over time as experience is gained and new efficiencies are identified and adopted, it is unclear whether joint basing will result in actual savings. The military services have not budgeted and spent sufficient funds to meet their facility sustainment requirements and goals and prevent facility deterioration at the installation level. Citing other budget priorities as the reason, the military services did not budget funds to meet about $2.3 billion (9 percent) of their total facility sustainment requirements during fiscal years 2005 through 2008 and, according to DOD, needed sustainment work that is not performed may eventually result in damaged facilities, shortened facility service lives, and increased future costs for facility restoration. The services have further exacerbated the sustainment funding issue by using some budgeted sustainment funds for other purposes. During fiscal years 2006 through 2008, the military services used about $2.6 billion (14 percent) of the funds budgeted for sustainment for other purposes, primarily to pay for unfunded facility restoration and modernization projects. Although service officials stated that these projects were needed, the consequence was that sustainment requirements were not met. During visits to nine installations, GAO found backlogs of deferred sustainment needs and some facilities that were not in good condition because funds were not available to pay for all needed sustainment work.