Typically, the military services are using  relocatable facilities as barracks, administrative offices, medical facilities,  dining halls, and equipment maintenance facilities. OSD Does Not Have Complete Oversight of the Services’ Use of Relocatable Facilities to Meet Infrastructure Needs

Although military services are relying on relocatable facilities to meet  shortages in their physical infrastructure needs, OSD lacks oversight over  how many of these facilities are being used on defense installations and  how much DOD has spent on such facilities. Although the military services  recently reported to OSD that they have bought or leased over 4,000  relocatable facilities over a 5-year period, our assessment of the data  uncovered many discrepancies. At six of the seven installations we visited,  including locations representing each of the military services, we found  discrepancies between the number of relocatable facilities located on  those installations and the number that the service headquarters had  reported to OSD. At Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, officials told us that the installation had  about 170 relocatable facilities, which was about 80 more than Marine  Corps headquarters had reported to OSD. Furthermore, Navy headquarters told us its data provided to OSD did not  include all of its relocatable facilities located at its installations. When we talked to  OSD officials in March 2008, these officials told us they did not have  information about how many relocatable facilities were being used, how  many defense installations had them, nor how much it had cost to acquire  them. OSD Does Not Have a Strategy for Managing the Use and Disposal of Relocatable Facilities

OSD does not have a strategy for managing the military services’ use and  disposal of relocatable facilities, even though many of these facilities most  likely will be used for longer than the 3 years that is normally expected for  relocatables. However, we found that relocatable facilities at many  installations have already been in use for longer than 3 years. Services Plan to Replace Relocatable Facilities with Permanent Buildings, but Could Face Management Challenges

Although the services plan to eventually replace many of their relocatable  facilities with permanent buildings, and military construction funds have  been programmed to do so in fiscal years 2010 to 2013, some service  officials expressed skepticism that the planned replacement funds will  become available, potentially further prolonging the need for relocatables. For example, officials at Fort Bliss,  Texas; Fort Drum, New York; and at Army Installation Management  Command–West, Texas, told us that, if the proposed drawdown of troops  from Iraq occurs as planned—on top of DOD’s other force structure  initiatives—the influx of more military personnel could exacerbate the  shortage of facilities at these and other installations. Without a comprehensive DOD  strategy for managing relocatables—including the transfer of relocatables  from one location to another—a military service could unnecessarily  spend funds by simultaneously acquiring new facilities while another  military service is incurring costs to store or demolish similar facilities. Conclusions

The pace of growth at some installations is exceeding the ability of  traditional military construction to provide permanent facilities. Recommendations for Executive Action

To improve OSD’s oversight and management of the military services’ use  of relocatable facilities, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense  direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and  Logistics to take the following three actions:    clarify its guidance on the definition of relocatable facilities;    develop a mechanism for collecting and maintaining complete and reliable  data on the number of relocatable facilities used by the military services  and on the costs of acquiring them once OSD clarifies the guidance on the  definition of relocatable facilities; and    develop and implement a strategy to help effectively manage the use,  disposal, and redistribution of relocatable facilities across all the services  when redistribution is appropriate, including projected costs. Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

To determine the extent to which the Office of the Secretary of Defense  (OSD) is providing oversight of the military services’ use of relocatable  facilities to meet physical infrastructure needs, we reviewed Department  of Defense (DOD) guidance on the authorization, acquisition, use, and  disposition of relocatable facilities and the military services’ policies and  procedures that implement DOD’s guidance.
Why GAO Did This Study

The concurrent implementation of several major Department of Defense (DOD) force structure and infrastructure initiatives has stressed the ability of traditional military construction to provide enough permanent living and working space for servicemembers and other DOD personnel. As a result, the services are using some movable--or relocatable--facilities as barracks, administrative offices, medical facilities, dining halls, and equipment maintenance facilities to meet short-term needs. In Senate Report 110-77, the Senate Committee on Armed Services directed GAO to review the subject. This report assesses the extent to which (1) the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) is providing oversight of the services' use of relocatable facilities to meet physical infrastructure needs, and (2) DOD has a strategy for managing such facilities. GAO assessed data reported to OSD on relocatable use and cost as well as visited seven defense installations selected from those identified as having a sizeable number of relocatable facilities.

What GAO Found

Although DOD considers the use of relocatable facilities a temporary measure to meet short-term physical infrastructure needs, the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) is not providing effective oversight of the number or cost of its relocatable facilities. OSD officials told GAO in March 2008 that they did not have information about how many relocatable facilities were being used, how many defense installations had them, or how much it has cost to acquire them. Subsequently, the military services reported to OSD that they have acquired over 4,000 relocatable facilities at an estimated cost of about $1.5 billion over a 5-year period. However, GAO's assessment of these data showed that the data were inaccurate and incomplete. At six of the seven installations visited, GAO found discrepancies between the number of relocatable facilities located on those installations and the numbers that the services had reported to OSD. For instance, at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, installation officials told GAO the installation had about 170 relocatable facilities, which is about 80 more than the Marine Corps headquarters reported to OSD. Such discrepancies occurred in part because OSD has not provided the services with a clear definition of relocatable facilities. In addition, OSD lacks a mechanism for collecting and maintaining reliable data on these facilities. A clear, ongoing requirement for OSD to collect and maintain consistent data on relocatable facilities would better enable it to manage the use of these facilities to provide working and living space for military personnel. OSD has not developed a comprehensive strategy for managing relocatable facilities departmentwide. Although the military services plan to replace many of their relocatable facilities with permanent construction, some officials GAO spoke with expressed skepticism that the planned replacement funds will become available. In addition, GAO found that these facilities at many installations have been in use longer than the 3 years DOD's guidance states it normally expects. Furthermore, some Army officials told GAO that due to several force structure and infrastructure initiatives, it expects that the influx of more military personnel at some installations could exacerbate the shortage of facilities, which could mean more relocatable facilities might be needed. Meanwhile, some DOD installations may be planning to acquire new relocatable facilities at market cost at the same time that other installations are disposing of them. Although the Army is moving in the direction of centralizing its management of relocatable facilities, none of the other military service headquarters told GAO they have initiated similar efforts. Because OSD does not have a comprehensive DOD-wide strategy for managing the use of relocatable facilities--including the transfer of relocatables from one location to another--the services could unnecessarily spend DOD funds by simultaneously acquiring new facilities at some locations while auctioning off or incurring costs to store or demolish similar facilities at other locations.