Many Facilities Remain in Deteriorated Condition, Even with Increase in Maintenance and Military Construction Funding

While the amounts of money DOD devoted to facility maintenance and  military construction increased between fiscal year 1998 and 2001 and  fiscal year 1998 and 2002, respectively, DOD and service officials said  these amounts have to compete with other defense programs and  priorities and have been insufficient to restrain the deterioration and/or  obsolescence of facilities used by the active forces. Military Services’ Data on Facility Conditions Are Inconsistent

The information that the services have on the condition of their facilities is  inconsistent across the services, making it difficult for Congress, DOD,  and the services to direct funds to facilities that are in most need of repair  and to measure progress in improving facilities. Although DOD established  a standard rating scale to summarize facility conditions and ability to  support military mission, each service has the latitude to use its own  system for developing and validating the ratings. However, these  objectives are not likely to be achieved because the services do not  propose to fully fund all of them or have developed funding plans that  have unrealistically high rates of increase in the out-years when compared  with previous funding levels and against other defense priorities. It is also developing a recapitalization funding model. However, the Defense Facilities Strategic Plan  lacks comprehensive information on the specific actions, time frames,  assigned responsibilities, and resources that are needed to meet DOD’s  vision for facilities. In addition, we recommend  that the Secretary of Defense (1) instruct the military services to  implement a departmentwide process to consistently assess and validate  facility conditions; (2) revise the Defense Facilities Strategic Plan to  identify specific actions needed, time frames, responsibilities, and funding  levels—elements of a comprehensive strategic plan; (3) clarify DOD’s  guidance by specifying the organizational level (service, major command,  or installation) at which its three objectives to fully fund sustainment,  achieve a 67-year average recapitalization rate, and eliminate C-3 and C-4  facility ratings, bringing them up to a minimal C-2 level, should be  achieved; and (4) direct the services to develop comprehensive  performance plans implementing the Defense Facilities Strategic Plan,  which would provide specific metrics to measure performance and  credible and realistic funding plans to sustain and recapitalize facilities. Other key contributors to this report are  listed in appendix V.

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

To examine the historical funding trends for facility maintenance and  military construction and their impact on the condition of the active  forces’ facilities, we examined the Department of Defense’s (DOD) budget  requests, congressional designations, and obligation data for facility  operation and maintenance and military construction for fiscal years 1998  through 2002. To evaluate the consistency of the services’ information on facility  conditions, we reviewed each service’s system for assessing facility  conditions and compared this information within and across each service  to identify differences in facility raters and procedures, assessment scopes  and frequencies, appraisal scales, computation methods, and validation  procedures.
Why GAO Did This Study

GAO prepared this report in response to its basic legislative responsibilities. Its objectives are threefold: (1) to examine the historical funding trends and their impact on the condition of the active forces' facilities, (2) to evaluate the consistency of the services' information on facility conditions, and (3) to assess the Department of Defense's (DOD) long-term strategic plan and objectives to improve facility conditions.

What GAO Found

While the amount of money the active forces have spent on facility maintenance has increased recently, DOD and service officials said these amounts have not been sufficient to halt the deterioration of facilities. Too little funding to adequately maintain facilities is also aggravated by DOD's acknowledged retention of facilities in excess of its needs. From fiscal year 1998 to 2001, obligations for facility maintenance rose by 26 percent with increases coming from higher annual budget requests, congressional designations that exceeded those requests, supplemental appropriations, and the services' movement of funds to maintenance projects. Funding for military construction also increased during this period. However, military reports and testimonies state that these amounts have been insufficient, and GAO's recent visits to installations document the deteriorated conditions of facilities. There is a lack of consistency in the services' information on facility conditions, making it difficult for Congress, DOD, and the services to direct funds to facilities where they are most needed and to accurately gauge facility conditions. Although DOD developed a standard rating scale to summarize facility conditions (C-ratings), each service has the latitude to use its own system for assessing conditions, including the types of facility raters, assessment frequencies, appraisal scales, and validation procedures. Although DOD has a strategic plan for facilities, it lacks comprehensive information on the specific actions, time frames, responsibilities, and funding needed to reach its goals. Also, DOD has set up three objectives to improve its facility conditions--to fully fund sustainment, to achieve a 67-year average recapitalization rate by fiscal year 2007, and to improve facility conditions so that deficiencies have limited effects on military mission achievement by fiscal year 2010. However, the services have not proposed to fully fund all the objectives and have developed funding plans to achieve others that have unrealistically high rates of increase during the out-years. At the same time, the services have not developed comprehensive performance plans to implement DOD's vision for facilities.