Military Services Have Benefitted from Selected IGSAs but Are Not Fully Monitoring the Benefits of Implemented IGSAs

		Military Services Have Realized Financial and Nonfinancial Benefits from Selected IGSAs

Our analysis of a sample of 8 implemented IGSAs, and interviews with  officials about these and other IGSAs, found that the military services  have realized financial (i.e., cost savings and cost avoidances) and  nonfinancial (e.g., enhanced mission effectiveness) benefits from these  agreements. Table  1 provides each installation’s estimated cost for obtaining the installation  service through an alternative contract and the estimated cost for  obtaining the installation service through an IGSA; the actual cost paid by  the installation to the local government for the first year of each IGSA,  based on our analysis of monthly invoices; and our calculation of the  estimated realized cost savings achieved from using the IGSA, relative to  the alternative. Moody Air Force Base realized an estimated $270,000 in savings in  fiscal year 2017 by implementing an IGSA for water and wastewater  treatment. Cost Avoidances

The other 3 IGSAs in our sample resulted in cost avoidances, according  to installation officials. Nonfinancial Benefits

According to officials from all four services, achieving financial benefits  has been a primary purpose for utilizing IGSAs, but IGSAs can also  provide nonfinancial benefits—such as enhanced mission effectiveness  and readiness, reduced administrative time, and greater flexibility. In addition to collecting data on the expected benefits of IGSAs prior  to their implementation, Air Force headquarters has taken some steps  to monitor the benefits realized by the 8 implemented IGSAs it had in  place as of July 2018. However, officials stated that  submitting information is voluntary for installations, and some  installations do not always provide timely information. The military services generally are not monitoring whether all of their  IGSAs are bringing financial and nonfinancial benefits because they have  not established formal processes to obtain this information and  documented them in their policies or procedures, as called for in  Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. Officials from all four services stated that they are still in the early stages  of developing their IGSA processes. Military Services Have Supported IGSA Use but Not Fully Monitored Whether Installations Are Evaluating IGSA Opportunities

		Military Services Have Developed Approaches for Supporting Installations’ Use of IGSAs

The military services have developed various approaches for supporting  their installations’ use of IGSAs. Army Installation  Management Command policy states that installations are to explore  opportunities to enter into IGSAs with state or local governments, and  it directs installations to review current, soon-to-expire installation  support contracts for possible transition to an IGSA. Each of the military services has issued  procedures for its installations to follow in order to develop, obtain  approval for, and implement IGSAs. Military Services Have Not Fully Monitored Whether Installations Are Evaluating Opportunities to Use IGSAs

Officials from all four military services told us that they are not fully  monitoring whether all of the services’ installations are complying with  their respective service policies to evaluate opportunities to use IGSAs to  reduce costs or enhance mission effectiveness. As of July 2018, the military services had approved 45 IGSAs at 33  installations (see app. Without establishing, implementing, and documenting a process to  monitor whether installations are evaluating opportunities to use IGSAs  and obtain information on the outcome of those evaluations, which may  also identify challenges that could hamper the ability to use IGSAs, the  military services do not fully know whether their installations are  conducting these evaluations, and thus may be missing opportunities to  reduce costs or enhance mission effectiveness. Because of this and based on the Army’s  interpretation of the IGSA statute, Army officials said the IGSA  proposal was not approved. Conclusions

DOD budgets about $25 billion annually to operate and support its  installations, and our analysis shows that IGSAs have provided  opportunities for the military services to reduce some of those costs. Recommendations for Executive Action

We are making the following eight recommendations to DOD:  The Secretary of the Army should (a) finalize and implement a process to  collect and monitor information on the extent to which all implemented  IGSAs have resulted in financial and nonfinancial benefits and (b)  complete documentation of that process in Army IGSA policy or  procedures. DOD concurred with six recommendations and non-concurred with two  recommendations, but DOD’s response indicates that the department  plans to implement all of the actions we recommend.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Department of Defense (DOD) budgets about $25 billion annually to operate and support its installations. GAO has designated DOD support infrastructure management as a high-risk area since 1997, in part because DOD has needed to reduce its installation support costs. In 2013, Congress authorized the military services to enter into IGSAs with local and state governments to receive installation services, if an agreement will provide financial benefits or enhance mission effectiveness. As of July 2018, the military services had approved 45 IGSAs at 33 installations.
In this report, GAO, among other objectives, evaluated the extent to which the military services have (1) realized and monitored the benefits from IGSAs and (2) supported the use of IGSAs and monitored whether installations are evaluating opportunities to use IGSAs.
GAO reviewed the IGSA statute and policies and procedures; evaluated a nongeneralizable sample of 8 IGSAs, selected based on factors including the military service involved, the amount of expected financial benefits, and the length of time in place; compared the services' processes and actions against standards for internal control; and interviewed service, installation, and local government officials.

What GAO Found

Based on analysis of 8 selected intergovernmental support agreements (IGSAs) and interviews with officials, GAO found that the military services have realized financial and nonfinancial benefits from using IGSAs with local or state governments to obtain installation services such as waste removal, grounds maintenance, and stray animal control.
Financial benefits. Of the 8 selected IGSAs, 5 resulted in cost savings, in which the actual cost of each IGSA during its first year was lower than the expected cost of a contract the installation had previously used to obtain the installation service. For example, Moody Air Force Base realized an estimated cost savings of $270,000 by using an IGSA for water and wastewater treatment services, versus continuing to obtain this service via contract. Installation officials stated that the other 3 selected IGSAs resulted in cost avoidances, in which the installations used the IGSAs to obtain a service they were not previously paying for at a lower cost than other alternatives.
Nonfinancial benefits. According to officials from all four services, IGSAs have provided nonfinancial benefits such as enhanced mission effectiveness and readiness, reduced administrative time, and improved relationships with local communities.
However, the military services are not fully monitoring benefits being realized from implemented IGSAs because they have not established formal processes to do so. For example, Navy and Marine Corps officials stated that they are not monitoring the financial and nonfinancial performance of implemented IGSAs in part because they are in the early stages of using IGSAs. The Air Force monitors some information on realized IGSA financial benefits, but this information is not complete because reporting by installations is voluntary. Developing and documenting processes to monitor any realized benefits of implemented IGSAs would provide the services with useful information on IGSA performance as they make decisions on devoting resources to developing and implementing these agreements in other locations.
The military services have developed various approaches for supporting the use of IGSAs to reduce costs or enhance mission effectiveness. For example, the services have issued policies and procedures for their installations to follow in order to develop, obtain approval for, and implement IGSAs. However, officials from each of the military services told us they are not fully monitoring whether installations are evaluating opportunities to use IGSAs. For example, Army policy states that installations are to review current, soon-to-expire contracts for possible transition to an IGSA, but Army officials said they are not yet monitoring whether installations are doing so. Without a process in place to monitor whether installations are evaluating opportunities to use IGSAs, the military services do not know the extent to which this is occurring and thus may be missing opportunities to further reduce costs or enhance mission effectiveness.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making eight recommendations to monitor both the benefits realized from implemented IGSAs and whether installations are evaluating IGSA opportunities. DOD concurred with six recommendations and non-concurred with two, but plans to implement them all.