This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-814 
entitled 'Excess Facilities: DOD Needs More Complete Information and a 
Strategy to Guide Its Future Disposal Efforts' which was released on 
September 19, 2011. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Committees: 

September 2011: 

Excess Facilities: 

DOD Needs More Complete Information and a Strategy to Guide Its Future 
Disposal Efforts: 

GAO-11-814: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-11-814, a report to congressional committees. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

GAO has designated the Department of Defenseís (DOD) management of 
support infrastructure as a high risk area, in part because of 
challenges in reducing excess infrastructure. Operating and 
maintaining excess facilities consumes resources that could be 
eliminated from DODís budget or used for other purposes. In response 
to direction in House Report 111-491, GAO reviewed DODís 
(1) progress toward meeting demolition program targets for fiscal 
years 2008 through 2013; (2) facility utilization informationóa source 
for identifying additional excess facilities; and (3) plans for 
managing and disposing of excess facilities after fiscal year 2013. 
GAO analyzed information on excess facilities, completed demolitions, 
and underutilized facilities in DODís real property inventory 
database; reviewed DODís plans for demolition after the on-going 
program ends; and conducted site visits to selected military 
installations. 

What GAO Found: 

DOD is on track to meet its overall targets to demolish 62.3 million 
square feet of facilities and about $1.2 billion in additional 
facilities that were not measured in square feet by the end of fiscal 
year 2013. Based on GAOís analysis of DODís real property inventory 
database, the military services and defense organizations have all 
made progress in demolishing excess facilities during the first half 
of DODís 6-year demolition program; however, based on DODís projected 
demolition plans for the remaining years of the program, some 
organizations may not meet their individual demolition targets by the 
end of fiscal year 2013. 

DOD is limited in its ability to identify other potentially excess 
facilities, because it does not maintain complete and accurate data 
concerning the utilization of its facilities. GAO found that DODís 
real property inventory database showed utilization data for less than 
half of DODís total inventory and that these data often were 
incomplete or did not reflect the true usage rate of the facilities. 
As a result, DOD may be missing opportunities to identify additional 
facilities that are candidates for consolidation, demolition, or other 
forms of disposal. 

DODís plans to eliminate excess facilities in the future are unclear, 
as are its plans for taking into account external factors, such as 
management of historical preservation requirements and environmental 
restrictions, which affect the disposal of long-standing excess 
facilities that were identified before fiscal year 2008. DOD officials 
stated that, as they plan for demolition of excess facilities after 
the current program ends in fiscal year 2013, demolition will be one 
component of a broader effort for facilities management that will 
include other approaches to eliminating excess facilities, such as 
consolidation and recapitalization. However, DOD has not yet defined 
the strategies and measures it intends to employ to carry out this 
broader approach. DOD officials further stated that the demolition of 
long-standing excess facilities may require more time and effort to 
complete because of several external factors. Without specific 
strategies and measures to evaluate future efforts, and without 
considering how external factors may affect goals, DOD may not be able 
to evaluate how well its efforts will serve to eliminate long-standing 
excess facilities and make the best use of its facilities. 

Figure: Condemned Excess Facility at Camp Roberts, California, (left) 
and Historic Facility at Fort Sam Houston, Texas (right): 

[2 photographs] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

What GAO Recommends: 

To better focus and manage its future disposal efforts, GAO recommends 
that DOD calculate and record complete and accurate utilization data 
for all facilities and develop strategies and measures to enhance the 
management of excess facilities after the current demolition program 
ends. In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD generally 
agreed with GAOís recommendations. 

View GAO-11-814. For more information, contact Brian Lepore at (202) 
512-4523 or leporeb@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

DOD Has Made Progress toward Meeting Its Demolition Targets, but Long- 
standing Excess Facilities Still Remain: 

Incomplete and Inaccurate Facility Utilization Data Limit DOD's 
Ability to Identify Potentially Excess Facilities: 

DOD's Future Plans to Eliminate Excess Facilities and Address External 
Factors Affecting Disposal Are Unclear: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Related GAO Products: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Fiscal Years 2008 through 2013 Square-Footage Demolition 
Targets Compared to Actual and Planned Square-Footage Demolition (in 
millions of square feet): 

Table 2: Fiscal Years 2008 through 2013 Plant-Replacement-Value 
Demolition Targets Compared to Actual Plant Replacement Value of 
Facilities Measured in Other-Than Square Feet, as of September 30, 
2010 (in millions of dollars): 

Table 3: Ranges of Excess Declaration Dates for Facilities Identified 
as Excess as of September 30, 2010: 

Table 4: Comparison of DOD's Demolition Budget Plans (in million 
square feet): 

Table 5: DOD Offices and Installations Contacted during GAO's Review: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: DOD's Process to Identify and Dispose of Excess Facilities: 

Figure 2: Square Footage of Actual and Planned Demolition of 
Facilities Measured in Square Feet Compared to the Square-Footage 
Disposal Target for Fiscal Year 2013: 

Figure 3: Plant Replacement Value of Completed Demolition of 
Facilities Not Measured in Square Feet Compared to the Plant-
Replacement-Value Disposal Target for Fiscal Year 2013: 

Figure 4: Percentage of Demolished Square Footage from Fiscal Year 
2008 through 2010 by When Identified as Excess: 

Figure 5: Excess Historic Buildings at Naval Station Pearl Harbor: 

Figure 6: Historic Building 238 with Structural Cracks at Fort Sam 
Houston: 

Figure 7: Building 189--the Nurses' Quarters--Next to the Installation 
Borders at Fort Sam Houston: 

Figure 8: Condemned Excess Buildings at Camp Roberts: 

Figure 9: Separation of Two Wings of Building 146 at Lackland Air 
Force Base: 

Figure 10: Unrenovated World War II-Era Temporary Building Bathroom 
Currently Being Used at Camp Roberts: 

Figure 11: Renovated Temporary World War II-Era Building at Camp 
Roberts: 

Abbreviations: 

DOD: Department of Defense: 

FRPP: Federal Real Property Profile: 

GSA: General Services Administration: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

September 19, 2011: 

Congressional Committees: 

We have designated the Department of Defense's (DOD) management of its 
support infrastructure as a high-risk area,[Footnote 1] in part 
because of challenges DOD faces in reducing infrastructure that is 
excess to the department's needs.[Footnote 2] The operation and 
maintenance of excess facilities consumes valuable resources that 
could be eliminated from DOD's budget or used by DOD for other 
purposes. This is particularly important in light of the Secretary of 
Defense's efforts to achieve efficiencies, because maintaining only 
those facilities needed to meet mission requirements--and avoiding 
sustainment costs for those that do not--helps to conserve resources. 
Further, to the extent that DOD has unneeded facilities that have not 
yet been identified as excess, additional cost savings might be 
realized through the consolidation or disposal of such facilities. 

In 2007, the Office of the Secretary of Defense directed that the 
military services and certain defense organizations[Footnote 3] 
determine targeted amounts of excess facilities to be disposed of, 
excluding facilities to be eliminated as part of the Defense Base 
Realignment and Closure process. On this basis, DOD established a 6- 
year demolition program for eliminating excess facilities beginning in 
fiscal year 2008. The program included demolition targets for each of 
the services and defense organizations to dispose of excess 
facilities, with departmentwide targets totaling 62.3 million square 
feet and $1,179 million in plant replacement value (for facilities 
that are not measured in square feet) by fiscal year 2013. 

In House Report 111-491,[Footnote 4] we were directed to review the 
status of DOD's plans for disposing of excess and obsolete facilities. 
[Footnote 5] In response, this report: 

(1) assesses DOD's progress toward meeting the targets of its facility 
demolition program; 

(2) evaluates the completeness and accuracy of DOD facility 
utilization information--a source for identifying additional excess 
facilities and consolidation opportunities; and: 

(3) reviews DOD's plans for managing and disposing of excess 
facilities after its current demolition program ends and reviews 
external factors to consider in planning for future disposal of excess 
facilities. 

To assess DOD's progress toward meeting its demolition disposal 
targets, we analyzed selected data elements from DOD's annual Federal 
Real Property Profile reporting submissions and DOD's real property 
inventory database for fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 2010. We 
determined the number, square footage, and plant replacement value for 
facilities not measured in square feet of DOD facilities that were 
recorded as being demolished in fiscal years 2008 through 2010 and 
compared these amounts to DOD's demolition targets. We excluded all 
demolished facilities that the database showed as related to the 
Defense Base Realignment and Closure process. We also determined the 
number of excess facilities that remained in DOD's inventory, and the 
length of time since these facilities were determined to be excess, by 
analyzing the facilities reported as excess at the end of fiscal year 
2010 in DOD's real property inventory data--excluding those excess 
facilities that were identified as residing on sites of acquisitions, 
closures, or realignments under the Defense Base Realignment and 
Closure process. We assessed the reliability of DOD's real property 
inventory data by (1) performing electronic testing for obvious errors 
in accuracy and completeness, (2) reviewing existing information about 
the data and the system that produced them, and (3) interviewing 
agency officials knowledgeable about the data. We determined that the 
data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. 
Further, we examined federal and DOD guidance related to management 
and disposal of real property and interviewed officials from the 
Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and 
Environment) and the military departments. To determine the 
completeness and accuracy of DOD's facility utilization information, 
which can be used to identify excess facilities, we analyzed DOD's 
real property inventory database to identify facilities that were 
shown as being underutilized and to determine to what extent the data 
were complete for those facilities for which DOD is required to report 
utilization rates. To assess DOD's plans to manage and dispose of 
excess facilities after the demolition program ends in fiscal year 
2013, we reviewed DOD's estimated demolition budget for fiscal years 
2014 through 2016 and interviewed officials from the Office of the 
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment) to 
identify what they have planned for or have envisioned for disposal of 
remaining excess facilities. During our review, we conducted site 
visits at selected installations to gain a better understanding of the 
demolition efforts, determine whether utilization rates were accurate, 
and identify factors that may affect DOD's planning for future 
disposals. 

We conducted this performance audit from September 2010 to September 
2011 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit 
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for 
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Further 
details on our scope and methodology can be found in appendix I. 

Background: 

Managing and Accounting for DOD Real Property: 

The secretaries of the military departments[Footnote 6] are 
responsible for implementing policies to acquire, manage, and dispose 
of real property, in accordance with guidance provided by the Office 
of the Secretary of Defense. In managing the real property under their 
control, the military departments hold or make plans to obtain the 
land and facilities[Footnote 7] they need for their own missions and 
for any missions of other DOD components that the military 
departments' real property supports. Each military department must: 

* budget for and financially manage to meet its own real property 
requirements; 

* maintain a program monitoring the use of real property to ensure 
that all holdings under its control are being used to the maximum 
extent possible consistent with both peacetime and mobilization 
requirements; and: 

* maintain accurate inventories to account for its land and facilities. 

These inventories should include both a current count of the military 
department's facilities and up-to-date information regarding, among 
other things, the status, condition, utilization, present value, and 
remaining useful life of each real property asset as of the last day 
of each fiscal year. When DOD's real property is no longer needed for 
current or projected defense requirements, it is DOD's policy to 
dispose of it. 

DOD's Process to Identify and Dispose of Excess Facilities: 

Federal law and regulations and DOD's guidance provide definitions and 
assign responsibilities for identifying and disposing of excess 
facilities. Excess property is defined as property under the control 
of a federal agency that the head of an agency determines is not 
required to meet the agency's needs or responsibilities.[Footnote 8] 
In DOD's case, excess facilities are those buildings or structures 
that DOD has determined are not required to meet the needs of any of 
the military services or DOD components. DOD requires its components 
to periodically review their real property holdings, both land and 
facilities, to identify unneeded and underused property. If a 
component determines that a facility has no foreseeable military use, 
either in peacetime or during mobilization, then the component offers 
the facility to other DOD components for their possible use. If other 
DOD components also determine that the facility has no foreseeable 
military use, then the facility is considered excess to DOD's needs. 

DOD ordinarily disposes of excess facilities by recommending them to 
the General Services Administration (GSA) for demolition or by 
reporting them to GSA for disposal, subject to certain 
exceptions.[Footnote 9] Before DOD may demolish a facility, it must 
determine that the facility has no commercial value or that the 
estimated cost of its continued care and handling exceeds the 
estimated proceeds from its sale, and inform GSA of this 
determination. GSA may approve demolition by DOD or may assume 
responsibility for other disposal actions.[Footnote 10] Figure 1 
illustrates DOD's process to identify and dispose of excess facilities. 

Figure 1: DOD's Process to Identify and Dispose of Excess Facilities: 

[Refer to PDF for image: process map] 

Identifying potentially excess facilities: 

1) Does service or component need the facility?
Yes: Retain facility; 
No: continue. 

2) Does another DOD component need the facility? 
Yes: Transfer facility to other component and retain; 
No: Facility is designated as excess. 

Disposal of excess facilities: 

3) Is fair market value greater than $50,000? 
No: Disposal by service; 
Yes: continue. 

4) Does facility meet demolition criteria? 
No: Report of excess to General Services Administration (GSA); go to 
#6; 
Yes: continue. 

5) Does GSA concur? 
Yes: Demolition by service; 
No: Report of excess to General Services Administration (GSA); go to 
#6. 

6) Screening by GSA for transfer to another federal agency: 
Yes: Transfer to another federal agency; 
No: Disposal by GSA: 
* Public benefit conveyance; 
* Negotiated sale for public use; 
* Public sale. 

Source: GAO analysis of federal law as implemented in federal and DOD 
guidance. 

[End of figure] 

Real Property Reporting: 

Federal agencies are required to annually list and describe real 
property assets under their jurisdiction, custody, or control to the 
Director of the Office of Management and Budget and the Administrator 
of General Services through the Federal Real Property Profile (FRPP). 
The FRPP tracks key facility inventory data, including the square 
footage, plant replacement value, utilization, annual operating cost, 
type, status of buildings and structures, and disposal information 
when the asset has been disposed of. DOD extracts data for its FRPP 
submission from its real property inventory database, which obtains 
information from the services' real property database inventories. 

Federal Laws and Regulations Related to Real Property Disposal: 

During the process to identify and dispose of unneeded facilities, DOD 
must comply with several federal laws and regulations related to real 
property disposal. These laws and regulations--a selection of which is 
discussed below--require DOD to consider certain factors and consult 
with stakeholders when disposing of excess facilities. 

* Preservation of historic properties: The National Historic 
Preservation Act[Footnote 11] requires, among other things, that 
agencies establish an agency preservation program to manage historic 
properties under their control and jurisdiction, and consult with 
various stakeholders as part of their preservation activities. A 
historic property is any prehistoric or historic[Footnote 12] 
district, site, building, structure, or object included in or eligible 
for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. To be 
eligible for the National Register, a property must meet one of 
several criteria, such as: (1) be associated with events that have 
made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history; (2) 
be associated with the lives of significant people; (3) embody 
distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of 
construction; or (4) have yielded or may be likely to yield important 
information about prehistory or history. In addition, the property 
generally has to have achieved significance prior to the last 50 
years. The act's implementing regulations require that federal 
agencies consider the adverse effects of any maintenance, repair, 
renovation, or disposal on historic properties and consult with 
officials, such as the State Historic Preservation Officer, to attempt 
to reach an agreement regarding actions that may adversely affect 
these historic properties.[Footnote 13] Thus, if installation 
officials would like to dispose of a facility, they are ordinarily 
required to consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer, 
among others, to consider a method to best preserve the historic value 
of the property prior to authorizing any actions that would restrict 
the range of alternatives to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse 
effects of the disposal. According to officials, these methods could 
include reuse of the facility; preserving a portion of a group of 
similar facilities and demolishing others; documenting the historic 
value of the property through pictures or plaques at the location 
prior to demolishing the facility; or granting the facility to another 
organization that will preserve its historic value, by such means as 
renovating it to be a museum. While the act and its implementing 
regulations require coordination with state historic preservation 
groups and the federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the 
agency official--usually a service secretary in DOD's case--is the 
final decision maker for what to do with a particular historic 
property, but must consider any Advisory Council's comments and 
document that consideration. 

* Environmental and occupational safety mitigation: When developing a 
facility demolition or disposal project, DOD is required to consider 
the environmental impacts of the proposed action, such as the impact 
of hazardous materials that must be removed before the facility can be 
disposed. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969[Footnote 14] 
establishes environmental policies and procedures that are to be 
followed to the fullest extent possible by all federal agencies. The 
act established the Council on Environmental Quality, which is 
responsible for, among other things, issuing guidelines and reviewing 
agencies' policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the act. 
[Footnote 15] In accordance with National Environmental Policy Act of 
1969's requirements and Council on Environmental Quality's 
regulations, federal agencies typically evaluate the likely 
environmental effects of a project they are proposing to undertake 
using an environmental assessment, or if the project constitutes a 
major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human 
environment, a more detailed environmental impact statement. Funding 
for the removal of hazardous materials (such as asbestos or lead-based 
paint) is typically included as part of these demolition projects. 
[Footnote 16] 

* Transfer of excess facilities to assist the homeless: The McKinney- 
Vento Homeless Assistance Act,[Footnote 17] as amended, requires that 
certain federal facilities, such as excess facilities, must be 
evaluated for suitability for use to assist the homeless. If the 
property is determined to be suitable, among other requirements, it is 
included on a published list of properties available for use to assist 
the homeless. Then, representatives of the homeless (state or local 
agencies, or private non-profit organizations that provide service to 
the homeless) may apply for use of the property. Once approved, the 
property may be made available by permit, lease, or transfer of 
ownership of the property to the representative. 

DOD Has Made Progress toward Meeting Its Demolition Targets, but Long- 
standing Excess Facilities Still Remain: 

According to our analysis of DOD's real property inventory database 
and its demolition plans, DOD is on track to meet its overall 
departmentwide target to demolish 62.3 million square feet and its 
plant replacement value target of $1,179 million by the end of fiscal 
year 2013. Moreover, each service and defense organization has made 
progress in disposing of excess facilities, but some may not meet 
their individual targets by the end of fiscal year 2013. Furthermore, 
the demolition program has so far primarily disposed of newly 
identified excess, but long-standing excess that was identified prior 
to the start of the current demolition program still remains in DOD's 
real property inventory. 

DOD Is on Track to Meet Its Overall Departmentwide Square-Footage 
Demolition Target: 

Based on our analysis of DOD's real property inventory database and 
DOD's demolition plans for the remaining 3 years of its 6-year 
demolition program, DOD is on track to meet its overall departmentwide 
square-footage demolition target of 62.3 million square feet. Our 
analysis of DOD's real property inventory database showed that, as of 
September 30, 2010, DOD has demolished about 30.8 million square feet-
-about 49 percent of its departmentwide square-footage target during 
the first 3 years of its 6-year demolition program.[Footnote 18] 
According to DOD, as of June 2011, it had spent about $833 million for 
demolition in fiscal years 2008 through 2010 and plans to spend about 
an additional $941 million to demolish about 32.7 million square feet 
of facilities in fiscal years 2011 through 2013. If DOD follows 
through with its plan to demolish an additional 32.7 million square 
feet by end of fiscal year 2013, we project that DOD will exceed its 
overall departmentwide square-footage target by about 1.1 million 
square feet. Figure 2 compares the square-footage target to the actual 
number of square feet demolished in fiscal years 2008 through 2010 and 
the number of square feet DOD plans to demolish in fiscal years 2011 
through 2013. 

Figure 2: Square Footage of Actual and Planned Demolition of 
Facilities Measured in Square Feet Compared to the Square-Footage 
Disposal Target for Fiscal Year 2013: 

[Refer to PDF for image: combination vertical bar and line graph] 

Square feet in millions (MSF): 

Target of 62.3 MSF. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
Annual MSF eliminated: 6.2 MSF; 
Cumulative MSF eliminated: 6.2 MSF. 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
Annual MSF eliminated: 16.9 MSF; 
Cumulative MSF eliminated: 23 MSF. 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
Annual MSF eliminated: 7.7 MSF; 
Cumulative MSF eliminated: 30.8 MSF. 

Fiscal year: 2011; 
Annual MSF planned for demolition: 8.1 MSF; 
Cumulative MSF to be eliminated: 38.8 MSF. 

Fiscal year: 2012; 
Annual MSF planned for demolition: 18.5 MSF; 
Cumulative MSF to be eliminated: 57.3 MSF. 

Fiscal year: 2013; 
Annual MSF planned for demolition: 6.1 MSF; 
Cumulative MSF to be eliminated: 63.4 MSF. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data. 

Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding. 

[End of figure] 

DOD Is on Track to Meet Its Overall Departmentwide Plant-Replacement- 
Value Demolition Target: 

DOD has made significant progress and will likely meet its overall 
departmentwide plant-replacement-value demolition target of $1,179 
million. Our analysis of DOD's real property inventory database showed 
that as of September 30, 2010, DOD had demolished about $1,042 million 
worth of facilities not measured in square feet--about 88 percent of 
its departmentwide plant-replacement-value target during the first 3 
years of its 6-year demolition program.[Footnote 19] Because DOD 
accomplished most of the demolition needed to reach its departmentwide 
plant-replacement-value target halfway through its demolition program, 
we believe it will likely meet its target and demolish the remaining 
12 percent--about $137 million worth of facilities not measured in 
square feet--within the last 3 years of its demolition program. Figure 
3 shows the plant replacement value of facilities not measured in 
square feet that DOD demolished in fiscal years 2008 through 2010. 

Figure 3: Plant Replacement Value of Completed Demolition of 
Facilities Not Measured in Square Feet Compared to the Plant-
Replacement-Value Disposal Target for Fiscal Year 2013: 

[Refer to PDF for image: combination vertical bar and line graph] 

Plant replacement value (PRV): PRV target of $1.179 billion. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
Annual PRV eliminated: $161.0 million; 
Cumulative PRV eliminated: $161.0. 

Fiscal year: 2009; 
Annual PRV eliminated: $576.1 million; 
Cumulative PRV eliminated: $737. 

Fiscal year: 2010; 
Annual PRV eliminated: $304.6 million; 
Cumulative PRV eliminated: $1.042 billion 

$137 million below target. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data. 

[End of figure] 

Services and Defense Organizations Have Made Progress in Demolishing 
Excess, but Some May Not Meet Their Individual Demolition Targets: 

The services and defense organizations have all made progress in 
disposing of excess facilities, but some may not meet their individual 
demolition targets. Based on our analysis of DOD's real property 
inventory database of facilities demolished in fiscal years 2008 
through 2010 and the services' and defense organizations' reported 
future demolition plans for fiscal years 2011 through 2013, four of 
the six military services and defense organizations with square-
footage demolition targets are projected to meet their individual 
targets. In addition, one of the three services and defense 
organizations with plant-replacement-value targets has already met its 
individual target. Table 1 shows the individual square-footage targets 
by service or defense organization, the square footage that has 
already been demolished, the square footage that is planned for 
demolition, and the square footage over or under target that is 
projected to be demolished. 

Table 1: Fiscal Years 2008 through 2013 Square-Footage Demolition 
Targets Compared to Actual and Planned Square-Footage Demolition (in 
millions of square feet): 

Service or defense organization: Army; 
FY 08-FY 13 square-footage demolition target: 9.0; 
FY 08-FY 10 square footage demolished: 6.3; 
FY 11-FY 13 square footage planned for demolition: 6.3; 
Total FY 08-FY 13 completed and projected demolition: 12.6; 
Square footage projected over or under target: 3.6. 

Service or defense organization: Navy; 
FY 08-FY 13 square-footage demolition target: 32.0; 
FY 08-FY 10 square footage demolished: 8.1; 
FY 11-FY 13 square footage planned for demolition: 3.2; 
Total FY 08-FY 13 completed and projected demolition: 11.3; 
Square footage projected over or under target: -20.7. 

Service or defense organization: Marine Corps; 
FY 08-FY 13 square-footage demolition target: 1.4; 
FY 08-FY 10 square footage demolished: 2.7; 
FY 11-FY 13 square footage planned for demolition: 1.4; 
Total FY 08-FY 13 completed and projected demolition: 4.1; 
Square footage projected over or under target: 2.7. 

Service or defense organization: Air Force; 
FY 08-FY 13 square-footage demolition target: 15; 
FY 08-FY 10 square footage demolished: 13.2; 
FY 11-FY 13 square footage planned for demolition: 17.9; 
Total FY 08-FY 13 completed and projected demolition: 31.1; 
Square footage projected over or under target: 16.1. 

Service or defense organization: Defense Logistics Agency; 
FY 08-FY 13 square-footage demolition target: N/A; 
FY 08-FY 10 square footage demolished: 0.2; 
FY 11-FY 13 square footage planned for demolition: 0.0; 
Total FY 08-FY 13 completed and projected demolition: 0.2; 
Square footage projected over or under target: N/A. 

Service or defense organization: DOD Education Activity; 
FY 08-FY 13 square-footage demolition target: 4.4; 
FY 08-FY 10 square footage demolished: 0.1; 
FY 11-FY 13 square footage planned for demolition: 1.7; 
Total FY 08-FY 13 completed and projected demolition: 1.9; 
Square footage projected over or under target: -2.5. 

Service or defense organization: TRICARE Management Activity; 
FY 08-FY 13 square-footage demolition target: 0.5; 
FY 08-FY 10 square footage demolished: 0.1; 
FY 11-FY 13 square footage planned for demolition: 2.2; 
Total FY 08-FY 13 completed and projected demolition: 2.2; 
Square footage projected over or under target: 1.7. 

Service or defense organization: Total; 
FY 08-FY 13 square-footage demolition target: 62.3; 
FY 08-FY 10 square footage demolished: 30.8; 
FY 11-FY 13 square footage planned for demolition: 32.7; 
Total FY 08-FY 13 completed and projected demolition: 63.4; 
Square footage projected over or under target: N/A. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data. 

Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding. 

[End of table] 

As shown in table 1, the Marine Corps has already met its square- 
footage target, and the Army, Air Force, and TRICARE Management 
Activity are projected to meet their square-footage targets by end of 
fiscal year 2013. However, the Navy and the DOD Education Activity are 
not projected to meet their square-footage targets by end of fiscal 
year 2013; the Navy is projected to demolish only 11.3 million square 
feet, or about 35 percent of its target, and the DOD Education 
Activity is projected to demolish only 1.8 million square feet, or 
about 42 percent of its target. Table 2 shows the individual plant-
replacement-value demolition targets (for facilities not measured in 
square feet), the plant replacement value of such facilities that has 
already been demolished, and the plant replacement value over or under 
the targets of facilities that were demolished. 

Table 2: Fiscal Years 2008 through 2013 Plant-Replacement-Value 
Demolition Targets Compared to Actual Plant Replacement Value of 
Facilities Measured in Other-Than Square Feet, as of September 30, 
2010: 

Service or defense organization: Army; 
FY 08-FY 13 plant placement value demolition target: N/A; 
FY 08-FY 10 plant replacement value demolition: $202.0 million; 
Plant replacement value demolition over or under target: N/A. 

Service or defense organization: Navy; 
FY 08-FY 13 plant placement value demolition target: N/A; 
FY 08-FY 10 plant replacement value demolition: $293.4 million; 
Plant replacement value demolition over or under target: N/A. 

Service or defense organization: Marine Corps; 
FY 08-FY 13 plant placement value demolition target: $35.0 million; 
FY 08-FY 10 plant replacement value demolition: $74.4 million; 
Plant replacement value demolition over or under target: $39.4 million. 

Service or defense organization: Air Force; 
FY 08-FY 13 plant placement value demolition target: $868.0 million; 
FY 08-FY 10 plant replacement value demolition: $386.9 million; 
Plant replacement value demolition over or under target: -$481.1 
million. 

Service or defense organization: Defense Logistics Agency; 
FY 08-FY 13 plant placement value demolition target: $276.0 million; 
FY 08-FY 10 plant replacement value demolition: $84.6 million; 
Plant replacement value demolition over or under target: -$191.4 
million. 

Service or defense organization: DOD Education Activity; 
FY 08-FY 13 plant placement value demolition target: N/A; 
FY 08-FY 10 plant replacement value demolition: $0.1 million; 
Plant replacement value demolition over or under target: N/A. 

Service or defense organization: TRICARE Management Activity; 
FY 08-FY 13 plant placement value demolition target: N/A; 
FY 08-FY 10 plant replacement value demolition: $0.3 million; 
Plant replacement value demolition over or under target: N/A. 

Service or defense organization: Total; 
FY 08-FY 13 plant placement value demolition target: $1.179 billion; 
FY 08-FY 10 plant replacement value demolition: $1,042 billion; 
Plant replacement value demolition over or under target: N/A. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data. 

Note: DOD does not have estimates for demolition of facilities 
measured in plant replacement value for fiscal years 2011 through 2013. 

[End of table] 

As shown in table 2, the Marine Corps has already met its plant- 
replacement-value target, the Air Force has demolished $386.9 million, 
or 45 percent of its plant-replacement-value target, and the Defense 
Logistics Agency has demolished $84.6 million, or 31 percent of its 
plant-replacement-value target. 

Although DOD officials told us that they measure the success of the 
demolition program by looking at the total demolition done by the 
services and defense organizations collectively, each military service 
is responsible for managing and disposing of the real property under 
its control and has its own strategy for managing its real property 
inventory in order to support its overall mission. In some cases, a 
military service's plans for managing its real property affected its 
progress toward achieving its individual demolition targets. For 
example, the Navy is unlikely to meet its individual square-footage 
demolition target because, according to the Navy, it planned for a 
"strategic pause" in order to reassess its broader efforts in managing 
its real property and suspended operation and maintenance funding for 
demolition for fiscal years 2012 through 2015. Operation and 
maintenance funding accounted for about 96 percent of the funding for 
its demolition program in fiscal years 2008 through 2010. The Navy has 
budgeted operation and maintenance funding for demolition starting in 
fiscal year 2016 and, until then, allows for demolition as part of 
certain military construction projects that also involve some 
reduction in current Navy infrastructure. As a result, the Navy plans 
to demolish fewer facilities than it would have if it had not reduced 
funding for its demolition program. On the other hand, the Air Force 
is likely to exceed its individual square-footage demolition target, 
because it has plans to maintain a robust demolition program that was 
established prior to the start of DOD's departmentwide demolition 
program. Air Force officials told us that their demolition plans will 
assist them in meeting part of the "20/20 by 2020" goal to reduce 20 
percent of the Air Force's infrastructure--about 86 million square 
feet--by the year 2020. 

Most Remaining Excess Is Long Standing and May Be More Costly to 
Eliminate: 

The demolition program has so far primarily disposed of newly 
identified excess facilities, but long-standing excess facilities that 
were identified prior to the start of the current demolition program 
still remain in DOD's real property inventory. According to DOD 
officials, the remaining excess facilities may be more costly to 
eliminate. According to our analysis of DOD's real property inventory 
database, of the 30.8 million square feet of facilities demolished in 
fiscal years 2008 through 2010, about 25.4 million square feet (about 
82 percent) was identified as excess after the demolition program 
began. DOD identifies additional property as excess every year and may 
demolish it in the same year in which it is identified. For example, 
of the approximately 7.7 million square feet demolished in fiscal year 
2010, about 5.5 million square feet was identified as excess during 
the year in which it was demolished. Figure 4 shows a breakout of the 
percentage of square footage of excess facilities demolished from 
fiscal years 2008 through 2010 by when the facilities were identified 
as excess--either before the start of the current demolition program 
in fiscal year 2008 or after the program began. 

Figure 4: Percentage of Demolished Square Footage from Fiscal Year 
2008 through 2010 by When Identified as Excess: 

[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] 

Identified as excess on or after October 1, 2007: 82%; 
Identified as excess prior to October 1, 2007: 18%. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data. 

[End of figure] 

According to our analysis of DOD's real property inventory database, 
DOD had identified 2,735 facilities as excess in this database at the 
end of fiscal year 2010.[Footnote 20] This number includes about 9.1 
million square feet of excess facilities and about $399.2 million in 
plant replacement value for facilities not measured in square feet, 
which together are worth about $3.3 billion. These facilities cost an 
estimated $25 million in total to operate annually.[Footnote 21] More 
than half (53 percent) of the approximately 9.1 million square feet 
was declared excess prior to the start of the demolition program--
including about 2.4 million square feet of long-standing excess that 
was identified as excess in the 1960s through the 1990s. Table 3 shows 
ranges of excess declaration dates for facilities reported as excess 
as of September 30, 2010, and the number of facilities, total square 
feet, and plant replacement value of facilities not measured in square 
feet for each range. 

Table 3: Ranges of Excess Declaration Dates for Facilities Identified 
as Excess as of September 30, 2010: 

Excess declaration date by range of fiscal years: 1960-1969; 
Excess facilities identified that are measured in square feet: Number 
identified: 1; 
Excess facilities identified that are measured in square feet: 
Millions of square feet: 0.003; 
Excess facilities identified that are not measured in square feet: 
Number identified: 0; 
Excess facilities identified that are not measured in square feet: 
Plant replacement value: $0.0; 
Total number of facilities identified: 1. 

Excess declaration date by range of fiscal years: 1970-1979; 
Excess facilities identified that are measured in square feet: Number 
identified: 5; 
Excess facilities identified that are measured in square feet: 
Millions of square feet: 0.024; 
Excess facilities identified that are not measured in square feet: 
Number identified: 5; 
Excess facilities identified that are not measured in square feet: 
Plant replacement value: $56.0 million; 
Total number of facilities identified: 10. 

Excess declaration date by range of fiscal years: 1980-1989; 
Excess facilities identified that are measured in square feet: Number 
identified: 77; 
Excess facilities identified that are measured in square feet: 
Millions of square feet: 0.992; 
Excess facilities identified that are not measured in square feet: 
Number identified: 59; 
Excess facilities identified that are not measured in square feet: 
Plant replacement value: $50.8 million; 
Total number of facilities identified: 136. 

Excess declaration date by range of fiscal years: 1990-1999; 
Excess facilities identified that are measured in square feet: Number 
identified: 262; 
Excess facilities identified that are measured in square feet: 
Millions of square feet: 1.342; 
Excess facilities identified that are not measured in square feet: 
Number identified: 84; 
Excess facilities identified that are not measured in square feet: 
Plant replacement value: $35.8 million; 
Total number of facilities identified: 346. 

Excess declaration date by range of fiscal years: 2000-2007; 
Excess facilities identified that are measured in square feet: Number 
identified: 784; 
Excess facilities identified that are measured in square feet: 
Millions of square feet: 2.504; 
Excess facilities identified that are not measured in square feet: 
Number identified: 334; 
Excess facilities identified that are not measured in square feet: 
Plant replacement value: $191.9 million; 
Total number of facilities identified: 1,118. 

Excess declaration date by range of fiscal years: 2008-2010; 
Excess facilities identified that are measured in square feet: Number 
identified: 679; 
Excess facilities identified that are measured in square feet: 
Millions of square feet: 4.125; 
Excess facilities identified that are not measured in square feet: 
Number identified: 304; 
Excess facilities identified that are not measured in square feet: 
Plant replacement value: $39.9 million; 
Total number of facilities identified: 983. 

Excess declaration date by range of fiscal years: No excess 
declaration date[A]; 
Excess facilities identified that are measured in square feet: Number 
identified: 41; 
Excess facilities identified that are measured in square feet: 
Millions of square feet: 0.114; 
Excess facilities identified that are not measured in square feet: 
Number identified: 100; 
Excess facilities identified that are not measured in square feet: 
Plant replacement value: $24.8 million; 
Total number of facilities identified: 141. 

Excess declaration date by range of fiscal years: Total; 
Excess facilities identified that are measured in square feet: Number 
identified: 1,849; 
Excess facilities identified that are measured in square feet: 
Millions of square feet: 9.103; 
Excess facilities identified that are not measured in square feet: 
Number identified: 886; 
Excess facilities identified that are not measured in square feet: 
Plant replacement value: $399.2 million; 
Total number of facilities identified: 2,735. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data. 

Note: Numbers may not add due to rounding. 

[A] We were unable to determine when some facilities were identified 
as excess, because there was no excess declaration date recorded for 
them in DOD's real property inventory database. However, they were 
reported as excess in fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 2010. These 
facilities may have been declared excess prior to or in fiscal year 
2008. 

[End of table] 

DOD officials stated that the remaining excess facilities may cost 
more to demolish than those that have already been demolished through 
the first 3 years of the demolition program. For example, the Navy 
reported that its demolition cost had increased from $32 to $45 per 
square foot to demolish facilities during fiscal years 2008 through 
2010. According to the Navy, it needs to consolidate and renovate 
other facilities in order to demolish most of the remaining square 
footage, which would be at a higher cost--an estimated $75 per square 
foot--than demolition completed in prior years. According to DOD 
officials, many of the demolition projects completed to date have been 
limited to what DOD officials characterized as "picking the low 
hanging fruit;" that is, those projects that are easily accomplished 
because they do not have many restrictions that would increase their 
cost or the time needed to complete them. DOD officials told us that 
in deciding which demolition projects to implement first, they often 
look at the cost of demolition and the savings that would be gained by 
disposing of the facility and prioritize those projects with the 
highest return on investment. DOD officials have estimated that for an 
uncomplicated demolition project, it takes approximately 3 to 5 years 
after demolishing the facility to realize the financial benefits of 
the demolition. Officials noted that, in the short term, the cost to 
demolish an excess facility often exceeds the cost to keep it open, 
but they stated that demolition is a better long-term solution than 
operating and maintaining unused and often unsightly excess buildings 
that may be hazardous to health or safety over time. 

Incomplete and Inaccurate Facility Utilization Data Limit DOD's 
Ability to Identify Potentially Excess Facilities: 

Because DOD does not maintain complete and accurate data concerning 
the utilization of its facilities, it is unable to determine whether 
all of its facilities are required in order to meet its mission needs, 
an inability that limits identification of potentially excess 
facilities. As a result, DOD may be missing opportunities to identify 
additional facilities that are candidates for consolidation, 
demolition, or other disposal. Our review found that DOD's real 
property inventory database displayed facilities utilization data for 
less than half of DOD's total inventory and that these data often were 
incomplete or did not reflect the true usage rate of DOD's facilities. 

DOD Maintains Utilization Rate Data for Fewer Than Half of Its 
Facilities: 

We analyzed DOD's real property inventory database as of September 30, 
2010, and found that facility utilization data were recorded for 
238,498 of DOD's 521,500 facilities, or about 46 percent of its 
inventory. DOD guidance requires that the secretaries of the military 
departments maintain programs to monitor the use of real property to 
ensure that all real property holdings under their control are used to 
the maximum extent possible, consistent with both peacetime and 
mobilization requirements. The military departments' programs for 
monitoring utilization of facilities generally begin at an 
installation with the personnel gathering information about current 
occupancy, the amount of square footage being used, and the various 
mission functions being performed within a building or structure. 
[Footnote 22] Facility management officials at the installation use 
this information to enter utilization data into their military 
department's real property inventory database. These data are used to 
calculate utilization rates. DOD's real property database receives 
utilization rates from the military departments' databases and 
displays these rates as percentages. 

DOD officials acknowledged that utilization data in its database do 
not cover the full DOD inventory, because the primary focus of their 
efforts to collect and record such data has been in response to 
reporting requirements from the Federal Real Property Council. The 
council's guidance requires that DOD and other federal agencies 
annually report utilization information for five categories of 
buildings--offices, warehouses, hospitals, laboratories, and housing-- 
as part of the agencies' data submissions for the FRPP. In turn, DOD 
guidance emphasizes gathering the utilization data for the annual FRPP 
report and requires periodic utilization reviews only for the same 
five categories of buildings. Although DOD guidance does not preclude 
the military departments from maintaining additional utilization data 
for other facilities--as previously noted, the military departments 
captured utilization rate data for 46 percent of their facilities-- 
DOD's database shows that only 145,239 (or about 28 percent) of its 
facilities belong to one of the five categories for which the FRPP 
requires utilization information.[Footnote 23] As a result, DOD's 
focus is limited to only approximately a quarter of its total 
inventory, and its database does not provide all of the utilization 
data the military departments need to ensure that the real property 
holdings under their control are being used to the maximum extent 
possible. 

DOD's Processes for Recording and Reporting the Use of Its Facilities 
Do Not Produce Accurate Information: 

Our analysis also revealed gaps in required data fields and multiple 
instances in which recorded utilization rates for facilities differed 
from the rates at which they were actually being utilized. Moreover, 
our review of the utilization information DOD reported for the FRPP 
for fiscal year 2010 showed similar discrepancies between the reported 
utilization designations and actual building utilization. 

Gaps in Utilization Data in DOD's Real Property Inventory Database: 

Our analysis of DOD's real property inventory database as of September 
30, 2010, showed that for 32,999 of the 145,239 buildings in the five 
categories for which DOD requires a periodic utilization review, no 
utilization rate was recorded. DOD guidance for collecting data for 
its real property inventory in fiscal year 2010 stated that 
utilization rates for these five categories of buildings must be 
included in the military departments' annual real property inventory 
submissions to the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations 
and Environment). DOD officials indicated that the submissions were 
missing utilization rates for some of the required building types 
because the military services had not entered the data necessary to 
calculate utilization rates. The officials noted that during their 
annual process to collect and reconcile real property inventory data 
from the military departments' databases, they identified data 
anomalies such as missing utilization rates and gave the military 
services an opportunity to correct them, if possible. However, if the 
military services still did not enter a utilization rate, DOD's 
process permitted that field to remain blank in DOD's real property 
inventory database. 

Inaccurate Utilization Data in DOD's Real Property Inventory Database: 

Our review of the utilization data that DOD maintains indicated that 
the data often do not reflect the true usage of DOD's facilities. For 
example, data for the Air Force showed a utilization rate of zero 
percent for 22,563 buildings that were in an active status--more than 
17 times the number of unused buildings reported by any other military 
service. When we asked an Air Force headquarters official about the 
unusually large number of apparently unused buildings, the official 
stated that this number was erroneous and was because of a 
miscalculation in the Air Force's utilization data. The Air Force 
official acknowledged that the data were incorrect and said that the 
Air Force planned to correct this miscalculation for future real 
property inventory submissions. During our evaluation of utilization 
rates for selected DOD locations, we found further instances in which 
utilization rates shown in DOD's database differed from the actual 
usage of the buildings. For example, at Joint Base San Antonio, Texas, 
specifically the Fort Sam Houston installation, all three of the 
buildings for which a zero percent utilization rate was reported were 
actually being fully utilized, according to installation officials. 
Similarly, according to an installation official from Joint 
Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story, Virginia, all four of the 
buildings for which the database showed a zero percent utilization 
rate were being fully utilized. Officials we interviewed at several 
other installations told us that they did not use utilization data in 
planning for disposal of facilities. These findings are consistent 
with statements by DOD installation officials that one weakness of the 
real property inventory data is its inability to accurately identify 
vacant and underutilized properties and that the officials have 
identified gaps between policy and practice in this area. DOD 
officials stated that efforts are under way to address the quality of 
DOD's data on facility utilization and that a review of the data 
submitted by the military services for the fiscal year 2011 real 
property inventory will assist in determining what policy changes or 
clarifications may be required. 

Inaccurate Reporting of Utilization Information for the FRPP: 

To gain additional insight into the utilization information that DOD 
maintains, we analyzed its submission for the FRPP for fiscal year 
2010 and found similar inaccuracies. Specifically, DOD reported 
utilization information for all facilities in the five categories on 
which it was required to report, even though 32,999 of the applicable 
utilization data entries were not recorded in DOD's database--DOD's 
authoritative source for generating its FRPP reporting. While the FRPP 
describes utilization of buildings using one of four designations, 
[Footnote 24] Federal Real Property Council guidance states that 
agencies should maintain actual utilization percentages for audit 
purposes. As noted earlier, DOD's process for collecting utilization 
rate data in its database allows for blanks in mandatory fields. 
Officials stated that when utilization rates were unavailable to 
generate the FRPP utilization designations for fiscal year 2010 
reporting, they used previous years' utilization data and that, if 
even old data were unavailable, DOD reported that the facility was 
utilized, even when there were no data to support such 
reporting.[Footnote 25] We also evaluated FRPP utilization 
designations for selected locations and found instances in which the 
utilization information reported by DOD differed from the actual usage 
of the buildings. For example, at Naval Station Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, 
installation officials confirmed that six buildings reported as not 
utilized were correctly reported, but that two others were vacant and 
should also have been reported as not utilized. At Fort Sam Houston, 
16 of 17 buildings that were reported as not utilized were actually in 
use, according to installation officials; the one building that was 
correctly shown as not utilized was observed to be under major 
renovation. 

DOD's methodology for calculating and recording utilization data does 
not encompass all of its facilities, and as a result, DOD is impaired 
in its ability to identify facilities that may be excess to its needs. 
Moreover, its processes to record and report utilization information 
do not ensure that this information reflects a facility's true status. 
Without complete and reliable information about the utilization of the 
full range of its facilities, DOD is not able to readily identify 
underutilized facilities and thus may be missing opportunities to 
identify additional candidates for consolidation, demolition, or other 
disposal. 

DOD's Future Plans to Eliminate Excess Facilities and Address External 
Factors Affecting Disposal Are Unclear: 

DOD's future plans to eliminate excess facilities after its current 
demolition program ends in fiscal year 2013 are unclear, as are its 
plans for taking into account external factors that affect the 
disposal of long-standing excess facilities that were identified 
before fiscal year 2008. Since we previously reported on DOD's plans 
for demolition of excess facilities as part of our high risk 
series,[Footnote 26] DOD has significantly reduced its estimated 
demolition plans for fiscal years 2014 through 2016. Also, DOD 
officials told us that after the current demolition program ends, they 
intend to view demolition as one component of a broader effort for 
future facilities management. They stated that this effort will 
include other approaches to eliminating excess, such as consolidation 
and recapitalization. However, it is not clear what strategies and 
measures DOD plans to establish to manage its disposal of excess 
facilities as part of this broader effort. As previously stated in 
this report, DOD's demolition efforts have focused on the more easily 
completed projects. DOD officials acknowledge that the demolition of 
the remaining long-standing excess facilities may require more time 
and effort to complete because of several external factors, including 
management of historic preservation requirements, environmental 
restrictions, host nation agreements, and consolidation efforts. 
Without focusing on disposal of long-standing excess and considering 
external factors that affect disposal in developing its future plans, 
DOD may be unable to determine how effective its future efforts to 
eliminate excess and promote better use of its facilities will be. 

DOD Has Adjusted Its Plans for Demolition after Fiscal Year 2013: 

DOD adjusted its demolition plans to lower the amount it estimates it 
will complete after the current demolition program ends in fiscal year 
2013. In February 2011, we reported in our high risk series that DOD 
had planned to demolish up to 222 million square feet of excess 
facilities from fiscal year 2011 through fiscal year 2016. We reported 
that the majority of this square footage--about 178 million square 
feet or 80 percent of the total--was planned to be demolished in 
fiscal years 2014 through 2016. We also reported that the amounts of 
demolition DOD estimated it would do in prior years are much higher on 
average than the amounts that were completed or planned for fiscal 
years 2008 through 2013. However, DOD adjusted its original estimate 
and, as of June 2011, expects to demolish about 31 million square feet 
in fiscal years 2014 through 2016. Table 4 shows a comparison of the 
demolition budget plan reported in our high risk series and DOD's most 
recent demolition plan as of June 2011. 

Table 4: Comparison of DOD's Demolition Budget Plans (in million 
square feet): 

DOD's demolition plan as reported in GAO's high risk series[A]; 
Completed demolition: FY 2008: N/A; 
Completed demolition: FY 2009: N/A; 
Completed demolition: FY 2010: N/A; 
Estimated demolition: FY 2011: 5.5; 
Estimated demolition: FY 2012: 28.6; 
Estimated demolition: FY 2013: 10.1; 
Estimated demolition: FY 2014: 44.4; 
Estimated demolition: FY 2015: 39.3; 
Estimated demolition: FY 2016: 94.1. 

DOD's completed demolition as of September 2010 and demolition plan as 
of June 2011; 
Completed demolition: FY 2008: 6.2; 
Completed demolition: FY 2009: 16.9; 
Completed demolition: FY 2010: 7.7; 
Estimated demolition: FY 2011: 8.1; 
Estimated demolition: FY 2012: 18.5; 
Estimated demolition: FY 2013: 6.1; 
Estimated demolition: FY 2014: 8.7; 
Estimated demolition: FY 2015: 10.5; 
Estimated demolition: FY 2016: 12.2. 

Difference increase/(decrease); 
Completed demolition: FY 2008: N/A; 
Completed demolition: FY 2009: N/A; 
Completed demolition: FY 2010: N/A; 
Estimated demolition: FY 2011: 2.6; 
Estimated demolition: FY 2012: (10.1); 
Estimated demolition: FY 2013: (4.0); 
Estimated demolition: FY 2014: (35.7); 
Estimated demolition: FY 2015: (28.8); 
Estimated demolition: FY 2016: (81.9). 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data. 

[A] DOD's demolition plan as reported in GAO's High Risk Series Update 
(GAO-11-278) did not include annual completed demolition amounts for 
fiscal years 2008 through 2010. The High Risk Series Update does not 
report the estimated future demolition by fiscal year, but DOD's 
demolition plan shown here sums to 222 million square feet, as 
reported in the update. 

[End of table] 

A DOD official stated that the reason for this reduction was that the 
initial demolition-budget plan included erroneous estimates, which 
resulted in significantly larger amounts of total square footage 
projected to be demolished for fiscal year 2014 through fiscal year 
2016 than were projected in previous fiscal years. This official told 
us that the June 2011 budget plan reflected corrected estimates. Our 
analysis of this budget plan showed that these estimates were in line 
with the amounts of demolition done or planned on average for prior 
fiscal years. 

It Is Unclear What Strategies and Measures DOD Will Use to Dispose of 
Long-standing Excess as Part of Its Future Facilities-Management Plan: 

DOD officials told us that after the department's current demolition 
program ends in fiscal year 2013, DOD will continue working toward its 
requirements to promote the most efficient and economical use of DOD 
property and to dispose of property that is no longer needed for 
current or projected defense needs. DOD officials told us that they 
plan on continuing demolition, but that they do not currently have 
plans for new demolition targets in the future, and that they do not 
want demolition to be viewed as a separate program. Officials told us 
that they are in the process of updating their 2007 Defense 
Installations Strategic Plan to guide efforts to eliminate DOD's long- 
standing excess facilities and better use existing facilities, but 
that they do not yet have a finalized plan. They told us that the 
updated plan will contain a set of priorities under a broader effort 
for future facilities management, which will include other approaches 
to eliminating excess, such as consolidation, demolition as part of 
military construction, and recapitalization. 

We have previously reported that several elements are critical to 
strategic planning, including strategies to reach goals, measures to 
gauge progress, and consideration of external factors that could 
affect goals.[Footnote 27] However, at this time, it is unclear what 
strategies and measures DOD plans to use to manage its efforts to 
dispose of excess facilities after the demolition program ends in 
fiscal year 2013. As we stated earlier in this report, DOD's 
demolition efforts have focused on the more easily completed projects. 
Officials told us that long-standing excess facilities typically will 
require more time and effort to dispose of, in part due to external 
factors that will affect how disposal of these facilities is to be 
managed. It is not clear whether DOD's planning will take into account 
these external factors. DOD is beginning to consider how it will 
integrate demolition of its excess facilities into a broader 
facilities management effort in the future, but until DOD focuses on 
disposal of long-standing excess and considers external factors, such 
as historic preservation and environmental restrictions, that affect 
disposal in developing its future plans, DOD may be unable to 
determine how effective its future efforts to eliminate excess are and 
to promote better use of its facilities. 

Several External Factors May Delay or Complicate DOD's Future Disposal 
Efforts: 

Although DOD's future plans for eliminating excess facilities are 
unclear, several external factors can delay or complicate DOD's future 
disposal efforts. We previously stated in this report that many of the 
demolitions that had been completed under the current program had a 
projected high return on investment, because the demolished facilities 
typically did not have many restrictions that would increase the cost 
or time to demolish them. However, DOD officials stated that many of 
the remaining excess facilities will require more time and effort to 
dispose of. These DOD officials told us that in planning for disposal 
of these facilities, DOD has to account for the time and resources 
needed to manage consultation requirements for historic preservation, 
environmental restrictions, and contingent actions related to disposal 
in international settings or DOD's consolidation efforts. 

Management of Consultation Requirements for Historic Preservation: 

Because DOD is required to take into account the effects of its 
actions on historic properties, DOD's management of the consultation 
requirements for historic preservation can delay or complicate 
demolition of excess facilities that have been determined to have 
historic significance. As of September 30, 2010, DOD reported in its 
submission for the FRPP that its 2,735 excess facilities consist of: 
603 facilities assessed as having historic significance, 204 
facilities assessed as having no historic significance, 1,819 
facilities that have not yet been evaluated, and 109 facilities for 
which historical data are unreported. Before a historic facility can 
be demolished, DOD is required to consult with state and local 
historic preservation groups to negotiate and try to agree on methods 
to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the effect of DOD's actions on the 
facility's historic significance. DOD and installation cultural 
resources officials have told us that these methods can include 
preserving a portion of a group of similar facilities and demolishing 
others or documenting the historic significance of the property 
through pictures or plaques at the location prior to demolition. These 
officials stated that although these negotiations lengthen the 
demolition process and can increase the cost of the demolition--
depending on the agreed method of preserving the historic significance 
of the facility--DOD has been successful in negotiating agreements and 
demolishing some excess facilities that have historic significance. 
However, officials also told us that the timing and complexity of the 
historic preservation consultation process is a factor that needs to 
be considered when planning for demolition of a historic facility. 

At the installations we visited, we observed several examples of 
facilities that the military services would like to demolish but have 
not yet demolished because of ongoing historic preservation 
consultations, and conversely, examples of how the military services 
have been successful in negotiating historic preservation agreements 
while allowing for demolition. At Naval Station Pearl Harbor, most of 
the excess facilities--224 of 270--are national historic landmarks or 
eligible for the national historic register, requiring DOD to 
coordinate with state and local historic preservation groups prior to 
any demolition. Naval Station Pearl Harbor officials told us that 
managing this process can delay demolition, because it takes time and 
resources to coordinate with these groups, analyze whether potential 
methods to preserve historic significance are cost-effective or 
practical, and reach agreement on which method to pursue. For example, 
officials showed us several excess historic buildings, including pre- 
fabricated Quonset huts that were built during World War II to be used 
as barracks or offices and a small uninsulated wooden pagoda built in 
the 1930s (shown in figure 5). Although these buildings are not needed 
or useable in their current condition, officials do not have immediate 
plans to demolish them because a solution has not yet been negotiated 
with the historic preservation groups to either dispose of or reuse 
them. 

Figure 5: Excess Historic Buildings at Naval Station Pearl Harbor: 

[Refer to PDF for image2 photographs] 

Quonset Hut; 
Wooden Pagoda. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

On the other hand, Naval Station Pearl Harbor officials have been able 
to demolish some historic facilities and have established a Cultural 
Resources group at the installation to facilitate coordination with 
state and local historic preservation groups to preserve historic 
significance while disposing of excess facilities. For example, 
through the Cultural Resources group, officials were able to negotiate 
the renovation and preservation of one warehouse with historic 
significance while allowing for the demolition of two other similar 
warehouses. 

We also saw examples of historic significance affecting demolition of 
excess facilities at the Fort Sam Houston installation on Joint Base 
San Antonio. Because a large portion of the installation has been 
designated as a National Historic Landmark district, Joint Base San 
Antonio has a Cultural Resources Manager and a series of programmatic 
agreements with state and local historic preservation groups that 
provide a process to review the repair, alteration, or renovation of 
historic properties in order to ensure that historic properties on the 
base are appropriately recognized and considered in the course of the 
management and use of the properties. However, installation officials 
stated that the historic preservation consultation process has 
resulted in delays in disposing of these buildings as they consult and 
negotiate with state and local historic preservation groups to reach 
agreement on how best to preserve the historic significance of these 
buildings. Officials said that some of these historic buildings have 
been vacant for years, and they are continuing their efforts to 
dispose of these facilities. For example, officials stated that in1994 
they were able to demolish one of three similar small buildings, on 
the condition that the remaining two would not be demolished within 
the next 5 years, while officials determined whether the buildings 
could be renovated for use. However, according to officials, it has 
been 17 years since this agreement was made, and the two buildings 
remain vacant because they have large structural cracks, and officials 
were not able to repair them for use. Figure 6 shows the cracks on one 
of these buildings. 

Figure 6: Historic Building 238 with Structural Cracks at Fort Sam 
Houston: 

[Refer to PDF for image: photograph] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

A further complication can occur if a facility is deemed to have 
historic significance but competing guidance--such as force protection 
restrictions--precludes it from being renovated and fully used. At 
Fort Sam Houston, officials stated that Building 189--known as the 
Nurses' Quarters--remains vacant and is not planned for demolition or 
reuse, in part because of its historic significance but also because 
of its location next to the installation's borders. Fort Sam Houston 
officials told us that the structure is not sound and would be costly 
to repair for reuse, but state historic preservation groups do not 
want it to be demolished. In addition, anti-terrorism and force-
protection guidance limits the occupancy of buildings that are within 
a certain distance from an installation's borders, and officials told 
us that the Nurses' Quarters would not comply with this standard. 
Officials stated that they have not disposed of or renovated the 
building because they have been unable to negotiate an agreement that 
will satisfy the need to preserve its historic significance and also 
fully use it under force protection restrictions. Figure 7 shows the 
Nurses' Quarters and its proximity to the installation's fence line. 

Figure 7: Building 189--the Nurses' Quarters--Next to the Installation 
Borders at Fort Sam Houston: 

[Refer to PDF for image: photograph] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

Management of Environmental Impacts: 

DOD's management of various environmental and health and safety 
restrictions may also delay demolition of some excess facilities. When 
developing a project for demolition or disposal of a facility, DOD is 
required to consider the environmental impacts that may result from 
the disposal--such as hazardous materials that must be removed before 
the facilities can be disposed of--which may increase cost and time 
for disposal. For example 308 excess facilities at Camp Roberts, 
California, totaling nearly 1.2 million square feet, are World War II- 
era temporary structures that are covered in lead-based paint, 
according to Camp Roberts officials. Officials at the installation 
told us that disposal of these facilities required additional 
environmental precautions and has taken more time to complete. These 
buildings have been condemned and have not been used for many years 
because of safety and health issues such as the presence of lead-based 
paint, asbestos, and hantavirus.[Footnote 28] Figure 8 shows examples 
of these vacant excess buildings. 

Figure 8: Condemned Excess Buildings at Camp Roberts: 

[Refer to PDF for image: 2 photographs] 

Condemned building with danger sign; 
Excess World War II-Era condemned building. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

Installation officials told us that they are required to dispose of 
lead-based paint-covered materials in landfills with a type of liner 
that prevents the lead from contaminating the ground and water. They 
told us that the nearest such landfill is many miles away and that it 
requires more time and cost to transport and appropriately dispose of 
the hazardous materials there. However, officials stated that they 
have been successful in demolishing some of these buildings and have 
developed a way to mitigate the debris' environmental harm. The 
officials are in the process of constructing a lined landfill at the 
installation, which they estimate will cost about $3 million to 
complete and will save time and resources in disposing of these 
materials. 

Management of Contingent Actions Related to Disposal in International 
Settings and DOD's Consolidation Efforts: 

Another factor that may affect DOD's disposal of facilities is 
management of contingent actions, such as efforts related to DOD's 
property in international settings or DOD's facility consolidation to 
improve the efficiency of its operations. DOD officials told us that 
when DOD disposes of facilities that are located in foreign nations, 
it can return facilities and land areas to the host nation, but that 
negotiations with the host nation may influence when the return can be 
completed. For example, as part of a series of bilateral security 
consultations between the United States and Japan, 8,600 Marines and 
their estimated 9,000 dependents are to move from Okinawa, Japan, to 
Guam. This relocation is dependent on "tangible progress" toward the 
completion of a replacement for Marine Corps Air Station Futenma 
[Footnote 29] in southern Okinawa, Japan, to a less densely populated 
area in northern Okinawa. Officials stated that about 171 excess 
family-housing units are on the land that DOD plans to return as part 
of this relocation effort and that the officials do not intend to 
dispose of these excess facilities until the replacement facility is 
completed. On June 21, 2011, officials from the United States and 
Japan noted that completion of the replacement facility and Marine 
relocation will not meet the previously targeted date of 
2014.[Footnote 30] DOD officials stated that because there have been 
delays in completing the replacement facility, the return of excess 
family-housing units located in Futenma has also been delayed. 
Furthermore, while it is difficult to determine at this time what, if 
any, impact the March 11, 2011, earthquake, tsunami, and associated 
nuclear-reactor incident will have on this agreement, DOD officials 
have said that there is potential for increases in the cost of 
materials and labor in Asia, which may lead to further delays in the 
return of excess facilities in Okinawa. 

In addition, installation officials told us that consolidation efforts 
can also delay disposal of some facilities. They told us that there 
are facilities that they would like to identify as excess because they 
are in poor condition or not well configured for DOD's mission, but 
the officials are awaiting renovation of existing facilities, or new 
construction, so that they can move servicemembers and DOD civilians 
who are currently using the older facilities. For example, in Texas, 
Lackland Air Force Base, Fort Sam Houston, and Randolph Air Force Base 
were combined to form Joint Base San Antonio, which officials stated 
has resulted in an increase in missions at Lackland Air Force Base. 
Officials told us that, because of the increase in mission, people are 
working in buildings that were previously planned for disposal, and 
these buildings are obsolete and in poor condition. However, disposal 
has been delayed until the workforce can move into other locations 
that are being built or renovated. Installation officials stated that 
they are in the process of developing a joint base master plan in 
order to strategically invest resources for their consolidation 
efforts. They told us that the plan will assist in identifying and 
managing the disposal of any excess facilities that are identified 
after consolidation efforts are completed. Figure 9 shows Building 146 
at Joint Base San Antonio, specifically, Lackland Air Force Base, 
which has structural cracks and separation but is nevertheless being 
partially occupied until consolidation and renovation of other 
buildings is completed. 

Figure 9: Separation of Two Wings of Building 146 at Lackland Air 
Force Base: 

[Refer to PDF for image: photograph] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

Another example of the management of consolidation efforts leading to 
delays in disposal of facilities is at Camp Roberts. Installation 
officials told us that they would like to declare as excess and 
demolish 351 World War II-era temporary buildings that are in poor 
condition or are not well-configured for the installation's current 
needs. The buildings were built to house the growth in troops during 
World War II and were not designed for permanent use. Although the 
Senate Armed Services Committee encouraged DOD to develop a plan to 
demolish these facilities in 1982,[Footnote 31] officials told us that 
they are not able to demolish these buildings because they are 
awaiting new construction so they can move servicemembers and DOD 
civilians who are currently using these facilities. Figure 10 shows a 
bathroom in a World War II-era temporary barracks building that has 
not been renovated, but is currently being used. 

Figure 10: Unrenovated World War II-Era Temporary Building Bathroom 
Currently Being Used at Camp Roberts: 

[Refer to PDF for image: photograph] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

Officials told us that they are spending millions of dollars of 
sustainment and restoration funds to repair and renovate some of these 
buildings so that they can continue to use them while waiting for the 
new construction to be completed. Although these buildings are not 
planned for demolition in the near term, they have been identified for 
future disposal as part of the Camp Roberts Real Property Development 
Plan. Figure 11 shows a World War II-era temporary building that 
officials told us was renovated with sustainment and restoration funds 
while they awaited new construction. 

Figure 11: Renovated Temporary World War II-Era Building at Camp 
Roberts: 

[Refer to PDF for image: photograph] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

Conclusions: 

Challenges in managing and reducing its inventory of excess facilities 
have placed DOD's support infrastructure at high risk in part because 
of the need for transformation to address economy, efficiency, or 
effectiveness challenges. Continuing to maintain excess facilities 
consumes resources that could be made available for other uses. 
Although DOD has made progress in disposing of excess facilities 
through its demolition program, many of the facilities it has disposed 
of were identified as excess only after the current program began. 
According to DOD officials, these facilities were more easily 
demolished than the long-standing excess facilities, because they had 
fewer of the complications and restrictions that typically increase 
the cost or time needed to complete demolition projects. As a result, 
many of the long-standing excess facilities remain in DOD's inventory. 
Moreover, DOD does not have reliable data to identify underutilized 
facilities--information that could be used to identify additional 
excess facilities or potential recapitalization or consolidation 
opportunities. Complete and reliable information about underutilized 
facilities aids local installation personnel in managing their 
facilities and guides the department as it makes basing decisions and 
develops annual resource plans. DOD has reduced its demolition budget 
estimates for the years after the demolition program ends in fiscal 
year 2013. DOD officials stated that they are exploring a broader 
approach to managing the elimination of excess facilities beyond 
fiscal year 2013. This approach would include consolidating and 
recapitalizing facilities instead of focusing primarily on demolition. 
As noted, several external factors, such as management of historic 
preservation requirements and environmental restrictions, may affect 
DOD's future disposal efforts. However, without specific strategies 
and measures to evaluate future efforts and without considering how 
external factors may affect goals, DOD may be unable to accurately 
determine how well this broader effort will help to eliminate long-
standing excess facilities, manage disposals in the future, and 
promote DOD's efforts to make the best use of its facilities. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To better focus and manage DOD's future disposal efforts, we recommend 
that the Secretary of Defense direct the Deputy Under Secretary of 
Defense (Installations and Environment) to work with the Secretaries 
of the military departments and take the following two actions: 

* Develop and implement a methodology for calculating and recording 
utilization data for all types of facilities, and modify processes to 
update and verify the accuracy of reported utilization data to reflect 
a facility's true status. 

* Develop strategies and measures to enhance the management of DOD's 
excess facilities after the current demolition program ends, taking 
into account external factors that may affect future disposal efforts. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD generally concurred 
with our recommendations to better focus and manage DOD's future 
disposal efforts. DOD's comments are reprinted in appendix II. DOD 
also provided technical comments that we have incorporated into this 
report where applicable. 

DOD partially concurred with our recommendation to direct the Deputy 
Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment) to work 
with the Secretaries of the military departments to develop and 
implement a methodology for calculating and recording utilization data 
for all types of facilities, and modify processes to update and verify 
the accuracy of reported utilization data to reflect a facility's true 
status. In comments, DOD stated that it recognizes the need for 
further improvements in the collection and reporting of utilization 
data across the department and has already begun some efforts to 
improve its utilization data. DOD also stated that it will continue 
the development and implementation of appropriate procedures. While 
DOD's statements appear to be responsive to our recommendation, DOD 
did not specify what actions it has completed to date or the time 
frames for completing its efforts to improve the collection and 
reporting of utilization data. 

DOD concurred with our recommendation to direct the Deputy Under 
Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment) to work with the 
Secretaries of the military departments to develop strategies and 
measures to enhance the management of DOD's excess facilities after 
the current demolition program ends, taking into account external 
factors that may affect future disposal efforts. DOD stated in its 
comments that it will work with the military departments to continue 
to develop and implement the most effective and efficient methods to 
eliminate excess facilities and excess capacity, but did not provide 
any details or specific time frames for these efforts. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Defense; the 
Secretaries of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force; the Commandant 
of the Marine Corps; the Administrator of the General Services 
Administration; the Director of the Office of Management and Budget; 
and appropriate congressional committees. The report also is available 
at no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 
If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-4523 or leporeb@gao.gov. Contact points for 
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 
on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are 
listed in appendix III. 

Signed by: 

Brian J. Lepore: 
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management: 

List of Committees: 

The Honorable Carl Levin:
Chairman:
The Honorable John McCain:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye:
Chairman:
The Honorable Thad Cochran:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Defense:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Howard P. McKeon:
Chairman:
The Honorable Adam Smith:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable C.W. Bill Young:
Chairman:
The Honorable Norman D. Dicks:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Defense:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

To assess DOD's progress toward meeting its demolition disposal 
targets, we analyzed selected data elements from DOD's annual Federal 
Real Property Profile (FRPP) reporting submissions and DOD's real 
property inventory database for fiscal years 2008, 2009, and 2010. 
Using these data sources, we determined the number, square footage, 
and plant replacement value for facilities not measured in square feet 
of DOD facilities that were recorded as being demolished in fiscal 
years 2008 through 2010. Because DOD's demolition program excluded 
demolitions related to the Defense Base Realignment and Closure 
process, we excluded all demolished facilities that the data showed as 
being demolished because of an action related to the Defense Base 
Realignment and Closure process. To determine DOD's progress toward 
achieving its departmentwide demolition targets, we compared the total 
square footage demolished to DOD's departmentwide square-footage 
demolition target and compared the total plant replacement value of 
facilities not measured in square feet demolished to DOD's 
departmentwide plant-replacement-value target. To determine the 
military services' and defense organizations' progress toward 
achieving their individual demolition targets, we compared the total 
square footage they demolished to their square-footage demolition 
targets and compared the total plant replacement value of facilities 
not measured in square feet they demolished to their plant-replacement-
value demolition targets. To determine the extent to which DOD's 
demolition program disposed of newly identified excess (i.e., 
identified after the demolition program began), we used the excess 
declaration date to determine when the facility was declared excess. 
If there was not an excess declaration date recorded, we used the 
status data element to determine if it was reported as excess prior to 
the start of the demolition program. To determine the number, square 
footage, and plant replacement value of excess facilities that 
remained in DOD's inventory and the length of time these facilities 
were determined to be excess, we selected all facilities with a status 
of excess as of September 30, 2010. We used the data element for the 
excess declaration date to determine when a facility was identified as 
excess. If there was not an excess declaration date recorded, we used 
the status data element to determine when a facility was reported as 
excess. We excluded those facilities that were identified as residing 
on sites of acquisitions, closures, or realignments under the Defense 
Base Realignment and Closure process. We assessed the reliability of 
DOD's real property inventory data by (1) performing electronic 
testing for obvious errors in accuracy and completeness, (2) reviewing 
existing information about the data and the system that produced them, 
and (3) interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about the data. We 
determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes 
of this report. To gain an understanding of DOD and the military 
services' demolition efforts, we interviewed officials from the Office 
of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and 
Environment) and the military services and reviewed applicable 
documentation related to their demolition efforts. 

To assess the completeness of DOD's facility utilization data, we 
analyzed its real property inventory database as of September 30, 
2010, to determine the number of facilities with an entry in the data 
field for Real Property Asset Utilization Rate. We included those 
facilities that were identified as residing on sites of acquisitions, 
closures, or realignments under the Defense Base Realignment and 
Closure process because DOD guidance requires utilization reviews for 
all real property facilities that are currently in use. To assess the 
accuracy of DOD's utilization information, we analyzed its real 
property inventory database and the information DOD submitted for the 
fiscal year 2010 FRPP. We evaluated the extent the data were complete 
for those facilities for which DOD was required to report a 
utilization description and identified for further review those 
facilities in an active operational status that either source showed 
as not being used. We examined Federal Real Property Council, DOD, and 
the military departments' guidance for recording and reporting 
facility utilization information and interviewed officials from the 
Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and 
Environment), military service headquarters, and selected regional 
level commands. We contacted officials at Air Force headquarters and 
at selected locations to determine whether utilization information for 
facilities that were identified as active, but unused, was accurate. 

To assess DOD's plans to manage and dispose of excess facilities after 
the demolition program ends in fiscal year 2013, we analyzed any 
changes in its estimated demolition budget plans for fiscal years 2014 
through 2016 and interviewed officials from the Office of the Deputy 
Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment) to 
determine the reasons for the changes. We also spoke with these 
officials to identify what they have planned for or have envisioned 
for disposal of remaining excess facilities. We examined federal law 
and regulations and DOD guidance related to management and disposal of 
real property and interviewed environmental management and cultural 
resources officials from the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of 
Defense, military service headquarters, selected regional level 
commands, and conducted site visits at selected installations to 
identify factors that may affect DOD's planning for future disposals. 
At these sites, we also observed examples of excess buildings and 
buildings that were in poor condition or not well-configured that have 
not been declared as excess and interviewed installation officials to 
determine their plans for disposal of these buildings and any reasons 
for delays or complications to disposal. 

To address each of these objectives, we spoke with officials from the 
Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and 
Environment), military service headquarters, selected regional level 
commands, and selected installations. We judgmentally selected 
installations to contact that had a large number of square footage of 
facilities identified as excess and/or a large amount of square 
footage disposed during fiscal years 2008 through 2010 as evident in 
DOD's real property inventory database as of September 30, 2010. We 
used these criteria to select eight installations while ensuring each 
military service was represented. We contacted or received information 
from DOD representatives, as delineated in table 5. 

Table 5: DOD Offices and Installations Contacted during GAO's Review: 

Office of the Secretary of Defense: 
* Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and 
Environment): 

Army: 
* Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management, 
Arlington, Virginia; 
* Camp Roberts, California. 

Navy: 
* Commander, Navy Installations Command Headquarters, Washington, D.C.; 
* Navy Region Mid-Atlantic, Norfolk, Virginia; 
* Commander, Fleet Activities Yokosuka, Japan; 
* Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Naval Station Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; 
* Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story, Virginia. 

Marine Corps: 
* Headquarters Marine Corps, Washington, D.C.; 
* Camp Lejeune, North Carolina; 
* Camp Butler, Okinawa, Japan. 

Air Force: 
* Headquarters Air Force, Asset Management and Operations Division, 
Washington, D.C.; 
* Air Combat Command, Langley Air Force Base, Virginia; 
* Joint Base San Antonio, Fort Sam Houston, Texas; 
* Joint Base San Antonio, Lackland Air Force Base, Texas; 
* Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of table] 

We conducted this performance audit from September 2010 to September 
2011 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit 
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for 
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Office Of The Under Secretary Of Defense: 
Acquisition, Technology And Logistics: 
3000 Defense Pentagon: 
Washington, DC 20301-3000: 

September 2, 2011: 

Mr. Brian J. Lepore: 
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Lepore: 

This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the GAO draft 
report, "Excess Facilities: DoD Needs More Complete Information and a 
Strategy to Guide Its Future Disposal Efforts," dated July 28, 2011, 
(GAO Code 351543). Detailed comments on the report recommendations are 
enclosed. 

The Department partially concurs with recommendation number 1 and 
concurs with recommendation number 2. We appreciate your efforts in 
conducting this review, and we thank the members of your staff for 
their comprehensive work. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

John C. Conger: 
Acting Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and 
Environment): 

Enclosure: As stated. 

GAO Draft Report ó Dated July 28, 2011: 
GAO Code 351543: 

"Excess Facilities: DoD Needs More Complete Information and a Strategy 
to Guide Its Future Disposal Efforts" 

Department Of Defense Comments To The Recommendations: 

Recommendation 1: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and 
Environment) to work with the Secretaries of the military departments 
to develop and implement a methodology for calculating and recording 
utilization data for all types of facilities, and modify its processes 
to update and verify the accuracy of its reported utilization data to 
reflect a facility's true status. 

DOD Response: Partially concur. While DoD recognizes the need for 
further improvements in the collection and reporting of utilization 
data across the department, some efforts to do so are already 
underway. The Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense 
(Installations and Environment) will work with the military 
departments to continue the development and implementation of 
appropriate procedures. 

Recommendation 2: The GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and 
Environment) to work with the Secretaries of the military departments 
to develop strategies and measures to enhance the management of DoD's 
excess facilities after the current demolition program ends, taking 
into account external factors that may impact future disposal efforts. 

DOD Response: Concur. The Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of 
Defense (Installations and Environment) will work with the military 
departments to continue development and implementation of the most 
effective and efficient methods to eliminate excess facilities and 
excess capacity. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Brian J. Lepore, (202) 512-4523 or leporeb@gao.gov: 

Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Laura Durland, Assistant 
Director; Hiwotte Amare; John Edwards; Cynthia Grant; Gina Hoffman; 
Joanne Landesman; Susan Mason; Stephanie Santoso; and Michael Willems 
made key contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Related GAO Products: 

Defense Infrastructure: The Enhanced Use Lease Program Requires 
Management Attention. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-574]. Washington, D.C.: June 30, 
2011. 

Military Buildup on Guam: Costs and Challenges in Meeting Construction 
Timelines. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-459R]. 
Washington, D.C.: June 27, 2011. 

High-Risk Series: An Update. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-278]. Washington, D.C.: February 
2011. 

Military Base Realignment and Closures: DOD Is Taking Steps to 
Mitigate Challenges but Is Not Fully Reporting Some Additional Costs. 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-725R]. Washington, 
D.C.: July 21, 2010. 

Federal Real Property: Authorities and Actions Regarding Enhanced Use 
Leases and Sale of Unneeded Real Property. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-283R]. Washington, D.C.: February 
17, 2009. 

Defense Infrastructure: Services' Use of Land Use Planning 
Authorities. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-850]. 
Washington, D.C.: July 23, 2008. 

Defense Infrastructure: Continued Management Attention Is Needed to 
Support Installation Facilities and Operations. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-502]. Washington, D.C.: April 24, 
2008. 

Federal Real Property: Progress Made Toward Addressing Problems, but 
Underlying Obstacles Continue to Hamper Reform. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-349]. Washington, D.C.: April 13, 
2007. 

Defense Infrastructure: Military Services Lack Reliable Data on 
Historic Properties. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-437]. Washington, D.C.: April 6, 
2001. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] GAO, High Risk Series: Defense Infrastructure, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HR-97-7], (Washington, D.C.: February 
1997) and GAO, High Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-278] (Washington, D.C.: February 
2011). The High Risk Series focuses on government operations that GAO 
identified as high risk because of their greater vulnerabilities to 
fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement or the need for transformation 
to address economy, efficiency, or effectiveness challenges. 

[2] Pursuant to 40 U.S.C. ß 102(3), excess property is defined as 
property under the control of a federal agency that the head of the 
agency determines is not required to meet the agency's needs or 
responsibilities. 

[3] These defense organizations are the Defense Logistics Agency, the 
DOD Education Activity, and the TRICARE Management Activity. 

[4] H. Rep. No. 111-491, pages 506-507 (2010). In March 2011, we 
provided a briefing on our preliminary observations to congressional 
committees to meet the directed reporting deadline of March 30, 2011. 

[5] In this report, we refer to both excess and obsolete facilities as 
"excess facilities" in regard to the disposal process. Excess 
facilities that are disposed of include facilities that are obsolete 
in function or condition, although DOD does not separately identify 
its obsolete facilities. 

[6] The Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy (for the Navy 
and the Marine Corps) and the Secretary of the Air Force. In addition, 
for certain functions related to real property management of the 
Pentagon Reservation, Washington Headquarters Services is considered a 
Military Department and its Director the secretary thereof. Department 
of Defense Instruction 4165.70, Real Property Management, ß 3.1 (Apr. 
6, 2005). 

[7] DOD defines a facility as a building (a roofed and floored 
facility enclosed by exterior walls and consisting of one or more 
levels), linear structure (a facility whose function requires that it 
traverse land, such as a road, pipeline, or fence) or structure (a 
facility, other than a building or linear structure, which is 
constructed on or in the land), including certain space surrounding 
the building, structure, or linear structures. Department of Defense 
Instruction 4165.14, Real Property Inventory and Forecasting, 
Enclosure 2, E2.1.5, E2.1.1, E2.1.14, (Mar. 31, 2006). 

[8] 40 U.S.C. ß 102(3). 

[9] DOD has delegated authority to dispose of properties located at 
military installations closed or realigned as part of the Defense Base 
Realignment and Closure process, or assets with a fair market value of 
less than $50,000. DOD may dispose of these assets through a variety 
of means such as by sale, demolition, or public benefit conveyance of 
surplus property to state or local governments for public use. 

[10] If GSA assumes responsibility for the disposal process and 
determines that a DOD property is also excess to the needs or 
responsibilities of all other agencies, the property is identified as 
"surplus." 40 U.S.C. ß 102(10). In this report, because some surplus 
properties are still included in DOD's real property inventory 
database, we include surplus facilities as a subset of DOD's total 
inventory of excess facilities. 

[11] Codified, as amended, at 16 U.S.C. ß 470, et seq. 

[12] Although the Act does not further define "prehistoric" or 
"historic," in common usage, "prehistoric" ordinarily refers to the 
period of time before recorded history. In contrast, "historic," in 
this context, refers to events during the period of time after writing 
was invented. 

[13] This process is implemented by 36 C.F.R. pt. 800. 

[14] Codified, as amended, at 42 U.S.C. ßß 4321-4347. 

[15] The Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 appear at 40 C.F.R. Part 
1500. 

[16] The Defense Environmental Restoration Program conducts and funds 
environmental restoration activities at sites located on former and 
active defense properties that were contaminated while under its 
jurisdiction, including demolition and removal of unsafe buildings and 
structures. However, this program is generally not used for removal of 
common safety or environmental hazards, such as asbestos or lead-based 
paint, from buildings that will be demolished. 

[17] Codified, as amended, at 42 U.S.C. ß 11411. 

[18] The majority of the facilities demolished during this period (90 
percent) were located within the United States and its territories. 

[19] The majority of the facilities demolished during this period (75 
percent) were located within the United States and its territories. 

[20] We excluded those excess facilities that were identified as 
residing on sites of acquisitions, closures, or realignments under the 
Defense Base Closure and Realignment process, because these are 
outside of our scope for this report. 

[21] This annual operating cost is based on a DOD model that is used 
for FRPP reporting. 

[22] Installation facility officials may obtain this information 
through written surveys or interviews with building occupants, as well 
as by first-hand observations. 

[23] Facility categories that make up the remainder of DOD's inventory 
include, among others, airfield pavements, industrial facilities, 
schools, utility systems, and weapons ranges. 

[24] The four designations used in the FRPP to describe a building's 
utilization are over-utilized, utilized, under-utilized, and not 
utilized. 

[25] Officials noted that in the building categories that require a 
utilization report, the utilization field must be populated for the 
record to be accepted into the FRPP application. 

[26] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-278]. 

[27] GAO, Managing for Results: Critical Issues for Improving Federal 
Agencies' Strategic Plans, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-97-180] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 
16, 1997). 

[28] Hantavirus is spread to humans by rodents and can lead to a life- 
threatening disease--Hantavirus Pulmonary Syndrome--that has symptoms 
similar to influenza. 

[29] Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America 
and the Government of Japan Concerning the Implementation of the 
Relocation of III Marine Expeditionary Force Personnel and Their 
Dependents from Okinawa to Guam (Feb. 17, 2009). We have previously 
reported on the costs and challenges involved in the relocation of 
U.S. forces from Japan to Guam. GAO, Military Buildup on Guam: Costs 
and Challenges in Meeting Construction Timelines, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-459R] (Washington, D.C.: June 27, 
2011). 

[30] Security Consultative Committee Document Progress on the 
Realignment of U.S. Forces in Japan (June 21, 2011). 

[31] S. Rep. No. 97-440 (1982). 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAOís actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAOís Web site, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: