This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-13-337 entitled 'Defense Infrastructure: Improved Guidance Needed for Estimating Alternatively Financed Project Liabilities' which was released on April 18, 2013. 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: April 2013: Defense Infrastructure: Improved Guidance Needed for Estimating Alternatively Financed Project Liabilities: GAO-13-337: GAO Highlights: Highlights of GAO-13-337, a report to congressional committees. Why GAO Did This Study: To effectively manage facilities, DOD has pursued a strategy including base realignment and closure, privatizing certain base assets, and leasing underused property. To do so, DOD leverages private capital using alternative financing agreements that rely at least in part on means other than full up-front appropriations. The House Armed Services Committee directed GAO to assess the impact of base closures on such agreements and how DOD captures costs associated with projects in the BRAC process. This report (1) describes existing projects on DOD’s U.S. bases, as of September 30, 2011; how project legal agreements protect the government’s financial interests; and circumstances where DOD could face financial liabilities in the event of base closure; and (2) determines the extent to which DOD’s process for estimating costs and savings of base closure candidates captures these liabilities and other costs. GAO reviewed documents; collected information from DOD on projects active as September 30, 2011; and interviewed officials. What GAO Found: In the event of future base closure, the Department of Defense’s (DOD) potential financial liabilities from alternatively financed projects will vary by project type and the language of its legal agreements. According to GAO’s analysis of data reported by DOD, it had more than 550 such projects on more than 240 U.S. installations, as of September 30, 2011. 56 percent of these projects have been put in place since the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round. Further, according to this analysis and GAO’s case study review, liabilities will likely exist for renewable energy and privatized utility projects in the event of base closure because these projects commit the government to making future payments, although the liabilities may be limited by termination for convenience clauses in agreements. In contrast, privatized housing, privatized army lodging, and enhanced use lease projects are generally not expected to create a financial liability if bases close because DOD does not expect to terminate these types of agreements. GAO found that DOD’s use of its Cost of Base Realignment Actions (COBRA) model to estimate the costs and savings of base closure candidates did not capture all costs associated with alternatively financed projects, and identified three possible contributing factors. First, DOD’s collection of data on potential base closure costs was not consistent or comprehensive regarding alternatively financed projects. Second, the COBRA model does not provide users with an option to indicate that a cost may exist in cases where officials cannot estimate the costs associated with such projects within the data collection timeframes. Third, some COBRA instructions for entering costs associated with such projects into the model are not consistent or comprehensive. DOD guidance for determining costs and savings of BRAC actions and COBRA model instructions require that DOD consider all costs and savings associated with various base closure scenarios, and GAO has previously reported that decision makers need consistent and comprehensive data. Without a process for collecting consistent and comprehensive cost data, decision makers may face challenges in accurately comparing different scenarios’ net costs for future BRAC rounds. Figure: Alternatively Financed Projects by Project Type, on U.S. Installations, As of September 30, 2011: [Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] Privatized utilities: (292) 53%; Privatized housing: (168) 30%; Renewable energy: (60) 11%; Privatized Army lodging: (21) 4%; Enhanced use leases: (16) 3%. Source: GAO analysis of DOD data. Note percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding. [End of figure] What GAO Recommends: GAO recommends DOD modify BRAC data collection and cost modeling to better indicate possible liabilities arising from such projects. DOD did not concur, noting that “military value” is the primary criterion for BRAC decisions and liabilities will not be known until project negotiations. GAO’s recommendations do not preclude optimizing military value, and certain liabilities may be determinable before negotiations. Thus, GAO continues to believe that acting on these recommendations would help improve the BRAC process. View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-337]. For more information, contact James R. McTigue, Jr. at (202) 512-3766 or mctiguej@gao.gov. [End of section] Contents: Letter: Background: In the Event of Base Closure, DOD's Potential Liabilities from Hundreds of Alternatively Financed Projects Vary by Project Type and Legal Agreement: Not All Costs Associated with Alternatively Financed Projects Were Captured in Closure Estimates for Consideration in the BRAC 2005 Round: Conclusions: Recommendations for Executive Action: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: Appendix II: Alternatively Financed Projects on DOD's U.S. Installations by Project Type as of September 30, 2011, as Reported by DOD: Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: Related GAO Products: Tables: Table 1: Installations Closed during the 2005 Round of BRAC That Had an Alternatively Financed Project: Table 2: Army Renewable Energy Projects: Table 3: Navy Renewable Energy Projects: Table 4: Air Force Renewable Energy Projects: Table 5: Army Privatized Utility Projects: Table 6: Navy Privatized Utility Projects: Table 7: Air Force Privatized Utility Projects: Table 8: Army Privatized Housing Projects: Table 9: Navy Privatized Housing Projects: Table 10: Air Force Privatized Housing Projects: Table 11: Army Enhanced Use Leases: Table 12: Navy Enhanced Use Leases: Table 13: Air Force Enhanced Use Leases: Table 14: Privatized Army Lodging: Figures: Figure 1: Timeline of BRAC 2005 Round: Figure 2: Key Inputs and Outputs of the COBRA Model: Figure 3: Total Number of Alternatively Financed Projects on U.S. Installations Reported by DOD, by Military Department, as of September 30, 2011: Figure 4: Percentage of Alternatively Financed Projects by Project Type, as a Portion of All Alternatively Financed Projects Reported by DOD on U.S. Installations, as of September 30, 2011: Abbreviations: BRAC: Base Realignment and Closure: COBRA: Cost of Base Realignment Actions: DOD: Department of Defense: FAR: Federal Acquisition Regulation: OSD: Office of the Secretary of Defense: [End of section] United States Government Accountability Office: Washington, DC 20548: April 18, 2013: Congressional Committees: The Department of Defense (DOD) has faced challenges in effectively managing deteriorating facilities and underused and excess property in its real estate portfolio, which includes over 555,000 facilities with a replacement value of nearly $850 billion. To address these challenges, DOD has pursued a multipart strategy that includes base realignment and closure (BRAC), privatization of certain base assets, and leasing of underused real property. In privatizing certain base assets, DOD leverages private capital for improving its bases using alternative financing agreements--the financing of capital assets, at least in part, by means other than full up-front appropriations. [Footnote 1] DOD also uses alternative financing arrangements to lease its underused real property. In these arrangements, DOD leases underused property in exchange for cash or in-kind consideration in the form of, among other things, maintenance and repair of existing facilities or the construction of new facilities. The Secretary of Defense stated in August 2012 that as DOD draws down its forces from the wars of this last decade, it will be moving toward a smaller, leaner, and more agile force over the next five years. As part of its fiscal year 2013 budget request, DOD asked for two more rounds of BRAC in 2013 and 2015. Although Congress has thus far declined to authorize additional BRAC rounds, should it choose to do so in the future, the presence of alternatively financed projects on DOD installations could impact closure or realignment recommendations. Since the last round of BRAC in 2005, DOD has entered into an increasing number of agreements with private entities for five types of projects: renewable energy,[Footnote 2] privatized utilities, privatized family housing, Army lodging, and leases for underused land. Closing additional bases in the future may necessitate termination or modification of some of these agreements before all contractual obligations between the government and the private entity have been fulfilled. If an installation with an alternatively financed project is closed through BRAC, DOD may have to end legal agreements associated with the project, which could result in financial liabilities to DOD.[Footnote 3] House Report 112-479, accompanying a bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (H.R. 4310), directed GAO to, among other things, determine the impact of base closures on alternatively financed projects; how DOD protects the government's interests in these cases; and how DOD's process for determining costs and savings of potential closures captures associated liabilities. In response, this report (1) describes alternatively financed projects that existed on DOD's U.S. installations, as of September 30, 2011, and ways that associated legal agreements protect the government's financial interests, as well as circumstances under which DOD could face financial liabilities in the event of base closure; and (2) determines the extent to which DOD's process for estimating the costs and savings of base closure candidates captures liabilities and other costs associated with alternatively financed project agreements, in the event of base closure. To describe the alternatively financed projects that existed on DOD's U.S. installations, as of September 30, 2011, we collected data from DOD on the five types of alternatively financed projects in the scope of our review. We included projects if (1) they were funded--at least in part--by means other than up-front appropriations; (2) the project's legal agreement was signed as of September 30, 2011; (3) the installation that hosted the project was open as of that date; and (4) the installation was located in the United States. We met with officials from the military departments; Defense Logistics Agency; and the office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to discuss the project data we collected. In addition, we assessed the completeness and accuracy of this project information. To do so, we reviewed data submitted by the military departments and Defense Logistics Agency to determine if there were inconsistencies or certain data elements that were not provided for individual projects. In such cases, we discussed these data with knowledgeable agency officials, resolving the inconsistencies and gathering the missing data elements. In addition, we assessed the reliability of all computer-generated data provided by the military departments and Defense Logistics Agency by reviewing existing information about the data and the systems that produced the data and by interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about the data to determine the steps taken to ensure its completeness and accuracy. We determined that these data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of presenting the number and certain characteristics of these projects, as reported by the military departments and Defense Logistics Agency. We are confident that, based on information from the military departments and Defense Logistics Agency, we have collected information on the complete universe of alternatively financed projects as of September 30, 2011. However, we did not validate the existence of each individual project. As discussed above, the military departments provided data on projects that were active as September 30, 2011. The military departments provided these project data to us in November and December 2012. To describe examples of ways that projects' legal agreements protect the government's financial interests, as well as circumstances under which DOD could face financial liability in the event of base closure, we chose 29 case studies from the project information we collected--based on variables such as military department and project type--for more in-depth review. For these case studies, we met with officials familiar with the case study projects; interviewed DOD officials; and collected and reviewed project legal documentation.[Footnote 4] We also reviewed relevant sections of the Federal Acquisition Regulation and military department policy governing alternatively financed projects. To determine the extent to which DOD's process for estimating the costs and savings of base closure candidates captures liability and other costs associated with alternatively financed project agreements in the event of base closure, we identified the requirements for capturing the data by reviewing BRAC 2005 implementation policy and the BRAC statute.[Footnote 5] We then identified installations that had alternatively financed projects and were closed as a result of BRAC 2005, and determined the extent to which DOD's process for estimating the costs and savings of base closure candidates captured potential liability associated with these projects. In each round of BRAC, DOD has estimated the costs and savings associated with various proposed BRAC recommendations by using a model known as the Cost of Base Realignment Actions (COBRA). To determine the extent to which this model captured liability, we compared costs recorded in the COBRA model for the closed installations with alternatively financed projects to the military departments' reported closure costs. To gather information on the closure costs and reasons why the costs may or may not have been captured, we interviewed DOD officials who were involved in--or had knowledge of--the BRAC 2005 processes and reviewed the installations' BRAC implementation budgets and business plans. Furthermore, to determine whether DOD's process for collecting data on potential base closure costs was comprehensive and consistent, we reviewed the (1) questions used to gather information for the COBRA model; (2) the COBRA model instructions for completing the portion of the model into which costs associated with alternatively financed projects are to be entered; and (3) the relevant data input fields in the model. We then compared this process to BRAC 2005 policy guidance for determining costs and savings of BRAC actions and best practices for collecting data in support of government operations.[Footnote 6] We conducted this performance audit from June 2012 to April 2013 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. More detailed information on our scope and methodology is provided in appendix I. Background: DOD Privatization Efforts Include Several Types of Projects on Its Installations: As discussed previously, DOD leverages private capital for improving its bases using alternative financing agreements and uses alternative financing arrangements to privatize certain base assets and lease its underused real property.[Footnote 7] We have previously reported that DOD privatization efforts on its installations include renewable energy, utilities, family housing, enhanced use leases, and Army lodging.[Footnote 8] The project types each have their own characteristics and the military departments have entered into privatization arrangements for different project types under distinct statutory authorities. Renewable Energy: To increase renewable energy production on military installations, [Footnote 9] in certain cases the military services have relied on agreements that leverage private capital, such as Energy Savings Performance Contracts, Utility Energy Service Contracts, and Power Purchase Agreements. Each of the financing approaches has its own requirements and legal authorities. These financing approaches are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and different approaches, including enhanced use leases (i.e., leasing available nonexcess real property to the private sector in return for cash or in-kind consideration), can sometimes be combined to finance the same project. * Energy Savings Performance Contracts are contracts between a federal agency and an energy service provider. Based on the results of a comprehensive energy audit, an energy service company, in consultation with the federal agency, designs and constructs a project to save energy and arranges the necessary financing. The contractor guarantees that the improvements will generate energy cost savings sufficient to pay for the project over the term of the contract. Contract terms for Energy Savings Performance Contracts can extend up to 25 years. * Utility Energy Service Contracts are agreements in which a utility arranges financing to cover the capital costs of a project, which are repaid by the agency, generally using appropriated funds, over the contract term. Repayments are usually based on estimated cost savings generated by the energy efficiency measures, but energy savings are not necessarily required to be guaranteed by the contractor. * Power Purchase Agreements may take several forms, but all are essentially agreements to purchase renewable energy from a private- sector energy producer. For example, in some of these agreements, the developer installs a renewable energy-system on agency property, and the agency pays for the system through its purchase of power over the life of the contract. After installation, the developer owns, operates, and maintains the system for the life of the contract. Depending on the authority used, DOD can enter into Power Purchase Agreements for up to 32 years, excluding the period for construction. Privatized Utilities: At DOD's request, Congress approved legislative authority in 1997 for privatizing utility systems at military installations.[Footnote 10] In defining a utility system, the authority included systems for the generation and supply of electric power; the treatment or supply of water; the collection or treatment of wastewater; the generation or supply of steam, hot water, and chilled water; the supply of natural gas; and the transmission of telecommunications.[Footnote 11] Included in a utility system are the associated equipment, fixtures, structures, and other improvements as well as real property, easements, and rights-of-way. The authority stated that the Secretary of a military department may convey a utility system to several different types of entities--including municipal, private, or regional entities--and the conveyance may consist of all rights, title, and interests of the United States in the utility system, or such lesser estate as the Secretary considers appropriate. In addition to the specific authority for privatizing utilities, the military departments have used other authorities for utility privatization. For example, the military departments have conveyed some systems on the basis of authorities related to the military housing privatization program. Under the utility privatization program, privatization normally involves two transactions with the entity--the conveyance of the utility system infrastructure and the acquisition of utility services for upgrades, operations, and maintenance under a long-term contract of up to 50 years. Normally, the conveyances do not include title to the land underlying the utility system infrastructures. In December 1997, DOD issued Defense Reform Initiative Directive Number 9, which made utility system privatization DOD policy.[Footnote 12] A year later, in December 1998, DOD issued another directive establishing program management and oversight responsibilities and providing guidance for performing economic analyses for proposed projects, exempting systems from the program, and using competitive procedures to conduct the program.[Footnote 13] This directive also stated that it was DOD's objective to get out of the business of owning, managing, and operating utility systems through privatization and that exemptions should be rare. Military Housing Privatization Initiative: DOD's housing policy is to rely on private sector housing in the local communities near military installations as the primary source of family housing. As a result, about two-thirds of all military families in the United States live in local community housing. However, Congress established the Military Housing Privatization Initiative in 1996 to ensure adequate military family housing was available when needed by renovating existing inadequate housing and constructing new homes on and around military bases more rapidly than was possible using traditional funding and military construction methods.[Footnote 14] In a typical privatized military housing project, the developer is a limited liability company or partnership formed for the purpose of acquiring debt, leasing land, and building and managing a specific project or projects.[Footnote 15] In a typical project, a military department leases land to a developer for a term of 50 years. The military department generally conveys existing homes located on the leased land to the developer for the duration of the lease.[Footnote 16] The developer is responsible for constructing new homes or renovating existing houses and then leasing this housing, giving preference to servicemembers and their families.[Footnote 17] In addition to any government or private sector investment in the developer, the majority of the project financing is obtained from financial institutions in the form of construction loans or military housing bonds. The servicemembers' basic allowance for housing serves as the primary security for the funds obtained through bonds.[Footnote 18] Service members use their housing allowances to pay their rent. Generally that rent is based on the allowance of the member tenant that occupies a particular house. A project's private debt is underwritten based on the rental revenue stream. Although the servicemembers' housing allowance is subject to the defense budget, which is supported through annual appropriations, we have previously reported that most bond investors believe it to be a highly reliable revenue stream given the history of stable congressional funding of servicemembers' housing.[Footnote 19] DOD contributions, either in the form of cash investments or direct loans, are often made to close gaps in construction funding that materialize when the developer is unable to obtain adequate financing necessary for the project size. Enhanced Use Leases: An enhanced use lease allows the military departments to lease available nonexcess real property to the private sector in return for cash or in-kind consideration, subject to certain conditions. Section 2667 of Title 10 of the United States Code provides authority to the secretaries of the military departments to lease nonexcess real property[Footnote 20] under the control of the respective departments, subject to several provisions. Enhanced use leases have been used for a wide range of facility improvement projects, renovations, repair, or new acquisitions, to include renewable energy projects. The length of a contract for an enhanced use lease is subject to certain conditions, but there is no firm time limit. We have previously reported that these leases are often entered into for long periods, such as 25-or 50- year terms.[Footnote 21] Privatized Army Lodging: The military departments operate lodging rooms, similar to commercial hotel rooms, to accommodate authorized travelers across the United States. As discussed above, in 1996 Congress enacted the Military Housing Privatization Initiative authority, which allowed DOD to privatize its family housing, and, in 2002, that authority was expanded to specifically include transient housing, also known as lodging facilities.[Footnote 22] Lodging facilities are intended to be occupied by members of the armed forces on temporary duty. The Army determined in 2003 that it needed to either replace or renovate about 80 percent of its lodging facilities due to the poor condition of these facilities and needed a plan to sustain and recapitalize the facilities for the long term. The Army determined that privatization, through conveying the facilities and transferring responsibility for the management and maintenance of those facilities to a private developer, would allow it to address the near-term concerns about the condition of the lodging facilities more quickly than under continued Army operation, as well as address the facilities' long-term sustainment and recapitalization needs. Through this arrangement, the Army retains ownership of the land but conveys ownership of the buildings to the private developer. At the end of the lease term, the buildings, along with any improvements, return to the Army. According to Navy and Air Force officials, the other departments have not engaged in privatizing their lodging facilities at the time of this review. Certain Types of Alternatively Financed Project Agreements Are Governed by the Federal Acquisition Regulation: The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) system was established to codify uniform policies and procedures for acquisition of supplies and services by executive agencies.[Footnote 23] According to DOD officials, renewable energy and utilities privatization contracts that we reviewed are generally governed by the FAR. Under the Federal Acquisition Regulation, a contract is defined as a "mutually binding legal relationship obligating the seller to furnish the supplies or services (including construction) and the buyer to pay for them," to include "all types of commitments that obligate the Government to an expenditure of appropriated funds and that, except as otherwise authorized, are in writing."[Footnote 24] Generally, the parties' obligations under a contract end when the required performance is completed, that is, when the government has accepted the supplies or services and paid the contractor in full. However, if a contractor has not performed as agreed, the government may choose to end its obligations by terminating the contract for default. In other cases, even when the contractor is performing acceptably, it may be in the interest of the government to end its contractual obligations before the contract is completed. Contracts entered into under the FAR, including those for certain types of alternatively financed infrastructure projects, are typically required to acknowledge the unique position of the federal government by including a legal right to terminate procurement contracts for the government's convenience. This right gives the government--e.g., DOD and other federal agencies--the option to terminate a contract for convenience prior to completion when circumstances, such as closing a DOD installation, mean termination is in the government's interests. [Footnote 25] If the government did not have this right to prematurely end a contract, it might instead be required to continue a contract that was no longer needed, or breach the contract and potentially pay expectation damages to the contractor, resulting in the unnecessary expenditure of government funds.[Footnote 26] In contrast, the contractor is not given a right to terminate for convenience, and this type of contractual right is rare outside the world of federal government contracting. Contracts entered into under the FAR must be terminated by the procedures specified in the FAR.[Footnote 27] When the government terminates a contract for convenience, the contracting officer must send a written termination notice to the contractor indicating whether the termination is partial or complete.[Footnote 28] The written notice may also contain special instructions, and in some cases personnel mitigation efforts.[Footnote 29] Upon receiving the notice of termination, the contractor is required to stop all work immediately under the terminated portion of the contract and terminate all related subcontracts. When inventories exist, the contractor must, as directed by the contracting officer, deliver to the government a "termination inventory" that lists materials produced or acquired under the contract and government-furnished property[Footnote 30] and account for all inventory related to the terminated portion of the contract by completing termination inventory schedules, generally within 120 days of the effective date of the termination.[Footnote 31] The contractor must dispose of all remaining property, as agreed with the government.[Footnote 32] The contractor also begins the process of settling with its subcontractors.[Footnote 33] The contractor has one year from the effective date of the termination to submit a settlement proposal to the contracting officer, unless the period is extended by the contracting officer handling the termination.[Footnote 34] The amount of the settlement proposal reflects all of the costs for which the contractor believes it is entitled to be reimbursed, including incurred costs for work performed, termination costs, plus, in some cases, a reasonable profit or fee on its completed work, minus all payments made to date and the value of the property the contractor retained upon termination.[Footnote 35] When the contracting officer receives the contractor's settlement proposal, he or she can choose to pay the proposed amount or negotiate with the contractor.[Footnote 36] If the contractor does not submit a settlement proposal within one year from the effective termination date, or if the contracting officer cannot reach agreement with the contractor, the contracting officer may unilaterally decide on the amount to which the contractor is entitled, applying the standards that are set forth in the FAR. The FAR also provides the contractor the right to appeal[Footnote 37] the contracting officer's determination of the termination settlement to the applicable Board of Contract Appeals[Footnote 38] or to the United States Court of Federal Claims, if the contractor has met its deadline for submission of the settlement proposal.[Footnote 39] Other types of legal agreements for alternatively financed projects are not generally subject to the FAR. These non-FAR agreements are governed by other legal requirements, depending on the authority used to execute the agreement and any implementing regulations and policies. For example, section 2667 of title 10 of the United States Code authorizes the secretaries of the military departments to enter into leases that do not contain a clause permitting revocation of the lease at any time (similar to a termination for convenience), if the secretary finds that omitting such a clause promotes the national defense or is in the public interest. According to DOD officials, the privatized housing, enhanced use lease, and Army lodging agreements that we reviewed are not governed by the FAR. For non-FAR agreements, the government's termination rights and practices are different than those described above. In general, these other types of agreements represent instances in which the federal government, rather than purchasing goods or services from a contractor, is investing federal capital or leasing a government asset. The consequences of base closure and potential termination in these cases will vary in accordance with the terms of the agreements in question. Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC): Since 1988, DOD has relied on the BRAC process as an important means of reducing excess infrastructure and realigning bases to meet changing force structure needs. The 2005 BRAC round was the fifth round of base closures and realignments undertaken by DOD since 1988, and it was the biggest, most complex, and costliest BRAC round ever. The 2005 BRAC process generally followed the legislative framework of previous BRAC rounds, providing for an independent Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission to review the Secretary of Defense's realignment and closure recommendations, which were produced through DOD's BRAC processes coordinated by the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment).[Footnote 40] The Commission assessed the Secretary's recommendations, under its authority to approve, modify, reject, or add closure or realignment recommendations, before reporting its own recommendations, to the President. The President then approved the Commission's recommendations and forwarded them to Congress, and the recommendations became final in November 2005. Implementation of the recommendations was required to be complete by September 15, 2011. Figure 1 below displays a timeline of the 2005 BRAC round. Figure 1: Timeline of BRAC 2005 Round: [Refer to PDF for image: timeline] 2002-2005: DOD proposed BRAC recommendations development. 2005: Commission review. 2005: President review and Congress review. 2005-2011: DOD implementation of BRAC recommendations. December 28, 2001: Congress authorized BRAC 2005 round. November 15, 2002: Secretary of Defense sets BRAC 2005 goals. December 23, 2003: Draft BRAC selection criteria published in federal register. March 23, 2004: DOD certifies need for another BRAC round. May 3, 2005: BRAC Commission begins first hearing. May 13, 2005: DOD issues recommendations to Commission. July 1, 2005: GAO reports to Congress on BRAC observations. September 8, 2005: Commission reports to President on final BRAC recommendations. September 15, 2005: President approves BRAC recommendations in their entirety and forwards to Congress. November 9, 2005: BRAC recommendations become binding. September 15, 2011: Statutory deadline for completing BRAG 2005 recommendations. Source: GAO. [End of figure] BRAC Process for Estimating Cost and Savings: To provide a framework for promoting consistency in estimating the costs and savings associated with various proposed BRAC recommendations, DOD has used an estimation model known as COBRA in its base closure process since 1988, and DOD intends to use the COBRA model for future BRAC rounds. It provides information on cost and savings, which is one of eight selection criteria used in the selection process to compare scenarios and used by decision makers to arrive at final decisions regarding BRAC recommendations. The COBRA model relies to a large extent on standard factors and averages but,[Footnote 41] as we have previously reported, it is not intended to represent budget-quality estimates.[Footnote 42] Specifically, we have examined the COBRA model in the past and have found it to be a generally reasonable estimator for comparing potential costs and savings among candidates for base closure. We have also previously reported that the COBRA model has been revised to address certain problems we and others have identified after each BRAC round.[Footnote 43] For example, according to the COBRA model's user's manual, improvements have been made to revise calculations to better account for the costs for construction, transfer of military students from one installation to another, local moves, TRICARE,[Footnote 44] homeowners' assistance, and several other cost/savings factors. The model provides a standard quantitative approach to comparing estimated costs and savings across various proposed recommendations. However, it is important to note that as with any model, the quality of the output is dependent on the quality of the input. Key inputs and outputs of the COBRA model are shown in figure 2. Figure 2: Key Inputs and Outputs of the COBRA Model: [Refer to PDF for image: illustration] Key inputs: Installation data: * Military construction requirements; * Information technology requirements; * Bases to be analyzed and distance between these bases; * Contract start or terminated costs; Personnel data: * Officer, enlisted, and DOD civilian positions to be moved or eliminated; * Vacant base housing; * Basic housing allowance required or not needed; * Heavy and light vehicles to be moved; * Equipment to be moved. COBRA model: The COBRA model generates costs and savings for OSD's base stationing scenarios and final recommendations using over 180 algorithms and about 60 standard factors. Key outputs: Costs incurred: * Moving personnel, both military and civilian employees, equipment, and vehicles; * Building or renovating facilities; * Paying severance or retirement incentives; * Information technology infrastructure and equipment; Savings generated: * Eliminated personnel position, both military and civilian; * Reduced or eliminated base operations expenses; * Reduced or eliminated real property sustainment and recapitalization expenses. Source: GAO analysis of DOD information. [End of figure] Since 2005, we have issued over 30 reports and testimonies on BRAC 2005 planning, implementation, costs, and savings. (For a listing of related reports and testimonies, see the Related GAO Products page at the end of this report). In the Event of Base Closure, DOD's Potential Liabilities from Hundreds of Alternatively Financed Projects Vary by Project Type and Legal Agreement: In the event of future base closure, DOD's potential financial liabilities from hundreds of alternatively financed projects will vary by the project type and the terms of each legal agreement. DOD had more than 550 alternatively financed projects on more than 240 U.S. installations, as of September 30, 2011. Generally, contracts that commit the government to make future payments are likely to result in liability, whereas agreements that represent an investment of federal capital or the leasing of a government asset--such as the lease of federal property--are less likely to result in liability in the event of base closure, but may pose other risks. Liabilities will likely exist for renewable energy and privatized utility projects in the event of base closure because these projects commit the government to making future payments, but the liabilities may be limited by termination for convenience or similar clauses in those agreements. However, in most cases, privatized housing, privatized Army lodging, and enhanced use lease projects are not expected to create a financial liability if installations close, because DOD does not expect to terminate these types of agreements. The Army, Navy, and Air Force Each Had Alternatively Financed Projects on Their U.S. Installations as of September 30, 2011: Each military department had alternatively financed projects on U.S. installations as of September 30, 2011.[Footnote 45] A majority of these (63 percent) were alternatively financed renewable energy and privatized utility projects. Considering all five project types, the Army reported that it had almost 210 projects on more than 60 of its installations; the Navy reported that it had 130 projects on about 75 installations; and the Air Force reported that it had almost 220 projects on over 100 installations. The breakout by military department of DOD's alternatively financed projects on its installations, as of September 30, 2011, is shown in figure 3. Figure 3: Total Number of Alternatively Financed Projects on U.S. Installations Reported by DOD, by Military Department, as of September 30, 2011: [Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] Military service: Army; Installations with projects: 64; Number of projects: 209. Military service: Navy; Installations with projects: 74; Number of projects: 130. Military service: Air Force; Installations with projects: 103; Number of projects: 216. Source: GAO analysis of DOD data. [End of figure] According to our analysis of project data reported by DOD, privatized utilities constituted 53 percent (292 projects) of the 555 alternatively financed projects. Examples of this type of project in our case studies include a contractor's improvement, operation, and maintenance of the water and wastewater distribution infrastructure on an Army installation, and a contract for electricity distribution services and infrastructure on a Navy installation. Renewable energy projects accounted for 11 percent (60 projects) of all projects. Examples of this project type in our case studies include a facility that generates electricity from landfill gas on a Navy installation and a solar power project that generates electricity on an Air Force installation. Privatized housing accounted for 30 percent (166 projects); examples in our case studies include a 670-unit project on an Air Force installation and a 925-unit project on a joint installation. Privatized Army lodging projects represented about 4 percent (21 projects) of DOD's reported alternatively financed projects, and 10 percent of the Army's 209 alternatively financed projects. An example of this type of project in our case studies is a 673-room lodging facility on a joint installation. Finally, enhanced use lease projects accounted for 3 percent (16 projects) of all projects. Examples in our case studies of this project type include a lease to a contractor developing an office park on an Army installation and a lease to a city that uses the land for its wastewater treatment facility. The distribution of alternatively financed projects for each of the five project types we included in this review is displayed in figure 4. Figure 4: Percentage of Alternatively Financed Projects by Project Type, as a Portion of All Alternatively Financed Projects Reported by DOD on U.S. Installations, as of September 30, 2011: [Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart] Privatized utilities: 53%; Privatized housing: 30%; Renewable energy: 11%; Privatized Army lodging: 4%; Enhanced use leases: 3%. Source: GAO analysis of DOD data. Note: Percentages may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. [End of figure] For additional information on each alternatively financed project as reported by DOD, see appendix II. Potential Liabilities Exist for Renewable Energy and Privatized Utility Projects in the Event of Base Closure, but Are Limited: DOD officials stated that--in the event of base closure--liabilities are likely to exist for renewable energy and privatized utility contracts that are terminated for convenience. [Footnote 46] This is because, under these contracts, the government has typically obligated itself to make future payments in return for certain goods and services provided by the contractor. Officials expect that about 82 percent (249 out of 303)[Footnote 47] of these types of projects would likely result in liabilities, in the event of base closure.[Footnote 48] DOD officials explained that--in the event of base closure--the military departments would probably decide to terminate certain contracts for convenience, because contract clauses governing these projects may limit the size and type of liability. DOD would then need to negotiate a financial settlement with the contractors to pay for certain costs, in accordance with the relevant contract clauses. As previously discussed, terminations for convenience provide certain protections for the government's financial interest by limiting the amount of money DOD may have to provide the contractor in the event of such terminations. In the Event of Base Closure, Liabilities from Renewable Energy and Privatized Utility Projects Are Likely: DOD officials explained that most renewable energy and utility privatization projects are likely to result in financial liability in the event of base closure because these agreements commit the government to make future payments over a period of years. This is significant because almost two-thirds (63 percent) of alternatively financed projects reported by DOD officials are either a renewable energy or privatized utility project (see figure 4). In addition, according to our analysis of project data reported by DOD, almost 70 percent of installations with an alternatively financed project had at least one of these two types of projects. In 11 of 12 case studies for these two project types, DOD officials from each military department stated that they expect a liability in the event of base closure. For the renewable energy projects that we examined in detail, DOD officials explained that Power Purchase Agreements, Energy Savings Performance Contracts, and Utility Energy Service Contracts would likely be terminated for convenience in the event of base closure. Specifically, in each of four renewable energy case studies, DOD officials from each military department stated that they expect a liability if the base closes. For example, according to our review of one renewable energy project's legal agreement, the Army's termination for convenience of this agreement could result in a liability of up to $5.3 million, depending on the date of termination. Two of the four alternatively financed renewable agreements we reviewed contained termination clauses that established an amount of maximum government liability by month or year during the agreement.[Footnote 49] Similarly, for the utility privatization project case studies that we examined, DOD officials from each military department explained that they would likely decide to terminate certain privatized utility contracts if an installation closed. Among the privatized utility projects we discussed with DOD and reviewed, DOD officials explained that those managed under a stand-alone agreement would likely be terminated.[Footnote 50] According to our analysis of project data reported by DOD, almost all (96 percent) privatized utility projects were privatized under stand-alone agreements. In 7 of our 8 case studies for such utility privatization projects, DOD officials stated that they expect a liability if the base closes. For example, at an Army installation we visited, officials stated they would likely decide to terminate the installation's privatized electric, water and wastewater utility contracts if the base were to close. In another instance, a Navy contract for privatized electricity at several installations provides that the contract will be terminated in the event of a base closure action. However, according to our discussions with military department officials, the full amount of the government's financial liability resulting from these terminations would not be determinable until negotiations over the amount of the termination settlement between the government and the private entity are completed. Contract Clauses May Limit the Amount and Type of Potential Liability: Contracts that commit the government to make future payments are likely to result in liability if terminated due to base closure, but the amount of liability may be limited by relevant contract clauses. Renewable energy and utility privatization projects are likely to result in a financial liability in the event of base closure because they typically involve government payments in return for various services over a period of years. As previously discussed, however, the termination for convenience provisions in the FAR limit the scope and size of the settlement amount that DOD is required to provide to a contractor. Termination for convenience settlements will ultimately vary according to the specific terms of each contract, but generally, settlement amounts are required to provide the contractor with fair compensation, based on three components: incurred costs for the work performed, fee or profit on that work, and termination costs. Settlements only include costs related to the terminated contract and therefore will not reflect other costs that may be a result of a termination, but are outside the scope of the contract, such as larger community effects--for instance, a contractor going out of business. In addition, in cases where the government terminates for convenience, the contractor typically will not be entitled to anticipatory profits or consequential damages.[Footnote 51] The case studies that we reviewed in detail provide examples of how terminating a contract for convenience would mitigate liabilities. For example, in the case of a renewable energy project on a Navy installation, the government's right to terminate the contract for convenience would likely provide the government with a less costly means to end the agreement. Specifically, in the absence of a termination for convenience clause, the contract would potentially require the government to either pay the private entity for electrical power for many years after the installation closed or breach its contract with the entity, paying damages that likely would exceed the cost of a termination for convenience settlement. Although this example demonstrates a way in which terminating a contract for convenience may limit the size and type of liabilities DOD could face in the event of base closure, officials expect--as noted above--that 82 percent of renewable energy and privatized utility projects would likely result in liability. In Most Cases, Privatized Housing, Enhanced Use Lease, and Privatized Army Lodging Projects Are Not Likely to Create Financial Liability If Installations Close: Our analysis of project data reported by DOD found that three types of projects--privatized housing, enhanced use leases, and privatized Army lodging--are generally not likely to result in financial liability for DOD in the event of base closure. According to our analysis of project data, more than 90 percent of these three types of projects--as reported by DOD--were not likely to result in a financial liability for DOD if the project's base closes. In addition, according to DOD officials from each military department, 15 of 17 privatized housing, privatized Army lodging, and enhanced use lease projects that we examined in our case studies would not result in liability in the event of base closure. According to our discussions with DOD officials and review of supporting documentation, this is because in most cases the leases and other agreements that govern these projects would likely continue even if the installation closes. Unlike the renewable energy and utilities privatization contracts previously discussed, these three types of projects typically represent an investment of federal capital or leasing of a government asset, as opposed to a contractual obligation requiring future government expenditures. They are therefore less likely to result in liability, although each agreement must be reviewed individually to determine whether it is subject to additional factors that could result in financial liability for DOD. According to our analysis of project data reported by DOD, almost all (95 percent) of the housing privatization projects are not likely to result in a liability in the event of base closure. This is because, for projects we examined in detail, military department officials explained that they do not plan to terminate project leases. Further, for 9 of 11 housing privatization case studies, DOD officials from each military department stated that they do not expect a liability in the event of base closure. For example, in discussions with Navy officials regarding one housing privatization project we reviewed, they stated that they expected the privatized housing agreement would remain in force, and the limited liability corporation managing the housing would continue leasing its housing units to the general public even after the base closes. However, there are two factors that may result in liability in the case of privatized housing. First, as of October 2012, there was a relatively small number of privatized housing agreements (seven, according to DOD officials) in which the military department has made a limited loan guarantee.[Footnote 52] In these cases, if certain conditions are met, the government could be required to make the loan payments on behalf of the private sector borrower (the limited liability corporation). For example, according to our discussions with Air Force officials regarding one housing privatization project with a limited loan guarantee, if the installation were to close, the loan guarantee would only go into effect if several conditions were met, including either (1) a drop of 30 percent or more in the number of eligible military personnel available to lease homes at that locale or (2) if the ratio of eligible military personnel to available family housing units becomes less than 1.5 to 1. Second, in some cases, DOD may have to pay certain costs as the housing contractor transitions from renting to DOD tenants to renting to non-DOD tenants. For example, at a Navy installation that closed during BRAC 2005, the Navy paid about $149,000 to install electric and water meters for the housing units. According to Navy officials, the housing project's legal agreement did not require the Navy to take this action, but the Navy did so to ensure that it would not be charged for utility usage. According to our analysis of project data reported by DOD, officials did not expect that any of the enhanced use lease projects would result in a liability in the event of base closure. For the majority of enhanced use lease projects we reviewed in detail, DOD officials do not expect the military department to have a financial liability in the event of base closure because DOD does not plan to terminate the leases. Specifically, in four of five enhanced use lease case studies, DOD officials from each military department stated that they do not expect a liability in the event of base closure because they do not plan to terminate the leases. For example, in discussing one Air Force enhanced use lease, officials stated the Air Force will continue to receive rent even if the installation is closed.[Footnote 53] They do not believe the Air Force would have other potential liabilities from this lease in the event of a base closure. While closing an installation with an enhanced use lease will not typically result in liability, it could result in forgone revenue. For example, at one installation, because the private entity is using only a portion of a government-owned building, officials believe that--in the event of base closure--the entire building would likely be closed, and as a result the military department may have to terminate the lease. In that instance, because the lease includes a government right to terminate the lease with 180-day advance notice, the only likely result would be prorating rent and forgoing future rental income. As with most other types of projects, this determination of potential financial consequences requires a case-by-case examination of the underlying agreements and circumstances in question. According to our analysis of project data reported by the Army, none of its privatized lodging projects are expected to result in a liability in the event of base closure. This is because Army officials expect that privatized lodges will remain in business in the event of base closure; the officials do not plan to terminate the project's lease, and thus, do not expect that any financial liabilities would result from the lodging projects. According to Army officials with whom we met and documentation we reviewed, the privatized Army lodging master lease agreement has language that specifically addresses base closure. The lease states that in the event that the government assigns or transfers the lease in connection with conveying title to the site of a privatized Army lodging project, the lease shall remain in full force and effect, subject to certain limitations.[Footnote 54] Therefore, no liability is likely to result. While DOD's potential financial liability appears limited for most privatized housing, enhanced use lease agreements, and privatized Army lodging, there may be costs that occur for reasons outside of the agreements. For example, as mentioned earlier, in one instance the Navy paid to have meters installed on the privatized housing units at a closed base to ensure that the Navy would not be billed for utilities used by residents of the privatized housing it no longer used. In addition, one DOD official has expressed concern that contractors may seek financial compensation for privatized housing on closed installations, which reflects that, given the complex and costly nature of these projects, there is always the potential for unforeseen future litigation. Not All Costs Associated with Alternatively Financed Projects Were Captured in Closure Estimates for Consideration in the BRAC 2005 Round: Three of five installations that had alternatively financed projects and were closed in the 2005 BRAC round had closure costs associated with the projects that DOD did not include in its COBRA model estimates. BRAC 2005 policy guidance for determining costs and savings of BRAC actions and COBRA model instructions require that DOD consider all costs and savings associated with various base closure scenarios. [Footnote 55] We have identified three factors that may have contributed to the costs associated with alternatively financed projects not being included in COBRA estimates. Three Installations Had Closure Costs Not Included in 2005 COBRA Estimates: Based on discussions with DOD officials who were involved in--or had knowledge of--the BRAC 2005 processes and our review of installations' BRAC implementation budgets and other related documentation, we determined that for three of the five installations with alternatively financed projects, there were closure costs associated with their projects that DOD did not include in its COBRA estimates. We have previously reported that DOD's process for providing the BRAC Commission with costs and savings estimates was hindered by inputs into COBRA that underestimated certain types of costs, including contract-termination costs. [Footnote 56] As can be seen in table 1 below, we found that two of the locations were Army installations and the third was a Navy installation. DOD has subsequently identified more than $24 million in costs paid out thus far for these projects, and as of January 2013 additional settlement costs were still being negotiated. As noted above, three of five closed installations had costs associated with an alternatively financed project. One of the Army locations where there were such costs is Fort Monmouth, NJ where DOD terminated for convenience a renewable energy contract involving ground source heat pumps. The Army's reported costs included payments to the contractor for the contract termination and installation of several boilers to heat installation buildings that were to be heated by the heat pumps. In total, these costs came to about $24.3 million. However, these costs were not included in the COBRA estimates developed for this closure recommendation. The second Army location is Fort Monroe, VA where DOD terminated for convenience a privatized electrical utility contract. DOD terminated the contract for convenience in September 2011, when-- according to a DOD official--the installation was closed. In June 2012, the privatized electrical contractor submitted to DOD a termination for convenience settlement proposal with options for a U.S. government payment of either $9.9 million or $30.0 million, depending on the remaining work to be done by the contractor. As of January 2013, the final settlement had not been determined. These costs were not included in the COBRA estimates developed for this closure recommendation. The third installation is Brunswick Naval Air Station, ME. When this installation closed in May 2011, a privatized housing project at the installation remained open. As discussed earlier in this report, to ensure that utility companies correctly charge the Navy for utilities used on the installation, the Navy paid for installing electric and water meters for the housing units. The cost of this work was about $148,800, but was not included in the 2005 COBRA estimates for this closure recommendation. [Footnote 57] Table 1: Installations Closed during the 2005 Round of BRAC That Had an Alternatively Financed Project: Military Department: Army; Installation Name and State: Ft. Monmouth, NJ; Type of Alternatively Financed Project(s): Renewable energy; Alternatively Financed Project Closure Cost[A]: $24,275,000; Is the Cost Recorded in COBRA? No. Military Department: Army; Installation Name and State: Ft. Monroe, VA; Type of Alternatively Financed Project(s): Privatized electrical, potable water, and wastewater utilities; Alternatively Financed Project Closure Cost[A]: $9,900,000 or $30,000,000[B]; Is the Cost Recorded in COBRA? No. Military Department: Navy; Installation Name and State: Naval Air Station Brunswick, ME; Type of Alternatively Financed Project(s): Privatized housing; Alternatively Financed Project Closure Cost[A]: $149,000; Is the Cost Recorded in COBRA? No. Military Department: Navy; Installation Name and State: Naval Air Station Ingleside, TX; Type of Alternatively Financed Project(s): Privatized housing; Alternatively Financed Project Closure Cost[A]: $0; Is the Cost Recorded in COBRA? Not applicable. Military Department: Navy; Installation Name and State: Marine Corps Air Station Kansas City, MO; Type of Alternatively Financed Project(s): Privatized housing; Alternatively Financed Project Closure Cost: $0; Is the Cost Recorded in COBRA? Not applicable. Source: GAO analysis of DOD information: Notes: [A] Numbers are rounded to the nearest thousand. [B] In June 2012, the privatized electrical contractor submitted to DOD a termination for convenience settlement proposal with options for a payment of either $9.9 million or $30.0 million depending on the remaining work to be done by the contractor. As of January 2013, the final settlement had not been determined. [End of table] Several Factors May Have Contributed to DOD Not Including Alternatively Financed Project Costs in COBRA Estimates: We have identified three factors that may have contributed to the costs associated with alternatively financed projects being omitted from COBRA estimates. BRAC 2005 policy guidance for determining costs and savings of BRAC actions requires that DOD consider all costs and savings associated with base closure scenarios, and DOD instructions for using the COBRA model stress the importance of capturing all known costs and savings caused by a potential realignment action. We have previously reported that detailed requirements must be captured before comparing scenarios in order to have the COBRA model produce estimates that more closely approximate actual implementation costs.[Footnote 58] Further, according to our work on best practices for government operations, ensuring that collected data are consistent and comprehensive is important for supporting decision-making.[Footnote 59] Because the gathering, analysis, and entry of data into COBRA for BRAC 2005 occurred in 2004 and 2005, Army and Navy officials could not provide us with specifics on the steps involved in entering data into COBRA for the three submissions that lacked estimates of costs related to alternatively financed projects.[Footnote 60] However, because DOD intends to use the COBRA model for future BRAC rounds, we reviewed DOD's processes for obtaining data on costs associated with alternatively financed projects for COBRA analyses and the guidance available to gain additional insight into the process. Our analysis indicated three factors that may have contributed to the omission of costs associated with alternatively financed projects from COBRA estimates. First, DOD's collection of data on potential base closure costs was not consistent or comprehensive regarding alternatively financed projects. During BRAC 2005, DOD sent questions to installations to gather information on installation-specific costs and savings. The answers to these questions were used to provide the data that DOD entered into the COBRA model. However, the questions did not directly request information on potential costs related to alternatively financed projects in a consistent or comprehensive manner. In some cases, DOD asked questions specific to potential termination costs associated with utility privatization contracts, as well as utility energy savings contracts and energy savings performance contracts, two types of alternatively financed contracts that may involve a renewable energy component. However, the questions were not asked consistently. Specifically, our review indicates that the questions about utility privatization and the energy contracts were directed specifically at Air Force installations. Navy installations were not asked to answer these questions; and Army officials could not provide evidence that such questions were sent to Army installations. Further, the questions were not comprehensive, because DOD did not ask questions specific to potential costs associated with other types of energy contracts or with privatized housing, lodging, or enhanced use lease projects. As previously noted, these three project types are less likely to result in costs in the event of base closure. However, the potential for costs associated with these project types still exists. For example, the government agreed to limited loan guarantees on certain privatized housing projects and undertook metering for privatized housing. Second, for cases in which DOD officials are not able to estimate the particular costs associated with alternatively financed projects within the data collection timeframes, the COBRA model does not provide users with a data input option to indicate that a cost may nevertheless exist. Estimating these particular costs may be a challenge because during the BRAC data collection process, officials at installations had limited time to answer questions, and this may have impacted their ability to develop estimates of costs associated with alternatively financed projects. According to DOD officials, in some cases officials at the installation level during the BRAC 2005 data call were provided with about 48 hours of turn-around time before answers were due. DOD officials explained that estimating the costs associated with alternatively financed projects in the event of base closure can require a substantial amount of time. This is because such estimation may involve the collection of a substantial amount of project information and analyses conducted by officials at multiple levels within a military department. Ultimately, these costs are only determinable through negotiation and resolution with the project's contractor under the terms of the relevant contracts and agreements. According to our analysis of project data reported by DOD, for alternatively financed projects that are likely to result in a cost in the event of base closure, DOD officials estimated that for almost two thirds (65 percent) of these projects the officials would require a month or more to estimate the cost. For example, DOD officials stated that 48 hours may not be enough time to identify the location of a project's legal agreements--much less review the agreements--or fully estimate those costs. In some cases, officials may not know the full costs associated with alternatively financed projects on closed bases for several years after they have provided information for the COBRA model. For instance, at Ft. Monroe, the Army decided to terminate for convenience a privatized electrical utility contract. Information pertaining to the potential closure of the installation was entered into COBRA in 2005; the installation was closed--according to a DOD official--in September 2011; and as of January 2013, DOD and the contractor had not finalized the settlement cost. According to our review of the COBRA model and associated instructions,[Footnote 61] the model does not provide users with the capability to indicate that a cost of an uncertain amount may exist. Specifically, the model's data input fields for costs and savings require the user to input information in the form of a specific amount of money.[Footnote 62] While the model provides users with the option to provide non- numerical information in footnotes, and instructions tell users to document the rationale of how costs were calculated in footnotes, the instructions do not tell users to indicate potential costs that are not entered into the data input fields. Thus, in a case where a cost is likely--but a numerical estimate cannot be generated in time for entry into COBRA--there is no option for providing non-numerical information that could help inform decision makers of the likelihood of such costs. The lack of such a data input option may result in decision makers not being aware of potential liabilities. Third, while instruction is provided to COBRA users for entering costs associated with alternatively financed projects into the model's Screen 5, there are cases in which the instructions are not consistent or comprehensive. The instructions provide some guidance on entering estimates of costs resulting from the termination of contract and lease agreements. For example, the COBRA Manual states that "particular areas of interest" include contracts and leases. As discussed earlier in this report, the model contains data input fields for certain types of these costs, and the COBRA Manual states that users should enter information on costs associated with "contract termination" and "lease termination" into Screen 5. In addition, the COBRA Template provides some guidance on which data fields users should use when inputting the cost of terminations associated with contracts, and determination of costs and savings associated with leases. However, in some cases, the instructions are not consistent or comprehensive. For example: * By listing "lease termination" and "contract termination" as broad categories of potential costs, the COBRA Manual and COBRA Template provide some guidance to users on alternatively financed project costs that should be included in Screen 5. However, the instructions do not further illustrate other types of costs that could be associated with these types of projects in the event of base closure. For instance, costs associated with privatized housing projects in the event of base closure could include DOD's payment of limited loan guarantees or other additional costs associated with exiting from the projects, such as DOD's cost to install additional utility meters, as discussed earlier. Although housing privatization projects are governed by leases, neither the payment of limited loan guarantees nor additional costs such as the cost of metering are the result of "lease termination." In fact, according to DOD officials, these two types of costs could occur even as a project's lease continues past base closure. In another example, the Army paid over $1 million to install hot water boilers at Ft. Monmouth to heat buildings that would have been heated via the renewable energy contract that the Army terminated for convenience. As discussed earlier, these costs were not included in the COBRA estimates developed for the Ft. Monmouth closure recommendation. Thus, the instructions to include "lease termination" and "contract termination" costs may not be comprehensive enough to ensure users of the model are entering all potential costs associated with alternatively financed projects. * COBRA has data input fields for entering both costs and savings, but the instructions are not comprehensive in their explanation of whether the costs should be entered as net costs or if cost and savings should be entered in separate data fields. In the event of base closure, it is possible that an alternatively financed project could result in both gross costs and gross savings for DOD. For instance, terminating a utilities privatization contract could mean that DOD no longer pays the contractor for the service it was providing, resulting in cost avoidance (a type of savings). But, for the same contract, DOD may also provide the contractor with a termination for convenience settlement, resulting in liability for DOD. The COBRA manual states that costs and savings "are determined by the user." However, instructions for COBRA users on this issue do not state how to determine costs and savings from contracts and leases considered for Screen 5. Specifically, there are no instructions on whether to enter costs and savings from the same contract as a net value in a single field or as distinct values in separate fields. Given that the model has multiple data fields into which users can input costs and savings, the instructions' lack of clarity may make it difficult for decision makers to have the information necessary to make accurate comparisons across closure scenarios. * The instructions do not consistently define key terms. While the instructions do define certain terms, there are other terms they do not define. For instance, the COBRA manual states that for users, it "might seem like" costs or savings could be entered into one of several data fields. The COBRA manual then instructs users to differentiate between different data input fields by considering whether the costs or savings are primarily "mission" or "support" related. However, because neither the COBRA manual nor COBRA template define either term, the user may be unclear on how to determine the category into which costs or savings should be placed. The lack of definitions could negatively affect the model's output, since, according to the COBRA template, the costs will be captured differently for mission and support in COBRA reports. We have previously reported that the cost estimates the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) submitted to the BRAC Commission were significantly lower than actual implementation costs, and 2 of the 14 recommendations with the largest cost increases were partly due to existing contracts that had to be terminated or modified.[Footnote 63] Further, according to DOD's BRAC 2005 guidance, even minor changes suggested by COBRA model results may reduce costs or improve long term savings. Such changes could, in turn, affect the estimated relative cost or savings of closing one installation compared to another and the decision of which installation to close. Since the last round of BRAC was conducted, there has been a substantial increase (more than125 percent) in the number of alternatively financed projects. According to military department officials with whom we discussed this increase, they stated that it will be important for the COBRA model to have the ability to fully capture information on the potential costs associated with alternatively financed projects, in the event of base closure. Given that DOD intends to use the COBRA model in future BRAC rounds, DOD and the BRAC Commission may not have the necessary information on potential net costs associated with the various options it is considering due to the lack of consistent and comprehensive information on costs associated with alternatively financed projects. As a result, DOD and the Commission may face challenges in accurately comparing competing scenarios' net costs. Conclusions: Congress has provided DOD with flexibility to manage its large inventory of real property through arrangements with the private sector that utilize funding sources other than appropriations, which has allowed the department to reduce its use of appropriated funds for certain key assets, such as utilities and family housing. This flexibility may allow DOD to shift resources to other requirements, but such agreements can increase the department's exposure to potential financial liabilities and other costs in the event of base closure. Given that DOD has a substantial number of these alternative financing agreements and that the department is interested in pursuing further base closure and realignment rounds, it is especially important that decision makers throughout the BRAC process have full information on potential costs involved in proposed BRAC actions. With the federal government facing an extended period of fiscal constraint, collecting initial data on all potential costs--including those related to alternatively financed projects--and ensuring that decision makers are aware of the potential for costs even when complete data are not available will improve the information for decision makers during the BRAC process. In addition, taking these actions may reduce some of the uncertainty involved in estimating the overall costs and savings of proposed BRAC actions. Improvements to the processes for data collection and cost estimation and clarification of the COBRA model guidance would provide the military departments with a better understanding of the data they need to provide in order to ensure that DOD and Congress can make informed decisions about how to balance the department's resources if further BRAC actions are taken. Recommendations for Executive Action: To increase the overall reliability of the initial cost estimates that DOD submits with its recommendations to the BRAC Commission for any future BRAC round, we recommend the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics direct the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment to take actions to enhance the department's ability to identify any potential costs associated with its alternatively financed projects in the event of a base closure. Specifically, we recommend that the Under Secretary direct the Deputy Under Secretary to take the following three actions: * Modify the procedures for collecting data in its BRAC data call to include questions that are consistent and comprehensive; directed to: * all three military departments; and specific to the potential types of costs associated with alternatively financed projects. * Modify the COBRA model to add a capability that allows users to indicate that a potential liability may exist, even if the amount of the liability cannot be estimated at the time of data entry. For example, a data field could be added that provides the user with a "Yes/No" option to indicate the possibility of such a cost. In addition, COBRA instructions could be modified to instruct the user to provide information on the likely costs, in footnotes. This would increase the information available to decision makers and signal that there are potential costs in the event that a precise estimate cannot be calculated at that time. * Further, modify COBRA instructions for entering information on costs associated with alternatively financed projects in the model to help ensure costs are consistently captured and complete. For example, illustrate the types of costs that should be included; specify whether costs should be entered as net costs or if costs and savings should be entered separately; indicate which data entry field is the appropriate field into which the user should enter such costs; and define key terms. Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: We provided a draft of this report to DOD for review and comment; DOD did not concur with our recommendations, which were offered to assist DOD in increasing the consistency and comprehensiveness of the initial cost estimates that DOD submits with its recommendations to the BRAC Commission. DOD stated that because (1) the statute requires DOD to develop base realignment and closure recommendations on the basis of the selection criteria with military value having primary consideration and (2) other liabilities will not be known until after negotiations, it believes adding these liabilities in the cost estimating process is unnecessary. While we acknowledge that military value is the primary consideration used to evaluate potential BRAC candidates, the statute authorizing BRAC 2005 also established four additional criteria including the extent and timing of potential costs and savings of BRAC scenarios. The focus of our recommendations is to improve the collection of information to address this criterion. Specifically, DOD did not agree with our first recommendation to modify the procedures for collecting data in its BRAC data call to include questions that are consistent and comprehensive; directed to all three military departments; and specific to the potential types of costs associated with alternatively financed projects. DOD stated that it does not believe that such costs should be collected as part of the BRAC data call, in that it would be impossible to determine those costs in advance. However, as discussed in this report, BRAC 2005 policy guidance and COBRA model instructions require that DOD consider all costs and savings associated with various base closure scenarios. [Footnote 64] In fact, DOD collected some information on these costs in its BRAC 2005 data call, but it did not request this information consistently across all military departments or project types. For example, DOD asked questions specific to potential termination costs associated with utility privatization contracts, utility energy savings contracts, and energy savings performance contracts; and included the information in its COBRA cost estimates. Specifically, according to Air Force officials, during BRAC 2005, the Air Force took into account the cost of terminating utility energy savings contracts on several installations when considering realignment and closure scenarios, and included these costs in the COBRA cost estimates it developed for the scenarios.[Footnote 65] Certain multi-year energy agreements--including utility energy savings contracts such as the ones at these installations--are required by regulation to contain a "cancellation ceiling," which, in combination with other portions of the agreement, sets a fixed limit to the government's liability in the event of a termination for convenience. As such, DOD's statements that it does not believe that such costs should be collected as part of the BRAC data call and that it would be impossible to determine those costs in advance are inconsistent with its BRAC 2005 processes and actual experience. Further, as we reported in March 2013, detailed requirements should be captured before comparing scenarios in order to have the COBRA model produce estimates that more closely approximate actual implementation costs.[Footnote 66] DOD suggests that the primary advantage of COBRA is to provide real time comparison of scenarios to aid analysis and decision maker review, not to develop budget-quality estimates. We recognize that COBRA is not intended to provide budget-quality estimates, but that does not preclude the possibility of improvements to COBRA. We believe that our recommendation would enhance DOD's ability to collect data in a consistent and comprehensive manner and would assist DOD and the Commission in ensuring that scenarios involving bases with such projects are compared on an equivalent basis. Including these costs would potentially improve the cost estimates that DOD submits to the BRAC Commission for review. For these reasons, we continue to believe that this recommendation is valid. DOD did not concur with our second recommendation to modify the COBRA model to add a capability that would allow users to indicate that a potential liability may exist, even if the amount of the liability cannot be estimated at the time of data entry. For example, we suggested that a data field could be added that provides the user with a "Yes/No" option to indicate the possibility of such a cost. In addition, COBRA instructions could be modified to instruct the user to provide information on the likely costs in a note field. In its response to this recommendation, DOD stated that noting a potential liability does not add value in the decision making process in which recommendations are developed on the basis of the selection criteria with military value having primary consideration. DOD stated that accounting for these costs later, during the actual closure or implementation phase would be a better approach because the data would at that point be more accurate. In any future BRAC round, we believe that DOD should continue to include such costs in COBRA estimates, when possible. In cases where the amount of the liability cannot be estimated when data is being entered into the COBRA model, we continue to believe that modifying the model with a capability to note the existence of a potential liability would provide decision makers with valuable information that they may want to consider in their deliberations. While we agree with DOD that better and more accurate information would aid the implementation phase of BRAC, the intent of our recommendation is to improve the information provided to decision makers while they are comparing competing scenarios and making closure and realignment decisions. Because of this, we continue to believe our recommendation has merit. DOD did not concur with our third recommendation to modify COBRA instructions for entering information into the model on costs associated with alternatively financed projects to help ensure costs are consistently captured and complete. For example, we suggested that DOD illustrate the types of costs that should be included; specify whether costs should be entered as net costs or if costs and savings should be entered separately; indicate the appropriate data field to enter such costs; and define key terms. DOD did not provide specific reasons for its non-concurrence with the recommendation, instead referring to its response to our first two recommendations. Our prior work on best practices for government operations found that[Footnote 67] ensuring that collected data are consistent and comprehensive is important for supporting decision-making. Further, there has been a substantial increase (more than 125 percent) in the number of alternatively financed projects on DOD installations since the last round of BRAC was conducted. We continue to believe that modification of COBRA instructions could help DOD ensure that scenario costs are captured in a consistent and complete manner, aiding the department in meeting its requirement to treat all bases equally, and aiding the Commission in its decision making process. After considering the points raised by DOD in its comments, we continue to believe that our recommendations have merit because they would improve the information available to decision makers in the BRAC process. As we have stated in prior GAO reports, DOD's process for conducting its BRAC 2005 analysis was generally logical and reasoned. We continue to believe that the process remains fundamentally sound based on this review, although our analysis identified opportunities to improve the process for future rounds. By ensuring that all implementation costs are consistently collected and considered to the extent known during the comparison of BRAC scenarios, both DOD and the Commission will have greater assurance that scenarios involving bases with and without alternatively financed projects are compared on a consistent basis. Including these costs would potentially result in a more accurate initial cost estimates that DOD submits to the BRAC Commission for review. We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional committees; the Secretaries of Defense, the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force; the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics; the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment; and the Director of the Defense Logistics Agency. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-7968 or mctiguej@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV. Signed by: James R. McTigue, Jr. Director: Defense Capabilities & Management: List of Committees: The Honorable Carl Levin: Chairman: The Honorable James Inhofe: Ranking Member: Committee on Armed Services: United States Senate: The Honorable Tim Johnson: Chairman: The Honorable Mark Kirk: Ranking Member: Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans’ Affairs, and Related Agencies: 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 John Culberson: Chairman: The Honorable Sanford Bishop: Ranking Member: Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans’ Affairs, and Related Agencies: Committee on Appropriations: House of Representatives: [End of section] Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: Based on our prior work on alternatively financed projects and congressional interest as expressed in House Report 112-479,[Footnote 68] we included five project types in the scope of our review: renewable energy,[Footnote 69] privatized utilities,[Footnote 70] privatized family housing,[Footnote 71] Army lodging, and leases for underused land. To describe the alternatively financed projects that existed on DOD's U.S. installations, as of September 30, 2011, we collected information from the military departments on the five types of alternatively financed projects within the scope of our review. We included projects if (1) they were funded--at least in part--by means other than up-front appropriations; (2) the project's legal agreement was signed as of September 30, 2011; (3) the installation that hosted the project was open as of that date; and (4) the installation was located in the United States. In addition, we assessed the completeness and accuracy of these project data. To do so, we reviewed data submitted by the military departments and Defense Logistics Agency to determine if there were inconsistencies or certain data elements that were not provided for individual projects. In such cases, we discussed these data with knowledgeable agency officials, resolving the inconsistencies and gathering the missing data elements. In addition, we assessed the reliability of all computer-generated data provided by the military departments and Defense Logistics Agency by reviewing existing information about the data and the systems that produced the data and by interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about the data to determine the steps taken to ensure its completeness and accuracy. We determined that these data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of presenting the number and certain characteristics of these projects, as reported by the military departments and Defense Logistics Agency. We are confident that, based on information from the military departments and Defense Logistics Agency, we have collected information on the complete universe of alternatively financed projects as of September 30, 2011. However, we did not validate the existence of each individual project. As discussed above, the military departments provided data on projects that were active as of September 30, 2011. The military departments provided these project data to us in November and December 2012. To describe examples of ways that associated legal agreements protect the government's financial interests, as well as circumstances under which DOD could face financial liabilities and other costs in the event of base closure, we chose 29 case studies for more in-depth review. To do so, we reviewed the project information provided by the military departments and Defense Logistics Agency, and selected project case studies based on several variables, including the military department that runs the installation on which the project was located; installations with multiple types of alternatively financed projects; the project type, ensuring that we included all five project types in our scope; and certain other project characteristics. For example, our case studies included privatized military housing projects with and without limited loan guarantees, and utilities privatized as "stand alone" privatizations and those privatized under a housing privatization authority. For these case studies, we visited installations, interviewed DOD officials, and collected and reviewed project documentation.[Footnote 72] We also reviewed relevant statutory authorities, sections of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, and military department policy governing alternatively financed projects. In addition to the officials with whom we met in the course of conducting our case studies, we met with officials from the military departments, the Defense Logistics Agency, and two directorates of the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment: Facilities Energy and Basing. To determine the extent to which DOD's process for estimating the costs and savings of base closure candidates captures liabilities and other costs associated with alternatively financed project agreements-- in the event of base closure--we identified the requirements for capturing the data by reviewing the BRAC 2005 implementation policy and the BRAC statute. We then identified installations that had alternatively financed projects and were closed during BRAC 2005, and determined to what extent DOD's process for estimating the costs and savings of base closure candidates during BRAC 2005 captured potential liabilities and other costs associated with these projects. In each round of BRAC, DOD has estimated the costs and savings associated with various proposed BRAC recommendations by using a model known as the Cost of Base Realignment Actions (COBRA). To determine the extent to which this model captured potential project costs, we compared costs recorded in the COBRA model for the closed installations with alternatively financed projects to the military departments' reported closure costs. To gather information on the closure costs and reasons why the costs may or may not have been captured, we interviewed DOD officials who were involved in--or had knowledge of--the BRAC 2005 process and individuals involved with closure of the bases in question; reviewed the installations' BRAC implementation budgets; and reviewed additional related documentation, such as alternatively financed project legal agreements. Furthermore, to determine whether DOD's process for collecting data on potential base closure costs was comprehensive and consistent, we reviewed the questions used to gather information for the COBRA model; the COBRA model instructions for completing the portion of the model into which costs associated with alternatively financed projects are to be entered; and the data input fields in this part of the model. We then compared the instructions and data input fields to BRAC 2005 policy guidance for determining costs and savings of BRAC actions best practices for collecting data in support of government operations.[Footnote 73] [End of section] Appendix II: Alternatively Financed Projects on DOD's U.S. Installations by Project Type as of September 30, 2011, as Reported by DOD: According to our analysis of project data reported by DOD, renewable energy projects accounted for 11 percent (60 projects) of the 555 alternatively financed projects. Privatized utilities constituted 53 percent (292 projects) of all projects. Privatized housing accounted for 30 percent (166 projects). Privatized Army lodging projects represented about 4 percent (21 projects) of DOD's reported alternatively financed projects, and 10 percent of the Army's 209 alternatively financed projects. Finally, enhanced use lease projects accounted for 3 percent (16 projects) of all projects. In this appendix, information on alternatively financed projects reported by DOD is organized by project type--and within project type--by military department. Renewable Energy Projects: Table 2: Army Renewable Energy Projects: Military Department: Army; Installation: Aberdeen Proving Ground; State: MD; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: Ground source heat pumps; Energy Savings Performance Contract (ESPC). Military Department: Army; Installation: Carlisle Barracks; State: PA; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: Geothermal; ESPC. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort AP Hill; State: VA; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: Ground source heat pumps; ESPC. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Belvoir; State: VA; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: Ground source heat pumps; ESPC. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Benning; State: GA; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: Solar thermal hot water; ESPC. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Bliss; State: TX; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: Solar thermal hot water or solar power project; ESPC. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Bliss; State: TX; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: Solar thermal hot water or solar power project; ESPC. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Bliss; State: TX; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: Solar thermal hot water or solar power project; ESPC. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Campbell; State: KY; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: Geothermal; Utility Energy Service Contract (UESC). Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Carson; State: CO; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: Solar Photo Voltaic (PV); Power Purchase Agreement (PPA). Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Drum; State: NY; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: Ground source heat pumps; ESPC. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Hood; State: TX; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: Solar thermal hot water; ESPC. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Huachuca; State: AZ; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: Solar PV; ESPC. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Huachuca; State: AZ; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: Solar thermal hot water; ESPC. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Huachuca; State: AZ; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: Wind; ESPC. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Knox; State: KY; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: Biomass plant; UESC. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Knox; State: KY; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: UESC. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Knox; State: KY; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: UESC. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Knox; State: KY; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: UESC. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Knox; State: KY; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: UESC. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Knox; State: KY; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: UESC. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Meade; State: MD; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: Ground source heat pumps; ESPC. Military Department: Army; Installation: Pine Bluff Arsenal; State: AR; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: Ground source heat pumps; ESPC. Military Department: Army; Installation: Rock Island Arsenal; State: IL; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: Ground source heat pumps and hydro electric generation; ESPC. Military Department: Army; Installation: Sierra Army Depot; State: CA; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: Ground source heat pumps; ESPC. Military Department: Army; Installation: Tobyhanna Army Depot; State: PA; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: Solar PV; ESPC. Military Department: Army; Installation: West Point; State: NY; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: No further information available. Military Department: Army; Installation: Yuma Proving Grounds; State: AZ; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: Solar PV; UESC. Source: GAO Analysis of DOD data. [End of table] Table 3: Navy Renewable Energy Projects: Military Department: Navy; Installation: Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam; State: HI; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: On NS Pearl Harbor, solar thermal. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center Twentynine Palms; State: CA; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: Solar PV; ESPC. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Marine Corps Air Station Miramar; State: CA; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: Biomass Plant; PPA. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort; State: SC; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: Two Solar thermal; ESPC. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort; State: SC; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: Geothermal; ESPC. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton; State: CA; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: Seven Solar PV; UESC. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Marine Corps Logistics Base (MCLogB) Albany; State: GA; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: Cogeneration ESPC using Biogas PPA. Military Department: Navy; Installation: MCLogB Albany; State: GA; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: Geothermal; ESPC. Military Department: Navy; Installation: MCLogB Albany; State: GA; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: Biogas; PPA. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Marine Corps Support Facility (MCSF) Blount Island; State: FL; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: Geothermal; UESC. Military Department: Navy; Installation: MCSF Blount Island; State: FL; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: Solar PV; UESC. Military Department: Navy; Installation: NAS Jacksonville, FL; State: FL; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: Solar PV; UESC. Military Department: Navy; Installation: NAS JRB Ft Worth, TX; State: TX; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: Solar PV; ESPC. Military Department: Navy; Installation: NAS Oceana, VA; State: VA; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: Geothermal; ESPC. Military Department: Navy; Installation: NAS Oceana, VA; State: VA; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: Geothermal; ESPC. Military Department: Navy; Installation: NAS Oceana, VA; State: VA; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: Geothermal; ESPC. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake; State: CA; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: Geothermal electricity; PPA. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Naval Base Coronado; State: CA; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: Solar PV; ESPC. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Naval Base Kitsap; State: WA; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: Geothermal (at NUWC Keyport, WA); ESPC. [End of table] Source: GAO Analysis of DOD data. Table 4: Air Force Renewable Energy Projects: Military Department: Air Force; Installation: AF Academy; State: CO; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: Solar PV; PPA. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Eglin Air Force Base (AFB); State: FL; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: Geothermal; UESC. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Hill AFB; State: UT; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: Biomass; ESPC. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Hill AFB; State: UT; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: Solar PV; ESPC. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Hurlburt Field; State: FL; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: Geothermal; UESC. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Joint Base Charleston; State: SC; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: Geothermal; ESPC. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Joint Base McGuire-Dix Lakehurst; State: NJ; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: Solar PV; ESPC. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Joint Base McGuire-Dix Lakehurst; State: NJ; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: Solar PV; ESPC. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Joint Base McGuire-Dix Lakehurst; State: NJ; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: Solar PV; ESPC. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Luke AFB; State: AZ; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: Solar PV; ESPC. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Nellis AFB; State: NV; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: Solar PV; PPA. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Tyndall AFB; State: FL; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: Geothermal; UESC. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Whiteman AFB; State: MO; Project Type: Renewable Energy; General Information, if available: Geothermal; ESPC. Source: GAO Analysis of DOD data. [End of table] Privatized Utility Projects: Table 5: Army Privatized Utility Projects: Military Department: Army; Installation: Aberdeen Proving Ground; State: MD; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Army; Installation: Aberdeen Proving Ground; State: MD; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Army; Installation: Aberdeen Proving Ground; State: MD; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable and waste water. Military Department: Army; Installation: Adelphi Laboratory Center; State: MD; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Army; Installation: Blue Grass Army Depot; State: KY; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Army; Installation: Camp Parks; State: CA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Army; Installation: Camp Parks; State: CA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Army; Installation: Camp Parks; State: CA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable water. Military Department: Army; Installation: Camp Parks; State: CA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Waste water. Military Department: Army; Installation: Detroit Arsenal; State: MI; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort AP Hill; State: VA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort AP Hill; State: VA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable water. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort AP Hill; State: VA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Waste water. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Belvoir; State: VA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Belvoir; State: VA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Belvoir; State: VA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable water. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Belvoir; State: VA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Waste water. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Benning; State: GA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Benning; State: GA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Benning; State: GA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable water. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Benning; State: GA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Waste water. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Bliss; State: TX; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Bliss; State: TX; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Bliss; State: TX; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable water. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Bliss; State: TX; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Waste water. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Bragg; State: NC; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Bragg; State: NC; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable water. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Bragg; State: NC; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Waste water. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Bragg; State: NC; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas on former Pope AFB. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Campbell; State: KY; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Campbell; State: KY; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable water. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Campbell; State: KY; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Waste water. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Detrick; State: MD; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Gordon; State: GA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Gordon; State: GA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Gordon; State: GA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable water. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Gordon; State: GA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Waste water. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Greeley; State: AK; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Chilled water and steam. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Greeley; State: AK; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Greeley; State: AK; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Greeley; State: AK; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable water. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Greeley; State: AK; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Waste water. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Hood; State: TX; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable water. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Hood; State: TX; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Waste water. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Huachuca; State: AZ; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Irwin; State: CA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Irwin; State: CA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Waste water. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Jackson; State: SC; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable water. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Jackson; State: SC; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Waste water. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Knox; State: KY; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Knox; State: KY; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable water. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Knox; State: KY; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Waste water. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Leavenworth; State: KS; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Leavenworth; State: KS; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable water. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Leavenworth; State: KS; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Waste water. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Lee; State: VA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Lee; State: VA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable water. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Lee; State: VA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Waste water. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Leonard Wood; State: MO; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Leonard Wood; State: MO; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort McCoy; State: WI; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort McCoy; State: WI; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort McNair; State: DC; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort McNair; State: DC; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Meade; State: MD; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Meade; State: MD; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Meade; State: MD; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable water. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Meade; State: MD; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Waste water. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Myer; State: VA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Myer; State: VA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Pickett (National Guard Base); State: VA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Pickett (National Guard Base); State: VA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable water. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Polk; State: LA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Polk; State: LA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable water. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Polk; State: LA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Waste water. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Rucker; State: AL; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Rucker; State: AL; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Rucker; State: AL; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable water. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Rucker; State: AL; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Waste water. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Sill; State: OK; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Sill; State: OK; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable water. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Sill; State: OK; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Waste water. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Stewart and Hunter Army Airfield; State: GA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity for both Fort Stewart, GA & Hunter Army Airfield, GA. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Wainwright; State: AK; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Chilled water and steam. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Wainwright; State: AK; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Wainwright; State: AK; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Wainwright; State: AK; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable water. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Wainwright; State: AK; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Waste water. Military Department: Army; Installation: Joint Base Lewis-McChord; State: WA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas for both Ft Lewis & Yakima Training Center. Military Department: Army; Installation: Military Ocean Terminal Sunny Point; State: NC; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Army; Installation: Natick Research Development & Engineering Center; State: MA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Army; Installation: Natick Research Development & Engineering Center; State: MA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Army; Installation: Oahu (includes Fort Shafter, Schofield Barracks, Wheeler Army Airfield); State: HI; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable water. Military Department: Army; Installation: Ord Military Community; State: CA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Army; Installation: Ord Military Community; State: CA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Army; Installation: Ord Military Community; State: CA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable water. Military Department: Army; Installation: Ord Military Community; State: CA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Waste water. Military Department: Army; Installation: Picatinny Arsenal; State: NJ; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Army; Installation: Picatinny Arsenal; State: NJ; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Army; Installation: Presidio of Monterey; State: CA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Army; Installation: Presidio of Monterey; State: CA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Army; Installation: Presidio of Monterey; State: CA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable water. Military Department: Army; Installation: Presidio of Monterey; State: CA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Waste water. Military Department: Army; Installation: Red River Army Depot; State: TX; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Army; Installation: Red River Army Depot; State: TX; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable water. Military Department: Army; Installation: Red River Army Depot; State: TX; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Waste water. Military Department: Army; Installation: Redstone Arsenal; State: AL; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Waste water. Military Department: Army; Installation: Schofield Barracks; State: HI; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Waste water. Military Department: Army; Installation: Sierra Army Depot; State: CA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Army; Installation: Sierra Army Depot; State: CA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Army; Installation: Stewart Army Subpost; State: NY; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Army; Installation: Tooele Army Depot; State: UT; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural Gas. Military Department: Army; Installation: Vancouver Barracks; State: OR; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Army; Installation: Walter Reed Medical Center; State: DC; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. [End of table] Source: GAO Analysis of DOD data. Table 6: Navy Privatized Utility Projects: Military Department: Navy; Installation: Coleville Housing Complex; State: CA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable water. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Coleville Housing Complex; State: CA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Waste water. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Coleville Housing Complex; State: CA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas - Propane Distribution System. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Ft Story; State: VA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Ft Story; State: VA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Waste water. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Ft Story; State: VA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable water. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Beaufort; State: SC; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Navy; Installation: MCAS Beaufort; State: SC; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable water. Military Department: Navy; Installation: MCAS Beaufort; State: SC; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Waste water. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Marine Corps Recruit Depot (MCRD) Parris Island, SC; State: SC; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable water. Military Department: Navy; Installation: MCRD Parris Island, SC; State: SC; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Waste water. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Naval Air Station (NAS) Corpus Christi; State: TX; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Navy; Installation: NAS Key West; State: FL; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable water. Military Department: Navy; Installation: NAS Kingsville; State: TX; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Navy; Installation: NAS Meridian; State: MS; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Navy; Installation: NAS Whiting Field; State: FL; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Navy; Installation: NAS Whiting Field; State: FL; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Navy; Installation: NAS, Patuxent River; State: MD; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Naval Base Kitsap; State: WA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Kingston Housing potable water - privatized under privatized housing authority. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Naval Base Kitsap; State: WA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Kingston Housing waste water - privatized under privatized housing authority. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Naval Base San Diego; State: CA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity - systems at selected neighborhoods privatized under privatized housing authority. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Naval Base San Diego; State: CA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas - systems at selected neighborhoods privatized under privatized housing authority. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Naval Base San Diego; State: CA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable water - systems at selected neighborhoods privatized under privatized housing authority. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Naval Base San Diego; State: CA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Waste water - systems at selected neighborhoods privatized under privatized housing authority. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Naval Construction Battalion Center Gulfport; State: MS; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Naval Shipyard Norfolk; State: VA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity - privatized through SE Public Service Authority of Virginia (SPSA). Military Department: Navy; Installation: Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay; State: GA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Naval Submarine Base San Diego; State: CA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity - systems at selected neighborhoods privatized under privatized housing authority. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Naval Submarine Base San Diego; State: CA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas - systems at selected neighborhoods privatized under privatized housing authority. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Naval Submarine Base San Diego; State: CA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable water - systems at selected neighborhoods privatized under privatized housing authority. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Naval Submarine Base San Diego; State: CA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Waste water - systems at selected neighborhoods privatized under privatized housing authority. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Naval Support Activity Panama City; State: FL; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Source: GAO Analysis of DOD data. [End of table] Table 7: Air Force Privatized Utility Projects: Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Air Force Academy; State: CO; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Andrews Air Force Base (AFB); State: MD; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Andrews AFB; State: MD; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable water. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Andrews AFB; State: MD; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Waste water. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Arnold AFB; State: TN; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Atlantic City (Air Guard Base at International Airport); State: NJ; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Atlantic City (Air Guard Base at International Airport); State: NJ; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable water. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Atlantic City (Air Guard Base at International Airport); State: NJ; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Waste water. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Atlantic City (Air Guard Base at International Airport); State: NJ; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Birmingham (Air Guard Base at International Airport); State: AL; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Birmingham (Air Guard Base at International Airport); State: AL; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Birmingham (Air Guard Base at International Airport); State: AL; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Waste water. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Boise Air Terminal (Air Guard Station); State: ID; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Boise Air Terminal (Air Guard Station); State: ID; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Boise Air Terminal (Air Guard Station); State: ID; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable water. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Boise Air Terminal (Air Guard Station); State: ID; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Waste water. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Bradley IAP Air National Guard Base; State: CT; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Bradley IAP Air National Guard Base; State: CT; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Bradley IAP Air National Guard Base; State: CT; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable water. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Bradley IAP Air National Guard Base; State: CT; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Waste water. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Burlington (Air Guard Base at International Airport); State: VT; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Capital Airport Air Guard Station; State: IL; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Charlotte/Douglas International Airport Air Guard Station; State: NC; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Cheyenne Airport Air Guard Station; State: WY; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Cheyenne Airport Air Guard Station; State: WY; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station; State: CO; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Chicago O'Hare Air Reserve Station; State: IL; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Chicago O'Hare Air Reserve Station; State: IL; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Chicago O'Hare Air Reserve Station; State: IL; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable water. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Chicago O'Hare Air Reserve Station; State: IL; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Waste water. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Dane County Regional Airport, Traux Field Air Guard Station; State: WI; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Dane County Regional Airport, Traux Field Air Guard Station; State: WI; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Dane County Regional Airport, Traux Field Air Guard Station; State: WI; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable water. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Dobbins Air Reserve Base; State: GA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Dover AFB; State: DE; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Waste water. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Duluth (Air Guard Base at International Airport); State: MN; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Eglin AFB; State: FL; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: F.E. Warren AFB; State: WY; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: F.S. Gabreski Air National Guard Base; State: NY; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Waste water. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: F.S. Gabreski Air National Guard Base; State: NY; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Fairchild AFB; State: WA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Forbes Field Air Guard Station; State: KS; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Forbes Field Air Guard Station; State: KS; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Fort Smith Airport Air Guard Station; State: AR; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Fort Smith Airport Air Guard Station; State: AR; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Fort Wayne (Air Guard Base at International Airport); State: IN; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Fort Wayne (Air Guard Base at International Airport); State: IN; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Fort Wayne (Air Guard Base at International Airport); State: IN; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable water. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Goodfellow AFB; State: TX; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Grissom Air Reserve Base; State: IN; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Grissom Air Reserve Base; State: IN; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable water. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Grissom Air Reserve Base; State: IN; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Waste water. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Harrisburg (Air Guard Station at International Airport); State: PA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Hector IAP (Air Guard Station at International Airport); State: ND; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Homestead Air Reserve Base; State: FL; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Homestead Air Reserve Base; State: FL; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable water. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Homestead Air Reserve Base; State: FL; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Waste water. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Hurlburt Field; State: FL; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Jackson (Air Guard Station at International Airport); State: MS; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable water. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Jackson (Air Guard Station at International Airport); State: MS; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Waste water. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Jacksonville (Air Guard Station at International Airport); State: FL; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Joe Foss Field (Air National Guard); State: SD; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Joint Base Charleston; State: SC; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas on former Charleston AFB. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Joint Base Elmendorf Richardson; State: AK; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity on former Ft Richardson. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Joint Base Elmendorf Richardson; State: AK; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas on former Elmendorf AFB. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Joint Base Elmendorf Richardson; State: AK; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas on former Ft Richardson. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Joint Base Elmendorf Richardson; State: AK; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable water on former Ft Richardson. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Joint Base Elmendorf Richardson; State: AK; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Waste water on former Ft Richardson. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Joint Base Langley-Eustis; State: VA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity on former Ft Eustis. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Joint Base Langley-Eustis; State: VA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas on former Ft Eustis. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Joint Base Langley-Eustis; State: VA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas on former Langley AFB. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Joint Base Langley-Eustis; State: VA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable water-on former Ft Eustis. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Joint Base Langley-Eustis; State: VA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Waste water-on former Ft Eustis. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Joint Base McGuire-Dix Lakehurst; State: NJ; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity on former Ft Dix. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Joint Base McGuire-Dix Lakehurst; State: NJ; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas on former Ft Dix. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Joint Base San Antonio; State: TX; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity on former Ft Sam Houston. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Joint Base San Antonio; State: TX; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity on Randolph Auxiliary Airfield, Seguin, TX. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Joint Base San Antonio; State: TX; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas on former Ft Sam Houston. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Joint Base San Antonio; State: TX; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Waste water on former Randolph AFB. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Key Field Air Guard Station, Meridian Regional Airport; State: MS; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Key Field Air Guard Station, Meridian Regional Airport; State: MS; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable water. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Key Field Air Guard Station, Meridian Regional Airport; State: MS; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Waste water. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Kingsley Field Air Guard Station, Klamath Falls; State: OR; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Kingsley Field Air Guard Station, Klamath Falls; State: OR; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Lambert St. Louis (Air Guard Station at International Airport); State: MO; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Lambert St. Louis (Air Guard Station at International Airport); State: MO; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Lambert St. Louis (Air Guard Station at International Airport); State: MO; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable water. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Lambert St. Louis (Air Guard Station at International Airport); State: MO; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Waste water. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Laughlin AFB; State: TX; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Lincoln (Municipal Airport with Air Guard Station); State: NE; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Lincoln (Municipal Airport with Air Guard Station); State: NE; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Lincoln (Municipal Airport with Air Guard Station); State: NE; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable water. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Lincoln (Municipal Airport with Air Guard Station); State: NE; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Waste water. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Little Rock AFB; State: AR; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Luis Munoz Marin (Air Guard Station at International Airport); State: PR; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Luis Munoz Marin (Air Guard Station at International Airport); State: PR; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable water. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Luis Munoz Marin (Air Guard Station at International Airport); State: PR; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Waste water. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: MacDill AFB; State: FL; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable water. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: MacDill AFB; State: FL; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Waste water. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: March Joint Air Reserve Base; State: CA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable water. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: March Joint Air Reserve Base; State: CA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: March Joint Air Reserve Base; State: CA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Waste water. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Martin State Airport Air Guard Station; State: MD; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Martin State Airport Air Guard Station; State: MD; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Maxwell AFB (Gunter Annex); State: AL; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: McGhee Tyson Air National Guard Station; State: TN; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Minneapolis/St. Paul (Air Guard Station at International Airport); State: MN; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Minot AFB; State: ND; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Nashville, Metropolitan Airport Air Guard Station; State: TN; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: New Castle Air Guard Station; State: DE; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: New Castle Air Guard Station; State: DE; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable water. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station; State: NY; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Waste water. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Offutt AFB; State: NE; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Pease Air National Guard Base; State: NH; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Quonset State Airport Air Guard Station; State: RI; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Reno-Tahoe (Air Guard Station at International Airport); State: NV; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Richmond (Air Guard Station at International Airport); State: VA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Richmond (Air Guard Station at International Airport); State: VA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Richmond (Air Guard Station at International Airport); State: VA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Waste water. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Rickenbacker (Air Guard Station at International Airport); State: OH; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Rickenbacker (Air Guard Station at International Airport); State: OH; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Rickenbacker (Air Guard Station at International Airport); State: OH; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable water. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Rickenbacker (Air Guard Station at International Airport); State: OH; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Waste water. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Salt Lake City (Air Guard Station w/Int. Airport); State: UT; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Savannah (Air Guard Station at International Airport); State: GA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Savannah (Air Guard Station at International Airport); State: GA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Savannah (Air Guard Station at International Airport); State: GA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable water. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Schenectady County Airport Air Guard Station; State: NY; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Scott AFB; State: IL; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable water. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Seymour Johnson AFB; State: NC; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Sioux City Gateway Airport Air Guard Station; State: IA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Sioux City Gateway Airport Air Guard Station; State: IA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable water. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Springfield-Beckley Airport Air Guard Station; State: OH; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Tinker AFB; State: OK; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Tyndall AFB; State: FL; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Tyndall AFB; State: FL; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Tyndall AFB; State: FL; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable water. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: W. K. Kellogg Airport Air National Guard Base; State: MI; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Natural gas. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Westover Air Reserve Base; State: MA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Westover Air Reserve Base; State: MA; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Waste water. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Will Rogers World Airport Air Guard Station; State: OK; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Will Rogers World Airport Air Guard Station; State: OK; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable water. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Will Rogers World Airport Air Guard Station; State: OK; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Waste water. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Wright-Patterson AFB; State: OH; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Yeager Airport Air National Guard Station; State: WV; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Potable water. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Youngstown-Warren Regional Airport Air Reserve Station; State: OH; Project Type: Utilities Privatization; General Information, if available: Electricity. Source: GAO Analysis of DOD data. [End of table] Privatized Housing Projects: Table 8: Army Privatized Housing Projects: Military Department: Army; Installation: Aberdeen Proving Ground; State: MD; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Army; Installation: Camp Parks; State: CA; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Army; Installation: Carlisle Barracks; State: PA; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Belvoir; State: VA; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Benning; State: GA; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Bliss; State: TX; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Bragg; State: NC; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Including former Pope Air Force Base. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Campbell; State: KY; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Carson; State: CO; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Loan guarantee. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Detrick; State: MD; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Drum; State: NY; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Gordon; State: GA; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Greeley; State: AK; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Hamilton; State: NY; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Hood; State: TX; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Huachuca; State: AZ; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Irwin; State: CA; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Jackson; State: SC; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Knox; State: KY; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Leavenworth; State: KS; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Lee; State: VA; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Leonard Wood; State: MO; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Meade; State: MD; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Polk; State: LA; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Loan guarantee. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Riley; State: KS; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Rucker; State: AL; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Sill; State: OK; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Stewart and Hunter AAF; State: GA; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Wainwright; State: AK; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Loan guarantee. Military Department: Army; Installation: Joint Base Lewis-McChord; State: WA; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Army; Installation: Moffett Field; State: CA; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Army; Installation: Naval Post Graduate School; State: CA; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Army; Installation: Naval Support Activity Monterey; State: CA; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Army; Installation: Oahu (includes Fort Shafter, Schofield Barracks, Wheeler Army Airfield); State: HI; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Army; Installation: Picatinny Arsenal; State: NJ; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Army; Installation: Presidio of Monterey; State: CA; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Army; Installation: Redstone Arsenal; State: AL; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Army; Installation: West Point; State: NY; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Army; Installation: White Sands Missile Range; State: NM; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Army; Installation: Yuma Proving Grounds; State: AZ; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Source: GAO Analysis of DOD data. [End of table] Table 9: Navy Privatized Housing Projects: Military Department: Navy; Installation: Coleville Housing Complex; State: CA; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Camp Pendleton Phase II. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Dam Neck Annex; State: VA; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Part of Mid Atlantic Region Project. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling; State: DC; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Navy privatized housing does not include Bolling AFB. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Joint Base Charleston (includes Naval Support Activity Charleston and Naval Hospital Charleston); State: SC; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Air Force is supporting component but Navy is responsible for former Navy housing. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst; State: NJ; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Housing on former Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam; State: HI; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Naval Station Pearl Harbor housing and 15 sites on Oahu - does not include Air Force housing. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story; State: VA; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Part of Joint Fort Eustis-Fort Story Multi-base housing project. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek-Fort Story; State: VA; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Part of Navy Mid Atlantic Multi- base project does not include Ft Story Housing. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center Twentynine Palms; State: CA; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Part of Camp Pendleton Phase II Multi-base project. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Marine Corps Air Station Beaufort; State: SC; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Part of Camp Lejeune-Cherry Point- Stewart Multi-base project. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Pt.; State: NC; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Part of Camp Lejeune-Cherry Point- Stewart Multi-base project. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Marine Corps Air Station Miramar; State: CA; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Part of NC San Diego Overview Multi- base project. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Marine Corps Air Station New River; State: NC; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Part of Camp Lejeune-Cherry Point- Stewart Multi-base project. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Marine Corps Air Station Yuma; State: AZ; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Part of Camp Pendleton Phase II Multi-base project. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune; State: NC; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Part of Mid Atlantic Multi-base project. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune; State: NC; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Part of Camp Lejeune-Cherry Point- Stewart Multi-base project. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton and MCAS Camp Pendleton; State: CA; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Camp Pendleton Phase I. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton and MCAS Camp Pendleton; State: CA; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Camp Pendleton Phase II; Different owner from Phase I. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Marine Corps Base Hawaii; State: HI; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Part of Navy/MC Hawaii Multi-base project. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Marine Corps Base Quantico; State: VA; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Part of Camp Pendleton Phase II Multi-base project. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Marine Corps Logistics Base Albany; State: GA; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Part of Camp Pendleton Phase II Multi-base project. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island; State: SC; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Part of Camp Lejeune-Cherry Point- Stewart Multi-base project. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Marine Corps Recruit Depot San Diego; State: CA; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Part of Camp Pendleton Phase II Multi-base project. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Marine Forces Reserve Kansas City; State: MO; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Part of Camp Pendleton Phase II Multi-base project. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Naval Air Facility El Centro; State: CA; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Part of San Diego Multi-base housing Phase IV. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Naval Air Station (NAS) Corpus Christi; State: TX; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: South Texas project - includes Windy Shores housing, Aransas Pass, TX near former Naval Station Ingelside. Military Department: Navy; Installation: NAS Fallon; State: NV; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Part of San Diego Multi-base housing Phase IV. Military Department: Navy; Installation: NAS Jacksonville; State: FL; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Part of Southeast Region Multi-base housing group. Military Department: Navy; Installation: NAS Joint Reserve Base (JRB) Fort Worth; State: TX; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Part of Southeast Region Multi-base housing group. Military Department: Navy; Installation: NAS JRB New Orleans; State: LA; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Navy; Installation: NAS Key West; State: FL; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Part of Southeast Region Multi-base housing group. Military Department: Navy; Installation: NAS Kingsville; State: TX; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Kingsville I - includes Bridge Pointe housing, Portland, TX near NAS Corpus Christi and former Naval Station Ingleside. Military Department: Navy; Installation: NAS Kingsville; State: TX; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Kingsville II. Military Department: Navy; Installation: NAS Lemoore; State: CA; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Part of San Diego Multi-base housing Phase IV. Military Department: Navy; Installation: NAS Meridian; State: MS; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Part of Southeast Region Multi-base housing group. Military Department: Navy; Installation: NAS Oceana; State: VA; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Part of Mid Atlantic Multi-base project. Military Department: Navy; Installation: NAS, Patuxent River; State: MD; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Part of Mid Atlantic Multi-base project. Military Department: Navy; Installation: NAS Pensacola, FL (includes Navy Technical Training Center Corry); State: FL; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Part of Southeast Region Multi-base housing group. Military Department: Navy; Installation: NAS Whidbey Island; State: WA; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Part of NC Northwest Region Multi- base project. Military Department: Navy; Installation: NAS Whiting Field; State: FL; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Part of Southeast Region Multi-base housing group. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake; State: CA; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Part of San Diego Multi-base housing Phase IV. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Naval Base Kitsap; State: WA; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Part of Naval Complex (NC) Northwest Region Multi-base project includes Bangor, Bremerton and Keyport. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Naval Base Ventura County; State: CA; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Part of San Diego Multi-base housing Phase IV. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Naval Complex San Diego; State: CA; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: San Diego Metro Area: 59 of about 70 neighborhoods are not on a base. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Naval Construction Battalion Center Gulfport; State: MS; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Part of Southeast Region Multi-base housing group. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Naval Information Operations Command Sugar Grove; State: WV; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Part of Mid Atlantic Multi-base project. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Naval Shipyard Norfolk; State: VA; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Part of Mid Atlantic Multi-base project. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Naval Shipyard Portsmouth; State: ME; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Part of NC Northeast Region Multi- base project. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Naval Station (NS) Everett; State: WA; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Part of NC Northwest Region Multi- base project. Military Department: Navy; Installation: NS Everett; State: WA; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Everett II. Military Department: Navy; Installation: NS Great Lakes; State: IL; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Part of Midwest Region Multi-base project. Military Department: Navy; Installation: NS Mayport; State: FL; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Part of Southeast Region Multi-base housing group. Military Department: Navy; Installation: NS Newport; State: RI; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Part of NC Northeast Region Multi- base project. Military Department: Navy; Installation: NS Norfolk; State: VA; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Part of Mid Atlantic Multi-base project. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay; State: GA; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Naval Submarine Base New London; State: CT; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Part of NC Northeast Region Multi- base project. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Naval Support Activity (NSA) Annapolis; State: MD; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Includes the US Naval Academy. Military Department: Navy; Installation: NSA Bethesda; State: MD; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Navy; Installation: NSA Center Crane; State: IN; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Part of Midwest Region Multi-base project. Military Department: Navy; Installation: NSA Hampton Roads; State: VA; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Navy; Installation: NSA Mechanicsburg; State: PA; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Phase II. Military Department: Navy; Installation: NSA Mid-South, South Millington; State: TN; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Navy; Installation: NSA Northwest Annex; State: VA; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Navy; Installation: NSA Panama City; State: FL; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Navy; Installation: NSA Washington; State: DC; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Naval Support Facility (NSF) Dahlgren; State: VA; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Navy; Installation: NSF Indian Head; State: MD; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Navy; Installation: NSF Thurmont; State: MD; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Naval Weapons Station Earle; State: NJ; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Part of NC Northeast Region Multi- base project. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach/Fallbrook; State: CA; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Naval Weapons Station Yorktown; State: VA; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Pacific Missile Range Facility Barking Sands, Kauai; State: HI; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Stewart Air Reserve Base; State: NY; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Terrace Housing. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Westover Air Reserve Base; State: MA; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Source: GAO Analysis of DOD data. [End of table] Table 10: Air Force Privatized Housing Projects: Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Air Force Academy; State: CO; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Altus Air Force Base (AFB); State: OK; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Andrews AFB; State: MD; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Arnold AFB; State: TN; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Barksdale AFB; State: LA; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Buckley AFB; State: CO; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Columbus AFB; State: MS; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Davis-Monthan AFB; State: AZ; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Dover AFB; State: DE; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Dyess AFB; State: TX; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Fairchild AFB; State: WA; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Goodfellow AFB; State: TX; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Hanscom AFB; State: MA; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Hill AFB; State: UT; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Holloman AFB; State: NM; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling AFB; State: DC; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: On former Bolling AFB. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Joint Base Charleston; State: SC; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: On former Charleston AFB. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Joint Base Elmendorf Richardson; State: AK; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Elmendorf Phase I - Loan Guarantee. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Joint Base Elmendorf Richardson; State: AK; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Elmendorf Phase II. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Joint Base Langley-Eustis; State: VA; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: On former Langley AFB. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Joint Base Langley-Eustis; State: VA; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Part of Ft Story-Ft Eustis Multi- base housing project. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Joint Base McGuire Dix Lakehurst; State: NJ; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Excluding Navy housing on former Lakehurst. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Joint Base Pearl Harbor- Hickam; State: HI; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Air Force housing on former Hickam AFB only. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Joint Base San Antonio; State: TX; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: On former Lackland AFB Phase I. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Joint Base San Antonio; State: TX; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: On former Lackland AFB Phase II. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Joint Base San Antonio; State: TX; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: On former Randolph AFB. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Joint Base San Antonio; State: TX; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: On former Ft Sam Houston. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Keesler AFB; State: MS; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Kirtland AFB; State: NM; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Loan guarantee. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Laughlin AFB; State: TX; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Little Rock AFB; State: AR; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Los Angeles AFB; State: CA; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Luke AFB; State: AZ; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: MacDill AFB; State: FL; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Maxwell AFB; State: AL; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Gunter Annex. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Moody AFB; State: GA; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Nellis AFB; State: NV; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Offutt AFB; State: NE; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Patrick AFB; State: FL; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Peterson AFB; State: CO; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Robins AFB; State: GA; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Phase I - Loan guarantee. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Robins AFB; State: GA; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: Phase II. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Schriever AFB; State: CO; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Scott AFB; State: IL; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Shaw AFB; State: SC; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Sheppard AFB; State: TX; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Tinker AFB; State: OK; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Travis AFB; State: CA; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Tyndall AFB; State: FL; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Vance AFB; State: OK; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Vandenberg AFB; State: CA; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Wright-Patterson AFB; State: OH; Project Type: Privatized Housing; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Source: GAO Analysis of DOD information. [End of table] Enhanced Use Leases: Table 11: Army Enhanced Use Leases: Military Department: Army; Installation: Aberdeen Proving Ground; State: MD; Project Type: Enhanced Use Lease (EUL); General Information, if available: 50 year term; office park. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Detrick; State: MD; Project Type: EUL; General Information, if available: 36.5 year term; utility plant construction. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Leonard Wood; State: MO; Project Type: EUL; General Information, if available: 33 year term; business center development. Military Department: Army; Installation: Picatinny Arsenal; State: NJ; Project Type: EUL; General Information, if available: 50+ year term; renovation of office space and research park development. Military Department: Army; Installation: Redstone Arsenal; State: AL; Project Type: EUL; General Information, if available: 50 year term; office research and development site. Military Department: Army; Installation: Yuma Proving Grounds; State: AZ; Project Type: EUL; General Information, if available: 50 year term; vehicle Test Track Site. Source: GAO Analysis of DOD information. [End of table] Table 12: Navy Enhanced Use Leases: Military Department: Navy; Installation: Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam; State: HI; Project Type: Enhanced Use Lease (EUL); General Information, if available: At Moanalua - 40 year term; commercial center development site. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Naval Air Station Key West; State: FL; Project Type: EUL; General Information, if available: 5 year term; ship docking pier. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Naval Base Point Loma; State: CA; Project Type: EUL; General Information, if available: 5 year term; industrial space for assembly of rocket propulsion fuel tanks. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Naval Base San Diego; State: CA; Project Type: EUL; General Information, if available: 30 year term; industrial space to aid ship construction. Military Department: Navy; Installation: Naval Base Ventura County; State: CA; Project Type: EUL; General Information, if available: 5 year term; site to off-load cars. Source: GAO Analysis of DOD information. [End of table] Table 13: Air Force Enhanced Use Leases: Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Eglin Air Force Base (AFB); State: FL; Project Type: Enhanced Use Lease (EUL); General Information, if available: 25 year term; airport terminal/rental car. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Eglin AFB; State: FL; Project Type: EUL; General Information, if available: 30 year term; waste water treatment. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Hill AFB; State: UT; Project Type: EUL; General Information, if available: 50 year term; office/commercial space. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Joint Base San Antonio; State: TX; Project Type: EUL; General Information, if available: 50-55 year term; office space renovation and construction on former Fort Sam Houston. Military Department: Air Force; Installation: Nellis AFB; State: NV; Project Type: EUL; General Information, if available: 50 year term; waste water treatment. Source: GAO Analysis of DOD information. [End of table] Privatized Army Lodging: Table 14: Privatized Army Lodging: Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Belvoir; State: VA; Project Type: Privatized Army Lodging (PAL); General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Bliss; State: TX; Project Type: PAL; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Buchanan; State: PR; Project Type: PAL; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Campbell; State: KY; Project Type: PAL; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Gordon; State: GA; Project Type: PAL; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Hamilton; State: NY; Project Type: PAL; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Hood; State: TX; Project Type: PAL; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Huachuca; State: AZ; Project Type: PAL; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Knox; State: KY; Project Type: PAL; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Leavenworth; State: KS; Project Type: PAL; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Leonard Wood; State: MO; Project Type: PAL; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Myer; State: VA; Project Type: PAL; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Polk; State: LA; Project Type: PAL; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Riley; State: KS; Project Type: PAL; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Rucker; State: AL; Project Type: PAL; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Shafter and Tripler Army Medical Center; State: HI; Project Type: PAL; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Sill; State: OK; Project Type: PAL; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Army; Installation: Fort Wainwright; State: AK; Project Type: PAL; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Army; Installation: Joint Base San Antonio; State: TX; Project Type: PAL; General Information, if available: on former Fort Sam Houston. Military Department: Army; Installation: White Sands Missile Range; State: NM; Project Type: PAL; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Military Department: Army; Installation: Yuma Proving Grounds; State: AZ; Project Type: PAL; General Information, if available: [Empty]. Source: GAO Analysis of DOD information. [End of table] [End of section] Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense: Office of The Under Secretary Of Defense: Acquisition, Technology and Logistics: 3000 Defense Pentagon: Washington, DC 20301-3000: April 8, 2013: Mr. James R. McTigue, Jr. Director, Defense Capabilities and Management: U.S. Government Accountability Office: 441 G Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20548: Dear Mr. McTigue: This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the GAO Draft Report, GAO-13-337, "Defense Infrastructure: Improved Guidance Needed for Estimating Alternatively Financed Project Liabilities," dated March 1, 2013 (GAO Code 351740). The Department appreciates GAO's assessment of estimating alternative financed project liabilities. However, we disagree with the recommendations contained in the report (see the enclosure for details). Because the statute requires DoD to develop Base Realignment and Closure recommendations on the basis of the selection criteria with military value having primary consideration and the liabilities will not be known until negotiations, we believe adding these liabilities in the cost estimating process is unnecessary. I 'believe the better place to capture these costs is during the implementation process. We look forward to continuing to work with the GAO on this issue and hope our suggested change is considered for inclusion in the final report. Signed by: John Conger: Acting Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment): Enclosure: As stated: GAO Draft Report Dated March 1, 2013: GAO-13-337 (GAO Code 351740): "Improved Guidance Needed For Estimating Alternatively Financed Project Liabilities:" Department Of Defense Comments To The GAO Recommendations: Recommendation 1: The GAO recommends that the Under Secretary of Defense direct the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment) (DUSD(I&E) to "Modify the procedures for collecting data in its BRAC data call to include questions that are consistent and comprehensive; directed to all three military departments; and specific to the potential types of costs associated with alternatively financed projects." (See page 32 of GAO Draft Report for complete recommendation.) DoD Response: Non Concur. The Department does not believe that such costs should be collected as part of the BRAC data call, in that it would be impossible to determine those costs in advance. Those costs are similar to environmental remediation and program management costs, which also are not accounted for in the COBRA estimates. The reason environmental remediation and alternative financing costs are not included is that their inclusion could create a perverse incentive to retain bases with a lower military value. Moreover, the primary advantage of COBRA is to provide real time comparison of scenarios to aid analysis and decision maker review, not to develop budget quality estimates. This real time quality of COBRA is a critical component of both the Department's requirement to treat all bases equally and in the Commission's decision process. Recommendation 2: The GAO recommends that the DUSD(I&E) "modify the COBRA model to add a capability that allows users to indicate that a potential liability may exist, even if the amount of the liability cannot be estimated at the time of data entry. For example, a data field could be added that provides the uses with a 'Yes/No' option to indicate the possibility of such a cost. In addition, COBRA instructions could be modified to instruct the user to provide information on the likely costs, in footnotes. This would increase the information available to decision makers and signal that there are potential costs in the event that a precise estimate cannot be calculated at that time." (See page 32 of the GAO Draft Report) DoD Response: Non-concur. In addition to the reasons stated above, noting a potential liability does not add value in the decision making process in which recommendations are developed on the basis of the selection criteria with military value having primary consideration. Accounting for these costs during BRAC implementation as part of the BRAC business plan and/or budget development process is a better approach because the data will be accurate. Recommendation 3: The GAO recommends that the DUSD(I&E) "Further, modify COBRA instructions for entering information on costs associated with alternatively financed projects in the model to help ensure costs are consistently captured and complete. For example, illustrate the types of costs that should be included; specify whether costs should be entered as net costs or if costs and savings should be entered separately; indicate which data entry field is the appropriate field into which the use should enter such costs; and define key terms." DoD Response: Non Concur. See reasons above. [End of section] Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: GAO Contact: James R. McTigue, Jr., (202) 512-7968 or mctiguej@gao.gov: Staff Acknowledgments: In addition to the contact named above, Laura Durland (Assistant Director); David Hubbell; Gregory Marchand; Richard Meeks; Charles Perdue; Carol Petersen; Steven Putansu; Christopher Ralphs; Chris Turner; Michael Willems; and Erik Wilkins McKee made key contributions to this report. [End of section] Related GAO Products: Military Bases: Opportunities Exist to Improve Future Base Realignment and Closure Rounds. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-149]. Washington, D.C.: March 6, 2013. DOD Joint Bases: Management Improvements Needed to Achieve Greater Efficiencies. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-134]. Washington, D.C.: November 15, 2012. Military Base Realignments and Closures: The National Geospatial- Intelligence Agency's Technology Center Construction Project. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-770R]. Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2012. Military Base Realignments and Closures: Updated Costs and Savings Estimates from BRAC 2005. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-709R]. Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2012. Military Base Realignments and Closures: Key Factors Contributing to BRAC 2005 Results. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-513T]. Washington, D.C.: March 8, 2012. Excess Facilities: DOD Needs More Complete Information and a Strategy to Guide Its Future Disposal Efforts. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-814]. Washington, D.C.: September 19, 2011. Military Base Realignments and Closures: Review of the Iowa and Milan Army Ammunition Plants. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-488R]. Washington, D.C.: April 1, 2011. GAO's 2011 High-Risk Series: An Update. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-394T]. Washington, D.C.: February 17, 2011. Defense Infrastructure: High-Level Federal Interagency Coordination Is Warranted to Address Transportation Needs beyond the Scope of the Defense Access Roads Program. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-165]. Washington, D.C.: January 26, 2011. Military Base Realignments 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. Defense Infrastructure: Army Needs to Improve Its Facility Planning Systems to Better Support Installations Experiencing Significant Growth. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-602]. Washington, D.C.: June 24, 2010. Military Base Realignments and Closures: Estimated Costs Have Increased While Savings Estimates Have Decreased Since Fiscal Year 2009. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-98R]. Washington, D.C.: November 13, 2009. Military Base Realignments and Closures: Transportation Impact of Personnel Increases Will Be Significant, but Long-Term Costs Are Uncertain and Direct Federal Support Is Limited. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-750]. Washington, D.C.: September 9, 2009. Military Base Realignments and Closures: DOD Needs to Update Savings Estimates and Continue to Address Challenges in Consolidating Supply- Related Functions at Depot Maintenance Locations. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-703]. Washington, D.C.: July 9, 2009. Defense Infrastructure: DOD Needs to Periodically Review Support Standards and Costs at Joint Bases and Better Inform Congress of Facility Sustainment Funding Uses. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-336]. Washington, D.C.: March 30, 2009. Military Base Realignments and Closures: DOD Faces Challenges in Implementing Recommendations on Time and Is Not Consistently Updating Savings Estimates. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-217]. Washington, D.C.: January 30, 2009. Military Base Realignments and Closures: Army Is Developing Plans to Transfer Functions from Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, to Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, but Challenges Remain. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1010R]. Washington, D.C.: August 13, 2008. Defense Infrastructure: High-Level Leadership Needed to Help Communities Address Challenges Caused by DOD-Related Growth. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-665]. Washington, D.C.: June 17, 2008. Defense Infrastructure: DOD Funding for Infrastructure and Road Improvements Surrounding Growth Installations. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-602R]. Washington, D.C.: April 1, 2008. Military Base Realignments and Closures: Higher Costs and Lower Savings Projected for Implementing Two Key Supply-Related BRAC Recommendations. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-315]. Washington, D.C.: March 5, 2008. Defense Infrastructure: Realignment of Air Force Special Operations Command Units to Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-244R]. Washington, D.C.: January 18, 2008. Military Base Realignments and Closures: Estimated Costs Have Increased and Estimated Savings Have Decreased. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-341T]. Washington, D.C.: December 12, 2007. Military Base Realignments and Closures: Cost Estimates Have Increased and Are Likely to Continue to Evolve. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-159]. Washington, D.C.: December 11, 2007. Military Base Realignments and Closures: Impact of Terminating, Relocating, or Outsourcing the Services of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-20]. Washington, D.C.: November 9, 2007. Military Base Realignments and Closures: Transfer of Supply, Storage, and Distribution Functions from Military Services to Defense Logistics Agency. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-121R]. Washington, D.C.: October 26, 2007. Defense Infrastructure: Challenges Increase Risks for Providing Timely Infrastructure Support for Army Installations Expecting Substantial Personnel Growth. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1007]. Washington, D.C.: September 13, 2007. Military Base Realignments and Closures: Plan Needed to Monitor Challenges for Completing More Than 100 Armed Forces Reserve Centers. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1040]. Washington, D.C.: September 13, 2007. Military Base Realignments and Closures: Observations Related to the 2005 Round. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1203R]. Washington, D.C.: September 6, 2007. Military Base Closures: Projected Savings from Fleet Readiness Centers Likely Overstated and Actions Needed to Track Actual Savings and Overcome Certain Challenges. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-304]. Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2007. Military Base Closures: Management Strategy Needed to Mitigate Challenges and Improve Communication to Help Ensure Timely Implementation of Air National Guard Recommendations. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-641]. Washington, D.C.: May 16, 2007. Military Base Closures: Opportunities Exist to Improve Environmental Cleanup Cost Reporting and to Expedite Transfer of Unneeded Property. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-166]. Washington, D.C.: January 30, 2007. Military Bases: Observations on DOD's 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Selection Process and Recommendations. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-905]. Washington, D.C.: July 18, 2005. Military Bases: Analysis of DOD's 2005 Selection Process and Recommendations for Base Closures and Realignments. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-785]. Washington, D.C.: July 1, 2005. Military Base Closures: Observations on Prior and Current BRAC Rounds. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-614]. Washington, D.C.: May 3, 2005. Military Base Closures: Assessment of DOD's 2004 Report on the Need for a Base Realignment and Closure Round. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-760]. Washington, D.C.: May 17, 2004. [End of section] Footnotes: [1] For the purposes of this report, we define appropriated funding as "up-front" when DOD has been appropriated sufficient funds to pay for the full cost of a project before a commitment is made, as opposed to appropriated funds DOD uses to make payments on capital borrowed through certain types of alternative financing approaches. [2] For this report, we included renewable energy projects only if data submitted by the military departments and Defense Logistics Agency indicate that these projects were alternatively financed. We have previously reported that the majority of renewable energy projects are not alternatively financed. See GAO, Renewable Energy Project Financing: Improved Guidance and Information Sharing Needed for DOD Project-Level Officials, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-401] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 4, 2012). [3] For the purposes of this report, we use the term "liabilities" to indicate financial commitments that DOD has to contractors, in regard to alternatively financed projects on bases that could be closed. We use the term "costs" more broadly; referring to DOD spending that may result from base closure. [4] For certain case studies, we met with officials from installations that hosted case study projects. For other case studies, we met with officials at the regional or headquarters level of a military department. This is because certain types of projects are typically managed at the installation level, while other types are typically managed at the regional or headquarters level. [5] Congress authorized BRAC 2005 with the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002. Pub. L. No. 107-107, Title XXX (2001). The law reauthorized the BRAC process by amending the authority under which the 1991, 1993, and 1995 rounds had been carried out, the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-510, Title XXIX ((10 U.S.C. 2687 note). Throughout this report, we will refer to the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (as amended) as "the BRAC statute." [6] For the BRAC policy guidance, see Department of Defense, Transformation Through Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC 2005) Policy Memorandum Three - Selection Criterion 5 (Dec. 7, 2004). For the best practices for collecting data in support of government operations, see GAO, Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-96-118] (Washington, D.C.: June 1996). [7] In these arrangements, DOD leases underused property in exchange for cash or in-kind consideration in the form of, among other things, maintenance and repair of existing facilities or the construction of new facilities. [8] See for example [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-401]; 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); Defense Infrastructure: Army's Privatized Lodging Program Could Benefit from More Effective Planning, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-771] (Washington, D.C.: July 30, 2010); Military Housing Privatization: DOD Faces New Challenges Due to Significant Growth at Some Installations and Recent Turmoil in the Financial Markets, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-352] (Washington, D.C.: May 15, 2009); and Defense Infrastructure: Actions Taken to Improve the Management of Utility Privatization, but Some Concerns Remain, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-914] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 5, 2006). [9] For the purposes of this report, we are defining renewable energy as energy derived from any of the following fuel sources: biomass; geothermal; hydropower; solar; wind; ocean energy, including wave, tidal, current, and ocean thermal energy; and other sources, such as landfill gas and municipal solid waste. This energy can be applied in any form, including electricity, heating, or small-scale applications such as streetlights or trash compactors. Ground source heat pumps are included in our definition of renewable energy projects. [10] National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-85, § 2812 (1997) (codified as amended at 10 U.S.C. § 2688). [11] In response to our request for information on alternatively financed projects, the military departments provided information on four types of privatized utility projects: the generation and supply of electric power; the treatment or supply of potable water; the collection or treatment of wastewater; and the supply of natural gas. [12] See Deputy Secretary of Defense, Memorandum for Secretaries of the Military Departments and others, Subject: Department of Defense Reform Initiative Directive #9--Privatizing Utility Systems (Department of Defense: Washington, D.C., Dec. 10, 1997). [13] See Deputy Secretary of Defense, Memorandum for Secretaries of the Military Departments and others, Subject: Department of Defense Reform Initiative Directive #49--Privatizing Utility Systems (Department of Defense: Washington, D.C., Dec. 23, 1998). [14] The Military Housing Privatization Initiative was established in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-106, §§ 2801-2841 (1996) (codified as amended at 10 U.S.C. §§ 2871-2885). [15] Section 2875 of Title 10, U.S. Code, authorizes the military departments to invest limited amounts of appropriated funds in an "eligible entity." In this report, as in past reports examining the Military Housing Privatization Initiative, we use the term "developer" and "eligible entity" synonymously to describe the special purpose limited liability company or partnership that carries out a privatization project or projects. See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-532]. A limited liability company is a company in which the liability of each shareholder or member is limited to the amount individually invested. A limited partnership is a partnership composed of one or more persons who control the business and are personally liable for the partnership's debts (called general partners), and one or more persons who contribute capital and share profits but who cannot manage the business and are liable only for the amount of their contribution. [16] Typically, title to the houses that are conveyed and any improvements made to these houses during the duration of the lease automatically revert to the military department upon expiration or termination of the lease. [17] DOD has established a tenant "waterfall" that privatization projects can use if occupancy falls below a certain rate. Generally, after military families are accommodated, the order of the tenant waterfall is unaccompanied military personnel, active National Guard and Reserve, military retirees, federal government civilians, and lastly civilians. [18] This cash housing allowance, known as basic allowance for housing, helps defray the cost of renting or purchasing a home. Each year, DOD sets the monthly basic allowance for housing rates. This allowance is based on the median local monthly cost of housing, including current market rents, utilities, and renter's insurance. The allowance can fluctuate from year to year as demand in some housing markets varies over time. The housing allowance is generally based on servicemembers' pay grades and whether or not they have dependents. [19] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-532]. [20] Land that DOD classifies as underused or not utilized may not necessarily be considered excess property. Pursuant to section 102(3) of Title 40, U.S. Code, excess property is defined as property under control of the federal agency that the agency head determines is not required to meet the agency's needs or responsibilities. Therefore a parcel of DOD real property could potentially be underused yet still not be excess because it is required to meet certain DOD needs or responsibilities. [21] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-574]. [22] Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, Pub. L. No. 107-314 § 2803 (2002). [23] Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) § 1.101. [24] FAR § 2.101(b). [25] Subject to certain limitations, a termination for convenience typically needs only to be in the government's interest. See generally, FAR §§ 49.101(b), 52.249-2, 52.249-6. [26] Expectation damages are compensation awarded for losses reasonably anticipated from an uncompleted transaction (such as anticipated profits on a contract), which must be distinguished from compensation awarded for costs that have actually been incurred at the time of termination of the contract. Expectation damages are not ordinarily recoverable when a contract is terminated for the convenience of the government. [27] FAR Part 49. [28] In a complete termination for convenience, the contract ends on the date specified in the government's notice of termination. In a partial termination, only the terminated portion is ended on the specified date. [29] FAR § 49.102(a). [30] FAR § 49.206-3. For commercial-item contracts, the government has no claim to any work in progress. [31] FAR § 49.303-2. [32] FAR § 49.104(i). [33] FAR § 49.104(g). [34] FAR §§ 49.206-1(a) and 49.303-1. [35] FAR § 52.249-2 (fixed-price contracts) and FAR § 52.249-6 (cost- reimbursement contracts). [36] FAR § 49.105. [37] FAR § 49.109-7(f). [38] Appeals for contracts with the Department of Defense are filed with the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. [39] FAR 52.249-2(j) and 52.249-6(j). [40] Congress authorized BRAC 2005 with the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002. Pub. L. No. 107-107, Title XXX (2001). The law reauthorized the BRAC process by amending the authority under which the 1991, 1993, and 1995 rounds had been carried out, the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-510, Title XXIX ((10 U.S.C. 2687 note). Throughout this report, we will refer to the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (as amended) as "the BRAC statute." [41] For example, using the latitude and longitude of base locations, the COBRA model automatically calculates distances between bases, and using algorithms with standard cost factors, estimates transportation and moving costs. [42] GAO, Military Bases: Opportunities Exist to Improve Future Base Realignment and Closure Rounds, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-149] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 6, 2013). [43] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-149]. [44] TRICARE is the health care program that serves uniformed service members, their dependents, and other covered beneficiaries. [45] According to our analysis of project data reported by DOD, 44 percent (245 of 555) of these alternatively financed projects were active prior to May 1, 2005, since the last round of BRAC was conducted. [46] As discussed earlier, according to our previously published work, DOD has certain renewable energy projects that are funded through up- front appropriations and others that are alternatively financed. In this report we are focusing on the alternatively financed renewable energy projects reported by DOD. For our previously published work on DOD renewable energy, see--for example--[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-401]. [47] The military departments reported a total of 352 renewable energy and utilities privatization projects. However, they responded to our question about potential liability for 303 projects. In certain cases, the Navy did not provide responses to our question about potential liability because certain utility privatization projects are privatized as "ancillary supporting facilities" for military housing units under the military housing privatization initiative, 10 U.S.C. § 2881. In these cases, DOD officials explained that both the privatized housing project and associated utilities would likely continue, in the event of base closure. We discuss these cases in more detail later in the report. [48] For 11 percent of these projects, the responses indicated that DOD officials were uncertain whether there would be a liability. For example, according to an Army official, the likelihood of liability depends on when the base closure occurs. The official explained that, in most of these cases, if the agreement was still in force when the installation closed, the government would likely have a liability. In the remaining 7 percent of these projects, DOD officials indicated that a liability is not likely, but did not provide an explanation. [49] Certain multi-year energy agreements are required by regulation to contain a "cancellation ceiling," which, in combination with other portions of the agreement, sets a fixed limit to the government's liability in the event of a termination for convenience. 10 C.F.R. §§ 436.34(a)(4), 436.38 (citing FAR parts 17 and 49). Not all agreements we examined contained such a ceiling, and in those cases the extent of the government's liability would be harder to assess. [50] For the purposes of this study, we are defining "stand alone" utility privatization agreements as those projects entered into under the authority of 10 U.S.C. § 2688. This does not include utilities that were constructed or acquired as "ancillary supporting facilities" for military housing units under the military housing privatization initiative, 10 U.S.C. § 2881. As discussed in this report, the leases that govern these housing privatization projects--and the sections of the leases that govern utility privatization--would likely continue in the event of base closure. [51] These types of damages are associated with breach of contract. As we have previously reported, the government right to terminate for convenience prevents the government from having to pay these types of damages when prematurely ending a contract is in its interest. GAO, Defense Acquisitions: Termination Costs Are Generally Not a Compelling Reason to Continue Programs or Contracts That Otherwise Warrant Ending, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-379] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 14, 2008). [52] The military departments reported 166 privatized housing projects as of September 30, 2011, and 7 of these projects (3 in the Army and 4 in the Air Force) included limited loan guarantees. [53] Officials explained that this is the case unless the leasehold is taken from lessee by eminent domain. However, officials indicated that this is an unlikely scenario. In addition, the lessee has a "First Right of Refusal" to purchase the property, in the event the installation is closed and the property is offered for sale; rather than receiving rent the government would receive money in one lump sum that may be more or less than the rent collected over the remainder of the agreement's life. [54] Certain specified rights of the federal government would not succeed to the party to whom the government assigned or transferred its lease in certain circumstances. In addition, if the government were required to sever the site--so that the lessee were unable to develop and operate the hotel facilities as a complete and undivided whole--certain changes to the lease could be required, at government expense. [55] The specific BRAC 2005 policy guidance we discuss here is Transformation Through Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC 2005) Policy Memorandum Three - Selection Criterion 5 (December 7, 2004), issued by the acting Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. The specific COBRA model instructions we discuss are the BRAC 2005 versions of the COBRA Users Manual and COBRA Analyst Template. [56] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-149]. [57] The Navy's COBRA estimates regarding NAS Brunswick were based on the Navy recommendation that the installation be realigned, not closed. According to DOD officials, in the case of realignment, the Navy would not have installed meters. The Navy's COBRA estimate for realigning the installation did not include the cost of the metering work. The BRAC Commission recommended closure of NAS Brunswick, and the Commission's COBRA estimate for closing the installation did not include the cost of the metering work. [58] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-149]. [59] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-96-118]. [60] Officials cited several reasons, including that documents are no longer available following base closure; the retirement of officials involved in entering data into COBRA; and a lack of access to databases with relevant information. [61] During BRAC 2005, DOD provided COBRA users with four instructional documents for use of the model: a guide to the model's algorithms, a checklist, the COBRA Users Manual (COBRA manual), and COBRA Analysts Template (COBRA template). The last two provide the most detailed instructions for input of cost and savings data into the model. [62] According to our review of both COBRA estimates and DOD instructions for entering costs into the BRAC 2005 model's Screen 5-- the screen on which users are to input information on unique costs, such as contracts and leases associated with alternatively financed projects--is the screen in which users are instructed to enter the types of costs and savings associated with alternatively financed projects, in closure scenarios. [63] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-149]. [64] Specifically, see Transformation Through Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC 2005) Policy Memorandum Three - Selection Criterion 5 (December 7, 2004), issued by the acting Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, and the BRAC 2005 versions of the COBRA Users Manual and COBRA Analyst Template. [65] Pope Air Force Base was realigned, and although the Air Force developed COBRA estimates for the closure of both Cannon and Ellsworth Air Force Bases, neither base was closed as a result of the BRAC 2005 process. Because the three installations were not closed during BRAC 2005, we did not address these COBRA estimates in this report. [66] GAO, Military Bases: Opportunities Exist to Improve Future Base Realignment and Closure Rounds, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-149] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 6, 2013). [67] GAO, Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-96-118] (Washington, D.C.: June 1996). [68] House Report 112-479, accompanying a bill for the fiscal year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4310). [69] As previously reported, DOD has certain renewable energy projects that are funded through up-front appropriations and others that are alternatively financed. In this report we are focusing on the alternatively financed renewable energy projects reported by DOD. As previously noted, for the purposes of this report, we are defining renewable energy as energy derived from any of the following fuel sources: biomass; geothermal; hydropower; solar; wind; ocean energy, including wave, tidal, current, and ocean thermal energy; and other sources, such as landfill gas and municipal solid waste. This energy can be applied in any form, including electricity, heating, or small- scale applications such as streetlights or trash compactors. Ground source heat pumps are included in our definition of renewable energy projects. For our previously published work on DOD renewable energy, see--for example--GAO, Renewable Energy Project Financing: Improved Guidance and Information Sharing Needed for DOD Project-Level Officials, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-401] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 4, 2012). [70] In response to our request for information on alternatively financed projects, the military departments provided information on four types of privatized utility projects: the generation and supply of electric power; the treatment or supply of potable water; the collection or treatment of wastewater; and the supply of natural gas. [71] The military departments have several efforts under which military housing has been privatized, including unaccompanied housing, family housing privatized under section 801 of the Military Construction Authorization Act, 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-115 (1983) (commonly referred to as the Section 801 housing program), and the Military Housing Privatization Initiative. In this report, we are focusing on Military Housing Privatization Initiative projects. There are relatively few unaccompanied service members living in privatized housing projects and many of the leases governing section 801 housing projects have ended or will end relatively soon. In contrast, DOD reports 166 Military Housing Privatization Initiative projects with leases that are typically 50 years in length. [72] For certain case studies, we met with officials from installations that hosted case study projects. For other case studies, we met with officials at the regional or headquarters level of a military department. This is because certain types of projects are typically managed at the installation level, while other types are typically managed at the regional or headquarters level. [73] For the BRAC policy guidance, see Department of Defense, Transformation Through Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC 2005) Policy Memorandum Three - Selection Criterion 5 (December 7, 2004). For the best practices for collecting data in support of government operations, see GAO, Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-96-118] (Washington, D.C.: June 1996). [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 website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select “E-mail Updates.” Order by Phone: The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s 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 GAO’s website, [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. Connect with GAO: Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube. Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: Contact: Website: [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: Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov: (202) 512-4400: U.S. Government Accountability Office: 441 G Street NW, Room 7125: Washington, DC 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, DC 20548. [End of document]