DOD Joint Bases: Implementation Challenges Demonstrate Need to Reevaluate the Program
Highlights
What GAO Found
Joint base officials reported varying progress in consolidating installation-support functions, and challenges resulting from consolidation efforts that created inefficiencies and inequities. Overall, the joint bases reported partially consolidating 80 percent of their installation-support functions, but the extent of consolidation varied across the bases and among the various functions. None of the joint bases have reported consolidating all functions. However, all 11 joint bases reported consolidating some portion of eight functions, such as custodial services and installation safety. The least consolidated functions were reported to be military service-specific or mission-specific, such as small-arms range management and port services. Also, joint base officials reported several challenges resulting from consolidation, such as multiple inspections and employees being potentially disadvantaged in competing for promotion opportunities due to military service-specific personnel policies. The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and military service officials have not evaluated which functions are still suitable for consolidation or taken policy actions to address any challenges resulting from consolidation. Without an evaluation of the suitability of installation-support functions for consolidation and without actions to address any negative consequences that emerged from consolidation, the Department of Defense (DOD) may continue to experience challenges in its efforts to consolidate these functions.
Variances in Installation-Support Functions Consolidated at 11 Joint Bases Surveyed
Note: Not all of the joint bases that GAO surveyed have small-arms range management or port services functions.
Joint base officials reported that consolidation of support functions has resulted in some progress toward achieving the goals of joint basing (achieving efficiencies and cost savings), by reducing redundant positions and finding contracting efficiencies. However, as GAO reported in November 2012, DOD does not have a method to collect cost savings information achieved specifically from joint basing. Thus, GAO recommended that DOD develop a plan for doing so. DOD disagreed and has not yet taken action. GAO continues to believe this recommendation has merit and should be addressed. Also, officials said they are uncertain of the extent to which the goals of joint basing are still appropriate, and to what extent they are required to take actions to pursue them. OSD has not collaborated with the military services to evaluate whether the goals of joint basing remain appropriate and has not provided direction to the joint bases on future priorities. Without a collaborative evaluation of the joint basing program by OSD and military service officials to determine if the goals remain appropriate—and without additional direction to help meet reporting requirements—it will be difficult for DOD to determine the extent to which the joint basing initiative is achieving its intended goals.
Why GAO Did This Study
GAO designated DOD support infrastructure as a high-risk area to address efficiency challenges. In 2005, DOD recommended to the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission combining 26 installations into 12 joint bases to generate efficiencies and cost savings, initially estimated to be $2.3 billion. In 2009, DOD reduced this estimate to $273 million. GAO was mandated to assess DOD's progress in consolidating common services across joint bases. This report addresses the extent to which officials reported consolidating installation-support functions, and meeting joint basing goals to achieve greater efficiencies and cost savings. GAO conducted a survey of 11 joint bases, and reviewed applicable guidance. GAO did not survey Joint Region Marianas because it was subject to different expectations.
Recommendations
Congress should consider directing DOD to evaluate joint basing goals, provide direction on requirements to meet the goals, and determine next steps for joint basing. GAO included this matter because DOD did not concur with GAO's recommendations to conduct such an evaluation and provide direction, in part because DOD stated joint bases have achieved savings. GAO also recommended DOD evaluate which installation-support functions remain suitable for consolidation, with which DOD concurred, and take policy actions to address challenges, with which DOD partially concurred, noting its existing processes to address challenges. GAO continues to believe its findings and recommendations are valid as discussed in this report.
Matter for Congressional Consideration
| Matter | Status | Comments |
|---|---|---|
| To help ensure DOD's approach to joint basing achieves the goals as outlined by DOD in its justification for the 2005 BRAC recommendation and leverages additional opportunities to reduce duplication of effort that could in turn generate cost savings and increased efficiencies, Congress should consider directing the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment), in collaboration with the military services and joint bases, to evaluate the purpose of the program and determine whether the current goals, as stated in the 2005 BRAC Commission recommendation, are still appropriate, or whether goals should be revised; communicate these goals to the military services and joint bases, and adjust program activities accordingly; provide direction to the joint bases on requirements for meeting program goals, including determining reporting requirements and milestones; and determine any next steps for joint basing, including whether to expand it to other installations. | As of June 2021, Congress had not taken action on this matter. At the time of GAO's matter for congressional consideration, DOD had recently implemented its joint bases program. However, DOD now manages the joint bases as it would any other military installation, having completed consolidation efforts, and is relying on the installation commanders to identify and implement any actions to achieve savings and efficiencies. Moreover, DOD does not, at this time, plan to create new or additional joint bases. GAO has therefore closed the underlying recommendation for this action as not implemented. |
Recommendations for Executive Action
| Agency Affected | Recommendation | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Department of Defense | To assist the joint bases in achieving additional opportunities to consolidate installation-support functions, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment), in coordination with the military services and joint bases, to evaluate the 44 support functions identified in DOD's guidance for joint base implementation to determine which functions are still suitable for consolidation. Subsequently, identify and make any changes that are appropriate to address limitations reported by the joint bases in consolidating installation-support functions, such as limitations related to workforces and geography. |
In 2015 DOD evaluated the possibility of an additional joint base and identified six support functions that it eliminated from consideration in this analysis. In December 2015 to March 2016 DOD also evaluated whether to continue including Equal Opportunity/Equal Employment Opportunity programs as part of its joint basing consolidation, and decided in March 2016 to keep these programs in joint basing. In addition, as part of its regular annual review of joint base standards, DOD continues to evaluate which standards are suitable for consolidation. Together these actions address the intent of our recommendation.
|
| Department of Defense | To assist the joint bases in achieving additional opportunities to consolidate installation-support functions, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment), in coordination with the military services and joint bases, to take policy actions, as appropriate--such as issuing additional guidance--to address any challenges resulting in inefficiencies and inequities regarding efforts to consolidate installation-support functions including, at a minimum, those identified in this report. |
In May 2015 DOD issued guidance in the form of a handbook for joint base personnel, in part to address inconsistent military-service level guidance on joint basing. In addition, in March 2015 DOD began quarterly meetings of a joint basing senior installation management group to mitigate conflicts stemming from service policies, whereas it previously only met as needed. As a result, joint basing personnel have more consistent guidance on how support services are managed at joint bases and joint base managers have a more regular forum for addressing conflicts between service policies. Together these actions address the intent of our recommendation to address challenges resulting in inefficiencies and inequities at joint bases resulting from consolidation of support functions.
|
| Department of Defense | To ensure DOD's approach to joint basing aligns with the intent of the 2005 BRAC recommendation and DOD's current position on the intent of joint basing, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment), in collaboration with the military services and joint bases, to evaluate the purpose of the program and determine whether DOD's current goals of achieving greater efficiencies and generating cost savings for the joint basing program, as stated in the 2005 BRAC Commission recommendation, are still appropriate or whether goals should be revised, and communicate these goals to the military services and joint bases and then adjust program activities accordingly. |
DOD did not concur with the recommendation and has not planned any further actions to address the recommendation. DOD stated that the department and GAO have fundamentally different approaches in viewing how DOD should manage joint bases, and noted that the recommendations imply that joint bases are OSD-run entities that should be addressed through new DOD policies. DOD stated that it believes that although joint bases involve added complexities from crossing traditional military service lines, they are ultimately service-run bases similar to all other installations. As such, DOD stated that its position is to continue to agree to disagree regarding this recommendation. As of June 2020, the department had not taken any action to address this recommendation. Given that this recommendation is over 5 years old and that the department continues to disagree with implementing this recommendation, we have closed it as unimplemented.
|
| Department of Defense | To ensure DOD's approach to joint basing aligns with the intent of the 2005 BRAC recommendation and DOD's current position on the intent of joint basing, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment), in collaboration with the military services and joint bases, to, subsequent to the evaluation above, provide direction to joint bases on their requirements for meeting the joint base program's goals. DOD's leadership should work with the military services to determine what reporting requirements and milestones should be put in place to increase support and commitment for the program's goals. |
DOD did not concur with the recommendation and has not planned any further actions to address the recommendation. DOD stated that the department and GAO have fundamentally different approaches in viewing how DOD should manage joint bases, and noted that the recommendations imply that joint bases are OSD-run entities that should be addressed through new DOD policies. DOD stated that it believes that although joint bases involve added complexities from crossing traditional military service lines, they are ultimately service-run bases similar to all other installations. As such, DOD stated that its position is to continue to agree to disagree regarding this recommendation. As of June 2020, OSD officials stated that DOD has not taken any action to implement this recommendation. Given that this recommendation is over 5 years old and that the department's position continues to be that it will take no actions to implement it, we have closed it as unimplemented.
|