Military Construction: Better Information Sharing Would Improve DOD's Oversight
Fast Facts
The Department of Defense requested over $15 billion for its military construction program in FY 2025. Projects include child development centers, hangars, and more. Over the last 5 years, poor initial planning contributed to about 25% of the projects being delayed for at least a year.
Our recommendations are to help DOD address this issue and others we found in our review. For example, if DOD gathered more detailed information on its construction projects, it could better identify individual and systemic problems that cause delays. DOD could also share lessons learned from each project to help prevent repeated mistakes.
Highlights
What GAO Found
The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and the military departments (Army, Navy, and Air Force) collectively manage the Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) program. UFC documents provide criteria for the planning, design, and construction, among other things, of Department of Defense (DOD) owned facilities. According to officials, DOD creates or updates UFC documents based on National Defense Authorization Acts (NDAA), among other things. GAO found that DOD largely incorporated relevant fiscal year 2018–2022 NDAA provisions.
GAO found that DOD does not fully monitor the execution of its military construction program and projects. OSD, which is responsible for general program oversight, collects detailed information on two military construction portfolios including the Indo-Pacific Command area of responsibility and two other high-profile projects. However, information OSD collects for all other construction projects is limited and OSD relies on Army and Navy construction agents for project monitoring. OSD officials told GAO the information they collect for these projects is for reporting purposes only and is not relevant for identifying trends, which can help inform a risk-based oversight approach. DOD's annual reports on military construction delays show that over the prior 5 fiscal years, poor initial planning contributed to about 25 percent of the projects delayed for at least a year. By issuing guidance to require reporting of more relevant information, such as the DOD construction agent responsible for each project and planning and design milestones, OSD would have better visibility into projects and could better identify and address individual and systemic issues.
Further, GAO found that Army and Navy construction agents do not consistently document and share lessons learned in their project monitoring. For example, one building was delayed for over 3 years due to design errors (e.g., incorrect roof design) and insufficient quality control oversight, according to Army documentation (see figure). Army construction agent officials said they were not using a lessons-learned system to share project observations, which may help prevent repeating past mistakes on future projects.
Example of a Delayed Military Construction Project
Note: For more details, see figure 6 in GAO-24-106499.
Better guidance, training, and processes for sharing lessons learned could help prevent future mistakes, such as insufficient quality control, and save resources.
Why GAO Did This Study
For fiscal year 2025, DOD has requested over $15 billion for its military construction program, including projects ranging from child care centers to barracks and maintenance hangars. Proper planning of such projects is critical to avoid delays from errors that could increase costs. DOD relies on UFC in completing military construction projects. At the end of fiscal year 2023, DOD had 598 military construction projects under way.
The joint explanatory statement accompanying the NDAA for fiscal Year 2022 includes a provision for GAO to review the UFC program and implementation of standards. This report examines (1) how DOD manages the UFC program, including its incorporation of relevant fiscal year 2018–2022 NDAA provisions; and (2) the extent to which DOD monitors the execution of its military construction program and projects.
GAO selected a nongeneralizable sample of five working groups and eight military construction locations. GAO analyzed relevant laws, military construction reports, and policies and procedures; and interviewed officials.
Recommendations
GAO is making seven recommendations, including for DOD to issue guidance for reporting relevant project information, and for the Army and the Navy to develop guidance and training and improve processes for sharing lessons learned. DOD concurred with all of GAO's recommendations and stated that it is taking action to implement them.
Recommendations for Executive Action
| Agency Affected | Recommendation | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Department of Defense | The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Energy, Installations, and Environment) issues guidance requiring project sponsors to report relevant information necessary to monitor the execution of the military construction program. Such information could include the DOD construction agent responsible for the project, planning and design milestones, and details on funds spent. (Recommendation 1) |
DOD concurred with this recommendation and stated that they are developing guidance to standardize military construction terminology and report relevant information. The estimated completion date is 12/31/26. In December 2025, the Senate Armed Services Committee included a provision in the Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026 that DOD implement the recommendations from GAO-24-106499 no later than one year after the date the Act is enacted (December 18, 2026), or report to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees on why DOD has not implemented those recommendations
|
| Department of the Army | The Secretary of the Army should ensure that the Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers develops and issues guidance for documenting after-action reviews and validating lessons learned of military construction projects at the enterprise level. (Recommendation 2) |
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers concurred with this recommendation and is updating Engineering Regulation (ER) 1110-3-12 to strengthen guidance for documenting after-action reviews. The estimated completion date was 9/30/25. In December 2025, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026 included a provision fort DOD to implement the recommendations from GAO-24-106499 no later than one year after the date the act is enacted (by December 18, 2026), or report to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees on why DOD has not implemented those recommendations.
|
| Department of the Army | The Secretary of the Army should ensure that the Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers implements in an expedient manner an enterprise-wide system, including a functional database, to share lessons learned and project best practices within the U.S Army Corps of Engineers for military construction projects. (Recommendation 3) |
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers concurred with this recommendation and has developed a Lessons Learned Strategy and Implementation Plan. which includes the identification of an enterprise-wide system to capture lessons learned. They also stated that they have developed a Tiger Team to develop recommendations for this system and that the Joint Lessons Learned Information System (JLLIS) has been recommended as a near term solution. The estimated completion date was 9/30/26. In December 2025, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026 included a provision for DOD to implement the recommendations from GAO-24-106499 no later than one year after the date the act is enacted (by December 18, 2026), or report to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees on why DOD has not implemented those recommendations.
|
| Department of the Army | The Secretary of the Army should ensure that the Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers develops training for personnel to capture and validate lessons learned and best practices for military construction projects. (Recommendation 4) |
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers concurred with this recommendation. In October 2024, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers updated a Quality Management training course that includes information on developing after-action reviews and capturing lessons learned. For example, the training course documentation provides direction on when to conduct project after-action reviews and the four steps in this process. This training also explains what lessons learned are and should include. In addition, the training includes an example of a lesson learned from a military construction project. Finally, the training course documentation points to systems, which are available to share and retrieve lessons learned across the U.S. Army Corps organization. We believe that the information in this training document sufficiently complies with the intent of our recommendation.
|
| Department of the Navy | The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Commander, NAVFAC develops and issues guidance for documenting after-action reviews and validating lessons learned of military construction projects within NAVFAC. (Recommendation 5) |
NAVFAC concurred with this recommendation. On May 13, 2025, NAVFAC issued Instruction 5200.38C: Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command Knowledge Management System, which outlines the five phases to NAVFAC's lessons learned process. This instruction includes information on how to determine if processes can be improved and how to share information within and outside an organization. NAVFAC Instruction 5200.38C also outlines NAVFAC lessons learned roles and responsibilities by command level. The information in this instruction meets the intent of our recommendation.
|
| Department of the Navy | The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Commander, NAVFAC, implements a process or mechanism to share lessons learned and project best practices for military construction projects within NAVFAC. (Recommendation 6) |
NAVFAC concurred with this recommendation. On May 13, 2025, NAVFAC issued Instruction 5200.38C: Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command Knowledge Management System, which states that the Joint Lessons Learned Information System (JLLIS) is the Navy's system for sharing Lessons Learned. This instruction requires NAVFAC personnel to use JLLIS for sharing After-Action Reports, Lessons Learned and best practices across the Navy, DOD and other federal agencies. The instruction emphasizes that observations which are entered into JLLIS are not limited to shortfalls and can include positive innovations and comments on new procedures, products and data sources. Finally, the instruction states that NAVFAC lesson managers should establish a JLLIS user account to access recently submitted or archives lessons learned to be informed of new practices, challenges, procedures and training. We believe that the information in this instruction sufficiently complies with the intent of our recommendation.
|
| Department of the Navy | The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Commander, NAVFAC develops training for personnel to capture and validate lessons learned and best practices for military construction projects. (Recommendation 7) |
NAVFAC concurred with this recommendation and stated that NAVFAC Lessons Learned managers will receive training on the use of the Joint Lessons Learned Information System by December 2025. In December 2025, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2026 included a provision for DOD to implement the recommendations from GAO-24-106499 no later than one year after the date the act is enacted (by December 18, 2026), or report to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees on why DOD has not implemented those recommendations.
|