Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should ensure that the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management, in conjunction with the Centers of Standardization and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, establish and implement performance measures to assess the progress the Centers are making in ensuring that standard designs are used consistently. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this April 2020 recommendation. In June 2020, DOD provided information that it had developed a corrective action plan and identified an action officer to lead implementation of this recommendation. DOD stated that it is developing a sampling plan with criteria to consider for assessing the consistent use of standard designs. DOD stated that it would identify projects that were completed during the year that used standard designs and that it would then assess the progress that the Centers are making in ensuring that standard designs are used consistently by sampling from the completed projects. DOD stated that, based on the results of this analysis, it would adjust the metrics and frequency of future analyses, as appropriate. DOD stated that it expects this effort to be completed in Spring 2021.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should ensure that the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management, in conjunction with the Centers of Standardization and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, establish and implement performance measures to assess the effects of the use of standard designs, specifically the progress the Centers are making in reducing design costs and time, construction costs and time, and change orders. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this April 2020 recommendation. In June 2020, DOD provided information that it had developed a corrective action plan and stated that it planned to establish relevant performance measures to analyze efforts to reduce design costs and time, construction costs and time, and the number of change orders. DOD stated that it expects to develop standards containing the metrics, frequency of analysis, and means of reporting. DOD stated that it expects to present the results of its analysis at the FY2020 Military Programs After Action Review in January 2021.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment, in collaboration with the military departments, provide updated guidance for the oversight of privatized military housing, to include oversight objectives for each service to monitor the physical condition of privatized homes over the remaining duration of the ground leases. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, DOD noted that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment (ASD (S)), as the Chief Housing Officer, issued guidance requiring the military departments to monitor work order completion for housing privatized under the Military Housing Privatization Initiative based on a combination of resident input, timeliness of work order completion, and number of repeat work orders for the same repair. The guidance also required increased tracking of MHPI project work orders by installation staff. Moving forward, the ASD(S) plans to issue quarterly program review guidance that establishes oversight objectives for the military departments to monitor the physical condition of MHPI housing over the duration of their project ground leases, formalizing the requirement that the data be monitored by the Chief Housing Officer. DOD expects this to be completed by December 2020. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should take steps, in collaboration with the Army's private housing partners, to review the indicators underlying the privatized housing project performance metrics to ensure they provide an accurate reflection of the condition and quality of the homes. (Recommendation 2

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, DOD noted that the Secretary of the Army has taken several steps toward addressing this recommendation. For example, the Army published the Portfolio and Asset Management Handbook creating a multi-tiered assessment approach of performance metrics to measure the health of each privatized home through inspection, assessment, satisfaction, and feedback. The Army and the private housing partners revised the Incentive Fee Performance Management Plan, placing increased emphasis on resident satisfaction and work order/maintenance management. The Army also put Commanders in charge, ensuring Army leadership at every Army installation is tracking housing quality and safety. In late 2020, the Army plans to review and evaluate these actions and make a determination by 31 Jan 2021 if any changes or revisions are needed to best implement the recommendation. As such, we will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Air Force should take steps, in collaboration with the Air Force's private housing partners, to review the indicators underlying the privatized housing project performance metrics to ensure they provide an accurate reflection of the condition and quality of the homes. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force: Office of the Secretary of the Air Force
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, DOD noted that the Air Force is engaging in several steps to address this recommendation. Specifically, in March 2020, the Air Force tasked each of the Military Housing Offices to inspect all move-in, move-out, and change of occupancy maintenance events and all emergency, urgent, and life, health, and safety work orders, which is outlined in Air Force guidance. The Air Force is also engaging in several ongoing actions. In response to a memo to the military departments to provide consistency of performance incentive fees, the Air Force was negotiating with the privatized housing project owners to update performance incentive fee metrics in accordance with ASD directed categories and weightings. As of August 2020, agreements had been finalized with 2 partners and work was ongoing with the remaining partners. In addition, the Air Force was working with the project owners to deploy Satisfacts, a survey tool to independently measure resident satisfaction with projects' work order performance, across all Air Force projects with an expected completion by December 2020. We will continue to monitor the status of these recommendations.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should take steps, in collaboration with the Navy and Marine Corps' private housing partners, to review the indicators underlying the privatized housing project performance metrics to ensure they provide an accurate reflection of the condition and quality of the homes. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, DOD noted that the Navy and Marine Corps are engaging in several steps to address this recommendation. Specifically, the Navy and Marine Corps have developed a centralized electronic data warehouse, which receives data from privatized housing partner maintenance systems to display work order and survey performance dashboards. By February 2021, the Navy expects to complete the development of metrics displayed by the data warehouse to include key service call performance metrics and resident feedback data. The Navy and Marine Corps are also developing a web-based monitoring matrix tool housing officials can use to evaluate the performance of privatized housing partners. The tool is intended to provide improved tracking capabilities and improved accessibility to information, thus providing more consistent oversight and improved advocacy service members and their families. The Navy is also working to hire 247 additional Navy and Marine Corps housing staff to review and analyze private partner provided recurring maintenance and customer satisfaction reports in an effort to strengthen oversight and monitoring, with an estimated completion of September 2020. Moving forward, we will continue to monitor the status of these and other efforts.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment, in collaboration with the military departments and private housing partners, establish minimum data requirements and consistent terminology and practices for work order data collection for comparability across installations and projects and to track trends over time. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: e Department of Defense (DOD) partially concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, DOD stated that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment (ASD(S)), as the Chief Housing Officer, plans to issue a policy directing the military departments to establish, to the maximum extent practical, minimum data requirements and consistent terminology and practices for MHPI housing unit work order collection to aid in comparability across installations and projects, and for tracking trends over time. However, DOD noted that the department cannot mandate changes to existing MHPI project legal documents. DOD estimates that this effort will be completed by December 2021. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment require the military departments to establish a process to validate data collected by the private housing partners to better ensure the reliability and validity of work order data and to allow for more effective use of these data for monitoring and tracking purposes. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, DOD noted that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment (ASD(S)), as the Chief Housing Officer, issued guidance directing the military departments to exercise proper oversight to ensure Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI) projects perform in accordance with legal agreements, to include due diligence in monitoring and auditing project maintenance records and other project performance data. The guidance also required military departments to review their entire portfolios of MHPI projects to ensure accurate and appropriate work order management processes. In response to the new guidance, DOD noted that the military departments put in place appropriate oversight measures and undertook the required reviews, though the investigations of project business practices were ongoing in some cases. As another step, the ASD(S) plans to issue guidance directing the military departments to establish a process to validate data collected by their respective MHPI Project Owners to better ensure the reliability and validity of work order data and to allow for more effective use of these data for monitoring and tracking purposes. DOD expects this to be completed by the end of September 2020. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment, in collaboration with the military departments, develop a process for collecting and calculating resident satisfaction data from the military departments to ensure that the data are compiled and calculated in a standardized and accurate way. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) partially concurred with this recommendation based on the fact that the draft report listed the incorrect office as the source for addressing the deficiency, but subsequently changed its response to concur after the recommendation was directed to the appropriate office in the final report. In its August 2020 response, DOD noted that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment (ASD(S)) plans to issue guidance establishing a department-wide process for collecting and calculating resident satisfaction data to ensure that the data are compiled and calculated in a standardized and accurate way effective with the survey collection effort in Fiscal Year 2021. The department expects this effort to be completed by October 2020. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment provides additional explanation of the data collected and reported in future reports to Congress, such as explaining the limitations of available survey data, how resident satisfaction was calculated, and reasons for any missing data, among other things. (Recommendation 8)

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) partially concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, DOD noted that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment (ASD(S)) would provide additional explanation of the MHPI resident satisfaction data collected and reported in future annual Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI) reports to Congress, effective with the annual report covering fiscal year 2019. DOD noted that the additional information will include, among other things, an explanation of the limitations of available survey data, how resident satisfaction was calculated, and reasons for any missing data. As of August 2020, the annual MHPI report covering fiscal year 2018 was in final coordination and the department noted that the report would addresses a vast majority, but not all, of the requirements identified in our recommendation. DOD noted that the additional information would be provided in the next annual MHPI report. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should develop and implement a plan to clearly and systematically communicate to residents the difference between the military housing office and the private partner. At a minimum, these plans should include the Army housing office's roles, responsibilities, locations, and contact information and should ensure that all residents are aware that they can directly contact Army housing office officials. (Recommendation 9)

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. In its response, DOD noted that the Army developed a "Plain Language" briefing as required by the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act that included the Army Housing Office's roles, responsibilities, location, and contact information at each privatized housing project site. DOD noted that the intent of the briefing was to ensure that all residents were aware of their ability to directly contact Army Housing Office and/or the Garrison Commanders. DOD stated that the briefing was disseminated to all of the Military Housing Offices, who are using it in newcomer briefings, and stated that the briefing would be provided to all current residents of privatized military housing, but that measure would not be tracked due to attrition. In addition, DOD noted that Headquarters, Department of the Army was tasking Army Materiel Command to develop a more detailed plan to communicate to residents the difference between the Army Housing Office and the private housing partner. The Army's intent is to not only capture residents upon their arrival at an installation, but making the services of the MHO known over the duration of a resident's time on at installation. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should develop and implement a plan to clearly and systematically communicate to residents the difference between the military housing office and the private partner. At a minimum, these plans should include the Navy housing office's roles, responsibilities, locations, and contact information and should ensure that all residents are aware that they can directly contact Navy housing office officials. (Recommendation 11)

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, DOD noted that the Navy has taken various steps to address this recommendation, with additional steps planned. For example, the Navy has ensured that each installation has a specific issue resolution process description marketing flyer available, both in hard copy and on the public housing websites, with a reminder that residents can contact both the privatized housing property manager and the Navy housing office with any issues. Moreover, every housing unit has been provided with a refrigerator magnet reminding residents that they can and should contact the Navy housing office if they have any issues with their home. In addition, the Navy and Marine Corps have established a requirement to contact each privatized housing resident not later than 15 days after move-in and again 60 days after move-in to provide an opportunity to request assistance and remind them of available support. Moving forward, the Navy has an ongoing effort to require private housing companies to market the same messaging as the service issue resolution processes for the MHOs that they support, for consistent advocacy messaging to the tenants. The information will be added to PPV partner websites, printed material and resident handbooks. The Navy also plans to use its annual survey to tracks resident satisfaction and awareness of the Navy's issue resolution process, with expected completion by October 2020. In addition, the Marine Corps has identified a near-term initiative to procure name tags for all MHO employees to wear, identifying themselves as distinct and separate from privatized housing property management company, which will be standardized across all USMC installations. The Marine Corps also plans to develop a standard welcome aboard package to include magnets and other items with key point of contact information. The Marine Corps expects these efforts to be completed by the end of September 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment, in collaboration with the military departments, assess the risks of proposed initiatives aimed at improving the privatized military housing program on the financial viability of the projects. (Recommendation 12)

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Secretary of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense (DOD) concurred with this recommendation. In its August 2020 response, DOD noted that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment, as the Chief Housing Officer, planned to issue a policy establishing the assessment of Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI) project financial viability as part of quarterly program reviews as a long-term requirement. The department noted that the program review data would be augmented by input from the MHPI companies, who are assessing the likely impact of proposed initiatives in conjunction with their third party lenders. The department expected this effort to be completed by December 2020. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should issue guidance on incorporating climate projections into installation master planning, including—at a minimum—what sources of climate projections to use, how to use projections involving multiple future scenarios, and what future time periods to consider. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation, and stated that it is in the process of developing guidance to incorporate projections for sea level change into DOD's Unified Facilities Criteria standard for installation master planning, using a DOD-vetted source of data. DOD also stated that it will continue to tailor additional sources of climate projections data to other planning requirements and integrate these into departmental criteria as appropriate. In February 2020, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment issued a memorandum with guidance on incorporating sea level change projections in installation master planning, and as of April 2020, was researching additional sources of climate projection data to tailor to other planning requirements. DOD estimated that it would complete implementation of this recommendation in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2020. We will continue to monitor the status of these efforts.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should issue guidance on incorporating climate projections into facilities project designs, including—at a minimum—what sources of climate projections to use, how to use projections involving multiple future scenarios, and what future time periods to consider. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation, and stated that it is in the process of developing guidance to incorporate projections for sea level change into Unified Facilities Criteria for facilities design, using a DOD-vetted source of data. DOD also stated that it will continue to tailor additional sources of climate projections data to other engineering requirements and integrate these projections into its criteria as appropriate. In February 2020, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment issued a memorandum with guidance on incorporating sea level change projections into facilities designs, and as of April 2020, was researching additional sources of climate projection data to tailor to other planning requirements. DOD estimated that it would complete implementation of this recommendation in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2020. We will continue to monitor the status of these efforts.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Army should ensure that the Chief of Engineers and Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers works with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment; the Chief of Civil Engineers and Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering Command; and the Director of the Air Force Civil Engineer Center to update relevant Unified Facilities Criteria to require that installations consider climate projections in designing facilities projects and incorporate, as appropriate, DOD guidance on the use of climate projections in facilities project designs—including identification of authoritative sources of such projections, use of projections involving multiple future scenarios, and what future time periods to consider. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Army
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of April 2020, DOD stated that the update of Unified Facilities Criteria to implement this recommendation was pending the issuance of additional guidance by DOD on the use of such projections in project designs, as recommended by GAO. DOD estimated it would complete the actions to implement this recommendation in the second quarter of fiscal year 2021. We will continue to monitor the status of this effort.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Navy should ensure that the Chief of Civil Engineers and Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering Command works with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment, the Chief of Engineers and Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Director of the Air Force Civil Engineer Center to update relevant Unified Facilities Criteria to require that installations consider climate projections in designing facilities projects and incorporate, as appropriate, DOD guidance on the use of climate projections in facilities project designs—including identification of authoritative sources of such projections, use of projections involving multiple future scenarios, and what future time periods to consider. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Navy
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of April 2020, DOD stated that the update of Unified Facilities Criteria to implement this recommendation was pending the issuance of additional guidance by DOD on the use of such projections in project designs, as recommended by GAO. DOD estimated it would complete the actions to implement this recommendation in the second quarter of fiscal year 2021. We will continue to monitor the status of this effort.

Recommendation: The Secretary of the Air Force should ensure that the Director of the Air Force Civil Engineer Center works with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment; the Chief of Engineers and Commanding General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and the Chief of Civil Engineers and Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering Command to update relevant Unified Facilities Criteria to require that installations consider climate projections in designing facilities projects and incorporate, as appropriate, DOD guidance on the use of climate projections in facilities project designs—including identification of authoritative sources of such projections, use of projections involving multiple future scenarios, and what future time periods to consider. (Recommendation 8)

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. As of April 2020, DOD stated that the update of Unified Facilities Criteria to implement this recommendation was pending the issuance of additional guidance by DOD on the use of such projections in project designs, as recommended by GAO. DOD estimated it would complete the actions to implement this recommendation in the second quarter of fiscal year 2021. We will continue to monitor the status of this effort.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and the Environment work with DOD's construction agents, military departments, and other offices to improve DOD's MILCON cost estimating guidance (i.e., DOD's Unified Facilities Criteria) by fully incorporating all the steps needed for developing high-quality reliable cost estimates. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with our recommendation to improve its cost estimating guidance by fully incorporating all 12 steps needed for developing high-quality, reliable estimates. DOD stated that it did not believe that it is suitable to fully apply all 12 steps to any construction project due to characteristics of the military construction program that DOD believes differ from those of major system or weapon acquisition programs. However, DOD also stated that it concurred with the intent and general applicability of the twelve steps to military construction and that DOD cost estimating guidance lacks specificity in several of these areas. DOD acknowledged that expanding its cost guidance to more fully incorporate these steps would benefit the military construction program, and told us that it is planning to address this by revising its cost guidance. In our report, we recognize that it may not be appropriate to fully apply all 12 steps to each construction project. For example, it may not be realistic or to the military departments' benefit to conduct a sensitivity and uncertainty analysis or develop an independent cost estimate for all the construction projects they initiate every year, especially for low-cost projects. Accordingly, we did not recommend that DOD fully apply all 12 steps to each construction project, but rather that it fully incorporate the 12 steps into the Unified Facilities Criteria so that, at least, each step is considered for each project. DOD could then choose to establish thresholds-based on, for example, the dollar values of the projects-to determine for which the 12 steps should be fully applied or other circumstances in which some steps might not be applicable. We believe DOD's planned revisions once completed will meet the general intent of our recommendation.

Recommendation: To better enable decision makers to evaluate the full long-term costs of posture initiatives under ERI, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct EUCOM and the military services to develop estimates for the sustainment costs of prepositioned equipment and other infrastructure projects under ERI and ensure that the services plan for these long-term costs in future budgets. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation, stating that its components will continue to estimate the sustainment costs for prepositioned stocks and other infrastructure projects during DOD's annual program and budget review process, but adding that without additional topline base budget funding, some portion of the associated sustainment costs will need to be financed with OCO funds. We have since determined that the Department of the Army has estimated sustainment costs for prepositioned equipment and other infrastructure projects, and plans to incorporate those costs into the out-year cost projections in the next budget submission. As of August 2020 the Air Force had not taken steps to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: In order to help ensure that DOD and the military departments are providing timely and consistent information on privately financed construction projects to Congress under DOD Instruction 7700.18, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness--in collaboration with any other relevant DOD stakeholders--to identify the categories of privately financed construction projects, including gifts of major construction, that should be reported through the process outlined in DOD Instruction 7700.18; revise DOD Instruction 7700.18 and any other related policies, as appropriate, to clarify which project types are to be included in and excluded from this reporting process; and require that the military departments update their relevant policies to incorporate the revised policy.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation, and stated that it will make clarifications in the next revision of DOD Instruction 7700.18 to clarify the types of privately financed major construction projects that should be reported through the process outlined in the instruction. In July 2020 an official from the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Military Community and Family Policy) said that DOD had completed a draft update of the instruction that included language implementing GAO's recommendation. The official also stated that DOD Instruction 7700.18 is interrelated with other DOD guidance which is also being updated. DOD plans to complete the updates to all the relevant policies by June 2021.

Recommendation: In order to ensure that Congress receives all desired information on all gifts of major construction in a timely manner, the Secretary of Defense--in collaboration with any other relevant DOD stakeholders--should identify the lead organization(s) within DOD that will be responsible for developing DOD-wide policy for reporting gifts of major construction that are not reported through the process outlined in DOD Instruction 7700.18, as appropriate.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD did not concur with this recommendation, stating that there was already an official, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, responsible for developing policies related to gifts of real property, including major construction. However, DOD has not formally assigned responsibility to the Under Secretary (now the Under Secretary for Acquisition and Sustainment) for developing DOD-wide policy on reporting gifts of major construction not covered by the process outlined in DOD Instruction 7700.18. As of July 2020, the department had not taken action to address this recommendation, according to a representative of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment.

Recommendation: In order to ensure that Congress receives all desired information on all gifts of major construction in a timely manner, the Secretary of Defense--in collaboration with any other relevant DOD stakeholders--should establish DOD-wide policy, as appropriate, on congressional notification of gifts of major construction to cover all such gifts that are not to be reported to Congress through the process outlined in DOD Instruction 7700.18, and require that the military departments update their gift acceptance policies--and any other relevant policies--to incorporate procedures to support DOD's notification requirements.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD did not concur with this recommendation, stating that Congress has provided a statutory framework for the department to accept gifts, including gifts of construction, without stipulating any reporting requirements. However, this is inconsistent with DOD Instruction 7700.18, which states that construction projects funded by donations are subject to reporting to Congress. The military departments have been accepting gifts of major construction and reporting some of them to Congress while not reporting others. If DOD does not take action to clarify its policy on reporting such gifts, Congress is likely to continue receiving inconsistent and incomplete information, and to lack an explanation of the scope of the information it is receiving. This in turn may impair Congressional oversight over such projects and their potential effects on future maintenance funding requirements since some projects will not be brought to Congress' attention. As of July 2020, the department had not taken action to address this recommendation, according to a representative of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's management and oversight of contingency construction in the CENTCOM area of responsibility and in other geographic combatant commands where applicable, and to improve DOD's awareness of how much O&M funding the department uses for construction projects to support contingency operations, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the military departments, in coordination with the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), to track the universe and cost of ongoing and future contingency construction projects that are funded from O&M appropriations under section 2805 of Title 10, U.S. Code (unspecified minor military construction authority).

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD non concurred with this recommendation and, as of August 2020, has not altered its position or taken action to address the recommendation. According to DOD officials, the department does not have the data systems that can track and report projects executed using O&M appropriations and that doing so is not cost effective and would not improve decision making. However, we continue to believe DOD could adapt an existing system or mechanism for recording and capturing these data in an automated form. For example, as we noted in our report, we believe through appropriate modifications, the cost of contingency construction projects could be readily available in the Army's existing accounting and finance system. Further, we continue to believe that knowing the universe and cost of all O&M-funded construction projects supporting contingency operations is important for decision making.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's management and oversight of contingency construction in the CENTCOM area of responsibility and in other geographic combatant commands where applicable, and to improve DOD's ability to quickly fund contingency construction projects that are not ideally suited to the current standard Military Construction and Operation and Maintenance processes and time frames and reduce reliance on funding approaches that pose risks regarding the appropriate use of funding, negative operational impacts, and unnecessary duplication, DOD should evaluate and improve the use of existing processes and authorities to the extent possible; determine whether additional authorities are needed to support urgent construction needs; and revise existing departmental processes or seek additional authorities, as appropriate.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. In response to a GAO follow-up request in August 2020, DOD stated that it continues to review current processes and authorities annually and submits legislative proposals and changes policies when appropriate. For example, DOD is working to revise authorities and designations for construction agents in Joint Operational Areas executing contingency construction to improve flexibility and responsiveness. According to the department, this change will be effective once DOD Directive 4270.5, Military Construction is completed in the second quarter of fiscal year 2012. As DOD's process is continuous, there will be no end date for completion of all actions associated with this recommendation, according to a DOD official.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's management and oversight of contingency construction in the CENTCOM area of responsibility and in other geographic combatant commands where applicable, and to help ensure that DOD limits demands on available resources to those necessary to meet contingency construction project requirements and communicates those requirements effectively, the Secretary of Defense should, in coordination with the Secretary of the Army, direct the Army Corps of Engineers to develop a control activity for documenting level-of-construction determinations before the Army Corps of Engineers designs the projects and estimates their costs.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation stating that the appropriate level of construction is a function of required service life and mission requirements, both of which are determined by the facility user rather than the construction agent. The Department agreed that these parameters must be defined and documented during the facility planning process by the Component responsible for developing facility requirements, and then communicated to the appropriate construction agent (i.e. the Army Corps of Engineers, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, or the Air Force Civil Engineer Center). In response to a GAO follow-up request in August 2020, a DOD official stated that the department is revising DOD guidance to clarify that level-of-construction determinations are to be documented by construction agents once received from facility user. The revision will be included in an update of DOD Directive 4270.5, Military Construction, which is to be completed in the second quarter of fiscal year 2012. Once completed, this should address the intent and close out GAO's recommendation as implemented.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's management and oversight of contingency construction in the CENTCOM area of responsibility and in other geographic combatant commands where applicable, and to ensure that DOD avoids constructing facilities that may be unneeded to support U.S. forces and to comprehensively document the results of its reviews of ongoing construction projects when changes in mission requirements occur, the Secretary of Defense should, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, direct the Secretaries of the military departments and the Commander of CENTCOM to develop implementing guidance for the review and verification of ongoing contingency construction projects when mission changes occur.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD partially concurred with this recommendation. In response to a GAO follow-up request in August 2020, a DOD official stated that the Department believes all combatant commanders involved in contingency operations should conduct periodic reviews of new or ongoing construction projects to ensure they still meet operational needs. As a result, the Secretary of Defense plans to, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, direct the Secretaries of the military departments and the Combatant Commanders to develop guidance for the review and verification of ongoing contingency construction projects when mission changes occur. According to the DOD official, the Secretary of Defense plans to provide this direction in the pending update of DOD Directive 4270.5, Military Construction for application in Joint Operational Areas and contingency operations. The expected completion of this action is during the second quarter of fiscal year 2012, at which point the intent of GAO's recommendation will have been addressed.

Recommendation: To improve DOD's management and oversight of contingency construction in the CENTCOM area of responsibility and in other geographic combatant commands where applicable, and to improve the awareness of the combatant and service component commands' responsibilities to record and share lessons learned and to ensure that important contingency-construction-related lessons are recorded, the Secretary of Defense should, in coordination with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, direct the Commander of CENTCOM to revise Central Command Regulation 415-1 or issue other guidance as appropriate to specifically detail the role of the combatant command and service component commands in recording contingency construction lessons learned from the CENTCOM area of responsibility in the Joint Lessons Learned Information System.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with this recommendation. In August 2020, DOD stated that CENTCOM Regulation 525-4 chapter 10-3 establishes comprehensive reporting requirements for the Joint Lessons Learned program that encompass the contingency construction function. Further, while this information does not need to be repeated in CENTCOM regulation 415-1, DOD stated that the application of 525-4 to contingency construction would be reinforced by referencing it in 415-1. Accordingly, in February 2020, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense-Facilities Management DOD issued a memo directing the Commander, USCENTCOM, to revise CENTCOM Regulation 415-1 accordingly. We will continue to monitor to evaluate whether the Commander, USCENTCOM completes this tasking and whether the resulting guidance addresses our recommendation.

Recommendation: In light of potential concerns regarding the appropriate use of funding raised by several of the examples identified in this report, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretaries of the Army and the Air Force to review these and, as appropriate, other construction projects in the contingency environment presenting similar circumstances to ensure that funds were properly used.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD did not concur with this recommendation. At the time of our report, the department stated that the recommendation is redundant of current practice and referenced department processes to conduct periodic reviews to ensure compliance, among other processes, guidance, and training. In response to a GAO follow-up request in August 2020, DOD's position on the recommendation has not changed, However, as we noted in our report, our recommendation is not that DOD create new processes but instead that DOD use the periodic review processes it referenced to evaluate the examples in our report and ensure that funds were appropriately used. The examples in our report present instances where the department had developed multiple construction projects, each below the O&M maximum for unspecified minor military construction, to meet what may have been an overarching construction requirement. We noted a similar instance where the department had used its review process and found that an Antidefiency Act violation had occurred. In light of the concerns raised by the examples in our report, we continue to believe that DOD should use its existing processes to review the facts and circumstances presented by these examples and determine whether funds were appropriately used.