Author: Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 542
Book Description
Fort Lee and Fort A.P. Hill, Virginia, Implementation of Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) Recommendations and Other Army Actions
Author: Fort Lee and Fort A.P. Hill, Virginia, Implementation of Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) Recommendations and Other Army Actions
Author: Black Mesa Project
Author: Fort Belvoir, Implementation of 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Recommendations and Related Army Actions
Author: Base Closure and Realignment
Author: Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Military bases
Languages : en
Pages : 194
Book Description
This report describes the Department of Defense recommendations for base closures and realignments to the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission. The recommendations were submitted by the Secretary of Defense to the Commission in April of 1991, as authorized by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991. The recommendations were also transmitted to the Congress and filed with the Federal Register, as required by the Act. The list of military installations inside the United States for closure or realignment is based on the force structure plan and the final criteria, as required by the Act. The list includes 43 bases recommended for closure and 28 bases recommended for realignment. Total costs to implement these recommendations are expected to be $5.7 billion between fiscal years 1992 and 1997. These costs could be offset by about $1.9 billion in expected land value. Total savings during the same period are expected to be $6.5 billion. The annual recurring savings beginning in fiscal year 1998 will total about $1.7 billion. The Department of Defense is reducing and reshaping its military forces to adapt to changes in the strategic environment, and to meet the challenges and opportunities of the post-Cold War era. The changes, challenges and opportunities, as well as the new defense strategy and the forces required to implement the strategy, are described in the force structure plan which is part of this report.
Federal Register
Author: Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Administrative law
Languages : en
Pages : 260
Book Description
Implementation of the Base Realignment and Closure 2005 Decisions
Author: United States. Congress. House. Committee on Armed Services. Readiness SubcommitteePublisher:
ISBN:
Category : History
Languages : en
Pages : 232
Book Description
Military Base Closures
Author: James R. ReifsnyderPublisher: DIANE Publishing
ISBN: 9780756748227
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 114
Book Description
As the Dept. of Defense (DoD) prepares for the 2005 base realignment & closure (BRAC) round, questions continue to be raised about the transfer & environmental cleanup of unneeded property arising from the prior 4 BRAC rounds & their impact on cost & savings & on local economies. This report describes DoD's progress in implementing prior BRAC post-closure actions. It addresses: (1) the transfer of unneeded base property to other users, (2) the magnitude of the net savings accruing from the prior rounds, (3) estimated costs for environmental cleanup of BRAC property, & (4) the economic recovery of communities affected by base closures. Charts & tables.
Military Base Realignments and Closures
Author: U.s. Government Accountability OfficePublisher: Createspace Independent Publishing Platform
ISBN: 9781973922155
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 98
Book Description
"To help improve the implementation of jointness-focused recommendations in any future BRAC rounds, GAO recommends that DOD provide additional guidance for consolidating training and reporting BRAC costs and require the development of baseline cost data. DOD partially concurred with the recommendation to clarify guidance for reporting BRAC costs but did not concur with the other recommendations, stating that GAO misunderstood its approach to joint training. GAO believes its findings and recommendations are valid and addresses these points in the report. What GAO Found For each of the six recommendations GAO reviewed from the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round, the Department of Defense (DOD) implemented the recommendations by requiring military services to relocate select training functions; however, GAO found that two of the six training functions reviewed were able to take advantage of the opportunity provided by BRAC to consolidate training so that services could train jointly. In implementing the remaining four BRAC recommendations, DOD relocated similar training functions run by separate military services into one location, but the services did not consolidate training functions. For example, they do not regularly coordinate or share information on their training goals and curriculums. DOD's justification for numerous 2005 BRAC recommendations included the assumption that realigning military department activities to one location would enhance jointness-defined by DOD as activities, operations, or organizations in which elements of two or more military departments participate. For these four training functions, DOD missed the opportunity to consolidate training to increase jointness, because it provided guidance to move personnel or construct buildings but not to measure progress toward consolidated training. Without additional guidance for consolidating training, the services will not be positioned to take advantage of such an opportunity in these types of recommendations as proposed by DOD and will face challenges encouraging joint training activities and collaboration across services. DOD cannot determine if implementing the 2005 BRAC joint training recommendations that GAO reviewed has resulted in savings in operating costs. For three of the recommendations in this review, the services did not develop baseline operating costs before implementing the BRAC recommendations, which would have enabled it to determine whether savings were achieved. Without developing baseline cost data, DOD will be unable to estimate any cost savings resulting from similar recommendations in any future BRAC rounds. Further, costs reported to DOD by the training functions business plan managers for implementation of two of the six recommendations in this review likely did not include all BRAC-related costs funded from outside the BRAC account. A DOD memo requires BRAC business plan managers to submit all BRAC-related expenditures, including those funded from both inside and outside of the BRAC account. GAO identified at least $110 million in implementation costs that likely should have been reported to DOD in accordance with the memo but were not; therefore the $35.1 billion total cost reported for BRAC 2005 is likely somewhat understated. A DOD official stated that it was up to the military departments to ensure that all BRAC implementation costs were accounted for and that the military departments had the flexibility to determine which costs were associated with the BRAC recommendation and which were attributed to other actions. GAO found that this flexibility in determining which costs were to be reported as BRAC costs led to inconsistencies in what kinds of projects had their costs counted as BRAC implementation costs.
Author: 