Base Realignment and Closure 2005 for the Pensacola Undergraduate Navigator Training Relocation
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Report No. D-2009-055 February 13, 2009 Base Realignment and Closure 2005 for the Pensacola Undergraduate Navigator Training Relocation Additional Information and Copies To obtain additional copies of this report, visit the Web site of the Department of Defense Inspector General at http://www.dodig.mil/audit/reports or contact the Secondary Reports Distribution Unit at (703) 604-8937 (DSN 664-8937) or fax (703) 604-8932. Suggestions for Audits To suggest ideas for or to request future audits, contact the Office of the Deputy Inspector General for Auditing at (703) 604-9142 (DSN 664-9142) or fax (703) 604-8932. Ideas and requests can also be mailed to: ODIG-AUD (ATTN: Audit Suggestions) Department of Defense Inspector General 400 Army Navy Drive (Room 801) Arlington, VA 22202-4704 Acronyms and Abbreviations AETC Air Education and Training Command AFB Air Force Base AFI Air Force Instruction BRAC Base Realignment and Closure FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation GAO Government Accountability Office IG Inspector General MILCON Military Construction NAS Naval Air Station INSPECTOR GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 400 ARMY NAVY DRIVE ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22202-4704 February 13,2009 MEMORANDUM FOR UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR ACQUISITION, TECHNOLOGY, AND LOGISTICS UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (COMPTROLLER)/DoD CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE (FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND COMPTROLLER) NAVAL INSPECTOR GENERAL SUBJECT: Base Realigillilent and Closure 2005 for the Pensacola Undergraduate Navigator Training Relocation (Report No. D-2009-055) We are providing tIns repOli for your information and use. We considered COlmnents from the Deputy Assistant Secretary ofthe Air Force (Installations) and Assistant Secretary ofthe Navy for Installations and Enviromnent when preparing the final repOli. As a resnlt ofmanagement connnents and a subsequent meeting with senior Air Force and DoD Inspector General officials, • we have revised draft Finding A and deleted draft Reconllilendation A.l. Draft Recommendations A2.a. and A2.b. have been renumbered as Recommendations AI. and A2. Comments to the recommendations on the draft ofthis repOli conformed to the requirements of DoD Directive 7650.3 and left no umesolved issues on the recommendations. Therefore, we do not require any additional comments. We appreciate the comiesies extended to the staff. Please direct questions to me at (703) 604-9201 (DSN 664-9201). Ifyou desire, we will provide a fonnal briefing on the results. Richard B. Jolliffe Assistant Inspector General Acquisition and Contract Management Report No. D-2009-055 (Project No. D2007-D000CG-0047.002) February 13, 2009 Results in Brief: Base Realignment and Closure 2005 for the Pensacola Undergraduate Navigator Training Relocation will be lost when the Air Force program What We Did relocates to Naval Air Station Pensacola. Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 2005 Recommendation 128 relocates Air Force We identified material internal control undergraduate navigator training from Randolph weaknesses for the three BRAC military Air Force Base to Naval Air Station Pensacola. construction projects reviewed because the Air We reviewed three Air Force projects submitted Force did not follow DoD and Air Force to Congress in response to Recommenda- guidance, perform a required economic analysis, tion 128 to determine whether the projects were adequately support the line item cost estimates, valid, supported, and whether the BRAC or properly review and validate DD analysis considered existing facilities. Forms 1391. What We Found What We Recommend The Air Force did not adequately support the The Air Force should conduct economic BRAC project for bachelor housing. The Air analyses when projects are first considered, Force did not support the project because it did justify the line item cost estimates in the DD not perform an economic analysis comparing all Form 1391 more adequately, and review and feasible alternatives or obtain an economic validate the DD Form 1391. analysis waiver, justify the line item cost estimates with supporting documentation, or Management Comments and properly review and validate the DD Our Response Form 1391. The Air Force disagreed with Finding A and Recommendation A.1., stating the bachelor The Air Force also did not provide adequate housing project is valid. As a result of support documentation for the hangar and management comments and a subsequent instruction facility projects because no meeting with senior Air Force and DoD economic analysis was performed, nor was a Inspector General officials, we have revised waiver obtained; line item cost estimates were draft Finding A and deleted draft not adequately supported or justified; and the Recommendation A.1. Draft Recommendations DD Forms 1391 were not properly reviewed A.2.a. and A.2.b. have been renumbered as and validated. Nevertheless, the Air Force Recommendations A.1. and A.2. The Air Force awarded a contract for both projects. agreed with Recommendations A.2.a., A.2.b., and B., stating Air Force officials will reinforce Additionally, the relocation of Air Force military construction requirements in formal undergraduate navigator training will not guidance to major command BRAC offices. accomplish the justifications stated in support of Although not required to respond, we also Recommendation 128. The jointness and received comments from the Navy. Please see synergies that currently exist at Randolph Air the recommendations table on the back of this Force Base and Naval Air Station Pensacola page. i Report No. D-2009-055 (Project No. D2007-D000CG-0047.002) February 13, 2009 Recommendations Table Entity Recommendations No Additional Comments Requiring Comment Required The Deputy Assistant Secretary A.1., A.2., and B. of the Air Force (Installations) ii Table of Contents Results in Brief i Introduction 1 Objectives 1 Background 1 Review of Internal Controls 4 Finding A. Bachelor Housing Project 7 Management Comments on the Finding and Our Response 15 Recommendations, Air Force Comments, and Our Response 17 Finding B. Hangar and Instruction Facility Projects 19 Management Comments on the Finding and Our Response 23 Recommendation, Air Force Comments, and Our Response 24 Planned Undergraduate Navigator Training and Facilities Will Not 25 Enhance Jointness Management Comments on Joint Training and Our Response 27 Inherently Governmental Functions 28 Appendices A. Scope and Methodology 31 B. Prior Coverage 33 C. Memorandum for Air Force BRAC Office 39 Management Comments Department of the Navy 41 Department of the Air Force 42 Introduction Objectives The overall audit objective was to determine the accuracy of Defense Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 2005 military construction (MILCON) budget data. The specific objectives were to determine whether the proposed military construction projects were based on valid BRAC requirements, were supported with the required documentation, and whether the BRAC analysis considered existing facilities. We evaluated three Air Force undergraduate navigator training projects submitted in response to BRAC Recommendation 128 Undergraduate Navigator Training.1 Specifically these were: Project TYMX073710, “BRAC – USAF [United States Air Force] Navigator Training Hangar”; Project TYMX073720, “BRAC – CSO [Combat Systems Officer] Applied Instruction Facility”; and Project TYMX073730, “BRAC – Combat Systems Officer (CSO) Bachelor Housing.” See Appendix A for a discussion of scope and methodology. See Appendix B for prior audit coverage. Background Prior to BRAC 2005, Public Law 102-190, “National Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993,” Part A, “Defense Base Closure and Realignment,” mandated that the DoD Inspector General (IG) investigate each military construction project. For BRAC 2005, Congress did not pass a law with a similar mandate. The Service Audit organizations are auditing single-Service BRAC MILCON projects, while the DoD IG is reviewing selected multi-Service2 projects and Defense-Wide Agencies and Activities projects. This report is one in a series of DoD IG audits of multi-Service projects. Military Construction DoD Financial Management Regulation 7000.14-R, Volume 2B, Chapter 6, “Military Construction/Family Housing Appropriations,” June 2006, requires that each proposed MILCON project be supported by a “Military Construction Project Data” DD Form 1391 and that an economic analysis is required to support all new construction or renovation 1 BRAC Recommendation 128 includes more than the undergraduate navigator training. However, as used in this report, Recommendation 128 will refer to the undergraduate navigator training portion of the recommendation. 2 Multi-Service refers to projects involving the move of one or more Service’s components/activities to another Service’s location. 1 projects estimated to cost over $2 million. Air Force Instruction 32-1021, “Planning and Programming Military Construction (MILCON) Projects,” January 2003, states: The DD Form 1391, by itself, shall explain and justify the project to the Air Force, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congress. Accurate DD Form 1391 project cost estimates are essential to successful MILCON project development and execution. To ensure prudent economic investments, an economic analysis is required for all new construction projects over $1 million. Headquarters Air Force, major commands, and installation commanders are required to review and validate the need for each proposed MILCON