GAO-18-218, Accessible Version, MILITARY HOUSING PRIVATIZATION
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Committees March 2018 MILITARY HOUSING PRIVATIZATION DOD Should Take Steps to Improve Monitoring, Reporting, and Risk Assessment Accessible Version GAO-18-218 March 2018 MILITARY HOUSING PRIVATIZATION DOD Should Take Steps to Improve Monitoring, Reporting, and Risk Assessment Highlights of GAO-18-218, a report to congressional committees Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found In 1996 Congress provided DOD with The Department of Defense (DOD) has regularly assessed the financial authorities enabling it to obtain private- condition of its privatized housing projects; however, it has not used consistent sector financing and management to measures or consistently assessed future sustainment (that is, the ability to repair, renovate, construct, and maintain the housing in good condition), or issued required reports to Congress operate military housing. DOD has in a timely manner. Specifically: since privatized 99 percent of its domestic housing. · Some data used to report on privatized housing across the military services are not comparable. For example, there are inconsistencies among the The Senate Report accompanying a projects in the measurements of current financial condition (for example, the bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for 2017 included a ability to pay debts and maintain quality housing).These differences have not provision that GAO review privatized been identified in reports to Congress. military housing projects and the effect · The military departments vary in the extent to which they use measures of of recent changes in the basic future sustainment, and information regarding the sustainment of each of the allowance for housing on long-term privatized housing projects has not been included in the reports to Congress. project sustainability. This report examines the extent to which DOD has · DOD’s reporting to Congress has not been timely. DOD is statutorily required (1) assessed and reported the financial to report to Congress the financial condition of privatized housing projects on condition of each privatized housing a semiannual basis, but it has not reported on any fiscal year since 2014. project; (2) assessed the effects of recent reductions in the basic By taking steps to improve the consistency of the information provided and meet allowance for housing on privatized the reporting requirement, DOD would provide decision makers in Congress with housing; and (3) defined notification useful, timely information about the financial condition of the privatized housing requirements for project changes and projects as they provide required oversight. risk tolerances relative to privatized housing goals. GAO reviewed policies, DOD has not fully assessed the effects of reductions, relative to calculations of project oversight reports, and financial market rates for rent and utilities, in servicemembers’ basic allowance for statements, and interviewed DOD housing payments on the financial condition of its privatized housing projects. In officials and privatized housing August 2015, DOD required the military departments to review their privatized developers. housing portfolios and outline any effects of the reductions. Each military department reported that the reductions would decrease cash flows to their long- What GAO Recommends term sustainment accounts. However, the reports did not specify the significance GAO is making eight of the reductions on each project’s future sustainment or identify specific actions recommendations, including that DOD to respond to shortfalls at individual projects. If DOD fully assesses the effects of improve the consistency and timeliness the basic allowance for housing reductions on privatized housing and identifies of the information reported on the actions to respond to any risks, DOD and Congress will be better informed to financial condition of its privatized make decisions affecting the projects. housing projects, fully assess the DOD has not defined when project changes require prior notice to the Assistant effects of the reductions in basic Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment or its tolerance allowance for housing on the projects, for risk relative to its goal of providing servicemembers with quality housing, clarify when project changes require including the risk from reduced sustainment funding. Specifically, the military notice, and define tolerances for project risks. DOD concurred with each departments had different understandings of when project changes, such as of our recommendations and identified financial restructurings, required prior notice. Additionally, DOD has not required actions it plans to take to implement the military departments to define their risk tolerances—the acceptable level of them. variation in performance relative to the objectives—regarding the future sustainability of the projects. By clearly defining the conditions that require View GAO-18-218. For more information, advance notification and developing risk tolerance levels, DOD would have contact Brian J. Lepore at (202) 512-4523 or [email protected]. consistent information that would improve its oversight of privatized housing and inform its response to any future sustainment challenges. United States Government Accountability Office Contents Letter 1 Background 5 DOD Regularly Assesses Projects’ Financial Conditions but Has Not Consistently Assessed Future Sustainment Needs or Issued Required Reports to Congress 10 DOD Has Not Fully Assessed the Effects of the Basic Allowance for Housing Reductions but Has Identified Other Privatized Housing Challenges and Options to Address Them 20 DOD Has Not Defined When Project Changes Require Advance Notice or Defined Risk Tolerance Levels for Not Achieving Housing Goals 35 Conclusions 38 Recommendations for Executive Action 40 Agency Comments 41 Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 42 Appendix II: Complete Listing of the Department of Defense’s Privatized Military Housing Projects as of October 2017 46 Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense 52 Text of Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense 55 Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 59 Related GAO Products 60 Table Table 1: Privatized Military Housing Projects as of October 2017 46 Figures Figure 1: Typical Funding Structure for a Privatized Housing Project 8 Figure 2: Advertisement Seeking Tenants for Privatized Housing 31 Page i GAO-18-218 Military Housing Privatization Abbreviations ASD (EI&E) Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy, Installations, and Environment DOD Department of Defense This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. Page ii GAO-18-218 Military Housing Privatization 441 G St. N.W. Washington, DC 20548 Letter March 13, 2018 The Honorable John McCain Chairman The Honorable Jack Reed Ranking Member Committee on Armed Services United States Senate The Honorable Mac Thornberry Chairman The Honorable Adam Smith Ranking Member Committee on Armed Services House of Representatives In the mid-1990s, the Department of Defense (DOD) had designated nearly two-thirds of its domestic family housing inventory as needing repair or complete replacement. At the time, DOD estimated that it would need about $20 billion in appropriated funds and up to 40 years to eliminate the poor quality housing through new construction or renovation using the traditional military construction approach.1 DOD became concerned that the poor quality of its housing was having a negative effect on servicemembers’ quality of life and detracting from readiness by contributing to servicemembers’ decisions to leave the military. To enable DOD to privatize its housing, Congress provided the department with a variety of authorities to obtain private-sector financing and management to repair, renovate, construct, and operate military housing.2 In more than a decade since, the military departments have worked with private-sector developers who have rebuilt and renovated the housing. These developers now operate 99 percent of domestic military family housing, as well as a limited amount of housing for unaccompanied military personnel. The developers rely on servicemembers’ basic allowance for 1GAO, Military Housing Privatization: DOD Faces New Challenges Due to Significant Growth at Some Installations and Recent Turmoil in the Financial Markets, GAO-09-352 (Washington, D.C.: May 15, 2009). 2See the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-106, §§ 2801-2802 (1996), codified as amended at 10 U.S.C. §§ 2871-2885. Page 1 GAO-18-218 Military Housing Privatization Letter housing payments as a key revenue source for this privatized housing, but DOD began reducing these payments in 2015.3 Since 1998, we have conducted various reviews related to military housing privatization and the basic allowance for housing. In 2009, we reported, among other things, that some privatization projects with occupancy rates below 90 percent were challenged in generating enough revenue to fund construction, make debt payments, and set aside funds for future major renovations and rebuilds.4 We also stated that